Jesus' Superpowers

Patton Oswalt has a fun bit about Jesus' Superpowers. He points out that necromancy -- driving out demons and raising the dead -- doesn't really fit with ... multiplying food.

And, yes, to my modern American ears, this is really strange.

Not surprisingly, the authors of the gospels did not see that way. They included these stories (what Oswalt calls "Sandwich Joe") to show that Jesus is bringing the Kingdom of God and is not just the Messiah, but God Himself.

Joel 3:17-18 says, "Then you will know that I, the LORD your God, dwell in Zion ... In that day the mountains will drip new wine..." So in John 2, when Jesus creates 160-180 gallons of wine, John is pointing to Jesus fulfilling the prophecy and that God is in Zion.

When we come to the feeding of the 5,000 in Mark 6, the authors are echoing God's provision for Israel in the wilderness with manna. And the 12 baskets of leftovers signifies Christ's provision for all of Israel (a role God Himself would fulfill).

The feeding of the 4,000 with only seven baskets of leftovers is in a Gentile context, showing provision for them in a similar way. Which I think is cool.

Far from being random, Jesus' "superpower" to feed people was considered by the authors to signify that Jesus is the Messiah, he has brought the Kingdom of God, and is God Himself.

I find Patton Oswalt very funny, but his humor reminds me that there is more to learn.

Let's learn more, together.

 ~Luke
Theblogogy

Bible ??? - Jealous Husband

Numbers 5 is a really odd passage (at least, starting in verse 11).

Here we have the law concerning a jealous husband (a guy who thinks his wife has been sleeping with someone else). And while the passage reads really ... well ... awkwardly to us today -- cursing the woman, absolving the guy of guilt, priests putting dust in bowls -- further study reveals it is radically better than the culture of the day. This law protects women.

The context indicates that the husband is jealous because his wife has been accused of sleeping around before, but now she's pregnant and he doesn't think the kid is his. So he takes his wife to the priest.

The priest does a bunch of stuff, including having the woman hold a bowl and putting both dust from the Tabernacle floor and the ink from a written curse into it. Then, the priest has the woman drink the water while he pronounces a curse.

The dust from the Tabernacle floor links the woman and her behavior to the community and the place of worship. Her actions are serious and impact more than just her and her husband.

The curse is a "trial by ordeal" where God must intervene in the case. But unlike traditional trials by ordeal -- the Salem Witch Trials where the woman was guilty if she floated and was innocent if she drowned -- this one presumes the woman is innocent. Only if she is guilty will the curse come on her. What's more: The curse doesn't bring her death. Instead, it makes her miscarry and she becomes infertile (a huge blow in the Ancient Near East and any agrarian culture). This, I think, links to David and Bathsheba losing their child of unfaithfulness (see 2 Samuel 11-12).

In this period, men could divorce their wives for just about anything. Here, God prohibits such actions. If a woman were divorced, her options were limited:

1. Get remarried to a man who thinks she's been unfaithful
2. Live with a relative who thinks she's been unfaithful
3. Become a prostitute, and actually be unfaithful

Not so among the Israelites. It didn't matter how a man felt; if his wife was innocent, he had to continue to provide for her.

To us -- far removed from the original context -- this passage can sound really sexist. I was so excited to learn that it shows such a high regard for women, protecting them from the selfishness I know I can so often exhibit.

 ~Luke
Theblogogy

Pop Tarts and Ravioli

A friend shared this image on Facebook:


Pop Tarts Are Ravioli - change my mind based on Stephen Crowder's "Change My Mind" Campus Sign

Here's what stuck out to me: Every common debate element showed up. There were personal insults, discussion of definitions, appeals to intent, pointing to personal experiences, appeals to authority, and discredits of said authorities...

...about whether Pop Tarts are Ravioli.

I realize that I'm both late to this discussion and that this is all in good fun, but if this is how we debate something as simple as the proper terms for food, I find it not surprising that we struggle to handle discussions around much more difficult subjects like how to protect students, how to care for the environment, how best to help struggling people, as well as religious debates and whatnot.

[ Aside: I'm obviously not talking about simple matters like how to pronounce .gif or the Oxford Comma, as those are givens. <grin> ]

I've got several videos I'm very excited to make, but my computer keeps dying. So we both have to wait. Sorry.

More to come when I'm finally back into production mode!

 ~Luke
Theblogogy