#bible analysis

Like this dude was friends with multiple women whom he gave tremendous respect to, while highlighting how important they were within the growing Jesus movement (see: Junia, whom he calls "outstanding among the apostles", deacon Phoebe, church leader Chloe, Prisca- who might’ve been the author of the book of hebrews - etc.) He told men in a society in which women were viewed as objects "of course your wife is your property 🥰 but as her husband, you are *her* property as well!" And he tried to fix the double standard of wives being considered unfaithful if they slept with someone else vs husbands being able to bang as many people as they wanted (regardless of how the missus felt about it) by calling male cheaters "sexually immoral". He ALSO nearly threw hands with Peter when he expressed hesitation at eating with non Jews (inclusive king). He criticized the Roman empire and challenged Caesar’s legitimacy by claiming Christ as Lord. And ofc came up with the absolute banger of a line that is "There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

Relentless (adj): continuing in a determined manner without any interruption.

That actually changed more recently for me, and made me realize that the reason I disliked it was the way it was taught. You go to a Christian school of any kind, unless it's progressive (do those exist, even?) there's going to be unhealthy cishet stuff going on. It's really innocuous on the surface usually but the more you hear the worse it gets.

i mean, they were brothers, they grew up hand in hand. tiller and shepherd. one raises life out of the dirt, the other puts the life back into it. they loved each other, so much that abel died, so much that cain killed him.

abel was a tragedy of a child prodigy, the golden child. he was favored chosen again and again, to the point where he was killed. he was as innocent as the livestock he sacrificed. a shepherd into the lamb. he never meant to be, he loved his brother. he loved his brother when they were kids, he loved his brother when they were offering to god, he loved his brother when he followed him into the field, he loved his brother even as he died.

Me getting into a fist fight with God because that guy was a fucking asshole

Hi anon! Sorry for the late reply, your ask got kinda lost in my notifications 😭

To answer your question, I don’t really have any specific resources other than generally reading about gender roles and marital standards within the predominant greco-roman culture of the empire, which led to me having a bit of a lightbulb moment when rereading the Pauline epistles.

We tend to view the Bible (and ancient texts in general) through a modern day lense, which is why we often not only tend to be horrified by a lot of the norms and practices of the time, but also tend to not realize whenever someone made a claim or statement that was actually very progressive and perhaps even radical within that context. When Paul says "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭4‬), it might sound like a pretty traditional view of marriage, but it actually greatly challenged the empire’s social norms because women were only considered property - and the idea that a free male citizen’s body was under his wife’s "authority" was a highly unusual instance of advocacy for equal marital rights and would’ve seemed absurd to most (specifically within the roman empire of course; some outside cultures and tribes actually gave women more rights. Shocking, I know).

In case you’re not aware, you should also know that some of the more sexist verses attributed to Paul are from letters that were most likely forgeries; most historians and biblical scholars believe that the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) as well as Ephesians were written at least a decade after his death. Which means verses such as "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12) are very unlikely to be teachings of Paul (Paul impersonator when I catch you…)

I haven’t personally read it yet, but @acerobertz recommended reading "The Jewish annotated New Testament" by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler to better understand the cultural and religious context that Paul was writing from (and I am admittedly a lot more familiar with ancient greco-roman culture than ancient jewish culture, so it likely provides insights that I don’t have). You should check out the Paul within Judaism perspective, it helps to clear up a lot of confusion.

I’ve also heard many good things about John T. Bristow’s "What Paul really said about women" although once again I haven’t gotten my hands on it yet 😅

John 2:13-25

13 Just before the Jewish Passover Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 and in the Temple he found people selling cattle and sheep and pigeons, and the money changers sitting at their counters there. 15 Making a whip out of some cord, he drove them all out of the Temple, cattle and sheep as well, scattered the money changers' coins, knocked their tables over 16 and said to the pigeon-sellers, 'Take all this out of here and stop turning my Father's house into a market.' 17 Then his disciples remembered the words of scripture: Zeal for your house will devour me.

This is primarily interesting to me because nowhere in the Bible is it explicitly stated that buying and selling in the temple is illegal or unrighteous, yet Jesus expresses clear fury at the idea that such actions are taking place.

A lot of modern day christians struggle with the idea that they have to conform to strict, by the book standards which are usually imposed on them by parents, but this extract shows that Jesus, while still believing that the law should be followed, was most concerned with the liabilities that people took outside of the law - their loopholes, their taking advantage of a sacred space to do business, their disrespect for the close bond between the worshipper and God that the temple was meant to signify.

The standards for Christians Jesus set are even stricter than the standards imposed by our parents. But they also make more sense.

Just as you wouldn't use your group chat of your best friends to advertise your business, you wouldn't set up a marketplace in a temple if you truly loved your God. Instead of following the law to the letter because it is the law, Jesus is concerned with the law because the law helps to express, though imperfectly, the stringent standards to which people should uphold themselves.

Jesus is primarily concerned with the motives and meanings of the gestures made. I've seen explanations that they were cheating foreigners into buying more expensive offerings, but while that definitely angered him if it were true, I am unconvinced that that's what caused Jesus to object to their actions, given he said 'stop turning my father's house into a market'. It would imply that his primary objective is to keep the sellers from demeaning the profound, non-exchangable relationship between the worshipper and God, especially since offerings do not 'buy over' God, but are sacrificed to please him and worship him, just as gifts are given not to win over a friend, but to express affection and adoration.

The act of worship in the temple itself is one that should be more than currency, and focused on the intent of the heart, as with the story of the woman who donated two coins. It surpasses men's fixation with money and goes straight for the jugular - what that money represents, and what the focus of worship should be.

I recently had a vivid and, well, frightening dream that led to me looking up this specific Bible verse: “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” James 2:13 Failing the Mercy Test In the aforementioned dream, I watched a malicious serial killer enter some sort of supernatural building that had a bizarre elevator. The elevator could apparently…