A Galileo Moment

About a year ago I briefly referenced the story of Galileo's confrontation with the church 'pillars' of his time. In 1633 he was called to account by the Roman Catholic Inquisition. His crime? Science.

Armed with a new telescope Galileo, observing the planets, began to promote with evidence the much earlier theory of Copernicus that the earth and other planets orbited the sun. This was a huge problem because the official church position based on the understanding of the sacred scripture at the time dictated that world and cosmos be understood differently. This inquisition declared such a view of a heliocentric solar system to be heresy. Thus a collision between science and religion.

This inquisition found Galileo suspect of heresy and it was only through a carefully reasoned argument and probably a bit of luck that he wasn't condemned. He was bid his leave with the admonition not to write of or teach his 'heresy'. Of course the church could not be seen as wavering but must have been at least a bit convicted that they could be wrong.

It doesn't take much imagination to observe a principle from this of what I'll call 'A Galileo Moment'. It might state: "Whenever religion and real observable science come into conflict religion must necessarily give way." You might be thinking this is the talk of a crazy person or even a heretic. One reason, among many others, some may feel that way is because of the falsehood that one's understanding of scripture and therefore God is the same as the actual truth concerning God and scripture.

Let's face it, Galileo was right, the church eventually accepted the truth. This problem  required a new way of viewing the sacred texts. Their methods of reading and comprehending the scriptures were fundamentally wrong. Adjustments were made and were applied to this new knowledge. The danger of not doing this work is to become objectively irrelevant in a world of real things. Then any claim to having "truth" becomes a parody. The position of immovability is really fearful and willful ignorance disguised as a faith.

There are rich contributions from scientist-clerics prior to Galileo's time. Copernicus was one. One wonders why the very religious tradition within which such great thinking was produced would turn against those conclusions? I'll leave that question for someone else to think about.

Consider the following juxtaposition:

a) The sheer volume and mass of scientific discovery and progress since the time of these men from at least the early 1600's is mind boggling. Though amazingly much of it has occurred in our lifetimes and is continuing at an exponential rate.

b) The relative non-progress of religious thought over the same time frame. With only few and limited exceptions and no substantive fundamental shifts, or what would most accurately be called 'repentance'. (Some traditions are even retreating back into archaic religion-just check the news from the middle east and in fact all of Europe-though for different reasons).

I believe that in light of the exponential pace in the growth of scientific knowledge, and the relative retardation of religious thought we are fast approaching a Galileo Moment in our own time. There will be a crumbling of walls once thought impregnable.

What is the response of much of our religion in the face of this rapid change? Acquire sand-insert head. We must be able to move away from believing certain ideas about religion and our sacred texts that may ultimately turn out to be, as in the minds of Galileo's interlocutors, superstition. Two primary ways I see this evolution of knowledge working out are:

1) Those who will not repent (change their thinking) will find they have become completely irrelevant to the world and the Kingdom of God within it all the while being deluded into thinking they are part of some sort of remnant or other foolishness. Simultaneously being marginalized while marginalizing the rest of humanity; Failing Jesus' call.

2) Others will concede the reality of what is, i.e. pull their head out of the sand, but they will forsake their faith lamenting that they were all along lied to by their self-proclaimed shepherds; Those who employ "Old MacDonald" theology: Here a verse, There a verse, Everywhere a verse, verse and foolishly try to construct some sort of reasoned model for life. If life's problems were nails this sort of theological thinking would not be a hammer, but a banana.

So what to do? Own your faith. Use your mind. Fear not! It is not thought and reason, but certainty, that is the enemy of faith. Don't be afraid of the journey turned adventure. God is good.

Reflections for December 3rd, 2014

If you've never watched "Sons Of Anarchy" I would encourage you NOT to (Though I've watched several seasons, hypocrite that I am).

It is rife with unfiltered violence, power manipulation, posturing, intrigue, unwaveringly blind though misguided loyalties, retribution, revenge, and death. As a matter of fact it is remarkably similar to the ancient story surrounding the "unification" of Israel & Judah after Saul's death which reminded me of the series in the first place.

One thing I was struck with is that in "Sons" as in Kings and Samuel the violence is, in a word, "un-redemptive". What does that mean? We all are often guilty of justifying violence (in fact "redeeming" it) if in the end it serves a "higher purpose" or that there is a dichotomy of perceived good versus evil (though scripture reveals to us that "no one is good, not one"). But in the end Jesus words come home to roost "those who pick up the sword perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52) which has a most striking object lesson in 2nd Samuel 2: 13-17 where 12 soldiers under Joab's command (David's general) and 12 soldiers under Abner's command (Ishbosheth's general) met in a field, later called the "Field of Daggers", and grabbed each other by the hair and stabbed one another. All twenty-four died right then and there. There are no winners under this model of conflictual mimesis.

We have a tendency to think that our world is "going to hell" but in reality it really isn't going anywhere. The same themes; the same mechanisms of control, the same mentality as the David's and their Joabs, Isbosheth's and Abners, Jackson Teller and his makers of mayhem, world leaders and their armies of which none are righteous, not one.

The power of God. What is that in this kind of world? When the mother of James and John asked Jesus: "When you come into your kingdom, please let one of my sons sit at your right side and the other at your left." She was, along with her sons, thinking along the above described lines. The language of messiah was understood in context with militant, zealous, nationalistic, patriotism and violence. What Jesus says next is extraordinarily subversive of this idea:

"Not one of you knows what you are asking. Are you able to drink from the cup that I must soon drink from?" James and John said, "Yes, we are!" "You certainly will drink from my cup! But it isn't for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for my Father to say."

We do in fact find out who is at Jesus right and left when he comes into his kingdom and ascends to the throne. Jesus then launches into a teaching about how the structures of the world operate; and juxtaposes this with his Father's kingdom. Now the solution requires us to discern what his throne and kingdom look like and how Jesus "comes into his kingdom". Well, it looks like a Roman cross. And now we know who is at his right and his left.

Satan In The Old Testament

This is a brief survey on the occurrence and usage of the word “satan” in the Old Testament writings with the hope of showing that its common usage as a noun need be reevaluated to allow new illumination of the texts in which it occurs and develop a paradigm for reading, and asking questions of, other segments of scripture from a fresh and more meaningful perspective.

From the outset my assessment of these passages is informed by what I understand of the work of Rene Girard[1] and as further developed by Michael Hardin.[2] A part of this view considers that all ancient writings are first anthropological and therefore have inherently more to say about humanity making sense of its world and origins, and only while being mindful of this can they be evaluated theologically. Congruent to this I hold that there are multiple voices within scripture. Not all of the voices are God even when so attributed. Revelation is found throughout the texts but not all is revelation of God, often it reveals merely the perception of the world through ancient and primitive eyes.

In the Hebrew שׂטן translated satan means “an opponent or adversary.” Omitting the allegorical story of Job the usage of the word satan occurs in only three verses in the Old Testament: 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2. I hope to probe how a theological interpretive matrix that has been generated by religious and cultural traditions has altered our understanding and creates difficulties for later readers of the text. I believe it important to question interpretive models as they orient the questions we ask of the text and the right questions are necessary to have any hope of meaningful understanding.

Briefly, the book of Job belongs to the genre of poetry within the bible. There is scholarly disagreement as to authorship, date, and the differing questions that the book addresses. Many scholars agree that the prologue and epilogue are based on ancient folk tale.[3] One important question seems to be “how are the righteous to suffer?” Job amply departs from the pagan idea that suffering is connected to our actions as related to divine recompense though as of this writing my understanding of this still being challenged by the work of Girard. Obviously certain actions and choices have consequences but this is not the idea at issue. Ecclesiastes places an exclamation point on Job’s position.[4] His friends continually persuade him to accept that he is or has committed some evil and to accept his punishment, curse god and die! Job’s interlocutors reveal their belief about the gods in that they connect cursing with the supposition of the retributive imposition of death.

In the approximate chronology of the cited books the oldest is arguably Zechariah, originating approximately 8^th to 6^th century BCE. First Chronicles has a correlative story in the earlier book 2^nd Samuel[5] though it reads ironically different which we’ll see shortly and this difference should raise other questions.

I will begin this examination with 1^st Chronicles 21:1; And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. The name Israel, while symbolically understood as Jacob, has its translation here and elsewhere, as “he will rule as God” I render it here with the understanding “he will rule like God”. This is interesting especially in light of the story under examination. A summary review of the teachings of Jesus appears to lend credibility here as much of his teaching involved parables about what the world would look like if God were in charge[6] and if we, even in a limited sense, view the older testament as “shadows of things to come”[7] then this understanding comes full circle.

Let us look at a valid and alternate way of reading the text.

An opponent stood against he will rule as [like] God, and enticed David to weigh out his self

This variable reading of the text indicates that there was certainly something “opposing” David and what that may be is clarified both by sooth+ayth translated here as enticed or seduced to “weighing out his self.” Significant to understanding this is what David was enticed to do, which doesn’t seem particularly evil; how do we frame this “weighing out his self?” The whole passage here makes me think of the phrase: “He is his own worst enemy.”

David is attempting to “measure up”, to compare himself-weigh himself against other kings. Imitating the cultural paradigm for perceiving and measuring power and influence in a numbers game. This gives a clue to why Joab counseled David against such an act as bringing guilt upon Israel (he will rule as [or like] God) because God’s leadership was whom David and the nation were to imitate. David, imitating and deriving his desire for notoriety from the surrounding peoples and kings, is an affront to that. This is mimetic realism working itself out and therefore in this case a reasonable understanding of this “opponent” to David can be identified as imitated carnal desire.

In 2^nd Samuel 24:1 we find a correlative account of this same record: And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying; Go, number Israel and Judah.

Notice that the variation here in the earlier text of Samuel credits or blames Jehovah with “pricking” or “seducing” David to depart from “ruling as [or like] God” or to sin. Later writers apparently recognized this contradiction, or even the absurdity, of attributing the origination of this particular evil to Jehovah and reoriented this desire to David.

Zechariah poses a unique challenge in that the text is occurring within a series of dreams.

Zec 3:1 Then I saw Joshua the High Priest standing in the presence of the angel of the lord, with Satan standing at his right to oppose him. 2 The lord told Satan, "The lord rebuke you, Satan—in fact, may the lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! This man is a burning brand plucked from the fire, is he not?"

As in parable there is a message in these visions though, as is often the case, the message must be worked out and not always clear at the surface. The above passages are denser than explained by a simplistic exposition on the work of a person named satan. The passage appears to present a mystical struggle but how do we make sense of it?

The seer here reports that he sees in his vision the High Priest Joshua who is standing in front of a messenger of the lord and standing at Joshua’s right is a diablos from the LXX.[8] Diablos in the Greek is defined as a traducer, to speak maliciously and falsely of; slander; defame. That diablos was standing at Joshua’s right signifies a place of counsel or confidence.[9] This can be understood as Joshua’s interpretive framework. The messenger is epitimao or expressing censure, a strong expression of disapproval, at this diablos, or of the slander and defamation of this orientation.

Verses 3 & 4 from the LXX render in the following manner: Joshua was invested (enduo) with cheap or shabby (rhuparos) garments referring to this interpretive method. What follows gives the clue to what or who is slandered. The messenger responded to those present: “remove the cheap, shabby garment from him.” Followed by: “Behold I tore out (exaireo) your injustice or wrongfulness (adikia). Within this context the messenger, addressing Joshua, in a unilateral act removes the wrong-headedness of believing the slander of the “traducer.” Who might be the object of the “traducer?” Verse 5 continues with the messenger instructing [Zechariah] to place a clean or pure turban (kibotos) a box-translated everywhere else as ark presuming the sacred ark of the covenant-upon Joshua’s head. This I propose signifies that the slander or falsehood that is being corrected was toward God.

Resisting the import of later theological conceptions when reviewing the text it is fitting that the messenger, through the prophet, was addressing something that was within Joshua. The messenger lets Zechariah know he is tearing out the wrongfulness of this counsel and replaces it with a clean, pure turban exchanging the wrong-headedness of Joshua’s thinking about and orientation toward God.

Therefore the earliest biblical texts can be shown not to provide the origin of later theological conceptions of a supra-human evil personality. The New Testament mentions diablos or satan in various contexts nearly sixty times, though many are duplicate accounts, and this begs the question, from where is it derived?

In order to begin to understand this we must turn to the Apocrypha and the book of 1 Enoch.[10] The book itself is a pseudo-epigraph and is dated during the inter-testamental period at around mid 2^nd century BCE and appears to have had widespread cultural influence by Jesus time. Many of the New Testament authors quoted or very nearly quoted[11] many sayings and writings that are found nowhere else but in the book of Enoch. It is in this book that the personhood of the satan seems to come of age.

Additionally the LXX having been translated since around 250 BCE signifies that the Jewish people had been exposed to and influenced by Hellenistic culture and thought for almost three centuries before Jesus time. It is within Greek mythology where we find Hades, being both the name of the king of the underworld, god of death and the dead, and his abode. This was the world within which the New Testament came into being and should not be divorced from consideration when examining the metaphorical nature of parable and other unique challenges of reading the texts from within a perspective twenty-centuries in their future.

---

[1] The Scapegoat by Girard, René and Freccero, Yvonne (Jan 8, 1989)

[2] The Jesus Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity With Jesus, 2nd Edition by Michael Hardin (2010)

[3] Fohrer G. Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press; 1958) 325. Fohrer says, “It is almost universally accepted that the framework was originally an independent narrative, a legend whose point was didactic and paraenetic.”

[4] Eccl 7:15 In my vain life I have seen everything. There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evildoing.

[5] It seems best to place the writing of Samuel sometime after the divided monarchy (913 B.C.) but before the fall of Samaria (7:22 B.C.) https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-second-samuel

[6] The point of the parables…  is what it will look like when God is in charge! And unless we read the book of Acts in this way we will never understand what’s going on. When the Spirit Comes, a sermon for Pentecost (May 23) 2010; Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright

[7] Colossians 2:17

[8] LXX – Septuagint, Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Refers to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE

[9] For further treatment of the significance in Jewish thought on right/left see the Jewish Virtual Library at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0017_0_16755.html

[10] You can download the translation of the book of Enoch free from http://book-ofenoch.com/download-pdf/ in Acrobat *.pdf or Kindle format provided by Princeton Theological Seminary Library. I recommend reading the introduction (around 60 pages) followed immediately by a parallel listing of passages from the book correlated with their New Testament counterparts.

[11] Laurence, Richard LL.D. In the introduction from “The Book of Enoch” translated from an Ethiopia MS in the Bodleian Library Dr. Laurence collates dozens of the more striking occurrences of this “borrowing”

Inescapable Interpretation

I wanted to expand a theme that I have been pursuing earnestly. The idea that a significant aspect of discipleship is interpretation so as to "rightly dividing the truth [about God]". Interpretation, the way we understand anything, forms a controlling framework for how we live our lives. Just look at the enormous damage fundamentalist evangelicals have done to the cause of Christ who’s work is, in every case, redemptive. Those whose double-minded view of God drags out the spewing hatred, judgment, and retributive attitude that only a human mind could conceive, (1 Jn 1:5b God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him), and foisting it upon other human beings in the most damnable ways.

I want to share a bit concerning a recent post put on social media. My tongue is still bleeding from biting in avoidance of comment regarding the passages in James 1: 22-24.

Jas 1:22  Obey God's message! Don't fool yourselves by just listening to it. 23  If you hear the message and don't obey it, you are like people who stare at themselves in a mirror 24  and forget what they look like as soon as they leave. 

The underlying point of view in this individual's mind (interpretive framework) was that one should certainly be fearful and under bondage to insure that you are quite busy... with something. Apparently with something other than whatever James is talking about such as is on the average evangelical's activity chart all the while looking over your shoulder to see if God is about to crush you. The important point James makes is found in 2:8 and is part of Jesus' greatest commandment. 

Jas 2:8  You will do all right, if you obey the most important law in the Scriptures. It is the law that commands us to love others as much as we love ourselves. 9  But if you treat some people better than others, you have done wrong, and the Scriptures teach that you have sinned. 

James bookends this "commandment" with practical examples but the message is still the same: love your neighbor as yourself. They will know you by your love. If taken as a list of do's or else, as it was in this person's view, it violates the spirit of the message and brings once again the commandment and death.

I mourned in my soul that after all Jesus showed us of the Father that a brother would put himself under a yoke of bondage, narcissistic bondage, to "hoping" he's doing "enough" hoping one is doing "the right work", in essence saying "look at me [facebook] Jesus I'm doing the stuff!" I rather wanted to retort with Paul in Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Additionally this brings into consideration words as thought buckets. James uses the word: "word", be doers not merely hearers. There are many places in the NT where the phrase is used "the word of the Lord." We just assume we know what that meant! It is clear in this passage that the "word" James is speaking of is revealed in 2:8. I propose that we've probably filled our buckets with something other than what was is really there more often than not.

Double mindedness in James is precisely not one whose faith vacillates from weak to strong but one whose view of God vacillates from the ultimate giver of good, loving and faithful to man to the withholder of good and harbinger of punishment. The content of the preceding verses provides the context that shows this; v6 uses pistis, persuaded + without wavering [diakrinō] separate thoroughly and is connected with the asking. It is precisely because the world Jesus walked in and James wrote in still maintained a paganistic view of el-o-heem, (the gods) that this is so. The "gods" since antiquity were malevolent and punitive without the "right" sacrifices, This describes the world many Christians still live in and it would be appropriate to term that thinking as pagan. 

This approach then enables us to read the Old Testament and distinguish between religion and revelation. Revelation is shown whenever the testimony about God aligns with Jesus' testimony about God; we find religion, idolatry, myth, or a projection of humanity when it does not. I think it is a serious error to pluck the sacred texts, any of them, from the world within which they came to be. To look at these texts divorced from that context is to risk missing the point in colossal ways. So what is James saying? Jesus' Abba is not like the other gods. He is good and gives good gifts to those who ask without reservation and that upon hearing of this we should do likewise. All of this is part of what makes Jesus message so remarkable and revolutionary. If Abba was just like the other gods we're wasting our breath and should eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

El-o-heem is, by the way, the name used in the first creation narrative from Genesis 1:1-2:3. The name used in the second creation narrative beginning in 2:4 (yes I see them as two separate stories) the writers now add the unpronounceable name YHWH which demonstrates to me that between the two narratives, however long that was, a shift of significant theological understanding and anthropological development has occurred. This also sets in motion the much later shift from henotheism to monotheism. At the time of Jesus and Paul the henotheist view is still prevalent otherwise why would there be any talk at all about food sacrificed to idols and the need to disregard their importance? Now we begin to see the gradual but relentless unveiling of God to humanity. The story of humanity's descent into sacrificial violence is held in juxtaposition to the revelation of the one true God which is completed in Jesus.

Regarding interpretation I offer this excerpt from "The Jesus Driven Life":

Jesus’ parables fall into exactly the same two categories as his understanding of what constitutes the greatest commandment, what it means to love God and love our neighbor. The parables then are an invitation to participate in this new way of being and living and loving in the world which reflects the authentic character of who God is, not as abstract, but specifically who God is in Jesus, the True Human.

From this observation on the parables and the greatest commandment I want to draw a conclusion: Life is all about interpretation, about the way we interpret our sacred texts, our experience and the world around us. There is no life without interpretation. As we saw in 1.2, the context for the greatest commandment in all three Synoptic Gospels had to do with interpretation; likewise the parables have to do with the way we interpret God and ourselves in relation to each other. It is not a question of whether or not we interpret. We do. We are not automatons who simply live a program; we humans seek meaning and significance in all of life, from the smallest thing to the biggest event. Jesus’ intention is to draw us out of the box of our pagan sacrificial logic, out of our idolatry, and into the wonderful mystery of his compassionate Abba.

Hardin, Michael (2010-04-02). The Jesus Driven Life: Reconnecting Humanity With Jesus (Kindle Locations 2227-2231). JDL Press. Kindle Edition.