Category: 
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Revelation 2:1-7
This is seventh of seven articles on the seven cities mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3.
Part I: Laodicea
Part II: Philadelphia
Part III: Sardis
Part IV: Thyratira
Part V: Pergamum
Part VI: Smyrna
Ephesus, the first of the seven cities written to by John the Apostle, was the center of commerce in first-century Asia Minor in the same way that the center of commerce in the USA today is New York City. It was home to the Apostle Paul, Timothy and later, John. According to church tradition and supported by other reports, John was accompanied by Mary, the mother of Jesus, when he arrived in Ephesus. Later, she died here and was buried near what was later named Mary’s Church, the ruins of which can be seen today (right).
During the first century, there were two primary deities worshipped in Ephesus – Artemis (Diana) and Caesar (actually, multiple Caesar’s, beginning with Augustus, later Nero, Domitian and, finally, Trajan). Additionally, there are indications that the cult of Mithras also had a foothold in the Roman legions housed in Ephesus. Each of these has a part to play in the Apocalypse of John.
The Mystery Religion of Mythraism
Mythraism, the worship of Mithra, began in the first century BC, as an attempt to explain a great crisis in astronomy. In the cosmology of the ancient middle-east, the earth was the center of the universe and the stars were all attached to a great shell, referred to as ‘the heavens’. Between the earth and the heavens were seven ’stars’, the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Where the crisis occurred was when Greek astronomists found ancient records indicating that during the Vernal Equinox the sky was in Taurus, not Aries. Not understanding that the earth’s “wobble” would take it through each of the signs of the Zodiac, changing every 2160 years, the astronomers realized that something had “killed” Taurus, giving way to Aries. That “something” had to be bigger than the heavens, and controlled the seven stars – which would lead departed souls from earth to the heavens. (For those of you keeping score, we will soon be moving out of Pices into the ‘Age of Aquarius’ – no joke.)
Mithra was identified as the “something” controlling the universe. He had a miraculous birth in a shepherd’s cave, he was visited by Magi, he died and was resurrected, along with many other similarities to Jesus and Christianity. And so it is that John identifies Jesus as
him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.
Caesar Worship
In Ephesus, there were two incredibly large Agora, places of buying and selling. It is in these two marketplaces that Caesar worship and Christianity first clashed. In order to buy and sell in the marketplace, everyone had to burn incense and declare that Caesar was lord. If you needed food, or water, or clothing, or goods, you could not get into the Agora without worshipping Caesar. By the time Domitian came in to power, you could be put to death if you did not declare him lord and have his mark on you and/or your goods.
The Nicolaitans were Christians who believed that since Caesar was not God, they could ‘cross their fingers’ and burn incense to him for convenience sake. If they needed fire, they could go to the Temple of Hestia (goddess of hearth and home, left) and burn incense to here to get fire, because they ‘knew’ she was not God. The expedience of ‘going through the motions’ in order to avoid persecution and meet their needs is what defined the Nicolaitans. It appears, though, that this practice was not condoned by the Ephesian church
But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Artemis, the Goddess of Fertility
In the lesson on Sardis, I discussed the bloody cult of Artemis & Cybele. Ephesus was the center of this type of worship, housing the Temple of Artemis – one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. In this Temple, criminals could come to seek sanctuary, and as long as they did not leave the grounds, they could not be prosecuted. Additionally, it was believed that Artemis would protect women who were in childbirth, with some records indicating that 250,000 women each year came to the temple for such protection. The high maternal mortality rates in the ancient world made this an incredibly real concern. (Earlier, in his letter to Timothy, Paul references this when he tells Timothy that women would be ’saved through/during childbearing’ (I Timothy 2:15) through Jesus – not Artemis.)
In the center of the Temple of Artemis contained a large tree, in the center of what was refered to as the ‘Paradise of Artemis’. This tree was called by the Artemis worshippers, ‘The Tree of Life’. And so it is that Jesus, through John, promises that “to him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” – NOT the paradise of Artemis.
Another interesting note comes from John’s use of Greek here. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, there are two words for ‘tree’ – dendron and xulon. The first, dendron, is used almost exclusively for all trees. However, xulon is used in the case of Deuteronomy 21:23, where God describes anyone hung on a tree – xulon – is cursed. This is the same word used for Jesus being hung on a tree – xulon. And so it is, when John descibes the tree of life in the paradise of God, the tree (xulon) of life is the cross!
First Love
While we know a great deal about Ephesus, the city, and the latter church there, there is still a great deal of speculation about where they were going wrong, aside from it being obvious that they were following something or someone over and above their ‘first love’ – Jesus Christ. It is ironic that in a city with so many gods and idols the church apparently stood firm against, something aside from these blatant, godless influences had replaced Christ in their lives.
And so it is with us – we may stand up against the obvious evil in the world, but we may fall to the more subtle influences which could replace our ‘first love’. Let us pray it will not be so, and that it will be said of us:
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Comments
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 14th, 2006 at 11:07 pm and is filed under Hebrew Context, Lessons, Religion/Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Chris:
I have done a bit of searching for info. re: Mithra. Rob Bell mentioned this particular eastern deity in a part two of his latest series. Can you tell me where you found the following information:
Mithra . . . had a miraculous birth in a shepherd’s cave, he was visited by Magi, he died and was resurrected, along with many other similarities to Jesus and Christianity.
Thanks!
marshill1,
I’ve picked up multiple sources on Mithra. I think the first place I became familiar with Mithra was through one of Ray VanderLaan’s podcasts (if you want to know which one, I can do a little digging and get you the right one – my PC with the audio files keeps crashing on me or I’d have it right now) and then again on my trip to Israel and Turkey earlier this year with a group from Western Theological Seminary in Holland, MI. I think there’s a decent summary on the wikipedia page for Mithraism under “Similarities to Christianity”.
RVL has been present at some of the archaeological discoveries of Tauroctony, and has first-hand dealings with the Christian archaeologists who have been uncovering and interpreting mithraic finds in the Middle East and Asia Minor. Additionally, he also references David Ulansey’s “The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries”, and uses Ulansey’s interpretation of Mithraic symbols, which are commonly accepted as the most likely explanations of Mithraism today. Ulansey has an article on the subject posted here.
The RVL Podcast is “Discipleship Part II” you can download here: http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=12930&article=22593
[...] A while back, Rob Bell preached on Ephesus, Emperor Worship and Revelation. I had not seen this before I went to Turkey and the Seven Churches last year, nor before writing about them. That said, I think he does a lot better job telling the story about Ephesus and Revelation than I did. [...]
In his book The DaVinci CodeBreaker, James L. Garlow has the following to say about Mithraism: Mithra, or more correctly Mithras, was originally a Persian god whose worship pervaded the Roman empire. It was a syncretic mystery religion, especially favoured by soldiers and rulers and featured the ritual killing of bulls. (Garlow doesn’t say this but I know from studies of ancient civilizations that Mithraism probably grew out of the ancient practice of bull-vaulting or bull-dancing, a practise that often resulted in the death of the person ‘dancing’. This was practised widely on the island of Crete at Knossos, where the Minotaur — the bull that ate virginal young people — was said to be kept. Supposedly, a religion grew up around this ancient story.) To continue with Garlow, he says much was made of the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity by Dan Brown, who asserts there is nothing new in the latter. Much of this kind of thinking was advanced in The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. According to The DaVinci Code and to The Christ Conspiracy, Mithras was born on December 25, was called “son of God and Light of the World,” and rose from the grave. The theories of Acharya S. are easy to refute; furthermore, because adherents to Mithraism were committed to absolute secrecy, few documents survived and little is know about them. Garlow goes on … When Christianity ‘borrows’ terms, it generally gives the word (or concept) new content. Even so, there is no evidence of this occurring with regard to Mithras worship — more likely, Mithraism borrowed from Christianity as early Christians were exclusivists, whereas Mithraism was syncretistic (borrowed from multiple religions).
Hope this helps to clarify. Thanks for the blog. Very interesting. LJ
Please look beyond your limited sources. The idea that mithra was parallel in any sense to Christ, either predating or concurrent, is not factual. Any similarities were added on to the mithra myth after Christ, and even then the similarities were not as literal as you have stated. It is as if Bell and Vanderlaan have started a “rumor” and it is being spread a truth.
I realize there are conflicting sources on Mithra. Part of the problem is that some of the “scholarly” work is agenda-driven, both from the right and the left.
From the left, the agenda in dating Mithra is to try and suggest that Christianity was simply an unremarkable outgrowth of Mithraism. As such, objectivity tends to be lost when drawing conclusions from the archaeological evidence, and pre-dating mithraism to Christianity is of primary importance (much like AGW-driven climatologists lost objectivity in trying to prove Global Warming by disproving the Medieval Warming Period).
From the right, the agenda is to prove that Christianity had no connection at all to Mithraism, and therefore, post-dating Mithraism is of primary importance, even if the archaeological facts do not support the conclusion.
Both approaches are fatally flawed from the get-go, because they have predetermined what the outcome must be of the factual interpretation before even examining the evidence. Your assertion falls in the latter camp, because it assumes that somehow Christianity would be lessened if the spread of this mystery religion pre-dated Christ before even examining the evidence.
David Ulansey’s research, published in “The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World” actually makes far more sense than either agenda-driven response. First, it (I believe) accurately pre-dates the worship of Mithra to slightly before the time of Christ – to coincide with the astrological crisis of the discovery of the earth’s “wobble” and its impact on the cosmology of the ancient world. Secondly, it makes no claims and drives no agendas that would “cheapen” Christianity. Rather, it takes the evidence and draws conclusions from it that fit into the ancient Greco-Roman culture, without trying to shoehorn in a modern agenda in doing so. Since its publication, the evidence that has been uncovered of more tauroctonies and other mithraic items support Ulansey’s findings, rather than detracting from them.
Bell, Vanderlaan (who, I would note is a rather conservative, Reformed scholar) and others have found what seems to be the most likely probable middle ground – that Mithraism was Satan’s attempt to short-circuit Christianity, but that it was also woven into the Greco-Roman culture of the ancient world in such a way as to answer the burning questions of the culture – much the same way that Christ was culturally woven into Jewish culture, and was the answer to the Messianic question. Neither Bell, Vanderlaan, Dobson or the others who accept the dating of Mithra teach or believe that a pre-dated Mithra is a danger to Christianity, but that it was something created for evil that John (and possibly Paul) turned around and used to advance Christ as the true Savior.
Whether or not the beginning of Mithraism predated Christianity or postdated it is irrelevant, though, because it was definitely a factor during the time of John’s writing, and his juxtaposition of Christ vs. Mithra in Revelation is still evident, either way.
I’m not sure why you’re so threatened by this…
Thank you so much for replying so thoughtfully.
Not to get “personal”, but I am not personally threatened by this idea.
My concern was with statements like the following, by Rob Bell. I am certain he is a nice person, but I think that the idea that there is not an “agenda” behind this statement would be beyond remarkable. >“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?…If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?”
The sum total of this is that the belief that Jesus is God’s son is not essential to our faith, in fact we are only chosing a leader that provides a better way of life. In a sense, we are chosing our “favorite” rabbi.
That one spring, the deity of Christ, is not pivotal, according to this statement.
Pastor Bell is perfectly within his rights to not accept the witness of the Bible, but I would object to his claiming that the virgin birth and the idea of Jesus being begotten of God is based on a flimsey interpretation of one word.
Matthew 1:18:
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”
Lisa,
A couple of items I would add to clarify:
1) Your quote is from Velvet Elvis, and I would note that you did not quote Bell’s statement just prior to that, where he said that he affirms the historic Christian teaching about the Virgin Mary. It is also taken in isolation from the rest of that particular chapter, where his point is that we need to examine what we believe about Scripture and what things we may have possibly added to it (via tradition, cultural drift, etc.) by pulling out each individual teaching, examining it, looking at it from multiple hermeneutical angles, and then determining how it actually fits within the rest of orthodoxy.
In follow-up interviews since Velvet Elvis, he has affirmed and reaffirmed his belief in the Virgin Birth, Jesus’ deity, etc., not detracted from them. His notes on the word “virgin”, quoted in the Gospel from a passage in Isaiah, are accurate in their duplicate meanings (noting that Hebrew is a much “poorer” language than English, in that there are about 8 times fewer words in Hebrew, so many words have a slew of multiple meanings). The prophecy in Isaiah is actually fulfilled twice – once in the lifetime of Isaiah for King Hezekiah, where the almah (virgin) is likely not a physical virgin or is allegorical – and a second time, with Mary – where the context of her reply to the angel suggests that she was literally a virgin.
You wrote:
That is not what he said, at all, particularly when taken in context with the chapter you’ve cited. Rather, he is deconstructing a systematic view of theology (a product of the post-Renaissance church), as opposed to a first-century, concrete view of Scripture. In the case of the Virgin Birth, there a many systematic theologians who would go so far as to say that if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then he could not have been God’s son, and that his whole ministry would have been a sham. This is a teaching that is not in Scripture, but one that has been assumed and added, particularly over the past 500 years, with the rise of systematic theology.
Does Bell believe in the Virgin Birth? He says he does – and said so just before the passage you’ve quoted.
Does Bell believe that without the Virgin Birth, Jesus could not have been the Messiah? I would say no, because that is something that the church added several hundred years later – something which may or may not be true, because it is never explained in Scripture.
Why might this be important? I know people who have come to know the Lord, who have come from deep scientific backgrounds and who doubted the Virgin Birth for many of the early years of their Christian walk, even though they believed Jesus was the Messiah, Savior of mankind, and their own personal Savior. Doubting the VB did not make them non-Christians – it just made them immature Christians.
2) My citation of Bell’s reference to Mithra was from a 2004 sermon podcast from Mars Hill – not Velvet Elvis – where he talked about it in a bit more depth than the section you’ve quoted. In the link above, from RVL, his reference is primarily to Ulansey’s work, which make quite a bit of sense, particularly in light of the symbology used by John in the Revelation.
Whether someone might misuse this or not does not bear on its being or not being truth. For example – I own a large butcher knife. I use it to cut up meat for cooking, but someone else might use it to injure another person. That has nothing to do with the existence of the knife (it exists, I just saw it an hour ago) or whether or not I ought to have it (it is useful in the kitchen for the right purposes). Rather, I should simply take care to only use it for the proper uses for which it was intended.
In the same way, whether or not Mithra was dated to 200 B.C. (possibly, but not likely), to about 20 B.C. – 20 A.D. (much more likely), or to 60 AD has no bearing on whether or not Jesus’ story was true. It might, though, explain why the Apostles used some of the imagery they did, and emphasized certain teachings, so as to compare and contrast the Truth from a lie.
Thanks for giving the context, that did help, but if you look at the quote, he was saying that if Jesus’s father was Larry, it should not impact our faith. If Larry is Jesus’s father, then, Christ is not God’s son. To say this would not impact our faith……
Lisa,
Here’s the part of the Velvet Elvis quote you’re referencing (with my parenthetical replacements of the context):
What if [the Virgin Birth] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on [living as a Christian]? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?
If you examine Jesus’ teachings in the gospels, and Paul’s teachings to the gentile churches, neither ever cites Jesus’ miraculous birth as the cause, or proof, of Jesus’ claim as being the Son of God. But you wrote:
If Larry is Jesus’s father, then, Christ is not God’s son.
Neither Matthew nor Luke – the only two authors who mention the Virgin Birth – make this particular claim. In fact, Matthew’s citation of the VB is to tie Jesus’ coming to Isaiah’s prophecy, not as a proof of Sonship. It is a later, systematic theological claim that w/o Mary’s virginity, Jesus could not be the Son of God.
Does that mean the virgin birth is unimportant? Not at all.
Rather, the process of deconstructing individual doctrines into what is directly supported from Scripture versus what has become the traditional explanation, is helpful in understanding the key underpinnings of what we believe. So – let me ask Bell’s questions in a little bit different way:
If, hypothetically, the traditional interpretation of the Virgin Birth was concretely disproven, and it turned out that almah was more correctly translated as “young woman” – would that invalidate Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God? Would that invalidate his teachings and how he said we should live? Would that invalidate his resurrection? Would that make Christianity a sham?
I would say “no” to all of those, because IF (and I don’t see any scientific way it could be done) the traditional interpretation of the Virgin Birth were to be disproven, that would only mean that our interpretation of that Scripture was wrong – not that Scripture, itself, was wrong.
Let me go out on a limb with a different example (not knowing your belief or background might put me even further out on a limb):
I have heard teachers/preachers say that “if Genesis 1-2 are not literally true (i.e. literal, young-earth, 6 24-hour-day Creation), then none of the Bible is true, and Jesus could not be the Messiah”. In doing so, they have tied the veracity of their interpretation of one passage of Scripture as more foundational that the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. I know people who have held off accepting Christ – some of whom still do not believe – because they do not believe in literal Creationism, and they’ve been taught that you must believe one to accept the other. In truth, there are at least five Christian views of Creation, four of which are not literal, young-earth Creationism. But because we’ve systematized the belief in one as requirement for belief in the Gospel, we have done many unbelievers and young believers a disservice.
When you pare down the Gospel to what Jesus and Paul taught, you are left with about three key tenets:
1. There is One God, who alone is to be worshiped, and there should be no other gods before Him.
2. Trust, in this lifetime, of his Son, Jesus, is the only way via which we can be saved.
3. Jesus lived, taught, was crucified on a Roman cross, and was resurrected three days later.
There are a lot of other very important teachings, doctrines and beliefs that we should study, wrestle with and understand as we grow in Christ – including the Virgin Birth – but they are part of our walk with Him – not preconditions for salvation, or linchpins on which faith must rest, lest it crumble.
Does this make sense?
To go back to the original question about Mithra – in Bell’s sermon that dealt w/ Mithra, unlike the passage in Velvet Elvis, he points out that Jesus’ miraculous birth would have been, to the Romans, a base requirement for Jesus’ deity. Rather, it was Jesus’ teachings and expectations for his followers that were truly radical, and set both him and them apart from others. The miraculous signs and wonders were not simply to set him apart – but, rather, they were the baseline proof required in the Ancient Near East.
This touches on line of thinking that the conservative Christian scholar Brad Young hits upon in a number of his books where he states that “modern Christians, in many ways, have so focused on faith in Jesus that they have forgotten the faith of Jesus.” In other words, we have focused so much on believing in Jesus as the be-all-and-end-all of Christianity, that we forget that we need to follow what he taught, which – even today – would radically set us apart from our culture.
Hey! Thank you for discussing this furher, very kind of you. Just to clarify, this is part of what Bell said again: >“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?”
I am referring to his statement that if Larry was Jesus’s dad, and God was not.
Are you saying that Jesus not being the son of God should have no impact on our faith?
Are you saying that the disciples lying in the gospels has no impact on our faith?
Is he saying that if the writers of the gospel were hoaxing us with this: Matthew 1:18:
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”
that that would not totally discredit the Bible?
“modern Christians, in many ways, have so focused on faith in Jesus that they have forgotten the faith of Jesus.”
found this to be an interesting quote…but I believe he is drawing a dichomy where there is none. 39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” If Christ indwells us, He is the one that holds the homeless man, who has a disease that requires added precautions…cradles the demented women that is looking for her long grown baby…where does that come from, if not from Him? If I learned it by example, my heart would do it by rote, by obligaion…if I am drenched in joy, might it me His joy? He does through us what we cannot duplicate in our flesh.
No – I’m saying that Jesus’ title as “Son of God” is not derived from the Virgin Birth, but rather from the Messianic beliefs of first century Jews, based upon their reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (we call the “Old Testament”). The writings of the religious Jews (primarily Essenes) of the first century, looking for a “Coming One”, considered that his title would be “Messiah” (Hebrew) or “Christ” (Jewish), and that he would be called the “Son of God”. Even so, they did not consider Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin birth to be a Messianic prophecy. Matthew’s citation of this prophecy as prophetic is the first record we have of this being a Messianic prophecy. (And even so, it identifies the Ruach Hakodesh – the Holy Spirit – as the father of Mary’s child, not God the Father).
Whether or not the Virgin Birth was literally a virgin birth (which I believe that it was), the title “Son of God” would have been appropriate for Jesus.
Again, no, I’m not saying that. For two reasons:
1) If the accurate choice of translation for almah is “young woman” and not “virgin” in Isaiah (which I would disagree with, in this case), then it is our interpretation that is not correct and not the original author. In the case of Hebrew, there are, in many cases, two to eight meanings for most nouns and proper names. So, if Mary was not a virgin, I would consider that an error in our translation, not in the author’s intent.
2) You should realize that what we might consider “lying” (in a literalist/modernist, Greek/Western sense) would not necessarily be considered so in a Hebrew/Eastern sense. In Ancient Near-Eastern literature, there are specific forms where the truth is not meant to be literal (including some prophecy). For example, Matthew’s list of begats in Matthew 1 are not historically accurate, according to the OT Scripture (they are missing at least one king an possibly a number of men in the intertestemental period). However, Matthew was looking to create three sets of fourteen generations in Jesus’ lineage – because Jewish lineages contain a lot of meaning in the people chosen to highlight in them. Matthew was not intending to lie or to be factually incorrect – he was looking to convey Jesus’ historical lineage as coming from the patriarchs, the kings, a prostitute, a gentile, and the intertestemental priestly line.
Again, no. Bell says right after this “I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more.”
Rather, he is saying that we need to examine everything we believe and ask the question “if this was not true, what would it change?” – not to make it unimportant, but to understand what each belief and doctrine actually means and does not mean. Questions of “is he saying the Bible is a lie” or “were the disciples lying when they wrote…” change the subject and do not answer the actual question. He is not saying the Bible or the disciples are lying. He is asking about what does a doctrine mean or not mean.
I forgot about this, but the introduction to this section in Velvet Elvis was this paragraph (similar to my experience):
“Somebody recently gave me a videotape of a lecture given by a man who is traveling around speaking about the creation of the world. At one point in his lecture, he said if you deny that God created the world in six literal twenty-four-hour days, then you are denying that Jesus ever died on the cross. It’s a bizarre leap of logic to make, I would say.”
So, he frames this section as determining what each doctrine means and/or does not mean.
Now – you asked about Matthew 1:18. While I disagree with it, I have heard the argument that the Greek may also be translated that the Holy Spirit revealed she was with child, but that the child’s origin is not specified as being sourced by the Holy Spirit. I do not agree with this (primarily in light of Mary’s response in Luke 1:34), but (at least according to a Greek professor I know and trust) it is a legitimate way of translating Matt 1:18, which – when coupled with his intentional choices in the lineage recorded earlier in Matt 1, might support the contention that Mary was not literally a virgin (though – to be clear – I disagree).
I would say that in many modern church traditions, this is not a false dichotomy. I have spent the past ten years studying Jesus’ beliefs and teachings from a Hebraic standpoint (I would highly recommend “Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith”, for an excellent starting point of study – I wish it had been around years ago). The faith that Jesus practiced, as a Hebrew, did not separate faith from works – but considered them to be inseparably intertwined. The Hellenism of the pagan nations around Israel – and creeping into its culture via the Herodians – separated beliefs from actions as being independent, and actions as reflection of belief.
I see an American church where care for one another in the church, and for the poor (within and without it) as playing second fiddle to arguments over Creationism, homosexuality, the “correct” view of Atonement, Calvinism, the manifestation of hell, eschatology, etc., etc. I can very quickly point you to folks who make their life’s work listening to Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, and other Christian teachers (typically with large congregations) – looking for any and every potential “mistake” they’ve made, as an attempt to find and discredit “false teachers” (which is really code for “I disagree with them, and since one of us is wrong, they must be a false teacher”). This is not the reflection of a church whose focus is on living out the teachings of Jesus.
To be very fair, though, I know a number of churches and Christians who spend a large portion of their time, money and activity in service to one another and to those who are the “poor in spirit”. But even so, much of the church’s hyperfocus on doctrinal divides and waste of energy fighting the world for being the world seem to validate Young’s quote for me.
Hey Chris, thanks again for the information, I will read it more carefully later.
It has come down to this.
You keep refering to the virgin birth, which I have not really addressed specifically.
My concerns were this:
Are you saying that is would not effect our faith if Jesus had a human father?
And you keep going back to the word “virgin”, and ignore the scriptures (Matthew 1:18:
“This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”) I will post a list of scriptures that support this one in my next post.
What do you do with Matthew 1:18?
If you deconstruct the prophecy in Isaiah, is it necessary to desconstruct the clear textual evidence in the NT? Or, do you think the NT is unreliable?
I want to simplify this further, and ask only one question.
I know you believe that Jesus is God’s son, so my question goes back to the importance of this:
If Jesus’s dad was really the very human Larry, would this effect our faith, or, as Bell says, it is just not that important?
Just this one question!
Well, there’s actually two questions there, with one factually incorrect statement:
1) Nowhere does Bell state that the question of whether or not Jesus’ father was God or man is not important. That is something you have inferred, which is not borne out in his book or his teaching.
2) To your first question: If (somehow) we were able to determine – with certainty (and this is the important part – the “certainty” bit) – that Jesus’ father was human, then it would not impact my faith. Why? Because it would mean that I had based my perception on an interpretation of Scripture that was incorrect, because God’s word is true – even if every man be a liar. [NOTE: Without certainty, I would most likely not accept the evidence.]
3) To your second question: Is the belief that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, important? I would say “yes”. Every teaching in Scripture is important – even if it is not something upon which salvation is hinged. Why? Because all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The answers to both questions are consistent with what Bell says, as well.
Now – just to go back to the virgin birth, itself:
We have Matt 1:18, which you’ve quoted, along with Matt 1:22b-23:
And we also have Luke 1:26-34:
1) I believe both of these passages – from multiple hermeneutical angles – to be literally true. That Mary was physically a virgin, and that Jesus’ conception was miraculous, of the Holy Spirit.
2) I have heard critics (of which, Bell is not one – he makes clear that his statement in Velvet Elvis is a restatement of critics’ arguments, not his own argument) argue that the Matthew passage is in-line with the listed (but not completely accurate) lineage, and is potentially euphamized to suggest that Mary was pregnant by a person unknown, but revealed early by the Holy Spirit. They also note that nowhere in Scripture, outside of mentioning the prophecy – is Jesus called Immanuel (again, suggesting that Matthew 1 is almost all symbolic).
I (and Bell) disagree.
In response to the passage in Luke, critics (much more weakly) suggest that Mary’s embarrasment is because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, not simply a fear of the angel of the Lord.
They also note that these are the ONLY passages in Scripture which reference Jesus’ physical parentage, and that the virgin birth is nowhere else in Scripture literally tied to Jesus’ title as “Son of God”.
In response to these arguments I would (and have) used a number of hermeneutical (contextual, historical, and grammatical) arguments which all suggest that the Gospel writers were being literal in describing Jesus’ birth as from a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. I also point out the cultural Hebrew teaching from the Oral Torah which teaches that the sin of man is passed down through the seed of man – which was originally come from Adam – and that, symbolically, Jesus’ not having a human father would paint a picture of someone born without Adam’s tendency toward sin.
Even so, I never make the eisegetical/rhetorical mistake of claiming that Jesus’ divinity, death, resurrection or ministry are invalid if Mary was not a virgin, or that his having a human father means he is not the Son of God – because that is not what the Scripture teaches – it is part of a later tradition. That does not mean that the virgin birth is unimportant – that just means that it is not the foundation upon which all belief must stand. I would say the same thing about the mystery of the Trinity, the condemnation of homosexuality, the literal 6-24-hour-day creation, or many other teachings I believe to be true. To say something is not foundational is not to say it is not important. ALL Scripture is important, and I think we only scratch the surface of it.
Even so, our interpretation of every doctrine is not foundational as to the divinity and effectivity of Jesus.
I realize that this is not an easy concept to grasp – especially for folks, like myself, who have been in the church their entire lives and have so intermingled traditional, systematic belief and Scripture that sometimes they don’t recognize where tradition and systematic theology end and Scripture begins.
If I might be so bold, could you answer this question set, as well:
If you found out with certainty that Jesus biological father was human, would that destroy your faith? Would that invalidate Jesus’ life, ministry, teaching, death and resurrection?
If your answers to these questions are both “no”, would that mean that the virgin birth is unimportant?
There are many men who have walked this earth I greatly admire, and would be a better person to share in some of their characteristics and convictions.
Gandhi, for instance, was a wise man, and lived his convictions in an exemplary consistent way.
Mother Teresa is my personal favorite. She did not waste her life on small things, but took the love of Christ to His precious ones…the ones the world did not see.
Yet, my admiration and sense of inadequacy in the presence of these giants does not provoke my worship, or the dedication of my life and heart. It does not call me to me take up the cross and follow. I do not seek to be filled with their spirit, or be found in their likeness.
But to the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” , to the monogenes: only begotten Son” (I Jn. 4: 9), my all and all, my very life.
The following is a quote from spurgeon:
The gospel that does not preach a Divine Savior is no gospel at all; it is like a ship without a rudder, the first opposing wind that blows will drive it to destruction, and woe are the souls that are trusting to it! Only the shoulders of the almighty God can ever carry the enormous weight of human guilt and human need. We preach to you Christ the Son of Mary, once sleeping in his mother’s arms, yet the Infinite even while he was an infant; Christ the reputed Son of Joseph, working in the carpenter’s shop, yet all the while being the God who made the heavens and the earth; Christ, who had no place to lay his head, the despised and rejected of men, who is, nevertheless the Eternal God of the Universe; Christ nailed to the cross, bleeding from every pore, and dying on the cross, yet, living forever; Christ, suffering indescribable agonies, yet at the same time being the God at whose right hand there are eternal pleasures. If Christ had not been man, he could not have sympathized with you and me, nor could he have suffered in our place. How could he have been the covenant Head of the sons and daughters of Adam if he had not been made like them in every way, except that he was without sin? With that one exception, he was just, as we are, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, yet he was as truly God as he was man, the One of whom, Isaiah was inspired to prophesy, “He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” So, in preaching Christ crucified, we preach the glory of heaven combined with the beauty of earth, the perfection of humanity united with the glory and dignity of Deity.
So you ask:
If you found out with certainty that Jesus biological father was human, would that destroy your faith?
The question itself seems incredible, for He is who He is…unless we are preaching another Jesus or another gospel.
Lisa,
You didn’t answer the question (and I’m failing to see the relevance of the Spurgeon quote) – and it’s the identical question you asked me (though I do not infer that you deny Jesus’ divinity by asking me the question):
If you found out with certainty that Jesus biological father was human, would that destroy your faith?
It is a simple yes/no question.
Rather than Spurgeon, can you quote Scripture and show me where Jesus’ biological parentage is tied to his divinity? It seems as if you have (apparently) inseparably tied these two concepts as being inextricably intertwined, but I am unfamiliar with any teaching of Jesus, Paul or the Apostles which says that Jesus’ divinity is rooted in the virgin birth, and/or that without being born of a virgin, Jesus could not have been divine. So please, if you would – cite the appropriate passage for me where these two items – the virgin birth and Jesus’ divinity – are inextricably linked.
I’m not sure why you think Bell is denying Jesus’ divinity (which he expressly affirms in the chapter you’ve quoted) by simply asking the same question you asked of me. Were you denying Jesus’ divinity when you asked me the question?
Do I believe in the virgin birth? Most certainly. Do I believe that the circumstances of Jesus’ birth were important? Most certainly. However, if I found out that the interpretation I wholly believe (Mary’s literal virginity) was 100% false, would that destroy my faith? Not at all, because then it would be my interpretation at fault – not Scripture.
Just to give a separate example: The cosmology of the Ancient Near East believed that the Earth was a flat disc, around which the sun, moon and stars rotated (with the stars being attached to the inside of a black shell, beyond which God lived). This geocentric view is supported by several authors in Scripture. However, when Galileo’s astronomical observations disproved geocentrism in favor of heliocentrism (the earth and planets revolving around the sun), the church threatened to kill him and many people lost their faith because the “Bible had been proved false” – when the reality was that their interpretation of the Bible had been proven false.
So, the question:
If you found out with certainty that Jesus biological father was human, would that destroy your faith?
To me is equivalent to:
What if you found out your interpretation of the virgin birth was incorrect – would that destroy your faith?
As such, my answer would be “no” – because it would be my own fallibility at fault, and not God’s infallibility.
So, again, I ask you the same question you asked me:
If you found out with certainty that Jesus biological father was human, would that destroy your faith?
I think you may be engaging in a logical fallacy creating an either/or out of a complexity.
If you were to ask me, do I believe in the Son of God, or the son of Larry, that is a legitimate either/or question. But you are asking, if water was not really wet, and we could prove that beyond a doubt, would you quite using a towel after taking a bath?
J 10:4
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
So, no, I will not follow Larry’s son, he is not my shepherd.
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
He is who He is, the I am.
Read John 17 until you get your answer:)
some verses on the circumstances of Jesus’s conception:
How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be calleda the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,a because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”b—which means, “God with us.”
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus
Not the connection to these circumstances and the name Immanuel.
I hope this is helpful. Don’t know about the “virgin birth” doctrine, just the plain presentation of scripture.
So, the idea orginated with the apostles.
And there is the exact line of fallacious thinking that systematic theology drives! NOWHERE in Scripture is Jesus’ divinity tied as having to have been derived from his biological parentage.
NOWHERE.
It is a later creation of systematic theology that very well might be correct, but we cannot say so with 100% certainty. So, in essence you place shackles on God, declaring how He must work by saying “if my interpretation of scripture is incorrect, God is a liar in Scripture”. And how arrogant is that?
Certainly, Jesus declared himself to be divine and not a mere man, but nothing you’ve cited (including John 17) requires miraculous parentage [Noting also that the Holy Spirit is given credit by the gospel writers for the pregnancy. The tie of the HS to God the Father via the Trinity didn't show up in theological teaching until ecumenical councils of the Third Century]
So – please answer the question, rather than dodging it:
If it was shown with certainty that Jesus biologically had a human father, would it destroy your faith? Yes or no.
No cop outs about it being an impossible question, just answer the question please. I answered it when you asked it, and if you cannot answer it, then you have proven Bell’s hypothesis correct regarding the perils of systematic theology.
I quoted those further above – you don’t need to convince me of the literal translation – I believe the literal translation, not the liberal/skeptic interpretation. However, if the liberal/skeptic interpretation were correct, they would cite the same verses (since they are the only ones that deal with Jesus’ conception) as their support, also noting that – other than Matthew citing Isaiah’s prophecy, nobody refers to Jesus as “Immanuel”. (Though I would argue that his very person is Immanuel).
So, you don’t need to convince me (or Bell) that Jesus’ biological father is God – both Bell and I believe that!!!
Rather, both Bell’s position and mine allows for a sliver of humility in granting that our interpretation could be incorrect if almah is correctly translated “young woman” in this instance and if the writers were trying to make an allegorical (rather than a literal) point.
Even so, if my interpretation is incorrect, and Jesus’ biological father was human, I would not lose my faith. I would still believe that Jesus is divine, and a member of the godhead. I would still believe in his life, death and resurrection.
From church history, I would also make the point that Jesus’ nature as “both fully God and fully man” was not decided until the ecumenical councils of the 300’s and 400’s – and that there was a lot of controversy around this point within the believers of the church. The systematic belief that Jesus’ biological parentage was the “proof” of Jesus’ divinity did not arise for more than a thousand years after Jesus’ death (and was a teaching derived by the Catholic church as part of its Mariology).
One of the root causes of the controversy is that neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever gave – or tried to give – a definitive or “scientific” answer to the mystery of Jesus being both divine and human. The story of Jesus’ birth is a logical place to trace it to, and makes a great deal of sense. Even so, though, the Bible never makes this explicit, so we should not treat that “proof” as the foundation upon which our faith must rest.
Quoting Jesus’ calling God “my Father” or “the Father” does not settle the matter as an explicit proof, either. It was common to call God “our Father” or “the Father” or “my Father” – Paul does it in multiple places, just as an example. Jesus also teaches his disciples to pray “Our Father, who is in heaven…”.
From some of your other citations: Does Jesus claim to be divine? I would say “yes”, and in a number of places. Does he tie his divinity as hinging upon the immaculate conception? In no place does he make this explicit connection. In no place do his disciples, in their writings, make this explicit connection. If they had, there would have been no controversy in the first four or five centuries of the church as to the nature of the Godhead (noting that the Trinity is not an explicit teaching in Scripture) and Jesus’ role in it.
So – just knowing how these doctrines came about should cause us to 1) respect the early church and the traditions that have been passed down; 2) show us the most likely meanings of those things that are not in Scripture, but which are supported by it; and 3) recognize, still, that the second century church and beyond still had the capacity of fallibility, and that we should still recognize their decisions as having the potential of being fallible (such as with the geocentrism).
Thus, it is a fair question to ask:
What if we learned with certainty that Jesus biological father was human? Would this invalidate Jesus’ divinity and destroy our faith?
My answer is “no” and “no”, because I cannot place limits on God.
When Jesus asked his diciples who people said He was they answered “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
I agree with that, as well. Even so, it does not tie his divinity with the immaculate conception. The title “Christ” means anointed one (”Messiah” in Hebrew), and is a title bestowed by God (not by men) – with the belief that a prophet would precede the Christ and declare his coming. And that’s what John the Baptist did, and then reaffirmed at Jesus’ baptism.
That has nothing to do with the immaculate conception.
“Son of the living God” is also a title, not a statement of biological parentage. If you read the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of the devout God-fearing Jews (at the very least, among the Essenes) called each other “the Sons of God” or “the Sons of Light”, yet none claimed literal divine parentage. Paul (whose background was as a sage) also taught this:
So again, calling Jesus the “Son of God” is not a reference to his biological parentage, when examined in context. If it were, the early church would not have struggled with the manifestation of Jesus’ divinity.
We also have Jesus’ teaching at the beginning of his ministry as evidence to the title “son of God”, as well:
“Son of God” is a honorific title which is based upon ones lifestyle, not biological parentage, and it is bestowed by others, not you. So, when Jesus’ took the title upon himself, it was seen as blasphemous. However, when he applied it to others, or they applied it to him, it was not seen as blasphemous.
And then we have Paul’s letter to the Jewish Christians in Rome:
So Paul points not to Jesus’ birth parentage as the source of his Sonship and divinity, but rather to the resurrection from the dead (and I would say that the resurrection is something that – if it were not true – would destroy Christianity, because it is what defines Christ as our Messiah, and as the Son of God.
Dear Chris:
You wrote “NOWHERE in Scripture is Jesus’ divinity tied as having to have been derived from his biological parentage”
This is an interesting point, but it is based on a very simplistic approach to textual interpretation of scriptures.
To require a verse that says
“Jesus is the only begotten son of God and that means that Jesus’s is God son, not Larry’s”
And to ignore the fact that Jesus is declared to be only “begotten” son of God in scriptures, and the account of his conception which clearly states that His mother was not sexually involved with a man at the time of His conception, suggests that you are indulging in an argument by selective observation. You are ignoring all the evidence in the Gospels, and demanding a proof statement designed to exclude the apparent evidence. This would suggest you are opposed to the scriptural account.
Please do a study of the story of His conception and a study of the “only begotten” son…very straight forward, not tricky of complex. There you will find the evidence you are looking for…
you say:
So, in essence you place shackles on God, declaring how He must work by saying “if my interpretation of scripture is incorrect, God is a liar in Scripture”. And how arrogant is that?
To say that if my interpretation of scriptures is incorrect, then God is a liar in Scriptures WOULD be at a level of arrogance that would be beyond heartbreaking. But you know that is not what I am doing. You know God is speaking to your heart, and calling you away from the enticements of the philosophies of this world. He loves you!
I am not opposed to the scriptural account, at all.
Rather – I believe that one of the best ways to know how to defend what you believe is not only to know exactly what you believe and why you believe it – but to also know what those you disagree with believe, and to know it even better than they do.
At this point, I am arguing their point, and trying to do so in a way that they would agree with (to avoid creating a straw-man argument, or to misrepresent the opposing view). In this particular case, I know their arguments inside and out because I used to have a couple of guys who worked in the lab with me who would argue specifically about the virgin birth and Jesus’ divinity (so I am imagining what they would say to your arguments).
I agree with you, particularly in terms of the story’s simplicity. However, when arguing with liberal intellectuals, accepting a miracle when a non-miraculous explanation would work uses Occam’s Razor (the approach you’ve suggested) to the opposite effect.
The only reason I am arguing this point with you is because your inability to answer the hypothetical question is demonstrative of the point Bell made in Velvet Elvis: When you don’t know where your beliefs come from and how they are actually derived, you will mistake certainty in your interpretation of Scripture with certainty of the ultimate truths.
This leads to a number of pitfalls, which include:
1) Losing your own faith if your certitude is proven wrong and you mistake doubt in your interpretation of Scripture with doubt in God.
2) Treating other Christians as something less than image-bearers of God when they disagree with your interpretations that you have treated as Holy Writ.
It is #2 which you exhibited in your very first comment in this thread, where you’ve not presented anything yet about Mithra and the first-century belief and/or practice in him. Rather, you insisted that my sources had to be wrong because a) Rob Bell mentioned Mithra in a controversial section of Velvet Elvis (which was not one of my sources); and b) if contemporary parallels existed between the myth of Mithra and the true story of Christ, they must (by your reasoning) somehow diminish Christ.
It is not the philosophies of this world which tell me that I need to know what I believe and why I believe it, and to know what I do not believe and why.
I believe in the immaculate conception because it is related by the Gospel writers, and the context of Mary’s response to the angel.
I believe in Jesus’ divinity because of his life, his ministry, and – specifically – his resurrection, which was witnessed by all sorts of folks. I believe his divinity and Sonship is derived from his resurrection, specifically, because that is what Paul cited, and because that is what the early church affirmed at the earliest ecumenical councils, including the Council of Nicea. I believe that the virgin birth and immaculate conception support the mystery that is Jesus’ incarnation as both God and man – but I also realize that this interpretation came from the councils of the third and fourth centuries, so because Jesus and/or Paul did not state this explicitly, I do not consider this to be certainly foundational to accepting Jesus’ divinity.
Thus, if someone proved, with certainty, that Jesus had an earthly father, I would not lose my faith, because my faith in Jesus is not based on Jesus’ parentage – it is based upon his resurrection.
So, when you show an inability to answer the same question you asked of me, suggesting that, indeed, if the immaculate conception were proved to be an incorrect interpretation of Scripture, you would lose your faith – that strikes me as a mild form of hubris.
No, if Mithra was contemporary in the form you described to Christ, that would in no way diminish my faith. It wouldnt make a dent. But, if you read my first post, I think your sources are sloppy on dating. Most likely dating would put this form of Mithracism post-Christ, and the idea some have expressed that this was wildly popular is an overstatement. Seems agenda driven. Be careful! One pitfall of postmodern thinking is that every one has an agenda, but the post modernist…in my view postmodernism is the most clever wolf in sheeps clothing to come along in history.
Anything that forces you to run from one logical fallacy to the next to support ones ideas, or requires “subversive” preaching …might take a second look at that one.
study yourself approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, accuratel handling the word of truth….not to impressive, huh? you said there is too much emphasis on Jesus in the church in an earlier post. Would you die for anything less?
To be a little bit more succinct on what exactly I believe about the immaculate conception and the virgin birth: If you were to take the opposite argument – that the immaculate conception was, and had to be, a fraud – I’d likely be hitting you with both barrels. To this point, you’ve either been very kind to me with your responses, or you don’t know all of the cultural support for the immaculate conception and virgin birth, and how it ties into the Hebrew context of Jesus and Judaism.
One thing I am not very good at is arguing the opposite point of view with passion, so my attempts to support the liberal arguments against the virgin birth are pretty weak, in terms of passion.
All of the post-Christian dating I have found of Mithra comes from Christian sources – particularly Reformed sources – that had a pre-determined bent to prove that Mithra was post-first Century. Much (but not all) of the pre-Christian and/or early first-century dating I’ve found was from liberal scholars seeking to discredit Christianity.
And that’s what makes Ulansey’s work unique: In the case of Ulansey (whose work continues, and whose Tauroctany – Mithra temple – finds continue to date to the early first century, or earlier), the dating of Mithra not only makes sense within its own paradigm (as a mystery religion, independent of Christianity) – but also makes a great deal of sense from the cosmological debates of that time period. As a result, he has gained support from conservative Christian sources who are not threatened by an early dating, but who also don’t seek to discredit Christ with an earlier date.
The popularity of Mithra worship was predominantly within the Roman military – in which it was very popular, from most accounts. As such, it is the cities with a higher military presence (Ephesus, Thyatira, Pergamum) where the popularity was much greater. In Ephesus, with Artemis/Diana as the primary Goddess focused on childbearing and fertility, the fervor for Mithra was especially popular because of the lack of male opportunity in Artemis, and the need for castration in worship of Cybele.
I would say that every world-view has its positives and negatives. Spurgeon, wisely IMO, decried the onset of modernism and its detrimental impact upon the church, while at the same time defending the contemporary world-view. Postmodernism is no more and no less dangerous than modernism. Modernism just happens to be the devil we know a lot better than the devil we don’t. As a scientist/engineer, I love modernism far more than postmodernism (because of the scientific method, in particular), but that has its own pitfalls – particularly when it demands that everything must have a logical explanation.
Which is why I completely reject Calvinism, which was incredibly subversive when it was developed, and ignored 1500 years of church history. The church tradition I come from (the independent Christian churches of the Great Awakening/Restoration Movement) tends to eschew all of the systematic theologies and creeds after the generation of Jesus and his Apostles.
So, while questioning Reformed systematic theology might appear as “subversive” to someone who has been raised in it, is it really subversive if it exposes the where the Reformation and the creation of theological systems diverged from the original teaching of Jesus and his Apostles?
Actually, that is NOT what I said – I said that the modern church has focused so much on faith IN Jesus that it has forgotten the faith OF Jesus. Both are focused on Christ, but a balanced approach takes into account both who Jesus is and what he preached about the Kingdom of God.
“So, when you show an inability to answer the same question you asked of me, suggesting that, indeed, if the immaculate conception were proved to be an incorrect interpretation of Scripture, you would lose your faith – that strikes me as a mild form of hubris.”
Sorry Chris, you lost me here. What question did I ask that I would not answer myself?
“So, while questioning Reformed systematic theology might appear as “subversive” to someone who has been raised in it, is it really subversive if it exposes the where the Reformation and the creation of theological systems diverged from the original teaching of Jesus and his Apostles?”
I was not saying what you think I am saying here, you give me too much credit, I am not that infomed. I have no knowledge of reformed sytematic theology, I was raise by unbelievers and attempted to be an agnostic until I heard of Jesus, I am a bible reader.
The case for modernism vs postmodernism, of any world philosophy: we are all influenced by them, but I do not embrace them. The belief that there are abosolutes, well, yeah, and that would be one attribute of modernism, and thus science, but I do not embrace that modernism beyond the point that it accidentally intersects with truth at that point.
Subversive preaching is not my choice of words, it was Rob Bell’s description of his own methods. I had not even thought of what you were referring to. Chris, you are darn smart, that’s for sure.
I put postmodernism in a long line of wolfs.
Bell created this scenario layer upon layer, a series of what-ifs, leaping from inplausibles to inplausibles and ending on nothing. Please understand that I am not atempting to evade this question, I just do not see this question as legitimate. I do not see this whole fabrication as valid.
It is impossible to think that if someone would claim that it is scientifically proven that Christ’s father was Larry that that could impact my faith.
Odd thing is, as you have observed earlier, I am a bit more of a modernist in the sense that I have a certain respect for truth as an absolute, and science would crumble in the face of anything but a steady acknowledgement of reality. Might be because my work is very much in the “rubber meets the road” application of truth, and I daily observe the wise and clear headed administration of tested and tried fact.
Enter revealed truth. If there is a creator, who revealed Himself, with clarity, and consistant with His character, in truth, the scenario that Bell has imposed is a problem having only a conjectural response.
In a sense, he is suggesting that if we discover the Son of God is not God’s son, there is no descrepancy. This defies logic.
What do the scriptures say?
enter the supernatural, consistant with truth, larger that our limited reality:
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
the only begotten: the monogenes
1) single of its kind, only
a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
To imply that it could be anything else would be to ask “Yea, hath God said?”
You asked me:
So I’m asking you the same question: If you found out with certainty that Jesus had a human father, would that destroy your faith?
It seems as if your non-answer is a yes.
My apologies. Most of the people I’ve encountered on the ‘net who have a problem with first-century cultural study and Rob Bell, and quote Spurgeon have generally been hard-core Calvinists.
I would agree. Each worldview has its strengths and weaknesses. The greatest strength (and thus, the greatest weakness) of modernism is its demand for a single, scientifically-proven truth for every questions. The greatest strength (and thus, the greatest weakness) of postmodernism is its skepticism about an absolutely, scientifically-proven truth for every question. (I’ve done some comparisons of worldviews in a very early article here.)
In Bell’s lexicon (in his discussion of “subversive”) he said much the same thing as I did (though not calling out Calvinism by name) – he used an old rabbinic saying (often used in Christian circles) – “If it’s true, it’s not new; and if it’s new, it’s not true”. And so, what is often seen as subversive by modernist theologians is a call to go back to the original teachings and to strip away the traditions long enough to understand what is Scripture and what is tradition.
In general, I do not worry about postmodernism any more than I worry about other worldly “systems” – each has its own challenges, but with God on our side, any of them can be effectively met. Cultural worldview changes are much like the waves in the ocean – the tide will come in no matter what we do, but we need not drown in it when it arrives.
Just wondering – have you actually read Velvet Elvis – or are you quoting the passage from another website.
I realize the question is highly implausible – Bell said as much himself.
Deconstruction can be used in a constructive or a destructive manner. Unfortunately, there are folks who are highly threatened by this method and immediately stick their fingers in their ears, rather than simply listening and trying to use it constructively. The basic, constructive method of deconstruction says “I believe X. If X was untrue, how would that change what I believe about other things? And if that changed what I believe about other things – where did I get the ties between X and those other things?” This is what Bell is applying to this particular situation.
Since you may not be familiar with systematic theology (the topic he’s dealing with) – it basically says that all doctrines are built one-upon-another and if one is wrong, all of them start to fall apart. This is how Calvinism works. For example – if double-predestination is not the means by which God works, then total depravity and the rest of the house of cards all falls down.
In the case of the immaculate conception + virgin birth, neither Jesus, nor his disciples, nor Paul use Jesus’ biological parentage as a proof-claim to his divinity. In fact, from church history, it would have been much simpler and less messy for the first 300 years of the church if Jesus and Paul would have been explicit in tying these concepts together, and in defining the Trinity. But they didn’t see that it was important enough to do so.
When Paul teaches and reiterates the gospel in his epistles, he always ties Jesus’ divinity to the resurrection, and he does not once even mention Jesus’ biological parentage – in any context. It was only later, in the Catholic church’s process of venerating Mary, that the virgin birth was taught to be a prerequisite for Jesus’ divinity. This occurred after the Great Schism, so it is not even an issue in the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.
Even so – this does not mean that Jesus’ biological parentage is unimportant. In fact, we should ask why two of the four Gospel writers chose to include it in their gospels. I’ve heard a number of very good theories, all of which make sense on why this miracle would be included, while others have been excluded.
It defies logic if your belief is that the title “Son of God” is one that is an implicit title of parentage. But that’s not how the title “Son of …” worked (and works) in Judaism. I only gave you a few examples, but “son of [X]” as a title in Judaism means “has the characteristics that describe [X]“. Jesus said that all peacemakers are sons of God. Paul said that we are all sons and daughters of God. Matthew and other genealogy-recorders in Scripture do not always list every member in a genealogy, but rather pick and choose who to highlight for their own purposes (because one’s “father” in a genealogy often has some characteristic that makes them your “father”).
John – who doesn’t teach anything about Jesus’ birth in his gospel – traces Jesus’ role as the “only begotten Son” back to Genesis 1. “In the beginning was the Word” – he is the “only begotten son of God” because “he was with God in the beginning”.
In Hebrew culture, the picture of the words is just as important (if not moreso) than the literal meaning of the words.
This is not an example of the snake in the Garden saying “did God really say…” – it is basic hermeneutics and Scripture translation…
Chris, you continue to ignore the accounts in the gospels where it is clearly stated that when the angel came to both Mary and Joseph, he announce, reassured and explained that the child would not be conceived through ordinary means, but that the Holy Spirt would come upon her …this was in resonse to Mary herself asking how could this happen since she was a virgin. It is clear that Joseph knew the babe was not his, because he was going to end the betrothal until the angel assured him that Mary’s baby was not the result of another man. Son of God is only use as “only begotten” in reference to Christ. Might want to study this further, it would be a good investment of time…
I am not informed on Calvin and the theological ideas and traditions, immaculate conception I think is a Catholic idea? Don’t know, but the Biblical account just seems to say what it says. If you did not base your beliefs on the scriptures, and the illumination of the writer of the scriptures, where would you go for your understanding of what God has said? I am sure the theologians have been beyond helpful, and I am not putting down the traditions of the church, I am just saying that we in our day have the Bible translated in our own language, our manuscripts are very early, and God’s message has been miraculously preserved….
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…
Lisa – I’m not ignoring them at all. I’ve mentioned them multiple times as (to me) the most convincing cast for almah meaning “virgin” and not “young woman”. I consider these verses to be the clearest indication of the immaculate conception and the virgin birth. You don’t need to convince me that this is the correct interpretation, because I believe it is!
It is possible I’ve not been clear enough with you what I am trying to do – I am trying to represent (as respectfully as possible) the opposing view to mine, which would give an alternate explanation for how Jesus could have had an earthly father. I don’t think I’m doing that good a job of it, but it must be good enough because you seem to think this is what I believe.
Now, I will try to be more clear for you when I am doing this. Here is how they (not me) would answer your query about the use of “only begotten”:
1) The only Gospel to use the phrase “only begotten” is the Gospel of John – which does not contain the story of the virgin birth or immaculate conception. Instead, John teaches that the origin of Jesus as the “only begotten” son of God was in Genesis 1, and not his physical birth. At the beginning of John’s Gospel, he states “In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.” So, Jesus was the only begotten of God at the beginning of time.
2) John also goes on to say, about Jesus: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”
3) The word that John uses, monongene also means “one and only”, and has no implication of parentage
4) The only other Biblical usage of monongene is in reference to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten” son. However – Isaac is NOT literally Abraham’s “only begotten” son. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son, but was conceived via sinful means via his wife’s maidservant. Thus, Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten” son uses “only begotten” in a figurative meaning (as the “son promised by God”), not a literal one.
These four items (among a couple of others) are how someone who disbelieved in the immaculate conception, but believed in Jesus’ divinity would explain this apparent dichotomy with the term “only begotten”. [Is it now more clear that this is not what I believe, but that I am representing someone I disagree with?]
Maybe I did a poor job of explaining systematic theology and what I was referring to.
In this discussion, we have three facts:
A) Jesus was born of a literal virgin (Mary) and the Holy Spirit.
B) Jesus is divine.
C) Our hope of Salvation is in Jesus.
Each of these things we know from Scripture. We also know, from Paul’s letters, that if (B) was not true, then (C) could not possibly be true. Thus, if (B) was ever shown to be false, then our hope would be in a lie.
In Scripture, though, we do not have a direct proof that “if (A) was false, then (B) must be false; and thus (C) must also be false as well. Therefore, (A) must be true for (B) and (C) to be true.” It was the Catholic church – in its development of the doctrine around Mary – that first taught the system which connected (A), (B) and (C) as inextricably intertwined.
This might be true. However, we cannot say that this connection is certainly is true, because it is not explicitly stated in Scripture that (A) caused (B). My point in referencing the debates of the early church is that even they – with the direct teaching and influence of Jesus’ disciples – argued about whether Jesus was literally God, and if he was, how did that come to be? John’s Gospel (which is believed to have been the last one written) doesn’t explain Jesus’ deity as being a product of his physical parentage. Instead, John’s Gospel teaches that Jesus’ divinity was established at the beginning of time when he was with God and was God – and does not reference his birth as establishing his deity. Thus, but John’s account (B) does not require that (A) be true in order for it to be true, as well.
[Side note: Calvinism, to use a broad brush in describing systematic theology, takes facts (A) through (Z) and about a hundred more, and then says that if all of them aren't true, then none of them is true. This is how you get statements that "if the Creation wasn't performed in 6 literal 24-hour days, then Jesus didn't die on the cross." Bell's point is that many of the items from (A) through (Z) are human interpretations, and that many of the "mandatory" connections between them that would make everything fall apart are man's inventions.]
Now – just to try for complete clarity. Let’s continue to use this nomenclature, just to stay in the realm of modernism and logic. We have three facts:
(A) Jesus was born of a literal virgin (Mary) and the Holy Spirit.
(B) Jesus is divine.
(C) Our hope of Salvation is in Jesus.
You and I both completely agree that (A), (B) and (C) are true.
You and I both completely agree that if (B) is false, then (C) is false.
You and I seem to disagree that (A) must have happened in order to cause (B), and that without (A) there is no possible way to have (B).
Thus it seems that you are saying: if (A) was ever – somehow – discredited, (B) and (C) would have to be false, as well. Therefore, even hypothetically considering what you would believe if (A) was somehow discredited is the equivalent of denying (B) and (C) – OR, would (at the very least) be saying that (A) is unimportant.
You do not need to convince me of (A), (B) or (C) – I believe them all to be true. What you need to do is prove that (A) is the only possible cause for (B). If you cannot do this, then you cannot require that (A) be true in order for (B) to be true.
Your question makes alot of sense. Hmm.
I do believe that if we are going to base our understanding of how God became man in the person of Christ on scripture, we would have to understand that, since all the fullness of deity dwells in this bodily form, and Jesus is the “I am”, along with the clear presentation of the circumstances (Joseph“kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25, NASB), And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”) to believe in the Jesus of the scriptures, it would follow that we believe in Him as He is revealed in scriptures. Jesus, the son of Larry, is another Jesus.
We are presented here with a miracle, God entering history in the person of His son, and in the same writings that deliver that truth to us, a simple description of how that happened, through the mouth of Angels and those who experienced this miracle, the very mother of Christ. “In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.’
Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’
‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ’since I am a virgin?’
The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God.’
‘I am the Lord’s servant,’ Mary answered. ‘May it be to me as you have said.’ Then the angel left her.
Luke 1:26-3
This description of the conception of Jesus does include the statement (look here at the Greek also) that “ 35The angel answered and said to her, in response to her query, how can this be, since I am a virgin (here the literal sense is clearly seen, others would not fit, for why would she ask?) “(AR)The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of (AS)the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason (AT)the holy Child shall be called (AU)the Son of God. “ here may be the connection you seek. Mary says she is a virgin, how could this be? Gabriel explains she will be visited by the Holy Spirit, and the power of the Most high, and for THAT reason, the holy child will be called the Son of God”.
Matthew makes the connection with intent, as the Angel clears this up for Joseph:
‘Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten is of the Holy Spirit, 21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’ 22 And all this hath come to pass, that it may be fulfilled that was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,’ which is, being interpreted ‘With us he is God.’ 24 And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, 25 and did not know her till she brought forth her son — the first-born, and he called his name Jesus
It was the angel Gabriel that said this was a fulfillment of scripture. It was in response to Joseph’s hesitation to marry Mary, because he assumed there was an earthly father involve. The context speaks simply.
Unless, you do not believe the Bible is reliable and has been mythologized in this area, which, if that is so, we have no basis to except any of the Biblical account. Is Christianity like all religions, some truth woven with Mythology, or does it stand unique, based on God’s character of truth? Is the “surer word of prophecy” not so sure?
Possibly what is being challenged in Bell’s discussion in not so much whether it matters if Jesus’s father was Larry, or God.
If he can ask this question:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry…”
Is he really suggesting that the bible is not reliable, and we need to be prepared to face the fact that when Gabriel declared that it was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 he was mistaken, or lying, or he really did not say it, the disciples just made it up.
No, it would not effect my faith, because I would not believe it.
Lisa – let me put it a little bit differently, in context with how Bell used this in Velvet Elvis.
If I were to ask myself the question:
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry…”
If I were to ask myself this question, then I would have to say to myself: If Jesus had a biological father, then I would have to have to say that Matthew’s citation of Isaiah 7:14 (please note that it was Matthew, not Gabriel, who cited Isaiah 7:14) must have used the alternate meaning of almah to “virgin”, and Mary’s question of Gabriel must have referred to her age, not her virginity (both of which are a real stretch of interpretation for me to accept, mind you). I would also have to accept that much of the Jewish and early Christian explanations that I have come to accept about the virgin birth would be incorrect, as well.
I would never assume, though, that what is recorded in the Bible is mistaken or lying – but rather that it was my interpretation of it that was incorrect.
[As another example of 'correctness' and interpretation - In Stephen's sermon in Acts, just before he was stoned, he got some details from the OT Scripture historically incorrect. I believe that the Acts account records faithfully what Stephen said, and that he was incorrect when he said it - not that the Bible is contradicting itself by pitting Stephen vs. the Hebrew Scriptures.]
Now, your answer was:
If that was the case, then you wouldn’t really be answering the question, because the proof of Jesus’ parentage wouldn’t be difinitive/certain.
What you seem to be saying is that you believe your choice would be 1) The “definitive proof” must be false; or 2) The Bible must be false. I am simply adding a choice #3) My interpretation of the Bible must be false.
If my only choices were #1 and #2, I would choose #1, as well. I just believe, though, that in some cases (like this one) it is remotely possible that #3 could be correct. Believe me, it would frustrate me to no end if the “proof” was truly definitive (i.e. there was no way to theorize how it could be incorrect), but choice #2 would always be my last and unchoosable option.
Not to divert this too much, but I’ve had Catholic friends who not only believe, as I do, in the virgin birth, but they also believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin – that she did not lose her physical virginity giving birth, and that Joseph never slept with her after Jesus’ birth. They hold this belief so firmly, that they believe that if it was not true, then the rest of Jesus’ story would also not be true. They read the same passage you and I do, and see that her virginity is eternal, and (from tradition and some early church writers) that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were from an earlier marriage of Joseph, and that Joseph was a widower.
Believe me, some of the conversations I’ve had with them on this topic have been far more heated, particularly when Bell’s comment is included.
[To be fair, I have other friends from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, but do not treat it as foundational to faith in Christ.]
Pastor Bell is not trying to suggest that the Bible is unreliable – he is trying to show how we need to know what we believe, and why, and to hold them tightly, but not so tightly that if our interpretation of them were challenged that we might lose our faith over a matter that is not directly tied to our salvation (especially as it deals with systematic theology).
Chris, Your catholic friends cannot base their assumption on scripture. It says that Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth, no indication of afterwards, and Jesus had siblings. So, that is a doctrinal believe based on their tradition, not on the biblical account. I think a straightforward look at the biblical account does support that Christ was concieved by the Holy Spirit, and that Larry was not his father.
History, science and popular culture is sometimes agenda driven. I believe the bible is God’s word. I understand that I am capable of misinterpretation. But I do not think the word itself can be proven in error. To make the interpretation that I have come to is not perfect, but required no denial of any information in the text. I understand that many Rabbis feel strongly that the Isaiah text should not be used in this setting, but that would be understandible…
The new testiment text that I quoted is not a very difficult one….ask someone versed in the Greek…it pretty well says what it says.
Lisa – I agree with you, and responded pretty much as you have. I do have a little bit of Greek teaching, as well, and there is no support in the Bible for this doctrine [that Mary was perpetually a virgin].
However, both the EO and the Catholic church have additional books they have accepted in the Canon of Scripture, which is where they get this doctrine from. Since it was the church councils who established what books are in Canon, they accept more books into the Bible that we Protestants do. [Bell actually makes this point, as well, that we, as Evangelical/Protestant Christians, accept by faith that the Ecumenical Councils of the Fourth Century chose the correct books to include in Scripture.]
I agree that the straightforward account is the best one to go with, and to accept as being completely true. My only caveat is that I have to be open to correction if something I have interpreted one way turns out to be different than what God actually said, did, intended, or caused to transpire. This is especially true with prophecy – since by its very nature, it can be misleading. [If you look at Revelation - the biggest example of this - there are all sorts of methods to use in interpreting it.] Thus, Bell’s question is not to denigrate Scripture or to suggest it is unreliable – it is about knowing what you believe and why. His hypothetical was chosen, I believe, because it is one that has solid literal Scriptural support BUT it also has a lot of tradition and systematic meanings attached to it apart from Scripture. The hypothetical was given to help separate what is in Scripture from what is apart from it. It is an example that does not work for some people, I understand, but Bell (like me) affirms that the virgin birth and the immaculate conception are true just to make sure that they understand that he is not questioning the traditional and orthodox belief.
Lisa – Here’s a link to the wikipedia article on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is actually a doctrine that was held by all three main branches of the faith (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) at points throughout history.
Yet, as you say (and as I say) it is not supported in Scripture.
So, when I talk about “stripping away what is tradition from what is in Scripture”, this is the type of thing I’m mostly referring to (and part of what Bell was pointing to with his example). Notice that this doctrine is considered de fide in the Catholic church – to deny it is considered heresy!
This is just another example of part of systematic theology where well-intentioned Christians have used human logic and systematic thinking to tie multiple truths together to explain how God works (or worked) in Scripture. I do not believe it to be true (or in the very least, if it is, it is not necessary for salvation), and have always pointed out that it is not supported in Scripture.
I didnt know that the perpetual virginity idea went beyond later Catholic teachings…thanks for sharing.
I do agree with Bell about stripping away traditions, and dropping the trappings that the Church has gathered along the way…
but, I think my thinking on it comes from a totally different perspective than his. I see all things extra-biblical as extraneous at best, and diverting from truth at worst. I am getting the impression from what you are communicating (sorry if I get this wrong, trying to understand) that he would go further, and actually implies the Biblical text has been seriously “man handled”…and thus, may of may not be reliable, and actually it is up to us (other manhandlers) to sort this out, taking some, leaving others. Am I grasping the implication correctly? So, my viewpoint on the scriptures makes our discussion here nearly impossible, because I have declared it as a unhindered absolute (only my interpretation left suspect) that stands above the “truth” we have discovered by human means. I believe scripture is God breathed.
So, we may not really disaggree on the fact that Jesus is God’s only begotton son, I just see them as coming from revelation.
Lisa, I don’t know Rob personally (though, in full disclosure, one of the guys who writes with me on another blog is on staff with him at Mars Hill), so I can only answer for myself and (at best) make an educated guess for Rob.
I would agree (and so would Rob, from his statements) that what is in the Bible, as recorded in the original autographs, is truly and divinely inspired – revealed to us by God. However, since we do not speak Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic – AND – since we are not first-century Hebrews or Greeks, or Israelites from a thousand years before, we have to rely on extra-biblical sources just to get the Bible into our own language (English).
And even then – once it is in English – since there is not a 1:1:1 relationship between English:Hebrew:Greek words, we have to wrestle over which English words best convey the meaning of the original words.
And still, on top of that, we (or our translators) will very likely have a number of idioms that they must choose to either translate literally (which might end up losing meaning for us) or culturally (which might end up losing word-plays the author sought to make).
And so, on top of that, groups of translators want to make different choices (from the above slate), and may also consider different early manuscripts as the “most authoritative”. (For example, when translating Isaiah, is the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the OT – the “most authoritative”? Or – are the Hebrew Isaiah scrolls from the Dead Sea Scrolls the “most authoritative”? Or, is the Latin Vulgate the “most authoritative”? Or is the Hebrew Masoretic Text the “most authoritative”?) Because they disagree on these things, we end up with multiple translations (with major and minor differences) – you use the KJV, which I tend to believe uses the wrong source material (the Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Greek translation of the original Hebrew). I tend to use either the NIV or ESV, because they use older manuscripts and take into account the cultural meanings of idioms, and are more “readable”.
And even with this, we ultimately have to trust that we consider the correct writings as Canon in forming our Bible. The canonized Bible of the Catholic branch is different than the canonized Bible of the Eastern Orthodox branch, and they are both different than the 66 books canonized in the Protestant Bible. We trust that the Reformers who chose the current canon were correct in the criteria they used.
So, in essence, we do have to put a level of faith in the men who have “handled” Scripture to get it to us in the form we have in our English, 66-book Bibles – be they KJV, NASB, NIV, NLV, etc, etc.
This does not mean that the Bible is unreliable – it simply means that because we were not the original audience with the original manuscript, listening to the original author, we might have to do some digging to make sure we’ve got the meaning right. And even then, we might get the translation or our interpretation wrong. Case in point – if you look at the debates on eschatology, there are a number of seriously different interpretations – both literal and figurative – that cannot all be right.
I would say that the only difference between how you and I (and probably Rob) view Scripture is that I probably leave more room for my interpretation to potentially be incorrect (even if it is only 0.00001% of room). I would never say that Scripture is incorrect or unreliable, and I don’t think Rob would, either. What is unreliable is us.
Let me give you a very practical example:
From the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded by Matthew:
What, exactly, is Jesus conveying in this teaching? I’ve heard a whole lot of guesses as to this meaning, with many/most of them diverging from one another (and likely the most probable meaning).
Now – what if I told you that in the Ancient Near East (and even parts of the modern Near East) that to have a “good eye” is colloquial for being a generous person and to have a “bad eye” is colloquial for being a stingy person?
With that knowledge, how would you interpret Jesus’ words from his sermon?
Now, you might doubt this, since the source of the knowledge about the idiom comes from extra-Biblical sources. So, let’s test this meaning in the context of the broader passage of Jesus’ sermon:
So – by using an extra-biblical cultural reference, I might actually be able to better understand what is being conveyed in Scripture. This is not always the case, so discernment and humility are greatly required.
Yes, that is a good example of using cultural context to understand more clearly what Jesus may of intended to say here.
I have seen this become another “box” though also. For instance, my husband was in a class and the teacher said the story of Abraham and Isaac was not that significant because sacrificing the first born was so common in that culture. Yet if you look at the story itself, Abraham trusted God, and for that reason he could follow through in obedience. And “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The significance of the sacrifice God provided (the connection to Christ) was lost on the teacher. He ignore textual clues to the meaning of the story, and New Testament reflection. One cultural theory strumped everything else.
But, yes, any good commentary would provide understanding of the life and times of the those who inscribed God’s words.
I agree that this could become a “box”.
I would note that (regarding Abraham and Isaac), the sacrifice of the first born was very common, and Abraham may not have been surprised by God’s request (as we would be, today, where child sacrifice only happens under the antiseptic lights of Planned Parenthood and their ilk). Even so, this would not make their story insignificant. Rather, it would put the surprise and focus more on God’s provision of a substitute, rather than on Abraham’s faith. In light of God’s provision of a substitute for us – just like he did for Isaac – I think that this cultural observation would put the focus on where it should be for us, as Christians.
Like most tools, cultural analysis can be used for good or ill. It should never make what is in Scripture unimportant. Rather, it should help us focus on another facet of truth contained in Scripture – or to strip away meanings we have added to it that might not belong.
Yes, God’s provision would have been the key here, and “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” is an incredible thought. He must have been so aquainted with God, his confidence in his provision was sure.
Could you give me the sources for the idea that first born sacrifice was very common during Abrahams life? I have researched a bit and am not finding that.
Chris, some more ponderings…
It probably has taken me a lifetime to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac. Not so much the story that is rich in theology and amazement that God stepped into time, long ago, to give a clear picture of what he would provide in the person of His Son. That, in itself, would take volumes and a far more articulate person than myself to convey.
What grips me now, in my later years, is what had transpired in Abraham’s heart. Here was a man, like me, who was a master of maneuvers and manipulations to “make things work”. This same person had asked his wife to say she was his sister, in fear, and had taken her maid on her advisement to help God fulfill his promise.
Failure and faith. Teachers both.
I can imagine the culture God had called him from was radically different that the one he called him to…and he had learned the hard lessons. Need we fear? God will protect. Do we need to manipulate or maneuver? God will do all He said He would. He had been buffeted.
It is so amazing to me, and comforting, that God waited until Abrahams heart had been humbled to ask this one more time: do you trust me?
Did Abraham love Isaac? Whew. He had travailed, anticipated, and he had received. The central purpose and longing of his life was in Isaac. And his love for Isaac must have been (I am speaking from my heart here, not with authority from the scripture) as the old have for their dear grandchildren. The preciousness of the young is so much tenderer in our later years.
Abraham was a man that had walked with God. His life had intersected in spectacular ways with the Almighty. There was a promise, there was a hope, and this had solidified in the old man through trial and triumph.
And Abraham believed God.
Lisa
I’ve seen it in several places. I think the most recent one was Zondervan’s Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary of the Old Testament.
The wandering people of the deserts in the Ancient Near East sacrificed all sorts of thing, usually increasing in value – both to thank the gods and to try and appease them (during times of need – drought, famine, etc.). The practice of sacrificing the first born (considered the most valuable) was very common – and was a problem throughout the Old Testament, when the people of Israel occupied the Promised Land. Molech, Dagon and most of the gods of the area required sacrifice.
The key differences between the sacrifice system of the cultures surrounding the Israelites and the one instituted in Torah is that the sacrifice system in the Torah did not require human blood – in any form – and it put limits on sacrifices, so that man could know that he was at peace with God. Otherwise, you would have to sacrifice more and more and more, and never know for sure if you were at peace with your gods.
Lisa – Isaac also represented much more to Abraham. In that culture, the only things that mattered in the big picture were (A) descendants; and (B) Land. Those were the ONLY things that could carry on your legacy and carry your name on after you died. (I wrote about this in a lot more detail in last week’s article on Sacrifice and Holy Week).
Abraham’s faith had to be strong to follow through with God’s request, no doubt. This is true whether or not God’s request was unusual.
What was completely unusual, though, and different from all of the false gods of the region, was that God provided the sacrifice required for Himself. That is an incredible picture of a loving God…
“God provided the sacrifice required for Himself. That is an incredible picture of a loving God…”
Amen!
I originally stumbled upon this site in searching for one of Rob Bell’s sermons. I am involved in a newly formed bible study and the other night we began to brainstorm for topics of discussion. I brought up the parallels between John of Patmos symbolism in Revelation and the imagery, iconography, and culture of Rome and the Ceasar, particularly Dometian. I knew a bit on this topic but in one of Rob’s sermons from a while back he went into greater detail and with his style of rhetoric and explanation. I tried searching his site but to no avail. I saw amidst your discussion that you have a friend on Rob’s staff. Perhaps you or through you, your friend might point me in the right direction of this podcast?
Also I read through your extensive discussion with lisa on Bell’s Velvet Evlis book. It was an enjoyable read. I wish I could have been involved over a cup of coffee. You know, when I first fell in love with Jesus I was quite as she is; vigorous, defensive, purist, and well meaning. I quickly dismissed other commentary and held fast to scripture and traditional church rhetoric and dogma. It wasn’t until a few years ago that my heart had cooled and my faith had become lukewarm. I casually decided to pick up a copy of Velvet Elvis at the suggestion of a friend some years earlier. “Why not? Let’s see what all the fuss is about” I thought. I certainly had a stark and different reaction from those that I read about often on the web. I cried. It was beautiful. Not necissarily from any moving words or imagery that jumped off the page and into my mind, rather it was the feeling in my heart that I felt kinship to in a way I had not since first becoming saved. This kinship I felt in this book was this thought, “finally I feel like I’m listening to someone who has verve, spirit and passion about Christ in such a way that the relationship simply is without need of defense or proof.” “Finally a person stating their love not only for but WITH Christ.” I loved his imagery of comparisson between an faith built by bricks or a faith with springs upon which others are invited to leap. I must say it was this metaphorical “leaping” that stirred altruism and love for my enemies in my heart and not a “brick wall” of postulated beliefs. It is this wall (the idea that the Christian faith is built by bricks of truths. All of which can come crashing down if one brick were to fail or come up wrong.) that kept me from church for so many years. I think ultimately Rob has used his analogies such as the one you and Lisa argued, for a greater point that often many westernized A+B=C christians completely miss. Is your relationship with Jesus a marriage? or are you buddies with Him because of the benefits He gains you? i.e. “fire insurance” and a place of belonging or fitting in at the church (i.e. country club) Would you stand alone? Would you know Christ because you KNOW Him? And further more in KNOWing Him would your beliefs be your own and not those you adopted in ignorent confidence of someone else’s convictions? In an earthly relationship no one wants to be loved out of the suggestion of another rather, they want to be loved by the will and decision of the person they are focused on. Likewise God wishes our love for Him out of our desire and passion for the person, entity, and unexplainable of who and what He is. I think again, this is key and the underlying cause of most arguments and divisions among brothers and sisters in Christ. Do you love God for WHO and WHAT He is or for an idea or notion of God. A notion can be very dangerous in that it limits our hearts and minds to be closed and decided on what we percieve and believe. Many great Christians in history in fact, have transcended notions of God and discovered Him in the most “unchristian” of places and in the most “unchristian” of situations. Anyone could percieve God through obvious iconography at a church where His name is proclaimed thoroughly. But to discover God in a leaf or a gentle breeze, how many stories of such a conversion are told? “11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.”
“Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”-1 Kings 19:11.
God indeed is majestic, mighty to save, and our savior against the evil one. We indeed are often given the typical imagery of a western greek based iconography in which God is an “up there some where in the heavens” God that comes down to cast lightning upon our foes and those would be against us. And indeed God does act on our behalf at times. However the example of Christ was one of a more eastern approach I believe. Humble, patient unassuming in appearance, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Isaiah 53:3. If not for these two examples alone and the many more that Christ gave, I believe our place as Christians in western society is to live a life by example rather than auditory proclamation and oratorical argumentation. I think it’s upon these ideals that Rob Bell bases a good bit of his teachings and ideas. And I believe many times it is this very fact that comes in stark contrast with many political christians and the like which would see their beliefs and practices imposed and forced upon the many as a brick wall dropped onto the heads of the enemy…rather than the joyous invitation to come and leap with us.