Rutledge's "The Crucifixion" - quotations

  I've been reading Fleming Rutledge's The Crucifixion for a while now, and I continue to benefit. Her earlier section on the irreligious and godless nature of the crucifixion as seen in its original cultural context was really helpful. Following that, her insights on forgiveness and the fact that real forgiveness cannot be easy or automatic is really valuable. Now, her discussion on Anselm has been insightful. I hadn't realized how controversial Anselm is though it makes sense as I read about it. She shows how in many ways Anselm is not understood well across the centuries, for reasons both understandable and not. So I'm including a series of quotations below. They are in three groupings, on three tracks. Each a peak into her thought. I highly recommend the book!

"'Honor' in Anselm's thought stands not for some imagined hypersensitivity by the Creator to his own dignity, but is a metaphor for the deep logic of reality, in which the balance of a universe is disrupted by the fact of death and by human alienation from others and from God, a situation which could only be rectifies by divine action."  ~ Eamon Duffy, as cited in Rutledge

~~~~~

In an important sense, the Bible is art rather than science or philosophy, and theology is a sort of art too, since it is largely based upon the narrative form of the Scriptures. (pp. 146-147).  

~~~~~

The wrath of God falls upon God himself, by God’s own choice, out of God’s own love. The “justice connection” may not be clear to those who are accustomed to privilege, but to oppressed and suffering Christians in the troubled places of the earth, there is no need to spell it out. God in Christ on the cross has become one with those who are despised and outcast in the world. (p. 143).

God’s righteousness leads him to all lengths to oppose what will destroy what he loves, and that means declaring enmity against everything that resists his redemptive purpose. This is the aggressive principle in God’s justice.  (p. 136).

The pervasive and monstrous nature of injustice around the world forces us to acknowledge that forgiveness alone does not give a true picture of God’s purpose. (p. 142).

If, when we see an injustice, our blood does not boil at some point, we have not yet understood the depths of God. It depends, though, on what outrages us. To be outraged on behalf of oneself or one’s own group alone is to be human, but it is not to participate in Christ. To be outraged and to take action on behalf of the voiceless and oppressed, however, is to do the work of God. (p. 143).

  From the standpoint of the gospel, however, every single one of us, rich or poor, is a complex mixture; we are all capable of injustice and we are all living on the edge of neediness at any time. (p. 150).

It is in the very nature of God, “the Holy One in your midst,” to step down from the bench and pour himself out in unquenchable compassion. (p. 136).

"Our sense of God is the shape of our wonder"

 

Our sense of God is the shape of our wonder, the yardstick of our values, the spur of our devotion, and the criterion of our adoration. That is why it matters so intensely. Any ‘prophet in history’ is in a vital way the clue to God in His heaven. What the word spoken authorizes, employs, develops, vindicates, and bequeaths, becomes thereby an index to its great commissioning.

~ Kenneth Cragg, pgs 29-30

 

  I recently finished up another class with ISRME in which we considered Kenneth Cragg's book Muhammad and the Christian at length. It was really clarifying. This quote stuck out to me even beyond the context of the book though. It reminds me of the Tozer quote, "What comes to our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Cragg, typically, speaks not only poetically but also with erudition.

some words of Ignatius to the Ephesians

  Continuing (earlier post) through the Apostolic Fathers in the beautiful translation by Michael Holmes, I have now come to Ignatius' letters to the churches as he was taken to an expected execution for the sake of Christ. This was most likely during Trajan's (98-117) or possibly Hadrian's reign (117-138). These words, chapters 7-9 of his letter to the Ephesians, are picturesque and powerful in speaking to both the devotional and daily life of the Christian. The entirety is worth reading; but I've highlighted a few spots.

7 For there are some who are accustomed to carrying about the Name maliciously and deceitfully while doing other things unworthy of God. You must avoid them as wild beasts. For they are mad dogs that bite by stealth; you must be on your guard against them, for their bite is hard to heal. 2 There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

8 Therefore let no one deceive you, just as you are not now deceived, seeing that you belong entirely to God. For when no dissension capable of tormenting you is established among you, then you indeed live God's way. I am a humble sacrifice for you and I dedicate myself to you Ephesians, a church that is famous forever. 2 Those who belong to the flesh cannot do spiritual things, nor can those who are spiritual do fleshly things, just as faith cannot do the things of unfaithfulness, nor unfaithfulness the things of faith. Moreover, even those things that you do according to the flesh are in fact spiritual, for you do everything in Jesus Christ.

9 But I have learned that certain people from elsewhere have passed your way with evil doctrine, but you did not allow them to sow it among you. You covered up your ears in order to avoid receiving the things being sown by them, because you are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit; your faith is what lifts you up, and love is the way that leads up to God. 2 So you are all participants together in a shared worship, God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holy things, adorned in every respect with the commandments of Jesus Christ. I too celebrate with you, since I have been judged worthy to speak with you through this letter, and to rejoice with you because you love nothing in human life, only God.

The Drier of Tears

    And [the Lord of hosts] will swallow up on this mountain
        the covering that is cast over all peoples,
        the veil that is spread over all nations.
    He will swallow up death forever;
    and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
        and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
        for the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25:7–8, ESV)

The exalted title the Sovereign LORD calls attention to the fact that in all the dignity of his divine sovereignty, it is the Lord himself who will attend to our tears, moving from person to person until each eye has been dried. On the disgrace of his people cf. Joshua 5:9 where the rite of circumcision was renewed for the Lord’s people. It symbolized that the days of covenant abeyance were over and that the ‘disgrace of Egypt’ was gone – the disgrace to the Lord’s people of living in slavery, bondage and misery. So also, as long as life in this world endures, there are innumerable ways in which the people of God are under reproach and hindered, by circumstances and sin, from living according to their true dignity. All this will be taken away. The new nature will be given full and glorious expression in an environment where everything conduces to holiness (cf. Phil. 3:20–21). Covenant promise will have become covenant reality.(Motyer, 210, Kindle) 

 ‘The Drier of Tears’, of course, brings the Psalmist’s bottled tears to mind as well as the more well-known reflections of this passage in John’s Revelation. Imagine a loving parent as they comfort a child and wipe away the tears of their hurt child. They do not deny the pain, but they comfort and enter into it. They encourage the child with reasons that things will end okay and that the pain will not conquer. This Sovereign’s attentions are not the ‘be tough’ shushing of an impatient or distant parent to a child genuinely in pain, nor does the Sovereign unnecessarily comfort an emotional or manipulative outburst. 

 Instead the image given here is the Sovereign Lord squatting down before each child taking them in turn and re-opening all those bottled tears which have been stored up, not to re-live the pain but to engage its reality with empathy and bring resolution and full healing. Waiting with each tear till it has been dried, the Sovereign Lord stills and heals the heartbreak of all of His own: each loss, each grief, each pain, each betrayal, every agony of birthing, all the reproach which has been heaped on the child publicly or privately whether by themselves or others, each unfulfilled longing, every scarcely understandable cry of rage, each pang of guilt and insufficiency, every moment of teeth-gritting or of grinning-and-bearing-it, all the despair and disillusionment, in short, all the groaning and mourning and suffering which had been brought on by the curses in this cosmos. All of these heartcries will be engaged, even authenticated, and defanged by the One who values what may have, until that moment, been unseen and unacknowledged by any other in the universe. 

  Within this context, the sorrows of judgment must be mentioned; the tears which were mourned in the Lord’s comprehensive judgment of chapter 24 will also be dried. This One pauses for each tear till the heart that has held it is clear, the eye that it trickled from is dried. At that moment, nothing will be more important than these hurts and this healing. This is a key piece of the great salvation, and it will not be denied! Isaiah insists upon this point (Isa 30:19; 35:10; 51:11; 65:19). May hope in the Drier of Tears, who is also the Remove of Reproach, steady our hearts.

NOTE: There is no destruction of the human emotional capacity here; this is a making well of heartache. In the context (notice Isaiah 26), there is a full range of emotions during and following the ‘healing of sorrows.’ This is about healing and wellness, not simply or superficially about tears; tears are foregrounded as the powerful symbol summarizing the need for comprehensive healing. So, it is about tears; they are vitally important, but they are not ultimate, they will pass at the right time.

Mañana - insights from Hispanic theology

 Years ago, I first heard of Justo Gonzalez when I was assigned to read his two-volume The Story of Christianity, which is still far and away the most engaging work of Christian history I have read, as well as likely the most comprehensive since it goes beyond European and North American history. At some point, I also became interested in reading Christian theology written by those from non-European cultural backgrounds like Toyohiko Kagawa. I believe that's when I came across Gonzalez's book Manana. I'm finally reading it now, and it has been very insightful in spite of being over 30 years old, likely because it includes much of the historical perspective which Gonzalez is so good at writing. Some excerpts...

  In short, biblical history is a history beyond innocence. Its only real heroes are the God of history and history itself, which somehow continues moving forward even in spite of the failure of its great protagonists. Since this is also the nature of Hispanic history, it may well be that on this score we have a hermeneutical advantage over those whose history is still at the level of guilty innocence, and who therefore must read Scripture in the same way in which they read their own history.
  To those who think of their own history in terms of high ideals and purity, this may seem to detract from the power and inspiration of Scripture. This, however, is not the case with Hispanics. We know that we are born out of an act of violence of cosmic proportions in which our Spanish forefathers raped our Indian foremothers. We have no skeletons in our closet. Our skeletons are at the very heart of our history and our reality as a people. Therefore, we are comforted when we read the genealogy of Jesus and find there not only a Gentile like ourselves but also incest and what amounts to David's rape of Bathsheba. The Gospel writer did not hide the skeletons in Jesus' closet but listed them, so that we may know that the Savior has really come to be one of us--not just one of the high and the mighty, the aristocratic with impeccable blood lines, but one of us. (77-78)

  A book of "Bible stories" usually includes the story of David and Goliath, but not of David and Bathsheba; the story of Solomon's wisdom in threatening to divide the disputed baby, but not of Solomon's idolatry. This is a subtle way of disparaging the Old Testament, for it amounts to improving on it. (78)

  This semi-Marcionism holds that since Jesus is the final and supreme revelation of God, the whole of Scripture is to be read and interpreted from the viewpoint of his message. This is true as far as it goes. But it forgets that since the Old Testament is the history of God's revelation and action in preparation for the coming of Christ, the message of Jesus must also be interpreted in the light of that revelation and action. In other words, the argument of the new semi-Marcionites fails in that it takes for granted that without the preparation of the Old Testament, we know what Jesus' message is. History shows that this is not true, for in the early church, as increasing numbers of Gentiles began to join the Christian community, it was clear that these Gentiles needed the background of the Old Testament in order to understand what the message was all about. Otherwise, they risked viewing Christianity as the gnostics and Marcion did. (81)

  Thus the "apolitical" Christianity that many advocate is in truth a Christianity that supports the politics that exist, that is, the power of those who are presently powerful. (83)

(All emphasis is added.)

  Anyways, I've just gotten to the more theological section, so maybe I'll have more later, but the first half of the book is very insightful whether one agrees with all of it or not.

Culture's Effect on Theological Development

 In many ways, every generation has the task of reiterating or re-understanding the beliefs they have received for the world they live in. (Indeed, reiteration is not simple repetition.) However, it seems that certain eras may require a greater re-consideration of the expression of a faith than others. Thanks to inter-library loan, I have been reading the fascinating book by Sidney Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. It's been really instructive, and surprisingly readable, regarding the early history of Christian-Muslim interaction. (It reminds me of Jenkins' Lost History of Christianity, with a different focus.)

 Anyways, Griffith describes Theodore bar Koni's 8th century theological-apologetic work Scholion on Christianity which interacted with Islam. In the chapter responding to Muslim challenges, bar Koni addressed "the Scriptures and Christ; Baptism; the Eucharistic mystery; the veneration of the Cross; sacramental practice in general; the Son of God; and, of course, interwoven with all of them, the all-embracing doctrine of the Trinity." (pg 43)

 Griffith continues, "These same issues are the ones that will appear in the topical outlines of almost all of the apologetic tracts written by Christians living among the Muslims for the next five hundred years." Not much has changed in my experience; these topics are mostly still central in Islam's questioning of Christian beliefs.

 But, the next part is what I actually wanted to post; it expressed the generational and contextual call for both thinking and practicing in both old and new ways. "What is evident in the list of them is the obvious intermingling of questions of faith and practice in such a way that it is also clear that the shape of theology itself is determined in this milieu by the apologetic imperative to justify the reasonableness of religious beliefs in virtue of the public practices they entail." (pgs 43-44)

 It seems to me that we also live in a time where new thought and expression is needed to publicly walk in a faith which may seem unreasonable or impious to the reigning worldview.

 ***

Bonus quotation: bar Koni says of his purpose that he is writing "against  those who while professing to accept the Old Testament, and acknowledging the coming of Christ our Lord, are nevertheless far removed from both of them, and now they demand from us an apology [written defense] for our faith, not from all of the scriptures, but only from those which they acknowledge." Griffith summarizes, "Clearly he had the Muslims in mind." (pg 43)

God as the narrator in Judges?

"Above all, it is time to recognize that the narrator [of Judges] is aligned to such an extent with YHWH that we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that they are one and the same." (pg 188) 

 How does the above quote strike you? It seems to resonate with the biblically conservative belief that Judges is the actual words of the God of Israel. And yet, it is in the final paragraph of an article in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative which draws on a variety of not-conservative theories or sources, (which is certainly not inherently negative). Along with various feminist sources, the author Deryn Guest writes an analysis 'where narrative criticism is also informed by queer theory, psychology, and the study of masculinities.' (186) The above quote is followed by these two sentences which end the article:

"YHWH's agenda is the narrator's agenda. The narrator/YHWH can evade scholarly critics no longer."

 Thus, as I understand it, Guest is not so much suggesting that God condescended to communicate with humans, but rather that humans have identified themselves with God or a god of their own imaginings in Judges. So, while the first quotation caught my attention for the way in which it was expressed, actually the author is suggesting that YHWH may (must?!?) actually be subjected to scrutiny; God may not remain 'inscrutable' in Guest's words. In fact, this perspective was made explicit in the title of the article, "Judging YHWH in the Book of Judges."

  But, what to do with this? Of course, believers in the Bible as God's Word must consider the actions and expressed words of God deeply. Yet, if the Maker of the Universe is actually as the Bible reveals him*, then our capacity for understanding must necessarily be limited. Those who cannot fully understand/grasp even those things of the creation that we know exist (e.g. the extent of the universe, quantum physics, or whatever the future frontiers of knowledge are) may certainly ask questions of the Creator, but can hardly stand as his judges. But, this isn't a new problem, is it? Isaiah talked of how the clay cannot back talk to the potter simply because it doesn't like things as they are. The biblical authors also wrestle frequently with the problems of pain, grief, and (delayed) divine judgment. Such questions seem to be okay, but in the biblical text, a line seems to be crossed if we move towards 'judging' God, when our 'why' turns to a 'how dare you!' 

 Interestingly in comments made about 'commentaries written with a believing audience in mind', the author seems to acknowledge that really the article was not meant to be beneficial for those who believe in the Bible as God's revelation (184). This dovetails with my own thoughts that the primary, though not only, benefit of the article is in a better understanding of those who do not see the Bible as divine revelation.

*If you are bothered by my use of 'his' when referring to the One who made all things, the Bible is quite clear that God does not have gender while also using masculine pronouns to refer to that One. This may seem like a linguistic tic since some languages don't distinguish gender in their pronouns, but in English, the choices are limited as they were in the languages the Bible was written in. This in many ways is a microcosm of the larger issue: we are talking about the infinite and divine in words that are finite and human; there is some necessary ambiguity which is caused by the limits of our knowledge, languages, abilities, and perspectives. So, we are left with what we were given and the call of faith is to be satisfied with it, at least for this life.

Shame in the Community of Faith

  Early in the pandemic season, I mentioned that I had been reading Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity by David deSilva, and it came up again in my 2020 Reading List.  Well, I'm still working my way through it, and after nearly every reading I want to tell someone how much I like it and get someone else to read it. 

  The book starts with a valuable discussion of how to engage meaningfully with honor-shame language in Scripture, particularly if you are from a 'Western' culture. It ranges across the New Testament and would make an excellent reference tool on the title subjects. Below I want to share some quotes from the book.

Regarding Jesus

No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God’s perspective on what kind of behavior merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death, but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating him at God’s own right hand as Lord. (p. 51). 

Regarding community

One’s fellow believers will be the most visible and, in many senses, the most available reflection of God’s estimation of the individual, and so the New Testament authors are deeply concerned with building up a strong community of faith that will reinforce individual commitment to the group. [...]

They were to be family, a call that was all the more essential given the networks of relationships that a believer could potentially lose in the ancient world. This kinship was to extend beyond the local group to the provision of hospitality to traveling sisters and brothers. Hospitality in the early church served to create strong bonds between local churches, [...] The love of sisters and brothers of Christ is most needed where the censure of society is most keenly felt. (p. 59-60)

Regarding being shamed

Because the unbelievers will use the power of shaming to impose their values on the believers, and to call them back to a way of life that supports and perpetuates the values of the non-Christian culture, it is imperative that the believers’ sense of worth be detached from the opinion of unbelievers. (p. 61) 

To be shamed by the shameless is ultimately no shame at all. (p. 63)

[Referring to the beatitude regarding being reviled and persecuted...] The fact that Jews had for centuries revered the names of Jeremiah and Isaiah overturns any shame that their kings might have tried to impose upon them. The followers of Jesus can have the same confidence when they encounter impositions of dishonor from outside. (p. 68). 

Regarding responding to shaming 

The honorable person subjected to insult or to some other challenge to honor is culturally conditioned to retaliate, to offer a riposte (see discussion in chapter one) that will counter the challenge and preserve honor in the public eye intact. Christians confronted with such attacks on their honor as verbal challenges, reproachful speech and even physical affronts would be sorely tempted to respond in kind, playing out the challenge-riposte game before the onlookers. Beginning with Jesus, however, Christian leaders sought to cultivate a specifically Christian riposte— the believer is allowed to respond to the challenges made against his or her honor, but directed to do so in such a way as reflects to the outside world the virtues and values of the Christian group. You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. (Mt 5:38-41; see also Mt 5:44; Lk 6:28, 35)

[...]

Followers of Jesus overcome challenges to honor not through using the same currency of insult or violence that the outside world throws at them, but rather they meet hostility with generosity, violence with courageous refusal to use violence, curse with blessing from God’s inexhaustible resources of goodness and kindness. Paul expands on the teaching of Jesus by urging the Christian to “take thought for what is noble in the sight of all” (Rom 12:17) rather than repaying “evil for evil.” One finds in Paul and 1 Peter a deep concern to demonstrate to outsiders that being Christian is in fact honorable. (p. 70-71)

 This book has easily joined my favorites on the topic of honor, shame, and their surrounding topics, along with Roland Muller's Honor and Shame and Jackson Wu's One Gospel for All Nations. It is somewhat more academic but not in an unreadable way at all. Overall, it is continuing to add significantly to my collection of thoughts on this topic, many of which have been gathered here over the years.

Wasteful Wardens of the Planet

  This is a hard topic to write about. It's easier to express the ideas in speech, but then the details don't usually all get explored before the conversation wonders. So, in keeping with one of the purposes of this blog, I am going to try again to express the question of "Humans as Wasteful Wardens." I deleted my first attempt a couple years ago, but the idea keeps coming up. So, let me try to outline its key pieces.

1. I believe that humans were designed to be gardeners, stewards of the earth - or, maybe even of the galaxy! There is a care and compassion inherent to gardening that is so natural that it may not get much thought. Gardeners seek fruit or flowers, which requires healthy plants, which require healthy soil, which requires investment of time and work and attention and study. Shouldn't that be us all around the world - each in our own plot of land, seeking healthy provision and beauty and flourishing?
2. I believe that our Maker also designed us to multiply humans who would reflect the Maker's own image partially through elaborating on the designs built into the world. In other words, the world had been designed flawless but still had space for improvement, even in Eden! Shouldn't we be pursuing the development of what was given, whether physical or mental or spiritual or social?
3. I believe in entropy: the world is falling into disorder, and inevitably we are increasing that disorder. Since its goodness was shattered, this universe has been gradually deteriorating. Theologically, we might speak of 'sin'; scientifically, we might speak of 'the second law of thermodynamics'. Both concepts tell us that this world is not what it once was and is headed for destruction. What's worse is that we are involved, as a cause. Shouldn't we be fighting against the destruction?

  To summarize, while the world was designed to be good for humanity, humanity was also designed to be good for the world. However, our daily existence shows us that often the world is not good for us, and we are often not good for it. This should naturally lead to a bad end. Is there another way? 

Turkish kebab

 On the one hand, I'd really like to be 'green,' but I can't commit to greenness as an ideology. I can't get past its meaningless, vicious cycle. Which one? Well, imagine that I ate some kebab... at some point, I would need to wash the plate. Now, I could save it with lots of other dirty dishes and run it through the dishwasher, or I could just wash it by hand. They both consume resources though different amounts of different resources with different fall-out for the health of the earth, its systems, and my co-inhabitants. I also have the option of NOT washing the plate - so as to save water and to prevent chemical pollution. However, that may end up with me in the hospital consuming vastly more resources than I otherwise would have. In fact, no option removes me as a consumer and polluter. (Oh, and we didn't touch on the topic of the good kebab that God provided; that would be another place to consider how we are 'gardening our world'.) In every case, it feels like I am wasting or destroying part of the exact thing that I was to be enhancing, the world that I was made a steward of! I am not suggesting here that this is my only effect on the earth; I am simply suggesting that it seems inevitable that I will have some negative impact. 

 Here's a fascinating case study: This BBC article on deep sea mining shows plainly how we humans struggle to balance exploring, appreciating, and using the resources that we find. So, I am left to wonder: Can we garden without greed? Can we explore without exploitation? Can we contribute while we consume? Can we enhance while we expand? Those who love the God revealed in the Bible should be at the forefront of seeking ways to do this; that was the original design! Of course, we can't "save the planet," but we should certainly care for it as well as we can. As in so many other areas, we must value what we have been given without worshipping it. At the same time, we must engage in brokenness without trying to become the Savior.  

  Graciously, there is a solution from outside the system. If the Designer of the world were to engage the world in healing by sending help from outside the system, healing would become possible at more than a temporary or partial level. The Bible's claim is that such help has and will come. So, while recognizing the temporal hopelessness of saving the environment, it is possible for a person to garden in the world as best as they know how and also to look for a Healer who will bring in the opposite of entropy! Isaiah describes The One who will bring an increase of peace without end (9:7). How will goodness increase forever? I don't know, but I am eager to be shown.

  For thought or comment: 

• How can we apply ourselves (individually or communally) to gardening whatever space we have?
• Where can we create beauty around us?
• What do I see that needs restoring near me?
• What would I do differently if I saw myself as steward of the earth and took responsibility for such a stewardship of land and co-inhabitants?

Jesus' 5 Evidences that God was/is His Father

  A month ago, I posted 8 Arguments for the Bible's Reliability; now I want to share something that is tangentially related, the reasons that Jesus is recorded to have given for being from the Heavenly Father. John 5:18 says, "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (ESV, emphasis added) In the verses following that, Jesus lists several results of God being his father.  These deal with how his character and his actions reflect those of the Father.

 Then, in John 5:30-47, Jesus gives a series of arguments about why he should be accepted as whom he says he is. These are as follows:

1.  Jesus himself claims God is his father (Jn 5:31, cf vs 17-18).
2.  John the Baptist also attested to this truth (Jn 5:32-36; cf 1:29-35; 3:22ff).
3.  The "works" or actions - including the healing that spawned this discussion - attest to the origin of Jesus (Jn 5:36; cf 3:2; 5:1-17). 
4.  The Father who sent him has also attested to this truth (Jn 5:37-38; cf 12:27-30; Matthew 3:16-17; 17:5).
5.  The Scriptures bear witness to him (Jn 5:39-40; cf Jn 1:45; 2:17).
• Moses' writings, as a subset of Scripture, witness to the person of Jesus (Jn 5:45-47; cf Jn 3:14; 6:32; witnesses about the Christ from Moses' writings).  

  It is interesting that each of these points has support from within the Gospel of John, mostly prior to this account. These are evidences which the listeners could evaluate, events or sayings they were already apparently familiar with. (Mt 3:16-17 shows that God had already spoken from heaven publicly once, in addition to the second-hand recounting of that event that John given in John 1.)

 Now, the connection to the previous posts is a bit clearer. Presuming we accept the Gospel accounts as reliable, then the arguments given here are ones that must be given weight. Jesus did not call on people to embrace his claims in a vacuum or without due consideration. Nor did he simply overwhelm them with the miraculous in such a way that a series of illusions could be the basis of his claim(s). The evidences were varied and often independent. 

  So I ask, what would it take to convince you or I, reasonable people, that the apparently impossible was actually possible? What proofs should we require to believe that God became a man, that the Son of God walked this earth in human flesh? If this is not denied a priori, what would you look for as evidence and how would this relate to the proofs that were given?  

  One final point that should be mentioned is that these are not the only proofs that either the New Testament or Jesus himself is recorded as giving to support who he was and is. The anecdote in John 1:47-51 makes this clear. As well, here's another one I came across in my reading recently.

• Matthew 12:38-41 - Jesus foretold that there would be a parallel between his burial and resurrection and the life of the prophet Jonah. This is not a prophecy by Jonah, but rather Jesus himself prophesying about what will happen and using a familiar story as the pivot point. (cf Mt 17:22-23)

8 Perspectives on the Bible's Reliability

  For quite some time, I have been making a collection of different approaches to dealing with the reliability of the Bible. My recent post regarding undesigned coincidences in the New Testament is coincidental to this ongoing collection. The interesting thing about such a discussion is that it has to be held in different ways with different people. The reasons that my Muslim friends doubt the reliability of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are different from those that my atheist, agnostic, or Christian-raised-but-still-wrestling-with-the-idea friends will have. Beyond that, when my kids want to know why I accept one collection of Scriptures as divinely-given and reliable but not another collection, the discussions are again upended. 

  What I propose to give below is not so much an argument for the reliability of Scripture as it is a collection of the different ways that I have seen and heard the Scriptures argued for. Personally, I find certain arguments more compelling than others, but that is not really the point here. My point is to collect them as group. Note that these are also not arguments for Scripture's inerrancy or inspiration directly; that is relevant, but not the focus here.  

1. Literary structures - This argument has particular force in relation to the idea that Scripture was redacted over generations. If this is so, the structural unity across individual works and swaths of works is staggering. On the other hand, if the writings are works by individual authors, this unity makes much more sense. This particularly came home to me as I researched what became my article on blessing in Genesis, a book that many believe is heavily redacted or pieced together.  

2. Internal claims - The Bible itself claims to be reliable and God-sent; it claims to be unchanging. One may immediately object that this is a circular argument; however, imagine if the Bible made no such claim! In other words, the Bible's claim to divine origin and unchanging character and content is significant for faith. 

  In line with this, the Bible also mentions many other sources that could have been included in the biblical canon; some of those were by the same authors whose other writings are included. So, alongside its claims to reliability and divine sanction, the Bible claims a certain selectivity or exclusivity. Not all of Paul's or the prophets' or the chroniclers' writings were equal or (regarded as) Scripture. 

3. Manuscript evidences - This argument for the reliability of the biblical texts is an overwhelming one when compared to any other ancient document (although the claims of Scripture are correspondingly extraordinary.) Still, there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament besides about 20,000 manuscripts of ancient translations into other languages. Separately, the Old Testament Scriptures have thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, plus translations. (A hard number of OT manuscripts is surprisingly hard to find given how common the 5,800 number is for NT manuscripts: this site has the most concrete number I could find.)

   Not only is there an argument based on the massive number of manuscripts that were preserved, but there is also the consistency of the text that has been seen. As the number of manuscripts available to scholars has exploded in the last couple centuries, Christian doctrine has not needed to change or be adjusted. There have been places where copying or spelling errors have become evident, but this does not undermine a claim to reliability. Christians do not claim that any single published copy is a perfect copy of the entire Scripture. Instead, Christian belief is that the original manuscripts were perfectly reliable, and we have received reliable copies of them.

4. Historical progression of acceptance - This argument rests on the fact that the Bible presents a 'telescoping' view of its revelation. In other words, each section builds on the preceding one; Moses is built on by Samuel; Samuel and Moses are built on by David and Solomon; the prophets built on those that preceded them; Jesus (as quoted, though he did not write any of the New Testament himself) built on the Old Testament, and the disciples and earliest Christian witnesses built on all that preceding revelation. Below are a few thoughts from the NT concerning the OT:  

- Jesus’ acceptance of OT (Mt 23:35; Lk 11:51; Lk 24:25, 27, 32, 44-48; Jn 5:45-47; his regular quotation & amplification, references to fulfillment and the prophets; Mt 21:42; Lk 4:16-21; 22:37; Jn 7:[38], 42; 10:34-36; 13:18; 17:12; 19:12)

- Jesus' disciples/apostles' acceptance (Jn 1:45; Lk 24:32; Acts 13:27; constant quotation and allusion)

- There is also acceptance of other NT writers even within the NT - Peter accepts Paul as a Scripture writer (2 Peter 3:15-16) where he references Paul's writings among 'the other Scriptures.' 

   One might ask why Moses' original readers accepted his writings. I would suggest that minimally these were the people who had been at Mount Sinai and had heard the words and been terrified at the presence of God. Thus, their acceptance was not simplistic; it was multi-faceted, through faith and experience. With a bit of thought, one can extrapolate further along these lines for Moses' and others' writings.

5. Consistency with the experience world - The subjectiveness of this argument does not necessarily blunt its impact. The world described in the Bible matches the one we experience. Among other things, in the Bible we are led to expect a world of great beauty and humans made 'in the image of a good God' while we are also told that an enemy has brought ruin and destruction upon all the creation. Thus, what is called 'natural revelation' matches both the glories and horrors that we see and hear.

6. Undesigned coincidences - With the recent post on this, I will not extrapolate much, but this is similar to the 'literary structures' argument. The biblical writings themselves often confirm and support each other in the sorts of ways that argue for their authenticity as eyewitness accounts.

 

7. Archaeology - The biblical accounts have shown time and again that they are accurate in historical details, at least to the extent that they care to draw attention to them and that we have found independent witness to the same events. This area is also where there are still many questions and constant developments. I would suggest that no single artifact could sufficiently prove or disprove such a book, not even Noah's Ark in full preservation in the Mountains of Ararat. However, some of the archaeological support of Scripture has offered stunning corroboration in its minute detail. 

8. Impact on art, history, and culture - The little book, "Christianity: Fundamental Teachings" that I mentioned being published by the Turkish Church says it this way, "The Holy Bible is the most influential and successful work ever witnessed" (pg 74). It goes on to list the Bible's influence in inspiring "world literature, fine art, architecture, music, paintings, and other branches of art" as well as influencing the development of science, human rights, gender equality, and democracy. 

on Prophets (and Miracle Workers) - with 3 trivia questions

 Three trivia questions: (answers at the bottom of the post)

 a. Who was the first miracle worker mentioned in the Bible?

 b.  Who is the first person who is called a prophet in the Bible?

 c. How many prophets are listed as such before the first prophetess is recorded? 

The Prophet as Intercessor

   Especially in the second instance, I would say that the answer is a person whom we do not often consider to be a prophet. Yet, the Lord calls him one. More interestingly, the logic of being a prophet is given like this, "Make this right, and he is a prophet, so he will pray for your healing." This is an interesting role for the prophet, the Prophet as Intercessor. This is the role that we often ascribe to the priest, and rightly so. However, here it is so, and maybe elsewhere? Incidentally, this prophet had just interceded for God's mercy on pagan cities two chapters before in Genesis 18. But maybe we find here that intercession is also a function of being a prophet. 

The Prophet as the Speaker of God's Word

  Further thoughts, I have been reading through the OT Historical Books, describing the first nation(s) of Israel from the death of Moses through their exile from their Promised Land centuries later. One of the fascinating features of these stories is a stream of references to 'prophets,' plural. Among the people that I have known who take Scripture seriously, I suspect many of us think of prophets as solitary and sporadic icons throughout biblical history; we'd quickly list Moses, Samuel, Nathan, maybe Gad, Elijah, Elisha, and then skip forward probably to the writing prophets like Daniel and Jonah and Isaiah, (probably also forgetting most of the prophetesses whom I wrote about a while back.) But that notion of the 'rare prophet' of Israel doesn't bear up under closer study of Scripture. Prophets were often relatively common, though not always (1 Sam 3:1). 

 The idea that prophets were rare probably reflects the relative space given to describing the activity of individual prophets. However, it does not reflect the actual nature of the prophetic role in Israelite society at that time. Now, springing to mind for some might be 'the sons of the prophets' who make appearances throughout Elijah and Elisha's stories: Obadiah hid 100 prophets in Ahab's time (1 Kings 18), and 2 Kings 2 records 'sons of the prophets' living in Bethel and Jericho, numbering at least 50. And indeed, there seem to have often been many prophets scattered throughout the society. 

- Pre-Samuel prophets/prophetesses: Exodus 7:1; 15:20; Numbers 11:25-29; Judges 4-5; Judges 6:8

- Saul meets a group of prophets after leaving Samuel and joins them in prophesying (1 Samuel 10:5-13)

- Saul and his messengers meet a company of prophets led by Samuel and join them in prophesy (1 Samuel 19:20-24)

- 1 Kings 13 has the odd story of two unnamed prophets who speak the word of the Lord, although one lies about this at one point. The purpose of this story seems to be to show the corruption of even true prophets during this time. But for our study, that is not key for now.

- Then, there are named prophets (and a prophetess) who are mentioned more briefly: many sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun who prophesied are mentioned (1 Chr 25:1-5); Asaph the seer (2 Chr 29:30); Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:22; 2 Chr. 12) Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11) and Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Azariah, (2 Chr 15:8), Hanani the seer (2 Chr 16:7-10), Jehu, son of Hanani (1 Kings 16:1-7; 2 Chr 19:2), and Micaiah (1 Kings 22). (Organized roughly chronologically)

- 1 Kings 20 has 2 separate stories of unnamed prophets who deliver messages to Ahab, King of Israel.

- The sons of the prophets mentioned right before Elijah was taken up to heaven are mentioned again in 2 Kings 4, 5, 6, and 9.  

- 2 Chronicles 33:18 speaks of multiple seers speaking God's word to Manasseh.

- Many of the Writing Prophets are also mentioned within the Historical Books though their stories are often unrecalled because of the focus on the texts they left. Isaiah (2 Kings 19-20; a major prophet even without the book), Jonah (2 Kings 14:25), Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1-2; 6:14).

The Prophet as Scribe

 Interestingly, many of the prophets seemed to have a history-writing role, though whether these are the recorded Scriptures that we have is not necessarily as clear. 1 Chronicles 29:29 mentions Samuel, Nathan and Gad in this regard. Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo are listed in 2 Chronicles 9:29; Shemaiah and Iddo are mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15; and Iddo is mentioned again in 2 Chronicles 13:22. Also, Isaiah is recorded in this light (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32).

 The history of prophets and prophecy in Scripture is much broader than we often think about, and this is before we even consider the NT implications. Likely there are many more Scriptures that could be added to this discussion, feel free to do so if they will enrich our understanding!

Additional passages: 2 Samuel 15:27 - a high priest called a seer; 2 Chronicles 24:27 - 'many oracles'; 2 Kings 17:13 - warnings to Israel 'by every prophet and every seer' to turn from wickedness; 1 Sam 9:9 - equates seers with prophets; Zechariah the son of Jehoida (2 Chr 24:20); Isaiah 8:3 (unnamed prophetess).

Answers:

a. Moses (Ex 4:1-9 and beyond), as far as I can tell. Can you think of any previous instance where someone performs a miracle? Joseph's dream interpreting may be the closest, but dream interpreting seems like its own separate category. 

b. Abraham (Gen 20:7)

c. Two (Only Abraham and Aaron are named as prophets before Miriam. Deborah follows quickly as well with only Moses [Deut 18:15] and the incident in Numbers 11 intervening)

Related posts: The Odd Notion of 400 Silent Years; How Many Prophetesses are there in Scripture?

final tidbits from Yeaxlee on education & knowing Truth

  While it may not be the common purpose of a blog, I have found that as much as sharing ponderings and readings with others, a primary benefit of this blog is to be a repository for my thoughts and for what has affected my thinking. It allows me to collect my ideas, form them, and - vitally - to review them based on topics or themes that I may return to. In that spirit, I wanted to share some final thoughts from Basil Yeaxlee, especially pertaining to knowledge of truth, education, and a bit more on parenting.

Religion and the Growing Mind - Basil Yeaxlee

Knowledge of Faith & Truth

    "Dr. A. B. Macaulay, in discussing the nature of religious dogma and its relationship to science and philosophy, points out very aptly that if religious faith must be integrated with scientific knowledge, so also must scientific knowledge with religious faith. We must agree if we hold that both are natural functions of reasonable man living in a rational universe." 

(pg 113, citing The Death of Christ, pp. 31ff.)

"What we are emphasizing here is that the very nature of religion, as this is discoverable in the growing mind, is to make demands upon historical reality, and through it upon a Reality beyond space and time, yet personal." (pg 114).  

"...some truth cannot be told except in poetry." (pg 116)

"The Kingdom of God is not simply a gradual transformation of the kingdoms of this world but a mighty creative power which from beyond this world is ever breaking in through men and women who, in their day and degree, are creative and other-regarding as Jesus uniquely was in the days of His flesh." 

(pg 136, citing Rudolf Otto's The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man) 

Education

"...we must save ourselves from the risk of confusing education with instruction..." (pg 179)

About teachers... "In truth it may be doubted whether anybody in whom the parental instinct is not strong will ever make a first-class master or mistress." (pg 201)

"All good teaching is interesting teaching, but it is not thoroughly educative unless it stimulates children to discover fresh interests for themselves." (pg 213)

Parenting

"At the same time it is their [parents'] function to bring children gradually into contact with the larger world, so that the children can accept the good and throw off the evil for themselves." (pg 185)

Is All Sin the Same? or Are Some Sins Worse than Others?

Is there Greater and Lesser Sin?

  Over the years, I have periodically posted theological musings that are rather speculative. When I do so, I try to label them as such. I distinctly remember John Hartog's guest lecture in my sophomore class on Romans in which he discussed Abraham, his faith, and eschatology while being clear that some of his ideas were speculative. This made the lesson quite interesting; and as I recall, his basic speculation was whether Abraham would be physically raised to walk on this earth given the promises that God would give him the land. This post should not be that speculative, but it is certainly more a musing than a statement.

 You may have heard someone say, "All sin is equally bad"; you might have even said it yourself. But is it true according to the Bible?

 Here are some initial Scriptures to consider: Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15-18; Numbers 15:22-31; Proverbs 21:27; Ezekiel 8:6, 13, 15; John 19:11. Click this link to read the verses. Spread throughout the Scriptures in the Law, the Writings, the Prophets, and the Gospels, these passages certainly seem to suggest that some sins are more serious or worse or greater in some way than others. A leadership role (cf. James 3:1), motivation, and amount of knowledge seem significant in God's weighting of sins. For instance, consider what Numbers 15 shows below:

 From these passages, it seems clear that not all sins are the same. Still, someone might object that while all sins are not the same, they all still deserve the same judgment due to God's just wrath. Certainly, all sin dishonors the Creator God of the universe, separate us from Him, and can justly be punished by Him. However, the Bible does not seem to portray all sin as deserving the same degree (?) of judgment. Lamentations 4:6; Matthew 11:20-24; Mark 12:38-41; Luke 20:45-47; Hebrews 10:26-29; James 3:1 (link), as well as the details of the Mosaic sacrificial system, point to varying levels of judgment as being appropriate to varying sins. I do not mean to suggest that God is not angry at some sins; instead, I think it might be appropriate to say that some sins are more grossly and deeply offensive than others.

  This suggests the question whether all sinners are equally evil and equally deserving of judgment. That is a very different question, which I don't intend to go into in detail. However, I think the simple answer is that rejecting God's revelation in nature, Scripture, and/or His people and preferring our own way is the root sin of all sinners. Thus, we are all equally sinners separated from God whether the weight of our individual sins and their respective appropriate judgments are equal or not. 

  In summary, we must realize that God does not necessarily evaluate sins in the (constantly shifting) way that human cultures do. Ingratitude is a major sin in Scripture (Numbers 21; 2 Timothy 3:2), as is disobedience to parents. Thus, a Scripturally-tuned conscience and set of evaluations is needed for these topics. At the same time, all sin, no matter how small or large, is abhorrent to the holy God and should be as abhorrent to us. 

 Do you have any thoughts or additional texts to mention?

Additional texts to consider:
~ Romans 1:18-32 begins with God's wrath against ALL ungodliness and then describes some of the different developments and aspects of sin.
~ Luke 7:36-50 seems to suggest something about both quantity and weight of sin committed by different individuals in both the parable and the subsequent comments by Jesus.
~ Matthew 23:23 seems to suggest that some good actions are more significant than others. We can wrongly evaluate positive things we do as well.
~ Matthew 12:31 - the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit
~ 1 John 5:16-17 - the sin that leads to death 
~ Matthew 5:17-22
~ John 15:22-24
~ 1 Corinthians 14:20 - be infants, not mature in evil.

The Necessity of a Practical Ecclesiology

 The other day, a mentor commented to me again on the practical importance of a strong theology of the church and its workings, good ecclesiology. When Christians do not have a strong, practical ecclesiology, we are more likely to act in ways that disagree with the spirit of the Scriptures. I am not referring to breaking explicit "rules" of Scripture, but to the fact that we may fail to fulfill our roles as integral and integrated parts of the body of Christ. Thus, there could be a failure to care for a sister or brother in need, to submit to the (church) body or its leaders, to value troublesome and supportive members equally, to provide for those who minister the Word, etc. These problems could be supplemented with a list of difficulties that a weak theology of the church can impose on the structuring of the church, such as choosing proper leadership and removing those who are persisting in behaving in ways that disagree with Scripture.

  As I was reading 1 Corinthians 12 in the last couple days, I was struck by one of these practical aspects of ecclesiology:

  Shepherds of churches may see a requirement here to spend more time and energy on those people who seem 'less lovable', but the point in 1 Corinthians seems much wider. This is BODY work. The whole body of Christ, everyone in a church, should be united in intimate concern with the health and progress and honor and needs of every other member or organ. (As I've shared before, the word "member" here has more of the modern idea of "body parts" or "limbs and organs.") Anthony Thiselton (2006) comments, "So-called unpresentable parts play an even more indispensable role in sustaining the life of the body than, for example, an eye or an ear, which on the surface may appear more important." While a body can live without an eye, living without an intestine or stomach - as unpresentable as those may be - is obviously far more problematic. The "unpresentable" parts are "indispensable," and if there were not such differences - gross and under-appreciated though some of them may be, there would be no body. Many indispensable and honorable parts must always be contributing to the "common good" of one body.

 In the context of 1 Corinthians 12, the Holy Spirit and Paul apply this truth by warning the Corinthian believers not to see certain members as having "lesser gifts." There are no second-class followers of Christ! The Spirit has carefully distributed the gifts to the church in such a way that honor and responsibility will be given to all. This, of course, has practical implications for how each one of Christ's living body parts should behave and feel toward each other part. Two more quotes from Thiselton and one from MacLaren's Expositions expose some practical implications of this:

Thornton observes, "In the Body of Christ there are, strictly speaking, no private sufferings. All are shared because there is one life of the whole. Accordingly wrong done to one member is wrong done to the whole Church, and therefore to Christ himself" (Common Life, p. 36). This principle also demands the utmost sympathy and sensitivity between fellow Christians, to share in the joys and sorrows of each. 

========== 

How often do we use this model (as Paul does) to stress that the vulnerable and less favored need the support and service of the strong? 

========== 

For every one of us has something, and no one of us has everything; so, on the one hand, we want each other, and, on the other hand, we are responsible for the use of what we have. (MacLaren)

 In applying this to ourselves, I have two questions for you: How many body parts do you have as a human? Do you keep a list of them? I imagine that you don't know and that you don't have one. Me neither. We don't usually make lists of the things closest to us; but, we recognize our body parts when we see and feel them. In the same way, we should recognize those who are part of the body of Christ which we are part of. Don't simply look to a list of people as the organs and limbs of Christ in your local church: who is there, how are they functioning, how can you support them? You may not know their exact function or gifting, but value and honor them as those whom Christ and the Spirit have valued and honored. Remember they may well be more indispensable than you or I.

~ Expositions of Holy Scripture: Romans Corinthians (To II Corinthians, Chap. V) (Maclaren, Alexander)
~ 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary (Anthony C. Thiselton)

How many prophetesses are there in Scripture?

 A while back in my office - it was probably around International Women's Day, the discussion arose about prophetesses and whether the Bible recorded any. The colleague I was talking to is a well-informed Muslim although she's not specifically trained in theology. She didn't remember any being mentioned in the Kuran although she thought it was reasonable to assume that some of the thousands of prophetic messengers that are referenced in the Kuran were women.

  It seems likely to me that if one accepts both the speaking 'messenger' and speaking-writing 'prophet' within Islam as "prophets," it's quite likely that Eve, Mary the mother of Jesus, and other women could be considered prophets according to Islam. However, an internet search quickly shows that this is a disputed opinion, and it is certainly not one that I have the expertise to speak about.

  Anyways, for the student of the Torah, Psalms, Prophetic and Gospel writings, it is certainly clear that there were prophetesses. In fact, they are listed throughout Scripture. So, a pop quiz:

How many prophetesses are named in the Bible? Who are they?

  Who is the one in the Torah? Who are the two in the historical writings? Who is the one in the prophetic writings? Who is the one in the Gospel writings about Jesus? Who are the ones in the earliest church?

  Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses - Exodus 15:20 - It is not mentioned whether she married or not in the Scripture themselves. Some tradition suggests she was.
  Deborah - Judges 4-5 - Her husband is mentioned, but children are not.
  Huldah - 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22 - Her husband is mentioned though children are not.
  _?????_, unnamed wife of Isaiah - Isaiah 8:3 - Her husband was also a prophet; she had at least two sons. (Some suggest she may simply be being referred to as "the prophet's wife" in this passage, but many argue against this.)
  Anna - Luke 2:36 - She had been married, but had been widowed for a long time when she sees Jesus and is mentioned as a prophetess. (related post on "The Odd Notion of 400 Silence Years")
  The 4 Daughters of Philip - Acts 21:9 - These daughters are specifically mentioned as being unmarried at the time when they met Paul and Luke.

  Each of these prophetesses, as well as the additional women and passages below, could be considered in a lot more detail in order to develop a thorough understanding of this area. The people and priests and kings of Israel would all come to these prophetesses to consult them about the word of the LORD. Personally, I wanted to have a clear answer to the question, but the answer will always depend on the phrasing of the questions. How many prophetesses of the Lord are NAMED in Scripture? 4 along with others who like many prophets in Israel remained unnamed. How many prophetesses of the Lord are mentioned in Scripture? 8. 

Additional tidbits and relevant Scriptures:
  Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18 [cf 1:15; 2:1-4]; 1 Corinthians 11:5

  Two women are mentioned as false prophetesses as well, Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14) and Jezebel (Revelation 2:20). In the second case, the name might be figurative.

  The Jewish Talmud (rabbis' discussions of the Scriptures) lists seven Jewish prophetesses: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. (Megillah 14a) It is also gives the reasons each is considered a prophetess. It is interesting that the Talmud does not include Isaiah's wife.

A Turkish Shepherd Calling His Own Sheep (and someone else's!)

  About a month ago, one of the most interesting videos I've seen came into the news here in Turkey (news article about it). It had been preceded 8 years earlier by the first video which is below. I have transcribed and translated what I thought were the most interesting parts of both videos (except for the shepherd's call itself, which didn't seem to need translation).  

First video: The Shepherd Calls Another Shepherd's Sheep (Youtube)

The interviewer from TRT news channel is welcomed by a shepherd, İlhan Orak. He asks his occupation and how long he has been shepherding, 40-50 years, since he was a child.

The interviewer says (0:33), “And your sheep are here.” The shepherd responds, “These aren’t mine. They are a friend’s. Mine are way down there.”

Interviewer (0:38): The sheep, if you called them, they’d come?
Shepherd (0:40): If we went over there – they’d come right away!
Interviewer (0:42): Then, let’s call these.
Shepherd (0:43): These won’t come.
Interviewer (0:45): Why wouldn’t they come?
Shepherd (0:46): These don’t know me. Mine know me.
Interviewer (0:48): You’ve been a shepherd for 50 years…!
Shepherd (0:49): Mine know me!
Interviewer (0:51): Let’s try and see if they’ll come?

The shepherd demonstrates how he calls his sheep. 

The presenter laughs, “There’s no movement among the sheep. They didn’t even blink.” The shepherd responds, “Vallahi, they aren’t mine! They didn’t look.” Then, the presenter asks whether the shepherd’s own sheep would have come if he’d called them. The answer is yes, if they went over that way. The presenter asks how the shepherd reaches an understanding with the animals. Finally, they begin discussing the shepherd himself.

Second Video: The Shepherd Calls His Own Sheep (Youtube)

In the second video, the same interviewer visits the shepherd again, 8 years later. The shepherd says (0:37), “I’m 63 years old now, and the TRT interviewer came before. Those weren’t my sheep. They didn’t know me. Mine know me." 

The interviewer asks (0:45), If we call yours, will they come?
Shepherd (0:47): Now? ... (calls)
Shepherd (1:05): Look how they are coming. Do you know it? … Last time, those weren’t mine. See, these are actually mine. They know me.

Watch it happen!

  The shepherd is not expressing this out of knowledge of Jesus' words in the gospel of John: in the later parts of the second video, he expresses his Islamic faith. But for those of us who have not grown up around sheep or shepherds, this is a really beautiful way to understand the words of Jesus more deeply. (Incidentally, the shepherd, like most believers in Islam, would probably say that he believed in the gospels, the İncil. Thus, I trust that he would not be bothered by my making this connection.)

John 10:2–4, 14-16, 27

But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 

(ESV)