Curses: “You take that back!”

CURSE kərs noun. A solemn utterance, meant to invoke supernatural evil, punishment, or harm.

2. verb. Invoke supernatural evil, punishment, or harm.

3. noun. Cause of evil or suffering.

[Curser 'kərs.ər noun.]

Years ago, when I taught at a Christian school, I had a mom ask for a meeting to object to something I wrote on her son’s report card. The boy wanted to grow up to have a highly technical job… but he didn’t do his homework. In any of his classes. I’d told him more than once, “If you don’t do your homework, you’re not gonna get the future you want.” And that’s what I wrote on his report card… and his mom was offended. She claimed I’d “word-cursed” him.

What on earth is a “word curse”? It’s a curse. In some churches they claim every negative thing we say, whether we intend them to be acutal binding curses or not, are actual binding curses. And true, sometimes the things we say will get into someone’s head and affect them for years. I’ve met people who were seriously hindered by the awful things their parents, teachers, pastors, bosses, or coaches told them. They believed that junk, and it still messes with them. It surely worked like a curse! So that’s what these Christians claim they are. It’s an unpleasant word… which is functionally a curse.

Okay, those who teach about “word curses” kinda have a valid point. But by their definition of “word curses,” I actually didn’t curse the boy. My comment is an if-then statement. If you don’t do X, then Y. It’s conditional. And a whole bunch of God’s messages are conditional: If you obey him, then you get blessed. If you don’t, then you don’t. That’s not a curse; that’s a warning. Fulfill the conditions!

Ultimately she agreed with me… but I can’t fault her at all for being sensitive about curses. I certainly didn’t wanna hinder my student by making him believe he wasn’t capable. Quite the contrary!

But you’ll find certain Christians are extremely sensitive about “word curses.” And of course regular curses. And “cursing,” by which we mean profanity, which is a whole other discussion.

Among certain dark Christians, every negative statement—more accurately, anything they can interpret as a negative statement, and they pessimistically interpret a whole lot of things as negative statements!—counts as a curse. Fr’instance I could say, “Hmm, looks like rain,” and to their minds I just cursed the sky. Seriously. “You take that back! Don’t you call rain down on us!” As if my casual observation has the power to call down rain—and y’know, if it could, I’d make a fortune.

See, according to these fearful folks, all our words—including idle ones—spoken into the atmosphere, have the power to create and destroy. They figure we humans are made in God’s image, Ge 1.27 and since he has the power to call things into existence with a word, they claim we have the very same power. Way lesser; I can’t state like God can, “Let the waters separate from the dry ground,” and instantly my swimming pool has been drained. But somehow, to some degree, I have the semi-divine power to make stuff out of nothing. My uneducated weather forecast can actually make weather.

Which is rubbish; it’s based on pagan “mind science,” the 19th-century belief that reality is in fact a mental illusion, and we have the power to affect and change the illusion if we believe hard enough. It’s what the Christian Science church teaches. It’s not consistent with the scriptures; God created a real, external, objective universe. I could believe really hard that my words (without any Holy Spirit to empower ’em, of course) can stop tornadoes… but I’d be a moron to bet on it.

Don’t get me wrong. The spoken word isn’t a powerless thing. Words can build up; words can tear down. I can make someone’s day by giving ’em a compliment. I can ruin their life by criticizing ’em at the wrong time. That’s what Solomon meant when he wrote death and life are in the tongue. Pr 18.21 For this reason, Christians need to watch what we say. We never know the direction we’re influencing people.

But the idea my words have magical power that might trigger a reaction in nature around us, and create all sorts of unintended horrors: Not biblical. Ridiculous.

And illogical too. You’ll notice all the Christians who fear accidentally destroying stuff through their “word curses,” somehow never worry about accidentally blessing stuff. “Gee, it looks like the weather today will be really nice!” never seems to force the clouds to dissipate. Nope. Blessings have always gotta be intentional, but curses can be accidental.

Mary’s visit to Elizabeth.

Luke 1.39-45.

Jesus comes from a family of prophets. Mary and Joseph heard from angels, same as Daniel. Mary’s relatives Elizabeth and Zechariah heard directly from the Holy Spirit, same as all the other prophets of the Old Testament. As did Elizabeth and Zechariah’s son, the prophet John the baptist.

And of course this is no coincidence. God wanted his Son raised by and among people who sought his will and listened to him. Imagine how much friction the boy Jesus would have to grow up with if this weren’t the case. There was already plenty, even with the Spirit’s activity in his family! Remember when they lost him in Jerusalem? Or when they saw him overworking himself, and thought he’d lost his marbles?

Thing is, whenever I point out this fact, Christians are regularly surprised. And either respond, “Oh… obviously God surrounded his Son with prophets!” or “Oh they’re not prophets; they just happened to have a one-time angelic appearance.” Or have three prophetic dreams, yet somehow that doesn’t qualify Joseph of Nazareth to be a prophet. even though one such dream qualified Daniel when he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Da 2

The problem is cessationism. Too many Christians think God completely stopped speaking through prophets between Malachi and John, and these “silent years” weren’t over till Gabriel started appearing to people. If you wanna get right down to it, they figure God stopped speaking when the Old Testament was complete, then started up again once he decided a New Testament needed to be written. It’s Darbyist dispensationalist rubbish. But it’s popular rubbish, and it warps popular bible interpretation.

As a result of cessationists’ false, faithless belief, popular Christian culture isn’t familiar with how prophecy works, and can’t recognize a prophet when they see ’em. So when Jesus’s family members do something prophetic, it goes right over their heads. It’s a miracle; they’ll admit to that at least. But prophecy has become a giant blind spot.

Fr’instance today’s passage: When Mary visits Elizabeth. Why’d she visit her? I kid you not: I’ve heard it preached, multiple times, Mary went to Elizabeth because she wanted to hide her pregnancy from the gossipy Nazareth women. ’Cause that’s what women used to do in our country when they got pregnant outside of wedlock: They were sent away to “visit relatives.” Then they came back with a new “baby sister” or “cousin.” (Or, if they aborted the baby, or let someone else adopt it, nothing.) This, they figure, is what Mary was doing: Hiding.

Was that how first-century Israeli culture worked? Nope! If people found out an unmarried couple were having sex (and pregnancy would definitely be one way they found it out), they had to marry, and they were forbidden to divorce. Dt 22.29 The man had to pay her dad a dowry; Ex 22.16-17 that made ’em married. It’s in the Law. Nobody has to visit relatives, or hide anything.

So why’d Mary visit Elizabeth? Because Gabriel gave her Elizabeth as confirmation of his prophecy.

Luke 1.36 KWL

“And look: Your relative Elizabeth

has conceived a son in her old age.

This is actually her sixth month—

and she was called sterile.”

Mary didn’t know this. Nobody knew this. Elizabeth secluded herself as soon as she found she was pregnant. Lk 1.24 But Elizabeth was the proof Mary’s pregnancy came from God.

I know; people claim Mary never doubted Gabriel, and totally believed him. But that’s not consistent with the scriptures. Why would Mary then rush to visit Elizabeth? Lk 1.39 Why wouldn’t she simply sit back at home, wait for the news that Elizabeth had—beyond all expectations—given birth, and bask in the knowledge she was gonna be the mother of Messiah?

Because of course Mary doubted. It’s a reasonable doubt! God hadn’t done anything like this before, and you know how often people insist God doesn’t do new things—even though he totally does. Mary needed certainty, and Elizabeth could give it to her. So off she went.

Prayer and posture.

I neither close my eyes nor bow my head when I pray.

Yep, that’s right. My eyes are wide open. Sometimes I’m looking forward, sometimes upward, and sometimes downward.

• Sometimes I’m reading the prayer I’ve written out. (You can do that, y’know!))
• Sometimes I’m reading a rote prayer.
• Sometimes I’m looking at a list of prayer requests so I can make sure I include them; or I’m journaling the prayer requests as the prayer leader lists them.
• Sometimes I’m looking up relevant scriptures in my bible.
• If I’m praying for someone who’s standing right in front of me, usually I’m looking at them.
• If I’m praying as part of a street-evangelism ministry, or any other kind of ministry on a busy street, I’m watching out for my fellow ministers. You realize how often people get pickpocketed when their eyes are closed for prayer? The pickpockets consider us suckers. We kinda are.
• If I’m working with kids, you know some of ’em take advantage of the times no one’s looking. I sure did! So they catch me looking.

As for that last thing I listed: Sometimes the kids come ask me later, “Why were your eyes open? You know you’re s’posed to close your eyes.”

Says who? Well, some pastors: “Bow your heads with me. Now with every eye closed…” Usually ’cause they want to ask if anyone wants to confess, or come to Jesus, and they wanna give people some privacy… and if that’s the case, I’ll look down so I don’t see anything. When I don’t need to know, I don’t pry. But nope, even then I don’t close my eyes. Don’t need to.

And closing our eyes doesn’t come from the bible anyway. It’s western custom.

How Mary became Jesus’s mother.

Luke 1.26-38.

The Gospel of Luke begins with John the baptist’s annunciation, which Luke found kinda important because he wanted to tie John and Jesus’s ministries together. Not that they worked together, but they did both work for God, and John himself said his purpose was to point to Messiah, Jn 3.28 whom Jesus is.

Anyway right after John’s annunciation comes Jesus’s annunciation. And for that, we leave Judea and go to the Galilee, to a little town settled by Bethlehemites called Nazareth, to a young woman—likely in her teens, ’cause they married ’em off young in those days—named Miryam, in Latin “Maria,” in English “Mary.”

Luke 1.26-38 KWL

26In Elizabeth’s sixth month,

the angel Gabriel is sent by God

to a Galilean city called Nazareth,

27to a maiden betrothed

to a man of David’s house named Joseph;

the maiden’s name is Mary.

28Coming to her, Gabriel says, “Hello, your honor!

The Lord’s with you.

{You’re blessed above all women.}”

29Mary is alarmed by this message,

and speculates about what sort of greeting this is.

30The angel tells her, “Don’t fear, Mary:

You’ve found grace with God.

31Look, you’ll conceive in your womb.

You’ll give birth to a son. You’ll name him Jesus.

32He’ll be great. He’ll be called the Most High’s son.

The Lord will give him his ancestor David’s throne.

33He’ll be king over Jacob’s house in the age to come.

His kingdom will never end.”

34Mary tells the angel, “How will this happen?—

since I’ve not been with a man.”

35In reply the angel tells her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you.

The Most High’s power will envelop you

and the holy one produced will be called God’s son.

36And look: Your relative Elizabeth

has conceived a son in her old age.

This is actually her sixth month—

and she was called sterile.

37 No word of God is impossible.”

38Mary says, “Look: I’m the Lord’s slave.

I hope it happens according to your word.”

The angel leaves her.

In Orthodox tradition, Mary was at the Nazareth well, so most Christian art depicts her there, with Gabriel either greeting her, or saying something profound as she looks downward in humility. Something pious, and posed—you know, like artist’s models will do.

Today, the well, and the cave it’s in, is underneath St. Gabriel’s Church in Nazareth. As our tour guide rightly pointed out, if it wasn’t the very place Gabriel appeared to Mary, it doesn’t entirely matter; Mary did go to this well to get water, since it’s Nazareth’s only natural water source. (As a city of 74,000 today, it’s had to tap a number of additional water sources.)

When the art doesn’t depict Mary at a well, it’s often of her at home. Sounds reasonable, ’cause Luke says Gabriel entered, and we usually figure that’d be a building. The Roman Catholics built a chapel, the Basilica of the Annunciation, over the cave where they think Mary’s family lived. Yep, another cave. Caves are all over Israel, and I remind you Jesus was both born in, and buried in, caves. Once again, western art gets it wrong: Mary’s family could hardly have afforded the Roman villas the art regularly depict her in. Nazareth wasn’t in Italy!

Joseph, father of Jesus, prophet.

Matthew 1.18-21.

The idea of Jesus’s mother Mary being a virgin when she gave birth him, doesn’t work for a lot of people nowadays. “She was a virgin? Yeah right. She totally had sex with somebody. And then lied about it, and said God did it, and that sucker Joseph believed her.”

Clearly they’ve not read the gospels, because Joseph absolutely didn’t believe her.

Matthew 1.18-19 KWL

18The genesis of King Jesus is like this:

His mother Mary, betrothed to Joseph,

before coming to live together,

is found to be pregnant

through the Holy Spirit.

19 Her man Joseph, a right-minded man,

not wanting to make a show of her,

intends to privately release her.

Joseph knew you can’t just “be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.” He knew how babies are made. He lived in a farming community. Livestock everywhere… some of ’em making babies right in front of everyone. Who didn’t know how babies were made?

Greek myths abound of stories in which Zeus disguised himself so he could have sex with Greek women, and thereby produce ἡμίθεοι/imítheï, “demigods”—half-human, half-god spawn. Myths used Zeus’s out-of-control sex addiction to explain the origin of the more famous Greek heroes, like Herakles, Theseus, Achilles, Perseus, Orpheus… and in the present day, Wonder Woman. But it’s more than likely all the women who contributed to the story of a horny god assaulting various noblewomen in the Greek Empire, had simply had sex with somebody, and blamed Zeus rather than suffer the usual consequences of unchastity.

Thing is, once you read the myths, you’ll notice whenever women claimed Zeus impregnated them, typically the Greeks didn’t believe ’em either. They punished their wives and daughters as if Zeus—the mightiest being they could imagine, a terrifying person to get on the wrong side of—had nothing to do with their pregnancies. Banished ’em, imprisoned ’em, sealed ’em in a coffin and threw them into the sea. (Then, say the myths, Zeus smote them for their unbelief.) The ancients knew exactly how babies are made. The “Zeus did it!” story didn’t work. Nor should it!

And the “God did it” story didn’t work on Joseph either. To his mind, Mary clearly had sex—and not with him. And she was trying to blame the Holy Spirit, of all people. The Spirit doesn’t do that; he’s not Zeus! He’s not gonna transform himself into bulls and geese so he can rape silly teenage girls. The very idea is the most ridiculous, offensive sort of blasphemy.

Mary’s apparent infidelity and outrageous excuse aside, Joseph was what Matthew calls δίκαιος/díkeos, which the KJV translates “just” and the NIV “was faithful to the law.” It means as I translated it: Right-minded. Joseph was the type of person who always sought to do the moral thing. He didn’t wanna be vengeful, and expose Mary to public ridicule. He simply wanted their relationship to be done, so he could move on and marry someone who’d stay true to him.

Betrothals among first-century Israelis were a contractual agreement between the husband and wife’s families. (The husband would provide this, the wife that.) But all it took to end these agreements, was simply for the husband to declare, “I divorce you” three times, and bam, the contract was null. The husband would forfeit his dowry (unless there was fraud involved in the marriage), the wife would go back to her parents’ house, and that was that. So Joseph figured he’d do that. Not in the town square, to publicly embarrass her. Just in front of their parents. That’s what Matthew means by “privately.”

So yeah, let’s put aside this idea the ancients were naïve idiots who’d believe ridiculous stories. Not even the pagans did. Devout Israelis knew God isn’t at all like that, and Joseph didn’t believe the virgin-conception story any more than any of today’s skeptics would.

But something flipped Joseph 180 degrees—so much so that he legally adopted Mary’s kid and raised him as his own. This something was a prophetic dream. And from what we know about prophetic dreams, it wouldn’t have worked on Joseph unless

1. he was stupid, or
2. he had multiple experiences with prophetic dreams, and his experiences showed him they were reliable.

Me, I’m pretty sure it’s that second thing.

Jesus’s genealogy, in 𝘓𝘶𝘬𝘦.

Luke 3.23-38.

The second of Christ Jesus’s two different, contradictory-looking genealogies in the New Testament, is found in the gospel of Luke, right after Jesus’s baptism, right before Jesus’s temptation.

It’s an odd place to squeeze the genealogy in. Y’might notice 1 Chronicles begins with genealogy, and goes through it for whole chapters till it finally gets to Israeli history. Likewise Matthew begins with genealogy. But Luke likely tucked it here because Jesus had just been adopted—in the Roman sense of the Father formally declaring him his Son—so now Jesus’s ancestry comes into play.

And the Luke list goes back farther than Matthew. The other gospel only wanted to establish Jesus is King David ben Jesse’s heir, plus the spiritual heir (as well as literal descendant) of Abraham ben Terah. Those things would be important to Matthew’s readers, and because Matthew includes lots of biblical proof texts which Jesus fulfilled, most Christians assume Matthew was writing his gospel to Jews, who’d care about that stuff. Thing is, everybody cares about that stuff—if we care about the continuity between Old and New Testaments; if we care that Jesus is the legitimately prophesied Messiah. Yep, even gentiles care about the proof texts.

But Luke was likely writing to Romans like himself, and in ancient Roman culture, they didn’t care about whether you were descended from kings; Romans took pride in the fact they regularly overthrew kings. They cared about whether you were descended from gods.

And that is why Jesus’s genealogy in Luke goes all the way back. Luke is showing his readers Jesus wasn’t simply declared the Son of God by God himself; he’s a descendant of God. He has godhood in his bloodline.

Says so in his genealogy:

Luke 3.23-38 KWL

23Jesus himself is starting round his 30th year.

He’s legally the son of Joseph bar Ili—

24bar Maddát, bar Leví,

bar Malkhí, bar Yannaí, bar Joseph,

25bar Mattityáhu, bar Amos,

bar Nahum, bar Heslí, bar Naggaí,

26bar Mákhat, bar Mattityáhu,

bar Shimí, bar Yoshí, bar Yodáh,

27bar Yochanán, bar Reishá,

bar Zerubbabel, bar Shaltiél, bar Nerí,

28bar Malkhí, bar Adí,

bar Kosám, bar Elmadán, bar Er,

29bar Yeshúa, bar Eleázar,

bar Yorím, bar Mattát, bar Leví,

30bar Shimón, bar Judah,

bar Joseph, bar Jonám, bar Elyakím,

31bar Maláh, bar Manáh,

bar Mattatáh, bar Nathan, bar David,

32bar Jesse, bar Obed,

bar Boaz, bar Sheláh, bar Nakhshón,

33bar Amminadáv, bar Admín, bar Arní,

bar Hechrón, bar Pérech, bar Judah,

34bar Jacob, bar Isaac,

bar Abraham, bar Térakh, bar Nakhór,

35bar Serúg, bar Reú,

bar Péleg, bar Éver, bar Sheláh,

36bar Keïnán, bar Arfakhšád,

bar Shem, bar Noah, bar Lémekh,

37bar Metušelákh, bar Enoch,

bar Yéred, bar Mahalalél, bar Keïnán,

38bar Enósh, bar Šet,

bar Adam, bar God.

Maranatha: Come Lord Jesus!

There’s a Syriac word in the New Testament which only appears once, in 1 Corinthians 16.22, and is probably better known as the name of a music label or a brand of peanut butter: Maranatha. Some bibles don’t bother to translate it…

1 Corinthians 16.22 NASB

If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha.

…and some bibles do.

1 Corinthians 16.22 ESV

If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!

Properly maranatha is two words, which in Greek are μαρὰν ἀθά, and in Syriac are ܡܳܪܰܢ ܐܶܬ݂ܳܐ (still transliterated marán athá). And properly it’s not a command for our Master to come; it’s in the perfect tense, so it means “our Master has come.” Or more like the Christmas carol, “The Lord is come.”

But Christians still prefer to interpret it with the same idea we see in Revelation 22.20:

Revelation 22.20 ESV

He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

In this verse, the Peshitta has ܬ݁ܳܐ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ/thá mará Yešúa, and that’s the imperative—the command or request—for Jesus to come. But Christian custom, since the very beginning, is to say maranatha—to mean as the ESV puts it: Our Lord, come! The ancient Christians prayed maranatha, and we see it in the Didache and the very oldest prayer books. Christians still pray it.

Most of the time when we pray maranatha, it’s for our Lord Jesus to come back. Either we want his presence to be among us during our worship services or church business… or we want him to stop delaying his second coming and just take over the world already!

But more often when we ask for Jesus to be here, we pray it in our native languages. “Come Lord Jesus!” works just fine. The word maranatha is more of a liturgical word; it’s something we might pray formally, but it doesn’t feel as personal as when we use the words of our native languages. I get that. And it’s fine: Using foreign-language words when English words will do, is frequently showing off how we happen to know foreign languages—and showing off is hypocrisy. We don’t want any hypocrisy in our prayer life.

But then again: If you use the word maranatha in your private prayers, whom are you showing off to? So don’t worry about telling God maranatha in private. Jesus did tell us to pray “Thy kingdom come” after all, so by all means pray that Jesus return. The sooner the better!

Jesus’s genealogy, in 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘸.

Matthew 1.1-17.

In the New Testament, Christ Jesus has two genealogies.

Two different genealogies. And they don’t line up. If that contradiction (or “bible difficulty,” as many Christians prefer to call it) makes you anxious, relax; I wrote about it elsewhere, so go read that piece. Today I just wanna look at the genealogy in Matthew. The author of that gospel decided to begin with it, ’cause he considered it important. And away we go.

Matthew 1.1 KWL

The book of the genesis of King Jesus,

son of David, son of Abraham.

Other translations have “Christ Jesus” or “Messiah Jesus.” Mostly because they’re going for literalness; the Greek word is Χριστοῦ/Hristú, “Christ,” which itself is a translation of מָשׁיִחַ/Mašíakh, “Messiah.” It literally meant “anointed [person],” so if you really wanna be literal, it should be “Jesus the Anointed One” every single time it says “Christ Jesus.”

But a literal translation isn’t always the best translation. Culturally, to first-century Israelis, Hristós and Mašíakh didn’t mean “anointed one”—it means king. It’s a royal title for Israeli kings. Unlike the pagan kings of countries round about, their king was anointed by the LORD, their real king, to be his vice-regent. Same as Samuel ben Elkanah anointed Saul ben Kish and David ben Jesse.

We Christians claim Jesus was anointed by the LORD, same as those guys, to rule Israel. And the world. He’s the king of Israel, but not just the king of Israel. So “Christ” means king. It’s not Jesus’s last name; he’s not the son of Joseph and Mary Christ. Nor is it a religious title; it doesn’t mean he’s a religious guru. It means he’s our king. Our only king. Human kings are usurpers and false Christs, and every last one of them has got to go. Even the nice ones. Especially the ones who claim they come in Jesus’s name.

Ancient Romans didn’t realize what Christ means, which is why ancient Christians used the title “Christ Jesus” instead of βασιλεύς Ἰησοῦς/vasileýs Yisús, “King Jesus.” Made it way less obvious they were talking about the One who’d overthrow the Roman Empire. Makes it way less obvious we are talking about the One who’ll one day overthrow the kingdoms of the world—including our own. So much less obvious, there are too many Christian nationalists who think Jesus would never overthrow the United States; that’s just treason-talk. But he will. The kingdoms of this world are gonna become the kingdoms of our God and his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever. Rv 11.15

Pharisees had taught first-century Israelis that Messiah would rule the world. Unfortunately, Jewish nationalists had taken this idea and thought Messiah would conquer their hated Roman occupiers, establish Israel’s independence, then go forth to conquer a ton of territory like Alexander of Macedon, and establish a new Israeli Empire. One even better than the Roman Empire, ’cause now it wouldn’t be run by dirty gentiles. Now gentiles would be the second-class citizens in their new Empire. Semite supremacy!

Yeah, there was a lot of racism wrapped up in Pharisee ideas about Messiah. Unfortunately that’s still true in popular interpretations about Jesus’s second coming. But I digress. Distorted perspectives aside, “King” is still the best interpretation of Hristú.

And though Jesus is a literal descendant of both David, the third king of Israel, and Abraham ben Terah, the ancestor of the Israelis, Edomites, and Arabs, the more important thing is Jesus is the fulfillment of their relationships with the LORD. Without Abraham’s faith in the LORD these people-groups wouldn’t even exist, much less be monotheists who pursued a living God instead of ridiculous pagan myths. Without David’s loyalty to God, the LORD wouldn’t have responded with any promise to make one of his descendants the greatest king ever.

Yep, all of that in the very first verse of the New Testament! But wait; there’s more.

The Christian’s marital duties.

1 Corinthians 7.1-9.

Right after the apostles write about unchastity, they get to a question one of them (probably Paul) was asked in a letter—a question Paul quotes in verse 1—“[Is it] good for a person to not be bound to a woman?” By “person” the writer no doubt meant “man,” or himself.

And the reason he asked was because of the second coming. Y’know how some Christians constantly say, “Jesus could return at any time!” or “The rapture could take place at any time!” Well, Christians were also saying that back then. Yep, even before Revelation was written. Yep, even before Darbyists claim certain End Times events which have to take place first (in their timelines, anyway) took place first. Christians have always expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes; ever since he was raptured and an angel told the first apostles, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Ac 1.11 KJV

Okay, so if Jesus is coming back at any minute… should we get married and have children? Should we plan for the future if we might not even have a future?

Paul might’ve been astounded to learn Jesus delayed his return for centuries. (It’s gonna be 20 entire centuries in 2033!) But even so, he knew we can’t just sit on our hands and do nothing while we wait. We gotta be busy doing good. So if we’re married, be a good spouse. And if we’re not married… you don’t have to get married, but if you wanna, it’s okay. Jesus hasn’t done away with marriage. He will after the resurrection, Lk 20.34-36 because immortal people don’t need to reproduce; no generation is gonna pass away and need replacing! But right now, Christians die, and do need replacing, and we either need to make new disciples by conversion, or literally make ’em via childbirth.

So here’s where the apostles say all this.

1 Corinthians 7.1-9 KWL

1You write me about whether it’s good

for for a person to not be bound to a woman.

2Because of unchastity,

each man, have your own woman,

and each woman, have your own man!

3Man, do your duty to your woman!

Likewise, woman to your man!

4The woman doesn’t have authority over her own body,

but her man does—

likewise the man doesn’t have authority over his own body,

but his woman does.

5Don’t cheat one another!

Unless it’s out of consent, for a time,

so you might have time to pray—

and then you can be together again,

so Satan can’t tempt you for your lack of self-control.

6I say this as permission, not a command.

7I want every person to be like me.

But each person has their own gift from God,

one like this, one like that.

8I tell the unmarried and widows:

If they can live like I do, good for them!

9And if they can’t control themselves, marry!

—for it’s better to marry than burn.

The prayers of a righteous person.

James 5.16-18.

When Christians teach on prayer (like I’m doing right now), many of us like to quote this passage:

James 5.16-18 KWL

16So confess your* sins to one another

and pray for one another so you* can be cured.

The petition of one who works rightly is very strong.

17Elijah was the very same sort of human as we are.

He prayed a prayer for it to not rain,

and it didn’t rain upon the land for 3 years, 6 months.

18He prayed again and the sky gave rain,

and the land produced its fruit.

The two points we zero in on are, as the KJV puts it, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” Jm 5.16 KJV and “Elijah was a human like us.” Jm 5.17 NRSVue And usually what we teach about this, is how we oughta be a good man like Elijah—and you see what Elijah’s prayers actually achieve. Dude stopped the weather. Just like Jesus! But for years—he triggered a drought, and wrecked the economy of his country for half a great tribulation.

The rather obvious problem with this interpretation of this passage, though: It ties whether we get what we pray for, to our goodness. To our good karma. To whether we deserve to get our prayers answered, ’cause we’ve been good boys and girls, and we’re not on the naughty list. Conversely, the reason we don’t get what we ask for, is ’cause we are on the naughty list, and God is withdrawing any blessings till we shape up. Stop sinning or you might never get cured of cancer.

Yeah, that’s the wrong interpretation. Everybody remember what it is that makes us Christians righteous? Faith. Righteousness comes by faith. We trust Jesus, so we’re considered righteous. Exactly the same as when Abraham believed God, and God considered him righteous. Ro 4.3, Ga 3.6, Jm 2.23

So what does δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη/dikéu energuméni, “one who works rightly,” describe? One who does faith-works. The sort of person James writes about in chapter 2—those Christians whose faith actually changes their behavior, gets ’em to do stuff, because they trust Jesus just that much.

And no, I’m not talking about “the Christian faith” changing our behavior. I don’t mean orthodox Christian theology; I don’t mean religion. Neither does James. I mean we obey Jesus’s teachings. We follow the Holy Spirit’s leading. We hear from him in prayer and act accordingly. We behave like we actually believe what Jesus tells us.

The prayers of an active Jesus-follower is very strong.

Flee unchastity!

CHASTITY 'tʃæs.tə.di noun. The state or practice of abstaining from nonmarital or illicit sexual intercourse.

2. The state or practice of abstaining from all sexual intercourse.

[Chaste tʃeɪst adjective, unchaste ən'tʃeɪst adjective, unchastity ən'tʃæs.tə.di noun.]

1 Corinthians 6.15-20.

Yep, today’s bible passage has to do with sex, and if the subject offends you, stop reading. But bear in mind I write these articles to explain what the apostles would’ve thought, given they lived in the first-century Roman Empire. If you’d much rather hear preachers guess what they thought, based on their own beliefs, prejudices, and hangups—conservative or liberal—okay, go find a church where the pastor never, ever challenges your beliefs, or a bible commentary which does likewise, and enjoy your blissful ignorance. Me, I’d rather grow.

So, chastity. Most English-speakers are more familiar with the second definition I listed above, and assume chastity is the very same thing as celibacy. It’s not. One can be chaste and sexually active. Chastity has to do with proper sexual activity, and by “proper” I certainly don’t mean what society thinks is proper; I mean within the very few limitations God has put on human sexual activity. And contrary to certain repressed Christians, he hasn’t put many! They have, because their parents have, because their grandparents have, and so on back till they’re entirely sure their tradition originates with God, not men.

True, when the apostles object to πορνεία/porneía, “unchastity” (KJV “fornication,” NIV “sexual immorality”), yes they largely are reflecting Pharisee custom. (Paul grew up Pharisee; Ac 23.6 Sosthenes, if he’s the same Sosthenes who was Corinth’s synagogue president, Ac 18.17 was definitely Pharisee.) And Pharisees actually didn’t define chastity as the Law of Moses prescribed it… because the Law accommodated the polygamous culture of ancient western Asia, which included multiple wives and concubines. Yep, in the Old Testament, men could have multiple wives and multiple girlfriends, and it wasn’t considered adultery. This fact still regularly blows Christians’ minds. Totally true though.

So why did Pharisee custom differ? The Greeks. Alexander of Macedon had conquered the Persian Empire by 330BC, making Judea now part of his empire. Judea was ruled by Greek-speaking empires and Greek-speaking kings ever after—some of whom had heavily adopted Greek culture. And a big part of Greek culture was monogamy. True, often it was serial monogamy, with divorce after divorce; but polygamy quickly became a no-no among Judeans who feared offending their Greek-speaking overlords. By the time Pharisees showed up after the Maccabean revolt (165–60BC), Judeans had been largely monogamous for more than a century. So monogamy (and, unfortunately, frequent divorce) was now part of Pharisee culture too. Adultery and chastity was now defined by that standard. Not—yeah, this is still mindblowing—the bible.

Although since the apostles wrote the New Testament, now monogamy is biblical; now adultery and chastity are based on monogamy. If you wanna be in Christian leadership, you gotta be “a one-woman man,” Tt 1.6 or one-man woman; you can’t be unchaste; you can’t be promiscuous. And if every Christian’s gonna strive for spiritual maturity, that’s the standard we have to strive for. That’s the standard the apostles expected Corinth to strive for. But, to their irritation, Corinth was still full of spiritual infants, and they were still—as we know from today’s passage—merrily fornicating away with temple prostitutes. Among other things.

Prophets and potentates.

Yeah, I wanted an alliterative title, and “prince” kinda gives people the wrong idea, so I went with the less-familiar word “potentate.” It just means “power.” Potentatus was the Latin word St. Ambrose of Milan used for the biblical Greek word ἐξουσίας/exusías, “power,” in Ephesians 1.21. Ambrose was thinking of spiritual beings, but I just mean any person with power.

• Might be political power, like a king, dictator, president, or backroom dealmaking party member.
• Might be economic power, like a billionaire or CEO.
• Might be cultural power, like a popular entertainer or internet influencer.
• Might be spiritual power, like a pastor or guru. (Sometimes this overlaps with cultural power, like with activist pastors; sometimes not.)

Whatever kind of power we’re talking about, they got it, and people are swayed by it—voluntarily or not.

Sometimes prophets have this kind of power. I’ve known more than one Christian who considered the prophets at their churches to be their spiritual guides or spiritual mentors. After all, prophets listen to God; when you pick a Christian mentor, they’d better be listening to God. And certainly various prophets in the bible had people they were mentoring; Elijah, Elisha, and John the baptist certainly did.

But usually when we see prophets in the bible, they’re not the ones in power. In fact one of their regular duties is to serve as a check on the ones in power. The potentate—whether a king, judge, governor, or emperor—oughta be listening to God way better than he is. So the prophet’s job is to either remind the potentate, “Thus says the LORD”—or just plain tell him, because the potentate doesn’t follow God any, and has no clue what the LORD says.

Yeah, there are obvious biblical exceptions like Moses ben Amram, who was both prophet and potentate. Or Joshua ben Nun. Or Deborah eshet Lappidot. Or Samuel ben Elkanah. Although you might be aware at some point Samuel had to give up judging Israel and hand the civic authority over to the new king, Saul ben Kish… and then spend the rest of his life reminding Saul that no, the LORD didn’t want him to do as he was doing; stop that.

Thereafter, even though there were various kings who could hear God the same as any prophet, and are even rightly considered prophets themselves, they still occasionally needed a corrective from one of God’s other prophets. King David ben Jesse still needed to hear from the prophet Nathan when he stopped listening to God and got a bit murdery. King Solomon ben David still needed to hear from the prophet Ahijah when he stopped listening to God and got a bit idolatrous.

Because power corrupts. Even good men can fall victim to the corrupting influence of the power they wield. That’s why they need prophets to pull ’em back onto the right path when they go wrong. They can’t just presume, “Oh I hear God just fine”; history has shown time and again no, they really don’t.

Praying for our rulers.

After we elect a new president, governor, mayor, or whomever, we Christians tend to remind ourselves to pray for our rulers.

Sometimes enthusiastically, ’cause it’s our candidate who just got elected. And if we’re the really partisan sort, we’ll even rub this fact in other people’s faces. “The patriotic thing to do is to close ranks and back our new leader for the good of the country. So bury that disappointment and pray for your new leader. That’s right, your new leader.” Every so often, the Christian preaching this attempts a sympathetic tone—“Hey, I know it’s rough; I’ve had to do this when your guy won”—but most of the time they’re too happy to care. About 12 seconds of the message is sympathy, and the rest is a victory lap. Hey, I’ve been on both sides of it.

And when our candidate lost, we might pray mournfully. Regretfully. Reluctantly. The candidates have been demonizing one another throughout the election, and when partisans lose, they’re convinced the End Times have just arrived. Hence the prayers for our rulers aren’t so much for God to bless them. More like asking God to mitigate their evil. Keep ’em from ruining our land. Stop ’em from destroying lives. Maybe Jesus could make a Damascus-Road-style appearance to them and radically transform them into someone who’d vote our way. Wouldn’t that be awesome?

Sometimes we pray sarcastically. Partisans who hate their leaders will often immediately dive for Psalm 109.

Psalm 109.6-20 NKJV

6Set a wicked man over him,

And let an accuser stand at his right hand.

7When he is judged, let him be found guilty,

And let his prayer become sin.

8Let his days be few,

And let another take his office.

9Let his children be fatherless,

And his wife a widow.

10Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg;

Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places.

11Let the creditor seize all that he has,

And let strangers plunder his labor.

12Let there be none to extend mercy to him,

Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children.

13Let his posterity be cut off,

And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

14Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD,

And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.

15Let them be continually before the LORD,

That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth;

16Because he did not remember to show mercy,

But persecuted the poor and needy man,

That he might even slay the broken in heart.

17As he loved cursing, so let it come to him;

As he did not delight in blessing, so let it be far from him.

18As he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment,

So let it enter his body like water,

And like oil into his bones.

19Let it be to him like the garment which covers him,

And for a belt with which he girds himself continually.

20Let this be the LORD’s reward to my accusers,

And to those who speak evil against my person.

Now that’s an angry prayer. Sometimes King David wished some hateful stuff on his enemies. And when people start praying these curses over their rulers, most of the time they’ll stop mid-psalm and say, “Nah; I’m just kidding.” But nah, in their heart of hearts, they aren’t really. Y’ain’t fooling God.

Flee gluttony!

1 Corinthians 6.12-14.

In the beginning of this chapter, Paul and Sosthenes rebuked the Corinthians for dragging one another before Roman courts, then reminded them the Romans weren’t leaders of good character, by listing some of their works of the flesh. (And we might recognize many of these defects of character in our own leaders. We really gotta stop voting for such people.)

The next passage riffs off those fleshly works by rebuking the Corinthians for indulging in some of them. In it, the apostles quote two popular Corinthian slogans:

EVERYTHING’S ALLOWED (πάντα ἔξεστιν/pánta éxestin, KJV “All things are lawful,” NIV “I am allowed to do anything”).

FOODS FOR THE STOMACH, AND THE STOMACH FOR FOODS (τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν/ta vrómata ti kilía, ke i kilía tis vrómasin, KJV “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats,” ESV “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”).

Because in Corinth, hedonism was a virtue. Nope, it wasn’t just a tourist slogan, like “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”; it wasn’t just a way to encourage visitors to indulge themselves and boost the economy. This was Cyreniac philosophy: Pleasure, namely physical pleasure, was considered the most important thing in life. Knowledge—meh; what good is it? Stop thinking so hard and enjoy yourself while you can. Have some wine, some hashish, some opium, some sex. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. 1Co 15.32

So in Corinth, and in many Greek cities, you were permitted to do pretty much anything you pleased. Especially the sexual stuff, which I’ll get into at another time. But you were allowed to eat what you wished, as much as you wished—at least until your belly was full, or your purse was empty. (There’s a popular belief the ancient Romans would eat till full, then go to a “vomitorium” and purge themselves. That’s turned out to be false. Vomitoriums were in fact crowd-control passageways in an amphitheater, not some weird room where you indulged your bulimia—not that bulimia didn’t exist back then, but it wasn’t encouraged. Party food was expensive!)

In contrast Christians, especially we who follow the Holy Spirit, are meant to practice self-control. “Everything’s allowed” unless Jesus forbids it; unless those practices harm others and ourselves. Our “freedom in Christ” isn’t the freedom to do absolutely anything we please, simply because God forgives all. Unfortunately, Christians have taken the opposite attitude throughout history. Still do. Still wrong.

Bible time:

1 Corinthians 6.12-14 KWL

12“Everything’s allowed” to me,

but not everything is appropriate.

“Everything’s allowed” to me,

but I won’t be controlled by anything.

13“Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food,”

and God will destroy both food and stomach—

and the body isn’t for unchastity, but for the Master,

and the Master for the body.

14God both raises the Master up,

and will raise us up, by his power.

Bummed your candidate lost?

Today is Election Day in the United States, and since elections take time to tabulate (and people whose candidate lost will sometimes refuse to accept the tabulations, and demand they run ’em again, and even then insist something went wrong in the counting process, and sue, and bear false witness against the tabulators for years afterward), the results are often up in the air. It agitates the impatient. But eventually we know who won… and one side or the other is gonna mope about it.

And, same as in every election, the losing side is gonna put on a brave face, say the usual platitudes—“God’s will be done,” and “God is in control,” and “God works out everything for our good,” et cetera, ad nauseam. God’s on the throne, even though their candidate won’t be. They’re very bummed, and sometimes there’s even weeping and gnashing of teeth and rage.

But they put their trust in Jesus. So they say… after the election. They didn’t really do it before. This “God’s in charge” stuff is what people say after they’ve been trusting in an idol, and God just smashed that idol. As he does.

But not all of ’em accept the idea God’s in charge. A number of dissatisfied voters will plot violence, and justify it by claiming God’s will has been frustrated. What comes next? God’s wrath… which always looks not-so-suspiciously like their wrath.

Back during the Barack Obama years I heard an awful lot of rightists talk about wrath. Yeah, it was projection; they were angry, and coveted power, and dreamt of sweet vengeance. Broken idol or not, they’re still idolaters—coveting and worshiping power.

Some of us are just that dense. I sure was.

The 𝘐 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 list of works of the flesh.

1 Corinthians 6.9-11

In discussing how the Corinthians shouldn’t bring their disputes with one another before corrupt pagan judges, Paul and Sosthenes threw in a list of problematic behaviors that, they reiterate twice, won’t inherit God’s kingdom. 1Co 6.9-10

One can argue the apostles bring up and condemn these behaviors lest the Corinthian Christians think they can get away with practicing them… but for the most part the Christians knew better. I would instead argue they’re listing them because Roman officials did them. We have the ancient biographies; we have the writings of Roman officials of the day. Most were admittedly guilty of at least one of them, and many were guilty of far more than one—if not all.

Here’s the list. And same as the Galatians list of works of the flesh: This is not a list of deadly sins that’ll undo our salvation. This is describing a lifestyle which wants nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and his expectations of goodness in our lives. Resist the Spirit and you resist salvation. So follow the Spirit instead!

1 Corinthians 6.9-11 KWL

9Didn’t you know the unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom?

Don’t be fooled:

Neither the unchaste, idolaters, adulterers,

catamites, sodomites,

10thieves, the greedy, drunks,

trolls, nor predators, will inherit God’s kingdom.

11Who among you is still like this?

Instead you’re washed. Instead you’re made holy.

Instead you’re declared righteous

in the name of our master, Christ Jesus,

and by the Spirit of our God.

Because it’s a list of words, it means it’s time to bust out the Greek dictionary again, talk about what these words generally meant to ancient Greek speakers, then talk about what the apostles (probably) specifically meant by them. And yeah, I realize “catamites” and “sodomites” come up in verse 9; I’m gonna talk about that too. May as well get neck-deep into that controversy since we’re here.

All Saints Day.

Sometimes, but rarely, you’ll see Halloween spelled Hallowe’en. It’s a reminder the word is actually a contraction. The e’en part of it means evening or eve—the day before, like Christmas Eve. ’Cause Halloween is the day before Hallowmas, or All Hallows… and hallow is the Saxon word for saint.

As you probably remember, the earliest Christians regularly faced persecution in the Roman Empire, ’cause the Romans wanted its occupants to prove their loyalty to Rome by either worshiping the emperor’s guardian dæmon, or in some cases straight-up worship the emperor himself. Some Christians capitulated ’cause they wanted to live; others refused, and were executed. Usually their fellow Christians would honor them on the day of their martyrdom, and these days of remembrance turned into all the saints’ days in the Christian calendar.

But there are so many martyrs. Plus popular saints who got their own day even thought they weren’t killed for Jesus; they definitely lived for Jesus, so to be fair they probably merit a day just as much as certain martyrs who happened to be killed because they were swept up in some anti-Christian purge, and not because they confessed anything.

There’s also the fact there are many people who lived and died for Jesus, and we know nothing about them. God does, but we don’t. People who did a whole lot of charity, but unlike philanthropists who want to make a name for themselves, they wanted to keep their benevolence secret. People who lived very devout lives, but went unseen… or went unappreciated and ignored. People who matter to God.

So if they don’t have their own holiday, they have All Saints Day.

Which likewise tends to go unappreciated and ignored by many Evangelicals. Sometimes because they consider it “a Catholic thing,” a religious custom which they feel contributes nothing to their Christian lives; sometimes because they’re anti-Halloween, and their distaste for that holiday spills over into the holiday which started it.

But properly, we oughta think of it as a Christian version of Memorial Day. It remembers all the people who gave their lives for Jesus. It appreciates them. Some churches, like the liturgical churches, go all out for it. Other churches don’t have to do likewise, nor even celebrate it on 1 November. But it’d be nice if we did something to honor our forebears.

“How do you 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 there’s a God?”

Every so often I’m asked, “How do you know God exists?” or “How do you know there’s a God?”

I’m never asked, “Is there a God?” because people have already made up their minds about that one. Nontheists say no; theists say yes. Agnostics, who claim they aren’t sure one way or the other, frequently act like they’re just gonna presume there’s no God for now, and live accordingly… which is why I lump ’em in with nontheists. I’ve met exceptions, but they’re so rare.

But even though people have their minds made up… some of the theists have doubts. Because they’ve never seen God, and aren’t sure they’ve seen the effects of God. If God exists, and actually did or does stuff in our universe, shouldn’t he be detectable? Really detectable?—we aren’t just claiming certain things are God-things because we’re so desperate to see him in our universe?

This is why they ask, “So how do you know?”

This is the point where Christian apologists make the mistake of going through the logical proofs of God’s existence. Which is actually not what they’re asking for. It’s the fastest way to annoy them. “Well y’see, I know there’s a God because the universe works on cause and effect. So if we trace all the causes back to a first cause…” Yeah, yeah, they didn’t ask for a philosophy lesson.

What they’re really asking is how you know. When they ask me, what they really want is to know how I, me, K.W. Leslie, the guy who talks about God as if he’s a real guy, the guy who talks about God as if I’ve met him personally, know God exists. They wanna know if I have personal experience with God.

Fortunately for them, I do! Met him personally.

No, really.

No, really.

Praying when we suck at prayer.

Years ago I was reading Richard Foster’s Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, a useful book on prayer. In it he described the most basic, elementary form of prayer he could think of, which he calls “Simple Prayer.” Basically it’s just talking with God. Which is all prayer really is.

But I believe there’s a form of prayer even more elementary than Simple Prayer: It’s what I call the I-Suck-At-Prayer prayer.

It’s the prayer every new Christian prays. The prayer every pagan prays when they’re first giving prayer a test drive. The prayer even longtime Christians stammer when we’re asked to pray aloud, and suddenly we feel we’ve gotta perform… but not overtly. Christians might pray every day and rather often, yet we’ll still pray the I-Suck-At-Prayer Prayer from time to time.

It’s based on discomfort. It’s when we realize we need to pray in a manner we’re not used to.

Maybe we haven’t prayed for ourselves in a while; maybe someone else has been leading our prayers, or we’ve been praying too many rote prayers. Hey, sometimes it’s easier to use the prayer book, or the pre-written prayers in our favorite devotional. There are all these things we never think to pray, and the prayer books get us to pray ’em! But when we get too comfortable with the prayer books, we might slip out of the habit of extemporaneous prayer—praying without a script, talking to God just like we’d talk to anyone, as we should.

Sometimes it’s because we don’t feel worthy of talking to God. We sinned—either it was a really big sin; or it was a little one, but it made us feel unclean, so we put off praying, and now it’s been so long. Or we have a really big thing to ask God, but we don’t feel we’ve yet built up enough Brownie points to cash them in for a big ask. Or we have a really dumb prayer request, and we feel ridiculous asking God for it, ’cause surely he has better things to do.

So we stammer. Stumble. Suffer stage fright. And our prayers become big ol’ apologies to God for how poorly we’re doing. “Forgive my hesitation; I need to pray more often.”

Foster described Simple Prayer as the starting point of prayer. But plenty of people don’t even make it to that starting point. We get too hung up on “I suck at prayer”—too busy apologizing for our inability to express ourselves, too busy flogging ourselves for not praying enough, or “properly.”

I put “properly” in quotes ’cause we Christians often have a screwy idea of what’s proper in prayer, and get way too hard on ourselves because we don’t meet our own unrealistic expectations. Usually we’ve picked up these ideas from “prayer warriors” who make their showy public prayers sound impressive—and people assume our prayers oughta sound like that.

Hence we wind up with Christians who…

• feel we should only pray in King James Version English.
• replace every “um” and “uh” in our speech with “Father God” and “Lord Jesus,” and other names of God.
• pad our prayers because we’re not sure short prayers are effective.
• try to psyche ourselves into a prayer mood because we don’t know the difference between emotional and spiritual.

As I’ve said, prayer is talking with God. Nothing more than that. If we can talk with our family members, we can definitely talk with God. (If you struggle to talk with them, or they’re distant instead of gracious, I get why God might be a problem.) We don’t have to sound formal. We don’t have to speak in bible language. We don’t even have to be articulate—though we should make an effort, ’cause we are trying to communicate after all. We just gotta go find some privacy, open our mouths, and talk with God.

“Why are you bringing each other before corrupt judges?”

1 Corinthians 6.1-8

Paul and Sosthenes have another gripe about the Corinthians, so it merits another chapter. This one isn’t about some guy shtupping his stepmother, but about how certain Corinthians are taking their fellow Christians to court—and how they absolutely shouldn’t. The apostles even go so far as to say they should let themselves be ripped off, 1Co 6.7 rather than take it to court.

And there are plenty of Christians who think this passage still applies to Christians today—and use it to justify handling legal matters in-house, instead of getting police and prosecutors involved. I am not one of them, and I’ll explain why in a bit. Today’s bible passage first.

1 Corinthians 6.1-8 KWL

1One of you¹, having an issue with another one of you,

has the nerve to be judged by the unjust,

and not by the saints?

2Didn’t you² know the saints will judge the world?

And if the world instead judges you²,

aren’t you² unqualified to rule in the smallest cases?

3Didn’t you² know we will judge angels?

Not just the things of daily life!

4So, cases about the things of daily life:

When you² have them,

the people thought the worst of by the church,

you² sit before these people.

5I say shame on you²!

So there’s no one wise among you²?

—who will be able to sort you out in the midst of your¹ family?

6Instead, brother judges against brother,

and all this in front of unbelievers.

7So this truly is a failing among you²—

that you² have judgments against one another.

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be harmed instead?

Why don’t you² let yourselves² be cheated instead?

8Instead you² harm and cheat.

And you do this to family.

Happy Halloween. Bought your candy yet?

For more than a decade I’ve ranted about the ridiculous Evangelical practice of shunning Halloween. I call it ridiculous ’cause it really is: It’s a fear-based, irrational, misinformed, slander-filled rejection of a holiday which is actually a legitimate part of the Christian calendar.

No I’m not kidding. It’s our holiday. Christians invented Halloween.

A perfect opportunity to show Christlike generosity—and give the best candy ever. But too many of us make a serious point of being grouchy, fear-addled spoilsports. [Image swiped from a mommy blog.]

I know; you’ve likely read an article which claims Halloween got its origin in pagan harvest festivals. That’s utter bunk. Some neo-Pagan (one of the capital-P Pagans who worship nature and its gods, whose religions date from the 1960s, even though they claim they’re revivals of ancient pre-Christian religions) started to claim we Christians swiped it from them, and Christianized it. There’s no historical evidence whatsoever for this claim, but they keep claiming it. Gullible reporters repeat it every year when they write about the history of Halloween.

The story has always been hearsay, but it’s been passed around so long, people actually try to debunk me by quoting 20-year-old articles which claim Halloween was originally Samhain or some other pagan festival. But those old articles were poorly sourced. Incorrect then; incorrect now.

Samhain (pronounced 'saʊ.ən) is a contraction of sam fuin/“summer’s end.” It’s a Celtic harvest festival which dates back to pre-Christian times. It happens at the autumnal equinox, which took place last month, on 22 September. It’s totally unrelated to Halloween. It’s as if you claimed the Fourth of July was originally a celebration of the summer solstice… and the fact you barbecue and drink beer on that day, just like the ancients regularly used to cook meat and drink beer, proves it.

Oh, and neither neo-Pagan nor Christian holidays involve a celebration of creepy horror movie themes. That got added in the 20th century.

How long does hell last?

As I explained in my article “The four hells,” there are four words translated hell in the scriptures, and the one I mean by “hell” is Gehenna, the trash fire outside Jerusalem, reimagined in Revelation as a pool of fire and sulfur outside New Jerusalem. Rv 20.10-15 Into it go Satan and its angels, the Beast, the fake prophet who promotes the Beast, the personifications of Death and Hades (i.e. the afterlife), and everyone whose name isn’t listed in the life scroll—everyone who refused to accept God’s gracious offer ofhis kingdom.

The Beast and prophet are explicitly described as being “tortured there, day and night, age to ages.” Rv 20.10 Y’notice even though this lake is known as “the second death,” Rv 20.14 it doesn’t have a sense of finality like physical death. Generally death feels like an absolute stopping point—when you’re dead, you’re not alive, you’re not moving, you’re not breathing, you’re not thinking, you’re not anything; you’re dead. Whereas the second death sounds more like the beings sent into it aren’t inert, but moving, conscious… and suffering from eternal torment. Because they’re in fire. Everlasting fire, as the King James Version put it. Mt 25.41 KJV Where quite unlike the trash fires of the literal Gehenna, the worms don’t die, and the fire never goes out. Is 66.24, Mk 9.48

Yeah, I know: Certain dark Christians who love this idea of eternal conscious torment. That’s why it’s been the prevailing view throughout Christian history. Often because there are certain people they’d love to see tortured forever. Satan obviously, but a lot of them are thinking of certain political opponents—and I don’t necessarily mean government politicos, but anyone with whom they’ve struggled for power. Difficult neighbors. Workplace foes and cruel bosses. Church ladies who weren’t as Christlike as you’d expect. We all have people we don’t like. But… longing to see them burn forever? What is wrong with these people? Since God doesn’t wanna see anyone perish, 2Pe 3.9 and these people do, this sort of fleshly, fruitless gracelessness suggests these people don’t have any real relationship with God, much as they claim to. I don’t care what they call themselves.

The other reason they love the idea of eternal torment—a reason which is slightly more legit than t’other—is because they figure it’s a powerful motivator for getting people into God’s kingdom. If anyone’s on the fence about this idea of living under Jesus’s reign in peace and harmony (mainly ’cause the church is full of a--holes like me), Christians can point out the alternative: Outside the kingdom, it’s hot, stinky hell. You don’t wanna go to hell! We don’t want you there either; God doesn’t want you there either; why go there when you don’t have to? Don’t worry about the jerks in the church; Jesus’ll deal with them. Focus on Jesus. Turn to him. Let him save you.

The rest of us really don’t love the idea of eternal torment. Problem is, we don’t really see any way around it. That’s what Jesus describes in the scriptures. So that’s the reality we’re obligated to deal with: When people reject Jesus, that’s the destination they’ve effectively chosen. If people prefer a cosmetic relationship with Christianity over a living relationship with Jesus, that’s where they’re going.

It’s not like we can make up a reality we like better. (Although that’s certainly never stopped people from trying, has it?)

“Nobody wants to talk about hell anymore.”

There’s a church in town whose members really love to leave gospel tracts in my local Walmart. They especially like the really bitter, bilious tracts—the ones which inform people IN ALL CAPS that they’re totally going to hell. That is, unless they give up all their favorite things, reject the pope and all his works, and turn to Jesus. You know, typical dark Christian tracts. Especially the ones full of half-truths and conspiracy theories, ’cause they’re those kinds of wackjobs.

This particular tract caught my attention because it began with the line, “Nobody wants to talk about hell anymore.”

Sure hasn’t been my experience! Dark Christians love to talk about hell, and speculate about who’s going there, and why. Unsurprisingly it’s for doing all the things they hate, which they’re entirely sure are sins, and entirely sure Jesus doesn’t like ’em either. So they figure he’s sending them to hell. They figure he’s sending a lot of people to hell. Most people. Maybe 90 percent of the world. Not them, though!

Which “hell” does the bible mean?

As I said in my article, “The four hells,” there are three ancient Greek words we tend to translate “hell.” (Plus one Hebrew word.) These three words mean three different things… and none of them mean the pop culture idea of hell which we find in movies, TV shows, and the “Hell House” and “Judgment Day” pageants which conservative Evangelicals like to host around Halloween. Satan’s not waiting for dead sinners in some otherworldly fiery pit, ready to throw them into the flames. Satan itself is getting thrown into the flames. But that comes much later.

Okay, but in the meanwhile, if your favorite bible translation insists, as many do, in translating all these four different words as “hell,” exactly which hell are they talking about? Glad you asked. Here’s my handy-dandy chart for determining which hell they mean.

The four hells.

C.S. Lewis famously wrote a book called The Four Loves, about four of the five Greek words which tend to be translated “love.” Two are in the New Testament—ἀγάπη/agápi and φίλος/fílos. Two aren’t; they’re in the Septuagint, and only teachers of classic literature like Lewis would know ’em; ἔρος/éros and στοργή/storyí. There’s another Greek word, ξενία/xenía, which has some related words in the Septuagint… but Lewis only cared to highlight the first four, talk about their differences in meaning, and riff from them about how people “love” in different ways.

People hear of this book and assume, “Wow, Greek is so precise and exact. It’s got four different words for love!” Yeah… but so do we. These five words can easily be translated charity, friendship, romance, affection, and courtesy. Plus check out any thesaurus; you’ll find we have way more than five words for love. English is just as precise as we want it be.

I say this by way of introduction: There are three ancient Greek words we tend to translate “hell.” Problem is—same as with “love”—translators won’t always bother to distinguish between them. Some bibles do, and good on ’em. But whether our bible translations do or don’t, it’s important Christians know there’s a difference.

’Cause I’ve discovered Christians have no idea there’s a difference. Nor that they’re describing different things. Nor that none of them describe popular culture’s idea of hell as a dark, torturous underworld for bad people.

I said there were three words, right? So why’d I title this article “The four hells”? Well the fourth hell is pop culture hell. I’m gonna deal with that idea first.

Praying for your homeland without getting all nationalist.

Many churches pray for the country they’re in. Every Sunday morning, during the worship service. Mine doesn’t; we pray for the United States, or California (where we live, obviously), whenever there’s a serious crisis, like hurricanes, wildfires, floods, mass shootings, and so forth. Our prayer team does pray for our homeland on a regular basis, but otherwise it’s up to each individual Christian to remember to do it. Some of us do; some don’t.

But we should! All of us should. The people of our homelands need Jesus. Need to recognize their need for him. Oughta be encouraged to seek and follow him.

And yeah, of course, we oughta pray for the usual civic problems. Pray for our leaders to govern wisely. Pray for obvious supernatural answers to civic problems which’ll get people to give God credit, and glory. Pray for elections; that voters will choose leaders of good character, and partisans will respect the rule of law and let the election happen without incident. (Used to be we didn’t have to pray for that last thing, but times change. Namely because voters didn’t choose leaders of good character.)

The only problem with praying for our homeland, of course, is an influence which corrupts Christianity all the time, and therefore corrupts our prayers. It’s nationalism, the racist belief our country should only consist of, or be ruled by, people of one race; namely the race of the nationalists. And of course there’s the “Christian” variant, Christian nationalism, which focuses less on race and more on religion, and insists our country should only be inhabited and led by Christians. Because if it isn’t, claim Christian nationalists, God gets upset and bad things are gonna happen to us.

Obviously the prayers of Christian nationalists are gonna look way different from the sort of prayers Jesus will suggest. Their prayers exclude; his includes. Their prayers condemn and vilify; his forgives and loves. Their prayers are all about our homeland becoming great; his are that God’s will is done, on earth as it is in heaven, and heaven has no border patrol.

So if you’re in a church where the pastor and prayer leaders are nationalists, praying along with them for our homeland is gonna prove a giant waste of time; y’all are praying for stuff which runs contrary to God’s will. Hope you’re not in such a church! And if you’re not, feel free to join in with their prayers for our country and state. If they’re praying for God’s grace and compassion for the world, by all means pray that too.

Christian nationalism: The civic idolater’s religion.

NATIONALISM 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪz.əm noun. Belief a particular ethnic group (i.e. nation) should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share this ethnic group’s characteristics.

2. Exalting one ethnic group above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other ethnic or multinational groups.

[Nationalist 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪst noun.]

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM noun. Belief (white) Christians should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share (white) Christianity’s characteristics.

2. Exalting (white) Christians above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other religions and philosophies.

Let’s not mince words: Nationalism is a racist belief. Period. Doesn’t matter whether we put “Christian” before it: Still racist. Inherently racist.

French nationalists believe France should only consist of ethnic French people. To them, any immigrants from Algeria, Spain, Switzerland, or any other country aren’t really French, even if they were born in France, speak fluent French, have French citizenship, and contribute to society. In fact French nationalists would really rather they didn’t contribute to society, ’cause they’re “not really French.”

Turkish nationalists: Same deal. Israeli nationalists (often called Zionists, which isn’t always the same thing): Same deal; if you’re not Jewish you’re not really Israeli, which is why Israelis have no problem with utterly wiping out Palestinians like Joshua ben Nun did with the Amorites.

United States nationalists: Same deal. Except instead of insisting Americans be the original occupants of the continent, the aboriginal Indians, they insist the only real Americans are white English-speaking Anglo-Saxons like them. And sometimes other whites of European descent; largely they’ll include you if you speak English. They’d also really like it if everybody else would just “go back to where you’re from,” and thereby make America great again—by which they mean white again. As if it was ever only white.

Now yeah, there are various conservatives who admit they’re nationalist, but insist they’re not racist; they’re perfectly fine with nonwhite Americans! Some of their best friends are nonwhites! The United States is a melting pot; diversity is one of our greatest strengths; immigrants make some of the best Americans; and they just love ethnic food. They even have nonwhites in their family: A nonwhite spouse. Mixed-race kids and grandkids.

So why on earth do they identify themselves as nationalists? Well they’re Christian nationalists. It’s the very same idea the racists have… but now let’s swap out some of the racism for Christianity. To them, the United States should only consist of Christians. Any immigrants with other religions need to abandon those religions at the border, and either embrace Christianity or recognize its supremacy in American culture. And not resist that supremacy: They can practice their weird religions in private or in secret, but they must always remember America is a Christian nation.

Yes I said some of the racism. Though many Christian nationalists will claim they’re absolutely not racist, some of the racism is still right there, plain as day, proven by the fact they’re not entirely sure nonwhite Christians are real Christians. If nonwhites were real Christians, wouldn’t they attend their nice white conservative churches? Wouldn’t they join the same parties, hold the same political views, vote the very same way? Real Christians, they presume, would conform to white churches and white culture.

Whereas other Christian nationalists are fully, proudly aware they’re racist. Always have been. They want the United States to be a country for white Christians. But they find they get more traction if they emphasize the Christianity part, and downplay the racism part. Privately, they’ll tell you all about it.

No, nationalism isn’t just extreme patriotism. Some of the lousier dictionaries will define it that way… and some Christians will define it that way ’cause they don’t really understand the purpose of nationalism. They just think it sounds patriotic. It’s got “nation” in it! But they don’t understand “nation” doesn’t merely mean country; it means, same as גּוֹי/goy in Hebrew, ἔθνος/éthnos in Greek, and “nation” in the King James Version, ethnic group. It’s about race. Christian nationalism borrows the racist term, and it comes with all the racist baggage. Hence Christian nationalism has racism deeply embedded in it. Deeply.