Book review: The Fifth Gospel

by Stephen J. Patterson, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and James M. Robinson

★★★★★

This is an excellent commentary on the Gospel of Thomas. It’s concise and in places speculative, but immensely informative, representing the latest scholarship on this fascinating find.

Part 1 presents a translation of the gospel; Part 2 provides commentary; Part 3 tells of its discovery at Nag Hammadi. It’s a skinny little book, but very full.

The most controversial question about this gospel seems to be its dating. Is it a collection of late second- or even third-century Gnostic sayings, or does it date back to the first century and contain the words of Jesus? The answer seems to be both. As a saying gospel, it’s much more malleable than a storyline gospel, and probably the collection grew over time. Some of the sayings seem very early; others seem quite late, surely not added until the Coptic version in Egypt began to form. (The most complete version we have is in Coptic, discovered in upper Egypt, and dating back to the fourth century.)

There are several reasons for dating parts of Thomas back to the first century. First, many sayings are quite similar to other first-century documents. Second, the rivalry it displays tends to suggest a time in early Christianity when local communities claimed loyalty to a particular well-known figurehead. Finally, its Christology is quite low. Jesus is not the Son of God or even the Son of Man. He’s just Jesus.

The association with “Thomas” should not be confused with the “doubting Thomas” of John chapter 20. Rather, it is more likely the “Judas Thomas” of John 14, Luke 6, and Acts 1. The same Judas Thomas of the Acts of Thomas, and the person to whom the epistle of Jude is attributed. If the Acts of Thomas carries any historic authenticity, then this is possibly the brother of Jesus; the Jude of Mark 6:3. Thus, we have uncovered a gospel possibly attributed not merely to one of the Twelve, but to a blood brother of Jesus.

Another confusion about this gospel is its so-called “Gnostic” bent. There just seems to no longer be a simple description of what “Gnostic” means; you won’t find any hints in Thomas of the evil creator who surfaces in other Gnostic writings. Instead, Thomas reads very much like John’s Gospel and Paul’s epistles, both in theme and theology. If Thomas is Gnostic, it’s not much more so than canonical New Testament writings, which can be just as exotic.

Yet it also appears that the Gospel of Thomas provides an independent source. Might Thomas have something to teach us about the original Jesus movement? As the book’s introduction claims, it “has reshaped the discussion of Christian origins by introducing students of early Christianity to a new set of ideas and practices that, a generation ago, one could hardly imagine as deriving from the words of Jesus.”

Matthew 16:16-17 How Divine Revelation Works

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

//Today's verse comes from Matthew. But one of the more interesting tendencies I noted as I researched for my book about John's Gospel is just how often John purposefully contradicts the other Gospels. Many of the contradictions, in fact, tend to downplay something miraculous, such as this divine revelation to Simon Peter. There seems to be an undercurrent of rivalry going on with Peter in the Fourth Gospel. Here, John pooh-pooh's Matthew's explanation and sets the record straight about how Simon Peter learned who Jesus was:

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). --John 1:41

But this begs the question. Could it have been explained to Peter and also come as a revelation to him? In other words, does "revelation" mean something more along the lines of proving the truth about Jesus for yourself? "Revelation," then, is not some means of divine discloser of a secret but rather making a known truth your own. Does this resonate with anyone else?

Numbers 15:35, Fifteen Crimes Requiring the Death Penalty

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

//Today's verse refers to a man who was discovered picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. There are actually fifteen crimes worthy of death, according to the Old Testament law:

1. Premeditated murder

2. Kidnapping

3. Rape of woman already betrothed.

4. Adultery

5. Homosexuality

6. Incest

7. Bestiality

8. Offering human sacrifices

9. False prophecy

10. Blasphemy

11. Ignoring the Sabbath

12. Sacrificing to false gods

13. Disobedience to parents/authority

14. Striking or cursing parents

15. Magic and divination

Contrast these to the words of Jesus: “"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…”

Book review: Love Times Three

by Joe, Alina, Vicki, and Valerie Darger

★★★★★

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. --Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-3

Joe, Alina, Vicki, and Val are the parents of 21 children, sharing a 5,500 square-foot home in Utah. Yes, the authors are married ... to each other, living the Principle, celestial marriage, the only way to obtain heaven's highest reward. This is a real-life inside peek at Mormon polygamy, without the sensationalism. If the only thing you know about Mormon Fundamentalists is what you've seen on TV about Warren Jeffs (whose coerced marriages to underage girls and sexual abuses landed him on the FBI's Most Wanted List in 2006), then you're the target audience of JAV&V.

Between the 25 of them, they share ten family cars. They do ten loads of laundry a day, run through 36 rolls of toilet paper a week, and consume 3-5 loaves of daily bread. (I imagine that Matthew 6:7 is a verse often quoted.) Life is complex, busy, fulfilling, and ... generally quite happy, especially for the children. The most trying obstacle to their lifestyle may be the required secrecy, for polygamy remains against the law in Utah, punishable by up to five years in prison.

But this married quartet have had enough of living a white lie. Says Joe, "It's time to end our silence, and time for us to share with the world what living in a polygamous family is really like." So, the four of them take turns in this daring book talking about the trials and rewards of their chosen way of life.

Jealousy is one of the more serious trials, of course. Joe must carefully balance his devotion between his three wives. A carefully-planned schedule determines where he sleeps each night, who gets the next date, and who sits in the front seat beside him as as he drives. Money management is inevitably another problem in celestial marriages, when you're trying to feed and clothe a couple dozen people. Persecution by bigoted acquaintances, often in the workplace, is a third. But life isn't meant to be easy.

All in all, this lifestyle surely isn't for me, but I fail to see why polygamist practices as wholesome as that described in Love Times Three don't deserve the same respect we seem to be finally awarding to other alternative marriage arrangements.

Revelation 17:3, The Woman Riding the Scarlet Beast

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 

//Here is an image that captivates! John of Patmos sees a vision of a woman riding a scarlet beast. Most Revelation interpreters recognize the beast to be the City of Rome, and I agree. Not today's Rome, of course, but the Rome of the first century. Yet who is the woman? 

Revelation calls this mysterious woman "the great prostitute," and I think it's safe to conclude she's also the "whore of Babylon," another Revelation theme. The majority of scholars here identify the woman again with Rome, equating Babylon with Rome.

But this woman isn't the beast. She rides the beast. The question becomes, who rides atop Rome? 

The answer, I'm convinced, is Jerusalem. But the reason can't be satisfactorily explained in a few words, providing me with a great opportunity to shamelessly plug my book about Revelation.

Pick up Revelation: The Way it Happened if you want an in depth peek into first-century Christian thinking, and why God turned His back on Jerusalem.

Judges 9:8-13, Obama or Romney?

How are we to choose a leader over us? What is a good leader's primary responsibility? Does the Bible provide any input?

No, I'm not going to turn this blog into a political forum, but this parable by Jotham in the book of Judges might be illuminating:

"One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.'

"But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?' 

"Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.' 

"But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?' 

"Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.'

"But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?' 

"Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'

The "thornbush" in Jotham's little parable is his brother Abimelech. Jotham climbed up a hill, shouted these words, and then fled for his life. But is there a lesson in his parable? Is it possible to find a leader who is more interested in serving than gaining power?

Book review: Why Jesus?

by William H. Willimon

★★★★

My previous review was a book with the same title: “Why Jesus.” That one was Ravi Zacharias; this is by William H. Willimon. I thought I would compare the two, but as it turns out, the two books are so different it’s a pointless exercise. I’ll give four stars to Willimon, simply for doing what he says he’ll do.

I confess, it took me a while to get into this one. The style doesn’t fit me; too hip, too informal. Too cute. An example will give you a feel for the book’s flavor: Jesus attends a “soiree” and a “woman of the city” shows up and makes a scene, caressing his feet, letting down her hair, and in general putting the party into an uproar. A Pharisee sneers that if Jesus were a real prophet, he would know what sort of woman she is. As Willimon tells the story,

Jesus replies to the Pharisee, “Simon, do you see this woman? I show up here expecting a good time, and you didn’t kiss me or give me a foot massage. She knows how to get down and party.”

Jesus then puts it in a parable: “A man was owed ten dollars by one debtor, ten thousand dollars by another. He forgave both debtors. Now, think hard, Mr. Religious Expert—which man was the most grateful?”

“Er, uh, I guess the one who was forgiven more,” answers the Pharisee.

Yeah, it took some getting used to, even though Willimon stayed true to his promise to present Jesus “as the gospels do”: a “wild, weird, and improbable character.” In time, however, I began to appreciate Willimon for his devotion to Jesus. I began to see why Jesus means so much to him. I began to see how many Christians, very different than me, can be inspired by this same Jesus—who seems to meet the needs of just about everyone one way or another. Jesus wears a dozen hats the way Willimon tells it. You’ve met Jesus the Party Person already, so I’ll just list the rest:

Vagabond

Peacemaker

Storyteller

Preacher

Magician

Home Wrecker

Savior

Sovereign

Lover

Delegator

Body

Whatever you’re looking for in a Savior, it’ll be in there somewhere!

Mark 1:1, The Son of God!

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 

//Much is made by scholars about the fact that Jesus called himself the Son of Man, and rarely, if ever, called himself the Son of God. Using the first Gospel written as a basis, we find the phrase Son of Man thirteen times ... all of them from the lips of Jesus himself.

A hidden Markan theme, however, is that Jesus is more than he claims to be! Mark begins his Gospel with the claim that Jesus truly is the Son of God. A short bit into the story, we're reminded again:

Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." --Mark 3:11

Then we'll hear no more about this title until the end of the story. In Mark’s Gospel, the disciples never do catch on. Jesus dies with his true identity still a secret, recognized by only one unlikely man:

And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" --Mark 15:39

Mark's Gospel originally ended with verse 16:8. Three women discover the tomb empty, and run away afraid, telling no one what they saw. Jesus’ secret remains intact.

John 4:28-29, The First Evangelist

Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?"  

//This woman is sometimes called the "first evangelist" in the New Testament. Do you recognize who she is?

The story comes from John's Gospel. She is, of course, a woman ... hardly what you would expect of a respected news-bringer. A woman's word in the first century counted for little; they were not even allowed to offer testimony in a court of law.

She is also a Samaritan, a people hated by the Jews of Jesus' time. The Samaritans were once Israelites, but they became polluted by intermarriage with other nations (primarily the conquering Assyrians) and thus were considered half-breeds.

She is slow to understand. It seems impossible for her to grasp the idea of living water. 

And she is disreputable, having had five husbands, and now living with a man who was not her husband.

Yes, the person selected by Jesus to first carry his message is the anonymous "woman at the well." Who'd a thunk?

Book review: Why Jesus?

by Ravi Zacharias

★★★

This started out as a five star review! I love Ravi's writing! He's opinionated, intelligent and interesting. He seeds his discussion with fascinating, relevant stories. 

Ravi challenges the truthfulness of contemporary religion—mostly, what he calls "New Spirituality"—in the early pages of his book, and promises to steer us away from mass marketed shallowness toward the Truth. Capital T. It's a noble quest. 

Says Ravi, "I have followed through on my promise to pursue truth and have devoted my life to the study and understanding of all the major religions and systems of belief in the world." He poses a question: "If the truth is so important [in the courtroom], how much more important is it in the search for the spiritual answers to our deepest hungers?" He quotes Winston Churchill: "The most valuable thing in the world is the truth." He concludes, "Nothing is so destructive as running from the truth."

With this intoxicating buildup, he raises our expectations for great revelation. Yes, Ravi! Bring us the TRUTH! Can I hear an amen? 

Instead, Ravi embarks on a 272-page quest to discredit the competition (Ravi has a serious thing about Chopra and Oprah, and their feel-good religions; at least a quarter of the book is dedicated to the "deplorable and manipulative" Deepak Chopra). I kept waiting to learn about Jesus. Why Jesus? The best answer I could find is that Ravi likes Jesus-the-person, the man who befriended sinners and played with children on his lap. Jesus "makes reality beautiful." Well, heck, I think Jesus is cool, too.

Five stars if you love passionate ridicule and prefer attack to defense. One star if you're hoping to uncover a reason to turn to Jesus. Ravi keeps promising, but never delivers ... he actually never even tries, beyond a few of his own feel-good descriptions in the final few pages.

Tell you what—my next review will be another book with an identical title: "Why Jesus?" We'll see if a second attempt makes more progress.

Isaiah 14:3-5, The Origin of Lucifer, part III of III

It shall come to pass in the day the LORD gives you rest from your sorrow, and from your fear and the hard bondage in which you were made to serve,  that you will take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: "How the oppressor has ceased, The golden city ceased!  The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, The scepter of the rulers; 

//In part I of this discussion, I pointed out the origin of the name Lucifer, and how its meaning evolved through various translations.

In part II, I pointed out how we have combined the scriptural writings of authors living hundreds of years apart to apparently solve a puzzle, building the story of Lucifer as another name for Satan, who was cast out of heaven. This understanding prevailed throughout much of the church history, up to the time of the Reformation when we began to examine scripture more critically.

In part III, we'll examine the context of that one verse in Isaiah, the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is found, to see what it originally meant. Chapter 13 of Isaiah begins a long section known as the "oracles against foreign nations." Verse 13:1 reads,

The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

This theme spills over into chapter 14, as Isaiah continues to critique Babylon and her king. We arrive shortly at today's verse, telling of the fall of the tyrant king of Babylon. The tirade continues until we reach verse 14:12,

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

According to Isaiah, Lucifer will not enjoy the decent burial of his fellow kings, because he has "destroyed his land and slain his people." So God will rise up against Babylon.

Lucifer is almost certainly king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

2 Corinthians 11:14, The Origin of Lucifer, part II of III

[F]or Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

//Continuing our discussion from yesterday about the origins of Lucifer, we reach today's verse written by Paul. What we're about to uncover is a fascinating instance of "scripture interpreting scripture" to arrive at the conclusion that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 (the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used) actually refers to Satan. We'll do this by examining New Testament texts, written many hundreds of years after Isaiah died. Paul starts us off by informing us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, similar to the Morning Star of Isaiah.

Then we have Luke 10:18, where Jesus exclaims that he "saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Recall yesterday's verse: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Could this be coincidence?

Next we come to this story in Revelation about the dragon:

“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

Again, this sounds a lot like Isaiah, doesn't it? It's easy to conclude Isaiah was talking about Satan when he used the name Lucifer ... though as we discussed yesterday how the name Lucifer didn't exist in scripture until after Christ arrived, and the translation into Latin.

All this begs the question: If we have used scripture to interpret scripture, fitting the pieces together like a puzzle, erroneously interpreting Isaiah's writings to be about Satan, then what did Isaiah 14 mean in the first place? We'll answer that tomorrow.

Isaiah 14:12, The Origin of Lucifer, part I of III

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

//Today's verse is the only place in the Bible where the name Lucifer is used. In fact, it only appears in some translations; primarily the King James version. The word in Hebrew isn't Lucifer at all, or even close. It's "helel," which probably derives from the root "to shine brightly." 

When the original Hebrew was translated into Greek for the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, before Christ came on the scene), the word became "heosphoros," meaning Morning star, the name used by many translations today.

Moving on to the next step, the translation to Latin after Christ, the name became Lucifer. The roots of this word are "lux", meaning "light," and "ferre," meaning "to bring." Lucifer means "bearer of light." By the fourth century, Lucifer had become another name for Venus, the Morning Star.

When we arrive at the King James version of the Bible, in the year 1611, the name Lucifer remains, but surprisingly became  popularized as another name for Satan! How did we make this jump in logic? Continued tomorrow.

Book review: Embracing Obscurity

by Anonymous

★★★★

This book has an interesting theme. Being Jesus-like means not merely being humble, which is a foundational point of all major religions, but going to the next level: embracing obscurity. The cute gimmick (which the author insists is not a gimmick, but is cute nonetheless) is that the book is written anonymously.

We crave recognition to overcome the natural obscurity of sharing our world with billions. Why? Why does it seem natural, human, to want to rise above the billions, to be someone important? This craving conflicts with our spiritual well-being. Says the author, “I am astounded by Jesus’ complete lack of concern over His reputation.”

By way of warning, a chart is presented showing Christ’s disposition alongside Satan’s. To summarize the entire chart for you: Jesus lives a life of humility followed by honor, while Satan lives a life of pride followed by humiliation. And unless we stop imitating our enemy, we can be absolutely certain that we will also reap the same end: ultimate (perhaps even eternal) humiliation.

As the last paragraph shows, this book is afterlife-oriented, so you can guess that it wasn’t a perfect fit for my brand of Christianity. “Life is not about comfort, but about doing hard things now”—(wait for it, that’s only half of the quote)—“so that we can reap rewards in the life to come.” Yeah, not my brand. Yet there are some very helpful, very uplifting teachings herein. Mr. Anonymous points out that “living for an audience of One is at the heart of embracing obscurity,” and that is a lesson we could all learn…whatever our picture of that One.

This book will be especially appreciated by conservative Christians in need of hope-filled encouragement to continue being Jesus-like.

Isaiah 61:5-6, The Day of Salvation

Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.  But you shall be named the priests of the LORD.

//I've often pointed out that the Old Testament dream of a coming Messiah was a political, this-worldly ambition, not at all the type of "Christ" that Jesus presented. Jews could hardly be blamed, then or now, for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. He simply didn't fulfill the promise of political redemption.

Consider 2nd Isaiah's vision of the coming Kingdom. The day of salvation, according to this prophet, would lift Israel above the nations, who would become physical laborers, plowing Israeli fields and dressing Israeli vineyards. Israel would instead be a nation of priests ... like the Levites, who held no such responsibilities.

Jesus, however, appears to have disdained that political picture and encouraged his followers to lift their eyes above mundane oppression to a higher kingdom. God held little interest in freeing the Jews from Rome, holding instead much higher ambitions, for even Romans were welcome in the Kingdom!

It is only when we fully jettison the messianic dreams of the Old Testament that we can see and appreciate the radicalness of the New Testament Messiah. On this topic, I'm getting excited about my upcoming publication date for John's Gospel: The Way It Happened.

Mark 11:11-12, Premeditated Temple Attack Or Not?

And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.  And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany ... Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple ...

//Mark tells how when Jesus came to Jerusalem, he entered the temple, looked around, and went away for the night. Then he came back and staged his symbolic "attack" on the temple. The same story in Matthew drops the premeditation, and leads one to believe Jesus was incensed when he saw the temple and immediately cast out the money changers et. al.

Mark's order of events:

[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey

[2] He looks around at the temple

[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany

[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree

[5] He attacks the temple

Matthew's order of events (See Matthew chapter 11):

[1] Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey

[2] He attacks the temple

[3] He leaves for the town of Bethany

[4] In the morning, he curses the fig tree

[5] He comes back to Jerusalem

Why did Matthew rewrite the order? Is indignant anger better than premeditated attack? What do you think really happened?

Book review: Unifying Truths of the World's Religions

by C. David Lundberg

★★★★★

100 pages into this book, I must admit that I've been reading it wrong. This is a book to be savored, not studied. For the first time ever, I’m providing a review before I finish a book … because I refuse to read this one like a novel or a textbook. Instead, I'm going to read a little each week, finding words to meditate upon for that week. With that in mind, and with David’s permission, I'll get the word out now about his accomplishment and then let its chapters form the basis of a few blog posts over the next few months. I have no qualms about awarding an early rating of five stars.

David Lundberg has carefully compiled quotes (over 800 of them) from seven of the world's major religions--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism--and organized them together under inspirational topics to emphasize how all of our religions are founded upon the same God-given principles. It's an undertaking that must have been enormous. 

Now, I don't actually think David has discovered a supernatural thread running through the world's religions. There is nothing very mystical in these teachings, as if a Higher Power purposefully seeded each religion in the same manner. And to be honest, it does seem like David pushes the boundaries just a little here and there to squeeze all seven religions into every one of his topics, but if you're satisfied with comparing the spirit of the writings instead of demanding a perfect fit, it all comes together. There's something very satisfying about reaching down to our religions' common denominators and finding the same spirit throughout the world. Especially when a recent poll reveals that 69% of American adults believe that religious differences are the biggest roadblock to the attainment of world peace. 

True story: my review copy arrived about a month late for some reason. My blog partner would call this timing a "God thing," because I happened to turn the cover just as I was going through a trying experience. Chapter one begins with the principle that "life with God is good," and shows how this teaching permeates all seven religions. Even though the various religions picture God in different ways, this worldwide discovery had a settling effect. So, yeah, I felt an immediate connection.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Christianity is my heritage, and Jesus is my guy. But I couldn't count the number of times I have tried to initiate a forum discussion highlighting the underlying commonalities of various religions, in hopes of uncovering the foundation—the God-experiences and the universal understandings—shared by all. I personally think David's dig-down religion, and his picture of the universal God, is still a bit restrictive (God for David is omni-everything but still very personal and conscious, in a manner which doesn't seem to me to entirely jibe with the concept of "God" in various Eastern religions), but I'll just chalk David’s up to an eighth religion with similar principles. :)

We all have divine potential, David insists, and he discusses 22 responsibilities that we need to attune to, according to our various religions, in order to grow in our Oneness with God. I haven't gotten through all of them yet, but I’m finding his book to be an inspiring and promising bit of research. Highly recommended!

Mark 8:29-30, the Messianic Secret

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

//While the Messianic Secret is a theme from all three of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is most prominent in the first of the three to be written--Mark's Gospel. Jesus states very plainly that he does not want anybody to know he is the Christ.  "Christ" merely means "Messiah," and Jesus doesn't want to be known as the Messiah. That revelation would have to wait until after his death. Matthew, who loves to quote scripture, explains this by referring back to Isaiah's Messianic prophecy: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets."

There are a number of contradictions between the Synoptic story of Jesus and the story presented in John, but many are minor, of little theological significance. Not so, the "messianic secret." In John's Gospel, Jesus plainly presents himself as not only the Messiah, but as God himself, and the Jews have no trouble recognizing his claims. Here are a couple of examples:

John 4:25-26, The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 9:35-37, [Jesus] said unto [a man whom Jesus healed], Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.  

It may be, however, that both traditions share the truth. In John, Jesus is just as clear as in the Synoptics that he doesn't want to be made into a king, or thought of as a warrior who will save his people by might. Jesus may therefore have objected to the traditional image of Christ/Messiah, but embraced John's more gentle, nonmilitary version.

2 Timothy 2:8, The Magicians of Egypt

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

//Ever wonder who these depraved fellows are in the book of Timothy? Tradition names them as the magicians who competed with Moses, performing tricks for Pharoah, as in the following verses:

So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. --Exodus 7:10-12

Several Jewish writings after the time of Christ, including Targums and Pliny the Elder's Natural History, make reference to Jannes and Jambres. Origin, one of the early Church Fathers, refers in his writing Against Celsus to an apocryphal book titled The Book of Jannes and Jambres about the exploits of these two magicians. Origin says that the epistle of 2 Timothy is quoting from that book (Origin assumes authorship of Timothy by Paul). 

The Book of Jannes and Jambres has never been found, and many commentators, defending Sola Scriptura, insist instead that Paul learned their names by divine inspiration.

Book review: Emergence Christianity

by Phyllis Tickle

★★★★★

How does the Church shed its stodgy, antiquated feel while retaining its reverence for 2,000-year-old ritual? How does it jettison denominational pigeonholing and institutionalization while still clinging to Christ?

Answer: Emergence. This seems to be one of the labels that nobody understands; perhaps not even its practitioners. Emergence Christianity is a relatively new worldwide movement in the Christian world, and it's still evolving. It generally transcends such labels as "liberal" or "conservative," stepping sideways to address, instead, issues like social activism. It usually emphasizes the "here and now" over eternal salvation, but beyond that, its decentralized structure can make it very hard to tie the movement down in terms of doctrine. Tickle likes to think of Emergence Christianity as “spiritual Christ-knowing,” not as religion. Compared to their secular neighbors, however, Tickle says Emergence Christians are both spiritual and religious.

Maybe it's best to explain by example. Readers of my reviews may recognize radical Christian leader Shane Claiborne and mega-church pastor Rob Bell, who share the face of Emergence Christianity. However, while the increase in mega-churches probably is a result of the same cultural pressures that evoked the Great Emergence, it would be wrong to put Emergence Christianity entirely in the mega-church corner. Most Emergence Christians may still prefer house churches, and an unwritten doctrine seems to be that the "church is a people to be, not a place to go." Says Tickle, "Emergence Christians think of themselves as communal and relational more than sacred or holy."

Still confused? Consider the title of Brian D. McLaren's recent book: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.

Yeah. Dig it. If you buy Tickle's book—and you should—I suggest eating dessert first: in the center of the book is an annotated section of full-color pictures. Start by paging through the pictures of Emergence Christianity in practice, and read there a little about its methodology, before returning to the meat in chapter 1. I particularly loved seeing the communion table in one picture: outdoors, on the grass, lies an American flag rug, and on top of that stands a beautiful chess set. On the chess board sits a small loaf of bread and a glass of red wine. (Scotch, perhaps? For you chess enthusiasts, the opening looks like it's transposing into the Scotch Gambit. Could this possibly be coincidence? Did anyone else notice this?)

This book hit the mark with me, because Tickle legitimizes Christianity among scholars. For better or worse, Emergence Christians generally share a higher education level, and more of a willingness to embrace technology in the service. If you find that authors like Bell and Claiborne write down to the eighth grade level of reader, you'll find the opposite is true of Tickle. Her writing is intelligent and informative, and she knows her stuff. I have not yet read Tickle's The Great Emergence (2008), but I'm thinking now that I must.

Numbers 3:10-12, Why were the Levites selected for the priesthood?

The LORD also said to Moses, "I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD."

//To prove his power, one day God killed all the firstborn of Egypt. Every firstborn son died, except those among the Israelites, because they had sprinkled the blood of a lamb on their doorposts. But God didn't merely spare Israel's firstborn; he consecrated them to himself. The firstborn were to belong to God. 

Later, God accepts the Levites in place of the firstborn ... see today's verse. Numbers 3:46 explains that, because there lived more firstborn sons in Israel than there were Levites, God collected "redemption money" of five shekels for each of the 273 extra firstborn, and gave the money to Aaron.

But why the switch? Why choose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn, and set them up as the priesthood? Perhaps because of their ability or willingness to slaughter animals for sacrifice?

No, not animals. As the story goes, shortly after Israel escaped from Egypt, they built a golden calf. God was displeased. But the men of the tribe of Levi stood up and offered to take care of the situation. So here is what God asked of them:

So [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. --Exodus 32:26-28

So the Levites were chosen because of their faithfulness. The God who slaughtered all the firstborn of Egypt chooses for himself the tribe willing to slaughter three thousand more people.

Proverbs 21:19, A Crabby Wife

It is better to live alone in the desert than with a crabby, complaining wife.

//Do you suppose the Proverbs were written by men or by women? Here's another clue:

A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands. --Psalm 27:15-16

Guys, you can take heart. Apparently, there will be no women in heaven. The following verse provides the proof:

When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. --Revelation 8:1

Book review: The Book of Lilith

by Robert G. Brown

★★★★★

I posted this tongue-in-cheek review more than a year ago on another site, but people continue to seem intrigued by Lilith, the first wife of Adam, so I thought I would risk the chance of someone taking me seriously, and let you all know about a fun book.

___________________________________________________

This is the true Book of Lilith, recently discovered beneath Iraqi soil and dated to about 4,000 BC. It's been painstakingly translated by Professor Brown, and an unnamed accomplice who prefers anonymity to unparalleled fame. (Do not confuse Brown's publication of the Book of Lilith with the forgeries of more noted scholars).

If you've never heard of Lilith, you're in for a treat. In Mesopotamian mythology, she is related to a class of demons, and in Jewish midrash, she's the first wife of Adam, before Eve came along. Lilith herself penned the words of this book, and her story is both sensual and intelligent. Also a tad graphic, but you may not notice this; readers of ancient holy books become experienced in glossing over sex and violence.

Professor Brown is an avowed atheist, or so I imagine he once a-vowed, before a-writing this book. His atheism lends credibility to the truth of Lilith; if you are familiar with biblical criticism, you know the strength of the Criterion of Embarrassment. This basically proves the authenticity of the Lilith story, for here we have an atheist repeatedly acquiescing to discuss religious concepts such as God and Soul. (God, bless Her soul, seems to have chosen Professor Brown for this task; how could he refuse?)

Lilith is modern, hardly subservient, a libber before the term was coined, and rightfully so, for she is much more interesting than Adam--and knows it. Her job is to dispense souls to the world's people, while Adam's job is to make up all the rules. Needless to say, friction develops, and Adam and Lilith separate. Both head their own direction in what becomes a quest for enlightenment. Lilith's writing style is also strikingly modern--witty and occasionally satirical toward the religious ideas she knew would evolve thousands of years later. Yes, luckily for 21st-century readers, Lilith possesses a preternatural knowledge of the future, and often expresses herself in idioms like "movies" and "skyscrapers," concepts quite unfamiliar to ancient readers, but which make the text read more contemporary. (Curiously, Lilith seems to have no knowledge of events and inventions further in the future or scientific concepts beyond our current understanding, save one: an upcoming slaughter of billions in the name of God. Might the time have come?)

Like any holy book, Lilith's theological wisdoms must be teased from its depths, and ... well, let's just say it's a captivating book, whether the cover is open or closed. You might even come to see life's purpose a little differently.

Genesis 1:16, The Sun to Govern the Day, Part II of II

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16-18)

//Yesterday, I posed the question “How can there be day and night before there is a sun?” Several verses before the sun is made, God creates light and darkness, and separates them into day and night.

This question has puzzled readers for centuries, but it misreads the text. The sun and moon, the "lives in the sky," are not there just to give light. Light existed before they did. Rather, God created the sun and moon with another purpose: To tend to the skies, keeping everything working the way God planned, much like the way God created a man to tend the land.

In other words, we cannot assume that the source of light is the sun and moon and stars. (What foolishness to think that! Light is everywhere!) Nor can we assume that day and night are defined by whether the sun is in the sky. Although the “great lights” do give off some of the light, their job, twice repeated in the creation story, is to govern.

Now you understand how there was day and night before there was a sun. Do not imagine that the sun creates the light for us. Rather, the sun keeps watch over the light, and turns in for the night when the light goes away.

Genesis 1:1-3, The Sun to Govern the Day, part I of II

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

//Readers of the first chapter in our Bible have long noted that the six days of creation seem to repeat:

Day one, when the earth and sky are first created, God makes light and separates it from darkness. 

Day two, God divides the waters below (the seas) from the waters above (water above the sky, waiting to fall as rain).

Day three, God creates land.

So the fundamentals are complete. Now God fills in the details with life (imagine the lights in the sky as alive, for so they were understood by many):

Day four, God makes life in the sky: the sun, moon, and stars.

Day five, God makes life in the water.

Day six, God makes life on land.

What's most confusing is this business of dividing light from darkness. On the very first day, the "Spirit of God" is hovering over the waters, and he decides to create light. This, before there are sun and moon and stars! God separates the light from the dark and names them:

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

So God makes day and night, before the sun ever exists. How can this be? More tomorrow...

Book review: Love Wins

by Rob Bell

★★★★★

This is Bell's controversial masterpiece about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived." Love, says this internationally influential pastor, wins in the end ... and nobody has to go to hell. 

God wants all people to be saved. Will God get what He wants?

Of Bell's works, I've read only this and Velvet Elvis, though I have three more in my review stack. I'll be spreading them out over the next few months. I confess that too much Bell, with his colloquial rah-rah style, might push me off the deep end, but in Love Wins, the message overcomes the style and earns five stars. I also feel the book is very well organized, leading inexorably to a logical conclusion.

That said, this book does not probe any deep theological arguments. It's far too short for that. It's a common-sense approach to a troubling question: Can God be both loving and vengeful?

Actually, Bell's book is chock full of questions! It makes you think about your perception of Jesus, of God, and of His eternal plan. Bell says, "Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either." When we hear that a certain person has rejected Christ, we should probably first ask, "Which Christ?" The antiscience, antigay one standing out on the sidewalk with his bullhorn, telling people that they're going to burn forever? Or the one who invites everyone to share in his heaven?

Which invites another question. Which heaven? The one far away, a dream of eternal bliss, or the one Jesus constantly spoke of, here, now, on this earth? Bell's "heaven" is very "earthy," rightly recognizing that Jesus spoke not of a place but of an age ... an age where God dwells with his people, on this earth. Bell is not denying an afterlife, he simply is putting the focus where Jesus did: the now. 

But what about hell? Well, there's plenty of hell on earth now, too. Surprisingly, not everyone prefers heaven. Love wins, and we get whatever we want. But over and over and over, God speaks of restoration ... helping those who have slipped into hell back on their feet and back into heaven.

That's God's agenda. So here we are at a final question: Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?