Part of the problem is that the books of Revelation and John’s Gospel were popular among competitive versions of Christianity, such as the Montanists. Montanus claimed to be the embodiment of John’s Paraclete (Holy Spirit), and loved to refer to the book of Revelation. A majority of bishops in Asia Minor voted to censor both books, protesting that they contained only blasphemous lies. A Roman priest named Gaius argued that both had been written not by an apostle but by a heretic named Cerinthius.

Later in the second century, however, Revelation’s promise of tribulation began to hit home with Christians. Justin and Irenaeus, two early apologists, strongly championed Revelation, recognizing its themes as occurring in their own lifetime. Justin referred to the killing of a Christian philosopher named Ptolemy, and claimed he knew of similar executions. It was clear to Justin that demonic powers were inciting Rome’s rulers to hunt and kill Christians, just as John of Patmos described.

Shortly after Justin’s death, Irenaeus threw in his lot with Revelation. He witnessed a dozen Christians killed in Smyrna, including Irenaeus’s beloved mentor, Bishop Polycarp. In 177, riots broke out in Gaul as Christians were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. More than forty died in the arenas as a public spectacle, killed by wild animals.

If the era John of Patmos originally wrote about—the late first century—provided the best fit to Revelation’s prophecies, the late second century provided a close second. Throughout the centuries for 2,000 years, Christians would continue to point to the signs of the times, yet Jesus continued to delay his return. Today we still read Revelation as a prophecy of our own times, wondering why Jesus still waits.

//Holy convocations. The word “feast”, in the original Hebrew, means an “appointment with God.”

When God declared a feast day for the Children of Israel, it was more than opportunity for gluttony. It was even more than a day of thanksgiving, in remembrance of the goodness of God. It was, in fact, a sort of dress rehearsal. This “appointment with God” was a reminder and a preparation for the great Day of the Lord, in which the new age would be inaugurated with a great feast.

Readers of Revelation will recognize the feast theme throughout the book, culminating in a great celebration of the age of plenty, when food and wine would be overflowing. Readers of John’s Gospel will recognize the feast theme throughout that book as well, as John leads us from one feast setting to another, gently reminding us of the great day God has planned. Christians, today, may not be nearly as aware of the intense meaning behind these Johannine themes, and thus miss much of the atmosphere John wanted to convey.

But as we Americans enjoy our feast today, let’s remember the dream Jesus held of a new age when all would be filled with the abundance of God’s provision. Perhaps we can each help bring that dream about.

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

//Yesterday, I introduced Paul as the Apostle to the gentiles, and hinted that he may have found a loophole which lets the gentiles slip into the covenant of Abraham. This covenant, as it reads in today’s verse, looks like it specifically excludes gentiles: it is between God, Abraham, and Abraham’s descendants (the Jews).

Paul, however, reads this verse differently. Note that the original Hebrew more precisely refers not to the descendants of Abraham, but to his seed. Same thing, right? Not to Paul. The seed (singular, not plural) of Abraham is one man: Jesus.

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.–Galatians 3:16

Thus we find that the covenant is actually between three people: God, Abraham, and Jesus. What does this mean? It leads into Paul’s theology, his understanding of God’s cosmic plan for the world:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.–Galatians 3:29

As Paul explains to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:2), believers are no longer gentiles. They are full-blooded descendants of Abraham, through their birth in Christ!

“Where God comes from” is not the same question as “Who is God?” Says Livingston’s beloved professor, “I’ve got no particular quarrel with any of these explanations [of God]—inflated parent, synaptic ghost, social glue—all fine, though obviously too reductive—but at the same time, I also don’t object to various personalizations of God—an old guy with a beard, or a wafer or whatever.”

Rauser leads us into a quaint little coffee shop for an afternoon of friendly argument, where he spies the perfect target: an atheist named Sheridan who is versed in apologetics just enough to make the conversation interesting. Sheridan argues that the geographic distribution of various types of believers proves that religion isn’t objective; he wonders why Zeus isn’t just as likely to be a real god as Rauser’s Most Perfect Being; he insists that morals are an evolutionary accident, with no need for divine intervention; he confronts Rauser with the problem of evil, and in particular the absurdity of everlasting punishment; and he argues that what Christians recognize as signs from God are no more than coincidences. Except for the whole “Yahweh condones evil” thing (where Rauser’s best defense is to shrug and admit that he’s not a defender for the “home team” but rather a pursuer of truth), Sheridan’s objections to Christianity get shot down.

You might recognize already that Rauser’s idea of apologetics is not about debating atheists until they succumb to logic and beg for baptism, but “rigorously pursuing truth in conversation.” This book isn’t going to shoot the moon. None of that “I can prove Jesus rose from the dead” stuff. Just reasonable exploration leading to a reasonable conclusion that Christian beliefs are not unreasonable.

I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler, but here’s my take on the coffee house conversation: Rauser provides some solid argument for the possibility of some sort of unexplained, intelligent creator and guide, who could be just about anyone but Yahweh of the Old Testament (as least the way its writers understood Him, since surely a “perfect being” wouldn’t really condone the genocide that was done in His name). Some arguments are better than others, and like I said, Rauser provides no conclusive proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. So, we’re left with a mystery, but one that should at least keep us from sneering at those who choose a Christian interface with this mystery.

All in all, this is a really fun book. Randal, if you write more, please consider more Dubious Disciple reviews!