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.