Looking for trouble, he found it

kw: religion, biblical interpretation

A pastor named Mack Wolford died Wednesday after a snake bit him on his thigh. He'd been "handling" the timber rattler, a practice he claims proves your faith in a passage in the Gospel of Mark that reads, 

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mk 16:17-18, KJV)

The central phrase is often misquoted as, "They shall take up serpents, and suffer no harm." It doesn't say that. People also point to the case of Paul, when he was shipwrecked on Malta. While gathering wood for a fire, he was bitten by a viper. He suffered no ill effects.


No passage of Scripture stands alone. We find in Luke 4 the story of Jesus, tempted by the devil, being challenged to throw himself down from the top of the temple, because Psalm 91:11-12 declares that the angels would bear him up and prevent any harm. Jesus answered with Isaiah 7:12, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."


This shows the difference between what happened to Paul and what happened, not only to Mack Wolford, but also to his father 29 years ago, and to quite a number of other "snake handlers". Paul didn't seek out the snake, and would not have picked it up if he had seen it beforehand. He almost certainly knew what Jesus had said about snakes, and poisoned drinks, and so forth. But he also knew, if you put God to the test, God may just leave you to suffer the consequences of your folly.


It occurs to me that the passage in Mark is much stronger regarding drinking poison. It does indeed declare, "If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Where is the church of the rat-poison drinkers? Care for a battery acid cocktail? Any takers?

Seeing is not believing

kw: biblical interpretation, faith

The following is a summary of remarks I made a few days ago in a church meeting.

Imagine you are a Hebrew in the desert encampment with Moses, some 3,500 years ago. You happen to awaken in the middle of the night, step outside the tent, and make your way to the latrine area just outside camp to relieve yourself. Looking back toward the center of the camp, you see the fiery pillar in the sky that shows God's guidance. In the morning, after gathering your daily ration of manna, you glance upward again when you hear a rising sound of people speaking and moving about. The cloud that shows God's guidance by day has lifted. Everyone knows it is time to pack up and move out. You finish eating, store the rest of the manna for preparing later, and help your family pack up the tent and your belongings. The cloud will show the way to the next encampment.

This was a portion of daily life for the Hebrews for a long generation; the Bible tells us, 38 years. During that time, clothing, tents, and materials in general didn't wear out. Sandals or shoes did not need repair. People didn't fall sick until they were old and ready to die, or if they committed one of a long list of sins that are now detailed in the book of Leviticus.

Yes, people did sin. They did so in large numbers. The book of Numbers, in particular, tells story after story of these people, who lived in the presence of frequent miracles, including their daily manna and the guiding pillars of cloud and fire. At every opportunity, many of them committed idolatry and other awful sins (we are not talking about arguing with a spouse or getting into a fistfight here). Those who sinned died or were killed by the bunches, but others took up their perverse ways. They sinned in such numbers and with such intensity that on a few occasions, God spoke to Moses that he "wearied" of the people and desired to extinguish them. Moses would talk Him out of it.

Fourteen centuries later, people had two reactions to seeing and hearing Jesus. Some few believed, and a larger number were offended. At times, Jesus marveled at the level of unbelief. He "went about doing good," and the leaders plotted to kill him. They eventually carried out that plot.

There is a more contemporary example. In the 1930s to the 1960s the "Kentucky Prophet", William M Branham, healed many. I got to know some people who had known him, about 15 years after he died in 1965. He had done amazing things. He could go into a hospital and just about empty it out. A few people, though, he would say, were not going to be healed because their time had come. They would die. He visited South Africa for a time, and at the end of his speaking campaign in Pretoria, the mayor of the city had several trucks driven by his hotel, full of crutches, wheelchairs, and other medical devices discarded by people he had healed. He consistently taught the primacy of Jesus Christ. Yet, the people I met in 1980 had made a strange turn. They were beginning to worship him. Some who are now following his son Joseph are claiming he is an incarnation of God. Many of these people who lived through a generation of miracles—for I think Branham was a genuine prophet—have turned to idolatry.

People say, "Seeing is believing." We have the example of the apostle Thomas, who said, "Unless I see the nail prints in his hands and feet, and put my hand in his side, I will not believe." Jesus confronted Thomas and asked him to probe His wounds. Thomas replied, "My Lord and my God." The Jesus declared, "You have seen and have believed. Blessed are those who do not see, and believe." Jesus knew that Thomases are rare.

In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul prayed that "the eyes of your heart be enlightened." He did not trust our bodily eyes. We have spiritual eyes, and only what they see is reliable. But this kind of sight is hard to come by. You'd think it ought to be easy, because God wants us to see. But, just as He did with Elijah, God may show us the wind and the fire, and if we are willing, we will realize that He is not there. Only then will He come as a quiet voice. Barely detectable. It tests the heart. We want certainty, but He only gives us "today's bread today." We don't know what tomorrow holds, and He isn't about to tell us. He wants us to trust Him, not our checklist, nor some poorly-understood prophecy.

God cares nothing for religion. Religion is a checklist, and you can't follow it faithfully anyway. A properly programmed robot would be more faithful at your religion than you are. God wants a relationship. He wants to answer us directly. Our arrogant claim that we know "what the Bible says" is so much empty words. Jesus said to some, "You search the scriptures, for you think that in them you have eternal life, but you will not come to Me that you might have life." It is good to search the scriptures, but do not forget their Author. Come to Him.

Turn what cheek?

kw: biblical interpretation, altruism

If I hear one more person misapply "turn the other cheek" I may do a bit of cheek-slapping. Let's take a look at the two passages where this concept occurs:

Matt 5:38-42 – You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Luke 6:28-30 – Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

In both these Gospels, these words appear early in the "Sermon on the Mount", and a verse many people remember is "the meek shall inherit the earth". Consider first "meekness". It does not mean "weak" or "mild". It means "calmly obedient". Obedient to whom? To God, of course, but also to authorities, and Paul expanded on this in his Epistles.

Secondly, look at the key words Jesus uses: "If anyone slaps…" or "If someone slaps…". In most of his discourses about social relationships, Jesus tells how to treat your "neighbor", by which he means how his Jewish hearers were to treat fellow Jews. In the rare instances that he uses "anyone" or "someone", he is including non-Jews, and the principal number of these were the Roman soldiers, the occupying forces.

We tend to forget that Israel at that time was a tributary territory of the Roman empire. Relations between the Jews and the Romans were dicey at best. Authority and power are frequently misused, and resentment builds up to dangerous levels. Several instances of "suppression" by Roman forces are recorded in the Gospels. Now consider, who is most likely to demand your shirt or cloak, or who is likely to compel you to carry his stuff for a mile or so when he gets tired? Your "neighbor" would ask a favor. An oppressing soldier never would, but would make an arrogant demand. If you are slow to comply, a slap results. They considered it attitude adjustment.

A telling passage is found earlier in Luke, when John the Baptist is asked for some advice:

Luke 3:14 – Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.'

John got to tell a few soldiers to moderate their own attitude. Jesus told his audience to moderate their own attitude.

Finally, that word "slap". A blow with a closed fist would be described as "smite" not "slap". A slap is intended to shame someone. Whether a Roman or someone else slaps you, Jesus is exhorting his followers to swallow their pride and take the shame. It beats getting smitten! But elsewhere, we see that we are allowed self-defense. Late in Luke, Jesus advises them to carry a sword when traveling. If someone is about to hit you with the fist, about to smite you to do you physical damage, defend yourself.

In the West, at least, we don't have much experience with invading, occupying forces. A weak analogy is being stopped by the police for a traffic offense such as running a light. In such a situation, whether the police officer is righteous or not, do not resist. If you are mistreated, just take notes. Contact your lawyer later. In America at least, assuming you live through the encounter, you can sue for redress later, when you are more physically secure. There is an old song that goes, "I fought the law, and the law won." I take it as the primary application of these verses, that Jesus is telling us, don't "fight the law".

The last month?

kw: eschatology, biblical interpretation, false prophets

Has Family Radio gone off the deep end? Is the exhortation and interpretation presented by eBibleFellowship in any way accurate? While I believe it is not accurate, I is possible for God to bring about a change of the age at any time. Why not in 26 more days? The prediction is not that the whole world will end this May 21. Rather, that date they expect the rapture, followed by a five-month period of great torment for any left behind. The real end is to be in October.

I have maintained for decades that whenever someone makes a prediction of "the date" for the end of the age, it is guaranteed to be wrong. I still think so. But the conclusion of the exhortation is worth heeding: Pray together with your family members. Read the Bible. Forgive others. Be reconciled to the estranged ones. Whether this age ends this month or not, these are good ideas any time.

A mini-exposition

kw: biblical interpretation

One set of Bible passages that cause endless discussion among Christians relate to the Sabbath. Do we need to keep it, do we NOT need to, what? The main clue is what Jesus said about it, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." It was a provision to afford a break in one's schedule, which makes for better health.

Two other important passages then come to mind. After healing someone, in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus asked, "Which of you, having an ox or a donkey that falls into a ditch on the Sabbath, will not pull it out?" And in one place in Leviticus and one in Numbers, we find the prohibition of "servile work" on the Sabbath (KJV terminology). When I put these two together, I judge thus: pulling your ox out of a ditch could be harder labor than your day job. But it is your day job that is called "servile work", in other words, the work of a servant, work by which you make your living.

So if you must do some labor on a Sabbath day, not related to your occupation, you don't break the Sabbath, but if you hire someone to do the work for you, that person breaks the Sabbath! This doesn't even get into the matter of whether Christians are bound by Sabbath regulations in the first place.

The absence of the creche

kw: personal beliefs, biblical interpretation

I seldom inflict my beliefs on this blog; this isn't what it is mainly about. But belonging to a church that mostly ignores Christmas, I found myself asked by someone, "Just how accurate are all these Nativity scenes? Is that what things really looked like the day after Jesus' birth?"

In a word, No.

In a typical nativity scene, we have, of course, Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus in a barn or stable. So far, that is accurate. The baby is in a manger (a feeding trough) and there are animals about. Already getting dicey; the animals would have been in stalls. You don't let a donkey run about when an infant is present. Then there are some shepherds. Yes, in Luke chapter 2 the shepherds visited, sometime prior to the eighth day. What eighth day? The day to circumcise and name the child, as recorded in Luke 2:21; this was followed a month later by a visit to Jerusalem. By the way, if the shepherds were keeping their flocks in the field, there is no way this happened in December.

Who's missing so far? O, yeah, the wise men. A nativity scene typically has three Wise Men bearing gifts, and some kind of comet-shaped thing on a wire above it to represent "the Star". This is recorded in Matthew chapter 2. Funny thing is, the wise men (actually called Magoi or Magi—they were astrologers, but it is from this word we get words like "magic") were bearing at least three gifts, but their own number is never mentioned. Might have been just two of them, maybe five or eleven. We don't know. Funnier thing: Matt 2:11 says they "came into the house". Not a stable. No manger. Then there is a chronological note. After they left, warned to leave by a different route, Herod orders the children in Bethlehem to be killed, "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

We know what happened next. Joseph was warned to flee to Egypt. The gifts given by the Magi financed that trip. Shortly after that, Herod died, and the family returned to Nazareth, Joseph's home town. Luke has given us a solid clue here that his account records what happened when young Jesus was about two years old. And by the time the Magi came, Mary and Joseph had obtained accommodations in a house.

All these allow us to pin down a few other things. Herod died early in the year 4 BC. The flight to Egypt probably took place in 5 BC, which means Jesus was born sometime in 6 or 7 BC, probably 7.

As long as I am myth-busting, I'll take on a couple more. The date of the crucifixion has been reliably determined to be in April of 32 AD. Jesus was then 38 or 39 years old. Luke 3:23 is often wrongly translated "Jesus began to be about thirty years old", when it should be, "When Jesus began [his work] he was past thirty years old." He was actually closer to 35, maybe 36. After just a couple of years on the road, he was mistaken for a man approaching 50, in John 8:57. The much-touted 33½ age had come and gone before he began to minister…unless the four Passovers in John are not all there were. Is it possible that Jesus ministered for nine years? Again, we can't know for sure, just from Bible verses.

Finally, we have no clue what the "Star of Bethlehem" was. Whatever it was, it lasted two years. It could not be a planetary conjunction therefore, and comets don't last nearly that long either. It might have been a long-lasting supernova, but there is no supernova remnant known that dates to around 7 BC. It must have been something unexpected, or the Magi could have predicted its coming, as they could predict eclipses and conjunctions. Then they would not have been two years late for His birth, and perhaps those familiar Nativity scenes would be accurate!

Choosing proper spiritual leaders

kw: opinion, religion, priests, clergy, sexual abuse, leadership qualifications, biblical interpretation

A quote from SNAP's "What to Do When Your Priest is Accused of Abuse" list:

"...abuse, sadly, is quite common. It's far more widespread than any of us would like to believe. Experts estimate that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 9 boys will be molested in their lifetimes." I first assumed this means Catholic girls and boys, but the Network's opening statement shows they are referring to all kinds of "clergy": priests, ministers, bishops, deacons, nuns and others.

A more Catholic-focused website, Bishop Accountability , noted that dioceses had listed more than 1,300 abusive priests in 2004, but only 80 of 195 dioceses actually reported, and the largest ones were among the "missing". That means there are thousands of abusive priests, at least 3,500 and probably more than 10,000. This doesn't count priests who "abuse" adult parishioners (adulterers, literally).

Though I was raised a Methodist, I spent a couple years in College attending a Catholic parish. It didn't take long to determine that the lack of genuine devotion among priests was common, that those having a genuine vocation were so rare as to be remarkable. Every young man I met who had been an altar boy knew the priest he grew up serving subscribed to Playboy...every one! The priest of the parish I attended was famous for being able to rip through a Latin mass (this was pre-Vatican II) in about twenty minutes. When he had to prepare a Homily (sermon), he still kept the service under thirty minutes. Only the highest holy days ranked something approaching an hour.

By contrast, I have met at least two Catholic priests who, I would judge, are genuinely called and serve God with great devotion. I really don't know what proportion of priests is genuinely devoted to God. I hope it is greater than half, but fear it is not.

The situation in Protestantism is sadly similar. While there seems to be less sexual child abuse and adultery, visible lack of devotion is common. To many, being a preacher is just their job, and more Protestant ministers have degrees in Psychology than in Theology or Ministry. I once applied to attend Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA. I found that, even at this rather conservative seminary, the largest single degree program was Psychology. Considering the amount of counseling a pastor has to do, I can understand a strong minor in Psych, but as a Major? Wow! I didn't go.

The Apostle Paul, in I Timothy and in Titus, describes the qualities a bishop must have. Combining these lists, we have without reproach, unreprovable as God's steward, married to one wife, temperate, not self-willed, sober-minded, not quick tempered, orderly, hospitable, a good teacher, not drinking to excess, not violent, not greedy for money, managing his own house well, having successfully raised proper children, and experienced enough not to be proud in their eldership. The list for a deacon is similar, including the wife and children. Paul even wrote, "...if one does not know how to manage his own house, how will he care for the church of God?"

This argues strongly against any practice of choosing a pastor or elder who is a new graduate from a seminary, though this is how most start out these days. Even more, it makes it clear that a spiritual leader must be married, and must have children who demonstrate his skill in child-rearing. The condition of the church will soon mirror the condition of his family, so take a careful look!

My own experiences leading churches in a few places prompt me to the following points: [dots from here]

• No congregation should be led by only one elder/bishop (the terms refer to the same person; elder is the status, bishop, or "overseer", is the office or sphere of work). No one man or woman can be trusted with individual leadership.
  
• The number of deacons/ministers (the second word is a translation of the first) should exceed the number of elders. They lead most of the practical work.
  
• Every church leader must be married, with children, and the children must be of good deportment. The stereotypical image of rebellious "preacher's kids" indicates the leader isn't properly caring for the family.
  
• No church leader can be trusted in a situation of being alone with any church member, of the same or the opposite sex, for any time exceeding a few minutes. If someone needs counseling, either the leader and spouse, or two leaders of the same sex as the one being counseled, must carry it out.

Any congregation that adheres to these points will have a very small risk of abuse.