Posts
John Goldingay. An Introduction to the Old Testament: Exploring Text, Approaches and Issues. IVP Academic, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
John Goldingay is a biblical scholar who teaches Old Testament at
Fuller Theological Seminary. As the title indicates, this book is an
introduction to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
Here are some observations and thoughts about the book:
A. The book asks readers to read biblical passages and answer
questions about them. One may enter into this book thinking it is a
workbook, but such an impression would be misleading. Although readers
are asked to do some work, Goldingay still shares his own insights about
the meaning, messages, and theological significance of biblical
writings, along with issues surrounding those writings, such as the
question of their historicity, and how they compare with ancient Near
Eastern religion and writings.
B. Goldingay frequently refers readers to online material, which is
located at his web site. The online material goes more deeply into
issues that are raised in this book.
C. I just read this book, without reading the tempting online
material and the biblical passages. Just reading the book by itself, I
questioned how effective of an introduction to the Hebrew Bible this
book would be for beginners. Don’t get me wrong: the book presents a
lot of scholarly information, in a lucid manner. You will get the
history of the Documentary Hypothesis, a summary of various positions on
the historicity of key biblical stories (i.e., the Exodus, the
Conquest), and a summary and interpretation of the highlights of each
biblical book. Not only was the book helpful in clarifying the biblical
text, but it also presented models and insights that were new to me;
its explanation of Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as its model for the
development of the Book of Daniel, come to mind as excellent
discussions. Each chapter is two pages, though, and that can easily
give the impression that the treatment of the material is rather
cursory. One needs to pay attention to what one is reading, or one may
miss significant details: it is like a quick car ride, in areas. If one
reads and interacts with the biblical passages, consults the materials
on Goldingay’s web site, and lingers over each chapter, however, that
may enhance, round out, and deepen the educational process.
D. The best aspect of this book, in my opinion, is its sensitivity
to Christian students who may have issues with the historical-critical
method of reading the Bible. Goldingay embraces that method. He
embraces positions that are conservative, but also positions that
conservatives would reject. But he attempts to offer a way forward for
people to accept the historical-critical method, while still having
faith in the Bible as divine revelation. For example, he rejects the
idea that the biblical writings are a bunch of pious frauds. When the
Book of Daniel depicts events prior to and during its day within the
genre of predictions about the future, as if Daniel was a figure from
the past who foresaw those events, Goldingay does not regard that as a
con job; he thinks that the Book of Daniel’s second century BCE audience
was well aware that those prophecies were written in their own time
rather than in the sixth century BCE, but they saw the point of the book
as God’s sovereignty over history. When people wrote in the name of
Moses or Isaiah, Goldingay maintains that they were not seeking to be
fraudulent, for people back then honored those who inspired them by
writing in their name. Goldingay does not really provide rigorous
support for these claims. One can challenge some of them: I think of
Bart Ehrman’s argument that forgery in the New Testament period was
looked down upon, even though it was practiced. Still, Goldingay does
well to offer these suggestions. If one wants to give the biblical
writers the benefit of a doubt, to posit a model in which they sincerely
believed in their message yet did things that many today would see as
fraudulent, then Goldingay’s suggestions may be the way to go.
E. The book frequently revisited the question of whether Old
Testament prophecies were actually fulfilled in history. When Isaiah
said something would happen to Assyria, for example, did it happen?
That is an important question, and Goldingay did well to address it,
honestly yet with sensitivity to theological ramifications.
F. I was ambivalent about his discussion of animal sacrifices.
Goldingay tried to distance sacrifices from being about atonement and
the forgiveness of sin. In one place, he states that the Epistle to the
Hebrews is right: as far as the Old Testament is concerned, the blood
of bulls and goats cannot take away sin! According to Goldingay, when
Psalm 51 talks about sacrifices being offered, that is after the broken
divine-human relationship is restored; the sacrifices are not what lead
to the restoration, but they are the worship of God that occurs after
the restoration. Goldingay may have a point. Unlike some evangelicals,
I doubt that every reference to sacrifices in the Hebrew Bible is about
atonement. They may concern seeking God’s favor by offering a gift,
showing God honor, or fellowship with God by eating a meal with God. At
the same time, I doubt that sacrifices can be divorced from atonement.
There are sin and guilt offerings, and, in Leviticus-Numbers, they seem
to relate to the forgiveness of unintentional sins, sometimes even
transgressions. In addition, if sacrifices were unrelated to atonement,
why does Hebrews go out of its way to deny that the blood of animals
can take away sin? Why would the blood of animals and atonement be
mentioned in the same sentence, if at least some did not posit a
connection between the two?
My critiques notwithstanding, I give this book five stars. It was informative and, in some cases, profound.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!
Friday, October 5, 2018
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Church Write-Up: Hebrews’ Audience, Intermediaries, Retroactive Atonement
The LCMS Wednesday Bible Study was on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Here are some items. Occasionally, I’ll quote from the pastor’s
handout.
A. In terms of the audience of Hebrews, the pastor mentioned two possibilities. First, it could have been a house church in Jerusalem, Judea, or Galilee. Second, it could have been a house church of Jewish Christians, maybe priests, in Rome during Emperor Claudius or Nero.
I asked why the Epistle is written in Greek rather than Aramaic, if its audience was located in Palestine. The pastor, of course, narrated how Alexander the Great’s conquests made Greek the lingua franca of the time. Greek was the language of commerce, and people communicated with each other in it. The pastor also drew parallels with the time when French was the language of diplomacy and German was the language of science; his point may have been that the Jews of Palestine spoke both Aramaic and Greek. The pastor cautioned, however, that, if Hebrews were written to Palestine, it would probably be written in koine Greek, the common language of the people, rather than the sophisticated Greek that Hebrews actually manifests.
I would like to quote something that I wrote in a draft of one of my dissertation chapters. I am discussing burial inscriptions in Palestine, some of which are in Hebrew, and some of which are in Greek: “On the question of why these inscriptions in the land of Israel are in Greek, Louis Feldman speculates that ‘perhaps it was intended to deter non-Jewish passers-by from molesting the graves.’ Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 14. Feldman does not believe that many Jews in first century C.E. Palestine were fluent in Greek. There is scholarly debate, however, about the extent to which Jews in Late Antiquity knew Greek. See John C. Poirier, ‘The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity,’ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 4 (2007): 110-125. Poirier states that a desire for social status may have been a factor driving the growing influence of Greek, and also that Greek may have been prevalent in certain pockets of Palestine.”
This could explain why Hebrews could be written in Greek, while having a Palestinian audience: some Jews embraced Greek due to a desire for social status, or there were pockets of Palestine where Greek was prevalent, and Hebrews was written to a house church in such a pocket. Other possibilities that I would like to toss out there: perhaps they are Hellenistic Jews, or there are Gentiles associating with the Jewish Christians, and the author of Hebrews writes in Greek, the common language of Jews and Gentiles, so that both can understand it.
On the possibility that Hebrews was written to Jewish priests who had become Christians, I have issues with this proposal. The argument seems to be based on the idea that Hebrews manifests a knowledge of the Temple, which priests would have. However, Hebrews focuses on the Tabernacle, not the Temple. One does not need intimate knowledge of the Temple to understand Hebrews, just the Books of Exodus and Leviticus. In addition, some have argued that Hebrews gets the Tabernacle wrong, placing the golden altar of incense inside the Holy of Holies with the Ark rather than outside of the Holy of Holies (cp. Hebrews 9:3-4; Exodus 30:1-6; 40:26); see here, though, for a conservative Christian attempt to harmonize that apparent difficulty. At the same time, Hebrews does focus on the cult, and priests especially would appreciate that.
The pastor speculated that Hebrews was written “before Nero’s persecutions in AD 68 but after earlier persecutions in Rome—-AD 54.” Christians were beaten and their property was confiscated, but they were not yet brutally martyred. The pastor said that the Jewish Christians may have noticed that, overall, the Roman authorities left the Jews alone, so they contemplated going back to Judaism. The Epistle was written to discourage that.
B. The pastor argued that Hebrews was challenging Greek philosophical notions about God, particularly those of Aristotle. Greek philosophical notions held that God was perfect and pure, and thus removed from humanity. God interacted with people through angelic intermediaries, for God was too pure to interact with them himself. Moreover, God could not change, as human beings did. Hebrews, by contrast, depicts Christ, the Son of God, becoming a human being and thereby a brother of human beings. Moreover, Hebrews depicts Christ, not angels, as the mediator between God and humanity.
The pastor talked some about this last Sunday, in his class on I John. He said that the Docetists claimed that Jesus only appeared to be human because they opposed any notion that God could become a human being. The pastor was differentiating between what Greek philosophy said about the divine and how Greek mythology depicted gods. Greek mythology, of course, depicted gods directly interacting with human beings and possessing attributes of humans, which differs from Greek philosophy. I asked the pastor to unpack that. He replied that the stories of Greek mythology were believed to be ways to communicate with the common people: to tell them about the divine in a way that they could understand. The stories also helped common people explain things: they are having a bad day, so it must be because Zeus was punishing them.
I took a class years ago on pagan allegory. Certain Greeks took issue with Greek mythological depictions of gods. They did not care for gods with flawed human attributes, so they allegorized them rather than taking them literally. Did only the intellegentsia do this, or did the non-intelligentsia do so as well? Well, Docetism was a challenge that John’s church at Ephesus faced, so Greek philosophical beliefs about the divine apparently impacted the popular level, not just the intellegentsia.
C. The pastor said that Hebrews believes that the Old Testament saints were forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ; Paul, by contrast, thought that forgiveness was held in abeyance until Christ’s death and resurrection. Not much detail was provided, but I have wondered about this in the past. Does the New Testament present a retroactive application of the blood of Christ to the Old Testament saints? Both Paul and Hebrews maintain that there were “righteous” people in the Old Testament: Abraham was justified by faith, and Hebrews lists heroes of the faith. Could they be that, without possessing divine forgiveness?
More can be said, but I will stop here. I will leave the comments open, in case anyone wants to provide additional information. Just don’t put me down for not knowing things that I probably should know!
A. In terms of the audience of Hebrews, the pastor mentioned two possibilities. First, it could have been a house church in Jerusalem, Judea, or Galilee. Second, it could have been a house church of Jewish Christians, maybe priests, in Rome during Emperor Claudius or Nero.
I asked why the Epistle is written in Greek rather than Aramaic, if its audience was located in Palestine. The pastor, of course, narrated how Alexander the Great’s conquests made Greek the lingua franca of the time. Greek was the language of commerce, and people communicated with each other in it. The pastor also drew parallels with the time when French was the language of diplomacy and German was the language of science; his point may have been that the Jews of Palestine spoke both Aramaic and Greek. The pastor cautioned, however, that, if Hebrews were written to Palestine, it would probably be written in koine Greek, the common language of the people, rather than the sophisticated Greek that Hebrews actually manifests.
I would like to quote something that I wrote in a draft of one of my dissertation chapters. I am discussing burial inscriptions in Palestine, some of which are in Hebrew, and some of which are in Greek: “On the question of why these inscriptions in the land of Israel are in Greek, Louis Feldman speculates that ‘perhaps it was intended to deter non-Jewish passers-by from molesting the graves.’ Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 14. Feldman does not believe that many Jews in first century C.E. Palestine were fluent in Greek. There is scholarly debate, however, about the extent to which Jews in Late Antiquity knew Greek. See John C. Poirier, ‘The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity,’ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 4 (2007): 110-125. Poirier states that a desire for social status may have been a factor driving the growing influence of Greek, and also that Greek may have been prevalent in certain pockets of Palestine.”
This could explain why Hebrews could be written in Greek, while having a Palestinian audience: some Jews embraced Greek due to a desire for social status, or there were pockets of Palestine where Greek was prevalent, and Hebrews was written to a house church in such a pocket. Other possibilities that I would like to toss out there: perhaps they are Hellenistic Jews, or there are Gentiles associating with the Jewish Christians, and the author of Hebrews writes in Greek, the common language of Jews and Gentiles, so that both can understand it.
On the possibility that Hebrews was written to Jewish priests who had become Christians, I have issues with this proposal. The argument seems to be based on the idea that Hebrews manifests a knowledge of the Temple, which priests would have. However, Hebrews focuses on the Tabernacle, not the Temple. One does not need intimate knowledge of the Temple to understand Hebrews, just the Books of Exodus and Leviticus. In addition, some have argued that Hebrews gets the Tabernacle wrong, placing the golden altar of incense inside the Holy of Holies with the Ark rather than outside of the Holy of Holies (cp. Hebrews 9:3-4; Exodus 30:1-6; 40:26); see here, though, for a conservative Christian attempt to harmonize that apparent difficulty. At the same time, Hebrews does focus on the cult, and priests especially would appreciate that.
The pastor speculated that Hebrews was written “before Nero’s persecutions in AD 68 but after earlier persecutions in Rome—-AD 54.” Christians were beaten and their property was confiscated, but they were not yet brutally martyred. The pastor said that the Jewish Christians may have noticed that, overall, the Roman authorities left the Jews alone, so they contemplated going back to Judaism. The Epistle was written to discourage that.
B. The pastor argued that Hebrews was challenging Greek philosophical notions about God, particularly those of Aristotle. Greek philosophical notions held that God was perfect and pure, and thus removed from humanity. God interacted with people through angelic intermediaries, for God was too pure to interact with them himself. Moreover, God could not change, as human beings did. Hebrews, by contrast, depicts Christ, the Son of God, becoming a human being and thereby a brother of human beings. Moreover, Hebrews depicts Christ, not angels, as the mediator between God and humanity.
The pastor talked some about this last Sunday, in his class on I John. He said that the Docetists claimed that Jesus only appeared to be human because they opposed any notion that God could become a human being. The pastor was differentiating between what Greek philosophy said about the divine and how Greek mythology depicted gods. Greek mythology, of course, depicted gods directly interacting with human beings and possessing attributes of humans, which differs from Greek philosophy. I asked the pastor to unpack that. He replied that the stories of Greek mythology were believed to be ways to communicate with the common people: to tell them about the divine in a way that they could understand. The stories also helped common people explain things: they are having a bad day, so it must be because Zeus was punishing them.
I took a class years ago on pagan allegory. Certain Greeks took issue with Greek mythological depictions of gods. They did not care for gods with flawed human attributes, so they allegorized them rather than taking them literally. Did only the intellegentsia do this, or did the non-intelligentsia do so as well? Well, Docetism was a challenge that John’s church at Ephesus faced, so Greek philosophical beliefs about the divine apparently impacted the popular level, not just the intellegentsia.
C. The pastor said that Hebrews believes that the Old Testament saints were forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ; Paul, by contrast, thought that forgiveness was held in abeyance until Christ’s death and resurrection. Not much detail was provided, but I have wondered about this in the past. Does the New Testament present a retroactive application of the blood of Christ to the Old Testament saints? Both Paul and Hebrews maintain that there were “righteous” people in the Old Testament: Abraham was justified by faith, and Hebrews lists heroes of the faith. Could they be that, without possessing divine forgiveness?
More can be said, but I will stop here. I will leave the comments open, in case anyone wants to provide additional information. Just don’t put me down for not knowing things that I probably should know!
Monday, October 1, 2018
Church Write-Up: Youth Day, God’s Love and Changelessness, Nehemiah’s Challenges
Here is this week’s Church Write-Up about last Sunday’s services.
A. The LCMS service was led by the Youth Pastor and the kids. They talked about their trip to Texas to help victims of a hurricane. While there, they made sure that they were rooted and grounded in the faith by having Bible studies each morning. They exercised their gifts, and their presence cheered the people of the church there. Another theme in that service was newness. The kids put on a skit about babies who were reluctant to proceed to the next stage of their development, since they were used to where they were and were hesitant to change. But kids who had moved on were talking about the fun they were having: going on the swing by themselves, for instance. The point there was that we may fear change, but we can put our minds at ease, for God is with us.
B. The LCMS adult Sunday school class continued through I John. John was saying that God has loved us by sending Jesus Christ, and the result is a community whose ethic is love. The pastor said that the notion of a loving God ran counter to the Greek philosophy of the day, particularly that of Aristotle. Love implies that the object of God’s love can somehow move God, and that contradicted the Greek notion that the divine was changeless, since perfection implied changelessness. The pastor’s point made me think about Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica I am going through slowly. Aquinas, of course, sought to interpret Christianity in light of Aristotelianism. My impression is that he, too, had a problem with God knowing objects, so Aquinas argued that God knows objects through his knowledge of himself. And, for Aquinas, God’s love does not contradict God’s changelessness. It is not as if God is moved to love, whereas he did not love before, but God’s nature is love.
C. The “Word of Faith” church was continuing its way through Nehemiah. The pastor highlighted Nehemiah’s words: “The grace of the LORD was upon me.” Things were challenging the post-exilic Jews’ appreciation and appropriation of that grace. For one, there was covetousness, the love of money. Wealthier Jews were exploiting poorer Jews, thinking they were doing the poorer Jews a service: at least the poorer Jews were in debt to other Jews rather than foreigners! An over-attachment to money can warp our perceptions. Second, Sanballat and Geshem in Nehemiah 6 invited Nehemiah to Ono, but Nehemiah would not be distracted from doing God’s work. The pastor told a story about a couple years ago who decided to blow off church to have lunch with friends, and their children did not end up serving the Lord. The pastor said that it is not wrong to skip church service, but he asked if there is something inside of us that is dedicated to God and refuses distraction. Third, people in the land of Israel were accusing Nehemiah and the post-exilic Jews to the Persian authorities. The pastor said that the church is not a place of accusation. It may confront, but when it does so, it will not feel like confrontation. Rather, it will be asking people about their desire to leave behind the old for the new.
A. The LCMS service was led by the Youth Pastor and the kids. They talked about their trip to Texas to help victims of a hurricane. While there, they made sure that they were rooted and grounded in the faith by having Bible studies each morning. They exercised their gifts, and their presence cheered the people of the church there. Another theme in that service was newness. The kids put on a skit about babies who were reluctant to proceed to the next stage of their development, since they were used to where they were and were hesitant to change. But kids who had moved on were talking about the fun they were having: going on the swing by themselves, for instance. The point there was that we may fear change, but we can put our minds at ease, for God is with us.
B. The LCMS adult Sunday school class continued through I John. John was saying that God has loved us by sending Jesus Christ, and the result is a community whose ethic is love. The pastor said that the notion of a loving God ran counter to the Greek philosophy of the day, particularly that of Aristotle. Love implies that the object of God’s love can somehow move God, and that contradicted the Greek notion that the divine was changeless, since perfection implied changelessness. The pastor’s point made me think about Aquinas, whose Summa Theologica I am going through slowly. Aquinas, of course, sought to interpret Christianity in light of Aristotelianism. My impression is that he, too, had a problem with God knowing objects, so Aquinas argued that God knows objects through his knowledge of himself. And, for Aquinas, God’s love does not contradict God’s changelessness. It is not as if God is moved to love, whereas he did not love before, but God’s nature is love.
C. The “Word of Faith” church was continuing its way through Nehemiah. The pastor highlighted Nehemiah’s words: “The grace of the LORD was upon me.” Things were challenging the post-exilic Jews’ appreciation and appropriation of that grace. For one, there was covetousness, the love of money. Wealthier Jews were exploiting poorer Jews, thinking they were doing the poorer Jews a service: at least the poorer Jews were in debt to other Jews rather than foreigners! An over-attachment to money can warp our perceptions. Second, Sanballat and Geshem in Nehemiah 6 invited Nehemiah to Ono, but Nehemiah would not be distracted from doing God’s work. The pastor told a story about a couple years ago who decided to blow off church to have lunch with friends, and their children did not end up serving the Lord. The pastor said that it is not wrong to skip church service, but he asked if there is something inside of us that is dedicated to God and refuses distraction. Third, people in the land of Israel were accusing Nehemiah and the post-exilic Jews to the Persian authorities. The pastor said that the church is not a place of accusation. It may confront, but when it does so, it will not feel like confrontation. Rather, it will be asking people about their desire to leave behind the old for the new.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Current Events Write-Up: Fahrenheit 11/9, Iran-U.S. Friendship, EU Austerity and the Collapsed Bridge, Hospital Monopolies
Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up.
Counterpunch: “Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 11/9’: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics,” by Louis Proyect.
Reviews Michael Moore’s newest film about the Trump victory, while contrasting current Democratic Socialist candidates with old-style socialists.
Vridar: “Iran, Iran, If Only We Had Been Friends,” by Neil Godfrey.
Iran was standing beside the U.S. soon after 9/11, ready to help the U.S. take on the Taliban. Then President Bush said Iran was part of the “Axis of Evil.”
Consortium News: “Privatization, the EU and a Bridge,” by Andrew Spannaus.
The EU’s austerity measures hinder Italy from making necessary infrastructure improvements, with dire results. Yet, the article acknowledges that Italy is mired in waste and bureaucracy and has lots of debt.
The Federalist: “Why Hospital Monopolies Are What’s Wrong with American Health Care,” by Christopher Jacobs.
To quote the subtitle: “Obamacare’s crony capitalism—allowing hospitals to grow their operations in exchange for political endorsements—continues to contribute to higher premiums.”
Counterpunch: “Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 11/9’: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics,” by Louis Proyect.
Reviews Michael Moore’s newest film about the Trump victory, while contrasting current Democratic Socialist candidates with old-style socialists.
Vridar: “Iran, Iran, If Only We Had Been Friends,” by Neil Godfrey.
Iran was standing beside the U.S. soon after 9/11, ready to help the U.S. take on the Taliban. Then President Bush said Iran was part of the “Axis of Evil.”
Consortium News: “Privatization, the EU and a Bridge,” by Andrew Spannaus.
The EU’s austerity measures hinder Italy from making necessary infrastructure improvements, with dire results. Yet, the article acknowledges that Italy is mired in waste and bureaucracy and has lots of debt.
The Federalist: “Why Hospital Monopolies Are What’s Wrong with American Health Care,” by Christopher Jacobs.
To quote the subtitle: “Obamacare’s crony capitalism—allowing hospitals to grow their operations in exchange for political endorsements—continues to contribute to higher premiums.”
Friday, September 28, 2018
Addendum on Mein Kampf: Hitler on Religion
This post is an addendum to my Book Write-Up on Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
This post will briefly discuss Adolf Hitler’s views on religion, as
they are expressed in this book. This is significant because of
contemporary debates about Hitler’s religion, as some regard him as a
Christian, others see him as an atheist, and others label him a pagan or
an occultist.
I hesitantly leave open the comments, in case someone has new information to add. I will not continually re-edit this post in light of new information, though. Snarky and snotty comments will not be accepted.
- Hitler frequently refers to “Fate” thrusting him into situations rather than “God.” At least one time, he referred to the “gods.” This could be a literary device, or perhaps he is giving a nod to paganism, as some suggest. Occasionally, Hitler refers to God, as when he states that, by opposing the Jew, he is doing the work of the Lord
- Hitler expresses admiration for the Catholic church because it commands the loyalty of so many people, from so many walks of life.
- Hitler also sees a valuable place for religion in German society: it provides people, especially the working class, with a moral code.
- Hitler makes use of the Bible when it suits him. In criticizing the Jews, he refers to Christ’s cleansing of the Temple.
- As was stated in my Book Write-Up, Hitler criticizes the Jews for their disbelief in an afterlife. Adherence to a belief in personal immortality, in his eyes, is a mark of strength and ennobles human beings. Jews, in Hitler’s mind, focus on gain in this life and seek to undermine humanity for the sake of power.
- I do not recall Hitler saying anything about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Hitler says that the Jews are incapable of forming a state of their own, since they are ruthless towards each other, so they gain power by being parasites on the accomplishments of others. As I said in my Book Write-Up, though, I wonder how Hitler would reconcile that sentiment with the existence of an Israelite state in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Would he deny that the biblical Jews were the ancestors of the Jews of his day, as some anti-Semites today claim that modern-day Jews are descended from the Khazars (converts to Judaism) rather than the biblical Jews? But that would run contrary to Hitler’s appeal to Christ’s cleansing of the Temple in his attempt to justify anti-Semitism, since the Khazars converted centuries later than the time of the historical Jesus. I recall a book that I read years ago for a paper, Theologians Under Hitler, and one such theologian argued that Christ was not a Jew because Galilee was populated by other people. Is this what Hitler thought? Another reason that I wonder what Hitler thought about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is that some contemporary anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish writings are quite critical of the biblical Jews or the ancient Israelites, including such luminaries as Moses.
I hesitantly leave open the comments, in case someone has new information to add. I will not continually re-edit this post in light of new information, though. Snarky and snotty comments will not be accepted.
Book Write-Up: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
I finished Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I cannot say that I understood all of it, but here are some items, based on my impressions of what he was saying. The wikipedia page about the book
may offer more clarity, but I have not read it yet. This post is
simply a record of what I got out of the book, as I interpreted it.
A. The introduction to the edition that I read was written by Abraham Foxman, who has served as director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman states that “Mein Kampf‘s existence denies the free world the excuse of ignorance.” A question that I asked in reading this book was: Are the things that Hitler did—-invading Europe, the Holocaust, forming an alliance with Italy and Japan, dictatorship—-foreshadowed at all in Mein Kampf?
Some reflections:
—-I cannot recall a passage in which Hitler explicitly says that non-Aryan races should be eliminated. This wikipedia article states that there are such passages, but its endnotes cite sources that refer to Mein Kampf, not Mein Kampf itself. At the same time, Hitler does seem to oppose non-Aryan races being among Germans. A criticism that Hitler has of the Hapsburgs in Austria is that they allowed a lot of Slavs into the country and diluted the German community that was there. While Hitler notes that whites rule non-white peoples in South America in arguing for white superiority, he also laments that the whites there have intermarried with non-white peoples, thereby (in his opinion) diluting the white race. He respects the United States for its restrictive immigration policies and prevalent white population, which he believes have contributed to its advancement as a nation.
—-Hitler despises the Jews. He says that, at first, he was not anti-Semitic, but certain developments led him to embrace anti-Semitism. He did not care for the press because it was not nationalistic enough, as it acknowledged the perspectives of other countries and spoke against the German war effort in World War I. Hitler believed that Jews ran the mainstream media, and he thought that the anti-Semitic media made more sense in speaking about German problems. Hitler was opposed to Social Democracy and Marxism, initially because of the fanaticism of their adherents, but eventually because he concluded that Marxism threatened German culture. Hitler speaks sympathetically about workers and trade unions in this book, and what he professes to support is National Socialism, a nationalist movement of workers, rather than the non-nationalist Marxist movements; while Hitler appears to support German businesses, he also speaks for a parity of wages and against materialism. Hitler noticed that a number of Jews were in the Social Democratic and Marxist movements that he opposed. Hitler speaks about Jewish finance. He laments that the stock exchange has supplanted German businesses in Germany, and he maintains that Jews are seeking, and in some cases already possess, financial control over Europe, Asia, and America. For Hitler, Marxism is one if its tools, since Marxism destroys German culture and society and leaves Jewish finance to pick up the pieces; so is race-mixing, which Hitler regards as the dilution of the Aryan race, which has contributed significantly to culture. Hitler thinks that Jewish finance has especially targeted Germany because Germany is a bulwark against its ambitions, or Germany at least has the potential to be this if it gains strength. Hitler makes other criticisms of Jews: that they are ruthless against each other, that they prevaricate, that they sow dissension among the German states, that they contribute to the degeneration of art (i.e., cubism), that they were not out in the trenches with Germans in World War I (which is untrue), and that they profit from war. He takes a swipe at Jewish disbelief in an afterlife, seeing a belief in an afterlife as ennobling. He even says that Jews cannot form a state, since they are parasites as opposed to being constructive. This puzzled me, since what would Hitler say about the Israelite state in the Bible? Hitler believes that the Jews worldwide are such a problem, that I would say that, in a sense, Mein Kampf foreshadowed the Holocaust. Hitler speaks candidly about his support for the annihilation of France, after all, and he deems France to be a mere puppet of Jewish finance.
—-Something that was surprising: Hitler does not advocate eliminating disabled or weak Germans. He simply says that they should adopt children rather than reproducing themselves.
—-Are Hitler’s imperialist ambitions and alliances foreshadowed in Mein Kampf? Hitler states that Germany is over-populated and needs more land. He definitely wants Germany to take back the land that it lost as a result of World War I. He speaks belligerently about France. He talks about Germany being the leader of the world, but he is unclear about whether that means Germany conquering the world, or Germany merely exercising influence over the world. Overall, he supports alliances, especially with England and Italy, and he believes that such an alliance can successfully undermine French hegemony in Europe. Hitler speaks favorably of Fascist Italy, believing that it has resisted Jewish control. He appears somewhat critical, yet understanding, of English friendship with Asia in order to resist America, yet he states that Jewish finance seeks to undermine Japan. Here, he manifests a sympathetic attitude towards Japan, which he still regards as inferior to the Aryans. He does not seem to care for the prospect of a German alliance with Russia, for he regards Communist Russia as the tragic result of a bloody revolution that eliminated the talented. Some of this foreshadows what Hitler later did—-e.g., ally with Italy and Japan, invade Russia. Some of it, not so much—-e.g., forming a German alliance with England. Hitler also speaks frequently about the German struggle to survive, and this may hint at a support for German belligerence and imperialism.
—-Hitler expresses disdain for parliamentarian government. He doubts that a bunch of heads coming together can lead anywhere constructive, and he states that having a single ruler is best. Such a form of government would attract the right person, he claims, because the weight of responsibility would only be assumed by someone who sincerely desires to help his country. This may foreshadow his authoritarianism. At the same time, he uses buzzwords such as “freedom” and “tyranny,” claiming to support the former and to oppose the latter.
B. Hitler opines about a variety of issues. He believes that memorizing a bunch of vocabulary words to learn a foreign language is a waste of time and that it is better for schools to teach the structure of grammar: that is more easily remembered and can form a foundation for people to learn a foreign language, if they feel so inclined. He laments the prevalence of syphilis and believes that Germans getting married at a young age can counter that. He also offers thoughts on effective propaganda: be clear about the message rather than acknowledging other perspectives and appeal to the workers rather than the bourgeoisie, whom Hitler deems to be lukewarm and spineless.
A. The introduction to the edition that I read was written by Abraham Foxman, who has served as director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman states that “Mein Kampf‘s existence denies the free world the excuse of ignorance.” A question that I asked in reading this book was: Are the things that Hitler did—-invading Europe, the Holocaust, forming an alliance with Italy and Japan, dictatorship—-foreshadowed at all in Mein Kampf?
Some reflections:
—-I cannot recall a passage in which Hitler explicitly says that non-Aryan races should be eliminated. This wikipedia article states that there are such passages, but its endnotes cite sources that refer to Mein Kampf, not Mein Kampf itself. At the same time, Hitler does seem to oppose non-Aryan races being among Germans. A criticism that Hitler has of the Hapsburgs in Austria is that they allowed a lot of Slavs into the country and diluted the German community that was there. While Hitler notes that whites rule non-white peoples in South America in arguing for white superiority, he also laments that the whites there have intermarried with non-white peoples, thereby (in his opinion) diluting the white race. He respects the United States for its restrictive immigration policies and prevalent white population, which he believes have contributed to its advancement as a nation.
—-Hitler despises the Jews. He says that, at first, he was not anti-Semitic, but certain developments led him to embrace anti-Semitism. He did not care for the press because it was not nationalistic enough, as it acknowledged the perspectives of other countries and spoke against the German war effort in World War I. Hitler believed that Jews ran the mainstream media, and he thought that the anti-Semitic media made more sense in speaking about German problems. Hitler was opposed to Social Democracy and Marxism, initially because of the fanaticism of their adherents, but eventually because he concluded that Marxism threatened German culture. Hitler speaks sympathetically about workers and trade unions in this book, and what he professes to support is National Socialism, a nationalist movement of workers, rather than the non-nationalist Marxist movements; while Hitler appears to support German businesses, he also speaks for a parity of wages and against materialism. Hitler noticed that a number of Jews were in the Social Democratic and Marxist movements that he opposed. Hitler speaks about Jewish finance. He laments that the stock exchange has supplanted German businesses in Germany, and he maintains that Jews are seeking, and in some cases already possess, financial control over Europe, Asia, and America. For Hitler, Marxism is one if its tools, since Marxism destroys German culture and society and leaves Jewish finance to pick up the pieces; so is race-mixing, which Hitler regards as the dilution of the Aryan race, which has contributed significantly to culture. Hitler thinks that Jewish finance has especially targeted Germany because Germany is a bulwark against its ambitions, or Germany at least has the potential to be this if it gains strength. Hitler makes other criticisms of Jews: that they are ruthless against each other, that they prevaricate, that they sow dissension among the German states, that they contribute to the degeneration of art (i.e., cubism), that they were not out in the trenches with Germans in World War I (which is untrue), and that they profit from war. He takes a swipe at Jewish disbelief in an afterlife, seeing a belief in an afterlife as ennobling. He even says that Jews cannot form a state, since they are parasites as opposed to being constructive. This puzzled me, since what would Hitler say about the Israelite state in the Bible? Hitler believes that the Jews worldwide are such a problem, that I would say that, in a sense, Mein Kampf foreshadowed the Holocaust. Hitler speaks candidly about his support for the annihilation of France, after all, and he deems France to be a mere puppet of Jewish finance.
—-Something that was surprising: Hitler does not advocate eliminating disabled or weak Germans. He simply says that they should adopt children rather than reproducing themselves.
—-Are Hitler’s imperialist ambitions and alliances foreshadowed in Mein Kampf? Hitler states that Germany is over-populated and needs more land. He definitely wants Germany to take back the land that it lost as a result of World War I. He speaks belligerently about France. He talks about Germany being the leader of the world, but he is unclear about whether that means Germany conquering the world, or Germany merely exercising influence over the world. Overall, he supports alliances, especially with England and Italy, and he believes that such an alliance can successfully undermine French hegemony in Europe. Hitler speaks favorably of Fascist Italy, believing that it has resisted Jewish control. He appears somewhat critical, yet understanding, of English friendship with Asia in order to resist America, yet he states that Jewish finance seeks to undermine Japan. Here, he manifests a sympathetic attitude towards Japan, which he still regards as inferior to the Aryans. He does not seem to care for the prospect of a German alliance with Russia, for he regards Communist Russia as the tragic result of a bloody revolution that eliminated the talented. Some of this foreshadows what Hitler later did—-e.g., ally with Italy and Japan, invade Russia. Some of it, not so much—-e.g., forming a German alliance with England. Hitler also speaks frequently about the German struggle to survive, and this may hint at a support for German belligerence and imperialism.
—-Hitler expresses disdain for parliamentarian government. He doubts that a bunch of heads coming together can lead anywhere constructive, and he states that having a single ruler is best. Such a form of government would attract the right person, he claims, because the weight of responsibility would only be assumed by someone who sincerely desires to help his country. This may foreshadow his authoritarianism. At the same time, he uses buzzwords such as “freedom” and “tyranny,” claiming to support the former and to oppose the latter.
B. Hitler opines about a variety of issues. He believes that memorizing a bunch of vocabulary words to learn a foreign language is a waste of time and that it is better for schools to teach the structure of grammar: that is more easily remembered and can form a foundation for people to learn a foreign language, if they feel so inclined. He laments the prevalence of syphilis and believes that Germans getting married at a young age can counter that. He also offers thoughts on effective propaganda: be clear about the message rather than acknowledging other perspectives and appeal to the workers rather than the bourgeoisie, whom Hitler deems to be lukewarm and spineless.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Church Write-Up: Deep and Wide, Unity, Concrete Blessing, Fruit, and Reality
Here are some items from Wednesday’s LCMS Bible study.
A. One of our texts was Ephesians 3:17-18, in which Paul hopes that Christians will grasp the height, depth, length, and width of the love of Christ. One lady’s Bible said that this means that God’s love can touch whatever situation we are experiencing. The pastor observed that height, depth, and width makes the shape of a cross, which highlights that it is through the cross that we experience Christ’s love. But the cross is significant in another respect, the pastor continued. While we hope to bypass suffering, it is in our suffering that God shows us God’s love, sometimes in ways that we do not know. We also discussed the Book of Esther. God is not mentioned in that book, but Mordecai had confidence that the Jews would be delivered, perhaps because he recognized that God chose the Jewish nation for a purpose and made promises to her. God was at work behind the scenes, as is the case in the world and in our lives. God meets us in our pain and uses it: our pain can encourage us to pray for others in pain, and our mistakes can encourage us to pass on forgiveness to others.
B. A theme in Wednesday’s study was unity in Christ. The pastor believes that Paul wrote Ephesians and that it was relevant to the Judaizers controversy. The pastor compared the controversy to the situation of the LCMS in the 1950’s. People were moving to rural areas and suburbs, and more were joining LCMS on account of its schools. The long-standing Lutherans felt that these newcomers did not grasp what it meant to be Lutheran. Similarly, the Judaizers in Paul’s days saw Gentiles coming into the church and thought that the Gentiles were detached from the roots of Christianity, namely, the Torah. They believed that the Gentiles needed to become circumcised Torah-observant Jews to be Christians. Paul, however, was saying something different. Paul proclaimed that Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God through Christ’s death, so they are one people. Jewish traditions that separated Jews from Gentiles, such as the tradition that kept Gentiles from the Jewish sections of the Temple, are invalid, as Jews and Gentiles are equal worshipers of God within the body of Christ. The pastor also talked about Gnosticism and likened that to the Jesus movement in the 1970’s. There were people who were differentiating between regular believers and “disciples,” as if the latter were superior. People who have intense spiritual experiences can fall into the trap of thinking that they are above other believers. Paul in Ephesians 3:17-18, however, encourages Christians to see the love of Christ as all that they need.
C. Another of our texts was Jeremiah 17:5-8. Those who trust in human beings are like a destitute plant in the desert, whereas those who trust in the LORD are like lush trees planted by the waters. The pastor said that Jeremiah was contrasting looking to alliances for preservation from Babylon with trusting in God. The pastor also said that the Hebrew word for blessed here means a physical blessing, not the state of happiness that the Sermon on the Mount is talking about.
D. Another text that we discussed was John 15:5, where Jesus affirms that he is the vine and his disciples are his branches, and those who abide in him bear fruit. In 14:31, Jesus says, “Arise, let us go hence” (KJV), and the pastor speculated that Jesus may have spoken the words of John 15 on the way to Gethsemane. He and his disciples may even have passed grape vines, and Jesus used them as a teaching opportunity. A lady’s Bible notes said that the fruit of John 15 is not just converts but answered prayer, joy, and love, which are mentioned in John 15-16. The pastor replied that the entire Christian life is the fruit of abiding in Jesus.
E. People were sharing stories about loved ones’ experiences with natural disasters. One lady said that relatives are currently in a hotel because their home has been destroyed, and the head of the household is not the sort of person who likes disruption. Someone else told of when his brother lost his job and his house due to a natural disaster and, years later, he is still shaken by that. These are horrible experiences, but something that I appreciate about this church is that I get to hear about the real world. Amidst this reality, people are still faithful.
A. One of our texts was Ephesians 3:17-18, in which Paul hopes that Christians will grasp the height, depth, length, and width of the love of Christ. One lady’s Bible said that this means that God’s love can touch whatever situation we are experiencing. The pastor observed that height, depth, and width makes the shape of a cross, which highlights that it is through the cross that we experience Christ’s love. But the cross is significant in another respect, the pastor continued. While we hope to bypass suffering, it is in our suffering that God shows us God’s love, sometimes in ways that we do not know. We also discussed the Book of Esther. God is not mentioned in that book, but Mordecai had confidence that the Jews would be delivered, perhaps because he recognized that God chose the Jewish nation for a purpose and made promises to her. God was at work behind the scenes, as is the case in the world and in our lives. God meets us in our pain and uses it: our pain can encourage us to pray for others in pain, and our mistakes can encourage us to pass on forgiveness to others.
B. A theme in Wednesday’s study was unity in Christ. The pastor believes that Paul wrote Ephesians and that it was relevant to the Judaizers controversy. The pastor compared the controversy to the situation of the LCMS in the 1950’s. People were moving to rural areas and suburbs, and more were joining LCMS on account of its schools. The long-standing Lutherans felt that these newcomers did not grasp what it meant to be Lutheran. Similarly, the Judaizers in Paul’s days saw Gentiles coming into the church and thought that the Gentiles were detached from the roots of Christianity, namely, the Torah. They believed that the Gentiles needed to become circumcised Torah-observant Jews to be Christians. Paul, however, was saying something different. Paul proclaimed that Jews and Gentiles have been reconciled to God through Christ’s death, so they are one people. Jewish traditions that separated Jews from Gentiles, such as the tradition that kept Gentiles from the Jewish sections of the Temple, are invalid, as Jews and Gentiles are equal worshipers of God within the body of Christ. The pastor also talked about Gnosticism and likened that to the Jesus movement in the 1970’s. There were people who were differentiating between regular believers and “disciples,” as if the latter were superior. People who have intense spiritual experiences can fall into the trap of thinking that they are above other believers. Paul in Ephesians 3:17-18, however, encourages Christians to see the love of Christ as all that they need.
C. Another of our texts was Jeremiah 17:5-8. Those who trust in human beings are like a destitute plant in the desert, whereas those who trust in the LORD are like lush trees planted by the waters. The pastor said that Jeremiah was contrasting looking to alliances for preservation from Babylon with trusting in God. The pastor also said that the Hebrew word for blessed here means a physical blessing, not the state of happiness that the Sermon on the Mount is talking about.
D. Another text that we discussed was John 15:5, where Jesus affirms that he is the vine and his disciples are his branches, and those who abide in him bear fruit. In 14:31, Jesus says, “Arise, let us go hence” (KJV), and the pastor speculated that Jesus may have spoken the words of John 15 on the way to Gethsemane. He and his disciples may even have passed grape vines, and Jesus used them as a teaching opportunity. A lady’s Bible notes said that the fruit of John 15 is not just converts but answered prayer, joy, and love, which are mentioned in John 15-16. The pastor replied that the entire Christian life is the fruit of abiding in Jesus.
E. People were sharing stories about loved ones’ experiences with natural disasters. One lady said that relatives are currently in a hotel because their home has been destroyed, and the head of the household is not the sort of person who likes disruption. Someone else told of when his brother lost his job and his house due to a natural disaster and, years later, he is still shaken by that. These are horrible experiences, but something that I appreciate about this church is that I get to hear about the real world. Amidst this reality, people are still faithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)