3/14/09 Realization

It's coming up on a year since I've updated this blog.

I'll try to do better. I need to do better. Help me with this.

Send me comments. Email me. Find me on Facebook and criticize me. Send me instant messages. Pester me until I update. It's for my own good.

I need to be actively reading the Bible, studying it, taking it all in.

So help me.

4/6/08 Study #1 - David's Son

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

"'The Lord said to my Lord:
'Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '

David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:35-37)

This conversation also appears in Matthew.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says:

"'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." '

If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46)

What does this mean? Is Jesus saying he isn't David's son? There are two different interpretations I would like to give of this passage.

1. This was a later invention by the Christian church in order to make it seem as though the Messiah didn't need to be of the line of David, since Jesus wasn't. It's a conspiracy.
2. Jesus was asking an instructive question in which both sides ("Jesus is David's son," and "Jesus is David's Lord") are correct, but there needed to be some clarification.
   

The commentary located here says that "The Messiah, the "anointed" king, was by definition son of David in various circles of Jewish expectation, but the title Lord describes him far more adequately."

The point of what Jesus said is not to say he's not of the lineage of David, as some interpreters such as Austin Cline have suggested. The purpose was to illustrate he was in fact divine. Jesus says that David was referring to a Lord who is different from the original Jewish interpretation of Yahweh, who sits at the right hand of God, and that's the person Jesus is talking about here. In many places he claims to sit at the right hand of the Father. Matthew Henry's commentary notes that "If the Christ was to be a mere man, who would not exist till many ages after David's death, how could his forefather call him Lord? The Pharisees could not answer it. Nor can any solve the difficulty except he allows the Messiah to be the Son of God, and David's Lord equally with the Father. He took upon him human nature, and so became God manifested in the flesh; in this sense he is the Son of man and the Son of David."

This is, as we have seen, yet one more on the many claims of Jesus that he was divine.

Pondering Thought: What kind of reaction do you think this claim created?

Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant

3/25/08 Study #2 - The Fig Tree

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:12-14)

Some may ask, "How realistic is it for Jesus to expect there to be figs on a tree when it's not the season for figs?" However, it makes sense because people could have expected the early figs on the tree (Isaiah 28:4, Hosea 9:10, Micah 7:1). Later in the chapter:

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11:20-24)

This makes it clear that Jesus had intended the withering of a fig tree as a parable, but one that's different from most of the others he told. This one was actually acted out. But the parable isn't about prayer: it's about Jesus's unsuccessful search for "fruit" in Israel. The part about prayer, on the other hand, has puzzled me for a while. What exactly does Jesus mean here? There are two ideas.

• It was common amongst Semetic peoples to add exaggerations to their sayings, and Jesus using an example of the mountain confirms that; the metaphor of a mountain was a commonly used phrase to symbolize something that seems impossible to do. Jesus was illustrating that we should have complete trust in God's power, rather than if you pray, you'll immediately get whatever you ask. It was understood that this example was an exaggeration.

This example is most plausible and correct, and I use it in debates with atheists. But despite the fact that it's right on the money, I find it unsatisfying.

• Yes, Jesus meant exactly what he said. If you ask God for something and do not doubt at all that he will give it to you, then he will. But no one, not even the disciples, didn't doubt that God would do what they wanted. That's a difficult thing to do.

This is a more literal interpretation of the passage. But that by itself is also unsatisfying to me. So here's what I think.

• If you have a strong enough faith that you could, plausibly, ask for "anything" and get it, you would know only to ask for things that you know God would do. If you were close enough to the mind of God in order to petition him as such, you wouldn't even want things God wouldn't want.
• God will only answer your prayer if it's within his will to do so.
• If Jesus was in fact being literal, he was referring only to people who were in a position to petition God in that way.

Pondering Thought: What do you think Jesus meant by the parable of the fig tree? What do you think he meant in reference to prayer?

Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant

3/25/08 Study #1 - Historicity of the Healing of Bartimaeus

Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."

"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

I want you all to notice something very curious. Mark actually names the man Jesus healed: Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus. He gives the specific person whom Jesus gave sight to. This is something that Mark hardly ever did...The only other example that I'm aware of that Mark specifically names someone else is 15:21.

Suppose you lived in a relatively small town, and in it, there was a blind person named Scott. Since it's a small town we're working with, everyone knew Scott and helped him out whenever they could. Suppose you were to read in a letter that Scott had been given his sight. An easy way to test that out would be to go and pay Scott a visit. If he could see, then the letter would be telling the truth. And if he couldn't, then it's logical to assume that the author was making something up for whatever reason.

I think the fact that Mark gives a name is very significant for several reasons. Firstly, in naming a specific individual Jesus healed, Mark leaves open the opportunity to check the facts. He names the guy's father, which was a usual practice, just in case there is any confusion over which Bartimaeus it might have been. Secondly, in the setting we're dealing with, Jericho, most people would have probably known Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, and would have known if he was blind beforehand or merely pretending in collaboration with Jesus in order to perform trickery. After all, it is also stated that the act is performed in front of a large crowd; certainly this would leave some eyewitnesses available, not only for Jesus to convince, but for people back in the day to check the facts with.

Another thing that makes this story so great is the prophetic appeal. He calls Jesus the "Son of David," which was an appeal to the Davidic messianism of the Old Testament.

Pondering Thought: Do you think Mark was telling the truth when he said Jesus healed the blind man?

Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant

3/17/08 Study - Suffering and Service

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."

"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.

They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."

When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:35-45)

The last verse of this passage is one that is commonly memorized and the rest of the passage is often forgotten. In Mark 10:45, the saying that Jesus gives is actually a very important thing, though. It combines allusions to the Son of Man of Daniel 7 and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. This is evidence that the appeal is genuine, rather than inserted by the church later, because this sort of understanding of Jesus was practically nonexistent in the early church.

I wonder why James and John would have asked such a question of Jesus. It seems like the Gospels repeatedly tell of the intellectual and moral failures of the disciples of Jesus. These two guys had the gall to ask Jesus if they could be his right and left-hand men in Heaven, which strikes me as an average Joe employee going up to his boss and asking if he can be Vice President of the company. But Jesus didn't see it that way. His response is not like mine would have been. The other disciples, though, seemed to have my reaction, becoming "indignant."

We must serve to be great among men, says Jesus. This is still observed to be true today, even independent of what Jesus said. We consider Mother Teresa to be the prime example of goodness in a person, and she spent her life serving the poor. Martin Luther King had to humble himself and go to prison many times; he certainly wasn't in this for the glory for himself. He was in it to help others.

Pondering Thought: How can we serve others to the best of our ability?

Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant

The Lamp of God

My name is Patrick Dunnevant. Some of you may know me from my other blogs, such as Brain Is Ignorant. In that blog, I dismantle the arguments of atheists and agnostics. But this blog will be different. This is not directed at answering an argument, or starting a debate, or "saving souls," or anything of that nature.

This blog is my personal Bible study. I will be reading passages of scripture and posting my thoughts for you to read if you wish. Hopefully, you will be able to study along with me, and give your input on what I say. If all goes well, I want to publish new entries to this blog every time I read the Bible, which theoretically should be every day. If you don't see new entries, then that probably means I haven't been studying the Bible.

Lucerna dei is Latin for "lamp of God." One of the few times that phrase is mentioned in the Bible is in the third book of 1st Samuel. Here's the passage.

The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions. One night Eli, whose eyes were becoming so weak that he could barely see, was lying down in his usual place. The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was. Then the LORD called Samuel.

Samuel answered, "Here I am." And he ran to Eli and said, "Here I am; you called me."
But Eli said, "I did not call; go back and lie down." So he went and lay down.

Again the LORD called, "Samuel!" And Samuel got up and went to Eli and said, "Here I am; you called me."
"My son," Eli said, "I did not call; go back and lie down."

Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD: The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him. The LORD called Samuel a third time, and Samuel got up and went to Eli and said, "Here I am; you called me."

Then Eli realized that the LORD was calling the boy. So Eli told Samuel, "Go and lie down, and if he calls you, say, 'Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.'"So Samuel went and lay down in his place. The LORD came and stood there, calling as at the other times, "Samuel! Samuel!"

Then Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant is listening."

And the LORD said to Samuel: "See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle."

This passage, as a whole, doesn't really have much to do with the lamp itself. It talks about Samuel hearing the voice of the Lord and assuming it was Eli, which is an understandable assumption: if one hears a voice in the silence, one tends to assume that they're in the presence of another human being. It's interesting that Eli realized what was really going on before Samuel did. He'd never left his bed, probably, and yet he knew that the voice Samuel was hearing was the Lord's.

The metaphor of a lamp is used many times in scripture. In Luke 11:34, the human eye is described as the "lamp of your body [lucerna corporis]. When your eye is sound, your whole body is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness.” The spirit of a man, according to Proverbs 20:27, is also "the lamp of the LORD [lucerna Domini], searching all the innermost parts of his being." How fitting that in Psalm 199:105, which is the longest chapter in the Bible, the word of God is described as a "lamp unto my feet [lucerna pedi]" and a "light unto my path [lux semitae meae]" We can know which way to go by looking at what the Bible says, and we will not get lost. And the wonderful thing about it is that it's right there for us to read. Almost every American has at least one Bible. I personally have two. And yet, many of us don't read it often enough. I haven't read the entire thing, though I'm familiar with a great deal it.

The Word of God is there for you and I to read. So let's read it together. And let's be honest with ourselves and what we read. I certainly will be; if I read something that I don't particularly like or agree with, I'm not going to try to force it into a positive light. But shouldn't we always do that anyway, whatever we read?

Sincerely,
Patrick Dunnevant