Theological rants
of a liberal Christian

Ezekiel 47:9, Living Water, Part I of II

Sunday, December 8, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Ezekiel 47:9, Living Water, Part I of II

[S]o everything will live where the river goes.

//One day, Ezekiel saw a vision of the City of God. In the center of the city was a glorious temple, and flowing from that temple was a stream of water; first small, then larger and larger, until it became a river impossible to cross.

Ezekiel was seeing “living water.” While the phrase in Jewish antiquity generally only referred to flowing water (in contrast to stagnant water in a pond), you can see how the image of “living water” became glorious in its own right. Everything the water touched lived. Here is how today’s verse begins:

And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For this water goes there, that the waters of the [Dead Sea] may become fresh;

In Ezekiel’s vision, the water flowed from the temple into the Dead Sea, even converting the saltwater there into a living environment! Did this really happen as Ezekiel promised? Or is it yet in our future?

The rest of the story tomorrow.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Book review: The Certainty of the Unexpected

Saturday, December 7, 2013 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

Book review: The Certainty of the Unexpected

by Pamela Ruth Stewart

★★★★★

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. –Romans 8:28

If ever there was a testament to the comfort of believing in God, this book is it. I cannot share all of Pamela’s beliefs (which are too conservative for my taste), but I rejoice in the comfort her God brings into her life, through good times and bad. I can’t help but award it five stars: warm, honest and heart-felt, this book is certain inspiration to believers.

Pamela tells of outgrowing the solemn way that was a burden to her in her childhood, into a full trust in the boundary-crossing grace of God. She grew up in the same Christian sect as I did, which she calls the One True Way to highlight its exclusiveness. No single belief system is right for everyone, and this one simply could not satisfy Pam’s spiritual needs. She found the church meetings suppressive and joyless. While she was still a child, a close friend died in an accident, who was outside the exclusive boundaries of the sect. Was this friend going to heaven or not? Pamela was distraught, until one day, God gently pointed out Proverbs 20:11 (“Even a child is known by his acts”) and Genesis 18:25 (“Should not the judge of all the earth do right?”) God’s love was greater than she had ever been taught. Still, the emotional turmoil of leaving behind the religious tradition she had been born into was very strong. Telling her parents of her change in beliefs was the hardest thing she ever did.

Choose this day whom you will serve. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the river and in Egypt and serve the Lord—Joshua 24:14-15

Also hard was the first time Pamela attended another church. All such churches had been condemned by her former belief system. But had she never made the transition away from exclusivism, she would never have been able to draw strength from the God of grace for the greater test around the corner. Her husband contracted cancer, and began slowly wasting away.

Romans 8:28 became Pamela’s “rainbow” in a world of pain. The end result of the long, cancerous journey with her Godly husband is this book, about the goodness of God.

Definitely recommended.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Genesis 8:7, Why the Raven Failed

Friday, December 6, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Genesis 8:7, Why the Raven Failed

After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.

//After the rain stopped and the flood waters began to abate, Noah had to decide when it was safe to exit the ark. Remember, there was only one window in the ark and it pointed skyward, away from the ground. So had all the water receded or not?

Noah sent a raven forth, hoping it would go in search of land, but the raven just flew around in circles. Stupid raven! Next, Noah sent out a dove who returned because it had nowhere to land. A week later Noah sent the dove out again, and it quickly returned with a freshly plucked olive leaf as a sign that it was safe to open the door of the ark.

Why was the dove more helpful than the raven? After all, ravens are the smartest bird there is. A raven’s brain is as large (proportionally to its body) as a chimpanzee’s, and they share the cognitive capacities of primates. It’s a mystery how this raven failed.

So the rabbis thought long and hard, and in the Midrash that developed, the raven gets to explain his point of view, speaking eloquently to Noah. There were only two ravens aboard the ark, the raven pointed out, and if perchance he never found his way back to the ark, he would be unable to mate. What a disaster: the world would be short of one type of creature! Other rabbis explained that the raven questioned Noah’s trustworthiness. What if Noah had designs on the raven’s wife? Better to hang around the ark and not go on Noah’s mission.

So the raven flew in circles, never leaving the ark.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Genesis 9:13, God Gives Us the Rainbow

Thursday, December 5, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 5 comments

Genesis 9:13, God Gives Us the Rainbow

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

//What does it mean that God put the rainbow in the clouds? Rene Descartes explained way back in 1637 how the reflection of light through raindrops forms a bow. Thus we might imagine, because the Bible tells us that Noah’s flood was the first time it rained on the earth, that God didn’t really make the rainbow, but that the rainbow naturally occurred for the first time as the sun came out again after the flood. But this natural explanation does rather defeat the message of this verse: that God put the rainbow in the sky as a agreement that he would never again flood the earth.

So is the rainbow a miracle or not? A friend once told me that he was amazed at the power of God to change the laws of physics in that moment, so that rainbows would appear from then on each time it rained. Wow … I guess the rainbow in Noah’s day would qualify as a miracle, then!

But if God can tinker willy-nilly with the laws of physics, it would explain a lot of the Bible’s miracles. God could form man out of the earth in his own image, by directed evolution. He could break the law of conservation of angular momentum, stopping the rotation of the earth, so that the sun stands still in the sky. He could temporarily make water heavier than people, so that Jesus could walk on the sea.

It’s funny to me how the definition of a miracle has changed. It’s funny to me that the scientific revolution has reached the point where we now consider a miracle to be anything which breaks the laws of physics.

Got an opinion? 5 comments

Book review: The Question of Canon

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 in Book Reviews | 3 comments

Book review: The Question of Canon

by Michael J. Kruger

★★★★★

The Christian “canon” refers to that set of books, complete and bounded, that we accept as scripture. Modern Bible scholars often examine the development of the canon from an extrinsic model, noting that the canon was formed over the course of several centuries as the church fathers selected their favorites. Many argue that Irenaeus, in the late second century, was the first to feel the need for an authoritative canon. But what if the selection of accepted writings was more intrinsic … that is, guided from within, rather than from without? What if the New Testament writers themselves understood that they were writing Scripture, and their work was quickly recognized and adopted as such, perhaps with God’s guidance?

Kruger doesn’t deny the extrinsic claims, that the canon was fluid and argued over for centuries. He simply highlights the evidence that our New Testament writers were knowingly writing Scripture, and our earliest Scripture readers knew it. This Kruger does by critically examining five tenets of the extrinsic model to see if they really do hold water. The five tenets he questions, in five chapters, are:

1. We must make a sharp distinction between Scripture and canon.

2. There was nothing in earliest Christianity that might have led to a canon.

3. Early Christians were averse to written documents.

4. The New Testament authors were unaware of their own authority.

5. The New Testament books were first regarded as Scripture at the end of the second century.

Kruger hits his stride at about chapter three, and it gets stronger from there. So if you find the book winding up a little slowly, I promise it’ll be slinging fast balls by the end. Kruger’s research is convincing and well-argued, with generous footnotes. At the very least, this book will make you a believer in the passion and conviction of the New Testament writers, even as they sought to remain anonymous, letting the gospel message speak for itself on its own authority.

Got an opinion? 3 comments

1 Corinthians 10:21, Dining at the Table of Demons

Monday, December 2, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

1 Corinthians 10:21, Dining at the Table of Demons

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

//If you want to stay on Paul’s good side, stay away from food that was offered to pagan deities. This was a common practice in antiquity; meat would be offered as a sacrifice to the gods, and then retrieved and eaten. If you read my book about Revelation you are familiar with this practice. In fact, Revelation explicitly condemns one church for doing this:

Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. –Revelation 2:14

 So strongly does Paul condemn this practice that he says anyone who eats sacrificial food is eating at a table with demons.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Hebrews 12:1-2, Laying Aside Every Weight

Wednesday, November 27, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

Hebrews 12:1-2, Laying Aside Every Weight

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

//I hesitate to open today’s discussion, as it seems almost disrespectful. Nevertheless, there are some who take this line of thought seriously, so I’ll lay it out there and see what you think.

The author of Hebrews, in these two verses, compares Jesus to a determined runner who stays faithful until the end, despising the shame. So determined is he to finish that he casts aside every weight.

Readers in Jesus’ day would have been quite familiar with the races to which Hebrews alludes. In the Greek games, runners ran completely naked … they cast aside every weight.

Does the author allude to the shameful crucifixion of Jesus? We know that Romans crucified their victims naked so as to add as much shame as possible.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

James 1:1, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus

Monday, November 25, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

James 1:1, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

//James is a curious book. Perhaps it’s best known for encouraging works over faith. Thought by some to have been written by the brother of Jesus, it reflects no personal knowledge of Jesus, and indeed, contains very little Christian content. But for verses 1:2 and 2:1, it may as well be a Jewish document.

So where did it really come from? Sometime when you’re up for an interesting study, compare these verses in James to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (thought to have been collated from the hypothetical Q document). This comparison stems from P. J. Hartin’s James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 1991.

James 1:2, Matthew 5:11-12

James 1:4, Matthew 5:48

James 1:5, Matthew 7:7

James 1:17, Matthew 7:11

James 1:22, Matthew 7:24

James 1:23, Matthew 7:26

James 2:5, Matthew 5:3-5

James 2:10, Matthew 5:18-19

James 2:11, Matthew 5:21-22

James 2:13, Matthew 5:7

James 3:12, Matthew 7:16-18

James 3:18, Matthew 5:9

James 4:2-3, Matthew 7:7-8

James 4:4, Matthew 6:24

James 4:8, Matthew 5:8

James 4:9, Matthew 5:4

James 4:11, Matthew 7:1-2

James 5:2, Matthew 6:19-21

James 5:6, Matthew 7:1

James 5:10, Matthew 5:11-12

James 5:12, Matthew 5:34-37

Got an opinion? 0 comments

Book review: The Dave Test

Sunday, November 24, 2013 in Book Reviews | 0 comments

Book review: The Dave Test

by Frederick W. Schmidt

★★★★

Can a downer be a positive reading experience?

This is a book that needs to be read, even though it’s not enjoyable. It’s about how to relate positively to those who are going through hard times. How to be a friend in love. It’s written from a Christian perspective by an Episcopal priest, but it does not pretend that faith solves all the hard problems.

Schmidt’s younger brother Dave was struck with cancer, and endured seven years of the disease before succumbing to death. Sometimes life just sucks. Hoping for a handy guidebook about what to do in such situations, maybe a collection of pick-me-up promises like “God won’t give you more than you can endure” or at least a can’t-fail casserole recipe to bake for a suffering friend, I read all the way through to the end before I finally accepted that I was not going to be given any Biblical solutions for coping or helping another cope. This is just down-to-earth advice on how to validate and share the pain of another. As Schmidt would say, ditch the stained-glass language and learn to walk wounded.

And yes, it WAS a frustrating read for me, most of the way. If I’m going to endure a downer of a book, can’t it just teach me to dispense a little Hallmark wisdom and send me on my way?
Perhaps the best advice I gleaned from the first nine chapters (by reading between the lines) is this: When times get tough, go befriend a couple of recovering alcoholics. They understand struggle and neither coddle you nor make light of your pain.

Schmidt’s message finally sank in as I neared the end of the book, with these three strange words: Availability is incarnational. It’s really not as cryptic a message as it sounds. After stressing that Jesus’ interface with humanity was in the flesh–incarnational–and after stressing that sincere love is sharing a genuine presence, making oneself available, the advice finally hit home. There’s lots of other advice in the book, of course, this just happens to be the message that finally penetrated for me. The simple secret of dealing with another’s grief, for both your own benefit and that of your friend, is this: Availability is incarnational.

Got an opinion? 0 comments

John 9:32: Nobody Can Cure the Blind!

Friday, November 22, 2013 in Bible Commentary | 0 comments

John 9:32: Nobody Can Cure the Blind!

Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

//This is an odd verse. John, writing in the tenth decade of the first century, should be well aware that such a claim was made of others besides Jesus. Eighteenth century philosopher David Hume reminds us that “One of the best attested miracles in all profane history, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle” (precisely the way Jesus healed a blind man). Vespasian was the emperor of Rome a decade or two before John wrote his Gospel.

So why is John making a point of saying nobody has ever heard of a miracle like this? Is he purposefully discrediting Vespasian? I doubt it. He’s merely making a point, elevating the healing of Jesus to the level of a messianic sign.

You see, there are no stories in the Old Testament about healing a blind man. Therefore, in early Judaism, a saying cropped up that when a blind person did miraculously receive sight, one would know the Messiah had come. John is claiming that role for Jesus; not Vespasian or any other.

Got an opinion? 0 comments