Bible Literacy - 5

31. According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?

Answer: B - "Sell everything you have and give all the money to the poor."

Heaven will be very empty, it seems. How many Christians take seriously this direct command of Jesus?

My Comments:

This is a potent lesson that more affluent Christians could afford to think on, but it is an exaggeration for the sake of effect. We know that the Disciples had a common purse for their expenses. We also know that there were several generous female followers of Jesus who funded his ministry.

While selflessness and generosity are important in Christianity, Jesus isn't laying down inflexible rules. When he speaks to the Rich Young Ruler the instruction to give all he has is to him alone. Those of us who "overhear" the instruction learn a lot about generosity and the dangers of being too tied to wealth and possessions.

Jesus offered different advice to others who wanted to enter the community. To some he said that entering the Kingdom had to do with caring for those in need, to others he said it had to do with having the openness and simplicity of a child. Everyone needs all of these things in some measure. A lot of the genius of Jesus was to perceive the needs of each person he spoke to.

32. According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?

Answer: C - Parents should be hated.

More family values from the "Good Book."

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." (Luke 6:22)
The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38) Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say.

My Comments:

This is another answer that is technically correct but completely misses the spirit of Jesus' teachings. Jesus taught love for all people, but did a lot to shake up the idea of what constituted family. He reached out to the outcasts and the rejected to include them in the family of God.

It is natural to put out families first, but with that comes a constant danger. The Corleone family may be fictional, but their story makes the point of what can happen when family is the ultimate value. We can use our loved ones to justify all manner of selfish and even cruel behavior
The scene shows the contrast in the values espoused by Michael Corleone in the baptism vows, and the terrible things he is willing to do in the name of his family.

By putting God ahead of family, Jesus is saying that God's values of compassion, honesty, justice, etc. come first and nothing, not even family, not even your own life should be an excuse to settle for less.

33. According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?

Answer: B - They should be beaten for disobedience, but not more severely then they deserve.

Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn't know any better). Why doesn't the bible--supposedly inspired by an all-loving deity--ever hint that there is something wrong with such a brutal social institution? If it were not for the influence of the bible, the appalling American slave trade might have been curtailed, along with the bloody Civil War.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."

(Luke 12:47-48) The entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable--it is the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus.

The word "servant" above is doulos, which means "slave" in Greek, and is correctly rendered "slave" by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar's Version, and others. "Shall" meant "should," as Jesus adds: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)

My Comments:

Slavery is wrong. That's something that is terribly obvious to any modern person. Unfortunately, (as the FFRF points out) slavery was an accepted fact in the ancient warrior. It was a worldwide phenominon and wasn't seriously questioned until the modern period.

It would have been great if Jesus had explicitly come out against slavery, just as it would have been nice if he'd made statements about sexism, the destruction of the environment, racism, homophobia, etc. That kind of argument is unfair, though, and would also condemn Buddha, Lao Tsu, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, and pretty much every other great thinker, religious or secular, of the ancient world.

I think it's a stretch to blame American slavery on the Bible, let alone the Civil War. Slavery existed in the Americas because of for the same kind of economic reasons that had always driven it, and by the attitude of superiority that had always helps people justify exploiting others. Christianity shares some of the blame, but Christians have also been in the forefront of ending slavery. While many preachers in the American South used the Bible to justify slavery, the Abolitionist movement was also spear-headed by Churches and Christian groups. My own church took very noble efforts abainst slavery, including their role in the Amistad Incident.

To get back to the scripture cited, let's look at the full passage. Judge for yourself if it is an endorsement of slavery, or Jesus using an image the people of his time would have known to make a point?

34. What did Jesus say about peace?

Answer: B - "Don't think that I came for peace on earth. I came to start wars."

Are these the words of a good man?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:49-51) These words, by the way, come immediately after Jesus talked about beating slaves. (See Question 33)

My Comments:

The words, "I come to start wars" would not be the words of a good man, so it's good that Jesus didn't say them. As you can see from the scripture the FFRF cites, the actual words (in their common English translation) are "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." The question is what he meant by a sword.

The usual understanding of this text is that Jesus is promosing that his life and ministry will shake things up. He is challenging the prejudices and power structures that have marginalized so many people. He is going up against the elites who want to keep things just as they are. With all that, there is going to be division, and trouble. This is a warning to anyone who follows him that they are not going to be safe from the turmoil. The reality is that many of them will face anger and rejection, even from friends and family members.

But is Jesus pushing for physical violence? It's hard to make that case against the man who taught about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. How can we make such an assumption about the man who refused to fight back when he was arrested? The man whose last words as he was crucified were to pray for firgiveness for his executioners.

The early Christians certainl;y did not interpret this saying as Jesus wanting to start wars. Though most Christians were still Jewish in the first century, they refused to take part in the Jewish Uprising of 66-73 CE, nor the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-136 CE. The first few generations of Christians were pacifists who would not enlist in the army or become gladiators. Many would not even fight back when sentenced to die in the arena. Given all this, there is no way the words of Jesus can be understood as promoting war.

35 Which of the following did Jesus not say about witnessing?

Answer: B - "God is my witness."

Paul wrote: "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son." (Romans 1:9)

Notice that Jesus contradicts himself below.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record [martyria] of myself, yet my record [martyria] is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and wither I go." (John 8:14) Martyria means "bear witness" (NAS) or "testify" (NIV, NRSV), the same word used in the contradictory John 5:31 (below).

"If I bear witness [martyria] of myself, my witness [martyria] is not true." (John 5:31)

Needless to say, Jesus was not very reliable, nor was he very clear.

My comments:

In John 5 Jesus is speaking to a group of Pharisees who have just challenged his authority to heal on the Sabbath. He responds that, since the healings he does come from God he isn't doing anything wrong; God is clearly working on the Sabbath too.

He goes on to say that his authority comes from God, and he has evidence. If he were just some guy claiming to have authority, they wouldn't need to take him seriously. The fact that he can heal, though, shows that God is bearing witness for him, and it's the kind of witness they can't deny.

In John 9 we see Jesus arguing with the Pharisees again and he tells them that he is the Light of the World. They ask for proof and he essentially "You can trust me, I know. I'm my own witness."

If that was all he said, it would be a contradiction, but here's what he goes on to say in verses 16-18.

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

In other words, though the passages may sound contradictory, but a closer reading shows they are saying exactly the same thing.

36. What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?

Answer: D - Castrate yourself.

No wonder we don't hear sermons from the entire New Testament--how many preachers actually take this ghastly advice seriously?! Although some have prudently tried to interpret this as celibacy rather than castration, the early church father Origen read it literally and took a knife to himself. There were entire monastic orders, and church choirs in need of sopranos known as "castrati" based on this teaching of Jesus. Literal or not, the face value of this verse is physical mutilation:

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11-12) The Scholar's Version has: "There are castrated men who castrated themselves because of Heaven's imperial rule. If you are able to accept this (advice), do so."

Tragically, every year there are reported cases of Christian followers mutilating themselves because "the bible tells me so."

My Comments:

The story about Origen castrating himself may be true but it is controversial among historians. Is is true that some Christians have believed the story and have castrated themselves. I haven't been able either to verify or rebuke that this passage has ever been used to justify the castrati singers as FFRF claims. I have also been unable to verify the claims of Christian self-castration every year. If it is true it is a terrible tragedy.

But does the passage really mean what some have taken it to mean? I haven't checked out in the Greek myself, but talented translator and exegete Eugene Peterson translates the passage this way in The Message version of the Bible:

But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it." (Matthew 19:11-12)

37. According to New Testament medical advice, what should you do if you are sick?

Answer: B - Ask the church elders to apply oil to your skin and pray for you.

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." (James 5:14-15)

Verses like these have resulted in the needless deaths of adults and criminal-neglect deaths of children from treatable illnesses that were left untreated because of prayer. Why couldn't the biblical deity have dispensed some useful medical advice to the human race instead of placebo prescriptions for prayer?

My Comments:

Actually, it's not the prayers or the anointing with oil that results in illness and death, it's the insistence of some Christians that those are all that they need. I agree that this is a problem, but it's unfair to blame the Bible for a faulty reading. There is no prohibition on modern medicine in this passage.

38. What does Paul prohibit a woman from wearing in church?

Answer: B - Gold.

How many Christian women know they are breaking God's law by wearing gold wedding rings to church? Or pearls or braids or expensive clothing? This is all part of the biblical plan to keep women in their place (see Question 39.)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety; not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." (I Timothy 2:9) Paul was not simply giving his own personal advice here; he introduced these verses with: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." (I Timothy 2:7)

My Comments:

There is a long history of sexism in the church, it is true. The Bible was written in a sexist time and a sexist culture and Christians need to realize this and stop treating passages like this as a mandate for keeping women down.

Having said that, this is not a rule, and the fact that Paul asserts his authority at the beginning does nothing to change that. Paul had very strong views on the law, which he felt was incapable of bringing salvation. Paul was very confident in his insights and authority, but he didn't have any use for new laws. He offered advice to cthe people and churches he wrote to, usually about specific situations.

In this case, he wanted the focus of women in church to be on the spiritual rather than the superficial. Good advice, but repressive when it gets used as a rigid set of rules.

39. According to Paul, what is the role of women in the church?

Answer: C - Women must keep silent. They should learn from their husbands at home.

This sexist admonition continues to be invoked by Catholics and patriarchal Protestant denominations to turn women into second-class citizens.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35) "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (I Timothy 2:11-15)

My Comments:

Paul was a sexist, and Christians who want to keep women "in their place" delight in repeating his sentiments about women. IMO, this is a legitimate gripe with the Bible and with Paul. Fortunately, Christians do not need to take every bit of advice this brilliant and faithful but flawed apostle as iron-clad law. Paul himself believed that laws and rules were useless when it came to saving people so the last way he would want to see his letters used would be as books of inflexible rules.

40. What does Paul say about marriage?

Answer: A - "I wish everyone were single like me."

As author Ruth Green put it, the "Christian family" is a "Christian fantasy." Paul's belief that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (I Corinthians 7:1) led to the doctrine of celibacy and other warped teachings on sexuality. Nineteenth-century feminist author Matilda Joslyn Gage pointed out that this teaching directly led to such woman-hating abuses as the witch-hunts.

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." (1 Corinthians 7:7-8)

My Comments:

We don't really understand much about Paul's sexual hang-ups except to say that he had them. I've heard a number of theories, including the ideas that he had suffered from a terrible marriage or that he was a closetted homosexual. Whatever the reason, Paul knew that others didn't agree with this idea and grudgingly accepted that. In no way does he try to forbid marriage, only to offer his opinions.

While the FFRF are correct in describing Paul's ideas, their history is shakey. The practice of a celibate priesthood did not come from Paul. When celibacy became a big deal for the clergy, Paul's letters were used as a justification, but the actual reason was a struggle with a religious movement known as the Cathars about a thousand years after Paul's death. The connection they draw between Paul and the witch hunts is also incorrect and relies on errors and myths about the witch hunts. Here and elsewhere I've linked to websites by wiccan historians who deserve a great deal of praise for separating myth from reality in this tragic history.