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.

conclusion

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.

Read More

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?

Read More

Suicide and mistaken notions

The recent suicide of Robin Williams, with all due respect to his family, has brought up some important, serious consideration and discussion on depression. Unfortunately, it is also taken as the opportune moment by some saints in Christ to cast condemnation and judgment in ways more deeply rooted in opinion than their knowledge of the scriptures which they profess.

I only thought to contribute to the discussion because of a nineteen year old young man in India whom I first met online a few years ago. He had been contemplating suicide at that time but has since then come to faith in Jesus. He just asked me a few days ago whether, as he said, a person who commits suicide could enter heaven. I replied I did not know but that suicide is never an option I would ever counsel or encourage for anyone. Needless to say it prompted to examine the scriptures for a better understanding of suicide although the subject, aside of King Saul's suicide, is not mentioned explicitly in the scriptures.

Suicide strikes us as appalling for theological or emotional reasons. One reason for that may have less to do with the death itself than our lack of understanding concerning sin and forgiveness. The consensus among some saints in Christ seems to be that sin (such as suicide is regarded by some and while I do not dispute that I do not hear much understanding being shed on suicide merely by labeling it a sin which condemns the person to damnation) must be acknowledged before one can receive the necessary forgiveness of that sin. There are two instances in the scriptures, which although they do not involve suicide, they involve sin. Furthermore, there is no indication from God in those instances about his forgiveness either towards Moses or towards Peter.

Moses lost the privilege of leading Israel into the promise land. The reason was because Moses rebelled against God. (Numbers 20) Peter denied Jesus just as Jesus had prophesied (John 22) not once but three times yet there is nothing in the scriptures about neither Moses’ nor Peter’s 1) acknowledgement of their sin, 2) repentance of their sin, or 3) forgiveness of their sin. Let’s not squabble about Moses striking instead of speaking to the rock or Peter’s mere denial of Jesus as though it were a small matter. It needs to be said lest there be any misunderstanding that when Jesus restored Peter through that gut wrenching questioning of Peter's love for Jesus it was Jesus' forgiveness of Peter for having denied him. (John 21) Jesus had also admonished Peter that once he was restored he was to "strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22)

The option by those who agonize in life and are overcome in their depression such that they fear life more than death is no different than to fear death more than life. Jesus experienced this agony and understands it. Even though he was fully confident of his own identity and the purpose of his life the agony which came over him with the approaching hour of his death was not a matter which he faced nonchalantly. It was through his subsequent power and triumph over death that those words he spoke long before his crucifixion take on a powerful meaning:

The thief only comes to steal, kill, and destroy. I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.

The contrast between a thief and himself was to emphasize the point that what Jesus came to do was to give life and to give it abundantly. This gift of life is a matter of great joy precisely because Jesus was raised from the dead and is alive.

So, what might this suggest, if anything, so as to enlighten us about suicide? I believe both of these instances speak to the mistaken notion, particularly of the saints in Christ, to think their slate must be squeaky clean with one final confession and prayer for forgiveness of sins just before dying. According to that mistaken notion Moses and Peter stand condemned because despite the serious, public nature of their sin they never acknowledged, repented or received forgiveness for their sin. Is their sin any less than suicide, or self murder as I have heard some people call it, or the little white lie they either forgot, denied refused to acknowledge much less repent or ask forgiveness?

It seems an easy play for the mistaken notion that suicide is the desperation act of those who have no hope or trust in God. This notion has a way of allowing us to not focus or overlook those sins more common and for which we can be admonished by others, something not easily embraced, or admonish others, something we tend to anticipate with some eagerness. This is not so with suicide victims. Whatever our good or bad judgment or condemnation of those who have passed from this life has absolutely no bearing on them. However it does serve to reveal our knowledge, ignorance, wisdom or love as those who proclaim the message of the love of God for those who hear us.

Peace to all.

Read More

Suffer the Children: American & Christian response to the immigrant children crisis

(This article was originally posted in response to the reactions by Americans and Christians towards central American children entering America's southern border illegally in the summer of 2014. The present fears and reaction towards Syrian immigrants are the same as the oblivious forgetfulness of American towards the secular scriptures that is the Constitution of the United States and the holy scriptures that is the Bible.)

Suffer the children is a popular phrase attributed to Jesus. These words were spoken by Jesus. (see Matthew 19 & Luke 18) The phrase is the English translation according to the King James Version of the Bible. Jesus spoke these words to admonish and call his disciples to an awakening of their hearts. How could they possibly be indignant or bothered by the children who wanted to draw near to Jesus? The phrase, like many things taken from the scriptures, has had its share of various and wild interpretations. Suffice it to say, and to deflate at least one such interpretation, it has nothing to do with making children suffer or leaving them to agonize in their suffering. The meaning of these words of Jesus was that he wanted the disciples to, permit or allow, the children to come to him.

My use of the phrase in this article is to awaken Americans and Christians alike from the attitude of indignation and bother concerning certain children. This phrase can speak to those things which, either professed or practiced, are fundamental tenets of American democracy and  the faith that is in Christ Jesus, if we will listen. (The latter reference to the faith is what the world also has coined as Christianity.)

This is not an indictment or condemnation of my Americans compatriots and brothers and sisters in Christ.

Nonetheless, there are feelings of resentment, anger, frustration and fear which have stirred Americans and Christians. Specifically, these are related to the influx of immigrant children illegally crossing the southern border of the United States. They range in age from nine to seventeen years of age approximately.

This article is limited to certain tenets of doing good towards others such as through charity and compassion. These have been proclaimed and upheld in the history of America. While some have an open welcome for these children there is also a demand for the immediate return of these children from their countries of origin. I believe it is a travesty, perhaps disingenuous, for Americans and Christians to absolve and distance themselves from their tenets under the guise that these children are violating the law of the land. Yes, this is correct and undeniably true as concerns the law. But, for those who do reflect the tenets of our American democracy and their faith as followers of Jesus that guise does not and can not absolve them of the higher moral standard.

It should be noted that presently there are some concerted, organized, charitable and compassionate responses from the political and faith fronts to provide care with food, clothing and medicine for these children. In the interest of brevity and simplicity I will use the term fear as inclusive of several other feelings. It is not intended as overall stigma of fear against these immigrant children by Americans and Christians.

fear of the children

These children, whether at their parents’ prompting or the children’s own urging do not seek to draw near to Jesus like those in the first century. Their ambition is to come into the United States where, they have heard, is a better life for themselves. Adding to that pot of mixed feelings are indications that some of the older children bear the tattoo markings and other characteristics of gang life. Yes, this is represents a call for diligence on the part of law enforcement. There is resentment directed towards the government. The fear of disease-ridden children plays loudly in the hearts of the fearful. This fear is a dormant, latent bit of history. It is too far in the past for many to remember that it was European disease-ridden immigrants who unwittingly produced untold numbers of death among the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

American fear: a political reaction

One of the reactions to the children is a political one. Some Americans angrily resent the quick response involving billions of dollars by the government to address the problem involving these children. Some protest that there is a neglect for a much needed similar response to the needs of children and families in America. Of course,there are reactions with nothing more substantive than the unbridled mix of anger and contempt.

But what does the virtue of human kindness extolled, cherished and demonstrated by Americans remind us and call us to do concerning these children? Hear the voice of Lady Liberty's call to the world and a reminder to American and Christian alike.

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America’s compassion towards European countries and Germany

After the end of World War II Germany was devastated because of the extensive bombing by the Allied Forces. Germany, America’s war enemy,  would have had a much slower recovery had the U.S. not implemented the four-year Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan loan or gave aid towards the European countries’ reconstruction and recovery, initially, but was later amended to include Germany. The collective American mindset concerning the liberation of Europe was not separate and apart from that of charity and compassion. Government officials might not have called it economic aid and while the word descriptors might have been different the net result was that the people in those post-war ravaged countries were the recipients of much good from America. This post-war wasteland far from America’s shores had other mindsets prevailed Germany would have been left to suffer and rot. The world and Europe would have been very different.

The Preamble: an American pronouncement

This post-war participation in the recovery of Europe may have been one of America’s greatest fulfillment of these profound words in The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not be known or articulated by children, but that does not dissolve or nullify their human, inalienable rights. These rights are not the sole property or domain of American citizens or of those living in America. They are that with which all men have been endowed by their Creator, or do Americans believe what they profess?

Do we Christians believe these words? Do Americans believe these words?

Christian fear: a faith reaction

A brief clarification is in order. Christians, that is disciples or followers of Jesus, are not bound by the Jewish Tanakh. It is that body of scripture commonly known as the Old Testament. It is revered and accepted as the inspired word of God as much as the new covenant, that is, the New Testament. Its law and content are understood as having been expressly for the nation of Israel and no one else. The Tanakh is the heritage of those who are of the faith that is in Jesus.

One of the consistent, recurring admonitions which Israel learned and was reminded by God was that they were to not only not oppress the alien and the foreigner in their midst, but that they were to care for him. Provision for the stranger in the land was a solid tenet of the law of Moses for Israel.

Jesus and the poor

Jesus admonished his disciples when they feigned their indignation at what seemed to them a waste of what otherwise could have been sold for much and given to the poor.

However, knowing this, Jesus said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? She has done a good work for me. 11  For you always have the poor with you; but you don’t always have me.

Many years ago I remember hearing a politician’s very appropriate passing reference to this passage. He said it is not a prophecy about the poor as though it were something about which we can do nothing, but that it is an indictment on society.

Jesus related a judgment scene (see Matthew 25) to his disciples. The righteous were on the King’s right hand. There were those (who are not described) who were on his left hand. What was the criteria by which they were judged? It was what they had done when they saw the needy and how they responded to those needy ones. The righteous were surprised to learn that, unbeknownst to them, it was Jesus to whom they had fulfilled the need for charity and compassion towards the needy. The others on his left were surprised to hear this about the righteous because they were at a loss, as they acknowledged to the Lord, that they had never seen him. What they failed to discern was that those needy ones whom they overlooked and failed or refuse to fulfill their needs was Jesus in their presence.

(apolitical note: the references to right and left in this judgment is not the same as these is used to identify and align oneself with a particular political ideology. It is apolitical; void of politics.)

The King’s judgment of the righteous:

Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35  for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. 36  I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’

the response of the righteous to the King’s judgment:

“Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38  When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39  When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

the King’s judgment of the those on his left:

Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42  for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 43  I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

the reaction of those on the left to the King’s judgment on them:

“Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’

the response of the King to those on the left:

“Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’

conclusion:

The current crisis of immigrant children illegally crossing the United States’ southern border has produced a kind of side effect crises of the heart and conscience among Americans and Christians. Here is the crisis question: Will we absolve ourselves of the high moral calling for charity and compassion for these children because they have broken the law and leave the children to suffer? Or will we allow our hearts and conscience to speak to us and respond to the need of those children?

Americans have a rich treasure of experiences responding to a high calling. Whether that was in response to The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States or providing sustained post WWII assistance to the victims of Germany’s aggression, but to our former enemy Germany America was true.

Jesus’ admonished and confronted his disciples for their attitude short on genuine compassion for the poor. The call of Jesus for his disciples is at least as ancient in biblical history as the consistent admonition for Israel to never forget the alien, the foreigner in their midst because they too were once foreigners. Americans were foreigners who fled their home for a better life, too.

The mainstream media does much to portray American reaction to the rejection of busloads of these immigrant children as well as urban dweller protests about being neglected by the government. Still, there are instances (despite some ugly administrative fumbling) of federal as well state responses by Americans in response to the children. There are churches joining together with other organizations along Texas border cities to respond with charity and compassion to these children.

This is praiseworthy. It is to be commended in Americans as well as Christians who are being true to profess and practice their respective tenets of politics and faith. If you are not able to support those efforts on the basis that the law has been broken that too is viable response. It may be the opportune moment for the obligations towards law and the heart come together, not to clash, but to acknowledge and uphold the high principle of nurturing and fostering life as in the case of these children. Yes, suffer the children; permit the children to come.

Read More

all Israel will be saved: Replacement Theology

I want to state out front that I reject Replacement Theology. I reject, too, the opposing view which states Israel is still in covenant relationship with God. Similarly, I reject the anti-semitism charges which come with those rejections. I trust my reasons will be made clear through my comments on this article by Dr. Gary Hedrick, President of CJF Ministries. (The article names Rabbi Loren Jacobs as author, also. It would seem these two individuals know each other. I am not interested or concerned with exactly which one of the two wrote the article.)

Generally, I prefer a Bible term or phrase rather than one created by men,

Read More

Jesus and Zacchaeus

(Note: This is a brief comment I shared with Danijel Berkovic concerning Jesus and Zacchaeus from his article in Kairos Vol 7 No. 2 Zagreb, 2013: Jesus and Abraham.   gt)

The term son of Abraham as used by Jesus may well have been a technical term for genuine Jewishness and religious identification. However, the mere application of the label, even by Jesus, could well have been dismissed by the Jews, especially in the matter of Zacchaeus.

Zacchaeus was as much maligned then as he is slandered from many pulpits, today. The man was a Jewish tax collector in the service of Rome. Yes, he was considered a traitor by the Jews. He was unconditionally assumed to be a robber, as tax collectors in general, who helped themselves by exacting tax fees for Rome, but also for themselves. Thereby, tax collectors like Zacchaeus became rich.

There is good reason to believe Zacchaeus is a lesson for the Jews and the saints in Christ on their blind biased judgments. I have often posed the same question to children and to adults: Why was Zacchaeus able to see Jesus? Invariably, the response is the same from both; because he climbed up on a sycamore tree.

How is it adults have gained no more insight than children despite having more years in the faith, generally? One reason is they are merely parroting what has been told and re-told about Zacchaeus over the centuries.

Did Zacchaeus see Jesus because he climbed up on a sycamore tree or could it be that his entire interaction with Jesus was a fulfillment of prophecy about the blessed who are pure in heart for they shall see God? Could it be that Zacchaeus saw Jesus because as was the root of his name (pure) so too was his heart? Where Zacchaeus might have hoped to just catch a glimpse of Jesus it was Jesus (God) who saw him and invited himself to the home of Zacchaeus.

Once Zacchaeus was before Jesus, in the presence of God, he extended an invitation to anyone whom he might have defrauded to step forward and he would compensate them fourfold. There are no takers to Zacchaeus’ offer. He could unabashedly make such an offer because he knew in the integrity of his heart and a righteousness of God he was not as he was and continues to be maligned. Jesus saw what Zacchaeus knew about himself, but what many of us can see.

Read More

The Singularity

My comments on the Singularity are limited to this Time magazine February 2011 article. I recommend you read it, first. I have no reason to ridicule or otherwise dismiss as fantastic or foolish the plausibility of the Singularity: the moment, projected as 2045, when computers and technology (specifically, biotechnology and nanotechnology) will surpass human intelligence. I have neither the science nor the mathematics background to speak to this subject, but I am also neither alarmed nor concerned about the future and the Singularity. So, my comments on the Singularity are limited to my reading and understanding of this article. It features Ray Kurzweil as champion of the Singularity and as such I understand that unless there is an indication to the contrary the views expressed in the article, such as concerning death, represent Ray Kurzweil’s own views.

let’s talk

Kurzweil and his colleagues’ talk about the Singularity is not new. Yes, that statement flies in the face of precisely what is highly exalted by Ray Kurzweil and Singularitians. Specifically, it is the knowledge on which the Singularity, the veritable child conceived of technology to be birthed in the near future.

The transformation of humankind, circa 2045, into immortal cyborgs or something other than what was once recognized as human will mark the of the human era. (Vernor Vinge) Kurzweil brushes aside the controversy which the idea of significant changes to human longevity evokes in some people. Those are the people, according to Kurzweil, who have invested much personal effort in certain philosophies on the issues of life and death and to whom he defers dismissively:  I mean, that's the major reason we have religion. Really? As in, talk among yourselves about religion? This reply seems disingenuous because the reality is that the human experience of life and death do not occur on the basis of an individual’s knowledge, philosophy or religion. So, lets talk.

an open door

The quest for immortality, that coveted cache of the Singularity, does not concern itself with life, that wonderfully unique and extraordinary sentient experience of humans. Actually, the Singularitians’ quest is to bypass death through a download of consciousness unto hardware where, those who choose not to die, can live as immortal, functionally. I am not interested in scenarios of potential natural disasters which could possibly affect, incapacitate or destroy that hardware. What does interest me is that Kurzweil either unwittingly, dismissively, or mockingly, opens the door to religion. Although the term religion, given how it is commonly misunderstood and misused, is not a term which I prefer or care to use I can lay that aside as a matter of minor significance.

bypassing death

So, the Singularity purports to overcome or bypass death through the excellence of knowledge?  Kurzweil has done much work to measure and track the exponential pace of technological progress, present, future and backward to 1900. Given such thoroughness and his glib pronouncement about reverse-engineering the human brain and humans saturating all the matter in the universe in a few centuries why stop there? Why not apply a similar method to determine the cause of death?

Kurzweil’s mistaken view concerning the problem of death is, first, to cast (or at least intimate) death as a problem of old age and nothing more than an illness, and second, to solve that problem through some manipulation of DNA.

the first Singularity

Although I fully expect the ridicule and dismissal by Singularitians and others that would be no different than Singularitians themselves receive concerning the Singularity. The Singularity is not only inevitable but it is imminent, according to Kurzweil, and there’s really not much we can do about it. This is about where I would expect the ridicule, mockery and dismissal of Singularitians should kick in.

The truth is even the self-descriptor of the Singularity and Singularitian, as in singular, single or one, fails to distinguish it from the age-old story of mankind in the book of Genesis in the Bible, and _ the first Singularity. (see, Genesis chapter 3) That first Singularity also involved man and knowledge. Unfortunately, that first Singularity in the garden was not when man became immortal, but when he became mortal; that is, when he became like God. The pairing of man and technology, that is knowledge, by Singularitians is not only present in the biblical narrative, but the narrative relates the convergence of man and knowledge. There is nothing new under the sun, said Solomon.

knowledge and death

What was it that God declared made man like God? It was the knowledge of good and evil.

Even then, the desire of the woman and the man was not so much to be like God, but to be God: singular, one, capable of determining and controlling their own destiny.

This is nothing less and no different than the Singularitian Kurzweil’s expectations of the Singularity of the future. However, the concept (that is the desire of the woman for what she saw before her eyes) and reality (that is, the convergence of man and knowledge) in the first Singularity in the garden did not result in immortality. It marked the beginning of the end, of death in the entirety of creation. This same demise is reflected throughout the universe. Things, both for man and his world, are not getting better. The are in deterioration and decline. The inception of death, in the simplest terms by way of an analogy, involved the convergence of the fruit (hardware) followed by knowledge (software) which transformed the woman and the man. Pressing that analogy further, even the casual computer user knows that software can be corrupted through willful or negligent changes which affect the original software. Even more, there are viruses which can cause physical damage to computer hardware. Yet, it is the nature of man to boast his genius and knowledge as being far greater and superior than all previous generations and master of his destiny, whether in the garden of Eden or in 2045,  _ or so he thinks.

escape

Singularitians may well snicker on hearing that disobedience was the root, or cause of death; but the somber nagging reality of death persists. The Singularity as an answer to death is merely to stretch and push back the parameters of death farther out. The inevitable and imminent occurrence much like Kurzweil states about the Singularity is no less true of death. Kurzweil’s hard, calculated response on the inevitableness of the Singularity holds equally true of death. Death came about as the result of defiance to the One who knows good and evil. It is not surprising that the Singulartians’ escape from death should be through knowledge, because knowledge was what opened the door for death to come into the world for the ruin and destruction of man.

technospeak

Is a record of antiquity to be rejected merely because it is not new, definitely not hi-tech or in the familiar shape of manufactured products or shrouded in the vernacular of technospeak? Especially, when that record relates the vital relationship between knowledge and death? The irony is that the Singularitians’ enlightened, knowledge-filled, linear, chemical, animal brain does not seem to acknowledge the omnipresence of both death and knowledge in the universe. Downloading one’s consciousness unto some hardware does not alter that reality. The notion of escaping death is as mistaken as the notion in the garden that the man and woman would not die.

The newness of technology and technospeak is as much an allure today as a fruit was for Eve. The relative newness of knowledge is the gauge by which some, such as Singularitians, value intelligence. There is no room, no place for what is old, whether it is knowledge or technology. Others value the size; bigger equals more intelligent. I am reminded of the line by a character in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek: “Size is not a measure of intelligence.” (Spock) Even Stephen Hawking when sounding the alarm about alien visitors to Earth, friendly or hostile, says they will arrive in enormously large ships.

conclusion: reversing the first Singularity

The first Singularity in the garden of Eden resulted in death when man acquired the knowledge of good and evil through something as seemingly harmless and innocuous as a fruit. (You may amuse yourself as you wish as to that fruit. It is one of those matters of small significance for myself.) So, whatever prospects of reversing the effects of that first Singularity must necessarily address, both, knowledge and death and why it continues to affect man.

There is something to be said for Ray Kurzweil’s audacious claims about the Singularity. It is not a little secret. It is not obscure. It is plain. Those who have an open-mind to it as well as those who are close-mind to it have heard it. He has proclaimed it and promoted it aggressively. All of which has yet to be fulfilled.

Jesus made audacious claims concerning his death, burial and resurrection. It was not a little secret. His claims were not obscure. They were plain. Those claims were heard by friend and foe alike. He proclaimed and promoted this message aggressively. He fulfilled it.

This, not the death or the burial, but the resurrection of Jesus is the reversal of the first Singularity. The resurrection is not merely an escape or avoidance of death, but a triumph and defeat over death; a transformation from the perishable and corruptible to the imperishable and incorruptible. The resurrection revealed the Creator, giver and sustainer of life who took on the form, that is, the outward appearance of man in order to lay down his life and take it up again. Thereby, his resurrection was a declaration that death has no power over him. (Is the resurrection any less plausible than the Singularitians’ vision of immortality on hand-made hardware?) This was the God of the knowledge of good and evil who came into the world two thousand years ago.

And, like those claims he made and fulfilled two thousand years ago, he has declared he will come again at an undisclosed time.

(I refer adherents of the Torah as well as unbelievers who cannot fathom the idea of the sacrifice of Jesus to read: Human Sacrifice at Moriah and Egypt)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26  Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11)

But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets; 15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. (Acts 24)

 Behold,‡ I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”✡

55 “Death, where is your sting?

Hades,§ where is your victory?”✡

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (I Corinthians 15)

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation. (Hebrews 9)

“Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work. 13  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14  Blessed are those who do his commandments,† that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15  Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16  I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star.” (Revelation 24)

Read More