Posts
At church this morning, the pastor preached about the Parable of the
Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The pastor was saying that love for
neighbor is not about how we feel about our neighbor, and how our
neighbor feels about us; rather, it is about us showing mercy and being
sensitive to the needs around us.
I like that message, since I have difficulty having warm, fuzzy,
affectionate feelings towards a lot of people; plus, there are people
who don’t like me. But do I think that message is Scriptural? Allow me
to reflect.
On the one hand, I do think that God wants for our love to touch us
on an emotional level. Romans 12:10 states: “Be kindly affectioned one
to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another”
(KJV). I Peter 1:22 refers to loving others fervently with a pure
heart. I also think of I Corinthians 13:3, which states that, if I give
all of my goods to feed the poor but have not love, it profits me
nothing. Is love simply a matter of giving things to people who need
help, even if I may have hostile feelings towards certain people? If
so, then why does Paul distinguish giving one’s goods to the poor from
love?
On the other hand, can we truly say that Jesus and the prophets liked
the people who were persecuting them or putting them to death? I have
my doubts. Jesus does not seem to like some of the Pharisees in Matthew
23! Maybe Jesus appreciated certain human aspects to them, for Jesus
did eat with the Pharisees, but there were things about some of them
that made him angry. Jesus may not have liked them, at least not
entirely, but he still did love them. He wanted them to repent (Luke
7:30; cp. Luke 13:34), and he asked God to forgive the people who were
putting him to death (Luke 23:34).
I should also note Romans 12:19-20: “Dearly beloved, avenge not
yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine
enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing
thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head” (KJV). This passage does
seem to divorce feeling from action: you may have hostile feelings
towards your enemy, but you should trust God to execute vengeance, while
still doing good to your enemy. There is outward love there, but there
is still an inner desire for vengeance.
During the children’s part of the service, the pastor was talking
about loving people who are different for us, for everyone is made by
God. As the pastor said, children often need to remind adults of this!
I hear him there!
I noticed in hearing Luke 10:25-37 that the discussion in which Jesus
told the Parable of the Good Samaritan concerned how to inherit eternal
life. How, according to Jesus, does one inherit eternal life? In
accordance with the law, one loves God and loves one’s neighbor. Jesus
said, “This do, and thou shalt live.” That sounds different from what a
lot of evangelical Christians say: you cannot get eternal life by
obeying the law or doing good works, for you need to accept God’s free
gift of salvation by trusting Jesus Christ as Savior. At the same time,
the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, the Book of Acts, contains the
statement that “by [Jesus] all that believe are justified from all
things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts
13:39 KJV). Obviously, in that passage in Acts, justification cannot
come through the law of Moses; we need Christ.
If that’s true, though, why didn’t Christ mention it to the lawyer
who asked him how to inherit eternal life? Why did Christ only mention
love of God and neighbor? I think back to a video I watched of Billy
Graham talking with Woody Allen. Graham was telling Allen that God
loves him and expects Allen to live up to a standard, and, if Allen
falls short, he needs redemption. That puzzled me, a bit. IF Allen
falls short? There is no “if” about it, for we are all sinners who fall
short (Romans 3)! We all need redemption! Another blogger told me,
however, that he actually liked Graham’s approach because Graham was
setting up an ethical context. That, I think, is what Jesus was doing:
he was setting up an ethical context. And, in the course of becoming
oriented to that ethical context and coming to appreciate what God and
the Kingdom of God are all about, we find that we fall short, that we
not only transgress, but that our attitudes often go in the opposite
direction from what God wants. Then, we conclude that we need
redemption.
I still have difficulty feeling affection towards certain people. As
I was walking to church, I was thinking of people whom I did not like,
and I was contemplating what was good about them. That is not exactly
unconditional love, or loving on the basis of Christ as opposed to
loving on the basis of what I like about people. But I needed to do
that in order to develop some affection towards them; and maybe honoring
what is good about them actually loves them as people, for what makes
them tick personally, as opposed to loving them in conformity to some
standard out there. There is still a place for loving out of conformity
to a standard, though.
I was also thinking of something that I read on a Christian blog a
while back, but I cannot find the post. The blogger was mockingly
paraphrasing I Corinthians 13 in criticizing the attitudes of
evangelicals: “If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but have
not love, relax, I am saved by faith, anyway!” The blogger was
criticizing Christian jerks who use grace as a free pass, as a way to
excuse themselves from loving others.
I need free grace, though. I need that “Relax, I am saved by faith,
anyway.” I need to know that I am good with God, on good days and on
bad days—-on days when every offense that people have committed against
me comes rapid-fire into my mind, one after the other, and on days when I
am placid and feel good about God and my fellow human beings. It is
hard for me to give love, if I am unsure that I am actually receiving it
from God. Does that approach give a pass to Christian jerks, allowing
them to believes that they are saved by grace even when they treat
others like dirt? Part of me wonders, “So what if it does?” Even the
Christian jerk needs grace, as I do!
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Would Biden Be a Formidable Candidate?
Would Joe Biden be a formidable Presidential candidate? I have read
more than one article that answers “no.” These articles note that Biden
ran for President in 1988 and 2008, and he did not do very well.
There are a lot of factors in whether a person does well in a Presidential race or not. I think, though, that Biden could be a more effective and formidable candidate in 2016 than he was in 1988 and 2008. The reason is that we have gotten to see more of Biden’s personal side—-his honesty, his human vulnerability, his sensitivity. Speaking for myself as a voter, when Biden ran in the 2008 Democratic primaries, I saw him as a pompous jerk. Nowadays, I appreciate his human side more.
Although Hillary has a larger political organization, she remains enmeshed in scandal, fairly or not. She is, and will continue to be, an easy target by Republicans this election year. Republicans will probably wear kid-gloves, however, when it comes to attacking Biden, or at least they will focus on the issues rather than attacking Biden personally. The reason is all of the things that Biden has been through, and Republicans would look insensitive to attack him personally.
There are a lot of factors in whether a person does well in a Presidential race or not. I think, though, that Biden could be a more effective and formidable candidate in 2016 than he was in 1988 and 2008. The reason is that we have gotten to see more of Biden’s personal side—-his honesty, his human vulnerability, his sensitivity. Speaking for myself as a voter, when Biden ran in the 2008 Democratic primaries, I saw him as a pompous jerk. Nowadays, I appreciate his human side more.
Although Hillary has a larger political organization, she remains enmeshed in scandal, fairly or not. She is, and will continue to be, an easy target by Republicans this election year. Republicans will probably wear kid-gloves, however, when it comes to attacking Biden, or at least they will focus on the issues rather than attacking Biden personally. The reason is all of the things that Biden has been through, and Republicans would look insensitive to attack him personally.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Book Write-Up: Reinventing Liberal Christianity, by Theo Hobson
Theo Hobson. Reinventing Liberal Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2013. See here to buy the book.
A. The title of this book is Reinventing Liberal Christianity. I suppose that a good place to start this post is with a definition: What, for Theo Hobson, is Liberal Christianity? Well, Hobson talks about a variety of historical trends and concepts that he believes have been a part of Liberal Christianity. There are the ideas of religious liberty and the non-establishment of any religion or church denomination. There is the de-emphasis on ritual in favor of a mental assent to religion. There is the attempt to ground religion in reason, while dismissing miracles.
B. Liberal Christianity has not exactly been a straight line, as far as I can see in reading Hobson’s book; rather, it has been more like a tree. A belief in an emotional religious experience branched out into Romanticism, which wanted to get emotional, not about the traditional Christian God, but rather about nature and humanity. Hobson associates the German authoritarianism of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries with the Liberal State and Liberal Christianity. How that was the case, I am not entirely certain. Hobbes believed in a powerful sovereign safeguarding liberty, and Luther thought that the state should somehow protect the church, so these may be parts of the equation. Hobson also says that German Liberalism was not as liberal as it could have been, so there is a spectrum of Liberalism, in Hobson’s mind.
C. A theme that recurs throughout Hobson’s book is that of religion being a social glue. If religion is disestablished and secularism prevails, what exactly will hold people together and define their culture? Some of the thinkers whom Hobson profiles, such as Rousseau, believed that festivals and celebrations could bind the people together. Whether Hobson is depicting Rousseau and people with similar sentiments during Liberalism’s heyday as Liberals is difficult to determine; they do seem to depart from the Liberal de-emphasis on cult and ritual. Hobson also talks about Post-Liberals, who are opposed to secularism and believe that religion can contribute to the public life and provide some form of social glue.
D. What does Hobson believe about religion being a social glue? My impression is that he believes that liberty by itself can be a social glue, something to unite and define a people, as is the case in the United States of America. At the same time, Hobson maintains that modern understandings of liberty have some Christian religious basis. This goes back at least as far as the apostle Paul, who held that Gentiles should be free from the Jewish law and circumcision, and who proclaimed that, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (II Corinthians 3:17). In addition, there is within the Liberal Protestant tradition the idea that Jesus did not try to compel people to believe in God, and that faith is something that should be embraced voluntarily and authentically, without state coercion.
E. Hobson looks pretty Liberal, but there are times in the book when he appears to sympathize with, or at least express understanding of, incidents of religious intolerance. Hobson is probably not anti-Catholic or anti-atheist, but he says that there was a social and political rationale for the times when England suppressed Catholics and atheists: England believed that Catholics and atheists were threatening the social and political order. Hobson expresses similar understanding of the recent desire in England to limit Islamic religious expressions.
F. How does Hobson propose to reinvent Liberal Christianity? What exactly needs to be reinvented? He believes that Liberal Christianity should shift from focusing on rationality in the direction of emphasizing cult and ritual as the occasions for faith to be discovered and expressed. My question in reading this book has been, “Doesn’t it already do so?” A number of theologically liberal churches, such as the Episcopalians, emphasize ritual. That is one reason that people (such as recovering evangelicals) go to them: they like the liturgy. Yes, rationality does play a role in the Episcopalian denomination, as when Episcopalians embrace the historical-critical method, or when some of them try to de-supernaturalize the stories of Jesus’ miracles. Liturgy and ritual are important to them, too, however. And, as far as I know, that has not enabled Liberal Christianity to make a dramatic comeback in terms of its cultural influence (which I am stating as an observation, not to gloat from a conservative evangelical perspective; contrary to what some evangelicals may imply when they boast of their numbers, popular does not necessarily mean correct).
G. A theme that occurs in this book is that of keeping up with the times. Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, John Robinson, and Harvey Cox wondered how Christianity could make sense to people in a scientific, modern, secular age, which did not believe in miracles. Some of them were open to saying that Christianity needed to be updated. Robinson compared removing a belief in miracles from Christianity to Paul saying that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to become part of the people of God: Paul removed a hindrance to people believing in God. One can legitimately ask how truth can be updated, and one can also point out that Paul never said that he was removing a hindrance to Gentiles believing in God; rather, Paul tried to ground his belief in Scripture, as opposed to trying to keep up with the times. On the one hand, I do not think that keeping up with the times, by itself, is a worthy excuse for theological changes: I believe that theologians have to deal with the historical-critical method, for example, because it has true insights and poses genuine challenges to traditional religious views, not because it is a hip new belief (albeit not that new, since it has been around for centuries). On the other hand, I believe that God speaks to people where they are, and that God often communicated who he was through people’s cultural categories, both in the Hebrew Bible and also the New Testament. Can God do the same with us today?
Good book! I would like to read more about Bonhoeffer, particularly after reading in this book about his struggles with faith and Christianity.
A. The title of this book is Reinventing Liberal Christianity. I suppose that a good place to start this post is with a definition: What, for Theo Hobson, is Liberal Christianity? Well, Hobson talks about a variety of historical trends and concepts that he believes have been a part of Liberal Christianity. There are the ideas of religious liberty and the non-establishment of any religion or church denomination. There is the de-emphasis on ritual in favor of a mental assent to religion. There is the attempt to ground religion in reason, while dismissing miracles.
B. Liberal Christianity has not exactly been a straight line, as far as I can see in reading Hobson’s book; rather, it has been more like a tree. A belief in an emotional religious experience branched out into Romanticism, which wanted to get emotional, not about the traditional Christian God, but rather about nature and humanity. Hobson associates the German authoritarianism of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries with the Liberal State and Liberal Christianity. How that was the case, I am not entirely certain. Hobbes believed in a powerful sovereign safeguarding liberty, and Luther thought that the state should somehow protect the church, so these may be parts of the equation. Hobson also says that German Liberalism was not as liberal as it could have been, so there is a spectrum of Liberalism, in Hobson’s mind.
C. A theme that recurs throughout Hobson’s book is that of religion being a social glue. If religion is disestablished and secularism prevails, what exactly will hold people together and define their culture? Some of the thinkers whom Hobson profiles, such as Rousseau, believed that festivals and celebrations could bind the people together. Whether Hobson is depicting Rousseau and people with similar sentiments during Liberalism’s heyday as Liberals is difficult to determine; they do seem to depart from the Liberal de-emphasis on cult and ritual. Hobson also talks about Post-Liberals, who are opposed to secularism and believe that religion can contribute to the public life and provide some form of social glue.
D. What does Hobson believe about religion being a social glue? My impression is that he believes that liberty by itself can be a social glue, something to unite and define a people, as is the case in the United States of America. At the same time, Hobson maintains that modern understandings of liberty have some Christian religious basis. This goes back at least as far as the apostle Paul, who held that Gentiles should be free from the Jewish law and circumcision, and who proclaimed that, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (II Corinthians 3:17). In addition, there is within the Liberal Protestant tradition the idea that Jesus did not try to compel people to believe in God, and that faith is something that should be embraced voluntarily and authentically, without state coercion.
E. Hobson looks pretty Liberal, but there are times in the book when he appears to sympathize with, or at least express understanding of, incidents of religious intolerance. Hobson is probably not anti-Catholic or anti-atheist, but he says that there was a social and political rationale for the times when England suppressed Catholics and atheists: England believed that Catholics and atheists were threatening the social and political order. Hobson expresses similar understanding of the recent desire in England to limit Islamic religious expressions.
F. How does Hobson propose to reinvent Liberal Christianity? What exactly needs to be reinvented? He believes that Liberal Christianity should shift from focusing on rationality in the direction of emphasizing cult and ritual as the occasions for faith to be discovered and expressed. My question in reading this book has been, “Doesn’t it already do so?” A number of theologically liberal churches, such as the Episcopalians, emphasize ritual. That is one reason that people (such as recovering evangelicals) go to them: they like the liturgy. Yes, rationality does play a role in the Episcopalian denomination, as when Episcopalians embrace the historical-critical method, or when some of them try to de-supernaturalize the stories of Jesus’ miracles. Liturgy and ritual are important to them, too, however. And, as far as I know, that has not enabled Liberal Christianity to make a dramatic comeback in terms of its cultural influence (which I am stating as an observation, not to gloat from a conservative evangelical perspective; contrary to what some evangelicals may imply when they boast of their numbers, popular does not necessarily mean correct).
G. A theme that occurs in this book is that of keeping up with the times. Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, John Robinson, and Harvey Cox wondered how Christianity could make sense to people in a scientific, modern, secular age, which did not believe in miracles. Some of them were open to saying that Christianity needed to be updated. Robinson compared removing a belief in miracles from Christianity to Paul saying that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to become part of the people of God: Paul removed a hindrance to people believing in God. One can legitimately ask how truth can be updated, and one can also point out that Paul never said that he was removing a hindrance to Gentiles believing in God; rather, Paul tried to ground his belief in Scripture, as opposed to trying to keep up with the times. On the one hand, I do not think that keeping up with the times, by itself, is a worthy excuse for theological changes: I believe that theologians have to deal with the historical-critical method, for example, because it has true insights and poses genuine challenges to traditional religious views, not because it is a hip new belief (albeit not that new, since it has been around for centuries). On the other hand, I believe that God speaks to people where they are, and that God often communicated who he was through people’s cultural categories, both in the Hebrew Bible and also the New Testament. Can God do the same with us today?
Good book! I would like to read more about Bonhoeffer, particularly after reading in this book about his struggles with faith and Christianity.
Friday, September 11, 2015
The Testament of Abraham: Salvation and Answered Prayer
I recently read the Testament of Abraham for my daily quiet time.
The Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha dates it to the first-second centuries
C.E. E.P. Sanders, in his editorial introduction to the work, argues
that it has an Egyptian Jewish background.
In this post, I will focus on Recension A, which is longer than Recension B. I will use Sanders’ translation, looking primarily at chapters 9-14.
The Testament of Abraham is about God sending his angelic Commander-in-Chief, Michael, to Abraham. The Commander-in-Chief’s mission is to prepare Abraham for his coming death and to escort him to the afterlife, since it is Abraham’s time to go. But Abraham is resistant to going, and the Commander-in-Chief does not want to inform Abraham that he will soon die, since Abraham is a sweet, hospitable, and righteous man. Abraham says that he wishes to see all of the world before his death, and the Commander-in-Chief obliges.
Although Abraham in chapter 9 confessed that he was a “sinner and…completely worthless servant,” Abraham does not have a whole lot of tolerance when he beholds other people’s sins. Abraham sees murderous robbers with sharp swords, and Abraham tells the Lord to send wild beasts to kill them. Wild beasts then come from the thicket and devour the robbers. Abraham sees a man and a woman “engaging in sexual immorality,” and Abraham tells the Lord to “command that the earth open and swallow them up.” The earth then opens and swallows the man and the woman up. Abraham sees some men attempting to break into a house to rob it, and Abraham tells the Lord to consume them with fire from heaven. Fire then comes from heaven and consumes the robbers.
Although the Lord is complying with Abraham’s requests, they do not exactly fit God’s will or character. A voice comes from heaven and speaks to the Commander-in-Chief: “O Michael, Commander-in-chief, command the chariot to stop and turn Abraham away, lest he should see the entire inhabited world. For if he were to see all those who pass their lives in sin, he would destroy everything that exists. For behold, Abraham has not sinned and he has no mercy on sinners. But I made the world, and I do not want to destroy any one of them, but I delay the death of the sinner until he should convert and live. Now conduct Abraham to the first gate of heaven, so that there he may see the judgments and recompenses and repent over the souls of the sinners which he destroyed.”
Abraham sees the judgment of the dead. Those who went on the narrow way, a tiny minority, are saved, whereas those who traveled on the broad way are punished. This sounds like Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:23-24, but there are indications that the Testament of Abraham is not Christian. Jesus, or the Son of God, is not mentioned in the Testament of Abraham. Rather, Adam is in heaven cheering humans on, hoping that more people travel on the narrow way. And Adam’s son Abel, who was killed by his brother Cain, is the one who judges humanity.
Abraham then sees a person whose judgment is on hold because he has an equal number of righteous and wicked deeds. (Such a concept appears also in rabbinic literature; see here.) Abraham prays for this person, and the person enters into Paradise. Abraham, after seeing the bleakness of judgment, perhaps concludes that people need all the help they can get, so he repents of having snuffed out the sinners whom he saw previously. He asks God for forgiveness of his sin, and God forgives Abraham and restores the sinners who got snuffed out. God then says that he punished these sinners “for a time,” but that those who die prematurely at God’s hand are not requited. Sanders’ note interprets this statement in light of “the well-known rabbinic view that those who are punished with suffering or premature death in this world are considered to have been sufficiently punished and to have atoned for their sins, so that they are not punished in the world to come…”
Here are some items:
A. Could the Testament of Abraham be somehow related to Christianity, in terms of one influencing the other? Maybe the Testament of Abraham got from Christianity the idea of a righteous murder victim sitting in judgment of humanity. Perhaps, conversely, Christianity got from the Testament of Abraham, or a prior tradition that was similar to the Testament of Abraham, the idea that God could exalt a righteous murder victim to heaven, where that victim would judge humanity, and it concluded that this is what happened to Jesus. Could the Epistle to the Hebrews be relevant to my question? Some interpret Hebrews 12:1 to mean that Old Testament saints are a great cloud of witnesses cheering the saints on, and that sounds similar to Adam in the Testament of Abraham cheering humanity on. There is also Hebrews 12:24, which affirms that Jesus’ blood speaks better things than that of Abel. Could Hebrews be responding to a tradition like the Testament of Abraham, in which Abel was judging humanity?
B. In reading the Testament of Abraham, I thought about some ideas in Scripture. In the New Testament, we often encounter the idea that God will grant any request that a disciple makes in the name of Jesus, or with faith (Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24; I John 3:22). This troubles people. Any request? Then why didn’t God heal so-and-so, after I prayed for him? And is not God holding himself hostage to human whims by saying that he will answer any request made in Jesus’ name, or in faith?
Many Christian interpreters would add qualifications to this. They point to I John 5:14, which affirms that God answers requests that are according to God’s will. They have also said that God answers the requests that conform to his own character and his commandments: that, when our character is shaped and molded according to God’s righteousness, we ask God for the right things, and God grants our requests. There may be something to this view. John 15:7 states: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (KJV). I John 3:22 affirms: “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (KJV). In these passages, God granting our requests seems to be conditioned on us being yielded to Christ and Christ’s righteous way, in some manner. I do not think that this entirely solves the problem of unanswered prayer, however, for why wouldn’t God answer the prayer of a righteous person to heal someone else, a prayer that is made out of concern for another person?
I also think of Genesis 27. In that chapter, Isaac blesses Jacob when Jacob pretends to be Esau, and Isaac cannot reverse that blessing on Jacob after the real Esau shows up. Blessings were considered to be that powerful, in the ancient world. Does that mean, though, that God is holding himself hostage to what people say, to people’s blessings and cursings?
In the Testament of Abraham, God grants Abraham’s requests because Abraham is righteous: Abraham is the sort of person who tries to be hospitable to everyone, both those who are important in the eyes of the world, and those who seem unimportant. But Abraham does not always make righteous requests that accord with God’s will, and God still feels obligated to grant those requests. At the same time, God is still in control. God can remove Abraham from seeing more sinners so that Abraham does not request for more sinners to be snuffed out. God can teach Abraham about God’s nature of compassion and longsuffering, knowing that Abraham is the type of person who will learn the lesson that God wants to teach him. God holds himself hostage to Abraham’s requests, on some level, but God is still in charge, navigating events in accordance with God’s righteous will.
C. In the Testament of Abraham, God wants as many people as possible to be saved, but only a tiny minority are saved. That is a tension that I do not understand, but there it is. Could the co-existence of these concepts be relevant to interpreting the New Testament within the context of debates about universalism (i.e., God will eventually save everyone)? There are universalist voices, particularly among certain fourth century church fathers. Here in the Testament of Abraham, however, we see the idea that God may want for everyone to be saved, but God does not save everybody, only a tiny minority. For some reason (maybe free will, and the understanding that people have enough light to make right decisions), what God wants is not what God gets.
D. Abraham calls himself a sinner, but Abraham is not merciful towards other sinners; what’s more, God says that Abraham is not merciful towards them because Abraham himself has not sinned. And yet, Abraham’s lack of compassion by itself is something that Abraham labels a sin, and Abraham asks God for forgiveness of it. These concepts appear contradictory. Could some of that be due to different sources in the Testament of Abraham? Or perhaps one author believed that these paradoxes could co-exist: yes, Abraham was righteous in terms of his overall walk, but he was also a sinner. Even if Abraham slipped up at times, the general pattern of his life was to conform to God’s righteous standard.
I am not as righteous as Abraham, not by a long shot, but like Abraham, I can acknowledge that I am a sinner, while still being outraged at the sins that I see on television. When someone tries to harm someone else, human or animal, that upsets me, and I desire justice. I do not think that this is wrong. I hope, though, that I can also be outraged at my own sins.
In this post, I will focus on Recension A, which is longer than Recension B. I will use Sanders’ translation, looking primarily at chapters 9-14.
The Testament of Abraham is about God sending his angelic Commander-in-Chief, Michael, to Abraham. The Commander-in-Chief’s mission is to prepare Abraham for his coming death and to escort him to the afterlife, since it is Abraham’s time to go. But Abraham is resistant to going, and the Commander-in-Chief does not want to inform Abraham that he will soon die, since Abraham is a sweet, hospitable, and righteous man. Abraham says that he wishes to see all of the world before his death, and the Commander-in-Chief obliges.
Although Abraham in chapter 9 confessed that he was a “sinner and…completely worthless servant,” Abraham does not have a whole lot of tolerance when he beholds other people’s sins. Abraham sees murderous robbers with sharp swords, and Abraham tells the Lord to send wild beasts to kill them. Wild beasts then come from the thicket and devour the robbers. Abraham sees a man and a woman “engaging in sexual immorality,” and Abraham tells the Lord to “command that the earth open and swallow them up.” The earth then opens and swallows the man and the woman up. Abraham sees some men attempting to break into a house to rob it, and Abraham tells the Lord to consume them with fire from heaven. Fire then comes from heaven and consumes the robbers.
Although the Lord is complying with Abraham’s requests, they do not exactly fit God’s will or character. A voice comes from heaven and speaks to the Commander-in-Chief: “O Michael, Commander-in-chief, command the chariot to stop and turn Abraham away, lest he should see the entire inhabited world. For if he were to see all those who pass their lives in sin, he would destroy everything that exists. For behold, Abraham has not sinned and he has no mercy on sinners. But I made the world, and I do not want to destroy any one of them, but I delay the death of the sinner until he should convert and live. Now conduct Abraham to the first gate of heaven, so that there he may see the judgments and recompenses and repent over the souls of the sinners which he destroyed.”
Abraham sees the judgment of the dead. Those who went on the narrow way, a tiny minority, are saved, whereas those who traveled on the broad way are punished. This sounds like Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:23-24, but there are indications that the Testament of Abraham is not Christian. Jesus, or the Son of God, is not mentioned in the Testament of Abraham. Rather, Adam is in heaven cheering humans on, hoping that more people travel on the narrow way. And Adam’s son Abel, who was killed by his brother Cain, is the one who judges humanity.
Abraham then sees a person whose judgment is on hold because he has an equal number of righteous and wicked deeds. (Such a concept appears also in rabbinic literature; see here.) Abraham prays for this person, and the person enters into Paradise. Abraham, after seeing the bleakness of judgment, perhaps concludes that people need all the help they can get, so he repents of having snuffed out the sinners whom he saw previously. He asks God for forgiveness of his sin, and God forgives Abraham and restores the sinners who got snuffed out. God then says that he punished these sinners “for a time,” but that those who die prematurely at God’s hand are not requited. Sanders’ note interprets this statement in light of “the well-known rabbinic view that those who are punished with suffering or premature death in this world are considered to have been sufficiently punished and to have atoned for their sins, so that they are not punished in the world to come…”
Here are some items:
A. Could the Testament of Abraham be somehow related to Christianity, in terms of one influencing the other? Maybe the Testament of Abraham got from Christianity the idea of a righteous murder victim sitting in judgment of humanity. Perhaps, conversely, Christianity got from the Testament of Abraham, or a prior tradition that was similar to the Testament of Abraham, the idea that God could exalt a righteous murder victim to heaven, where that victim would judge humanity, and it concluded that this is what happened to Jesus. Could the Epistle to the Hebrews be relevant to my question? Some interpret Hebrews 12:1 to mean that Old Testament saints are a great cloud of witnesses cheering the saints on, and that sounds similar to Adam in the Testament of Abraham cheering humanity on. There is also Hebrews 12:24, which affirms that Jesus’ blood speaks better things than that of Abel. Could Hebrews be responding to a tradition like the Testament of Abraham, in which Abel was judging humanity?
B. In reading the Testament of Abraham, I thought about some ideas in Scripture. In the New Testament, we often encounter the idea that God will grant any request that a disciple makes in the name of Jesus, or with faith (Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13-14; 15:7, 16; 16:23-24; I John 3:22). This troubles people. Any request? Then why didn’t God heal so-and-so, after I prayed for him? And is not God holding himself hostage to human whims by saying that he will answer any request made in Jesus’ name, or in faith?
Many Christian interpreters would add qualifications to this. They point to I John 5:14, which affirms that God answers requests that are according to God’s will. They have also said that God answers the requests that conform to his own character and his commandments: that, when our character is shaped and molded according to God’s righteousness, we ask God for the right things, and God grants our requests. There may be something to this view. John 15:7 states: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (KJV). I John 3:22 affirms: “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (KJV). In these passages, God granting our requests seems to be conditioned on us being yielded to Christ and Christ’s righteous way, in some manner. I do not think that this entirely solves the problem of unanswered prayer, however, for why wouldn’t God answer the prayer of a righteous person to heal someone else, a prayer that is made out of concern for another person?
I also think of Genesis 27. In that chapter, Isaac blesses Jacob when Jacob pretends to be Esau, and Isaac cannot reverse that blessing on Jacob after the real Esau shows up. Blessings were considered to be that powerful, in the ancient world. Does that mean, though, that God is holding himself hostage to what people say, to people’s blessings and cursings?
In the Testament of Abraham, God grants Abraham’s requests because Abraham is righteous: Abraham is the sort of person who tries to be hospitable to everyone, both those who are important in the eyes of the world, and those who seem unimportant. But Abraham does not always make righteous requests that accord with God’s will, and God still feels obligated to grant those requests. At the same time, God is still in control. God can remove Abraham from seeing more sinners so that Abraham does not request for more sinners to be snuffed out. God can teach Abraham about God’s nature of compassion and longsuffering, knowing that Abraham is the type of person who will learn the lesson that God wants to teach him. God holds himself hostage to Abraham’s requests, on some level, but God is still in charge, navigating events in accordance with God’s righteous will.
C. In the Testament of Abraham, God wants as many people as possible to be saved, but only a tiny minority are saved. That is a tension that I do not understand, but there it is. Could the co-existence of these concepts be relevant to interpreting the New Testament within the context of debates about universalism (i.e., God will eventually save everyone)? There are universalist voices, particularly among certain fourth century church fathers. Here in the Testament of Abraham, however, we see the idea that God may want for everyone to be saved, but God does not save everybody, only a tiny minority. For some reason (maybe free will, and the understanding that people have enough light to make right decisions), what God wants is not what God gets.
D. Abraham calls himself a sinner, but Abraham is not merciful towards other sinners; what’s more, God says that Abraham is not merciful towards them because Abraham himself has not sinned. And yet, Abraham’s lack of compassion by itself is something that Abraham labels a sin, and Abraham asks God for forgiveness of it. These concepts appear contradictory. Could some of that be due to different sources in the Testament of Abraham? Or perhaps one author believed that these paradoxes could co-exist: yes, Abraham was righteous in terms of his overall walk, but he was also a sinner. Even if Abraham slipped up at times, the general pattern of his life was to conform to God’s righteous standard.
I am not as righteous as Abraham, not by a long shot, but like Abraham, I can acknowledge that I am a sinner, while still being outraged at the sins that I see on television. When someone tries to harm someone else, human or animal, that upsets me, and I desire justice. I do not think that this is wrong. I hope, though, that I can also be outraged at my own sins.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Book Write-Up: Here, by Jennifer Ball
Jennifer Ball. Here. Spring Hill, Florida: Revelation Publishing Company, 2014. See here to buy the book.
Here is about two teenagers named Abigail and Joshua. Abigail is a Christian girl with a sociopathic sister. Joshua, like his father, is a womanizer, yet he attends church. Their paths cross as a result of a dramatic incident, and Joshua’s life is not the same after that.
The book is in dire need of editing, in terms of style, grammar, and, occasionally, spelling. But Jennifer Ball is still an effective writer. Her prose is very detailed. She was able to draw me into the story, as I wondered how things would turn out for the characters. She also crafted likable characters, characters with whom I enjoyed spending time. Abigail was sweet and silly, yet also wise. Joshua enjoyed the pleasures of seduction but came to have more responsible views on sexuality, and he matured in the course of the book.
In one scene, Joshua’s girlfriend thinks that she is pregnant, and an unpopular Christian girl lectures her on how unprotected (and, sometimes, protected) sex leads to pregnancy. In my opinion, that Christian girl would have done better as a Christian to have offered to help Joshua’s girlfriend during her pregnancy! I cannot say that Christians lack love in this book, however. I think particularly of Joshua’s mother, who made an act of sacrificial love for her son.
Things do not always go smoothly for Joshua, even after he finds the right path and finds his calling. But he got to joke around with his Christian friends, who also provided him with spiritual encouragement. This was an enjoyable book to read.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Bookcrash, in exchange for an honest review.
Here is about two teenagers named Abigail and Joshua. Abigail is a Christian girl with a sociopathic sister. Joshua, like his father, is a womanizer, yet he attends church. Their paths cross as a result of a dramatic incident, and Joshua’s life is not the same after that.
The book is in dire need of editing, in terms of style, grammar, and, occasionally, spelling. But Jennifer Ball is still an effective writer. Her prose is very detailed. She was able to draw me into the story, as I wondered how things would turn out for the characters. She also crafted likable characters, characters with whom I enjoyed spending time. Abigail was sweet and silly, yet also wise. Joshua enjoyed the pleasures of seduction but came to have more responsible views on sexuality, and he matured in the course of the book.
In one scene, Joshua’s girlfriend thinks that she is pregnant, and an unpopular Christian girl lectures her on how unprotected (and, sometimes, protected) sex leads to pregnancy. In my opinion, that Christian girl would have done better as a Christian to have offered to help Joshua’s girlfriend during her pregnancy! I cannot say that Christians lack love in this book, however. I think particularly of Joshua’s mother, who made an act of sacrificial love for her son.
Things do not always go smoothly for Joshua, even after he finds the right path and finds his calling. But he got to joke around with his Christian friends, who also provided him with spiritual encouragement. This was an enjoyable book to read.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book through Bookcrash, in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Visiting Powell's Book Store: Anne Rice's Collection, Atheist and Christian Apologetics, and New Age Bible Versions
I went to Powell’s bookstore in Portland on Labor Day. I browsed
inside the rare book room, the philosophy section, and the religion
section. The religion section is so big that I didn’t even get to see
everything! Here are three items:
A. I was in the rare book room, and I noticed a copy of Jon Levenson’s Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son inside of a plastic bag. I was wondering why the heck this book was in the rare book room! I have a copy of that book, which I used for a class, and I did not have to pay hundreds of dollars for it! It currently goes for about $13 on Amazon! I looked more on that shelf and noticed other books that I had.
It turns out that these books were donated by Anne Rice, and author of vampire novels and a couple of novels about Jesus. The books have her notes in them. Rice is known for her spiritual journey from atheism, to Catholicism, to humanism (or whatever she believes nowadays—-I have read in places that she has not thoroughly repudiated Christianity). She is very well-read in religious scholarship. I even noticed a book there that was published by Mohr Siebeck, which is a publishing house for academic biblical scholarship. Mohr Siebeck books are the kinds that you probably will not find in Powell’s, and they are expensive on Amazon, albeit not as expensive as they were in that rare book room. You will most likely find Mohr Siebeck books in college or seminary libraries, the ones that have really good biblical studies sections (and even some colleges with good biblical studies sections don’t have them). I was impressed that Anne Rice delved that deeply into biblical scholarship.
B. I saw a couple of books that I may want to check out at my nearby public library. One is David Mills’ Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. The cover of the book says that it “Makes the Case Against Intelligent Design.” My impression was that this book would lucidly present arguments against the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. As far as I can see, Mills himself is not a scientist, but rather a journalist who have covered science (among other things). He may be on the atheist side what Lee Strobel is on the conservative Christian side: a journalist who interviews scholars on his side of the debate. I will have to read to find out!
The other book that I may read is G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. I have long heard of Chesterton but have been reluctant to read him, for I feared that his writing would be too dense for me to get through. I looked at a few pages, however, and it did not look that bad. Chesterton argues in The Everlasting Man that Jesus Christ uniquely fulfills the needs and longings of human beings, and he looks at history in making his case. I may read this book, for I do expect Chesterton to be a thoughtful read.
C. A long time ago, I listened to a debate between Christian apologist James White and Gail Riplinger on Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions. Riplinger, according to my understanding, prefers the King James Version over other English translations, and she even argues that other English translations promote a New Age belief system. I felt little, if any, desire to read Riplinger’s book, especially since it seemed to me that White had destroyed her in that debate. I doubted that she wrote anything in that book that I would take seriously.
As I was looking through her book at Powell’s, though, it intrigued me, somewhat. I got to see a little more where she was coming from and where she was going in terms of her argument. On the pages that I was reading, she was saying that the New Age movement teaches that people can become gods. Then, she was comparing the KJV for a certain verse with another English translation. If I am not mistaken, the verse was Ephesians 4:24. The KJV of Ephesians 4:24 states: “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Other English translations, however, state that the new self is like God (NIV), or is in God’s likeness (NASB, NRSV).
I was a little intrigued, and yet taken aback, that Gail Riplinger had a problem with this. I was following her rationale: the New Age movement says humans can become like God, these English translations are conveying that sort of message in the way that they phrase Ephesians 4:24, and so they are examples of New Age Bible versions!
But I disagreed with her conclusions, for a variety of reasons. For one, even the KJV, which Riplinger supports, has things about humans becoming like God or like Christ (Colossians 3:10; I John 3:2). Second, even though the KJV is more literal than many other versions in its rendition of Ephesians 4:24, the KJV still seems to me to be conveying the same message: what is being created “after God,” if it is not being fashioned after God’s likeness, particularly God’s righteousness? Third, there is a strong tradition in historical Christianity of believers becoming like God. Church fathers said that God became as we are, that we might become as God is. (I did not read all of Riplinger’s book, so I do not know if she responds to these arguments.)
Still, I found Riplinger’s argument to be interesting. I read some of James White’s arguments against Riplinger, and White was saying that Riplinger argued that other English translations (many non-KJV ones) promoted a sort of works-based, rather than grace-based or faith-based, method of salvation. I would be interested in reading Riplinger some day, and also James White’s The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? I am not interested enough to buy Riplinger’s book, but maybe I will order it on interlibrary loan.
A. I was in the rare book room, and I noticed a copy of Jon Levenson’s Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son inside of a plastic bag. I was wondering why the heck this book was in the rare book room! I have a copy of that book, which I used for a class, and I did not have to pay hundreds of dollars for it! It currently goes for about $13 on Amazon! I looked more on that shelf and noticed other books that I had.
It turns out that these books were donated by Anne Rice, and author of vampire novels and a couple of novels about Jesus. The books have her notes in them. Rice is known for her spiritual journey from atheism, to Catholicism, to humanism (or whatever she believes nowadays—-I have read in places that she has not thoroughly repudiated Christianity). She is very well-read in religious scholarship. I even noticed a book there that was published by Mohr Siebeck, which is a publishing house for academic biblical scholarship. Mohr Siebeck books are the kinds that you probably will not find in Powell’s, and they are expensive on Amazon, albeit not as expensive as they were in that rare book room. You will most likely find Mohr Siebeck books in college or seminary libraries, the ones that have really good biblical studies sections (and even some colleges with good biblical studies sections don’t have them). I was impressed that Anne Rice delved that deeply into biblical scholarship.
B. I saw a couple of books that I may want to check out at my nearby public library. One is David Mills’ Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism. The cover of the book says that it “Makes the Case Against Intelligent Design.” My impression was that this book would lucidly present arguments against the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. As far as I can see, Mills himself is not a scientist, but rather a journalist who have covered science (among other things). He may be on the atheist side what Lee Strobel is on the conservative Christian side: a journalist who interviews scholars on his side of the debate. I will have to read to find out!
The other book that I may read is G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. I have long heard of Chesterton but have been reluctant to read him, for I feared that his writing would be too dense for me to get through. I looked at a few pages, however, and it did not look that bad. Chesterton argues in The Everlasting Man that Jesus Christ uniquely fulfills the needs and longings of human beings, and he looks at history in making his case. I may read this book, for I do expect Chesterton to be a thoughtful read.
C. A long time ago, I listened to a debate between Christian apologist James White and Gail Riplinger on Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions. Riplinger, according to my understanding, prefers the King James Version over other English translations, and she even argues that other English translations promote a New Age belief system. I felt little, if any, desire to read Riplinger’s book, especially since it seemed to me that White had destroyed her in that debate. I doubted that she wrote anything in that book that I would take seriously.
As I was looking through her book at Powell’s, though, it intrigued me, somewhat. I got to see a little more where she was coming from and where she was going in terms of her argument. On the pages that I was reading, she was saying that the New Age movement teaches that people can become gods. Then, she was comparing the KJV for a certain verse with another English translation. If I am not mistaken, the verse was Ephesians 4:24. The KJV of Ephesians 4:24 states: “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Other English translations, however, state that the new self is like God (NIV), or is in God’s likeness (NASB, NRSV).
I was a little intrigued, and yet taken aback, that Gail Riplinger had a problem with this. I was following her rationale: the New Age movement says humans can become like God, these English translations are conveying that sort of message in the way that they phrase Ephesians 4:24, and so they are examples of New Age Bible versions!
But I disagreed with her conclusions, for a variety of reasons. For one, even the KJV, which Riplinger supports, has things about humans becoming like God or like Christ (Colossians 3:10; I John 3:2). Second, even though the KJV is more literal than many other versions in its rendition of Ephesians 4:24, the KJV still seems to me to be conveying the same message: what is being created “after God,” if it is not being fashioned after God’s likeness, particularly God’s righteousness? Third, there is a strong tradition in historical Christianity of believers becoming like God. Church fathers said that God became as we are, that we might become as God is. (I did not read all of Riplinger’s book, so I do not know if she responds to these arguments.)
Still, I found Riplinger’s argument to be interesting. I read some of James White’s arguments against Riplinger, and White was saying that Riplinger argued that other English translations (many non-KJV ones) promoted a sort of works-based, rather than grace-based or faith-based, method of salvation. I would be interested in reading Riplinger some day, and also James White’s The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? I am not interested enough to buy Riplinger’s book, but maybe I will order it on interlibrary loan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)