Monday quote

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Jefferson

Monday quote

We scoff at honour, and wonder why there are thieves among us.

CS Lewis. The Abolition of Man.

Monday quote

Inflation: cutting money in half without damaging the paper.

Monday quote

What is intolerable to the (assisted suicide advocate) is not suffering or dying, but not having control over life and death.

Eric Chevlen

Monday quote

The true way to shorten a sermon, is to make it more interesting.

H.W. Beecher.

Monday quote

The wise king is not the universal expert. Rather, he is to be someone with mastery of the task of judgment. And he exercises such judgment well through his gifts in the discerning, taking, and weighing of expert counsel. Ruling with expert counsellors is a rather different thing from rule by experts.

Alastair Roberts.

Monday quote

All the inhabitants of the world should know that the power of kings is vain and trivial, and that none is worthy of the name of king but he whose command the heaven, earth and sea obey by eternal laws.

King Canute (c.990–1035), king of England (1016–), Denmark (1018–) and Norway (1028–1035).

Monday quote

Information is always "metachemical" with reference to the information carrier just as "software" is always "metaphysical" with reference to the "hardware". Information cannot be measured by physics and chemistry nor be described and certainly not be explained....

Reinhard Eichelbeck. The Darwin Conspiracy. Rise and fall of a pseudo-scientific worldview. (Das Darwin-Komplott. Aufstieg und Fall eines pseudowissenschaftlichen Weltbildes.)

Marital rape

There are arguments for and against the proposition that a husband can rape his wife. The disagreements are, in part, over what the phrase actually means. When one asks if a husband can rape his wife there are several different questions one could be asking.

1. Is a man able to force his wife to have sex against her will?
2. Does sex with one’s wife against her will constitute rape?
3. Does marriage give a man permanent consent to sex with his wife?
4. Is a wife permitted to refuse to have sex with her husband?
5. May a husband override his wife’s refusal of sex?
6. Should the state legislate marital rape laws?

All these are related but distinct questions. They are questions that might be assumed but not articulated when discussing the issue of marital rape. Throughout I am discussing the situation of a husband physically forcing his wife to have sex while she is trying to prevent him. Similar responses would relevant for a wife physically forcing sex with her husband against his will, although that would seem to be an uncommon situation.

Question 1 may be what some people mean by the question: Can a husband rape his wife? Many men are physically capable of forcing sex on a woman when she is unwilling, and that remains the case in marriage. If a wife absolutely refuses sex with her husband, it is the case that many husbands would be physically capable of forcing coitus. Question 1 is obviously true. It is in the other questions where the debate really lies.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, Paul argues that in matters of sex, the husband and wife no longer retain dominion of their own bodies. Husbands are not to refuse wives and wives are not to refuse husbands.

The husband must fulfill his obligation to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. And likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by agreement, for a time, in order that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and then you should be together again, lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self control. (1Co 7:3-5 LEB)

That Paul is commanding this to the husbands and wives means that there is a possibility that a spouse may refuse sex. Paul states that refusal is forbidden, moreover that the refusal of sex is fraudulent behaviour towards one’s spouse. But note who the command is given to: the command is given to the husband to fulfill his obligation and the wife to fulfill hers. There is no command that states that if a husband or wife refuses then the other is entitled to force the non-compliant spouse. The question of forcing sex is not being addressed by Paul here, rather the question of refusing sex. A wife could wrongly refuse sex and a husband could, in response to being wronged, wrongly force it. And it would seem from elsewhere in the Bible that obtaining what one is otherwise entitled to by force can be wrong. The principles of laying down one’s life for another, of loving to our own detriment, of fighting battles for others and asking God to fight our battles, of turning the other cheek; these biblical principles are all consistent with not forcing sex when a spouse wrongly refuses it.

So why does Paul give these commands to the Corinthians? Because they were needed. Men and women in Corinth may have been refusing sex to their spouses—though possibly out of a pious motive of a perceived heightened spirituality. Of course this is not true piety, it is not more spiritual to break one’s marriage vows however pious one claims to be otherwise. The Pharisees excused a son’s obligations to his parents if he offered service to God instead. Jesus rebuked false piety and noted that it is in fact rejecting God’s commandment (Mark 7:9-11). Marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman for life with sexual fidelity. As such, marriage vows are an agreement to be both only and always sexually faithful to one’s wife. In modern parlance, marriage vows are a permanent consent to sex with one’s spouse.

This is why the terminology of “rape” is so difficult to apply. How do you apply an idea about consent, or lack thereof, in a situation where permanent consent has been vowed? The idea that a spouse can consent, or not, to sex on a daily or hourly basis in antithetical to marriage vows. The question of marital rape is asked in a language (or culture) of consent whereas the Bible has a language of sexual fidelity. Sex outside of marriage is wrong regardless of the amount of consent given by both parties. And sex inside of marriage is what has been vowed. The whole question of marital rape would seem absurd to many women in ancient times. “What do you mean you refuse to have sex with your husband because you don’t want to?”

Monday quote

Perfection is not when you have nothing to add. It's when you have nothing to take away.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The world into which some scholars stray

Adrian H N Green-Armytage writes in John Who Saw.

There is a world—I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit—which is not the world in which I live.

In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance. But in that world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from the facts but always from somebody else's version of the same story.

Writers of books need earlier books as sources when they write ‘em.
Those earlier books, yet earlier books, and so ad infinitum.

In my world, almost every book, except some of those produced by Government departments, is written by one author. In that world almost every book is produced by a committee, and some of them by a whole series of committees.

In my world, if I read that Mr. Churchill, in 1935, said that Europe was heading for a disastrous war, I applaud his foresight. In that world no prophecy, however vaguely worded, is ever made except after the fact.

In my world we say, "The first world-war took place in 1914–1918." In that world they say, "The world-war narrative took shape in the third decade of the twentieth century."

In my world men and women live for a considerable time—seventy, eighty, even a hundred years—and they are equipped with a thing called memory. In that world (it would appear) they come into being, write a book, and forthwith perish, all in a flash, and it is noted of them with astonishment that they "preserve traces of primitive tradition" about things which happened well within their own adult lifetime.

Turning to more detailed matters, in my world, if a fisherman makes an unusually good catch, he counts and weighs and measures each fish and can accurately (even maddeningly) recall these statistics to memory until the end of his life. In that world a ‘draught of 153 great fishes’ is necessarily fictitious and the number must be symbolical. In my world, if a party of uneducated and probably superstitious men is sent out by moonlight to arrest a man who is said to be in league with the devil and to be able to work miracles, they go in some trepidation; and when the wizard suddenly appears out of the darkness and challenges them, using those words so awe-inspiring to Jewish ears, ‘I AM’, they are apt to be considerably taken aback. But in that other world it is ‘ludicrously unhistorical’ to suppose that the high priest’s servants ‘went back and fell to the ground’ in precisely these circumstances. In my world a man of even the humblest origin can become, by the end of his life, a very learned man. In that world a Galilean fisherman can never, as long as he lives, become acquainted with the writings of Philo or the terminology of contemporary religious and philosophical thought.

Book groupings in the Old Testament

Modern Jews divide the Old Testament into 3 groupings. They are

1. Torah (Law)
2. Nevi’im (Prophets)
3. Ketuvim (Writings) 

From which they derive the term TaNaKh from the initial letters. Within the Tanakh they divide the Prophets into Former Prophets and Latter Prophets. The Writings are divided into Poetry, 5 scrolls, and other. Within these groupings the books are also ordered.

• Scripture
• Law
• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Prophets
• Former prophets
• Joshua
• Judges
• Samuel
• Kings
• Latter prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezekiel
• The Twelve (minor prophets)
• Writings
• Poems
• Psalms
• Proverbs
• Job
• Scrolls
• Song of Songs
• Ruth
• Lamentations
• Ecclesiastes
• Esther
• Other
• Daniel
• Ezra & Nehemiah
• Chronicles

Some argue for a fixed canon of the OT around 100 BC, others to after 100 AD. The early manuscripts were on scrolls and thus not bound. Some books were grouped on scrolls such as the 12 minor prophets. Thus the groupings of the books and the order of the books need not date to the time of any agreement of the canon. Specifically, I am unaware of any documented grouping or order of the Tanakh prior to c. 400 AD. Further, there is evidence of a different grouping prior to and at the time of Jesus.

The term the "Law of Moses" or "Book of the Law" or similar was used by the authors of other Old Testament books: Joshua 1:7, Joshua 8:31, Joshua 8:32, Joshua 22:5, Joshua 23:6, 1 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Kings 21:8, 2 Kings 23:25, 2 Chronicles 23:18, 2 Chronicles 25:4, 2 Chronicles 30:16, 2 Chronicles 33:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14, Ezra 3:2, Ezra 7:6, Nehemiah 8:1, Nehemiah 8:14, Nehemiah 9:14, Nehemiah 10:29, Daniel 9:11, Daniel 9:13, Malachi 4:4. This often refers to a specific book, usually Deuteronomy.

The phrase the Law and the Prophets is attested by the time of the New Testament. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) was written c. 200 BC. In the prologue written c. 150 BC we read,

Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the other books that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only themselves understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word to help the outsiders. So my grandfather Joshua, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law.

You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labour in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original.

We also find the term "Law and the Prophets" in the book of 2 Maccabees which was written c. 150 BC.

But Maccabeus had ever sure confidence that the Lord would help him: Wherefore he exhorted his people not to fear the coming of the heathen against them, but to remember the help which in former times they had received from heaven, and now to expect the victory and aid, which should come unto them from the Almighty. And so comforting them out of the law and the prophets, and withal putting them in mind of the battles that they won afore, he made them more cheerful. (2 Maccabees 15:7–9)

The term the Law and the Prophets is also found several times in the New Testament. Mat 5:15; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luk 16:16; Joh 1:45; Act 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom 3:21. Jesus specifically uses this term to sum up the Old Testament: Mat 5:15; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luk 16:16.

4 Maccabees was written c. 100 AD and also uses the phrase.

In the time of my maturity I remained with my husband, and when these sons had grown up their father died. A happy man was he, who lived out his life with good children, and did not have the grief of bereavement. While he was still with you, he taught you the law and the prophets. Maccabees 18:9–10

There is also a variation on the phrase: The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus uses it in Luke talking to his disciples after his resurrection.

Then [Jesus] said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Note that the fuller phrase also expands "Law" to "Law of Moses".

In his book Against Apion, Josephus enumerates the holy Scriptures of the Jewish people.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind, till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years. But as to the time from the death of Moses, till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the Prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times, in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God; and precepts for the conduct of human life. 

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.

Thus we have the scriptures of the Jews referred to as the Law and the Prophets from at least 150 BC to about 100 AD in various writings. There is a variation of the term: the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms. Josephus specifies the number of book that this includes which is 5 for the Law of Moses, 13 for the Prophets, and 4 for the Psalms (and related books).

The best way to read this is that the term "the Law and the Prophets" referred to the canon of scripture at the time; all of what is now termed the Old Testament. At times "Psalms" was added to the term, and "Psalms" included the book of Psalms and 3 other books. These 4 books were a subset of the "Prophets".

Jesus and the apostles used the term "the Law and the Prophets" to encompass Scripture. It is probable that "Prophets" in this term refers to all the books excluding the 5 books of the Law of Moses. The more expanded term including "Psalms" recognises that hymns were part of the collection, and Josephus' writings make it likely that Psalms includes 3 other books.

This is not unlike the phrase "the heavens and the earth" which includes everything in heaven and earth. This phrase, or variant of it, is used multiple times in the Bible. Variations include the addition of "sea" or "under the earth" but these additions do not mean that the lack of extra terms limit the scope of "heaven and earth."

The grouping of the books of the Bible fit the early term "the Law and the Prophets" or "the Law and Prophets and Psalms". The modern Judaic grouping of "the Law and the Prophets and the Writings" does not appear to go back to the time of the first century, and the grouping of the "Writings" does not correspond to the term "Psalms".

Monday quote

When Jesus and Paul address the issue of greed as a factor that can exclude self-professed believers from the kingdom of God, they are not talking about problems with greedy impulses that all humans struggle with on a daily basis but those who extort and defraud and steal from those living on the economic margins of life and who amass great wealth in the process.

Robert A. J. Gagnon.

Monday quote

The primary source of the appeal of Christianity was Jesus—His incarnation, His life, His crucifixion, and His resurrection.

Kenneth Scott Latourette.

Passion week

The passion week is dated from the time that Jesus arrives in Bethany. John tells us that this was 6 days before the Passover.

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. They were looking for Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast at all?” Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. (Joh 11:55–12:2)

This raises several questions. What day does John mean by Passover? And is he using inclusive or exclusive reckoning?

We know that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, and was raised after the Sabbath, that is, on Sunday prior to dawn. It was likely that the Jewish new day began at dusk in the first century. The Last Supper was a Passover meal eaten on Thursday after dusk; the lambs were sacrificed on the Thursday afternoon.

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (Luk 22:7–15).

Now John also states that the washing of the disciples feet occurred during the time of the Last Supper. John writes,

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. (Joh 13:1–5).

I have previously argued that the feast on the Friday is distinct from the Passover meal on the Thursday. John also tells us that the Jews did not wish to defile themselves on Friday morning so that they could eat the Passover.

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. (Joh 18:28)

Again John is referring to a Friday feast which follows the Passover meal that occurred the night before when they ate the lamb. Though this does not necessary tell us what day John is referring to in 12:1.

Luke says the day of Unleavened Bread (which is the Passover), when the lamb was sacrificed, was Thursday (Luk 22:7). Matthew and Mark say that this day (Thursday) is the first day of Unleavened Bread. When John refers to Passover in 12:1 he may be referring to this day, ie. the Wednesday-Thursday, but it is more likely that he is referring to the Thursday-Friday. If the feast were after sunset on the Friday then it would be the Friday-Saturday, though that is the Sabbath.

So the terminius ad quem for John's 6 days before Passover is probably the Jewish day beginning Thursday at sunset which goes through to Friday sunset; the middle columns in the table. A day later if John is referencing the Passover Feast and if this occurred after sunset; this seems less likely.

Day	Event	Inclusive days prior			Exclusive days prior
		# days	# days	# days	# days	# days	# days
Thursday-Friday					6
Friday-Saturday	Sabbath	6			5	6
Saturday-Sunday		5	6		4	5	6
Sunday-Monday		4	5	6	3	4	5
Monday-Tuesday		3	4	5	2	3	4
Tuesday-Wednesday		2	3	4	1	2	3
Wednesday-Thursday	Passover daytime	1	2	3	0	1	2
Thursday-Friday	Passover meal evening		1	2		0	1
Friday-Saturday	Sabbath, Unleavened Feast			1			0

If John is using inclusive reckoning, 6 days before Passover is from Saturday sunset to Sunday sunset. If exclusive reckoning then 1 day earlier.

Inclusive reckoning is more likely. The 3 days of Jesus in the grave are inclusive. Matthew and Mark both write that the Passover is in 2 days (Mat 26:2; Mar 14:1) though is is unclear whether they mean the following daytime (1 day), or the Passover meal after sunset the next day (2 days). So Jesus probably arrived in Bethany on the Sunday prior to sunset, 6 inclusive days before the Passover lambs were slaughtered on Thursday before sunset.

They gave a dinner for Jesus and Mary anointed him (Joh 12:2-3).

The next day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it. (Joh 12:12–14)

This is during daylight hours, thus would be the Monday. Though traditionally the church celebrates this as Palm Sunday.

Mark states that Jesus looked around the temple that day, but returned to Bethany because the hour was late (Mar 11:11).

The next day (Mar 11:12), the Tuesday, Jesus returned to Jerusalem. He cursed the fig tree as he departed Bethany. When he got to Jerusalem he entered the temple and threw out those buying and selling, overturning the tables of the money changers and sellers of doves.

Jesus returned to Bethany that evening and came back into Jerusalem on the Wednesday morning. At that time the disciples saw the cursed fig tree (Mar 11:20).

During his time in Jerusalem Jesus does a lot of teaching.

And he was teaching daily in the temple. (Luk 19:47).

The synoptic gospels do not lay out a strict chronology.

On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel (Luk 20:1 NASB).

John mentions events over these days without clear chronological references.

Events during these days include:

• Parables: Ten virgins; Talents; Tenant farmers in the vineyard; Wedding banquet; Sheep and goats;
• Interaction with leaders: Jesus' authority questioned; Marriage and the resurrection; Paying taxes to Caesar; Seven woes; Greatest commandment; Christ is David's son and Lord; Widow's offering
• Olivet Discourse

Thursday was the day that the lambs were being sacrificed for the Passover meal. Jesus sent his disciples into Jerusalem to meet a certain man and prepare the meal. That evening, the next day, Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples.

The following day was the Passover Feast, that is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This was the day that Jesus was crucified: Good Friday.