Jesus vs. Money

HT: Sacred Sandwich

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In the late 1940s, Bedouin tribesmen in Israel stumbled upon some old scrolls in the Judean desert near Khirbet Qumran and sold them to scholars. When these scrolls were dated as being written two thousand years earlier, this discovery created such excitement that archaeologists and scholars examined the area thoroughly, eventually finding the remains of about 900 scrolls. These discoveries have produced a wealth of information concerning ancient Judaism.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated quite confidently from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 100 based on names of various kings from this era and corroboration of ideas in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Flavius Josephus. Many scholars believed the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written by the Essenes because the Scrolls contain many Essene traits (fatalism, communal living, etc.), but this view has been called into question and presently there is no definitive knowledge of the scrolls’ origins. The scrolls themselves record the origin of the group at Qumran but the names of leaders and opponents are given in veiled language (“Teacher of Righteousness,” “Wicked Priest,” etc.). Some view the Dead Sea group as reacting to the corrupt Hasmonean priesthood while others see no direct evidence of such in the scrolls themselves.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have had a tremendous influence on biblical studies by revealing that ancient Judaism was much more diverse than previously thought and that Christianity was much more influenced by Judaism than Hellenism because the ideas of poverty, dualism, and conversion, as well as many others, is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Christian documents. In short, the discovery and examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls has yielded a wealth of historical information for Jews and Christians.

In the Mail

Getting mail is awesome enough, but getting books in the mail....now you're talking! I ordered a bunch of books for my summer classes, some of which have arrived! Just to share the fun, here is what came in the mail, grouping them into books for each class:

Readings in Ancient Near Eastern Literature

• Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963).
• John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006).
• William W. Hallo & William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (Orlando: Harcourt Brace, 1998).
• Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).
• John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).
• Patrick O'Mara, Egyptian Hieroglyphics: An Easy Introduction for History and Art Students (La Canada: Paulette Publishing Company, 1974).
• Siegfried Morenz, Egyptian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).
• A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

My OT professor usually requires a lot of books, but half of these fall under "recommended books." Since I know nothing about ANE literature, I took the plunge and bought them (most of them are old and used, thus cheap). 

The Gospel of John

• Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001).
• D. A. Carson, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). I'm already loving this commentary...D.A. Carson (though Calvinist) is an incredible scholar and intellectual giant. Everything I've read or heard by him is golden (except his exegesis of John 3:3 and his views on the sovereignty of God).
• F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Again, F.F. Bruce. Need I say more? 

And would you believe I still have a couple more to come?! I can't wait to tear into them!

**Jessica, I totally took this picture Saturday and claim full originality for the idea. Though your post and pictures were much better, I just had to get that out. Spanks.

Suffering: A Divine Appointment

This is part of a paper I wrote on Paul and predestination...

One of the clearest motifs in Paul’s epistles is the experience of suffering in a Christian’s walk with God. Admonitions to endure suffering are found in all of Paul’s epistles, from Galatians (6:17) to 2 Timothy (2:3-10), as are encouragements in spite of suffering and the reasons why all who are godly must suffer. Interestingly, Paul seems to connect the ideas of suffering and predestination in two ways: 1) divine election comforts during suffering; and 2) divine election necessitates suffering.

First, in 2 Thessalonians Paul introduces the idea that in the divine plan God “chose” (εἵλατο) us “from the beginning."

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 NASB, italics mine).

While this translation indicates a choosing limited by time, the preferred reading is actually ἀπαρχὴν (first-fruit) instead of "from the beginning" because the latter appears nowhere else in Paul’s writings and the former is found six times.[1] Thus, this passage does not address the eternal election by God but encourages the persecuted and misinformed Thessalonians by calling them “firstfruits” (though the Philippians’ conversion preceded them by a relatively short time), perhaps referring to their powerful conversion, spiritual gifts, and unsurpassed brotherly love (1 Thess. 1:8; 4:10).[2] In fact, the phrase “through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” refers back to 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 which indicates that Paul knew God had chosen them because the gospel came to them “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.”

            A similar thought is found in the familiar, encouraging text of Romans 8:28:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Rom. 8:28-30 ESV).

Admittedly, this is one of the most difficult passages in the Roman letter and has been subject to manifold interpretations (some have even applied it to the saints who rose from the dead when Jesus died).[3] In an effort to make sense out of suffering, Calvinists interpret this passage to mean that God “causes all things to work together for good” and that for Christians “there is…no such pointless suffering or evil.”[4] However, the most suitable interpretation may be the one that places this in its context of future glory in spite of present suffering (Rom. 8:17-18). McFatridge may be correct in calling verses 28-30, “the climax of Paul’s exposition of the doctrine of salvation by grace” with the following verses functioning as a “hymn of praise” in view of salvation.[5] That is, after describing life in Christ (8:1-8) and the indwelling witness of the Spirit (8:9-16), Paul affirms that we are, “heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (8:17 ESV, italics mine). Paul adds that the creation waits eagerly with Christians for the “redemption of our bodies” (8:23) and the “Spirit helps us in our weakness” by interceding for us (8:26-27). It follows, then, that Paul stated “all things work together for good” in conclusion to “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (8:18). In other words, God is not the cause of suffering but He promises to work through them to bless us. Sanders’ succinct explanation fits well with the context: “Paul means that if we are willing to collaborate with God, God will work to bring good out of even evil situations.”[6]

The question remains, though, of what Paul meant by “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (8:29). The answer fits into the Paul’s second usage of suffering and divine election that indicates suffering is necessary. According to Paul, suffering is not merely an inconvenient byproduct of taking up the cross, but a part of God’s plan for Christian growth, maturity, conformity to Christ, and fellowship with God, which is an idea found in Romans 8:29: “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Again, Calvinists interpret this to reinforce the concept that God causes evil and suffering and “gets just what he wants on behalf of his elect.”[7]

However, the purpose of being “predestined” is “to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Though he used different wording, Paul later corroborated this in his epistle to the Philippians: “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (3:10-11 ESV, italics mine). Thus, an acceptable interpretation may be that God uses one’s suffering in life (“becoming like him in his death”) as a mold to fashion him into the “image of his Son” (or “attain the resurrection from the dead”).

This concept is found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Addressing the persecuted brethren in Thessalonica, Paul sent Timothy back to the Thessalonians, “to establish and exhort you in your faith, that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined [κείμεθα: “appointed” KJV] for this. For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction” (1 Thess. 2:2-4 ESV, italics mine). This divine “appointment” was not limited to the apostles because the Thessalonians themselves “received the word in much affliction” (1:6). Further, Paul later stated that he boasted in the other churches for the Thessalonians’ “steadfastness and faith” in their persecution and afflictions they endured, adding a peculiar statement: “This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering” (2 Thess. 1:4-5).

Yet again, this idea is found later in Paul’s life in 2 Timothy:

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful (2 Tim. 2:9-13 ESV).

As before, Paul attaches a “spiritual purpose” to pain.[8] Apparently Paul considered his own suffering to be a “continuation of the sufferings of Christ”[9] (cf. Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:5). Also, Paul’s hymn of dying and enduring, living and reigning echo the above statements regarding Romans 8:17-28.

In short, Paul understood that God’s plan for Christian suffering serves as a catalyst for growth and fellowship, being one way He has “predestined” us. Though many view suffering as an unfortunate consequence, Paul (and the other apostles) saw it as an opportunity, being “granted” to “suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29-30; cf. Acts 5:41).

---

[1] Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1975), 636-637.

[2] Milligan, George, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, (London: Macmillan & Co, 1908), 106-107).

[3] Whiteside, Roberston L. A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, (Denton, TX: Inys Whiteside, 1945), 188-189.

[4] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, 192-193.

[5] McFatridge, F. V., “The Called According to His Purpose” in Review & Expositor 48 no. 4 1951, 416.

[6] Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, 122.

[7] See footnote in Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, 193.

[8] White, Newport J. D., “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (New York, NY: George H. Doran Company, 1910), 163.

[9] Lipscomb, David, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company, 1989), 267. Cf. Col. 1:24: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

How I Roll

Boo ya. I think that says it all: fearless, courageous, alpha-male, JACKHAMMER. Mr. Mirage (mur-ah-gee...my car) and I don't take "no" for an answer while we're keepin' it real and stickin' it to the man.

Take THAT Chuck Norris.

The Pseudepigrapha

The word “pseudepigrapha,” though understood quite differently by different individuals in different ages, is a transliteration of a Greek noun that indicates writings “with false superscription” (Charlesworth, xxv). This word became part of the title of R. H. Charles’ collection in 1913 (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) and is the main part of J. H. Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. This title does not necessarily indicate the editors believed these documents to be spurious and inauthentic but was chosen because it has been widely associated with these documents.

Dating the documents of the Pseudepigrapha can be a difficult task because many of them are composite works. Most of 1 Enoch was likely written before the end of the first century A.D. though parts of it contain later Christian interpolations. Likewise the Sibylline Oracles (books 3-5, 12) range from 163 B.C. to A.D. 235 and 2 Baruch dates probably to the first or second decade of the second century A.D.

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha has greatly impacted biblical studies by providing some of the documents to which the Bible sometimes alludes and especially by revealing valuable information regarding ancient Judaism. The diversity in ancient Judaism is attested in the Pseudepigrapha by noticing different views among the Jewish sects but perhaps more importantly noticing the Jewish dependence on both the Old Testament and Greco-Roman culture. The likeness of the documents in the Pseudepigrapha are incredibly similar to the apocalyptic writings in Daniel and Ezekiel but also show how Egyptian, Roman, and Greek ideas permeated parts of Judaism.

The Crisis Moment

Talk is cheap, as the saying goes. Talking is so much easier than doing...believe me, I know. I'm thinking specifically about temptation. Resolution, determination, prayer, study, knowledge...all of these things are great, but it all boils down to one moment when you make a decision. The crisis moment.

Let me give you a bad example. Aaron, the brother of Moses, had everything going for him....confidence, courage, respect, talent. He was a good public speaker. God used him to show His power to Pharaoh. He basically slapped Pharaoh in the face by throwing down his staff, which turned into a snake and actually ate the other snakes that Pharaoh's magicians had conjured. He was the right hand man to one of the greatest leaders in world history. Moses would tell him what to say, he would say it, and God would be glorified. It seemed that he had it all!

But then Aaron faced his crisis moment (Exodus 32). When his little brother went up the mountain to talk to God and receive the Law, the people at the bottom of the mountain became restless. "Get up....make us gods to go before us. We don't know what has happened to Moses." What do you do, Aaron? He got up and made them a golden calf.


What?! Have you lost your mind, Aaron? No...he lost his guts. After he presented the golden calf, he said, Tomorrow will be a feast to the Lord (Yahweh...not Blue Bell the golden calf he just made). He tried to have his steak and eat it too! 

There are other examples like Aaron. Eve and the serpent, David and Bathsheba, Pontius Pilate, Samson and Delilah...even Moses hitting the rock. Good examples could be Joseph and Potiphar's wife, the apostles vs. the Sanhedrin, and, of course, Jesus. But it suffices to say that even good people can make horrible, costly mistakes. This is no excuse but a warning. How will we do in our crisis moment? 

• What will you say when the gun is pointed at your head, demanding you renounce Jesus? (classic example, not quite realistic [yet] in the U.S., but what about the following...)
• What will you do when a man or woman (that is, someone NOT your spouse) begins flirting with you?
• What will you do when you've had a rotten day, fought traffic, the car broke down, money is tight, people are jerks, the front door is stuck, and the cat won't get out from under you?

Get down on your knees and pray to God for enabling strength to love Him in the hardest moments and to follow the example of Jesus, who would not give in to the smallest pleasure because He trusted, followed, and desired His Father more than anyone or anything else.

Bad Hearing

HT: Sacred Sandwich

How to Handle Criticism

A long time ago, a wiser, older man gave me some great advice: “You just can't please everybody.” Anyone who has ever tried to accommodate a large group of people or even organize a small event has experienced this problem. Some will love your decisions, some will hate your decisions, and others just won't care. An article titled, “How To Change People's Minds” or “How To Make Decisions That Suit Everyone” would be nice, though quite unrealistic. So what do we do? Rather than throwing up our hands in exasperation and giving up, perhaps asking ourselves a few questions will help...

1. Did I do/say something wrong? When criticized, it is easy for me to say, “Well, he always complains about something” and then brush off the complaint. However, I need to consider that the complaint may be genuine. As Paul said, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor. 13:5). When we compare ourselves and our actions to others, we are not wise (2 Cor. 10:12), so we should examine ourselves. The “knee-jerk” reaction to criticism is retaliation, but my first response should be introspection.

Pride can take many forms. It can appear as, I'm better than you or You're not as good as me. Whatever form it takes, pride will keep us from honest introspection. Tearing someone else down will not build up myself or my work. Paul said,

For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. (Galatians 6:4-5)

In other words, do not rejoice or take pride in the fact that someone else is wrong. Rather, rejoice and take pride in the fact that you are doing what you need to do regardless of how others act or treat you. But before I can “have rejoicing in myself,” I need to check and see if I am guiltless or not. If, upon examining myself, I found that I was indeed wrong, then I should humbly apologize and try to correct my mistake.

2. Did I do/say something in the wrong way? Perhaps what I said was true or what I did was right, but the way something is said was wrong. After all, the way something is said or done (through body language and other non-verbal cues) can affect how another person receives it. The Bible says,

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. (Proverbs 15:1-2)

My words may express concern or gratitude, but my tone of voice, movement/placement of my hands, posture, facial expressions, etc. may say the opposite of my words. My intentions may have been good and my words may have been honest, but if this kind of miscommunication happens I should humbly clarify my intentions from thence be mindful of how I say/do things. Truly, people can make mountains out of molehills but I would rather not give them any dirt to play with.

3. If the answers to the first two questions were “No,” then ask, What is happening to this person to make him feel this way? While people can simply be mean sometimes, there is often a deeper reason for their hostility. Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matt. 15:19). Likewise, He said, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). If I am on the receiving end of a tongue lashing I need to consider the state of the person delivering the lashing. Human beings are frail, fragile, fallen, and broken. Scars on the heart may not be visible, but they are no less real than physical scars. In this case, I must follow one of my Lord's most difficult commands: love and pray for my enemy (Matt. 5:44).

4. Ask your Heavenly Father to carry the burden. He is able. On the cross, Jesus took more criticism than most of us will ever take. I should cast all my anxieties on Him (1 Pet. 5:7). In fact, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers” (1 Pet. 3:12). Criticism can be stressful and even depressing, but I must remember the apostle's admonition: “In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Philippians 4:6).

The Apocrypha

The term “apocrypha” means “hidden” and is variously taken to indicate esoteric writings or heretical writings depending on the interpreter. “The Apocrypha” refers to texts that have been officially left out of the biblical canon, at least by Protestants. However, the books of the Apocrypha were not always “hidden” or looked on unfavorably as they are by many today. In fact, the Apocrypha was present in the LXX and part of it is in the Roman Catholic canon. In some Protestant collections the Apocrypha is placed between the Old Testament and the New Testament, being separated from both testaments, but in the Roman Catholic collection the books of the Apocrypha are arranged throughout the Old Testament though being considered “Deuterocanonical.”

Jerome was the first not to include these books in his translation simply because there were no Hebrew versions of the texts (though the Greek existed in the LXX). Afterward the Roman Catholic Church accepted the Apocrypha while the later Protestants rejected it as non-authoritative. The dates of the Apocryphal books range from about 300 B.C. to about A.D. 70 or even later in the first century A.D.

The significance of the Apocrypha, similar to the Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls, is that it gives modern readers a valuable insight into early Judaism and even Christianity because it was considered to be part of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is very interesting because in addition to containing apocryphal, poetic, and historical documents, the Apocrypha also contains fictional literature (Tobit, Judith, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon). Though they cannot be definitely called part of “The Good Book” they can certainly be seen as “good books” by early Jews. Whether or not the Apocrypha is seen as canonical, it still needs to be read for insight into early Christianity.

Best Line in "A Fistful of Dollars"

As you may know, this blog is about "the Bible, motorcycles, and Clint Eastwood." Seeing as how it's partially about Clint Eastwood, I thought it may be good if I actually post something about him.

I watched "A Fistful of Dollars" the other night. The best line in the movie is the scene where he enters town and the Baxter boys shoot at the feet of his horse, making it run off wildly with "the Man with No Name" on him. He walks back up to the Baxter boys and asks them to apologize for scaring his horse. When they start to laugh, he says,

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. Gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it...

They stop laughing, reaching for their guns, when the Man with No Name shoots all four of them in a couple of seconds. He immediately earns his tough guy reputation.

Sweet. It isn't exactly a Christian example of "turning the other cheek" or "resist not evil," but it sure let them know who's in charge.

We Don't Go By the Old Testament....Or Do We?

Consistency is difficult. Inconsistency is one of those things we hate and criticize in others but rarely see in ourselves. It's one of those things I need to patiently endure in others because they have to endure it in me. Nevertheless, it really stinks.

A theological example is our (conservative "Christendom")  treatment of the Old Testament. Is it binding? How much is authoritative? How do we decide what is authoritative?

I once cited a principle (not a command...a principle) from an Old Testament example and was met with the complaint, "Where is your authority for that?" Somewhat confused, I said, "Uh, right there (OT text)." The reply was, "Well, we don't go by the Old Testament." Strangely, this individual would have had no problem with me citing Psalm 119:105 in support of the importance of the Bible.

One of my professors startled me when he said, "The New Testament is the little appendix at the end of the Bible." I was a little offended at first, but I believe he was correct. The OT is way longer than the NT in size but, more importantly, it is the introduction to Jesus (Gal. 3:24). Without the OT, how much would we know about God? How would we understand the significance of the Nazarene? The Old Testament is more important than some may think:

Some considerations:

• Paul said "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), which includes the Old Testament (and seems to be Paul's main focus, cf. v. 15). Though he often rebuked churches for putting too much emphasis on the OT (Galatians 1:6-9; Acts 15:1; Col. 3), Paul never lost sight of the Old Testament's value.
• Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:17-19 ESV). This last verse has always given me trouble. I know that the "handwriting of ordinances" was "nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), but Jesus seems to indicate here that the OT still has a purpose in the kingdom of heaven, which makes me think of two possibilities...
• Following the OT Scriptures that will make a Christian "great"  now in the kingdom and not following the OT Scriptures will make a person "least" in the kingdom. OR...
• Jesus was referring to the period during his life and before His death, during which time His followers would be justified by the Law of Moses. This view, however, requires that the kingdom of heaven exists before Acts 2 (cf. Luke 11:20).

I really don't know what the solution is....I'm probably not even clear on the question. All I know is that saying "the law was nailed to the cross" or "we don't go by the Old Testament" does not answer all the questions about the Christian's relationship to the OT. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans have much to say about this, indicating that the Law never had the ability or purpose to redeem man (Heb. 7:19) but it was a "schoolmaster" until Jesus came (Gal. 3:24). The question is, "How much of the schoolmaster's teaching should we forget now that Jesus has come?"

In the end, the OT is not given enough credit by some. I am definitely not saying that the sacrifices of the OT or anything like that are acceptable to God today. What I'm proposing is that the Old Testament may be of more value than simply "pointing" to Jesus, but may help us in our walk with God because our Lord said, "Whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Footnotes vs. Endnotes

I prefer footnotes to endnotes. Footnotes make reading so much easier. I've been reading a book with massive endnotes which is a pain because I'm constantly flipping back and forth between pages. Here are my ideas about footnotes:

• You don't have to turn the page...just a glance of the eye will show you the author's note and you can quickly return to reading without having to fumble back through the book.
• "Well, what if the endnotes are really long?" Don't make them long! Be concise and succinct! The book I'm reading is quite verbose, not only in the chapters but in the endnotes. Briefly say what you need to say then proceed.
• I don't mind if even half a page consists of footnotes occasionally because even then I'm not having to flip back and forth constantly. 

Just saying.

Book Review: The New Testament Era

Bo Reicke

The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964. Pp. 317. Paperback.

Abstract of The New Testament Era

In The New Testament Era, Bo Reicke provides a concise yet detailed account of the centuries surrounding the ministry of our Lord and the beginning of the church. This book is extremely profitable for knowledge of the background of the New Testament, for though the bulk of the book consists of the details of the first century A. D., it does not neglect the often obscure intertestamental period. As stated in the introduction (p. 1), this book deliberately avoids “theological questions,” choosing rather to focus on the historical background of the times that led to the “fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4). Though the New Testament is not the basis of Reicke’s historical introduction, it is his “goal” (p. 4) in that he seeks to lead a student to position where he is able to study the New Testament with a better foundational knowledge.

Focusing on the political, social, and religious factors of the period of discussion, The New Testament Era uses a chronological framework. First, Reicke begins with “Judah Under Persian Rule,” spending nearly thirty pages detailing the last part of the Exile and focusing on the relationship of Persia to Judah and its influence thereon. From here, the author continues by introducing Alexander the Great and his conquest of the Persian Empire, ushering in the Hellenistic Age, which may have had a greater influence on the Hebrew people than the former age. The greater portion of the book, however, is dedicated to the New Testament era itself, the first century A. D., detailing the Roman rule of Palestine from the Herods to the sub-apostolic period.

Strengths of The New Testament Era

Reicke’s balance between brevity and detail is one of the most notable aspects of this book. Though 317 pages may seem like a large amount of reading, such a viewpoint is reduced when one considers the time span the book covers (500 B.C. to A.D. 100), as well as the author’s ability to note to the general story of this historical period while providing details where elaboration is necessary. A reader with a general understanding of names and nations in the Exile and New Testament periods will come away from this reading with a huge supplement of information.

Though it begins with the Persians, this was the root of the New Testament time. 500 B.C. may seem like a stretch in an introduction to the New Testament era, but it is an essential part of the development of history, as Reicke well shows. Without this time period included, a reader of John 4 and Luke 9 will be left in the dark regarding the mutual animosity of the Jews and Samaritans, the latter group gaining their own distinction in the Persian period of power. Further, the situation of the Jews after the Exile did not experience drastic changes with the conquests of Alexander the Great who “left the Oriental rugs where they were, so to speak, only making sure that he had his feet firmly planted on them” (p. 36). For the Jews, this meant that the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah continued, which began under Persian rule, continued to progress uninterrupted by the new Hellenistic domination.

Another strength of The New Testament Era is the understanding Reicke provides to his readers regarding the political tension that filled Judaism in the first century. There are subtle hints of this tension in the Gospels and epistles, but Reicke does a good job bringing them together in light of history. Reicke traces the Zealot movement (not the party) from Palestine to Rome, theorizing that Zealots and even simply anti-Gentile Judaism would have “found especially fertile soil among those Jewish or Gentile Chrsitians who belonged to the lower classes (slaves, freedman, the poor, non-citizens), of whom there were not a few (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 1:28)” (p. 246). Reicke’s conclusion is that since the Gospel was received largely among the lower classes the political turmoil and materialistic eschatology of the Jewish world played a large part in many Christians’ thinking. For proof, he refers to the rebellion of Onesimus (Philemon 11, 15) and Paul’s warning of Jewish propaganda (Titus 1:10, 14) (p. 246). He also cites 1 Thess. 4:11 and 2 Thess. 3:10ff, both of which note the lack of desire to work among the Thessalonians, as proof that the Jews and Gentiles in the church were struggling with either Hellenism or fanaticism. This planted new seeds of thought in my mind for I have always seen the “busybodies” in 1 & 2 Thessalonians as mere sponges who did not want to work because they thought the Lord would return immediately, but Reicke opened the possibility that these Christians who would not mind their own business could have been motivated by a Jewish political and materialistic interpretation of the Gospel.

A third strong aspect of Reicke’s book is his description of the transition of power from the Hasmonean dynasty to Antipater and Herod, creating the Herodian dynasty. I saw this as a strong point because it was a portion of history in which I was very curious and very ignorant. Many see “Herod” in the New Testament and assume that it refers only to Herod the Great or Herod Antipas, but the author not only distinguishes the many key players in this family, but also their rise to power, division of power among Herod’s sons, and their later fall from power. Reicke was very methodical in arranging this transfer right along with the Roman influence that made it happen, pointing out Pompey’s involvement in Antipater being made procurator and forerunner of the Herodian dynasty. Thankfully, the author gave much space to this intriguing family.

Another delightfully informative section was Reicke’s treatment of church growth and martyrdom during the sub-apostolic period. One fascinating detail was the author’s estimation of the number of Christians that existed in this period. He estimates that after A.D. 100, there could have been 320,000 Christians in the Roman Empire (p. 304). Even he admits that his estimation is “hypothetical and approximate” (p. 304), these statistics cooperate with Pliny’s treatment of Christians in Bithynia/Pontus in the early second century, for he likely would not have seen Christians as a problem had they not been as large a group as they were (Reicke estimates 80,000 in Asia Minor). Further, if the church grew to such numbers at this time, then conflict with the sovereignty of the emperor cult was inevitable.

Finally, Reicke’s use of primary sources made the book as informative as it is. He was very conversant with the Old Testament canon, the Pseudipigrapha, the Apocrypha, the Qumran documents, the works of Josephus, the writings of the “Church Fathers,” as well as the writings of Roman leaders and historians, such as Pliny and Suetonius.

Weaknesses of The New Testament Era

Reicke was not clear regarding Persian influence on Jewish religious practices and beliefs. In one paragraph, he says, “the Jews never encountered ancient Iranian religion or any true Zoroastrianism” and that any connection made between Judaism and Zoroastrianism is not a matter of “influence” but of “convergence” (p. 32). However, in the next paragraph he lists several “religious motifs” than “may well have developed out of earlier conceptions through convergence with Persian syncretism” (p. 33), namely, a heavenly “royal court,” dualism, a conception of angels and demons, a divine mediator, and the expectation of resurrection and retribution. It should be granted to the author that this is a rather unclear historical relationship and that his “middle of the road” approach is to be preferred to a full-fledged Jewish replication of Zoroastrianism, but he does not mention the possibility that Judaism (and even Christianity) could have influenced Zoroastrianism, whose key texts were compiled in the 6^th-9^th centuries A.D.

Reicke’s description of Domitian’s reforms, though enlightening, seemed too detailed (p. 271-278). The author’s assessment of Domitian “sees beyond the damnatio memoriae and his tragic end” and examines “the major part of his life and works,” which Reicke sees as a time of courageous promotion of the interests of Rome, aiding the middle and lower classes though he was “stern and sometimes cruel toward the upper class” (p. 282). At the end of the section, Reicke notes the Domitian appeared to be a religious tyrant in A.D. 93-96, the last three years of his power.

The author is very convincing regarding the social aspect of Domitian’s rule, but he seems to have overstated his case. Perhaps my lack of knowledge in this side of Roman affairs (i.e. social reforms) has soured my taste on this part of the reading, but it seemed that Reicke put much more effort on this point than he did on other points of history throughout the book, apparently having a bone to pick with historians who paint the entire reign of Domitian as a horrible tyranny. While informative, the author’s corrective zeal was a little too much.

Last, Reicke dates the Pastoral and General epistles quite late, requiring them to be written by someone other than Peter, Paul, or James. The author sees the sicarii actions in Cyrene in the early A.D. 70s as evidence that the letter to Titus, which includes anti-anarchistic teachings (Titus 1:10), must have been “about this same time.” If his conclusion is true, it requires an author other than Paul (who died in the mid-60’s) to have written the letter. On the whole, Reicke sees the sub-apostolic Christians taking over many features of Hellenism, “giving rise to a series of social and moral problems such as the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles discuss.” This conclusion, however, ignores the possibility of the inspired authors seeing these situations coming before they actually arrived and preparing their readers for them.

MISSING: Earbuds

NAME: iPhone earbuds
AGE: 14 months
LAST SEEN: In my jacket pocket
LIKELY WHEREABOUTS: Somewhere in my house. Or somewhere else.
REWARD: Handshake and verbal affirmation of gratitude.

God and Text Messaging?

GOD TEXTS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
by Jamie Quatro

1. no1 b4 me. srsly.
2. dnt wrshp pix/idols
3. no omg’s
4. no wrk on w/end (sat 4 now; sun l8r)
5. pos ok – ur m&d r cool
6. dnt kill ppl
7. :-X only w/ m8
8. dnt steal
9. dnt lie re: bf
10. dnt ogle ur bf’s m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob.
M, pls rite on tabs & giv 2 ppl.

ttyl, JHWH.

ps. wwjd?

HT: McSweeney

Lovely Bones and Beating up Bad Guys

Don't you ever want to beat up the bad guy? Or at least hinder the bad guy. Who hasn't silently urged a character not to go into the villain's house or not to get into the car or run faster?  "Get away from him! Run and don't look back!!" Better yet, have you ever wanted to punish the villain yourself?

Sometimes I imagine stories ending differently. I like to replay scenes in my mind, changing the plot at pivotal moments. For example, in the scene in The Lovely Bones where the "neighborly" serial killer lures Suzie Salmon into his underground lair, I imagine someone (myself, actually) driving up, blowing the horn, making a bunch of noise, getting out, and interrupting the murder, sending little Suzie home running scared. I say something like, "I know who you are. I know what you are." My hand is holding a handgun (am I a cop in the fantasy?) and I don't take my eyes off of him. Somehow I bind him and call the cops, never taking my eyes off of him. Maybe I even beat the guy to a pulp while I wait.

I don't know why I picture it like this. It is silly for obvious reasons (it assumes I would even be able to stop the bad guy without having myself and the other killed), but why do I think this? Perhaps it is my sense of "manliness." That is, I should be able to control things, to keep bad things from happening or to make things right (like Suzie's dad), not wanting to feel weak, unable, incompetent, or whatever. I've never been in a fight, so maybe this is an outlet for frustration and past resentment. Perhaps it is a sense of justice, though the feelings and imagined actions are far from "Christian virtues." More likely, it is my sense of justice. "This is how I think it should happen. This is how I think the villain should be punished."


The problem is this: we just don't have that kind of control. Satan wants us to think we do have control, however. Thus, we dwell on the past, dreaming on "what might have been." Instead, we should try to accept the current situation, acknowledging our inability to change the past, and realize that we can only change our attitude and response. But this is easier said than done.

Last year my dad cut down a tree at my grandfather's house. The tree fell, somehow rolling back toward him, but when he tried to step back or aside he tripped, fell, and the tree rolled on top of him, the pressure of which cut off his breathing. My grandfather was there. He's about 80 and tried to get the tree off but couldn't, finally having to yell for help. The ambulance didn't get there in time.

Sometimes, though, I imagine what would've happened had I been there. I picture myself suggesting that Dad cut the tree at a different spot, causing the tree to fall in a different direction. Or I see myself pushing him out of the way when the tree starts to roll. Or I see myself receiving some unnatural strength and rolling the tree off him. Such thoughts do no good but only serve to fabricate a false reality that merely distracts from living.

Listen to little Stoic wisdom:

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions. 

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed. 

Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved. 

Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you. (Epictetus, The Enchiridion 1)

I certainly can't change the past. I can't even change the present...only my attitude and perception. When bad things happen, I just have to trust God, who will make all wrongs right.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Rom 12:19 ESV).

Justice will be dealt. Perhaps not as quickly as you want it, but it will come. My Dad wasn't murdered like Suzie Salmon, but Jesus will avenge him by destroying death itself (1 Cor 15:26). That gives me peace.

The Lovely Bones was pretty morbid, but the message was real. Bad things happen but you have to let them go and move on. Though He may not have been in the minds of the author or director, God must be trusted to make things right. He is the One who is able. He is the One who is just.

It's alive....IT'S ALIVE!!!!

I'm proud to announce that Clyde, my beloved 1100cc motorized horse, has awakened from his winter slumber. He is typically very difficult to wake up (as most old men are), but after the wind and wet ground caused him to fall onto his side yesterday, he cranked right up (after I picked him up and rolled him into the carport).

You may be thinking, "Wow...Clyde is the coolest name in the world for a motorcycle!" Well, thank you! I endowed this beast with said moniker quite easily because for a very long time I have considered Clyde to be the most masculine name in the English language. It reeks of testosterone. It makes me think of biceps, tattoos, body hair, and B.O.--the four elements of manliness (maybe not B.O.).

Clyde is a 1987 Honda Shadow 1100 that I obtained through a sweet deal with my uncle. Having seen better days, Clyde is not in the best shape. Here are a few battle scars this warrior has obtained:

• No third gear (which makes cruising through a busy town tricky)
• Speedometer does not work (I think I'm getting good at reading the RPM, though)
• No right battery cover (as the picture indicates)
• Right front blinker is connected by electrical tape.
• Choke gave up the ghost last fall.
• Unknown mileage (see the second item in the list)

Other than that, it's in good shape!

There is something liberating about riding a motorcycle on a sunny day. You feel free to take in the surroundings, marveling at God's wonderful Creation, but at the same time you feel wild and powerful. I think that is how God meant for men to be. Wild and free...but in love with Him.

Listen to some of the first recorded words of God to man in the beginning:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.' (Gen. 1:28 ESV, emphasis mine)

Did you hear that?! "Here Adam...take this entire world and subdue it. I put it under your dominion." God didn't say, "Now Adam, you be a good little boy. Mind your manners. Don't get your clothes dirty when you go out to play. And please keep your voice down...you're not an animal, you know. Oh, and don't wander too far away...you might get hurt." NO! God said, Take this creation and subdue it. He didn't emasculate Adam and make him think and act like a woman (he would later give him an awesome gift that sparked a poetic outburst in Adam, a gift that he would love more than his own body, but that's a different story).


I wonder what Adam thought. "Do what? How do I subdue it? Where do I start? What should I do? Do I have what it takes? I can't do this." I don't know what he thought, really. But if I were in Adam's shoes, those are questions I would have asked, sadly.

I like to think that Adam didn't have those insecurities. After all, he had a Father who walked with him and, no doubt, taught him everything he needed to know about being a man. He had a Father who went on adventures with him, bonding with him. God created Adam for adventure.

"But motorcycles are dangerous." True...but men need to be a little dangerous sometimes. I saw a lion in a zoo a couple of years ago and it was one of the saddest sights. Here was the "king of the jungle" being gawked at by creatures he would normally have for supper. He was meant to be in the wild, free from bondage, but he was trapped...captured. Sure, he has some grass, a tree, and big rock for naps, but he just seemed boring. When you put a lion in a cage, it loses something.

The same thing can happen to a man. When you put a man in a cubicle or on a pew or anywhere and tell him his job is just to be nice, he loses something. Morality, kindness, gentleness, are all virtuous and quite important, but why not do those things and walk with God. Jesus is the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah. 

I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10, ESV)

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (1 Cor. 16:13, ESV)