Down an Unfamiliar Road

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VIII)

WHEN A MOMENT BECAME A MOVEMENT

If you are a Bible reader, then you know about a man called John the Baptist, who was a relative of Jesus, through Elizabeth, and chosen by God to be a forerunner of the expected Jewish Messiah. He was described as someone who came out of the desert crying out, “Get ready for the Messiah!” But his message was not the only thing preparing the way for the movement that Christ founded to spread all over the civilized world with ease. The unity that existed through the conquests of the Roman Empire must also be taken into account. It was said, “All roads lead to Rome,” and that made it possible for the Gospel to reach Rome in record time.

Some 63 years Before Christ was born, the Roman Empire had reached its apex as a world power and was in charge of the world’s trade routes, shipping lanes, and monetary exchanges. It was governed by a democracy led by the 600 member Roman Senate who were appointed by district governors, and they elected the chief consul who was not only the executive head but also the commander in chief of Rome’s military. But at this juncture it was in trouble politically because of mass corruption in Rome.

Their constitution was also under attack, because some said it had been formed in the small city-state of Athens to govern their affairs, so how could it be expected to meet all the demands of a world super power like Rome. Rome was also ensconced in a war in the Middle East as they tried to expand the empire into what had been the Persian and Babylonian centers of power (now Iraq and Iran), that was draining its resources as well as being undermined their unwillingness to commit all the forces needed to win it.

In the capitol city of Rome political contributions were now controlled by powerful business interests, and no one could get elected to higher office without agreeing to the demands of these big businesses, which then allowed lobbyists from these businesses to dictate policies and regulations passed by the Senate. Not only that, but a huge debt and mortgage crisis hit the Roman Empire at this time. Credit was frozen and people were losing their homes and property. Large debts had been accumulated by individuals and companies to the point where many were considering bankruptcy. And politicians were appealing to the Senate to bailout business supporters who were going under, because they had supported their campaigns.

The Senate was run by two political parties. One, a liberal party that spread money around in order to buy votes, and the other a conservative party that struggled to maintain traditional family values. But most critical, the average Roman citizen had lost all confidence in both the chief consul and the Senate, as well as the bureaucrats to solve the nation’s problems and get them out of this mess.

In the midst of all this, a rather ordinary politician named Julius Caesar had worked his way up into the leadership in the Roman Senate, and with the help of two other powerful senators had been appointed as top general of the Roman Army. His first challenge in 58 B.C. was to overpower and conquer the Gauls (which is now France) to the northwest, who were their most feared enemies. In six years he beat them into complete submission to Roman rule.

So in 51 B.C., after the conquest of Gaul (now France) was completed, Julius Caesar became the defunct ruler over vast provincial territories. He had gained such great fame and fortune that back in Rome the Senate and bureaucrats feared him. So they made it clear to Caesar that if he attempted to extend his influence and power to Rome by returning to run for office, he must leave his position in the Army and dress in civilian clothing. But they also let him know he might be immediately arrested and prosecuted for war crimes in any attempt to gain higher power. Beside that, those who had supported him before, now wanted nothing to do with him.

So, Julius Caesar had a decision to make. Should he stay where he was and continue to build his own empire, or should he march into Rome as a conqueror and take over the capitol city by force. So it was on January 10, 49 B.C., after being pushed to the limit, he crossed the shallow Rubicon River and commenced what would become a civil war. His old friend and supporter Gnaeus Pompeius, better known as “Pompey,” who had become his bitter nemesis, found himself with many of his legions in Spain, so he and the Senate retreated. Caesar quickly advanced to Rome, set up a hastily organized Senate and had himself declared dictator.

So on July 25, 46 B.C., the victorious and now unchallenged Caesar wrote a letter in which he listed his political aims as “tranquility for Italy, peace for the provinces, and security for the Empire.” His program for accomplishing these goals – both what he actually achieved and what he planned but did not have time to complete – was seen as very sound and farsighted by many of Rome’s constituents.

First he had a resolution passed that eliminated all interest payments on debts and gave the debtors time to pay off the principle without penalty. Taxes were lowered to where the average citizen only had to take their wages from two days of work out of the year to pay their taxes. He resettled all military veterans abroad without causing others to lose their jobs as a result. He reformed the Roman calendar. He revised the welfare payout of grain that was imported into the city so that no one could hoard it. He reduced government regulations so that it strengthened the middle class. And because the country had grown so large, he decided to increase the membership of the Senate from 600 to 900 so that everyone had good representation. He issued coins with his likeness, and put the wealth of the empire as a standard behind their value.

But his methods alienated many of the nobles and wealthy patrons. They said that Caesar governed autocratically, more in the manner of a general than a politician, thus he was charged with being a dictator. Although he nominally used the political structure, he often simply announced his executive orders to the Senate and had them entered into the record as senatorial decrees without any debate or vote. This of course led to a revolt within the Senate, and they ambushed him on March 16, 44 B.C., with his friend Brutus, whom he called his son, striking the final fatal blow with a knife.

But let us go back and think about Julius Caesar walking back and forth in deep meditation on the northern banks of the Rubicon River northeast of the Apennines mountain range. Had he decided to stay where he was and not attempt to raise the Roman Empire to greater heights, all signs pointed to an eminent economical, political and military collapse or Rome that would have changed the face of the civilized world at that time. There would have been no single empire tying the world together in a way that promoted the free transportation of goods, travelers, people, and ideas.

So what was it that prompted him at that crucial point to cross the river? Was it his ego, his pride, his sense of conquest? Or was there an inner urging coming from a source he may not have been familiar with; an inner voice that spoke to him and said “go for it.” The same inner urging that caused the heathen despot Nebuchadnezzar to recognize the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego as the Most High God; the same urging that caused the heathen emperor Darius to allow the captured Jews to returned to Jerusalem to rebuild their Temple? Had Julius Caesar failed to follow the impetus there would have been no Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem to decide the fate of the Messiah to die on the cross, nor would a Roman citizen named Saul of Tarsus, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, have been able to travel unhindered in order for the Gospel to the heart of the Roman Empire because of his citizenship and appeal to Caesar. Whatever it was, those standing nearby saw Julius pause, then look across the river in contemplation, and then suddenly declare in Greek with a voice loud enough for all those around him to hear what we would call today, a leap of faith, “Let the die be cast” and then led the army across the river.

Those who believe in chance, happenstance, accidental good luck, or karma may be persuaded to chalk it all up to simply being in the right place at the right time. But those who believe in the preordained and prearranged plan of God to have the message of His Son coming to earth to die as mankind’s Savior to be spread around the world, it is a matter of faith to believe that this was another part of God’s plan which He carried out through Julius Caesar.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VII)

WHERE MYTHOLOGY MEETS REALITY

When we examine the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, especially His miracles of healing and raising the dead, sometimes it makes us wonder why He was received so wildly in some places, but rejected to caustically in others. Why did His opponents say He was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub? Why did the Pharisees object to His healing on the Sabbath? Why did His raising people from the dead cause the Sadducees to want to kill Him?

We may gain some insight when we go back to see what was being taught world-wide through Greek influence some 400 years before Jesus came into the world, and by His arrival what had become conventional wisdom among the leading scholars of the world, including many Jews. It starts in Greek mythology with the god Apollo.

Apollo was generally recognized as a god of light and the sun, of truth and prophecy, of healing, the plagues, of music, poetry, and more. When Apollo favored you, he found answers for your illnesses. When he was displeased with you, he would send disease and plagues. Therefore, the Greeks associated medicine and healing with Apollo, whether mediated through himself or through his son

Asklepios (or Asclepius).

So it is no wonder that disease, illness and death were thought by the whole civilized world at that time as being in the hands of the gods. That’s why wise men and sages developed prayers, chants and rituals to be performed for the gods, especially Apollo and Asklepios. So we can see that when Jesus went around healing the sick and raising the dead, why some thought He was a god to be worshipped and some thought He was a god to be feared because He might also send disease or a plague if disobeyed. Since Beelzebub, which for the Jews was another name for Satan, was thought to be the lord Hades, they come to believe that Jesus’ powers came from Beelzebub..

Asklepios was born to the Greek god Apollo by way of a human mother, a Trikkaian princess named Koronis. Apollo had him trained in the art of medicine. Therefore, because of his divine and human parents, he was both god and man in one. Asklepios was depicted as a kindly, bearded man holding a serpent-entwined staff. Asklepios became so skilled at the art of healing that he began to raise the dead to life. However, this did not go well with another mythological god named Hades. He considered raising the dead a crime against nature, so he went and complained to the great god Zeus.

Haides (or Hades) was the King of the Underworld, the god of death and the dead. He presided over funeral rites and defended the right of the dead to due burial. Hades was also the god of the hidden wealth of the earth. So if you wanted to become wealthy, you must favor with him. But he was also very influential among the gods. So when he went to Zeus and complained that by Asklepios resurrecting people from death, he threatened to put him out of business, Zeus answered Hades’ request and killed Asklepios with a thunderbolt. But Apollo was so hurt by this action, that he went to Zeus and asked permission to have his son placed among the stars as the constellation of Ophiuchus, which means “the Serpent Holder”

But into the arena of history while all of this was going on, entered a young man who went to Athens to learn and practice medicine, his name was Hippocrates (460-375 B.C.). He rejected this idea of disease being caused by the gods, and said that it was the result of physical factors that could be understood and analyzed by humans, and then treated and cured by humans using their intellect and skills without resorting to these prayers and incantations. Therefore, medicine became a science through the teachings and influence of Hippocrates.

Hippocrates was so committed and dedicated to his craft that he wrote an oath, which has become the basis for the oath taken by doctors to this day. Here is the original oath written by Hippocrates:

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Various versions of this oath now exist. One report gave the following breakdown of its use by schools of medicine:

1. Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.

2. In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath

3. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

4. 68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.

5. 100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.

6. Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.

7. 14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.

8. Only 11% invoke a deity.

9. 8% prohibit abortion.

10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.

Perhaps this is why when the scribes and Pharisees doubted Jesus’ authority to forgive sins, He would perform a miracle of healing to show that God was also involved in curing man’s diseases. Jesus knew about the influence of Greek mythology and how it had affected the world up to His day. Could it be that Jesus was making a subtle hint at Asklepios as the constellation of Ophiuchus when he said to the people of Capernaum, “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades” (Mt. 11:23). And when speaking to Peter, did Jesus take a swipe at the power that Hades had over the dead when He said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the power of Hades will not be able to prevent it” (Mt. 16:18). And in 1 Corinthians 15:55, even the Apostle Paul, who was very familiar with Greek gods and their mythology, said sarcastically about the resurrection of the dead in Christ, “ “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O Hades, is your sting?” (1Cor. 15:55). Paul was quoting Hosea (13:14), and there the prophet used the Hebrew word for Hades which is “sheol.”

As we can see, Jesus did not just drop out of the sky with some other worldly philosophy that the people of His day could not understand, nor did He tell His disciples to go out and form some cult that bore no resemblance to what man had come to understand about God in seeking the truth. No! He came to tie all these loose ends together so that mankind could clearly see and understand more about God through Him. And that is the last straw. God has no other Son to send, He has no other plan to roll out. This is it! Either the world accepts it and is saved, or they hang on to the fables and myths of the past and miss the greatest revelation of God the world has ever witnessed.

As Paul explained, the Greeks and others were looking into the mysteries of God through a dark glass, but God sent His Son to turn on the light so mankind could see more clearly. We know what has happened and is going to happen to this humanist belief that man himself is his own savior, that there is no supernatural power to help him. John saw it clearly in the Revelation he received when the Son of God said to him, “I am the living one. I died, but look – I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades!” (Rev. 1:18.) Then later on in the same Revelation, after death and Hades had surrendered all the departed spirits they were holding hostage for judgment, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the ultimate death.” (Rev. 20:13-14.)

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part VI)

BELIEFS SHARED BY GREAT MINDS

A truly inquiring mind is never really satisfied. For each layer of strata that is removed in the exploration of a subject, it uncovers a new layer of heretofore unassimilated information that only fires the imagination to search for more. When reading a new perspective on a somewhat familiar concept, it is best to read it all the way through before determining if you have such an inquisitive thought process, so you can congratulate yourself on being an above average believer seeking to improve their appreciation for what God has given us in His great plan of salvation.

One of the most famous and oft quoted of the Greek philosophers was a man named Socrates who lived from 469-399 B.C. It is accepted in most circles that Socrates laid the foundation for the development of modern Western philosophy. He is also known for inventing “pedagogy,” which is the science and art of education.

One of the first attributes we discover with Socrates that he shares with Jesus of Nazareth, is that neither one of them ever wrote anything philosophical or biographical. In the case of Socrates, whatever information we have about him is derived from the works of four scholars – Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophanes. The same applies to Jesus of Nazareth. All all we know about Him came by way of four followers – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Because these writings about Jesus are called the “Gospels,” and those attributed to Socrates’ associates are what some consider to be artistic and creative, many have doubts as to whether the details contained therein are truth, anecdotal, or myths. However, mythology is enigmatic to say the lest. Since it cannot be proven wrong by facts, it therefore cannot be dismissed for lack of facts. By the same token, the information on Socrates cannot be proven by any historical evidence, and some question that he ever existed; that he may have been an imaginary character in his students’ writings as a mythical figure to explain their philosophy, yet in the literary world and university hallways he is accepted more readily than Jesus of Nazareth for whom there is much greater evidence available from sources other than the Gospels. All of this can be said about the proof for the existence of a man named Shakespeare. Yet his works are studied in universities around the world, while the story of Jesus is treated with far less respect.

Whatever the real facts in the case of Socrates, he is known primarily for his original ideas, his communication skills, and his astute teaching abilities. And like Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in the home of a carpenter, yet from the age of 12 until the age of 30 we know nothing about how He supported Himself or His studies. So with Socrates, we know little about what he did for a living, although in the Silloi of the Pyrrhonean Timon of Phlius, he tells us that Socrates took over his father’s stonemasonary trade. But he became most widely known for his teaching.

One of the hallmarks of the Socratic Method in pedagogy, is that the listener is challenged with questions until they find the answer in their own responses, and the core concepts are Righteousness and Justice. This Socratic Method was designed to challenge the student to examine their own beliefs to find their value in living. Jesus used this same method on the Pharisees and Sadducees of His day, hoping they would see the truth while looking for answers to His questions. Socrates was against some of the philosophic ideas prevalent in his day, especially in Athens, because it focused on the person’s family, community and self. Socrates felt it was more important to be concerned about the welfare of one’s own soul than how those around you feel about you. He argued that successful fathers do not always produce successful sons, and furthermore, that gaining moral excellence was not done simply by following the family rules, but rather that is was a gift from above. As Jesus said, seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and then all these other things will be developed in your life.

One unique philosophical point of view espoused by Socrates, that can also be found in the teachings of Jesus, is synchronizing ‘love of wisdom,’ with the ‘art of loving.’ In other words, Socrates taught that one should concentrate more on developing oneself into being a better person before they try making others better. The better you are, the better will be those things you accomplish. That what comes out of the heart will determine one’s identity as being good or bad. Jesus espoused the same thought when he said, “…the bad things people say with their mouth come from the way they think. And that’s what can make people wrong” (Mt. 15:10). That’s why being good is not an external trait but an internal virtue; it is not the product of the mind but of the soul. That’s why Jesus alerted the critics by inquiring, “Why do you notice the small piece of dust that is in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood that is in your own?” (Mt. 7:3).

Both Socrates and Jesus were teachers, and they shared some common goals and thoughts. Both of them were intent on changing the culture around them for the better. They both came with a sense of believing beyond what one already knows. They both used metaphors or parables as tools so that their listeners would be challenged to think for themselves. They were both strong believers in humility, and that one should defend what was right no matter the cost. We know that on one occasion when a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, He wrote in the dust on the ground, whereas Socrates drew geometric figures on the ground to demonstrate how to find twice the area of a square.

We are told that Socrates could usually be found in the marketplace and other public areas, conversing with a variety of different people – young and old, male and female, slave and free, rich and poor – in other words, with anyone he could persuade to join with him in his question-and-answer mode of probing serious matters. Jesus also walked among the crowds in the temple and market place and often asked questions. Socrates’s lifework consisted in the examination of people’s lives, his own and others’, because “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being,” as he says at his trial (Plato, Apology 38a). Socrates pursued this task with single-mindedness, questioning people about what matters most, for example: courage, love, reverence, moderation, and the state of their souls.

While four hundred years later, Jesus never encountered a village or metropolis that fully lived by and taught these concepts of Socrates, the Apostle Paul sure did. Not only was Paul confronted by these arguments but also the streets lined with statutes to the many gods that the Greeks invested with supernatural as well as human traits both good and bad. No wonder it was difficult sometimes for Paul to persuade them that what he was preaching proved better than what they already believed.

Of course, we find that both Socrates and Jesus were martyred for their beliefs, and went to their deaths willingly. Jesus was crucified on a cross while Socrates was poisoned with hemlock until he lost feeling in his feet which eventually shut down his heart. But that’s where similarities ended. Socrates did not point people to the Way of Salvation; he did not heal the sick or raise the dead; Socrates remained in the grave, Jesus rose again; Socrates never left the ground, Jesus ascended into heaven. Socrates did not promise to return, but Jesus said He would be back and that may be sooner than we think.

Jesus warned us, that just like before Him there would be many who would come after Him who will say, “I am the anointed one.” But none of those can match what He did for mankind in transforming life from mere existence into life more abundant; making it possible to become a new creation with old things having passed away and all things becoming new; to live with joy unspeakable and filled with a sense of being significant to God and those around us; and with a guarantee of eternal life, not just a good long life.

After all, when we look at the calendar, the number we see does not represent the years since the birth of Socrates, but the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ. It also signifies a point in time when God no longer left man to his own devices of trying to find a way to Him; of attempting with self regulation and internal cultivation of virtues and morals to reach the high mark God set out for His creation, but falling short. One may read the teachings of Socrates and be enlightened as to a better way to conduct oneself within the community. But the teachings of Jesus bring about a new birth and greater understanding of how one should live in the Kingdom of God. The one points to the past, the other points to the future.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part V)

BELIEFS SHARED BY RELIGIONS

Sometimes it hurts when we think we know something thoroughly, only to find out later we didn’t know the whole story. That’s called “learning.” This can be said of the average Christian’s knowledge about events that impacted Christianity that are not contained in the Bible. Very few know that many of the tenets and teachings in Christian thought were also expressed in other writings and religions, some even before Moses and Jesus gave their revelations.

One of the most critical periods in the history of Judah was when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and carried off its treasures along with its brightest and most skilled craftsmen, among whom were Daniel and three of his friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And it was soon afterward that the Medes and Persians under the leadership of King Cyrus eclipsed the Babylonians to become the strongest and greatest empire at that time in 539-538 B.C.

Among the names that followed the rise of the Persian (now Iran) empire, was that of King Darius in 521 B.C. He became known as Darius the Great. We find Darius first mentioned in Ezra 4:5. Back in Jerusalem the returning Jews from exile tried to rebuild the altar of the Temple but they were interfered with by hostile adversaries who had taken over after the Jews left. Even when they tried to rebuild the walls and the Temple itself, they pleaded for help, but it wasn’t until the sixth year of Darius’ reign that they were finally able to rebuild the Temple by the authority of a letter from King Darius.

Darius thought of himself as the greatest king of all time. As a matter of fact, Darius had a monument carved on Mount Behistun, and etched this monument he introduced himself as “Darius, the great king, king of kings.” But that is not the only place we find this title. In Ezekiel 27:7, this is how Nebuchadnezzar was referred to, “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I will bring King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon against Tyre. He is king of kings.” Even Daniel (2:37) addressed Nebuchadnezzar the same way, “Your Majesty, you are the king of kings.” Then in Ezra 2:12 we see a letter from King Artaxerxes sent to Ezra the priest with the following salutation, “From Artaxerxes, the king of kings.”

Darius expected the best from his warriors as well as everyone else who served in his kingdom. As a matter of fact, in his “Histories,” Herodotus, (born 484 BC in Halicarnassus, a Greek city in southwest Asia Minor that was then under Persian rule, a Greek author who authored the first great narrative of history produced in the ancient world, referred to the ancient postal courier service of the Persian Empire this way: “It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey; and these are stayed neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed.” This has been erroneously attributed to the US Postal Service which has no such motto.

But on the same Mount Behistun monument, Darius also wrote the following inscription: “Whosoever shall worship Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian god of goodness), divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and after he is dead.” So we see what influence this king of kings had on the world at that time, especially the captives from Jerusalem and Judah. But who was this Ahura Mazda? In the name itself, Ahura – means Being or Light Mazda – means Mind or Wisdom describes the divine being that Darius and the whole Persian empire worshipped?

History records that Zarathustra (also known as Zoroaster) was the first prophet of Ahura Mazda, and founded the religion we called Zoroastrianism. Zarathustra gave three commandments to his followers to enable them to lead perfect lives and work for their own salvation. First was humata (good thought), then hukhta (good word), and then havarshta (good deeds). Zarathustra believed that good thoughts are very important in one’s spiritual journey, because all else comes out of ordinary thoughts. Without good thoughts, there cannot be progress on the spiritual path. Without good thoughts one cannot subject oneself to Divine will and become qualified to receive blessings. The apostle Paul concurred with this thinking when he wrote to the Christians in Philippi (Phil. 4:8), “Brothers and sisters, continue to think about what is good and worthy of praise. Think about what is true and honorable and right and pure and beautiful and respected.” But thinking good thoughts alone is not sufficient. One must have the courage to speak the Truth all the times. One must be truthful to oneself and to others. There is no place for hypocrisy or duplicity in the life a of a true believer. Again, the apostle Paul supported the truth being told regardless of the consequences. In his writing to the Christians in Rome, he indicted those in the past who knew the truth about God, but failed to pass it on because it conflicted with their own ideas. Paul accused them by saying (Rom. 1:25), “They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator Himself, who is worthy of eternal praise!”

Performance of good deeds is equally important in the teaching of Zarathustra. The supreme power of God – Ahura Mazda, is made only available to those who engage in good actions. Such good actions are only found in one’s service to mankind. Once more the apostle Paul echoes this same thought in writing to the believers in Ephesus (4:31-32), “Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior. Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you.” Does this mean that Paul borrowed from the writings of Zarathustra? No! It was a truth that God communicated to His creation from the beginning. We see this same concept expressed throughout Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the Apostle James emphasized the need for service by saying that faith without works is dead. The rabbis who wrote the Babylonian Talmud during this time, were also influenced by these concepts, and carried them back to Judah when they returned from exile.

The believers in Zoroastrianism would also say a chant that served as their confession of faith. By saying this prayer over and over again they believed they could drive away all forces of darkness both within and without. The first line says, “…just as a king is powerful, so will a great human soul be powerful because of his belief in God.” The second line says, “…the blessings of God are those who work for the Lord of Life.” That God bestows blessings on those who think good thoughts and do good deeds according to the divine will of God. The third line says, “…the Supreme power of God is bestowed upon him who considers himself a helper of the meek and lowly.” There is little doubt that both Jesus and the apostle Paul would endorse these sayings, but with the qualifier that they not be considered as a way to earn one’s own salvation. No wonder when Jesus came He ran into this Pharisaical attitude of good deeds as a way of earning God’s blessings and becoming eligible for His favor. But when Jesus told them eternal life could not be merited this way, it caused strife and they became angry. Jesus told them that salvation is a gift, it’s not earned; it is only made possible by God’s grace, not man’s efforts.

But the main core of Zarathustra’s teaching was monotheistic dogma that God the Creator, is one God. Everything emanates from Him and in the end all goes back to Him. There is no other God above Him. He is a Spirit and He alone should be worshipped. This is the same thing Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well in Samaria, “For God is Spirit, so those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” Although God is Spirit, according to Zarathustra He has six ways through which mankind is allowed to approach Him.

The first is hope – as in “expectation.” Nothing is done by chance, all events are already preordained as part of God’s divine scheme of things. He continuously manifests Himself through divine will, according to the divine law. When a human being submits himself to the divine will and follows the divine laws, he is following the path that leads to spiritual growth. 

The second is wisdom, that is received through unconditional love and which sustains and supports mankind in times of difficulties and leads people on their path to God. Wisdom comes from having a pure mind which is the basis for further spiritual growth.

The third is self-control. Every believer can realize this power and see it in action when they are guided by discipline and a good mind.

The fourth is devotion. It represents faith and single-minded allegiance to God. It is a special part of those who are twice-born; those who have been given secrets of a true spiritual life.

The fifth is holiness. This is perfection personified. It represents all that is perfect, beautiful and harmonious in the creation of God.

The sixth is eternal life. This allows the believer to overcome all fear of death. It is found in the tree of life and the tree of immortality found in heaven.

These, says Zarathustra, constitute what he called the “Seven-fold Lord of the Universe.” When we read Revelation 1:12-20 we find an astounding comparison. According to Zarathustra, when we cultivate, nurture and practice these six virtues we will be able to clearly see the path of salvation out in front of us.

These are the thoughts of men as their minds searched for what is true and right and pleasing to God. No wonder Jesus had to endure such harassment and opposition to His teachings because it went against this same theology embedded in the writings of the Rabbis and espoused by the scribes and Pharisees. The Jews in Persia believed that Zarathustra was Jewish. It was said that he had been taught by Jeremiah or by Baruch ben Neriah, who was a pupil of Jeremiah. Later, the Muslims in Persia would also repeat similar ideas. This indicates that even at a later stage there still existed something in Zoroastrianism that suggested Hebrew influence.

Hence, the points of resemblance between Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity, are many and striking. Ahura Mazda was considered, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He was endowed with creative power exercised through Spenta Mainyu (“Holy Spirit”), and governed the universe through the instrumentality of angels and archangels. He also had an adversary, Ahriman, whose dominion, like Satan’s, will be destroyed at the end of the world. There are striking parallels between Zoroastrianism and Christianity related to doctrines of regeneration, a divine kingdom, the coming of a Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. Both Zoroastrianism and Judaism are revealed religions: in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda imparts his revelation and pronounces his commandments to Zarathustra on “the Mountain of the Two Holy Communing Ones”; in Judaism, Yahweh holds a similar communion with Moses on Mt. Sinai. These two religions agree in certain respects with regard to the six days of Creation in Genesis. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, with Mashya and Mashyana in Zoroastrianism being the Adam and Eve Judaism. In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except for a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta (Zoroastrian Bible) a winter depopulates the earth except for those kept in an enclosure. In each case, the earth is then repopulated with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms. The three sons, Erij, Selm, and Tur in the Zoroastrian Avesta, are the same as Shem, Ham, and Japheth in the Jewish Torah.

Therefore, should we all become Zoroastrians? Absolute not! When God breathed life into Adam it was more than just making him alive, it included giving mankind a will and conscience. How else would Adam and Eve have felt guilty for what they did in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And God never stopped talking to mankind over the millennia after the flood, and as the Apostle Paul said, they saw things through a dark glass. If anything, it reveals that the truth about God was expressed in different cultures through different languages. After all, even Moses had to ask God what His name was. We have become so attuned to how things are said in our own culture that we reject anything that does not sound like our own. But it took the Light of the World Himself, Jesus Christ, to come and clear it all up, and tell us what God really wanted us to know. Paul called it a secret that was kept until being revealed through Christ. While all this self-righteousness is good and morally beneficial, it cannot cover sin and secure eternal life.

Even the Apostle Paul tells young Timothy to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.” But he goes on to explain that it will all come to an end at “the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen” (1Tim. 6:13b-16).

That’s why Jesus came to show that only one man could perform perfectly what God demanded and then share with others what He accomplished, so that they too might live in righteousness and obtain everlasting life. No one before Him could do it, and no one after Him will God require to repeat it. When Jesus said, “It is finished!” He was talking more to His heavenly Father than to us and really meant it!

NOTE: In 1883, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche published a book entitled ‘Also sprach Zarathustra’ translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra. For our modern readers, it could be aptly titled, “Zarathustra Also Said This.” In his book Nietzsche chronicles the fictitious travels and speeches of Zarathustra. But Nietzsche transforms Zarathustra into someone who turns traditional morality upside down. In his novel Nietzsche coins a phrase that would later appear as a headline on Time Magazine’s cover: God is dead! Also, in honor of this book, Richard Strauss wrote a symphony, Opus 30, that most people will immediately recognize by its opening crescendo.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part IV)

CONCEPTS SHARED BY MANY RELIGIONS

One nice thing about being inquisitive, it takes your mind places you might never venture without having been pushed or challenged to go there. But the effort also requires more than casual interest or a quick perusal. It is a search for facts and then further research to put them all together to create a cogent understanding of those facts. And when you have a seasoned guide to help you explore, you’ll be introduced to things you would have never found on your own. That’s why reading and listening are so important to education.

When we go to the beginning of the Bible and read the historical accounts from the time God created man down to the time of Jesus, we find that the prevalent form of government around the world was that of Despotism. That is not necessarily a bad word. Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be a monarchy, or an autocracy, or it may be an oligarchy, which is ruling by a select group.

The word despotism comes from the Greek word despotes, which roughly means “master” or “one with power,” and it has been used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Kings of Israel and Judah. But when Democracy came into fashion in Greece under the leadership and writings of Solon, a respected statesman, lawmaker and poet who lived in Athens. He greatest contribution was his efforts to legislate reforms against political, economic, and moral decline in what had become Greece’s outdated capitol city. Although his campaign failed to have any immediate impact, he is still credited with laying the foundation that led to the formation of Greek democracy. Slowly other nations began to copy this form of government, but it would take a long time to gain momentum worldwide. We all know that it was not too long ago when the Kings of Europe and Emperors of Asia ruled in despot fashion. The influence of this type of rule in Italy led to the Roman Catholic Church adopting a similar style with the evolution of the Papacy.

Under such despotism, there is no concept of freedom in the sense that the rules and commandments of the Master can be violated, ignored, or altered without punishment. From time to time, a benevolent despot would, of his own free will, modify certain laws as a convenience for his subjects to placate growing unrest, but people could not through their own efforts amend or rewrite those laws. Therefore the word “freedom,” became synonymous with rebellion and overthrow of the despot so as to take control through revolt and revolution.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there is a clear acceptance of despotism by virtue of the recognition that there is but one God who rules heaven and earth. There is no one above Him and no Council to which He must report or get approval. His commandments and rules cannot be amended by man, because man has no such authority. Deuteronomy 4:2 Moses tells the children of Israel, “You must not add to what I command you. And you must not take anything away. You must obey the commands of the Lord your God that I have given you.” There is no end or term limit to His reign, it is eternal. In earlier times this same concept was accepted as a model for the family, with the male being the undisputed head of the household. Today, such despot rulers are known more as tyrants and dictators.

At this same time there developed a network of world commerce facilitated by a thing called the “Great Silk Road.” But merchandize was not the only thing transported along this route that tied the civilized world together, there were also ideas and concepts. And since Greece became a leader in philosophy and language, much of what was passed on around the world came through this Greek linguistic and commercial system.

One of the ideas found in teachings from Greece to China to Alexandria in Egypt and every place in between, was the doctrine of metempsychosis or “Transmigration of the Soul”. It arose in the writings of Orpheus, who was a legendary musician, poet, and prophet in ancient Greek religion and myth. By the 6^th century B.C. the Orphic religion taught that soul and body are united by a mutual compact, but one which is not equally fair to both. The soul is divine, immortal and aspires to freedom, while the body holds it in fetters as a prisoner. Death dissolves this compact, but only to re-imprison the liberated soul after a short time: for the wheel of birth revolves inexorably. To these unfortunate prisoners of reincarnation Orpheus proclaimed a message of liberation. He told them that they stood in need of grace from redeeming gods, and called on them to turn to God by ascetic piety of life and self-purification. For the purer their lives, the higher will be their next reincarnation until the soul has completed the spiral vortex of destiny to live forever with God from whom it comes.

Thus we see the seeds of belief in gaining eternal life as an end to repeated reincarnation, or the transmigration of the soul. If a person does not change their ways and begin to live a righteous life by doing good deeds, their judgment will only send them back to repeat the process over and over again until they get it right. Judaism never adopted this cyclic concept as a whole, but attaining everlasting life was considered only possible by repeatedly fulfilling the law through righteous living. To do this it was necessary that they atone for their mistakes through animal sacrifice so that they did not have to die in order to start over. In other words, they could keep going in this life by transmitting to the animal who was sacrificed in their place all their bad deeds, or unrighteousness, so they could continue on their journey toward perfected righteousness and eternal life.

So when Jesus came, we can only imagine the shock when He begin to teach that He was the ultimate sacrifice, and anyone who believed in Him to satisfy God’s demand for punishment of their sins, would be given eternal life through Him. Not only that, but He promised that even after those who believed in Him died physically, their souls would live on, and one day He would return to give them a new body so they can live with God forever and ever. We see this concept at the end of Psalm 23.

So we see that God did not spring the ideas contained in Judaism and Christianity on an unsuspecting world without little or no connection to anything man had ever heard or was told before. In Acts of the Apostles 14:17 the apostle Paul made this clear when speaking to the Lycaonians who mistakened he and Barnabas as the gods Zeus and Hermes incarnate, “In the past God let all the nations do what they wanted. But God was always there doing the good things that prove He is real. He gives you rain from heaven and good harvests at the right times. He gives you plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.’” Paul repeated this same point in verses 29-31 where he told the Areopagus Council in Athens, “We all come from God. So you must not think that He is like something people imagine or make. He is not made of gold, silver, or stone. In the past people did not understand God, and He overlooked this. But now He is telling everyone in the world to change and turn to Him. He has decided on a day when He will judge all the people in the world in a way that is fair. To do this He will use a man He chose long ago. And He has proved to everyone that this is the man to do it. He proved it by raising Him from death!” But through Jesus it provided a way for all of these ideas to come together in one Person, in one Gospel, so that the whole world could be saved by one Savior. Man did not discover the idea of eternal life. God is eternal, therefore it already existed in Him. But man sought this eternal life, this fountain of youth, but could never find it on his own. That’s why it took a revelation from God for mankind to hear the truth. Therefore, in despot fashion, eternal life is only found in Jesus Christ because He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life. Perhaps that’s why it is so easy for us to call Him our Lord and Master.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 5)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

FINDING OUT WHAT THEY MEANT

The use of comparative study proves very useful in the comparison of religions existing during the time when Abram left Ur and later on during the period in which Moses received his divine instructions on the construction of the Tabernacle and everything that went inside in order for the people to properly worship the God of Israel. We find clear evidence within the Hebrew text concerning the distinctiveness of the Israelite religion. To their credit, the writers do not try to hide the fact that what they accepted in theory they did not always carry out in practice. Therefore a comparative study of other religions flourishing in the Near East becomes helpful in finding those religious beliefs and practices with which the religion of Israel contrasted sharply, and those with which they shared a syncretistic relationship. We also find that the religion of Israel differed in many ways for those around them, yet we cannot escape the similarities that often arose alongside that considered to be in line with the divine revelation given to Moses. For instance, the religion of Israel forbid the making and worship of idols designed to represent gods worshiped by other religions, nevertheless they treated objects like the Ark of the Covenant and the altars of incense and sacrifice as sacred and holy objects not to be touched by unclean hands. There also existed a law against so-called “high places,” which the prophets decried with vigor, yet such high places played a role in the legitimate worship of the Israelites during certain periods.

We know that one general theme that persists among Christian theologians involves the continuity between the religion practiced by Israel in preexilic times and those of Christianity in post Apostolic times. However, a comparative study shows less common ground between Christianity than that between the religious ideas of Israel and the religious ideas of Babylon. Therefore, when we compare the Old Testament concepts of rites, rituals, regulations, the priesthood, the story of creation, the nature of sin and communication with deity with that of the Babylonians, we find that the Babylonians would have perceived the practices of the Israelites much more comprehensible than we do today.

One of the thorns in the side of Israel’s religious loyalty to God proved to be their tendency to turn to the god called Baal. Baal is identified as the supreme god worshiped in ancient Canaan and Phoenicia. The practice of Baal worship infiltrated Jewish religious life during the time of the Judges (see Judges 3:7), and became widespread in Israel during the reign of Ahab (see 1Ki 15:31-33), as well as affecting Judah (2Chr 28:1-2). The word baal means “lord”; the plural is baalim. In general, they worshiped Baal as a fertility god who enable the earth to produce crops and people to produce children, much like the attributes of Yahweh. Different religions worshiped Baal in assorted ways, and Baal proved to be a highly adaptable god. Various locales emphasized one or another of his attributes and developed special “denominations” of Baalism. Baal of Peor (Num 25:3); Baal-Berith (Judges 8:33; 9:4, 46); and Baal Zebub (2Ki 1:2) present three examples of such localized deities.

This confirms that although the Israelites did not understand or comprehend all the aspects of the Canaanite and Babylonian religious practices, especially those behind certain rituals, they did become very familiar with the religious practices of their neighbors. The appeal appears to be that in the traditional religion of Israel there existed a maze through which worshipers must go in order to reach the deity YHWH they worshiped, while these idols provided them immediate access and so they adapted their traditional practices of worship to appeal to the local gods for help and assurances.

The next step involves examining the theology underpinning the religion of Israel and those around them. To do so requires that we go beyond identifying the similarities, and concentrate on the functional aspects of these religions. One of the corresponding functions of Israelite religion and that of the Babylonians involved the rituals that transferred the punishment for offenses from the human being to an animal. However, to make sense of such rituals we need to look at the role they played in the whole context of their theology. Similarities and differences between the theology of Israel and that of other religions that affected the rituals they practice, came from a possible sifting process in which those concepts existing in the Near East thought process that represented core beliefs coming down from prior generations after Noah, allowed them to reject those which offended the revelation they received from Moses and absorb those considered non-offensive in worship of Yahweh.

When it comes to deciphering our modern theology’s reliance on Biblical texts, backgrounds studies must be done in order to avoid developing misinterpretations of those texts at certain points. We must view Biblical texts as a cloth woven together with threads of ideas. Therefore, each word and phrase trigger thoughts and ideas in the minds of the reader in a form of silent communication. When we take these words and phrases in an attempt to communicate them to an audience, we find ourselves burdened with the test of filling in the gaps between the potential meaning of these words as written then and their relevance to what we experience and face here and now. Therefore, the audience expects the speaker to fill that space in light of the common language and worldview he or she shares with them, as well as being true to the intentions and ideas of the writer of the text.

The challenge presented here to any speaker remains anchored in the need to understand the culture in which these words, phrases and ideas took place and try to make them understandable in today’s culture and religious environment. For instance, in Genesis, Chapter 11 we find the story of the Tower of Babel. The text tells us that they people living on the plains of Shinar said, “Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top reaches up to heavens.” Without the benefit of Near Eastern ideas as found in their manuscripts, earlier commentators and theologians concluded that these descendants of Noah wanted to build a tower high enough to make an attack on heaven and thereby gain superiority over any higher power existing there. In other words they wanted to be gods and duplicate the rebellion brought on by Satan before God threw him and his followers down to earth. But a background study of Near East culture reveals that the builders intended such high structures to be used by the gods as a bridge or portal between heaven and earth. As such, comparative studies allow for interpreters to find alternative explanations of the text, rather the feeling tied to those interpretations passed down before Near East documents became available.

Therefore, this allows for scholars to pursue interpretations of Biblical texts using all known evidence available that sheds light on why the people of that era told the story and what they wanted to communicate to any future readers in order to be better understood. So for speakers today, the filling in of the gaps becomes mandatory if they desire to give any audience the benefit of the doubt as to what the Bible writers intended to say. As such, it becomes imperative that those gaps be filled with evidence from understanding derived from cultural studies before applying any theological significance to the text that comes solely from our own experience or understanding.

NOTE: This ends this series on What About That! The inspiration and main resource for these articles came from the works done by John H. Walton in his Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, and John N. Oswalt’s The Bible Among the Myths.

WHERE IT ALL BEGAN (Part III)

WHY MANY RELIGIONS SHARE THE SAME PRINCIPLES

When Jesus’ parents found Him as a young boy in the Temple amazing the elders with what He knew; and later in His life when two Temple guards were sent to arrest Him but came back saying they had never heard any man speak like this man, it was a clear sign that something Jesus was saying astounded the listeners. Not that they had never heard it before, but that they had never heard it explained this way before. What was the subject that caught their attention, something that had been going around for a long time during the period between 800-200 B.C.

There was an earlier teacher who espoused some of the same principles and ethics. He was known as Kong Qui or K’ung Fu-tzu, but we know him better as, Confucius. He was born on August 27, 551 B.C. in the northeast area of China called, Lu State. Little is known of his childhood. Some say he was born into a royal family, but his own story defies that since he had to work his way up to the top. Others say he was born in poverty, but that does not fit his own account about early studies at the age of fifteen. His teachings, which were copied down by his students, are preserved in the Analects, and focused on creating ethical models of family and public interaction, and setting educational standards. When his life and times are studied, it is clear that Confucius also lived during a time of ideological crisis in China.

What amazes many who study the teachings of Confucius for the first time is how closely his philosophy harmonizes with those of Socrates, Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth. The four never met each other; never read each others writings, and none of them ever wrote a book. Yet their words and models of ethics and virtues have affected the world like no other philosophical quartet.

Confucius believed strongly in “studying.” Not just reading, but studying what is being read. To study means to apply the mind to the acquisition of knowledge through reading, investigation and research. In other words, there’s a difference between “reading” a book and “studying” a book. The two subjects that fascinated Confucius in his studies were History and Literature. These, he said, are a must to anyone who desires to grow intellectually and mature into becoming a role model and teacher of others. How many times did Jesus tell His opponents to go back and study the scriptures again because they had not understood it sufficiently to put it into effect properly (see Matthew 23.) But a time came after Confucius was gone that a group called “Legalists” opposed the teachings of Confucius, saying that mankind could not think on his own but must be guided only by those in charge who knew what was best for them. This would sound to familiar to Jesus who encountered the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians with the same attitude.

If Confucius had a motto, it was, Practice what you preach. “By doing so continuously and faithfully to the principles you’ve learned,” Confucius taught, “you will eventually find The Way.” In Chinese it is referred to as “Tao.” For Confucius, “The Way,” meant walking in the truth on how to live a virtuous life. We find the same reference to “The Way” in the Acts of the Apostles (9:2; 19:9, 27; 22:4; 24:14, 22.) So it was fixed in men’s minds during this period that there was a “Way” to live and conduct oneself so as to give purpose and reason for living. Confucius said that any virtuous man will have deep reverence for at least three things: (l) He will reverence what Heaven decrees, (2) He will reverence great leaders, and (3) He will reverence what the saints’ have to say. But one astounding proverb from Confucius is this: “When worshiping God, one must feel as if He were visibly present.”

Furthermore, this virtuous life for Confucius involved the following four things:

The Virtue of Wisdom: Confucius taught that wisdom is knowing what needs to be done. Furthermore, he noted that the ultimate goal of any seeker of truth, is wisdom, because wisdom is only found in knowing the truth. Even Jesus stated, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” Confucius continues: Having wisdom means that we understand these absolute values to the point that we can apply them to our daily lives. The ripening of wisdom continues as a person gains more and more knowledge—the accumulation of facts and information. With experience, this knowledge is then applied to living out those principles so one can obtain a Good life. In fact, wisdom consists of knowing how to apply the Good to Life; if not, then knowledge becomes worthless. It must be understood, that Wisdom does not necessarily come with age. Just look at Jesus, how wise He was at a young age. If you look up the word “wisdom” in the Gospels as it relates to Jesus, it will open your eyes to how our Lord viewed it.

The Virtue of Justice: For Confucius, passivity (remaining silent because of our own needs) in the face of injustice is in itself an injustice. Always keep your word, but be practical (for there are times when keeping one’s word is wrong because it may harm others). At the heart of all justice is Honor, because it rests on integrity and courage. Arguably, a litigious culture like ours today does not fully appreciate the meaning of justice, because legality often circumvents the foundation of justice. In John 5:30 Jesus gives us a definition of His concept of justice, “I don’t do things on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.”

The Virtue of Courage: Now Confucius says that with courage, which is a fundamental human value, we demonstrate the willingness to stand up and say what is just and true. With courage, we do what needs to be done, steadfast in the truth as we understand it, not allowing fear to hinder our course. When we have an understanding of what is just, it takes courage to uphold what is right. Wisdom is also essential to courage, for without wisdom an individual doesn’t know what he or she should defend. If there was anyone who showed courage in what He believed and was willing to defend it with His life, it was Jesus Christ.

The Virtue of Moderation: Finally, Confucius points out that the virtue of moderation provides a guide to living: nothing in excess; nothing carried to extremes; nothing pushed so far that it becomes harmful or wrong. To Confucius, moderation is the secret ingredient of the four virtues that brings the virtues of justice, courage, and wisdom together, ensuring that they work in harmony. With moderation, we come to know when justice turns into legality. With moderation, we can see when brutality replaces courage. With moderation, we can discern when we are accumulating knowledge for knowledge’s sake rather than letting knowledge ripen into wisdom. Jesus is very clear on this in His teaching in Luke 12.

When we examine the teachings of Jesus as found in Matthew 5:3-12 we find a similar theme as that of what Confucius taught.

3 “God blesses those who are humble and realize their need for Him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
4 God blesses those who grieve when they make a mistake, for they will be comforted.
5 God blesses those who are considerate of others, for they will inherit the whole earth.
6 God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.
7 God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8 God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will get to know God.
9 God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.
10 God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.

11 God blesses those who are mocked and persecuted and lied about and all sorts of evil things are said about them because they are followers of Jesus.

12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way.

Therefore, Justice, Courage, Wisdom, and Moderation are four all-powerful virtues that require a lifetime of study and daily practice. Many great minds believe these four virtues to be a guide to a life of freedom. Even after God’s communication with mankind changed following what happened in the Garden of Eden, He did not stop communicating with His creation. But it would take a special effort for Him to get man’s attention so that what He said would become Gospel. That’s why He sent His only Son to do the job. No wonder Jesus declared, “Yes, I am the gate (Way). Those who come in through me will be saved. They will come and go freely and will find good pastures. The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life” (John 10:9-10.)

But unlike Jesus, Confucius, Socrates, and Buddha never pointed to themselves as “The Way.” They did not found a religion or establish a church. They did not die on a cross for the sins of mankind which was accepted by God as the only way for sins to be forgiven, and they did not rise from the grave victorious over death. As the writer of Hebrews said so eloquently, “In the past God spoke to our people through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. And now in these last days, God has spoken to us again through His Son. He made the whole world through His Son. And He has chosen His Son to have all things. The Son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God’s nature, and He holds everything together by His powerful command. The Son made people clean from their sins. Then He sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven. The Son became much greater than the angels, and God gave Him a name that is much greater than any of their names.”

So no matter what has been said or taught in the past, when the Son came He came to put God’s final stamp of approval on what He wanted mankind to know. There is no need to look for some new divine teacher in the future. The Word has come in the flesh, and the Word is eternal.

WHY MANY RELIGIONS ARE RELATED

When most believers are asked to tell about their understanding of history as it relates to their Christian faith, they may start with Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden, then proceed to Noah’s Flood, followed by God’s call of Abraham, the rescue of Israel from Egyptian bondage, the giving of the Law to Moses, the taking of the Promised Land, the rise of David as King of Israel and Judah, and the coming of the Messiah and introduction of Christianity until the present day.

This might lead some listeners to assume that while all this was going on, the rest of humanity stood isolated and untouched by anything God did or said. But a study of history shows otherwise. As the time for the Messiah to come drew near, there was a sudden burst of spiritual understanding in the civilized world that began to influence humanity in unusual ways.

Between 800 and 200 BC, a concentration of new and different religious beliefs emerged in China, Greece, India, Mesopotamia, and Palestine. This lead to the founding or major development of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism. In 1949 the German philosopher Karl Theodor Jaspers coined the phrase “Achsenzeit” (“Axial Age” or “Axis age” in English) to describe this relatively short interval of rapid religious and spiritual evolution.

It seemed as though after a long period of time since Noah’s flood the world was waking up to the need for a set of rules that governed mankind’s conduct and ethics. For instance, Buddha taught about the fact that everyone fears punishment and everyone fears death. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. According to the second of the Four Noble Truths taught by Buddha, egoism (desire, craving or attachment) is rooted in ignorance and is considered as the cause of all suffering. Consequently, kindness, compassion and equanimity are regarded as the untainted aspect of human nature.

This brought about the idea that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us, known as the Theory of Reciprocity, or The Golden Rule, an ethic that emerged almost universally during the Axial Age. We see this in the writings of all the major religions of that period:

Egypt: 1970-1640 B.C. in a manuscript titled The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant we find “Do for one what you might cause him to do for you.”

Judiasm: 1280 B.C. as Moses wrote down what he believed God was inspiriting him to write, he penned, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against a fellow Israelite, but love your neighbor as yourself.” Leviticus 19:18

Persia: 700 B.C. Zoroastrianism teaches “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

China: 500 B.C. In Daoism (or Taoism) the Sage says, “Make the self of the people your self.”

China: 500 B.C. Confucius taught, “Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.” And in another writing “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”

India: 500 B.C. Buddha taught, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

India: 500 B.C. In Jainism it was taught, “Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.”

India: 150 B.C. In the great epic Mahabharata we read, “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

Christianity: 30 A.D. In His sermon on the Mount, Jesus told the people that the “core essence of all that is taught in the law and by the prophets” is summed up in this: “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.” – Matthew 7:12. It is a matter of God’s wisdom being manifest in our lives. We all know that “information” is all around us, but in order for that information to become “knowledge” we must access the information. Once we have turned that information into personal knowledge, then we must apply it in order for it to become “wisdom.”

But there are other things we must consider:

While most Bible readers know that Abraham was the father of the Children of Israel, they may have overlooked the fact that Abram was not a Jew? He has a Chaldean name since that’s where he was born and lived in the city of Ur before God told him to leave? This area became better known as Babylon and is the southern part of the area known as Iraq today. Abram means “father.”

Bible readers also know that Moses was born to Hebrew parents, but they may not know that Moses’ name is Egyptian (Mose)? It means, “saved out of water.” Not only that, but there were two Egyptian Pharaohs who had Mose in their names: Thutmose and Ramose.

Bible enthusiast have heard of the Hebrew language, but may not know that the word Hebrew comes from the word Hiberu? Sumerians, Hittites, Egyptians and others gave this name to people variously described as nomadic, semi-nomadic, rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, servants, migrant laborers, and slaves. It was only after Jacob wrestled with the angel that the name was changed to Israel, and after they entered the Promised Land they were no longer referred to as Hiberu.

Most believers are aware that Jewish people worship on Saturday because it’s the Sabbath, and Christians worship on Sunday, because it’s the day Jesus rose from the dead. But they may not know that the Babylonians already celebrated every seventh day as a “holy-day” before it became part of the Ten Commandments?”

Many believers know that Jews circumcise their male children and do not eat pork. However they may not know that long before the building of the pyramids, circumcision was practiced in Egypt? Not only that, but the Egyptians didn’t eat pork either.

Most believers are aware that Jews believe in one God, and Christians believe in one God manifested in three persons. But they may not know that long before Judaism became a religion, that Akhenaten, one of many ancient Egyptian pharaohs pledged his loyalty to one deity when the rest of the world worshipped many gods? His rule is reflected in the first commandment given to Moses: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Therefore it is clear that this theme started centuries earlier as God influenced the minds of scholars and those seeking the truth to understand this principle. But it all coalesced into the teachings of one Master who called Himself the only Way, the Truth and the Life, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Since then there is no other religion or revelation that has come or will ever come to supplant Him as God’s choice to teach the world of love, kindness, consideration and compassion.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THAT! (Part 4)

By Dr. Robert R. Seyda

SEEING IT FOR WHAT IT IS

When one launches out in search of determining which documents borrowed from which documents, they take on a difficult task. Neither must it be the major goal of such research in comparative studies. Rather, when finding any similarities and differences in such documents, this assists those who study Biblical manuscripts and those examining the ancient writings of the Near East to get a bigger picture. To anyone really interested in what the Bible says and reveals to human understanding, it must not come as a surprise to discover that their comprehension of God and the world around them can be found in the larger culture from which they came. Therefore, when writers of biblical manuscripts offer criticism and disdain for the larger culture around them, it must be taken in context related to the current thinking, writing and cultural norms of that era. Therefore, effort must be given to understand the Biblical version of events and those found in Near East documents so as to gain a fuller and more complete discernment of each one and how they interacted with each other. In so doing, we give ourselves a better chance of seeing what they thought of themselves and how they conducted themselves rather than what we think of their behavior.

When reading the Old Testament, some are confused as to why the text found in First and Second Kings reads very similar to that contained in First and Second Chronicles. To begin with, in ancient biblical manuscripts, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings constituted one book. Only later as a result of the invention of printing did they become separated for publishing and reading purposes. Most scholars believe that this early recording of the political history of Israel came into being through priests who documented what happened during their era. Later, when the monarchy became more fully established, then royal chroniclers became the resource for documenting how the Nation of Israel developed and the subsequent reign of each king under which they served. Therefore, to understand the intent of the writers in detailing the events they include and to what degree they describe them, can be better comprehended by recognizing that one group saw it from a religious point of view and the other from a royal perspective.

The same formula holds true when trying to understand the literary genres of the Biblical Texts and those of the Near East. Furthermore, just as poetry in Hebrew does not depend on rhyme and meter to express itself in beauty, so we must understand how differently these genres of literature operated in the ancient world than the way similar genres function in our world. Whether we look at Historic Literature, Legal Literature, Wisdom Literature, or Prophetic Literature, we find similarities between Biblical material, Near East material and even modern day literature. But they must be judged on their own, in context, and not dismissed or thought of as being less emotive on our thinking because they do not agree with our methods. We must endeavor to determine as much as possible who wrote it, when they wrote it, why they wrote it and their intent in writing it. This serves as an essential ingredient to the theological and literary explanation of the text when we understand the genre of the manuscript in order to arrive at a legitimate interpretation.

When similarities occur between that written in the Bible and that contained in ancient Near East manuscripts, it helps acknowledging the perimeters and characteristics of the genre active in the ancient mind that penned it. For instance, what did they consider to be historical writing back then. We know that today journalistic perimeters require identifying who, what, where, why, when and how. Furthermore, eyewitness accounts supersede those which come second-hand. So often we find genealogies played an important role for ancient writers. It must be determined if the author assembled them for the same reasons we do today. Furthermore, family relatives and near relatives often morphed into references such as brother and neighbor. Therefore, must we required further delineation in order to consider it acceptable for today’s understanding?

On occasion when comparing genres of Biblical literature and Near East documents, similarities are found in the level of content, and in some cases, even in wording. This poses the question of whether or not each instance must be taken to represent an individual observation. When observing the same law or proverb in both Biblical Texts and Near East Texts, rather than expecting that one preceded the other, we must examine their uniqueness and how the writer intended them to be understood, especially by analyzing the genre and literary context in which these laws and proverbs exist. When both the Hebrew version and that found in the Near East documents appear exactly the same, rather than looking to prove which came first, there exists the option of accepting that both came to be under the influence of an earlier common source which preceded both the Hebrew and the Near East accounts. Just as we trace Abraham from Adam down through Noah and on through Shem, likewise what man understood from encounters with God in the past flowed down into literature through oral traditions in different branches of humankind. And like any account, as each generation passed it on to another, the story grew larger, more complex and designed to meet the mindset of the day.

Another thing to consider involves those laws and proverbs which evince significant differences as being in contrast to one another. For instance, both Hebrew and Mesopotamian literature contain texts that tell the story of a righteous man who suffered for his faith that compares to what we find in the book of Job. First of all, this becomes acceptable when we consider that Job, a contemporary of Abram, lived in Uz while Abram came from Ur, but both descendants of Shem. The difference between the two accounts involves a different theology, while at the same time using a similar mentality prevalent in the Near East with the friends of Job being used a foils to test his resolve. But Job remains faithful to his beliefs by not accepting the mentality of appeasement offered by his friends, a mentality representative of Near East thinking.

Likewise, when we read in Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age about Sargon of Akkad, the founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, the forerunner of the Chaldean and Babylonian kings in the area from which Abraham came, he is described as a legendary figure in tablets deposited in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC. According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess. She brought him forth in secret, and then placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He floated down the river until he was found by Akki, a man in charge of the irrigation system fed by the river.  Akki raised him as his own son. This quickly brings to mind the story of Moses. So the question could be raised, was the story of the Israeli lawgiver a retelling of the story of Sargon but from a Jewish perspective. Or, should we allow that such an occasion could have occurred more than once, and that it was a modus operandi of that day in dealing with children whose lives may be in danger.

To miss the point/counterpoint dialogue, forgoes understanding the critical nuances contained in these exchanges. Keeping an open mind and showing appreciation for how similar genres existed with different methods of writing and expression, did not exist in great quantity when the examination of Near East Documents verses Hebrew Documents in the late 1800’s into the early 1900’s began in earnest. Therefore, it becomes important that such oversight must not be continued and exacerbated in today’s climate of research and comparative studies. Let’s give each group credit for telling the story the way they saw it and how it applied to their understanding of God and history. Surely an omniscient God knows how it happened and is pleased to let us investigate how it played out. Abram left Chaldea where God was known by the name Marduk, and when he met Melchizedek they called Him El Elyon, the Highest God or the God on High. Today there are some who still refer to Him as Jehovah and others as Yahweh. What will future generations think when they examine our literature in which similar factors of patience and conditioning must applied when examining ancient documents, as we do today with ancient writings of the past.

WHERE DID ABRAM GET HIS RELIGIOUS TRAINING

When we restrict our knowledge of the origins of our religious heritage to that contained only in the Bible, we deny ourselves the opportunity of enjoying a comparative study of how our faith came down to us and what others had to say about what the Bible reveals.

After the flood deposited Noah and his three sons Shem, Japheth and Ham on Mt. Ararat and they descended into the flat lands below, as they grew in number they began to disperse. The children of Shem moved into the area we know as the Middle East that includes Iran and Iraq. One of Shem’s descendents named Terah ended up in the city of Ur in the land that became known as Chaldea, which is in southern part of Iraq today.

It was there around 2047 BC that three sons were born to Terah: Abram, Nahor and Haran. During this time, there was a ruler in Ur of Chaldea known as Ur-Nammu. Whatever Noah taught had his sons about God, and whatever they passed on to their children was as rudimentary as that which Adam passed on to Seth and his other children.

But something urged Ur-Nammu to write a code of conduct that was meant to govern the society there in Chaldea, and these were the rules and legal code that Terah learned and taught to his sons. It is the oldest known surviving example of such a code to come out of that part of the world. This would be the basis for the ethics by which Abram would live when one day Terah took Abram, his daughter-in-law Sarai (his son Abram’s wife), and his grandson Lot (his deceased son Haran’s child) and moved away from Ur of the Chaldeans. He was headed for the land of Canaan, but they stopped at Haran and settled there. Gen 11:31 The prophet Nehemiah makes note of this historical event in 9:7, “You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him from Ur of the Chaldeans and renamed him Abraham.”

So what was this Code of Ur-Nammu written hundreds of years before the Law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? Do any of these laws reflect what Moses was given and can be found in both the Ten Commandments and the Laws given in Leviticus? Let’s look at some examples:

1. If a man commits murder, that man must die. (See Genesis 9:6a, “God made humans to be like Himself. So whoever kills a person must be killed by another person.”)
2. If a man commits robbery, that man must die.
3. If a man kidnaps another, he must serve prison time and pay a fine of 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a male slave marries a female slave in the same household, if that female slave is set free the male slave cannot go with her.
5. If a slave marries a person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to the owner.
6. If a man deflowers the virgin wife betrothed to another man, that man must die.
7. If a man divorces his first wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
8. If a man divorces his first wife who was a widow, he shall pay her one half mina of silver.
9. If a man’s female slave speaks insolently to his wife, the slave’s mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
10. If a man appears as a witness and proves to have perjured himself, he must pay a fine of 15 shekels of silver.

There are some 32 laws in all and a number of them deal with compensation for injuries to others and misuse of property, all of which must be redressed by the paying of fines. All of these laws can be culminated into one simple phrase: do what is right and love your neighbor as yourself. As such, laws were never meant to be tools for punishment, but as warning to keep one from being punished. The law itself does not punish, it is only the breaking of the law that requires punishment.

These were the laws that Abram lived by and taught to Isaac and Ismael, for we see this replicated in the laws of the Semites and Arabs to this day. A successor to Ur-Nammu named Hammurabi became king of Babylonian and reigned from 1795 to 1750 B.C. He is remembered today for promoting and enforcing an organized code of laws that were written some 300 years before Moses was given the laws found in Leviticus in 1440 BC. The Code of Hammurabi, discovered on a stele (a stone slab) in 1901, is one of the best preserved and comprehensive of ancient writings of significant length ever found. The Hammurabian Code is divided into 12 sections and consists of 282 laws, 34 of which are unreadable. The Code is primarily a case-by-case formula of customary regulations covering administrative, civil, and criminal issues. The complexity of the laws and their subject matter reveal much about ancient Babylonian culture.

Both Levitical law and Hammurabi’s Code impose the death penalty in cases of adultery and kidnapping (Lev. 20:10; Ex 21:16 with Statues 129 – If a man’s wife be surprised with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves; & Statute 14 – If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death). Also, there are similarities in the law of retaliation, such as “an eye for an eye” (Lev. 21:23-25) with Statute 196 – If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. Also, Statute 206 of the Hammurabian Code says, “If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, ‘I did not injure him wittingly,’ and pay the physicians.” The Law of Moses is comparable: “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed” (Ex. 21:18-19).

Some of the other unique laws in this code include:

If a man’s property is stolen and the thief is not caught, the owner may make his losses known and the community where he lives will make donations to cover his loss. Statute 23

If a landowner rents out a house, garden or filed and some rents from him and stays there for three years, as long as they continue to pay the rent the owner cannot ask them to leave. Statute 30

If a bartender charges more for a drink that it is worth, then the bartender will be convicted and thrown into a river. But only if the bartender is a woman. Statute 108

If a man marries a woman but refuses to consummate the marriage, the woman cannot be called his wife. Statute 128

If a man wants to throw his son out of the house and is taken to court, if the judge examines all the evidence but finds the son not guilty of any misconduct, the father will be barred from throwing him out. Statute 168

A tooth for a tooth. Statute 200

If a contractor builds a house but does not construct it properly, and the house falls and its owner is killed, the contractor will be charged with murder and executed. Statute 229

If a person is hired to do a job, the one hiring must pay minimum wage. Statute 261

The whole point of this is that God did not leave mankind to wander in ignorance and without guidance from the time of Noah’s flood until the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. Rather, he spoke to man through his conscience and innate desire to protect what was right both for himself and others. But such laws were designed only to find the will of man and not the will of God. That is why the day would come when a more explicit set of rules and commandments would be given to the descendants of Abraham so they could find the will of God to ensure their destiny as His chosen children through which the Messiah would come.