Genesis 4:17, Who was Cain's wife?

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.  

//But where did Cain find her? It's a tricky question, but it does have an answer! Let me guide you there in a roundabout way.

We have at least two legends about man's arrival in the Bible, by two different authors. These two stories have been spliced together in Genesis. For more about how we know they were originally two separate stories, I refer you to the Documentary Hypothesis.

In one story, God creates the universe in six days. On the final day, God makes mankind, men and women both, and sends them forth to multiply. Kind of a boring story.

The second story is a bit more interesting. It begins in Genesis 2:7. God doesn't make mankind, he forms a man, (Adam) sculpting him out of the dust of the ground. God has planted a garden, and wants somebody to tend the garden. 

Story 1: All future generations descend from Adam. Story 2: No such assumption is made; Adam isn’t necessarily numero uno.

Suppose we keep reading in the Bible, past these two legends. One day, Adam's son Cain shows up with a wife! If Adam was the first-ever man on earth, then where on earth did Cain find her?

Story 1: Presumably, Cain hangs around and chooses a sister. Story 2: Probably, Cain chooses a wife from the heathen nations rather than choosing one of Adam's daughters. So which one is it?

Story 1: in Genesis 5:3-4, When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.* There isn't any first-born Cain in this story. Repeat: No Cain in story 1. The firstborn is Seth. Story 2: Adam eats of the tree of knowledge, which apparently results in a sexual awakening, and lo! Children. Can you imagine their surprise? Anyway, as Genesis chapters 3 and 4 make clear, the first startling arrival is a fellow they name Cain. The second-born, Abel, comes along quite routinely. As the story continues, one child (Cain) kills the other and is driven away from the family. Cain pleads for mercy: "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." Cain seems to know that there are plenty of other people waiting on the other side of the mountain.

So, there you have it. Cain belongs to story 2, and probably found his wife among the nations of the world.

(*Note: Likely, the story of Seth as the firstborn of Adam is of yet another source, possibly an earlier source than Genesis chapter one, but may have been known to the writer who penned his six-day creation story.)

Book review: A New Reformation

by Matthew Fox

★★★★★

Five centuries ago, a monk named Martin Luther revolutionized the Christian world. He devised a new vision of Christianity in 95 theses, and nailed these theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The Reformation, as it came to be known, resulted in a schism between the Roman Catholics and what became known as Protestant Christianity.

Disgusted with the fundamentalist direction of the Catholic church (Matthew Fox was a member of the Dominican Order for thirty-four years before being expelled) and inspired by Luther’s movement,  Fox decided to reenact Luther’s rebellion. His own resulting 95 theses are liberal and post-modern, reflecting a more pantheistic understanding of God over the “Punitive Father” of Catholic tradition. He then nailed these theses to the very same door. (Well, the door was no longer wooden, but metal, so he had to build a little wooden frame to nail his new Reformation.)

The gist of Fox’s Reformation is that the church needs to move away from religion, and toward spirituality. We have lost our appreciation and awe of creation (Fox is a long-time proponent of what he labels “Creation Spirituality.”) We would be better off without the doctrine of Original Sin, with its guilt-ridden baggage, embracing instead the Original Blessing, which recognizes awe as the starting point of true religion. There is no conflict between Fox’s version of Christianity and scientific discovery. No conflict with post-modern morality, granting equal respect and rights to women and to gays and lesbians.

A sampling of Fox’s 95 theses follows:

Number 6: Theism (the idea that God is “out there” or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things.

Number 13: Spirituality and religion are not the same any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same.

Number 15: Christians must distinguish between Jesus (a historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).

Number 36: Dance, whose root meaning in many indigenous cultures is the same as breath or spirit, is a very ancient and appropriate form in which to pray.

Number 59: Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.

Number 75: Poverty for the many and luxury for the few are not right or sustainable.

Genesis 14:7, Those Pesky Amalekites

And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites.

//You think Israel is the only nation that God resurrected? Here's a nation that was destroyed four times, and kept coming back to life. In today's verse, the wording seems to imply that all of the Amalekites were smitten, but apparently it wasn't so. They were still around a bit later for Saul to destroy again:

1 Samuel 15:20, And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, ... and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

This time, the wording is pretty clear. But Saul must have been wrong; it's not over yet. Next, it's King David's turn:

1 Samuel 27:8-9, And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive.

There! That should do it! Surely this time they'll stay dead, right? Not so; three chapters later, the Amalekites are still wreaking havoc.

1 Samuel 30:1, And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; So, David goes after them, and in verse 17, he smites them "from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled." Then, 1 Chronicles 4:43 tells what happened to the remnant: "And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day."

Let's hope that finally did the trick.

Book review: Darwin's Cathedral

by David Sloan Wilson

★★★

Can evolutionary methods be used to study the development of religion? David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because of the advantages it confers on those who share in it. Religion may even have contributed to humanity’s rise as the dominant animal on earth. By studying religious concepts in their group settings (religions are well known for their in-group morality and out-group hostility), Wilson places the evolution of social behavior, and religion in particular, on the same playing field as biological entities.

Group selection long ago became passé among evolutionary biologists, but it may be time for its revival. In the 60’s, it was believed that evolution takes place entirely by mutational change. Since then, it has been shown that evolution also occurs along a different pathway: by social groups becoming so functionally integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. So why aren’t groups—particularly religious groupings—receiving the attention they deserve in the evolutionary field?

Wilson wants to study religious groups in the same way biologists study guppies, bacteria, and other forms of life. Does the rational choice theory fit religion? Functionalism? Using Calvinism as his primary case study, he determines that characteristics of social groups can be predicted via group selection theory.

Intelligent and cutting edge, Wilson does have something to say, but this is not an easy read; it reads like a university thesis, scholarly and reference-infested. It’s not because the theory isn’t fascinating, but because I had a hard time concentrating on the presentation, that I ranked it only three stars.

Romans 8:14, Sons of God

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

//The synoptic gospels indicate that in the age to come and in the heavenly realm, we will become sons of God. According to Luke, if you love your enemies, "your reward will be great, and you will become sons of the Most High." (Luke 6:35) Matthew says of the peacemakers, "they shall be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) About the coming age Luke promises, "they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36). Becoming God's son is recognized as an eschatological sign of the final age, a promise speaking of the resurrection.

In contrast, John and Paul treat sonship as a gift already bestowed. Paul says, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." (Gal 4:6) John 1:12-13 makes it clear that God has granted the opportunity to be born again, not of natural descent but of God, and that such believers are already "children of God."

When we recognize that Paul is our earliest Christian writer, and when we begin to notice all of the instances where John agrees with Paul rather than the Synoptics, we have to ask the question quite seriously whether John, with its insistence that we have already entered the final age, reflects an earlier Christian tradition rather than a later one.

Has the resurrection already occurred?

Book review: The Feasts of Israel

by Bruce Scott

★★★★★

A good way to measure the worth of a book, for me, is to page through it afterward noting how much of the text has been highlighted. In this case, a lot! If I have any criticism of the book, it’s that Scott finds too much meaning in the feasts. He works overly hard to relate every aspect of Jewish celebrations to the life of Jesus, even when the New Testament authors didn’t appear to have any intention of such parallels. This artificiality does betray Scott’s evangelistic emphasis.

This book is written very simply; a young teenager could appreciate and enjoy it as much as adults. And when this young teenager finished the book, he/she would have a deeper understanding  of the New Testament’s Jewish influence than the majority of Christian ministers!

Scott covers the Sabbath and the major feasts of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Jewish New Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feasts of Tabernacles in part 1. He then covers a number of minor feasts (including Hanukkah and Purim) and Jewish fast days in part 2.  A concluding chapter titled Shadow or Substance? discusses what the recognition of these feasts should mean to us today, and whether or not Christians should celebrate them.

2 Samuel 8:4, 700 or 7,000 horsemen?

David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.

//Seven hundred horsemen, it says. Here's the same battle, described in the Chronicles:

And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.

Oops! First 700 horsemen, then 7,000? Did the Bible slip a digit?

Early Bible translators preferred the second story. When the Hebrew text of 700 horsemen was rewritten into the Greek Septuagint, it somehow became 7,000. The Dead Sea scrolls agree: 7,000. Today's various translations can't decide what to do; some say 700, some say 7,000. Oddly, the Masoretic text claims 1,700. Can any of the numbers in the Bible be trusted? Or do its numbers just grow over time, like a good fish story?

I get the feeling that the only really important digit is the 7; that's God's favorite number, that's the digit that proves God's hand is in the matter. The rest don't matter, and scripture writers felt free to exaggerate as they pleased. Here's another example of how an original story (in Samuel) grew when rewritten hundreds of years later (in Chronicles):

And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. (2 Samuel 10:18). Now, here's the same battle in Chronicles, where 700 charioteers again turn into 7,000. But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host. (1 Chronicles 19:18)

Book review: Holy Ghost Girl

by Donna Johnson

★★★★★

Excellent! Definitely a fun book, if a bit freaky. Now, there’s a word I’ve never used before in a book review!

Donna Johnson tells the story of a little girl growing up on the “sawdust trail” of traveling tent missionary David Terrell. Yes, that David Terrell. Welcome to the world of public miracles, undercover infidelity and cognitive dissonance. On a grand scale. While it’s true the story is told through the wide eyes of a child, you may turn the final page still wondering if this wayward, charismatic holy man was the real thing. Perhaps God has a sense of humor.

Here’s the odd part. I read the entire book, never connecting the name of the author with the little girl it’s about. Donna. Yeah, it’s a memoir, an autobiographical work, but it never once crossed my mind that the young girl of this book could possibly overcome her bizarre upbringing and grow up “normal” enough to recount her youth in such fascinating prose. The writing is as delightful as it is haunting, one of those books that leaves you grasping hungrily at the acknowledgements after its all over to avoid putting it down.

It might be that I’m over-fascinated by religion-gone-wild, but IMO this is a story you don’t want to miss.

Isaiah 61:2, Who Is Melchizedek?

[T]o proclaim the year of Melchizedek's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn.

//You won’t find this verse in your Bible. Not in these words, anyway. This rendition comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the name Melchizedek replaces “the LORD” in Isaiah 61:2.

The few verses we have about Melchizedek reveal little more than a mystery. He pops up in the Old Testament and disappears just as quickly. The book of Hebrews describes him as “without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God” (Hebrew 7:3). The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed some light on Jewish thinking regarding the mysterious figure of Melchizedek. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this verse in Hebrews made little sense. Who is Melchizedek, anyway?

But in the “Melchizedek Scroll” from Cave 11, Psalm 7 has Melchizedek ruling from on high, not God. In Psalm 82, it is not God who presides over the great assembly, it is Melchizedek. Finally, today’s verse where Isaiah mentions “the year of the Lord’s favor,” the Dead Sea Scroll reads “the year of Melchizedek’s favor.” Each time, Melchizedek is equated with God himself.

There you go.

Book review: No Wonder They Call Him the Savior

by Max Lucado

★★★

Max Lucado was asked by an acquaintance in a coffee house about his faith. "What is it that matters?" the man asked. "Skip the periphery. Go to the essence. Tell me the part that matters." Years later, the answer had solidified for Lucado. The cross of Calvary. That's the essence. "If the account of the cross is true, it's history's hinge. ... If not, it's history's hoax."

This book, then, is a search for the meaning of the cross. Special attention is given to the little details of the Golgotha scene. The words spoken from the cross, the thieves on either side, the graying mother at Christ's feet. No wonder they call him Savior.

Next, the scene shifts from Jesus to the witnesses. All those who played a part, big or small. Finally, the resurrection.

The book is flavored throughout with a number of personal stories. It’s highly inspirational, meant for spiritual encouragement. I confess I didn't read the whole thing; when it shifted gears into a study guide 2/3 of the way through, I shut down. Lucado is also a conservative believer, and the assumptions about the Bible’s historical accuracy and Jesus' divinity began to weary me. He writes as a friendly minister who assumes we share his traditional Christian outlook. I can't do that, and if the only way to appreciate the story of Jesus is to turn the whole thing into a supernatural religion, then I'm left in the cold.

Three stars from me, but for another person at another stage in their life, I'm sure Lucado's uplifting writing style will hit the mark.

Genesis 3:6, What Fruit Did Adam & Eve Eat?

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

//Jewish tradition holds that the fruit was figs, grapes, or wheat. Another fruit often proposed is the pomegranate, one of the earliest fruits domesticated. It came to be known as a symbol of fertility and immortality. Greek and Persian mythology uses the pomegranate as a representation of life, regeneration, and marriage. The one fruit that no scholar considers seriously is an apple.

But in the fourth century, the word malum appeared in the Vulgate translation of Genesis in the phrase "the tree of good and evil." Malum, in Latin, means both evil and apple. They've been connected ever since.

In the end, Adam and Eve may not have eaten of any fruit at all. Partaking of the "fruit of the tree of good and evil" may have been an allegorical feast, describing the first sin of the flesh, as explained in the very next verse: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

Book review: Angel

by Laura Lee

★★★★★

I reviewed this book a few days ago, labeling it an “uncomfortable page-turner,” and its bizarre story still grips me. My primary criterion for ranking is whether or not a book makes me think … obviously, this one does. As such, it deserves additional discussion, and this time around it gets five stars. That the between-the-lines message of the book still grips me is a testament to its importance within its Christian setting.

It feels odd to call this “Christian literature.” It’s a bit crude, and let’s be honest, it contradicts Paul’s teachings by 180 degrees. The gay lifestyle isn’t “Christian” … at least, not for Christians who consider the Bible the final word. I’ve studied several arguments for embracing same-sex relationships in the church, and the bottom line is they just aren’t scriptural. I’ve talked with gays who don’t feel the Bible contradicts their lifestyle, but the arguments are lame. Sorry, guys. The Bible is clear. There is simply no legitimate way to get around the gay-bashing verses of the Bible … until we realize it’s just time to outgrow these verses.  Biblical writers could not overcome their unease, but differences in sexual preference do not warrant discrimination in church any more than in business. It’s time we grew up.

Back to Laura’s book. She tackles an intimidating topic head on, and does so in an unforgettable manner. Five stars, yeah, because this is a Christian topic. Let’s climb this social mountain together.

Read the original review here: http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/10/book-review-angel.html

Matthew 23:9, Call No One Father

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

//Some of Jesus' teachings can leave us bewildered. Call no one father? Doesn't this contradict the teaching to respect your parents?

It helps to picture the patriarchal society in which Jesus was born. One's identity was tied to the family clan. Jesus had four brothers and an unknown number of sisters, and these siblings were probably married and forming families of their own. You can imagine that in a small village like Nazareth, Jesus' family could represent a large portion of the population. Family provided protection, identification, and belonging.

At the pinnacle of the family was the father figure, and this person had absolute authority. Everyone owed him obedience and loyalty. He arranged marriages, he decided the duties of the household, he defined everyone's place. This seems to have irked Jesus as one more instance of unnecessary control. Was Jesus slated by his father to marry, and if so, what happened to his designated wife? We don't know. As risky as it was to break ties with family, Jesus did just that. God alone, says Jesus, should direct our lives to this degree.

Book review: Thus Saith Eve

by Chris Wind

★★★★★

This little book finally gives the women of the Bible license to speak, and speak they do! A cantankerous bunch on the whole, yet their contributions (as true as they may be) left me ROFLing. Our Bible, I’m now convinced, is much the poorer for its women being silenced.

There are nineteen chapters, nineteen women in all who get to have their say. Technically speaking, only fifteen of the nineteen speakers are “women of the Bible.” Two are extra-canonical, one is a dastardly angel (we call “her” Satan), and one is … well, I was equally astonished to learn that Abel, son/daughter of Adam, also made the feminine list. Can’t say I didn’t learn anything from this book.

My favorite was Noah’s wife. Poor thing, with a ship the size of the football field to clean, and animal excrement everywhere. Yet, she seems quite able to hold her own, and as she rightly points out, if the whole creation was destroyed by a flood, then she is mother to us all. (What she leaves unsaid is whether or not Noah is the father of us all … hmmm.)

Short, but definitely entertaining … and serious between the lines.

Matthew 25:25, How Much is a Talent?

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

//In this parable, a man travels to a foreign country, but before he leaves, he gives talents to his servants. Ten to one, five to another, one to a third.

Do you picture a talent as a small, silver coin? If you do, you miss the flavor of the parable. A talent is formed in the shape of a huge ingot; that is, a heavy weight with a handle on top for ease of transport. A talent weighs 75 pounds; over 34 kilograms. A strong man can lug one in each hand. It weighs 6,000 denarii and represents the salary of 6,000 days’ work. Sixteen and a half years.

Now we can read over the story with a new understanding. First, these talents are not on loan. They are freely given. Ten talents would provide enough for the servant to live adequately for another 165 years! Five talents would do for 82 more years! The abundance of the gift is important to the story. These servants gladly accept the gift, and put it to good use, doubling what they have been given.

Then we come to the third servant, who received only one. This man does not seem to appreciate it as a gift; rather it is an incredible responsibility! He sees it as nearly more than he can bear, keeping this talent for the day his master returns and he can give it back. How on earth can he hide an entire talent? He finds a way, burying it in the ground.

Now that you understand the dynamics of the story, I’m guessing the parable will speak to you in a different way.

Book review: The Galilean

by Tom Colgan

★★★★

A play, well-written and well-acted, should first and foremost touch the heart. This one does. Yet, imagination is always necessary when reading plays; its appreciation depends upon the reader’s ability to soak up the poetic speech and hear it from the lips of imaginary stage actors. That’s how Colgan’s writing comes alive.

The story opens in an age of great expectation. John the Baptist fuels the apocalyptic fire of his followers, teaching them to watch for the arrival of the Messiah. Everybody knows something is about to happen. Something big, something God has planned from the beginning. God is about to intervene in history.

Enter Jesus, the Galilean. A man who, two thousand years later, everyone knows by legend, but nobody knows as a person. Colgan, a former Methodist minister who brings sixteen years of research into the Historical Jesus, offers a realistic, yet inspiring portrayal. In his mind, Jesus was a Jew with a radical vision, a deep longing to revitalize his nation to a new way of thinking. A way of compassion. Jesus teaches love for everyone; sinner, sickly, and saint.

While everyone watches for God’s big intervention, Jesus wonders if everyone is missing it. What a pity if God’s great transformation goes unnoticed? Jesus seeks to bring God down from heaven and make Him accessible to the multitudes. But his vision clashes with the institutionalized religion of the Temple class.

A showdown is coming, and the disciples fear for Jesus’ safety. But Jesus fears not death; he fears something else entirely. The Galilean will leave you wondering, quite seriously, whether Jesus’ greatest fear came to pass … and what can be done to set things right.

1 Samuel 5:6, Golden Mice and Hemorrhoids

And the hand of Jehovah was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he laid them waste, and smote them with hemorrhoids. (Darby translation)

//One day, the hated Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant and brought it home to the temple of their god, Dagan. The next morning, they awoke to find their god face down, bowing before the Ark. So, they set the statue back up. Again, the next morning, Dagon is prostrate on the ground, this time with his head and arms chopped off.

But the Ark isn’t done toying with the Philistines. It smites all the people of the city, Ashdod, with hemorrhoids. So, the Philistines move the ark to Gath. Now all the Gathites develop hemorrhoids.

Finally, the Philistines come to their senses, and send the Ark home. But not empty. As an apology, they prepare gifts of golden images to send with the Ark. Images that have puzzled scholars for some time.

Then [the Philistines] said, What is the trespass-offering which we shall return to him? And they said, Five golden hemorrhoids, and five golden mice, the number of the lords of the Philistines; for one plague is upon them all, and upon your lords. And ye shall make images of your hemorrhoids, and images of your mice that destroy the land, and give glory to the God of Israel: perhaps he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.

Today’s puzzle: What does a golden hemorrhoid look like?

Book review: The Teaching of the Twelve

by Tony Jones

★★★★

Every Christian should read the Didache (DID-ah-kay). Every one. You can read the whole thing in twenty minutes, so you have no excuse.

Didache simply means teachings. By our best guess, this is the earliest Christian literature not in the Bible. It probably predates one or more Gospels, and may be made up of about four separate writings. The opening portion appears taken directly from the Q source. So early are the teachings of this Didache community that they show no indication of familiarity with any Pauline writings.

The Didache is not a book about believing, but about living. It’s not about evangelizing, but about being a neighbor. It’s a guidebook about how to share the Eucharist, how to give alms, how to baptize, how to appoint elders and treat prophets, and more. You won’t read anything about miracles, the twelve disciples, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. It’s just about how to be a Christian.

Jones relates the words of the Didache, provides a short, inspirational analysis, and relates how a group of Christians he knows has taken its teachings and humbly formed a community determined to return to the simple, compassionate teachings of the early church.

Mark 5:2, One Man or Two? Part II of II

When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

//Two days ago, I gave an example where Matthew changes the story of one blind man (Bartimaeus) into a story of two blind men. In case you don't believe this is intentional, here's another example. You all know this story well, about the man living among the tombs, out of whom Jesus cast a swarm of evil spirits. In fact, the man's name was Legion, because of the many evil spirits inhabiting him. Jesus chases them out into the pigs, and the pigs rumble pell-mell down the hill into the lake, where they drown.

So. What do you suppose the man's name is in Matthew's version? I bet you never noticed ... according to Matthew, there is no name given, because there are two demon-possessed men in his story!

Matthew 8:28, When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.

In Mathew’s rendition, Jesus does the same thing, casting the demons out into the pigs. Do you find it odd that Matthew would so fecklessly change one person into two? You shouldn't. Matthew loves to double his characters; it appears to be a unique literary style of his. In Matthew 9:27, like the verses presented two days ago, Matthew again has two blind men. In 4:28-21, he calls his disciples in pairs of brothers (Simon/Andrew, and James/John). In 26:37, he alone again refers to James/John as "the two brothers." In 26:20, he alone mentions "two false witnesses."

I don't have an explanation for this literary habit, but I would enjoy hearing your opinions.

Book review: Hell Yes / Hell No

by John Noe, Ph. D.

★★★★★

Is God really going to banish the majority of his creation to eternal torment? Well, to start with, what and where is this eternal torment? Noe starts his in-depth study by discussing four words in the Bible that have been translated in different versions of the Bible as “hell.” These four words are Gehenna (the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where the fire burns non-stop), Sheol (the realm of the dead as they await resurrection, primarily in the Old Testament), Hades (which Noe labels as the Greek equivalent of Sheol), and Tartarus (referenced only in 2 Peter as a place of banishment for sinful angels.) This mismatch of meanings hardly lends strength to the doctrine of eternal damnation. Is today’s understanding of hell merely a Christian invention?

Christian Universalists have a hard time believing a God of Love could be so cruel as to torture anyone for an eternity. Thankfully, a number of verses in the Bible give a different picture; a picture of universal acceptance into heaven. Noe provides a very impressive, scriptural study of both sides of the argument. Recognizing that each side has an exhaustive battery of “proof verses,” and that scripture itself reminds us we are delving in a great mystery (see Romans 11:33-36), he cautions us against disregarding contrary opinions, and suggests we proceed with a high degree of humility.

While Mr. Noe and I will never be exactly on the same page (he "is not and has never been a liberal Christian" while I am precisely that), I am awed by his research. I can respect Noe's Sola Scriptura stance so long as he takes a good, hard, scholarly look at what the scriptures really say (and do not say!), and this he has done. The key word in this argument, undoubtedly, is the word “all.” When the Bible says, “all,” does it really mean all?

Christ gave himself a ransom for all men.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

The examples of universal language in the scripture are numerous. Underlining this topic is one all-important question: Why did Jesus die? Especially in the minds of Universalists, who posit that everybody eventually winds up in heaven anyway. You may begin to think about the redemptive power of the Cross a little differently after this study with Noe. Consider, for example, Paul’s comparison of Adam to Christ: “So it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” Christian Universalists now charge, “if people are burning in hell, Adam did not foreshadow Christ, he eclipsed Him … religion makes Adam more powerful than Christ.”

Noe proposes a reevaluation of the texts, and mediates a sort of reasonable vote on various topics. Perhaps by tallying up the strengths of the Universalist texts against the strength of the Exclusivist texts—bearing in mind what we have learned about the Greek words and meanings behind what has often been translated as hell—we can reach a conclusion.

It's no slam dunk. In fact, the voting results in a push, until Noe introduces a tie-breaker topic titled God's Revealed Character and Nature. Under this topic, he lobbies for a kind and loving God, based on the weight of scripture that describes God as someone who would never banish anyone to eternal torment. The scales are thus tipped in favor of Universalism ... as we guessed all along.

Engaging, interesting, intelligent, thought-provoking, this is a book every Christian should read. But I cannot leave this topic without reminding you of Noe’s beginning assumption, a trust that scriptures are divinely inspired and internally consistent. This is me talking from here on; not Noe.

I can respect Noe’s desire to give equal weight to all scripture, but this is the very reason these arguments crop up. It’s not that the scriptures are ambiguous—common sense can usually determine what the author has in mind to say—it’s that in places they are flat-out contradictory. This study highlights this problem very well.

The majority of the Universalist texts derive from Pauline writings. The original Paul, not later pseudo-Pauline writings such as II Thessalonians. Paul, I confess, may have been a Universalist—though, whether in his beliefs or in his dream for mankind I cannot tell. Matthew, with his repeated divisions and images of punishment and gnashing of teeth, is most certainly an Exclusivist … and a terrifying one, at that.

So if we are to take a vote to decide whether the doctrine of Exclusivity or the doctrine of Universality is correct, here is how I think we should be voting, recognizing that different writers held different opinions:

Is Paul right or wrong?

Is Matthew right or wrong?

Is Hebrews right or wrong?

Is James right or wrong?

Or do we scrap them all, and go with Revelation’s afterlife vision of a bodily resurrection and a kingdom established on the earth?

Regardless of my differences with Noe, this is a study that’s worth the effort, and Noe tackles it in fair and scholarly fashion. Five stars, for sure.

Mark 10:46-47, One Man or Two? Part I of II

Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

//Matthew tells the same story, but with a difference:

Matthew 20:30, Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

Which version is historically correct? One blind man or two?

Answer: you're missing the point, if you ask this question. In both Matthew and Mark, this story of Jesus' healing the blind is prefaced by the story of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, who wanted to sit on the left and right of Jesus when Jesus came into his glory. Matthew, in retelling the story of Bartimaeus, picks up on the context, and uses his literary liberty to turn the passage into a spiritual lesson. In Matthew, the story of one blind man, Bartimaeus, has become the story of two blind men ... and the two men are James and John.

More on one becoming two in a couple days ...

Book review: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

By Craig Blomberg

★★★★

In an era when it’s trendy to question everything written in the Bible, here’s a scholarly exception. Blomberg is a conservative who isn’t content to found his faith on faith alone. After a run-down of the latest methods of Biblical analysis, he tackles  three primary “problems” for scholarly believers:

[1] Miracles, and the problem of credibility. This may be Blomberg’s weakest argument, where he is reduced to concluding that if the resurrection really happened, then surely none of the other stories are that incredible!

[2] Contradictions within the three Synoptic Gospels. Perfect harmonization is an unreasonable expectation, and even if errors do exist (Blomberg does not admit to any, but confesses the possibility) then that may explain some of the apparent contradictions.

[3] The problem of John’s Gospel. What are we to make of this maverick writing? It seems to argue against the Synoptics at every turn, and repeatedly insists upon eyewitness testimony. Blomberg’s take (which I’m oversimplifying) is basically, “Let John be John;” the apparent contradictions are not severe enough to discredit either John or the Synoptics.

Blomberg then discusses the Jesus tradition outside the Gospels. What do the remaining books in the New Testament say about Jesus? What do the extra-canonical writings say? What do non-Christians say? He concludes that they reinforce the Gospel story.

So are the Gospels reliable history? Some Christians would affirm this merely because their doctrine of the inspiration of scripture requires them to, but Blomberg believes the Gospel story can stand on its own. He finds it neither a slam-dunk for or against historical reliability, but rather a topic deserving of serious scholarship, and certainly not a barrier to conservative Christian faith.

Revelation 12:1, 12:3, Signs in Heaven

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. ... Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads.

//These two "signs in heaven" set the stage for the cosmic battle of Revelation chapter 12. John first introduces us to a "woman clothed with the sun." She cries out in pain, about to give birth. But then a second sign appears, a fearsome looking dragon who "sweeps the stars out of the sky," and then stands nearby, waiting for the birth, so that he can devour her child.

The child, we are to assume, is Jesus, and the fearsome dragon is Satan. Images of King Herod also spring to mind, as he lies in wait to kill the baby Jesus. The woman clothed with the sun is often compared to Mary, and though I personally doubt this is the intended association, I won’t go into that here.

But the dragon's plan is foiled. As Jesus is born, he is snatched "up to God and to his throne," who apparently lives above the stars.

These "signs in heaven" surely reflect astronomical observations, and can even pinpoint the time of year to September/October. For twenty days out of the year, the sun "clothes" Virgo, the woman, by appearing in her midsection. At the same time, Scorpio’s claws seem about to catch her. And as the sun appears in Virgo, of course, the stars of that constellation cannot be seen; they have been "swept from the sky."

Book review: Who is Jesus?

by John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts

★★★★★

This is a short, very readable book (now fifteen years old) that does an excellent job of introducing the Historical Jesus; Crossan’s take in particular. Labeled by liberal Christian Marcus Borg as the “premier Jesus scholar in the world today,” Crossan’s picture of Jesus is controversial and base … which is precisely what you would expect of research into the “historical Jesus.” It’s about the flesh-and-blood man who walked the earth, not the legends that grew about him. A series of contrived questions meant to introduce the topic and the scholarship of Crossan and Watts steer the reader through the life and death of Jesus; how he lived, what he taught, what he really hoped to accomplish.

According to Crossan, Jesus was not really born of a virgin, performed no nature miracles, and never rose from the dead. Probably, he was never buried to begin with, as that would be uncommon for a crucifixion victim. Jesus was a social revolutionary with a humanitarian vision of a “Kingdom of God,” which, by Crossan’s definition, is how Jesus imagined “the way a kingdom on this earth would be established if God were in control.” This vision left Jesus in conflict with the Roman Empire, and eventually led to his arrest and sentence. By the Romans, of course, not the Jews.

Crossan insists that his book is not meant to be about Christ, but only about Jesus. Faith is not about Jesus, or about any historical reconstruction of his life, but about Christ. “Jesus”is the historical person; “Christ” affirms who he is for believers, and Christian faith is always faith in the historical Jesus as a manifestation of God to us. As Crossan explains, faith cannot ignore or bypass the historical facts, but faith goes beyond the facts to wrestle with the meaning.

Matthew 2:1, The Three Wise Men

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.

//Quick, now. How many wise men (magi) were there?

If you said three, you’re probably right.

Yes, I know, the Bible doesn’t say. How often have we all heard (usually in a smug tone) that the Christmas stories have it all wrong, and nobody knows how many wise men there really were?

It may be that the idea of three wise men derives from the three gifts they brought: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Or another reason may be seen in the stars: Many traditions have called the three stars of Orion’s belt the “kings” or “magi.” They form a direct line to Sirius and appear to follow him straight to the birthplace of the sun. Try to find them early on Christmas morning—they’ll be the brightest stars you see. (I’ve never sat out on Christmas morning looking for the magi in the sky, so don’t take my word for this; I’m merely passing on a controversial explanation.) But there’s a far more logical reason to imagine there were exactly three wise men.

For whatever reason, the story of Jesus closely mimics a number of Old Testament themes, and Matthew especially loves to relate these themes. Jesus’ birth is no exception to the rule. The Christ child is born miraculously of a virgin; Isaac, considered a typology of Christ in the Old Testament (he is offered as a sacrifice by his father, just like Jesus) is likewise born miraculously, this time to a postmenopausal woman. So, let’s go back to the story of Abraham and Sarah, parents of Isaac. What do we find?

Three wise men! Three mysterious strangers led by God to Abraham and Sarah, foretelling Isaac’s miraculous birth.

Book review: Everything I Know About God I Learned From Football

by Eric Chaffin

★★★★

My beloved Vikings are 0-4. Could be a long season. In desperation, I found this little book of inspiration. The Forward promises, "Everything I Know About God I Learned From Football is a book that beautifully offers both the sports fan and the disciple of Christ a formula for success."

Chaffin tells stories from the gridiron, and relates them to the Bible and Christian life. He writes from a conservative perspective, providing encouragement and spiritual direction. It's a serious topic, but told in a way that makes sense even with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other. Each chapter concludes with a red-zone push (a bulleted summary) and a post-game kneel (a short prayer).

Cute, personal, a little sappy from a guy's perspective. Buy it for your guy and set it on the armrest of his easy chair for halftime reading. Maybe he won't totally forget about God this Sunday.

1 Kings 3:24-25, Cut the baby in two!

Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other."

//Everyone knows this famous story displaying the wisdom of King Solomon. As it happened, two women bore babies within days of each other. The two are sleeping alone in their home at night, when one rolled over on her newborn son, killing him. So, she got up and swapped sons.

In the morning, the second woman realizes what happened, and takes the issue to the king. Solomon says cut the baby in half, and naturally the true mother objects, offering to give the baby to the other in order to save its life. In this way, Solomon learns the true mother of the living child, and awards it to her.

Ever wonder how this became a legal matter in the first place? Where were the fathers? Why are two women living alone in the same home?

Turns out the two were prostitutes. But that only brings up another sticky question. How is it that two prostitutes easily gain presence in the king's court? Weren't seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines enough for Solomon?

Sometimes the story behind the story is even more bizarre.

Book review: Angel

by Laura Lee

★★★★

An uncomfortable page-turner. I’m glad I read it, but glad to be finished. Not that the book is distasteful; it was just a foreign and unsettling topic for me. But that’s why I asked Lee for a review copy.

Lee’s protagonist is a middle-age minister who has lost his wife, and suddenly finds himself attracted to a young man, despite the church’s disapproval. They find it necessary to hide their friendship, which is both demeaning and spiritually draining. Shipwreck seems inevitable.

Lee writes with insight and flounce, and you just can’t put the darn thing down. The language is a bit crude in places, but appropriately so, as it does define the characters and our minister’s descent/growth (I’ll let you decide which). The story ends appropriately, which is all I dare say on that matter, except to promise it will leave you thinking about the not-so-subtle discrimination against sexual orientation in today’s Christianity, and the emotional scars and marginalizing it causes.

Mark 6:45, The Great Omission

And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.

//A while back, I reviewed a book titled “Q.” This gospel  is considered to be the other half of the two-source theory. The idea is this: Most of the book of Mark is repeated in both Matthew and Luke, making one think that those two Gospel writers wrote with Mark in hand. But Matthew and Luke also share a number of other common themes, enough for scholars to hypothesize the early existence of another document, a sayings Gospel, which they’ve unimaginatively titled “Q,” meaning quelle, or source.

The two-source theory has become the most commonly accepted explanation among scholars of how the Synoptic Gospels were derived. But there is potentially a big problem with it. Today’s verse begins a long passage in Mark, covering nearly two chapters from 6:45-8:26, that do not seem to be represented in Luke. If Luke used Mark as a source, why did he omit this section?

The Great Omission included Jesus walking on water, his healing at Gennesaret, the healing of a deaf and dumb man, the feeding of the four thousand, the Syrophoenician woman, and the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida, among other pericopes.

Book review: Early Christian Writings

Letters of the Church Fathers

★★★★

If you’re looking for a brief collection of early Christian writings, this one hits all the high points. For someone wanting a taste of the emerging church, Christianity in its infancy, nothing beats reading the letters and theological treatises themselves, and this is a good collection. Nothing fancy; the introduction is short and the notes are sparse, limited primarily to historical settings, so you’re getting it from the horses’ mouths.

And what you’re getting is the founding Fathers, after the excitement of the first century and its expectation of the immediate return of Christ died down. The men who took the scriptures seriously and built a religion for the long haul. Jewish customs are still evident, early doctrine is solidified, martyrs are glorified. Here’s the lineup:

The first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Seven epistles of Ignatius

The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

The martyrdom of Polycarp

The epistle of Diognetus

The epistle of Barnabas

The Didache

This is a Penguin Classic, translated by Maxwell Staniforth with commentary by Andrew Louth.

John 8:41, Was Jesus Illegitimate?

"We are not illegitimate children," [the Jews] protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

Some interpret this verse to be a subtle accusation by the Jews that Jesus was illegitimate. As in, “we aren’t the illegitimate ones, you are.”

It appears that quite early after the Gospel story began, rumors began to surface that Jesus was illegitimate. That Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera. I personally don’t buy it, the whole accusation sounds like “normal” slander bolstered by flimsy evidence, but the logic runs something like this:

John the Apostle (or The Beloved Disciple, if you prefer) knew Jesus best, having been with him from the very beginning to the very end of Jesus’ ministry.

John’s Gospel was the last one written, probably in the mid-90’s, by which time any such rumors could have easily found their way to him. It’s possible, then, that John was cognizant of the slander and intentionally addressed the issue in his Gospel.

At the same time, this Gospel is quite hesitant to talk about Jesus’ parents. John mentions Jesus’ father Joseph only twice in passing, and refuses to call Jesus’ mother by name.

This same Gospel redirects attention away from Jesus’ beginning, rejecting the virgin birth story in favor of a different theology: That Jesus existed eternally and came down from heaven.

So … where did Jesus come from?