Posts
Russell Miller talks about an interesting exchange on his blog, "Holy Mighty Atheist." Russell is discussing an exchange on the blog, As Bereans Did, in which Christian Bill Hohmann tells someone he's debating, "May God forgive you for being so quick to judge and condemn." Russell sees Bill's statement as a far cry from Jesus' command to love one's enemies.
Russell raises interesting points--such as the one that many Christians use "passive-aggressive" techniques because they don't feel that they can honestly express their anger. Here, however, I want to focus on love of enemies, since that's a topic that's come up in my weekly quiet time on I Samuel.
David and Abigail are often cited as examples of people who loved their enemies. David spared Saul's life on two occasions, even though Saul was hunting him down to kill him (I Samuel 24, 26). And Abigail prevented David from slaughtering her abusive husband Nabal and his men (I Samuel 25). I once read an evangelical book for women that claimed Abigail must have had a solid relationship with the Lord, since she loved Nabal after putting up with his put-downs all those years.
But did David and Abigail love their enemies? David tells Saul in I Samuel 24:12: "May the LORD judge between me and you! May the LORD avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you" (NRSV). In I Samuel 26:10-11, David says to the blood-thirsty Abishai, who is begging for David's permission to kill Saul in his sleep: "As the LORD lives, the LORD will strike him down; or his day will come to die; or he will go down into battle and perish. The LORD forbid that I should raise my hand against the LORD's anointed; but now take the spear that is at his head, and the water jar, and let us go."
David was perfectly willing (if not eager) for God to kill Saul, but he didn't want to do so himself. In these passages, he wasn't overly concerned about Saul's well-being. He just wanted to avoid guilt for himself.
What about Abigail? When she urges David to desist from his massacre of Nabal and his men, she says: "Now then, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, since the LORD has restrained you from bloodguilt and from taking vengeance with your own hand, now let your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be like Nabal" (I Samuel 25:26). Something tells me that "like Nabal" is not exactly positive! Abigail wants Nabal to be punished for his rudeness, and her concern is more for the innocent people whom David was about to slaughter (the LXX for v 26 mentions innocent blood).
David and Abigail have an attitude of "I myself won't get back at you, but I sure hope God hurts you for what you did!" Is this love for enemies--valuing them as people and having concern for their well-being? Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies and do good to them (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27-28).
At the same time, the New Testament also displays the same attitude as David and Abigail. In Romans 12:17-21, Paul exhorts Christians not to avenge themselves but rather to return good for evil. For Paul, Christians are to leave vengeance to God, who promises to repay.
Anger is natural to human beings, and many of us would like to think that there is some justice in the world: that someone actually cares about our suffering at the hands of other people. Even taking ourselves out of the picture, who wants the wicked to get off scot-free? At the same time, those who hurt us or do bad things are human beings, just like we are, and they probably crave love like anyone does.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Doubting Thomas Sunday
Today is "Doubting Thomas" Sunday within the Roman Catholic Church. My church bulletin had the following insightful statement about John 20. The background is that Thomas had just missed out on seeing the risen Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit.
How often we feel, like Thomas, that we have "missed out" on something that helps others to be more secure in their faith; that if we only had the right proof we would come to be full, complete, and total belief. This is seldom the way in which growth in faith works. Most often, for us as it was for Thomas, it is only by doggedly staying on the journey with Jesus Christ that we will come to greater faith in him. Too many of us believe that our growth in knowledge about our faith or in spiritual depth and awareness stops at a certain age, usually marked by graduation from an educational institution. But a spirit-filled relationship with Christ happens only through persistent pursuit of opportunities to increase our knowledge and understanding of the faith, opportunities to grow in prayer and to be shaped by praying with others, opportunities to bring others to believe through our witness...Let us look to Thomas, then, as our role model, perhaps even our patron, as we continue to grow in our faith in, and relationship with, the risen Christ.
(This bulletin is published by J.S. Paluch Company, Inc.)
How often we feel, like Thomas, that we have "missed out" on something that helps others to be more secure in their faith; that if we only had the right proof we would come to be full, complete, and total belief. This is seldom the way in which growth in faith works. Most often, for us as it was for Thomas, it is only by doggedly staying on the journey with Jesus Christ that we will come to greater faith in him. Too many of us believe that our growth in knowledge about our faith or in spiritual depth and awareness stops at a certain age, usually marked by graduation from an educational institution. But a spirit-filled relationship with Christ happens only through persistent pursuit of opportunities to increase our knowledge and understanding of the faith, opportunities to grow in prayer and to be shaped by praying with others, opportunities to bring others to believe through our witness...Let us look to Thomas, then, as our role model, perhaps even our patron, as we continue to grow in our faith in, and relationship with, the risen Christ.
(This bulletin is published by J.S. Paluch Company, Inc.)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Was It Really Samuel?
In I Samuel 28, King Saul visits the witch of Endor and asks her to call up Samuel from the dead. "Samuel" then tells Saul that he and his sons will soon die, for God has rejected him from being king.
Was that really Samuel? My Armstrongite background answers "no." For Armstrongites, the dead are unconscious, for Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead do not know anything, and Psalm 6:5 states that the dead in Sheol do not give thanks to God. This doctrine is known as "soul sleep." Armstrongites maintain that what Saul saw couldn't have been Samuel, but a demon.
The identity of "Samuel" in I Samuel 28 has been debated throughout the history of biblical interpretation. From what I can see, Jewish interpretations seemed to maintain that Samuel was the one who appeared to Saul. Jesus ben Sira (second century B.C.E.) says in Sirach 46:20 that Samuel prophesied even after his death, and Josephus (first century C.E.) affirms in Antiquities 6:332ff. that the soul of Samuel came up from Hades. The rabbis also think it was Samuel (see here).
Within Christianity, however, there was much more disagreement. I was reading the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture last night, and I saw that Justin Martyr believed it was Samuel, whereas Tertullian thought it was a demon. Origen tries to refute those who claim it's a demon. From Keil-Delitzsch's commentary, I learned that Martin Luther and John Calvin voted "demon."
Soul sleep isn't always the reason that Christians vote "demon." Eighteenth century Calvinist commentator John Gill and others say that Samuel couldn't come from the ground, since his soul was in heaven with God. So you can tell that soul sleep is not a factor in their conclusion!
Perhaps the biggest issue in the "demon" explanation is this: the Torah condemns seeking familiar spirits (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:9–14), so certain Christians don't think that God would have honored necromancy by allowing a witch to bring up Samuel from the dead.
But what about the message of "Samuel"? He spoke God's word, didn't he? He said that Saul and his sons would die, and that God was rejecting him from being king. Would a demon speak the truth?
Those who claim that this was a demon have various answers for that. Some say that a demon can speak the truth, or that God can use a demon to accomplish God's will (I Kings 22:23). Others contend, however, that the demon was not conveying God's message. According to Matthew Henry and Ellen White, God would have encouraged Saul to repent rather than discouraging him and kicking him when he was down, as "Samuel" does in I Samuel 28. As many Christians today assert, the Holy Spirit convicts, whereas Satan condemns, and that's one way you can tell the difference between the two.
What's my position? I think it was Samuel for the reasons that the Nelson Study Bible enumerates: "It seems best to follow the early view that this was a genuine appearance of Samuel which God Himself brought about. Several points favor this interpretation: (1) The medium was surprised (v. 12); (2) Saul identified the figure as Samuel (v. 14); (3) the message Samuel spoke was clearly from God (vv. 16–19); (4) the text says that the figure was Samuel (vv. 12, 15, 16)." In my opinion, God was at work here, so Samuel did not arrive through the machinations of the necromancer. That's why she was so surprised!
One more point: I don't really see a conflict between I Samuel 28 and biblical passages asserting that the dead don't know anything. I Samuel 28:15 says that Saul "disturbed" Samuel. P. Kyle McCarter states: "The verb rendered disturbed here refers specifically to the interruption of the rest of the dead (cf. 'Sheol beneath is stirred up' in Isa 14:9); it occurs in ancient tomb inscriptions as a description of the activity of graverobbers." Ordinarily, the dead are resting, but someone or something can arouse them out of their sleep. We may see something like that in Isaiah 14, in which the kings in Sheol are aroused and taunt the king of Babylon. Maybe the Old Testament view on the afterlife is that the dead usually were ignorant and unconscious because they were resting, but they could become conscious when someone woke them up!
Was that really Samuel? My Armstrongite background answers "no." For Armstrongites, the dead are unconscious, for Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that the dead do not know anything, and Psalm 6:5 states that the dead in Sheol do not give thanks to God. This doctrine is known as "soul sleep." Armstrongites maintain that what Saul saw couldn't have been Samuel, but a demon.
The identity of "Samuel" in I Samuel 28 has been debated throughout the history of biblical interpretation. From what I can see, Jewish interpretations seemed to maintain that Samuel was the one who appeared to Saul. Jesus ben Sira (second century B.C.E.) says in Sirach 46:20 that Samuel prophesied even after his death, and Josephus (first century C.E.) affirms in Antiquities 6:332ff. that the soul of Samuel came up from Hades. The rabbis also think it was Samuel (see here).
Within Christianity, however, there was much more disagreement. I was reading the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture last night, and I saw that Justin Martyr believed it was Samuel, whereas Tertullian thought it was a demon. Origen tries to refute those who claim it's a demon. From Keil-Delitzsch's commentary, I learned that Martin Luther and John Calvin voted "demon."
Soul sleep isn't always the reason that Christians vote "demon." Eighteenth century Calvinist commentator John Gill and others say that Samuel couldn't come from the ground, since his soul was in heaven with God. So you can tell that soul sleep is not a factor in their conclusion!
Perhaps the biggest issue in the "demon" explanation is this: the Torah condemns seeking familiar spirits (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:9–14), so certain Christians don't think that God would have honored necromancy by allowing a witch to bring up Samuel from the dead.
But what about the message of "Samuel"? He spoke God's word, didn't he? He said that Saul and his sons would die, and that God was rejecting him from being king. Would a demon speak the truth?
Those who claim that this was a demon have various answers for that. Some say that a demon can speak the truth, or that God can use a demon to accomplish God's will (I Kings 22:23). Others contend, however, that the demon was not conveying God's message. According to Matthew Henry and Ellen White, God would have encouraged Saul to repent rather than discouraging him and kicking him when he was down, as "Samuel" does in I Samuel 28. As many Christians today assert, the Holy Spirit convicts, whereas Satan condemns, and that's one way you can tell the difference between the two.
What's my position? I think it was Samuel for the reasons that the Nelson Study Bible enumerates: "It seems best to follow the early view that this was a genuine appearance of Samuel which God Himself brought about. Several points favor this interpretation: (1) The medium was surprised (v. 12); (2) Saul identified the figure as Samuel (v. 14); (3) the message Samuel spoke was clearly from God (vv. 16–19); (4) the text says that the figure was Samuel (vv. 12, 15, 16)." In my opinion, God was at work here, so Samuel did not arrive through the machinations of the necromancer. That's why she was so surprised!
One more point: I don't really see a conflict between I Samuel 28 and biblical passages asserting that the dead don't know anything. I Samuel 28:15 says that Saul "disturbed" Samuel. P. Kyle McCarter states: "The verb rendered disturbed here refers specifically to the interruption of the rest of the dead (cf. 'Sheol beneath is stirred up' in Isa 14:9); it occurs in ancient tomb inscriptions as a description of the activity of graverobbers." Ordinarily, the dead are resting, but someone or something can arouse them out of their sleep. We may see something like that in Isaiah 14, in which the kings in Sheol are aroused and taunt the king of Babylon. Maybe the Old Testament view on the afterlife is that the dead usually were ignorant and unconscious because they were resting, but they could become conscious when someone woke them up!
Friday, April 17, 2009
Joseph's Slander
Years ago at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Pastor Tim Keller was preaching through the story of Joseph. His thesis was that none of its characters is morally good, yet God loves them and fulfills his righteous purposes through them anyway.
Keller said Joseph himself was a spoiled brat. He didn't use that term, but his interpretation of Genesis 37:2 gave that impression. Genesis 37:2 states that Joseph gave his father an evil report about his brothers, more specifically the sons of Jacob's maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah. At first, I thought that meant that Joseph was telling his father something bad that his brothers had actually done. Keller maintained, however, that Joseph was slandering them.
Keller may be right, for the Hebrew word for "report" in Genesis 37:2, dibbah, often means "slander" in the Hebrew Bible (see here). But such a view about Joseph's act also occurs in the history of interpretation. I'm not going to research every treatment of this story, at least not in this post, but here are two:
1. The Testament of Gad is part of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, whose history probably extends from the second century B.C.E. to the second century C.E. In Testament of Gad 1, Gad states that he delivered a lamb from the mouth of a bear, and he killed the lamb because it was mangled and in pain. Joseph then told his father that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were slaughtering and eating the best of the flock. As a result, Gad hated Joseph. The book is about why hatred is wrong.
2. Genesis Rabbah 84:7 doesn't really say that Joseph was lying about his brothers, but rather that he was telling his father any evil about them that he could find. Rashi summarizes this rabbinic tradition as follows:
"evil tales about them: Any evil he saw in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he would tell his father: 1) that they ate limbs from living animals, 2) that they demeaned the sons of the handmaids by calling them slaves, and 3) that they were suspected of illicit sexual relationships. For these three [tales] he was punished: For [the report that his brothers ate] limbs from living animals, 'they slaughtered a kid' (Gen. 37:31) when they sold him, and did not eat it alive. For the report that he told about them that they called their brothers slaves, 'Joseph was sold as a slave' (Ps. 105:17), and concerning the illicit sexual relationships that he told about them, 'his master’s wife lifted her eyes, etc.' (Gen. 39:7)." (Source: http://www.chabad.org/.)
According to this passage, God disapproved of Joseph slandering his brothers, so he punished Joseph in a manner that resembled the slander.
James Kugel states in The Bible As It Was that ancient interpreters tried to make certain biblical characters look good. That may be the case with the patriarchs, but we don't really see it with Joseph, at least not in these two sources.
Keller said Joseph himself was a spoiled brat. He didn't use that term, but his interpretation of Genesis 37:2 gave that impression. Genesis 37:2 states that Joseph gave his father an evil report about his brothers, more specifically the sons of Jacob's maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah. At first, I thought that meant that Joseph was telling his father something bad that his brothers had actually done. Keller maintained, however, that Joseph was slandering them.
Keller may be right, for the Hebrew word for "report" in Genesis 37:2, dibbah, often means "slander" in the Hebrew Bible (see here). But such a view about Joseph's act also occurs in the history of interpretation. I'm not going to research every treatment of this story, at least not in this post, but here are two:
1. The Testament of Gad is part of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, whose history probably extends from the second century B.C.E. to the second century C.E. In Testament of Gad 1, Gad states that he delivered a lamb from the mouth of a bear, and he killed the lamb because it was mangled and in pain. Joseph then told his father that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were slaughtering and eating the best of the flock. As a result, Gad hated Joseph. The book is about why hatred is wrong.
2. Genesis Rabbah 84:7 doesn't really say that Joseph was lying about his brothers, but rather that he was telling his father any evil about them that he could find. Rashi summarizes this rabbinic tradition as follows:
"evil tales about them: Any evil he saw in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he would tell his father: 1) that they ate limbs from living animals, 2) that they demeaned the sons of the handmaids by calling them slaves, and 3) that they were suspected of illicit sexual relationships. For these three [tales] he was punished: For [the report that his brothers ate] limbs from living animals, 'they slaughtered a kid' (Gen. 37:31) when they sold him, and did not eat it alive. For the report that he told about them that they called their brothers slaves, 'Joseph was sold as a slave' (Ps. 105:17), and concerning the illicit sexual relationships that he told about them, 'his master’s wife lifted her eyes, etc.' (Gen. 39:7)." (Source: http://www.chabad.org/.)
According to this passage, God disapproved of Joseph slandering his brothers, so he punished Joseph in a manner that resembled the slander.
James Kugel states in The Bible As It Was that ancient interpreters tried to make certain biblical characters look good. That may be the case with the patriarchs, but we don't really see it with Joseph, at least not in these two sources.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Bithiah
During the Days of Unleavened Bread this year, I had my traditional Moses marathon, in which I watch five Moses movies: Cecil B. Demille's Ten Commandments (1956); Moses, with Burt Lancaster (1974); Moses, with Ben Kingsley (1996); Prince of Egypt (1998); and Ten Commandments, with Dougray Scott (2006). See My Moses Marathon and Moses Marathon Awards for last year's reflections.
Today, I want to focus on the character of Bithiah. In Exodus 2, the daughter of Pharaoh finds a Hebrew baby in a basket while she is at the river to bathe. She rescues him from her father's decree to kill every Hebrew baby boy, and she names him "Moshe," which means "drawing out" in Hebrew. She even says that she's naming him "Moshe" because "I drew him" (Hebrew, meshitihu) out of the water! (This raises interesting questions for inerrantists: Why is an Egyptian speaking in Hebrew? Is this historical, or is it a literary device?) She then adopts him and raises him as an Egyptian.
Rabbis identified Pharaoh's daughter with Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh in I Chronicles 4:17 (or 18, in other versions.) According to that passage, Bithiah married and had children with an Israelite named Mered. Josephus, however, calls Moses' adoptive mother "Thermuthis," not "Bithiah" (Antiquities 2:232).
The rabbis portray Bithiah positively, for she showed compassion by saving Moses from her father's evil decree. Some Jewish interpreters suggested that she was one of the few people who entered paradise alive, a reward for her kindness to Moses. The rabbis affirm that she left Egypt with the Israelites, and that the "Mered" she married was none other than Caleb, "who was called Mered ('rebellion') because, as she rebelled against her father and her family, so did Caleb 'rebel' when he refused to follow the evil counsels of the spies" (Numbers 14). See JewishEncyclopedia.com - BITHIAH. Caleb was not the only one who had another name, however, for the name "Bithiah" means "daughter of Yah" in Hebrew. I Chronicles and rabbinic literature may hold that she changed her name when she joined the Israelites. Maybe her Egyptian name was "Thermuthis," as Josephus narrates!
Here's my impression of how the movies portray Bithiah:
1. Ten Commandments (1956): This movie is closest to I Chronicles 4:17 and rabbinic literature. Bithiah leaves with the Israelites at the Exodus, and, after the Passover, she is continually with a Hebrew named "Mered" (or so he is identified in the Internet Movie Database--see The Ten Commandments (1956)). The movie departs from rabbinic literature in that Mered and Caleb are two different characters. In the movie, Caleb mocks Bithiah when she tries to join Moses' Passover meal, whereas Mered welcomes her. Although the commandments in the movie were in the ancient Hebrew script, its authors may not have been sensitive to the meaning of the name "Mered," or "Bithiah," for that matter. After all, why would the Egyptians call her a name that means "daughter of Yah" in Hebrew?
I love the Ten Commandment's portrayal of Bithiah most of all, for it emphasizes her spiritual growth. She goes from saying "This desert god is the hope of the hopeless" to confronting the worshippers of the golden calf in the wilderness.
2. Moses, with Burt Lancaster (1974): She draws Moses from the river, and that's it!
3. Moses, with Ben Kingsley (1996): Her portrayal in this movie is not all that positive. She adopts Moses, and all of Pharaoh's court knows that he's not a real Egyptian. As Merneptah (played by Frank Langella) mockingly inquires, "When is an Egyptian not an Egyptian?" Bithiah seems to feel ashamed that she adopted Moses. She also tries to force him to be an Egyptian, even though he has a greater affinity with the Hebrew slaves and their God. My impression here is that she adopted Moses because she disliked being childless, but she wasn't too happy with her decision. She does not love Moses like the Bithiahs in the other movies.
4. Prince of Egypt (1998): One of my favorite scenes in this movie is when Moses and Rameses come to a celebration, and the Egyptian priests bring them a present: a Midianite woman (Tzipporah, who later becomes Moses' wife). Tzipporah tries to escape and Moses humiliates her, to the laughter and applause of his Egyptian guests. When Moses looks at his adoptive mother, she bows her head in shame.
Maybe Bithiah thought that Moses should grow up, but I'd like to believe that she had a humanitarian impulse. Even though she was part of the pampered elite and probably didn't think too much about the poor and the suffering, she wanted Moses to treat everyone with respect, even a Midianite woman from the desert.
5. Ten Commandments (2006): Bithiah in this movie really loves Moses, and she's also a woman of her word. When she gives baby Moses to his true mother, Jochabed, Jochabed makes her swear that she will tell Moses that the Israelites are his people, too. And Bithiah keeps her vow.
Bithiah never understands what Moses is doing on God's behalf, but she still loves him. Unfortunately, Moses is pretty rude to her when they finally part ways, for he walks away from her without saying a word. He must not want anything to do with his Egyptian background! At least Charlton Heston's Moses honored Bithiah as the woman who brought him up.
Bithiah in Demille's version was probably more open to Moses' work because she was an outcast from Egyptian society: She was put on house-arrest after the Egyptians learned she'd adopted a Hebrew. Bithiah in the 2006 version was still entrenched in the system, however, so she couldn't understand why Moses was mad at her people.
Today, I want to focus on the character of Bithiah. In Exodus 2, the daughter of Pharaoh finds a Hebrew baby in a basket while she is at the river to bathe. She rescues him from her father's decree to kill every Hebrew baby boy, and she names him "Moshe," which means "drawing out" in Hebrew. She even says that she's naming him "Moshe" because "I drew him" (Hebrew, meshitihu) out of the water! (This raises interesting questions for inerrantists: Why is an Egyptian speaking in Hebrew? Is this historical, or is it a literary device?) She then adopts him and raises him as an Egyptian.
Rabbis identified Pharaoh's daughter with Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh in I Chronicles 4:17 (or 18, in other versions.) According to that passage, Bithiah married and had children with an Israelite named Mered. Josephus, however, calls Moses' adoptive mother "Thermuthis," not "Bithiah" (Antiquities 2:232).
The rabbis portray Bithiah positively, for she showed compassion by saving Moses from her father's evil decree. Some Jewish interpreters suggested that she was one of the few people who entered paradise alive, a reward for her kindness to Moses. The rabbis affirm that she left Egypt with the Israelites, and that the "Mered" she married was none other than Caleb, "who was called Mered ('rebellion') because, as she rebelled against her father and her family, so did Caleb 'rebel' when he refused to follow the evil counsels of the spies" (Numbers 14). See JewishEncyclopedia.com - BITHIAH. Caleb was not the only one who had another name, however, for the name "Bithiah" means "daughter of Yah" in Hebrew. I Chronicles and rabbinic literature may hold that she changed her name when she joined the Israelites. Maybe her Egyptian name was "Thermuthis," as Josephus narrates!
Here's my impression of how the movies portray Bithiah:
1. Ten Commandments (1956): This movie is closest to I Chronicles 4:17 and rabbinic literature. Bithiah leaves with the Israelites at the Exodus, and, after the Passover, she is continually with a Hebrew named "Mered" (or so he is identified in the Internet Movie Database--see The Ten Commandments (1956)). The movie departs from rabbinic literature in that Mered and Caleb are two different characters. In the movie, Caleb mocks Bithiah when she tries to join Moses' Passover meal, whereas Mered welcomes her. Although the commandments in the movie were in the ancient Hebrew script, its authors may not have been sensitive to the meaning of the name "Mered," or "Bithiah," for that matter. After all, why would the Egyptians call her a name that means "daughter of Yah" in Hebrew?
I love the Ten Commandment's portrayal of Bithiah most of all, for it emphasizes her spiritual growth. She goes from saying "This desert god is the hope of the hopeless" to confronting the worshippers of the golden calf in the wilderness.
2. Moses, with Burt Lancaster (1974): She draws Moses from the river, and that's it!
3. Moses, with Ben Kingsley (1996): Her portrayal in this movie is not all that positive. She adopts Moses, and all of Pharaoh's court knows that he's not a real Egyptian. As Merneptah (played by Frank Langella) mockingly inquires, "When is an Egyptian not an Egyptian?" Bithiah seems to feel ashamed that she adopted Moses. She also tries to force him to be an Egyptian, even though he has a greater affinity with the Hebrew slaves and their God. My impression here is that she adopted Moses because she disliked being childless, but she wasn't too happy with her decision. She does not love Moses like the Bithiahs in the other movies.
4. Prince of Egypt (1998): One of my favorite scenes in this movie is when Moses and Rameses come to a celebration, and the Egyptian priests bring them a present: a Midianite woman (Tzipporah, who later becomes Moses' wife). Tzipporah tries to escape and Moses humiliates her, to the laughter and applause of his Egyptian guests. When Moses looks at his adoptive mother, she bows her head in shame.
Maybe Bithiah thought that Moses should grow up, but I'd like to believe that she had a humanitarian impulse. Even though she was part of the pampered elite and probably didn't think too much about the poor and the suffering, she wanted Moses to treat everyone with respect, even a Midianite woman from the desert.
5. Ten Commandments (2006): Bithiah in this movie really loves Moses, and she's also a woman of her word. When she gives baby Moses to his true mother, Jochabed, Jochabed makes her swear that she will tell Moses that the Israelites are his people, too. And Bithiah keeps her vow.
Bithiah never understands what Moses is doing on God's behalf, but she still loves him. Unfortunately, Moses is pretty rude to her when they finally part ways, for he walks away from her without saying a word. He must not want anything to do with his Egyptian background! At least Charlton Heston's Moses honored Bithiah as the woman who brought him up.
Bithiah in Demille's version was probably more open to Moses' work because she was an outcast from Egyptian society: She was put on house-arrest after the Egyptians learned she'd adopted a Hebrew. Bithiah in the 2006 version was still entrenched in the system, however, so she couldn't understand why Moses was mad at her people.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" Tuesday
Years ago, I read Gary Allen's controversial 1971 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Its premise is that international bankers and power elites are working to create a one world government. I don't remember if Allen actually substantiated that claim, but he did highlight some pretty fishy facts, such as prominent financiers' support for the Bolshevik Revolution and Adolf Hitler.
Three things last night reminded me of this book:
1. Glenn Beck was saying that we should redefine the political spectrum, and he proposed a model that was identical with that of Gary Allen in None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Many experts place Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right, but Allen views that as complete nonsense. Where would one put a libertarian or an anarchist on such a spectrum?, he asks. The model that Gary Allen and Glenn Beck propose is this: put totalitarianism and State authoritarianism on the Left, and anarchy (no government at all) on the Right. In the center-right is a limited constitutional government, the best system that humans can devise (according to Allen and Beck).
I agree with Allen and Beck that our current political spectrum is problematic in that it excludes anarchists and libertarians from simple categorization. But I don't know if their model is any better. Right now, both liberals and conservatives support a mixture of liberty and authoritarianism. Many liberals love government authority in the economic sphere, but they tend to oppose it in the social and (to some extent) criminal realms. Many conservatives are more libertarian economically, but they also want to ban pornography, and they prioritize catching and punishing criminals over "due process." So I don't know what the ideal political spectrum would look like.
2. I watched The Mary Kate Latourneau Story: All-American Girl. Mary Kate Latourneau was a teacher who had sex with one of her students. Her father was ultra-conservative Congressman John Schmitz, who ran for President in 1972 with the American Independent Party and wrote the introduction to Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
I watched the movie specifically to see how it would portray Schmitz. Overall, it presented him as a nice guy whose principles were too high. He opposed sex education because he thought it encouraged promiscuity, but he himself had children by a mistress. And, while he may have been "Mr. Law and Order" in his political beliefs, he preferred that his daughter receive therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Near the end of the movie, he tried to reconcile his daughter's legal situation with his own conservative beliefs. He said that, in the old days, statutory rape laws only applied to men, and Mary Kate's judge was probably a liberal feminist who was retaliating against Schmitz for his prominent opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, I'm somewhat of a Phyllis Schlafly fan myself, but I think statutory rape laws should apply to both men and women. Why should women be exempt from them? That wouldn't be fair!
In a flashback at the beginning, Schmitz is having his children recite the "right" political beliefs at the dinner table. His son remarks that Nixon is a hypocrite for aiding Red China, which supports the very Communists who are killing American boys in Vietnam. That's a valid point, but I think a big goal of Nixon's detente was to use the Communist countries against each other.
3. I was reading Donald Warren's Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio. Charles Coughlin was a prominent radio priest in the 1930's, and he spoke against Communism, international bankers, and Franklin Roosevelt. He is usually placed on the far right of the political spectrum, but he had ideas that could be construed as leftist (e.g., living wage, nationalization, abolishing the gold standard, etc.). Again, our political spectrum doesn't always allow for easy categorization!
Coughlin is considered by historians to be anti-Semitic, and many of his public and private statements may indeed deserve that label. But he did not view himself as such, for he went to great pains to stress that he wasn't attacking all Jews, but only the ones who were atheists, Communists, or international bankers. And he acknowledged that Gentiles could fall into these categories as well.
That reminds me of something Gary Allen says in None Dare Call It Conspiracy. According to Allen, many people shy away from criticizing international bankers because such a practice has historically coincided with anti-Semitism. But, as Allen notes, there are many international bankers who are not Jewish.
A possible problem with Coughlin, Allen, etc. is that they seem to assume that the international bankers and rich financiers are on the same side. But we can see from their own accounts that such is not the case. Coughlin lambasted the rich bankers for funding the Bolsheviks, but he himself had support from rich financiers (e.g., Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy). Plus, as Allen contends, rich financiers were also supporting the Hitler regime, for which Coughlin had some sympathy (although he also criticized it). I'm not sure what their agenda was. Maybe they just wanted to make money.
Three things last night reminded me of this book:
1. Glenn Beck was saying that we should redefine the political spectrum, and he proposed a model that was identical with that of Gary Allen in None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Many experts place Communism on the Left and Fascism on the Right, but Allen views that as complete nonsense. Where would one put a libertarian or an anarchist on such a spectrum?, he asks. The model that Gary Allen and Glenn Beck propose is this: put totalitarianism and State authoritarianism on the Left, and anarchy (no government at all) on the Right. In the center-right is a limited constitutional government, the best system that humans can devise (according to Allen and Beck).
I agree with Allen and Beck that our current political spectrum is problematic in that it excludes anarchists and libertarians from simple categorization. But I don't know if their model is any better. Right now, both liberals and conservatives support a mixture of liberty and authoritarianism. Many liberals love government authority in the economic sphere, but they tend to oppose it in the social and (to some extent) criminal realms. Many conservatives are more libertarian economically, but they also want to ban pornography, and they prioritize catching and punishing criminals over "due process." So I don't know what the ideal political spectrum would look like.
2. I watched The Mary Kate Latourneau Story: All-American Girl. Mary Kate Latourneau was a teacher who had sex with one of her students. Her father was ultra-conservative Congressman John Schmitz, who ran for President in 1972 with the American Independent Party and wrote the introduction to Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
I watched the movie specifically to see how it would portray Schmitz. Overall, it presented him as a nice guy whose principles were too high. He opposed sex education because he thought it encouraged promiscuity, but he himself had children by a mistress. And, while he may have been "Mr. Law and Order" in his political beliefs, he preferred that his daughter receive therapy and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Near the end of the movie, he tried to reconcile his daughter's legal situation with his own conservative beliefs. He said that, in the old days, statutory rape laws only applied to men, and Mary Kate's judge was probably a liberal feminist who was retaliating against Schmitz for his prominent opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, I'm somewhat of a Phyllis Schlafly fan myself, but I think statutory rape laws should apply to both men and women. Why should women be exempt from them? That wouldn't be fair!
In a flashback at the beginning, Schmitz is having his children recite the "right" political beliefs at the dinner table. His son remarks that Nixon is a hypocrite for aiding Red China, which supports the very Communists who are killing American boys in Vietnam. That's a valid point, but I think a big goal of Nixon's detente was to use the Communist countries against each other.
3. I was reading Donald Warren's Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio. Charles Coughlin was a prominent radio priest in the 1930's, and he spoke against Communism, international bankers, and Franklin Roosevelt. He is usually placed on the far right of the political spectrum, but he had ideas that could be construed as leftist (e.g., living wage, nationalization, abolishing the gold standard, etc.). Again, our political spectrum doesn't always allow for easy categorization!
Coughlin is considered by historians to be anti-Semitic, and many of his public and private statements may indeed deserve that label. But he did not view himself as such, for he went to great pains to stress that he wasn't attacking all Jews, but only the ones who were atheists, Communists, or international bankers. And he acknowledged that Gentiles could fall into these categories as well.
That reminds me of something Gary Allen says in None Dare Call It Conspiracy. According to Allen, many people shy away from criticizing international bankers because such a practice has historically coincided with anti-Semitism. But, as Allen notes, there are many international bankers who are not Jewish.
A possible problem with Coughlin, Allen, etc. is that they seem to assume that the international bankers and rich financiers are on the same side. But we can see from their own accounts that such is not the case. Coughlin lambasted the rich bankers for funding the Bolsheviks, but he himself had support from rich financiers (e.g., Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy). Plus, as Allen contends, rich financiers were also supporting the Hitler regime, for which Coughlin had some sympathy (although he also criticized it). I'm not sure what their agenda was. Maybe they just wanted to make money.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Biblical Diversity and Harmonization: The Case of James McGrath
Many biblical scholars affirm that the biblical writings are diverse from one another in their ideas. Conservatives assert that the Bible never contradicts itself because it is divinely-inspired, whereas liberals have no problem claiming that the Bible is contradictory, since it was written by different people who did not share the exact same religious worldview.
But how do religious liberals (or even conservatives who acknowledge biblical diversity) find spiritual value in a contradictory document? Do they accept some things in the Bible while rejecting others? Do they seek a common thread that runs through all of the diverse biblical writings, such as a loving God or social justice? Do they think that the Bible contains a "big picture" that is more than the sum of its diverse parts?
I'm sure that each of these approaches has someone who follows it. Today, I want to look at how James McGrath interacts with such issues in some of his blogposts. But please remember this: James McGrath has been blogging for a long time, and I haven't read all of his posts and comments. Consequently, this post of mine is not an exhaustive treatment of his beliefs.
My format in this post will be as follows: I will identify a topic, include links to McGrath's posts, and then interact with them. The topics will be biblical diversity, the deity of Christ, Christian exclusivism, and the substitutionary atonement.
1. Biblical Diversity
The Bible: Pure or Special Blend?
Review of Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted
In the "Review of Bart Ehrman," McGrath disagrees with fundamentalist tendencies to harmonize the Bible's passages on Jesus' resurrection. He also states that fundamentalism often goes against what the Bible actually says, and that fundamentalists themselves "pick-and-choose" what they deem to be authoritative in the Bible, even if they assert the contrary. In "The Bible: Pure or Special Blend," McGrath says that Christians would do well to appreciate the diverse voices in the Bible. In these posts, McGrath seems to affirm biblical diversity while dismissing fundamentalist attempts to harmonize biblical contradictions.
2. Deity of Christ
Incarnation in Luke-Acts and in John?
Following the Historical Jesus
In a comment under "Following the Historical Jesus," McGrath implies that one should not conclude that Jesus is God on the basis of the Gospel of John. His reason may be that the Gospel of John is later than the other Gospels, which do not claim that Jesus was God. Here, McGrath prioritizes the earlier Gospels over John in his attempt to understand what Jesus believed about himself. In "Information in Luke-Acts and in John," however, McGrath asks a profound question: Often, Christians read Luke and the other synoptics in light of John's claim that Jesus is God. But suppose we read John's claim in light of Luke? According to McGrath, Luke presents Jesus as filled with God's Spirit. Maybe John, when he calls Jesus God, is saying that Jesus was so filled with God's spirit and transparent to God's purposes that he was practically identical to the divine, even though he also affirmed that the Father was superior to him. McGrath draws a parallel with Islamic mystics, who subsumed their own identities in their devotion to God. Although McGrath affirms biblical diversity in this post, his approach here seems to be rather harmonistic, in that he tries to reconcile the different Christologies of Luke and John.
3. Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism
Is Jesus the Only Way? Not according to most Christians...or the Bible!
Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism
The issue here is whether or not non-Christians can be saved. Christian exclusivists maintain that belief in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation and a relationship with God, thereby excluding people from other religions. In "Is Jesus the Only Way?," McGrath asks why Christians must prioritize exclusivist passages such as John 14:6 ("No one comes to the Father but through me") over more inclusivist passages of Scripture, as when Jesus heals people and commends their faith, without requiring them to convert to monotheism or understand who he is. Here, McGrath seems to prioritize certain passages over others. In "Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism," however, he's open to Krister Stendahl's non-exclusivistic interpretations of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. Ultimately, McGrath may have problems dismissing the exclusivistic passages in favor of inclusivist ones, so he's open to alternative interpretations of the former.
4. Substitutionary Atonement
What's Wrong With Penal Substitution?
What Do You Say That I Did?
Celebrating Easter with the Doubting Disciples
Did Christ die in place of sinners and pay the penalty for their sin, a doctrine known as "penal substitution"? McGrath says "no." For him, not only is that unfair, but the Bible doesn't even teach it. The Bible often presents God forgiving people without a blood substitute, and it also affirms that one man cannot die for another (see Exodus 32:33, which McGrath does not actually cite) but that people die for their own sins. For McGrath, the model of atonement that Paul presents is participatory, in which believers die with Christ, rather than Christ dying in place of believers. McGrath does not deny that certain passages in the New Testament view the blood of Christ as expiatory for sin, a position that is salient in Hebrews. Although McGrath asks in "Celebrating Easter" why Christians prioritize Hebrews so much, since it barely made the canon, he interprets Hebrews without reference to penal substitution. For McGrath, in Hebrews, the blood of Jesus atoned for our sins by cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, as blood is a cleansing agent within Leviticus. McGrath sees no need for the substitutionary atonement here!
So what is my point in all of this? My point is that even a religious liberal like James McGrath sees some need to harmonize the diverse passages of Scripture, as much as he may oppose harmonization. We can appreciate biblical diversity, but (in my opinion) certain questions are unavoidable for those who want to view the Bible as authoritative on how God relates to humanity. "Which opinion within the Bible should I select as authoritative, and why that opinion and not another one?" Like many conservatives, McGrath desires some consistency throughout the Bible, rather than viewing it as a mess of contradictory ideas that confuse believers on what God actually wants.
But how do religious liberals (or even conservatives who acknowledge biblical diversity) find spiritual value in a contradictory document? Do they accept some things in the Bible while rejecting others? Do they seek a common thread that runs through all of the diverse biblical writings, such as a loving God or social justice? Do they think that the Bible contains a "big picture" that is more than the sum of its diverse parts?
I'm sure that each of these approaches has someone who follows it. Today, I want to look at how James McGrath interacts with such issues in some of his blogposts. But please remember this: James McGrath has been blogging for a long time, and I haven't read all of his posts and comments. Consequently, this post of mine is not an exhaustive treatment of his beliefs.
My format in this post will be as follows: I will identify a topic, include links to McGrath's posts, and then interact with them. The topics will be biblical diversity, the deity of Christ, Christian exclusivism, and the substitutionary atonement.
1. Biblical Diversity
The Bible: Pure or Special Blend?
Review of Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted
In the "Review of Bart Ehrman," McGrath disagrees with fundamentalist tendencies to harmonize the Bible's passages on Jesus' resurrection. He also states that fundamentalism often goes against what the Bible actually says, and that fundamentalists themselves "pick-and-choose" what they deem to be authoritative in the Bible, even if they assert the contrary. In "The Bible: Pure or Special Blend," McGrath says that Christians would do well to appreciate the diverse voices in the Bible. In these posts, McGrath seems to affirm biblical diversity while dismissing fundamentalist attempts to harmonize biblical contradictions.
2. Deity of Christ
Incarnation in Luke-Acts and in John?
Following the Historical Jesus
In a comment under "Following the Historical Jesus," McGrath implies that one should not conclude that Jesus is God on the basis of the Gospel of John. His reason may be that the Gospel of John is later than the other Gospels, which do not claim that Jesus was God. Here, McGrath prioritizes the earlier Gospels over John in his attempt to understand what Jesus believed about himself. In "Information in Luke-Acts and in John," however, McGrath asks a profound question: Often, Christians read Luke and the other synoptics in light of John's claim that Jesus is God. But suppose we read John's claim in light of Luke? According to McGrath, Luke presents Jesus as filled with God's Spirit. Maybe John, when he calls Jesus God, is saying that Jesus was so filled with God's spirit and transparent to God's purposes that he was practically identical to the divine, even though he also affirmed that the Father was superior to him. McGrath draws a parallel with Islamic mystics, who subsumed their own identities in their devotion to God. Although McGrath affirms biblical diversity in this post, his approach here seems to be rather harmonistic, in that he tries to reconcile the different Christologies of Luke and John.
3. Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism
Is Jesus the Only Way? Not according to most Christians...or the Bible!
Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism
The issue here is whether or not non-Christians can be saved. Christian exclusivists maintain that belief in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation and a relationship with God, thereby excluding people from other religions. In "Is Jesus the Only Way?," McGrath asks why Christians must prioritize exclusivist passages such as John 14:6 ("No one comes to the Father but through me") over more inclusivist passages of Scripture, as when Jesus heals people and commends their faith, without requiring them to convert to monotheism or understand who he is. Here, McGrath seems to prioritize certain passages over others. In "Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism," however, he's open to Krister Stendahl's non-exclusivistic interpretations of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. Ultimately, McGrath may have problems dismissing the exclusivistic passages in favor of inclusivist ones, so he's open to alternative interpretations of the former.
4. Substitutionary Atonement
What's Wrong With Penal Substitution?
What Do You Say That I Did?
Celebrating Easter with the Doubting Disciples
Did Christ die in place of sinners and pay the penalty for their sin, a doctrine known as "penal substitution"? McGrath says "no." For him, not only is that unfair, but the Bible doesn't even teach it. The Bible often presents God forgiving people without a blood substitute, and it also affirms that one man cannot die for another (see Exodus 32:33, which McGrath does not actually cite) but that people die for their own sins. For McGrath, the model of atonement that Paul presents is participatory, in which believers die with Christ, rather than Christ dying in place of believers. McGrath does not deny that certain passages in the New Testament view the blood of Christ as expiatory for sin, a position that is salient in Hebrews. Although McGrath asks in "Celebrating Easter" why Christians prioritize Hebrews so much, since it barely made the canon, he interprets Hebrews without reference to penal substitution. For McGrath, in Hebrews, the blood of Jesus atoned for our sins by cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, as blood is a cleansing agent within Leviticus. McGrath sees no need for the substitutionary atonement here!
So what is my point in all of this? My point is that even a religious liberal like James McGrath sees some need to harmonize the diverse passages of Scripture, as much as he may oppose harmonization. We can appreciate biblical diversity, but (in my opinion) certain questions are unavoidable for those who want to view the Bible as authoritative on how God relates to humanity. "Which opinion within the Bible should I select as authoritative, and why that opinion and not another one?" Like many conservatives, McGrath desires some consistency throughout the Bible, rather than viewing it as a mess of contradictory ideas that confuse believers on what God actually wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)