#bible analysis

[pigeoncherrypie]

Me after rereading st Paul’s authentic epistles after years of blaming him for homophobia and misogyny in the church (I have since then educated myself on the sociocultural context of the time period he was writing in):

Like this dude was friends with multiple women whom he gave tremendous respect to, while highlighting how important they were within the growing Jesus movement (see: Junia, whom he calls "outstanding among the apostles", deacon Phoebe, church leader Chloe, Prisca- who might’ve been the author of the book of hebrews - etc.) He told men in a society in which women were viewed as objects "of course your wife is your property 🥰 but as her husband, you are *her* property as well!" And he tried to fix the double standard of wives being considered unfaithful if they slept with someone else vs husbands being able to bang as many people as they wanted (regardless of how the missus felt about it) by calling male cheaters "sexually immoral". He ALSO nearly threw hands with Peter when he expressed hesitation at eating with non Jews (inclusive king). He criticized the Roman empire and challenged Caesar’s legitimacy by claiming Christ as Lord. And ofc came up with the absolute banger of a line that is "There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

I am no longer a Paul hater, but now a Paul defender.

[theanonymousninja247]

Relentless

Relentless (adj): continuing in a determined manner without any interruption.

I hope that I word this well enough to adequately get my feelings across but I had a little thought today about Jesus love for all of us. 

And one specific scripture comes to mind. Roman 8:38-39 which reads

“38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

While reading this, the definition of the word relentless also comes to mind. This meaning, Jesus’ love for us is the real deal. It’s not going away whether we feel like we deserve it or not. 

I know what that’s like. Thinking that there’s this…version I have to be before I become worthy of His or anybody’s love. I know what it’s like to feel like I have earn, work or prove that I’m perfect to some degree or fashion to just be worth the time and effort of acknowledgment.

It’s such a sad little lie that I’ve unfortunately been believing for most of my life. But the cool thing with getting older, is a little bit of maturity and perspective. And some of that perspective has led me to see my relationship with Jesus and His love for me just a smidge differently. 

Now, in my head, I just imagine Jesus donning the outfit of a linebacker or something football related. He’s plopping his helmet on top of his head as he gets down in his hike ready position before he starts booking it down the field, full on tackling the obstacles and sins of life that prevent His love from getting through. Literally doing EvErYtHiNg in His power to try and reach me. 

And the best part? It’s not just me. He’s trying to reach US. Because WE are His end goal. Now. Always. AND forever.

That love is perfect and eternal and it NEVER changes in intensity or direction.

Jesus is constantly, relentlessly pursing us with His arms WIDE open to receive us home.

So come home friend. In anyway that means to you. Let yourself be loved and know that you ARE enough. You ARE loved. 🫂💙✨

Art credit goes to THE incredibly talented @samlo.es on Instagram. Totally worth checking out if you ever get the chance!

[the-other-song-book]

When I was a kid being taught in school, I used to dislike the story of Jesus in Mary and Martha's home. Actually despise would be a better word.

That actually changed more recently for me, and made me realize that the reason I disliked it was the way it was taught. You go to a Christian school of any kind, unless it's progressive (do those exist, even?) there's going to be unhealthy cishet stuff going on. It's really innocuous on the surface usually but the more you hear the worse it gets.

If anyone isn't familiar it's Luke 10: 38- 42 (I always have to look up specific numbers because the Lord did not bless me with that kind of memorization.)  Jesus and the disciples stop at their house to rest. Martha does her job. Preparing the house and meal for the guests. Jesus is teaching (are the disciples there or is it just Mary? Unsure. Interesting to think about), Mary is listening, and Martha gets angry. Of course she gets angry. The role of women in society at the time was to be a good little homemaker.

When she points it out, this happens - ""41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”"

As a kid I was always taught that Jesus was doing this harsh rebuke of Martha. Rereading it as an adult it's not that at all.  The repition of her name is almost good humored to me, a gentle chiding if anything. There's no anger. The phrasing is odd by today's standards but that's a frequent thing in reading from the Bible.  In fact, the tone seems very similar to me as the one from John 12, a situation where Mary is also involved again, anointing Jesus. Our good friend Judas Iscariot is like what the heck. That's expensive why didn't we give it to the poor (guy was also stealing though aside the point from this analysis rn)

And of course the response, "7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

In fact this one is a little harsher. So I'm left to the conclusion that the reason it was taught so negatively was because Martha is a woman. Teaching it this way turns it from a story about being focused on Earthly things while missing what's right in front of you (literal Jesus) to "haha woman is stupid for doing expected woman roles". Some of these same people who taught me believed in women being tradwifes btw. Like. No jobs at all only wife (usually they hid it poorly too).

Anyway, I usually only discuss bible analysis with friends so 👍 Hope this isn't super weird.

[bibopbi]

does anyone else find the story of cain and abel tragic not just for abel, but for cain as well?

i mean, they were brothers, they grew up hand in hand. tiller and shepherd. one raises life out of the dirt, the other puts the life back into it. they loved each other, so much that abel died, so much that cain killed him.

abel was a tragedy of a child prodigy, the golden child. he was favored chosen again and again, to the point where he was killed. he was as innocent as the livestock he sacrificed. a shepherd into the lamb. he never meant to be, he loved his brother. he loved his brother when they were kids, he loved his brother when they were offering to god, he loved his brother when he followed him into the field, he loved his brother even as he died.

cain was a tragedy of a child pushed aside. how many times had he noticed his brother getting favored? did he know he was undesired, that his effort would never be enough? cain didnt know about murder, it wasnt a thing. did he know how abel choses his sacrifices? did he see how he took the prettiest, most well kept lamb of the flock and took it to god? did he see how god favored the crimson from the lamb more than the gold of his wheat? did he lay abel out as a sacrifice? hoping that in the crimson of his brother, so perfect and good like the lambs he offers, cain would finally be enough?

[new-kit-on-the-block]

Me hanging out with Jesus because he was actually pretty chill

Me getting into a fist fight with God because that guy was a fucking asshole

[pigeoncherrypie]

Do you have any resource recommendations as to how to properly read and understand the epistles in context?

Hi anon! Sorry for the late reply, your ask got kinda lost in my notifications 😭

To answer your question, I don’t really have any specific resources other than generally reading about gender roles and marital standards within the predominant greco-roman culture of the empire, which led to me having a bit of a lightbulb moment when rereading the Pauline epistles.

We tend to view the Bible (and ancient texts in general) through a modern day lense, which is why we often not only tend to be horrified by a lot of the norms and practices of the time, but also tend to not realize whenever someone made a claim or statement that was actually very progressive and perhaps even radical within that context. When Paul says "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭4‬), it might sound like a pretty traditional view of marriage, but it actually greatly challenged the empire’s social norms because women were only considered property - and the idea that a free male citizen’s body was under his wife’s "authority" was a highly unusual instance of advocacy for equal marital rights and would’ve seemed absurd to most (specifically within the roman empire of course; some outside cultures and tribes actually gave women more rights. Shocking, I know).

In case you’re not aware, you should also know that some of the more sexist verses attributed to Paul are from letters that were most likely forgeries; most historians and biblical scholars believe that the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) as well as Ephesians were written at least a decade after his death. Which means verses such as "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12) are very unlikely to be teachings of Paul (Paul impersonator when I catch you…)

I haven’t personally read it yet, but @acerobertz recommended reading "The Jewish annotated New Testament" by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler to better understand the cultural and religious context that Paul was writing from (and I am admittedly a lot more familiar with ancient greco-roman culture than ancient jewish culture, so it likely provides insights that I don’t have). You should check out the Paul within Judaism perspective, it helps to clear up a lot of confusion.

I’ve also heard many good things about John T. Bristow’s "What Paul really said about women" although once again I haven’t gotten my hands on it yet 😅

Anyway oops I wrote a bit of an essay lol but I hope you found the answer you were looking for!

[fluffysheepexperienceindignity]

Sitting down to seriously ponder the Jesus in the market passage.

John 2:13-25

13 Just before the Jewish Passover Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 and in the Temple he found people selling cattle and sheep and pigeons, and the money changers sitting at their counters there. 15 Making a whip out of some cord, he drove them all out of the Temple, cattle and sheep as well, scattered the money changers' coins, knocked their tables over 16 and said to the pigeon-sellers, 'Take all this out of here and stop turning my Father's house into a market.' 17 Then his disciples remembered the words of scripture: Zeal for your house will devour me.

This is primarily interesting to me because nowhere in the Bible is it explicitly stated that buying and selling in the temple is illegal or unrighteous, yet Jesus expresses clear fury at the idea that such actions are taking place.

A lot of modern day christians struggle with the idea that they have to conform to strict, by the book standards which are usually imposed on them by parents, but this extract shows that Jesus, while still believing that the law should be followed, was most concerned with the liabilities that people took outside of the law - their loopholes, their taking advantage of a sacred space to do business, their disrespect for the close bond between the worshipper and God that the temple was meant to signify.

The standards for Christians Jesus set are even stricter than the standards imposed by our parents. But they also make more sense.

Just as you wouldn't use your group chat of your best friends to advertise your business, you wouldn't set up a marketplace in a temple if you truly loved your God. Instead of following the law to the letter because it is the law, Jesus is concerned with the law because the law helps to express, though imperfectly, the stringent standards to which people should uphold themselves.

Jesus is primarily concerned with the motives and meanings of the gestures made. I've seen explanations that they were cheating foreigners into buying more expensive offerings, but while that definitely angered him if it were true, I am unconvinced that that's what caused Jesus to object to their actions, given he said 'stop turning my father's house into a market'. It would imply that his primary objective is to keep the sellers from demeaning the profound, non-exchangable relationship between the worshipper and God, especially since offerings do not 'buy over' God, but are sacrificed to please him and worship him, just as gifts are given not to win over a friend, but to express affection and adoration.

The act of worship in the temple itself is one that should be more than currency, and focused on the intent of the heart, as with the story of the woman who donated two coins. It surpasses men's fixation with money and goes straight for the jugular - what that money represents, and what the focus of worship should be.

It's profound and worthy of respect.

[gaymethodist]

James 2:13 and the Importance of Mercy

I recently had a vivid and, well, frightening dream that led to me looking up this specific Bible verse: “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” James 2:13 Failing the Mercy Test In the aforementioned dream, I watched a malicious serial killer enter some sort of supernatural building that had a bizarre elevator. The elevator could apparently…

View On WordPress