Category: Book Plunge

Book Plunge: Faith on Trial

What do I think of Ewen’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The following is from Hope’s Reason’s Apologetics Journal. Thanks for publishing this to Stephen Bedard. The link to the journal can be found here. I also recommend the writing of Chris Winchester in this issue, a very good friend of mine who was a groomsman at our wedding.

Books that have gained popularity in Christian circles on apologetics tend to have a theme. It is not enough to just write about the resurrection or the historical Jesus or the problem of evil. You need some context that all the information fits in to reach the culture. Lee Strobel did this excellently with his “Case for” series. When the writing is set in a dialogue, it makes it much easier to follow. J. Warner Wallace has done this with “Cold-Case Christianity” which I contend will be the “Case for Christ” of this generation, by setting everything in the setting of a homocide detective. I believe that Pamela Binnings Ewen’s book “Faith on Trial” is meant to follow that same line with the case being seen as a legal proceeding and Ewen presenting the evidence to the jury.
This book is a mixed bag. I think right at the start that the information on hearsay is enough to devastate a number of atheistic arguments that are part of the common parlance of the atheistic movement today. Ewen starts this off on page 19 saying “ To begin with, under the general rule, if such out-of-court statements are offered as truth of the facts they assert, they would ordinarily be excluded as hearsay evidence.” Note the word ordinarily. Not too much later on the same page, Ewen says “Nevertheless, an exception is permitted under the law for statements contained in an “ancient document,” and the Gospel manuscripts fall within that exception.”
It’s safe to say that she spends the rest of the chapter, around fifteen pages, defeating the hearsay objection and allowing the gospels to be examined like any other ancient documents and to be admissible in a court of law. Readers who debate atheists online will find this to be extremely helpful. Considering the work Ewen has done here it would be good to see a whole book on this just dealing with this objection.
Unfortunately, I found the rest of the book just didn’t keep up with that level of excitement. For instance, in her look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, she refers to the work of Thiede in saying a fragment of Mark is found amongst the DSS. Thiede’s hypothesis is highly challenged and not just by liberal scholars. A conservative scholar as strong as Daniel Wallace has challenged it. That can be found here.
I found myself too often in the book wishing that Ewen would interact more with those who disagree with her views. One can regularly find Christian authorities cited, but I would have liked to have seen interaction with people like Crossan or Ehrman or those who are not friendly to the idea of the NT giving an accurate reading of what happened and why they were skeptical. I also wish more had been said about the textual criticism of the text as an Ehrman would quickly delight in pointing out to Ewen information about our earliest copies.
With regards to the works she does cite, a number of them can be popular apologetics works. I would have liked to have seen more interaction with some of our latest works. For instance, Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” contains invaluable information that would be useful to this book and greatly improve it. Another great help would have been Craig Keener’s “Miracles.” Of course, that would have been a lengthy read and the book could have been off to the presses by then, but it would have been helpful to see Ewen’s expertise in examining miracle claims from a legal perspective.
I also think there should have been more on the resurrection. There was little time devoted to dealing with the objections that come to belief in the resurrection. I did not see an emphasis on ideas like the minimal facts approach of Habermas and Licona. It could have been said that the testimony of the evangelists was reliable, but even if it’s generally reliable, some people will require even more for a great event like the resurrection.
The issues on science were interesting, but I thought too heavily focused on. Readers who were critical would say that Ewen did not interact with the critics of Behe, for instance. It was good to see that she brought in non-Christian testimony here, but it seemed like too much to make a point on miracles and could too easily be interpreted as a God-of-the-Gaps.
It’s my conclusion that this book will be good for the hearsay aspect and that the evidences in many cases are good enough to start making a case, but I suspect too much of it could be seen as going with what is not the most reliable and making it to be a centerpiece in a case. This is a decent read on the topic, but I cannot at this point endorse wholeheartedly. I think the author has a brilliant start, but it just needs some refining. If that is done, I do not doubt we could have an excellent work on our hands.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Ehrman’s Introduction To The New Testament

Are our students ready for Seminary? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I went on a search through local churches in our area to see how many of them were interested in having a speaker come talk about apologetics-related topics. I would consistently find that there were youth programs and college programs, but on only two churches can I recall finding anything remotely related to apologetics.

Oh you can find about concerts and pizza parties and “Jumping into God’s Word!” everywhere. What you cannot find is serious content. It is more important to keep our youth entertained. Still, there will be some who will want to go off for higher learning and that includes in the Christian faith and when we send them off to Seminary or Divinity School or something of that kind, we can be sure that they’ll be safe. Places that teach the NT will teach them the beliefs that they grew up with.

If you really believe that, you are part of the problem.

I have been making it an effort to study Bart Ehrman’s material more. In wanting to get the most of his thought, I ordered his “Introduction to the New Testament.” Now Ehrman does say that he’s just trying to go with what historians can say about the Bible. If you want to believe the Bible is the Word of God, he’s not going to tell you to not do that.

However, he sure won’t give you any reason to think that.

Now of course, Ehrman does have some good material in there. There are some interesting ways to look at the text and a good student of the NT should be prepared for that. Yet despite his saying that he doesn’t want to persuade you of X, the end result is that his book will persuade you of X if you are not prepared.

Sorry parents and ministers, but pizza parties are not preparing us.

“But we are teaching our youth what the Word of God says!”

Until they meet an Ehrman who tells them through his book in a Seminary that the gospels are by anonymous authors and we can’t really study miracles and the accounts are written late and that there were other holy men walking around doing miracles and that most critical scholars think that a number of books in the NT are pseudonymous and that there are numerous contradictions in the Bible.

It will be hard for the youth to think the Bible is the Word of God while accepting all of that.

And what are they to counter Ehrman with? Faith? No. Faith is not meant to be a counter. It is not meant to be a leap in the dark. It is meant to be trust on reliable evidence and unfortunately, going to that big youth concert is not giving the youth the tools they need to be able to have that reliable evidence. There is only one way for them to get it. They must be taught it. Either parents and churches will teach them what they are to believe about the reliability of Scripture, or rest assured people like Bart Ehrman will.

It is quite disappointing to find that Ehrman never really gives counters to his positions. For instance, when discussing who wrote the Gospels, he never lays out the case for why some scholars think Matthew wrote Matthew. Any mention of the church fathers saying X wrote a Gospel are seen as “hearsay” because they are too late. (Although apparently 20th century interpreters are not too late.) It doesn’t matter that the tradition is quite constant about the authorship of the gospels and these are the people who would have been in the position to know. Ehrman will give no reason why you should think Matthew wrote Matthew, but he will give you reason to think that he didn’t.

The same goes with dating. Ehrman will tell you that these accounts were written after the events and use time descriptions that sound like a long time, without bothering to mention how long after the fact it was that other ancient biographies were written and that the time is like a blip in comparison.

When discussing a passage like 1 Cor. 15, Ehrman will say some people use it to defend the resurrection, but absent is any mention of the arguments that are used by those people. In fact, Ehrman says very little about the resurrection. He certainly gives no other explanation for the data. This is increasingly a concern of mine. Ehrman will give the impression that there is no one in scholarship who disagrees with the position of critical scholars and if they are, they are certainly in the minority.

His usage of Acts is quite odd. When Acts suits his purpose, such as when saying that Peter and John were uneducated, then Acts is reliable. When Acts disagrees with what he says, as it does numerous times, then Acts needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Why should I accept Acts 4 as reliable when I should question the “We” passages? This would be particularly so since Acts 4 would be early and the writer would not likely have been an eyewitness.

To be fair, a few times Ehrman will list evangelicals in the recommended books, but the overall tone of the book is clearly one that is meant to show that we should not trust the accounts.

Interestingly, when it comes to the text of the NT, his main area, Ehrman says the following on page 481:

“In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.”

This isn’t the impression you’d get from books like “Misquoting Jesus” or “Jesus Interrupted.”

So now let’s return to the college youth groups in churches. Our youth are not prepared. What are we to do with this? If we don’t do anything, then when the student goes off to college and starts reading Ehrman’s book, there will be one of three possible responses.

1) The person will apostasize or at least severely water down their faith effectively nullifying any good they could do for the kingdom.

2) The person will hold on to their faith but purely as a “faith” position and will isolate themselves from the world and not bother interacting with disagreeing thought, again effectively nullifying any good they could do for the kingdom.

3) The person will actually study Ehrman’s arguments and read the other side and make a defense for the Scripture.

Sadly, #3 will be the rarity if it ever happens.

We must be doing better. There’s nothing wrong with having some pizza parties and concerts and such, but if this is all we are doing for our youth, we are sending them off to have their faith destroyed, and no amount of pizza will restore it.

The choice is ours. We can determine who will teach our youth how to think about the Bible. It will be us, or it will be our opponents.

Choose wisely. Their eternity and the eternity of people they reach could hang in the balance.

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Is The Cold Case Still Valid?

What can be said to the Gospel Coalition’s review of Cold Case Christianity? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Someone in the CAA (Christian Apologetics Alliance) brought to my attention a review of Cold-Case Christianity by the Gospel Coalition’s Gus Pritchard. It’s my thinking that Cold-Case Christianity could be one of the most powerful books to advance the gospel in some time and realizing that Jim Wallace is probably a busy guy, I figured I’d have the fun of dealing with someone who wants to go after the book.

Pritchard starts by saying that his thoughts on the book were like winning the lottery. It might seem to bring some happiness at the start, but in the end, it will only lead to misery. I take it to mean that we might think this is a good argument at the beginning, but in the end we will see that it will not reach those people it is designed to reach.

Well for that, we will have to wait and see, but many people have come to Christ by reading something like Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” I suspect many will come to Christ through Wallace’s book, or at least move further on their journey or even just get started. This is the kind of book that Greg Koukl, Wallace’s employer now, would say could “put a rock in their shoe.”

Pritchard is not totally negative. He does affirm that Wallace has good thoughts on reasoning skills. This is something I agreed with as well. He also does say the book is entirely readable, which is something else I agree with. The second item he agreed with, and I saved this for last for soon to be obvious reasons, was the importance of recognizing our presuppositions.

Yeah. It’s clear where this is going.

So for the start, I am going to state my presupposition. I am going to presuppose the evidentialist view and presuppose that the presuppositional approach does not work.

Glad we got that out of the way.

Let’s look at what Pritchard himself says:

“First, Cold-Case Christianity places far too much emphasis on the role of extrabiblical sources. No doubt there is a legitimate role for biblical archaeology and extrabiblical writing from antiquity. Christianity is, after all, a faith firmly rooted in human history. But there is a grave danger when truth is suspended because of an apparent lack of corroboration from extrabiblical sources. And Wallace, I’m afraid, wanders too close to this dark side of apologetics.”

The dark side of apologetics? Did I somehow step into a Star Wars universe?

Yes. How horrible to show that the Bible is backed up by sources outside of it. How terrible to show that these events did not happen in a vacuum. Thankfully, no one in the Bible took this approach.

Except for the fact that when the gospel was being preached, there were no gospels per se and there were no epistles. Paul told Agrippa that the events done weren’t done in a corner. In other words, investigate the claims for yourself! The early testimony was eyewitness testimony. Sources like Tacitus and others show the eyewitnesses were right! This was not done in a corner! This was done out in the open! Archaeology helps us confirm the biblical writings and shows that unlike the pagan myths, these events were rooted in a place and time. Is there some danger that our faith will be destroyed by outside sources?

It really becomes a fideistic approach. If your worldview is true, you should have no problem putting it to the strictest scrutiny. If it is not, then you will have a problem. No Christian should fear further research into what they believe. No Christian should have a problem with extra-biblical sources. Now I do agree there is a problem with stating that EVERYTHING must be backed extra-biblically. I think this is a prejudice we too often have where nothing in the Bible can be considered historical unless it’s verified somewhere else. A gospel account alone could count as a historical claim itself that can be investigated, and indeed is in NT scholarship, but where we can get extra-biblical evidence, I’m all for it.

Pritchard goes on to say:

“All of chapter 12, for instance, is devoted to proving the Gospels have external corroborative evidence—“evidence that are independent of the Gospel documents yet verify the claims of the text” (183). Wallace then addresses the historicity of the pool of Bethesda and makes another worrying statement: “For many years, there was no evidence for such a place outside of John’s Gospel. Because Christianity makes historical claims, archaeology ought to be a tool we can use to see if these claims are, in fact, true” (201-202, emphasis added).”

Yes. Obviously a horrible remark. If we are to approach the unbeliever and tell them examining the case of Christianity will show it to be true, what is wrong with saying we will abandon it if it is false? In fact, if someone becomes convinced that Christianity is not true, they shouldn’t remain a Christian. I would also contend that that person has made a mistake in their research somewhere along the way.

Christianity is a faith that is rooted in evidences so we should be able to use evidences to demonstrate it. I have often been told by those of the presuppositional bent that the approach is used all the time in the Bible. The problem is I can’t find one. I get told passages like “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Yes. It is. Wisdom refers to godly living. It doesn’t refer to confirming the gospel to be true. When I look at the apostles in every case, I see them pointing to evidences. These evidences can vary. With Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, they did use the Old Testament, because this was a source that was already accepted, much like one could use the Koran in evangelizing Muslims, or the Book of Mormon in evangelizing Mormons. With the Gentiles that weren’t God-fearers, they would point to eyewitness testimony as well as do miracles. Each of those are evidentialist!

Let’s continue with Pritchard:

“In other words, Wallace seems to suggest we cannot affirm the truth of the Gospel accounts without the stamp of approval from archaeology and other extrabiblical sources. Such reasoning is dangerous, not least because it cannot affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. But also, it places the final court of appeal in the realm of extrabiblical sources rather than of God’s all-sufficient, all-powerful Word.”

There are some statements that I think are made to sound holy, but really aren’t. In fact, I think it gets to be an idolization of Scripture. We have this idea that when the Bible refers to the “Word of God” it means the Bible. I seriously doubt this. The Bible usually uses the term “Scriptures” instead and the Word of God refers either to Jesus or some command of God. Of course, in that sense, Scripture is the Word of God, but it is false to take the usages of the term in the Bible and give them a meaning never intended. In fact, it often turns the Bible into a magic book.

For instance, how many times have I heard someone say “God’s Word will not return to Him void.” The implication is that if you go out and give Scripture, it will produce results. (Kind of like how the devil quoted Scripture to Jesus?) No. The words of the Bible are not like words in a magic book that have an independent power on their own.  Of course, Scripture is something powerful, but like anything else, it must be used properly. You do not just go out there and read Scripture and get results.

Pritchard says that this cannot affirm the Inerrancy of the Bible. As we have said numerous times here, Inerrancy can become a sort of sacred cow that people think they must protect, which to me produces more problems than it solves. For instance, if it must be the case that Inerrancy is to be true for Christianity to be true, then you are really saying history cannot confirm the Bible. We cannot take an independent historical approach and confirm that Jesus rose from the dead. We have to take a leap of faith into Scripture. If Christianity is a historical faith, how could it be that it could not be confirmed historically, especially when the first hearers of the gospel were told to go out and investigate it!

Second, apologetics becomes a “Stump the Bible Scholar” game where if there is one contradiction that the person cannot solve immediately, then all of the Bible is to be thrown out. Are we to say that if there is a contradiction based on how many horses king Solomon had (Which there isn’t) then nothing in the Bible is true? It means Jesus didn’t exist? It means He didn’t rise? That the truthfulness of Luke depends on the truthfulness of the writers of Kings and Chronicles?

It is sad that I have seen Christians saying this. I have seen them say that if there is an error in the Bible then Christianity is not true and Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Friends. The Bible is extremely important. It is the greatest testimony we have to the life of Christ. It is our great guide for matters of faith and practice.

But the Bible did not die on the cross for you.

The Bible is not the sacrifice for your sins.

The Bible did not rise again.

You are out there getting people to come to Jesus. You are not out there getting people to come to Inerrancy. Now if I find an error in the Bible, will I have to change my view of Scripture? Yeah. I would. I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I also do not expect to find such an error after over a decade of doing this kind of work and seeing most every contradiction umpteen times.

The position assumes the Bible is in a vacuum and we have to handle it differently from other texts to show it is true. No. I say that if you handle the Bible the exact same way you handle other texts, it will come out on top. The Bible usually gets a different treatment because it has great claims about Jesus and it treats miracles as real. The Bible requires a call on someone’s life and that is something that is resisted.

After this, there is the usual talk about how people are really God-hating rebellious sinners and aren’t capable of examining the evidence. It’s a wonder then how Wallace came to the faith or someone like Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis or others. Aren’t these included in the category of God-hating rebellious sinners? Are we going to get into a “No True Scotsman” approach now?

The reality is some people will reject every piece of evidence that is given to them. Some people do not want Christianity to be true and will resist it. This is not doubted by anyone I know. Some will be open though. Some people really are searching for something. A book like Wallace’s could be what reaches them.

Let’s also note other benefits of this.

First, it will help the Christian who is struggling. Some Christians want more than a feeling in their hearts. In fact, I think every Christian should want more. If all you have is a personal testimony and how you feel, then why not be a Mormon? If you point to anything beyond personal testimony and feelings, then you are being evidentialist in your approach.

Second, in the public arena, it might not change the opponent, but it can shut him down, which I think is a goal to seek for. There are people who want to destroy our flock like wolves go after sheep. If they are not interested in truth, then you’re not aiming for them. Just shut them down somehow. To see the arguments of the opposition shut down publicly can be and has been a source of encouragement to the Christian.

Third, it helps those of us who are arguing to more regularly learn the evidences. Nothing helps you memorize the material like having to use it again and again. The more you have to say this stuff, the better you get at it.

If the person is open, they will come. If they are not, they will want. I do not see how this would be a problem even with a Calvinist approach. One can say that none will come until the Father draws them but the means of drawing could be a good evidentialist argument.

I conclude by still holding that Wallace’s book is one that I think should be given to those who are seeking truth on a regular basis. I look forward to hearing about it being conveniently “left” on an airplane seat or in a hotel lobby for the curious reader. I look forward to church’s doing book studies of this book. I look forward to college and seminaries using it in apologetics classes.

Thus, I cannot accept Pritchard and while he hesitates to recommend Wallace’s book, I hesitate even more to use Pritchard’s approach. (Of course, I could just be a rebellious God-hating sinner.)

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Pritchard’s review can be found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/cold-case_christianity

Book Plunge: Jesus, The Miracle Worker

What do the miracles of Jesus mean? Le’ts talk about it on Deeper Waters.

My Master’s research is on miracles. One book recommended to me (And if anyone has any other recommendations feel free to give them!) was Graham Twelftree’s “Jesus: The Miracle Worker.” This one was published in 1999 long before Craig Keener’s excellent work on the topic of miracles, yet they handle quite different themes, meaning the two work together very well.

Keener’s book dealt largely with modern accounts of miracles and asking if they are still going on today. Twelftree’s deals with the accounts of the biblical material and is not really interested in if miracles are happening today, although he does indicate that the biblical writers think that miracles should be going on today.

Early on, Twelftree does have a section dealing with Hume, which is an essential for most any work on miracles today. The arguments are simple, but I think in many ways effective. Twelftree does realize that this is not his area and does have sources in the back to help the reader with further study.

Then, he takes us through the gospels where we look at each in turn and look at each miracle that Jesus does. It has been said before that Twelftree argues the strongest case for the deity of Jesus can come from the gospel of Mark. Some readers might be surprised at that, but throughout Twelftree’s book, he does argue that Mark saw Jesus acting as God doing miracles. Whether this is the book the person who told me that had in mind or not, I cannot say, but it is a strong case. It is difficult to think about looking at miracles the same way again after this.

Then, we get into historiography and this is some of the most fascinating material. My father-in-law had warned me that when you get into historiography, that it is a very appealing area and one you can lose yourself in. He’s right. It’s quite fascinating when you see discussion back and forth on whether this passage is historical or not.

I like in this that Twelftree does present a real approach. He is not simplistic enough to say “It’s in the ‘Word of God’ so we know it happened.” In fact, when he speaks about the “Word of God” he uses quotation marks in describing the people who hold to a theory like that so much that they do not allow the Bible to be investigated. I do not doubt Twelftree sees Scripture as God’s Word, but the point he wants to make is that it is not an idol.

So there are places in there where he lists reasons and says “This is why we can say this traces back to an event in the life of Christ.” Then there are places where he says “We can’t be too certain here.” This is a wise move. Let’s suppose you’re like me and do believe that both the wedding of Cana miracle happened and that the resurrection of Jesus happened.

Which one could a stronger case be made for?

Without a doubt, it’s the resurrection. Most of us accept the wedding account because we accept the resurrection account. Of course, if we are wrong about the wedding, then we are wrong, but it does not mean that we will throw out the resurrection. Each account of a miracle should be handled on its own terms. (Do we need to be reminded on this blog that not all miracle accounts are equal?)

Twelftree also lists the miracles by type such as blindness, raising the dead, paralysis healing, nature miracles, exorcisms, and then anything that doesn’t fit into those categories to see what we can gleam about them that way and discuss their historicity. He then gives us a look at what this means about how Jesus saw himself and what we can say about the historical Jesus.

For those interested in miracles, this is a fine work to read alongside of Keener’s book on the topic. In fact, just this morning I started reading Mark again and could not help but see the miracle accounts differently after just reading this book, and of course, that means more abundantly.

I highly recommend this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The book can be purchased here

Book Plunge: The Destruction of Jerusalem

What hath 70 A.D. to do with Christianity? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Awhile back I posted on Jehovah’s Witnesses and Doomsday and stated that I am an orthodox Preterist in that post. What that means I believe that much of prophecy has been fulfilled, including the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. I look forward to the bodily return of Christ and the bodily resurrection from the dead. It’s my thinking that God will redeem the Earth for man to live on forever with Christ ruling as king.

Being an owner of a Kindle now, one advantage is that old books are so easy to come by. You can get several for free. The one I’m reviewing today is not free, but recently a Christmas gift didn’t work out and I was told in exchange “Get on Amazon and buy within this price range.” So I did. One book I got was one that my friend DeeDee Warren, of the Preterist Podcast, recommended to me. It’s called “The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistable Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity”, by George Holford

Something else important about this book. It wasn’t free. Many old books are, but it wasn’t. I suspect it’s because it is reprinted a number of times. In fact, the original one was written in 1805. This is not a new idea that is being presented. If anything, the futurist idea that is most common today is the new kid on the block. In responding to objections even, Holford doesn’t even mention anything about not taking the text literally or something of that sort. There is no mention of a futurist idea.

What do we have instead? We have a description of the destruction of Jerusalem. Our main source if Josephus, but Holford gives a good basic run down. I can warn people that if you are squeamish, this is not the book for you. In fact, if you are really that bad, this might not even be the blog post for you. We can look and say “Jerusalem got destroyed. Was it really that bad?”

Let’s see. Blood pouring through the temple. Trees being cut down just so everyone could be crucified. Bodies being cut open just so that thieves could get to the precious metals that people swallowed hoping to pass out through their system later. Mothers having to cook their children just so that they could have something to eat.

Yes. It was that bad.

And that’s just a minor sample of it.

So what has this to do with Christianity being true?

All of this was prophecied by Jesus. Jesus was seen as just a carpenter’s son. He was not a statesman or a politician. He was a teacher and yet, he made this prophecy. What it says about Him then is that He had divine knowledge about what would happen, which was never amended with “Thus says the Lord.”

Instead, Jesus spoke as if in the place of God. Why was the temple destroyed? Because Jesus was the Messiah and in rejecting Jesus, the Jews at the time broke the covenant with YHWH and thus, He abandoned the temple and left it to be destroyed by the Romans.

This would mean that Jesus was who He claimed to be and the charge of rejecting Him was incredibly serious. Of course, Holford deals with objections to his idea such as maybe Jesus was just fortunate or maybe the accounts were written after the events took place. For the latter, we today have the blessing of further scholarship which can make a powerful case that the accounts are indeed written before the fall of Jerusalem.

A negative point is that Holford does make a point about Israel not being reinstated until they repent. Unfortunately, they have been reestablished as a nation. It is my contention that this has zip to do with prophecy. Why? Check the OT. The requirement for returning to the land and restoring the covenant was national repentance. Has anyone seen repentance on the part of Israel on a national level and them turning to their Messiah?

As an aside to this, I will stress that I do support the nation of Israel still, but not for theological reasons. I support them for political reasons. I see Islam as a threat and I see Israel as a buffer to them over there. I don’t center all my policies on Israel, but I certainly don’t think America should abandon such a strong ally.

Also, I think if you have a good defense of the resurrection, that would be an excellent supplement to this book, but I would hope something like this could at least open the door to the possibility that maybe Jesus had some divine insight and maybe if Jerusalem was destroyed in this way, the claims should be taken seriously.

Skeptics need to read this book in order to get an understanding of what exactly happened and consider the possibility that maybe prophecy be real. This is especially true in a day and age where so many skeptics say “Jesus could not have been the Messiah since He even got wrong the time of His return.” (I would contend He said zip about His return. He was talking about His coming to His throne.)

Futurists should read this book in order to consider the possibility that maybe the Preterists have a point. I meet too many futurists who think they don’t need to read anything on Preterism because we don’t take the Bible literally there and so it’s ipso facto absurd. (For interpretation, the best resource is Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar.) If you have a view you think is true, you should have the courage to read one who disagrees.

Preterists need to read this in order to have a good explanation of why this is so important. One blessing with this is our futurist friends can read this book in a day. I did. In fact, it’s just 69 pages long. You could read it in a couple of hours. Also, if you are unfamiliar with DeeDee Warren who recommended this book, I will include a link to the Preteristsite which also has a link to the Preterist Podcast.

I highly recommend this book. It’s a good short read that would be a complement to any library.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The book can be found for sale here

The Preteristsite can be found here

Book Plunge: The Joy of Hate

Has tolerance gone too far? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Normally, I wouldn’t review a book that I think is political, but I think in this case I will make an exception. Recently, Greg Gutfeld came to town to sign copies of his book “The Joy of Hate.” I went with my friend who was the best man at my wedding and had said to him “I hope Gutfeld says something in this book about tolerance.”

I was pleasantly rewarded. Practically everything he says in the book is about tolerance.

Before you start off thinking the wrong thing, keep in mind that on page xiii, Gutfeld says tolerance is a good thing. The problem he tells us is that tolerance has been morphed to something else. It is not the idea any more that while we disagree, you are allowed to have your opinion and voice it. It is that if you have an opinion that is contrary to the desires of the “tolerati” as Gutfeld calls them, you deserve to be shut down. You will be silenced. Your opinion should not be given. The consequences are huge. You will be seen as intolerant.

As I have said before, modern tolerance is a one-way street. For instance, if you are opposed to capitalism, you are someone whose voice should be heard. If you are someone who is opposed to socialism, you do not have a right to speak. You are to be mocked.

It’s noteworthy that while my viewpoints always come from my Christian worldview, I cannot say for sure if Gutfeld shares that same worldview. If I had to guess, I would say no. For instance, Gutfeld is not really opposed to redefining marriage for the homosexual community and eliminating the gender requirement. Here’s the important difference. I oppose redefining marriage and I have numerous people who are ready to call me a bigot, a homophobe, etc. I have no doubt instead that if I was on Gutfeld’s program, he would welcome me to come and make my case and even if we still disagreed at the end, we would still be able to go out and get a pizza together at the end. Gutfeld would not see me as a bigot for my views. He’d see me as wrong and realize that crying out “Bigot” makes the issue be about the person holding the view instead of, well, the view itself.

Gutfeld tells us that this tolerance has got us to the point where we are not allowed to offend anyone. People live with highly delicate feelings and how dare you go after those. Of course, religious Christians like myself are the noted exception of this, especially if you add in that I’m a conservative. It’s quite alright to say what you want to about us and make fun of us. Just don’t do it to others of a different persuasion.

Consider for instance that when the Book of Mormon musical came out, Hillary Clinton cheered for it. When the “Innocence of Muslims” video was shown, Hillary condemned it. What are the differences between these videos? A big one could be we know that today, the Mormon hurch is not likely to rise up and cause a riot based on a musical. Sure. You can say it’s disrespectful and tasteless, but the Mormon Church does not consider it worth fighting. You can have a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art and that’s okay. We dare not insult Islam. Could it be because we know Muslims could kill us if we do?

Unfortunately, the Muslim world will not respond to this by sending us a friend request on Facebook. Show those who are wanting to destroy you that you’ll bow down to them and don’t wish to offend them and they’ll keep going.

Another aspect of this is the constant use of terms like “haters” and “hate” as if all hate was ipso facto wrong. Let’s state this clearly. If there is nothing in this world that you hate, there is something wrong with you. If you see injustice, you ought to hate it. If you see evil, you ought to hate it. If you see children being abused, you ought to hate that. If there is nothing that you hate, then there is really nothing that you love either. If you really love something, you will hate that which opposes it.

Recently, my Mrs. found a group called “We Stop Hate” and was asking me if we should join it since it opposed bullying. Now Gutfeld and I agree on this. Bullies are horrible. No one should support bullying. Still, I am concerned about where I see the anti-bullying movement going. I have a concern that before too long, making a statement such as “I think homosexual practice is immoral” will be seen as hate speech and bullying and since I am a “hater” I deserve to be shut down.

What will not be discussed in this? The issue of homosexuality. What will be discussed in this? My person instead. I do not go to a debate to discuss who I am. I go to one to discuss an issue. Tolerance talk makes conversations not be about issues but about feelings. It is the result of a kind of moral relativism. (Tolerance seems to be the one virtue that moral relativists believe in.) It is the case that the case is already closed and people like myself just don’t deserve to be heard because we don’t walk in lockstep.

What’s to be done?

Gutfeld says we need to grow a thicker skin in many cases. Some statements are just offensive and don’t result in actions. An example is jokes. Many of us need to lighten up with jokes and not make a big deal and if a joke is tasteless, instead feel sorry for the person making it that they have no real humor left. Of course, there are some exceptions, and he includes talk about threats as an example. These should not be taken lightly.

In the end, we, who believe in true tolerance and let others have the right to speak, should keep doing what we’re doing and letting people speak. If we are sure we are correct, we should not hesitate to enter into a debate and discuss the facts. It is more likely that the person who does not want to discuss the facts but would rather hide behind the shield of tolerance is the one who fears the facts are against him.

I realize many of my readers could be liberal unlike myself in their politics. I still recommend they read this, mainly because of concern over the tolerance movement. The path we are going down is one we do not wish to continue and only by refusing to give the tolerati the kind of tolerance they want can we do so. We should always practice true tolerance, but certainly not the kind of tolerance the tolerati recommends.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Reason Driven Life

Does Bob Price lead a reason driven life? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently in a debate forum, someone trying to mock Christians said I should read Bob Price. Now I am well aware of Bob Price. Bob Price is one of the few people who has credentials in NT scholarship and yet puts forward the nonsense idea that Jesus never even existed. At any rate, unlike many atheists I meet, when I was given this challenge, I went straight to my local library to find whatever book I could. Only one was present and that was the Reason Driven Life.

Now let me say at the start that as you should recognize, this is a response to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life. I am not a fan of it. I have not read it, but I suspect I would have many of the same criticisms as Price does. In fact, I think I would have more. I have a huge problem with the way evangelicals approach evangelism today and I don’t care for this idea of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ nor do I care much for our talk about “conversion” today. We were never told to go and make converts. We were told to make disciples.

So I can say that reading Price was a mixed bag. There were a lot of things I agreed with. What I found most interesting was for all his talk about fundamentalism being a problem, Price is just as much as a fundamentalist as Warren is. A key example of this is his constant emphasis on Hell. It’s not that Price realizes that evangelicals believe in Hell. It’s that he thinks that every evangelical believes in a literal fiery hell. I’m not even sure if Warren believes that Hell is literally a fiery furnace. Spasmodically throughout the book, Price will interject in the middle of another topic, complaining about belief in Hell.

What this amounts to on his part is emotional reasoning. He does not like the idea of Hell, so forget any idea of refuting the arguments for God’s existence. Forget about the idea that some scholars present evidences that Jesus rose from the dead. All we need to do is point out that we don’t like the concept of Hell and that is enough. Price jumps on the emotional bandwagon and expects that that will be enough.

For my own part, I do not believe in a literal fiery Hell. In fact, I have a theory that I have propounded before that I think Heaven and Hell could be the exact same place. Heaven and Hell are not defined by location but are rather defined by our relationship to YHWH. If we are on good terms with YHWH, then eternity will be heaven. If we are in opposition to YHWH, then eternity will be Hell. I could not state categorically that this is what Scripture teaches, and it is not a hill I am willing to die on, but it is my thinking at the moment.

Of course, I will not be commenting on everything that Price says. That would be too exhaustive. Only highlights will be touched.

On page 20, we are told that meaning is in the eye of the beholder. I find this extremely problematic. When Price admits to animal cruelty like this, I think that all good people should stand up and say we won’t tolerate that. Some of you are wondering, “When did he say this?” Well this is my rule. When someone tells me meaning is in the eye of the beholder, I take that to mean that they have a secret tendency to abuse animals. How can anyone argue against me if the meaning is in the eye of the beholder?

If we think with our reason instead, we will realize that reason lies in that which is being interpreted. We can interpret it rightly or wrongly, but the meaning is not something we put on to the object, but something we read out of it.

Price compounds this further saying on page 21 that in the question for meaning, we will not like arrive at any definitive truth. Does anyone else stop to ask Price how he ever arrived at that? How is it that Price arrived at the definitive truth that we are not likely to arrive at the definitive truth. Is it because Price thinks he possesses this definitive truth and thus can tell when no one else will arrive at it? Isn’t this the attitude he condemns in fundamentalists? Why yes it is. It’s not a shock he holds it since Price is himself a fundamentalist.

On page 27, we find the line about there being thousands of denominations. Like any fundamentalist, Price has repeated this without looking at it. Had he done some research into the topic, he would have found out that there can be numerous denominations that think the exact same way. A group become a denomination if it is independently operated. You could have two Baptist churches in the same town with the exact same doctrinal stance and they would each be two denominations. I suspect that if Mr. Price were caught somewhere and asked to name 50 denominations, he could not do so.

The problem goes on with Price’s approach to Scripture. Price states that all we are getting is a fallible interpretation of a fallible book from Rick Warren and the claim that it is what God is saying. The question to be asked at the start instead is not what about Warren, but what about the text? Is it really possible to know what the text says? If so, then if this is the Word of God, then if Warren has found what the text says somewhere and shares it, then it is correct that he is saying what God says. Is that a serious claim? Yes. Yes it is. How are we to determine if Warren is right? We study the text. Unlike fundamentalists, I will tell you to never just blindly believe what someone says. That goes for what I say. Study and investigate what I say and see if it is true.

Too many people do not take the time to do this. There is this idea that Scripture is meant to be plain and clear to everyone. This is not the case. Scripture requires work to understand. There are too many skeptics, heck, there are too many Christians, who have this idea that all they need to do is sit down and read the Bible and they in their world that is a different culture, different language, different time, and different place, will just know what is being said automatically. This is not the case. The person interested in truth will be open to studying their views by reading leading scholarship. This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Price on page 32 talks about how God is love, until we get to the concept of Hell. With this, Price is having a modern idea of love as sentiment and thinks that Hell is opposed to that. If my view of Hell is correct, God is giving people what they want. No. They don’t want a fiery torture chamber. They don’t get that either. They want to not have anything to do with God. He gives them that. He leaves them alone. He will not bother them any more in eternity. Some could say they do not want that, but actions will show otherwise. If Christianity is true, those who want the truth will find it. If they do not, they were not looking.

At a point like this, Price gives much of the idea of evangelical guilt for not evangelizing enough or studying Scripture enough or praying enough. Price in making claims like this reveals little about fundamentalism and reveals much about Price. I, as an evangelical, read a chapter of the old and new testament in the morning. My wife and I read on the “verse of the day” app on my phone in the evening. I personally read a verse of the Bible to think on at night and in fact am reading a chapter of the apocrypha as well. You see, despite what Price thinks, I am not bothered by reading works I disagree with, including other religions. In fact, I agree that there is much that can be learned from other religions. I have read the Analycts, the Tao Te Ching, the Mormon Scriptures, and the Koran at this point.

For prayer, I pray in the morning after reading Scripture and my wife and I pray together at night. I will pray throughout the day periodically as well, though I will not usually spend a long time in prayer. As for evangelism, I do not go out and tell personal strangers about Jesus. I do my evangelism by writing online and that is just fine. Some people are real people persons and can interact with others. For me, the thought of approaching a total stranger and starting a conversation is a nightmare. I am fine if they start talking, but I don’t do it myself. This is just fine. Not everyone is meant to be that kind of person. I have no guilt for this.

On page 47, Price tells us that this world does not seem to be a good place for human beings, unless we superimpose our idea of love and warmth on it. He refers to this as a beautiful fiction. I find this as odd. I have this strange belief that we should live in reality and if the world is not really a good place, in fact, if it is really a morally neutral place or even a world with no moral truths, how are we to function in it if we live in opposition to it? Why should I embrace a worldview like Price’s that tells me that to function I have to impose my views on the world instead of accepting reality as it is?

Now some will no doubt think that I am doing this, but I am not. I do believe that the claims that God exists and Jesus rose from the dead are true. You can say that that is false. You have all right to do that. That does not mean it is false that I believe it is true and it does not mean that I am knowingly living in denial of reality. If my view is wrong, I am in fact not living in conformity of reality, but unlike Price, it is not because I think I have to impose a false view on the world.

On page 80, on the quote to remember, we are told “Nothing will mean tomorrow what it meant today.” If that is true, then whatever it meant when the author wrote it is not what it means today. In fact, at this point, Price’s book could be an argument why we should believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It doesn’t mean what meaning he gave it. In fact, the idea that “Nothing will mean tomorrow what it meant today” does not even mean the same thing any more, which leaves us in a kind of hermeneutical limbo. Price drops little cliches like this regularly without really stopping to think about what they mean. They just sound so profound, which they could be. Profoundly wrong that is.

On page 82, Price says that if we claim to know that God is the cause of the universe, then we are destroying the mystery of being. This is simply false looking at the history of science. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton did not see themselves as destroying the mystery of being. They all believed God created the universe and because they did, they sought to understand it all the more. If having the truth about the cause of the universe is a sedative, then we should stop the scientific enterprise. It would be awful if we arrived at the truth. After all, it is not likely we’ll ever arrive at any definitive truth anyway according to Price.

Amusing on page 87, Price says that literalism is the problem, and I agree. The problem is Price has not abandoned his literalism. He is still interpreting the text literally.

Price makes much about the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ being nonsense. I in fact agree with him. The problem is that he assumes this is the way all people think who are Christians. I do agree that too many Christians are using their personal feelings and saying God is the cause of them and trying to give divine authority to what they say. In fact, I get this from other Christians, such as the excellent book “Decision Making and the Will of God.”

Chapter 9 is one big rant about the flood. Price considers it horrible that it happened. Yes. I do think it’s a shame that day schools are named after Noah’s Ark because this is a story about grace, but also one about justice. It is a shame the world reached such a bad state. It amazes me that the ones who can complain the most about the problem of evil and ask why God doesn’t do anything about evil, complain when he does do something. Price says the problem with Warren is that Warren takes the story literally. So does Price! I, as an evangelical, do not believe in a worldwide flood, but a flood that was global in scope yet localized. This is a position common amongst evnagelicals. You would never know this from Price seeing as he never cites any. It is as if he thinks all evangelicals sit back wondering how penguins got to the Middle East.

On page 117, Price talks about faith making a juxtaposition between faith and empirical evidence. Price is unaware that the meaning of faith biblically would be trust in that which has been shown to be reliable, completely in line with Hebrews 11:1. It makes it hard for me to take Price seriously as doing real research when he presents straw men and makes basic mistakes that are more in line with the new atheists.

Price writes about the jealousy of YHWH in Exodus 34:14 on page 120. I agree with much of this in fact. When I wrote a review of “The Unshakable Truth” by the McDowells for the Tekton Ticker, I wrote about how problematic it is that regularly, this verse is translated as saying God is passionate about His relationship with you. This verse is not a verse about God’s relationship with us, but about His nature towards the people of Israel. God is jealous in that He wants exclusivity from His people and will not tolerate them cheating on Him with other gods. This was an honorable trait in the ancient near east. It is the kind of trait even today a husband is to have for his wife, and a wife for her husband. My complaint with the McDowells was anyone would open up the Bible, see a different reading there, and then start wondering about God. It seems that Price beat me to it.

On page 154, Price brings in the copycat myth with the idea that Christian baptism had much in common with initiation rites of pagan festivities. To this, we say any similarities are not worth noting. It is like saying that Jesus and Hitler had a lot in common because both of them were great speakers. Anyone who gets recognized as a speaker must be a great speaker in some sense. It would be nice for Price to cite some of these examples of pagan baptism however. He doesn’t. It is more likely that he is confusing such rituals as being bathed in the blood of a bull with baptism.

On page 222, Price says we are being arbitrary. After all, we are only looking at the Christian version. I realize many Christians do this. I do not. Price asks us if we feel guilty. Don’t we realize we’re being arbitrary? It is odd that a man who complains so much about fundamentalism arousing feelings of guilt himself seeks to arouse feelings of guilt. Actually, it’s not odd. It’s expected because Price is a fundamentalist himself.

On page 239, Price does make a point about the power of positive thinking. Despite what he might think, I agree with them. Now I am not at all saying that our thinking can change reality. Thinking that I have a lot of money will not expand my bank account. What I am saying is watching what we think can change our attitude to reality. In fact, I get this from Gary Habermas, who highly advocates it. It’s called “Cognitive-behavioral therapy.” Christians like Backus and Chapian have written about this in “Telling Yourself The Truth.” Price seems to think all such thinking is anathema to Christians. Not at all.

On page 273, Price tells us that absolute truth corrupts absolutely. Why is he so opposed to the concept of absolute truth? Does he believe it exists or not? (If it does not, no wonder we do not arrive at definitive truth.) If it does exist, should we not be seeking it? Ought it not to be that which we want?

Interestingly, he tells us that thoughtful individuals come to tentative and provisional conclusions, the kind science allows. I find this interesting since reading the New Atheists, I would think the works of science are written in stone and how dare any of us go against them. I do not say this to insult science, but rather to deal with an attitude towards science that I consider dangerous to the scientific enterprise.

On page 276 Price tells us that we will never mature morally or intellectually as long as I just take orders from some authority.

So does this mean Price is implicitly giving me an order to not take orders?

Sounds problematic again.

For all who really want to know Price, read pages 300-301 in this book. Price talks about how he was not comfortable reading science fiction and was living under a burden of guilt and God forbid he should think about sex. The problem with Price throughout this book is that he takes his experience and universalizes it thinking that it applies to all Christians across space and time instead of realizing his is a modern creation. Price has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. It was not an argument that turned him around, but an emotional reaction.

Honestly, reading this section of the book would be enough to deal with everything.

Amusingly, Price talks on page 309 about psychologizing the text of Scripture. He speaks about people who find a psychological point and present it to the text while the text is oblivious to it. He complains that Warren does this, which could be the case, but so does Price! For instance, Price says on page 210 that death, burial, and resurrection, according to Kant, refer to a response. Kant is psychologizing the text and so is Price. Yet for Price, no one else can psychologize the text but him. He is again just as fundamentalist as the fundamentalism he condemns.

In chapter 38, Price’s whole chapter is about the psychology behind evangelism. He says people do evangelism because they feel guilty and they want people to come alongside them and agree with them. The problem is the same could be said of Price. Could Price live with emotional insecurity, as it seems he does throughout this book, and so wants others to agree with him and share his views? Quite likely. For Price, the thought never seems to occur that some Christians could evangelize because they think they should or because they think Christianity is true, or both.

In fact, in the last paragraph of this chapter, he tells us that since evangelism is self-serving, it is not a surprise it will act this way, which is a total exercise in question-begging. Price may wonder what it will mean when we evangelize everyone. Well as a good preterist, I happen to think that when evangelism is done, then Jesus will return. Hence, 2 Peter 3 says that by evangelism, we can speed the coming of Christ. Price leaves the reader uninformed that Christians have thought about that question.

In conclusion, reading Price is reading a fundamentalist on fundamentalists. Price’s life is not reason-driven. It is just as emotion-driven as it was before.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Jesus Scandals

What did I think of “The Jesus Scandals?” Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Back around Easter, I was listening to the radio program “Unbelievable?” when I heard that there was a give away of David Instone-Brewer’s book “The Jesus Scandals.” I was quite anxious to get it and thus entered the contest to win one of a number of copies given away. Fortunately, I happened to be one of the names drawn. It was only recently found out that the American winners had not yet received their copies so just a week or so ago, I got my copy.

The idea of the Jesus Scandals is that the gospels are more authentic due to the scandalous facts about the life of Jesus. Some of these we might not really think about in our Western society. For instance, I have a number of male friends who are not married. At this age, that can be common. In the time of the Jews, this was something to be avoided. After all, everyone was expected to be married and if you weren’t, there had to be some strongly negative reason for that. The main one that would be pointed to would be Jesus’s parentage. (Yeah right. Born of a virgin?) If your atheist friends are skeptical of this, it would not have been any different in a Jewish society. I have often been asked “Would you believe your spouse if she was pregnant and said it was of the Holy Spirit?” I would be hard-pressed in that situation and would probably be like Joseph and need a dream from God to believe otherwise.

We must keep in mind after all that the Bible only gives us snapshots of what happened. When Mary told Joseph about what happened, we can be sure that Joseph did not believe it immediately since it took a dream from God to stop his plans from divorcing her. Imagine then how it would be for Jesus in His ministry, especially when it was asked whose son He was and have the questioner be told “The son of Joseph, you know, THAT Joseph.” Jesus had a huge black mark against Him.

Yet in the gospels, none of this is denied. The virgin birth is there to explain what happened and it would hardly have drawn sympathy. It would have made more sense to say something like “It was a tragedy that this young Jewish woman named Mary was raped, but the child grew up anyway and Joseph was a noble father who raised him like his own.” No. Instead, it goes for the route that skepticism would go against, and that was that Jesus was of divine origin.

Why would the gospels contain such scandalous events? Because they could not be denied. These were events that were known by the common populace. The gospel authors had to explain them. They chose an odd way by affirming each of them, including the crucifixion and resurrection. I think a work like this could be read in tandem with J.P. Holding’s “The Impossible Faith” to great benefit.

I do appreciate that Instone-Brewer has a chapter on disabilities in there. As many know, my wife and I both have Asperger’s, and it made me consider that both of us would be shunned in the time of Jesus, but as we know today, we are not shunned. We were both on the Theopologetics podcast to talk about how the church can be more receiving of those with disabilities. Such a talk would not take place in the time of Jesus. That we do have this talk today shows how far we’ve come.

Instone-Brewer also shows his scholarly knowledge of the Rabbinic writings, but does so in a way that’s not overbearing. The reader will not need a strong knowledge of the literature to know what Instone-Brewer is talking about. Fortunately, for those who do want more knowledge, he includes a list of recommended books in the back.

The chapters are also short enough that one could use them as a springboard at a church discussion group or could use the idea at a discussion around the water cooler. Each chapter can be read in only a few minutes and can provide plenty of food for thought for interesting discussion. Also, at the end of each chapter, Instone-Brewer includes an application piece that is relevant to what we are doing today.

I do think this book would be an interesting one for the person wanting to know more about the historical Jesus. The book uses the criterion of embarrassment to indicate that something is more likely to be true if it’s embarrassing to the cause. Aside from that, there won’t be much on historicity, but that was not the goal of this particular book.

This book thus comes with my recommendation. Do yourself a favor and buy it, or with Christmas coming, buy it for that non-Christian friend you have.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes

What are my thoughts on this book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Everywhere you go, people are the same. Right? Oh there are some basic differences of course, but if you cut any of us, we bleed. Mankind really hasn’t changed that much in all the years we’ve been around. When we read Aristotle or Cicero or Moses, we are reading someone was pretty similar to us and had the exact same struggles we do. We can regularly see it in their own writings can’t we?

Or, maybe we don’t. We just think we do.

Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes (MSWWE from now on) is a book that helps to expose us to the fact that people are not like us. The authors, E. Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien, show numerous examples of the way our culture misreads the Bible based on our Western presuppositions and that people in other cultures are quite different. This can be shown to be the case in Biblical times, but also in modern times as Richards has several examples in his book from his missionary service in Indonesia.

For instance, if you had an affair, would you feel guilty? Here in the West, you would. In Indonesia, there would be no guilt until everyone else said you did something wrong. What time does that church event start? Here, you could say “Mid-day” and most people would be there at Noon. There, you’d say “Mid-day” and most people would show up when it started to get hot. If you say “All people serving in the church must be eighteen”, here it’d be a strict rule. Over there, there would be exceptions.

Much of this seems foreign to our experience, and for good reason. It is. One of the greatest signs of this is our intense individualism where we think everything has to be about us. There is even a chapter in the book on how people take a passage like Jeremiah 29:11 and make it to be about God having a personal plan for them. Somehow, all those Israelites that died during the attack of Nebuchadnezzar missed that.

The authors also bring out important realities of the system that was around then and is still around in most countries today, such as the honor/shame system and the patron/client system. Consider the story of David and Bathsheba. That is a story we all learn something from, but when it is read through the lens of honor and shame, all of a sudden several new facets of the story show up that the Western reader would not notice.

What does this mean? It means that there’s further reason to drop this nonsense idea that so many have that all we need is to just have the Bible. Now of course, the Bible contains all that is necessary for faith and practice, but if you want to know all that it contains, you will have to study it well, and for many people, that is anathema, and is in fact part of the individualism that we have today. If God wants ME to get something out of the Bible, He will make it plain to ME.

When speaking about the patron/client model then, we actually make it seem like the problem is that God isn’t doing what He’s supposed to be doing. If an atheist wishes to discuss the problem of divine hiddenness, it’s always that God is hiding Himself, instead of realizing that maybe God has revealed Himself and we are the ones hiding from Him. Skeptics today make the most outlandish claims about what they think God is required to do, such as a cross on the moon or everyone having the same dream at the same time, not aware that all of these are actions that would require further explanation through the social context of each culture.

The ideas that could be embraced if we would but study are monumental. How much different will you approach a text like Romans 8:28 if you realize that God is your patron working all things for good. Now I do have a small disagreement with the authors. I do think God does work all things for individual good. The caveat I would add is that some of that might not happen until in what I call, the after-death. Many people will die with suffering on them that I think God will redeem in eternity. I do agree with their collectivist approach and would contend that all those God will work the good for are Israel. The true Israel is really Jesus Christ and all who are “in Him” are in Israel. (I would even contend at this point that Romans could be about identifying who Israel is.)

I am not really including quotes on this because I find quotes to be inadequate for this one. There are such large pieces of thought that you need the whole context to see them all. I think the reader not familiar with the social context will learn something from every chapter, and I think many of us who already are will have our insights greatly expanded by reading this book.

The authors also do not resolve many of the difficulties. They present the scenario and they leave it to you and I to work out the difficulties in our own reading of Scripture and try to learn to read with new eyes. The authors also give points to ponder at the end to show how we can avoid doing what we’ve been doing. What questions can we start bringing to the text that will help us understand it?

Also, the authors do present points of application for us to consider, which can also make this book an excellent choice for small groups at churches. (All churches could be greatly benefited by having a small group that is based around this book.) The authors don’t want to make this just a detached scholarly work, but they want it to be one that will engage us and force us to come to the text and see if we have been projecting our own culture on to it.

Many works in this field have been extremely scholarly, and I applaud those, but I am thankful now that when someone asks me one book I can recommend on the topic, I will not have to hesitate. MSWWE is on the top of the list!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?

Is this book by J.R. Daniel Kirk worth reading? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

While browsing through a library of a local Seminary here, I came across the book “Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?” by J.R. Daniel Kirk. It was a book that I had heard much about so I figured I’d check it out and find out if it was a book that I could really recommend, one that was just average, or one to be avoided like the plague.

My contention is actually the first of the three. I found this to be an excellent and scholarly book. While it is that, it has the advantage of being written for the position of the layman as well. You will not need to be well-read in scholarly literature to follow this and there is not difficult jargon to follow. The author has a wonderful style of writing that guides you through.

Kirk writes as one who grew up with an ambivalence about Paul. In some ways, it’s quite understandable. We can often hear about how Paul invented Christianity and Hellenized the Christian movement. We can hear about how Paul is silent on the life of Jesus. We can hear that Jesus said X, but Paul by comparison said Y. Paul also was sexist and pro-slavery of course. He was a prude who wanted nothing to do with sexuality.

Kirk understands this and says we need to realize Paul is fitting Jesus into the story of Israel and that this will appeal to our postmodern culture. We will not understand the Pauline view of Jesus until we understand how Jesus fits into the story of Israel as a whole. Otherwise, we are picking up a book right in the middle and then saying that this one part of it makes no sense.

In each chapter then, Kirk will start with what Jesus had to say about a matter. Kirk’s view of Jesus is quite eye-opening. As one who has been focusing on reading N.T. Wright lately, I saw a lot of that in here. The gospel is about a lot more than just the forgiveness of sins, although it certainly includes that. Believe it or not Christian, the object of the gospel is not you. The object is the glory of God through the spreading of his Kingdom. It is the good news that Jesus is King and you are invited to participate in that reign.

If Kirk was to take the slogan of JFK, it would be “Ask not what the Kingdom of God can do for you, but what you can do for the Kingdom.” Kirk thus not only presents new information on Paul and Jesus for the reader, but at the same time encourages them on the route to discipleship, which is something that makes this book exciting. This book speaks of the Kingdom powerfully and vibrantly. Something like this could get us beyond most of the shallow church services that we have going on.

This book does deal with many of the hard issues. What about slavery? Is Paul for it? Was Paul opposed to women? What about sexuality? In that area, what about homosexuality in particular? Are we missing something if we say “Justification by faith” and at the same time make it seem like works are absolutely pointless and play no role in the life of faith?

If the reader wants to know about any of these, Kirk’s book is an excellent place to go. I do think on some points he could have taken on other passages, which would be my only criticism. For instance, in talking about women, I saw no treatment of 1 Cor. 14 where women are told to keep silent, which is a key verse. I think 1 Tim. 2:8-15 has a section worthy of great discussion, but this one needed to be discussed to.

Kirk is a writer who takes Scripture seriously, Jesus seriously, Paul seriously, and the Kingdom seriously. He wants his readers to do the same and reading this book is an excellent way to do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters