Images of Peter from the New Testament, or How did Peter become the First "Pope"?

In case you have not heard, Pope Benedict XVI resigned. Nowadays, to choose a successor they gather all of the Cardinals under 80 from around the world and fly them to Rome to choose a new Pope. But how did Peter become the first Bishop of Rome, the man we call "Pope"? Practice, practice, practice? No, that’s how you get to Carnegie Hall not Rome. So, what are the lessons that the New Testament offers for those who are about to choose a successor to Peter as the Bishop of Rome? First of all, each Gospel tells us that Jesus called Simon bar Jonah early in his ministry to follow him and Peter answered that call . This is a call all the papabile have already answered, so they are in good position in that respect, though Simon bar Jonah was a Jewish fisherman when he was called, which none of the Cardinals can claim to be. Second, Jesus gave Simon a nickname, and this fact in itself is very cool, but the content of the nickname, Cephas or Petros, “the Rock,” is even better (Mk. 3:16; Matt. 16:18; Jn. 1:42). Once Simon received his nickname, he generally was called Peter, except by his mother and Paul; she doubtless kept calling him Simon and Paul kept calling him Cephas, probably to show that he still knew Aramaic. We do not know if any of the possibilities for Pope have nicknames, such as Marc “Frenchy” Ouellet or Peter “The Young” Turkson, but even if they did, their names were not given to them directly by Jesus, so this might not be a deciding factor. Upon becoming Pope they do get to choose a new name, which is itself cool, but not as excellent as having Jesus choose one for you.

Peter was prominent amongst the disciples, often saying things like, “Look, we have left everything and followed you” (Mark 10: 28) and “Explain this parable to us” (Matt. 15:15). On the other hand, he identified Jesus as the Messiah (“But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah of God”: Lk. 9:20) and went ahead and walked on the water when Jesus told him to ("Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water”: Matt.14:28), though he had a bit of a slip-up out there on the waves. Peter was also with Jesus during the Transfiguration, speaking on behalf of all the terrified apostles who were present saying, “Master, it is good for us to be here” (Lk. 9:33).  Jesus also said things to Peter, like “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt. 16:23), although he also said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). I suspect that like Peter all of the papabile have their strengths and weaknesses, and all of them, like Peter, are prominent amongst the disciples, but there is something that I bet none of them have that Peter had: a mother-in-law (“When Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever”: Matt. 8:14). So, if you are looking for a married Jewish fisherman as Pope, that’s most likely not going to happen, and Peter offers no help in this regard.

Jesus also appeared to Peter after his resurrection (Lk. 24:34; Mk. 16:7; 1 Cor. 15:3), the first of the Twelve, though Jesus had already appeared to a number of female disciples beforehand (discuss among yourselves why this might have been the case). Peter was very important in the Church after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, often giving speeches in Jerusalem and acting as the spokesman for the Church (see Acts 2-5; Gal. 1:18).  He also consults with the Apostles on occasion in Acts and is sent by them to Samaria with John (Acts 8:14). In fact, in Acts Peter is often with John (3:1f; 4:1f). Peter has a broad missionary career, baptizing the first Gentile, Cornelius, and his family (Acts 10) and arguing with the other Christians who told Peter he should not have baptized them or even have eaten with them (Acts 11). Paul says Peter was a missionary to the Jews (Gal. 2:7), which is true of course, but he also went to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:12; 1 Peter 1:1), including in Antioch (Gal. 2:7), and ultimately to Rome, where he was martyred, though we do not have exact dates for his arrival or for his death in the 60s under Nero. None of the possible Popes are among the first witnesses like Peter, but a major task is still being a witness to Jesus’ resurrection and being faithful to the end. Another task that can be replicated today is Peter's consultations with the other apostles and disciples.

It’s not clear in practical terms how much the Cardinals’ lives are like Peter’s life – in many respects they are quite different: Peter was in business with his brother as a fisherman (Mk. 1:16), was married, and was not formally educated (“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus”: Acts 4:13). Popes today run the equivalent of a large corporation, in fact a small state, and do not have a lot of time for fishing. They are not married and they have a lot of formal education.

Peter did travel a lot, as any Pope is expected to do now, but he traveled on foot or boat, not in planes, trains and Popemobiles. Peter did not have to deal with the media tracking his every move or keeping up to date with Facebook and Twitter (though a Twitter account @Cephas1 would have been terrific: “Mixed day: identified Jesus as Messiah; became “Rock”; rebuked for rebuking him for saying he had to die. Still trying to figure him out.”), though he did have to worry about Nero tracking his every move. He did not write books, but he did apparently write letters (using a ghostwriter Silvanus, 1 Peter 5:17).

There is a lot that present Popes have to do that Peter did not have to do, including wearing fine clothes and living in a sumptuous apartment, but only one thing really matters: even when he stumbled and fell– denying Jesus three times qualifies (Mark 14:66-72) – he got back up and continued to follow Jesus. That is the lesson that the first Pope offers to every subsequent Pope and leads to his most important tasks:  to love Jesus and to feed his sheep (Jn 21:17).

This entry is cross-posted at The Good Word, America Magazine

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

Bible and Cinema: Fifty Key Films

One of the ways in which we interact with the Bible is through film and this is not a new undertaking for filmmakers. As Bible and Cinema: Fifty Key Films (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), edited by Adele Reinhartz, demonstrates, filmmakers have been making biblical films almost from the beginning of the movie industry. This is one of the compelling aspects of this book: it reviews films dating back to Life of Moses (1909-1910) and up to A Serious Man (2009), with every decade in between represented. It is also a difficult book to assess as it is not always clear on what basis films have been chosen for review or how one is to understand the book as a whole.

Reinhartz writes in her Introduction that “this book presents fifty essays on fifty movies in which the Bible or aspects thereof figure in significant ways. Its goal is simple: to enhance our understanding and appreciation of film by looking at a broad range of examples in which one particular staple of the full-length feature film – the Bible –plays a significant role” (xvi). This it does well, with films ranging from Kurosawa’s Kagemusha (1980) to One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975), Sling Blade (1996) to The Prince of Egypt (1998), Frankenstein (1931) to Jesus of Nazareth (1977) and Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). What is a strength, though, is also a weakness, as there is no real sense throughout the book of what makes these films “key.”

Reinhartz acknowledges the difficulties in choosing films “from a large and diverse cinematic corpus that spans approximately 115 years and counting” (xvi), but says she was guided by “the intended audience,” who comprise a wide range of groups, such as “general readers who are interested in film, the Bible or both,” students in courses on the Bible and film, or adult education instructors (xvi). She also mentions general principles that guided the selection: availability; breadth; and variety of types of films. All of these principles are on display in the book, but it is not a “canon” as she honestly states, since whole genres of films are omitted, such as “horror films, exorcism films, vampire films – that may include the use of the Bible but which I cannot bring myself to watch” (xvii). That is a shame, actually, as many of these films can be terrifically bad, but some are superb and have much to say about the Bible and its use in these genres. It also has something to say about the people who watch these movies in the millions, but these films remain unexplored. Given that 37 reviewers examined the 50 films, it seems possible that one or two of them might have wanted to explore the fascination with vampire or exorcism films.  

By making the criteria so broad and diverse, it does allow the net to be cast wide, but also defers from any sort of decision on what films are most significant or important among biblical movies (a category which includes both overtly biblical films -"The Bible on Film," x- and those films which deal with the Bible more obliquely or symbolically -"The Bible in Film," x).  What makes a film “key”? It would be nice to know, for instance, why certain films were excluded, apart from there being not enough space or not liking a certain genre. Perhaps it is ultimately personal preference, but it would have been terrific to see a John Woo film and the biblical imagery of his Hong Kong films such as The Killer, A Better Tomorrow or Hardboiled examined. Recent popular films such The Lord of the Rings or The Narnia Chronicles have attracted numerous viewers to films soaked in explicit and implicit biblical imagery.  Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic films are represented – Bladerunner (1982) and Children of Men (2006) – and while the two included are superb films, what made them more worthy of inclusion than, for instance, The Road Warrior or The Road? This sort of questioning, of course, can devolve into a stance of “why do you not like what I like?,” but I think this could be avoided by an even clearer set of criteria over what made a film noteworthy for inclusion.

 Nevertheless, when we get to the actual reviews of the films, they are superb. Each review also ends with a short bibliography for further reading, which is helpful. Reinhartz writes that “there was no attempt to impose uniformity of approach or focus among the fifty essays included here, beyond the simple and obvious request that each essay address explicitly the film’s use of the Bible” (xvii). This approach allows each author to flex their biblical muscles and many of the reviews offer fascinating insights. Let me name a few of my favorites. Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch’s review of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) offers an insightful review of the film in light of the Genesis creation accounts. S.D. Giere’s take on Babette’s Feast (1987) does not overlook the Eucharistic themes of the film, but focuses on the means by which the beauty of the world is made apparent to the pietistic Danish church members who have been at war with this beauty their whole lives. Arnfridur Gudmundsdottir challenges the common readings of Breaking the Waves (1996), which see the main character Bess as a Christ-figure, stating bluntly “Bess ends up as a victim of violence, betrayed by her husband, her community and, ultimately, also by God” (54). It is a powerful and convincing reading of the film. Finally, Jeffrey L. Staley’s appraisal of the 1912 film From Manger to Cross in light of Victorian understandings of Jesus makes me want to see this film and see it now. It also opened my eyes to a curious oversight in many Jesus films: “notably, there is no Easter morning scene at an empty tomb” (103). He notes that this is the case in numerous other Jesus films, such as Godspell (1973), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), Jesus of Montreal (1989), and Son of Man (2006).

Whatever my reservations about how the films for the book were chosen, it has to be said that the majority of the films chosen are worth seeing and the essays about the films perceptive and short, most 3-5 pages long, which is not always an easy combination to find. I could have mentioned many more essays in which fresh insights were brought to old films for me. It is highly recommended as a result for those who want to dip into films about the Bible or to explore biblical themes in movies which are not explicitly biblical. It might even be a perfect book to take up during Lent and to meditate on, for instance, why so many life of Jesus films do not find Easter itself worthy of reflection.It seems a significant oversight, yes?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

Biblejunkies, The Word and the Good Word

I started Biblejunkies a little over a year ago to place biblical studies and discussion about the theological, philosophical and hermeneutical issues that surround the study of the Bible on the web, available to all interested readers. I am more than happy with the project, have loved it, do love it, and will continue with it!

I wanted to let people know, though, that my blogging will also be available at America Magazine. I am now writing The Word column for the magazine and blogging at their Scripture blog The Good Word again. You will certainly see cross-posts between The Good Word and Biblejunkies, but some material will be available only on one site or the other. My columns for The Word will only be available at America Magazine, under the tab "Faith."

I hope you join me at all three locations. I asked today at The Good Word three questions which were put to me my the Italian blogger and priest, Antonio Spadaro, and I would ask you to consider them here as well:

1. What is a (biblical or theological) vocation for the internet?

2. How does the internet (or how should the internet) change the way in which the Bible is communicated?
3. Does the internet need a specific form of writing on the Bible?

Please feel free to answer below.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 6. Scene 13: Epilogue

This is the fiftieth installment, comprising Act 6, Scene 13, chapter 16:9-20, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the forty-ninth installment here. Links to the entire series are available in one spot at The Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

Scene 13: 16:9-20

9 Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. 12 After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it. (NRSV)

While I have noted that the Gospel works well dramatically, thematically, and narratively if it ends at 16:8, the theatre from its ancient origins is full of examples of plays which tie up the loose ends at the end of the play or attempt to explain clearly what the audience has been pondering for a period of time. We describe this with a word derived from Greek, epilogue, which literally means “upon-word” or, in clearer English, “afterword.” Whether the final verses of Mark were a part of the earliest manuscript or edition of the Gospel of Mark, at some point the Epilogue was needed or desired by its hearers or author(s). The reasons for this are simple, I would suggest, and do not detract from the coherent story which the Gospel of Mark has told.

There is often a desire to know what happened next with the main protagonists – What sort of future did they have? Where is Peter now? What did happen to Jesus? Most of these things have been subtly explained throughout the Gospel, and are solidified as I noted previously by the very existence of the Gospel - after all, how did the story of the women at the tomb, about which the women are told not to tell, make it into the Gospel if the women did not tell? – but this is not the same as a few clear words from the major protagonist himself. The epilogue is not the time to place you in the story, but to step outside of the account and have the narrator tie up all of the loose ends.

Though it is obvious to readers and hearers of Mark’s Gospel that Jesus is risen, the first verses of the Epilogue explain and outline clearly how this took place and how the story was spread. Again, a woman, Mary Magdalene, is at the center of the explanation, which follows from the final two scenes of the drama. The explanation, that Jesus “rose early on the first day of the week” and then “appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons,” is straightforward (16:9). The narrator continues to explain how the story spread, since the first witness of the risen Jesus “went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping” (16:10). “Those who had been with him” includes not only the apostles, I would suggest, but all of Jesus’ disciples. The response of the other apostles and disciples -“but when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it” (16:11) – fits with all that we have heard in the Gospel. We are then told that Jesus “appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them” (16:12-13), which continues the pattern once more. Still, the forlorn saga of the apostles continues in the Epilogue, in that Jesus then “appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen” (16:14). What happened to Jesus and the disciples after the empty tomb has now been explained and it fits with the narrative themes of the whole Gospel.

It is only after this that Jesus is allowed to speak for himself and in which the future dimension of the Gospel and task of the followers of Jesus is outlined. Jesus instructs the eleven to “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it” (16:15-20).

In these few verses, the Gospel has Jesus outline the universal missionary task of the Church, especially to baptize for salvation, but also adds interesting “signs” of belief in Jesus. One of these signs has been seen before, casting out demons (9:38-39), but speaking in new tongues, drinking poison and snake handling are all new. “New tongues” is found in the letters of Paul, especially 1 Corinthians 12-14, and in Acts 2. The source of snake handling – unless the story of Paul on Malta in Acts 28:3 is known to the author of Mark – is obscure, yet even more so is the source or impetus for drinking deadly poison which appears nowhere else in the New Testament tradition.  When we add these all together, there is little influence from the other Gospels, but possibly some from a Pauline/Lucan source. Lurking in the background is the desire to connect the missionary activity of the Church to the miraculous power of Jesus.

The final question regarding Jesus is then answered – where is he now? – with the curt description of his ascension into heaven. He is no longer physically with his followers, but they apparently (and finally) understood their task and “proclaimed the good news everywhere,” just as Jesus asked them. In fact, he continued nevertheless to accompany them and in some way “confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it,” the signs which were just outlined.

A few things are necessary to add to this Epilogue. It does not seem based upon any particular resurrection account from Matthew or Luke, in structure or in themes, though it is possible that 16:12 reflects the same tradition as the Road to Emmaus account in Luke 24:13-35. While it is possible that it was inspired or influenced by other resurrection accounts, it is more likely that it was added to the Gospel due to internal concerns. By internal concerns, I mean the dramatic and narrative concerns of the Gospel of Mark itself. I do not know, naturally, whether the author of the Gospel was the source of these additions, but they do “fit” with Mark, despite or perhaps particularly because of the obscurity of certain elements, such as drinking poison and handling snakes. Other elements of the resurrection appearances, from 16:9-14, “fit” exactly with the presentation of the apostles and disciples throughout the Gospel. This is a Markan ending, whether added by Mark or someone else.

This indicates to me that the impetus for the additions were internal. Explaining what is to come and what happened to the major characters is a key aspect of an epilogue, and so an author might have wanted to add these aspects to the Gospel by way of completion more than addition. This remains a strong possibility. The most compelling impetus for me, though, is that these additions were internal not to the structure of the Gospel or the needs of the author(s), but to the audience. It might be that the first hearers of the Gospel clamored for more: more information on when Jesus was raised, more of what he said to his apostles, or more on how the actual mission, of which the first hearers were a part, started. The entire Gospel is intended to draw each reader into the disciple circle of Jesus and these last verses which make up the Epilogue are essential to complete the story and send these new disciples into the world themselves with the authority of Jesus.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies

The Super Bowl Winner Revealed by the Bible?

If you read the Bible as the font of all knowledge, and not just theological truth, this blog post is for you. This is the kind of biblical interpretation that you can only find here; I can promise you that and soon you will be thankful for it. Without further ado, let's get down to biblical interpretation.

What does the Bible say about the San Francisco 49ers?  

This passage from Leviticus 25:1-13 is most pertinent for the 49ers:

1 The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying: 2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When you enter the land that I am giving you, the land shall observe a sabbath for the Lord. 3 Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in their yield; 4 but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of complete rest for the land, a sabbath for the Lord: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. 5 You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your unpruned vine: it shall be a year of complete rest for the land. 6 You may eat what the land yields during its sabbath—you, your male and female slaves, your hired and your bound laborers who live with you; 7 for your livestock also, and for the wild animals in your land all its yield shall be for food. 8 You shall count off seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the period of seven weeks of years gives forty-nine years. 9 Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; on the tenth day of the seventh month—on the day of atonement—you shall have the trumpet sounded throughout all your land. 10 And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. 11 That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow, or reap the aftergrowth, or harvest the unpruned vines. 12 For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you: you shall eat only what the field itself produces. 13 In this year of jubilee you shall return, every one of you, to your property.

Most relevant for our discussion is 25:8, “You shall count off seven weeks of years, seven times seven years, so that the period of seven weeks of years gives forty-nine years.”  Here we have the “49ers” mentioned by name, I think, and not only are they mentioned by name but in the following verses it is said that “the trumpet sounded loud” and it is called a “day of atonement” (25:9). This could, indeed, refer to victory in the Super Bowl and “atonement” for the loss to the Giants last year in the NFC championship. But it is then said that “you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you” (25:10). This could refer to a victory parade; the hyperbole of  “hallow the fiftieth year” and “proclaim liberty throughout the land” might simply be coded language for the celebration of the championship in the Super Bowl.  The following verses, however, in their notice of return “to your property and every one of you to your family… you shall not sow, or reap the aftergrowth, or harvest the unpruned vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you: you shall eat only what the field itself produces. In this year of jubilee you shall return, every one of you, to your property” (25:10-13) might have more to do with California agricultural success and the return of people to the land. It might also have more to do with the unproductive nature of the quest for victory, too, that the “land,” the football field, did not produce what was necessary. It is fallow and it was intended to be fallow.

But the Bible must always be read in light of the Bible. Before rushing in to any particular conclusions, what is said about the Ravens in the Bible? Much more, actually, much more.

In 1 Kings 17:3-6, Elijah the prophet is instructed by God to "Go from here and turn eastward, and hide yourself by the Wadi Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. You shall drink from the wadi, and I have commanded the ravens to feed you there." So he went and did according to the word of the Lord; he went and lived by the Wadi Cherith, which is east of the Jordan. The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening; and he drank from the wadi.” The ravens, that is, carry out the word of God, giving sustenance to his God’s prophet, Elijah. Could we see Ray Lewis as a latter day football prophet? 

But not only do the ravens feed the prophet, God feeds the ravens according to Psalm 147:9: “He gives to the animals their food, and to the young ravens when they cry.” The crying is probably a reference to Ray Lewis, although he is not a “young raven” according to the age of football players, and if this is the case then the “feeding” of the ravens could be seen as a Super Bowl victory.  Jesus says much the same thing in Luke 12:24, “Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them.” God feeds the ravens. How else could feeding be seen but God's desire that the Ravens win the Super Bowl? That's how much God cares about football (and American football precisely, not Canadian football, or association football, or rugby football, but American football) and that the right team win it all!

Now, things can get darker when it comes to the ravens, too, as seen by this saying from Proverbs 30:17: “The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.” This is a powerful and germane verse, of course, since the “father and mother” of both coaches are the same! That is correct; the teams are coached by the brothers Harbaugh, one named Jim, the other John. I actually do not know which brother coaches which team, but the one that coaches the 49ers will have his eyes “pecked out,” metaphorically of course, “by the ravens!”  I do not know how he might have mocked his father or scorned to obey his mother – maybe that’s metaphorical too! – but whichever one he is, John or Jim, his eyes are getting “pecked out,” in a spiritual, fulfill the Bible sort of way. These ravens are said to be “of the valley” and I do not know if Baltimore is in a valley, but north of Baltimore is “Hunt Valley” and not only is that close enough, but what are ravens who peck out eyes, metaphorically of course, doing if not hunting?

There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence here that the Bible suggests the Ravens will win the Super Bowl. The Ravens work on God’s behalf feeding prophets, such as Ray Lewis, and God cares for them and feeds them. They also peck out the eyes of those who scorn and mock their mother and father and though, as mentioned earlier, there is no actual evidence of any such scorning and mocking, let’s just let that pass.

It is true, of course, that the 49ers passage from Leviticus speaks of a great “Jubilee,” a celebration throughout the land, but this is connected more with agriculture, though it is possible that “the land” could be understood as the “land” represented by the football field, the mighty gridiron itself.  If that is the case, however, we must say that following the 49ers will be a year that is “fallow.” As such, it seems to me that according to the Bible the Ravens will win the Super Bowl.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that the Bible itself does not speak of football games, that it does not predict the outcome of games, but that these games might be predicated on the players and coaches and how hard they prepared for the game itself. It might be that no matter what, it is just a game, a time for spectators to relax, enjoy the game and have fun with friends. I suppose that the Bible is more about how we ought to live our lives than about predicting outcomes and futures. I suppose you ought not to bet on the outcome of a game based upon what I have written here, though I would be remiss not to mention that there sure are a lot of passages in the Bible that talk about “casting lots.” Not that God cares who wins. And it is probably not best to bet too much on my biblical interpretation, even metaphorically speaking.

 

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies