“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.” (Deuteronomy 22:11)

That’s right. Blended fabrics are prohibited. God must have foreseen the invention of polyester, and tried to head it off, but thou art a stiff-necked people. Don’t feel too bad, though, because apparently only some Native American Indian tribes (and perhaps some cowboys) were getting it right, anyhow:

“Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.” (Deuteronomy 22:12)

In honor of Easter.

A large portion of the second half of the Old Testament depicts the wars in which the Israelites engaged in occupying the land that the Lord had promised them. However, the rules of conduct for military engagements were laid out as early as Deuteronomy, which reassures the people first and foremost that the Lord will guide them successfully through their battles, however poor the odds:

“When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 20:1)

But God does not necessarily promote warfare; indeed, he commands that peaceful measures first be employed to subdue the cities proposed to be conquered:

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:” (Deuteronomy 20:10-12)

In modern times we perceive war as a consequence of conflicts between countries rather than as a means of gaining tributes or territories; indeed, the international community frowns severely upon wars of conquest. But the old-fashioned Biblical view was not so; peace is offered only as a less bloody alternative to war. There is no discussion and no compromise; the end result will be the same whichever means is chosen: total subjugation of the city involved.

The treatment of the subjugated peoples, too, strikes the modern ear as hopelessly barbarian:

“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

And woe unto the particular enemies of the Lord, of whom not even the women and children shall be spared:

“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

Again we see the idea of the land itself becoming defiled by the acts of its inhabitants. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed with fire and brimstone; the land of the Israelites will be purged through warfare. Yet it is not to be a holy war according to the modern conception, in which the followers of one religion shall supersede another owing to any perceived superiority of faith or belief. War is not a symbol of the triumph of good over evil, or even a means of restoring historic territorial rights. Success in war is granted not as a reward for the righteous conduct of the chosen people, but rather as a punishment for the even more wicked peoples that preceded them:
    
“Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.” (Deuteronomy 9:5)

As we have seen, one of the Bible’s recurring concerns is with what might be termed the sexual offenses, some of the most notable of which are homosexuality, adultery, and incest. However, Biblical teaching also concerns itself with a wide range of lesser sexual offenses, admonishing its readers:

“Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” (Leviticus 18:24-25)

Thus, according to the Lord, sexual misbehavior is one of the causes for which the current residents are to be expelled from what is to be the land of the Israelites, a theme which traces back even to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Committing sexual offenses is not merely sinful, but defiles the very land on which it occurs in much the same way that the spilling of innocent blood does. And it appears that in Biblical times, a nation that defiled its land might be deemed unworthy to live upon it. 

This is not so illogical once you realize that sex itself is seen as a source of “uncleanness” for the persons engaging in it:

“And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. (Leviticus 15:16-18)

One wonders whether this is the source of the practice, still frequently observed in the modern world, of showering after sex. Of course, no amount of showering could rid a woman of the uncleanness of menstruation, a condition that was apparently so offensive that everything a menstruating woman touched was considered unclean:

“And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.” (Leviticus 15:19-28)

Indeed, sex during menstruation appears to be a sin almost as wicked as incest, and which calls for a similar punishment:

“And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.” (Leviticus 20:18)

“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.” (Leviticus 20:17)

Of course, in ancient times, menstruation was far less common. If you get married at thirteen and, if fertile, spend most of your life having children until you die an early death in the very act of childbirth, your normal cycle just doesn’t kick in as often as it does today.  

But the “uncleanness” of women does not extend merely to menstruation. As we have previously noted, although the big Biblical bugaboo regarding men concerns male homosexuality, there seems to be little concern in the Bible over homosexuality among women. There is, however, ample discussion of prostitution, almost as if, on the scale of sin, being a whore is the female equivalent of being a male homosexual:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 23:17)

And again there is the reference to the land, as if the land itself might be defiled by the acts of its residents:

“Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.” (Leviticus 19:29)

Transvestitism, also, was apparently not unknown in Biblical times:

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

I’m not sure whether the transgendered individuals of today should be discouraged by being termed “abominations,” or heartened by the fact that people have evidently been struggling with gender issues for at least two millennia. 

But perhaps the crown of interesting sexual prohibitions in the Bible is the stricture against bestiality, a capital offense on an equivalent with homosexuality and punishable by death. It’s actually mentioned at least five times (Exodus 22:19, Deuternomony 27:21, Leviticus 18:23, and Leviticus 20:15 and 20:16), which makes one wonder whether the act was either really offensive or really common among the people of the time.

“And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:15-16)
“Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” (Leviticus 18:23)

Confusion isn’t quite the word I would use to describe it, but I do question whether it was really fair to slay the beast if the person ravaging the beast was clearly at fault. Perhaps lost somewhere in the sands of time was an exemption for non-consenting beasts. Or maybe the point was to ensure that any animal that was so enticing to humans be merely obliterated from the planet and thus cease to pose a temptation to God’s allegedly more intelligent creatures.

It is also interesting to note the types of sexual behaviors that the Bible does not prohibit. Nowhere, for instance, is oral sex mentioned, much less forbidden. Neither are threesomes or varieties thereof; nor, for that matter, in spite of the Bible’s pervasive homosexual dread, is anal sex between a man and a woman ever addressed. Had these practices merely not been invented yet, or were they actually not frowned upon? Presumably we shall never know. But if nothing else, the Biblical catalogue of sexual offenses makes one thing clear: ancient peoples participated in sexual behaviors that were as kinky and unpredictable as those in the pornography of today, and subject to as much ongoing debate.   

I’ll probably never be able to stop picturing Moses as a strangely-altered version of Charlton Heston. For many years The Ten Commandments was to Easter what It’s a Wonderful Life is to Christmas: the one super-long movie your folks would let you stay up to watch even though it went on way past your bedtime.

Of course, at the time I didn’t see that there was anything all that special about Moses; he was just the guy who led the Israelis out of bondage in Egypt, which was cool enough in itself. But on reading The Bible many years later, it became apparent to me that what was really unique about Moses was his relationship with God. Because not only did Moses have what might be called a direct line to the Almighty, he actually had the power to influence the Lord’s decisions and behavior.

Now if you sit down and read the Old Testament, it becomes readily apparent that the Hebrews aren’t exactly quick to pick up what the Lord is putting down. I mean, although they are undoubtedly grateful for their deliverance, the living conditions while they’re wandering about the wilderness aren’t all that fantastic, and naturally as time goes on some of the people begin to wonder if their interests might be better served by worshipping some other god. In fact, during the very forty days and nights in which Moses is up on the mountain receiving the Commandments, the people have already grown impatient with their missing prophet and the God he’s been promoting:

“And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32:1-4)

It sounds ridiculous now, of course, the whole golden calf thing, and God, it seems, isn’t too pleased about it either. In fact, he gets really mad. So mad, in fact, that he asks Moses to go away so that he can brood in peace:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: (Exodus 32:7)
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them…” (Exodus 32:10)

But Moses isn’t the prophet of the Lord for nothing. In fact, he’s pretty clever about it; counting on God’s ongoing concern for His reputation to dissuade him from vengeance:

“And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:11-14)

That’s a switch. It’s usually sinners who repent; how often do you hear of the Lord repenting? But of course, as time passes, the Israelites continue to act in ways that God finds reprehensible, and He… well, let’s just say He gets a bit testy with them. And once again it becomes Moses’ job to act as the go-between the Lord and the people: persuading the people to attempt to obey, and the Lord to forgive them when they fail. Thus when the Israelites are again complaining that the Lord has delivered them out of Egypt merely to die in the wilderness, it is to Moses that the Lord turns to vent his rage:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them…” (Numbers 14:11-12)

Moses again plays the losing-face-in-front-of-the-Egyptians card, arguing that if God destroys the Hebrews, the Egyptians will hear about it and say:

“Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.” (Numbers 14:16)

And in case the force of this argument isn’t solid enough to persuade the Lord away from his wrath, Moses supplants it with humility; even a little flattery:

“Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” (Numbers 14:19)

Yet even Moses’ influence with the Lord is limited, and, in the end, after all he has done to promote the ways of God, he too is punished for a seemingly minor infraction, and must die before entering the holy land:

“Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel.
Yet thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 32:51-52)

Yet even this punishment may have impressed the people with the power of the Lord; even God’s most deserving servant cannot expect immunity for his transgressions. And there is no question that Moses’ unique position vis-à-vis the Lord served as the primary means by which the tribes were eventually brought around to following Him. The Lord of Moses did not exist as mere theory and speculation in some far-off realm beyond the earth; to the people He was real, a being to whom they could personally relate, and who, through His servant, made His presence tangibly known. And indeed, what could be more powerful than a God who tells you exactly what his expectations are? A God who prescribes His own offerings and details His prohibitions; who promises specific rewards for following His path. A God with an almost-human personality, who behaves like a ruler of men is expected to behave, even, at times, turning to a trusted adviser when uncertain of his way.

Moses’ fame as a prophet is therefore no doubt justified, for he did far more than bring his people to the Lord; he brought the Lord to the people:

“And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” (Deuteronomy 34:10)

There seems little reason to doubt that religious cults were more prevalent in ancient times than they are today. In the ancient world there existed a wide variety of theologies and a large number of “local” gods, of which the original God of the Hebrews was almost certainly one (a subject for another post). The modern world has such a wide variety of accepted mainstream religions that one has to be truly unusual to acquire “cult” status; I mean, who besides the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians really know what the differences are between Episcopalians and Presbyterians?

But what is particularly interesting about the cult of Christianity is that it is one of very few cults of the time that not only took hold and flourished, but that also left a written record of its operations, its means of existence, and the manner in which its members perceived themselves. Why did Christianity survive? Was it merely better managed than the other cults of its time? Did it draw on time-tested traditions common to the cults of yesteryear as well as those of today? Or did it perhaps succeed because its members were prepared to sacrifice as much as the man they so devotedly followed?

Whatever its type or status, one matter is clear concerning cults: that they are organizations like any other; businesses, if you will, dependent for their continued existence on advertising and sales of their particular products. And the same was true two thousand years ago: a cult, even one devoted to its members’ personal poverty, still needed money with which to operate. In fact, this quest for cash forms a noteworthy portion of Paul’s epistles, which were unquestionably as concerned with earthly as well as spiritual matters. Read, for example, what Paul, who was by enemies termed a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), writes in his letter to the Corinthians:

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.” (Corinthians 16:1-3)

Many pages of zealous religious exhortations close with this: a very practical admonition to collect donations promptly so that Paul might deliver them to headquarters as quickly as possible. But, as is still true today, even those who give willingly may yet be subject to criticism for not giving more. Consider the story of Ananias, one of the faithful, who sold a piece of land that he owned, donated a portion of the proceeds to the church, and then lied about the price his property had fetched:

“But Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” (Acts 5:3-4)

And if the lecture wasn’t enough to convince you not to have double-dealings with the Lord, consider the punishment: both Ananias and the wife who helped him to cover up his deception immediately fall down dead. Not only does it make one question why Ananias’ generosity wasn’t simply accepted on good faith, the story also makes one wonder whether Ananias was pressured into selling the land in the first place. Indeed, personal subservience to the needs of the cult is both encouraged and expected:

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (Acts 4:32)

This verse presents a pretty picture of a socialistic utopia centered on community, cooperation, and commonality of ownership among those inside the cult, an idealized bonding with one’s fellow-believers that the unfortunate Ananias apparently did not share. Contrast this with the cult members’ view of those who stood outside the cult; even one’s own family members were not to be trusted:

“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” (Matthew 10:21)

However, while this sounds like a surprisingly sinister punishment for merely following that rebel Jesus, it is important to recall the context; this was, in fact, one of the Lord’s commandments: the Old Testament Lord, who was very clear in arguing that even one’s nearest relations were not exempt from the law of the jealous God:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

John in particular seems to have a good understanding of how the faithful of the outside world must have viewed the Christians; he even appears to recognize that there is some theological justification for the persecution of Christ’s disciples:

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2)

The apostles, too, are well-aware of their status as outsiders among their own people; they repeatedly express a strong sense of being universally despised as well as harassed:

“For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” (Corinthians 4:9-13)

Jesus himself, having ample experience with oppression, never pretended that his disciples would receive any better treatment than he did; but neither does he accept abuse or injury as an acceptable excuse for not performing the work of the Lord:

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:19-20)

So if belonging to the cult of Christianity is so detrimental to happy or healthy living, why, then, do the cultists persevere in following Christ? Maybe because they’ve been promised that after the apocalypse, they will have their eternal revenge:

“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:9)

But perhaps there is another, equally-human motivation behind cult membership, one that goes beyond the desire to be with like-minded people or to belong. Ultimately the cultist may be motivated by the same force that inspires members of the mainstream to despise the cult: a sincerity of conviction and belief.

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (Corinthians 1:18)

It is well-known that Christianity – perhaps like all theological systems – began as a cult rather than as a full-blown religion. Indeed, it seems evident even from the very nature of Christianity, which grew out of and even today remains highly intertwined with Judaism, that it evolved as a kind of revolt against the strict tenets of the Jews of the time (a subject for another post). However, what is most interesting about Christianity’s cult status is that in reading The Bible, it becomes apparent that the cults of ancient times were operated in much the same way as those of today, and furthermore, that they were likewise perceived with as much derision and suspicion by the unfaithful.

First of all, it is important to realize that by New Testament times, the Jews had finally accepted the Lord as their God. This was a pretty big deal, because a large part of the Old Testament concerns the efforts of the God of the Hebrews to convince the Israelites to stop “whoring after other gods” and to follow His commandments, which, after many failings and rebellions, it appears that they finally do. And then along comes Jesus, who virtually attempts to make the Jews disbelieve everything they have spent centuries learning to believe. Now, of course, by this point, the Jews have not had a great deal of luck when disobeying God’s orders, and naturally they’re somewhat reluctant to listen to this one crazy cultist who says he’s bringing them a whole new – albeit gentler – set of rules at their heavenly God’s behest.

From the Christian point of view, it may seem appropriate to berate and criticize the Romans and the Jews for their treatment of Jesus and his followers, but we must remember that we’re seeing it this way, today, centuries later, long after Christianity had become widely accepted. To the people of the time, it must have sounded absurd. Imagine, if you will, that some dirty long-haired weirdo claiming to be the Son of God comes and knocks on your door, and then tells you to forget all that law and commandment garbage that was supposedly the Word of God, and listen to his Word of God instead. Even worse, he argues that according to this New Testament, that salvation cannot be achieved through following the laws of God and Moses, but only through faith. And more specifically, only through faith in this same wacked-out stranger, through belief that he is, in fact, the Son of God.

Well, of course it sounds nuts. If a guy like that showed up on your doorstep today you’d probably call the cops or the looney bin and have him taken away, just as the ancients debated his sanity as well:

“There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
And many of them said, he hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” (John 10:19-21)

And remember, Jesus’s teachings were not harmless to the Israelis; they were a hazard to the very society he sought to convert. The Jews had spent many years being punished for worshipping other gods; how could they not but fear a man who set himself up as a god?

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not: but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33)

The fact is, without direct divine intervention telling them what to believe, the Jews were kind of stuck here. If they accepted Jesus, they went against their own God, which, in general, was a pretty bad idea. Besides, why believe in Jesus? Crazy sect-leaders of the time were constantly setting themselves up as possessors of the true revelation:

“But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.” (Acts 8:9-10)

“For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished: and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.” (Acts 5:36-37)

In fact, it would hardly have been reasonable for the Jews or, for that matter, any of the other ancient peoples to merely accept Jesus at face value; unreasonable and possibly perilous, as the fate of the cult leaders and followers aforementioned so clearly demonstrates. And popular opinion, of course, was understandably no more receptive to these radical new ideas than it is today:

“For as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.” (Acts 28:22)

At best, the Israeli leaders advised caution when dealing with the new cult:

“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

In other words, there was a great deal of uncertainty in how to handle a cult that had derived a large following, and that seemed to be able to provide some evidence for the validity of its hero’s claims, namely, Jesus’ healings and other miracles. But even Jesus himself could offer no more convincing proof of his holy standing, a marked contrast to the Old Testament God, who expends a great deal of effort in proving his existence.

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” (John 10:37-38)

The fact is, without the miracles and faith healings, Jesus would have been as long forgotten as the less-successful cult leaders Simon and Theudas and Judas and all of the nameless others who preceded and followed them. But it is this very power to perform that makes him so dangerous, for the cult threatens to subvert the existence of the nation itself, a fate against which the men in charge vigorously fought, in line with the accepted methods and thinking of the day:

“But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” (John 12:10-11)

“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48)

Jesus’ execution is even proposed as a measure necessary to preserve the people:

“It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (John 11:50)

A surprisingly logical conclusion, even if founded on irrational beliefs. Whatever one’s faith, it must seem wrong to us today for a kind, caring, devoted man to have been shamelessly and painfully executed for having committed no greater wrong than proffering a religion disastrously at odds with those of the day. But modern people view Christians as meek, humble, harmless; even beneficial to contemporary culture as a whole. In ancient times they were merely cult members and followers, outrageous proponents of dangerous, unheard-of beliefs, struggling along the fringes of civilization like the modern cults which, to those who exist outside of them, can only be perceived as strange and frightening by the mainstream bulk of society. 

Much has been made of the concept of Christian chastity; it has, in large part, governed churchly as well as secular matters, leading, among other things, to the belief that priests should be abstinent and that pre-marital sex is a sin. In fact, the virginity of unmarried women was, and to some extent continues to be, a prize to be safeguarded. Well, sort of.

For example, if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin, and her father has the tokens proving her virginity, he must pay father 100 shekels of silver, and keep the wife. If the tokens (likely cloth showing the blood that results when the hymen is broken) cannot be found,

“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house.” (Deuteronomy 22:21)

But, interestingly, a woman who voluntarily surrenders her virginity might also find thereby a means of securing a husband, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way:

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

In other words, a man can have his wife killed if he can prove she was not a virgin when they married. On the other hand, the man who actually does the de-virginizing can be forced to marry her. (I guess that’s necessary, since the poor woman who is no longer a virgin seemingly can’t marry anyone else under potential penalty of death.) In short, the woman who is trying to land a particular husband will do well to sexually seduce him. But by the same token, a smart man carrying a torch might employ the same strategy to obtain a wife who might otherwise have been unattainable.

These, however, are Old-Testament regulations. What does the New Testament have to say on the subject?

Well, interestingly, not very much. In fact, except for on the subject of marriage and adultery (see my previous post), the Gospels have surprisingly little to say regarding sexuality. Jesus in his teachings does not seem to have been overly concerned with carnal behavior; indeed, not one of his famous parables concerns the big Biblical bugaboos of homosexuality or bestiality, nor even, for that matter, the concept of chastity. So where does that come from?

If you ask me, the modern conception of Christian abstinence comes not from the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but from Paul in his Epistles. One day I will sit down and count up the number of times Paul disparagingly utilizes the word fornication; I’m willing to bet that it occurs more times in his Epistles than in the rest of the Bible combined. Furthermore, the whole concept of virginity, or at least male virginity, appears to derive from Paul, who concedes that:

“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
I suppose that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.” (Corinthians 7:25-26)

So here for the first time, three-quarters of the way through The Bible, arises the first suggestion that chastity is desirable for both men as well as women. Paul’s advice to both sexes? To marry, as a means of staving off unsavory and perhaps illicit sexual desires; that is, of course, if those desires cannot be quenched entirely:

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”(Corinthians 7:1-2)

“For I would that all men were even as myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (Corinthians 7:7-9)

In other words, the conception of sexuality as a need or desire to be squelched and frowned upon comes not from God, nor from Jesus, but from Paul’s admittedly ungrounded interpretation of what he personally thinks is best regarding carnal behavior. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere else in the Bible does any other person, however holy, recommend abstinence, which is untenable at best, as a preferred way of life. While certain behaviors may be seen as abominations, and adultery in the form of the time is strictly forbidden, no one besides Paul seems to view sex itself as a thing to be shunned and avoided.

Read, for example, Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins who went forth to meet their bridegroom. (Matthew 25) Really? Ten virgins for one bridegroom? This reads more like modern porn than like Bible-talk, and like some pretty outrageous porn at that. But does Jesus judge the virgins, or the bridegroom? Not in the slightest. Because while heavenly matters are certainly superior to earthly ones, God is, and always has been, practical; recognizing since the day that Adam and Eve left Eden that man was and always would be a slave to his flesh; that He, indeed, made him that way.