2 Chronicles 26:33, The Ending of the Hebrew Bible

"This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you--may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.'"

//It’s fascinating to note the difference between the Jewish ordering of the Old Testament and the Christian ordering. The Hebrew Bible ends with the book of Chronicles. King Cyrus of Persia, you may note, was considered by one of the authors of the book of Isaiah to be the Messiah, the Jewish savior: This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor. “Messiah” means “anointed.” Thus, the final verse of the Bible is a wrap-up; the Messiah has arrived, and the Jews are called to return to their nation and rebuild it as God intends.

Of course, this won’t do for Christians. In the Christian reordering of the Bible, the final book is Malachi, and the final verses read like this:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

This, of course, leads smoothly into the New Testament, when John the Baptist (Elijah redivivus) introduces the true Messiah, and the day of the Lord.

Book review: From Adam to Noah: The Numbers Game

by Leonard Timmons

★★★

What do the ages of the first humans in the Bible mean? Could people really have lived that long? Leonard Timmons has found an ancient calendar hidden in these numbers, and feels this discovery is key to understanding the Bible.

Timmons’s calendar is constructed by charting, on a timeline, the births and deaths of the men between Adam and Noah, fudging a little here and there to create a few more meaningful points on the timeline, and then discovering that it breaks down into four portions of 364 years plus one 5-year portion. Turn that into days, and you have a 364-day year, plus a 5-day seasonal correction after four years (think of our leap day). 364, for calendar aficionados, is the Jubilees calendar from the Qumran texts, so-liked because it plays nice, dividing neatly into 52 seven-day weeks.

Timmons’s analysis is founded on arithmetic combinations of round numbers (such as 500 or 1000) and of the number seven. Lamech’s age at his death, 777 years, appears to be a clue. For example, 56 is a nice number because it is 7x7+7. 84 is an excellent number because it is 77+7. Seven is recognized as God’s number, a perfect number, the number of days in the week. Readers of Revelation are quite aware of how important seven, and in particular three sevens (777), are in Biblical thinking.

Timmons is correct that numerology was important to the ancients, often used as a means of Biblical enlightenment. Consider the 666 of Revelation, and the miraculous catch of 153 fish by Jesus’ disciples. Timmons takes a stab at solving both of these riddles, which might be a mistake on his part; while no convincing solutions to the second puzzle have been offered, making the 153 puzzle fair game for speculation, scholars are nearly unanimous and surely correct in solving the 666 puzzle. (See http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318.html and http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/01/revelation-1318_27.html ) In any case, I would not be surprised at all to discover that there is meaning in the ages of the earliest humans in the Bible. It’s far more likely that the numbers have some sort of meaning to the authors than that people actually lived that long! However, even after reading Timmons’s book, a hidden calendar code seems a bit too conspiratorial for my taste. Timmons may be on the right track with his “meaningful numbers,” but attributing the whole thing to a hidden calendar doesn’t feel right to me.

That is, however, the book’s premise: Not only is there a calendar hiding within the ages of the earliest humans, but it has been purposefully hidden. This is not just numerology, it’s a devised puzzle, and (in my opinion) an inelegant one. The authors were not content just to lay out a calendar; they carefully hid the calendar, purposefully confusing us, swapping the meaningful number 56 here and there with 65 (the reverse of its digits) to confuse us, doubling and halving numbers here and there to bewilder us.

So who imbedded these puzzles? Perhaps collators of the Bible while in Babylonian captivity, or shortly after they returned to Jerusalem? That sounds somewhat believable, but Timmons thinks not; he argues instead that the Bible should be thought of as an ancient educational textbook for the enlightened, a sort of test to divide good puzzle-readers from bad. The Bible is a book of riddles to help the initiate develop his talent for insight. We’re not just talking about the creation stories; the Bible’s authors have encapsulated hidden knowledge in its texts from Genesis to Revelation! An “insight school” that lasted a thousand years! (Timmons actually suggests thousands).

Timmons rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (which proposes that the Torah was written by at least four distinct authors, none of them Moses). I cannot help but think he commits another error by pitting his puzzle theory against the Documentary Hypothesis; it seems far more reasonable to me that the Documentary Hypothesis disproves the ancient textbook idea rather than vice-versa.

Anyway, the hidden calendar is not really the important thing. It’s just a discovery that should prompt us to read the Bible differently; to reveal to us the surprising intellect and understanding of its authors. Free now to explore a deeper meaning in the scriptures than a literal reading, Timmons next launches into his interpretation of the Bible’s themes; how the ancients thought of demons, angels, soul, spirit, faith, even God … and it’s nothing like what we thought they meant. This insight helps Timmons decode stories like the Flood and the Garden of Eden, and he provides two creative and fascinating interpretations. Even Jesus’ parables and Revelation’s mysteries are revealed.

I found the book to be an interesting fringe theory, and fun with numbers (right up my alley), but not something I found convincing. However, my feeling is that there is surely a 4- or even 5-star book idea here, that Timmons’s interpretations are ingenious, but that he overreaches by claiming them to be the correct interpretation … as if the Bible writers actually meant their stories to be read this way.

Exodus 3:14, the Divine Name of God

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

//Moses, worried that Israel won't accept his authority if he returns to Egypt to try and rescue the children of Israel, asks God for God's name. God identifies himself as I AM, in what became recognized as a Divine Formula. For example, John's Gospel seven times presents Jesus as the I AM in a claim of divinity. In John, the Jews recognize this claim, and wish to stone him for impersonating God.

But what does the phrase really mean? Other suggested translations include "I will be who I will be," or "I cause to be what I cause to be." In each case, the answer isn't an answer at all for poor Moses. Karen Armstrong believes it was a Hebrew idiomatic expression to denote deliberate vagueness. God will be whatever or whomever he wishes!

This vagueness may have contributed to the understanding that God's name was to be revered, not dissected. The two most common names for God in the original Hebrew are Elohim and YHWH, and the latter became so sacred that it was never spoken aloud. Readers of the scriptures would substitute the name Adonai, meaning "my Lord." YHWH is usually written and pronounced Yahweh by today's scholars (some references read Jehovah), but in truth, the pronunciation of God's holy name has been forever forgotten through lack of use. We no longer even know the name of God.

2 Peter 1:20 No private interpretation

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

//This verse is often brought up as a sort of shoulder-shrug dismissal of new insights in scripture; a way of saying the only correct interpretation must be the one that has survived for 2,000 years. As if any one interpretation has survived! Theologians have wrestled with the Bible for as long as its words have been considered scripture.

Admittedly, there is something to this line of thinking. One should humbly admit that other interpretations are just as carefully thought-out. But the verse should never be used to categorically silence alternate opinions, as it once was!

For example, we had a terrible time getting our scriptures translated from the Latin Vulgate into a modern language. Making the scriptures readable to the masses would severely undermine the Church's authority. Consequently, when John Wycliffe (1328-1384) translated the Bible into English, this verse came into play. Wycliffe's work was considered a form of heterodoxy and quickly outlawed. Anyone found with an English Bible was subject to execution. Wycliffe died as a heretic and traitor, and 44 years after his death, under papal decree, his body was exhumed and burned. But for many, reading the Word of God was worth the risk, and black market Bibles were common, until the time of King Henry VIII in the 16th century.

So, how many of you can read Latin? Thank God for our right to private interpretation today, or most of us wouldn't have any interpretation at all.

Book review: How God Became King

by  N. T. Wright

★★★★

Wright begins with the creeds, about Jesus being born of a virgin and dying for our sins, and bemoans the “missing middle.” Christianity today has become too focused on the beginning and end of the Jesus story, and has ignored a primary message of all four Gospels: that God has come back, in the form of Jesus, and reigns today as King.

So who is the Jesus in the middle? A violent revolutionary? A wide-eyed apocalyptic visionary, expecting the end of the world? A mild-mannered teacher of sweet reasonableness? If he was one of the first two, Jesus was deluded. Even if it’s the third case, Jesus was similarly deluded, because most of his followers from that day to this have been anything but sweetly reasonable. Instead, they have busied themselves inventing dogmas (like the virgin birth and the resurrection), writing creeds, and establishing the church.

Thankfully, none of these Jesuses match the Gospels. Wright is sick of scholars and books which portray Jesus as a good Jewish boy who would have been horrified to see a church spring up in his name. He wants us to see Jesus the way the Gospels tell the story, as God coming down to be King of the earth. Wright’s guns are blazing in this book (his passion took me rather by surprise), firing at liberals and feel-gooders. God is no doddering old boss who used to run the company but has since been banished to a cozy upstairs office where he can sit and imagine he’s still in charge. God is king. The story of Jesus is the story of how Israel’s God became king.

Wright’s approach this time is not at all objective. He is a believing Trinitarian, and speaks out against the popular opinion that the high Christology of John is a later development. From the beginning, the Gospel story has been about the divine Jesus, Son of God, God Himself. On Mark’s very first page, the story of Jesus’ baptism, we find “every bit as high a Christology as John’s, though it is a high Jewish Christology.” Wright also discusses Matthew’s viewpoint and Luke’s viewpoint, in each case pointing out the evidence that they considered Jesus divine. Wright never quite nails down his definition of Christ’s divinity … none of this “Jesus is God” direct approach, just as no such claim exists in the scriptures … but we should make the association in some mystical way. For Wright, this verse in Luke says it all:

“Go back to your home,” said Jesus, “and tell them what God has done for you.” And he went off around every town, declaring what Jesus had done for him.

In the end, I am fully behind Wright’s view that the Gospels present Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s return to earth as King, and in my own mystical way I confess to be sort of a Trinitarian, but I simply can’t buy the argument that all of the Gospels contain the same high Christology as John’s Gospel. There are too many opposing arguments that Wright fails to address.

Acts 8:5, Was the Gospel Given to the Samaritans?

Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 

//One confusing aspect of the Gospel story is the relationship between the Jesus movement and the Samaritans. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan, and many have heard about Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well. You can probably quote other verses that hint that Jesus respected and cared about them, including today's verse, where Philip preaches directly to them.

Yet it must not have been easy. The Samaritans were in general despised and distrusted, even feared, and looked down upon because of their intermarriage with gentiles. Samaritans had their own version of the scriptures, and their own holy places, which most definitely did not include Jerusalem! 

In Luke 9, Jesus has a bad experience with Samaritans, who will not welcome him. In Matthew 10, when Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, he directs them to stay away from Samaria. But John's Gospel is quite sympathetic to the Samaritans, telling of a time when they did welcome Jesus, and when Jesus did preach to them (see John, chapter 4). Jesus is so sympathetic, in fact, that in John, the Jews accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan!

While the evidence is a bit hazy, it does appear that one of the more controversial aspects of Jesus' ministry is his acceptance of Samaritans.

Book review: Bullheaded Black Remembers Alexander

by J. L. Taylor

★★★★

This didn't have the focus on ancient beliefs that I was anticipating, but it addresses runaway religion in a roundabout way. Alexander the Great's loyal horse, Bullheaded Black, dies in the war against India, and from a winged vantage point up in heaven narrates his version of Alexander's dreams and victories. We hear straight from the horse's mouth what Alexander was thinking and what was behind his great drive for conquest.

Alexander's personal tutor, Aristotle, teaches him an appreciation for natural sciences and inquisitive learning. Alexander loves the writings of Homer and its wonderful stories of heroes and gods, but Aristotle cautions against unwarranted belief. "The written word is valuable and it is ancient and it is powerful, but that doesn't make a book completely true. Let no book and no person ever close your mind to reality, not even the epics, not even Homer."

Yet Alexander was born a warrior. Horses are not real big on war, but B.B. reigns in his criticism, instead focusing on the positive side of world domination. Alexander becomes a proponent of religious tolerance, much to the frustration of his comrades. Much of the story centers around his personal quest to understand his anointed place among men and gods ... and which gods. Is he really the son of Zeus? In Egypt, he seeks out the oracle of Siwah, and though he's closed-mouthed about what he learned there, he returns from this personal pilgrimage even more confident of his destiny. It turns out he is not only the son of Zeus, but of Amon and of Ra. Says Alexander within earshot of his horse, "It seems the principal gods are one.God is one. It matters not the name."

A cute story-book read, and I enjoyed it.

Matthew 5:17-18, Fulfillment of the Law

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

//That was Jesus speaking, in the book of Matthew. These two verses are often quoted with some bewilderment, or as evidence of contradiction in the Bible, because other passages seem to say just the opposite.

Luke 16:17 says, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached." In the very next verse, Jesus softens the blow, admitting that it's very difficult for the Jews to give up their law as required, because "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." Doesn't that contradict Matthew?

Paul certainly expected the Law to go away. Romans 7:6 explains, "We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Galatians 3:13 tells how we have been redeemed by Christ from the "curse of the law," and Galatians 5:8 promises that if we follow the Spirit, we don't need the law.

So what was Matthew saying? Many scholars, noting Matthew's Jewish bent, see his writing as explicitly combating the attempt by other Christians to supersede the Law. But I read it differently.

To me, Matthew, writing some fifteen years or so after the Great War devastated Jerusalem and the Temple, sees in that destruction a fulfillment of the covenantal promises. When Matthew says "not the least stroke of a pen will disappear" from the Law, he means God will not lessen the suffering of his people one iota from what he threatened. Matthew knows this to be true; he watched it happen.

Matthew 5:16, Should your good works be seen of men?

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

//One of the basic instructions we understand as Christians is to "let our light shine." As 1 Peter 2:12 puts it, keep your "conduct honorable among the Gentiles," that "they may by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation."

But can there be too much of a good thing? The Bible seems to contradict itself on this topic. Matthew says of the scribes and Pharisees, "all their works they do to be seen by men." Check out the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 6, which gives it to us straight:

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

So, what do we do? Humbly hide our good works, or proudly let them shine? I'm sure I'm fooling nobody; humility, balance, and moderation should be our guide.

Book review: Genesis People

by Sheila Deeth

★★★★★

Adorable!

If Sheila doesn’t like this word to describe her book, well, she’ll just have to get over it.

45 big-print, two-page stories introduce 45 characters from the book of Genesis, in a Dubious-Disciple-approved way. Real World, Real People, Real God, the subtitle proclaims. You’ll see what she means as soon as you start reading.

So Cain and Abel made their sacrifices. They made a fire and burned the best of the grain, and meat from the best of the animals for God. Then Cain noticed that the smoke from the meat was much thicker and smelled much nicer than the smoke from the grain. “Is that because God likes Abel more than me?” Cain asked. His mother said it was just because the fat from the meat burns hotter, but Cain wasn’t listening to her. The more Cain thought about it, the less he bothered to listen to anyone.

The book reads like one of those sunny children stories written for adults, the kind that leaves you smiling the whole way through. The back cover calls this a “middle-school reader for book-lovers of all ages, telling stories for all time.” I think that about nails it.

Guest post: from Volnaiskra

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. –John 12:25

//An Australian acquaintance, David Bleja, happened to post this comment on my blog, in response to my review of John J. McGraw’s book, Brian & Belief. After you read his insightful comments, check out his excellent blog at http://www.volnaiskra.com/

I share McGraw's distaste for an idea of the afterlife that revolves around the slavish stroking of a divine ego. But the general death of self that he seems to consider so abhorrent is, for many, a sublime prize worth devoting one's life to.

Many faiths, philosophies and scientific traditions stress that selfhood is a lie - a distortion of reality at best, a lonely prison at worst.

For example, Buddhism rightly points out that if a wave were to be obsessed about how unique and independent it was, it would be both wrong and unhappy, forever afraid of its imminent annihilation. If, however, it learned to see itself not as a wave but as a part of a great ocean, it would appreciate the true purpose, majesty and timelessness of its existence. Or, as Jesus said, a person obsessed with selfhood is to be pitied, just like a seed that frets so much about ceasing to be a seed that it never lets itself become a tree.

It's not just the mystics searching for nirvana who long for dissolution of self. It's also the lovers who long to lose themselves in orgasm, the parents whose focus on children gives their lives higher meaning, the fans who yearn to melt into the crowd in a rock concert, the patrons of S&M clubs who long to surrender entirely to the will of another, or the hippies who cultivate a sense of oneness with Gaia.

Of course on a basic, default level, we all have a strong instinct for self-preservation, and this is what McGraw seems to speak to in the quoted paragraph. That's just part of human nature - but a part that comes largely from the more primitive, reptilian part of the brain. Many have found a worldview that centers around a preservation of selfhood is actually deeply unsatisfactory.

Book review: The Power of Parable

by John Dominic Crossan

★★★★★

Crossan ponders, “I had observed that the parabolic stories by Jesus seemed remarkably similar to the resurrection stories about Jesus. Were the latter intended as parables just as much as the former? Had we been reading parable, presuming history, and misunderstanding both?”

In other words, are the stories of Jesus really book-length parables? Crossan presents three such parables in the Old Testament: Job, Ruth and Jonah. Ruth challenges a part of the Bible, Jonah challenges the whole of the Bible, and Job challenges the God of the Bible. But isn’t there a major difference between the Old Testament books and the Gospels? Were  the characters in these stories historical, the way we think of Jesus?  So Crossan presents the story of Caesar at the Rubicon as “parabolic history” to show how even historical characters can be the subject of the development of parables.

Crossan separates parables by their flavor: riddle, example, challenge, and attack parables. I found the discussion of several New Testament parables insightful, but they served only as a lead-in to the bigger topic. In part 2, Crossan takes on the four Gospels each as a whole, presenting the meaning of them as book-length parables … what they challenge, what they attack.

It is not really the historicity of the Gospels that Crossan contests, but their evangelical purpose. The undercurrent of truth, or lack thereof, is not the focus of his book; it is the way the stories are bent into parable, and what these book-length parables mean. Thought-provoking and well-written, a great read.

Revelation 21:22, What is Eschatology?

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

//I write so often about “eschatology” that I often forget it’s a big, confusing word that most people write off to the world of Bible scholarship. In my upcoming book about John’s Gospel, I define eschatology straightforwardly:

The doctrine of the last or final things, as death, judgment, and the events therewith connected.

But I actually prefer this practical definition by scholar N. T. Wright:

If there is one god, and you are his one people, but you are currently suffering oppression, you must believe that the present state of affairs is temporary. Monotheism and election thus give birth to (what I call) eschatology: the belief that history is going somewhere, that something will happen through which everything will be put right.*

Our Bible abounds in eschatological thinking. Simply turn to any passage that deals with the suffering of the Jewish nation, Old Testament or New, and you find there a promise of better things to come. Wright’s observation is brilliant: eschatological thinking is the belief that history is going somewhere.

Prophets, apologists, and followers have expressed views for 3,000 years about just where history is going, but nearly all agree that something will happen to set things right. Maybe a New Jerusalem will float down from heaven and replace the old (today’s verse in Revelation). Maybe the good guys will float up to heaven and find a new city waiting there. Or, maybe we’ll figure out that our future is in our own hands, and go to work with what we have, to make it better.

Whatever our beliefs about what is to come, there is a question that we must ask ourselves. Are Christians called to participate in the inauguration of the new age, what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven? Is Christianity an active or a passive belief system?

Your choice.

*The Meaning of Jesus, c. 1999, p. 32

Book review: The Origin of Satan

by Elaine Pagels 

★★★★

Not a new book, but since I’ve recently received a couple more to read along this topic, I dug this one out and scanned through it as a reminder.

It’s typical Pagels, opinionated and controversial, but thought-provoking. I love Pagels’ work!

You’ll read a little about the evolution of ideas regarding Satan, but this is really not the book’s focus. Her premise is that Satan evolved over time for a reason, and that reason was to demonize one’s enemies—primarily the enemies of the Christians. No, not ancient Israel; Pagels spends almost the entire book within the context of the New Testament—an appropriate focus, since in the Old Testament Satan is more of an Adversary under God’s employ. By the time of the New Testament, though, Satan has morphed into the Prince of Darkness, the leader of all that is evil in a cosmic battle against good…a battle that found the Christians caught in the middle. Satan is the natural evolution of an us-versus-them atmosphere in the arena of religion.

Like Pagels, I find the war of 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem leveled, more than just a little important to understanding the development of Christianity. (In fact, I tend to go a bit overboard on this theme in my books). But Satan isn’t allied only with the Romans; he also takes the side of the Pharisees (read: Rabbinic Judaism), Herod, and pagans everywhere. Finally, in later Christian writings, Satan manages to seduce even Christians, and the war turns against heretics.

Fun book, and a different take from what the title may make you think.

Acts 1:11, Gazing Into Heaven

Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?

//No, I'm not going to embark on another lecture about Christians who waste precious time scanning the skies for their Lord to return. I just thought I'd point out something funny.

Remember Galileo, the astronomer who insisted that the earth rotated around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth? That didn't go over too well with the Church, who preferred to believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo and his misinformed followers, the Church insisted, spent altogether too much time themselves staring up into heaven. 

So, today's verse was quoted by a Dominican friar to discourage the use of Galileo's telescope. Note the clever play on Galilee and Galileo.

Hebrews 11:37, Sawed in two

They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—

//Today’s verse talks about the treatment of the Old Testament faithful. One person, it says, was sawed in two! Any idea who this talks about?

Most scholars believe this refers to an apocryphal book titled The Martyrdom of Isaiah. The Bible says nothing about how Isaiah died, but in this account, Isaiah prophesies his own death being sawed in two, and it comes to pass.

As the story goes, a man named Belchlra accuses Isaiah of false prophecy before King Manasseh, saying:

'Isaiah and those who are with him prophesy against Jerusalem and against the cities of Judah that they shall be laid waste and (against the children of Judah and) Benjamin also that they shall go into captivity, and also against thee, O lord the king, that thou shalt go (bound) with hooks and iron chains.'

Of course, Isaiah’s prophecy wasn’t false; it turned out to be the truth. Belchlra also said about Isaiah:

And Isaiah himself hath said: 'I see more than Moses the prophet.' But Moses said: 'No man can see God and live': and Isaiah hath said: 'I have seen God and behold I live.' Know, therefore, O king, that he is lying.

The words of Belchilra convinced Manasseh, and …

he sent and seized Isaiah. And he sawed him asunder with a wood-saw. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder Balchlra stood up, accusing him, and all the false prophets stood up, laughing and rejoicing because of Isaiah. 

Book review: The Questioning God

by Ant Greenham

★★★★

First, a note about what Greenham means by “the questioning God.” He doesn’t mean God wonders about the truth; he means God engages us with questions, forcing us to think for ourselves. God asks Adam and Eve, “Where are you?” He asks Abraham, “Can you number the stars?” He asks Moses, “Who has made man’s mouth?” He asks Job, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”

Given that God is a questioning God, and that we are made in the image of God, Greenham encourages us to freely question as well. God would expect no less. God’s basic desire is expressed in this sentence: “I will be their God and they will be my people.” However, as individuals turn to God and become his people, it should not be a case of blind acceptance.

Greenham examines the three primary monotheistic religions, concluding that Islam discourages questioning while Judaism liberally encourages it. But there’s such a thing as questioning too much. Some questions don’t engage us with God, but dismiss him instead. The proper balance (and proper Christianity) seems to fall somewhere in the middle.

An example of how Christians should feel free to question: Consider George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Christian leaders everywhere opposed Bush’s invasion plans, but their voices were drowned in a tide of patriotic endorsement.  Few considered the nearly one million Christians living in Iraq. Nobody asked them what we should do. Consequently, one of the greatest catastrophes following the 2003 invasion was the loss of over half of that country’s Christian population.

Self-questioning (removing the “logs” from our eyes) is “penetrating and devastating. It is no less demanding than questioning the basis of Islam for a Muslim, or considering Jesus as Messiah for a Jew.” But Greenham does have his boundaries! It’s apparently fine for Muslims to doubt Islam, and for Jews to contemplate the possibility of Jesus as Messiah, but Greenham stops short of encouraging us to question the Christian Bible. I believe his stance is summed up by this quote:

“I tell people I teach in church and seminary setting not to believe me because I have a Ph.D., but only if they’re convinced that my teaching is biblical.”

Job 1:18-19, Job Repulses His Children

While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"

//You know the story, how Satan, with the permission of God, persecuted Job. In this verse, a messenger brings word of the death of Job's children.

But then, much later, Job's children are discovered alive. Or at least this verse hints they still live:

Job 19:17, My breath is offensive to my wife, And I am repulsive to the children of my own body (NKJV).

So, did his children miraculously survive? Not all translations agree. Some say Job repulsed not his own children, but the children of his mother...that is, his brothers. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) also discovered the incongruence of this story and tried to fix it, naming the children sons of Job's concubines.

I guess we'll never know who felt repulsed.

John 20:14-15, Easter and the Garden Tomb

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

//This is it, guys and gals. The empty tomb is the reason there are over 2 billion Christians in the world. Something very special happened on this day.

John's Gospel alone indicates that the tomb was in a garden. This is an important theological note: John begins and ends his Gospel with the Genesis story. Mary spies Jesus (whom we now understand, after twenty chapters, is God) and thinks him to be the gardener. Here stands God, once again tending his garden, like in the days of Eden. God has come back, and the world begins anew, in the same manner it started, with a new Eden. 

The human Christ is often portrayed as the second Adam, the first of the new beginning. Perhaps Paul was the first to note this connection: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.—1 Corinthians 15:22. Augustine compared the opening of the Lord's side on the cross to the opening of Adam's side to create his “bride,” the body of his believers. It's impossible to overstate the impact of the empty tomb, but perhaps Paul says it best:

Behold, all things are become new. –2 Corinthians 5:17

Isaiah 40:1, Second Isaiah

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

//The book of Isaiah is made up of two parts: Chapters 1-39 prophesy doom upon Judah and upon any nation which opposes God. Then, chapter 40 begins a new theme, opening with today's verse. The second half of Isaiah promises a renewed nation of Israel where God will again dwell with his people, a beautiful and glorious dream of a new kingdom.

Scholars are nearly unanimous in asserting that "Second Isaiah" was written by another author a couple hundred years later. Perhaps there were two additional authors; evidence seems to point to a “third Isaiah” as well. These later writings were then combined with the "authentic" Isaiah.

Why would anyone do this? Were these later authors trying to be deceptive, passing their additions off as original?

Probably not. It simply has to do with the size of the scrolls the stories were recorded on. A papyrus scroll, made from an Egyptian plant, could be about 35 feet long, rolled up for ease of transport.

A quick glance at the writings of the prophets will indicate that they fall neatly into four sections, all about the size of a single scroll:

[1] Jeremiah

[2] Ezekiel

[3] The twelve minor prophets

[4] The books of Isaiah

No deception involved; just convenience. The writings were combined where they would fit on a single scroll. In time, the books of Isaiah came to be considered a single document.

Book review: Dancing in the Shadows of Love

by Judy Croome

★★★★★

It never breaks. The haunting tone of this book, with its aura of simmering emotion, never breaks until the final word. Ten pages into the book, I was already flipping through it trying to find a picture of the author. Who writes like this? Who names their main character Lulu?

This is about three ordinary-but-extraordinary women and their struggle to ride the waves of life. It’s about love, betrayal, lust, trust, and learning to live again. So, yeah, it’s about God.

Dancing in the shadows of love. This one kept me uncomfortable the whole time, wishing the three of them would just step out of the shadows into the light. It’s not that the plot is terribly captivating, it’s just that the words are arranged so … artfully? Grippingly? Hauntingly? Now that I’m finished (and after a sleepless night) I confess Croome is a fascinating author, and I’m terrified of the day she hands me another book to review. I know I won’t be able to turn it down.

But what is her book doing on my religion blog? Well, the problem is, an explanation would also be a spoiler. Its value is spiritual, even if its religion is foreign. But don’t worry, her Spirit King and his mysterious representative will overlay nicely atop whatever beliefs you espouse, if you do just a little stretching here and there.

Note to Ms. Croome: Page 165 still holds me spellbound. And I’m a guy.

Matthew 17:1-3, the Transfiguration

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

//Here on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus meets with two Jewish figures from the Old Testament: Moses and Elijah. Many believed that both Moses and Elijah would return to help usher in the new age, the age of the Messiah, and today's passage is surely meant by Matthew to provide evidence that Jesus is God’s anointed Messiah. Here stands Jesus, apparently planning the new age with the two great figures of Israel's past.

But what's so special about these two men, Moses and Elijah? Answer: They are representatives of Judaism. Moses represented the Law, the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, and was even said to have been their author. Elijah represented the Prophets. Moses and Elijah were, in fact, synonymous with the writings they represented. When a Jewish writer says “Moses and Elijah” he means “the Law and the Prophets." Jesus, himself, used this language when referencing the law, talking about what "Moses said." Moses and Elijah were like the twin towers, the foundation of Judaism. In Jewish tradition, neither of these men died (forget what the Bible says about a grave for Moses) and were both to return at a later date, as fulfillment of scripture.

And here it is in Matthew, in black and white.

Book review: Brain & Belief

by John J. McGraw

★★★★★

A worthwhile book, comprehensive in its treatment of the evolution of belief in the soul, and why we believe. McGraw possesses degrees in psychology, philosophy and religious studies, and he brings the three together in his writing … and in the wonderfully macabre cover of his book.

The three parts to the book are:

[1] A History of the Soul, in which McGraw leads us from our prehistoric beginnings of belief, through Shamanism, ancient Egypt, Judaism, and the famed philosopher Plato, into the development of Christianity.

[2] Part II, The Soul Matter, digs into the brain and its anatomy, the puzzle of consciousness, the effects of hallucinogens and other drugs, and illnesses such as depression.

[3] Part III, titled “Giving up the Ghost” introduces “the beautiful lie,” and attempts to carefully weigh what is gained and what is lost by perpetuating a belief in the afterlife.

I read this book several years ago, and I’m sure there are a number of other reviews out there to tell you about it, so I’d rather just quote a paragraph from part three that resonated strongly with me:

“The theologians’ heaven—singing, majesty, contemplation of God’s beauty—implies a total transformation of personhood and its context. This existence ceases to be a personal one at all and may be considered an Easter dissolution of self into the Godhead. Once everyone ceases to do personal things and engages in a standard universal, a fawning submission before ineffable beauty, one sacrifices one’s personality. At such a stage friend and lover, brother and son, all disappear. Hunger and admiration, play and sex, all dissolve into the singular experience—the singularly inhuman experience—of God worship. Every depiction of an existence worth living for disappears with the personality. Such an impersonal existence could be immortal but the person would have ceased to exist at death as surely as if he were simply mortal.” (p. 329)

Matthew 25:31, the Son of Man enthroned

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.

//One of the most fascinating and mysterious characters in Jewish lore is the Son of Man. That is, the anticipated Messiah, seen primarily (in this messianic role) in the book of Daniel and non-canonical books like 1 Enoch. Although Isaiah 42:8 expressly denies that God will ever share his throne, the book of Daniel, chapter 7, describes a “Son of Man” sharing God’s ruling authority. Daniel saw this in a dream:

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

Daniel, the Bible says, was very disturbed about this dream. And rightly so: it’s blasphemous to imagine worshipping anyone but God! This image, however, of a “son of man” riding the clouds up from the earth to heaven, and being granted authority to rule by God himself, carries over into the New Testament. See today’s verse in Matthew, and especially the 4^th and 5^th chapters of Revelation.

What are we to make of this? The Bible states clearly that God alone is sovereign, but then it says God turns over his authority to the Son of Man. The Christian movement pieced the puzzle together this way: The Son of Man becomes the Son of God … indeed, he becomes God himself, God incarnate. Our monotheism survives intact, and our heavenly ruler remains the one we trust.

Matthew 22:44, Turning enemies into a footstool

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

//If you read the Bible, you've probably run across this saying multiple times. The phrase appears six times in the New Testament alone. Your enemies will be turned into your footstool.

Do you picture sitting in your easy chair, legs stretched out and resting on the back of a kneeling enemy? That’s not what it refers to. It's an allusion to an ancient custom of placing one's foot on the neck of a defeated enemy.

Joshua 10:24-25, And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight.

More haughty victors would even use their defeated enemies as stools to mount their horses.

Book review: Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

by Bart D. Ehrman

★★★★

Not too long ago, I was asked in a religious forum whether I believe Jesus really existed. I said yes, I'm 99% sure. I meant precisely that: I'm a numbers guy, and I estimate the odds that Jesus never existed to be somewhere around one chance in a hundred. After presenting a parallel (a Bible historian who is forced to make sense of his research in light of a nonexistent Jesus would be a bit like a research biologist who shows up to work one day and is told that evolution is a lie) I gave an example of the type of argument that I find most convincing. If Jesus were a made-up figure, wouldn't the made-up stories be a bit more self-serving? Instead, for example, the Gospels tell about Jesus submitting to baptism for his sins by a competitor, a man we know from historical reports DID exist: John the Baptist. How did this whole embarrassing episode get written into the story, if it weren't literally true?

The truth is, I didn't know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.

Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.

It's not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He's been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he'd have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It's that Ehrman doesn't find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.

I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman's that-don't-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus' existence, the book is superb. 

Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I'm still right where I was before: 99% sure.