THEODOS

"They Look Like Trees Walking": Did Jesus' Prayer Fail?

2016-11-12T14:59:00.001-08:00

As a good charismatic, faith is excitingly experiential. We gather weekly to hear about healing through prayer, though it doesn’t stop there; we actually practice it! As a pastor at a charismatic church for many years, one of the toughest challenges was watching the unsuccessful prayer consume the faithful participant. They wondered why their prayer had not been answered. Why did the cancer patient not get better? Why did the broken bone not supernaturally mend back together? A common reprise of pastors in the charismatic movement is, “Well, even Jesus had to pray twice!” (I am also guilty). This suggestion is in reference to Jesus’ healing of a “Blind Man” in Mark 8:22-26. The phrase implies that Jesus, filled with exceedingly more power than his mere followers, didn’t always get it right the first time. In a sense, even Jesus needs round two. Consequently, if Jesus needed a second round then certainly his followers would as well. However, I think this is a misreading of Mark’s narrative; and pastors, and subsequently their congregants, have inappropriately given theological significance to a practice that is otherwise absent in the New Testament. It should be noted that this is not to disavow the supernatural, but to call into question a theological position of some charismatic adherents (myself included).

Here’s the story in Mark 8:22-26 (Key Text):

“ ²²And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. ²³And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” ²⁴And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” ²⁵Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. ²⁶And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

Mark’s gospel follows the popular Greco-Roman writing genre of “biography” (Gk. bios), and just like other biographies of its day, Mark presents his biography as a narrative, complete with a narrator, setting, plot, themes, and characters. For Mark, the recurrent theme of vision/“seeing” (Gk. blepō) is the determining factor in delineating between believers and unbelievers. In Mark 4:11-12, it is the insiders (i.e. Jesus followers) who are “given the secret of the kingdom of God,” while the outsiders (i.e. unbelievers) “indeed see [Gk. blepō], but do not perceive.”

Our key text, like any good narrative, builds upon the story preceding it. Mark 8:14-21 describes a scene of worried disciples fearing that the masses (and themselves) will starve since they have “no bread.” Interestingly, this story is a near doublet of Mark 6:30-44 where the disciples again having “no bread” watched as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish for the five thousand. The narrator is careful to remind his readers of the disciple’s past failure in Mark 6: “Having eyes do you not see (Gk. blepō), and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? ¹⁹ When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve” (Mk 8:18-19). For Mark the disciples are blind (“Having eyes do you not see”) and stand as outsiders like those in Mark 4:12 (see above).

The “Blind Man,” a faceless and nameless character, in our key text is contrasted strongly with the blind disciples of the preceding story. In the end it will be the “Blind Man” who will—quite ironically—“see!” The “Blind Man’s” miracle works in stages purposely: from complete blindness (like the disciples) to partial “sight” (v. 24, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking”), and then finally to full “sight” (v. 25, “his sight was restored”). A major theme of Mark’s narrative is the continued failure of Jesus’ disciples, and this key text affirms what Mark has shown to this point in his gospel…that the disciples continue to miss the reality of Jesus’ power and identity, yet a “Blind Man” gets it. Secondarily, the key text is a turning point in Mark’s gospel. The first eight chapters of Mark show that nearly all the characters—except the otherworldly demons (3:11; 5:7)—cannot perceive Jesus’ true identity. It is only when the “Blind Man” can fully “see” that the narrative changes pace and sight becomes available, even for the blind disciples. For example, in the very next episode Peter can confess Jesus as “the Christ” (8:29) showing his blindness has been lifted. This “full sight” of Jesus’ true identity will now be unveiled through the revelation of Jesus’ teaching and ultimately his death to the end of the book. As a narrative, and more importantly a “biography” (bios), the “Blind Man” plays a significant role for the plot. Jesus’ double prayer, then, is not a nod to his failure as a healer (unlike the disciples in Mark 9:18), but a literary ploy to show the revelation of Jesus’ identity is being disclosed.

So, where does this leave us with prayer and unsuccessful healing? Unfortunately nowhere, since the text itself doesn’t seem to speak to this issue. So, though my reading of this text may not lead us to a helpful answer, we’ve at least eliminated a bad one! Though on a side note, the pastor’s reprise about Jesus having to “pray twice”—with all of its good intentions—attempts to eliminate the tension we feel between the God who acts and the God who is sometimes silent. This is unfortunate as it is in the deepest moments of frustration that the God of the universe becomes tangible. For “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Mt. 5:4). We are not to run from the frustration of prayer, but to embrace it. We are in good company with our frustrated friend Job who laments, “¹⁶My face is red with weeping, and on my eyelids is deep darkness,¹⁷ although there is no violence in my hands, and my prayer is pure” (Job 16:16–17).

JESUS AND ISIS

2015-11-15T13:09:00.002-08:00

“Let’s annihilate Islam!” Quotes similar to this have filled my news feed, only eclipsed by “Could America be next?” I write this while in the UK where the terror threat level has been raised to “severe,” which means, “A terrorist attack is highly likely.”[1] These two responses, expressed in anger and fear, are entirely understandable. Anger for the injustice of the killings in Paris[2] and Beirut,[3] and for those driven into exile from Syria,[4] makes sense. Also understandable is the representation of fear for one’s own life and loved ones. In light of the recent atrocities these are natural human responses. However, only a supernatural response can heal the brokenness of our despairing situation.

Jesus, in his life, showed humanity how love (Mt 5:21-26, 38-48), and not retaliation or domination over one’s enemies (Mt 26:52-54), ultimately conquers injustice. And in his resurrection, he proved this to be true. His life affirmed for us that he did not need to exercise force or violence to stamp out the world’s wrongs. At the same time, the resurrection affirms that Jesus did not stay dead when supposedly eradicated by his enemies. It is in the hope of resurrection that we can act in the present with the integrity of Jesus, who, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23). Living in light of the resurrection affords us the opportunity to refuse any acts of retaliation based in anger and hatred, and to see beyond it into a future rooted in the hope of God’s restoration and justice. Likewise, resurrection living dismantles the heart of fear by reminding us that God is truly in control.

The buzzing of fear riddled the media’s news feed on Friday. Everyone’s worst fears became reality—ISIS, on a large scale, infiltrated a developed country. Could America be next? Admittedly, I found myself looking at people differently, some with suspicion. I wanted to get home quicker so not to be exposed to any threat. I thought, “Could Edinburgh be next?” Though safety and risk-assessment have its place, I recognize how this new predicament can stifle life. However, the Christian faith was birthed in the face of adversity and Jesus never promised ease. In fact, Jesus not only spoke of his own death (Mk 8:31), but the certain death of any who would follow him and his practices (Mk 8:34). If death, for the sake of love (Mk 10:45), is the outcome of the Christian faith, then why fear in the face of threat? Fear only strips us of our humanity by restricting us from living out our fullest potential—though, God’s fullest potential may look differently than our own conceptions. In fear, our creativity, innovation, and self-giving take a back seat to self-preservation. Consequently, our fear removes the humanity of others by casting judgment carelessly on innocent bystanders. It is the resurrection that calls us to look fear in the face and say, “Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35). The resurrection further confirms that we died once and for all the moment we started following Jesus (Rom 6:4). Where’s death’s sting on someone who has already died and resurrected (1 Cor 15:55)? What can fear conquer that the resurrection hasn’t already? In a world where anger and fear is expected, I pray that Christians present another path, one that views the world through the lens of Jesus’ life and resurrection.

[1] https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34818994

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34802906

[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24900116

How To Read The Gospels As Narrative

2015-01-17T11:21:00.000-08:00

I wanted to follow-up on a recent post I made concerning the Gospels as literary works. Before I move forward in the near future and discuss the nature of inspiration, I want to layout what I mean by “literary.” When I speak about literary works, I mean to evoke the ideas of purposeful narrative and plot. Pre-modern critics (or “Form Critics”) of the New Testament sought to separate out that material, which they believed to be confessional (early church additions) and historical. In the wake of this dissection of texts, Jesus became split. The pre-modern critics believed certain texts either spoke of the “Jesus of faith” (the early church’s fabrication) or the “Historical Jesus” (historical information about Jesus with no embellishments). The Gospels writers (especially Mark) were rendered mere editors, collecting traditions of Jesus and placing them side-by-side. At the center of this methodological approach is an attempt to get to the world behind the text. However, this focus pushed attention away from the Gospel texts themselves. This resulted in speculative historical reconstructions of the Gospel’s function and purpose. For example, scholars were forced to make assumptions about the historical situations of the text without any empirical data according to the Gospel text itself. Speculative historical reconstructions are expected from Form Critics and a recent return to the text itself is much warranted.

The literary approach, often called “narrative criticism,” does not attempt to look at the world behind the text, but instead the world in the text. In this sense, how does the thrust of the narrative move the story forward? How does the narrator position characters to provoke particular responses from his/her readership? For example, one recognizes how the narrator of Mark’s Gospel paints quite a negative picture of Jesus’ family (3:20-35; 6:1-6) while Matthew and Luke are dependent on a positive image of them for their narratives (See the genealogies’ of Jesus; c.f. Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-28). Matthew and Luke leave the reader cheering on the inclusion of Jesus’ family while Mark’s readers may be left with a bad taste in their mouth. We would then be led to ask, as readers, why each narrative chose the path that they did?

Contrary to Form Critics, narrative criticism believes the Gospels are whole in form and not merely a collection of pieced together stories randomly situated. As a whole composition and coherent narrative, this means employment of setting, plot, rhetoric, and character are purposeful, and therefore require careful examination. I will give one brief example from Mark’s Gospel:

Mark 2:3-7 (NRSV)

³Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. ⁴And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. ⁵When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” ⁶Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ⁷“Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

I have only selected a brief section of a larger textual unit (Mk 2:1-12), but I did so to give at least a little context. I have bolded the scribes who were “questioning in their hearts” the actions of Jesus. How do we as readers become privy to this information? The scribes do not tell us, nor does Jesus reveal it (the latter is what most of us assume). In fact, it is the Markan narrator who stands outside of the limitations of space and time, and in this sense takes an omniscient role revealing even the insights of the hearts of the scribes. The narrator here is not the same as the “author,” for the narrator is embedded within the story by the author for storytelling purposes such as we see in the verse. Here the narrator paints a particular picture of the scribes for the implied readers (us) that nobody within the actual story (characters; i.e. “crowd,” “paralyzed man,” etc.) gets insight to. Here the narrator seeks to elicit a response from us! In fact, he is setting up the character of the scribes for the entire course of the narrative. Notice, how the scribes take a predominately negative role throughout the Gospel of Mark (Mk 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 9:14; 11:18, 27; 12:28, 32; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31) except for one instance (Mk 12:34). The scene is set for the implied readers, and is intentionally done so.

I will add to this discussion further, and continue this fun little journey through reading the Gospels as narrative. I encourage you to comment and question. Recently, I have found no greater joy than reading the Gospels in community and learning from the diversity of everyone’s own experiences and interpretations.

Are The Gospels Historical?

2015-01-16T08:43:00.001-08:00

Every week, I lead a small group of ministry leaders and soon-to-be ministry leaders in a seminary-like dosage of biblical interpretation and its many facets. This last week a number of interesting points concerning the nature of the Gospels in relation to the historical Jesus dominated our conversation. Over the course of the class, I have taught the students how to read the Gospels as literary works. Each section/book of the Bible should be read according to the genre it purports to be. We do this with all other literature we read as well. For example, when you read, “Once upon a time,” your mind immediately evokes images of fairytale. Perhaps, you will expect to see dazzling unicorns, magical fairies, or leprechauns. However, this would not be the case if you were to read, “On January 8^th four people were killed when…” It is genre that dictates how we understand and read texts (more on this in upcoming posts)—we enter into a type of “contract” with the text and should remain faithful to its terms. This makes understanding genre quite important for studying the Bible.

Rarely do we probe the question of genre in relation to the Bible, and especially the Gospels. We simply assume that each book in the Bible functions as the one next to it. In this way, people end up reading the Gospels in the same way as the Apostle Paul’s letters (or God forbid, like they would Revelation). Notice, even here I call Paul’s writings “letters” while the Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are called “Gospels.” Many of us assume that the Gospels are like Paul’s writings, at times, in that they objectively record historical data. However, as I understand it, the Gospels are best represented as ancient Bios (from where we draw the term biography). Imagine then that you walked into a Barnes and Nobles in the ancient Roman world and were looking for the story of Jesus. Where would it be found? It would likely be placed under the “Bios” section; you know, right next to those other Bios about Emperor Caesar and Oprah (I think she might be eternal).

Ancient biographies were quite unlike modern ones in which the recording of dates, places, source evidence, chronological order, and psychological insight were unimportant. Instead, ancient biographies placed importance on the subject’s character, philosophy of life, and opportunities of emulation. Further, a heavy emphasis was placed on the death of the subject (this is, for example, why the Gospels give little detail concerning Jesus’ birth, but much detail in his death), and the subject’s subsequent legacy. For these reasons, the Gospels tend to look more like modern narrative fiction than hard-lined historical reporting. However, this is not to cast a doubt on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Instead, we recognize that the authors of the Gospels practiced the art of storytelling. In many instances, we see their ability to interweave storylines with irony, symbolism, comedy, retrospection, riddles, and characterization. Each Gospel provides their own storyline consistent with their perspective and purpose in view. Notice, for example, how some storylines in the Gospels are not in chronological order. Whereas in Luke, Jesus’ Nazareth preaching (Lk 4:16-30) is the inauguration of his ministry; Mark (Mk 6:1-6a) and Matthew (Mt 13:53-58) present the narrative far into the storyline after establishing Jesus’ ministry. For those who consider the Gospels objectively historical will find problems with the stories not following chronological order. However, ancient biographies are more concerned with painting a fruitful image of the subject through narrative than mere chronological order. One further example may help. Consider Mark’s story of the Syrophoenician woman and Matthew’s story of the Canaanite woman (See below):

Mark 7:24-30

Matthew 15:21-28

²⁴From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, ²⁵but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. ²⁶Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. ²⁷He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” ²⁸But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” ²⁹Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” ³⁰So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

²¹Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. ²²Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” ²³But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” ²⁴He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” ²⁵But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” ²⁶He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” ²⁷She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” ²⁸Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

The similarities in this story are too many to deny their shared history—some have explained away the differences by claiming these are two distinctive stories. Importantly, I wanted to point out (sections in BOLD) how in the Markan story he makes the point to show the woman is not only Syrophoenician, but was a “Gentile.” This slight note serves Mark’s story well as he had previously attested to Jesus’ Gentile mission beginning at Mark 5:1-20. Because Mark’s audience (whom I place in Rome) is likely comprised mostly of Gentiles (non-Jewish), such a story would have been comforting in regards to the place of Gentiles in the early church—they too can have “great faith.” Many scholars agree that Mark’s Gospel was likely written first, and Matthew and Luke’s account draw much of their information from him—adding and subtracting those parts of the story that are not pertinent to their storyline. In the particular case of Matthew 15, the Syrophoenician Gentile of Mark’s story is revised to read “Canaanite woman.” Why would Matthew make such a blatant shift of “facts?” Is he lying? Certainly not! For Matthew’s ancient biography is better served by positing a historically notable enemy of Israel (the intended audience of Matthew), namely the Canaanites—he does this to strongly contrast the people of God (Israel) with her notorious enemy. Matthew’s character would provide the shock value needed to make the “great faith” of this woman scandalous to listening Jews. The purpose of Mark and Matthew for accommodation to their audiences differs. Each of the writers is attempting to retell the story of Jesus as it serves their communities. Unlike modern history, which has the tools of video cameras and cell phones, ancient history relied solely upon eyewitness testimony and oral traditions. The biographer had the freedom as well as different standards in defining what it meant to record the “historical” Bios of Jesus. These minor alterations are completely acceptable when we understand the genre of ancient biography. As to the story above, what we do not miss is the full thrust of the narrative, which shares about the possibility of great faith and inclusion from any ethnic corner, including ourselves (“Gentiles” in Mark) or our greatest enemies (“Canaanites” in Matthew). Furthermore, we get the portrait of Jesus, the one who breaks down the cultural barriers setup by his own traditional heritage, as told through two different lenses.

The Gospels are to be read as an amalgam of theology, history, story, and literature. The Gospel writers believed they were writing accurate portraits of the “historical” (as they understand this terminology) Jesus, as they understood him. It is important that these texts we believe to be “inspired” (I will deal with this in a later post and how it applies to our current topic) by God remain in their crafted state. In this sense, Christians believe God had some doing in allowing ancient biography to be the form preferred for writing the Gospels. Therefore, we should refrain from attempting to turn the Gospels into something they are not—a modern historical biography—and allow the texts, as they are, to speak for themselves. If ancient Christians found this historically reliable enough to paint a profitable image of Jesus for personal and corporate worship, should we not as well?

Redaction And The Power Of Silence

2014-04-28T09:00:00.001-07:00

No book in the Bible has caused more controversy, uproar, and fiery conversation than Esther. The book is an important feature for Jews as it provides etiological purpose to the festival of Purim. Without the festival the book retains little significance for Jews, and likewise, Purim without Esther limits the festival to a social party.[1] The Masoretic Text (MT) of Esther presents a number of problems for the interpreter. The greatest of these problems is how the MT-Esther never reveals an explicit mention of Israel’s God, or any devotion to that God, on behalf of its key characters. Moreover, there is a striking lack of typical Old Testament (OT) themes, such as law, kingship, and national identity.[2] For this reason, Esther, in the early Christian church and Judaic traditions,[3] struggled to command a secure place in the canon.[4] The missing elements in the MT-Esther provided difficulties for the popularization of Esther in Jewish traditions, especially as Jews stopped using the Septuagint (LXX) as an authoritative text once the early Christians relied heavily on the LXX as their key OT text.[5] These problems are further complicated by the presence of the two Greek translations of Esther. The two Greek forms of Esther are presented in the LXX and Alpha Text (AT), and provide further challenges to the historical and traditional view of Esther. In this paper, I will explore the nature and history of the three[6] Esther editions. Moreover, I will provide evidence that each edition most likely stems from a prototypical Esther,[7] and that the absence of God is explained through attributing a redactor to the MT-Esther. It is at this juncture that I will argue for an original inclusion of God’s presence in the proto-Esther text, but conclude God’s removal in R-MT for purposes of the redactor. Lastly, I will argue for the author’s intent to create a literary device that seeks to bring about propositions in the reader—therefore placing the reader into the text itself.[8]

The MT of Esther, as we have it, is located in the Leningrad Codex 19A.[9] A Jewish businessman, Abraham Virkovich, while doing business in Cairo, obtained the manuscript in 1863. The Leningrad Codex remains the earliest copy of the complete Hebrew Scriptures dating back to 1008-1009 CE. The scribal marks and apparatus attests to the strength of integrity this edition demands.[10]

The LXX is easily accessible and can be found in thirty-six manuscripts. The oldest complete manuscripts come from the third and fourth centuries. However, one must understand that any consideration of Esther in the LXX must consider its beginnings stemming from Origen. Origen sought to correct the popular OT Greek text of his day including Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila.[11] Origen’s translation—The Hexapla—became the standard Greek text for the OT, and influenced the field of translation from that point on. That Origen saw lack in Esther’s Hebrew version is of no surprise as he states, “Of the Book of Esther neither the prayer of Mardochaios nor that of Esther, both fitted to edify the reader, is found in the Hebrew.”^{^[12]} Some scholars have attempted to find an earlier Greek version of Esther, not influenced by Origen, but without success.[13] It is therefore important to remember that any LXX reading has a strong influence from Origen, and his distaste towards the incompleteness of the MT.

The second Greek text, known as the Alpha Text,[14] can only be found in four medieval manuscripts.[15] The first print of the AT appeared in 1655 by James Ussher. It was a long-standing assumption by scholars that the AT was a revision of the LXX, rendering the text of secondary importance to the LXX. However, since Carey Moore’s work in 1965, where he shows major differences between common Lucianic texts and the AT, there has been a scholarly consensus to reject Lucianic origin, and therefore reject AT recension of the LXX.[16] The AT has since then become of central importance for scholars as it now stands alone, and must give answers to its discrepancies with the MT and LXX.

The LXX and AT differ from the Masoretic text in a number of significant ways, but none is greater than the Additions (ADD). In both the LXX and AT there are six ADD.[17] There is no manuscript evidence for any of the ADD ever existing in the MT. The ADD are highly consistent throughout the LXX and AT. However, throughout the reading of the LXX and AT, a number of major differences occur within the body of the texts. This raises a number of questions as to how the ADD became adopted into the LXX and AT. Which ADD were original, if any at all? Do the ADD stem from an earlier Hebraic Vorlage or stand-alone in there respective Greek sources, and later added? The scope and range of the examinations needing to be compiled is obviously too large a field to disseminate in this small paper alone, and this author will be referring to the 1996 dissertation work of Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text, as a reference point. Her work is thorough and carefully executed in determining relations between the semantic field of the MT, LXX, and AT. Jobes concludes that, outside of the ADD, the LXX and AT “almost never agree against the MT.”[18] Examined in this light there should be an increased suspicion that the ADD were interpolated into both texts (AT and LXX) at a later date.[19] Had there been agreement throughout the LXX and AT in the main body it would pause the reader to possibly consider a similar source in the ADD, but their disagreements in the body of LXX and AT are too strong to consider.

On the surface, the AT and LXX appear to have more in common than the AT and the MT, but this is only true because of the ADD. However, once the ADD are removed there is strong formal and semantic agreement between the AT and MT.[20] The AT preserves the Hebrew idioms closer than the LXX, and 77% of the time adequately interprets the MT text.[21] Again, this all suggests that the AT was not a recension of the LXX, and that the ADD were interpolated into the text at a later date rendering the two Greek versions as independent sources. Moreover, Jobes concludes, “Where the AT has text corresponding to the MT, the AT agrees with MT about as often as does the LXX of Esther.”[22] Jobes continues, “Eighty-five percent of the syntactic units of the AT for which there is corresponding Hebrew text (500 units out of 590) are Greek equivalents of the MT.”[23] Jobes puts forth a strong linguistic case for three separate Esther texts with the LXX largely representing a Greek linguistic field whereas the AT—because of its close relationship to MT—most likely indicates a Hebrew Vorlage similar to the MT. However, there are enough differences between the MT and AT to suggest a separate and similar original source, but these differences are common between Hebrew and Greek versions of the OT.[24] Therefore the AT draws its source from a common text to the MT, and the LXX is, simply, a Greek interpretation of the MT material.

The MT’s history presents problems for the reader as well. Michael V. Fox questions the “unity” of the MT latter chapters.[25] Up to chapters 9 and 10—and possibly 8—the AT and MT follows closely, but in these later chapters they appear to bifurcate.[26] Fox concludes from these divergences that the MT and AT represent texts from an earlier Hebraic Vorlage—the dismissal of a Purim etiology clearly points to a later dating of the AT.[27] However, Chapters 1-7 in the MT, and the correlating chapters in the AT, represent a close relation to the AT and is suggestive that each probably came from a related document—some have called this / these document(s) “cousins.”[28] However, at Chapter 8 the writer begins to take his or her own route in development. Chapters 8-10 were not later “added” to the text; however, they had always existed as the “MT”. There appears to be a redactor who was in possession of the “Proto-Esther” text.[29] One can see this emerge in these last chapters of the MT as the redactor, in chapters 8-10, provides extended material. The 201 words that appear in the last chapters of the AT are expounded upon into 942 words in the MT. Furthermore, chapters 1-7 in the MT, and the corresponding text in AT, are nearly word-for-word, and closely related both formally and semantically. The material added in the MT, and also the LXX, informs the reader of (1) the inalterability of the laws; (2) battle reports; (3) Purim etiology; (4) second day of fighting; (5) and the epilogue.[30] These conclusions add to the consensus that the MT is a redacted version of an earlier source of which the AT also drew.

It is apparent that there also existed a proto-AT text as well. This is seen in supplementation of the ADD from the same LXX source ADD—I will not argue, where the ADD originated, but the ADD close relationship between the AT and LXX show a common source. This means the AT also has a redacted version (R-AT), from which it drew on a “Proto-AT” text—The proto-AT and proto-MT are taken from proto-Esther. In addition, the AT text cannot be a gleaning from the LXX for in the places that the LXX and AT parallel the LXX lacks the proper Hebraisms picked up by the AT.[31] Fox further argues that the proto-AT, “demonstrated by an examination of its Greek syntax,” is a translation of a Hebrew text and cannot be a reiteration of the MT.[32] From these conclusions, the proto-AT probably represents an earlier version than that of the MT. Had there been a festival established prior to the proto-AT, no faithful Jewish author would have left it out in the proto-AT or redacted version. It appears that the MT is supplementing this information for a development that came later in the history of Israel. I have adapted my own graph, created with the influence of both David Clines and Fox,[33] to explain how the tradition of Esther was handed down (See Figure 1).

So what to make of our conclusions? There appears to have been a number of separate texts of Esther, all stemming from a common text of Hebrew Vorlage known as “Proto-Esther.” Redactors of both the MT and AT expanded this original text (or texts). The redacted texts were further added to (and possibly subtracted from)[34] for purposes of the author. It is suggestive then that the proto-AT and MT provided information in their respective texts for the inclusion of particular interests.[35] It will become clear in this next section that the interest of the MT redactor differs from that of the proto-AT, specifically in regard to the name and mention of God.

(Figure 1)

The proto-AT tells a story of God’s salvation towards God’s people, while the MT seeks to keep God hidden. If the proto-AT is an earlier document, then why does the author of the MT choose to keep God veiled? The presence, or name, of God shows up seven times[36] throughout the redacted writing of the AT (minus any of the ADD).[37] As I have shown above, it is my belief that the proto-AT represents an earlier form of the MT, and that the author of the MT changes the story to fit his or her own motives.

The R-MT, as is evidenced by chapters 8-10, attempts to give an etiological meaning to the festival of Purim.[38] Therefore, the influence of this overarching intention must claim a meaningful place in interpretation throughout the book, for without its additions the meaning of chapter 8-10[39] would be lost. Tracing God through the R-AT provides background into the changes offered by the R-MT.

AT 4:5 is the first time the name of God is mentioned. Mordecai has just informed the eunuch of the grave situation Haman has just incited, and is reciting to him what he is to speak to Esther. Mordecai encourages Esther to “Call upon God and speak on our behalf to the king, and deliver us from death.” This verse is paralleled at MT 4:8-9, and merely suggests that Mordecai gave a message to the head eunuch, Hathach, and he is to “explain” to Esther what Mordecai had said. Suspicion is raised as to the legitimacy of this in the R-AT as it appears that the close relationship between these verses in the R-AT and LXX is unavoidable. The R-AT is, most likely a recension, at this point, of the LXX; it hopes to bring a further religious dimension to God’s involvement in 4:9 and 4:11. See the comparisons in the R-AT and LXX on Figure 2 below.[40]

Furthermore, AT 7:1 refers to God as ὁ δυνατὸς, a term used only in the LXX in Zephaniah 3:17 and Odes 11:49; the only other usage is in Luke 1:49. The LXX interprets “God’s name” here as ὁ κύριος. Although there is a divergence from the LXX here, the mention of ὁ δυνατὸς in the ADD (R-AT 1:9) provides a case to question the originality of its Semitic Vorlage. This verse appears, like other verses throughout the AT, to be either a recension or interpolation of the LXX from a later date.

LXX – 4:8	R-AT – 4:5
Ἁμὰν ὁ δευτερεύων τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐλάλησεν καθʼ ἡμῶν εἰς θάνατον· ἐπικάλεσαι τὸν κύριον καὶ λὰλησον τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ θανάτου.[41]	Ἁμὰν ὁ δευτερεύων λελάληκε τῷ βασιλεῖ καθʼ ἡμῶν εἰς θάνατον· ἐπικάλεσαμένη οὖν τὸν θεὸν λὰλησον περὶ ἡμῶν τῷ βασιλεῖ, καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ θανάτου (Emphasis mine).[42]

(Figure 2)

A continued examination also shows R-AT 6:22 to fumble in its assembly of Greek syntax. In R-AT 6:22 the author explains the conversation between Haman and his wife. She tells Haman, “From the point you spoke evil concerning him (Haman), evil has been advancing upon you; quiet, because God is with them (emphasis mine).”[43] Notice the switch from the singular pronoun,[44] speaking of Mordecai, to the plural pronoun[45] when still speaking of Mordecai. The LXX does not make this mistake, and may represent a corruption in the R-AT. Now that we have eliminated verses that are incongruent with a Hebrew Vorlage, we can now examine those verses that reference God.[46] It would be easy to make sense of these verses had the AT been a recension of the LXX, but the thesis of this paper argues otherwise—for one could simply attest to the AT changing its language to adapt a language more coherent with God. The first mention of God is in R-AT 4:9, which the LXX does not match in Greek either semantically or formally with the AT. The R-AT (4:9) and MT (4:14) are closely related, but without the mention of God in the MT. However, it appears that the author is purposely choosing to gloss over the same information given to the R-AT that was available through a Hebrew Vorlage. The R-AT picks up Semitic language that carries over into the MT. Notice the R-AT uses σωτηρία to explicate the nature of the deliverance.[47] Had the R-AT been rendered through Greek Vorlage, why did he or she not follow the language similar to the LXX, and instead use Semitic language?[48] At this juncture the MT and R-AT contain compatible language and probably draw from a similar source, indicating that God’s presence was most likely active in the Hebrew Vorlage, and removed for purposes of the author. Furthermore, the Hebrew syntax in MT-Esther 4:14 seems to suggest that Mordecai is not threatening his relative with judgment from Jews, or God, but rather that he is attempting to motivate her answer in the positive by asking a rhetorical question.[49] Notice the author of the MT provides the reader with a question and not an answer. The author elicits a response, not only from Esther, but also from the readers. What will “you” do in the midst of such options? However, God is axiomatic in the text. The author need not mention where one receives deliverance.[50]

AT 4:11 also evades Greek compatibility with the LXX, and stands alone. The MT adds to the simple statement from the R-AT, “Proclaim a service of worship and pray earnestly to God,” into a section about fasting. The MT redactor is taking from Hebrew sources to compile an account more in line with ancient Jewish traditions.[51] AT 6:17 is another quick, and undeveloped,[52] mention of God. There are no LXX or MT parallels. In the AT, the story is one of thankfulness towards “the Lord” after Mordecai is paraded around in the town, at the king’s request. Clines concludes, “For at no point is the religious language of the AT at all unnatural or forced.”[53] It appears that the MT attempts to remove God rather than the AT trying to add God, as Clines continues, “The MT has very frequently seemed to commentators unnatural or at least due to a deliberate avoidance of usual Hebrew manners of speech.”[54] AT 7:2 is the last mention of God. This again is an authorial side-note as to Esther’s emotions, and God’s help in a time of need—a note too easily bypassed by the redactor. The redactor of the MT removed this section alone leaving a similar semantic and formal field of syntax and Hebraisms in the verses directly above and below it (MT 7:2 and AT 7:1; MT 7:5 and AT 7:3). An important question should now be lingering in the minds of readers, namely, why, if the original Vorlage included God, remove God?

The removal of God is an important feature of the MT, as it purposely veils God to elicit a response from the reader to form a multiplicity of interpretations through personal inclusion into the text. For example, MT-Esther 4:14 cannot, but stimulate the reader to question what they might do if they were in Esther’s position. Will I act in the face of fear and tragedy? Where will I draw my strength? MT-Esther 4:16 also calls to mind the connection between fasting and deliverance of God in Judges 20:26. Is God good or not? Will God remain faithful in the midst of tragedy, or fail? How will my devotion to this God, through fasting and prayer, change this situation? In other words, the author intends to elicit propositions from his or her readers. For this reason, a number of “propositions” of Esther have been set forth, but without much avail in finding consensus as to genre, structure, characteristics, or overall purpose. It is within the three different Esther’s that one finds a path forward in understanding each as a representation of stages in the process of “Esther’s” formulation. Throughout this process the shape of Esther has taken many forms, but in its final MT-Esther that the book intends to conceal God as to illuminate God through absence,[55] while strongly supplying an old courtier tale, and providing the history of an important festival.[56]

In conclusion, this paper has shown the history of multiple Esthers, namely the MT, LXX, and AT texts. Furthermore this paper has sought to argue for AT priority over and against the LXX. The AT is not a recension of the LXX, but rather a stand-alone text from Hebrew Vorlage similar to that of the MT. Moreover, the purpose of the MT redactor was to veil God in such a way as to elicit propositions from his or her readers, and to allow them to enter into the text as a volunteer and not a bystander. For this reason a number of varying interpretations have been produced by scholars, yet none as satisfactory or universally accepted by scholars.

Bibliography

Berlin, Adele. Esther: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadephia, Pa: Jewish Publication Society, 2001.

Bush, Frederic William. Ruth, Esther. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1996.

Clines, David J. A. The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984.

De Troyer, Kristin. The End of the Alpha Text of Esther: Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1-17, LXX 8:1-17, and AT 7:14-41. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000.

Feldman, Louis H. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 101 (1970): 143-70.

Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Second ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2001.

Fox, Michael V. The Redaction of the Books of Esther. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.

Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Jobes, Karen H. The Alpha-text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996.

Josephus, Flavius, and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. "Purim, liminality, and communitas." AJS Review 17, no. 2 (September 1, 1992): 247-277. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed August 27, 2013).

Stern, Elsie R. "Esther and the Politics of Diaspora." The Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 25-53.

[1] Adele Berlin, Esther, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), xv.

[2] See Stern 2010: 34-45.

[3] These debates are most noted in B. Megillah 7a and B. Sanhedrin 100a. Moreover, it is of interest that, at Qumran, Esther is the only canonized text not to be found among the discovery. However, it is still a debatable subject, as is witnessed by White’s study. See White Crawford, Sidnie. 1996. "Has Esther Been Found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther Corpus". Revue De Qumran. 17 (14): 307-325.

[4] For example, both Amphilochius and Gregory Theologus challenge Esther’s place within the canon actually calling for its content to be omitted. See Aphilochius of Iconium, From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius the Bishop to Seleucus, on the Same Subject, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Henry R. Percival, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 612

[5] Kahana 2005, xix.

[6] However, Josephus, in Antiquities 11.184 – 296, provides a full summary account of Esther, and could provide a helpful fourth translation—although, outside of the scope of this paper. However, Josephus provides a view of Esther that is adapted for his Greek audience. His summary helps provide a fuller understanding of how Jews during his time read and understood Esther. For a fuller discussion of Josephus’s Esther version, his changes, and implications, see Feldman 1970; Furthermore, in regards to the issue of controversy about Esther’s canonicity during Josephus times, he provides a 22-book canon, but does not disseminate which books are included. However, one could presume that Esther would be included in his list as he provides at length a summary of Esther.

[7] “Proto-Esther” is a term employed by Michael V. Fox to clarify and distinguish the many “texts” of Esther. For more information see Fox 1991, 8.

[8] Fox 2001, 247. Fox refers to this as a “theology of possibility.”

[9] This manuscript is the oldest complete Bible manuscript to date.

[10]Freedman 1998, x-xi. Beck remarks, “These notations are invaluable today… They and the vowel and accent pointings added to the consonantal text follow the tradition of the Masoretes, in particular, the school of Masoretic scholars centered in Tiberias near the Sea of Galilee. The aim of these scholars was to ensure correct transmission and understanding of the text.” For this reason, the mss is important for the current study.

[11] It is these texts, which individuals such as Jerome used to create the Latin Vulgate. Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus comes from Origen’s Hexapla. For more information on the texts that Origen was hoping to correct see Origen’s Letter to Africanus 2.

^{^[12]} Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., A Letter from Origen to Africanus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 386–387.

[13] Any attempt to discover writings among the early Fathers has limited the study to only chapters 8 and 9 of Esther. For further investigation see Kristin De Troyer 2000, 4-5.

[14] In this study I will be using the Gottingen edition and its numbering system when referring to chapters or verses in the AT text.

[15] These four manuscripts include: Chigi R. vi. 38 (12^th Century); Royal I.D.2 (13^th Century); Vat. Gr. 330 (13^th Century); Vatop. 600 (1021 CE).

[16] Moore, Carey A. 1965. The Greek text of Esther.

[17] These “additions” are labeled respectively as A, B, C, D, E, and F.

[18] Jobes 1996, 193.

[19] Pietersma 2007, 424.

[20] See Jobes 1996, 49-94. Specifically see her work, 86-94, on the lexical consistency between the MT, LXX, and AT.

[21] Ibid, 84.

[22] Ibid, 85.

[23] Ibid, 73.

[24] Most notably, the book of Daniel—another text from Persian influence. For comparison see “Daniel and Esther,” John Joseph Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, Daniel: a Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 40. Also see Jobes 1996, 235-249.

[25] Fox 2001, 263-264.

[26] The AT and MT disagree, or the AT ignores, major pieces of the story. For example, (1) Mordecai’s counter-edict is missing; (2) MT suggests salvation goes out to the Gentiles, but the AT has no such reports; (3) The AT has no understanding or establishment of the festival of Purim; (4) and the MT records Mordecai’s future successes whereas this suggestion is missing in the AT.

[27] Fox 1991, 6.

[28] Fox 2001, 260.

[29] This is not necessarily the same source that proto-AT had, but similar in Hebraisms and Semitic language.

[30] Fox 1991, 118.

[31] See ibid, I §2 fn. 36 for exact differences between the Greek and Hebrew in the LXX and AT.

[32] Fox 2001, 258. Fox argues on the basis that no Jewish editor would ever take the MT and change it into the proto-AT with having full knowledge of the Purim festival or battle history.

[33] Clines 1984, 140 ; Fox 1991, 9.

[34] This is a case that cannot be made from the text, but should be open as possibility.

[35] For example, the MT provides the explanations of Purim and the successful future of Mordecai whereas the proto-AT traces only the under-exaggerated tale of a Persian courtier.

[36] God’s name is only explicitly mentioned six times, but AT 6:1 refers to God as “the Mighty One” (ὁ δυνατός). There are two other cases of God being called by this name throughout the LXX. See Zephaniah 3:17 and Odes 11:49.

[37] References are made from the Gottingen edition of the AT text as mentioned above. These chapter and verses include: AT 4:5, 9, 11; 6:1, 17, 22; 7:2. In addition, the author makes mention of Haman casting lots to the “gods” (AT 6:23) and his wife warning that “God is with them” (7:22)—these verses will be dealt with shortly.

[38] For a full explanation, and sociological implications of Purim see Rubenstein 1992.

[39] Also, see 3:7, where the redactor includes a further allusion of the Purim festival.

[40] Notice, I have emphasized the small changes, such as λελάληκε taking the perfect form and ἐπικάλεσαμένη taking the aorist middle. These are subtle changes and preference from each redactor. See the close relationship between these two versions; it is apparent that the R-AT is either a recension of the LXX or an interpolation.

[41] Randall K. Tan, David A. De Silva, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint: H.B. Swete Edition, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012), 764.

[42] Jobes 1996, Chapter 4 (AT 4:5). Jobes follows the numbering system of the Göttingen version.

[43] My translation.

[44] αὐτοῦ

[45] αὐτοῖς

[46] This author recognizes that the MT removes even references to pagan gods, and although this may mean something significant, the author is unsure what to make of it. Mention of pagan gods would continue the satirical theme of a powerless kingdom with powerless gods. However, their removal remains a mystery.

[47] This language is always picked up under the auspicious of God’s action within covenant life. See specifically 1 and 2^nd Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. There are around 110 uses in the LXX. These verses clearly relate deliverance back to God.

[48] LXX uses σκέπη. Moreover, Daniel 3:29 states, “Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way, (emphasis added)”. The usage here is the same Hebrew term הַצָּלָה as Esther and retains a strong sense of the word’s usage throughout its Greek counterpart.

[49] Bush 1998, 396-397.

[50] See fn. 42.

[51] See specifically Judges 20:26, and the language of deliverance. See the note on שְׁלָמִ֖ים in Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), 1537.

[52] Attesting to an earlier edition. Redaction generally builds upon previous work.

[53] Clines 1984, 112.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Fox 2001, 246. Fox concludes that it is through this absence that we ask ourselves if God is really at work? The author brings the readers into the story, and asks for each to make up their own mind about this God.

[56] Purim.

Beyond Blood

2013-12-22T10:53:00.002-08:00

Mark’s Gospel focuses on the “good news”[1] (εὐαγγέλιον; 1:1; 14, 15, 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9 NRSV), and the inclusio of verses 1 and 15 demonstrate its close relation to “the kingdom of God” (1:14-15) in Mark.[2] This paper will seek to examine the Markan view of kinship in relation to “kingdom.” I propose that Jesus is teaching about an in-breaking kingdom that reorients biological relationships and emphasizes a God-oriented fictive kinship in Mark 3:20-35 and 6:1-6. However, Mark is not suggesting dissolution of traditional family, but rather a reordering of priorities in view of God’s kingdom. By “family” this paper indicates kinship through blood relationships, adoption, and marriage.[3] The first section will survey the portrayal of family in Mark over against NT witnesses.

In contrast to Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus’ family in Mark is, at best, indifferent (3:20-21, 31-35; 6:1-6; 13:12).[4] Matthew and Luke include narrative dependent genealogies (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-28) tracing Jesus’ ancestry through Mary and Joseph. The birth narratives, likewise, confirm positive images of Jesus’ parents (Mt 1:18-2:23; Lk 2:1-40). In Luke, Mary “found favor with God” (Lk 1:30) and Joseph’s ancestry plays an integral prophetic role (Lk 2:4-5). John’s Gospel suggests Mary’s function at Cana is positive (Jn 2:1-12) and that Jesus deeply regarded his mother (Jn 19:25-27). Furthermore, Acts affirms Jesus’ family by presenting their responsibility in the Jerusalem mission optimistically (Acts 1:14). Paul preserves two affirmative traditions concerning “the Lord’s brothers” (1 Cor 9:5) and “James” (1 Cor 15:7). However, Mark speaks of Jesus’ family explicitly, only, twice (3:20-35; 6:1-6).

Mark 6:1-6 is located within Jesus’ “hometown” (πατρίς; 6:1).[5] “Many” (πολύς) from Jesus’ “hometown” call his message into question by mentioning Jesus’ profession as a “carpenter” (τέκτων)[6] and relationship to his mother and siblings (6:3). Jesus’ hometown finds his message incredulous due to his origin and status. Interestingly, Mark insinuates that these claims also come from Jesus’ family (6:4).[7] Familial opposition in Mark 6:1-6 helps make sense of 3:20-35, and the negative portrayal of Jesus’ family. A common thread between the two pericopae is rejection of Jesus’ power (3:22; 6:2), message (3:21; 6:2), and origin (3:22; 6:3). Jesus’ family’s condemns Jesus’ message, and 3:21, consequently, is an attempt to protect any remaining honor of the family numen.[8]

Mark 3:20-35 is an interconnected pericope through intercalation. This technique “sandwiches” a story between another apparently unrelated one.[9] In this pericope, Mark inserts the Beelzebul controversy (3:22-30) between verses 20-21 and 31-35.[10] The force of this technique creates a corollary between stories with each helping interpret the other, while making “an entirely new point.”[11]

Mark, through intercalation, appears to portray Jesus’ relationship with his family negatively. In connection with the Beelzebul controversy, Mark is contrasting the family’s charge, “He has gone out of his mind”[12] (3:21), with the scribes accusation, “He has Beelzebul” (3:22).[13] Whereas Jesus’ family seeks to possess him (3:21),[14] the scribes consider him “possessed” (3:22).[15] Mark aligns Jesus’ family with the scribes,[16] who attribute Jesus’ mission to Satan’s power (3:29-30).[17] Later scribes,[18] likely uncomfortable with Mark’s negative portrayal of Jesus’ family, alter οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ (3:21) to identify the accusation of madness to the scribes in verse 23.[19] Matthew and Luke (Mt 12:46-50; Lk 8:19-21) revise Jesus’ family’s strong words by omitting ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη (Mk 3:21). Additionally, Jesus’ family “sent” and “called” (ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτὸν καλοῦντες αὐτόν; 3:31) Jesus in Mark, but only “request”[20] to speak to him in Matthew (ζητοῦντες αὐτῷ λαλῆσαι; Mt 12:46). Luke even blames the crowd for blocking the family’s encounter with Jesus (οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον; Lk 8:19).[21] Scholars who reject οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ (3:21) as referencing Jesus’ family translate the phrase, “associates, friends, or followers.”[22] However, given the formation of the intercalation and internal evidence, scholars[23]—and translations[24]—legitimate the association with Jesus’ family in verse 31 and translate verse 21 as “family.”[25] Therefore, Jesus’ family, and not the crowd or disciples, accuse Jesus of being “out of his mind!” (3:21). Why does Mark, as opposed to the NT witnesses, create tension between Jesus and his family?

John Crossan[26] suggests the Markan church—by not adhering to traditional practices (2:18, 24; 3:4; 7:5, 26; 12:14) and interacting with Gentiles (1:41; 2:15; 5:6)—lived in strife with the “Jerusalem community.”[27] Crossan, quite clairvoyantly,[28] attempts to provide a historical bridge between an early conflict-ridden church[29] and Mark’s community. The redaction work Crossan offers is self-admittedly “tentative.”[30] He charges that Mark’s community, like Paul, is warring against the “Acknowledged Pillars” (Gal 2:9).[31] Crossan too easily assumes provenance, dating, and a Markan conflict. Crossan’s thesis should be questioned whether it best fits the Markan situation.[32]

James Edwards understands the conflict in 3:20-35 in terms of discipleship. For Edwards, Mark’s intercalation displays who is “inside and outside” of God’s kingdom.[33] Adella Yarbro-Collins suggests that Mark is comforting his readers whose faith is conterminously rejected by their biological families.[34] Perhaps Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ family encompasses aspects of each position here, though, with an overt emphasis on the new fictive family and Jesus’ devotion to that family. For Mark, Jesus is ducens per exemplum and does so by unabashed devotion to kingdom over family. The intercalation creates a distinction between old/new and family/kingdom. The Beelzebul controversy indicates that the old kingdom is ending, while the new kingdom—although, not a kingdom, but a family—is breaching the present world.

In 3:13-19, the twelve disciples, many who have left everything, are contrasted, creating the perfect tension,[35] between Jesus’ family, who desires to “take control of him,”[36] and the scribes,[37] who falsely accuse him. Jesus aligns his family with the scribes. Furthermore, the accusations from the scribes lead Jesus into a parable concerning Satan and Satan’s kingdom (3:24). Mark’s Jesus dismantles the scribe’s claim of demonic activity (3:23-26). Satan’s kingdom and household would self-destruct if Jesus, in fact, “by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” (3:22). Interestingly, Mark’s Beelzebul account is not attached to an individual exorcism story. Unlike Matthew and Luke,[38] Jesus’ whole mission as an exorcist in Mark is questioned—the scribes position Jesus in Satan’s domain and “system of evil.”[39] Mark delineates systems as macrocosm (“kingdom”) and microcosm (“household”). Mark casts Jesus as the “stronger one” (ἰσχυρός; 1:7)—the only candidate to defeat the “strong one” (ἰσχυρός; 3:27), Satan,[40] and his minions.[41] In fact, by implication, Jesus “bound” Satan in their first encounter (1:12-13) as evidenced by Jesus’ plundering of Satan’s “goods”[42] (1:21-27, 34; 3:11-12, 15). Mark likely alludes to LXX Isa 49:24-26 and 53:12 as God’s long-awaited promise of rescue from evil and plunder of the ἰσχυρός (LXX Isa 49:25).[43] Therefore, Satan’s demise is not only future oriented but also present. Jesus bound the “strong one,” and Satan’s collapsing house (microcosm) only reinforces God’s promise of action—on the cosmic level (macrocosm)—against evil. Jesus warns those who might align Jesus with Satan’s collapsing kingdom (3:28-30). Jesus presents two kingdoms by which one can align him or herself: (1) Satan’s kingdom or (2) God’s kingdom. This final section (3:28-30) allows Mark to begin his discussion of “insiders” and “outsiders” in Mark 3:31-35.[44]

The story returns to Jesus’ family, who, upon arrival, are “outside” (ἔξω) of Jesus’ presence while the crowd is “around him (περὶ αὐτὸν; Jesus)” (3:31). The cotext suggests to be “outside” (ἔξω) is to align oneself with the wrong kingdom (4:11), specifically the demonic kingdom (5:10). Jesus’ response to his family (τίς ἐστιν ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί) borders on dishonor. Jesus challenges the traditional view of family. Family is no longer determined by blood (3:20-21) or tradition (3:22-30) but by those associated with God’s mission (ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ; 3:35). How “one”[45] orients his or her life—towards or against God’s kingdom—determines who will be “around” Jesus or “outside.” Mark’s Jesus challenges ancient familial ideals,[46] but did he negatively portray all aspects of ancient family life or his own? Contrary to scholars,[47] I think not.

Mark’s Gospel begins (1:1, 11) and ends (9:7; 15:39) with Jesus as son, and God implicitly as his father. If υἱοῦ θεοῦ reads originally[48] (1:1), then the beginning of Mark is establishing Jesus’ position as “son of God”—creating kinship between Jesus and God.[49] In 1:11, “God” confirms (φωνή)[50] Mark’s claim of Jesus as the “son of God.” Therefore, the family of God is one in which established norms are not dismissed, for even divinity conforms.[51] It is interesting, then, that some have attributed the omission of Joseph as “father” in the familial scene of Mark (6:3) as a challenge against traditional ideals of family, specifically Jesus’ family.[52]

In 6:3, Mark does not refer to Jesus as “Joseph’s son,”[53] but rather connects Jesus’ ancestry to Mary.[54] Luke likely finds this problematic and alters the text to read οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; (Lk 4:22). Joseph’s omission is conspicuous in historical context. Greco-Roman society saw itself, first, as a family,[55] and secondarily, as an extension of the πόλις (Greek) and Roman economy,[56] which “served as a building-block…of larger political units.”[57] Within the family, each person retained the social status of the family and was expected to adhere to their inherited “script.”[58] The father figure served as the paterfamilias and operated with highest authority and legal standing.[59] This is even more pronounced in Judaism,[60] where the focus is set on a cohesive family unit with strong bonds between marriage, children, and group identity.[61] Judaism, likewise, held the father as the source of highest authority. For this reason, it is alarming that Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters—and not Joseph—attempt to “restrain him” (3:21). However, Harvey McArthur cites numerous occasions of matriarchal genealogical identification in Jewish and Christian history.[62] McArthur shows that Mary’s genealogy is likely used descriptively—and not legally—in Mark (c.f. Gen 21:9; Judg 11:1; 1 Kgs 17:17; Lk 7:12; Acts 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:21-31). [63] Joseph’s absence, then, neither represents Jesus’ bastardy[64] or a denial of Jesus’ family. However, it appears that Jesus’ mission collides with at least some family values in Mark’s Gospel. Nonetheless, as much as Mark’s Jesus threatens household economy,[65] social structures,[66] and kinship, he remained positive about family throughout Mark’s Gospel.

Mark’s Jesus has opportunities to subvert family life, but only alters few. Jesus’ mission to the fisherman in 1:16-20 disrupts ancient family life. However, of the seven people present,[67] Jesus only calls four to abandon their familial unit. Moreover, when Jesus heals Simon’s mother-in-law, Mark indicates that she began to “serve” (διακονέω; 1:30-31). Jesus did not invite her to abandon her roles as mother, wife, sister, or mother-in-law; Mark infers quite the opposite. Furthermore, when Jesus heals the paralytic (2:1-12), his command is to “go home”[68] (2:11). Concluding the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac, Jesus instructs the man to “go home to your own people” (5:19).[69] In 7:10-13, Jesus warns the Pharisees and scribes against using corban to back out of familial obligations, and urges traditional family values. Additionally, following the Syrophoenician’s daughter’s exorcism, the mother “returned to her house,” a restoration of family (7:30). Jesus heals the blind man at Bethsaida and “sent him away to his home” (8:26). Furthermore, Jesus takes a traditionally Jewish view of marriage and family (10:1-12) when perceiving sin to threaten it (10:5). A comparison of Peter and the rich man exemplify Mark’s position regarding family and kingdom.

A wealthy man approaches Jesus and desires “eternal life” (10:17). Jesus challenges him with the normative social demands of Judaism[70] (10:18-19) and to sell everything for the poor (10:21). The man refuses this injunction (10:22). Following this episode, Jesus discusses the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom (10:23-27) and Peter’s responds, “Look, we have left everything and followed you” (10:28). Jesus affirms that those who have left social relationships, family, or possessions to follow him will be rewarded presently and eternally (10:29-30). Interestingly, after Peter “follows” Jesus (1:16-20) his “household” is not abandoned. Notice, Peter’s previous social relationships remain in tact (1:29; 2:1). Therefore, it seems that Mark’s Jesus demands an abandonment of things that hinder full incorporation into his kingdom—namely obstructing the “will of God” (3:35). Obstructions extend from social relationships to family, possessions, or actions.

Mark 3:20-35 and 6:1-6, then, present Jesus as exemplar of kingdom living by his willingness to abandon all familial relationships in exchange for “God’s will.” Jesus’ call to kingdom devotion requires that one “be hated by all because of my name,” however, “ the one who endures to the end will be saved” (13:13). Mark’s negative portrayal of Jesus’ family exhibits that even the “royal family” stands under equal scrutiny of kingdom requirements. Whatever the historical situation, Mark’s community was met by a serious imperative to animate Jesus’ ways of kingdom living.

Conclusively, this paper sought to show that Mark’s Jesus never intended to function as a voice for diminishing the ancient family model, but rather decisively taught strict devotion to God’s kingdom. Jesus’ mission was to restructure family in light of devotion to God’s new kingdom. Jesus did not call for all people to leave family, but did so with discretion. Ultimate devotion to Jesus’ kingdom does not always demand abandoning family, but only that which impedes full incorporation of God’s mission.

[1] καθώς (1:2) gives direct context to the nature of the gospel in relation to Jesus by drawing on comparisons to prophecies from Isaiah. With this link to the Hebrew Bible, Mark intends to show Jesus’ “good news” is not about a new religion, but a message with history—the history of Israel’s narrative as understood in Isaiah (1:2). Therefore, in examining the verb cognate εὐαγγελίζω in Isaiah one finds that the “gospel” is the pronouncement of God’s coming rule and vindication of God’s people (LXX Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1). This is likely the sense in Jesus’ “proclamation of the good news of God” (vv.14-15), especially in relation to his connection of “kingdom” and Isaiah. Not only has the time been “fulfilled” (πληρόω; perfect, passive, indicative), but God’s sphere / kingdom “has come near” (ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). ἐγγίζω, as a perfect, active, indicative could indicate that the kingdom reaches into the present world without yet being fully integrated.

[2] A case, however, can be made for this section to separate at verse 13. Out of 583 sentences in Mark, 376 of those begin with καί. The opening unit is no exception and helps link verses 6 (καὶ), 7 (καὶ), 9 (καὶ ἐγένετο), 10 (καὶ εὐθὺς), 11 (καὶ), 12 (καὶ εὐθὺς), and 13 (καὶ). Breaking this cycle, verse 14 begins with μετὰ δὲ, an unfamiliar and rare transitional phrase in Mark (1:14; 16:8). If the boundary were detached from verses 14-15, then 1:1-13 would serve as the opening and verses 14-15 as a type of summary for Jesus’ upcoming ministry (1:14-3:6). However, the inclusion of the phrase μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι (v. 14) does not designate a new literary unit, but is translated here as an antecedent adverbial infinitive. The action of the infinitive takes place in time before the controlling verb.

[3] Furthermore, the “household,” likewise encompasses the previous definition of “family,” but further extends to a larger group, including slaves, servants, and clients. Beryl Rawson, A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 221.

[4] Katrina M. Poetker, "Domestic Domains in the Gospel of Mark," Direction 24, no. 1 (March 1, 1995): 18.

[5] BDAG, 788, par. 1: “one’s familial connections.” Furthermore, perhaps the Markan narrator exhibits irony here by using the verb cognate of πατήρ—a patriarchal term—and then fails to list Joseph, the “father.”

[6] See fn. 53.

[7] The phrase ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ (emphasis mine; 6:3) suggests a two-fold association to both “relatives” (συγγενής) and those living within the same “household” (οἰκίᾳ): a family. Furthermore, though the adjective συγγενής often means “related,” it is always used substantively in the New Testament (Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). BDAG, 950.

[8] David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 172.

[9] James R. Edwards, "Markan Sandwiches the Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," NovT 31 no. 3 (1989): 193.

[10] Notice, ἔλεγον ὅτι (v. 22) bookends 3:22-30 with ὅτι ἔλεγον (v. 30), and likewise verse 21 connects to verse 22 with ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι.

[11] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 117.

[12] ἐξίστημι is most often interpreted as “amazement” or “astonishment.” However, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι preceding the word disallows for this translation. The better translation in this instance is likely, “to lose one’s mind.” See BDAG, 350.2.a. Furthermore, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι (v. 22) and ἔλεγον ὅτι Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει are purposely structured symmetrically to indicate a correlation.

[13] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 153. Witherington suggests a better reading: “He is possessed by Beelzebul.” The agency provided by the phrase ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι lends to this reading. Though ἐν (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι) does not typically act as an agent, it seems to possess that quality in this passage. BDAG, 329, suggests “with the help of,” and cites precedent in Mt 9:34; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 6:2; 14:21.

[14] See fn. 36.

[15] George Aichele, "Jesus' Uncanny "Family Scene," JSNT 74 (1999): 41.

[16] Scribes are mentioned fifteen times (2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 9:14; 11:18, 27; 12:28, 32; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31). Mark characterizes the scribes negatively, except for 12:34.

[17] Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (BNTC; London: Continuum, 1991), 115. Hooker suggests, “madness was often regarded as due to possession by a demon.” In this light, both Jesus’ family and scribes intend to make the same charge against Jesus.

[18] Helpful discussion in, William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 138fn.75.

[19] Tampering is evidenced in the majority of Old Latin witnesses and uncials. Additionally, notice D and W read, περι αυτου οι γραμματεις και οι λοιποι. See Eberhard Nestle et al., Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27. Aufl., rev. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993), 97.

[20] BDAG 428.

[21] François Bovon and Helmut Koester, Luke 1: a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 316. Bovon, correctly, asserts that Luke intentionally sought to save the family from being outside the circle of believers and to encourage a positive image of Mary.

[22] R. T France, The Gospel of Mark: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 166. France argues that it would be “difficult” for the first time reader to understand that Jesus is talking about his family since no family member is mentioned to this point. Also, see Eugene M. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 104 fn. b. Edwards 2002, 118; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 142. Contra France, Boring, and Moloney, the substantivizing article (οἱ) turns the prepositional phrase (παρʼ αὐτοῦ) into the nominative subject of ἐξῆλθον.

[23] Boring 2006, 106. Boring provides a thorough list of usage in the LXX; Collins 2007, 226-227; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26. Vol. 34A. (WBC; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 172; Hooker 1991, 115. Hooker convincingly argues, “In the LXX and contemporary colloquial Greek it meant ‘relatives’ or ‘friends’”; Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Vol. 27 (AB; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 279-280; Moloney 2002, 81-82; Witherington 2001, 154.

[24] CEB, NRSV, NIV84, LEB, NCV.

[25] The phrase ἔλεγον in verse 21 has a legitimate antecedent in οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ and rendering it as an indefinite plural should be dismissed (Contra NRSV, “for people were saying”).

[26] John Dominic Crossan, "Mark and the relatives of Jesus," NovT, 15, no. 2 (April 1, 1973): 112-113.

[27] “Jerusalem” is mentioned eleven times in Mark; two uses are neutral (1:5; 3:8), two are positive (11:1; 15:41), and seven are negative (3:22; 7:1; 10:32, 33; 11:11, 15, 27).

[28] Crossan’s thoughts are visionary as an interest in the area of Pauline influence on the Mark’s Gospel is being renewed. See Ian J. Elmer, David C. Sim, and Oda Wischmeyer, Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays Part I: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014); Eve-Marie Becker, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Mogens Müller, Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and against Pauline Influence on Mark (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014); Tom E. Dykstra, Mark, Canonizer of Paul (St. Paul, MN: OCABS Press, 2012).

[29] Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:19, 12; Jas 1:1.

[30] Crossan 1973, 81.

[31] A major failure of Crossan is to show the James of Mark’s “inner circle” was not one of the three “Acknowledged Pillar” in the Jerusalem community.

[32] Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark's Jesus: characterization as narrative Christology (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2009), 95fn101. Malbon, rightfully, asserts Crossan’s understanding of Mark’s “historical antagonism with Jesus’ biological family is over-reading the text.”

[33] Edwards 2002, 125.

[34] Adela Yarbro-Collins and Harold W. Attridge. Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 235; David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 231.

[35] It should also be noted that 3:20-21 is in direct relation to the negative assessment of Judas Iscariot, “who betrayed him” in verse 19. Mark possibly prepares his audience for a new conflict between him and his family.

[36] The term κρατέω is used when the chief priests and scribes seek to “arrest” Jesus and kill him (14:46; cf. 5:41).

[37] Eventually it is the scribes who resolve to put Jesus to death (8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31).

[38] See Mt 9:32-33; 12:22-23; Lk 11:14.

[39] Boring 2006, 108.

[40] Aichele 1999, 29-49. Contra Aichele, who posits that the crowd “binds” Satan.

[41] In 5:3, “no one was ever strong enough to restrain (δέω)” the demon possessed man, except Jesus. The term δέω connects the story back to 3:27 where Jesus has the strength to “bind” (δέω) the strong man, Satan.

[42] The Markan Jesus, interestingly, shifts from two third-class conditionals (e.g. ἐάν + μερίζω; 3:24) to a first class conditional (εἰ) in verse 26. Due to the subjunctive use in verses 24-25, the conversation and act lends itself to future orientation. However, the switch to a first class conditional presents recognition of the historical past. Jesus’ past exorcist activity is indicative of what is coming. Elizabeth E. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22-30 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 48.

[43] Shively 2012, 47.

[44] William Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 126.

[45] BDAG, 725. ὅς (3:35), the nominative subject of ποιέω, indicates the range of Jesus’ offer to others; no longer obligated by blood, gender, or status, but by one’s ability to do “the will of God.”

[46] See fn. 66.

[47] See Collins 2007, 227; France 2002, 165; Marcus 2008, 270; Witherington 2001, 154.

[48] This phrase is absent from a number of witnesses (א Θ 28. l 2211 pc sa^ms; Or), and variant readings differ. However, the phrase remains in א¹ and nearly all uncials except Θ. In either case, the same phrase (3:11; 5:7; 15:39) and its implications appear throughout Mark’s Gospel (1:11; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62). A feasible solution is that homoioteleuton in verses 1-3 (13x) caused scribal errors and omissions. See a fuller discussion in Bruce M. Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 62.

[49] Mark could be eluding to LXX Ps 2:7 in connection with σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (2:11).

[50] The location of the voice (ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν), divine passive (ἐγένετο), and likely Psalmic allusion leaves little question to the reader that God is speaking (c.f. 9:7).

[51] Also, Mark implicitly considers God the “father” (13:32), head of the household, who will return at an unknown time (13:35).

[52] Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 139; Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco,CA: Harper San Francisco, 1994), 93fn36; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 299-302; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York, NY: Crossraod, 1985), 143-145; Frederick J. Gaiser, "Mark." WW 26, no. 1 (December 1, 2006): 23.

[53] Although, two important textual witnesses (P45^vid 33^vid) eliminate any reference to Jesus as carpenter and attribute the title to his father: (1) ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτον ος ο υ̅ς̅ της μαριας(P45^vid); (2) ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος ο υιος της μαριας (33^vid).

[54] Ronald Alan Kittel, "The Mother of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark," Living Pulpit 10, no. 4 (October 1, 2001): 10.

[55] Beryl Rawson, The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 125.

[56] Rawson 2011, 127.

[57] Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 56.

[58] Christopher Bryan, Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 12. Bryan describes “scripts” in terms of unspoken and underlying roles adhered to by dissimilar social groups.

[59] Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 180.

[60] DeSilva 2000, 158.

[61] Richard S. Hess and Daniel Carroll, Family in the Bible: Exploring Customs, Culture, and Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 17-31; 59-99.

[62] Harvey K. Mcarthur, "Son of Mary," NovT 15, no. 1 (1973): 38-58.

[63] Therefore, had a formal inquisition (i.e. census, broker, etc.) been made of Jesus, his identification would remain in Joseph. Furthermore, Jesus is likely identified according to Mary’s lineage because of the locale (6:1). The crowd seems to have an insight to the life of Jesus’ family. Perhaps, Mary as a notable figure in the community would overshadow her since dead husband.

[64] Marcus 2008, 375.

[65] Rawson 2011, 127. The Roman family was considered a production center for the whole of society. If the family structure is disturbed, then economies are threatened.

[66] Dixon 1991, 100. Mark’s Jesus places children as the idealized position of status in his kingdom (9:36-37; 10:13-16); women function in Jesus ministry (15:41); access to God’s kingdom is available to all people (10:43-44).

[67] The reference is minimally to Simon, Andrew, John, James, Zebedee, and at least two workers (pl. μισθωτός; 1:20).

[68] BDAG, 698-699: par. 2. The definition can range from a physical building to a “household or family.” The οἶκος, in Mark, often includes a social dimension of friends or family (5:19, 38; 7:17, 30; 8:3; 9:28).

[69] Green and McDonald 2013, 334-335. The man is likely restored to the society and Jesus refuses his request to “be with him” (5:18).

[70] Notice, “honor your mother and father” remains integral to Jesus’ list.

One Scream A Day Keeps Hell Away. Not!

2013-12-20T10:23:00.000-08:00

The Christian faith has always been a matter of the heart. Our faith is not determined by the approval of any person—priest, pastor, or parents—or institution. However, our faith is interwoven into a web of social relationship we call the church family. And, although, our decisions, in regards to our relationship with Jesus, are generally of individual concern it is never of individual consequence.

This rising generation has understood a great truth that many believers have missed out on previously, namely identity in Christ. What a joy to stand with confidence[1] before God knowing that one is fully accepted[2] as a son or daughter of God;[3] requirement has fully been paid by Christ,[4] and it is “no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”[5] No longer do we stand under condemnation,[6] but we are fully and completely "saints/holy ones",[7] "elect",[8] "beloved",[9] and "children of God".[10] However, over the years I have seen an abuse of this truth. Although, many understand the reality of their being in relation to Christ they continue to live a sinful existence. Sin often becomes secondary to identity. Those old judgmental—doom and gloom—church-time anthems this generation fought to exchange for the goodness of God has left holiness on the side of the road. However, I see no biblical precedent in separating adoption or identity from holy living. For example, the Apostle Paul can, within the same breath, speak of salvation by grace alone,[11] and its immediate result of good works and holiness.[12] We must begin to ask, how our identity in Christ regulates our lifestyle in the world? Our failure to live holy often originates from hearts that do not understand the detriment of sin or its personal power.

Jesus, in Mk 8:42-48, speaks about sin in a fairly grotesque manner. He advises those who might make another Christian “stumble”[13] to put a millstone around their neck and jump into a lake. A body with a millstone tied around the neck can neither be rescued nor their body plucked from the lake for burial purposes. Jesus’ point is maintained; it is as if this person never lived, and no trace of their existence remains. Jesus continues, and indicates that not only is sin against another detrimental, but also sin against oneself. He employs another extreme metaphorical tactic in explicating the grievousness of sin. This time he indicates in a three-fold (hand, foot, eye) manner that if any part of the body causes one to sin they should hack-off or gauge out that body part. Jesus’ point is clear enough; if we do not cut off the limb from the spreading sin, it will overcome us. Jesus is concerned that wrong action, when it has overcome a person, will lead them to “hell” (Mk 9:43, 45, 57). Sin, in this verse has the ability to start small, only affecting ones arm, leg, or eye; and the failure to “cut-off” that which is causing wrong action has eternal consequences. Notice that hand and foot explicate sin of physical action whereas the eye speaks of the mind. In effect, what we do with our physical and mental actions, right now, matters. But, why does it matter?

In the beginning, God creates, and “saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.”[14] God is to be glorified in and by the goodness of his creation. Sin is the undoing of God’s goodness that he implemented at creation; it wages war against everything God loves and initiated in the beginning. God’s purpose for humanity is affronted in the presence of sin. Sin distorts the best of life, which God had always intended for humanity. One cannot be in the presence of sin and live the most genuine human existence—it corrupts God’s image in each of his creations. The Bible uses numerous images to speak of sin (I will only list a few):

· Missing the mark (Jas 4:17; Rom 3:23)

· Going astray (Isa 53:6)

· Rebellion (1 Sam 15:23)

· Idolatry (Col 3:5-6)

· Lawlessness (1 Jn 3:4)

· Death (Rom 5:12; 6:23; Eph 2:1; Jas 1:15)

· Defiling (Mt 15:17-20)

· Enslaving (Jn 8:34)

· Blindness (Jn 12:39-40)

· Hard-Heartedness (Isa 6:10)

· Stiff-Necked (Ex. 33:5)

· Injustice (Mic 2:1-3)

· Fear (Rom 8:15; 2 Tim 1:7)

In any case, it is certain that sin is a serious and treasonous act against the God who calls his people to holiness,[15] but I wonder how many people, realistically, who claim to serve and love Jesus wholeheartedly—but are caught up in a sinful lifestyle—genuinely desire their lifestyle? My experience is that people and sin do not mix well. I have failed to meet anyone who steps through the church doors and desires to be a terrible person—hurting others and themselves with sin. Most people—even non-Christians—often recognize their sinfulness (although they may call it something else) and the negative effects it has on their lives. Why do we, or other Christians, continue to make the same mistakes even though we desire so badly to live correctly?

Sin is strong, but God is stronger.[16] The Christian is not only battling spiritual warfare,[17] but also genetic dispositions and brain structures that have been formulated through a number of experiences over several years. Science reveals that the brain is malleable—both the anatomical structures and physiological functions—and is shaped through learning and experience from birth to death.[18] Through these experiences the brain creates new pathways, often to accommodate less processing time for regular motions. For example, when driving a car, less process time is needed when driving on a familiar road. Sometimes, I can drive from one place to another and have no memory of the details of that trip—my mind can be elsewhere, but I drive safely to my destination. My brain has created a pathway making it easier for this monotonous task to be done without much brainpower. For others, like porn-addicts, their nervous system has been flooded with happy chemicals that tell them their experience is pleasurable—therefore those sensors run rampant desiring that “high” once more. The new pathways provide the easier way for the next encounter—this cycle continues until the pathway is deep-rooted and difficult to change. As humans, we formulate pathways much like this in regards to sin. Some of these pathways were formulated over five, ten, fifteen, or maybe twenty years. Therefore, it is often disheartening when a pastor stands before his or her congregation and directs them to “stop sinning!” as if the complexity of the mind is solved in his or her two-word riddle. This person is asking that years of trauma, patterns (neural pathways), and hurts be recreated immediately (this is the hope through the power of Jesus and his authority, but most often not the case). This is not how physicians treat traumatized people. For example, alcoholics are not treated in this fashion, but rather they are given help through a twelve-step program or the likes. Physicians and counselors know it is insane to think anyone could unravel years of pain or genetic dispositions towards alcohol in just one moment. So why don’t churches deal with sin in the same manner?

Undoing and changing is not a task to be done over night. Instead, this is a process that could take several years—decisively making good choices to reshape and pattern your pathways in a new way. In fact, this is Paul’s encouragement to the church at Rome, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”[19] Proverbs 9 interestingly speaks of both wisdom (Prv 9:1-6) and folly (Prv 9:12-18) as an invitation to a feast. Wisdom “builds her house” and folly sits at her brothel hoping to entice a passerby. Wisdom offers “meat” and “wine” (true nourishment) whereas folly can only offer “stolen bread” and “water.” Wisdom leads to life and folly to death. Wisdom and folly both send invitations to their feasts, and it is the choice of the individual to accept one or the other. Daily we make choices that shape and provide patterns for how we think, believe, feel, and act in the world. What we do really matters, but the old-fashioned, “turn or burn” just isn’t cutting it. Discipleship that aids developing new learned experiences, and overcoming daily challenges, are needed more than ever. Fathers and mothers[20] are needed, not just more sermons. If we are to take sin seriously we must be invested in those who need freedom. Just as sin is not an individual endeavor so to holiness requires the help of the whole community. We must maintain the serious call to abandon sin and to live holy by understanding the inner workings of sin and the human being. There can be no room for frustration by the church in the process of redemption and holiness. Lastly, the hope is that the church would be a beautiful bride for her groom, but to achieve this goal we must take sin seriously and learn to defeat it practically.

[1] 1 Jn 3:21.

[2] Rom 5:1; 8:38-39; Eph 3:17-19; Col 1:20; Heb 10:18; 1 Jn 2:5.

[3] Rom 8:14; Gal 4:1-6; Eph 1:5-6.

[4] 2 Cor 5:21.

[5] Gal 2:20.

[6] Rom 8:1.

[7] Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10; Rom 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 16:2; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:1-2; 16:15; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; 2:19; 4:12; 6:18; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2; Heb 13:24; Rev 5:9; 14:2

[8] Col 3:1; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1;1; 2:9; Rev 17:14.

[9] Rom 1:7; 12:19; 2 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:1; 1 Tim 6:2; 1 Pet 2:11; 4:12; 1 Jn 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 Jn 1:2; Jude 3.

[10] Mt 5:9; Jn 1:12; Rom 8:14, 16, 19, 21; 9:8; Gal 3:26; Phil 2:15; 1 Jn 3:1, 10; 5:2.

[11] Eph 2:8-9.

[12] Eph 2:10.

[13] BDAG 926. Gk- “bring to a downfall.”

[14] Gen1:31.

[15] 1 Pt 2:9.

[16] Lk 10:19.

[17] Eph 6:12; 2 Cor 10:3-5; 1 Pt 5:8.

[18] Buonomano, Dean V. and Michael M. Merzenich. "Cortical Plasticity: From Synapse to Maps." Annual Review of Neuroscience 21 (1998): 149-86.

[19] Rom 12:2, emphasis mine.

[20] 1 Cor 4:15.

Bang Bang!

2013-12-09T09:44:00.002-08:00

God created! Christians must ask the difficult questions that are essential for the understanding of existence. What is creation? How did anything come to exist? Who or what created matter? How do such implications have any bearing on me? The exploratory nature of such questions will ultimately lead the Christian desiring answers, but can such questions be answered? In this brief paper, I will argue that the big bang scientific theory is not only a viable option for the Christian, but also one that adds depth to theological studies, and is in line with a biblical worldview. I will accomplish this task by engaging with big bang cosmology, its implications, and limits. Moreover, I will attempt to clear up some scriptural misinterpretations that have plagued biblical studies, especially the creation account in Genesis, for centuries.

When dealing with theology and science, one should not let either infringe on the other’s territory. In the past, especially before the scientific age, it has been presumed that the creation account in the Bible is to be affirmed to have happened over a course of six twenty-four periods, with the universe coming into existence at day one. In what way does this understanding become unharmonious with science? Scientists do not believe that the earth can be calculated in ways that young earth proponents, for example, calculate it—often through biblical literalism. Is a Christian to believe science over scripture? Surely, the two cannot be within the same sphere; one must be right and the other wrong. The question must be asked differently. Was the Genesis account ever to be the scientific backbone for its recipients, the Israelites? These texts were not scientific guides on the workings of how creation came to be or how it is sustained, which leads to the big bang as a viable option for Christianity; rather, the text is set in place to understand the more theological question of why the universe came to be and why it is sustained.[1] Faith and science then do not sit opposed to each other, but rather should be complementary to one another. Christians and the scientific community should feel no real urge to push back on one another, as they operate on separate levels. Geneticist Steve Jones states it best; “The conflict between science and religion resembles a fight between a tiger and a shark. Each will prevail on its own proper territory, but it will be hopelessly defeated by encroaching on the domain of the other.”[2]

The big bang cosmological theory observes that the universe is expanding, and as it does this it becomes less dense. Therefore, reversing this process one can observe that the universe becomes denser until it arrives at infinite density—a singular point in which all mass existed. Georges Lemaître’s model, which came to be known as the big bang theory, suggested that the universe was not eternal in the past, but rather came into being within finite time. This original model then suggests a creatio ex nihilo. A number of objections have been raised against Lemaître’s model. Two major objections include the cyclical model (this suggests that the universe is eternally expanding and contracting)[3] and chaotic inflation model (this theory maintains an eternal spawn of universes). These theories attempt to dismantle a theory of fine-tuning by showing that there was no beginning to the universe. Many of these theories have serious flaws, and have led scientists to question their validity. For example, the second law of thermodynamics maintains that the world has inclinations towards equilibrium. Apply this theory on the larger scale to the universe, and eventually a state of equilibrium is expected take place; the universe will continue to expand, and eventually burn up all its energy, and reach equilibrium. If in fact the universe is eternal then why has the universe not reached this point? How, if the universe did not begin, is there continued expansion and life? It is among reasons such as these that scientists like Stephen Hawking can conclude, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”[4] This scientific understanding fits well within a biblical worldview. Although with one major change, the Bible states that God is the first cause of creation. The ancient mindset of Genesis would have never questioned whether God, who put into function the out-of-order cosmos, actually created the materials within the cosmos. The Bible states that “In the beginning God created,” but what does that mean? Does it imply that matter was already there and God mixed and matched to make it combine into one ordered world? Did God at some point create the material world? What did the hearers understand the “beginning” to mean? Immediately the modern mind is drawn to a point in time in which material things start, but as Old Testament Scholar John Walton points out, “In Hebrew usage this adverb (רֵאשִׁית) typically introduces a period of time rather than a point in time.” In other words, the “In the beginning…” is not a way to speak of a moment in time prior to the seven days, rather it is a way the author explained the seven day period. Often it has been noted that the beginning is when God started material activity, but if we conclude this we must account for the material waters[5] that pre-existed before the “beginning.” This account does not give a material account of God creating out of nothing. As the ancients saw, this conclusion should lead Christians to understand that God did create everything out of nothing, but when and how God did this is not a matter of theology, but science. At this juncture, the big bang Theory becomes a probable explanation.

The Genesis one and two accounts are written to the Israelites, people from an ancient society, a culture that is much different from the current one. What does it mean that God “created?” It should be noted for clarity that the English definition for “create” is to “cause to come into being or existence.”[6] Would the Israelites have understood “existence” in the way? The ancient Israelites would not have understood the terms “creation” or “existence” in the same way a modern thinker does. An Israelite would have thought of something as existing by its function, not its material qualities. In other words, the Israelites did not count a thing to exist simply by its material nature; the material nature had no bearing on a things “existence,” only when a thing is put into a functioning order does it have “existence.” Old Testament scholar John Walton remarks that ANE creation stories “often observe that nothing material is actually made…instead everything is function oriented.”[7] The Genesis one and two accounts are not the “start” of creation ex nihilo, but rather it is the story of how the chaotic material world is given order. This view does not discredit God of creating the material world—all ancient people would have assumed God as the creator of such material objects. God then, at the big bang, could be said to have allowed the natural process of expansion while directing it in a purposeful manner—this is why the universe appears to function with some sense of order. This is how God brings the universe into “existence.” In addition, an examination of the Old Testament usage of the word ברא, (create) Walton states, “No clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the verb.”[8]

Verse two of the Genesis one creation account reads that the universe was “formless and void.” These Hebrew words are תֹּהוּ (tōhû) and בֹּ֫הוּ (bōhû). Other occurrences in the Old Testament point to a usage not as something that is non-material, but rather non-productive or non-functional. For example, in First Samuel 12:21 the same Hebrew word for “formless” is used, “And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty (emphasis added).”[9] The words are not denoting the non-material; rather Samuel is rebuking and telling the Israelites to turn from sin and worship the productive God, not the “gods” who produce nothing. The language in Genesis, then, provides a clear biblical path for the approval of the big bang theory. In fact the big bang gives explanation for the material world prior to God putting it into a functioning chaos-free world. In addition, it seems that this ordered world gives explanation for a fine-tuned world and purposeful big bang—most clearly seen when Genesis one, and two, and the anthropic principle are coalesced.[10] Objections are raised as to the purposefulness of the big bang, and have been challenged by writers like Tanner Edis, who claim that such “fine tuning” is easily explained by multi-verses.[11] This theory explicates that our universe is one of many universes, possibly infinity of them. The fact that our universe is produced with ordered appearance is only a result to be expected. However, Edis’s claims cannot be proven by the nature of the theory itself, which assumes information cannot be transferred between these universes. Moreover, the nature and high complexity of the big bang theory provides further evidence that there is a God behind such a theory. Take for example, the expansion rate of the universe at the big bang, “If it were greater…the matter in the universe would have become too diffuse for gravity to gather it into stars and galaxies. If it were less…gravity would have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole.”[12] It appears that science, and the big bang theory, can support a conclusion of divinity, so why so much fuss? Political and interpretative disputes overwhelm what should be a fruitful conversation between religion and science.

The majority of battles are waged over religious interpretive preference, and politics. Literalism, and political agenda overrides proper biblical exegesis. As Edis notes, “Debates over evolution, then are rarely purely intellectual affairs. They involve politics, struggles between conservative and liberal religiosity.”[13] Christian literalists have tried to explain away the many difficulties of the Genesis one account, on material terms—again this misses the point of Genesis one. The Genesis story is giving the reader an account of God taking, that which was chaotic and out of order, and bringing it into order to function! As theologian Alister Mcgrath states, “Creation is a imposition of order on a formless chaos.”[14] God created a functioning cosmos for humanity. The Genesis account is giving the story of God’s great love, as creator, towards humanity and the universe. It is in this understanding that big bang cosmology does not stand against Christianity, but further gives scientific explanation to the how of creation—a question, which theology, simply, cannot supply an answer.

Bibliography

Edis, Taner. Science and Nonbelief. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006.

Giberson, Karl, and Francis S. Collins. The Language of Science and Faith : Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011.

Goldman, Jonathan L., and Andrew N. Sparks. Webster's New World Student's Dictionary. New York: Macmillan USA, 1996.

Hawking, Stephen, and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.

[1] Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 10.

[2] Webster, J. B., Kathryn Tanner, and Iain R. Torrance. (The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 74.

[3] This is a re-popularized theory, which advocates such as Richard Dawkins explains how the universe expands, contracts, and then expands once more with different outcomes until the “right outcome” is achieved.

[4] Hawking, Stephen, and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 20.

[5] Genesis 1:2.

[6] Goldman, Jonathan L., and Andrew N. Sparks. Webster's New World Student's Dictionary. (New York: Macmillan USA, 1996), 202.

[7] Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 33.

[8] Ibid, 43.

[9] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Samuel 12:21.

[10] Giberson, Karl, and Francis S. Collins. The Language of Science and Faith : Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 178.

[11] Edis, Taner. Science and Nonbelief. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 57.

[12] Giberson, Karl, and Francis S. Collins. The Language of Science and Faith : Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 185.

[13] Edis, Taner. Science and Nonbelief. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 79.

[14] McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 36.

Nearer My God To Thee

2012-11-08T13:43:00.000-08:00

Nearer My God To Thee

The victim, accused of an incredulous crime, was unjustly killed by a rabid mob. The victim was poked in the ribs, prodded, spit on, cursed at, and suffered violent tortures until his resulting death. The body of this man was ravished by the mob that came in droves yelling curses. The mob ran to gather materials to aid the violence at hand. Soon the victim was taken to a prominent space in the city, a place where people could see his open shame in the nakedness of his body. The victim, although in grave pain, seldom cried out; when words passed from the victim’s vocal box to the ears of the mob, it was words to God—a hymn. Here are the words that flowed from the victim’s mouth:

Nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

E'en though it be a cross that raiseth me,

still all my song shall be,

nearer, my God, to thee;

nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

Though like the wanderer, the sun gone down,

darkness be over me, my rest a stone;

yet in my dreams I'd be

nearer, my God, to thee;

nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

There let the way appear, steps unto heaven;

all that thou sendest me, in mercy given;

angels to beckon me

nearer, my God, to thee;

nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

Then, with my waking thoughts bright with thy praise,

out of my stony griefs Bethel I'll raise;

so by my woes to be

nearer, my God, to thee;

nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

Or if, on joyful wing cleaving the sky,

sun, moon, and stars forgot, upward I fly,

still all my song shall be,

nearer, my God, to thee;

nearer, my God, to thee, nearer to thee!

If one did not know any better, the situation described above may lead one to think that the death of John Henry Williams, the victim of the lynch mob on June 24^th 1921, was the description of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion scenario almost 2000 years prior. John Henry Williams, an African American, and Jesus died much in the same way. Their lives lost at the cost of an unjust system and kangaroo court made up of an angry mob. This paper serves to give credence to the lives of those unjustly killed in the Deep South during the lynching era. I hope in this writing to exploit the folly of humanity, which sought to take racial power, in the Old South, through religious and political motivation—a false reality hoping to bring about social order and godliness, but in turn only suppressed, insulted, and ultimately destroyed any and all forms of godliness with the deaths of thousands of African Americans. In this paper, I shall investigate the correlations and religious symbolism between the types of lynching, popular during the lynching era (1880-1940), and that of the crucified Christ. Moreover, I will explore the church’s current response to past lynchings and current effect in race relations within the church. I hope to offer a way forward in reconciliation through remembering the atrocities of lynching and taking corporate responsibility. In addition, I shall also investigate the role of blood sacrifice, atonement theory, and lynching rooted in a stiffening morality and religious conviction of the Deep South during this era.

The Building Blocks To Hate

Lynching occurred prior to 1880, but the lynching era, 1880 – 1940, describes a time in which mob violence, charged with racial indignation, was at a peak.[1] The focus of this paper will examine the “lynching era.” During this time, it is estimated that over 3,200 black men were killed by white mobs.[2] The majority of these lynchings took place in the former slave / southern states, but did occur, on occasion elsewhere. For purposes of this study, the examination of lynching will take place in the southern states.

Why so much hatred and violence in the southern states at the turn of the century? Most scholars agree that there is no one complete reason for the lynchings of the Deep South, they recognize the complexities of the war-torn South, adjusting to emancipation of slaves, and the political race and gender struggles. The adjustments were difficult, and people in the South did not adjust well.[3] Amy Wood, in Lynching And Spectacle, sees the rise in connection to the modernity of the nation.[4] In urban areas where development and progression were happening, old forms of racism were being left behind and people began adopting democratic and egalitarian norms—racism was being fought, not encouraged. [5] Wood does not believe the process of modernity pushed racial violence to its limits, but rather it was an uncertainty from a war-torn area and an uncertainty of home, government, and economy because of the Civil War.[6] In addition, religion became popularized during this time and flourished under a missionizing model to the South.[7] With the rise of uncertainty and modernity, those in the Deep South felt their sense of morality and “honor” challenged and in danger of shifting away from their old standards, especially with a growing church attendance reinforcing greater moral responsibilities. For example, this can be seen in the many newspaper clippings of Ralph Ginzburg’s collection, 100 Years of Lynchings, in which the African-American is often accused of taking away “honor” from women in the south. [8] The black man would often be accused of moral issues; rape, alcohol abuse, and violence were a few characteristics that labeled the black man. When all of these ingredients coalesce, scholars call this the “black-rapist-beast” myth.[9]

The Black-Rapist-Beast

The creation of the black man as the “Black-Rapist-Beast” encouraged the social and political distance needed to support growing desires of the Deep South for segregation. The black man was a threat sexually and violently; he needed to be stopped and it was the job of the southern man to protect the growing “abuse” of the black man. For example, a mob put a sign on the chest of a lynched man that read, “We must protect our ladies”.[10] The man became the protector to reinforce his position of dominance racially and sexually. By racially “protecting” women, the white man now had an excuse to establish superiority over and against the black man. Moreover, in protecting the sexuality of the Southern white women, which was deemed sacred because of rising religious morality, the white man was able to establish his supremacy over the women’s role politically and sexually—the white male fought to retain the old ways of the South, which were slowly slipping out of the grip of Southern white males. Crystal Feimster reinforces this point stating, “Southern white men were not merely concerned with reconstructing and maintaining a caste defined by race, they were also determined to preserve traditional forms of racial patriarchy which allowed them complete control over black and white women’s sexuality”.[11] In James Allen’s book Without Sanctuary, Allen records the many photographs of lynch victims during the lynching era. Specifically in one photo, which happens to serve as a postcard as well, the victim is fully charred, missing limbs, and hanging by his neck from a tree. The writing on the postcard reads, “Warning, the answer of the anglo-saxon race to black brutes who would attack the womanhood of the south”. [12] The white men in the South believed that in some way they were providing restitution to Southern female honor through segregation—by providing purity—and lynching the accused, which put to death the sins of the black man. The restitution, they believed, was restored through the suffering black man’s body. In other words, the black man’s body became the object of sacrifice in restoring dignity to southern womanhood and expiating the sins of the black man. Rene Girard states,

Sacrifice plays a very real role in societies, and the problem of substitution concerns the entire community…The victim is not a substitute for some particularly endangered individual…Rather, it is a substitute for all the members of the community…The sacrifice serves to protect the entire community from its own violence.[13]

Christ and Symbol

The current Christian church corporately, similar to human beings, does not want to look at their past failures. Sometimes it is easier to ignore failures because the guilt or process of forgiveness is too difficult to cope with. There still exists a serious issue within the Christian church as the lynching era has not been properly confronted, dealt with, or reconciled. The shame of the church is no excuse for making things right.

a. Mob Injustice: Modern Day Pilate

A battering ram crashes into the door of a San Jose jail, demanding that an accused kidnapper be given over to the mob, which happened to number 15,000 on this occasion,[14] and like most stories recorded during the lynching era, the mob got what they desired.[15] A consistent theme runs throughout Ginzburg’s collection of news clippings in which the victims of lynching are often never brought to trial, but instead are stripped of any form of justice by the mob. In addition, often the mobs would seek to “find” justice wherever they could, killing the accused family for vindication.[16] An example of this injustice is seen in the Alabama lynching of Elijah Clark, as the newspaper clip reads, “The mob by this time had assumed alarming proportions, and the sheriff, thinking to quiet the storm, appeared at a window and announced that a special trail had been arranged for the prisoner.”[17] Hours after the sheriff had announced the “fair” trial of the victim; the mob overran the jail cell, put a rope around his neck, and lynched him. Often the crowd would threaten the authorities if they were not complicit. In another horrific story, accused men, Henry Askew and Ed Russ, are transferred from one prison to another secret, and supposedly “secure,” location because of the growing mob’s fury. Upon the arrival of the victims and sheriff, an angry mob took the men from sheriff’s custody, strung them up with ropes, tying them around their necks, shot them relentlessly, and burned them alive. The location of these individuals was supposed to be secret; somebody told the mob. When the Sheriff was asked if he saw members he recognized in the mob, his answer was, “we were unable to recognize them on account of the trees casting shadows on their faces” [18] Like Jesus, numerous hanged victims were taken from them homes or jobs on dubious charges. Jesus, in his dubious trial, and accusation as an “insurrectionist,” was passed between the ruling authorities [19] and never given a fair trial outside of the mob screaming, “Crucify him.”[20] In much parallelism, it was to the vocal determination of the screaming mob giving the order to “lynch or burn” the accused victims.[21] Moreover, those caring for the victims while incarcerated or directly after arrest were not seeking justice, but blood.[22] In addition, the consensual injustice of the community left the mob free to say, like Pilate, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood.”^{^[23]} Not many in these communities, or surprisingly their Christian churches, second-guessed or even flinched at the injustice and ultimate murder of several thousand innocent people; rather they enjoyed them through mockery and humiliation.[24]

b. Mockery And Humiliation

The Roman cohort took Jesus, after his unfounded conviction as insurrectionist, to begin the process of flogging and, ultimately, crucifixion. Only convicted criminals of the worst kind would ever have a sentence, which led to crucifixion. Moreover, the job of the executioner, not the king, was to inflict as much humiliation as possible while freely living out all sadistic tendencies; executioners had the freedom to inflict pain however they saw fit.[25] To ensure the greatest amount of humiliation for the victim convicted of a crime serious enough to demand the ultimate form of barbarianism, they would be flogged and mocked by the mob. The tradition of Jesus in the gospels tells of how the mob treated him; they spit, hit, mocked, laughed, joked, publically humiliated, and stripped Jesus naked.[26] In a similar experience, Lloyd Warner, attacked by a mob of 10,000 people in St. Joseph, Missouri, was dragged and tied to a tree with a noose around his neck while onlookers, leaning “calmly against walls,” erupted in laughter and jokes as the executioner had put the noose around Warner’s neck wrongly breaking his neck backwards; these joyful explosions and excitement overpowered the screams of the dying Werner. Once they acknowledge his screams they immediately proceed to throw seven gallons of gasoline on him and light him on fire—bringing about more laughter.[27] Often the crowds would refer to lynchings as “parties”[28] or “barbeques,”[29] bringing alcohol and shooting off guns.[30] In relation to Jesus, one can see how black men encountered mockery and humiliation prior to being killed by mobs. Often to add to the mockery, in similar fashion to Jesus’s march of death, the accusers would choose a day of significance for the victim.

c. A Bloody Sabbath

Jesus death occurs the Friday prior to the Jewish holiday of Passover. The Passover is the story of the Exodus and Moses in which God is said to have freed Israel from the slavery of Egypt—God liberating his people. The message that Jesus’s accusers sent to Jesus’s followers insisted that the person who claimed to bring them liberation would no longer be fulfilling that promise because he was being subjected to death as a criminal. The choice of day to execute a criminal can be intentional and symbolic. Donald Mathews believes that symbol is a model and prescription of “reality.”[31] For the executioners of Jesus, the reality of the situation was Jesus’s own slavery to the Roman system that he was understood to come and liberate. George Hughes, an African American farmer, was accused of rape, and in the process of jury deliberation, Hughes’s trial was interrupted by a belligerent mob who had decided to lynch and burn Hughes regardless of guilt or innocence. The mob had decided to burn and lynch Hughes on the birthday of abolitionist John Brown. The reality of the mob’s actions fleshed out the “truth” that black equality is unattainable, futile, and deadly. Moreover, the warning sign reinforced white supremacy to the community. In another form of oppression by the mobs, lynching locations determined new “realities” of white supremacy in political and religious arenas to black and white communities.

d. The Golgotha Lynching (Sacred Ground)

The place executioners chose to kill Jesus was known as Golgotha. Golgotha is believed to rest on the outskirts of Jerusalem and is placed next to a busy road, and as the gospel of Matthew records, “those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads.”^{^[32]} The executioners intention is to show their supremacy over Jesus, their power in relation to his power. The Romans placed him on a busy road to make sure everybody else understood the power struggle, and if they wanted to challenge it, their fate would be no better than the insurrectionist Jesus. In the Deep South, a power struggle between white supremacy and black power often became settled in the death and lynching of the black man. The white man would lynch the black man on populated, and sometimes, sacred ground, churches or public squares.[33] With this spectacle of power, white supremacy could easily rule and scare all other “black perpetrators” that might think to gain equality or basic civil rights of the white man. Churches would celebrate the deaths in the back of their buildings after church services.[34] This decisive power struggle can be seen in one news clipping in which, John Foreman, an African American accused of killing a Deputy Sheriff, was taken from Sheriffs by a mob, and upon abduction was taken to a church where a mob member stated, “Let’s lynch the nigger on holy ground.”[35] The symbol turns the statement into a “reality” of power for the mob, and a stripping of power from the black man. In addition, black churches and prominent ministers would have their houses and churches burned down—relegating the church to ashes, not sacred space.

e. A Tortured Body: Hanging On A Tree

“He was the target of hundreds of missiles and several times he sank half conscious to the ground while the crowd pressed forward striking at him with clubs, sticks, and whips until his head and body were scarcely recognizable.”[36] Jesus suffered a gruesome death by flogging and crucifixion, but the previous quote is not about Jesus—it is the report of 20-year-old Richard Coleman who suffered death under an infuriated mob. Coleman is not only beaten beyond a pulp, but also dragged through the city, slashed with a knife, had cayenne peppers thrown in his eyes, left naked, hung, and had a mob member cut out / off pieces of his flesh, teeth, toes, and fingers.[37] His body parts were then sold as souvenirs to adults and children.[38] Members of the mob were encouraged to refrain from shooting Coleman in an effort to sustain his painful death process. The death of Coleman and Jesus are so similar in the effort of the mobs to show and retain their power over the victim. Jesus suffered the infliction of the Roman flagellum, which often brought the victim to succumb to death. The flagellum is a whip made of glass shards, bone, and metal, it would stick into the sides of the victim and then be ripped out violently by their executioner. Usually the blow would be so impactful that pieces of rib would be ripped out along with flesh. Jesus is hit with this tool thirty-nine times before walking to his death upon the cross. Upon his march to Golgotha, hypovolemic shock probably sets in due to his scourging with the flagellum—Jesus collapses. He arrives to Golgotha, his feet and hands are nailed to the patibulum—he is then attached to the stipe and set in the ground, jarring his whole body, and sending shocks of intense pain throughout every nerve. He suffers several hours of mockery and shame upon the tree. Jesus is lynched and suffers death upon a tree. The Apostle Paul states, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”^{^[39]} For the black man, his own death symbolizes the “reality” of Jesus, his suffering and redemption, but for the white man, the lynched black body is the expiation of the sins of the community.

f. Christ And Black-Rapist-Beast: Expiation Of Sins

As mentioned above, the Deep South had experienced change post-Reconstruction period. There was a struggle between newly emancipated blacks and the white supremacy of old, which those white southerners were trying to sustain. In addition, the rise of moral standards, instilled by churches, led to a need to provide purity for communities in the South. White southerners fought politically and religiously to keep segregation in place, in order to retain their sense of “purity.” The black-brute infected the white community with its sins and distorted white purity and virtue. Specifically, this can be seen in the church reform of sexual codes and the accusations of blacks as “rapists” or “sexually deviant.” Woods states, “In the minds of many white southerners, black men came to personify the moral corruption that they believed to be the root cause of social disorder.”[40] White southerners, while publically lynching black men experienced purity and cleansing of their white community. For many white southerners, it was a religious judgment, not an act of violence or criminal activity that needed to be executed. God’s wrath needed satisfaction and without it, communities would be allowing social disorder and moral corruptibility. For example, John Peterson, an African American, was accused of assaulting a girl, and after clear evidence proved his innocence, the news clipping wrote of the assaulted girl’s father, “This man was so excited that he wanted to have the crime avenged at once, and was not particular as to who should pay the penalty.”[41] The father did not care who paid the penalty, but “some-body” needs to “pay.” Another example of this is seen when lynching mobs would cut off the testicles of their victims.[42] By cutting off the testicles of the victims, white southerners could some how “pay” the penalty of the black man’s crime and “justice” was served, honor and virtue restored back to southern womanhood.[43] The idea of legal expiation is seen in the salvation schema of the churches in the South, during the lynching era. Moreover, “blood sacrifice” became the dominant view in which the only way one could reconcile to God was through the blood of Jesus.[44] Divine wrath, the removal of sin, and salvation went hand-in-hand. The divine wrath of God came upon Jesus and facilitated the reconciliation of the disordered world back to order. So even God had to endure punishment, in Jesus, in order to retain justice.[45] If white southerners wanted order restored, they knew how God had achieved it—and who would know better than God as to how salvation and purity is ultimately accomplished. White southerners heard this message from their, now, heavily attended churches and were justified for their lynchings in these teachings. Moreover, preachers often taught dreadful messages of sin, eternal damnation, and the coming wrath of God against impurity. In lynching African Americans, white southerners believed they were fighting, as soldiers, the war against the “demonic” black man—they were doing the “work of God.”[46] White southerners dire fight to distinguish “black sin” and “white righteousness” began and ended in the lynching of thousands of African Americans.

African American men became, unwillingly to violent mobs, like Christ, the surrogate victim of the community. Rene Girard makes the argument that all communities, when peace and unity get disturbed and go into a full force dove-tail of hatred and brokenness, the community seeks to find answers yet because of the community’s chaos, which brings about disunity on all levels, they are unable to afford answers. Girard continues that when all seems lost, the community “hurls itself into the violent unanimity that is destined to liberate it.”[47] It is at this point that the hate of the “enemy,” whoever hate that may represent in the community, can be transferred from all members to focus in on one member—the victim can be the substitute for the whole community, the surrogate. The surrogate victim, as Girard explains, is the apex of the community’s hatred and problems.[48] Girard continues, “Its members instinctively seek an immediate and violent cure for the onslaught of unbearable violence and strive desperately to convince themselves that that all their ills are the fault of a lone individual who can be easily disposed of.”[49] Girard’s evaluation of the surrogate victim lays perfectly the ground of religion of the south and the natural inclination of mob mentality to create the surrogate. In the lynching era, the surrogate happens to be represented as the African American. In Jesus’s death, he represents the misguided hate of the religious and political systems that sought to “restore” order, therefore becoming the surrogate.

No Deceit Found In His Mouth

In America, the atrocities that happened in the Deep South, just 50 years ago, should bring about shame, a sense of responsibility and a desire to reconcile the grotesque injustice against African Americans. Moreover, America’s response should be a recognition and not forgetfulness of the heinous acts of lynching.

As the surrogate is forced to confront the “sins” of the people unwillingly and unjustly—Jesus by religious peoples and political elites and African Americans by mobs—revenge and not reconciliation is the surrogate’s first natural response. Is revenge the route America should take in moving forward? The words of Jesus offer the greatest hope of reconciliation both for our nation and personal interracial relationships. Jesus, after being unjustly beaten, mocked, and killed, states, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”^{^[50]} Jesus chooses to respond in way that offers hope to his aggressors. For those lynched victims who understood grace and its implications could do the same as Jesus, understanding its effect. For example, many lynch victims met death by either offering up a prayer for the mob or singing a hymn.[51] Jesus, on the cross “committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten.”^{^[52]} Girard also offers suggestions as to a way forward stating, “The injured parties must be accorded a careful measure of satisfaction…the preferred method involves a reconciliation between parties based on some sort of mutual compensation.”[53] As a nation, America, cannot assume that the hate, which existed within the South and other groups simply disappeared like vapor into thin air. The placement of the hate is better understood metaphorically as a water hose temporarily plugged waiting to burst. We see spurts of this hate, pressing pass the obstruction of the hose, in criminal activity, failing social justice issues, and general mindsets and words of average Americans. A way forward is needed and this next section will challenge our current situation and offer new paths of reconciliation.

A Way Forward: Seeking Reconciliation

One must first recognize that levels of racism and white supremacy still exist within the United States. That white supremacy can exist in society is hard to understand for those who have never had to deal with racism or other forms of discrimination. Issues, such as discriminatory college selection or racial profiling may not seem like a big deal to those who never encounter that part of society, but it is a living reality for African Americans. As Americans, white individuals, and especially for Christians it is of utmost importance that racism is identified, recognized, and taken responsibility for. The failure of this first step has afforded no growth towards a reconciled America. American racisms stems from failure, on the part of the United States, recognize and reconcile the atrocities of slavery and the lynching era. For example, two major botches of America history occurred in failing to apologize and reconcile after the Civil War and Brown vs. Board of Education.[54] A step forward occurred in the giving of reparations, but reparation talks usually only consist of monetary gain or apologies and very little have to do with racial reconciliation.[55] In addition, the church and school systems have failed in adequately teaching the history of African Americans accurately leading to the masses receiving their information from popular culture.[56] Film and popular culture have also distorted what really happened to antebellum South and have led America to believe that the South was comprised of white southerners running fair plantations providing “good” lives for the slaves. These inaccurate pictures painted for modern Americans only perpetuates and supports their failure to take responsibility for current racial dissonance. America could learn much from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa; although no system is perfect, the government made recognition of their failure and sought, through open forums, to bring about a collective inheritance of responsibility seeking racial healing.[57]

From Lynching to Beauty

Jesus and others were victims of lynching on a tree. The lynching tree is the greatest expression of injustice and beauty. For the Christian, the tree Jesus was lynched on represents God transforming work of evil into beauty. It represents the breaking of religious, racial and other socially constructed boundaries. The tree of Jesus is the means by which the Apostle Paul can state, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[58] The tree represents the liberation of slavery into freedom.[59] James Cone states, “God became a slave in Jesus and thereby liberated slaves from being determined by their social condition.”[60] As Christians need the cross, so all of America needs the lynching tree if they hope to see a future of racial reconciliation. America must remember what happened—to give voice to the murdered victims and not let their deaths be in vain. The lynching tree, like the cross, is redeemable. The evil done against African Americans in the Deep South, and the current effects of those atrocities can be dealt with as to bring about healing. The cross and the lynching tree are inseparable—they are symbols to represent the true reality of unity America so desperately needs. The question is if America is ready to give account for her past and take responsibility for that past through reparations, open forums, effective teaching, and an honest desire to see racial healing on the political and religious levels.

Conclusion

This paper has sought to give an account of the cross of Jesus and the lynching tree of so many in the Deep South during the lynching era. This paper looked at the history approaching the lynching era and gave insight into the complex issues of lynching. There has been an exploration of the comparisons between the lynching tree and the cross—how the symbolic representations are quite similar. In addition, this paper looked at the issue of “blood sacrifice” and the expiation of sins from the lynching communities. Lastly, the present state of race relations was challenged to change in order to see future changes, which bring about the greatest unity between all races.

Works Cited

Allen, James. Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America. Santa Fe, N.M.: Twin Palms, 2000.

Banks, Taunya. "Exploring White Resistance To Racial Reconciliation In The United States." Rutgers Law Review 55 (2003): 903-964.

Cone, James H.. The Cross and the Lynching Tree. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2011.

ESV study Bible: English Standard Version.. ESV text ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008. Print.

Feimster, Crystal Nicole. Southern Horrors: Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Ginzburg, Ralph. 100 Years of Lynchings. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press, 1988.

Girard, Rene. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Mathews, Donald . "The Southern Rite Of Human Sacrifice." Journal of Southern Religion 3 (2000): 1-28. http://jsr.fsu.edu/mathews.htm (accessed May 10, 2012).

Miller, Robert . "The Protestant Churches and Lynching, 1919-1939." The Journal of Negro History 42.2 (1957): 118-131. Print.

Wood, Amy Louise. Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890- 1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009.

[1] Most books generally label the lynching era either between 1880 – 1930 or 1940. The inconsistencies are obviously in the number of those murdered, because of the ten-year gap, but for this study I have decided to use the later date.

[2] Amy Louise Wood. Lynching and Spectacle (pg. 3). The numbers in this book seem to represent the most recent and accurate.

[3] Crystal Feimster. Southern Horrors: Women and the Politics of Rape and Lynching (Pg. 62).

[4] Wood. Lynching and Spectacle (Pg. 3).

[5] Wood. Lynching and Spectacle (Pg. 3).

[6] Wood. Lynching and Spectacle (Pg. 5).

[7] Protestant Churches and Lynching (Pg. 118)

[8] Ralph Ginzburg. 100 Years Of Lynching. Throughout the collection there are numerous accusations of black men harassing white women and being lynched for their “dishonor” of those white women.

[9] Donald Mathews. “The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice” (Pg. 27).

[10] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 15)

[11] Feimster. Southern Horrors. (Pg. 52)

[12] James Allen. Without Sanctuary (Photo 59 & 60).

[13] Rene Girard. Violence and the Sacred (Pg. 8).

[14] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 19, 24, 45, 46, 47, 80, 206). Many of the stories recorded include mobs of as little as 25 people and as much as 15,000.

[15] Allen. Without Sanctuary (Picture 84). Although the man accused is not black, it gives the reader a better understanding as to how the crowd would demand “justice,” break down the doors and snatch the accused perpetrator.

[16] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 22, 73, 166)

[17] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 34-35).

[18] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 32-33)

[19] ESV. Luke 23:6-12.

[20] ESV. Mark 15:14.

[21] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 103)

[22] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 23,33,34,35,74,89,141)

^{^[23]} ESV. Matthew 27:24.

[24] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 207). Stories of the crowds cruelness include cheering, laughing and making jokes as one would hang on the lynching tree preparing to die. Page 207 of 100 Years of Lynching gives the most heinous example of the cruelty the crowds had towards the lynched victim.

[25] Martin Hengel. Crucifixion (Pg. 88)

[26] ESV. Mark 15:16-19. Jesus executioners dressed him in torn and worn royal garb. They marched him around like a king, putting in his hand a reed stick, representing a scepter, and a crown of thorns. They beat him mercilessly and intentionally mocked him for the crowd.

[27] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 205-207)

[28] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 202)

[29] Allen. Without Sactuary (Picture 25; 26)

[30] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 222)

[31] Mathews. “The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice” (Pg. 7). Mathews discussion is more of a review of Clifford Geertz social construction model of “symbol.”

^{^[32]} ESV. Matthew 27:39

[33] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 13, 49, 99, 103, 135, 162, 219, 221)

[34] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 135).

[35] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 109).

[36] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 27)

[37] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 27)

[38] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 168). In Ginzburg’s collection, there is a story of a family drug store that displayed, in a large container of alcohol, the fingers and ears of two lynched individuals. An inscription on the container read, “What’s left of the niggers that shot a white man.”

^{^[39]} ESV. Galatians 3:13.

[40] Woods. Lynching and Spectacle (Pg. 49).

[41] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 22).

[42] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 90; 212)

[43] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pg. 90). Lynching mobs would often cut and destroy pieces of the body that caused the violation of the accusation. For example, a young African American was accused of kissing and hugging a white girl. A mob infuriated by the claims, took the boy cut off his ears, slit his lips, and mutilated his genitals.

[44] Mathews. The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice (Pg. 12)

[45] Mathews. The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice (Pg. 27)

[46] Woods. Lynching and Spectacle (Pg. 65).

[47] Girard. Violence and the Sacred. (Pg. 78).

[48] Girard. Violence and the Sacred (Pg. 79)

[49] Girard. Violence and the Sacred (Pgs. 79-80)

^{^[50]} ESV. Luke 23:34.

[51] Ginzburg. 100 Years of Lynching (Pgs. 134, 145, 151, 225).

^{^[52]} ESV. 1 Peter 2:22-23.

[53] Girard. Violence and the Sacred (Pg. 21).

[54] Taunya Lovell Banks. “Exploring White Resistance To Racial Reconciliation In The United States” (Pg. 908)

[55] Banks. “Exploring White Resistance To Racial Reconciliation In The United States” (Pg.905)

[56] Banks.“Exploring White Resistance To Racial Reconciliation In The United States” (Pg. 908)

[57] Banks. “Exploring White Resistance To Racial Reconciliation In The United States” (Pg.912).

[58] ESV. Galatians 3:28.

[59] ESV. Galatians 5:1

[60] Cone. The Cross and the Lynching Tree (Pg. 160).

The Letter Kills: 4 Quick Tips On How To Read Your Bible

2012-07-03T08:05:00.001-07:00

4 Quick Tips On How To Read Your Bible

1. Get in the presence of God. Most people (especially young people) gloss over this concept and jump directly into the text without first preparing their heart. Although God will speak whenever His word is read[1], the Bible reading becomes a chore rather than blessing. The texts often become stale and monotonous. Before entering into God’s word, ask Him to soften and prepare your heart to hear his words—He is always speaking through the Bible, slow down your day and try to hear what He is saying.

2. Read a small portion very slowly. People often ask me, “Where should I start reading the Bible?” Usually I guide them to stay in one of the gospels, Ephesians, or the Epistles of John. The best results come in taking Scripture reading in small portions and reading it slowly. Meditate on one, two or three verses. Memorize the verse and let it really sink into your heart. Read this:

²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

One could read the whole book of 1 Corinthians, understand the purpose of spiritual gifts, but miss the heart of God and what He is speaking. Let his words become part of your heart. The information should lead you to know Jesus more—if it does not do that, it is not fruitful. [2]

3. Ask questions and look for answers. Ask and write down all questions when reading Scripture. For example, read Philippians 2:5-11. Begin to ask questions like, “What does it mean that Jesus was in the form of God? “ or “How or what did Jesus empty of himself?” Ask theological and personal questions. If the Bible says in verse 5 “Have this mind among yourselves…” then “How do I live a life that reflects the life of Jesus?” Maybe you can ask yourself, “Where in my life am I not being a servant like Jesus…and how can Jesus help me change?” Ask questions always and when you cannot find answers ask your pastors or senior leadership for clarity.

4. Look deeper into the text. After you have worked through the first 3 steps, begin to look for more depth in the scripture. You can do this by buying a study Bible—I personally prefer the ESV Study Bible because of its deepness and precision.[3] Another good source is through commentaries. You can Google the New Testament book you want to focus on, say the Gospel of Matthew, by typing in, “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.” There are some decent, and free commentaries out there and also good, but "pricy" ones (You can find those on Amazon)—although I would still suggest using the ESV study Bible to begin.

[1] Isaiah 55:11

[2] 2 Corinthians 3:6

[3] For $30, you can purchase an ESV Study Bible here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Study-Bible-Crossway-Bibles/dp/1433502410/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341327237&sr=8-1&keywords=esv+study+bible

On Mission: College, Frats, and Jesus

2012-06-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

A FEW WAYS TO BE ON MISSION FOR JESUS IN COLLEGE

1) Make friends who do not know Jesus. College is a time of change and growth for most students, and it can serve as a conduit to meet new people and gain long-lasting relationships. In conversations with Christians heading off to college, often their number one goal is to “guard” and “protect” themselves from those who may influence them negatively. They try so hard to protect themselves that they may not even notice the opportunity of individuals / students around them. Get to know those in your classrooms, clubs, or fraternities / sororities. Remember that Jesus is accused of being “friends” with those who looked menacing to others.[1] Jesus is able to protect his relationship with the Father without compromising any of God’s standards (be in prayer, asking for strength often).

2) Join Clubs or Fraternities / Sororities. People instinctively desire community with one another[2], and Christians fulfill that need through Christ’s church, but what about those that do not know Jesus? School clubs and fraternities / sororities are full of people desiring a true feeling of love and intimacy with others. Imagine being there for someone, not encouraging them to see how many bong hits they can do on their head, but talking to them about something of substance.

3) Gather with other Christians and pray or bible study. Our culture is “open” to spirituality. I have found that even if people do not like Christianity, they are always open for prayer or reading the Bible. Gather Christians on campus and begin to invite non-Christians into the discussion about / with God. Make the environment safe and do not push an agenda (salvation, church membership, etc.). The Spirit does the work of regenerating hearts, not you.[3]

4) Serve others generously in your classes. Be kind, open, loving, peaceable and wise in your classes.[4] People can tell when a person is insincere and desire to make their point rather than learn humbly. You are not serving others in your class when you are rude or disruptive. Moreover, practical servitude includes buying extra scan-trons during test weeks, providing pens and pencils to those who may have forgotten, and encouraging others questions or ideas during lecture.

[1] Matthew 11:19

[2] Genesis 1:26; God is inherently “us” and makes humanity in God’s own image. God exists in a perfect community as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As humanity reflects God, so they desire community with one another.

[3] 1 Corinthians 3:6-7

[4] James 3:17

The Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 5

2012-06-05T12:40:00.002-07:00

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.^{^[1]}”

*Look to "Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 1" for more context*

How To Be A Modern Day Pharisee:

4) Change external behavior without changing your heart. The modern day Pharisees desires approval from everyone they encounter. They desire approval so much that they are willing to forego a “real” heart change through the power of God. Their drive for approval in ministry and life overshadow any relationship God wants them to encounter. They come to church ready to serve, hoping (usually unconsciously) that someone may see them, and then at the end of the day, when nobody is around, they do not know how to deal with themselves and be honest with God; they do not have a relationship with the Father, only his works. The modern day Pharisee shows the world that they love God by showing his works externally, changing certain behaviors as to not arise suspicion, therefore enabling them to hide in the crowd and never be challenged by His love internally. They can hold God, the church and themselves at bay as long as they live in the illusion that what they experience is truly a relationship with God—in reality their “cup” appears clean on the outside, but inside is shattered and broken. The hope of the modern day Pharisee comes through relinquishing their desire to be praised by others and loving the Father regardless of approval or status. Jesus would take a “dirty cup” with a clean and intentional heart over the façade of a clean

cup.[2] Once Jesus is allowed to effectively clean the modern day Pharisee, it will be overwhelmingly apparent why they love and serve others…because God first loved them.[3]

^{^[1]} Matthew 23:25

[2] Luke 5:32

[3] 1 John 4:19

The Modern Day Pharisee: PT 4

2012-05-24T10:15:00.002-07:00

“They do all their deeds to be seen by others.” (Matthew 23:5)

*Look to "Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 1" for more context*

How To Be A Modern Day Pharisee:

4) Do things for people, not for Jesus. The modern day Pharisee serves to get the approval of people rather than God; doing “acts” that catches everybody’s attention. They join ministry with the hope of a title or being noticed by others. They serve to the point of sweat when people notice, but are unwilling to do anything in secret. Their hearts appear to want to serve and love God, but they are whitewashed tombs.[1] The modern day Pharisee hears the words of Jesus, “The greatest among you shall be your servant” and believe that because they “do” they are servants.[2] They love the applause of the crowd rather than God. God becomes their secondary, if not last, motive in serving their neighbor. The modern day Pharisee can only give honor to God when others give honor to him (the Pharisee). When the Pharisee is stripped of their position, they feel useless, because they never served God…they served their place of honor. The modern day Pharisee consumes all of God’s glory and in the process forgets the true One who deserves the glory. The true servant serves God and God's mission for them, to love, depends on the audience of One, not many.

[1] Matthew 23:27

[2] Matthew 23:11

The Modern Day Pharisee: PT 3

2012-05-17T10:58:00.000-07:00

“They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” (Matthew 23:4)

*Look to "Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 1" for more context*

How To Be A Modern Day Pharisee:

3) Tell people to follow morality rather than Jesus: In this verse, the writer uses imagery of labor (tie up, literally speaking of field work) to explain the difficulty of the “heavy burdens” the Pharisees put on the people. The “heavy burdens” represent a metaphor for the traditions of the elders—the obligations put on the people by the religious elite. This verse is in glaring contrast to an earlier Jesus saying, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”[1] Here, the main thrust of the conversation shows the Pharisees to be ones willing to work, to obtain “right standing” before God, as a religious person, but unwilling to be so themselves. They make the way to God difficult! The modern day Pharisee makes people jump through hoops to obtain salvation / freedom. Modern day Pharisees are about a pressured moral obligation; the more one does, the “better” they are. They force the world to change, not through love, but through moral duties, and are never willing to examine or change themselves. They put those moral standards, that even they have not achieved, or let alone tried (not willing to move them with their finger), upon the shoulders of all of those around them. The modern day Pharisee lives in stark contrast to Jesus in which burdens are made lighter, not heavier.

[1] Matthew 11:28-30

The Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 2

2012-05-15T11:05:00.002-07:00

Matthew 23:1-3

" Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

*Look to "Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 1" for more context*

How To Be A Modern Day Pharisee:

2) Tell people what to do without following it yourself: Jesus, in this verse, tells the crowd and his disciples that what the Pharisees and Scribes teach are good things, should be obeyed, and followed. Jesus strongly warns against doing as the Pharisees and Scribes do; Jesus is basically saying, "Do as they say, but not as they do." The modern day Pharisee may have great information, about God, the Bible, or life, but they lack the ability, within themselves, to be transformed by the words they offer to others. The modern day Pharisee gives answers and lacks the ability to ask questions. They have no desire to learn from people in their life because they believe they know ALL the answers. Moreover, they desire the letter of the law--the rules, which are to draw us closer to God--more than God himself. God becomes secondary to their first love, rules. They preach the rules and obligations more than the love of God because their regenerated heart, slowly callusing, forgot that God desires mercy and not sacrifice.[1]

[1] Hosea 6:6 ; Matthew 9:13

The Modern Day Pharisee: PT. 1

2012-05-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

JOHN 9:13-16

"They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?”

The Pharisees usually get a bad wrap in the Bible. They are associated with negative religious connotations, but the truth of the Pharisees is that they were a group that deeply desired to influence the political, social, and religious world with God. Their conception was in an effort to thwart off the malaise of their current religious systems. People did not take serious their devotion to God and the Pharisees wanted to change that—their intention was to see people love God.

So why do the Pharisees get labeled negatively? The problem with the Pharisees is that they made the good things of God, his law and commandments, into human systems and traditions. For example, the Sabbath was a good institution set forth by God to allow a time of rest and reflection on His goodness. During Sabbath, one is to do no work and is limited in what can be done on that day. The Pharisees took this institution and put restrictions in hopes of pleasing God. Some of these restrictions did not even allow for the help of others during Sabbath. A friend could be hurt and in need of help yet Sabbath restrictions did not allow for one to give help. We can see Jesus breaking these strict rules and helping / healing others on the Sabbath.[1] Jesus is in stark opposition to the Pharisees, not because of their desire to love God, but because of their means to obtain that end. Jesus fights Pharisaic manipulations of God’s laws by showing grace and love, as the means to access God—not works.

There is a type of modern day Pharisee; the one who dresses in a suit and is always “rocking” Chris Tomlin because they believe these efforts get them closer to God. The modern day Pharisees sees the change of culture as a threat to their religious priority. This is why they ward off the youngster with a nose ring and welcome the person with the nicely parted hair and pocket protector. They keep the church under their own standards and believe the “Gospel of Jesus” will help change that individual into a mini-them. Stripped of diversity and creativity they seek to convert the whole church to follow their standards while forgetting the Jesus who once saved them. The modern day Pharisee is ageless: the young Pharisee points out the need to make sure worship is the “coolest” without regard to the older people in the church and the old Pharisee believes their way is right and those whippersnappers better follow or else. The modern day Pharisees believes they are right because their system works for them—they are blinded by their own self-righteousness.

How To Be A Modern Day Pharisee:

1) Begin accusing people:[2] A modern day Pharisee knows how to accuse people well. They are the epitome of what it means to have a log in their eye while pointing out the speck in others. Whenever Jesus would do something great, we see the Pharisees in the background accusing him of using the powers of Satan. The modern day Pharisee cannot decipher the goodness of God because they cannot look beyond their own standard. They cannot see the beauty in image-bearing people because they strip beauty of its limitless possibilities and reduce it to a fixed palate. A modern day Pharisee accuses everyone that does not follow suit with them.

(I will try to add a few of these over the next few days)

[1] Mark 1:21-28; 29-34

[2] Matthew 9:32-34

3 Sure Ways To Lose Your Faith

2012-05-10T23:09:00.001-07:00

Galatians 4:8-9

“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?”

3 Sure Ways To Lose Your Faith (This is not a good thing)

1. Take your eyes off of Jesus: Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection should be at the center of our lives. When Jesus is not at the core of who we are then our faith and worship will always be relegated to something else to fill us. Being made in the image of God, we all worship. When we do not worship Jesus, we will always be left worshiping something or someone else. We will fill our hearts, which desire to worship God, with foreign things, unfit for worship--the result: emptiness and hopelessness. Jesus must be the only idol in our lives! A sure way to lose our faith is through losing sight of who Jesus is in our lives…he is everything!

2. Forgetting to remember: Failing to remember that the promises of God has freed our lives, and futures, inevitably lead to losing sight of the One who set us free. We must be people who remember the calling God has placed on our lives; we are a holy priesthood. Never forget that God has created us as new creations. In addition, a failure to remember the slavery that God ripped us from will ultimately leave us with our guard down and open to opportunities of deception. The thing / things (idols) that once enslaved us, regardless of what they may be, must always be taken seriously. Know that the power of sin is strong and real. We must not give power to idols, but we should recognize an idol's capacity to gain power and rule our lives. A sure way to lose faith is to forget what God has done, is doing and has promised!

3. Giving power to idols: Those idols in our lives have no power until we give them power. We must know that those things, which once ruled us, are stripped of their power because of Jesus. We should recognize, as the Apostle Paul points out, that these idols are “weak and beggarly,” in comparison to the great strength of the God who empowers us. A sure way to lose faith is to give power to those dead idols!

The Selfish Leader Is A Lonely Leader

2012-05-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

Philippians 2:3-8

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross."

There are many leaders in church who want the title, but not the work. I find myself constantly frustrated in conversations with people who say they want to progress in the calling that God has on their life, yet they cannot figure out why nothing is happening. The major problem I see with these types of leaders, and yes they are leaders, is that they want the results of their call without the hard work that it entails. As the church, many of us have forgotten what it means to be a leader.
A leader is a servant; this is the highest call of a leader. Most leaders believe that delegation and accomplishing goals is what makes them "good" at their job. Because of this type of reasoning, which may be true in the business world, many leaders have left those helping feeling used and taken advantage of. The goals must be completed, but not at the cost of losing what it means to be a leader. A leader takes the example of Jesus:

No "Selfish Ambition": The leader looks first to those around them and not their own tasks. The goals and dreams of others become more important than their own. A leader recognizes that when the goals of others are encouraged and supported their own desires and goals are accomplished as well.
Having the "Same mind That Was In Christ": Although Christ is God, he laid down his eternal power, while on earth, to accomplish the goal of the Father. A leader is able to see the bigger purpose of the call in others, help them achieve those goals God has for their lives, and show them full support. In addition, the leader, although they recognize their position (Jesus was in the form of God) of authority, they do not use that authority to exploit those around them. They use their authority to be the greatest servant. A good leader takes their power and distributes it to others!
"Obedient to the point of death": A good leader serves others with a true affection. They genuinely care about the person. The good leader really loves the one they are serving. Who would lay down their life for one they do not love? A good leader must learn to empathize, hurt for those in their life, and be willing to serve those around them at all costs (obviously not at the cost of hurting others).

If you want to be a good leader, begin by serving. Do the jobs that nobody else wants to do; clean up chairs after church, help out in the children's ministry, love on some punk kids at an outreach, serve the homeless and elderly. Many people want to be on stage giving the sermon, but they do not want to serve those right in front of their eyes--that must change if we desire to see others changed! Jesus came to serve (and give his life as a ransom), not be served!

Read Or Die!

2011-12-04T00:26:00.001-08:00

The end of my Junior year in High School I became a Christian. I had never read a book at that point except for James and the Giant Peach; I even remember the day I finished that book and how cool I thought it was (I was in High School, haha). I never had a passion or joy for reading, but I loved to learn. In High School, I was able to pull off "C's," if I wanted to, and never had to do the reading. This gave me the "appropriate" amount of time to skateboard and slack off in school without getting into to much trouble. The moment that I started to follow Jesus, my life, in regard to reading and education, changed forever. The first quarter back to school (which I had begun to follow Jesus only months prior) was an amazing experience, as I now found every excuse to be in class rather than ditching to go skate. One of my teachers was so amazed with my grades that she asked what had happened to me...I was obliged to share. My grades and attitude were exponentially better than the previous year. I felt as though a whole new world had opened up. Education now had meaning and significance for my life. This love for education soon turned into a love to learn-- through books, music, movies, etc. Anything I could get my hands on I did. Early on I learned much about God from the books that I was reading.
I started out by reading books on Christian living, what it means to be a Christian in the world. Many of the books I read were basic, such as, Max Lucado, Erwin Mcmanus, and Rob Bell. These books helped me to learn how to think...something which was not part of my past. Soon after I had several of these types of books under my belt, I needed more. I needed to engage the questions raised in these books on a deeper level. I decided before I did this, it would be important that I sit down and really examine the Bible. This led me on an endeavor that still effects me today. I began to read the Bible several hours a day (Some days I would read 4 hours and others 8 hours), looking deeper than just the text itself. I was challenged the claims that the Bible made and the way I was living. This being said, my reading of scripture only prompted me to ask even bigger questions. This pursuit of learning about God, humanity, and the church, led me to love learning. To this day, I believe that God placed in me a supernatural desire to know him more and engage others on an intellectual level--a place I thought was not for people like me. I only say this to encourage others to pursuit reading and learning. The things we read and learn about God should only help us worship him better, and if that is not the case then you should reevaluate why you want to learn. The main purpose of this blog is to help others in their pursuit of God and I plan on listing books that have helped me in the past years understand God better. I will try to keep up on listing books on a regular basis, but I'm making no guarantees.

A couple of my favorites:

God- The Bible
Karl Barth- Commentary on Romans
Dietrich Bonhoeffer- Life Together
C.S. Lewis- The Great Divorce
N.T. Wright- Simply Christian
Tim Keller- The Reason For God
Richard Hays- Moral Vision Of The New Testament
Mark Driscoll- Doctrine
Alister Mcgrath- Theology
R.C. Sproul- What is Reformed Theology

I will try to keep up on a working list, but this is a good start for any interested readers. May God guide you in all truth. Amen.

*If there are errors, I'm sorry. I do not intend to take the time to edit. Much Love... Mark!

The Lie

2011-12-02T09:38:00.001-08:00

1 Peter 1:13-16

"Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. ¹⁴ As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, ¹⁵ but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; ¹⁶ because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

1.1 The Task

Peter takes the first twelve verses (1 Peter 1:1-12) to describe the vastness of the love of God towards his people and the blessings that He has bestowed upon them, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is at this point we come into the "therefore." Peter tells his hearers that ones "mind must be prepared for action." In the Greek it says to "gird up your loins." For the modern reader this can be best understood as "pull up your sleeves," it is a sign of readiness. What does it mean, for us, to be ready for action--to be on our toes? Moreover, the even tougher question to ask is, “How do we get there?”

1.2 Preparing Your Mind

Being prepared is part of everyone's world, whether it is the student, the businessperson, or the stay-at-home mom. We prepare all the time for our daily tasks to be achieved in the most efficient and effectual way. For example, every night I plug in my phone, iPad, and computer to ensure that when I wake up the next morning everything will be fully charged and ready to assist me in my daily tasks. I am preparing beforehand in order to benefit in the future. Now, this seems like an easy enough task for anyone, but I propose that the structure of the spiritual life should be formatted in the same way. If the spiritual life is not separated between what is "sacred" and what is "profane" (spiritual and nonspiritual) then we cannot organize our lives around that existential falsity. Life is spiritual; all of life is spiritual and spirit-led. Our first step in preparing our minds for action will be, like organizing other parts of our life, to first evaluate what it is we need in order to be prepared.

1.3 Examining The Soul

The successful planner is one who knows exactly what it is that they need in order to succeed. It is the same for the Christian; self-reflection is key. We must start at self-reflection—this is where we learn what we need. Self-reflection for most Christians is a scary thing because it opens up a reality that confronts people to either change or be miserable. Jesus consistently, when dealing with people, encouraged them to self-reflect. The Apostle Paul, several times encourages the churches he oversees to examine themselves and the work they are doing in the world (2 Corinthians & 1 Thessalonians). This process of preparing the mind starts with examining your own heart, and seeing those areas where you are succeeding and those needing development. A true examination does not involve making excuses for oneself or shifting blame to another (Making excuses as to why something in life is not being accomplished). Self-reflection involves getting down to the very heart of oneself, the place, which hurts to examine sometimes. This is not to be confused with the voice of the enemy, the accuser, for God desires to help through discipline not condemnation. The “problem” with self-reflection is that it involves being truthful with yourself, something people do not enjoy doing, especially in this day and age, as we see young people reflecting on nothing except video games or iPhones. As a society, we have learned that checking out can be fun and much less painful, but when we do this we do not only check out of pain we also check out of what is means to be human. We are beings made in the image of God, with a depth of inclination to do as he does, yet sin has stained this image. To reorient and self-reflect means to challenge sin and to progress towards His image more. I’m hoping to be able to attach a self-reflection sheet for the use of anybody who would find it helpful for their own life. This self-reflection sheet is designed specifically for me (it was altered originally from a similar sheet by John Piper and Mark Driscoll) and helps me in areas that are difficult for me. The sheet can be reformatted to fit your life, but it will serve as a good template to start on.

1.4 Consistency Is Not The Devil

In talking to friends the other night, they said that they were trying to keep up with other friends in reading through the bible in a year. They explained to me their difficulties, it had to do with them feeling as though they were being religious for setting times to read the bible, in staying up with the reading. I want to crush the idea that setting allotted times to read the bible, pray, or just spend time in God's presence is religious and therefore not beneficial. Jesus, we know was a devoted Jew, one who would have followed many practices similar to what we might call "religious." He would have prayed the shema daily, read scriptures, and meditated in the presence of God. Although there is opportunity for one to be religious by doing these things, it should not deter one from setting up consistency in life. Consistency is a source of benefit in my own life. For example, Greek is a love of mine, but learning Greek involves a great deal of memorization and consistency. If I allow myself to go without re-education in the basics, I lose everything that I have previously learned. I want to encourage the practice of setting a daily time in which people read their bibles, pray, and just listen to God. Repetition has the effect of producing consistency in one’s life.

1.5 Community Is Important

To accomplish a difficult task such as this, I would encourage people within the church community to connect and help one another. It is much easier to remember to read your bible when you have someone else to encourage you. Connect with people and ask them to help you in maintaining a schedule that promotes healthy “Jesus time.” Part of preparing your mind for action is setting up the safety nets in which, if you fail, you have those around you to help encourage you. Pick a few people that you really trust and know will not judge you; allow them to help you in this process.

1.6 Obedience and Holiness

As Christians, we are people who desire to be holy and obedient to the will of God. How are we to achieve this and how is preparing ones mind for action tied in with holiness or obedience? Holiness is accomplished when we are living out the will of God, no longer living according to our own standards, but to God’s. Holiness is a matter of worship; when we choose to not worship God, we are sinning—therefore, not living holy lives. To not worship God means: that one knows God but still chooses to not give him honor or glory as such (Romans 1)—this can apply to any situation. The failure to worship God can manifest itself through several avenues such as: lust, greed, hate, gossip, anger, slander, murder, etc. All of these manifestations root back to the issue of worship. We must ask ourselves then, “How do we prepare to engage in a life of constant worship?” The idea of holiness in First Peter ties back into the idea of one having their mind prepared for action. The action is the constant battle to stay in worship and connected to God—daily, hourly, every second of every day. Peter tells his readers to not be conformed to their former “passions (or lusts);” the things that used to drive them when they did not give their worship to God. Peter recognizes that the mind that is not prepared to take on the daily encounter of “passions or lusts” will not succeed in the task of being holy (or worshipping God consistently). Taking the time to organize life and prepare daily for the task of living will help Christians stay in a place of constant worship.

1.7 Conclusion

My hope is that the reader would begin to find value in preparing for daily action. I believe that God is calling his followers to live a life of consistency in which we daily pursue his presence through scripture, prayer, and listening. The effects of this daily transformation could have huge implications for the body of Christ, because as we engage in his presence he will wholly occupy ours. May God lead us into all truth, and guide us by His Spirit daily for the work of his kingdom. Amen.

Starbucks ain't cuttin' it!

2010-02-26T14:31:00.000-08:00

Hebrews 10:23-25

"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

In reading and studying the book of Hebrews I came along this verse today. It stirred up in me a concern that I've had for Christians and also something I struggled with as a younger Christian. I remember questioning the system (the church and it's authorities) all the time believing that what I was doing was biblical. I remember reading a book by Frank Viola called "Pagan Christianity," I read it before it had a cool cover and was co-authored with George Barna, and it made me begin to question every single thing that would happen on a Sunday morning service. I even remember getting in a heated discussion over which way the chairs in our church faced: "why do I have to sit in a chair that is faced towards one guy who is telling me what to do? I can do this church thing on my own, the bible says so!" As I've come to find out, the church is a beautiful thing and Jesus thinks that way too. I've come to learn that slander on the Church (I will post on this soon) is like punching my sister in the face and although it would be funny (this is a joke) it would not beneficial to either me nor my sister or our family. In my last post I talked about the importance of discipleship and community, I would like to continue in the discussion of meeting together with other believers.

To those who believe they don't need anybody:

Let me ask you this question: How are you going to stir up anybody to good works if you're never around them? (look at Hebrews 10:24)

Or How are you going to encourage followers of Jesus if you never see them? (look Hebrews 10:25)

In my last post I went over Hebrews 3:12 in which the verse says "take care..... that you are not led away from the living God" and then the next verse in 13 says to "exhort.....everyday;" Exhort (to call to one's side) be in community.

In this post Hebrews 10:23 says to "hold fast to the hope of our confession without wavering" then it goes on to challenge believers to be in community and to be "stirring and encouraging" each other towards life!

In both of these verses the way to keep from wavering and falling away from God is to truly be in community in which the "Church" is helping you and loving you. A great tool against the enemy is community!

If you are a Christian and are wondering why your connection to God has weakened or why it has been dulled in your life then I would first ask you this: Who is your community and how are they helping you?

It may be that you need to find a new community or need to put yourself out there and find a group of people within your church. The most life giving people are people who have had life poured into them. Peace.

The importance of discipleship

2010-02-24T23:55:00.001-08:00

In contemplating the importance of discipleship and what it means to truly lead / disciple someone I found Hebrews 3:12-13 to be quite helpful.

Hebrews 3:12 -13 "Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day as long as it is called 'today' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."

"Exhort" in this context is used as (Gk. parakaleo), which means "to call to one's side." We are to constantly be in community with each other, helping each other through struggles and encouraging each other as long as it is called "today." The bible then goes on to stress the importance of this discipleship and community by stating that it keeps us from becoming hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

If we truly want to grow and see people around us grow then we must begin to see the importance of daily discipleship. Constantly we find Paul asking the Christian communities to imitate him in his life and example. Every person who follows the Lord should find either someone or several people to connect with and either mentor or be mentored by them in order to aid in sustaining a healthy walk with the Lord.

Peace.