Learn War No More - Micah 3:1-4:5

“If only God were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars. For men would know that they are the sons of one God.” – Lactantius.[1]

“No one will make them afraid.” More beautiful words have rarely been uttered. There will be worship instead of war and wickedness, bounty rather than bribery and bloodshed, peace in place of perversion.

There is nothing pleasant surrounding the prospect of judgment or impending doom. But at this time, the proclamation of justice against civil authorities and spiritual leaders of the nation[2] would have been welcome news. Micah posits to deliver the words of Yahweh, making accusations against the rich who have acted oppressively by coveting, seizing fields, houses and inheritance (2:2); tearing the skin off (3:2); eating the flesh and breaking the bones (3:3) of the people. This is “the sin of abusing one’s fellow man.”[3] Unfortunately, it was not the only time when the leadership of Israel was convicted of this charge.[4]

Yahweh in this oracle is portrayed in an “old tradition of the theophany of the divine warrior,”[5] having been roused to action due to the injustice, cruelty, and abominations done by a select group.[6] Finally, because of God’s action, peace and salvation would come to the troubled remnant of Israel.

Commentators have suggested these visions and others similar (Isa 2; 60) reflect the culmination of the ages, or eschaton where all wars will cease. David Leiter observed that such outlining is often perceived as having “little or no practical implications for our current age. . . . The vision indeed had contemporary implications for Israel and if taken seriously can also have implications for our world today.”[7] Yet, there are social critiques within this oracle that are able to be applied to various situations in the present, as well as hope for peace in the future.

In consideration of the warrior imagery, Scott Holland noted that we are more comfortable with a God who fits our own ideology and are sometimes willing to substitute divine “otherness” for our own system of ethics. “We tend to make God in our image and thus in the process make ourselves like God.”[8] If a religious group becomes violent about their religion, it is possibly because their violent perspective has created a god to meet that desire. I conclude – from a meta-narrative perspective – that ultimate redemption and reconciliation is the final objective.  However, the way God goes about that is not always clear. [9]

Ultimately, we must leave vengeance up to God, “precisely because God has the prerogative to give and take life that we do not have.”[10]  These words of Scott Holland have stuck with me since I first read them: “Could it be that because Yahweh is a warrior, we can be a people of peace?”[11] Willard Swartley, also citing this statement, eloquently explained that attributing violence to God is an inaccurate and wrong accusation from a Scriptural perspective. It undermines God’s moral character and redemptive intentions as well as confuses the perversion of human violence with God’s divine prerogative to establish justice. It can also depend on how "violence" is defined. If it entails a violation of a norm, Swartley would argue that for Christians the terms should not apply to God, who is the transcendent source of norms. Nevertheless, judgment characterizes the sovereign and holy God, who punishes humanity for their sins expressly to end human violence.[12]

Micah’s promise of restoration and deliverance is one of hope, and relevant to all those who long for peace and justice to be the order of the day.[13] Embedded within the purpose of prophetic oracles is the call for repentance. If repentance occurs, right relationship with God is restored, divine judgment can be averted and peace will be the result.[14]    

---

[1] The Divine Institutes, 5.8.66 (ANF 7.143).

[2] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 10:305

[3] Ralph L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi, vol. 32 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 5.

[4] E.g. Isa 3:12-15; 56:11-12; Ezek 13; 22:24-31; 34; Jer 10:21; 12:10-11; 23:1-5; 50:6-7; Zech 10:2-3.

[5] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 340.

[6] 2:1–2, 8–9; 3:2–3, 9–11; 7:2–6.

[7] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 72.

[8] Scott Holland “The Gospel of Peace and the Violence of God,” Seeking Cultures of Peace: A Peace Church Conversation, ed. Fernando Enns, Scott Holland, and Ann Riggs (Telford, PA.: Cascadia Publishing House, 2004), 141.

[9] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 206.

[10] Holland 2004, 141.

[11] Ibid., 144.

[12] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 395.

[13] Elelwani B. Farisani, “Micah” The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures From Africa and the African Diaspora, ed. Hugh R. Page, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2010), 192.

[14] Leiter 2007, 93-4.

BibleWorks and Wise Words of Caution

BibleWorks has been my choice for textual study for a few years. Recently I acquired version 10, and as expected, I like it a lot, although I need to spend a few days just going through the excellent tutorial videos provided by their team.

As I was exploring the Module page on BibleWorks' site, I came across some brief comments at the bottom of the page titled "Some Thoughts About Electronic Libraries." 

Now, just so I'm clear, I am by no means against electronic libraries. For those who invest solely in them and have found them to be the best option in their study routine, that is great. I use electronic resources frequently, as they make research efficient through search capabilities. Resources that I use a lot, I may decide to acquire the digital edition, but I always choose the print edition over the electronic edition if I am purchasing one or the other. Personally, I prefer to have a book in my hands to read rather than an iPad or some other eReader.

However, I have also had reservations about investing my money into resources that I actually do not own. What I mean by that is, when buying an electronic resource, most of the time one is merely purchasing the rights to use or view it, such as commentaries, books, etc. This concerns me a little bit, but perhaps I have read Nineteen Eighty-Four too much.  

In this regard, my respect for BibleWorks has greatly increased. As a digital company whose mission is to "provide pastors, teachers, students, and missionaries with the tools they need to 'rightly divide the word of truth,'" it is impressive for them to caution customers with what they perceive to be weaknesses of technology and to think historically. We, as humans, can easily forget the past. We don't even have to turn the clock back one hundred years to make the point. We take many things for granted and can be prone to assuming that it will always be this way. Here are the points they make:

"We continue to encourage our users to think carefully before building large electronic libraries, for three reasons:

1. There is no guarantee computers will, in as few as ten years, be able to read today's electronic media. For example, read "Cerf sees a problem: Today's digital data could be gone tomorrow " from ComputerWorld (June 4, 2013), "At Libraries, Taking the (Really) Long View" from Inside Higher Ed (July 23, 2008), and "The Digital Ice Age" from Popular Mechanics (December 2006).

2. Even more significantly, almost all electronic libraries are in proprietary formats: there is no standard. Proprietary formats, and the software that reads them, come and go (remember DOS?). A recent article in Christian Computing, "Is It Time for a Second STEP?", noted the unlikelihood of a standard format emerging. When an electronic library's proprietary format is abandoned, one's investment in the library is lost.

3. Finally, in most cases one cannot purchase anything more than a license to use the content of an electronic book. Such a license is vulnerable to being revoked, as this April 2014 article from World magazine points out: http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/liberty_as_secure_as_your_books

Books, on the other hand, are independent of computers. If you use certain reference works on a daily basis, it may make sense to purchase electronic editions, and, for this reason, we are providing (and will continue to provide) a limited collection of locked electronic resources for those who want them. But in our opinion it makes sense to buy print editions first, then electronic editions if you find you really need them."

I don't need extra reasons to like BibleWorks, but I certainly won't disregard them when they come along. Thank you, BibleWorks, for offering wise words of warning.

The Bloody City – A Reflection of Ezekiel 22

As I sit at my desk reading, writing and listening to the enchanting melodies of master guitarist Phil Keaggy,[1] I am transported into the ancient world of a Zadokite[2] priest. Ezekiel lived in Jerusalem and was active (594 – 571 B.C.E.)[3] before the first group of exiles were taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E.[4] He was at the heart of Judean society and a proponent of Zionist covenantal theology, which was a tradition emphasizing them as Yahweh’s choice people, Jerusalem as the capital of a perpetual Davidic dynasty, and Zion (Jerusalem) –with the Solomonic Temple – as the divine habitation.[5] The exile considerably challenged this belief, as it called into question God’s promised protection of the holy city.[6]

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the tone of Ezekiel’s proclamations changed. This is reflected in the book’s division into three distinct sections: chapters 1-24 are primarily oracles against Jerusalem and Judah and contain material preceding the Babylonian invasion.[7] Chapters 25-32 are directed against foreign entities, and the third – chapters 33-48 – contains oracles regarding Israel’s future salvation and restoration. Chapter 22 is also divided into three units: vv 1-16, 17-22 and 23-31.[8] The textual and historical tradition of Ezekiel has a long, complicated history of criticism and is far too extensive to address here.[9]

“The bloody city” rings loud and clear at the onset of these oracles in chapter 22. This is a phrase used to describe Nineveh in Nahum 3:1. The divine decision was been made to punish God’s chosen, but guilty city.[10] The list of wrongs is detailed throughout this chapter: v 6 rulers are shedding blood; vv 7, 25, 29 aliens suffer extortion, fathers and mothers are treated contemptuously, orphans and widows are wronged; vv 10-11 women are violated in horrific ways, adultery, fornication and incest are taking place; v 12 bribes are made for killing; v 26 priests have done violence; v 27 officials portrayed as wolves; v 28 prophets are declaring lies as though from Yahweh; v 29 the poor and needy are oppressed.[11]

It is also important to note that God warns people to adjust their course and honors repentance. Even in verse 30, with its military metaphor,[12] there is the hyperbolic sense of God looking for one for whom the city could be spared.[13] Regardless, the people’s actions have brought these consequences on themselves.[14]

Surveying this spectacle, I cannot help but shudder at the eerie familiarity it has to our own day. Jesus made pronouncements similar to that of Ezekiel when dealing with the corruption of his own time. Israel in our time still finds itself as the center of attention for unethical behavior. As a Christian who has some Jewish ancestry, I can appreciate that these issues are sensitive for many. Yet, there are still questions. When will God deal with corruption? Does God still protect Israel? Does Israel still oppress its own people and countrymen?

In a class lecture,[15] John Goldingay made this statement,

“God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.”

This is crucial because today there are Christian and messianic Zionist movements who have not been able to make a distinction. Some are of the mind that Israel – the state – can do no wrong. “We must bless Israel,” goes the mantra. This is not about Israel but rather an ideology that desires to nationalize God to fit political agendas.

Regardless of one’s eschatology and opinions of political policy, categorizing the State of Israel as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

“For believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.”[16]

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though it were God’s own desires.[17]

“It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story . . . were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors.”[18]

---

[1] “Study helps for the book of Ezekiel should include a musical instrument—a guitar or recorder. Ezekiel is noted as a musician, one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument (33:32).” Millard Lind, Ezekiel, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1996), 13.

[2] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 371.

[3] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA.: The Westminster Press, 1970), 1.

[4] Ezek 33:21; 40:1.

[5] Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” New Interpreter’s Bible, A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. VI,  Leander E. Keck, et al., eds. (Nashville, TN.: Abington Press, 1994), VI:1082-3.

[6] Michael Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 4^th ed. (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1160.

[7] L. S. Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel, Book of,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, 2012), 219.

[8] Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel 20-48, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), xx.

[9] G. W. Bromiley, “Ezekiel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988; 2002), 2:250-52; David Noel Freedman, “Ezekiel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4 vols. (New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:714-16.

[10] Eichrodt 1970, 308.

[11] This is my compilation, cf. Lind’s list, “Ezekiel has his own list of Ten Commandments”: (Lind 1996, 187).

[12] Darr 1994, 1315.

[13] Cf. Gen 18:20-33; Jer 5:1-5, although seemingly contradictory to Ezek 14:12-20.

[14] Cf. 9:10; 11:21; 16:43. Jesus, when dealing with the corruption of his own time made references similar to that of Ezekiel: Matt 23:37-39; Luk 13:33-35; 23:28-30. Upon contemplation of this, I recalled the poem by William Blake, “Prologue, Intended for a Dramatic Piece of King Edward the Fourth.”

[15] John Goldingay, class lecture, Chronicles and Esther Part 2 (27:49),” OT500: The Writings as an Introduction to the Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Fall 2010.

[16] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

[17] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

[18] Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

With Us or Them?

I am currently working on a project that is related to the book of Jonah. Here is some commentary on Jonah's attitude in chapter 4 that struck me as being particularly relevant to our day:

"It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story of Jonah were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors. But they could not confine God to serving their own interest! Jonah’s resentment at having his fears come true strikes at the complacency of the audience." 

Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

Before too long, I will be posting a more detailed look at this idea of nationalism and political hegemony as it relates to God being with "us," and against "them."

Christian Patriotism and the War Machine

There's got to be a better way 

What is it good for?

. . .

War, I despise 'cause it means destruction of innocent lives

War, means tears to thousands of mothers how

When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives

. . .

War, it ain't nothing

But a heartbreaker

War, friend only to the undertaker

It's an enemy to all mankind

The point of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest

Within the younger generation

Induction then destruction

Who wants to die

War, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Edwin Starr, War

Regardless of one’s eschatology or opinions of political policy, categorizing any political state as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

The allegiance of members within the community of God to a "nation state," as though God were taking a particular side, is troubling. There are many who are convinced that God is with the United States, including its perpetual military endeavors. For some, this is rooted in the mistaken notion that this nation was founded upon and still is an inherently "Christian" nation, blessed by God. What about those who serve God in territories we have invaded and afflicted? If they cry to God against us, who is God obliged to answer? 

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.” - Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger of God (ANF 7.271). 

Far too often, theology has been poured into an ideological mold for the purpose of casting a nationalized image of God to fit worshiped, political agendas. 

"Believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.” Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for Living in a Small World (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

When did Christianity become so inseparably intertwined with political agendas and identities? Why is it that a "conservative" Christian will question the faith of someone they deem as "liberal" or who identifies with another political party?

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though they were God’s own desires. See David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

“You kill one person, they lock you up and throw away the key. You kill three-hundred thousand and they give you a knighthood.” PBS Masterpiece, Endeavor, S1E1, 48:46 (In the context of what happened to Hiroshima).

What does Jesus have to do with Caesar?

Dr. John Goldingay on Israel and Palestine

This is a brilliant statement of crucial importance:

“Does God still protect Israel? Well, God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.” 

Dr. John Goldingay

Hold Fast to What is Good

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin.

Throughout the years and during changing times, this country has endured. While many debate what the significant force behind it may have been, we do know that it has stood as a legacy of ingenuity and a testament to the productivity that can come from a society structured such as ours.

The people of this land are experiencing change in cultural, social, religious and economical trends to one extent or another. Whether it is a business owner, a senior citizen, a college graduate or the single mother trying to maintain a family while coping with inflation, all are being touched by an emerging new world that has quickly become threatening. Many find that the world in which they were raised, included attributes such as values, morality, courtesy, patriotism and more. They have also found that in many instances, these attributes have all but disappeared. Still, in other ways, the more mature citizens in our culture find technological marvels which in their childhood would have seemed a part of science fiction. The shifts in our small "sands of time" have uncovered a world that is new, yet very old.

Despite all the changes we are experiencing in technology, the economy, big business and myriads more that could be enumerated, one thing remains unchanged; it is still people that matter most. Whether it is accepted or exercised on a practical level or not, the truth of the matter persists. In a time when so much emphasis is placed on the political polls, parties and elected politicians, the largest factor, and that which really makes the difference, is our relationship with the people who are in our day-to-day lives. The revolution that elevated this country to its supreme stature would have never been accomplished without the unity of its countrymen. The strength exhibited, was in the ability to act harmoniously with each, stand together and in so doing demonstrate the importance of human relationships during perilous times.

The results of the past year and a half have revealed some of the best in people, but unfortunately in some it has revealed the worst this country has had to offer. Attitudes of not only intolerance, but flagrant hatred has run rampant in varying groups against those who are not "like" them.   

It disheartens me to no end seeing those who even profess citizenship to a superior kingdom verbally assault one another regarding an inferior one over which they have no control anyhow. Must we defend a political figure whom we have never met to the detriment of real human interaction? We live at a time where media, in its ever widening forms, has garnered an enormous influence over public opinion and action. As such, it is of crucial consequence that the community of God step forward as a voice of reason, restoration and remediation rather than retaliation. 

Regardless of your specific religious or spiritual convictions, there are universal laws that have been written on the hearts of mankind. They are laws which dictate certain guidelines in the ethical treatment of others, in spite of feelings toward them or their beliefs, religion, political persuasions, race or ethnicity. Regardless of public practice and proclamations of hate, loving our neighbor and treating them the way we desire to be treated is not out of style. Touching lives by reaching out to the hurting, or intervening in someone's distressed universe by bringing a little heaven into their hell should not be considered unfashionable!

In our current day of a seemingly advanced society, we find that we are more individualistic than ever. Communication has been taken to unprecedented levels and is available in more diverse ways than ever before in the history of mankind. Unfortunately, as a result, we do not have better relationships as one would hope. Instead, social severance in multiple forms rather than traditional person-to-person exchange has being sprung on humanity. Will the repercussions of a disjointed citizenry in current economic trends take us along the same route as our predecessors in our ability to band together for the justice and salvation of our families or instead result in our undoing?

It must be understood that reform does not start in Washington with political saviors, it starts on Main Street, in our homes. What are we teaching our children? Are we instilling  fear into them and a fundamental intolerance for those who may not see the world the same way we/they do? Who are we allowing to radically shape their ideals? What will happen if more difficult times once again set-in in this nation? Will we continue to allow the stake of diversity to be driven into and among our people? Diversity is only a downfall if we let it be; it can equally be a strength. Helping and supporting each other is vital, a truth with which our forefathers, at the inception of this country were well acquainted.

In an email sent to the faculty and student body, President Jeff Carter of Bethany Theological Seminary had a few words of wisdom and encouragement regarding this current political season which I thought were worth noting:

"Every election is historic. For months we have debated and discussed the candidates' views and abilities as well as shared our hopes for our future. It is clear through this election that there are a variety of hopes and expectations from a seemingly diverse electorate. Although we might hope and/or wonder what the future may hold as we enter this transition of power, we do know of our call and God’s presence . . . Romans 12 . . . is a fitting reminder as to how we might continue together in seeking our common good.

Let love be genuine; hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Romans 12:9-11."   

We have seen devastation and disunity in many areas of this country as well as around the globe. Some of it is publicized, some goes all but unnoticed. No one knows for sure what lies ahead, but amidst the current adversity, and that which may once again present itself, would you rather have your neighbors and countrymen as enemies or allies, as friends or foes? There is much change occurring which will inevitably continue. We should then ask ourselves the question, where will our current course of attitude and influence lead us? How well do we know our neighbors (not necessarily those who live beside you)? How are our relationships?

There are many distractions in our culture that seek to steal our time, attention and devotion. For those who claim to be members of the household of the God of Israel, it is reaffirming and hopeful to remember that our citizenship is part of a different kingdom. Jesus is Lord, hence Caesar is not. While we may rarely endorse the actions of today's “Caesar,” God has not given his people the responsibility to dethrone him, revolt against him nor treat those who have given him their unwavering allegiance with disrespect or in inhumane ways. 

President Carter concluded his email with these words,  

"Everyone has a place at the table. May we be the unity we seek and may our witness speak of God’s grace, love, and compassion … for all and in all times."

There is hope. There is good everywhere if we choose to see it, and it’s worth persistently pursuing.

2016: The Year of Liberty and Justice for All

I don’t do election politics. I do little with prophecy and nothing with Pokémon. When Christians – through a contorted process of hermeneutical gymnastics – feel the need to combine contemporary political and world events with prophetic scriptural passages, it grinds me. I like history, as many do. But most people don’t learn anything from history, and even fewer learn from politics, amidst the screams of sanity being a rare commodity. I'm not sure where the Pokémon go. I'm also not sure what the plural is for Pokémon. 

As with most civilizations preceding us, all hit their strides, eventually began a decline (some quicker than others, and with or without outside help) and ceased as a civilization or recognizable entity. Undoubtedly, ours will someday follow a similar pattern. There will be a strong competent leader at the podium making grand speeches (or at least plagiarized ones), promises (meant to be broken) and waxing eloquent or shooting from the hip. But more than likely it will not be the election and subsequent administration of that individual alone to cause the decline and fall of the American Empire any more than one emperor of Rome was to blame.

By now, I’m sure everyone is aware that Obama was definitely the anti-christ or the messiah who was assuredly destined to usher in the age of desolation, culminating with the rapture of the saints or bring redemption and everlasting peace to this land. Yeah. Guess what, I still put my pants on the same way - most mornings. The point being, regardless which candidate is elected to this year’s puppet post, it will not be the single contributing factor to bringing our civilization to its knees or less likely, to usher in a new golden era. 

While the American public is entertained by this monstrosity of reality show (which once again highlights our pathetic outlook of reality), we are convinced once more (by some magical madness I can’t understand) that reform from Washington is even possible by any one candidate. Even if the perfect candidate did somehow make it to the Oval Office, it wouldn’t fix everyone’s problems any more than Bush’s or Obama’s administration did.

I am always encouraged with the progression of our species when I visit social media. Social media has become a central hub for the knowledgeable and savvy on any given situation or scenario. These wonders of the web serve up facts by the page-full, along with pointed YouTube links which bring otherwise productive internet discussions to an abrupt halt, refuting once and for all those who seek to overthrow their personal lack of self-confidence. If the Church, all branches of government and the academic world (including the sciences) could get their hands on these internet eggheads, perhaps we could see some real improvement in the world.

Of course my candidate is the best and the only hope for the world. Certainly my particular strand of religion and interpretation schema of the Bible is the only truth known to man. And who could doubt my view of the sciences, which are built on the right set facts and are in complete biblical harmony against the godless scientists and scholars. Why else would God favor me and my candidate?

Illusion dominates our culture. We spend a great deal of time trying to convince everyone else of many things and yet live with daunting reality that we have not convinced ourselves (or God). But we still try somehow to persuade ourselves that the illusion we are promoting is the truth, because the illusion has become much more appealing than the truth ever was. For what other reason has social media become so popular?

Note: This post is full of sarcasm.

The God We Want to See

There are many who hold to the mantra of the reformation, sola scriptura (Scripture alone), but also insist that “one specific” translation of the Bible is a prerequisite to one’s faith and spiritual well-being - God’s only authorized version.

How can it be suggested that a specific translation is alone “God ordained” if one sincerely holds to "Scripture alone"? In order to make the argument of God’s choice of translation being made manifest to man, post-biblical revelation is the only option due to the fact that the Bible (regardless of translation) says nothing of the sort. It also implies that not only is Christianity text-centric, but God is as well. 

The only argument that can be made is entirely outside of Scripture. Hence, the staunchly held belief is not based on Scripture alone, but rather opinion.

They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion." Thomas Hobbes

Translation onlyists need to take a little stroll down the textual and manuscript history path. Those who cling earnestly to this mistaken paradigm for a "biblical worldview" seem to be ignorant regarding the logical fallacy of attempting to authenticate a book by quoting from it (done almost exclusively in an anachronistic way). It would be like me quoting myself as proof for why I am correct.

It does not take an experienced historian to make the observation that God is not a patriotic American affiliated with a certain denomination or demographic. He does not have a political designation (save the theocratic party) or a fascination with the English language. He is not a KJV onlyist and certainly does not dislike all the people we do. Re-think what it means to create god in our image and after our likeness.

"Is the inspired Bible the one that we actually use? The King James Version? Some people continue to insist so, even if it does seem to be a rather silly view: do you mean that for all those centuries before the King James translators got to work, Christians did not have access to God’s inspired word? What was God thinking? Some other modern translation then? The Hebrew and Greek texts from which these English translations are made? If one chooses the last option, what does one do about the fact that we don’t have the original Hebrew and Greek texts of any of the books of the Bible, but only later copies of these texts, all of which have mistakes?" 

Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (2009 Harper Collins), 182.

It’s Okay to Change Your Mind

I was doing my daily blog reading when I came to Dr. James McGrath's post of a few statements from John Pavlovitz. It is worth your read. He has another that is also worth the time. For those readers who struggle from the degenerative disease of TLDR, here are some statements that give a brief synopsis:

"The first time I questioned my theology, I mean really questioned it I was flat-out terrified. Not terrified of God, per se (because I figured God being God an all, was more than big enough to handle my assorted queries), but the people of God.

My orthodoxy was my membership card in the Club, affording me the perks and privileges that came along with it. As long as my theology didn’t waver greatly from the party line, I remained securely cradled in the bosom of the Body. Stray too far from the narrow path though, and things could get really ugly, really quickly.

It’s okay to question things you used to be sure of, to come to different theological conclusions than those you had previously, or to find yourself in small or large ways challenging orthodoxy. These things are not sins.

Doubts and questions, and changes of heart and mind on issues of faith (even fundamental ones) are not character defects or moral flaws. On the contrary, often they are the bravest and most God-honoring places to reside because they are the most authentic. The bottom line is, that’s really the only thing you’re responsible for.

Life should alter us. It should renovate our souls and adjust our lenses. Time and experience, and the things we read and see and discover should change us or we’re probably more committed to the appearance of consistency than to real growth. I don’t have the understanding of myself and of God and the world that I had twenty years ago, I am not too proud to suspect the same won’t be true two decades from today.

God isn’t as insecure or easily angered as those we share space with or worship beside. God is pleased with the depth of our personal search and the integrity of our road, and understands our conclusions better than anyone.

Imagine if we created church communities where theological deviation and spiritual doubt weren’t red flags or prayer concerns or deal breakers; where everyone could speak the truest true without fear of being pushed to the margins or excluded outright. How different might our journeys be? How much richer might our communities become?"

Stand-up for the Bible - "Second Corinthians"!

In case you missed it, social media and other sources are bubbling with Christian responses to Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump regarding his recent speech at Liberty University. In his reference to Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, he said "two Corinthians" rather than the more familiar (at least to American Christians) "second Corinthians."

Americans love to be opinionated and raise issues with anything apparently. Many academic theological works by scholars such as N.T. Wright use "two Corinthians" (meaning "2 Corinthians") rather than "second Corinthians" on a regular basis. So perhaps if more time was invested reading (or listening) to theological works by Europeans and less time watching presidential nominees, these great difficulties threatening the vitality of true Christianity would be resolved (that was a joke btw).

James McGrath covered it well on his blog here and here.

"how did you learn to refer to the letters as letters, and multiple letters to the same destination by ordinal rather than cardinal numbers?"

Terminology, Definition and Development of Dogma

Proper hermeneutics are important for sound interpretation. From where should the standard be derived? Scriptural definition for terminology is also a prerequisite. Should the rules of interpretation and terminology used be taken from anywhere other than the document one wishes to understand? Neither of these can happen outside of the world to which they naturally belong, i.e. the world of the Hebrews. How can writing and interpretation be given meaning from another worldview that had no resemblance to it? Much of what is accepted as authoritative scriptural derived doctrine often has its fountainhead not in the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus and the apostles, but later Greco-Roman philosophy and concepts of emperor veneration to status of demigod, coupled with a touch of Hebraic Messianism found in Jesus.

Historian Charles Freeman in his book A.D. 381, Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State details the story behind the players of credal Christianity and how it evolved. For example, in the years of developing dogma, post-biblical terminology was needed in order to more clearly define the increasingly complex theological creations of numerous groups, imperial coercion and Greek philosophers turned “Christian” etc. Amidst the rhetoric, one such story involved a group called the Eunomians who argued that

“scripture should be interpreted in its plain sense, without the use of allegory. If the Old Testament talked of a piece of wood, that was what it meant, not necessarily a symbol prefiguring the cross. Similarly, one could not use the word ‘begotten’ and then expect it to be used in a completely different way when talking of God. The Nicenes, the Eunomians argued, were being disingenuous of, when presented with objections to their use of terminology, they avoided the issue by claiming that the words they used had a different meaning in a theological context. In other words, they could not use ‘begotten’ in a sense where it was clearly inappropriate and then claim a special meaning for it when challenged. If there was not a definable act of ‘begetting’ in the normal sense of the word, then surely the world should not be used at all.” Pg. 84-85

This is a problem for some interpreters, as it has to be concluded that “death” does not really mean death, “one” does not mean one, “begotten” does not mean begotten, and firmly established rules of grammar and mathematics have no place, nor can they be trusted. If the plain and intelligible words in the Scripture are to be discarded (notwithstanding translation bias that exists) what is the point? Can it still be claimed that the “faith” is derived from Jesus and the Apostles who where Jews worshipping and obeying the God of the Hebrews in the way which he had commanded them?

Such was the case with the Cappadocian Gregory of Nazianzus. During this period of theological unrest and downright violence and hostility, Christian intellectuals

“had shown themselves to be well read and highly sophisticated and ingenious in argument. It is true that some participants, such as Athanasius, used invective rather than reason in their dealing with rivals, and both sides felt able to threaten their opponents with the certainty of hell fire. However, this was not the first, or certainly the last, academic debate in history where personal emotions have transcended reflective argument.” Pg 74

It appears that some things never change. Gregory fought against the subordinationalist views of his opponents in favor of the Nicene theology. They argued against him that the

“act of begetting must have involved the will of the Father and the formulation of that will must have preceded the act itself…the pre-existence of the Father to the Son must be assumed.” Pg. 84

Gregory tried to combat it, but had to accept that it was a mystery, and thus questions were raised. During his final oration he tackled the nature and purpose of the Holy Spirit. There was opposition from "Macedonians" who were in favor of keeping the original Nicene Creed of 325 where the Holy Spirit was given special status. However, Gregory had to accept that

“among our own [Christian] experts, some took the Holy Spirit as an active process, some as a creature, some as God. Others were agnostic on this point.” Gregory accepted that the theologian Origen believed the Holy Spirit to be limited in power. This made his task of proving the Spirit to be not only fully divine but also consubstantial all the more difficult. “At this point a number of objections were raised…what is the biblical evidence for the divinity of the Spirit? Where is the evidence that it has been worshiped as divine in the past? Does divinity automatically imply consubstantiality? If God the Father is ‘unbegotten’ and Jesus is his ‘begotten’ Son, then how does the Holy Spirit relate to them both? In answer to the last question, Gregory introduces the idea of ‘procession’, as in John 15:26, ‘the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father’. Irritated by an interaction from the congregation enquiring how he can explain ‘procession’, he retorts: ‘You explain the unbegotten nature of the Father and I will give you a biological account of the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s proceeding – and let us go mad the pair of us for prying into God’s secrets.’ In effect, he was opting out of the argument. Dealing with another objection - that if one adds the Spirit to the Father and Son, then one risks having three gods – he became entangled in explaining why mathematics is not an appropriate way of dealing with the Trinity.” Pg. 87

Quite unnaturally then, in order to explain Jesus’ relationship to the Father, the word homoousios (of the same substance) was suggested, which was not overly popular.

“Homoousios was a term taken from Greek philosophy, not from scripture. It had been used by pagan writers such as Plotinus to describe the relationship between the soul and the divine. Even the most ingenious biblical scholars combing their way through the Old and New Testaments could find no Christian equivalent. Quite apart from this the word had actually been condemned by a council of bishops meeting in Antioch in 268 on the grounds that it failed to provide sufficient distinction between Father and Son, and users of the term risked being associated with a view that had already been condemned in the third century, Sabellianism...the word homoousios was a clear embarrassment and was to be condemned for years to come.” Pg. 55-56

So then, the Eunomians (among others) rejected homoousios because

“God the Father was ‘unbegotten’ – he had existed without cause from the beginning of time – while Jesus the Son was ‘begotten’…the distinction between an ‘unbegotten and a ‘begotten’ being is such that one cannot possibly argue that the two are of the same substance.” Pg. 64

This part was particularly interesting, because it’s not unlike the attitude commonly observed in Christian circles today:

“Fundamental to Gregory’s preaching was the belief that only a few, very committed, thinkers were able to tackle theological issues, and that they alone could discern and preach what was the unassailable truth (which Gregory believed, of course, was the Nicene faith). Here were shades of his mentor Plato: the select few ascend to a deeper understanding of the immaterial world, whose ‘reality’ they alone have the right to interpret for others.” Pg. 80

When faced with the argumentation of his challengers, Gregory challenged the view that 

“through the application of rational thought to the scriptures it is possible to know God…by believing that they could understand God...his opponents would invariably get a false and limited perception of the Almighty, and it was not surprising, therefore, that they came up with false doctrines – such as that Jesus is not fully God but a later creation.” pg. 83, 84

Again, this accusation is one that has found its place in the pages of history. What he espoused were ideas and rhetoric that would be repeated ad infinitum. Pertaining to the same difficulties, he addressed the question as to why the Spirit was not seen or recognized as God in the Gospels:

“His answer was that the doctrine of the Trinity has been subject to progressive revelation. First, God the Father has to be revealed, in the Old Testament; then, through the gospels, Jesus the Son; and finally the Holy Spirit, who appears to enthuse the disciples after the Passion and though the fiery tongues at Pentecost. ‘God meant it to be by piecemeal additions…by progress and advance from glory to glory, that the light of the Trinity should shine upon more illustrious souls’. During Jesus’ time on earth there had simply been too much for the disciples to take in, and the Godhead of the Spirit was retained until they were able to absorb it.” Pg. 87

What about the Hebrews through whom God declared he would show his glory, and subsequently be a “light for the Gentiles”? What about the prophets of old to whom God revealed himself? Is it to be believed that the very people with whom God made a covenant did not even know who their God was, and he instead waited 350 years after Jesus’ death to “shine upon more illustrious souls” the beauty of the Trinity? That is utter nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that the Scripture’s revelation (progressive though it was) was abandoned in favor of terminology developed through many phases and was foreign to the Hebraic concept of God and his Jewish Messiah. Whether or not theological views of Trinitarianism, high Christology or otherwise are maintained is not the point. What’s astounding is that some who adhere to traditional orthodoxy are under the erroneous impression that it comes directly and explicitly out of the Scripture. One only needs a small amount of ecclesiastical history to see the numerous factions and opinions at war, which over time developed into what is now accepted as “orthodox”. To claim there was always a clear distinction of orthodox belief (taken from the Scripture) against the nasty heretics (no matter who they were, Ebionites, Marcionites, Arians, Gnostics, Docetists, Eunomians etc.) is to misunderstand (or ignore) what actually happened.

This is clearly seen in the work of Thomas Torrance, who on the sixteen hundredth anniversary of the council of Constantinople of 381 gave lectures at the Princeton Theological Seminary which were then written up and published in 1988 as The Trinitarian Faith.

“Torrance's thesis is that the relationship between Father and Son as expounded at Nicaea, 'is the supreme truth upon which everything else in the Gospel depends...It is on the ground of what God has actually revealed of his own nature in him [Jesus Christ] as his only begotten Son that everything else to be known of God and of his relation to the world and to human beings is to be understood.' The bishops meeting at Nicaea confirmed a doctrine that had always been inherent in the Church's teaching.

Torrance is therefore one of those theologians who sees the Nicene Trinity not as a new concept hammered out in the specific context of the fourth century, but as an eternally living truth that needed defending from those who tried to subvert it. In the debates that raged during the fourth century, Torrance's hero is Athanasius...Even if Athanasius was let down by his successors, Torrance argues that enough of his teaching persisted, mediated in some of its aspects through Epiphanius, for it to triumph at the Council of Constantinople. Despite the attempts by Arians and others to destroy God's revelation of himself through Christ, the bishops, meeting first at Nicaea and then, after much more thought on the Holy Spirit, at Constantinople, safeguard what God the Father has revealed through the Son and Holy Spirit. Torrance's argument is presented with coherence and eloquence and gains further strength from the personal faith that underpins it. Yet it leaves a serious question. What has happened to the historical events of the fourth century? 

In the 340 pages of a book centered on the council of 381, there is not a single reference to Theodosius, or even, in the discussions of Nicaea, to Constantine. Although Torrance decries dualism, there is a sense that the revelation of God through Jesus Christ hovers at a different level, above the actual nitty-gritty of the imperial politics that pervaded the councils and the arguments of the Church fathers. For the historian fortunate enough to have a great deal of evidence from the period, it is hard to see how the Council of Constantinople can be seen as providing a harmonious reassertion of the Nicene truth. Even its own leading participants saw it as a shambles. 

The case of Torrance highlights how an alternative theological tradition has come to supplant the historical reality. Augustine, the founder of this tradition, did not write about the Council of Constantinople because he simply did not know about it. Nor does Augustine say much more about Theodosius...When [Gregory the Great] became pope, he proclaimed that 'all the four holy synods of the holy universal church [i.e. Nicaea, 325, Constantinople, 381, Ephesus, 431, Chalcedon, 451] we receive as we do the four books of the holy Gospels'. He added to the authority of the councils his own as the successor of Peter. 'Without the authority and consent of the apostolic see [Rome] none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force. This imprinted in the western church the belief that the bishops meeting in the councils had themselves resolved the doctrinal issue although the papacy should have ultimate authority over what was to be believed...

With memories of imperial rule fading in the west, there was no reason for any theologian or historian to challenge Gregory's version of events. Thus the 'theological' account of the fourth century became ever more remote from the historical reality. It affects the presentation of the subject in that histories of the Church still accord the Council of Constantinople responsibility for proclaiming the Nicene faith, rather than the imperial laws that accompanied it and that provided the framework without which it would never have been enforced. In short, there are two different approaches to AD 381. The first is theological, rooted in the fifth and sixth centuries, articulated in the works of Augustine and preserved in the theology of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions: that what happened at Nicaea and Constantinople was no less than a revelation of God and as such totally independent of any historical process. This approach is strengthened by the assertions that the bishops were in consensus and that there was no possible theological alternative to Nicaea as it was developed in 381. It is to be found in most standard introductions to theology and omits any reference to the role of Theodosius. 

The second is that this is a historical issue like any other, in which the evidence, from the contemporary accounts of the council and the lawmaking of the emperor, and its interpretation must take central place. It is not clear from Torrance's approach how one should actually deal with this evidence: The Trinitarian Faith seems to suggest that it should be ignored altogether. Yet can one obliterate the historical factors that shaped the making of Christian doctrine, in favor of doctrine being 'revealed' by God? Torrance's approach appears to create a philosophical impasse...it is impossible to believe that the Church would itself have come to an enforceable consensus on the Trinity if an emperor had not provided the legal framework within which the Nicenes could be privileged over the various groups of 'heretics' who opposed them.

Theodosius' role was crucial. His powers and status as a quasi-divine figure transcended those of his rivals in any case, but the Church was beset by its own, internal tensions, which would have precluded consensus. What Theodosius achieved was the championing of one Christian faction over another and the strengthening of its position by ostracizing its rivals, both Christian and pagan. He was helped by the disunity of those who opposed the resurgent Nicenes and the immense patronage he could divert to those Nicenes who took over the bishoprics after the expulsion of the 'Arians'...Personal and political antagonisms intruded all too easily. Inevitably there were some, such as Athanasius and Ambrose, who used bullying tactics, which included the denigration of their opponents. The bitter nature of the debate overshadows the intellectual qualities of many of the participants, such as the Cappadocian Fathers and the Eunomians. In short, the consensus over the Trinity assumed by most Church historians to have been achieved would have been impossible.” Pg. 197-201

I reviewed this book on Amazon with an abridged form of this post. It was shortly after that I received a message of thanks from the author:

"Hi Shaun. Thank you so much for this very thoughtful review. It remains astonishing to me that even today theologians fail to realise the artificiality of the fourth century creed. Best wishes, Charles F."