Theology Thursday: Freedom from the Law
I'm often baffled at arcane bits of theology that seem to survive in spite of what I consider to be obvious scriptural cases against them. Case in point: The idea that Christians are somehow still obligated to follow the Law.
Yes, I understand that Paul and the other apostles apparently still went to the Temple (at least until it was destroyed) and offered sacrifices and kept festivals, but did they give any indication in their writings that keeping the Law was important, let alone mandatory, for Christians?
Galatians 5:2-4 (ESV, emphasis mine)
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
This looks like a pretty damning argument. Literally. Fallen away from grace? Strong words.
Of course, Paul doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. He points out that this doesn't mean that Christians should have no code of ethics or ignore the lessons of the law. In fact, he sums it all up:
Galatians 5:13-14 (ESV)
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
I'm sure that those who believe we should keep the Law have an explanation for these verses, but it still seems pretty plain to me. What about you? Any theology out there that you think should go away?
Theology Thursday Lite: Be a man!
After reading Dave Murrow's Why Men Hate Going to Church, I became much more conscious of things in Christianity and the Church that might attract or repel men. For instance, I'm much more attracted to a song like Newsboys' "Strong Tower" then, say, "Jesus, Lover of my Soul." See if you can guess the reason…
So you can imagine how much I enjoy a verse like this one from Paul:
Be a man! Take some Pepto-Bismal, get over here and pick me up!
Okay, true, that's not exactly the quote I was going for. But you know I couldn't resist a movie quote. Anyone care to identify the film? Anyone? Anyone? (hint: that was a hint)
But seriously, here's the quote:
1 Corinthians 16:13 (ESV)
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
I love the idea of standing firm in the faith and being strong. I think the world somehow tends to look at Christians as weak. But I'm shooting for acting like a man, man.
(Yes, it's a really, really short post. Remove the errant quote, which by the way is driving me crazy because I suspect I didn't quite get it right, and it's a really, really, really short post. But I haven't done a Theology post in, what? Five weeks? Gotta get back in the groove, man.)
(Update: I did indeed shank the quote. The real one is: "Be a man! Take some Pepto-Bismal, get dressed and come on over here." Call it 55% correct.)
Why It’s Important to Read the Whole Bible: Manasseh
I’m actually a bit shocked I haven’t written about this before. Seriously. Shocked. I mean, I’ve been doing theology posts since 2006, here. My control panel tells me I’ve written more than a hundred and fifty theology posts. How could I not have written about Manasseh?
Quick recap: Hezekiah, one of the best of the “good kings” of Judah (second perhaps to Josiah), was told by Isaiah that he was going to die. Hezekiah went all emo and begged for a reprieve. God listened and extended his life by fifteen years. During that time, Hezekiah fathered his heir, and one of the worst kings of Judah, named Manasseh.
During Hezekiah’s reign, all the vestiges of pagan worship had been stripped from the kingdom. Manasseh brought it all back, including the worship of Molech, which involved placing babies into scalding bronze pots. Manasseh did this with one of his own sons. Not a good dude. One of the summaries of his reign was this:
2 Kings 21:16 (ESV)
16 Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
In fact, Manasseh did so much wrong that he was basically the straw that broke the camel’s back. God had had enough and warned that because of everything Manasseh did in exemplifying the consistent idolatry of Judah (with rare exceptions like Hezekiah and Josiah), the kingdom would be going down:
2 Kings 21:10-15 (ESV)
10 And the LORD said by his servants the prophets, 11 "Because Manasseh king of Judah has committed these abominations and has done things more evil than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols, 12 therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such disaster that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria, and the plumb line of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 And I will forsake the remnant of my heritage and give them into the hand of their enemies, and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 15 because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day."
Manasseh’s reign was so disastrous that even Josiah’s reforms could not overcome God’s wrath on Judah. (In fact, Josiah’s tenderheartedness earned him a reprieve, in that he died before the disaster struck.)
What does this have to do with my post title for today? (Theology Thursday would normally be up there, but I left it off for brevity.)
As you probably know, I’m a Bible reader. I read the whole Bible once per year (last year I read the OT once and the NT twice), and have for the past five or six years. The really great thing about reading the whole Bible is that you start to notice parallels and passages that fill in more information on a particular topic.
Because in the case of Manasseh, there’s some major information almost completely missing from the Bible!!!! Thankfully, there’s at least a hint of what that information is:
2 Chronicles 33:18-19 (ESV, emphasis mine)
18 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, behold, they are in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. 19 And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers.
Manasseh’s son Amon continued behaving badly after his father’s death, but Manasseh clearly ended on a positive note. For some reason, the author of 2 Kings omitted any mention of Manasseh’s repentance, and the author of 2 Chronicles didn’t feel that recording any detail about it was necessary. Granted, they were both writing in a time in which other sources existed. Still, it might’ve been nice to have more detail.
Interestingly, there’s an apocryphal book that records the supposed prayer of Manasseh. Authentic or not, it’s a good prayer:
Prayer of Manasseh v. 11-15
11 And now I bend the knee of my heart,
imploring you for your kindness.
12 I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
and I acknowledge my transgressions.
13 I earnestly implore you,
forgive me, O Lord, forgive me!
Do not destroy me with my transgressions!
Do not be angry with me for ever or store up evil for me;
do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.
For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent,
14 and in me you will manifest your goodness;
for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy,
15 and I will praise you continually all the days of my life.
For all the host of heaven sings your praise,
and yours is the glory for ever. Amen.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Theology Thursday: About Jesus’ Baptism
First off, thanks to JonV for the topic suggestion. And to clarify, under discussion today is the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (as opposed to a post about the baptizing that Jesus’ disciples did).
It’s a puzzling question, really. Why was Jesus baptized by John? Recall that John’s was a baptism of repentance, and that when Jesus came to him to be baptized, John objected:
Matthew 3:13-17 (ESV)
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
It’s tempting to attempt to shove a bunch of doctrine into Jesus’ reply that it was “to fulfill all righteousness” that he was baptized. Does Jesus mean he needed to be baptized for some reason? Or was he just setting an example for Christians?
This latter theory is pretty popular, but I doubt anyone who espouses it thinks all Christians should be baptized into John’s baptism. Neither do they think that Jesus needed a baptism of repentance.
The long and the short of it is that we’re never really told why Jesus needed to be baptized or how it was righteous for him to do it. But John does give us a hint at a larger purpose behind the event:
John 1:33-34 (ESV)
32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
So basically, the events of Jesus’ baptism were used as a sign to John so he could know who the Lord was. What’s really interesting to me is that John (in prison) later sends his disciples to Jesus asking if he’s really the one he’s been waiting for.
Feel free to chime in if you’ve got a better answer. Or any answer at all, actually.
Theology Thursday Lite: The Not-so-Lost Tribes of Israel
If you google “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel,” you’ll get more than 400,000 hits. It’s a popular topic, and there are fanciful imaginings aplenty about where they might be.
The problem is that the tribes were never lost. Recall that the Kingdom was divided in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and that ten of the twelve tribes sided with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And this Northern Kingdom was subsequently sacked and taken into exile by the Assyrians in the 700s BC. And the Assyrians repopulated the area with other ethnic groups, and they intermarried with the Israelites who were left behind, leading to the mongrelized Samaritans.
But the crucial fact that’s often missed is that there were members of the Ten Tribes living in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. We know them as the faithful remnant of Israel. Check it out:
2 Chronicles 11:13-16 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
13 And the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel presented themselves to [Rehoboam] from all places where they lived. 14 For the Levites left their common lands and their holdings and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons cast them out from serving as priests of the LORD, 15 and he appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat idols and for the calves that he had made. 16 And those who had set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD, the God of their fathers.
And this wasn’t the only time faithful Israelites fled from the Northern Kingdom. It happened again when Rehoboam’s grandson (Asa, a good king) was reigning.
2 Chronicles 15: 9 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
9 And [Asa] gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
Just some food for thought.
Theology Thursday: What Must I Believe to Be Saved?
I had an interesting conversation with my Esteemed Partner in Pavement Pounding the other day. He’d been reading about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and asked if I’d ever done any such reading. (My answer was yes. Jason Evert’s excellent Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses. From a Catholic perspective, just for the record.)
As an aside, I noted that there was a lot of weird theology cropping up in the 1800s, including that of Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Ellen G. White (Seventh-Day Adventism), and John Nelson Darby (Dispensationalism).
The larger discussion we had was the question about how much wrong theology a person can have and still be a Christian. Or, to put it another way: What Must I Believe to Be Saved?
If you ask me, that’s really not the right question. Didn’t the Philippian Jailer ask a very different question?
Acts 16:29-30 (ESV)
29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Of course, we can’t make all that much of his question, given that his theology was certainly very influenced by his native Roman paganism. And perhaps Paul and Silas’s answer is informative:
Acts 16:31-32 (ESV)
31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
From everything else Paul wrote in the New Testament, we can pretty clearly say that salvation is by faith, not works. And since Paul and Silas apparently give the jailer the 411 on just what believing in the Lord Jesus means, salvation is by faith in something specific. Namely, “The Lord Jesus.”
So we have to believe in the Lord Jesus, but what does that mean? You’ll notice, I hope, that they didn’t say “Believe in the Three Spiritual Laws” or “Say the Sinner’s Prayer” or “Ask Jesus Into Your Heart.” So we’re not talking about a formula here. But they also didn’t say, “Believe in the correct conception of Jesus as the second part of the Triune God.”
That’s right, I’m putting it out there. I don’t see that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation. (However, I should probably point out that I do believe in the Trinity. I just don’t think it’s obvious from Scripture.)
There’s an additional passage in Acts that I find interesting, though perhaps not conclusive:
Acts 19:1-5 (ESV)
1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John’s baptism." 4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Notice that these men are referred to as “disciples.” Without any other qualification there (like “John’s disciples”), we’re left with the assumption (granted that it’s an assumption) that these are Christ-followers. Paul then asks them about what happened “when they believed,” drawing a nice parallel to Paul’s assertion of what one has to do to be saved. They believed, so they were saved.
Certainly, if these men didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit, they didn’t believe in the Trinity.
So where am I going with all this? Well, I think that Christians tend to be much too quick to label something as heresy, quick to put people in the “them” category. Outsiders. Heretics. Cultists. I’m not agitating for an uber-inclusive Christianity, but I think a little grace would be good.
Yes, it’s important to understand what the Bible says about Christ and God and the Church. But not everyone is at the same point on their journey of understanding. And not everyone will end up believing the same about everything.
True, there is probably a point at which different groups are worshipping a different God, or a different Jesus, though they may call him by the same name. I’m not suggesting that JWs and Mormons are necessarily Christians. But I’m not sure how far they are from the Kingdom. As always, this requires further study. Feel free to point me in the right direction.
Theology Thursday, Friday Edition: Crack up the Stereo, and Uzzah
Once again I’m too lazy to do my Theology Thursday posts on, you know, Thursday. But I’m making up for it by covering two topics. That’s right…extra free theology. Though I suppose it’s all free on the Interwebs.
I participate in the Music Ministry at my church, as a member of the choir and a singer on the Worship Teams, even occasionally singing the special. (If you want to hear my personal favorite special, you can.)
As a member of the choir who sometimes hauls his music into the lab at work, I can let you know that, should you emulate me in this way, you may also end up with a label similar to “Seth the Tenor” on your laptop. My coworkers love me.
But, being part of the music at church, I’m aware of just how divisive music can be, and at the shocking lack of tact and grace extended by some folks who probably think they’re Christians. I speak, of course, of the complainers. And yes, I’m being a bit harsh by calling someone’s faith into question for objecting to something in the music. But it gets my goat, and I’ve found a verse that tells such people to muzzle it (well, maybe that’s exaggerating things):
1 Chronicles 15:16 (ESV, emphasis mine)
16 David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brothers as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.
I don’t think anyone complained about the volume. Just a hunch.
Thinking of loud music reminds me of my first year in college, when we had our first dorm-floor meeting with our RA. One of the guys (who was from Palestine) asked how late he could “crack up the stereo.” Nobody on that floor ever said it any other way. Kind of like the way The Fair Elaine and I always say “derbis” instead of “debris,” after a lovely pastoral metathesis (a word I learned from Star Trek: The Next Generation).
But back to theology-ish ramblings. David commanded this loud music playing to distract from his evidently awful dancing. I jest, of course, but his wife wasn’t much impressed. Or maybe she was jealous of his moves?
And of course, this loud music and egregious dancing took place because the Ark of the Covenant was coming to Jerusalem. But this wasn’t the first time for the loud music, the dancing, or the Ark being brought toward Jerusalem. But the previous time went pretty badly.
1 Chronicles 13:7-10 (ESV)
7 And they carried the ark of God on a new cart, from the house of Abinadab, and Uzzah and Ahio were driving the cart. 8 And David and all Israel were rejoicing before God with all their might, with song and lyres and harps and tambourines and cymbals and trumpets.
9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.
Poor Uzzah, right? I mean, sure, he should’ve probably known not to touch the Ark, but was it really his fault? David 
realizes in Chapter 15 that the Lord “broke out” against them because they were transporting the Ark improperly. But still, to punish Uzzah for that mistake? A bit harsh?
Well, no. Because the Ark was coming from his house. And way back in 1 Samuel 7, when the Ark first came to Kiriath-jearim, a certain Eleazer son of Abinadab was given charge over it. Also noted as a son of Abinadab? You guessed it: Uzzah. I think it’s safe to assume that Abinadab was a Levite, and thus his sons would also be. They knew how the Ark was to be transported.
The whole situation is still nasty. I remember reading this as a kid and being mad that God would strike Uzzah like that. I found it comforting that David evidently agreed with me:
1 Chronicles 13:11 (ESV)
11 And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzza to this day.
And that’ll pretty much do it for this week. For the first time in a while, I have no book review to post this week. So look for a couple next week. On the other hand, I’m a good nine weeks ahead of schedule in my Bible reading. So that’s cool. And I have somewhat of an idea for a Theology Thursday post next week. Maybe I’ll even post on Thursday this time. Or maybe I’ll drop my alliterative titles altogether and just post whatever, whenever. A Fflam is unpredictable!
Friday Theology-ish Post with No Name
(I know I missed Theology Thursday. Again. But I found a topic and it can’t wait. It’s just that important. That was sarcasm.)
I figured a nameless post was appropriate, given that my current Bible-reading involves almost nothing but names. That’s right folks! My yearly read-through has once again brought me to the favorite of all insomniacs: 1 Chronicles!!!
Oh sure, the descriptions of the Tabernacle and its furnishings in Exodus are narcoleptic gems, too, but nothing can really beat nine….straight……chapters……..of………………genealog…………………………………………………….
Sorry…nodded off there.
So anyhow, it’s pretty easy to just glaze over while trying to plow through all those names, but I discovered a neat trick to make it go better: Make it a game. Read the names aloud, and see how long you can go without stuttering over one. It’s good clean fun.
And while I was doing this, I learned something new! Here’s the passage. Grab a coffee and read it with me:
1 Chronicles 2:13-17 (ESV)
13 Jesse fathered Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh. 16 And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. The sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.
Certainly you’ll acknowledge how theologically deep this passage is. Really, the profundity can hardly be overstated.
So what did I learn here? I learned that Joab was David’s nephew. For those who don’t recall, Joab was David’s general in all his wars, and he was a fairly ruthless character, killing Abner, who was at least as brilliant a general (but who had served Saul and then switched sides). Joab also killed Absalom (David’s rebellious son) when he was hanging by his hair, by running him through with three spears.
And Absalom was his cousin. Of course, he wasn’t the only cousin Joab killed. He also took down Amasa, another of David’s nephews. Just not a really good dude.
I figure Joab and David were close in age, given that David was a seventh son and Joab was a first son of one of David’s (presumably older) sisters.
(Actually, the account of David’s being anointed as king has David having seven older brothers, which would make David eighth. Probably one of his older brothers died without having children, thus his being left out of the genealogies.)
And lest we think Joab was the only ruthless one, recall that David, in his final instructions to Solomon, basically put out a hit on Joab.
See what enlightenment can come from reading the genealogies? Now I just have to try to find some in the next seven chapters….
Theology Thursday: Consistency and the Martian Chronicles
This is sort of half-book-review, half-theology. Just thought I’d warn you.
I've recently been listening to Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. The work is a collection of stories detailing the exploits and misadventures of Earthmen who attempt to reach and explore Mars. Most of the stories end badly for the Earthmen, and Bradbury is quite creative in the bizarre twists and turns the plots take.
One of the stories, The Earth Men, had a particular impact on me. In it, astronauts from Earth arrive to a very blasé reception on Mars. In fact, nobody seems much interested in their story. They get pretty frustrated at being passed from one uninterested Martian to the next, but eventually find some interested people. In fact, these Martians seem *very* excited to see them. 
But these Martians also claim to be from Earth. And their descriptions of Earth don't ring true. The Earthmen soon realize they've been locked up in a Martian Funny Farm. They further realize that the insane Martians have the ability to project their delusions on others, complete with sights, smells, and sounds.
The Earthmen attempt to reason with the psychiatrist in charge of the Loony Bin (Mr. Xxx), but he believes that the Captain of the Earthmen is merely projecting his psychosis onto him, creating the images of his crew and ship.
After further examination of the Captain, Mr. Xxx diagnoses him as a hopeless case. Incurable. So he shoots him. When his crew doesn't immediately disappear, he shoots them. But the rocket is still there. Realizing that he's now obviously gone crazy with the same delusion, Mr. Xxx turns the gun on himself.
Crazy, right? Well, yes and no. Mr. Xxx behaves in an utterly consistent and rational way. He ended his own life because he was obviously incurably insane, a conclusion based on his former premise that the Captain was insane.
So the problem wasn’t so much Mr. Xxx’s consistency, but rather that he was acting on a faulty premise. Once Mr. Xxx decided the Captain was insane and that his appearance and that of his crew and ship were a result of psychosis, all the decisions followed logically. But he was just plain wrong from the start.
Now, at this point, you’re probably wondering how this ties in to a typical Theology Thursday post. Well, I’ll tell you. In a minute. First, I want to just point out that The Martian Chronicles is a decent audiobook, though the narrator isn’t my favorite (but not everyone can be Scott Brick). It’s not a typical short story collection, because all the stories are related and even refer to each other. Neither is it a typical novel. On the whole, I’ve enjoyed some of Bradbury’s other short fiction a bit more (R is for Rocket is a great collection). But I have to confess I haven’t finished the book yet.
Okay, now to the Theology part of this Thursday post.
I was reading in Acts this morning (Wednesday), and I came across this passage:
Acts 2:5-13 (ESV)
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
In particular, I want to point out verse 5, and especially the last five words: from every nation under heaven.
Now, many Christians will tell you that you need to interpret the Bible in a consistently literal way. There’s that consistency thing again. And I’m fine with it, as far as it goes. But in this case, wouldn’t those last five words mean that on the day of Pentecost, people from the Pacific Islands and Australia and Ireland and America were there? That, in fact, people from every nation under heaven were there? If you’re going to take it literally, then yes. But there’s just no way that’s what it means. Remember that Acts was written to an audience living in the Roman Empire. Every nation probably meant something quite different to them than it does to us.
And of course, “literal” doesn’t have to mean that we leave our brains on the nightstand. In fact, another take on “literal” is “as the text is intended to be understood.”
Let’s take another example from the text above. Are we really to believe that someone in the crowd said exactly the words recorded in verses seven through twelve? I really, really, sincerely doubt it. I think, rather, that Luke summed up the general tenor of the crowd.
So I guess my point here is that it’s fine to be consistent in our approach to interpreting Scripture; We just need to make sure we’re starting from the right premise. Take the text for what it intends to convey. Cross-reference where necessary and compare Scripture with Scripture. Consider the genre. Consider the audience.
In short, be consistent, but make sure you start from the right place.
Theology Thursday: More Evidence of Jephthah’s Innocence
This post is a follow-up to one I did back in February, wherein I argued that Jephthah (full story here), while being an idiot for making a rash vow, did not commit the abomination of human sacrifice by offering up his daughter as a burnt offering.
(You can now apologize for not reading that post, and then go read it.)
I won’t recapitulate my whole argument here, but here’s the punch line: Jephthah’s daughter was dedicated to the Lord, for service in the tabernacle, in some capacity which precluded her from marrying and raising up descendants for her father. Thus the sorrow over her virginity.
But, in order for my thesis to hold true, a couple of things need to be at least weakly established:
- There were women who served in some capacity at the tabernacle.
- These women were unmarried. (And were perhaps forbidden to marry.)
So let’s take these points one at a time. First, were there women who served at the tabernacle? Yes.
Now, I have to point out that I’d read the two references on this numerous times and somehow completely missed the first one and barely noticed the second one. And I’ve read the Old Testament a half-dozen times. So don’t feel bad if you’ve missed one or both. First, we have Exodus (missed by me mostly because the section it’s in is among the more mind-numbing passages in all of Scripture):
Exodus 38:8 (ESV)
8 He made the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting.
So I guess those ladies weren’t particularly given to vanity, because they gave up their mirrors for the sake of the Tabernacle.
(Show of hands, please. Did anybody else reading this ever take note of it? I missed it in at least six read-throughs, two go-rounds with an audio Bible, and listening to verse-by-verse teaching through Exodus. Missing it actually took effort.)
And the other reference, which spurred this post, and which I’d noticed but not dwelled on before, is this:
1 Samuel 2:22 (ESV)
22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting.
So that’s two solid references to women serving at the Tabernacle. Now, I do have to admit that both references are to them serving at the entrance of the Tabernacle, not in it. Still, they’re somehow attached to it.
But were these married women? I have only one argument here, and it has to do with the amorous activities of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Because they were evidently fishing in the company pond. And here’s my main point:
If the women were married, Hophni and Phinehas would have incurred a death sentence for adultery.
Now, of course, they were committing adultery, or at least Phinehas was, because he was married. So wouldn’t he have been liable for the death penalty in this regard? Well, I’m not certain. The Law seems to only prescribe it in the case of a man seducing another man’s wife.
Deuteronomy 22:22 (ESV)
22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
It’s fair to point out that the events of early 1 Samuel, we’re just getting out of the period of the Judges, and it was a very compromised time. Hophni and Phinehas were abusing their positions as priests in more than one way (taking more than their share of the sacrificial meat). And who was going to bring them to justice? They were pretty much in charge.
Still, I think that if these were married women, there would’ve been more of a stink raised about it. Jealous husbands probably wouldn’t have taken it sitting down. I’m not going to pretend this is anything like a rock-solid case, but it’s at least persuasive to me.
And just in case anyone’s forgotten, my whole point here was to at least raise the possibility that when Jephthah spoke of sacrificing (or dedicating) his daughter to the Lord, there may have been precedent for young ladies being dedicated to Tabernacle service.
And that’s pretty much as far as I can take the argument. There were women who served at the Tabernacle, and they were (from all appearances) unmarried. It would have been really helpful if the Law described more about how these women were chosen for this duty, but it seemed to dwell rather more on the duties of the men.
(If anyone has a reference I’ve missed, please enlighten me. I may have to call Steve Gregg about this one.)
BTW, I purposely neglected the case of Anna (Luke 2), who lived at the Temple as a widow from a young age. I think she might’ve been a special case.