The Formation of the New Testament

For my write-up today on The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine, I'll highlight what Harry Gamble says on pages 212-213 about the formation of the New Testament.

"By the end of the second century the church at large held as its common scriptural resources, in addition to the scriptures of Judaism...the letters of Paul and a collection of four gospels.  Paul's letters were consistently valued and used, albeit in diverse editions, from the late first or early second century onward.  The collection of four gospels, however, seems to have emerged only after the middle of the second century, yet it had taken hold by the early third century everywhere except in the east, where Tatian's Diatesseron[, which sought to harmonize the four Gospels and combine them into a single narrative] rivalled it until the fifth century.  In addition to these gospels and Paul's letters, other documents had come into wide use, including Acts, I Peter, and I John, all of which were widely acknowledged and used in the third century.  Other documents that were known and used, but enjoyed no similar consensus, included 2 Peter, Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement and the Apocalypse of Peter.  The Apocalypse of John (also known to English readers as the book of Revelation) was early and continuously appreciated in the west but attracted little interest in the east, whereas Hebrews was much valued in the east but virtually unknown in the west before the fourth century.  There seems to have been only limited knowledge and hesitant use of 2 and 3 John and of James before the fourth century.  The indeterminacy in the scope of Christian scriptures that persisted throughout the third century began to be resolved in the fourth century."

I do not know on what Gamble is basing his narrative about the formation of the New Testament.  Perhaps it's based on the works (that made their way into the New Testament, that is) that patristic writings cite, or ancient references to what writings were used in church services.  But Gamble's model of canonization describes a bottom-up process: the church accepted for the canon the writings that were commonly used, with some exceptions (i.e., Revelation, Jude, etc.).

Even so-called heretics used Paul and some of the Gospels.  Or, more accurately, according to Gamble, Irenaeus in the late second century criticized those who used a single Gospel rather than all four----as the Ebionites used Matthew, Marcion used Luke, docetists used Mark, and Valentinians used John (Haer. 3.11.7-9).  In the first part of the third century, however, there were manuscripts that contained multiple Gospels, whereas second century manuscripts had single Gospels.  My impression is that the third century may have been a time when all four Gospels attained the wide-usage that made them canonized in the fourth century.

The Shepherd of Hermas' Christology

Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. I: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, from the Apostle's Creed to Irenaeus (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1983) 99-100.

The Shepherd of Hermas was an influential Christian document from the first-second centuries C.E. The church fathers were divided over its divine inspiration (see "Hermas").

Quasten quotes Parable 5:6:5-7 of the Shepherd of Hermas, which pertains to the work's Christology:

The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself. This flesh, in which dwelt the Holy Spirit, served the Spirit well in all purity and all sanctity without ever inflicting the least stain upon it. After the flesh had thus conducted itself so well and chastely, after it had assisted the Spirit and worked in all things with it, always showing itself to be strong and courageous, God admitted it to share with the Holy Spirit; for the conduct of this flesh pleased him, because it was not defiled while it was bearing the Holy Spirit on earth. He therefore consulted His Son and His glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had served the Spirit without any cause for reproach, might obtain a place of habitation, and might not lose the reward of its services. There is a reward for all flesh which through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit shall be found without stain.

Quasten comments: According to this passage the Trinity of Hermas seems to consist of God the Father, of a second divine person, the Holy Spirit, whom he identifies with the Son of God and finally the Saviour, who was elevated to be their companion as the reward of his merits. In other words Hermas regards the Saviour as the adopted son of God as far as his human nature is concerned.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding the Shepherd's Christology. Here's what I'm getting: There's a Holy Spirit, who is the Son of God, and he created all things. God made this Spirit dwell in a body of flesh, the human Jesus. That flesh cooperated with the Spirit by keeping itself pure. God therefore rewarded this flesh.

The translation Quasten uses says that God "consulted His Son and His glorious angels," and that somewhat stumped me, for it seems to imply that God asked his angels and the Holy Spirit who'd possessed Jesus' flesh whether or not he should exalt Jesus, the human being. But my translations on BibleWorks (Lightfoot and APE, whatever that is) offer something different. Lightfoot has, "He therefore took the son as adviser and the glorious angels also..." This implies that the passage means God exalted the human Jesus to the status of adviser.

Yet, not so fast! In Hermas' Parable 2:5:6-7, the master (God) consults his son on whether or not he should exalt the righteous servant to be the son's co-heir. In Hermas' Parable 5:5:2, the servant is identified as the Son of God. So I guess God has two sons: the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Jesus' flesh, and Jesus the human being.

The Shepherd of Hermas' Christology reminds me of Nestorianism, which was considered a heresy at the fifth century Council of Chalcedon. Nestorianism is the view that two separate natures (the divine and the human) dwelt inside of Jesus Christ. According to Nestorians, Jesus' body (including all that made him a human being, such as his flesh and human soul) was something that clothed God the Word, Jesus' divine nature. And the two were separate: Jesus' human nature didn't know when the Son of Man would return (Mark 13:32), for example, but his divine nature did, being omniscient (see Theodoret the Nestorian vs. Cyril the Monophysite). Similarly, the Shepherd of Hermas treats the human Jesus as a container for the Holy Spirit, the Son of God who created all things.

In a vague sense, the Shepherd of Hermas also reminds me of the heresy that "Christ" came upon the human Jesus at his baptism. But I'm not sure if I'd go that far. For one, the Shepherd of Hermas never says that the Holy Spirit came upon the human Jesus at his baptism. Still, I do wonder how the book would handle Mark 1:10, which presents the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove when he was baptized. I mean, if the Shepherd of Hermas thinks that Jesus' divine nature was the Holy Spirit, whom he defines as the Son of God who created the universe, then when would the Shepherd place that Holy Spirit taking his residence within Jesus: at his birth? At his baptism? As far as I know, he doesn't say, but I do wonder.

Second, the heresy that "Christ" came upon the human Jesus at his baptism also said that the "Christ" left Jesus right before his crucifixion. That would indicate that the divine "Christ" did not suffer. But I'm not sure if the Shepherd of Hermas would say that, since he maintains that the Son of God suffered trials and purged the sins of the people (Parable 5:6:2-3). But who knows? He seemed to believe that there were two sons of God: the Holy Spirit who created all things and came to inhabit Jesus, and Jesus the human being who cooperated with the Holy Spirit. Is he talking only about the latter when he says the son suffered, or does he think that the Holy Spirit suffered too, being a part of Jesus?

In any case, the Shepherd of Hermas has an interesting trinity, if I'm understanding his Christology correctly. You have God the Father, the Holy Spirit who created all things, and Jesus, who was exalted because of his obedience to the Holy Spirit who inhabited him. According to Quasten, the Shepherd thinks Jesus became part of the Godhead at his exaltation.

Abraham's Justification, My Justification, God as Father

1. Devorah Dimant, "Use and Interpretation of the Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 394.

"Abraham--'found faithful when tested'--the formula used of Abraham also in Sir 44:20 LXX, and is composed of an allusion to Gen 22:1 'God tested'...and to Neh 9:8 'you have found his heart faithful to you'. The second part of the verse is a slightly altered reproduction of Gen 15:6 (influenced by the formula applied to Phinehas in Ps 106:31)."

Genesis 15:6 states, "And [Abraham] believed the LORD; and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness" (NRSV). In Romans 4, Paul applies this to Abraham's justification at a specific point in his life: In Genesis 15, God promised that Abraham would have children, Abraham believed God, and God considered Abraham to be righteous on account of his faith. Paul points out that this all occurred before Abraham was circumcised, meaning that God does not declare people righteous on account of circumcision.

Many Protestants conclude that all one has to do for God to consider him or her righteous is to trust in what Christ did on the cross. As Paul says in Romans 4:5, "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." As Luther says, Christians are snow-covered dung: they are sinners, yet God accounts them as righteous when they accept his free gift of salvation.

James, however, appears to interpret Genesis 15:6 differently. In James 2:21-24, he states: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James seems to associate Abraham's justification with his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

There are all sorts of interpretations of Genesis 15:6 in the history of biblical interpretation. I Maccabees 2:52 goes with the akedah view: "Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?" In medieval times, the Jewish exegete Rashi went with the Pauline interpretation. Nachmanides, however, said that the verse means Abraham believed God and accounted God as righteous, meaning the passage wasn't about Abraham's justification at all, but rather Abraham's praise of God. Some maintain that Genesis 15:6 was not a specific incident but rather a summary of Abraham's life: throughout his life, Abraham believed God, and God considered his faith righteous.

What's interesting is Psalm 106:30-31: "Then Phinehas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever." This is referring to the incident when Phinehas killed a man who was with a Midianite woman (Numbers 25). God then grants Phinehas a covenant of eternal priesthood.

Apparently, deeds other than believing God can be accounted as righteousness. That makes me wonder: when Genesis 15:6 says that God accounted Abraham's faith as righteous, does that mean God is declaring Abraham righteous apart from works? Or does it mean that God was pleased with Abraham's faith and reckoned it as an act of righteousness: When Abraham believed, God put a checkmark in the "good" column? Abraham could still earn marks in the "bad" column, however. Suppose he did not circumcise himself or his family? Genesis 17:14 states, "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." And what if he chose not to sacrifice his son?

2. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1910) 744.

Hegesippus (second century C.E.) "felt perfectly at home in the Catholic church of his day which had ascended from, or rather never yet ascended the lofty mountain-height of apostolic knowledge and freedom."

I've been reading something like this throughout Schaff: many of the early church fathers did not understand justification by grace through faith alone. Rather, they focus on avoiding hell by doing good works. I've wanted to comment, but I usually find something more interesting in Schaff that I write about instead. Today, however, I had pretty slim pickings.

I'm not going to comb through the early church fathers right now, but my impression is that they indeed did believe that Christ's blood brings forgiveness of sins to those who have faith. But it doesn't stop there for them. Barnabas thought that alms could also atone for sin. Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas warn believers that certain sins could lead them to hell.

There's one lady who witnesses to me every now and then: She says that one can know he or she will go to heaven by accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross. When I told her that I go to a Latin mass, she responded that she used to be a Catholic, but she was never sure that she was saved. After all, Catholics say that committing a mortal sin can lead a believer to hell, provided he doesn't repent!

I admire and envy her sense of peace. And I can see some scriptural basis for it. Paul says in Romans 4:5: "But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." This passage seems to say that one doesn't have to do good works to be saved; rather, one has to trust the one who justified the ungodly. And when a person has that kind of trust and assurance, he or she can truly love (Galatians 5:6). I'd rather my love flow from my assurance and peace rather than love in order to be saved. It's a difference between running down-hill and climbing up-hill!

The problem is that Catholics aren't getting their views on mortal sin from nowhere. Paul says in I Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21 has, "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

If people are saved by trusting in Christ's sacrifice apart from works, then how can any sin disqualify believers from the kingdom of God? Yet, Paul issues such a warning. When Paul says that people are justified by grace through faith, apart from works, does he mean that's how they become Christians, not how they maintain their salvation? Is he talking about how people get into the door--by receiving God's free grace? Even Catholics affirm that God's the one who gets the ball rolling--with his undeserved grace!

3. "God's Love for Israel," A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938) 62.

"'The Lord is my helper' (Ps. CXVIII, 7). The matter is like two men who come to the judgment seat, and they are afraid of the judge. It is said to them, 'Fear not, let your hearts take courage.' So Israel will stand at the judgment before God, and will be afraid because of the Judge. Then the angels of the service will say to them, 'Fear not, do you not recognize Him? He is your fellow-citizen, as it is said, 'It is He who will build my city' (Isa. XLV, 13); and then they will say, 'Fear not the Judge; do you not recognize Him? He is your kinsman, as it says, 'The children of Israel, the people related to Him' (Ps. CXLVIII, 14). Then they will say, 'Do you not recognize Him? He is your brother, as it says, 'For my brethren and friends' sake' (Ps. CXXII, 8). And even more, He is your Father, as it is said, 'Is not He thy father' (Deut. XXXII, 6). (Midr. Ps. on CXVIII, 7 (242b, 10)"

I haven't checked out the scriptural references to see what exactly the rabbis are doing with them, but there are two points I want to highlight: First of all, this appears to be another example of a rabbinic grace passage. Luther could have said the same thing, only he would have added stuff about the incarnation and Christ being our brother! At the same time, there are other rabbinic passages that do not exclude works from consideration at the judgment. One can perhaps reconcile those with this one by remembering the rabbinic statements that God has both mercy and justice, or that God will purify certain Jews in Gehenna before they can enter eternal bliss, or that God will give his people the benefit of a doubt (see Cursed Soil, Fellowship with God, Weighing Deeds). Put together, these passages convey the message that both works and grace will play a role in the last judgment.

Second, this passage affirms that God is the Jews' brother and father. I've heard Christian sermons and read Christian books claiming that Jews in Christ's time did not call God "Father." That's why they say Christ was so radical when he opened the Lord's prayer with "our Father." But the rabbis believed that God was the father of Israel, and there is scriptural basis for this view. God calls Israel his firstborn son (Exodus 4:22-23). Moreover, there are biblical passages in which God can be like a father to individuals, not only an entire nation:

Psalm 27:10: "If my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will take me up."

Psalm 68:5: "Father of orphans and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation."

Psalm 103:13: "As a father has compassion for his children, so the LORD has compassion for those who fear him."

Proverbs 3:12: "for the LORD reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights."

I'm not sure if Islam has the same sort of idea. The Koran emphatically denies that God has a son (4:171), but that's usually in response to the Christian idea that Jesus actually is God, or the (fictitious) rabbinic view that Ezra and the rabbis were divine (9:30-31). I'm not sure if it sees God as a father in the sense that he loves and takes care of people as a father would his children, although, of course, it is quite clear that Allah is compassionate! When I was at Harvard, I heard a Christian speaker tell us about a Muslim who converted to Christianity when she heard its concept of God as a father. Could she have found the same idea in her own religion, or does Islam primarily conceive of God as a righteous autocrat and judge?

Clement, Dispensationalism, and Salvation

For my daily quiet time, I've been reading early Christian writings, such as Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and I-II Clement. Their Christianity seems to differ from dispensationalism, particularly the brand I encounter when I read Bullinger and Scofield.

According to the dispensational writings and churches that I've encountered, we're now in the age of grace. Jesus preached to people who were still under a covenant of works, so when he said that God wouldn't forgive them if they didn't forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15), he wasn't establishing a principle that applies to Christians today. For certain dispensationalists, Christians don't forgive others in order to be forgiven by God. Rather, they forgive others because they've already been forgiven by God (see Colossians 3:13). As far as they're concerned, this is the age of grace, which began under the apostle Paul.

Dispensationalists also tend to go with once-saved-always-saved. They point to passages that talk about believers having been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). For them, a seal is an absolute guarantee that one will enter the good afterlife--no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s.

But this isn't exactly the view that I encounter in early Christian literature. I'll focus here on I-II Clement, epistles written in the first-second centuries C.E. I'll be quoting the version that appears in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden.

Regarding forgiveness, let's take a look at I Clement 7:4: "Be ye merciful and ye shall obtain mercy; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be done unto you: as ye give, so shall it be given unto you: as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind to others, so shall God be kind to you: with what measure ye mete, with the same shall it be measured to you again."

As far as Clement was concerned, Jesus' principle of forgiving others in order to be forgiven by God still applied, long after Paul had supposedly inaugurated an age of free grace (in the view of dispensationalists). And, unlike certain dispensationalists, Clement deems the Sermon on the Mount to be authoritative for Christians, since he cites it as an authority.

On the seal, let's consider II Clement 3:13, 18: "Thus speaks the prophet concerning those who keep not their seal; Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh...This, therefore, is what he saith; keep your bodies pure, and your seal without spot, that ye may receive eternal life."

According to the author of II Clement, the seal of the Christian can indeed be broken, leading to his eternal punishment in hell. That's why he needs to repent. His eternal life is at stake. It's similar to the Catholic belief of "you need to repent of mortal sin before you die."

I don't care for this doctrine, but I don't think I can blithely blow it off, either. People can respond, "Well, Clement isn't the New Testament, and the New Testament is what we follow as Scripture." But if Paul had inaugurated a special dispensation of free grace and eternal security, as dispensationalists maintain, isn't it odd that Christian writers in the second century didn't seem to know about it?

Sensitive Holy Spirit

In II Hermas 5, the divine messenger tells Hermas that the Holy Spirit won't dwell in a person who's bitter and angry. The Holy Spirit is sensitive and gentle, after all, so he can't inhabit the same place as a rancorous spirit! And anger mixed with forebearance makes a person's prayer unacceptable to God.

I don't like this part of Hermas! The reason is that I myself am bitter about many things. I'd like to think that God reaches out to me in compassion when I'm angry, rather than standing aloof on account of my human frailties. And why's the Holy Spirit have to leave because I'm not perfect? Isn't he powerful enough? Christians are told to love (or at least tolerate) complete jerks. Why can't the Holy Spirit?

Hermas reminds me of a book I read by Charles Haddon Spurgeon several years ago: The Saint and His Savior. I love Spurgeon's sermons, but I hated that book! It reeked of "A true Christian should feel this, and not that," and I found that I didn't feel the way Spurgeon wanted. I vaguely recall a few passages in which he said that the Holy Spirit could leave if a person didn't do such-and-such, which was strange, considering Spurgeon embraced Calvinism precisely because it says God's grace is constant for the elect, not dependant on our emotions. So the book was not all that comforting!

At the same time, I can somewhat understand the point Hermas and Spurgeon are trying to make. For one, God is a gentleman. He's not going to force himself on people. I like that, especially since I hate the way some Christians try to shove their religion down people's throats. So, if the Holy Spirit is definitely not wanted, why should he stay?

Second, the Holy Spirit can have a fuller influence if we're not contaminated with bitterness and anger--if we instead rejoice in God and his goodness.

Personally, I'm not going to stop praying just because I have bitterness. I pray to God because I'm imperfect, not because I always feel the right way. And there have been times when God has reached out to me in the midst of my rants, like he's saying, "Now, here's something constructive to think about."

II Hermas 6 is more understanding of human flaws, in my opinion, for there the divine messenger says that Hermas has both the works of the gentle angel of righteousness, and also those of the wicked angel of iniquity. Hermas is exhorted to embrace the angel of righteousness. It's like my Grandpa Pate has said, we need to yield to that right spirit!

Shepherd of Hermas on Divorce

Divorce is a pretty thorny issue for Christians, to say the least. I see that on my Christian dating site, which has a lot of divorced members. I wonder how they justify seeking another mate, when the New Testament has strong words against divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12). They usually respond to that question in one of two ways (sometimes both):

1. Their spouse cheated on them, and Jesus allows divorce in cases of sexual immorality (see Matthew 19:9).

2. Their spouse was an unbeliever who did not want to live with them. In that case, the Christian marriage partner is "unbound" (I Corinthians 7:15).

For many Christians, the dissolution of the marriage means that the parties are free to marry someone else.

II Hermas 4 (second century C.E.) appears to comment on this issue. Hermes asks a divine messenger if a Christian man sins by living with a loose wife. The messenger responds that the man is not guilty if he's unaware that his wife's playing around. If he does know about it, however, and the wife chooses not to repent, then he participates in adultery by staying married to her, so he must put her away. At the same time, if he marries another woman, then he commits adultery. If his ex-wife repents of her adulterous behavior, the husband has to take her back, but he can't do so again and again. If a woman worships idols, the man is to put her away, especially if she's not repentant. But the man cannot remarry because there's always the chance that the woman might repent. And this law applies to both men and women, meaning that men can't cheat on their wives.

Here are some thoughts:

1. It's amazing that this law requires the man to put away his adulterous wife, or to take her back. I remember hearing Garner Ted Armstrong comment on Jesus' commands, and he said that the man had a choice: if he found his wife in bed with another man, he could either forgive her, or he could put her away. The ball was in his court. The Shepherd of Hermas, however, says that the man doesn't have a choice: there are rules about what he should do.

2. As far as I can see, Shepherd of Hermas doesn't allow remarriage to someone else after a divorce. After all, the offending spouse may change, so the offended should always be ready to take him or her back. Should this influence our interpretation of the New Testament? I think it's relevant, since it's how early Christians understood the divorce command, and they were closer to the historical context of Jesus than we are. At the same time, I don't know if this is the only view on divorce and remarriage in early Christianity.

3. A man couldn't take his wife back more than once. After all, if he has to do that, then she's probably not repentant, since she keeps doing the same sin over and over. I have problems with this, since how will a man know that a woman won't sin against him in the future? He's not a fortune teller! Also, didn't Jesus tell us to forgive seventy-times-seven (Matthew 18:21-22)?

But I can somewhat see the Shepherd's point. I can envision a wife beater or adulterer continually telling his wife that he's so sorry and it won't happen again, but it does--over and over. Is she supposed to put up with that? Shouldn't there be proof in the pudding that repentance has occurred?

4. On adultery, Christianity is more egalitarian than Judaism. The Hebrew religion allowed men to have multiple wives, while women could only sleep with their one husband. Judaism allowed a man to divorce his wife, but not vice versa (even though some rules enabled a woman to compel her husband to divorce her). In this arrangement, adultery was a one way street: the woman committed adultery by sleeping around, but the man didn't. But Jesus gives a different command: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). For Jesus, a man had to be faithful to his wife. And that's the rule the Shepherd of Hermas takes up.

A Transformative Word

I'm reading an excellent book right now, Benyamin Cohen's My Jesus Year: A Rabbi's Son Wanders the Bible Belt in Search of His Own Faith. It's about an orthodox Jew who grows tired of Judaism and decides to sample the evangelical sub-culture. In the end, he becomes a better Jew.

In the chapter, "Getting High on the High Holidays," Cohen talks about how he always considered the high holidays to be a big chore. He also had problems with Abraham, who got up early to offer his son. Sure, the offering his son part was pretty offensive, but Cohen didn't identify with Abraham getting up early. Abraham was such a religious overachiever, who was eager to do the commands of God. Cohen, by contrast, dragged his feet when it came to the rituals of Judaism.

One Rosh Hoshanah, however, he hears a sermon that transforms his mindset. It asked why Genesis 22 specifically mentions that the ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. The lesson was that Abraham grabbed his faith by the horns: he didn't wait for everything to come to him, but he proactively sought out an experience with God.

This led Cohen to think about his wife's grandmother. His wife is a convert to Judaism from evangelical Christianity, and her mom is quite evangelical (and Pentecostal, at that). She's deeply interested in the spiritual side of life, and she tries to read everything she can about Judaism. She also stumps Benyamin with tons of questions.

Cohen concludes that this is the type of person who experiences God: not the one who passively waits for God to lay a revelation on his lap, but the person who grabs faith by the horns--who is proactive in his or her spiritual search. Cohen then says that he's sad Rosh Hoshanah only comes once a year, since he really got something spiritual out of that particular service. And this was a guy who previously dragged his feet at celebrating the high holidays!

I like it when the word of God is transformative--when it changes one's perspective, which leads to obedience out of love rather than mere obligation. I remember reading on Bryan's blog a while back that Bryan usually has to have his thinking transformed before he can even think about changing his actions. And that's the way I am: I can go through the motions of changing my actions, but that makes what I'm doing a burden. I need a different mindset and attitude to make the obedience more natural. Unfortunately, sermons mostly focus on "do this and don't do that."

For my daily quiet time right now, I'm reading the Shepherd of Hermas, a second century book that was considered Scripture in some Christian circles, but not in others. Hermas encounters an old woman who becomes middle-aged the next time he sees her, and a hot young babe the next time she appears to him. Essentially, she was a mirror of his own spiritual life. Hermas was tired and worn out with Christianity, but God gave him a transformative message that encouraged and strengthened him to do the right thing.

We all need these kinds of messages, since they can keep us going. Personally, I get them from the Bible, books, and television.