View of Revelation

Most of the people I know do not think that Revelation is real. They usually think that the person who wrote the book was crazy and that they were not a credible writer. It was interesting that most people in our class said that they believe that most of the events in the book still need to happen (meaning that we mostly believe that it WILL happen?).
Growing up in the Church has "made" me believe that the events will happen and are also spiritual because of symbolism. It would really be interesting to hear from someone who believes that all of the events took place a long time ago.  

Revelation.

It is really interesting the approach to Revelation that we had in our class.  We approached simply and looked at it for what it was.  I remember my church had a sermon series a couple of years ago, and the way we approached Revelation made it almost impossible to understand, at least in the way I thought about it.  The way we looked at in this class was far simpler.  It is very possible that is because I wasn't paying attention during the sermons, but still.  In church, which is also a different type of learning environment than our classroom. we dug deeper into the symbolistic meaning of things, almost to the point where we were lost in the meaning of things, rather than actually reading the book.  We would read a passage, and then break down what every section of that passage was.  It was almost as if "the" was actually a metaphor for some great prophet in the old testament if you cross reference with three other passages.  The way we approached in class seemed to make more sense, at least to me.  There are some great symbols and references in the book, but to dig to deep means you can't see the whole anymore, which I think a lot of people end up ding, especially with revelation because of the symbols that pervade the majority of the book.  At least that is a problem that I think I see in studies of Revelation.  

-Jacob Millay    

The "Insignificant Hero" Archetype: What is the Appeal?

When discussing Revelation, Keefer discusses how it is similar to the modern fantasy epics that surround today's culture. These include Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter. The storyline of these modern fantasies are all fairly similar - a seemingly insignificant person must stand for good and defeat some type of extreme evil.

Although Keefer's discussion of how Revelation relates to these stories is interesting, I was drawn to the idea of the archetype of these fantasy stories, especially of the "insignificant hero".

What I find so interesting is that essentially, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are all the same story. What is it about these stories - that all use archetypal characters and plots that everyone is used to - that draw in an audience? How can we be constantly attracted and entertained by a story that we have heard a million times?

I think that perhaps, because we all feel insignificant and overwhelmed by evil, humans can identify with the archetypal "insignificant hero". And, not only do we identify with this hero, but desire to be exactly as he is. We wish that if we were asked to carry the Ring to Mordor, we would be as brave as poor little Frodo. We wish that we could be like Harry Potter, who defeats Voldemort after sacrificing his own life.

So, if Jesus is this archetypal hero in Revelation - which comes way before any of the modern fantasies Keefer and I are talking about - what does that say about modern fantasy? Are authors purposely attempting to draw correlations between Jesus and their Hero? Is this just a natural tendency for humans because we were made to love Jesus? Or, are authors just buying into the archetype because they know it appeals to us?

Timothy and Titus.

I have never actually thought of the books of Timothy and Titus were personal letters that were then distributed to the whole church.  I mean, it should be obvious, all you have to really do is look at the name to realize, but I guess I just forgot about it.  The main thing to remember when considering this is that these letters were still sort of intended to be sent to the entire church.  Timothy easily translates to the entire church.  Both of the letters of Timothy do.  But with Titus and some of the other personal letters, it is less obvious as to why they were widely distributed to the entire church since they seem more like personal letters.  I don' really see the purpose of doing this.  There are still god lessons in these books, but they are less obvious and you have to dig through the personal information and messages to find them in some cases.

Was the early church simply looking for anything from Paul that they widely distributed letters that weren't really intended for that function, or is it that these letters were written in a different fashion intentionally to draw people and have them search for the lessons in them?  And if it is the second option, why would Paul do that?

-Jacob Millay

Critique of Paul.

When I was being raised in the church, we were taught a lot about Paul, and rightly so.  He is a pretty big part of the New Testament.  Of the 27 books in the New Testament, I think 13 were written by Paul.  He also is the main source of knowledge about the church and he has basically shaped our modern day understanding of what the church is and what it should do.  Needless to say, he is pretty important.  That being said, in my own mind, Paul sort of took up this super hero sort of mantle in my mind.  He could do no wrong.  I mean, this is the guy that spread the knowledge of the Word to almost the entire Mediterrean!!  He is one of the main reasons why Gentiles are accepted in the church!!  However, with the recent critique of Paul that I read in Keefer, it sort of shook my view of Paul in a way.  Don't get me wrong, he is still amazing and probably the most influential person to Christianity outside of Jesus, but he isn't the super human that I thought he was.

You know what this really does is even more impress me with Jesus and his flawlessness.  Paul is an amazing teacher and follower of God, but he still has many flaws that are evident in his work.  Jesus has none of those in his life.  It really just makes it more evident how perfect Jesus was.

-Jacob Millay

Reading Acts: Theology vs. Literature

Last semester, I took "The Acts of the Apostles" with Jeremy Wynne for my BibLit credit. I really loved that class as we got to learn a lot of the historical context and theological teachings of a book that is normally considered to be just straight history. I know that both Jacob and I will be able to contribute a lot to the theological backgrounds of this text!

As an English major, I found myself wanting to interpret Acts with a more literary than theological lens. I am very excited to see what you have in store for us Doug! But, here are a few things that I am interested in and we hopefully get to explore together...

What are the effects on the reader if one considers Acts to be the "sequel" to Luke? What if Luke-Acts were made into one movie... what then would be the climax? What is the climax of Acts? Why does Luke choose to cut off the book right when Paul gets to Rome - what I was expecting to be the "climax"?

I really love Acts as it shows what the early church was like - and it provides our churches with a "format" to follow. I also think that it has a great place in the canon: between the last gospel and the beginning of Paul's letters. In the New Testament, we have been really interested in authorship and its effects on each gospel's perception/representation of Jesus. For Acts, I think that Luke is setting up the reader with this background for Paul - the man that will be writing most of the New Testament books.

If This Class Has Taught Me One Thing...

If this class has taught me one thing (although I am pretty sure that I have learned more than just one thing) it is that as a Christian you definitely have to search deeper into the Bible than most Christians tend to do.  To know the historical background to a section of verses adds a ton of depth to the passage, and knowing who the author was and what he was about helps understand what he wrote much better.  Often as Christians int his modern age we take things at face value and then allow everyone to come to their own interpretation and claim each one is true, which is a very postmodern take on the Bible.  When you look at the authors though and what they were writing for, it makes it much more clear what they were actually trying to do, and it makes it more interesting.  It also avoids us making the Bible into a collection of myths, even if there may be a myth of two in there in the Old Testament.  We can see these were real authors who were trying to document things in different ways since they were different people with different pasts.  It all just adds to a reading of the Bible.

-Jacob Millay

Keefer Reading on John.

I thought the Keefer reading of John was very interesting.  Growing up in the church I was aware of the separation in a way of John from the other gospels, but I never really knew why it was separated.  Reading this explanation of it really helped and I loved the way they explained it.  Personally, I never fully understood John, and that is because I was reading it like I would if I was reading Luke.  I was thinking of it as more of a narrative more than anything else, when John is not that.  It is much more than that in fact.  John's use of semantic tones and circular metaphors really add a depth and almost a puzzle to his gospel.  To really undertand it, you almost have to learn the code and then go back through and decipher it.  This adds the extra bonus lesson within John that you don;t find on the first read through, but only on the second or third, as well as the face value lesson that is in John.  This system is pretty ingenious and many novels are written in this way.  Great authors use literary tactics just like this, so that leads me to believe that John was a very talented author as well as a type of biographer and theologian.  It really just adds depth to the whole book now that I can see these things.  

-Jacob Millay

Songs and Comparisons

I love to listen to songs and try to find Bible verses that they are based off of. I recently heard another song called 7 times 70, which refers to forgiveness which is in Matthew 18:21-22. The same kind of message is in Luke 17:3-4. In Matthew, Peter asked if you forgive someone 7 times and Jesus says to forgive them 77 times even if they don't ask for forgiveness. Certain versions say "70 times 7 times" instead. In Luke, He says that you are to forgive them when they ask for forgiveness. This verse says that you forgive your brother only if he is sorry.
While the messages are mainly the same, there are some major differences. If you read other verses, you can tell that you're not just supposed to forgive someone when they ask to be forgiven but are to forgive because God has forgiven us. You would think that this point would be an important reminder for us even though it doesn't sound that way.
The number 7 is the perfect number. The number 77 is quite interesting. There were 77 generations between Adam and Jesus according to Luke 3. Another interesting way to think of the number is atomic numbers in chemistry. "The iridium, Ir, atomic number 77, is a white metal which the name is a derivative of the Greek word "iris" meaning" rainbow". It is under the sign of the rainbow that God concludes his Alliance between him and the humanity, and the Christian remains in this Alliance if he forgives 77 times the faults of his brothers (Mt 18,22)"(ridingthebeast.com).
Another thing I found interesting was that Luke was more of the compassionate Gospel but yet it says that you forgive someone only when they are sorry. I thought that the verses would have fit the trend if they were switched.
http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu77.php

Luke and the Narrative

I thought all the plays that we watched written by the Creative Writing Class was really interesting, especially since one of the days we watched the plays was when we were going over Luke, which is the one gospel with the most narrative and the one that focuses probably most on narrative.  I thought that was pretty ironic.    But the whole topic of the narrative in Luke really fascinates me as a whole.  Why did he see fit to put these literary tools in his gospels when others did not see it fit to do so with their own?  Was it simply because he thought it would be easy to read and understand if there was a story-like quality to it, or was it there some other element in play in his decision making?  I don't think the narrative in Luke makes it way easier to understand though.  It is still pretty confusing, although when we delve into it in class we can clearly see some of the differences in message and writing style.  But I would love to ask Luke why he felt it necessary to include a narrative in his gospel when the others did not as much, especially Mark.

-Jacob Millay

Cycles

Isaiah includes an oracle in the wastelands. Destruction is overtaking the nations "from the desert, from a land of horror" (21).

The repetition of this kind of imagery makes me think of this:




 I may be reaching, but I think there's a parallel between the literary Modernists - who wrote in an attempt to make sense of a world destroyed by WWI - and the prophets, preaching God's wrath and the fall of Jerusalem.

"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
out of this stony rubbish? Son of man," [that's Ezekiel]
"you cannot say, or guess, for you know only
a heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
and the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
and the dry stone no sound of water" [lines 19-24].

Eliot's fragmented ruins represent a breakdown in style, a rebellion against the way words have been traditionally strung together. But it's a rebellion which echoes a state of reality: war on a scale the modern world had never seen, which affected a whole generation. We talked about the cyclical nature of history. Isaiah's "harsh vision" is of an apocalypse in the ancient world: the fall of Israel and Judah, but of other nations as well. Later in the Waste Land, a succession of world powers -
 "Falling towers.
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London -
Unreal."

And the end result is a wilderness where nothing can grow. I wonder if each era-ending cycle of war produces writing like this: disillusioned, desperate, but poetic. Eliot was writing a warning, too, in a way; I wonder if you could argue that Eliot's a prophet.

The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Mark

I was interested in what we discussed in class today - the differences between Mark and Matthew. And so, I decided to look up what I thought would be something that would be "universal" in every gospel - the Lord's Prayer. I think I was pretty naive to think that there actually would be universality in the first place because we have learned so far that each gospel is so different!

But, anyways, I looked up the passages where Jesus tells the disciples of the Lord's Prayer and how to pray. Here is what I found:

MATTHEW 6:5-15

⁵ “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ⁶ But when you pray,go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

⁷ “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. ⁸ Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ⁹ Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.^[a]
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,^[b]
    on earth as it is in heaven.
¹¹ Give us this day our daily bread,^[c]
12 and forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil.^[d]

¹⁴ For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, ¹⁵ but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

MARK 11:24-25:

²⁴ Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer,believe that you have received^[c] it, and it will be yours. ²⁵ And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”^[d]

What a difference! I think that these two passages really well represent the different attributes of each gospel. Matthew's version puts a lot of emphasis on Jesus' dialogue - he even goes to put the Lord's Prayer in quotations and separate from the rest of the passage. The passage form Mark is very short and to the point. There is no quotation from Jesus, and the passage comes directly after a parable. It makes one question, "who is this man who has the authority to teach us to pray?" rather than the directness of Matthew that, through using the words Father, portrays Jesus as the Son of God.

The Blind?

This, from Isaiah. In a different translation, because it sounds prettier that way*:

"Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (6:10, ESV)

Is it just me, or does this sound like the ultimate curse? Blindness, and hardened hearts, bother me whenever they happen in the OT. It's always God's refusal to allow people to see the truth (the implication being that if they did, they would instantly worship him. Or "turn and be healed," as the case may be), and it seems like stacking the odds against humans, who are disposed to being idiots to start with, is a pretty cheap way for YHWH to win glory. And then I worry that that makes me "this people." Have I been blinded? Oh god. I guess it's an effective literary device, though.

Because the Isaiah curse reminds me of Matthew's predestination-dualism, and also of the disciples' inability to understand the divine mystery, I'm wondering about blindness, as a theme, in the New Testament. Is Jesus' ministry to the blind, or is it only to those who can see well enough to ask for help?

*[Not-really-related note: I get that it must be hard to balance faithful translation with attractive English; still, why does it seem like no version of the Bible is consistent with its literary quality? I think we should combine the most poetic bits from all the different translations: English-Majors' Version. Which would find a market only at Whitworth.]

The Gospels

I took New Testament during Jan Term, and a lot of the time was spent on The Gospels.
Our professor told us that Matthew, Luke, and John most likely got most of their information from the book of Mark. They also could have gotten some other information from what many people call "source Q" or an unknown source.
Even with all of the content similarities, they all emphasize many different things. A lot of verses are the same, but some are just one word different than the others. This can sometimes seem to emphasize the writers specific beliefs or what they think is more important.
For example, two of the books (I cannot remember 100% which book was which) both talk about the poor at the same time in Jesus' teachings. One refers to the poor in spirit and another refers to the physically poor. One praises those who need spiritual help and one condemns the wealthy. This kinda gives you whiplash.
It just seems confusing to me that they have different subjects at the top (or mixed in) when they should have had the same final outcome.

Light and Dark: Peter and Judas

The book of Matthew is probably the most read book in the Bible. I, like many Christians, have read it several times.  It wasn't until this class, however, that I was able to notice the contrast of light and dark throughout the book.  

Peter is the light in this book.  Even though the people in Jesus' hometown do not believe he is the son of God, Peter does.  I probably would look at John the Baptist and think he was crazy.. a guy who ate locusts and wore a loin cloth?  I'd assume he was a drug-addict.  Jesus said the poor, meek, and hungry are blessed.  This would be like our equivalent of a homeless schizophrenic.  Though it is sad, I can see why most people laughed at Jesus. I hate to admit it, but I would have had a hard time trusting him too.  But Peter didn't have a hard time trusting him.  

When Keefer mentioned that Peter is a Greek name, meaning 'rock,' the scriptures in Matthew made a lot more sense.  In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on a rock" (Matthew 7:24-25). When Peter calls Jesus the Messiah, Jesus says "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17-18).  I see Peter as a metaphor for faith in these passages. So Jesus is saying to build religion on faith.

All throughout Matthew, the writer was foreshadowing the dark.  In this book, Judas represents the dark.  Keefer mentions, that while those who were faithful to Jesus called him 'Lord,' Judas simply called Jesus 'teacher' and 'Rabbi.'  This suggests that Judas believed Jesus was a good teacher, but not necessarily the son of God.  In the sermon on the mount, I think the sand could be interpreted as insecurity, something Judas represents.

Really Keefer?

I have a bone to pick with Kyle Keefer.

On page nine of The New Testament as Literature, Keefer states: "The Gospel of Matthew, for example, does not favorably compare with Moby Dick with regard to lingustic complexities we often associate with literary works." (Keefer 9)

This statement was made after discussing what Keefer defines "reading literature" to be. According to Keefer, reading literature implies a "serious undertaking," and he says that this does not apply to reading the New Testament.

WHAT? Okay dude, I understand that the New Testament does not employ the "lingustic complexities" that more "modern" pieces of literature do (i.e. Moby Dick). But, you spend pages 29-36 of your book discussing the lingustic complexities of Matthew (the difference between Rabbi and Lord, etc). You totally have contradicted yourself.

And to say that reading the New Testament doesn't have as much of a "serious undertaking" as reading works such as Moby Dick is ridiculous. Yes, the Gospels are more of historical pieces of literature that depict the "plot" of Jesus' life. But, if reading the New Testament was so easy, then why does Whitworth offer Theology Majors? There is so much analytical work that can be done with the New Testament, but like you said, most people read it for strictly religious purposes. Just because that is its common use doesn't mean that reading it is less of a "serious undertaking" for those who are trying to read it through a lens of literature.

The Antichrist and the Old Testament

I recently watched some sort of documentary on the History Channel about the Antichrist. Most people find the end of times very interesting, especially with all of the "Doomsday 2012" that had become well known.
Since most of the prophecies that come to mind about the end of the world come from the New Testament (specifically Revelation), I would have never thought that warnings of the Antichrist had existed as much as it does. It seemed to me that it wouldn't be necessary for them to teach about it because they would have more important things to worry about in their time. While the information needed to be passed down, it might have given the people the belief that the Antichrist was the person (or people) who ruled over them. Like we were talking about today, many of the leaders brought in their own religions and punished those who followed God. The documentary called them antichrists, not the one Antichrist, which could explain the warnings.
What I'm really trying to say is that most of us have a specific view of the Bible from how we grew up in it or without it. When we look deeper into specific topics or reasoning, it gives us a better perspective on what the book means.

"The Bible" on the History Channel

I was a little skeptical when I first sat down to watch "The Bible" series. We have talked about this series before in class, so I sort of knew what to expect, and frankly I went into watching it with a bad attitude. I often find that portrayals of biblical stories are not very good... the only exception (in my opinion) being the Passion of the Christ.

BUT, I really enjoyed watching this show and thought they did a fantastic job with it! Yes, things were left out (especially with their portrayal of the Kings), but overall I really enjoyed being able to watch the stories unfold rather than reading them. I think that the series is a testimony to how successful "storytelling" can add a lot to the stories that already exist. Also, when watching the biblical text being acted out, I was able to examine the stories more as a literature than an "artifact" - maybe it will help me in class to watch the show after we've read certain chapters?

The Bible Miniseries

Since I am back home for spring break, I have an available television with cable to watch.  So I took some time yesterday to watch The Bible miniseries on the History channel to see if it was any good and what it was like.  The series is very well made on a technical level, with big props and a big budget and good actors.  The content is a bit questionable though.  It seems that Mark Burnett and the other producers of this series fell into the same rut as the majority of other people who try to make a film or series out a Bible series.  They took it and made it into a blockbuster type of series rather than sticking to the Biblical basis.  In one scene, the angels visited Lot to see if there was anyone in Sodom or Gomorrah to save, and when they left, they had to fight their way out with swords.  The angels did.  The producers probably just wanted a cool sword fighting scene to put in, which is what they got, but in doing that they degraded angels to the same level as man who have to kill to accomplish something.  The series is well made, but now totally accurate, much like many other series and films based on the Bible.

-Jacob Millay

Childrens Bible stories- Nebuchadnezzar

My favorite Veggie Tales as a kid was the story of Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego and the furnace. Now as a a backdrop the evil king Nebudchadnezzar threw the three of them in a furnace 7 times hotter than the usual temperature. Now Veggie Tales does a good job of desensitizing this by having them worship a giant chocolate bunny and are thrown into a hot fire that looks like something from Dr. Seuss. In reality the furnace they went into was similar to what would have been used in a concentration camp. The fact that Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego were able to survive this furnace is nothing short of the grace of God. I think this story is alot like Noah and the Ark. We like to desensitize the horrific fact of this story and many others in the bible to tone it down so that our children will learn the stories of the bible.

Apocrypha

Having only read Bibles without the Apocrypha in them, the initial concept threw me for a spin. Who knew we as Christians had secret books? It is kind of an odd idea. But after having read them, such as Baruch, it is obvious that they aren't wildly off of what I've been raised to believe. If I'm gonna be honest, hearing books of the Bible like Belle and the Dragon, make me seriously question what is it that I am doing as a Christian and if I'm actually a part of a cult. But After getting the Jerusalem Bible and reading all of the Apocryphal books in my spare time, (starting with Belle and the Dragon of course) I am releaved to know that these hidden holy books are really not all that crazy or outlandish. I have no idea if any of you in this class were in my place ever but I can't help but laugh at the crazy theories my brain started spitting out the minute I learned about the Apocrypha, especially knowing that in reality its just extra books of the Bible.

Violence in Ezekiel

The first 7 or so chapters of Ezekiel are shockingly violent. Some of the descirptions are jsut bizzarely graphic. Like chapter 6:13 talks about corpses being chopped into tiny pieces and scattered around their false idols. I've always heard about this ridiculously violent Old Testament God that was so horrible it led people to declare two Gods in the bible, one for the new testament and the other for the old. I hadn't ever takn much notice of this just becasue I honeslty hadn't really read much of the old testamet before this class. But after reading chapter after chapter about this God who commands violent deaths upon people, I can understand why it is that people struggle with the faith. I also have a much clearer understanding of what it means to fear God. Love him yes, but also fear him.

Everything is Meaningless

Ecclesiastes is a very straightforward book that provides a harsh reality. As depressing as it's overall message "Everything is Meaningless" can be, this is one of my favorite book in the Old Testament. I believe it speaks the most truth and is easily translated and related to modern American society. We have been focused on this book at my church for the past few weeks and this is the summary I have drawn from the sermons: 

We often live rowing toward the island of happiness. Where the things like the perfect education, job, and spouse exist. And we row thinking that God’s current is constantly floating us toward the island of sadness. Where the things like sickness, broken hearts, and financial distress exist. 

But that’s not true. Because neither of those islands are real. We’ve made them up. We don’t float around in a boat, fighting the current and the wind to get to ultimate happiness. No, instead we are on an island called life. Where sadness and happiness have to coexist in order to work. Without sadness and tragedy, we wouldn’t know happiness and gratitude. 

Ultimate happiness doesn’t exist. Not on Earth at least. Not in real life. In Heaven maybe, but we aren’t there yet. We are made to live now. In the moment. To be happy with what we have, and realize that what we don’t and what is breaking us down is really just a way of building us up. 

It is harsh and blunt, yes, but it is true. All of the things we think we absolutely cannot live without are nothing but vapors, according to Ecclesiastes. The only true happiness we can find is in God and we must live in fear of Him and we are forever indebted to Him. 

A very interesting and very powerful idea to digest. 

Morgan Freeman portraying God

Morgan Freeman has more than once been used to play the character of God in modern day Bible-based movies. I have alway thought this was interesting because of his race. Stereotypically, I believe when we try and picture God we see the built up image of Jesus; a white man with brown hair and brown beard, usually dressed in a robe and sandals. However, I've come to realize there is no way to know or paint an image of God because he has never been seen. His son lived on earth and was seen in the flesh, but we all know that Jesus is not based off of genetics as he was born from the Virgin Mary. So, this begs the question in my mind; could God have been of a different race? Many people have a problem with Freeman portraying the image of God, but I think it is a fantastic interpretation for today's society.

Noah's Ark and the rainbow

A few weeks ago we looked at the story of Noah's Ark in depth with the guest speaker. Personally, I've never thought of the story as the nightmare we discussed it to be. Growing up we've learned about the good things in Genesis 6; that Noah followed God's orders and saved the animals. The horror and destruction that must have ensued worldwide, however, is eery to think about and is often omitted when we discuss the flood.

In addition, I think the rainbow as a symbol of God's promise to never flood the Earth again is a fascinating and intriguing concept. Because of this promise, rainbows, to me, are such a peaceful and comforting site. Upon seeing them I not only think of His promise but also realize how amazing those 6 arched colors are and what they mean. And I truly believe that in order to see and appreciate beauty we must first know destruction and terror - a cycle that will forever stay true and has it's greatest evidence in the story of the flood.

Encouragement in Isaiah

The next week is probably very stressful with all of the tests that teachers try to cram in on the last days of the week. Considering this, I just found something encouraging that I wanted to share.
My daily devotional takes Bible verses and expresses them in a way that can apply to our daily lives. A recent one bases the topic off of Isaiah 64:8, which is about the potter and the clay. My book used this verse to explain that the events of each day are placed there for a reason and we cannot control everything that happens to us.
I looked up some other commentaries of this verse and what it might have meant to those who lived during this time period. Some believe that the potter restores the clay and the clay cannot do it alone. Others believe that this relates directly to creation; God made us who we are and we are a piece of art. We can be made into anything that He wants us to be.
Looking through my devotional book, I found that verses in Isaiah were used a lot as the foundation for some of the writings. This just made me wonder if Isaiah could be a book of encouragement and hope.
Commentary
I find this site very helpful in the interpretation of confusing verses.

Foreshadowing within Isaiah Chapter 1?

I have just begun my reading of the book of Isaiah. It is a book that I am not familiar with - I don't have any idea of what goes on in this book, which will be a refreshing way to read the Bible! But, the first chapter seemed to be way too profound to not be some type of foreshadowing for the rest of the book.

The first chapter of Isaiah tells of a vision that the prophet Isaiah receives from God where God informs Isaiah about how His people have turned away from him. The vision is written not in an instructive, prose format but through poetry. Perhaps using poetry to describe the vision provokes more empathy than the reader would receive in an informative prose passage. Nonetheless, after reading the poem, it seems to me that the rest of the book will be about how Isaiah is going to "fix" this problem that God has so passionately explained. Because the poem is so passionate and it opens the book, I believe that there is a legitimate reason to believe that the rest of the book will respond back to this passage!

I will probably post again with my response after reading the book of Isaiah in its entirety. Hopefully I'm not too far off in my beliefs about foreshadowing!

Hearers and Seers

Coogan talks about the two primary ways that prophets receive the 411 from God on page 81-82. He talks about both those who have visions (seers) and those who hear the divine voice of God (hearers). I would make the arguement that there is one more that I have often seen in my own life, kind of a kinestetic sort. I once was at a retreat for my church in Tennessee and there was an artist who went up on stage. Without any kind of preparation of any sort, he began to paint a scene of Mary and Joseph in the manger with baby Jesus. Soon, as he continued to paint, the scene became the faceof Jesus with a crown of thorns on the cross. To see this image transformation may not have been the common definition of prophetic vision but it definitly was a divine connection to us from God. I think that often times our actions can be the most prophetic part about our lives.

Isaiah and St. Patrick

Upon reading about Isaiah I couldn't help but draw parallels to St. Patrick. This could be because I'm sitting here listening to Celtic step music in an Irish flag shirt, or it could just genuinely be because of the similaritites. Both of these men left everything to follow the call God placed on their life. They also both gained faith strength in the demise of their beloved countries. Like I said in one of my previous posts, St. Patrick fully relied on God for everything. You can see this same kind of dedication in the life of Isaiah. They both hit rough patches but did not complain or become bitter with God. Instead they held fast to the hope they profess and believed in nothing else but the ever lasting God.

Thoughts on Prophets

I find it interesting how the definition of a prophet has changed over time. Now a days we see a prophet as someone who determines or can see the future. In biblical times this was viewed as more of a person who was a mediator between people and God, as stated in Coogan page 74. It's easy to hear prophetic speech and believe it to be a mandation on what is to come in the future. However, having been to my fair share of charasmatic churches, often times this is not the case at all. Sometimes people in the congregation give a vision about how the future will be and it never comes. This is not to say that theywere wrong but rather that we as a society view prophetic speech as the news and not as an idea for life later on. Coogan discusses this in the reading we are supposed to do and brings it up in such a way that it really helps the morph the modern definition of what it is to be a prophet like Isaiah.

St. Patrick

I know we haven't covered any of the saints in this class but seeing as how it's Saint Patrick's Day I cound't help but bring up a blog abot my favorite holiday. When you look a the life of St. Patrick, we as Christians, can be significanly impacted by the life he chose to live. The kind of utter abandonment and fixation on Christ is not often seen in our world today. Imagine if we all listened to the word of God and obeyed it just as muchas we listened to music, or watched tv. I think we can all benefit from what God has to say in our lives and I do truly believe that the intent and purpose God has on our lives is each so unique that to not listen would be nothing but counter productive. So on this day known in America by green beer and short red head men, I encourage you all to reflect on how you can live a life similar to St. Patick and follow Gods call on your life.

Psalm Based Worship

I recently heard a song on the radio that is based off of Psalms 84:10, which says " Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked".
Better is One Day
This verse is pretty easy to interpret, but it really stood out to me compared to all of the others. I have heard this song many times growing up, but I never seriously thought about what it actually meant.
To me, this is saying that life can be hard and amazing, but nothing will go wrong in His presence. We will not even think of looking back and might even forget what life was even like here on Earth. The writer was saying that they would give up their life ten times just to experience His presence for a day. Sometimes I just wish a day, week, or month to go by quickly and not to enjoy them like I should. Other times it doesn't seem like life could be any better or I look forward to something so bad. For something that important that we would want it more than anything else, shouldn't we at least give up a small portion of this time on Earth to work towards that goal? This just made me really question what I do with my time.
This also reminded me of the Psalm that we sang to the poetry class.

Song of Solomon Reading and Thoughts

This book is very strange to me.  Many Christians avoid the Song of Solomon because of the imagery that is uses.  Within the first couple of chapters, many of the modern Christians would be turned away from the book.  But why is that?  The imagery is graphic, but it describes two things.  It describes two people who are married and are in love.  We should not be afraid of the closeness of the two people in this book.  Even though sex is often demonized in modern religion this book CLEARLY points out that sex is normal and should be viewed the way we view it.  The book also paints a different picture of God.  We are His bride and he is our bridegroom.  This shows the love of God for mankind in a way that few other books show.  David and Solomon were the first ones to really dive into the love that Love has, as well as the other authors of the Psalms.  Earlier in the Old Testament, it is easier to see God as a God of judgment and of fairness rather than one of love, but these books clearly frame that aspect of his nature.  That is why even though Song Of Solomon is kind of awkward to read, it is a very important book to read and understand.

-Jacob Millay

Aristotle, Plato, and Ecclesiastes

I found Ecclesiastes 1:13 very intriguing because of the information about classical scholars - namely Plato and Aristotle - I learned about in other classes. Qoheleth discusses his experience with reason, "With the help of wisdom I have been at pains to study all that is done under heaven; oh, what a weary task God has given mankind to labour at!" (Ecc 1:13) In more simple terms, the verse is stating that it has been Qoheleth's duty to study everything because God has commanded humans to do so.

This verse, and the passage surrounding it, reminded me very much of Aristotelian thought. Aristotle claims that the purpose of mankind is to discover the entelechy of things in the world based on empirical study and reason. Although not a religious man, Aristotle would agree with Qoheleth's work.

However, Qoheleth goes on to state that, "I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and what vanity it all is, what chasing of the wind!" (Ecc 1:14) Here, Qoheleth is saying that his research is done in vain because the things of this world are meaningless without God's wisdom and truth. Like Aristotle, Plato believes that humans are made to reason. But, Plato would agree with Qoheleth more than Aristotle because of their mutual belief that the physical world should not matter. Plato believes that the world of Forms matters more than the physical world and Qoheleth believes that God matters more than the physical world.

Biblical Reading As A Whole

  Since we started this class, it had been interesting to read the Bible in other settings.  For instance, I meet in a Bible study every Monday with some guys who live in Warren with me.  It is pretty informal and relaxed, but we often read some passage and then discuss it.  Since we have started reading the Bible through a literary perspective, it has affected how I read the Bible in my off time.  I find myself dissecting passages and looking for patterns or reasoning behind certain sayings that I simply didn't do before.
  I am not exactly sure if this is a good thing overall though.  As a Christian, the Bible is sacred and God ordained.  To point all flaws in it seems to go against my worldview in a way.  Reading the Bible and really diving into it is good and helpful and can help you grow as a Christian, but to dissect it to the point of somehow finding fault in the Word seems wrong to me.  And maybe I shouldn't put the Bible on such a pedestal and I should be looking for faults in it.  I am not really sure.

-Jacob Millay

Poetic Interpretation of the Psalms: A Daunting Task

I just finished reading through the Psalms (finally) and am extremely intimidated for both the quiz and discussion in class tomorrow! While reading, I found a wealth of poetic devices and different techniques of the author - and I was just skimming through each Psalm because the book is so long! We have an extremely daunting task ahead of us in interpreting meaning from the Psalms because there is SO much meaning within each line!

Think of poems that we have read in the past - in high school, in other classes, etc. A poem that contains, perhaps, one or two stanzas could be filled with meaning and poetic devices that help create that meaning. For a poem with a single stanza, it is possible to write a five page analysis! We have about two hundred pages of complex biblical poetry, each with religious and cultural importance and masses of poetic devices to look upon.

I am torn in how I want to go about looking at the Psalms. As an English nerd, I love to analyze the author's decisions in each poetic devise he or she uses. After all, the poetic devise would not exist without the author's decision! But, as Doug mentioned before, we need to look at Biblical Poetry in a wider scale - what are sections or stanzas saying as a whole rather than words or single lines? I think that a healthy compromise between the two ways to interpret the Psalms must be drawn. Without looking at a bigger picture, details are unimportant. But without looking closely at details, the importance wouldn't have been built in the first place.

Job as a Parable

Doug had mentioned that the book of Job could perhaps be a made up story due to its opening statement, "There once was..." (Job 1:1). I was intrigued to look further into this idea, specifically the book of Job as a parable.
I looked up a more formal definition for a parable than the one given to us in class. It is defined as, "a short, simple story designed to convey some religious principle, moral lesson, or general truth by comparison with actual events." This would apply to the book of Job as his suffering draws comparisons to how followers of God should behave in light of difficult circumstances. The book of Job definitely conveys a principal.

But, what I found most interesting in my research of parables was this definition: "A parable is often an allegory in which each character represents an abstract concept—such as obedience or honesty—and is illustrated through real-life events". The characters that question Job and offer him advice each represent an "abstract concept" the definition talks about, as discussed in class. The fact that the characters are representative of different concepts could contribute to the idea of Job being a parable.

Job and us today

After reading Job I couldn't help draw parallels to Jobs attitude and often times our own attitude. When things go wrong for Job he becomes upset with God and questions what he is doing in his life. We also often do the same thing, when things go wrong we question God and why these things are happening. But the primary difference between 'us' and Job is stickig with God. I think in our society we too often are quick to throw things out if it does not please us 100%. Old TV isn't the best, we're bored with our relationships, and we refuse to make things work so we throw them out. I've had one to many friends hit this same point with God. He isn't providing a perfect lie, or protecting us from the trials of life and so they turn away from God with a heart of bitterness and resentment towards the Creator of the Universe. How could He allow this? Where was God? We all question God at times but the important thing to remember is while questioning God is important, it is even more important to hold on unswervingly to the hope we profess because the one who promises is faithful.

The meaning of the Iris

In class we were discussing the possible meaning behind the Iris in the painting of Adam and Eve. I was curious about it and looked up what a Purple or Blue Iris would represent. I found that the Iris was originally symbolic for the Greek goddess Iris and stood for power and majesty. The meaning behind the flower grew to include valor, wisdom and faith as well as royalty. Taking that into consideration, the Iris, which is pointing at Eve's womb, has a deeper mean.
My interpretation of the placement is that it is implying that from Eve's womb will come the king, Jesus. We had mentioned the possibility of her appearing pregnant as meaning that from her womb sin will enter the world, but Jesus is also her descendant. Although Eve ate the fruit and her and Adam cause sin to enter the world, she will also give birth to the beginning of the line that will lead to God's son, Jesus. The Iris is symbolic of the eventual birth of Jesus, the Messiah, who will have the wisdom, power and majesty to save the people from sin.

Reading of Judith

I thought our reading of Judith and then the short discussion we did in class was pretty interesting.  I grew up in a Christian home and went to a Christian, but we never did anything with the Apocrypha outside of talking about it here and there.  To actually get into it and read it was cool and eye opening.  It was also very strange.  To have something that sounded, felt, and read like the Bible, but was not part of the canon was kind of weird and disconcerting.  I had to kind of take a step back and think of it differently.  I wasn't deeply affected by the reading of the tale, but it was strange to see something like that.  It would be like if someone wrote a story in the same style and type of Harry Potter, but it wasn't Harry Potter.  I enjoyed reading it and it definitely opened my eyes a bit to the Apocrypha.  I am not sure I am ready to accept the Apocrypha as fact of attempt to get it into the accepted canon, but I do think I want to read the rest of the Apocrypha.  

-Jacob Millay

Thoughts of Rahab

I think that what strikes me most about the person of Rahab in the Bible, isn't that she was a well-known prostitute, nor that the soldiers who were looking for the Israelites took her at her word that they had gone. What strikes me the most is how her position changes in the Bible. In this original story of her, she has one of the lowest places in society and by the end, because of her good deeds and the faith that she showed to the Israelite people, the lives of her and her family were spared. This does not explain what happened after she joined the Hebrew people. How did she integrate into their very strict society? What did she do to become so accepted and even married with children? The reason that I wonder about this is because, based on the geneology of Jesus found in Matthew, she is not only the mother of Boaz, who is touted as one of the best male role models of the age, but also is a direct ancestor of Jesuus, the messiah. There must have been a huge amount of grace shown as well as alot of struggles to get through for the 'heroin' of the story. I feel like her story of redemption, and the stories of redemption that follow her blood line (i.e. the redemption of Ruth) are a prelude and recurring theme to the redemption that Jesus gives for all in the new testament. Which makes a certain connection to why she would be in his ancestral line. They turned out to be quite the family of redeemers.
~Andrea Heeter

Thoughts on Ruth

I was looking at the location of Ruth in the bible and I coudn't help but notice that it is right after Judges which is a book about how awful life is, basically. Ruth is kind of the light at the end of a long tunnel, her actions at least. We often over look people who serve others without any kind of reward or notice. Ruth continues to serve Naomi even though it's years until someone takes notice of her compassion. I think sometimes we become consumed with how our acts of servitude give us the 'status' of being good in a horrible world. But Ruth does what she knows is right without being told to or given any recognition.

Comments on Noah's Arc

I looked up "Noah's Arc" on Google Images to see the first thing that came up. And, of course, it was this painting depicting Noah's Arc in a childlike way with all the happy animals poking out and the Rainbow being the biggest aspect. What about poor Noah and his family? Well, as you all probably could tell, I was a little frustrated during the last class period at how our discussion of Noah's Arc was going. It is such a horrible, heart-wrenching story of God's wrath and about, basically, an earth wide genocide. We tend to look over this more difficult aspect of the story and focus on God's mercy and love towards Noah and the message/origins of the Rainbow. We definitely have a tendency to look over aspects of Biblical stories that are uncomfortable and extremely frightening (Revelation is so rarely read because it is pretty terrifying to consider the lake of fire and all the other aspects of God's judgement on humanity!). But, because this is an English course, it is necessary to look at every aspect of the text and how it would actually effect character development.

Holy Water

In this last lesson we had on the 12th the concept of archetypes, particularly water, really stuck me as something interesting. Sometimes it's hard to see the connections between the old and new testament, with the exception of Isaiah 53. But this concept of Holy Waters is found in both old and new. Water is something that Christianity really uses as a symbol of cleansing. We use it for baptism, christening, and other symbolism in the Christian faith. It's so amazing to think about how water is something that is a universal need for every living thing and it also has such deep symbolism and meaning. I love this concept that something everyone needs, even those who oppose God, has so much Jesus related things to it. It's great.

Welcome to the Bible as Lit Blog!

Come here about once a week to respond to: the reading as literature, class discussion and activities. Post pictures, music, videos, stuff you find that relates to what we're talking about in class. When you post, make sure that you write about a paragraph that analyzes something in detail. Talk about the details in the reading, a video, etc. Make sure that it's about the Bible as lit, too. Enjoy posting and reading.