Jesus needing 2-3 people in order to show up (Matthew 18:20)

We’ll keep this example of Christians using a passage out of context so often that it has become a time honored Bible bastardization that no one blinks an eyes at, brief. A Christian cliché at its finest and most painful.

Most of us have heard someone say, “… for we know where 2 or 3 are gathered in Your name …”

Which normally translates as:

“Only a handful of people showed up for Wednesday night prayer meeting, but we’re going to continue anyway, because where 2 or 3 are gathered …”

Or

“God, we know you can do this thing we are asking for, even though there are only a few of us asking, because where 2 or 3 are gathered …”

Or

Some other example of “we have a small number of people, but God, You’re beholden to do what we want because the Bible says so.”

Can we read the passage in context? Please? Just once. Here is what Matthew 18:15-20 actually says:

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

The passage is dealing with Church discipline. The number of people specified harkens back to Deuteronomy 19:15’s injunction that it takes multiple people (witnesses) to bring charges against someone in the community.

Hence, as a wise friend with more theological letters behind his name than us once said, this passage is best summarized by saying, “where two or three are gathered in His Name, you suck.”

Besides the actually context of the passage, do you think God isn’t present when only 1 person is present in His Name? How’s your theology on that one?

Perhaps we can stop using pithy biblical statements and actually read the words.

Perhaps it’s time that we #BibleResponsibly.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

Casting the first stone (John 8:7)

The death of Fred Phelps has been met with every emotion from exuberant joy to abject sadness. (Did you forget that Fred had a family who loved him, and that there are people in the world, good people, who mourn with those who mourn, people who grieve the death of all who bear the image of God?)

Between the calls for ironic protests of his funeral, and the cries against such protests, we've been thinking about the words of Christ in John 8 — "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" — esp. since we have a card about it.

When a woman was caught in adultery, and the religious leaders told Jesus that the Law required her to death, Jesus was the only one with the needed credentials to cast that first stone, but He didn't. Jesus, the fullness of grace and truth (John 1:14), told the woman to "go and sin no more:" He called her actions sin (truth), but did not sentence her to death (grace).

Like we said, with the passing of Phelps we've been thinking about this card in light of "good christian" responses to his sins. But then we remembered we had another card based on this same passage of Scripture: Jesus writing something in the sand (probably what type of an asshole you are) [John 8:1-11].

Because the woman caught in adultery wasn't the only sinner in the story: Jesus calls the assembled, ready-to-throw-stones masses on their crap as well.

Why is Fred's sin worse than yours? Worse than mine? Don't you have hate, malice in your heart at times, which you rationalize as righteous indignation? In your car, at the dinner table, over drinks, don't you spout the good and godly reasons you have for utterly despising "those people"? The people with their selfish agendas. The people causing the downfall of this country. The people with eye-gouge-worthy, insipid screeds. The mean, the ugly, the inhospitable. The self-centered bastards who are nothing like you.

[Jesus shakes His head and continues writing in the sand.]

From Jesus' perspective, what kind of an asshole are you? What would He write in the sand about you? Which sins would He enumerate? What words would you read to drop the stones from your hands, turn away, and perhaps get your own house in order?

Perhaps we should all pray that Jesus remains more loving, more forgiving than we seem to be.

But what do we know: we've accepted the truth that we'reassholes, sinners who made this game — yet saved by Grace — and you probably think we're going to Hell anyway.

People who misquote Jesus’ teaching on judging people. (Matthew 7:1-2)

“Only God can judge me.”

Dear good christian friend,that’s a great FB quote, tweet, email signature, tattoo you have permanently inscribed into your body. But we have a question: Only God can judge you? Really? Where did you get that stupid, stupid, stupid idea from? Tupac? Please tell us it wasn’t Tupac. Not that there is anything wrong with Tupac, but if you are basing your epistemology and ultimate eschatology on an admittedly dope hip hop lyric, then we clearly don’t pray for you enough and this conversation is going to be more painful than we thought (And if it was Miley Cyrus, just stop breathing. Now.). 

Mostly we hope you’re not one of those people who actually misquote Matthew 7 as justification for this position: “Don’t judge me man! Even Jesus said that. Matthew 7:1 says do not judge, so that you may not be judged. So don’t judge me bro: It’s in the Bible!” Let’s read the passage in context (as one always should), which means we need to start in chapter 6.

Jesus says:

So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:2-4)

And

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6)

And

And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-17)

Notice who the word “hypocrite” keeps coming up? Now we arrive at our Card Talk passage:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.  For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.  (Matthew 7:1-4)

 

Jesus does not say “don’t judge.” He says don’t be a hypocrite, judging people by a different standard than what you hold yourself to. Don’t be like the people (the hypocrites) in the previous passages who also held a double standard of behavior.

Why do we even take the time to point this out (other than our general annoyance at people using the Bible for bad cultural cliches)? Because the most disturbing thing about the bastardization of this passage is that this phrase is usually used to excuse the exact type of behavior that needs to be judged: the times where a person who loves someone with a “don’t judge me bro!” mentality, should step in with a rolled up newspaper, swat them on the nose, and say, “No. Bad.”

Christianity is based on community: a group of people called to a common cause of loving God, each other, the world, and themselves. Community requires making judgments about the actions of members of the community, because those actions affect that one community member, but also the other members in the community. Judgment requires saying, “this is not okay” at times.

And judgment is not the same as condemnation, it’s love. Love requires judgment. And judgment, love, sometimes requires telling someone:

You really shouldn’t wear that in public. Or in private. Burn that. Right now.

For the love of everything holy, golf balls were not made for that purpose.

You said you were sticking to your diet this time. What’s the deal?

You’ve had way too much to drink: give me your keys.

You’re a drug addict and you need to get help.

You really need to reconcile with  …  

Your actions are hurting  …

You were wrong.

Those things require judgment.  Saying them requires love.

Perhaps you should worry if your repeated series of bad life decisions are what fuel your need to tell people to not judge you.

Perhaps you should worry about what happens when the people who love you, your community, stops judging you.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell. 

A pair of she bears mauling a class of kindergartners (2 Kings 2:23-25)

Seriously God: Your holy men have nothing better to do than to call down your divine wrath on a group of carefree, playground loving, their whole cute lives ahead of them infants?! But of course, we don’t think that’s what happened: we wrote the card that made a better story. Sorry.

This is not a story about a bunch of little kids making fun of a prophet because he is bald, the prophet getting pissed, and God sending a pair of bears to maul them. That doesn’t even make sense. Why the hell would a group of little kids run up to Elisha, telling him to go away because he’s bald? Wouldn’t a prophet have compassion on a group of little kids simply acting like little kids? Wouldn’t the prophet curse the parents instead of the kids, just like you shoot evil looks at parents unable to control unruly kids in the supermarket aisle? 

---

When critiquing the evil of this passage, most people are used to the King James Version:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

Some other translations identifying the ones who mocked the prophet Elisha as “boys” (NIV), “small boys” (ESV), and even “young lads” (NASB), but most are unaware that these translations made a specific decision on a difficult passage, because in the Hebrew there is no specific age attached to the identity of the mockers. We know their gender is male and that they are not elders in the community. Otherwise, we actually are not told how old they are.

The Hebrew says Elisha was approached by nə’arim qətannim. These are the words in contention. While qatan can be translated to mean “little,” it often has the nuance of something being “not important” compared to something else, to be “insignificant.” Similarly, na’ar is translated as “young man” or “servant” the vast majority of the times it appears in the Bible. Thus translations like the New King James Version uses “youths” for this passage and the Jubilee Bible presents both “young men” and “servants” in its translation.

We believe the International Standard Version (and a whole host of commentary writers and scholars who do their own translations, but what sort of a nerd reads those?) have the most appropriate translation of the passage:

Later, Elisha left there to go up to Bethel, and as he was traveling along the road, some insignificant young men came from the city and started mocking him.

This translation fits the context of the passage.

---

When the mockers tell Elisha him to “go up” (’alah) they are alluding to when the prophet Elijah— Elisha’s mentor— went up (’alah) in the chariot of fire in vs. 11. These insignificant young men aren’t making fun of Elisha because he’s bald; they are challenging Elisha’s power as a prophet of the Most High God.

At best their taunts are saying, “if you’re so great, ascend like Elijah did!” At worst, “we don’t want people who speak for God among us: ascend to heaven like Elijah did!” Either way their words are an assault on God, not Elisha’s baldness (but throwing the baldness in there was a dick move).

Think we’re full of more crap than usual? Read through all of chapter 2: When Elisha knows that Elijah will be leaving him, he asked that his divine power be passed on to him (vs.9-10) . After Elijah “goes up” (vs. 11-12)we are met with multiple stories showing the transfer of that power to Elisha (vs. 13-22). This is immediately followed by a direct challenge of this power by the group young men.

Let’s also not forget the numbers we do have: 42. This is not a small group: it’s a mob. Imagine being surrounded by 42 guys between the ages of 13 and 20 who are screaming in your face, taunting your bald head, and blaspheming against your God: how safe do you feel? (On the other hand, for those people desperate for some reason to believe that the verse really means 42 small kids, how safe would you feel surrounded by a group of 42 kindergartners? Seriously, how many could you take in a fight?)

We should also take into consideration that we do not have the content of Elisha’s curse: he may not have specifically asked for she-bears to maul them, he might have called for bunnies. The passage only says He cursed them in the name of the LORD (vs. 24), and since the insult was to God, God took care of them His way.

Perhaps the things we say about God and those who attempt to do God’s will matter.

Perhaps there are real and metaphoric bears waiting for us to run our damn mouths one too many times.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

Saul hiding in the lost luggage (1 Samuel 10:21-22)

When we read this passage we always feel a little sorry for Saul, and sympathy is not an emotion often thrown his way. Saul is forever the villain: the epitome of the corrupt politician, unjust ruler, evil father-in-law, and sore loser all rolled up into one perfectly crafted, ball of biblical insanity. A host of evil characters from the Brothers Grimm and Disney movies could learn a thing or three from Saul’s antics. This is made more poignant when we remember that, biblically, Saul's whole purpose is to be David's foil: the mean older monarch the young and ruddy shepherd-warrior-poet protagonist must overcome to fulfill his destiny. But there is more to Saul than is often considered.

From the very beginning Saul wanted no part in being the king of Israel. In 1 Samuel chapter 9, when Samuel informs Saul he will be king, Saul is incredulous: he was simply out looking for his father’s missing donkeys (1 Samuel 9:21). So when Saul returns home, he doesn’t tell his family about his anointing (1 Samuel 10:16). After this, when he is to be declared king in front of the nation, he hides in the luggage and has to be dragged into the limelight.

But can we really blame him?

Saul was being told it was his job to unify the numerous families, which made up the clans, which were loosely aligned into 12 tribes, which were geographically separated as two semi-nation states, each with their own priesthoods (to say nothing of the various Canaanite religions generally frowned upon), into one theocratic monarchy for the first time in the Children of Israel’s history. Who wants that type of responsibility? Ain’t nobody got time for that. You might have hid in the luggage as well, or pulled a Jonah and took off altogether.

To this should be added the suggestion that 1 Samuel represents Saul as clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness. We leave it to you to determine if this was a spiritual punishment from God, or a non-divinely imposed, chemical imbalance in the brain, later explained as punishment. [see 1 Samuel 16:14-23] However you look at it, no one ever gives Saul a break, and the text does not seem to want us to.

Even the background of the text sets the knowledgeable reader up to be suspicious of Saul from jump. The Book of Judges ends in a way designed for the reader to negatively view Saul when he arrives on the scene. It is important to note that in the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ruth does not separate the narrative which moves from Judges into the Books of Samuel. 

Judges ends with the gang rape, murder, and dismemberment of a woman from Bethlehem, which was the catalyst for a civil war. All of this begins in the town of Gibeah, which is a part of the tribe of Benjamin. Benjamin raises their spears and slings against their fellow tribes, and thousands die on all sides. The book ends with the utter chaos and evil that is rampant in society. A few pages later, in Samuel, the narrative returns to the town of Gibeah as Saul’s home and the place he will designate as his capital. We also learn that Saul is from the tribe of Benjamin. Later David enters the story and is soon persecuted by Saul. David is from Bethlehem, just like the woman who was assaulted and desecrated in Judges, though unlike her, David is able to make it out of Gibeah alive. Like we said, all signs point to hating on Saul by design, but why should we care?

Perhaps it is important to remember that Saul was chosen by God, and as such Saul could have made it work despite his personal shortcomings and misgivings. The Hebrew Bible is filled with marginal characters who get the job done despite themselves, with the help of God (e.g. Moses, Gideon, Elijah).

However, perhaps it is more important to remember that there are those who are better served by our support than our recriminations. Those who could use a hand or a break.

Perhaps we should sometimes give ourselves a break.

This in no way excuses poor behavior, bad life choices, or absolves us from being invested in the lives of other to help them not make piss-poor decisions of their own: ideas we’ve discussed before here, here, and here. But perhaps this is a perspective that bears repeating and we can take with us when we or others fail.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

“The Lord making your uterus drop and your womb discharge” AND “All the women saying, ‘Amen. Amen.’” (Numbers 5:22)

We have two Canon Cards based on Numbers 5:22, so this is a two for one deal. To be honest, we made the second card because the end of the verse reads like an animated gif from a hip hop video: And all the ladies in place said, “amen, amen!” All the ladies in the place: “amen!” And all the fella in the place . . .” But the context of the passage is far less friendly: what many have called “The ordeal of the bitter water.”

In Rabbinic study, Numbers 5:11-31 is known as the sotah law, based on the Hebrew word for “straying away” (satah) from the marriage covenant. This is also a well-known passage in “seriously, F$%$# the Bible and its oppression of women!” circles, both in and outside of faith communities and the interwebs.

In summary: A husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, but he is unable to prove it (She may or may not be pregnant, and he doubts the child is his, but that is not directly indicated in the text). So the husband brings his wife to the priest with a special offering to settle the matter.

The priest takes the offering, makes a special potion, — “the bitter water”— has the woman “stand before the Lord” with her hair down, holding the offering, while he reads a curse/oath he has written on a scroll:

If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you . . . the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!”

To this the woman replies: “Amen. Amen.”

The priest then dips the curse/oath scroll into “the bitter water” and gives the potion to the woman to drink. The priest then takes the offering from her hands, waves it before the Lord, brings it to the altar, and everyone waits to see what will happen to the woman.

What does happen next, if she is guilty, is up for debate, for the water is bitter not (just) in taste, but in effect: what NRSV describes as “uterus drop and your womb discharge” has been alternately described as a miscarriage (if she was pregnant), the inability conceive ever again, and/or the internal malformation of her genitalia, among other horrible outcomes. Whatever the case, this is not a death sentence: the woman does not die. We emphasize this as we’ve heard so many speak incorrectly about this: nothing in the passage says the woman is being sentenced to death. But more importantly, we want to stress the fact that the woman is drinking the “bitter water” willingly.

[What?! How can you say that?! A paranoid husband who is probably off screwing every Mariam and Martha he can find is behind all this and an oppressive, patriarchal system is backing him up!! Even if she won’t die, there are things worse than death!]

Whoa! Take a deep breath and let’s return to the passage in context.

---

Theology in the Iron Age is partly magical/supernatural in how the world is viewed, especially compared to our (mostly) modern sensibilities, and comprehension of science and biology. There was a real belief among the people that if you swore an oath by God, and you were lying, God would strike you dead. If you did not fulfill your oath to God, God would strike you dead. If you open, touch, or smell the Ark of the Covenant, God will strike you dead. (Okay, maybe you’re safe smelling it, but by sheol, I wouldn’t be the one to risk it) Bottom line: if you partook of a sacred, cultic rite unworthily, God would strike you dead. Period. This holds true for this ceremony as well. Why is this important?

The woman who takes “bitter water” is swearing an oath before God. She is not undergoing a “trial by ordeal” as some suggest. This is not a rehashing of the Salem Witch trials. This is a ritual wherein God is the judge, jury, and executor of punishment, if punishment is needed. Notice the emphasis there. If.

This woman has not been found guilty of adultery, otherwise she would already be dead (c.f. Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). The minimum of two witnesses has not been provided by the suspecting husband (Numbers 5:13), so at this stage the woman has options. The Talmud reminds that the woman does not have to partake in this ritual, she could even choose to leave the marriage if she wished (though she could not sue for alimony/further support). Yes, her standing in the community would be diminished, and we hear the cries about how she would not be able to survive as a single woman in that society: what other choice does she have? Fine. Keep reading.

In this passage, the woman chooses to take the oath, drink the potion, and says “amen” twice: “so let it be; so let it be. Or “bring it on!” Why, because she knows she’s innocent.

She knows that the mixture (as described) is completely harmless: Holy water, Tabernacle/Temple dirt, and any ink or residue from the scroll the curse was written on. [Some claim an herb or plant was added to the mixture, the alleged poison that will harm the women, but this is nowhere in the text] She knows that this potion will do nothing to her unless acted upon by a divine hand: that this is the only commandment in the Torah which requires God, not the community, for the penalty to take place. In other words, it is all on God to harm the women, not on her husband, or the oppressive patriarchy often read into this tale.

The woman drinks the water, says “amen, amen” with the swagger and confidence of a rap gawd, a spiritual/moral boss, because she knows she stands pure before God and no harm will come to her. That she will be protected from her accusing husband by the Hand of God.

One can argue that this is a warning for women against adultery, but conversely it is more of a warning for husbands: if God does not curse the woman, who is it that lied? Will the man now have the balls to call God a liar? Will the husband attempt to cast the first stone?

---

We wonder if the writer of John had this in mind when he penned the words about the (famous/infamous) “woman caught in adultery” (John 8:1-11)? In that story the ante has been raised as the woman was caught in the very act of adulatory, not just standing accused without proof by a jealous husband. Regardless, as with the case with the supposed sotah of Numbers 5, it is not in the hands of the community of men to decide what will become of her, men with sins all their own: no, it is in the hand of God.

Perhaps what we have here is not another example of systemic cultural violence against woman at the hands of an antiquated, patriarchal system, and instead is an example of protection of a woman falsely accused; a woman standing on the promises of fidelity made by a God who sees her as beautifully, fearfully, wonderfully, and equally made.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

Getting stoned for playing pick-up sticks on the Sabbath. (Numbers 15:32-36)

A bedtime story from childhood:

Once upon a time, the Children of Israel were in the wilderness (of course) and they found a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath. So they brought him before Moses, Aaron, and all the people, but they had no idea what to do with him. Then God said to Moses, “take him outside and bludgeon him to death with big freaking rocks!” So they did. Night night.

But there is more to the story than a mindless mob bent on following the bloodthirsty whims of a capricious deity. As always, let’s look at the context. Let’s start with the offense itself.

Picking up sticks? (Really God. U mad Son?) In His divine defense, God made it very clear that He would not abide work on the Sabbath. On Sinai He put it in the Ten Commandments, then added the death penalty, and then repeated it one more time for the cheap seats at the base of the mountain.He might have been serious. Hence the confusion of those who caught their Israelite brother picking up sticks on the Sabbath, in terms of what to do with him:

“Would you look at this idiot? It’s the Sabbath”

“I know, right?”

“Moron.”

“So.”

“So?”

“Do we kill him?

“He’s just picking up sticks!”

“Have you read anywhere in the Torah where it says ‘do no work on the Sabbath, except picking up sticks, ‘cause YHWH is completely cool with stick gathering despite His irrevocable law.’?”

“You know I can’t read.”

“Right. Me either. But we’ve heard what the Torah says.”

“Yeah.”

“Yeah.”

“You gonna cast the first stone?”

“Let’s just bring him to Moses.”

“Sounds like a plan.”

But let’s take a step backward.

The verses preceding the narrative are instructions for when an individual or the community has committed an unintentional sin. What you do when an “oops, I crapped my spiritual pants” moment arises, Numbers 15:22-29 clearly spells out what should be done to clean up the mess. (c.f. Leviticus chapter 4; 5:1-6:7; 6:24-30 & 7:1-10 ) Earlier in the book (chapter 5) instructions for intentional sins are given. (c.f. Leviticus chapter 1 & 6:8-13) In short, we aren’t perfect. We will screw up: intentionally and unintentionally. But we can make it right. The Torah has that all covered.

But this short narrative speaks of something different. This is not merely referring to intentional or unintentional sin. This deals with the person who has been confronted with their sin and raises a stiff middle finger to God and community.

The heart of the picker-upper of sticks is shown in two ways. First the narrative follows how sins can be forgiven (vs 22-29), as well as the death sentence for those who refuse to avail themselves of it, which is the legal preamble to the story:

But whoever acts high-handedly, whether a native or an alien, affronts the Lord, and shall be cut off from among the people. Because of having despised the word of the Lord and broken his commandment, such a person shall be utterly cut off and bear the guilt. (Numbers 15:30-31)

Second, it is confirmed by the Judge of his sentence: God orders the man’s death, not the people. God who knows the heart.This is a matter of repentance and remorse: whether or not the individual actually gives a good God’s damn or a damn about a good God.

No matter what you feel about the punishment itself, the sentiment is simple: there are things you do and do not do in community. You knew the rules. You knew the consequences. But you flagrantly broke them. And what’s worse, you don’t care that you did.

Actions have consequences. Sometimes dire ones.

Perhaps this is why after a Psalmist meditated on the effects of the Torah on his life— finding It more precious than gold and sweeter than honey from the honeycomb — he included the following request

Keep your servant also from willful sins;

                         may they not rule over me.

Then I will be blameless,

                      innocent of great transgression. (Psalm 19:13)

Perhaps we need to take stock of our actions and attitudes— providing less excuses and more accountability— because consequential reality can crush more completely than rocks.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.