Judah and Tamar (v. 1-30)
Judah (one of Jacob's sons) found a Canaanite wife and had 3 sons with her (Er, Onan, and Shelah).
We don't actually learn the wife's name, we learn her father's name though. From Guzik
Through an ungodly and unwise marriage to a Canaanite woman Judah fathered three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah.
It isn’t hard to see the sons of Israel rapidly being corrupted by their Canaanite neighbors, and what the future will bring if they continued in that land. God had a plan to bring them out.
I hadn't really thought much of this, but Guzik has said things along these lines quite a few times. We should remember that god put them in this situation, it is because of him that they have settled here, and if he's omniscient he knew that all of this would happen.
He gets a wife for Er named Tamar, but God didn't like Er and killed him. So Judah told Onan to bang Er's wife and raise the kids as Er's. Onan didn't like that the kids would not count as his, so he pulled out and didn't make any babies, so God killed Onan too.
Funny thing here, verse 9 is the one where the brother was "spilling his seed", and it is the verse than many have used to say masturbation is a sin. But that isn't what this story is about, it very clear that it is a very different situation. verification from Guzik :)
Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called “onanism.” However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating. This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother’s widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex.
I have another thought here though, God killed Er for being Wicked, and yet he killed Onan for not helping Er produce posthumous children. That doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense! Onan is essentially being punished for not doing a favor for Er, whom God hated.
Judah told Tamar to go live with her father as a widow until Shelah was grown up.
Presumably so he could have kids for his older brother. Guzik seems to suggest that Judah simply was afraid his last son would die and that is why he sent Tamar away. This is supported by what happens later in the chapter. Perhaps what was said about him being too young was not true?
In the meantime, Judah's wife dies and he took a trip to Timnah. Tamar saw that Shelah was old enough and she wasn't married to him, which means Judah is dragging his heals. When she heard of his trip she changed out of her widow clothes and covered up her face and also went to Timnah. Judah saw her and thought she was a prostitute and negotiated a business transaction. He said he'd give her a young goat for her services, and she took his signet, cord, and staff as collateral. Of course, later when he tried to find her again to give her the goat and get his stuff back she was gone.
Three months later when everyone realized she was pregnant outside of marriage, Judah wanted to burn her at the stake. But she produced the collateral and he realized what had happened. He said that she was more righteous than him since he didn't give her to Shelah.
I guess he thinks that his inaction drove her to doing what she did, and that is why he feels more guilty than her. What would be nice is if this episode demonstrated that burning at the stake is not an appropriate punishment for sex outside of marriage, but that doesn't seem to be the lesson. From Guzik
When Tamar conceived, it certainly was not intended by Judah, but it was definitely planned by both Tamar and God.
Wait, this was God's plan? Based on what? The fact that he didn't kill everyone? I certainly didn't see any indication that God had consulted with her on this plan.
Tamar was pregnant with twins, and when she was giving birth one baby put out it's arm and the midwife tied a ribbon around it, but it went back inside. Then the other was actually born first. Perez was the one who was actually born first, Zerah was the one with the thread.
I imagine this will cause some problems as pertains to birthrights. The one with the ribbon got declared as older while the other was actually older. Hilarity ensues?
for the verses of note post
--Family-- Genesis 38:8 If your older brother dies before having children, you need to bang his wife
"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.'"
"About three months later Judah was told, 'Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.' And Judah said, 'Bring her out, and let her be burned.'"
--Violence-- Genesis 38:7-10 God kills people for "being wicked" and for pulling out of his dead brother's wife
Gays are now accepted more than ever in our culture. Gay marriage is becoming legal in more and more places and it is starting to get to the point where being a homophobe is looked down on more than being gay. Of course this is not universal, there are many places where gay people are still discriminated against, but widespread legalization of gay marriage seems all but inevitable at this point and the culture in general is moving toward seeing gay people as the same as everyone else. But for some reason, transgender people are not so lucky, they still have a long way to go.
I'm reminded of teaching math (I know, I know, when you are holding a hammer the world is nails). Giving the correct answer was never sufficient, the work you used to get there is also required to get full points on a problem. In fact, for a 10 point problem, the answer is probably only worth 2 or 3 points, how you get there is much more important than the answer you wind up with. What would you grade more harshly, someone who makes several mistakes that cancel each other out and arrive at the correct answer, or someone who makes a trivial mistake and gets the wrong answer but clearly understand the concepts involved? What would you do if the answer doesn't seem to follow from their work at all? It's possible that they did a bunch of work in their head, but more likely they copied off a neighbor. (which is especially obvious if you have a blue test and the correct answer to the green test).
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, if you are for gay rights and against transgender rights, I'd like you to show your work. Why is it that you think gay people should have all the same rights as everyone else? Because as far as I see it, it's because they are consenting adults doing things that don't affect anyone else. They should be able to do whatever they want. By the same exact logic, shouldn't the same thing apply to transgender people?
Even among people who are in favor of gays getting all of the same rights as straight people, I will occasionally see them still want to discriminate against trans-folk. They will talk about how it is gross and unnatural. They will even talk about LGBT rights, but that seems to be just because that is the catch-phrase, they seem to want to put transgender in its own category. It makes me wonder if they have thought about this stuff at all, or if they are just going with the flow. Have they considered the issues and concluded that gays deserve rights just like everyone else, or have they cheated off of someone and copied their answer? Show your work!
I am out of town for a few days, and Sheldon Cooper from The Ramblings of Sheldon was kind enough to fill in for me today with a guest post. He is a former fundamentalist and is now an agnostic, I highly recommend his stuff. And now on to today's post, Sliding Down the Slippery Slope
We've all seen it before, the age old logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument.
Lately I've been hearing it quite often from people opposing gay
marriage, especially now that Illinois is likely to pass a gay marriage
bill through it's state House sometime this spring.
I
have noticed that two of the slippery slopes they often say that we
will slide into are not actually condemned by the Bible, or the Bible is
contradictory unclear on these topics.
Which
is ironic, because most of the people making these arguments believe
that the Bible is the word of God, and that's it's inerrant (without
error).
Let's look at the top 2 most common slippery slope arguments when it come to gay marriage:
The only direct condemnation of polygamy itself is in First Timothy Chapter 3,
where Paul gives the qualifications for men in church leadership
positions, and says that they should be the "husband of one wife".
However, no clarification is given as to whether polygamy is banned or
considered acceptable for laypersons in the church.
Some see Genesis chapter 2,
the creation of Adam and Eve as showing that the Bible considers
monogamy to be preferred over polygamy. It is true that husband and wife
are referred to in that passage (singular, not plural), but nowhere in
that passage is polygamy mentioned, no less condemned, keep in mind that
Adam and Eve were supposed to be the only 2 people on earth at the
time.
Polygamy in the modern era:
Take note of the list of nations that allow polygamy.
Notice a pattern there? Not one single Western nation has legalized
polygamy, and only 3 Western nations recognize polygamous marriage
performed in nations where they are legal, to any extent of the law.
If
the objective of legalizing gay marriage was to prepare people for a
push to legalize polygamy, wouldn't the push to legalize polygamy
already be underway in a major fashion right now?
Wouldn't
European nations that have already approved gay marriage some years ago
be clamoring to pass legal recognition of polygamy?
Yet
neither has happened..... Of course there has been a little more
discussion of polygamy in recent years, because of polygamists in the
media, such as the TLC show Sister Wives, but there has not yet been a
major movement supporting legal recognition of polygamy, in fact, in
many US states, polygamy is still a felony.
There's a long way to go as a society if polygamy is ever to get legal
recognition, that is if it ever does (which does not seem likely now)
It will lead to legalization and acceptance of incest!
What the Bible says about incest:
Now, on this topic, the Bible at first seems to be more clear. Passages like Leviticus Chapter 20 explicitly ban incestuous relationships, and this feeling is also seen in the New Testament, as seen in I Corinthians 5,
where Paul condemns a man who is in a relationship with his mother or
stepmother (the term "father's wife" is somewhat vague here).
Sounds
good, but here's a few things to think about that shows that the Bible
is rather contradictory on the issue. At the end of Genesis 19,
we see that Lot was not ever condemned for having children with his two
daughters (and also not condemned for offering them up to be gang raped
and probably killed by a hostile mob outside his home in Sodom).
Here's a fact you may not have thought of. In Genesis 4,
the Bible states that Cain found a woman that he then married, yet the
Bible makes no mention of any other families other than the family of
Adam and Eve, yet it says in Genesis 5:4 that there were sons and daughters of Adam and Eve (other than Cain, Abel and Seth).
The
only logical conclusion to the age old question, "Who did Cain marry?",
is a relative of his, whether that be a sister or a niece.
So
the Bible bans incest, but thinks that the world came about because of
incest within the only family who was created by god? Makes sense..... . Modern era:
Many people in the US would be surprised to know that first cousin marriage is legal without restriction in 19 states and DC, and is allowed with restrictions in 6 other states. However, these laws were in place before
gay marriage was legalized, and have not been expanded since, either
into new states, or to include other family relationships. Again, the
slippery slope argument fails.
Does
the slippery slope argument really work on anyone who didn't already
oppose gay marriage already? Probably not, it's more than likely a
ridiculous attempt to justify what one already believes in opposition to
it.
I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Sexuality. I was going to post this one yesterday, but realized today is valentines day and thought I should push it back one day. Other entries in this series:
Is it more or less difficult to write a post about a topic that has a wealth of verses? I guess I'm about to find out, because there are a freaking ton of verses about sex, all somewhat related but with a few similar but different themes. Let's start with the poorly defined phrase "sexual immorality", which seems to be the go to phrase to vaguely call something bad. 1 Corinthians 6:18, Hebrews 12:16, and Revelation 14:8 simply mention sexual immorality without really giving a bigger sense what what they mean. A first thought might be that they are cleverly leaving out the details. However, I think if we look at other verses, we can get a pretty good idea what the bible has in mind when it says "sexual immorality".
Let's start by looking at homosexuality. At least here in America, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted as time goes on. I have even see a couple of Christians here and there try to make arguments that the bible is not actually against homosexuality. While I appreciate the effort and am happy that they are trying to end the bigotry against the LGBT community, they are flat wrong when it comes to the bible. Unless I missed something (and I don't think I did), there is not a single verse in the new testament that says homosexuality is okay. On the contrary, Romans 1:27, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude8 all seem to place being homosexuality among the worst crimes possible. If we are being honest with ourselves, we have to admit that biblically, the Westboro Baptist Church is correct, God does indeed hate fags. Another example of sexual immorality is adultery, having sex with someone else's spouse (although I'm sure the bible would say "with someone else's wife"). Hebrews 13:4, James 4:4, and Revelation 2:14,20-22 all warn directly of adultery. It's hard to argue with that, don't screw around with married people. Moving on.
A big theme is purity, the bible has a fair bit to say about abstinence before marriage. Ephesians 5:3-5, Philippians 4:8, Colossians 3:5, and Revelation 14:4 all reference purity or virginity. There is an angle from which this could have a reasonable basis, and that is from the perspective of a parent. When you have sex you up the ante emotionally quite a bit, and if things fall apart it's that much worse. It makes sense for a parent to want to prevent such a thing in their children. Furthermore, before the age of birth control, you are talking about the likelihoods of your kids having kids before they are ready. You certainly don't want that. However, by eliminating sex before marriage, you are probably going to encourage people to get married before they are really ready for such a commitment. Well, this could easily be a whole blog post on its own, I'm going to move on. The biggest problem I have with the bible in regards to it's position on sexuality, is all of the verses against passion and lust. These feelings are quite natural, and telling people they are bad for having them can really screw them up. I think telling a teenage boy that he is evil for getting a boner is fucking abuse. It's absolutely ridiculous. Verses against passion or lust: Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5, 2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Peter 4:3, 2 Peter 2:9-10, and 1 John 2:16. What could the consequences of passion or lust be? 2 Peter 2:2 suggests that following your sensuality will lead you to blaspheme, and we know from before that blasphemy is the one unforgivable sin. It might not be clear exactly how sensuality and blasphemy are connected, but 2 Peter 2:18 expands on the idea and explains that the unrighteous will use their sensuality to entice people away from God. One final verse I will leave you with, Matthew 5:28 which says that if you simply have lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart. Good ol' thought crimes. These ideas were definitely among the most damaging to me when I was growing up, to think that an errant thought is just as bad as the actual act, how can you control something like that? Telling a teenage boy that he is bad for getting aroused when he sees an attractive woman walk down the street in a low cut dress? Now that is fucking evil!
The New Heaven and the New Earth (v. 1-8)
Then John saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old earth had passed away and the sea was no more.
It's funny, I didn't quite make this connection until the mention of the sea, during the time of the apocalypse, the sea was turned to blood. This made me realize why a new earth is needed, it's because God allowed the old earth to be completely screwed up during the apocalypse. It must have been easier to simply start from scratch that to fix the old one.
A nice new city, new Jerusalem, came down from heaven "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" and God said his dwelling place is with man. He will be with them, he will wipe away every tear. Death, mourning, crying and pain will be no more, as these things have passed away.
Is this a description of heaven? No death indicates the immortality that we normally think of. And no pain, mourning or crying certainly fit well into my mental picture of heaven. And yet this somehow feels much different than the picture I have in my head, it seems much more physical maybe, I'm not sure. I always picture things being up in the clouds, could it be that my image of heaven is heavily influenced by lazy newspaper comic artists who want to get away with drawing clouds instead of landscapes? Also, let's take a moment to look at the inherent sexism that is contained within the description of new Jerusalem. The bride being adorned for her husband sounds awfully like she's a commodity to me, being served up for his liking. Are we sure these are the people we want to take our morality from?
God says he will make all things new. He will give the thirsty the water of life without payment. For the one who conquers I will be his God and he will be my son.
It's funny to me that it says "without payment". There might be no money at this point in time, but getting here isn't free. If you were rich you had to get rid of all your stuff and sell it to the poor, if you lived through the apocalypse you had to not get the mark of the beast and forgo commerce for 3.5 years. There are countless other costs to get to this point. To say you are getting this water of life without payment is like saying the food on a cruise is free. Sure, I don't have to whip out my credit card at every meal, but I certainly pay for the food.
Not everyone will get this fate though, if you are among the following list, you will burn forever in the lake of fire and sulfur: cowardly, faithless, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, liars.
If you take a close look at the list, the only really bad item is murder. Being a coward seems more of a problem for the person than for anyone else, certainly doesn't seem like a reason to burn someone for eternity. Being faithless is good. I'm not completely sure what detestable means, but I guess like being a coward, it seems like more of a personal problem than anything. As long as everyone consents sexuality is fine. Sorcerers and idolaters just show the time period this thing was written in. And finally liars, well if lying gets you thrown into the lake of fire then everyone will be in there together, because everyone lies from time to time. The New Jerusalem (v. 9-27)
An angel took John to a high mountain where he could see new Jerusalem coming out of the sky. A ridiculous amount of detail is given about the city, including the fact that it is made of transparent gold. Also, the city was a cube, measuring about 1380 miles long, wide, and tall. The city gives off light, so it doesn't need the sun to shine on it.
It's funny, I was told as a child that in heaven the streets were made of gold. I haven't thought about it in a long time, but it was one of the earlier things set off my bullshit detector. I remember thinking it was obviously a simplified way you would tell a stupid person that heaven is great, but there is no way it would literally have streets made of gold. I always assumed it was some nonsense made up later by some Sunday school teacher who was having trouble communicating the majesty that heaven must really be. It's kinda funny to see it actually in the bible. What lessons are contained in today's reading?
--Lists-- (I hate these stupid lists and never know how to categorize them) Revelation 20:8 These things earn you hellfire
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
The Lamb was on mount Zion with the 144,000 who have the God's name on their foreheads. John heard a voice from heaven that was like thunder or rushing water. It was also like the sound of harpists playing on their harps singing a song before the throne. No one could learn the song except the 144,000. They were all virgins who "have no defiled themselves with women". They have never lied, they are pure and blameless. They have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God.
Obviously there is a ton of imagery here. The voice he heard from heaven turned into harp music, I didn't quite follow that. Is the idea that it is a heavenly language and only the 144,000 can learn it? Is it a song? I don't get it. At any rate, God has taken these virgins as 'firstfruits', I don't know what that means, but I don't care for it. The Messages of the Three Angels (v. 6-13)
An angel flew overhead who told everyone that they should fear God and worship him because the hour of his judgement is at hand.
Ruling by fear again. It really does seem to be the point of this entire book, but this verse is explicit.
Another angel followed declaring that Babylon is fallen and that Babylon is "she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality"
This seems to just remove all personal responsibility for anything sexual. It's a variant of "the devil made me do it".
A third angel followed them saying that anyone who worships the beast and has a mark on their hand or forehead will drink God's wrath and taste his full anger. They will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the lamb. They will be tormented night and day and have no rest.
So not only will you be tortured forever, God an his angels will watch. They are apparently sick and twisted assholes. The very idea that they want to watch you be tortured is horrifying. Furthermore, what gets you into this predicament? Wearing the mark of the beast. Why would you get the mark? Well, it was necessary for commerce, and God let the beast rule the earth for 3.5 years. What is the average person supposed to do? From Guzik's commentary
No one will “casually” or “accidentally” take the mark. The connection between worshipping the beast and taking the mark will be clear enough.
This is bullshit. Having the mark was necessary to do any kind of commerce. And the beast was allowed for rule for 3.5 years. If I was living during this time I would have no choice but to get the mark. I live in an apartment, I can't grow my own food, I'd starve to death. Wow, the next line in the commentary:
Although, receiving the mark may seem innocent enough to those who dwell on the earth. In their eyes it may not seem like much more that a mere pledge of allegiance and devotion to the Antichrist and his government. It was the same way in the first few centuries of Christianity, when burning a pinch of incense to an image of Caesar, and pledging “Caesar is Lord” was regarded as an innocent act of civic duty to the ancient pagans.
This once again proves my point from yesterday. Is it reasonable to punish people for their actions when they don't understand what they are doing? I argue that it is absolutely not okay to do this.
The Harvest of the Earth (v. 14-20)
There are some angels on a cloud, some have sickles, the angel "who has authority over the fire" tells them to harvest the earth as it is ripe. They do and they put the people into a great winepress from which blood flowed as high as a horses bridle for 1600 stadia (about 184 miles)
What. The. Fuck. This is not a God of love. Only a sadistic monster would set up a world where this happens. Yes, I know, I'm choosing this fate by not following your God who I don't believe in. It's all irrelevant. This is twisted. The commentary writes a fair bit about this section, about how God's perfect wrath is being shown here and what not. quite frankly, I am very disgusted reading this chapter, and more so reading the commentary. I scanned it quickly, but I don't think there is anything to be gained by reading it carefully. I can totally understand why I was told not to read Revelation as a child. It's disgusting. Christians should be ashamed to have this in their holy book.
One more thing, if anyone out there is like me and has never seen a winepress, here is a picture of one (taken from rootsliving.com)
I gotta say, it seems pretty damn gruesome to me.
What are the lessons from today's reading?
--Fear-- Revelation 14:7 Worship God out of fear "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come" --Justice-- Revelation 14:9-10 Have the mark required for commerce nets you God's wrath "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath"
--Sexuality-- Revelation 14:4 Girls are gross "It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins..." Revelation 14:8 You are not responsible for your sexual immorality "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality."
--Violence-- Revelation 14:10-11 God wants to watch you suffer "and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever" Revelation 14:20 God's punishment is sick and twisted "And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia. (about 184 miles)"
To the Church in Ephesus (v. 1-7)
The angel instructs John to write a letter to the angel of the church of Ephesus about what Jesus has to say to them. He focused on the stars and lampstands.
I find it strange that the letter starts off this way. Maybe it just wants to remind us that the words are from Jesus and not from John himself. The letter is also addressed to the angel of the church of Ephesus, not to the church leadership or the people themselves. I have no idea what the significance of this is (maybe it doesn't matter at all), but it seemed like it might be important.
Jesus likes that the Ephesians
toil with patient endurance
can't bear with evil people
have tested false apostles
have no grown weary
hate the works of the Nicolaitans
Jesus doesn't like that they
have abandoned love they had at first
have abandoned the works they did at first
He instructs them to remember from whey the have fallen and repent. He then says that anyone who can hear should listen to the spirit of the churches, and promises the tree of life to the one who conquers.
From Guzik's commentary: "The church today, like the Ephesian church then, must vigorously test those who claim to be messengers from God". Sounds like a good idea, I'd love to know how such tests would done.
If we first focus on the things that Jesus likes, it seems pretty good. Removing evil seems like a worthy goal. Patience is also good. If we assume that the Nicolaitans do evil works, then this all seems fine. The things Jesus doesn't like are harder to analyze as it is pretty vague, what does it mean that they have abandoned love? And what works did they abandon? My best guess at this message is that they are doing good getting rid of evil, but they are focused too much on it and completely ignoring the good things. If that is the case, the message here is to work against the bad things in life, but don't focus so much of your attention on it that you lose track of the good things. If this interpretation is correct, then I would argue that this message is good. I'm curious to see what the Christian commentaries have to say about this. According to Guzik the whole 'first love' thing is about a love for Jesus or God. As far as I can tell, he writes a lot but doesn't say much. And apparently the first works were spending time in his word, praying, getting together with other Christians, and telling people about Jesus. So the message of this chapter is basically that they are doing a good job attacking evil people, but not spending enough time worshiping God. I'm unimpressed. If there are any Christians reading this, I hope it is clear that I am trying my best to put as good of a spin on this reading as I can. I'm trying to find a good message buried in here and give the writing the benefit of the doubt as much as I can. Here I tried to interpret this as nicely as possible and tried to find a message of balance between attacking enemies of god and loving your neighbors, but no, the message is to love God...awesome. Oh yeah, there is that whole "tree of life to the one who conquers" thing. What is that about? I guess it is running on the assumption that the one who listens to God will be the conqueror and therefore the correct person will win and get the eternal life. But it does read as if you gain life for conquering, not for being good or following Jesus or something. To the Church in Smyrna (v. 8-11)
To the angel in Smyrna, write the words "of the first and last, who died and came to life"
Okay, so the point is that he is focusing on different aspects of the vision from chapter 1 I guess.
I know you have dealt with much tribulation, and you are in poverty (although you are rich). And there are blasphemers around you who claim to be Jews but are really working for Satan. They are about to throw you in jail and you will be tested. Be faithful until death and you will receive the crown of life. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.
This one pretty much reads all bad to me. It actually is a great example of what is wrong with pascal's wager. One of the premises of that particular apologetic is that there is no cost to accepting the faith, and potentially infinite reward. What are the believers being asked of here? To give up their life for Jesus. Hold fast even until death, don't worry you will get a good afterlife for it. Of course, if there is no afterlife you have just wasted the one life you get. I don't know what the second death is supposed to mean.
To the Church in Pergamum (v. 12-17)
This time we are focusing on the two-edged sword coming out of Jesus' mouth. Jesus is happy that even though they dwell near Satan's throne, they hold fast to the name of Jesus. But some hold to the teachings of Balaam and Balak which is a stumbling block for my followers, who might be tricked into eating sacrificed food or engaging in sexual immorality. If you follow the teachings of the Nicolaitans, repent or I will war against you with the sword from my mouth.
So basically, the message is "follow me or I will kill you", great loving God you got there. Guzik argues that the message here is "A difficult environment never justifies compromise. It is easy for a church in such difficulty to justify this compromise in the name of “we need all the help we can get.” But no church needs that kind of help." Ruling out compromise certainly seems like a dangerous thing to do, although I suppose there are certain issues that I wouldn't budge on. Still, there is a difference between "don't compromise with those people" and "don't compromise with those people, don't worry about it though, I'll kill them"
It ends by saying if you conquer then you will get some hidden manna, and a white stone with a new name written on it so that no one knows except the one who receives it.
What!? Guzik explains the white stone: "In the ancient world, the use of a white stone had many associations. A white stone could be a ticket to a banquet, a sign of friendship, evidence of having been counted, or as a sign of acquittal in a court of law. Jesus may have any one of these meanings in mind, but at the very least we know that it has the assurance of blessing." To the Church in Thyatira (v. 18-29)
This time we are focusing on the fire eyes and bronze feet of Jesus. Their love, faith, service and patient endurance are good.
love, service, patience, and endurance are applauded here which is good, but of course so is faith.
But the tolerate the woman Jezebel, who teaches my servants to practice sexual immorality and eat sacrificed food. I gave her a chance to repent, but she wouldn't, so I will throw her onto a sickbed, throw anyone who has sex with her into great tribulation unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead.
So basically, sex is bad, awesome. Also, what is the deal with killing her children? What did they do wrong? Apparently throwing her onto a sickbed probably means that he made her sick. (Guzik) As to the striking her children dead, apparently in the other translation used by Guzik it says "I will kill her children with death", and so the gives the following quote “All men die, but all are not killed with death . . . Oh, it is a woeful thing to be killed with death.” (Trapp). This reads like a bad joke to me, am I missing something here, or did Guzik?
I will give to each of you according to your works.
Unless your mom is a prostitute, then you will die.
If you don't know the ways of the devil and come out a conqueror I will give you authority over nations.
"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first [for God]. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first [worshipping God]. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent."
"Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life."
"But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality."
"But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works"
Revelation 2:23 God will kill you if your mother is a prostitute
"So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth."
Revelation 2:23 God will kill you if your mother is a prostitute
Back to wikipedia, apparently the authenticity of this book was never doubted, but it's canon status was. "The links between the Epistle and 2 Peter, its use of the Apocryphal Books, and its brevity raised concern." The links between Jude and 2 Peter are that they are too similar, and either one was copied from the other, or they both used a common source.
Greeting (v. 1-2)
Jude identifies himself as the writer and he says he is writing to those who believe in Jesus.
Judgment on False Teachers (v. 3-16)
Be careful, some ungodly people have crept in to the church hierarchy to pervert it.
Now this is interesting, it is basically admitting that there are bad people within the church and that you should be wary of that. I know there have been previous messages about false prophets and such, but this explicitly says that are from within the church, which wasn't the message I got before. I'm not sure if it wasn't implied before or if I was just being thick.
Don't forget, Jesus saved a people out of Egypt, but also destroyed those who did not believe. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities served as an example of those who deserve a punishment of fire.
It was Sodom and gomorrah and surrounding cities? I don't think I've ever heard that before. Also, I'd like to point out that in this version of the story it is Jesus who is doing these things. I guess this is consistent if Jesus=God.
Don't forget about the angels who sinned and are being kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until judgment day.
Whoa, I'm guessing stuff like this is why the canon of this book is questioned.
These people, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious one.
Interesting what is chosen as the horrible thing to do, defile flesh (sex), reject authority and blaspheme. These really don't seem like the worst sins to commit to me. According to Guzik, the bit about their dreams means that they were dreamers out of touch with reality. It also could mean that they were relying on supposedly prophetic dreams. Seems like a reasonable enough interpretation to me.
v10 "these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively."
This verse really jumped out at me. Does it really make sense for blasphemy to be so horrible if the person doing it doesn't understand what they are doing? It's one thing to understand what God is and blaspheme against him, at least that makes sense for God to get irritated by. But if someone doesn't even understand it and blasphemes, it is basically on accident right? I mean, if a young child or a mentally deficient person commits a crime which they don't understand, we don't punish them in the same way we punish an adult who knows what they are doing. You are being punished for ignorance. Furthermore, you are punished for you animal instincts, which presumably God gave you. Seems pretty damn unfair to me.
Enoch prophesied that Jesus would come with 10,000 holy ones to execute judgment on the ungodly.
Why does God need such a posse? A Call to Persevere (v. 17-23)
Remember that Jesus said there would be scoffers in the last time. Keep yourselves in the in the love of God. Wait for the mercy of Jesus that leads to eternal life, and have mercy on those who doubt and save them from the fire. To others "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh."
Again, it seems that the end times are said to be near, although this one is less solid than many others we have seen in the past. Also, I'm not sure what that last line means, but it sounds like we are supposed to save those we can and fear those we can't. According to Guzik this second group must be saved with fear. They need to be confronted more strongly but with the right approach can be saved. I suppose this is consistent with the reading.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation) Good: Jude4 Be aware of enemies in your midst "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude22 Help those who need it "And have mercy on those who doubt" Bad: Jude8 Sex, disobedience, and blasphemy are the worst sins "Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones." Jude10 Punished for ignorance and following God given instincts "But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively." Jude18-19 End times prediction "They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit." Jude23 Use fear tactics if necessary "save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh."
Christ Our Advocate (v. 1-6)
I am writing this so that you won't sin, but even if you do Jesus is a great advocate for you if you know him. If you say you know him but do not keep his commandments you are a liar. But if you do know him and keep the commandments then the love of God is working in you.
This actually seems to settle the faith versus works discussion we had before. Some versus seem to say that faith is all that matter, others say that works are important. This one ties them together saying that if you truly have faith then you would do the works, and if someone doesn't do works it is evidence to us that they don't really have faith. This is essentially the argument I have heard come from various religious people, but this is the first time I recall seeing it actually in the bible. The New Commandment (v. 7-14)
I'm not writing you a new commandment, but and old commandment that you already had from the beginning. Also, I am writing a new commandment. The darkness is passing away and the light is shining.
What? I guess the idea is that it is the same old ideas but a new twist on it? Guzik says that the sense that is is old is that it has been preached to these people during their whole lives. That seems like a pretty crappy explanation to me. Gill seems to say it has been written on people's hearts all along (even Adam) and therefore isn't new. This makes a little more sense, but I still don't think it's great. Seems like they are just trying to have it both ways.
Do Not Love the World (v. 15-17)
Do not love the world or the things in the world, because God isn't in that stuff. Do not love the desires of the flesh or take pride in possessions, they will pass away with the world. But whoever loves God will abide forever.
Same old message, bad things come from the world. Again, the problem here is that God created the world, so ultimately God is responsible for the evil things as well. The other thing that is interesting here, is that it says not to love the world or the things in the world. On the surface this would seem to be saying that we should only love God and not love anything in the world, although I suppose we could also love "godly" things in the world, such as the church. At any rate, it seems quite open to interpretation, and I think it is poorly written at best.
Guzik spends quite a bit of time talking about this, but basically it comes down to "the world" being bad things. Specifically, he says "it is the community of sinful humanity that is united in rebellion against God." Is this a reasonable interpretation of "the world"? I suppose if you must carve things up as "things for God" and "things against God" then one might call the things against God "the world", except that plenty of things that are for God are in the world, so it seems somewhat silly to me.
Oh, and one last thing, it is talking about things that are bad, so of course one of two examples given is sexuality "desires of the flesh". Warning Concerning Antichrists (v. 18-27)
There are many antichrists, anyone who denies the father and the son is an antichrist. We know it is the last hour because so many antichrists have come.
They seem to be equating antichrist with nonbeliever, or perhaps apostate, but at any rate, they have said that many antichrists have come, and therefore we know the end is near. The fact that the Christians seem to have no good answer to this is telling. Guzik says that "we should regard ourselves as being in the last few minutes", which is absolutely absurd thousands of years later. Gill at least tries a little harder. He first discusses what is doesn't mean (the last hour of the Jewish state, the last hour of the gospel dispensation, or the last hour of the actual world itself). But if it isn't the last hour of those thing, what is it the last hour of? Clearly it is "the last hour of the apostolic age. All the apostles were now dead, John was the last of them". At least this is an answer, unlike what Guzik had to offer, but seriously? Is the compelling to anyone? I think it is much more likely that they thought the end of the world was near.
If you deny the son, you also deny the father.
This is a direct challenge to Jews if I am reading it correctly. It seems to be saying that not accepting Jesus means you are rejecting God as well. This last bit I didn't notice until I recorded the podcast, but verse 27 is pretty anti-intellectual.
v27 "...you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie..."
Basically the message here seems to be that you get everything you need from the bible, and you have no need to learn anything from anyone else. I can't help but think of evolution. Guzik tries to whitewash this by saying that the holy spirit has given us what we need to learn the truth. But he goes on to say "This is not to say that teachers are unnecessary, because one of the resources for knowing the truth is the reminder given by teachers like John." If teachers are still good, then why does the bible say "no need that anyone should teach you" and "his anointing teaches you about everything"? Children of God (v. 28-29) You should follow Jesus, so that when he returns you can be confident in your righteousness and not shrink away. This message sure does seem to lose some punch a few thousand years later. For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good: 1 John 2:4 If you really have faith you will do works
"Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him"
"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world."
"Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."
"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."
1 John 2:27 You don't need teachers, you get everything you need to know from Jesus
"But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him."
