DNA-Match Mystery Solved (I think)

A couple months ago I wrote about Solving a DNA-Match Mystery as I awaited my aunt's DNA test results.  When my dad's high Italian DNA showed up, I thought it might be a mystery I'd never solve. It's pretty well-known that a great-great-something grandmother (she was born around 1810) on the Fuqua side never married though she had several (6, I think) children. I figured whoever fathered the child who became my direct ancestor passed along his Italian DNA. But then when the Greek* surnames showed up as very close matches to me and my dad, I had to rethink things.

I puzzled it out with my family. We have a Messenger group with just my parents and siblings. My mom actually made the correct suggestion. I had been looking at my grandfather as he was a known cheater. I was trying to make it fit with him.


But my mom suggested my grandmother - my dad's mom - was the key.  At first I said no because I had matches with her cousins, but then...yes, you're right, Mama. The ones missing from my list are Fuquas and Hamletts and Websters! What is the meaning of this?  And...how...?

And while I can't ask my grandmother for any information since she died in October 2017 at age 91, I can make some educated guesses. All this thanks to the Ancestry DNA Matches feature plus a rather detailed online obituary.

So, I've concluded that my dad's full siblings are really half-siblings, and he's not even biologically related to all those aunts, uncles, and grandparents he grew up with!  (His parents divorced when he was ten so he lived with his grandparents and was/is very close to his aunts and uncles.)  He has several half-siblings plus extended family in Ohio whom we only know about thanks to the DNA testing.

I wondered how the Ohio guy and my grandmother met. Because his obituary mentions his service,

"...veteran of the U.S. Army, serving with the 82nd Airborne Division; 504th Parachute Regiment, qualifying as a parachutist and gliderman."


I was able to look up that division and saw they are based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina!  Perhaps he came through on a bus or train and met my grandmother. Or maybe he had a buddy in this area, and came here on leave. Or maybe she traveled to Fort Bragg. I'll likely never know.  But I know so far two of the children and three of the grandchildren listed in his obituary are on my DNA Match list.  And based on how accurate the DNA has been on all the other matches, I can't easily dismiss this!

This is already too wordy so I'll close.  Feel free to ask me any questions especially if I need to clarify something.

* Although the DNA presently shows up as Italian according to Ancestry, the family is Greek with the grandparents coming from the Isle of Rhodes in the early 1900s.  One of the DNA Matches (Laura) provided this information about a year ago when we chatted briefly about our close DNA connection. I've not heard from her since.









Obit

Anxiety Help

Someone shared these on Facebook from a book she was reading.  I liked them, and wanted to keep them somewhere easy to find.

Sally and Alastair

This may only be funny to me - and Andrew, but I figured I'd post it in case I ever wanted to reread something that made us laugh.  

On Sunday Andrew and I were out together and talk of his upcoming birthday came up. He said, "I'm getting so old I can't remember anything, Sally*."

I replied: "Yeah, I know what you mean, Alastair."

An incredulous pause by Andrew.

"Alastair?! Who thinks of *Alastair* when they are losing their memory?"

Hahahahaa...OK, maybe you had to be there. :)

(*This is the name he calls me whenever he pretends his memory is failing).

"Christianity is problematic in so many ways."

While the ideals of Christianity have a basis in Jesus, in the history of the world - from the Crusades to Calvin's oppression of Geneva - we have often seen everything but Jesus' love. Culturally, Christianity has met with resistance because of this pained history, and also because, to most of the world, embracing Christianity means embracing Western civilization, Western policy, and even Western rule.

Even within the boundaries of our own "civilized" countries, we can see the systemic problems within Christianity. Picketers, political manipulators, and cultural warmongers all tend to have their own versions of Christianity.  Many racists consider themselves Christians. The same goes for many corrupt politicians, gangsters, and abusive parents.

...  Within the domain of Christianity, we all suffer beneath the weight of sin. Understanding the doctrine of forgiveness does not deliver us from sin.  Jesus does.  Our Western logic, our reason, our "right thinking" cannot deliver us from evil. ...

As Christians, we're faced with a problem difficult to see because it's so obvious. We're aware of Jesus, but we are obsessed with Christianity.  We're stuck on its requirements and we're defined by its doctrines, caught in an endless struggle to find out where we fit, if we've "arrived" yet, and if we're doing it right.  We struggle with sin, and yet, because of the boundaries, we're forced to decided between being honest about our feelings and hiding for fear we'll be judged.  In this state, we're not living in the grace of Jesus. We're trying to maintain our membership.


excerpt from pg. 72-3 of Speaking of Jesus by Carl Medearis

Grrrrrr!! Why are we so angry?!?!

So today I was glancing at the Yahoo headlines and this article Poll finds Americans angry about pretty much everything caught my attention.  We are angry at Obama for not doing enough! We are angry at the congressional Republicans for not doing enough!  Dadburnit, we must be angry at God because He only has a 33% approval rate according to the poll! 

"The poll finds that Americans are being affected by their anger in other parts of life as well. Fifty-six percent are so angry that they can’t even sleep and 13 percent say the anxiety has affected their sex life. Twenty-six percent of married respondents claim the country’s economic problems have affected their marriage, with more than half of those people saying it has made their marriage worse."

In Journey Into America, anthropologist Akbar Ahmed talks about Americans living at such a fast pace and being so "connected" to electronics and social media and "drowning in information" that they don't take much time for self-reflection, for silence.  He claims "people have lost the capacity for self-reflection and find it difficult to see the majesty and mystery of life." 

Take time to enjoy the many pleasures God gives us every day

He describes today as "cynical, noisy, iconoclastic, and [a] materialistic world of consumerism" where even "heroes and role models provide little more than temporary entertainment." Often politicians, performers and sportsmen end up "as fodder for everyone's entertainment" when they fall from grace.

"It is perhaps an awareness of this predicament at various levels that makes Americans, in spite of consuming a disproportionately large share of the world's wealth, among the unhappiest people on earth while obsessively insisting they are happy.  Americans have much to be unhappy about: the incidences of suicide and depression are abnormally high, especially among their students and soldiers; their jails are the fullest compared with those of any other nation, their rates of obesity the highest, their marriages more in danger of breaking up, and more Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens than any other nationality. A foreigner may be forgiven for assuming Americans perpetually oscillate between two primary emotions, those of anger and fear, all the while proclaiming that their country is the greatest and best in history."  (pg. 461)

In another part of the book, the team had met with Noam Chomsky. I'll quote him in regard to the American fear factor.

"For Chomsky, it is not the idea of freedom and democracy that lies at the heart of America, but fear. A sense of fear and threat permeates every aspect of society, he explained to us: 'It's a very frightened country. Unusually so, by international standards, which is kind of ironic because [we're] at a level of security that nobody's ever dreamed of in world history....The theme is we're about to be destroyed by an enemy, and at the last minute, a super weapon is discovered or a hero arises, Rambo or someone, and somehow saves us. The Terminator or high school boys hiding in the mountains defending us from the Russians.'" (pg. 379)

Have you ever stopped to wonder why a nation that supposedly has a majority of Christians is so angry and so fearful? My pastor reminds us regularly that the Bible tells us "do not fear" over three hundred times.  Enough for nearly every day of the year. So why are we afraid? Why do we fear? Why do we let anxiety and fear and anger rule our lives?

"He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul."

How about we meditate on this instead?  Seriously. Isn't this great stuff?

 ⁴ Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! ⁵ Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. ⁶ Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. ⁷ And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
 ⁸ Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. ⁹ Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.  (Phil. 4)

Celebrate Jesus: a new blog label is born

Lat's recent posts got me interested in reading the Gospel of Mark so this evening I sat outside wrapped in a blanket on my porch and read the first seven chapters before dusk turned to almost-too-dark-to-enjoy-the-outdoors. But the last bit I read made me stop, smile and reread.

And then I thought how I wanted to start a Celebrate Jesus label on my blog and every once in a while just share something great about him.

So for tonight, it is this from the end of Mark 7.

³⁷ People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.” 

That is all.

For now.

Hey, it's pretty stinkin' good, isn't it? 

The Appalachians -- Why Understanding Other Cultures Is Good

I've heard people scold the United States for how they went into Iraq not even taking time to understand the culture.  Well, really, this seems to be nothing new for us. In The Appalachians I was reminded of this trait of ours while reading about the Appalachian people .. or maybe I should say the European people who displaced the native Appalachian population. There.  Yes, while this book was a celebration of the mostly European groups who settled this region, it did make brief mention of the conflicts with the native population, mostly the Cherokee.

Europeans were used to a centralized government where a political figure or group of them - such as Congress or Parliament - often made decisions on behalf of the whole group.  The Indians on the other hand, each belonged to "one of several autonomous tribal organizations" (often called towns) that possessed its own council and "ceremonial center" in which "decisions affecting a given organization had to be unanimous among all the people within that town." Any town member could speak during these council meetings. Yep, that includes women!  The Cherokee didn't have any "central political figure to negotiate between the tribe's various towns."  So when the colonists came and desired the land, they tried to find the main person in order to do business with the whole group.

"These white leaders, projecting European perspectives onto the Cherokee, attempted to identify tribal leaders in order to negotiate treaties with those individuals, ignoring the traditional Cherokee practice that no one person could speak for the whole tribe."

The Cherokees eventually did try to centralize things in order to "strengthen [their] ability to contend with dramatic change." Sadly a splinter group of Cherokee "signed the Treaty of New Echota, which authorized the selling of all Cherokee lands to the U.S. government for a fee of $5 million.  Efforts by the Cherokee to disclaim that treaty went unheard, and from 1838 to 1839, an estimated 16,000 members of the tribe were force by the U.S Army to march on the 'Trail of Tears' to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma.)"   (pg. 21)

Year End Questions for Reflection

I read these the other day and thought they were worth considering as 2010 draws to an end. I've heard people say that if you aren't growing, you're dying.  With that in mind, these questions address spiritual growth.

So what did the Father teach you in the last 12 months?  How did you grow in your relationship with Him? Are there verses of Scripture you've come to treasure?  What trials or difficulties did He carry you through or is He currently helping you overcome?

Happy Christmas Eve eve! :)

My View on Christian Rules

"Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

Sometimes in the course of "religious" discussions I've come across people who express a sense of amazement at how few rules and regulations there are in New Testament Christianity.  I'll say this up front that I am from more of a Protestant background so I can't speak of Tradition that Catholics and perhaps Orthodox Christians adhere to. Maybe the rules are in Tradition.  But for me, I tend to let the Bible be my guide. And while there are many wonderful aspects to the Old Testament - like examples of faithful men and women of God and the glorious promises of God in the Prophets and the Psalms written by David and others - I tend to base much of my life on the life of Jesus as described by his followers in the New Testament.

And, no, there are not a lot of rules.



In fact Jesus summed up all the Law and the Prophets with this: love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

And when asked who was considered a neighbor, Jesus gave the equivalent of the Israelis and Palestinians today by using a Samaritan man as the hero in a "Jewish story."  So, yes, even your enemy is considered your neighbor and Jesus said you need to love him or her like you love yourself.

Still people want guidelines.  What do we do in the case of divorce? What do we do in regards to inheritance rights for women?  What do we eat? What about this or that or the other situation here?

Most of the people who have expressed surprise - OK all of the ones - have been Muslims who are used to very detailed instructions on things they must do, things they must not do, suggested ways to do things and preferred ways to do things. I know I bring this up on occasion, but it's because I was so shocked when I first began studying more about Islam and saw they even had suggested ways to enter, use and clean yourself after using the bathroom.  Apparently the ahadith is chock full of rules and regulations so a Muslim used to such a way of life is appalled at the lack of direction we Christians must face!

Christ frees us from the weight of rules. We are free to love God and serve others!

You know how I think? 

God gives us principles for living in this world.  Some of us He put in restricted nations like China where in some areas you cannot worship God freely.  Some He put in free countries where we can worship or not worship God such as is the case in my own country.  For whatever reason, God put us in all kinds of countries with different levels of freedom. Do I think He wanted the believers in God who are scattered all over the globe to come together and make a nation called God's Country or Christendom or Islamostan?

Nope.

I think people have tried such things and failed!  Did Christianizing the Roman Empire bring Jesus' qualities of love for enemies and "going the extra mile" and "the greatest among you is the one who serves" to the people en masse?

We wish!

Instead it seems power corrupts. Whether that is "Christian" power or "Islamic" power or atheistic power, we have to guard against corruption.

I believe God wanted us to have His principles for living and then to live those out within the countries in which He placed us.  Society changes for the better when God changes hearts and lives not when we are made to wear certain clothes or not do this or that by legislation or police enforcing good morals. And for certain marching into other lands trying to change people's minds by sword or bombs is not the answer!

I still remember when I read Karen Armstrong's book and she said Muhammad cared about his family and friends in Mecca so he tried getting their attention by raiding their caravans.  This seems so bizarre!  You show you care by stealing from others?


For those from Europe marching into other lands: you try to convert the masses while at the same time you steal their natural resources?

For me, Jesus gave us guidelines on how to live.  He lived at a time when Palestine was occupied by Romans yet he never called for an uprising although a number of the Jewish people were ready for that.  This is one reason Jesus was rejected as Messiah! The Jews thought their Messiah was going to free Palestine from the occupying Romans.

But Jesus came instead with a message of love and turning back to God. It seemed he was more concerned with their spiritual states than the fact they were physically occupied by an infidel nation!

What?!

So no I don't have a list of rules telling me how much I can inherit, how many other wives my husband can take or even my rights in the case of divorce.  I live in the United States and my country has a number of rules covering such issues.  My spiritual role is to live like Jesus within my own country. 

And for you, the same.

One who loves doesn't need rules to tell him how to treat others.

Love God.  Love others.

Whether you are in the United States, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Britain or Venezuela.

If we love God and love others - and treat people like we want to be treated ourselves - just how many rules and regulations do we really need? 



"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22,23)

Thoughts?

Matthew 19:13-15 -- Atheism, IQ, Security, Wealth & Children

<sup>Yesterday I skimmed an article from two years ago, Atheists are more intelligent, but does intelligence lead to atheism?

It contains such interesting ideas as these:</sup>

"one reason for the decline in traditional religious beliefs in industrial societies is that an increasing sense of technological control over nature diminishes the need for reliance on supernatural powers"


I get this.  People can explain things scientifically instead of having to believe a Higher Power was somehow in control.  Worshiping and sacrificing in order to appease the gods who controlled the weather or fertility didn't matter so much as technology improved and people could better control some things in their lives.

"increasing material wealth in Western Nations in the 20th century lead to increasing IQ"


This one puzzled me as I couldn't understand the correlation between wealth increasing one's intelligence (I had this wrong visual of someone winning the lottery and immediately adding 20 points to the IQ!) until I went just now to read a bit about IQ on Wikipedia. I had the wrong idea about intelligence quotient (IQ) thinking it was something one was born with instead of considering the variety of factors that can influence it (e.g. nutrition in childhood, having been breastfed, nurture, personality traits, musical training and so forth).  So now this statement makes better sense and I can see why and make the jump from increasing material wealth to increasing IQ to atheism. 

Because ...

"a secure life equals a life in which people can free themselves from religion."

This reminds me of why people often say suffering draws them closer to God. When life is going great and everything is falling into place, what use then is there for God?  But when your wealth can't buy health and your doctors and medicine fail or when your child is addicted to drugs and you throw up your hands in despair because it seems there is no solution, faith and trust in God is often what we hold onto.  There is that need for hope that something can be done, somehow, somewhere by Someone bigger than sickness and addiction.

So what does all this have to do with the next part of Matthew 19? 


¹³ Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.

 ¹⁴ Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” ¹⁵ When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. 

and the parallel passage in Luke

 ¹⁵ People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. ¹⁶ But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. ¹⁷ Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Luke 18)

It's just that when I read that article about intelligence leading to atheism verses such as these came to mind.

Children: examples of the greatest in God's kingdom

¹ At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” ² He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. ³ And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ⁴ Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ⁵ And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.  (Matt 18)

 ²⁵ At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. ²⁶ Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.  (Matthew 11)

It made me wonder why Jesus specifically mentioned changing to become like little children, the kingdom of heaven being made up of such like children and his praising God for revealing "these things" to little children instead of the "wise and learned."  Did he see that in the future people would have technological advances, more material wealth, secure nations with good armies and they would no longer see any use for God?


Was Jesus encouraging future generations to remember their need for God?   If we think this world is all there is to living then I can understand one wanting to live it up, acquire wealth so she can travel and experience all the goodness and thrills of this life. However, what if there is more? What if this life is like a vapor compared to eternity? 


The article stated:  "As children grow up, they are less likely to agree with statements like 'I believe there is a God' and 'God means a lot to me'."

Were these messages from Jesus concerning children and child-like faith a reminder to us not to forget the awe and wonder of God?


What do you think of the article?  What do you think of Jesus' words concerning children that I mentioned in this post?  Do you think I should have considered the article and verses separately and I am way off in my thinking by linking them together this way? Please share your thoughts on either or both. Do you think my reasons for why technologically-advanced, wealthy nations have given up on the idea of God make sense? How would you explain it differently? What does Jesus mean when he says we must be like little children to be part of God's kingdom?

Thoughts?

Meeting Young People In Iran...Comparisons to Syria

We visited the tourist sights, but also mingled with the locals.

Besides the coexistence book I've been reading and posting notes on lately, I started reading another library book Children of Jihad this weekend.  It describes the journey of a Jewish American graduate student as he travels throughout parts of the Middle East and gets to know some of the youth.  He spends the first 4 chapters recounting his few weeks in Iran in 2004. Iran is often in the news, but I don't know that much about its people except what is shared in the media. I found his story an exciting way to learn more about the average person on the street.

Jared Cohen was a student at Oxford when he applied over and over and over again for a visa to Iran.  He was rejected many times, but eventually his persistence paid off.  He tells how he was met by a "tour guide" at the airport.  When I told my Syrian friend about this, he immediately said, "uh huh...someone from their intelligence" which was right! Jared, by the way, is someone Samer told me about when the Iranians had their elections last year and there were many protesting in the streets. Twitter was planning to shut down due to site maintenance, but Jared urged its founder to wait as this was one of the only way dissidents were able to have their voices heard outside Iran.  I knew his face on the book jacket looked familiar...thanks to Samer, now I know why! Also he was only 24 when he was hired by the US State Department and he worked under both Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton there.

Anyway back to Iran.  As I was reading these 100 pages, I was struck many times with how similar it was to Syria. Not everything of course, but a number of things including the words "police state" and "regime."  While regime technically is just the government who happens to be in power, it always has a darker sound to it when I read it.  Like it's a bad thing instead of neutral.  Partway through reading I decided to jot down a few notes on how Iran as described in this book is similar and different than the Syria that I know.   "That I know" being the qualifying words since I really know very little of what truly goes on there. 

But from my own experiences and listening to others who have lived there or visited, here goes:

LIKE SYRIA
Iran is part of the 'axis of evil' according to former President Bush. In fact when we were in Damascus, Samer's twin made us laugh when he said with a touch of dry humor, "Next you will have to visit Iran and North Korea so you can visit all the Axis of Evil." 

Iran has a police state and a culture of fear is present.

Iran blocks websites in its attempts to control what its people are able to read.  Jared said mostly they tried to block blogs and places where dissenters congregate, but he said "progressive" Dubai does a much better job of restricting websites.

The Iranian youth are glad to see Americans as there are few from the United States who travel there. I recall people being happy that Andrew and I were in Syria and they told us the same thing: we don't see many Americans here.

We met Ahmed from Gaza while visiting the Umayyad Mosque,
and he spent the next few hours tagging along with us.

Iranians hate the American government, but love American movies, culture and people.

Most people were very kind and treated Jared with warm hospitality.  I can never say enough about how wonderful the Syrians we met were.

Iranian youth want to get out of Iran due to lack of jobs. This perpetuates the "brain drain."  I've noticed the same about most Syrian young people who are frustrated because there are few opportunities in Syria.


UNLIKE SYRIA
Iran has a religious regime whereas Syria's is more secular.

Andrew and Susanne in the Umayyad Mosque

Iran has a serious drug problem and the youth have bootleg liquor at their illegal parties.  Alcohol is not forbidden in Syria.  Jared mentioned most parties aren't necessarily for entertainment, but a forum for expression and a form of resistance against an oppressive regime.

Iran has morality police to ensure good Islamic behavior.  I never noticed similar police in Syria.

Jared was treated poorly by government officials and intelligence officers who wanted to restrict him to only seeing tourist attractions instead of mingling with the people.  In Syria we never had problems with the government and the only people we visited (apart from the few westerners we met at the hostel) were locals.


JUST SOME FACTS
Jared mentioned that cell phones were used to set up dates and social networking websites were a way young people got to know members of the opposite sex. He stated that satellite dishes were the biggest anti-propaganda tools and while they were illegal, they were smuggled into the country and sold on the black market. Even in poor regions, people would pool their resources to buy a dish for a cluster of apartments. He said some Iranian youth watch Voice of America for hours a day to perfect their English.

One area where Iranian youth agreed with the regime was Iran's nuclear program as it was attached to national pride.  The Iranian young people saw it as a source of technological achievement and progress and wanted their country to be among the elite countries in the world who already had nuclear weapons.  When Jared mentioned acquiring nuclear weapons as a possible way for the regime to hold onto its power, the young people he talked to said they would gladly give up the nuclear power for a true change in the ruling establishment.

One part that made me laugh was when Jared met an Iranian woman, Mariam, who along with her friends asked Jared about America and Americans' impressions of Iranians. Then he said she wanted an explanation about toilet paper's merits (which she thought there were none as it was dirty) over the use of water.  Jared really didn't know how to respond finally leaving her with the assurance that we try to shower as much as possible. 

When speaking about a reformist president who disappointed the Iranian youth several years back, Jared was told all he did was allow the girls to wear nail polish and raise the marrying age from 9 to 13.  She retorted that girls were already wearing nail polish and no one wanted to get married that young anyway! 

When asked what three things she wanted people in American to know about Iranian youth, she said 1. We are not Arabs, but Iranians  2.We are not terrorists  3. We do the same things young people do all around the world.

As much as the youth tended to hate their regime and wanted change, they in no way wanted America's assistance and said the minute an American soldier came to their soil, America became their enemy.  They realized regime change ultimately had to come from within.



Since I mentioned Syria in this post I decided to include a few pictures from our trip there.   I love that place. :)

What does it take to get rid of all those sins?

Notes and my reflections as I read Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong

Over the last two or three years I've read a number of blogs and comments on blogs written by Muslims. I've read their thoughts on a variety of issues with interest  and have learned quite a lot. I figured it was better to learn about Islam from Muslims rather than only reading Christian sources that might have a bit of a different spin.  :)

One issue I'm not really clear on is forgiveness of sin. I recall my questions while reading the Quran since it seems to imply God can only forgive some sins. (see this post for an example). Muslims told me on other blogs that God can only forgive sins you commit against Him, but not ones you commit against others.  The offended one holds the power in this case.  He must forgive you, but God cannot. 

I recall a few months back Christians were basically laughed at for believing someone like Hitler could have been forgiven by God according to our beliefs.  "Marc" - an American convert to Islam - didn't believe it was in God's sense of justice to forgive really bad sinners.  Especially at one fell swoop.  Like something so silly as admitting your sinfulness and relying on God's mercy alone to save you. You know, that whole Jesus thing most of us Christians believe in.  Yeah, it really was quite an amusing dialog especially when a friend - not Muslim or Christian - pointed out that we were really debating whose God was more merciful! And there I was trying to prove Allah was just as merciful as Yahweh!  It was great!  :)

The reason I bring this up now is because I read this in Karen Armstrong's book yesterday in the final chapter called Salam.

She said when Khalid ibn al-Walid finally accepted Islam he was afraid of reprisals since he and his buddy 'Amr had killed many Muslims at the battles of Uhud and the Trench, "but Muhammad assured them that the act of islam wiped out old debts and represented an entirely new start."  (pg. 196) 

The solution for getting rid of those pesky sins & guilt?

I realize Khalid and 'Amr killed during battles so maybe this doesn't count the same on the sinfulness scale, but still the quote there is that the act of surrendering to God (islam) wipes the slate clean, right? Is this not the same as what Christians believe when they claim accepting Jesus' work on the cross cleanses us from sin?

So God can, in fact, cleanse people from ALL sins and not just some.  I remember when "Marc" made this mocking accusation, I mentioned hajj and didn't Muslims often believe going to Mecca and performing the rituals cleansed them. He said "good point" and others clarified that no, actually, it only cleansed you from sins against God and not others.   A Muslim woman convert spoke up and said she was told having babies cleansed her from sin. So it's all rather confusing to me still, but quite an interesting topic. I like to see what various people think.

I believe from the Bible that God can forgive all sins. When we sin against others, we are, in actuality, sinning against God because each of us is HIS creation and, therefore, His.  (I argued about that in my notes on Sura 71.) Yes, it's great to ask others for forgiveness and I believe we should seek to right all wrongs. But what if we killed someone just like Khalid and 'Amr killed Muslims? Can we go ask those deceased people for forgiveness?  Are we doomed to hell because someone else holds the power of forgiveness and is either not willing or not present to extend forgiveness?

Thoughts on any of this?  Do you believe God can cleanse all sins ... even the really bad ones? Should He? Or is it against His sense of justice?  Where does God being most merciful and compassionate come into play?  How does one balance mercy, grace, compassion and justice?  How do you make sense of all this?

Religious Rituals, Feasts and Pilgrimages and Becoming Part of the Story

"Only by entering the story ourselves can we truly understand its meaning." (pg. 420)

"Let my people go!"

Remember the story of Moses and the Pharaoh and how it finally took ten plagues - the last one truly awful - for the Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt?   While discussing how many people try to explain the ten plagues by natural reasons (e.g., it wasn't really blood, but an unusually high flood caused more topical red soil to color the water so it only appeared as blood),  Bruce Feiler admits he often read the Bible this way. He wanted natural explanations for things claimed by the Bible writers to have happened supernaturally.  He enjoyed the history, the places, the characters, but not the deeper thinking about the characters like what they meant to the story and what they meant to him.  As he began reading Exodus while Walking the Bible, Bruce finally realized how futile this deliberate attempt was and how he was missing a "principal storyline of the Bible: the relationship between humans and the divine."

"As it happens, the text itself reveals precisely what causes the ten plagues. God caused them. To miss that point is to miss the essence of the tale, the battle between the god of the Israelites and the gods of the Egyptians, the battle that Eliezer Oren referred to as 'My god is stronger than your god.'  Biblical storytellers clearly understood this struggle, because the plagues expressly attack the things that Egyptians held most sacred: the sun, the animals, the river.  As the Bible says, summing up the experience, 'The Lord executed judgment on their gods.'"   (pg. 183)

The author then goes on to show how this judgment of God upon the Egyptians and the Israelites escape from slavery was "a significant break" in the Bible.  "Up to now, the Israelites have been wandering, from Mesopotamia, through Canaan, to Egypt, and absorbing elements from all these places.  They are now ready to break away and begin forming their own culture, their own empire.  They must now become active participants in their own story: actors, not just reactors."


God declares what the Israelites must do in order to escape the final plague that He was going to mete out on the Egyptians: the killing of the firstborn!  Each family had to sacrifice a lamb and put the blood over the doorpost of their house. 
 When the Angel of Death came through, he would pass over* each home where this blood was present.  God instructed the Israelites on what to eat and how to prepare it.  He also set up this reenactment for the Jewish people to do each year as a remembrance.   Each generation would  now remember what God did to save their nation from slavery and make them a people prepared for Himself.  This is how the Israelites of old and Jewish people today keep in mind the faithfulness of God in delivering them from their oppressors.  (see page 184)

So entering the story - being actors - is helpful in understanding. I suppose this is why Muslims perform hajj and reenact many events that Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael experienced according to the Islamic faith.  And by sacrificing the lamb they are remembering God's provision to Abraham so Abraham wouldn't have to sacrifice his son.


* Thus the Passover is remembered each year.  Also in the Christian faith, we see this as a type of Christ.  Christ is the perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John the Baptist's words in John 1:29). Sin brings death, but when we accept Jesus' work for us on the cross and trust him as opposed to our own good works for salvation, we in a spiritual sense apply the blood of Jesus to our lives and when the "angel of death" sees us, he passes over us. No spiritual death for the one wearing the blood of Jesus Christ.  (Think spiritually here not literally.)

Thoughts?  If you are Muslim, what do you think is the significance of reenacting the events of hajj or Eid Al-adha?  If you are Christian, do you celebrate any reenactments? I know some churches have Palm Sunday and do Easter plays and Christmas plays in order to reenact some of the events of Jesus' life. And also there are baptism and the Lord's Supper which we do in remembrance of Jesus. Do you think it's important to become part of the story rather than merely read about them or observe from hundreds of years later?

Peculiar Bible Story: An explanation of Jephthah's vow

So in this post, I asked y'all about Jephthah's story as told in Judges 11.  The most troubling part was his rash vow to God that if God granted him military success (which equaled his being promoted to leader of the Gileadites who previously shunned him), he would return home and sacrifice whatever came out of the door of his house to meet him as a burnt offering!

This is incredibly troubling because it seems his only child - a daughter - would suffer for his selfishness!

Why would he even make such a vow? 

One author I read said Middle Easterners often kept animals on the lower levels of their houses.  This area was like a stable of sorts to shelter them from outside elements such as bad weather or wild animals or thieves. So Jephthah naturally assumed a goat or sheep would hear him and greet him first. 

This makes better sense than thinking a man would actually chance a wife or child being sacrificed.

And truly from his sorrow I can imagine he never thought a loved one would be the first to greet his return.

So I always thought growing up that God was serious about vows. He didn't require them, but if you made one, you had to keep it.  This made me take vows seriously.

I was reading A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. the other day and he mentions this story. I was pleasantly surprised at his interpretation of it...which he actually got from Keil and Delitzsch's work. It was like a relief for me to not have to take this story literally. Now he may be wrong, but this interpretation was at least worth sharing.  Read it and then tell me if you think it has any merit.

The term for "burnt offering" is 'olah, which everywhere else signifies a blood sacrifice wholly consumed by the fire upon the altar.  But, as Keil and Delitzsch show, this interpretation as a literal human sacrifice cannot stand in the light of the context.

1. Human sacrifice was always understood, from the days of Abraham (for whose son, Isaac, a ram was substituted by God) to be an offense and an abomination to Jehovah, being expressly denounced and forbidden in Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10.  There is no evidence that any Israelite ever offered human sacrifice prior to the days of Ahaz (743-728 B.C.).  It is inconceivable that God-fearing Jephthah could have supposed he would please the Lord by perpetuating such a crime and abomination.

2.  His daughter was allowed two months of mourning, not to bewail her approaching loss of life, but only to bewail her virginity (betulim) (Judges 11:37-38).

3.  It is stated in verse 39 that after Jephthah had performed his vow and offered her as a "burnt offering," "she knew not a man." This would be a very pointless and inane remark if she had been put to death. But it has perfect relevance if she was devoted to the service of Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle the rest of her life.  (For references to the devoted women who performed service in connection with the national cultus, cf. Ex. 38:8 and I Sa. 2:22; also Anna in the days of Jesus -- Lk 2:36-37.)  The pathos of the situation in this instance did not lie in Jephthah's daughter devoting herself to divine service, but rather in the sure extinction of Jephthah's line, since she was his only child.  Hence, both he and she bewailed her virginity.  There was no human sacrifice here.

(pg. 278-279)


What do you think?   

Peculiar Bible Story: Jephthah's vow and how it affected his daughter

Judges 11 has the peculiar story of a man named Jephthah the Gileadite. Since his mother was a prostitute, his half-siblings didn't want him to inherit anything so he left their region and settled with a bunch of adventurers who followed him. His reputation must have been one of a great fighting machine for when the Gileadites were troubled, they - yes, they who had previously not wanted him to have part of their inheritance - came to ask him to help get rid of the enemy.

 ⁷ Jephthah said to them, "Didn't you hate me and drive me from my father's house? Why do you come to me now, when you're in trouble?"

Good question!  You didn't want me before, but now that you are in trouble, you do.  Hmmmm.

 ⁸ The elders of Gilead said to him, "Nevertheless, we are turning to you now; come with us to fight the Ammonites, and you will be our head over all who live in Gilead."

So Jephthah was not good enough to inherit from the family, but when everything was threatened by an enemy, what good would any inheritance do for the Gileadites? So they told Jeph if he would rid the enemies, he would be their leader!

Jeph agreed.


The next several verses tell about the diplomatic, letter writing approach Jeph took.  Why are you troubling Israel? and such things.  The exchange is recorded as well as the fact that no solution was reached this way.

Then Jephthah did something we may call crazy. Or maybe not.

³⁰ And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, ³¹ whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

I know people often vow things to the Lord when they are in trouble, but would you make such an offer as this one?

What exactly does he mean? Did he think the family dog* would be the one to greet him?

The chapter concludes with Jephthah's great military success and his ride home.  And these potentially troubling verses. 

 ³² Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. ³³ He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

 ³⁴ When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. ³⁵ When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

 ³⁶ "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. ³⁷ But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."

 ³⁸ "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. ³⁹ After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
      From this comes the Israelite custom ⁴⁰ that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

What do you think? Did he kill his daughter? Why would a man make such a vow as he did?  How do you reconcile this passage?  What were you taught about it? 

I have some answers, but I want to hear your thoughts first.



* In Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes the author said animals were often kept in the first floor of the house as a kind of shelter and Jephthah thought a sheep or goat would come out to greet him...not a human!  Certainly not his only child.

This post is related to something I read in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pg. 279.  For more information on this book, see this. 

Nature/People Reveal Mysteries "If you love them enough"

If you've ever been tempted to use your past, your poor family life and upbringing as an excuse for why you cannot succeed in life, consider this man.  And the power of hard work, determination and the want to succeed and better yourself and others.  What an inspiration!

 Did you know George Washington Carver was born into slavery?  Although slaves were freed soon after his birth, it wasn't an instant paradise for black people in the United States as they continued to struggle for many many years in order to have equal rights with their white counterparts.  Keep this in mind as you read this excerpt from Primal.
  

George Washington Carver is considered one of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century, despite an uphill academic climb. He was accepted by Highland College, then rejected by Highland College when he showed up and they discovered he was an African American. He studied art and piano at Simpson College in Iowa. Then he earned his master's degree in botany from Iowa State University.  Upon graduation, Carver accepted a position at Tuskegee University, where he taught for forty-seven years.

 Around the turn of the century, the agricultural economy of the South was suffering. The boll weevil was devastating cotton crops. And the soil was depleted of nutrients because farmers planted cotton year in and year out. It was George Washington Carver who introduced the concept of crop rotation. He encouraged farmers to plant peanuts, and they did. The strategy revived the soil, but farmers were frustrated because there was no market for peanuts.  Their abundant peanut crops rotted in warehouses. When they complained to Carver, he did what he had always done. He prayed about it.

Carver routinely got up at 4:00 a.m., walked through the woods, and asked God to reveal the mysteries of nature. He interpreted Job 12:7-8 literally:

Ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you ...

Carver literally asked God to reveal the mysteries of nature. And God did.

    I asked God, "Why did you make the universe, Lord?"
         "Ask for something more in proportion to that little mind of yours,"
     replied God.
         "Why did you make the earth, Lord?" I asked.
         "Your little mind still wants to know far too much. Ask for something
     more in proportion to that little mind of yours," replied God.
         "Why did you make man, Lord?" I asked.
         "Far too much. Far too much. Ask again," replied God.
         "Explain to me why you made plants, Lord," I asked.
         "Your little mind still wants to know far too much."
         "The peanut?" I asked meekly.
         "Yes! For your modest proportions I will grant you the mystery of the
     peanut.  Take it inside your laboratory and separate it into water, fats,
     oils, gums, resins, sugars, starches and amino acids.  Then recombine
     these under my three laws of compatibility, temperature and pressure. 
     Then you will know why I made the peanut."  (source)

On January 20, 1921, George Washington Carver testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on behalf of the United Peanut Association of America. The committee chairman, Joseph Fordney of Michigan, told him he had ten minutes.  An hour and forty minutes later, the committee told George Washington Carver he could come back anytime he wanted.  Carver mesmerized the committee by demonstrating dozens of uses for the peanut. In the end, Carver discovered more than three hundred uses for the peanut.  Or maybe more accurately, the Lord revealed more than three hundred uses.  They included everything from glue to shaving cream to soup to insecticide to cosmetics to wood stains to fertilizer to linoleum ...

"To me," said Carver, "nature in its varied forms are the little windows through which God permits me to commune with him, and to see much of his glory, by simply lifting the curtain, and looking in.  I love to think of nature as wireless telegraph stations through which God speaks to us every day, every hour, and every moment of our lives." ...

"Anything will give up its secrets if you love it enough. Not only have I found that when I talk to the little flower or to the little peanut they will give up their secrets, but I have found that when I silently commune with people they give up their secrets also -- if you love them enough." 



the above story is quoted from pgs. 127-128, Primal by Mark Batterson


"On his grave was written, He could have added fortune to fame, but caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world."  (source)

Notes: Moses Wrote The Torah

Background:  Some Bible scholars believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible whereas other scholars argue for editors during or after the Israelites' exile compiling the Torah (and other early OT books) from oral tradition and some written records.


A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. is a 500+ page book that my dad let me borrow.  I'm about halfway through and wanted to record some notes that I've made thus far. No use reading a book this size without learning something from it!  And if I don't write it down, I may forget. So...blogging it is.

The author presents theories of men who have varying thoughts on the authorship and time period in which the OT books were written.  His emphasis seems to be on Genesis and the rest of the Torah since many believe Moses did not write it and that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by editors during or after the Israelites' exile.  The author makes a case for the conservative view...reasons that make him believe Moses did write the Torah and why it had Aramaic loanwords and such things that others have used to "prove" it was written by editors during or post-exile.  It's a rather large and somewhat technical book. During parts of it I am merely wading through, while other areas are of some interest.

Chapter 8 dealing with The Authorship of the Pentateuch was really good. I thought the author made a strong case for his beliefs. He told how the editor/late date hypothesis made it such that when a P title for God was used in a supposed J text, the theorists had to make it such that the editors did a lot of copying, deleting and pasting within the text. (Yes, I realize editors delete and add a lot, but if you read the chapter you'd understand better why I took note of this.)

Despite the fact it was regularly done in other religions of that time, for some reason it seems unbelievable to the Late-Date Theorists that Moses could or would actually use TWO different words for God.  Elohim and Yahweh couldn't have both been used for God by ONE author within the same verse or chapter in their view.  The author states that Elohim was often used in passages about God as Creator whereas Yahweh or Jehovah was used in covenants between God and man.  (see pg. 125)

Regarding the two creation accounts, I found the "element of recapitulation" argument of interest.  The author claims this "technique" was "widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature.  The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance.  To the author of Genesis 1-2, the human race was obviously the crowning, or climatic, product of creation."  (pg. 127)

There is much more that took my attention, but people arguing that a Hebrew couldn't write books at that time perhaps did not realize Moses - as part of pharoah's household - was educated in Egypt  where "the art of writing was so widely cultivated that even the toilet articles employed by the women in the household contained an appropriate inscription."  (pg 118)  Also since Moses was part of the Israelite crowd wandering in the wilderness for all those years, why could he not have used some of that time to record what God wanted him to write?  The author has a chapter on archaeology that shows Semitic people were not as uneducated and illiterate as we may want to think they were.  Sophisticated writing has been unearthed.

Some argue that the Torah has some Aramaic loanwords which point to the exilic period when the Israelites were spread in regions that spoke Aramaic  (e.g. The book of Daniel has much Aramaic and was written during exile).  These scholars say the Torah should have no Aramaic words if it were written during Moses lifetime, however, the author makes a claim that Abraham and Sarah came from an area of the world that likely spoke Aramaic not to mention Aramaic and Hebrew along with several other Semitic languages are related somewhat.  Who knows where Aramaic left off and Hebrew began as far as the children of Israel go?  Hebrew could be an offshoot dialect of Aramaic...so having Aramaic in the Torah isn't really proof that it was written hundreds of years after its claim.  Not only would Abraham and Sarah likely speak Aramaic, but Isaac's wife, Rebekah, was brought back from that region and later Jacob went there, lived at least 14 years and married two women - Leah and Rachel - who may have spoken Aramaic. Leah, Rachel and their maidservants were the mothers of the Twelve Tribes of Israel so I don't find it hard to believe some of "mama's tongue" made it into the children's vocabulary and thus the Bible. (see pg. 138)

The author also found it curious that the Torah - if written post-exile where the "chosen line of David had reigned for more than four centuries in the holy city of Jerusalem" didn't have "a very strong and explicit sanction for the kingship."   He writes, "It is hardly conceivable that any patriotic Jewish author, who believed in the divine authorization of the Davidic dynasty, could have passed it over in complete silence."  (pg. 156)   Likewise Jerusalem is not spoken of with high regard as this holy city would be referred to in future biblical books. (pg. 163)  Actually Jerusalem is not even mentioned by name in the Torah.

"Although Jerusalem appears in the Hebrew Bible 669 times, it is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Instead when referring to Jerusalem, the term "the place that God will choose" is used."  (source)


The End.  :)

Matthew 12 -- Unpardonable Sin, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit & "The Son of Man"

Thanks much to those who left their thoughts on the "unpardonable sin" questions from yesterday's Matthew 12 post! It was great waking up this morning and reading your feedback on that. Just for the sake of considering another point of view, I wanted to share what my Quest Study Bible (pg. 1403) says.

³¹And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³²Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

What is blasphemy against the Spirit?
Jesus gave solemn warning in these verses to people whose hard-heartedness placed them on the brink of disaster. Blasphemy against the Spirit evidently is not just a one-time offense; rather, it is an ongoing attitude of rebellion -- a stubborn way of life that continually resists, rejects and insults God's Spirit.  This is what makes it, in effect, an eternal sin (Mark 3:29).

Some other helpful points to keep in mind:
(1) Mark notes that Jesus gave this teaching because his opponents claimed he had an evil spirit (Mark 3:30). The Pharisees were so hard-hearted that they could observe the miraculous works of God's Son and then accuse him of being Satan's co-worker -- a tragic calloused contradiction of the truth.

(2) Many people expressed honest uncertainty about Jesus during his earthly ministry because his identity as the Messiah only gradually dawned on them.  Words spoken against the Son of Man could therefore be forgiven. Since the day of Pentecost however, the Holy Spirit's ongoing ministry through the revealed Word offers people the opportunity to repent and accept the gospel. Thus, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to reject all that God is doing to bring us to salvation through Christ.

(3) Blasphemy against the Spirit is not unforgivable because of something done unintentionally in the past, but because of something being done deliberately and unrelentingly in the present. Jesus' warning was motivated by love. If we are willing to repent, God is willing to forgive (I John 1:9).

You may recall when Jesus speaks of the Counselor (some translations say Helper or Comforter) who was to come after him, he said the Holy Spirit would be with them forever (see John 14:16), be the Spirit of truth who lives in you and with you (John 14:17). He would teach them all things and remind them of all that Jesus taught (John 14:26; 15:26), convict the world of guilt (John 17:8) and guide them to truth (John 17:13).  Jesus said additionally the Spirit would take from what was his (Jesus') and make it known to us (John 17:14).  Maybe this last passage means the Spirit would help us put Jesus' examples into action because we all know it takes God's help to truly love people - especially enemies - as we love ourselves! 

So all this was said about the Holy Spirit thus if we reject HIM - God's Spirit who convicts you when you do wrong, makes the truth of God known to you and  leads you to all truth, you have willfully rebelled and this rebellion is what leads you away from God and thus this sin is unforgivable. Not because God isn't able enough, but because you chose to harden your heart, rebel and go the opposite way of God. It's only unpardonable because - in a sense - you made it so as you walked along your own path because you wanted no part of God's way.


Also in yesterday's post I mentioned Jesus often referring to himself as "the Son of Man" so I went on a brief search to understand this term better.  The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel is often referred to as "son of man" perhaps to represent his humanity and dependence on God.  "Son of man" is used around ninety (yes 9-0) times in the book that bears Ezekiel's name.  On the other hand, a passage in Daniel 7 is of a bit greater interest because many Christians believe Jesus' references to himself as "the Son of Man" hearkens back to this chapter.  It reads:

 ¹³ "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. ¹⁴ He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Could this "one like a son of man" be some thing taking on human flesh? Like maybe God since this "thing" is being given authority, glory, sovereign power and the worship of all people? Not to mention his kingdom will never be destroyed.

Of this title my Quest Study Bible (pg. 1438) offers this note:

Why did Jesus call himself the Son of Man?
Jesus revealed and concealed himself by using this somewhat mysterious phrase.  He was clearly human, but he was divine as well. His ministry progressively revealed this fact.  To those who would oppose him, he chose to conceal his identity.To those who would accept him as the Messiah destined to give his life for humanity, the term revealed his identity.

Son of Man is used 14 times in Mark and was Jesus' favorite term for himself. It describes the servant role he willingly assumed. Sometimes the term is used to describe his divine authority, his sacrificial role and his future glory when he returns. By taking on this title in Mark 13:26 and 14:62, Jesus establishes himself as the fulfillment of the heavenly authority figure of Daniel 7 who is granted the right to come to earth, rule and judge on behalf of God.

The term blends the heavenly and earthly aspects of Christ. Because of his divine nature, God grants authority to Jesus to forgive sin. Because of his earthly purpose to be a ransom for many, he must suffer, be rejected, betrayed and killed, finally to rise again.  While others may not have immediately grasped what Jesus meant by this title,  Jesus used it to claim authority, demonstrate power and assume responsibilities no other man could.

Your thoughts on any of this?