Book review: Evil and the Justice of God
by N. T. Wright
★★★★
Wright tackles the age-old problem of evil (why does God allow evil to happen?), but with a little bit of a twist. Wright does not discuss natural evil, and there is little attempt to explain or justify personal evil. No wishy-washy explanations, such as the typical argument that God allows evil because it creates circumstances in which virtue can flourish. Rather, Wright focuses on what God is doing about evil. Remember: the prophets repeatedly promised a coming age when the world would be rid of evil. Can we even imagine such a world?
First, if you’re tempted to pronounce judgment on God for all the evils in the world, you’re too late; God has already served his sentence on the cross. But the gospels tell us more; they insist that Jesus overcame evil on the cross. That is some strange theology, no matter how you approach it. How does succumbing to evil prove victorious over it, and why doesn’t it feel like evil has been conquered?
The key to the whole topic is understanding the role of forgiveness. Both the forgiveness of God and our own forgiveness of others. The justice of God is not vengeance; it is granting us a measure of the forgiveness Jesus showed, so that the evil of others cannot hold us hostage. A perfect age is coming, but we cannot embrace it until we have outgrown our bitterness over what others have done to us, conquering evil in the same manner as Jesus.
Dang, that’s deep. I really was hoping we could just hunt evil down and kill it. Good book, by the way, though not as scholarly as I’ve come to expect from Wright.
Genesis 38:24, The Origin of the Jews
About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.” Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”
//Interesting story, no?
The Jews, you might remember, take their name from the tribe of Judah. It quickly became the dominant tribe, the home of Jerusalem, and the survivor when the Assyrians conquered and scattered the ten northern tribes. Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, is the ancestor of the Jews, of King David, and eventually of Jesus.
But all of this nearly didn’t happen. Judah wouldn’t have had any children at all, were it not for his conniving daughter-in-law, who lured him to her by disguising herself as a prostitute. The Bible seems not to condemn her actions at all, but admires her initiative. In retrospect, we can understand why! There would be no Jews today without her, for she bore Judah’s child.
But the plan to bring about a nation of Jews was nearly derailed by Judah’s piety. When told that his daughter-in-law carried a child by prostitution—not knowing it was his own child—he ordered her death. Thankfully, Tamar had kept Judah’s signet and walking stick from his visit, and could thus prove that it was he who had slept with her. So, she survived, the baby survived, the tribe of Judah survived, and the Jewish nation came about.
Genesis 28:14, Old Testament Eternal Life
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
//An odd verse to introduce the topic of eternal life, don’t you think? Yet this is precisely the way the majority of Old Testament writers imagined living on after death: through one’s descendants. Being remembered and spoken well of was of primary importance. I uncovered this helpful discussion in Candida Moss’s excellent book, The Myth of Persecution:
A persistent and pressing anxiety in the ancient world was the fear of being forgotten, that when you died no one would remember that you had ever lived. In a world of Google searches, Social Security numbers, and embarrassingly permanent Facebook photos, it’s difficult for us to wrap our minds around how strong this fear would have been, but this was a world in which only 5 percent of people were literate. Immortality meant being kept alive in the memories of others …
Hence, we find in our earliest scriptures a curious emphasis on procreation and reputation … and a seeming lack of interest in the afterlife.
Book review: Pastrix
by Nadia Bolz-Weber
★★★★★
Fantastic! So funny, so moving, with tears rolling either way. This is a raw version of Take This Bread (by Sara Miles), where the misfit lesbian atheist churchgoer is swapped out for an even funnier tattooed alcoholic-in-recovery who “swears like a truck driver” … and who this time went so far as to become a Lutheran pastor, founding her own church. When Nadia decided to become God’s bitch and embrace the whole “Jesus thing,” she changed … well, probably only her drinking. “Nothing about me says ‘Lutheran pastor,'” she admits, and I believe it. Pastoring just doesn’t come easy for her. “If something like liturgical dance or cheesy praise singing is happening on my stage and thousands of people can see me, I can manage my own body language and facial expressions for a half hour or so. But then, like when I’ve had to be nice to more than three people in a row, I need a nap.”
The book’s language may be offensive to delicate ears, but yes, this really is nonfiction. Nadia’s scathingly honest self-portrayal of her struggles, her focus, her successes and failures (and there seems to have been many of both) leave you wondering … is there really a place in the clergy for this kind of pastor?
One time Nadia’s Denver-based church organized a little Thanksgiving outreach program, where church members bagged up meals and took them around to share with those who had to work on the holiday. When they entered the adult bookstore on Colfax and handed the clerk a bag, he teared up: “Wait. Your church brought me Thanksgiving lunch … here?”
Yep, Nadia’s Christianity has its niche.
2 Samuel 5:8, No Lame and Blind in the Temple
And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David’s soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.”
//I admit, I honestly don’t know what to make of this verse. It sounds too much like legend. Here’s the deal:
By God’s decree, the lame and blind were apparently not allowed to be priests in the temple. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose … –Leviticus 21:17
There are many more disqualifications, but you get the idea. Yet somehow, this ban from the temple in time came to extend to all the lame and blind. Why?
Apparently, when David came to conquer Jerusalem from the Jebusites, they taunted him, saying Jerusalem was so well fortified that he couldn’t even capture it from the lame and blind. Well, David did capture it, and sneeringly labeled the Jebusites as “lame and blind,” proclaiming his hatred for them. This story is followed by a little ditty of explanation for why the lame and blind would not be allowed into the “house” – the temple of God, soon afterward built by David’s son. (See today’s verse).
By the way, when Jesus came on the scene, he cast that silly rule aside. First, he overthrew the money changers in the temple. “Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.” –Matthew 21:14
Got an opinion? 10 commentsGuest post: Did Jesus Exist? from Galen Watson
Galen Watson became a friend of mine after he provided a review copy of his novel, The Psalter. It’s a five-star thriller, reviewed here so don’t miss it!
Galen recently posted a bit of his research about where scholarship stands on the issue of whether Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood person. I often find people attracted to the shock value of mythicists claiming that Jesus is a complete fabrication, so I thought I would share Galen’s post, just to let you all know where scholarship on the topic really stands.
*********
“Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.” –Wikipedia on The Historicity of Jesus. That’s simply a fact, undisputed by reputable scholars. Argue what you may with opinions, anecdotes or undistinguished sources, but it is a fact that virtually all reputable scholars and historians (atheist and Christian) agree that the person of Jesus existed.
“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed”. –Professor Graham Stanton, King’s College London and Cambridge University
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees”. –Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
“There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore.” Richard A. Burridge, Dean of King’s College London and Professor of Biblical Interpretation.
Theories of non-existence of Jesus are “a thoroughly dead thesis” –James GD Dunn, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham.
“In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” in Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Book review: A Week in the Life of Corinth
by Ben Witherington III
★★★★★
Very informative. Witherington splices together historical fiction and scholarly commentary to produce an excellent teaching aid. The result is fiction that is too choppy and short for a captivating plot, but perfect for enjoyable learning.
The story takes place in the mid-first century, at the time Paul the Apostle was church planting. Paul plays a heavy role, but he’s not the main character. Instead, some obscure characters in the Bible are fleshed out and brought to life (maybe you remember Gallio, but I bet you’ve never heard of Erastos or Nicanor … and kudos if you have!) Erastos is running for public office in Corinth, Nicanor is his slave, and Paul, though he does not involve himself in politics, is his usual Christian self. The “scholarly commentary” I alluded to comes in the way of one- or two-page inserts titled “A Closer Look,” which are peppered throughout the text.
This book is not preachy, nor even very “Christian” until the final page or two. Instead, it’s just a great way to familiarize yourself with one of the major cities in the Bible, particularly during the time of Paul. Highly recommended!
Mark 14:36, Take This Cup
“Abba, Father,” [Jesus] said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
//Most of us are familiar with Jesus’ prayer of agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus is overwhelmed by the need to die in horrible fashion, and asks God if he can “remove the cup.”
This weakness drew mockery from Celsus, a pagan critic of the second century: “Why does [Jesus] howl, lament, and pray to escape the fear of destruction?” It’s a good question. Doesn’t it seem a bit sissy-like to whine about it ahead of time?
This seemed to bother Luke as well, who stripped away all traces of weakness in his telling. Jesus shows no agitation or distress at Gethsemane, and says nothing about being “deeply grieved” (Mark’s words).
John’s Gospel goes a step further, and ignores the entire event. Not only does the final Gospel cut the Gethsemane scene, it reports that Jesus never made any such request of God:
“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.” – John 12:27
Yet, regardless of how the tale is told, I suspect the agony of knowing about such a fate ahead of time would be far greater than any of the gospels admit.
Luke 10:18, Satan And His Stars Fall From Heaven
And [Jesus] said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
//This verse has drawn much speculation from both scholars and casual readers of the Bible. What did Jesus see? When did he see it? Consider this version of the story in Revelation, described poetically as a retelling of a popular dragon myth:
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. –Revelation 12:3-4
Whether you believe Satan was cast out of heaven before the world began, or during the age of Christ, or again in some future eschatological event, the idea here is that a third of the stars follow him down to combat the Christ child. They “fall from heaven” with him.
These stars are, of course, heavenly beings; the scripture often refers to the stars as living beings. Revelation, whether literally or symbolically, is very clear on the subject, such as when a star falls from heaven with a particular task of opening the bottomless pit. Likewise, the stars swept from heaven in this verse, by the tail of the dragon (Satan), are surely angels under the command of Satan. Satan, in Jewish tradition, was one of three angel bigwigs, called archangels, along with Micheal and Gabriel. Each commanded a third of the host of heaven, the lower-ranking angels. Satan’s third followed him down to earth.
Yet, many Christians continue to read verses like this one in Revelation as if they are cataclysmic end-time events, literally destroying the earth and heavens.
Deuteronomy 32:8, The Angels of the Nations
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
//I wrote about this verse a couple months ago, but must not have gone into enough detail for some. So bear with me; here we go again, from a different angle, because this is one of the most interesting verses in the Bible to me.
Upon first glance, it seems to say that God apportioned an appropriate section of land to each nation. He did so not by counting the individuals in the nation, but by counting the number of Israelites. Huh?
This turns out to be a poor translation. “Children of Israel” is universally understood to mean the descendants of Jacob (later renamed Israel). But this isn’t even close to the original wording.
The Masoretic text reads “the number of the sons of Israel”. Stepping back to the Greek in the Septuagint (before Christ), it reads “the number of the angels of God.” Stepping back further to earlier Hebrew, as recently uncovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it reads “the number of the sons of God.”
The idea appears to be this: Each of the nations had a designated angel (son of God), such as the way the angel Michael is known as the representative of Israel. When the angels war, the nations war. While that nation is in power, their angel is in power, and vice versa.
An interesting example of this occurs in Daniel, chapter 10. Here, the representative angels are called “princes.” This appears to be the angel Gabriel speaking of wars with Persia and Greece:
“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” –Daniel 10:13
“[N]ow will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.” –Daniel 10:20-21
Connect With Me!