Lee Harmon's Blog, page 80
October 9, 2012
2 Timothy 2:8, The Magicians of Egypt
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
//Ever wonder who these depraved fellows are in the book of Timothy? Tradition names them as the magicians who competed with Moses, performing tricks for Pharoah, as in the following verses:
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. --Exodus 7:10-12
Several Jewish writings after the time of Christ, including Targums and Pliny the Elder's Natural History, make reference to Jannes and Jambres. Origin, one of the early Church Fathers, refers in his writing Against Celsus to an apocryphal book titled The Book of Jannes and Jambres about the exploits of these two magicians. Origin says that the epistle of 2 Timothy is quoting from that book (Origin assumes authorship of Timothy by Paul).
The Book of Jannes and Jambres has never been found, and many commentators, defending Sola Scriptura, insist instead that Paul learned their names by divine inspiration.
//Ever wonder who these depraved fellows are in the book of Timothy? Tradition names them as the magicians who competed with Moses, performing tricks for Pharoah, as in the following verses:
So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. --Exodus 7:10-12
Several Jewish writings after the time of Christ, including Targums and Pliny the Elder's Natural History, make reference to Jannes and Jambres. Origin, one of the early Church Fathers, refers in his writing Against Celsus to an apocryphal book titled The Book of Jannes and Jambres about the exploits of these two magicians. Origin says that the epistle of 2 Timothy is quoting from that book (Origin assumes authorship of Timothy by Paul).
The Book of Jannes and Jambres has never been found, and many commentators, defending Sola Scriptura, insist instead that Paul learned their names by divine inspiration.
October 8, 2012
Book review: Emergence Christianity
by Phyllis Tickle
★★★★★
How does the Church shed its stodgy, antiquated feel while retaining its reverence for 2,000-year-old ritual? How does it jettison denominational pigeonholing and institutionalization while still clinging to Christ?
Answer: Emergence. This seems to be one of the labels that nobody understands; perhaps not even its practitioners. Emergence Christianity is a relatively new worldwide movement in the Christian world, and it's still evolving. It generally transcends such labels as "liberal" or "conservative," stepping sideways to address, instead, issues like social activism. It usually emphasizes the "here and now" over eternal salvation, but beyond that, its decentralized structure can make it very hard to tie the movement down in terms of doctrine. Tickle likes to think of Emergence Christianity as “spiritual Christ-knowing,” not as religion. Compared to their secular neighbors, however, Tickle says Emergence Christians are both spiritual and religious.
Maybe it's best to explain by example. Readers of my reviews may recognize radical Christian leader Shane Claiborne and mega-church pastor Rob Bell, who share the face of Emergence Christianity. However, while the increase in mega-churches probably is a result of the same cultural pressures that evoked the Great Emergence, it would be wrong to put Emergence Christianity entirely in the mega-church corner. Most Emergence Christians may still prefer house churches, and an unwritten doctrine seems to be that the "church is a people to be, not a place to go." Says Tickle, "Emergence Christians think of themselves as communal and relational more than sacred or holy."
Still confused? Consider the title of Brian D. McLaren's recent book: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.
Yeah. Dig it. If you buy Tickle's book—and you should—I suggest eating dessert first: in the center of the book is an annotated section of full-color pictures. Start by paging through the pictures of Emergence Christianity in practice, and read there a little about its methodology, before returning to the meat in chapter 1. I particularly loved seeing the communion table in one picture: outdoors, on the grass, lies an American flag rug, and on top of that stands a beautiful chess set. On the chess board sits a small loaf of bread and a glass of red wine. (Scotch, perhaps? For you chess enthusiasts, the opening looks like it's transposing into the Scotch Gambit. Could this possibly be coincidence? Did anyone else notice this?)
This book hit the mark with me, because Tickle legitimizes Christianity among scholars. For better or worse, Emergence Christians generally share a higher education level, and more of a willingness to embrace technology in the service. If you find that authors like Bell and Claiborne write down to the eighth grade level of reader, you'll find the opposite is true of Tickle. Her writing is intelligent and informative, and she knows her stuff. I have not yet read Tickle's The Great Emergence (2008), but I'm thinking now that I must.
★★★★★
How does the Church shed its stodgy, antiquated feel while retaining its reverence for 2,000-year-old ritual? How does it jettison denominational pigeonholing and institutionalization while still clinging to Christ?
Answer: Emergence. This seems to be one of the labels that nobody understands; perhaps not even its practitioners. Emergence Christianity is a relatively new worldwide movement in the Christian world, and it's still evolving. It generally transcends such labels as "liberal" or "conservative," stepping sideways to address, instead, issues like social activism. It usually emphasizes the "here and now" over eternal salvation, but beyond that, its decentralized structure can make it very hard to tie the movement down in terms of doctrine. Tickle likes to think of Emergence Christianity as “spiritual Christ-knowing,” not as religion. Compared to their secular neighbors, however, Tickle says Emergence Christians are both spiritual and religious.
Maybe it's best to explain by example. Readers of my reviews may recognize radical Christian leader Shane Claiborne and mega-church pastor Rob Bell, who share the face of Emergence Christianity. However, while the increase in mega-churches probably is a result of the same cultural pressures that evoked the Great Emergence, it would be wrong to put Emergence Christianity entirely in the mega-church corner. Most Emergence Christians may still prefer house churches, and an unwritten doctrine seems to be that the "church is a people to be, not a place to go." Says Tickle, "Emergence Christians think of themselves as communal and relational more than sacred or holy."
Still confused? Consider the title of Brian D. McLaren's recent book: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.
Yeah. Dig it. If you buy Tickle's book—and you should—I suggest eating dessert first: in the center of the book is an annotated section of full-color pictures. Start by paging through the pictures of Emergence Christianity in practice, and read there a little about its methodology, before returning to the meat in chapter 1. I particularly loved seeing the communion table in one picture: outdoors, on the grass, lies an American flag rug, and on top of that stands a beautiful chess set. On the chess board sits a small loaf of bread and a glass of red wine. (Scotch, perhaps? For you chess enthusiasts, the opening looks like it's transposing into the Scotch Gambit. Could this possibly be coincidence? Did anyone else notice this?)
This book hit the mark with me, because Tickle legitimizes Christianity among scholars. For better or worse, Emergence Christians generally share a higher education level, and more of a willingness to embrace technology in the service. If you find that authors like Bell and Claiborne write down to the eighth grade level of reader, you'll find the opposite is true of Tickle. Her writing is intelligent and informative, and she knows her stuff. I have not yet read Tickle's The Great Emergence (2008), but I'm thinking now that I must.
October 7, 2012
Numbers 3:10-12, Why were the Levites selected for the priesthood?
The LORD also said to Moses, "I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD."
//To prove his power, one day God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. Every firstborn son died, except those among the Israelites, because they had sprinkled the blood of a lamb on their doorposts. But God didn't merely spare Israel's firstborn; he consecrated them to himself. The firstborn were to belong to God.
Later, God accepts the Levites in place of the firstborn ... see today's verse. Numbers 3:46 explains that, because there lived more firstborn sons in Israel than there were Levites, God collected "redemption money" of five shekels for each of the 273 extra firstborn, and gave the money to Aaron.
But why the switch? Why choose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn, and set them up as the priesthood? Perhaps because of their ability or willingness to slaughter animals for sacrifice?
No, not animals. As the story goes, shortly after Israel escaped from Egypt, they built a golden calf. God was displeased. But the men of the tribe of Levi stood up and offered to take care of the situation. So here is what God asked of them:
So [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. --Exodus 32:26-28
So the Levites were chosen because of their faithfulness. The God who slaughtered all the firstborn of Egypt chooses for himself the tribe willing to slaughter three thousand more people.
//To prove his power, one day God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. Every firstborn son died, except those among the Israelites, because they had sprinkled the blood of a lamb on their doorposts. But God didn't merely spare Israel's firstborn; he consecrated them to himself. The firstborn were to belong to God.
Later, God accepts the Levites in place of the firstborn ... see today's verse. Numbers 3:46 explains that, because there lived more firstborn sons in Israel than there were Levites, God collected "redemption money" of five shekels for each of the 273 extra firstborn, and gave the money to Aaron.
But why the switch? Why choose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn, and set them up as the priesthood? Perhaps because of their ability or willingness to slaughter animals for sacrifice?
No, not animals. As the story goes, shortly after Israel escaped from Egypt, they built a golden calf. God was displeased. But the men of the tribe of Levi stood up and offered to take care of the situation. So here is what God asked of them:
So [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. --Exodus 32:26-28
So the Levites were chosen because of their faithfulness. The God who slaughtered all the firstborn of Egypt chooses for himself the tribe willing to slaughter three thousand more people.
October 6, 2012
Proverbs 21:19, A Crabby Wife
It is better to live alone in the desert than with a crabby, complaining wife.
//Do you suppose the Proverbs were written by men or by women? Here's another clue:
A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands. --Psalm 27:15-16
Guys, you can take heart. Apparently, there will be no women in heaven. The following verse provides the proof:
When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. --Revelation 8:1
//Do you suppose the Proverbs were written by men or by women? Here's another clue:
A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands. --Psalm 27:15-16
Guys, you can take heart. Apparently, there will be no women in heaven. The following verse provides the proof:
When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. --Revelation 8:1
October 5, 2012
Book review: The Book of Lilith
by Robert G. Brown
★★★★★
I posted this tongue-in-cheek review more than a year ago on another site, but people continue to seem intrigued by Lilith, the first wife of Adam, so I thought I would risk the chance of someone taking me seriously, and let you all know about a fun book. ___________________________________________________
This is the true Book of Lilith, recently discovered beneath Iraqi soil and dated to about 4,000 BC. It's been painstakingly translated by Professor Brown, and an unnamed accomplice who prefers anonymity to unparalleled fame. (Do not confuse Brown's publication of the Book of Lilith with the forgeries of more noted scholars).
If you've never heard of Lilith, you're in for a treat. In Mesopotamian mythology, she is related to a class of demons, and in Jewish midrash, she's the first wife of Adam, before Eve came along. Lilith herself penned the words of this book, and her story is both sensual and intelligent. Also a tad graphic, but you may not notice this; readers of ancient holy books become experienced in glossing over sex and violence.
Professor Brown is an avowed atheist, or so I imagine he once a-vowed, before a-writing this book. His atheism lends credibility to the truth of Lilith; if you are familiar with biblical criticism, you know the strength of the Criterion of Embarrassment. This basically proves the authenticity of the Lilith story, for here we have an atheist repeatedly acquiescing to discuss religious concepts such as God and Soul. (God, bless Her soul, seems to have chosen Professor Brown for this task; how could he refuse?)
Lilith is modern, hardly subservient, a libber before the term was coined, and rightfully so, for she is much more interesting than Adam--and knows it. Her job is to dispense souls to the world's people, while Adam's job is to make up all the rules. Needless to say, friction develops, and Adam and Lilith separate. Both head their own direction in what becomes a quest for enlightenment. Lilith's writing style is also strikingly modern--witty and occasionally satirical toward the religious ideas she knew would evolve thousands of years later. Yes, luckily for 21st-century readers, Lilith possesses a preternatural knowledge of the future, and often expresses herself in idioms like "movies" and "skyscrapers," concepts quite unfamiliar to ancient readers, but which make the text read more contemporary. (Curiously, Lilith seems to have no knowledge of events and inventions further in the future or scientific concepts beyond our current understanding, save one: an upcoming slaughter of billions in the name of God. Might the time have come?)
Like any holy book, Lilith's theological wisdoms must be teased from its depths, and ... well, let's just say it's a captivating book, whether the cover is open or closed. You might even come to see life's purpose a little differently.
★★★★★
I posted this tongue-in-cheek review more than a year ago on another site, but people continue to seem intrigued by Lilith, the first wife of Adam, so I thought I would risk the chance of someone taking me seriously, and let you all know about a fun book. ___________________________________________________
This is the true Book of Lilith, recently discovered beneath Iraqi soil and dated to about 4,000 BC. It's been painstakingly translated by Professor Brown, and an unnamed accomplice who prefers anonymity to unparalleled fame. (Do not confuse Brown's publication of the Book of Lilith with the forgeries of more noted scholars).
If you've never heard of Lilith, you're in for a treat. In Mesopotamian mythology, she is related to a class of demons, and in Jewish midrash, she's the first wife of Adam, before Eve came along. Lilith herself penned the words of this book, and her story is both sensual and intelligent. Also a tad graphic, but you may not notice this; readers of ancient holy books become experienced in glossing over sex and violence.
Professor Brown is an avowed atheist, or so I imagine he once a-vowed, before a-writing this book. His atheism lends credibility to the truth of Lilith; if you are familiar with biblical criticism, you know the strength of the Criterion of Embarrassment. This basically proves the authenticity of the Lilith story, for here we have an atheist repeatedly acquiescing to discuss religious concepts such as God and Soul. (God, bless Her soul, seems to have chosen Professor Brown for this task; how could he refuse?)
Lilith is modern, hardly subservient, a libber before the term was coined, and rightfully so, for she is much more interesting than Adam--and knows it. Her job is to dispense souls to the world's people, while Adam's job is to make up all the rules. Needless to say, friction develops, and Adam and Lilith separate. Both head their own direction in what becomes a quest for enlightenment. Lilith's writing style is also strikingly modern--witty and occasionally satirical toward the religious ideas she knew would evolve thousands of years later. Yes, luckily for 21st-century readers, Lilith possesses a preternatural knowledge of the future, and often expresses herself in idioms like "movies" and "skyscrapers," concepts quite unfamiliar to ancient readers, but which make the text read more contemporary. (Curiously, Lilith seems to have no knowledge of events and inventions further in the future or scientific concepts beyond our current understanding, save one: an upcoming slaughter of billions in the name of God. Might the time have come?)
Like any holy book, Lilith's theological wisdoms must be teased from its depths, and ... well, let's just say it's a captivating book, whether the cover is open or closed. You might even come to see life's purpose a little differently.
October 4, 2012
Genesis 1:16, The Sun to Govern the Day, Part II of II
God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16-18)
//Yesterday, I posed the question “How can there be day and night before there is a sun?” Several verses before the sun is made, God creates light and darkness, and separates them into day and night.
This question has puzzled readers for centuries, but it misreads the text. The sun and moon, the "lives in the sky," are not there just to give light. Light existed before they did. Rather, God created the sun and moon with another purpose: To tend to the skies, keeping everything working the way God planned, much like the way God created a man to tend the land.
In other words, we cannot assume that the source of light is the sun and moon and stars. (What foolishness to think that! Light is everywhere!) Nor can we assume that day and night are defined by whether the sun is in the sky. Although the “great lights” do give off some of the light, their job, twice repeated in the creation story, is to govern.
Now you understand how there was day and night before there was a sun. Do not imagine that the sun creates the light for us. Rather, the sun keeps watch over the light, and turns in for the night when the light goes away.
[image error]
//Yesterday, I posed the question “How can there be day and night before there is a sun?” Several verses before the sun is made, God creates light and darkness, and separates them into day and night.
This question has puzzled readers for centuries, but it misreads the text. The sun and moon, the "lives in the sky," are not there just to give light. Light existed before they did. Rather, God created the sun and moon with another purpose: To tend to the skies, keeping everything working the way God planned, much like the way God created a man to tend the land.
In other words, we cannot assume that the source of light is the sun and moon and stars. (What foolishness to think that! Light is everywhere!) Nor can we assume that day and night are defined by whether the sun is in the sky. Although the “great lights” do give off some of the light, their job, twice repeated in the creation story, is to govern.
Now you understand how there was day and night before there was a sun. Do not imagine that the sun creates the light for us. Rather, the sun keeps watch over the light, and turns in for the night when the light goes away.
[image error]
October 3, 2012
Genesis 1:1-3, The Sun to Govern the Day, part I of II
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
//Readers of the first chapter in our Bible have long noted that the six days of creation seem to repeat:
Day one, when the earth and sky are first created, God makes light and separates it from darkness. Day two, God divides the waters below (the seas) from the waters above (water above the sky, waiting to fall as rain).Day three, God creates land.
So the fundamentals are complete. Now God fills in the details with life (imagine the lights in the sky as alive, for so they were understood by many):
Day four, God makes life in the sky: the sun, moon, and stars.Day five, God makes life in the water.Day six, God makes life on land.
What's most confusing is this business of dividing light from darkness. On the very first day, the "Spirit of God" is hovering over the waters, and he decides to create light. This, before there are sun and moon and stars! God separates the light from the dark and names them:
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
So God makes day and night, before the sun ever exists. How can this be? More tomorrow...
[image error]
//Readers of the first chapter in our Bible have long noted that the six days of creation seem to repeat:
Day one, when the earth and sky are first created, God makes light and separates it from darkness. Day two, God divides the waters below (the seas) from the waters above (water above the sky, waiting to fall as rain).Day three, God creates land.
So the fundamentals are complete. Now God fills in the details with life (imagine the lights in the sky as alive, for so they were understood by many):
Day four, God makes life in the sky: the sun, moon, and stars.Day five, God makes life in the water.Day six, God makes life on land.
What's most confusing is this business of dividing light from darkness. On the very first day, the "Spirit of God" is hovering over the waters, and he decides to create light. This, before there are sun and moon and stars! God separates the light from the dark and names them:
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
So God makes day and night, before the sun ever exists. How can this be? More tomorrow...
[image error]
October 2, 2012
Book review: Love Wins
by Rob Bell
★★★★★
This is Bell's controversial masterpiece about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived." Love, says this internationally influential pastor, wins in the end ... and nobody has to go to hell.
God wants all people to be saved. Will God get what He wants?
Of Bell's works, I've read only this and Velvet Elvis, though I have three more in my review stack. I'll be spreading them out over the next few months. I confess that too much Bell, with his colloquial rah-rah style, might push me off the deep end, but in Love Wins, the message overcomes the style and earns five stars. I also feel the book is very well organized, leading inexorably to a logical conclusion.
That said, this book does not probe any deep theological arguments. It's far too short for that. It's a common-sense approach to a troubling question: Can God be both loving and vengeful?
Actually, Bell's book is chock full of questions! It makes you think about your perception of Jesus, of God, and of His eternal plan. Bell says, "Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either." When we hear that a certain person has rejected Christ, we should probably first ask, "Which Christ?" The antiscience, antigay one standing out on the sidewalk with his bullhorn, telling people that they're going to burn forever? Or the one who invites everyone to share in his heaven?
Which invites another question. Which heaven? The one far away, a dream of eternal bliss, or the one Jesus constantly spoke of, here, now, on this earth? Bell's "heaven" is very "earthy," rightly recognizing that Jesus spoke not of a place but of an age ... an age where God dwells with his people, on this earth. Bell is not denying an afterlife, he simply is putting the focus where Jesus did: the now.
But what about hell? Well, there's plenty of hell on earth now, too. Surprisingly, not everyone prefers heaven. Love wins, and we get whatever we want. But over and over and over, God speaks of restoration ... helping those who have slipped into hell back on their feet and back into heaven.
That's God's agenda. So here we are at a final question: Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?
[image error]
★★★★★
This is Bell's controversial masterpiece about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived." Love, says this internationally influential pastor, wins in the end ... and nobody has to go to hell.
God wants all people to be saved. Will God get what He wants?
Of Bell's works, I've read only this and Velvet Elvis, though I have three more in my review stack. I'll be spreading them out over the next few months. I confess that too much Bell, with his colloquial rah-rah style, might push me off the deep end, but in Love Wins, the message overcomes the style and earns five stars. I also feel the book is very well organized, leading inexorably to a logical conclusion.
That said, this book does not probe any deep theological arguments. It's far too short for that. It's a common-sense approach to a troubling question: Can God be both loving and vengeful?
Actually, Bell's book is chock full of questions! It makes you think about your perception of Jesus, of God, and of His eternal plan. Bell says, "Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either." When we hear that a certain person has rejected Christ, we should probably first ask, "Which Christ?" The antiscience, antigay one standing out on the sidewalk with his bullhorn, telling people that they're going to burn forever? Or the one who invites everyone to share in his heaven?
Which invites another question. Which heaven? The one far away, a dream of eternal bliss, or the one Jesus constantly spoke of, here, now, on this earth? Bell's "heaven" is very "earthy," rightly recognizing that Jesus spoke not of a place but of an age ... an age where God dwells with his people, on this earth. Bell is not denying an afterlife, he simply is putting the focus where Jesus did: the now.
But what about hell? Well, there's plenty of hell on earth now, too. Surprisingly, not everyone prefers heaven. Love wins, and we get whatever we want. But over and over and over, God speaks of restoration ... helping those who have slipped into hell back on their feet and back into heaven.
That's God's agenda. So here we are at a final question: Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?
[image error]
October 1, 2012
2 Samuel 6:20, David Dances Naked
When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
//King David was bringing the Ark of the Covenant home to Jerusalem when the oxen stumbled, and a fellow named Uzzah reached out to steady the Ark. Immediately, God smote him, and David grew angry. And probably a bit nervous. He left the Ark with another fellow named Obed-Edom, and went home without it.
Presumably, Obed was smart enough not to touch the thing, so instead, the Ark’s mere presence brought him blessing. When David heard that Obed prospered because of the Ark, David went back after it.
They loaded it up and took six steps, enough for David to prove that God wasn't in a smiting mood anymore, so David rejoiced and sacrificed a bull and a fat calf. Wearing a linen ephod (which is like an apron, with no back), he "danced before the Lord with all his might." He was still leaping and dancing when they arrived with the Ark in Jerusalem.
This shameful happy-dance nauseated Michal, Saul’s daughter, who was watching out a window. When she confronted King David, he shrugged it off, insisting that the slave girls continued to hold him in high honor.
So which side did God take? The happy naked dancer or the prude? The Bible says Michal was stricken with barrenness, and never had a child until the day she died.
The Bible never does say why, though. I suppose we’re supposed to understand God took David’s side and cursed her womb, but her barrenness probably had more to do with her prudishness…which can tend to have an effect on whether one bears children!
[image error]
//King David was bringing the Ark of the Covenant home to Jerusalem when the oxen stumbled, and a fellow named Uzzah reached out to steady the Ark. Immediately, God smote him, and David grew angry. And probably a bit nervous. He left the Ark with another fellow named Obed-Edom, and went home without it.
Presumably, Obed was smart enough not to touch the thing, so instead, the Ark’s mere presence brought him blessing. When David heard that Obed prospered because of the Ark, David went back after it.
They loaded it up and took six steps, enough for David to prove that God wasn't in a smiting mood anymore, so David rejoiced and sacrificed a bull and a fat calf. Wearing a linen ephod (which is like an apron, with no back), he "danced before the Lord with all his might." He was still leaping and dancing when they arrived with the Ark in Jerusalem.
This shameful happy-dance nauseated Michal, Saul’s daughter, who was watching out a window. When she confronted King David, he shrugged it off, insisting that the slave girls continued to hold him in high honor.
So which side did God take? The happy naked dancer or the prude? The Bible says Michal was stricken with barrenness, and never had a child until the day she died.
The Bible never does say why, though. I suppose we’re supposed to understand God took David’s side and cursed her womb, but her barrenness probably had more to do with her prudishness…which can tend to have an effect on whether one bears children!
[image error]
September 30, 2012
Ecclesiastes 1:18, Ignorance Is Bliss
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
//Here’s a troubling topic. Is learning contrary to Godliness? Let me give you a couple more verses:
Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you (Isaiah 47:10)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. (1 Corinthians 3:19)
Maybe it’s time to shut The Dubious Disciple down, and encourage everyone to frolic in ignorance? Or maybe there’s another side to the coin.
The advantage of knowledge is this: that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
Ah, so knowledge isn’t all bad! Knowledge is good, but one must rightfully divide true knowledge from false knowledge:
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20)
OK, I’ll continue operating The Dubious Disciple until it becomes clear what is true and what is false. Hang in there, this may take awhile.
[image error]
//Here’s a troubling topic. Is learning contrary to Godliness? Let me give you a couple more verses:
Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you (Isaiah 47:10)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. (1 Corinthians 3:19)
Maybe it’s time to shut The Dubious Disciple down, and encourage everyone to frolic in ignorance? Or maybe there’s another side to the coin.
The advantage of knowledge is this: that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
Ah, so knowledge isn’t all bad! Knowledge is good, but one must rightfully divide true knowledge from false knowledge:
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20)
OK, I’ll continue operating The Dubious Disciple until it becomes clear what is true and what is false. Hang in there, this may take awhile.
[image error]
