Misconceptions About Biblical Content

Misconceptions about the content of the Bible seem to be widespread within the world of Christianity and society in general. This common lack of knowledge about what the Bible actually says is something that I have always found ironic among Christians. Many Christians, of course, believe that the Bible is the Word of God – the literal words of the literal God of the universe to all of humanity so that we can know and worship God. If they truly believe that about the Bible, one would expect that they would be literally gobbling the Bible up. I know I would be. Yet many Christians seem profoundly uninformed about the content of the Bible. Most of what they know about the Bible they have absorbed through worship services, Sunday School, and pop culture. It sometimes seems that many Christians don’t spend much time actually reading the Bible.

This, of course, isn’t meant as a universal condemnation of all Christians – there are plenty of Christians who read and are knowledgeable about the Bible. But it seems that the majority probably spend very little time in Bible study and harbor many misconceptions about what the stories of the Bible actually say. There are no doubt many reasons for this, the primary being that a lot of Christians are only “in it for the prize.” They aren’t that concerned with actually becoming educated Christians, following the lifestyle of the man they call Lord; instead they just want their free ticket to heaven.

Whatever the various reasons, it seems apparent that many Christians have profound misconceptions about the content of the Bible. I would like to look at a few of the more prominent ones.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS

If you were to ask Christians to describe the setting of the birth of Jesus, you would no doubt receive a hodgepodge of stories about angels, shepherds, wise men, frankincense, mangers, Bethlehem, cattle, and perhaps even a little boy with a drum. Regardless of the precise variety of answers you received, one element that I am certain would be present in just about every account would be that of the stable.



Jesus was born in a stable. Everyone knows that, right? We see it in our nativity scenes. We see it in our church plays. We hear references to it in our Christmas sermons and our Christmas songs. Together with the manger and the city of Bethlehem, it is perhaps the most recognizable aspect of the Christmas story.

Some readers may be surprised to discover that there is not a single mention, in the entire Bible, about Jesus being born in a stable.

Only the Gospel writers of Matthew and Luke mention the details of Jesus’ birth. In neither of these accounts is there any mention of a stable. Matthew tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and says that when the eastern Magi came to see Jesus, they visited him in a house there in Bethlehem. It is not made clear exactly when the Magi came – right at the time of the birth, or several months later. Either way, the only mention of a specific location is the house of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem where the Magi came to see the baby.

Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph traveled to a crowded Bethlehem to register for a census. Mary and Joseph had no place to stay (“there was no room for them in the inn”). So, Luke tells us, they placed the newborn Jesus “in a manger.” A manger, of course, is a feeding trough.

This image of the feeding trough is what has led to the idea of Jesus being born in a stable. Stables, however, would not have existed within the city limits in the ancient world. The Jews in particular were very concerned about uncleanness. In the 1st century, for instance, graveyards were not permitted to the west of Jerusalem because the winds blew predominately from that direction and would blow the uncleanness of death onto the city. Sacrificial animals were kept in small pens or stalls in the Temple, but cattle and beasts of burden were kept outside the city limits. Even today, how many stables do you typically find within the city limits of a town? Cattle are kept on farms, where they can graze in the fields. The idea of a stable behind a city inn in ancient Bethlehem simply does not make sense in context.

What does make sense in context is that of a roadside feeding trough. Within city limits, feeding and watering troughs were frequently placed on the roadside along city streets, where animals could be refreshed.

Flowers now adorn the feeding trough in front of this ancient Jewish structure

Like cowboys in the Old West, ancient Jews would tie their donkeys up in front of a city building where the animal could eat and drink.

More than likely, this is the image implicit in Luke’s statement that they laid Jesus “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” Joseph and Mary, by Luke’s account, were camped out on the sidewalk, with their new baby lying in an emptied out feeding trough, because the lodging places were all full.

That doesn’t quite have the same charm we have come to love in the nativity setting inside a stable, but the roadside setting is the one implied by Luke’s account.

JESUS’ PRAYER IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE

Another famous story from the Gospels is the account of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest and subsequent crucifixion. Again, like in the birth scenario above, if you polled Christians and asked them to describe what happens in this scene, you will likely get a hodgepodge of answers involving sleeping disciples and groups of torch-bearing Roman soldiers. Most would no doubt also include the image of Jesus praying so earnestly that he literally sweat blood.

First of all, the place is called “Gethsemane” in only Mark and Matthew. Luke identifies the location of the prayer and subsequent arrest as the “Mount of Olives.” John, on the other hand, does not include the scene with Jesus praying fervently while the disciples sleep. Instead, Jesus prays with all of his disciples at the table of the Last Supper, then leaves and crosses the Kidron Valley to an olive grove, where he is arrested. These different accounts are consistent, however, because “Gethsemane” is derived from an Aramaic word that meant “oil press” and John’s olive grove clearly connects to Luke’s Mount of Olives. Furthermore, John mentions that the area was a place frequented by Jesus and his companions, and many stories from the Gospels take place at the Mount of Olives. It is interesting to note, however, that the actual phrase “Garden of Gethsemane” does not exist in any Biblical text.

The modern Garden of Gethsemane

Secondly and more importantly, is the question about the sweating of blood. Only Luke includes this story. Matthew and Mark assert that Jesus was praying earnestly, but include no account of sweating blood.

I recall seeing images of Jesus’ anguish in Sunday School art when I was a child. Instead of drops of sweat, little beads of blood stood out on Jesus’ forehead, foreshadowing the blood that would drip from his head later when the Roman soldiers fitted him with a crown of thorns.



In recent years, I have read Christian apologetics arguing that the sweating of blood in extreme moments of stress is biologically possible and has been medically observed. Though rare, this condition even has a name: hematohidrosis. Under extreme stress (such as impending death situations), people have been known to sweat blood. It usually occurs in folks with high blood pressure. Faced with a traumatic crisis, small blood vessels near the surface of the skin can contract and begin to hemorrhage. Since sweat glands activate during high stress events, if these vessels are near sweat glands, the blood can mix with the sweat, giving the appearance of sweating blood.

This has been used to argue that Luke’s account of Jesus sweating blood is historically accurate, since the ancient world certainly had no concept of the medical condition known as hematohidrosis. I have also seen it used to support the authorship of Luke’s Gospel – tradition attributes the text to Luke, a companion of Paul mentioned in several of Paul’s letters. In one of these letters, Paul mentions that Luke is a doctor. Apologists have argued that the issue of Jesus sweating blood would have been of interest to Luke, since he was a medical professional. This, according to the argument, is the reason why only Luke mentions the event.

The problem, however, is that Luke doesn’t actually say Jesus sweat blood, which makes all the arguments above rather moot. Instead, Luke says: “…his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.”

Luke is simply writing descriptively in this passage. He is using a basic middle school descriptive technique – a simile, likening Jesus’ sweat to blood. Jesus was sweating so greatly because of his earnest praying that his sweat was like big drops of blood. There is nothing in this passage to imply that Jesus was actually sweating blood itself.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the verse in question does not even exist in the earliest manuscript fragments of the Gospel of Luke. Many modern English translations, such as the NIV and NRSV, even mention this in footnotes. It appears to be a later addition to Luke’s original text, added perhaps by an overzealous scribe wanting to embellish the story and make it more dramatic and descriptive.

In the end, whether the verse is original to Luke’s Gospel or not, the story does not tell us that Jesus sweat blood. Instead, it simply makes a descriptive simile, comparing Jesus’ sweat to great drops of blood.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The Ten Commandments are the foundational list of rules for both Jews and Christians around the world. They are to the Judeo-Christian tradition what the Noble Eight-Fold Path is to Buddhist tradition. While many Christians would perhaps struggle to name all ten off the top of their head, most could probably provide at least five or six at a moment’s notice. Don’t kill, don’t covet, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, and so on.

The Ten Commandments frequently have caused divisions in society in recent decades. Court battles have been waged over posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses and on other government buildings and properties. The list has become a defining part of the battle over the separation of church and state. Proponents will argue that the list is “non-denominational” and simply provides a moral standard that most people – Christian or otherwise – can agree with. Opponents argue that it is an entrenched part of a specific religious tradition, and our constitution disallows the government to support one religion over another.



But is the list familiar to us as the “Ten Commandments” actually the heavenly-ordained list of rules given by God to Moses and ultimately everyone on earth?

There is no question, of course, that the list most Christians know as the Ten Commandments exists in the Old Testament. Both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 give more or less identical lists of these commandments. What many Christians don’t realize is that these commandments were later done away with and replaced by God.

Many Christians are familiar with the story of Moses breaking the first set of tablets that God gave him. This is a story frequently told in Sunday School classes and parodied in comedies like Mel Brooks’ “History of the World Part I.”

Exodus chapter 32 tells us that when Moses saw that the Israelites had built a golden idol in the form of a calf, he threw the tablets to the ground and destroyed them in anger. Later, in chapter 34, Moses is instructed to replace the broken tablets and bring them to God so that God can re-inscribe them.

What most people don’t realize is that when God replaced the tablets Moses had broken, he changed the commandments too.

The new commandments could not have been more different than the first set. In order, they go as follows:

1. Do not worship any other God.

2. Do not make a treaty with any foreigners in Canaan (i.e., the Promised Land).

3. Do not make idols out of metal.

4. Celebrate the Feast of the Unleavened Bread in the month of Abib (March-April).

5. The firstborn son belongs to God, including firstborn males of livestock. When you sacrifice your firstborn male donkey, you can get a lamb in return. If you don’t sacrifice your firstborn male donkey, break its neck. All firstborn sons should be given to God (into the priesthood).

6. Rest on the seventh day of the week.

7. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks during the wheat harvest and celebrate the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year. Also, all men should go to Jerusalem three times each year.

8. When sacrificing, do not mix blood and yeast and do not let any sacrificial food from the Passover feast remain until morning.

9. The first blooming of any crops must be sacrificed to God.

10. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

When you compare this list to the other one, the differences are pretty stark. Nothing about lying, stealing, murdering, coveting, committing adultery, etc. This is a very “Jewish” list, reflecting the strict orthodoxy of the post-Exilic period. In early eras, the Jews had the original Ten Commandments tradition. Time passed. Theological ideas evolved. The Jews were eventually conquered and sent into exile in Babylon. “New” commandments were envisioned, commandments designed to protect Jewish tradition and Jewish unity in the face of assimilation with Gentile Babylonian culture. Thus, the story of Moses breaking the original tablets and receiving new commandments from God was born and added to the developing textual tradition.

That’s all academic scholarship, however. The fact remains that the book of Exodus gives us two lists of the Ten Commandments. The first list was broken and therefore made invalid; so God gave Moses a second list. Yet Christians tend not only to focus on the first list, but many don’t even realize that second list exists.

The reason, of course, why the second list is largely ignored in Christian tradition is because of its stark Jewishness. It deals almost entirely with Jewish law and tradition – laws and traditions that Christians no longer follow. Why the laws and traditions of the earlier list are not also rejected as part of the Mosaic tradition Christians don’t follow is anyone’s guess. I would argue, however, that it is because Christian tradition has kept the parts of the Old Testament that are palatable to modern sensibility, and rejected the rest as invalidated by the resurrection of Jesus.

THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

I have written before about issues surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion. Most Christians, if asked to describe the method of Jesus’ death, would tell you that he was nailed to a cross.

The very idea that Jesus’ death did not involve being nailed to a cross may seem to border on outright heresy. If there is anything that all Christians understand, it is that Jesus was nailed to a cross, died, and was resurrected on the third day.



I am not here to argue that Jesus was not crucified. I certainly believe he was. Instead, I simply wish to point out that no text in the New Testament ever tells us that Jesus was nailed to his cross.

None of the accounts of the crucifixion describe how Jesus was affixed to the cross. The accounts simply tell us that he “was crucified.” The Gospel of John, however, describes a resurrection scene that appears nowhere else, wherein Thomas demands to see the nail marks in Jesus’ hands (but not his feet). This, clearly, implies that Jesus was nailed to his cross, at least at the hands.



This story, however, comes in a resurrection scene, and seems to be directed at 1st century skeptics who argued that whoever it was that the disciples thought they saw, it was not Jesus. This story contradicts that skepticism – it says the disciples saw the wounds in Jesus’ hands, so it must have been Jesus and not an imposter.

There is a lot of debate in historical circles about how crucifixion was carried out in the ancient world. The Romans did not invent the practice; they got it from the Greeks, who appear to have taken it from the Persians. Sources from these ancient civilizations rarely describe how crucifixion was carried out, but when they do give a description, it usually involves tying the victim to the cross, not nailing them. In fact, there is no known account of a victim being nailed to a cross until the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70 C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that during this war, the Romans not only crucified thousands of people, but they even nailed some of them to their crosses, as a sort of vicious joke. The implication is that this was an uncommon and unheard of act of brutality.

Added to this is the fact that only one body of a crucifixion victim has ever been identified. This body, discovered in 1968 and dated to the 1st century, had a spike still sticking through the heel, but no obvious wounds to the hands, implying that the victim was nailed by the feet, but hung at the hands by rope. One has to wonder if this is not one of the crucifixion victims referred to by Josephus.



Either way, no other ancient crucifixion victim has ever been identified. If nails were commonly used in crucifixion, one would expect ancient bones to turn up now and then showing evidence of nailing. If crucifixion, on the other hand, was more commonly carried out with ropes, no physical evidence would exist in ancient bones – which would explain why only one ancient crucifixion victim has ever been identified.

Written several decades after the atrocity of the Romans nailing victims to crosses, it is easy to see why the writer of John presupposes that Jesus was nailed to his cross. By then, it would have been widely known that the Romans used nails in crucifixion. However, people such as the writer of John may not have realized that the Romans did not start this practice of nailing people to crosses until the Jewish war of the late 60’s – forty years after Jesus’ own crucifixion.

That the Romans would not have typically used nails for crucifixion makes sense in context. The Romans were nothing if not practical administrators. To use good and precious iron on a crucifixion victim would have been a wasteful extravagance. Crucifixion was reserved for the worst of criminals; it was considered the lowest and most inhumane form of execution. It had that reputation because it was humiliating (victims were usually crucified naked after being beaten), and it was a slow, torturous, excruciating death by suffocation (pressure on the diaphragm, caused by the unnatural angle of the limbs, would hinder and eventually halt respiration). Ancient accounts tell us that the Romans executed tens of thousands of people this way. It would have been too costly and too time consuming to use nails in these crucifixions.

So while we know that nailing was sometimes involved in crucifixion, and we know specifically that Romans nailed crucifixion victims in the late 60’s C.E., the wealth of information we have on this ancient practice implies strongly that crucifixion most commonly involved using rope, not nails. Added to that is the fact that none of the New Testament’s crucifixion accounts mention nails. Among the Gospels, only one Gospel – the latest to be written – gives any implication of nails being used in the crucifixion, and that was written in a resurrection account, not the actual crucifixion account. Finally, there is the fact that Jesus’ crucifixion would not have been anything special to the Romans carrying it out – it was just another execution like thousands of others they had performed. There would have been no reason, therefore, for them to break with custom and use nails with Jesus instead of ropes.

Thus, there is very little reason to suppose, either historically or even Biblically, that Jesus was actually nailed to his cross.

Most of the above, however, is historical analysis and interpretation. The fact remains that John’s Gospel does say, albeit in a resurrection account, that Jesus was nailed – at least in the hands – to his cross. Therefore, is it fair for me to say that the idea of Jesus being nailed to his cross is a “misconception” among Christians about Biblical content?

From one perspective, no. If a Christian believes Jesus was nailed to his cross, he or she can certainly support that by pointing to the Doubting Thomas story. So it is not the same, for instance, as the issue with the stable described above.

However, we already know that John gets some of his facts wrong – or, at least, his facts contradict many of those in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John, for instance, says explicitly that “Jesus carried his own cross” up to the place of resurrection. The other Gospels, however, all say explicitly that Jesus’ cross was carried by Simon of Cyrene, because Jesus was not able to carry it. John’s wording (“carrying his own cross”) almost sounds designed to contradict those earlier Gospel accounts that depict Jesus as being too weak to carry it himself. John’s Jesus was not weakened at all. And that depiction of Jesus being strong even in the face of death is carried on through John’s execution account. Unlike the earlier Gospels, Jesus does not openly “suffer” on his cross in the book of John. Instead, he ties up his personal matters by putting his mother into the care of one of his disciples, and then after asking for a drink, he dies with dignity. Compare that to Mark, for instance, where Jesus cries out to God “Why have you forsaken me!” and then gives another “loud cry” before dying. Remember, too, that John did not include the scenes included in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where Jesus is praying in earnestness and fear in the Garden of Gethsemane. John’s Jesus, unlike those found in the other Gospels, is supremely confident, powerful, and calm all throughout his passion story.

Referring again to the contradiction between John and the other Gospels about Jesus carrying his cross, is it not also possible that John got his facts wrong when he presupposed that Jesus had been nailed, and not tied, to his cross? It seems likely, given the historical, contextual, and textual background.

Other misconceptions abound regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. I recently had a Christian tell me, for instance, that Jesus was beaten with a cat o’ nine tails on his way up to the hill where he was crucified.



While it is true that the Gospels depict Jesus as being beaten, none of the accounts mention a whip of any kind, and instead say that Jesus was beaten with fists and with a staff. Furthermore, none of the depicted beatings happen on the journey to the place of crucifixion. Finally, the place of crucifixion is never called a hill or a mound or a mountain or anything other than simply a “place.”

CONCLUSION

The problem that leads to misconceptions about Biblical content is twofold: first, many Christians frequently don’t actually read their Bibles; and second, they instead get much of their information by absorbing it through popular culture – television, movies, music, etc.

We imagine, for instance, three wise men on camels, a star, a stable, shepherds, angels singing in the heavens, and the baby Jesus surrounded by lowing cattle. Those images are conglomerations of two different accounts, effectively creating a third account that does not actually exist, and incorporating details that are wrong (for instance, the Bible never tells us how many wise men there were, says nothing about camels or cattle, and of course also doesn’t mention a stable). We also imagine Jesus being whipped, spit on, and jeered as he proceeds uphill through the gathered angry mob to his place of crucifixion, where he his nailed to a cross.

Many of these sorts of images come from art and pop culture, not the Bible.

Taking the Lord's Name in Vain

Make sure to read my newest essay on this topic, a sort of addendum to the essay below: Taking God's Name in Vain.

****

Growing up as I did in the Southern Baptist tradition, perhaps one of my earliest exposures to Biblical content as a child was the instruction from the Ten Commandments not to “take the Lord’s name in vain.”

I understood from a very young age that this was extremely important, and that “taking the Lord’s name in vain” involved using any name of God as a swear word – what a grammar teacher might call an “exclamatory interjection.” This, of course, included not only “God,” but also “Jesus,” “Christ,” and even “Lord.” Among true swear words, “goddamn” was without question the most blasphemous and evil, because it not only included a dirty word, but also tied the name of God into its nastiness. Even into adulthood, long after I gave up the belief that I was in danger of hell fire for saying a swear word, “GD” still remained taboo for me. This is certainly still true for many people who might otherwise say a swear word now and then.

But what does it really mean to take the Lord’s name in vain? Does it refer to using God’s name as a swear word – an exclamation – or does it mean something entirely different? What were the intentions of those Biblical authors who included that command in the Ten Commandments, or, if you prefer a more traditional approach, what did God mean when he instructed his followers not to take his name in vain?

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Few Christians realize that there are actually several incarnations of the Ten Commandments in the Jewish scriptures – Christianity’s Old Testament. In fact, we are given no less than three “Ten Commandments” lists. The lists in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are fairly similar, but the one in Exodus 34 – the “new” list that God gave Moses after the first set of tablets were destroyed – varies quite dramatically from the old list. This new list, interestingly enough, has nothing about taking God’s name in vain.

Why, then, do we tend to go by the “old” list in modern Christian circles, instead of the “new” list, given to Moses after the first chiseled list got broken? If we did, the issue of taking the Lord’s name in vain might not be an issue at all. It’s an interesting question, and it probably has something to do with the fact that this new list is way too “Jewish” for most Christian sensibilities. Among its ten commandments is a command to celebrate certain Jewish festivals; it instructs Jews to sacrifice all their first-born animals to God; it insists that the faithful may not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Be that as it may, what has come down to us as the “Ten Commandments” are those lists found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, both of which include the instruction not to take the Lord’s name in vain. The wording of both instructions is identical.

Exodus 20:7a/Deuteronomy 5:11a (KJV) – Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

The more modern NIV uses a slightly different translation to get across the idea that this verse is dealing with petty things like using God’s name as a swear word: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.”

With theologically-tinged translations like the NIV, and with centuries of Christian ideology that says this verse bans us from saying “God” as an exclamatory interjection, most Christians read this verse and probably can’t imagine how it can be saying anything else.

THE VERSE IN HEBREW

A number of discoveries about the meaning of this instruction can be found by looking at the verse in its original language. I don’t speak Hebrew, and I’m certain than few if any of my readers do, so I’ll take it one keyword at a time. I realize that this sort of linguistic exercise is cumbersome for most people, but I hope my readers will stick with me, because understanding what the original words are actually saying is vital to the point I will make shortly.

Nasa’

The first primary word in the passage is nasa’. This word is used some 600+ times in the Old Testament, and generally means to “take up,” or “lift up,” or “accept.”

Shem

This word means “name,” or “reputation.” It is the word used any time that an Old Testament writer referred to the name of someone or something.

Yehovah

The word “Lord” in the NIV and KJV translations is the Hebrew word Yehovah, which would actually have been written as YHWH, the tetragrammaton that was believed to be the literal name of God. It comes down to us in English as “Jehovah” or “Yaweh.” Just as Egypt had Horus, and Rome had Jupiter, the Hebrews had Yaweh.

‘Elohiym

This is the word in the passage that is translated as “God.” In ancient Hebrew, it was a catch-all word that generally referred to “the gods” or the “heavenly host.” When used together with YHWH, it was the official way of referring to the God of the Jews – Yehovah ‘Elohiym – much as Christians might say “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In English Old Testament translations, it is usually written as “The Lord your God.”

Shav’

This is the word that is translated as “vain” in the King James Version. In ancient Hebrew, it meant “falsehood,” or “emptiness,” or “nothingness.”

Now that we have looked at the Hebrew words making up the first part of the verse, it is instructive to take a look at what they are actually saying: “Don’t take up or accept the name of God with falsehood or emptiness.”

“DON’T TAKE THE LORD’S NAME IN VAIN”

As the last phrase of the previous paragraph implies, I find that the original meaning of this familiar commandment is something entirely different than what most people suppose. But before making my argument, it is important to look at just what the logical consequences are of assuming that this commandment has anything to do with how someone physically utters the name of God.

In ancient Judea, Jews believed that God’s name – the aforementioned “Yaweh” – was so sacred and immortal that it literally should not be spoken, ever. It wasn’t used in everyday speech; it wasn’t used in the synagogue. It wasn’t even written out; as I have already illustrated, a tetragrammaton, or 4-letter code, was used instead – YHWH. Gentiles and pagans – like the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. – routinely referred to their gods by name. Since anything that stunk of paganism to the Jews was summarily rejected, it is not surprising that they developed a theology that said even the very name of God was untouchable and unworthy of being spoken by a human being. “God” (or, in Hebrew, “'Elohiym”), of course, was perfectly permissible, and would have been how God was referred to in everyday language. “Yaweh,” however, was not to be uttered.

So to suggest that this verse has something to do with not using God’s name as a swear word (i.e., an exclamatory interjection) is simply not supportable in the context of the ancient Hebrew kingdom. They wouldn’t have ever said the name, as a swear word or otherwise.

There are other issues, of course, with assuming such a meaning. First, if the commandment is talking about not misusing the physical name of God, then it is instructing us not to say “Aw, Yaweh!” when we stub our toe. It says nothing of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christ.” “God” is not the name of God – “Yaweh” is – and Jesus, after all, was merely the human incarnation of God, and his name – Jesus – is not the name of God either.

One might argue, however, that as the human incarnation of God, Jesus’ name has the same sacredness as God’s name. Even if we take that as fact, “Jesus” was not Jesus’ name! “Jesus” is simply the English transliteration of a Greek transliteration of Jesus’ real Aramaic name. Jesus’ real earthly name was “Yeshua,” which is the same name that the successor of Moses in the Old Testament had – Joshua. In the Old Testament, our English Bibles translate “Yeshua” directly into English – thus “Joshua.” The New Testament, however, was originally written in Greek, so “Yeshua” first goes into Greek and becomes “Iesus,” and then into English as “Jesus.”

So, again, if we want to simplify the commandment in question, then we shouldn’t say “Yeshua!” when we burn our finger. “Jesus,” however, is apparently perfectly permissible.

Finally, “Christ” is at issue as well. “Christ” is – again – an English transliteration of a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Mosiah. That word meant “anointed one,” in Hebrew. In Greek, “anointed one” is translated as Khristos. From there, we get the transliterated word “Christ.” This word, of course, was not Jesus’ last name. “Jesus Christ” means “Jesus the anointed one,” or “Jesus the Messiah.” It was a way of differentiating who he was versus other people with his name. Jesus the Anointed One versus Jesus the Newspaper Man, as it were. A good comparison is to consider the name “John the Baptist.” No one supposes his last name was “the Baptist.”

Thus, yet again, there can be no reason why “Christ” is impermissible as a swear word.

I hope that my tone here has been clear: the point I am trying to make is not to downplay the sacredness of the names “God,” and “Jesus,” and “Christ” to modern Christians. What I am attempting to do is show how silly it is to make an argument that this instruction from the Ten Commandments has anything to do with the physical utterance of a sacred name for swearing or other unsacred purposes. Yet this is what the argument must boil down to if one wants to insist on understanding this Old Testament commandment in this manner.

A MEANING THAT MATTERS

We return once again to the meaning of the commandment in question, when understood in the original language: “Don’t take up or accept the name of God with falsehood or emptiness.”

It is noteworthy to point out that at least one other verse in the Old Testament uses similar language. Both nasa’ (to “take up” or “accept”) and shav’ (“emptiness” or “nothingness”) appear in the book of Psalms.

Psalm 24:4 (KJV) – He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

The key phrase there is “lifted up his soul unto vanity.” This phrase, in Hebrew, is identical to the phrase from the Ten Commandments, replacing only the noun “his soul” with the compound noun “the name of the Lord your God.” Clearly the meaning of this verse from the Psalms is that one should not give his soul over to emptiness or meaninglessness.

In the same way, I argue that “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain” has a similar meaning. Do not meaninglessly take the name of God upon yourself. In other words: You can profess your faith all you want, but without living the lifestyle that comes with the acceptance of God’s name, your faith is meaningless and in vain.

This idea, of course, has numerous corollaries in the New Testament. In Matthew, Jesus assures us that not all those who say “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of God. James reminds us that faith without works is not just unpleasing to God – but actually dead. There is no such thing, James tells us, as faith without a changed nature accompanying it. Paul asserts in Romans that God will judge us by whether we do good or evil.

From where I stand, I see many Christians navigating this way through life. Christianity is just a “get out of death free card.” They’ve made their profession of faith, they “believe in Jesus,” and now they can get on with their life and have a little comfort about what happens when they and their loved ones die. Evangelical theology frequently supports this, with their plans of salvation and their promise that all God requires is that you “believe in him.” In fact, God requires a lot more. And God warns us against taking his name upon ourselves in vain.

I firmly believe that the “profession of faith” that is so common and so primary in many evangelical churches is meaningless and even unbiblical. Yes, the Bible stresses the importance of faith, but it stresses even more the importance of “faith in action.” I said it above, but it bears repeating: James even goes so far as to say that faith without action is dead. It’s non-faith. It’s meaningless. The profession of faith isn’t what matters; it’s how you act that counts.

Jesus called us to have life and have it more abundantly. He called us to new birth. He called us to a celebration of life and an experience of life at its deepest and most human levels. He never called us to get out of death free. The message of Jesus was imminently and forever about living, about breaking down the boundaries that divide us and reduce life, not about what happens when we die.

So a profession of faith – claiming God for yourself so you can have a little comfort – without actually living the life Jesus taught us to live…well, it’s taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Was Jesus Without Sin?

A common refrain within Christianity is that Jesus lived a sinless life. Belief in this doctrine has long been a necessity in Christianity, as it forms the basis for the atonement of Jesus’ death. Jesus had to be sinless in order to act as the sacrificial lamb for all people.

JESUS: A LAMB WITHOUT DEFECT

Ancient Jews symbolized the need for this atonement – this reconciliation between humankind and God – in the celebration of Yom Kippur. Among other things, Yom Kippur included the ritual slaughter of a physically flawless lamb, whose shed blood served as atonement for the sins of the Jews. The lamb was required to be young (a year old), male, and “without defect.” It was required, then, to be “perfect,” otherwise it could not adequately serve as a sacrifice to God.

For ancient Jews, any sacrificial animal was to be physically flawless. The need for sacrificial animals to be “without defect” is repeated dozens of times in the Torah. One example is Deuteronomy 15:21 – “If an animal has a defect, is lame or blind, or has any serious flaw, you must not sacrifice it to the Lord your God.” Furthermore, in the first chapter of Malachi, God condemns the Jews for offering sacrifices that were “blemished” with diseases and other physical maladies. In Malachi, God even goes so far as to say that anyone who has a good lamb, but offers a blemished lamb instead, is “cursed.”

This, then, is the theological and historical basis for the idea that Jesus – whose death was seen as the ultimate sacrifice to God for human sin – was by necessity “perfect” and sinless. The Doctrine of the Atonement simply would not work if Jesus had been a regular sinner like you and me. God cannot accept blemished sacrifices. Thus, you have 1 Peter 1:19 which states that Christ was “a lamb without blemish or defect.”

However, is there any textual evidence in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life to suggest that Jesus, in fact, may have committed sins? I believe that a literal reading of the stories of the Gospels must lead one to suppose that Jesus may not have been quite so perfect and “without defect” as some folks like to imagine.

DEFINING “SIN”

First, it is necessary to point out that the very word “sin” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Most people would consider the mass slaughter of men, women, children, and infants the worst kind of sin – yet God is responsible for doing just that many times in the Old Testament. Furthermore, while many people believe that “breaking the law” is a sin, most do not think it is sinful to break a law if the law is unjust.

Additionally, many Christians suppose that breaking God’s commandments, as laid out in the Bible, is sinful, but most Christians routinely break Biblical commandments without supposing they are committing a sin. For instance, in Acts chapter 5, Peter is described as condemning two members of the Christian population who withheld some of their own money from the community. Not only does Peter condemn them, he actually strikes them dead for this grievous sin! Christians were expected to give all they had to the community, and failing to do this had dire consequences. This passage, then, preaches a very difficult lesson, one which is universally ignored by modern Americans. No one supposes they are sinning when they give only ten percent of their income to the offering plate on Sunday morning. Another example involves corporal punishment of children. Most parents refrain from beating their children with rods to punish them, even though the Bible commands parents to do this. This one is especially ironic, because most Christians would not only not beat their children with rods, but would consider such an act to be child abuse, and therefore sinful!

For my purposes, I will stick to the sin “basics” – that is, actions that most everyone would consider sinful. Specifically, I will look at cases where Jesus seems to have engaged in intentional economic ruin, racial prejudice, verbal abuse, physical abuse, drunkenness, stealing, and lying. Since most people who believe Jesus was sinless also read and interpret the Bible’s stories literally, I will be approaching this subject from a direct and literal reading of the stories. In other words, for the purposes of this essay, I will be assuming that all the Gospel stories attributed to Jesus represent literal historical actions by Jesus.

INTENTIONAL ECONOMIC RUIN

Most people would consider an intentional act that ruins someone economically to be quintessentially sinful. Purposely burning down a private business owner’s store, for instance, would not only be a terrible crime, but most certainly a “sin” by most people’s standards. Another example might be bilking an elderly person out of their retirement savings through mail fraud – not only a serious legal crime, but a moral crime as well.

Mark chapter 5 describes a relatively famous scene in which Jesus heals a demon-possessed man by casting his “legion” of demons into a herd of pigs. The 2000-strong herd of pigs subsequently makes a mad dash down a hillside, where the pigs drown in a lake. The writer of Mark tells us that “those who were tending the pigs” ran and told everyone what had happened and later “began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.”

The story behind the story here is rather clear: Jesus has just sent these pig herders, and their master, into financial ruin. The destruction of 2000 pigs would be a major economic disaster even for a modern farmer, much less a farmer eking out a living in 1st century Galilee. In this passage, Jesus seems to have little regard for how his actions have affected the owners of the pig herd.

RACIAL PREJUDICE

Racial prejudice has been, and often continues to be, one of the banes of society. Few people disagree that judging someone by their race or nationality, or using derogatory names to refer to other races of people, is immoral and sinful. Many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, tend to do this from time to time, but most would never expect such things from Jesus.

However, the 15th chapter of Matthew describes a very curious, and often overlooked, scene in which Jesus not only discriminates against someone based on their race, but even calls them a derogatory name.

In this scene, Jesus is approached by a Gentile woman (that is, a non-Jew) who begs him to heal her demon-possessed son. Jesus’ first action is to ignore her completely. When she keeps on following and begging, the disciples get irritated and urge Jesus to send her away. Jesus then explains his perplexing actions: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” In other words, “I’m not interested in non-Jews or their problems.” He is, in effect, discriminating against this woman because of her race. The woman, however, is not to be put off. She falls at Jesus’ feet and literally begs him to heal her son. He responds with the phrase: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” This may seem a confusing phrase at first site. What Jesus is saying follows his previous comment. His message is for the “children” of Israel, and it is not appropriate to give that message to “dogs” – that is, non-Jews. Jesus has just called every non-Jew a “dog” who is unworthy of his message. The woman, in a great challenge to Jesus, replies that even the “dogs” eat from their masters’ tables. At this display of faith (some might say self-degradation) Jesus relents and heals her son.

VERBAL ABUSE

Most everyone agrees that verbally berating someone with name-calling and other hyperbole is mean-spirited at best and sinful at worst. We have already seen in the previous section a scene where Jesus engages in name-calling. Those of us who grew up as Christians are familiar with the famous warning from Matthew 5:22, where Jesus says that anyone who calls someone a “fool” is in “danger of hell fire.”

Apparently, Jesus meant anyone but himself.

Interestingly, in the very same Gospel where Jesus warns against calling people fools, Jesus himself refers to the Pharisees as “blind fools,” with the writer using the very same Greek word for “fool,” so that there can be no doubt that the meaning of the word was the same.

Not only is Jesus engaging in hypocrisy here by not holding himself to the same standards that he holds everyone else (which most would consider, in and of itself, sinful), Jesus is also committing the sin of name-calling (again).

“Fools,” however, is not the extent of Jesus’ verbal attack on the Pharisees. In Luke 11, Jesus is invited to dinner by a Pharisee and he accepts the invitation. But upon being questioned about not ritually washing up before eating, Jesus goes on a tirade, accusing Pharisees of being clean on the outside, but “full of greed and wickedness” on the inside. He says Pharisees are foolish, and neglect justice and God’s love. He accuses them of hypocrisy and false piety. He finishes by saying Pharisees are like “unmarked graves” that people walk past without noticing (presumably because they are so unworthy of notice).

The Pharisee, at this point, says that Jesus is insulting him by saying these things. So Jesus continues. He accuses the Pharisees of not doing anything to help people. He then blames the current generation of Pharisees for the “blood” of all the prophets that has been shed “since the beginning of the world.”

All this because the Pharisee was described as “surprised” that Jesus did not “wash before the meal” and then told Jesus his words were insulting? Wow.

This passage in Luke is pretty disturbing, but even more disturbing is a similar passage in the 23rd chapter of Matthew. This entire chapter, in fact, is one long diatribe against the Pharisees, and includes the “blind fools” quote I mentioned above. In this passage, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of vanity and hypocrisy, and says they have neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness. He calls them “sons of hell.” He calls them “blind” on four different occasions. He says Pharisees look “beautiful on the outside” like a whitewashed tomb, but on the inside they are just “full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” Like the passage in Luke, Jesus says the blood of all the prophets is on the Pharisees. He calls them “snakes” and a “brood of vipers” and says they will not be able to escape “being condemned to hell.”

To someone outside of Christianity, this must surely come across as intolerant verbal degradation and abuse, and must surely be sinful by most people’s standards.

PHYSICAL ABUSE

Perhaps less “clear cut” than some of my other examples, there is some evidence of physical abuse – or perhaps more appropriately “aggravated assault” – by Jesus. I am, of course, talking about the famous “cleansing of the Temple” scene, described in all four Gospels.

Jews coming into Jerusalem from other regions often went to the Temple to sacrifice animals. Before they could purchase an animal for sacrifice, they had to exchange their foreign currency. For this reason, there were moneychangers in the Temple, giving people a convenient place to exchange their currency before purchasing an animal, and making a profit in the process.

In clearing the moneychangers out of the Temple, Jesus is described as overturning their tables and spilling their money, and driving them and their animals out of the Temple with a whip. Did Jesus actually whip the moneychangers? That is unclear from the text, but either way you slice it, Jesus had committed an act of aggravated assault with a weapon. He was, of course, attempting to make a point, but the people he attacked were no more “guilty” than anyone else and were just in the wrong place at the wrong time – as so many victims of assault are.

DRUNKENNESS

One of Jesus’ primary methods of teaching seems to have revolved around eating and drinking. The partaking of food and drink is a common and recurrent theme throughout all four Gospels. Apparently, Jesus had a reputation for this. In Matthew chapter 11, Jesus states that people call him a “glutton and a drunkard” because he has come to the people “eating and drinking.” Oddly, Jesus does not deny these accusations, but simply points out that this is one way in which he is different than John the Baptist, who ate sparingly and did not drink alcohol. Does this mean Jesus was a drunk? He probably was not, but many Christians, even to this day, believe drinking alcohol is a sin, and those people seem to bypass this passage where Jesus points out that he is frequently accused of being a drunkard because of his fondness for winebibbing.

STEALING

The very idea that Jesus “stole” anything may seem preposterous. However, a careful look at the passages that describe Jesus’ actions just prior to his final entry into Jerusalem might imply that he did just that.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke each describe a scene in which Jesus tells his disciples to go into the city to find a colt for him to ride. If anybody asks them what they are doing, he instructs, they are to simply tell them that the Lord needs it and will return it. The unspoken implication here is that if no one sees them do it, then they should just steal it and bring the colt to him. In Mark and Luke’s account, the disciples are indeed questioned about their actions, and they reply as instructed. Matthew’s account, however, implies that they did not run into any trouble in taking the colt (Matthew, curiously, has them taking not just a colt, but a donkey too).

Nit-picky semantics? Maybe, but stealing is stealing, and it appears that Jesus had no qualms about taking something that was not his in this situation. After all, he was just going to use it for a while and then return it. Try telling that to the judge when you are on trial for grand theft auto.

LYING

This is, perhaps, one of the strongest cases of Jesus “sinning” in the New Testament, and the passage in question is almost universally overlooked. Even in researching for this essay, I did not come across any other sources that mentioned the following passage or Jesus’ apparent lie.

In the opening verses of John chapter 7, Jesus is in Galilee teaching. The Feast of Tabernacles is happening soon, and his disciples encourage him to go, suggesting that he can get a lot of exposure there, and that no public figure goes around acting “in secret.” Jesus, however, tells them that it is not yet his time (a foreshadowing of his execution) and that he is not going to Jerusalem for this feast. He encourages them, however, to go to the feast by themselves.

Then comes the shocker, in verse 10: “But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but in secret.”

So what has happened here? There is absolutely no question that Jesus has just lied to his disciples. He stated unequivocally that he was “not going to this festival” (verse 8). Yet later, after they had left, he went to the festival in secret.

Interestingly, Dark Age scribes evidently recognized this religious quandary. By telling his disciples that he was not going to Jerusalem, but then going later in secret, Jesus was clearly sinning. So what these scribes did was simply insert the simple little word “yet” into the phrase in question. So instead of Jesus saying: “I am not going to this festival,” their manuscripts read: “I am not going to this festival yet.” By slipping in that one little word, they felt like they could “correct” the obvious theological problem with John’s original text. We know this happened because the word “yet” does not appear in any of our earliest copies of the Gospel of John. It is not until one gets well into the Dark Ages that manuscripts begin to have this word included. Unfortunately – as is the case with so many other scribal variations – this variation has ended up in our modern Bibles. Most modern English versions have Jesus telling his disciples he is not “yet” going. However, the most textually-reliable English translation – the New Revised Standard Version – prints the verse the way it should read, without the word “yet” inserted. For those of you who are NIV users, the NIV prints the verse with “yet” included, but has a footnote pointing out that the earliest manuscripts do not have this word.

CONCLUSION

As I stated in the beginning of this essay, the nature of my argument has necessitated the assumption that all the stories attributed to Jesus in the Bible are true. Since Jesus’ sinless nature is primarily only asserted by those who take the stories in the Bible literally, it is necessary to present this argument with the assumption that these stories are, in fact, historically accurate.

Ultimately, I believe these arguments make a more broad general point about Bible literalism, Church doctrine, and the insistence by many Christians that Jesus was the sinless, divine, literal offspring of God. When someone reads the Bible literally, they are faced with hundreds, and even thousands, of religious quandaries. For some, this may bring an entire faith system into question. But for others, they simply begin to realize that the faith is not the problem – the literalizing of the text is the problem.

I believe the Gospels of the New Testament contain fiction and fact, myth and history, literature and reporting. I believe that many things about the life and teachings of Jesus can be gleaned from the Gospel stories, including those I have illustrated above.

For me, driving the demon into the pigs is clearly a story illustrating Jesus’ power over mental and emotional illness; the story of Jesus and the Gentile woman shows first that Jesus was a product of his 1st century Jewish culture, but also shows that when challenged (as he was by the woman’s pointed response), Jesus was able to step outside of those boundaries and demonstrate personal growth; the stories of Jesus’ harsh words for the Pharisees illustrate his deep-seated offense at the hypocritical and narrow ways of the religiously intolerant; the story of the cleansing of the Temple demonstrates Jesus’ derision for worldly pursuits and material gain; Jesus’ penchant for eating and drinking illustrates one of his primary methods of teaching, and symbolizes the heart of his message – that everyone is welcome at the table of God; the story of Jesus and the colt is a story not about stealing, but about an attempt on Jesus’ part to challenge the pomp and circumstance of the Roman empire; and the story about Jesus deceiving his disciples was clearly used by the writer of John to foreshadow Jesus’ later death and to demonstrate how Jesus knew that Jerusalem was to be the scene of his ultimate “showdown;” it also serves to show that deception is not always “black and white” and that sometimes it is better to withhold information if it serves a greater purpose.

It does not matter whether any or all of these stories are literal; what matters is the lesson of Jesus’ life and message. Jesus was a real human being, with real human failures; but it is the basic humanity of Jesus that makes his ability to inspire confidence, compassion, love, and a changed nature in his followers all the more impressive and appealing.

It is only when one begins to literalize these stories as historical fact that one begins to be plagued with the issues of “sinfulness” that I have illustrated here, and to subsequently miss the whole point about the true greatness of Jesus’ fully human life. But those “sinful” actions absolutely must be faced if one wishes to literalize all the accounts of Jesus’ story. Too often, literalists gloss these issues over, or ignore them completely, rather than allowing them to broaden their outlook. I encourage any of my readers to allow these issues to serve as an opportunity to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” as the author of 2 Peter encouraged us to do. By doing so, you will discover a fully human Jesus who, through the power of his personality and vision, inspired his followers into the fullness of life in God, an abundant life that even death could not threaten.


* Several of the points I make in this essay were introduced to me in an article by B.A. Robinson of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, at their website www.religioustolerance.org.

An Illustration of the Jewish Midrash Tradition

You all have heard me talk many times in the past about the Jewish midrash tradition. This tradition was a writing style wherein stories of real people would be imbued with fictitious accounts meant not to promote myth and lies, but to explain in clear language the importance of the person being written about. Rather than use traditional language, the person or event would be described against the backdrop of ancient stories and myths, in order to show how the subject person or event was bigger than life, and vitally important to the continuing story of the Jewish culture. Jesus's life was described in this way in the bible.

This tradition worked both on the positive and the negative. Just as intentional metaphor and mythology would be used to describe the greatness of certain individuals or events, intentional metaphor and mythology would be used to describe the depravity of certain individuals or events.

One such example is in the case of the Roman emperor Titus.

Titus was emperor of Rome from 79 to 81 C.E., and was considered by most secular historians of the time as a good emperor. He reigned during the catastrophic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 C.E., as well as through a devestating fire and plague in Rome in 80 C.E. He distinguished himself during these events through charity, monetary and peronsal aid, and an active policy to relieve the suffering these events caused. He personally visited the site of the destroyed Pompeii twice. Furthermore, because of his moderate and charitable reputation, he is considered the model emperor for the later "Five Good Emperors" described in Edward Gibbon's seminal work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Be that as it may, Titus was a general prior to becoming emperor, and as such, he was the figure who led the battle for the Romans against the Jews in the revolt of 70 C.E. His armies put the Jewish revolt down, secured Jerusalem as a province of Rome, and destroyed the Temple, thereby dispersing the Jews for good (that is, until 1947).

As you can imagine, despite his glowing reputation among Romans and Roman historians, Titus is viewed quite negatively in Jewish histories.

The Babylonian Talmud describes Titus as "wicked," saying that he "blasphemed and insulted heaven." There is a story of him taking his mistress into the holy of holies (a place only the high priest was allowed to go), opening a scroll of the Torah, then having sex on top of the scroll in the middle of the holy of holies.

Later, after the war, when Titus was returning to Rome, a great gale came up on the sea, and Titus mocked God, saying that the Jewish God only has power on the water. God, in turn, told Titus he would meet him on land, and destroy him with the tiniest creature on earth, a gnat, to prove his power.

The Babylonian Talmud goes on to say that a gnat, which, it claims, has only an orifice for eating but not for excreting, entered Titus's nose and went up into his brain. There it lived for the next 7 years, before finally killing Titus. Upon a post-morten examination, Titus's head was opened and the gnat was discovered, the size of a sparrow.

All of this is midrash. It was metaphor and mythology, intentionally devised to show how the Jews felt about Titus. Describing him conducting a sex act on a scroll of the Torah, inside the holy of holies, was about the worst possible thing imaginable to a 1st or 2nd century Jew. Describing a scene in which God's power is displayed on the water harkens back to stories of the parting of the Red Sea and the story of Jonah (this same theme is used in the Gospels when describing Jesus's power to calm the storm).

Describing a "gnat" as entering Titus's brain also harkens back to the stories of the Exodus. One of the plagues was a swarm of gnats. Gnats, as well as any flying insect that swarmed or "went about on 4 legs" were considered detestable and unclean to the Jews, as outlined in Jewish Law (see Leviticus 11:20 and Deuteronomy 14:19). So to suggest God sent a gnat to kill Titus not only describes God's power over earthly rulers, but also portrays earthly rulers as so insignificant, weak, wicked, and depraved as to be destroyed by an unclean, detestable insect.

All of this illustrates well the Jewish midrash tradition. Titus never copulated on the floor of the holy of holies. Titus never had a conversation with God during a storm at sea. Titus did not get killed by a gnat entering his brain through his nose (as if such an opening even exists there), and there was certainly no sparrow-sized insect found in Titus's skull after death. These stories were incorporated into the Jewish written tradition in order to illustrate in an overt and unconcealed way just how the Jews felt about this man Titus.

Understand midrash, and you will see the Gospel stories of Jesus in an entirely new, refreshing, and spiritually meaningful light.

Tithing: Moral Responsibility or Spiritual Mandate?

“I would rather give $20 willingly than give $100 grudgingly, or out of necessity. The money is really not the issue, but the attitude is.”

So said a Christian acquaintance of mine on an Internet message board I frequent.

It got me wondering. (Actually, it got me fighting mad.) What is the Christian motivation for tithing and/or giving? Is an offering to be given in order to garner favor with God, or is an offering to be given in order to fulfill a basic moral and social responsibility? When someone gives an offering, is the giver the central character, or the receiver?

The concept of tithing is as old as Judaism itself. In Deuteronomy, Chapter 14, it says the following:

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain...in the presence of the LORD...at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name...But if that place is too distant and you...cannot carry your tithe...then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink...Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD...At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that...the aliens, the fatherless and the widows...may come and eat and be satisfied.

In setting out the concept of tithing, God instructs the Jews to gather one-tenth of all the produce of their fields, and set it aside for a ritual feast each year at the temple. If the temple was too far away to reasonably transport all that food (this, of course, would have included cattle), then the Jews were to exchange the tithe for money, which they could later use, upon arrival at the temple, to buy food for the ritual feast. Every third year, the Jews were to forego the ritual feast, and give their tithe, instead, to charity, so that the needy would have a storehouse of produce throughout the year from which they could eat.

Depending on how you look at it, this is an early form of socialism.

Regardless, the Jewish concept of tithing one-tenth of all you owned grew from this Mosaic tradition. Each year, Jewish families and tribes would take their tithe to the temple where they would feast in honor and supplication with God. If they lived too far away to make the trip with their animals and harvested crops in tow, they’d sell it and use the money to buy food and wine once they arrived at the temple. The tithe they donated every three years to the poor helped create an ever-growing store of food and cattle, which were dispersed among the poor and needy. One can almost see the Levites tending to the donated cattle, breeding them, and dispersing meat and grain to the poor who came to beg. If the stores began to run low, they could always count on the donation of tithes every third year to refill the warehouses and cattle fields.

Tithing became an integral part of the Jewish tradition.

Things began to fall apart in the 6th century B.C.E. Around 586 B.C.E., Israel was invaded by Babylon. The Israelites were dispersed, many taken into captivity or fleeing to other nations. For several generations, the only thing that kept the Jews unified as a culture was their religion. However, because their temple was destroyed, and they were unable to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem, the tradition of tithing began to die off. Even after Israel was restored, the tithing tradition did not immediately return.

It was around this same time – during and after the so-called Babylonian Captivity – that many of the Old Testament prophets began writing about their visions from God about the restoration of Israel and the reasons for Israel’s many troubles.

One of those prophets was Malachi. In Chapter 3 of his book, he writes the following, speaking in the voice of God:

“Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD Almighty. “...Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, ‘How do we rob you?’ In tithes and offerings...Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit,” says the LORD Almighty.

God is chastising the Jews for turning away from the tradition of tithing. He encourages them to begin tithing again. And he promises to “open the floodgates of heaven” and “prevent pests from devouring” the crops. God was promising to bring plenty of rain, thus allowing the fields to prosper, and to keep away nuisance crop-eating insects, making Israel rich and envied among the nations.

This passage in Malachi is often quoted by Christians as a biblical mandate from God to tithe one-tenth of their paychecks to their church, in exchange for blessings of economic and financial security.

Based on the history behind the Jewish concept of tithing, you can probably see why, even on the surface, this is a perplexing and convoluted belief.

The Jewish tradition never had anything to do with giving money to the temple. Tithing was basically a ritual feast – a way for ancient Jews to celebrate the abundance given them by God. It was also a way for them to provide food and sustenance for the needy and poor in their society.

I would wager that most modern Christians do not understand the origins of the tithing tradition. Most Christians believe God has told them to give one-tenth of their income to the church, so they simply comply (well, some of them comply – I doubt most people actually give the full 10%). But is there really any Godly mandate behind tithing, relevant to Christianity? After all, tithing was a Jewish tradition that did not involve the giving of money. Why have we continued the tithing tradition, when so many other Jewish rituals have been disregarded or outright rejected?

Well, primarily, the church needs the money. What better way to encourage members to give money than to draw from the tithing tradition in the Old Testament and tell your members that God has instructed them to give 10% of their paychecks?

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with giving money to your church. The church has to pay bills, after all, as well as salaries, and a good church would use the rest for noble charitable causes. But should we really call this “tithing,” as though it has any relationship to the ancient Jewish tradition of a yearly ritual feast in the presence of God?

And what about that quote that started it all? Is it really better to give $20 cheerfully than $100 grudgingly? What is giving about, after all, if not the benefit of the receiver? I doubt the receiver cares much whether your money is given cheerfully or grudgingly. All the receiver cares about is that the money is given. If you have $100 to give, why would you give less than that, unless you were only giving for the purpose of pleasing God, figuring God would be happier with the “cheerful” gift of $20 (“cheerful” because it doesn’t hurt your wallet so much) than the “grudging” gift of $100.

Such an idea is abominable to me.

Christians should give to their churches, and their communities, because it is the morally and socially responsible thing to do. Not because Moses told his followers 3,000 years ago that God wanted them to have a ritual feast every year in God’s honor. And certainly not because God promises to “bless” you if you do. We don’t give for blessings. We give because we love others and because it is our moral responsibility to help our fellow human beings.

Any other motivation for giving is, in my opinion, self-serving and contemptible.

Give that some thought the next time your pastor reminds you that “God loves a cheerful giver.” Unless you are giving for the express purpose of pleasing God and thereby securing some extra “blessings” for yourself, your attitude as you give should have no relevance whatsoever on how much you give.