Collateral Bloggage

One of the most formidable and intimidating features of the Old Testament is the mind-numbing detail it gives about stuff that’s either planned to be built or actually being built. For reference, read the description of the Tabernacle design and construction in Exodus, or the design and construction of the Temple in 1 Kings.  I’ve always felt that the narratives would have been well served with a little engineer-speak in the construction part.  It would simply have read (in Exodus), “And Bezalel and Oholiab built the tabernacle to spec.”

I know it’s possible to get something out of these narratives, but at this point I’m still coming up empty. So, when I read Ezekiel 40-48, it’s tempting to just assume no inspiration will arise during my reading. Thus far, that assumption has not proved to be incorrect.

So why would I do a post about Ezekiel’s vision of a future Temple, detailed and dull as it is? Well, because it gives rise to some interesting interpretations.

See, Ezekiel has a very detailed walk-through of this temple, describing it in excruciatingly fine detail. And then?  Well, nothing, really. If you look at the details of this temple, it’s not hard to determine (with a little research) that it was never built.

Thus, some assume the Ezekiel was predicting a New Temple to Be Built in the End Times!!!!!!!! (fanfare)

I’m sure all my readers will be shocked to learn that I don’t hold to the Future Third Temple idea.  Why?  Well, there are several reasons:

1. Ezekiel wrote this during the Babylonian Captivity.  What was the state of Solomon’s Temple at this time?  Destroyed.  In other words, there was no Temple.  So Ezekiel was shown a design for a new one.
2. Ezekiel was instructed to only show the plans to the Israelites if they met certain pre-conditions (more on that in a bit).
3. Upon their return to Jerusalem, the exiles did, in fact, build a Temple.  More properly, they rebuilt Solomon’s Temple.

In other words, if they had the plans for the Temple, why didn’t they build it when they returned from Exile?  Might the answer be that they didn’t meet the conditions for getting those plans?  And what were the conditions?

Interesting, isn’t it?  God instructs Ezekiel to describe the Temple to the people and observe their response.  If we can assume Ezekiel obeyed God and described it to them, can’t we also assume that if they met the conditions, they would totally have built the Temple that God personally designed for them?

Now, it’s possible that the fact that we have written copies of Ezekiel indicates the people did get the plans, but it still leaves open the question (doesn’t beg the question, see here) of why they didn’t use it.

Maybe the Temple will be rebuilt in the End Times.  In fact, I imagine it’ll happen eventually, because there are many people who are looking for it to happen and actively trying to make it happen.  I just don’t think it’s predicted, any more than the establishment of Modern Israel in 1948 was.  But that’s a whole other can of worms…

Yes, I do harp on End Times stuff quite a bit, and I don’t think End Times (eschatology) is really a very important subject.  However, interpreting the Bible correctly is a concern of mine, and I’m worried that many simply take what they get from the pulpit (or Seminary) and never even know there are other ways of interpreting some passages.  And that’s a shame.

I’m not saying my interpretations are all correct (I’m certain I’m between 1 and 100% wrong).  It’s just that I hold many positions different from those I held when I was younger.  I would never have changed those positions unless I heard (or read) something that I had to wrestle with.  I’m just paying it forward. So, wrestle with this and lob me a comment if you’ve got anything to add.

Since I read 1 Peter this week, I thought I’d muse a bit on one of the more enigmatic passages you’re likely to read anywhere in the Scriptures.

I’ll tell you right off the bat here that I don’t really know what this passage means. I know of a few theories, and I know which one I favor, but I’m open to a new and better interpretation if I find it.

By the way, I’m going for informative here, not boring, but I fear the bore-meter may spike a bit.  So if you’re not up for it, I’ll understand.

How about if I introduce the three interpretations I’m familiar with, then give their pros and cons?

The Harrowing of Hell:

First, we have the Harrowing of Hell idea. By the way, “Hell” here has the same sense as it has in much of the King James Bible (and the Apostles’ Creed). That is, it means “Hades” or the undifferentiated Place of the Dead (”Sheol” in the OT). Don’t picture flames and such (if you even believe in the flames and such, which I increasingly don’t).

Anyhow, the Harrowing of Hell idea is that Christ descended into the place of the dead, where everyone who had previously died was. Among them, of course, were the Old Testament Saints, like Abraham, Moses, David and John the Baptist. Why should they be in Hades instead of Heaven? Well, traditionally, Heaven wasn’t opened until Christ was resurrected or ascended, depending on who you ask (the source passage for this idea is generally Ephesians 4:8-9). By that logic, even the righteous who died before Christ were just in Hades (or Limbo) until Christ came.  (BTW, the First Circle of Dante’s Inferno may have a tie-in here.)

So, Christ preached to them, and those who were looking for him were then taken to Heaven.

Something to do with those troublesome Nephilim:

The next idea involves Genesis 6, that wonderful passage that speaks of the “Sons of God” and the fact that they took wives of the “daughters of men” and had families. This position requires that the Sons of God were angels who took on flesh, then spawned half-demonic children who became giants known as the Nephilim. In this interpretation, Jesus went and preached to the fallen angels or “Spirits in prison.”

Christ preaching through Noah:

Lastly, we have the interpretation that doesn’t require any particular supernatural travel by Christ. By this way of thinking, the “made alive in the Spirit” isn’t the key.  Rather, it’s the “In it he went” that’s the key.  That is, it should be read like this: “Christ was made alive in the Spirit.  This is the same Spirit through whom Christ previously had preached to Noah’s generation.”  And how did Christ preach to Noah’s generation?  Through the Spirit, and through Noah.

Analysis:

So, what do these have going for them or against them?

The major problem with the Harrowing of Hell idea is that the passage says that whatever preaching was done was aimed at the “disobedient,” which certainly wouldn’t bring to mind Abraham and Moses or any of the OT Saints. It’s also explicitly stated that the particular disobedient folks lived before the Flood.  To my mind, if the Harrowing of Hell is to be believed, it needs to be believed on other grounds than Peter’s writing.

The Nephilim interpretation rests on what I think is an erroneous interpretation of Genesis 6. I won’t go into the whole explanation here because I’ve dealt with it before. To sum up, though, there’s no reason to assume that the Nephilim were a unique production of demonic/human pairings. Why? Well, because then we’d have to believe they were destroyed in the Flood. Since they show up in the Bible again after the Flood, that just doesn’t work. So, I have a really hard time with this explanation. In fact, I can find nothing to recommend it other than its matching better with the idea of Christ preaching to the disobedient.  Besides, it attempts to explain an enigmatic passage by reference to another enigma.  In fact, I think this may be why many theologians hold to it.

So, we come to the final explanation, whereby Noah preached to his generation through the same Spirit who raised Christ. Now, Noah, if he preached at all (and he did according to 2 Peter), wasn’t very effective since his generation apparently didn’t respond. But basically what this explanation has going for it is that it shows that Noah’s generation was without excuse for their behavior and, ultimately, their destruction. If Christ truly preached through them through Noah, that ends the discussion as far as their guilt.

Conclusion:

If you hadn’t guessed, I favor the Noah interpretation.  To me, it’s the simplest explanation, and I dig simple.  What do you think?

With all the reading I do, it probably wouldn’t hurt me to do book reviews now and then.  Besides, it gives me an excuse not to come up with an original topic for Theology Thursday if I’ve got a theology book to review…

Original Sin: A Cultural History, by Alan Jacobs addresses a history of thought regarding the question “Unde hoc malum?” (”Whence this evil?” - you, too, can learn cool Latin phrases by reading this kind of book).

This is a book I picked up back in July, then had to return to the library because it wasn’t gripping me the way the other three books I was reading were. Actually, my reading list was just overloaded. Hence, I returned it to the library and only got back to it a couple of weeks ago. I’m glad I did.

The book is not a treatment of the Biblical evidence for the doctrine of Original Sin, but rather a survey of Christian (and other) thought about our apparent sinful natures.  He pulls from many varied sources, including Confucius, Augustine, Milton, and even Rousseau, discussing how these thinkers dealt with the idea of Original Sin.

Even though Jacobs spent a good deal of time discussing Augustine’s views and his debates with Pelagius and Julian, much of the book dealt with the voices in Western culture who tried to explain away our natures.  One after another, the walls built up to explain away the Fall have crumbled.

I didn’t read this book quickly.  And yet, it’s extremely readable.  I didn’t find my mind wandering when I’d settle in to read a few pages.  The chapters were too long (I like them short), so progress felt really slow.  I was always surprised that I’d sit down to read, feel like I was really making headway, then realize I’d only read six or eight pages.  I think my mind was engaged and had to digest what I was reading, and that resulted in slower progress than usual.  But I wouldn’t call it a slow book.

I’ve grappled a bit with the doctrine of Original Sin, and I imagine I’ll keep thinking about it.  There’s no denying that we’re not just all “okay.”  But I still don’t really know what Original Sin means.  For me, it’s not enough to simply say, “Well, our natures seem to be messed up, therefore Original Sin must be true.”  Because that doesn’t really explain what it is.  Are we really born guilty and in need of purification (the justification for Infant Baptism)?  Or are we simply born with a tendency to sin but incur no actual debt until we actually sin?

Was Christ born with Original Sin?  Did Mary need to be born without it (and here we have the Immaculate Conception) for Jesus to also be preserved from it?  Did he need to have no earthly father (in other words, was the Virgin Birth neccessary)?  These are questions I still have.  Mr. Jacobs gave me more to think about, which is a good thing, but I didn’t find many answers.  But I’m okay with that for now.

Sometimes it stinks having a name starting with ‘S’.  For instance, when I announce myself on an audio conference, how do I do it?  “Hi, this is Seth.”  On an audio bridge, with requisite static included, I believe it comes across as, “High Dishes Ed.”

Admittedly, I’m a bit of a mumbler, but I really try to put extra diction into my announcement.

For somebody who has vivid memories of speech therapy for a lisp, this causes trauma.  I hear myself saying, “Hi, thithitheth.”  And what kind of cruel person put an ’s’ in “lisp?”  What’s up with that?

On the other hand, face-to-face meetings are lousy in virtually every other way, so I’ll endure my own self-consciousness.

——————

I’ve always been a fan of Brad Lidge.  I liked him when he pitched for the Astros, and I like him now that he’s with the Phillies.  His slider is a creature of legend, and I have no idea how anybody ever gets a bat on it.  Now I like him even more, because I’ve learned that he’s a Christian and is working toward a degree in Religious Studies.  I just thought that was cool.

Oh, and last night’s game was an old-fashioned whuppin’, with even the Joe Blanton, the Phillies’ pitcher, going deep.  That’s not something you see every day.  In fact, it’d been 34 years since a pitcher did that in the Series.  That’s super extra cool.

——————

With Ethan’s soccer coach out of town, the team was stuck with Coach Seth.  The game goes by really fast when you’re constantly thinking about who should get subbed in where and when.  I think the team lost by more than usual with me at the helm.  In my defense, we were missing our best player…

——————

This one goes out to all my Alaska relations.  October is eat-your-heart-out time down here.  It’s been clear and sunny for a week or so, with highs in the 60s.  Yeah.  Just thought you’d like to know.

Folks, I actually got a Suggest a Topic, and I’m following through on it.  The topic is contentment, and the suggestion came from my wife’s mother’s brother’s daughter.  Otherwise known as Cousin H (not her real name, but part of it).  I’ve been sitting on this topic for a couple of weeks, because I knew there was a good verse in Hebrews, so I wouldn’t even have to divert from my Bible Read-Through schedule.  Nice.

I must really know the Bible if I knew about one little verse on contentment in Hebrews…or could it be that Ethan had that particular memory verse in Awana last year?  So really, it’s just that I have a decent memory.  My mom always told me to apply it to Scripture…

And what is the verse of which I speak?

This verse is on the topic of contentment, but only really insofar as contentment means happiness with those things we possess.  Of course, contentment is a much larger subject (and there’s no way I’m covering it all right now).

I did a quick NETBible search on content and came up mostly with verses about contention.  Interesting, given that lack of contentment can easily lead to contention.  The other verses (the ones I was actually looking for) broadened the topic somewhat.  My favorite is from Paul:

I’m not sure what Paul’s definition of abundance is, but I’m betting it’s somewhere to the south of the typical American lifestyle. And yet we’re not content with it. Why is that? Why can’t we be content (or even happy) with our circumstances?

Dennis Prager, in his fine book Happiness is a Serious Problem, points out that in searching for happiness (which is highly compatible with contentment), we battle our nature:

We are completely satisfied with nothing.

The reason is human nature.  It is insatiable-and that is why no single obstacle to happiness is greater than human nature.  Whatever our nature desires-love, sex, money, attention, pleasure, food, security-cannot be supplied in sufficient quantities to satisfy it completely.

Pay attention to the order of words first spoken by a child, and you will probably notice what I did with my youngest.  His first word was Mama.  Then came Dada.  And his third word was more.  These words of a baby accurately represent our deepest urges-first for love and security and then for more-of everything.

Solomon would seem to agree:

I actually thought that a particular Veggie Tales was very insightful, when Bob the Tomato asked Larry the Cucumber how much stuff he needed to be happy.  Larry responded, “I dunno.  How much stuff can I have?”

Larry’s answer brings up a good point Steve Gregg makes in his lecture titled “The Grace of Contentment” (available free-of-charge from digitalministries.us).  He pointed out that in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had access to the entire garden and all of its trees and plants, with the exception of one tree.  When the serpent came to deceive Eve, his approach was interesting.  He didn’t say, “Did God really say you could eat fruit from any of these trees except that one?”, which focused on the generosity of God in providing so much.  Instead, he focused his attack toward pointing out the negative.  “Did God really say you couldn’t eat of any of these trees?”

The serpent knew that to get Eve to fall, he first needed to reduce her contentment.  He focused her on thinking on what God had forbidden rather than what He had provided (which is a really common mistake non-religious folks make when assessing Christian beliefs, focusing on the “don’ts”).

The story of Job has a tie-in here, too.  After Job’s great wealth was destroyed, after his possessions were obliterated and all his children killed, his wife despaired and told him to do the same.  And this even after Job’s earlier statement of faith.

Does this mean we should just throw up our hands and decide to be okay with whatever situation we’re in?  I don’t think so.  Job was content, but not complacent. He sought answers as to why he should suffer. But he recognized that ultimately, both blessing and cursing come from God, and all that matters is our response to it.

Maybe you’re content right now in your finances, your home, your relationships, even your work. But I think it’s important for all of us to examine ourselves to find out if we’re content because of our circumstances or in spite of them.  Are we prepared to be content with less? With a downturn in a relationship or the economy?

I’m a fairly naturally content person. I don’t get impatient with many things except other drivers. But it’s really easy for me to slip from contentment into complacency. There are deficiencies in my life that need work, and it’s wrong for me to, in the name of contentment, not work on them. In fact, I think many of the deficiencies arose due to complacency. I can’t say, “Well, I got myself into this situation, so I guess I’ll just have to settle in and hope it improves.” No, I need to determine if there’s something I can do to improve the situation, all the while not allowing the current state of things to rob me of joy/happiness/contentment.

Well, I’ve managed to ramble a thousand words or so about this. Any thoughts? Are you content? Complacent? Any other verses or wisdom you’d like to share? Don’t let me monopolize my own blog here…

Just a quick one this week.  I’ve blogged before (about a year ago, while reading Hebrews, go figure) about folks who want Christians to follow the Law of Moses.  If you don’t want to look at the old post, but you’re still curious about what Biblical arguments there are against Law-keeping, then this is for you:

Interestingly, this doesn’t tell us that there’s no Law.  It just says there’s a new Law.  The Law of Christ.  Maybe another time I’ll go in to what it looks like to keep this new law (for now, though, check out what you get if you search “the law of christ” on NETBible).

How’s that for Theology Thursday Lite?

As one of the shortest books in the New Testament, and as it’s a personal correspondence between two Christians, Philemon doesn’t tend to be a book that provides a lot of practical Christian application.  But I actually found something!

First, though, something a bit lighter: a bit of trivia. If you’ve read the book, you’ll know it’s a letter from Paul to Philemon, asking him to accept back his escaped servant, Onesimus. Paul makes a wordplay on Onesimus’ name, which means “useful.”

I thought that was cool. Something new I picked up on this read-through. Now, for the heavier stuff.

Here’s the passage I find interesting:

Paul expresses that he’d like to keep Onesimus around to help in his ministry.  But he elects to send him back to his owner, giving Philemon the opportunity to do something good.  I’m not sure what, exactly, Paul expected the “good deed” would be.  Maybe Philemon would send him right back to Paul, or at least have him ready to go with Paul when he arrived (Paul anticipated a trip to Colossae in his near future).  Or maybe he simply wanted Philemon to free Onesimus and let him choose what to do.

The really fascinating thing to me is that Paul has a good sense of the justice of the matter before him, apart from the rank injustice of Roman Slavery. Certainly, it would seem to be a matter of justice for Paul to simply say to Philemon, “Look, it’s not right that you own this man. I’m keeping him.”

Or would that be just? I submit that it would be merciful (to Onesimus), but not just. Under the law of Rome, Onesimus belonged to Philemon.  For Paul to keep him (and possibly prevent his harsh punishment) would be merciful, but not just.  Depriving Philemon of his servant wouldn’t be justice (although it would feel like the right thing to do).  In fact, it would take from Philemon the chance to show mercy himself.

How does this have application?  Well, I think the church needs to do better at showing mercy and seeking justice.  We all need to do better.  Instead, there’s a tendency to take the other tack.  To use the State to enforce an idea of justice.  But depriving people of what is theirs in order to help others is not justice.  It is a form of mercy, but not the mercy we’re called to exercise.

As Greg Boyd pointed out in a recent blog/essay, we in the Church, recognizing the pathetic state of affairs here, have decided to try to change Caesar.  To use the State to enforce our values, rather than showing those values ourselves.  Showing mercy.  Seeking justice.  Making the Church back into a vehicle for working those things that Jesus called “the weightier issues” (Matthew 23:23).

When I first came up with the idea for this post, I was mainly thinking about the political leaning that seeks redistribution of wealth, but I think the application of true justice and mercy cuts both ways. We mustn’t defraud others of what is theirs, and we mustn’t consider what we have as being truly ours.

I know.  I shouldn’t use such large and impressive words as Deadbeatery.  There’s me, putting on airs again…

I’ve always found this passage from 1 Timothy interesting:

A bit of context here. Paul is discussing the Church’s obligation to provide for widows. He makes it clear that the church should not be burdened with supporting widows who have families to support them. Rather, their own families should support them and repay them for their own nurture. Those who are truly destitute must be supported by the church.

I just find it very interesting how harshly Paul speaks of those who don’t do their part and care for their elderly.  I’m not sure if there’s a broader application here, but it’s possible.  In the NIV, the first half of the verse reads “If anyone does not provide for his relatives,” which strikes me as broader than just referring to widows.

I suppose it’s obvious that a Christian could never be a Deadbeat Dad (or Deadbeat Son) while professing to actually follow Christ (well, he could claim to).  But what does caring for your relatives mean?  Does it mean putting your parents in a home?  Does it mean taking them into your home?  I can see the argument for nursing homes when 24-hour care is required, but I’m not sure it’s the right thing to do in other cases.  The Bible seems very clear that the elderly have an obligation to offer wisdom and teaching to the young, and the young have an obligation to care for their elderly relatives.  Of course, with Social Security and other Nanny Laws, I think the place of the Christian Child has been usurped to some degree, and we’ve let it happen.

I think I’ll stop here.  There’s more I could write (I didn’t even cover how badly the church does on this!), but maybe I’ll leave it for another time.  Thoughts?

Today, a nice, light topic. Destruction and desolation. Nice, eh?  First, read this:

Now realize that when Jesus used the word typically translated “hell” in our Bibles, it was really “Gehenna,” which means “Valley of Hinnom” or “Valley of Ben Hinnom.”  Interesting, no?  I put this out there for anyone who is still stuck on “Hell means Eternal Conscious Torment.”  It may be, but the case for it might need to be made on other bases than Jesus’ teaching on “hell.”

So when you hear a preacher tell you that Jesus spoke more about Hell than Heaven, realize that he’s assuming a meaning for “hell” that may not actually be there.  Jesus was talking about a garbage dump where dead bodies were thrown, where there were fires constantly burning.  It’s possible he was implying that Hell would be like that, but with the flames lasting forever (and perhaps the flesh of its victims also lasting forever).  Or he may have been implying that those who reject him would be consumed (which still isn’t a pretty picture) but not suffer eternally.  Or he may be simply indicating the coming destruction of Jerusalem (in A.D. 70), which paralleled the previous sacking of the city by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. (predicted by Jeremiah).

I actually haven’t gotten to Thayer’s treatment of Gehenna in The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment yet.  I’m curious to see how he’ll explain it.

I’ve stated previously on this blog that I don’t believe in the Rapture.  Several times (see here, here, and here for examples).  In case you’re now lighting up torches and thinking of erecting a stake on which to burn me, let me assure you that the “Rapture” I don’t believe in is the Pre-Tribulational Rapture.  I definitely do believe in the Second Coming of Christ.  You could even call it the Rapture.  This passage in 1 Thessalonians 4 captures my belief quite nicely:

It’s a really interesting thing to me, the fact that such a mythology of the End Times has built up around such a simple passage (to be fair, the End Times teachers focus more on Daniel and Revelation, but mostly Daniel).  But this seems quite plain to me.  There are the dead and the living.  On the Last Day, the Lord will raise the dead and the living.  Where’s the Secret Rapture here?  The language of the shout and a trumpet and the voice of the archangel speak to a very noticeable Second Coming.  Paul didn’t mention anything about Antichrist or Tribulation here.

Of course, this passage doesn’t undermine the Post-Trib position.  Granted.  But it would certainly seem to destroy the Pre-Trib view.  Maybe I’m missing something.  But this passage seems to point to the End of History.  That’s a wrap-ture.

It might seem interesting for me to have this many posts on this subject, and I think it stems from having grown up in churches that seemed really End-Times-Focused.  So now that I’ve read the Scriptures for myself and found those old positions wanting, I like to share.  Let me be clear, though, that I don’t really think this stuff is all that important.  It’s just interesting to me.

Now that I’ve said it’s not important, maybe I’ll take on the Second Coming passages in 2 Thessalonians next week!!!!  That is, unless somebody suggests something more interesting.