[+/-] The Detour

Here's an interesting one: compare the events following Jesus' birth as recorded in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. Luke says Jesus' family journeyed to Jerusalem shortly after Jesus' birth, and went from there to Nazareth. Matthew says they first returned to Bethlehem, then fled to Egypt - a four year detour - before settling in Nazareth out of fear of Herod's successor.

That's a little odd, isn't it? Can we harmonize these two accounts? The key verse seems to be Luke 2:39:

When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

This verse seems to implicitly deny the return to Bethlehem and flight to Egypt, but my NIV Study Bible tells me that Luke simply decided not to record it. So the verse could be read:

When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they [went back to Bethlehem, stayed there for close to two years, were visited by Magi, fled to Egypt and stayed another two years, then] returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

This is a bit much for me, but those who need the Bible to be contradiction-free probably won't have difficulty with it. I think Luke would have to say something like "they did not return to Bethlehem, nor go to Egypt at any time, but went immediately Nazareth, where they lived until Jesus was grown" to sway those dead-set on inerrancy. It seems to me that such an explicit contradiction is unlikely to appear in any text, and if you were to interpret the texts of other religions so generously, you would find that a great many of them are also "inerrant" or "without contradictions".

Furthermore, if you insist that Luke has simply made a misleading omission here, it seems to me that you must allow for the possibility of other such omissions. This opens up all kinds of possibilities that a more straight-forward reading of the Bible seems to preclude, because anything that text does not explicitly deny could have happened. To me, this seems to defeat the purpose of having an inerrant scripture.

See also: Inconsistencies in the creation accounts

[+/-] The Irresistible Revolution

This is an excellent book. I hesitate to say that Shane Claiborne has got Christianity right, or that this book represents the true understanding of Jesus' teachings - I'm becoming less confident about such statements. But I think what it advocates is a very good understanding of Christian discipleship, and I mean good in the sense of being of great practical benefit to both the practitioner and the surrounding world.

I'm starting to have an understanding of Christianity as far less about what you believe or what you feel or what you do on Sunday morning, and far more about how you live your life. (Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to understand Christianity, but it resonates with me.) And I think the way-of-life Christianity that I'm draw to looks a lot like what Shane describes here.

The second half of the book gets talking a lot about politics, and war specifically, and I found it a little disappointing. It's not that I think these things shouldn't be spoken of, or that they're completely out of place with what he said earlier. But he has a few contentious points (eg. "all war is bad") which he keeps coming back to but never really supports. It was definitely thought-provoking, but not very persuasive.

Nonetheless, this is an excellent and very challenging book, and I strongly recommend it. I have a copy you could borrow, but this may be a good one to buy for yourself. For one thing, he's giving away all the profits.

[+/-] What is Truth?

I had a chat with a Muslim guy the other day. He was very nice - friendly, engaging, passionate. He was raised as a Catholic but converted to Islam because it made more sense to him. He firmly believes that Islam is the truth, and that this will become evident to anyone who earnestly seeks truth and asks God for guidance.

This is troubling for me. The Mormon missionaries I met the recently are also certain of their beliefs, and are certain that any sincere and humble seeker will come to see the truth of their beliefs. A great many Christians believe the same thing about their beliefs. The same is true for many Atheists, many Muslims, and presumably many people of nearly any other religion. I imagine there are even Agnostics who believe that any honest, thinking person will eventually become an Agnostic. (Of course there are people within each religion who disagree.)

Most of the confident religious people I've talked to (I mean confident that they're right and everyone can know it) are not particularly troubled by this. Sure, they know that lots of people from all religious camps are just as confident, but their own reasons for confidence are so great that they can't really imagine being mistaken. I don't fault them for this, nor do I consider myself somehow beyond this elevation of personal experience over that of others. But seeing this, I can't help but be discouraged about my quest. I feel like I may be able to find some place I fit in the religious world, but to find truth? That is beyond any of us.

This whole concept isn't really new to me, but sometimes I like to forget it. To know truth is a hard dream to let go.

[+/-] John's Baptism

From my "Wacky stuff in the Bible" file:

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

-Acts 19:1-6

This might not strike you as strange if you're charismatic, but if you're not, it probably should. To paraphrase, Paul meets a group of "disciples" (we prefer the term "believers" - why, do you think?) and asks them if they've received the Spirit of God. The disciples are pretty sure they haven't, in fact, they've never heard of the Spirit.

(I think the idea of being indwelt by the essence of God would sound a little odd to someone who'd never heard of it before. It would probably also sound like something very significant, and very difficult to miss - not something you'd have to tell someone about, as in "If you're a Christian you have the Holy Spirit", but something you in-your-face obvious, as in "I see you're filled with God's Spirit; you must be a Christian")

Paul's reaction is, "If you don't have the Spirit, then just whose disciples are you?" They say John's. "That explains it," Paul says, "John was all about repentance. John called people to turn from their sins because the chosen one was coming. Well good news: he's come!" Evidently these people were persuaded (persuaded how, I wonder) and were baptized in Jesus' name. Once they'd proclaimed their devotion to Jesus (Baptism, I'm told, was the official way to declare your discipleship to someone), Paul lays his hands on them, and "the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."

All of this sounds pretty weird to me. I'm not sure what it all means. But what it seems to say is that there's a difference between repentance and receiving the Spirit, and that receiving the Spirit is very palpable and dramatic. The whole thing sounds strikingly similar to what John himself says in Matt 3:11: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

[+/-] Old photo!

Q. Hey Jacob, have you always been awesome?
A. Yes, I have always been awesome.

Sorry, I just found this in my closet and I couldn't resist. That's me on a kindergarten field trip, back when I was cute (and slightly less arrogant).

[+/-] The Great Banquet - JHV

This is a follow-up to my previous post, "The Plan Bs". Some of my readers felt that the details of the story which I take issue with may not have been intended to be so closely examined. They suggested that we're meant to focus only on the major point of the story - seemingly that the Jews rejected Jesus - and not the details, such as which guests the host seems to prefer, and his motivation for "dragging in" his B-list guests. I think this position is valid, particularly in the light of other, more popular Bible stories, but in my view the distateful elements of this story are quite central, and it seems pretty unlikely that they would have been tossed in just to flesh out the story, particularly if the theology they insinuate was as abhorrent to the teller as it is to us.

To demonstrate how easily these ugly details could have been left out of the story or altered, I've re-written the parable:

For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited everyone in town - rich and poor, old friends and strangers alike. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, "Come on in; the food's on the table."

Many hungry people came, many outcasts, and many who had never met the host before. But few (not none) of his wealthy friends showed up.

Some made excuses. One said, "I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets."

Another said, "I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets."

And yet another said, "I just got married and need to get home to my wife."

Others expressed their indignation that the host would invite screw-ups, paupers and whores to a great banquet. They wouldn't be caught dead in the company of such people.

The master was saddened to hear that his friends had turned him down, but delighted to see the poor and the outcasts flocking in.

"Very well," he told his servant, "let the rejects be welcomed, let the hungry be filled, and let the snobs go without."

- Luke 14:16-24 (Jacob Heretical Version)

Like any metaphor, this one surely has it's flaws and limitations, but I think it manages not to suggest anything seriously problematic about God or salvation. Would it have been so hard for Jesus to tell the story this way, instead of making salvation for the gentiles (or whoever are represented by the replacements) seem like an afterthought or a less-than-ideal plan B, only made possible by the rejection of the favored guests?