Post Index

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

BCV and context

Jesus applies scripture

I am going to take a book, chapter and verse (BCV) from the Old Testament out of context just like . . . Jesus.

13 “‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him.
“‘The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Leviticus 19:13
Jesus did not quote or cite the Leviticus passage, but paraphrased it in his own words in his instructions to the disciples.
Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Don’t go from house to house. Luke 10:7
Furthermore, his servant, the apostle Paul, did the same.
Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain.” And, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” I Timothy 5:17
These two tactics, BCV and context, are the taser prongs of many discussions among the saints. These tactics are used as much to attack as to defend what each one believes, or just really feels that it is not only right, but what others should acknowledge, embrace and teach. BCV and context are touted as the ultimate throwdown. No rebuttal is expected. No rebuttal is accepted.
I stated at the start that I was going to take  a BCV out of context. I wonder what reaction that stirred in some hearts. The fact is the three passages from Leviticus 19, Luke 10 and I Timothy 5 all allude to one common element: the laborer and his wages.
The Leviticus passage is a charge for masters not to withhold from the hired laborer the wages due him.
Jesus alluded to this same teaching from Leviticus when he sent out his disciples. He sent them out to preach in the villages. He instructed them not to go from house to house but to remain in that house in which they were received while they were in that village.Lastly, Paul quoted Jesus, but he also substantiated his point by quoting the Deuteronomy 25:4 passage about letting the ox who works the mill eat freely while he labors. Paul’s application of the passage is as concerns compensation for elders who labor in the word and in teaching. Furthermore, for those who might have wondered or missed it Paul poses a rhetorical question, God is not concerned about oxen, is He? (I Corinthians 9:9)

applying Paul's rhetorical question

Today as in the first century, the truth is there are saints, men as well as women, who may not necessarily wonder or miss the reference to oxen, but they fail to learn, or to accept and make those applications of the text because it disturbs their sensibilities. Those sensibilities will remain undisturbed as long as the saints do not look closer at presuppositions and conclusions taken from the Deuteronomy passages and the application of that passage by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament.

For instance, what was the gender of the laborer? Although it is not mentioned the saints tend to assume that it was male, but even IF, and I emphasize IF, that were the case does the assumption also follow that since the laborer is not female she is not worthy of her wages? Or, that her employer can unjustly withhold the wages due to her, because, after all, she is a woman?

Was the laborer a teacher in the passage? Again the type of work which the laborer performed was not specified. Since Jesus applied it to the Galilean fishermen preachers does anyone think that the matter of the laborer's wages is limited to preachers only? Furthermore, it seems that like as some saints, as Paul appears to have anticipated, might think and assume that God was concerned about oxen there are saints today who have just as mistakenly drawn their conclusions that the gender of those who are to preach and receive their compensation is limited to males. Yet, neither preachers or teachers nor gender were present in the original text which Jesus applied as he did, not just for the moment, but for our learning. In the spirit of Paul's rhetorical question about oxen; does anyone really think (another rhetorical question) Jesus was concerned that men and only men are to go and preach and that men and only men are to receive their compensation for doing so?

Paul's application

Then, there is an extended application on the teaching from these passages by Jesus and Paul. It is a matter which Paul presented to Timothy for his consideration. (II Timothy 2:7) It involved the livelihood of those who make their living through the preaching of the gospel. Paul illustrated for Timothy how soldiers and athletes keep themselves from becoming entangled in the affairs of this of life, and like the farmer who labors must be the first to get a share of the crops. (II Timothy 2:6) I cannot help but notice Paul’s use of the term labor perhaps to stir in Timothy’s mind a connection with the Leviticus passage. Similarly, I notice he is emphatic, unabashed and unapologetic to Timothy that this is a must. Yet, he did not command Timothy on the matter of Timothy’s livelihood, but Paul was confident that the precedent of the scriptures from Leviticus, to the teaching of Jesus, and the realities of the lives of athletes, soldiers and farmers would be just a few ways by which the Spirit would instruct Timothy concerning his livelihood.
It seems scandalous for someone whose idea of faithfulness to the text is BCV and context. How could or would Jesus take a book, chapter and verse from Leviticus; paraphrase it instead of quoting it, take it out of context, and apply it to the disciples whose work as preachers and teachers was questionable and who certainly were not rabbis? It would be a stretch to say Jesus hired and compensated the disciples out of his own pocket. What's more, they were certainly not hired by their hosts who provided free room and board for them. Nonetheless, Jesus confidently asserted they were worthy of their wages.

Paul applied this same cumulative and combined teaching of the Law and Jesus’ teaching to elders. (He also applies it to Barnabas and himself. [I Corinthians 9:9]) The context of the Leviticus passage does not concern teachers, prophets or others who proclaim the word of God. Yet, Jesus, as he received from the Father, and Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealed for the understanding of the saints in Christ that this book, chapter and verse and its context use of the Leviticus passage represented an application of scripture which was valid, true, and _ biblical.

This is absolutely not to say book, chapter and verse or context can be disregarded and dismissed as irrelevant or that they have no use or value in our study and understanding of the scriptures. It is to say that the saints in Christ are to take notice and consider what the scripture states and how there can be, as modeled by Jesus and Paul, a proper application of a single particular passage in different ways. Is there any danger that someone reading this could go into a distortion binge on scripture? Yes, but this is nothing new. The word of God as He spoke it has been distorted since before it was even written. Furthermore, if anyone were to make a misapplication (image that) are we not as brothers and sisters who are indwelt by the same Spirit not able to speak and admonish each other and thereby strengthen our love and glorify God through our understanding of the Holy Scriptures?

The clout of BCV and context is as inflated and overrated as much as it reflects a serious misunderstanding of how Jesus, by the will of the Father, and Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were not afraid or timid in their handling of the scriptures in their teaching.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Disproving Christianity: Jesus is a LIE

This is a very brief comment on the video which bear the same title as this article. I encourage you to view Jaclyn Glen’s video. The content is nothing new to me and it is likely not new to some of you, too. Below are just a few quotations offered as a sampling of the video content. My apologies if I have erred in my transcription of the audio recording.

She has a “mountain of evidence against the Christian version of God.”
“There’s no such thing as hell, really, until you get to the New Testament.”
“The Bible was written by people that are influenced by the biases of the time period that they lived in.”

“There are so many stories, mythological stories before Jesus that had almost the same exact story line that he had.”

She states that these stories and myths about gods share various elements in common including the virgin birth, son of god, gifts of myrrh, brought salvation to people, died as a martyr, - some on a cross, and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and that story is not unique to Jesus.

Horus, Krishna, Mithra: “The point is these three gods had so much in common with the story of Jesus. All came before him and it seems like nobody knows about this. I didn’t know it until quite recently.”

“How could you possibly credit it (Christianity) as being original and believe it completely?”

*    *   *

First, I appreciate your sincere, even if unoriginal charges, concerning Jesus and the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Second, I appreciate that you see and have noted the many similarities between the gods Horus, Krishna and Mithra, and Jesus. I do not intend to refute every point in your video and I will limit my comments to a brief and general response.

You are correct on a particular point which I (quite unoriginal) have long made about Jesus. He was not original in his message. People in different cultures and different times had been exposed to the same message prior to the appearance of Jesus in the world. This has never been much of a point, even if some saints in Christ get hung up in their futile attempts to deny and distance Jesus from these particulars, of contention or dismay for many other (myself, included) saints.

A couple of things which you state, but of which you do not seem to catch the significance and the implications. Namely, that 1) the beliefs and claims of followers of Horus, Krishna and Mithra (and I am aware there are others) were limited to a particular people, time and place. Yes, it can well be argued there may be a billion followers of Krishna, but this is not due to a wide dissemination and embrace of his message outside of India as much as the great numbers of the indigenous population of India.

The 2) faith that is in Christ Jesus (note: Although I do not have a problem with people’s use of the term “Christianity” I have no use for it as it is the world’s corruption of a message written for all to read.) began among a people who for the most part despised and rejected Jesus. Although it began among the Jews and the message of Jesus as written by his disciples was in Greek (the dominant language of the world at the time) it was never claimed nor has it ever been viewed as the religion of the Jews or the Greeks. Unlike the message of Horus, Krishna and Mithra whose message and followers was limited to a particular people, (regardless of number) culture and time; the faith that is in Jesus was never and has never been limited or restricted to a people, culture or time. Have you considered how this element of disdain for Jesus versus the deities whom you mention? In our present time the world can see a prime example of the same limited phenomenon which characterizes these gods in the faith of Islam as practiced predominantly by Arabs in the Arabic language. Interesting side note: Arabs insist that converts to Islam learn Arabic. This is in sharp contrast with the faith that is in Jesus because there was never, even in the first century, any insistence for the disciples of Jesus to learn Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

So, what is the single point in the message of the New Testament concerning Jesus which despite it being similar with Horus, Krishna and Mithra sets Jesus apart? It is the resurrection; a vital point which much like the similarities by which you are fascinated you have, to understate it, overlooked its significance and implications. Lets put aside for the moment (much like you put aside various particulars concerning alleged contradictions in the Bible) the awareness and measures taken by state and hostile religious authorities concerning the event of the resurrection BEFORE it happened and AFTER it happened.

There is a question for everyone after the haze and dust has cleared from their minds and from before their eyes. It is all about similarities which every disciple of Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Jesus and every theist and atheist human being, plant and animal share in common. The similarity which we all is life and death.

None of us remembers the moment or day of our birth. We are told where and when and to whom we were born. However, death is an appointment which everyone of us shares in common with every human being (-1) since the beginning of time. Our death is no less real merely because we read about it from different and ancient or even questionable sources as something which we share in common with those who have gone on before us. Even if we don’t read or hear about someone else’s death we need look no further than others around us including plants and animals.

So, does it seem insignificant that the claims and reality of the resurrection of Jesus were not a private secret known only to a select few? Is it possible that there are implications concerning that resurrection and if so, what are those implications? How is that what was as common and similar as the resurrection among the deities of Horus, Krishna and Mithra was grasped by people, even while being being rejected, though not denied by adversaries, of different languages, cultures and times unlike any of those prior to Jesus?