The Needs of the Many

Posted on September 13, 2013 by

In Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan asks a question of his brother Alyosha:

“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on these conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth!”

(Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov.)

In the Gospel of John (11:45-53), we’re told the following:

Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Some people are willing to say “Yes” to the question Ivan asks of his brother; they will happily sacrifice one for the sake of the many. It is better to force the death of a single innocent, than to risk the prosperity of everyone.

How is that different from what God chooses to do?

God chooses to sacrifice not someone else, but himself for the sake of the many.

John 10:14-18:

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

A Man of War

Posted on September 12, 2013 by

The KJV renders Exodus 15:3 in this way:

“The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.”

Most modern translations simply render it “The LORD is a warrior.” The passage in Exodus is neither a pre-Christian allusion to the incarnation, nor does it suggest that God is human. Instead, it is simply that in Hebrew, there is no other way to refer to a soldier, a warrior, than with the phrase “man of war.” The Old KJV tended toward the literalistic in translation, creating some oddities such as the rendering of this verse, or in phrases like “holy of holies,” which is rendered more accurately in modern translations as “Most Holy” Thus, the modern translations which read “the Lord is a warrior” are actually better and eliminate any possible confusion or misperception.

This is not the only place that the Bible creates discomfort for those concerned with opposing militarism and war. In the 1970s when the NIV was first being translated, another common Hebrew phrase also became problematic for the translators. The Vietnam war was winding down for the U.S. and there was wide-spread anti-war sentiment, especially among the younger people who might be the primary audience for a new translation. The war was also not popular outside the U.S. and the NIV translation was not U.S.-centric–it was, after all the New International Version and scholars from around the world were involved in the work. The NIV translators therefore also struggled with the phrase Yahweh Sabaoth, which the KJV had rendered “LORD of Hosts.” The word “hosts” is rarely used anymore in the sense that the KJV meant it. In the 1970s, as well as today, when we hear the word “hosts,” we might think of the host of a party or a television show. We might have thoughts of hospitality. But the Hebrew word Sabaoth did not mean that God was the patron of variety show hosts or especially concerned with women running Tupperware parties. Instead, the word Sabaoth–the KJV “hosts”–was best rendered into contemporary English with the word “armies.”

The Bible in the Old Testament regularly and repeatedly refers to God as “Yahweh of Armies.” Likewise, the “hosts of heaven” could better be rendered in contemporary English as the “armies of heaven.” Since such a translation did not fit with the prevailing cultural notions of peaceful, flower-toting tolerance, the translators chose to retain the impenetrability of the KJV translation for moderns, but in a modern way. Thus, the choice was made to render the phrase as “Lord Almighty” throughout the Old Testament of the NIV. Really, not what the underlying Hebrew meant, precisely, but it didn’t offend modern sensibilities, either.

Many people remain uncomfortable with the notion of war and find it hard to wrap their minds around the idea that God could ever have sanctioned such a thing. For convinced pacifists who are of a mind to put bumper stickers on their cars announcing that “War never solved anything” they either happily ignore the uncomfortable verses, or reject any belief in the God that shows up in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Others will dismiss the militarism simply because it is in the Old Testament, arguing that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament picture of love and tolerance shown in Jesus. Of course, this is the same Jesus who called the religious leaders “vipers” and “white-washed tombs”—and showed his love to the money changers by making a whip and chasing them from the Temple.

When people ask the question, “What would Jesus do?” it is rare for them to think in terms of making whips and beating folk. But there it is, and given that the God of the Old Testament is actually the Son of God, rather than the Father, the problem for the more pacifistic seems difficult to me.

I think that the Augustinian view of “just war” is probably closer to the biblical picture of things than the modern ideas of pacifism.

I would rather that pacifism was all we saw in the Bible. And I believe that pacifists are not wrong, at least in an ideal sense. Sadly, the world does not always conform to idealism. And the Bible’s words and message are not given to angels or to the ideal: they are for flawed people who live in a real world, a world that is fallen and imperfect. Jesus told the religious leaders who asked him about divorce that divorce is established in the Law of Moses, not because God favors divorce or thinks that divorce is a good idea. Instead, divorce exists in the Mosaic legislation, Jesus said, because of “the hardness of your hearts.” Ideally, there should never be divorce, nor should there ever be the need for it. But in the real world, it’s going to happen. God knows what people are like. So what did God do? He made allowance for our hard hearts. For the fact that we can make mistakes. He regulated and mitigated the evil as much as possible for fallen creatures.

War is not the ideal. But sometimes it is necessary. Gandhi thought that the Jews should quietly accept their fate during the Holocaust and not fight back. I disagree with Gandhi–in fact I am horrified by his attitude. I really don’t think there was any other way to stop the Nazis other than bombing them. For those who wonder where God was during the Holocaust, I would argue that he was using the allied aircraft to bomb the crap out of the Nazis–and he was the Lord of the armies who fought their way to Berlin.

The LORD is a warrior;
the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:3)

The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” (Exodus 14:14)

Who is this King of glory?
The LORD strong and mighty,
the LORD mighty in battle. (Psalm 24:8)

…a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:8)

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, History, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

Smog Check

Posted on September 11, 2013 by

I had delayed getting my Saturn Vue smog checked for a very long time; I paid the registration fee, but the vehicle needed to have the brakes replaced and getting a smog check costs money too, and so I put it off until we could afford it.

So, today I took it in to be checked (yes, I got a pass from the DMV so I could drive it); although it passed on both emissions and visual inspection, because the OBD System was “not ready to test” it failed. Emissions were as follows:

CO (carbon monoxide) at 728 RPM (idle) could be a maximum of 1 per cent. My car put out 0.02 per cent.

CO at 2500 RPM could be a maximum of 1 per cent. My car put out 0.01 per cent.

Hydrocarbons could be a maximum of 100 parts per million. My car puts out 0, both at idle and at 2500 RPM.

But because the OBD (on board diagnostic) system wasn’t up and running like it should, I failed. And what does it mean that my OBD system wasn’t “ready to test”—it means that I need to drive the car so it fills up with data; the reason it was not ready to test is because we had let it sit for a long time, then replaced the battery, so it was, essentially, cleared. At least the fix is easy. But I must admit to being puzzled by the State of California. If the purpose of the smog check is to see to it that emissions are kept to a minimum, then why does anything else matter? I have hardly any emissions. About the only way it would be better is if my car is electric. But because the OBD wasn’t working? I don’t understand. I suppose there’s a reason besides just the bureaucratic.

This is the same smog place I’ve been going to since I’ve lived here in Lancaster and I’m happy with them. The nice man who did the smog test today was very friendly and gregarious. He asked me what I did and I told him I was an author, which he found interesting. He told me he had been a university professor before he came to the US six years ago, and that he also was a computer programmer—he taught computer science and he’s hoping to move to Seattle soon for a job up there—he’s got family there who work for Microsoft.

So he had some questions about writing, and how to keep the text from drifting off into other subjects; he told me, in essence, that he easily gets off on bunny trails—he finds something fascinating, it triggers ideas, and off he goes. He told me his students would complain about that tendency. He also kept telling me he likes to talk a lot, which was certainly true.

I enjoyed listening to him, and tossing in ideas about how to write; I explained how I fix that sort of problem in rewrites—that you just get the book done first, and then you go back and excise the extraneous material and rearrange things to fit the outline you created ahead of time. He likes to outline and organize before he gets started—though, as he said, he has a problem ignoring the outline once he starts writing.

Later he asked me what sorts of books I write and I told him science fiction and religious books. He then asked me if I’d written anything about Islam. I told him I hadn’t, though I had read the Quran in translation a couple of times.

He asked me if he could tell me about Islam briefly (which turned into much longer than anyone’s definition of brief, but he really did enjoy talking to me a lot).

So he talked to me about the differences between Islam and Christianity and explained that while Islam is logical, Christianity is not. And he spent some time discussing issues he had with the trinity and the various attempts to give analogies, such as the egg (yolk, white, shell). He also didn’t like the concept of God “resting” after creating the universe—how could God be tired? And he didn’t think it was reasonable that God would wrestle with Jacob—how could God come down and be a man and allow a man to challenge him. In Islam, God is entirely transcendent.

He also couldn’t understand how or why God would have a son—how could he need a companion or someone to rely on? And he explained that it made no sense for God to exist and then at some point form the Son and then the Holy Spirit.

He thought it strange that most Christians, in his estimation don’t think, and they don’t read the Bible—unlike Moslems who have to read the Quran every day. He also found it peculiar that the names of God and Jesus change from place to place in the world—that in Spanish the name of Jesus is pronounced entirely differently than it is in English. He also talked about the variation from place to place with the word God, or Jehovah, or Yahweh.

Unlike Christianity, in Islam, you pray to God only in Arabic, and you carefully learn how to pronounce it, and so no matter where you go, US, Saudi Arabia, Germany, China—it is always Alahu Akhbar. And the Quran is studied only in Arabic, and read only in Arabic.

He explained that Shiites are not Muslim at all, because they venerate a man, and that only the Suni are truly Muslim.

He explained how in Islam the men who go to war, to fight jihad, expect to either be victorious or to die trying—and that either one is a win for them. Unlike Americans who want to come home to their families and houses and cars. A Muslim leaves his family, leaves everything, and will either win or die.

Under Islam, there is only the rule of Islam, no democracy; if you fight against Islam, then you will die. If you don’t fight, then you are free to believe what you will. But if you don’t accept Islam, then you must preach only in your churches—and you cannot build new ones—and you can worship only at home. And you must pay a tax for the privilege. He extolled the advantages of punishing wrongdoers publically and extremely: if you steal, we cut off your left hand. Do it again, your right. And how many people will steal when they see that sort of swift justice; having a lengthy trial, putting them in prison, how does that keep someone from misbehaving. You hang adulterers in the public square, let everyone see—and the men and women will be constrained from that sort of thing. Same with homosexuality.

He sees the conflicts, the wars in the Middle East and the beginning of the end times—the great battle when Islam will become dominate.

He only briefly mentioned Israel as a place that he expected Islam to soon rule over.

After I had paid for the smog check—he told me to pick out a drink from the cooler—he liked to do that for good friends and customers. And he told me if I had any questions, or wanted to talk more, he was always open to it. We shook hands repeatedly and he kept wanting to chatter on, but said he really should stop and let me go. Which he finally did.

It was an interesting discussion. He was very nice, very friendly, and I enjoyed talking with him.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

History

Posted on September 10, 2013 by

In answer to the question, why study history:

“The world seemed an odd place, and I wondered how it got that way.”

— Attributed to R.H. Tawney, historian

If you’ve ever wondered about the value of history, you’ve doubtless heard what has become almost a cliché: “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Which makes history sound as if it is cyclical or something. In fact, you can either make your own mistakes and learn from them, or find out the mistakes others have made and learn from them. Of course, the reality is something of a mixture of the two: we learn from the mistakes of others, and still make some new, fresh ones ourselves so we can teach ourselves something.

A better way of thinking of history follows more the words quoted above from R.H. Tawney: all of us have been thrust into a theater two hours into a play, in the middle of the third act. We’ve got a lot of catching up to do if we want to make sense of where we are and what’s going on.

Of course, it’s worse than that. Not only have we been dropped into the play after it’s been going for two hours, we’re expected to hop up on the stage and join in on all the fun.

That’s why a knowledge of history is useful: you know what’s going on, at least a little. You know why those two characters don’t like each other, and why that little fellow is punching that old woman—and so on. You understand why mostly there are no easy or quick solutions to most of the problems, because the quick and easy problems have already been solved—but new ones keep cropping up all the time. And you learn who the good guys and who the bad guys are—and realize that sometimes hero and villain are slippery ideas, one of degrees, and sometimes shifty. And worst of all, that sometimes everyone is a villain and there aren’t any good guys at all. Sometimes you’ll just want to find a place on stage to hide until the next act comes along.

Send to Kindle
Posted in History | Leave a comment

Don’t Give Up

Posted on September 9, 2013 by

Some of the stories you write you just know are good. Not only do all your friends praise it, but when Ray Bradbury read it he praised it, too.

So how come a story like that gets rejected over and over again? And not just form letter rejections, but personal rejections. Always personal rejections. And more than one of them tells you, “we can’t use it just now, but I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding someone to take it. And please send us something else.”

So if you’re that good, if they like the story, if they want to see more of your work, then why did they reject this story? It’s hard to say. Sometimes rejection happens because the editor just bought a couple of stories that are similar to yours. Perhaps you wrote a time travel story, but he just bought two of them and he had four appear in the magazine so far this year. He just can’t take another, no matter how good or how unique yours is.

Getting published is not just about your talent. It is not just about knowing your craft and being good at it. Being good at writing is simply a given in the world of publication. A lot of good writers get rejected every day. Rejection is not necessarily because you’re incompetent; often, it has nothing at all to do with your competence. It’s just a business decision. What you wrote doesn’t fit the need of the publication right now. Sometimes that’s all it is.

So what do you do? One of the most important traits for any prospective author, for any author at all, even if he has been frequently published, is perseverance. You have to keep on trying. You have to refuse to stop trying. Giving up is the one sure fire way to avoid getting published. Never giving up, taking a beating, and sticking to it is the way you will succeed.

In baseball, a good hitter is one that makes it to first base only once out of every three tries. If you fail two out of three times—if you fail 66 percent of the time—then you are a very good hitter. And every time you get up to bat, you may see several balls go past you before you get that hit. You might get two strikes, maybe two or three foul balls, and two or three balls before you swing and connect and hit it just right so that the ball falls between the opposing players and you scramble fast enough to get on base. Or maybe, you get on base only because one or more of the players on the other side does something wrong—they make a mistake and you’re safely on base only because of their screw up. It counts for you, but you know that all things being equal, you’d have been out.

Writing is often times the same way. There is a whole lot of failing and a whole lot of luck involved, even if you are at the pro level.

So don’t give up. Don’t get discouraged. Keep at it. That’s the only way you’ll ever get anywhere.

This segment of Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem, If describes how a writer must be:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

Kipling ends his poem by stating, that if you can do all this, then “Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,/And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son.” I would tweak Kipling’s words and change the last line to, “You’ll be a writer.”

Send to Kindle
Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

Humility

Posted on September 8, 2013 by

.After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. (John 6:14-15)

“Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.” (Matthew 21:2)

Jesus made water into wine, multiplied the loaves and fishes, healed the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead. Massive crowds hung on his every word. He was God in the flesh, the Creator of the universe. When he made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem a week before he was crucified, he came riding on a donkey.

There were many prophesies in the Old Testament about when the Messiah would come, what he would accomplish, and what he would be like. The prophet Zechariah predicted that the Messiah would arrive humbly, upon a donkey (Zechariah 9:9). Donkeys were beasts of burden, used for carrying food and supplies. They were not the sort of animal anyone expected to carry a conquering king. When heading off to war, kings sat on mighty steeds or in chariots behind a team of horses. The President of the United States does not peddle a bicycle to across town to address Congress. But that’s just how Jesus rode into Jerusalem, upon the lowliest of animals used for human transportation.

By arriving in Jerusalem in such a manner, Jesus announced to the crowds that though he was the Messiah, he was not going to conquer the world in quite the manner they might have anticipated. Most of the disciples missed that Jesus was God’s servant, conquering the world by dying for its sins.

This same Jesus has come into your life. Have you accepted what that really means? Or have you allowed your expectations to get in the way of glorious reality?

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

What Does God Need?

Posted on September 7, 2013 by

After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’ ”

Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”

They replied, “The Lord needs it.” (Luke 19:28-34)

What does Jesus need? One might believe that Jesus doesn’t need anything. But one day, a week before Passover, Jesus needed a colt and he had his disciples procure it.

Why would someone allow strangers to take a colt simply by saying that the Lord needed it? The word translated “Lord” is a word that in the first century was used by Jewish people to refer to God. So when the disciples asked to borrow the colt for “the Lord,” its owner would believe it was needed for a religious purpose.

Nevertheless, the story about the colt is presented as a miracle: Jesus knew beforehand what would happen. And ordinarily, people do not give property to strangers who ask for it.
But Jesus is God and since God “owns the cattle on a thousand hills,” the animal was his regardless. The story once again reminds us that Jesus is more than just a man. And if Jesus wants something, he will get it. Jesus had the power to heal the sick, and he had the power to borrow something if he needed it, when he needed it. Jesus needed a colt. He couldn’t do without it.

The Bible tells us that God loves you. So what is love? What does it mean he “loves” you?

Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy e unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned. (Song of Songs 8:6-7)

So what does God need?

He needs you. He can’t do without you. As much as the lover needs the beloved. As much as a father or mother loves their children.

Don’t imagine that God can go on without you. Don’t think that he can find someone else. That’s what Jonah thought when God asked him to go to Nineveh. He ran away, had himself tossed into the sea. Was willing to die rather than do what God asked him. But look where he ended up: after he got out of the fish, he did exactly what God wanted after all.

God needed Jonah.

God needs you.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

Cynicism

Posted on September 6, 2013 by

The unfortunate reality is that if someone is cussing you out, you know you’re getting their honest feelings. But if someone is complementing you, it is very possible that they are lying. This is horribly cynical. You might get to where you only believe and accept criticism.

Before you know it, you hardly trust anyone, anymore.

Especially when you realize you’re guilty of the same sort of behavior. You probably don’t mention your friend’s bad breath. You assure the host that the meal was excellent. You smile at your friend and tell her that her new hair cut is beautiful.

Maybe your friends will promise to do something–and then not follow through. They say they will be there for you, but when you get there, something else comes up and they’re nowhere to be found. And when it got hot and stuffy, you find yourself alone in the kitchen.

But you understand.

Maybe they just forgot.

And things happen.

Plans change.

And they had the best of intentions.

And…so you keep getting screwed and you’re just going to have to understand. Soon, you become worn out with understanding. And cynicism not only has taken root, it has blossomed, born fruit, and had babies.

And yet…

1 Corinthians 13 relates the following:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

To think unkindly, to imagine that others don’t love you as profoundly as you love them is a violation of the spirit and intent of 1 Corithians 13. But how can you accept this at a gut level and acknowledge it as truth, when your cynicism seems so overwhelmingly true as well?

Love keeps no record of wrongs.

Others will disappoint. Are you so perfect? Then you must accept the lack of perfection in others and accept that the failings are not from a lack of love, nor are they from malicious intent. Instead, it is simply and purely the consequence of human frailty, of misunderstanding, and of inadvertent injury. You must forgive. You must train yourself not to remember the bad. You must choose to keep on loving, and accept that it is possible that you are as important in their eyes, as they are in yours. You must decide to let them be as good as you claim to be.

We learn things inductively: we see a lot of dogs, and so we come to understand the characteristics of dogs. But if you have one or two experiences with dogs that are bad, it is entirely possible for you to decide that all dogs are hateful, and so, whenever you see a dog, you just assume the worst, since you have experienced the worst a couple of times.

Alternatively, you can chose to overlook those incidents which encouraged you to think badly of dogs, and instead focus your attention on that which is inspiring and good. You can do the same thing with your friends and the people around you, the unwashed masses. You can become bitter and cynical. You can decide that no one really loves you or gives a damn.

But is that any way to live? Will you be happy? Is it productive? Will it make others happy? And can it possibly be right? Of course not. Reread the section of 1 Corinthians 13 above. If you actually love God and love your neighbor as yourself, such cynicism cannot stand. As obvious as the reasons for cynicism might appear, cynicism is a skewed and inaccurate view of reality. And all it will ever do is make you miserable. Why choose to be sad?

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

The Irony of Worldly Wisdom and the Church

Posted on September 5, 2013 by

Notice, please, what Paul writes in Colossians 2:20-23:

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:

“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?

These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Throughout the movie, The Princess Bride, Sicilian boss Vizzini repeatedly describes the unfolding events as “inconceivable.” After Vizzini attempts to cut the rope that the Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing, he states that it was “inconceivable” that the pirate did not fall. The swordsman, Inigo Montoya, then tells Vizzini, “You keep on using that world but I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The word “worldliness” is that sort of word. It does not mean what most people think it means. They imagine it has something to do with running amok. Sermonizing pastors have waxed eloquent denouncing the worldliness of Christians and others. In fact, worldliness and sin are usually viewed as synonyms. There is a focus on condemning lust, illicit sex and maybe twerking.

And yet, sinful pandemonium is not at all what Paul or the Bible actually mean by “the way of the world” or “worldliness.”

Instead, as the passage from Colossians above makes clear, the wisdom of this world, or worldliness is exactly the opposite of running amok. Worldliness is, in point of fact, being concerned with rules and regulations; worldliness is a focus on legalisms and legalism. The way of the world is to never to run amok. You want to see worldliness in action? Go to the DMV. Visit Congress. Stand in a courtroom. The way of the world is to follow rules, to interpret rules, to believe that making another rule, creating another regulation, passing another bit of legislation, is accomplishing something significant and making the world a better place. Worldliness is to reward bureaucrats on the basis of their performance in following proper procedure. Worldliness is to make lists and check them off one by one; worldliness is to check to make sure all the blanks on the form have been filled in.

Worldliness sends you to the back of the line and makes you start over because you didn’t get the document stamped first. Worldliness suspends a student who gave her classmate, gasping for breath in a life-threatening asthma attack, a puff on her inhaler–because sharing drugs like that is against the rules. Better to let someone die than to ignore a regulation. Respect for the law trumps all.

Worldliness believes more laws will fix what ails us. Every nation on Earth, every tribe, every people, every business from the beginning of time until now has been dominated by rules. Rules are the way of the world. And in point of fact, following the rules often becomes more important than actually doing what’s right. The rules trump justice, mercy and love.

Legalists are the most worldly people there are.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

Song of Songs, Chapter Eight

Posted on September 4, 2013 by

Once again, take warning all who read this post. The language that follows is somewhat explicit. If discussions of sex offend you, then you might want to skip this blog post. Of course, you might also want to make a point of avoiding ever reading the Song of Songs in your Bible.

Chapter Eight

If only you were to me like a brother,
who was nursed at my mother’s breasts!
Then, if I found you outside,
I would kiss you,
and no one would despise me.
I would lead you
and bring you to my mother’s house–
she who has taught me.
I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the nectar of my pomegranates. (8:1-2)

Of course, if, as a surprising number of commentators take this, you assume the woman is talking literally and wishes that he were her brother, and that she could take him home with her to her mother, then this little segment here makes not a whole lot of sense. It startles me that so many commentators insist on an interpretation that makes no sense; it reminds me of when Vanessa is reading and gets frustrated and tells me that the sentence makes no sense. She reads it, says a nonsense word, and I ask her, do you know a word like that? Well, no. So do you think that’s what that word really is? Well, maybe not. At least she has the sense to ask, and doesn’t just accept the nonsense.

The term brother in the ancient Near East, like the term sister (which we’ve seen before in Song of Songs) is term of endearment, used like “honey” or “darling”. Hense, she is expressing the desire for a romantic and intimate relationship, and one that is legitimate, rather than sereptitious, since in most cases the term sister and brother were used by husbands and wives. She wants their affair to be open and legitimized. Her mother’s house is not a place she lives; rather, it is her genitals (consider the earlier usage of this term in Song of Songs). And of course the spiced wine, nectar of pomegranites, and the like is all referencing kissing (again, look at the usage earlier in the poem).

His left arm is under my head
and his right arm embraces me.
Daughters of Jerusalem,
I charge you:
Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

Who is this coming up from the desert leaning on her lover?
Under the apple tree I roused you;
there your mother conceived you,
there she who was in labor gave you birth.
Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.

It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned. (8:3-7)

The opening lines are reminiscent of what we’ve seen before in 2:6; if you recall, I suggested then that we might be looking at oral sex; I’m still not certain. It is interesting to compare this passage in general with that one, because there are other connections. Thus, I will quote 2:3-7, so that you can see clearly all the similarities and then we’ll talk about it a bit:

Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
is my lover among the young men.
I delight to sit in his shade,
and his fruit is sweet to my taste.
He has taken me to the banquet hall,
and his banner over me is love.
Strengthen me with raisins,
refresh me with apples,
for I am faint with love.
His left arm is under my head,
and his right arm embraces me.
Daughters of Jerusalem,
I charge you by the gazelles
and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires. (2:3-7)

Cool, huh? In the earlier passage, the woman compares him to an apple tree, his fruit is sweet to the taste, and so on (which is part of why I thought possibly in terms of oral sex); in the earlier passage she is faint with love, asking to be strengthened with raisins, refreshed by apples.

Now, in the current passage, she is leaning on her lover, reminiscing:

“Under the apple tree I roused you;
there your mother conceived you,
there she who was in labor gave you birth.”

She is not talking about being born, but rather the birth of their love, and their first encounter. The “mother conceived you” would imply genital to genital sex, rather than oral sex, however.

The remainder of the Song of Songs I find interesting because of how it is consistent with what Paul will write a thousand years later in 1 Corinthians 13. So consider the Song of Songs 8:6-7:

for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot wash it away.
If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love,
it would be utterly scorned.

Then compare it with 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects,
always trusts,
always hopes,
always perseveres.
Love never fails.

Love is strong as death, it is an unquenchable fire that no amount of water can put out, and no amount of money would be enough to make the beloved reject the one he or she loves. Love cannot be undone, it does not go away, it cannot be extinguished.

We have a young sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister
for the day she is spoken for?
If she is a wall,
we will build towers of silver on her.
If she is a door,
we will enclose her with panels of cedar.

I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers.
Thus I have become in his eyes
like one bringing contentment.
Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon;
he let out his vineyard to tenants.
Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand shekels of silver.
But my own vineyard is mine to give;
the thousand shekels are for you, O Solomon, and two hundred are for those who tend its fruit.
You who dwell in the gardens with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice!
Come away, my lover,
and be like a gazelle
or like a young stag
on the spice-laden mountains. (8:8-14)

The poem ends as erotically as any other part of it. The woman worried about her breast size, but thanks to the attention of her lover, they are now big enough. I don’t think she means that they actually expanded, but rather, her self-perception has improved. She has a better body image thanks to his genuine love for her. Because he loves her and accepts her unconditionally, she can see that she indeed is beautiful and that she brings contentment and satisfaction to him.

Playing off the line from chapter seven, she comments, “If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned” (8:7). She speaks to those who might try to bribe her away from him for a thousand shekels of silver. It isn’t enough; as she says, “But my own vineyard is mine to give”. Love cannot be bought, and love cannot be turned off for money. And so she ends the poem by calling for him to come away to her, and to enjoy her once again; the implication is that they will live happily ever after, of course.

Send to Kindle
Posted in Bible, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment