Barnacle theology

April 23, 2021 (Friday)

 

A couple of days ago, I stuck my neck out and risked throwing people into a theological chaos by covering the ending of Mark. Let’s jump in again.

 

My argument was we tend to believe what we WANT to believe without examination. Flat-footed certainty can be just as damaging as wrong theology. How do I know? Because Satan took advantage of Eve in the Garden of Eden over a well-intended error.

 

Some things, I think, might be harmless. For instance, how many of used or said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” [Philippians 4:13 KJV] For those picky about having an “exact” or “literal” translation, “Christ” is not in the Greek. However, from the context, it’s is correct that one who does the work is Chris.

 

Speaking of context, the verse does not mean “all thing.” The immediate context of those words is difficult circumstances, both being in want or in excess.

 

Sometimes our omissions or commissions are deliberate depending on our theological perspective. For instance take the Matthew 17:24 – 27. It’s the story of Peter asking Jesus why He did not pay temple tax. Jesus instructs Peter to go fishing. In the mouth of the first fish would be a shekel, “Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.” [Matthew 17:27c ESV]

 

Catholics use this as one of the proof text to the supremacy of Peter. Protestants will generalize this to mean all followers of Jesus. Who’s correct? It depends on what you want to believe. Is this a bad thing? Maybe.

 

Let’s wonder into bizarre territory for a moment. 1 Corinthians 15 contains some central truth to Christianity. Yet, the vast majority of Christianity, ignores “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”  [1 Corinthians 15:12 ESV] How are we to understand this strange verse?

 

If this is so strange, can’t we write it off? It is dangerous to not take anything in scripture as serious. There are some who do practice “baptism for the dead.” But let’s remember this idea occurs only here, so we need to be cautious about how it is handled.

 

It is important to understand the Bible often does not condemn what our “cultural theology” (theology informed by cultural preferences) rejects. For instance, polygamy. Think about it, Abraham (“friend of God”) had a wife and concubine -- technically a wife of sorts. Jacob (“Israel”) had two wives and two concubines. David (“man after God’s own heart”) had nine wives (that we know about). None were condemned or disqualified for the practice.

 

It is possible the Corinthians practiced this, but Paul does not take the effort to correct it. It may be this was a pagan tradition based in the “mystery religions” of the day. Paul quoted or referred to pagan philosophers and theologians in other places. Early Gnostics (condemned by the “church fathers”), who were similar to the mystery religions, practiced baptism for the dead.

 

Remember Paul is arguing for the reality of a resurrection. Paul is going to continue with…. Sorry out of time…. Stay tuned… more on this tomorrow.