Book review: Hometown Prophet

by Jeff Fulmer

★★★★★

A great story! Fulmer is an interesting writer who knows how to make you keep turning the pages.

Jeff Fulmer's "prophet" is a 30-year-old hometown nobody named Peter, who can't hold a job or find a girlfriend. He lives with his mom. Loser, with a capital L. (Jeff admits in the epilogue that he bears some resemblance to Peter, so I probably just lost a potential friend.)

Peter starts having dreams, and the dreams start coming true. He begins attending church, reading his Bible, sharing his prophecies. The dreams escalate to the level of natural disasters, and while they always come true, Peter begins to wonder when he'll guess wrong about what they mean. Who's feeding him these prophecies, anyway? God, or some more malevolent being? The plot's probably been done before, but Fulmer's writing grabs you and won't let go.

Not everyone is that enamored of having a prophet in their midst. While the plot line hangs pretty closely to Peter's prophetic development and the reaction of the world around him, there's an underlying theme to the dreams, which can be summed up in a story from the Gospel of Luke: The Good Samaritan. Peter explains in a television interview, "Jesus said it comes down to loving our neighbors as ourselves and loving God with all of our hearts."

This is Christian literature, and Fulmer's liberal Christian stance shines, and while I appreciated that, I didn't find the book the least bit overbearing or preachy. I can't even really categorize it as controversial, because each of us already knows its truths in the depths of our hearts … whether we admit it or not. It's more of a feel-good, love-your-neighbor journey. Whoever those neighbors are.

And a fun read.

Luke 1:3, Most Excellent Theophilus

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.

//With this introduction, the author of Luke's Gospel begins his work. Many people have wondered: who is this Theophilus dude?

Well, it's hard to know. We don't even know who wrote Luke’s Gospel, or any of the other three for that matter. In that era of copyists and manual document propagation, an author and his manuscript very quickly became disconnected. All four of the Gospels were written anonymously, with their authorship deduced and attached in the second century.

We think Luke was written around 80-85 CE, and apparently by this time, a number of other Gospels had already been penned (the author alludes to this in verse 1:1, and purports to have researched them carefully to determine the true events of Jesus' life). One of these others was Mark's Gospel, since Luke shows every evidence of having read and copied large portions of Mark into his own rendition, but we don't know what other sources Luke was drawing from. But none of this helps much in figuring out who Luke was writing to.

Luke was written in Greek, and Theophilus is a Greek name. But this also means little, not even proving that his audience was Gentile. Many Jewish people in the Greco-Roman world had Greek names, and many Jews preferred Greek. In fact, a Jew named Theophilus served as high priest in the Jerusalem Temple for four years, beginning in 37 CE.

The best we have is a stab in the dark: "Theophilus" is a Greek compound of two words: "theos," meaning God, and "philos," meaning love. The author of Luke may have meant to address his Gospel simply to any "lover of God."

Hebrews 11:13, Strangers and Pilgrims

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

//Hebrews chapter 11 is sometimes called "God's honor roll," because it lists many of the Old Testament's faithful figures, concluding that they could see into the future to the coming age. As Hebrews reports, they were "strangers and pilgrims" in a foreign world, waiting for the glory of God's new age.

But how far, exactly, did these faithful men see into the future? When would the glory of God be revealed?

The book of 1 Peter is still waiting. Verse 2:11 reads, Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.

But the author of Ephesians (probably not Paul) has a different opinion. Ephesians contains an undercurrent of "realized eschatology;" that is, the doctrine that the new age has already begun. Verse 2:19 reads, Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. For this writer, the age has arrived.

My opinion? The Kingdom of Heaven has arrived if you embrace it; it hasn't, if you're still scanning the skies waiting for Jesus to come back on the clouds.

Book review: The God Whom Moses Knew

by J. Roger Nelson, M.D.

★★★

Roger tells the story of Moses, leaning heavily on the Biblical version, and does so pretty straight-forwardly. Moses grows up in an Egyptian palace, learns about his Hebrew roots, kills an Egyptian taskmaster, flees into the desert for forty years, sees a burning bush, returns to Egypt at God’s command to lead the Israelites out of bondage. All by the book.

Everyone knows the story of the plagues of Egypt. Frogs and locusts and bloody rivers and stuff. They’re as destructive in Roger’s version as they are in the Bible. In fact, as the plagues roll on and Pharaoh won’t buckle, Moses begins to feel sorry for Egypt. He tries to convert Pharaoh away from Egyptian gods to the God of Abraham, hoping to stave off further suffering. Failing this, Moses trudges through Egyptian lands warning people of the next plague, a murderous hailstorm, and begging them to stay indoors.

Eventually, Moses leads Israel out into the desert, where the people turn cranky, and God loses patience. The story’s theme of God-ordained suffering continues. When Israel at Baal Peor begins to worship the wrong god, the God of Abraham tells them to kill all their wayward brethren. Moses watches his brethen slaughter twenty four thousand of their own.

As they reach the promised land, God instructs Israel to murder everything that moves. “You shall not leave alive anything that breathes.” Moses weeps for Canaan’s inhabitants, and makes up some unconvincing excuses for God’s behavior. There was no alternative to God’s ruthlessness, he decides. Israel must kill the males because if they don’t, the enemy armies will be an ever-present threat. If Israel hadn’t proven themselves untrustworthy, God would probably not require this. They must kill the females because the women deserve it. These women enticed Israel’s men with their feminine wiles. They must kill all the cows because … well, I guess Moses doesn’t have an excuse for this one.

All this is relayed in a matter-of-fact tone. God speaks directly to Moses, so we are given no reason to believe all this pain isn’t sanctioned by the Big Guy, Himself. Near the end of the story, as Moses is about the die, Joshua, his successor, asks him a question: “Moses, how can we convince others that God is not a cruel tyrant, but a wise, forgiving, and indeed a feeling God?” Moses in essence tells Joshua he’ll have to figure that one out on his own. Okay, this is fine so far, but suddenly the book threw me for a loop. As it settled to a close, Roger felt compelled to include an evangelical pitch. God desires all to come to him. “Are you choosing not to believe, to be left behind in Egypt?” Uh, Roger, did you read your own book? Is God a jealous, genocidal murderer or is he not? Can you at least give some hint that all this inhumanity wasn’t really God’s doing, before asking us to follow him?

Exodus 16:2-3, Those Grumbling Travelers

In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death."

//Just shortly after their miraculous escape from Egypt, and immediately after a joyful celebration of their deliverance, the children of Israel began to grumble that they were hungry. Odd: When they left Egypt, they took with them “large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.” So why didn’t they stop grumbling and just kill a cow?

Perhaps the cow had become a sacred symbol to them. Perhaps they saw these cattle as “gods,” the very ones they had worshipped during their stay in Egypt. Recall that it wouldn’t be long before they constructed a golden calf.

But that doesn’t answer the question of why Moses didn’t just demand that they shut up and eat the food they brought. More likely, their raucous victory celebration, when the Egyptian army all died in the Red Sea, resulted in a feast to end all feasts, and they ate all their cattle right off the bat.

Good vacation planning, guys.

Book review: Lion's Honey, the Myth of Samson

by David Grossman

★★★★★

I never liked Samson. I've said before that if the two of us meet someday in heaven, there will probably be a personality clash to end all clashes. I'm hoping that my new heavenly body won't be quite so easy to beat up.

Then I read David Grossman's little book. David carries us deep into the mind--nay, the very heart--of this ancient hero, to uncover what makes him tick. Sampson has been transformed from a turbulent, macho man into a needy, troubled misfit. A muscle-bound one, no less, which makes for an explosive combination.

I like him even less this way. I would shake Delilah's hand for uncovering his secret. No, not his long hair, but the inner child that longs to be normal, which she then carefully and deliberately manipulates.

Yeah, I'm fine with the tragic ending, Samson deserved it. Nevertheless, David's clever retelling succeeds in adding life to the myth. Kudos! David draws upon various Hebrew traditions to spice up Samson's twisted personality, then leaves the poor man without even a decent shrink. How else could the story end?

Sorry, David, I never did feel any sympathy for your guy. But I absolutely loved reading your story.

Jeremiah 10:3-4, The Christmas Tree

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

//Jeremiah, quoting the commandment of God, seems to say “quit cutting down my trees and adorning them with jewels.” As I write this, I’m sitting six feet from my own Christmas tree. Have I joined the ranks of the heathen?

I see this verse trotted out every other year by someone criticizing the Christmas tree tradition, but they fail to read the context of the verse. Puritans wishing to avoid all semblance of pagan influence on their celebration of Christ’s birth may indeed have their arguments against Christmas trees, but the Bible isn’t one of them.

Jeremiah’s concern was not with the tree, but with what the nations around Israel were making out of them. They were chiseling them into gods and overlaying them with gold and silver. They were nailing them down so they didn’t topple over while they worshipped them.

Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.

Leviticus 14:1-2, How to Heal a Leper

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing:

//Do you really want to know how to heal a leper?

Okay. First, the Old Testament way:

Find a couple birds. Kill one in a vessel over running water. Dip the other one in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the dead bird's blood on the leper seven times, then let the blood-soaked live bird fly away. Wait for the leper to shave off all his hair, including his eyebrows. Next, kill a lamb. Wipe some of its blood on the leper's ear, thumb, and big toe. Go get some oil. Sprinkle him seven times with oil, again dobbing some of the oil on his ear, thumb, and toe. Do it once more. Then pour what's left of the oil over the leper's head. Finally, kill a couple doves. Offer one as a sin offering, and the other as a burnt offering.

Now, the New Testament way:

Mark 1:40-41, And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

Book review: A Christian Nation?

by David Rosman, MA

★★★★★

Separation of church and state in America—fact or fiction? What did our founding fathers really intend? Rosman, a “Jew by heritage, atheist by belief, and Unitarian by affiliation,” steps us through the evidence he collected from proponents of both sides of the debate. He starts out with a lengthy discussion of the “guys in wigs,” and the religious beliefs they espoused. Then he methodically considers the primary founding papers, including:

The Articles of Confederation

The Constitution

The Bill of Rights

The Treaty of Tripoli

Do these documents and more betray a Christian underpinning? Or do they encourage religious tolerance? Is the constitution really based on the Ten Commandments? When did God find His way into the Star Spangled Banner, and how did “In God We Trust” turn into our national motto, even adorning our coins? Rosman’s controversial finding: We became a nation “under God” in the 1950’s, when cold war propaganda necessitated our uniting against those godless commies in the USSR.

Rosman’s analysis is very well-organized and actually quite balanced, even when he exposes America’s cold war strategy. His research leads to the expected conclusion: Our nation was NOT founded on Christian beliefs. Although a few early individuals did make efforts to merge religion and government, most of those efforts were met by reason and properly rejected.

It turns out our founding fathers shared a diverse collection of beliefs. Many were Christians, many were Deists, many were careful to give no indication. The settlers who founded our nation may have known their Bible, having come from nations where Christianity was the primary religion, but America was founded on religious freedom. We can’t describe these men in wide brushstrokes, collectively categorizing them all as Christians or Deists or Atheists. That’s as nonsensical as pretending all the writers of the New Testament were Trinitarians or Adoptionists. Different people hold different religious views—whether 2,000 years ago, 250 years ago, or today. And toleration of these differences forms the strength of our nation.

I enjoyed the book and learned a ton, but two annoyances keep me from giving it a five-star review: A bit of a slow start, and an inordinate number of editing errors. I don’t usually let errors influence my ranking, but this one definitely needed a better editor. 

---

NOTE: Hooray! I just learned I was given an uncorrected draft/proof edition of the book. The binding and publication date fooled me. I can now happily upgrade my rating to five stars.

Psalm 137:1-4, By the Rivers of Babylon

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?

//Casual Bible readers, unaware of Israel's history, often miss the desperate atmosphere which produced much of the Old Testament. A number of sections in the Bible were written "in exile;" that is, in the period in which Israel had been destroyed and the Jews were dwelling as captives in Babylon.

In those days, defeat of a nation was more than demoralizing. It was evidence of the impotence of their god. When rival nations fought (I use the word "nation" loosely), their representative gods in heaven warred as well. When Israel lost, first the northern kingdom to Assyria and then the southern kingdom to Babylon, it was as much a religious crisis as national one. Yahweh, the chosen god of Israel, had presumably been destroyed. The Babylonian deities were the victors.

It was in this atmosphere that the above hymn was penned. The Jews, desperate to one day recover their sacred land, refused to believe their god had died. Instead, they concluded, they were being punished. They dug in their heels and swore to an even greater code of holiness.

There, in the land of the enemy, they reinstituted the Sabbath, adopted kosher dietary laws, and began practicing circumcision, all in an attempt to preserve the boundaries which kept them a separated people. These laws were specifically chosen to make Jews “different.”

It worked. Their god revived, and when the Persians conquered Babylon a half-century later, a remnant of the Jews remained as a cohesive, consecrated people, and they were allowed to return to their holy land.

Mark 15:23, What was Jesus Offered to Drink?

Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.

//In Mark, the first Gospel written, Jesus is offered a drink of wine mixed with an expensive incense. Myrrh was sometimes added to food to enhance the aroma and taste, and it's likely the soldiers crucifying Jesus carried a portion of this wine mixture for themselves. Amos 2:8 refers to the "wine of the condemned," as if its provision were a final kindness. Perhaps in a refusal to lighten the suffering, Jesus refuses their gift.

Matthew, in copying Mark's story, dramatically changes the atmosphere of the scene. He changes the word myrrh to gall, which generically means just about any bitter substance. Perhaps Matthew doesn't want any confusion with a "good" gift (he has already explained that the wise men came bringing myrrh to the baby Jesus), but more likely, Matthew is taking liberties with the passage to quote from Psalms 69:21: They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. In Matthew's version, Jesus takes a sip, and apparently refuses to drink because of its taste.

The confusion between these two accounts actually regards the first of two drinks. Later, in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus is offered another drink from a sponge, this time a wine vinegar, which jibes with John's account. Jesus is twice offered wine; first, he refuses, then he accepts.

Book Review: Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

by Grant R. Osborne

★★★★★

If you’ve read other books in the Baker Exegetical series, you know pretty much what to expect here: Deep analysis with appreciation for multiple scholarly viewpoints, and every effort made to provide a precise interpretation. Often, this means resorting to the original New Testament Greek, which does make the text difficult to read … especially if you don’t know any Greek! You don’t have to, but if you know just enough Greek to be dangerous, without being a scholar of Biblical languages, this book will be perfect for you.

This approach, with liberal references back to the Old Testament, is particularly appropriate for one book of the Bible: Revelation. Its deep symbolism makes it a daunting book for most Bible readers.

In my own book about Revelation (http://www.thewayithappened.com) I discuss primarily the historical setting of which John of Patmos wrote. I believe the only way to truly understand Revelation is to first immerse yourself into the beliefs and struggles of first-century Christianity in Asia Minor (where the seven churches of Revelation reside). But when you’re ready to dig deeper into the Apocalypse’s Hebrew roots and symbolism, this is a great book … whether read as a  complete study or used as a reference. Osborne doesn’t neglect the historical essentials, he just delves much deeper and takes a much more scholarly approach. It must have taken forever to compile. 869 pages with plenty of ink on each.

Five stars for Osborne’s vast, no-nonsense research, a necessity for every Revelation scholar.

Psalm 30:5, God's Anger

For his anger endureth but a moment.

//I remember singing a hymn in church about how God's punishment is gentle, and his anger short-lived. Can't bring the hymn to mind, now, but God's patience and quick forgiveness is central to most Christian beliefs.

But not all scripture agrees. Here are two verses from the very same Bible book, that don't seem to jibe:

Jeremiah 3:12, I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

In this verse, Jeremiah is told by God to proclaim his merciful nature "to the north" (that is, to Israel, the northern kingdom). God wants Israel to repent, to acknowledge their sin and quit their backsliding. He promises that if they do, his anger will abate.

But they don't, and God's forgiving nature undergoes a transformation. When the southern kingdom (Judah) begins to try his patience, God changes  his attitude. He revokes their heritage, promising that they will serve their enemies. Why?

Jeremiah 17:4, [F]or ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

Being a parent can be soooo trying.

Book review: Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography

by John Dominic Crossan

★★★★

Crossan is one of the premier Jesus scholars of today, and this book is quintessential Crossan. It’s a condensed, recently reprinted, more readable version of his 1994 masterpiece, The Historical Jesus.

Crossan’s research is controversial, more focused on the real life of a first-century sage (Jesus) than in the messianic God-man Christianity turned him into. I believe Crossan’s most irritating position (to conservative Christians) is his insistence that Jesus never rose from the tomb … because he was never entombed in the first place. Jesus’ body was probably pulled from the cross and eaten by dogs, with his remains dumped in a shallow grave, like the majority of other Roman crucifixion victims. Nevertheless, Crossan’s portrayal of Jesus is warm and powerful.

This little 200-page book is for people who want a quick introduction to Crossan’s research without tomes or tangents.

Genesis 13:18, The Patriarchs of Israel

Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

//We have three great patriarchs in the history of Israel:

[1] Abraham, who came from the land of Ur, is the first and greatest. He was later identified with a shrine in Hebron, what is now Palestine.

[2] Isaac is the son of Abraham, the second of the Jewish patriarchs, and is identified with a shrine at Beersheba, southwest of Jerusalem.

[3] Jacob, the son of Isaac and the third patriarch was identified with a shrine at Bethel. When kingdom of Israel later split in two (separating the south from the north), Bethel would belong to the northern half.

We have no historical evidence at all for these three men. No way to know if they ever really existed. Thus, the identification with three shrines in three different locations opens up the possibility that the "patriarchs" were not related at all, but were three Canaanites, leaders or holy men, whose shrines and stories later became intertwined when Israel invaded and conquered the land. The purpose in incorporating these shrines and writing them into the Israelite history was then probably to justify the conquest of Canaan by claiming divine right to the land; that God had promised the land to the forefathers of Israel hundreds of years beforehand.

Book review: The Science of God

by Gerald L. Schroeder

★★★

This book has sold a lot of copies and generated a lot of discussion since its publication in 1997, but it really just didn’t do it for me. Schroeder’s premise is that Bible thumpers and secular scientists need to put their heads together, compromise a little here and there, and realize that the Bible story goes hand-in-hand with 20^th-century scientific discovery.

That means the seven-day creation story is true (Einstein’s theory of relativity helped us out a little on this topic) by measuring time from God’s perspective. The cosmic clock of Genesis is based on the characteristics of cosmic background radiation. The dinosaurs were created on day five, a day that lasted roughly a half billion years. The flood really happened when the Bible says it did, but it wasn’t a universal event. Before the flood, people lived extraordinarily long lives, because the climate was less demanding. You get the idea.

I agree with Schroeder that the conditions of our universe and our own little world are incredibly fine-tuned, and thus a bit difficult to explain. Schroeder quotes Weinberg’s famous calculation that if the energy of the big bang fifteen billion years ago were different by one part out of 10 to the 120^th power, there would be no life anywhere in the universe. It’s as if the universe is tuned for life from its inception. There have been a number of thought-provoking responses to Weinberg’s conclusion, but it’s still difficult for me to put out of my mind the idea that something really special has happened for our benefit … something quite carefully planned.

It’s a puzzle without easy explanation, alright. I just don’t get why anyone would choose the Bible’s myths as the foundation for their explanation. As carefully as Schroeder has put his theory together, it still just feels contrived and overly complex to me. If Schroeder wants believers and scientists to hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, he’s going to need to write down to the non-scientist level. But why bother? Don’t the earliest Bible stories make a whole lot more sense as theological or political or moral treatises than as history books? Why not let religion be religion and science be science?

2 Timothy 2:17-18 Has the Resurrection Already Happened?

And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

//I was asked today what this verse is all about, and how anybody could possibly believe the resurrection had already happened. The fact is, there were a number of versions of Christianity in the first couple centuries, and this is one of the things Christians argued about.

Paul believed the general resurrection had begun. He argues his case quite simply in his first letter to the Corinthians. Do you believe Jesus has risen from the dead? Then the resurrection has begun. Do you believe the resurrection has not begun? Then Jesus couldn’t have risen from the dead.  Paul cannot imagine that Jesus’ resurrection could be an isolated event. He describes Jesus as the “first fruit” … that is, the first of many to rise into a glorious new resurrection body.

So did Paul believe others had been resurrected, too? Possibly, or more likely he felt he was living on the cusp on the general resurrection. You see, another of the things early Christians argued about was what the resurrection body is like. Some believed Jesus was resurrected in body; see Matthew and Luke for evidence of this belief. The final chapter in John and the last section of Mark also portray this physical resurrection, though neither is authentic to the original writing (both stories were added at a later date, apparently to bolster belief in bodily resurrection).

Paul didn’t see it this way. He felt he saw the resurrected Jesus just as clearly as anyone else did, and what he saw was no physical body. He saw a light from heaven. A spiritual body. Paul is adamant that the new, resurrected body, whether of Jesus or of any other believer, is not “of the flesh.”

Given that Christians could not even agree on what the resurrected body of Jesus was like, it’s hardly surprising that arguments arose in the first couple centuries of Christianity about what the general resurrection was like, whether it had begun, and what the new messianic age meant.

Book review: Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World

by John Shelby Spong

★★★★★

Could this be Spong’s best yet? Perhaps not, his books are all so powerful, but it’s definitely my new favorite. I’ve actually been looking for precisely this sort of book, so I was really excited to find it—authored by one of my favorite writers, no less!

Spong goes book-by-book in pretty much chronological order through the Bible, explaining scholars’ best guesses at each book’s origin (place, time, authorship) and the historical atmosphere out of which they were written. The idea for this collection sprang from a series of lectures Spong was invited to give, beginning in the summer of 2006, about how various Biblical books came to be written and regarded as scripture. Much of the information here was known to me already, but there was a host of new insights as well. I’ve got yellow highlighter marks all over the book! Here are some of the more interesting discussions you’ll find:

[1] The formation of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. You’ll learn more about the Documentary Hypothesis, and how scholars believe these five books came together, from the four primary sources. Not the most complete explanation, but surely the easiest to understand I’ve ever read.

[2] The “prophetic principle” (you’ll find out you had no idea what a “prophet” is) and the historic background behind the three “books” of Isaiah. Scholars are coming to the conclusion that Isaiah had not just two authors, but at least three.

[3] The “protest” literature within the Bible, and what stimulated its writing.

[4] The “national mythmakers” who preserved Israel’s history.

[5] The evolution of the Apostle Paul’s beliefs, and how he grew over time from a fiery, apocalyptic preacher into a mellow, thoughtful philosopher.

Of course, you’ll read about the Gospel story, the pastoral influence, the Johannine corpus, it’s all there and it’s all very readable. Highly recommended!

2 Kings 10:30, The Slaughter of Jezreel

The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation."

//Religion is often evoked as a means of providing meaning to life's mysteries. We find a $100 bill on the street? God knew we needed the money. We lose that $100 bill later? God took it back to test us. Whether in reward or punishment, "God" is the explanation assumed when none other exists.

Bible writers were not immune to this tendency, either. Consider the house of Jehu, king of Israel. Jehu's claim to fame may be his slaughter of the house of Ahab, in Jezreel. Jehu demanded that the elders and officials in Jezreel bring to him the heads of the seventy children of king Ahab. In fear, Jezreel followed Jehu's orders, and Jehu dumped the seventy heads at the city gate, to serve as evidence that God was against Ahab. Then Jehu went and slaughtered everyone in Jezreel that remained of the house of Ahab.

Jehu's descendents continued to reign after his death for four more generations: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jereboam II, and Zachariah. But then Shallum, son of Jabesh, "conspired against Zachariah, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead."

Now, the book of Kings sees this continued kingship through the decedents of Jehu as evidence of God's approval. Read again today's verse; Jehu did what was right, so God rewarded him. But the prophet Hosea sees the same event, the slaughter of Jezreel, in a different light. Hosea sees the abrupt end of Jehu's kingship four generations later, and of Israel itself, as evidence that God disapproved of Jehu:

Hosea 1:4, Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.

So, did God approve or disapprove of Jehu? Did God indicate his approval through reward or his disapproval through destruction? Different points of view render different conclusions.

Book Review: The God Theory

by Bernard Haisch

★★★★★

Haisch is an astrophysicist with a discomfort regarding the idea of a meaningless universe, and a gift for explaining scientific theory in simple terms. He was raised a strict Catholic, but lasted through only a year of Seminary, after which his interests turned to science.

Although he outgrew fundamentalist Christian beliefs, he’s never been able to embrace the impersonal universe pictured by most of his fellow scientists. Science today is based on the premises of materialism (the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy), reductionism (the idea that complex things can be explained by breaking them down into constituent parts) and randomness (the conviction that all natural processes follow the laws of chance). Haisch begs to differ, arguing that the only logical conclusion of these assumptions is that an infinite number of universes exist, which he finds nonsensical and “morally repugnant.” He accepts current scientific theory as a given—such as the Big Bang, a 4.6 billion-year-old-earth, and evolution—but simply feels the evidence argues against random universes, and leans more toward an “infinite conscious intelligence.” This intelligence he labels God, for lack of a better name.

The God Theory, then, is Haish’s attempt to answer fundamental questions about human nature in the light of modern science. It’s based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us. His discussion leads to some fascinating and important corollaries:

[1] The God of his theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness.

[2] The God of his theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are.

[3] The God of his theory will never punish us (forget about heaven and hell) because that would ultimately amount to self-punishment.

Haisch touches on cosmology and the inflation theory, the consciousness debate, the implications of quantum mechanics, the “zero-point field inertia hypothesis” (that one’s a mouthful) and more, but never treads where an inquisitive non-scientist can’t follow, as he lays out his argument for a purposeful universe.

I found the book thought-provoking and a lot of fun.

Luke 24:7, Why three days in the grave?

The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.

//If you’ve ever wondered at the significance of “three days,” you may find meaning in The Midrash on Psalm 22 to Esther. You may remember her words as she prepared to meet the king: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish."

Says the Midrash, the reason for three days is for the sake of Israel. “Why three days? Because the Holy One—blessed be he!—never leaves Israel in anguish for more than three days.” A number of other Bible passages agree:

Genesis 22:4, On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. Abraham had set out on a three-day journey, the end of which would end in the sacrifice of his son.

Genesis 42:17, And he put them all in custody for three days. Joseph, in Egypt, has accused his brothers of being spies, and imprisoned them.

Exodus 15:22, Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water.

2 Kings 20:5, "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. Hezekiah was ill, at the point of death, and was told he must wait three days before God would heal him.

Joshua 2:16, Now she had said to them, "Go to the hills so the pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there three days until they return, and then go on your way." Said by Rahab, to the men she helped escape.

Jonah 2:1, From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. I needn’t remind you that Jonah spent three days there.

Hosea 6:2, After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

Book review: The Secret Sect

by Doug & Helen Parker

★★★★★

Around the year 1897, William Irvine, a preacher of the Faith Mission in Scotland and Ireland, received a revelation as he was reading the Gospel of Matthew, chapter ten:

[F]reely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

Following these teachings as best he could, Irvine struck out on his own, founding a new movement based upon his vision of a penniless, traveling ministry, as he imagined Jesus himself to have taught in the first century. Within a few years, a number of house churches had been established, and the movement began to spread to other lands. Observing that the first apostles carried no name other than that of Jesus, ministers insisted on remaining a nameless sect outside the public eye (hence the book’s title, The Secret Sect). The movement nevertheless collected several nicknames, including Cooneyites (named after one of the of the first preachers to join the movement), Dippers (from Irvine’s public baptismal rituals), and 2x2s (based upon the practice of ministers traveling two and two together, as was often the habit of first-century Christian evangelists).

Whether by deliberate misdirection or by accidental development, members of the sect quickly came to believe they could trace their origins back to the shores of Galilee, and that they were the only people on earth who were saved. All other groups, Christian or not, were apparently deceived by Satan. Irvine, himself, was excommunicated after a number of years, and his role in the foundation of the movement was suppressed. Members of the 2x2s, convinced of God’s approval and their absolute discovery of God’s true way, coined their own name for the movement: “the Truth.” The name stuck, and continues to be the most commonly used name by insiders.

Today, more than 100 years later, membership estimates run between 200,000 and 600,000 worldwide, and the movement could hardly be called penniless anymore. A number of books have been written about this group, some more friendly than others (a few openly call the sect a cult). But this is the book that started the ball rolling, written way back in 1982. It’s a fair, carefully researched historical account of how this Christian sect came into existence.

My interest in the book? It’s my heritage. Yes, I grew up in “the Truth,” though I’m no longer a member. The 2x2 movement is, in my opinion, wholesome and fulfilling … as much as any fundamentalist, exclusivist religion ever can be. Members meet reverently for fellowship in small groups in homes, and continue to take turns housing a homeless, travelling ministry.

I doubt this book would be of interest to anyone not in some way connected to “the Truth.” But for those of us who are or were, this is one of the most important books we’ll ever read. For that reason alone I award it five stars.

It’s unfortunately out of print. As of this writing, used copies on Amazon sell for between $70 and $213.


-------------


NOTE: I've been notified that the book is NOT out of print, and can be purchased here for $16.95.

RIS Website: http://workersect.org/2x206.html

Deuteronomy 32:43, Was Israel Polytheistic?

"Praise his people, O you nations; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people."

//There’s a rather heated argument between conservative and liberal Christians as to whether Judaism was monotheistic from their very beginning, or whether the scriptures hint that Israel's earliest traditions were polytheistic. A number of archaeological finds suggest worship (or at least recognition) of multiple gods in Israel, and a number of verses in the Bible speak of "gods" or "sons of God" or "the council of gods." Not the least among these is God's own jealous directive in the ten commandments that his people worship no other gods besides him. It seems Yahweh (Jehovah) was not considered the only god, he was merely the patron god of Israel, considered by them to be the High God.

Enter today’s quote. It’s a verse of praise for the Hebrew god, as quoted from the RSV (Revised Standard Version), and it matches pretty closely to what you may be familiar with in the Kings James Version. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 20th century has shaken our world. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 10th century CE. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back over 1,000 years to the 2nd century BCE! That’s 1,000 years closer to the original words of the Hebrew Bible.

Consequently, when the NSRV (New Revised Standard Version) was published in 1989, this verse was corrected to reflect its more original wording, and now it reads very differently:

Praise, O heavens, his people,
   worship him, all you gods!
For he will avenge the blood of his children,
   and take vengeance on his adversaries;
he will repay those who hate him,
   and cleanse the land for his people.

Guest Post: Has God Become Abstract?

Shortly after reading Banned Questions About the Bible by Christian Piatt and others, I contacted Christian asking if I could borrow a page of the book as a guest post. I had my eye on this entry by Jarrod McKenna.

After pointing out that God is portrayed as less interventionist in the New Testament than in the Old, and has since become even more abstract, the question is asked whether this is a good thing or a bad thing?

//This question reveals two worldviews that bastardize the gospel, giving birth to cheap imitations. And as Ammon Henacy reminded us, “When choosing the lesser of two evils we must not forget they are both evil.” The two evils are following:

[1] God is elsewhere. This would explain the amount of evil, injustice, misery, and war in the world. God created all, but took some time off afterward, holidaying somewhere nicer, maybe by a celestial pool, while we suffer. The founders of the United States believed in a form of this called Deism. In this worldview, Jesus might be the deity popping back, seeing everything has gone to crap and then saying, “Believe in me and I’ll take you elsewhere, too.” The early church called this heresy “Gnosticism.” In this worldview, God is abstract because God is a secret “get-out-of-creation-free” card.

The other popular option that equally lacks revolutionary energy and impulse of the scriptures is that God is not far off because:

[2] God is everything. Now, if you’ve grown up in a worldview in which God is always absent, where spirituality has nothing to do with creation, and where your body was always seen as bad, this might sound like a better option. Sometimes called “pantheism,” it leaves us with no cosmic critique of the evil of injustice while affirming the goodness and sacredness of creation. Wars, empires, and violence in creation are all just a part of “God/Gaia/the Divine.” Jesus just shows up to “enlighten us.”

God is redeemer is the biblical vision that, in nuanced and elegant ways, radically affirms the goodness of the web of creation while providing an equally radical critique of all violence and injustice that has colonized it as an alien force. As Creating, Sustaining and Redeeming, the Trinity is dynamically involved in history and has acted decisively in the Incarnation, to heal the brokenness we all know, with the wholeness we sometimes feel. This will not leave us with “abstract ideas” but with an invitation to action, for by grace we can be part of God’s “intervention” of the Kingdom.

Daniel 8:9-11, Typological Fulfillment

Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.

//When Isaiah prophesied that a child would be born of "a young maiden" (the Septuagint version reads "a virgin"), he probably had in mind the birth of either his own son or that of King Ahaz. When you read the verse in context, the immediacy of the prophecy is very clear. Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind, and if Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled at all, then it was fully fulfilled in his own time.

Matthew, however, when he references Isaiah's prophecy, may have considered this a typological fulfillment. It strains the imagination to think that Matthew didn’t know Isaiah’s prophecy had been fulfilled long ago, so we must assume Matthew meant its second fulfillment to be typological. The son of the King, in Isaiah, becomes a "type" of the birth of Jesus. The question readers must answer for themselves is this: Do you accept typological fulfillment as true prophecy?

Today’s verse is another example, of primary importance to today's time. Without getting too deeply into the discussion, Daniel prophesied a conqueror, and this prophecy was fully fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. The name of the conqueror was Antiochus IV. John of Patmos then later picked up on Daniel's prophecy and applied it to the conqueror of his time: Nero Caesar. Nearly all scholars of Revelation recognize Nero Caesar as the Beast of the Sea in Revelation. John's prophecy, if taken seriously, must also be considered a typology; Daniel had no intention of prophesying an event in the first century.

But if typological fulfillment is legitimate, how, then, are we to know when a prophecy is fulfilled in its final expectation? I guess we don’t, really. As regards Daniel’s prophecy of a conqueror, Preterists stop at the first century, and conclude that Nero Caesar, and the great war of 67-70 A.D., is the final typological fulfillment of his scripture. It’s written about in Revelation. However, most Christians take the futurist view, and conclude that the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled yet a third time; that it will all happen again in our future, at Armageddon. Daniel had no idea his prophecy regarding the 2^nd century B.C. would be read in this manner; John had no idea his prophecy regarding the 1^st century A.D. would be read in this manner; yet both events were laying down a typological foundation for an antichrist and a great war yet to come.

The flexibility of scriptural fulfillment, and the way the New Testament has taught us to think typologically, means there will always be argument about when prophecies are fulfilled. What makes us think, for example, that the next antichrist will be the final one? In my opinion, the great debate between Preterists and Futurists about whether Christ is coming again may as well be put to bed. Neither are referring to the original scriptural fulfillment of Daniel, so both are arbitrarily choosing a particular point in time to end the cycle of repeating typological fulfillments.

Book review: Gospel Fictions

by Randel Helms

★★★★

Helms begins his book by claiming that he writes as a literary critic of the four Gospels, not as a debunker … then he proceeds with a thorough debunking.

This is a good mix of original ideas and established scholarship. Helms’ message is clear: that the Gospels are artful, fictional variations of a common theme, individualized by each author’s motives. He treats separately the birth narratives, miracles, passion story, and resurrection appearances, showing how each is often related to the Old Testament in order to lend artificial authority, or derived from pagan myths or contemporary miracle claims.

I found the book thought-provoking, though a little disturbing in tone. It’s short, not meant to be an in-depth study. Recommended as a starting point for research in the development of the Gospels.

Luke 12:47-48, The Punishment Fits the Crime

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

//Ignoring for now the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, traditional Christian teaching insists that all men who reject Jesus will suffer identically; that is, they will endure eternal torture together in the same hell. Mass murderers suffer the same torment as unbelievers. Have you ever wondered how a merciful God could possibly judge this way?

Perhaps Hell isn’t eternal; maybe the punishment fits the crime. Here are some verses that may give you pause:

But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. –Matthew 11:22

But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." –Mark 14:21

They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." – Luke 20:47, see also Mark 12:40

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." –Romans 2:6, see also Psalms 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12

How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? –Hebrews 10:29

Book review: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences

by P.M.H. Atwater with David H. Morgan

★★★★★

I promised to work on a couple more books about the afterlife, and wanted to include this one. I went through a period a while back where I grew fascinated by studies of life after death, and delved into a number of different approaches to the topic. Scientific studies, though woefully inadequate to date, make for fascinating reading. I think we’re just wired that way.

I read about hauntings, claims of reincarnation, visits to heaven and hell, séances, and just general paranormal events. (My computer just changed my misspelling of “paranormal” to “paranoia;” a reasonable faux pas.) More unproven than scientific, these books nevertheless kept me entertained. There is, however, one subtopic that stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, as worthy of further study.

That’s near-death experiences (NDE’s). But it’s still difficult to locate an unbiased  treatment. So biased are both the believers and the debunkers that it’s quite a challenge to sort out what’s legitimate and what’s not.

This Idiot’s Guide proved to be a well-balanced introduction. It provides not only accounts of various NDEs, but science’s response. Then, the debunkers are debunked, and finally the religious get their say on the matter too. (NDE’s do not always support our religious beliefs; in fact, the stories of NDE’s tend to irritate exclusivists who can’t stomach the idea that non-believers share the same often-glorious experiences.)

Recommended.


PLEASE NOTE: The author has contacted me to explain that this book has been out of print for some time, and that it was replaced by what she considers a much better publication: The Big Book of Near Death Experiences.

2 Kings 3:26-27, Human sacrifice really works!

When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

//A bit of context: King “Jumping Jehoshaphat” asks Elisha the prophet whether or not he will be victorious in a battle against Moab. Elisha calls for a harpist (music seems to aid his visionary abilities) and while the music is playing God speaks to Elisha, promising victory. So the battle begins, in which Moab is at first routed. But then Moab turns the tables with a surprising counterstrike.

Many of my blog post ideas derive from the books I review. This idea comes from David Plotz’s Good Book, and Plotz is such a fun writer that I’d feel silly paraphrasing him. I’m going to invoke my privilege as a book reviewer, and just quote Good Book:

“The besieged Moabite king, on the verge of defeat, sacrifices his firstborn son as a burnt offering in plain sight of the Israelites. This turns the tide of the battle, and the Israelites flee. The theology here befuddles me. If the Moabite made his child a sacrifice to his own god, not the Lord, then it shouldn’t have helped, since rival gods are presumably impotent. If the Moabite king made the sacrifice to the Lord, that shouldn’t have helped either, because the Lord has made it very clear that he loathes child sacrifice. The only theory that makes sense is that the child sacrifice did not work theologically, but did work strategically. It scares the heck out of the Israelites, who figure: If he’ll do that to his own son, can you imagine what he’d do to us?”

David’s book: http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/06/book-review-good-book.html

Book review: When People Speak for God

by Henry E. Neufeld

★★★★

Before beginning this review, I think it would be helpful to introduce Henry Neufeld and the flavor of his writings. I always wonder when I do this whether the author will be coming after me with a shotgun, because they may not be aware of the aura they give off, and may take exception to my description. But here goes.

Henry is what I would call a practical believer. You'll find no hint of fanaticism or arrogance in his writings. He's apparently done his stint with atheism, and found Christian beliefs to be more practical. While Henry is very educated in Biblical Languages and Biblical studies, and while he's happy to share the Christian beliefs he's developed, his writing is friendly and easy to read because he makes no attempt to foist his beliefs on his readers. I get the feeling he feels that would be unchristian. He makes a point of explaining that although his books address Christians because that's his own "faith group," others may worship God in alternative ways. He humbly quotes Hebrews 10:19  as instruction not to try to get people to think like him, but to encourage them listen to God for themselves.

Henry was raised a Seventh Day Adventist, and though he no longer shares their beliefs, this reliance upon the authority of Ellen White has contributed to his interest in current-day prophecy. Enter this book, When People Speak For God. It begins with a discussion of how we hear God speaking, which I confess has always seemed a bit pointless to me; those who cannot hear God will forever scoff regardless of the explanation, and those who can need no explanation. 

Now, if God speaks directly to us, just like he spoke to the authors of the Bible, then he surely speaks to our acquaintances as well. Suppose someone says to you, "I have been praying about this for weeks, and this morning God spoke to me and told me what he wants us to do." Awkward silence, right? We squirm, wondering if we should capitulate. After all, who can argue against God? 

What to do? God's command is to question the true source, and Henry provides us with five scriptural instructions for proper discernment. More than this, Henry believes we have every right to question the Bible's authority as well. Can we trust the development of the canon (those books considered "inspired" and thus selected for our Bible)? Can we read every word in the Bible as God-breathed? As inerrant? A discussion of inerrancy follows, and how Henry's recognition of the Bible's imperfections has not disturbed his reverence for God's Word. There is no way to prove the Bible’s inerrancy anyway, because there is simply no way to measure its accuracy unless it's by comparing it against another already accepted standard, and the "errant" sources we do have (scientific and archaeological study) unfortunately do not tend to support the Bible's inerrancy. 

We are left with the conclusion that recognizing the authority of any written or spoken word is an individual exercise. We must measure the words against our personal experience with God, and the spirit we find therein.