A bit off the beaten track

We were in a Mennonite bookstore a few weeks ago—there are quite a few around here (we're in the middle of Mennonite/Amish country in this part of Indiana)—and I picked up an interesting little book that I'll be excerpting here for a bit. Here's the first snippet:

“Jesus was the center of the early church; all she did, all she taught was rooted in Him. He was her living Truth.

“The practice of the early church, then, was rooted in the practice of Jesus, and central to His practice was the bearing of the cross.

“When Jesus spoke of men becoming His disciples, He spoke without fail of being willing to take up the cross. The impact of this action certainly was no known until after Jesus' death; but when once the reality of the cross was made plain, taking up the cross became the characterizing life-purpose of the believers.—Love and Nonresistance, page 78

<idle musing>
Anabaptists are big on transformation and radical discipleship—see Scot McKnight's post today for a good summary of Anabaptist beliefs.

I've been a pacifist since I became a Christian almost 40 years ago. Before that I was more on the radical side of things. And not at all adverse to the use of force to see my ideas put in place. That was one of the first things God changed in me. But, I have to admit that I never explored the "nonresistance" option as opposed to pacifism. In truth, I didn't know there was a difference—and maybe there isn't. But, this author makes a case for the distinction. And, if that distinction is valid, then I would have to say that I am in the nonresistance crowd, not the pacifist crowd.

I don't buy his "two-kingdoms" model, though. I just don't see the distinction between secular and sacred the way he does. I suspect that is a hang-on from the Germanic Lutheran roots of some Anabaptists. But, if you throw away that, the book is very good—but you will be able to judge a bit more for yourself in the next week or two as I excerpt from it...
</idle musing>

In the end...

“This God has subversive tendencies. One may readily discern this point in the divine proclivity throughout Genesis for the secondborn as opposed to the firstborn child. But this image extends further and is much broader in scope. God is a God of inversion, who is not circumscribed by the strictures imposed by the various power brokers of the narrative. The subversive nature of YHWH attested in the Jacob cycle manifests a dogged insistence that YHWH is free to undermine any sense of propriety, decorum, and convention as is deemed fitting to the situation at hand.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 176

<idle musing>
No doubt YHWH is larger than us and delights to reverse humanity's egotistical impulses. But, I still think John takes it too far...and he disagrees with me, I'm sure! He does, however, offer a healthy corrective to the tendency of some to smooth over the "bumps" in the Bible. After all, Aslan isn't a tame lion.
</idle musing>

Unsettling

“I have sought in this book to advance a descriptive theology of the book of Genesis, outlining not what I wish the text said—in conformity with my own ethical sensibilities and mores—but, rather, what the text communicates and how it does so. Reading the Bible should not be an easy enterprise. Readers of the Bible are invited to participate in the conversation occurring across time within its pages. This conversation should be unsettling at points. It should raise questions. It should prompt self-reflection. It should press us to think 'outside the box,' to reevaluate who we are and who God is.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 175

<idle musing>
While I disagree with where he ends up in the book, I definitely agree with this sentiment. The Bible should never be a comfortable book! It should cause us to think and review what we claim we believe. And, it should lead us to Jesus and the realization that we are totally dependent on him...
</idle musing>

Let's talk about protein

Saw this from John McChesney-Young on Google +. The author is a nutritionist, so he knows what he's talking about...

As a nutrition professional, I get very frustrated by the protein-centric framework that inevitably comes up when plant-based eating is discussed, particularly because the average American consumes sufficient protein, but nowhere near the daily recommended amounts of fiber and several important minerals, like magnesium. Low intakes of both are associated with higher risks of chronic disease. And, here’s an indisputable fact: No matter how humane, local, pastured, or organic your steak or chicken is, it does not offer fiber or significant levels of magnesium. Vegetarian sources of protein, meanwhile (nuts, seeds, beans, whole grains, pseudograins, and vegetables) are good — and in some cases, excellent — sources of both.

<idle musing>
To say nothing about the amount of oil, sugar, and corn syrup ingested...
</idle musing>

Wait a minute!

“...Jacob’s prayer creates for the reader a tension and an expectation: will God answer Jacob’s prayer, and if so, how? At this stage, however, all the reader can do is wait alongside Jacob in the hope that God will in some way hear his prayer and deliver him from the presumed wrath of Esau. As the text continues, the initial tension over whether God intervenes is quickly replaced by a new tension centered on how God sets out to deliver Jacob. This divine assistance comes in a much more foreboding form than Jacob or the reader could anticipate: an encounter with the divine that quickly takes on a terrifyingly violent tenor. What kind of deliverance is this that includes God’s assault on the bearer of the promise?”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 146

<idle musing>
But isn't that exactly what happens to Moses on his way back to Egypt? YHWH meets him to kill him in Exodus 4:24-26?

At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Mosesa and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.b “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) (TNIV)

Ah, he does mention the similarities on page 154, but quickly dismisses them. I think they would bear closer scrutiny, though. In fairness to John, he and I discussed this when I first read it. He feels his parallels are a better fit within the Jacob cycle than taking it to Exodus...
</idle musing>

Amazon strikes again

Yesterday, Amazon decided they weren't making enough money off an independent publisher (IPG), so they cut off all their Kindle books. The response from authors and other publishers has been very positive—I think they did the right thing by not caving to the monster—and Melville House is posting some of those responses to the web here. Definitely worth the read...

Laban's insight

“The theological importance conveyed by Laban’s use of the personal name YHWH is that one should regard Laban’s blessing as coming only from the personal God of Jacob. This point is punctuated all the more if Laban only learns of his blessed position vis-à-vis Jacob through divination of, arguably, Laban’s own personal deities. The god of Laban is not the same God that he calls “YHWH” in 30:27. In 31:19, Rachel steals her father’s household gods, perhaps out of fear that he will learn of Jacob’s escape through divination, and in 31:47, 53, Laban swears in Aramaic by invoking the name of his own personal god. Laban’s deity (or deities) is unable to bestow the same profitable blessing on Laban as has YHWH, the God of Jacob. God’s promise is thus at work here, and the theological impact becomes all the more palpable when the recognition comes for the first time from a foreigner...

“Thus far in the narrative, the promise is still in abeyance, awaiting the future fulfillment that until now has only been partially realized. In Laban, however, the promise finds not only an outlet for blessing but also an individual who potentially could harm the heir to the promise, Jacob, by prolonging his stay with Laban and thus minimizing—or perhaps wholly negating—the possibility for blessing to all nations purposed in 12:3 and 28:14. Laban may thus be trying to arrogate for himself the conduit of his blessing, Jacob, as a guarantee of continued prosperity. Aware of this potentially deceptive tactic, the narrative next moves to display God’s intervention in accord with the promise of presence and protection, as will be discussed below in reference to Gen 31:1–16. The message, stemming from the conditional nature of the ancestral promise discussed in chap. 1—that blessing to the nations is contingent on the nations’ not impeding the sharing of the blessing with other nations—is that Laban has failed to acknowledge that the divine blessing is for Abraham and his family, not exclusively for Laban.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, pages 107, 108

<idle musing>
Very interesting observation...
</idle musing>

What makes a good teacher?

From Chronicle of Higher Education:

"The way I look at it is, I've plowed the ground," he says. "Now they're susceptible the next time they see the material. And you'll give them an assignment, and that forces them to look at the material in a new way."

As he sees it, his job is less about being an expert imparting facts and figures, and more about being a salesman convincing students that his material is worth their attention. "The messenger, ironically enough, is more important than the message," he says. "If the messenger is excited and passionate about what they have to say, it leaves a good impression. It stimulates students to see what all this excitement is about."

The things that make a good teacher are difficult—if not impossible—to teach, he thinks. Which is why technology may be so attractive to some teaching reformers. Blogging, Twitter, and other digital tools involve step-by-step processes that can be taught.

<idle musing>
Yep. It's about the teacher-student and student-student interaction—which is why distance education isn't the same as an in-class experience. You can't replicate it—although it is getting better. And also why putting all the lecture notes online can never replace the actual class time.

I always saw my time teaching as a chance to get students excited about the subject. If they got excited, then they would pursue knowing more. Life is exciting! And there are so many neat things to learn about what God has created. If students get a glimpse of that, then they will want to learn. And that is what a teacher needs to convey... Just an
</idle musing>

New 10-day sale

Yep, the new 10-day sale is up. Here's the skinny, from BookNews:

New 10-Day Special: Books by Isaac Kalimi, 20-51% off

We have a new book arriving next week that is edited by Isaac Kalimi. I thought that might be a good opportunity to highlight some other books he has either written or edited; including one appearing in April of this year.

An Ancient Israelite Historian
Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing
by Isaac Kalimi
Studia Semitica Neerlandica - SSN 46
Van Gorcum, 2005. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9789023240716
List Price: $79.50
Your Price: $63.60

This book is now published by Brill; we have some of the Van Gorcum edition left. The Brill printing retails for $140—buying this one saves you 51%! Same edition, better price.

Conditioned by his own time and place, the Chronicler (that is, the author of the book of Chronicles) evaluated the past from his own historical context and its standards. This means that the book of Chronicles primarily represents the views of its author about the past, making it applicable to the time and generation when it was composed, rather than representing the times and generations spoken about, the monarchic period.
The message of the Chronicler was undeniably different from that of the earlier biblical works and was... (more)

Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy
Studies in Scriptures in the Shadow of Internal and External Controversies
by Isaac Kalimi
Jewish and Christian Heritage Series - JCHS 2
Van Gorcum, 2002. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9789023237136.
List Price: $59.00
Your Price: $47.20

This book also is now published by Brill for $96.00—ours is 49% cheaper!

The book is an important study on aspects of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament theology, the reception of biblical texts in Judaism and Christianity; the Aqedah, and related topics.

The book comprises three main parts: a) the Aqedah and the Temple, b) Biblical Texts in Polemical Contexts, and c) Biblical Theology, Judaism and Christianity. Although each part deals with a specifically defined topic, all are linked by some common themes: all the sections discuss early Jewish exegesis, namely the interpretation of early Scriptures in... (more)

The Books of Chronicles
A Classified Bibliography
by Isaac Kalimi
Simor Bible Bibliographies - SBB
Simor, Ltd., 1990. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9789652420084
List Price: $38.00
Your Price: $30.40

The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles
by Isaac Kalimi
Eisenbrauns, 2005. Paper. English.
ISBN: 9781575062396
List Price: $49.50
Your Price: $34.65

The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature
A Historical Journey
by Isaac Kalimi
Eisenbrauns, 2009. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9781575061498
List Price: $59.50
Your Price: $35.70

Jewish Bible Theology
Perspectives and Case Studies
Edited by Isaac Kalimi
Eisenbrauns, Forthcoming, February 28, 2012. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9781575062310
List Price: $49.50
Your Price: $44.55

New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah
History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation
Edited by Isaac Kalimi
Eisenbrauns, Forthcoming, April, 2012. Cloth. English.
ISBN: 9781575062334
List Price: $49.50
Your Price: $44.55

Of course, if you subscribed to BookNews, you could see it in beautiful living color :)

Bread

Yesterday we made bread at Eisenbrauns. Robin, one of our customer service reps, is leaving at the end of the week. It is a sad loss for us, but a gain for the county library.

Anyway, she has been bugging me to show her how to make bread for several years now. I figured it was now or never! So, I drove to work yesterday, bringing along our convection oven and enough fixings for two loaves of bread. No, I didn't put it on my bike trailer!

The recipe I used is one that I adapted from The Whole Plants Cookbook. It is simple to make—only takes about 5 minutes of your time. The rest of the time is waiting for it to rise and then bake. So, I made the first loaf and Robin watched and made the second one.

The smell of the bread rising and then baking was wonderful. We need to get an oven here at work! We were eating fresh bread before 9:30. Of course, we let everybody else in the business know—as if the smell hadn't clued them in! I'm not sure some people liked it; it is a whole wheat bread and somewhat heavy. But, I like it and so did Robin, so it was a success.

Here's the recipe:

3 cups whole wheat flour
1½ tsp. yeast
1 tsp. salt
2 Tbsp. sugar
1 ¾ cup water (lukewarm)

Combine dry ingredients. Make well in center. Pour in water. Mix & knead in bowl about 2 minutes (the dough will pull away from the side of the bowl). Place in 9x5 bread pan lined with baking paper. Cover & let rise about 40 minutes. Bake at 400 for 30 minutes.

Notice that there is no added oil, which is why you need the baking paper. You can use a non-stick pan, but the bread's crust is shiny, almost like you varnished it. I also make a rye bread variation...

The unloved

“It is not inconsequential that this narrative unit begins with YHWH’s noticing Leah’s unloved status and responding by opening her womb, while Rachel remains barren. Here one may observe an oddity within Genesis: this scene presents the only time that YHWH shows a preference for the firstborn to the detriment of the secondborn.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 104

<idle musing>
Very interesting, indeed. YHWH shows favor to the ones that society and those in power ignore—something that Christians especially should know... Of course, that begs the question of why our "christian" structures are built upside down??? It's as if Jesus said that the first shall be even more first and the last shall be stomped on and forced to serve those who are first. What is wrong with that picture?
</idle musing>

and the blessing goes to...

“Esau too receives a blessing (vv. 39–40) that is remarkably similar to Jacob’s. Two glaring differences stand out. First, Esau’s blessing reverses the first two lines of Jacob’s blessing, leading many scholars incorrectly to regard it as a curse or anti-blessing. Second, and most importantly, God appears nowhere in the blessing of Esau. Taken in tandem, this second fact is not a denigration of Esau for the future but is simply a concern to show that the ancestral promise will go to Jacob, not Esau.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 80

<idle musing>
It is all about the ancestral promise. Today's statement makes better use of the evidence than yesterday's condemnation of Esau as unworthy...
</idle musing>

Esau

“Esau is the only character in this narrative never to receive a word from God. The narrative unmistakably portrays Esau not only as unfit to carry the promise forward but also as unfit to hear a divine word.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 72

<idle musing>
Really? John, aren't you reading a bit too much into that?
</idle musing>

UPDATE: Typo on my part for the title of the post; thanks to Claude for pointing it out.

The place of Christ and the Christian

“We are now under Christ in every way. He is our Lord supreme, so that to come into the church is to take up a sacred vow of subjection to His authority. Joining the church is not simply a matter of water on the head or a signature in a register or a raised hand. To join the church of Jesus Christ is to espouse oneself; it is to lay down all our maiden names for that one Name; it is to vow to set all plans and thoughts and affections upon a coming union with Him; it is to pour one's whole soul into the full confession of Christ, the Son of God.

“Jesus is Lord of the church—the exclusive Lord. To flirt after another or to receive contrary advice is to play the harlot. The words of our Lord, therefore, come to us as our highest calling. His Word is the final word, His voice our greatest authority. To be a member of His church is to make His thought our motives, His commands our actions, His values our guiding ethics.

“In Jesus the church finds its mind, its will, and its pleasure. To be otherwise minded is to pervert the sacred trust of intellect. To be contrary willed is to debase the sacred power of choice. The be otherwise fulfilled and delighted is to prostitute the holy capacity of joy. The church, therefore, finds her most profound knowledge when she takes on the mind of Christ. She finds her highest freedom in full submission and obedience to the will of Christ. And she finds her most sacred emotional stirrings in the discovery and adoration of His great heart of love.”—,John Coblentz, Love and Nonresistance: God's Plan for the Church, pages 57-58

<idle musing>
A very nice summary of the place of Christ in the life of a Christian—and the role of the church in the plan of Christ.
</idle musing>

Acceptable?

“In reference to humans, the word תם [TM] appears in Gen 6:9 and 17:1 as a descriptor for Noah and Abraham respectively, yet again there is no reason to assume morality to be the operative issue. Interestingly, within the entire Hebrew Bible only Jacob and Job (1:8, 2:3) are described as איׁש תם [TM 'YŠ]. Yet within the Hebrew Bible, the word (תמים) [TMYM] also occurs frequently in Leviticus in reference to an unblemished animal that is worthy of being sacrificed to YHWH. The assumption, then, that this word must elicit moral uprightness is unfounded. The concern is not whether the animal is a moral exemplar but whether it is appropriate for sacrifice to YHWH. Similarly with Noah, Abraham, and Job, the pertinent qualifier seems to be less the character’s moral convictions than describing whether he is sound enough to be pleasing to YHWH. With Jacob, one must remain mindful that the narrative never explicitly censures him for the way he goes about matters. One is enjoined also to recall from chap.1 The discussion of morality in relation to these texts; the relationship historically is, if anything, tenuous. Given the evidence, this description of Jacob likely says something about his status in relationship to God. Something about Jacob makes him worthy and pleasing for YHWH.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, pages 69-70

<idle musing>
Interesting thought...are we importing our 21st century presuppositions into the text? Probably. What does that say about who/what is acceptable to God? Interesting to think about...
</idle musing>

What you see is what you use

“...my investigation employs a synthesis of a close literary reading of the biblical text with theological aims. One must discern this meaning from the text that we have, not the text that we reconstruct or the text that we wish we had.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 35

<idle musing>
I've read far too many books that are built on "the text we wish we had." And, I might add, listened to far too many sermons built on the same missing text...
</idle musing>

Transcendence versus immanence

“Insuring God is far removed from the narrative scene during a deception ends up drawing too sharp a dichotomy between the divine and human. God’s transcendence is emphasized at the expense of divine immanence...What ultimately emerges in these characterizations of God in the Jacob cycle are portraits tending toward deism. Distancing God from instances of deception in the interest—implicit or explicit—of addressing one theological problem (divine deception) lays the groundwork for another, equally troubling theological problem: a transcendent God that ultimately does not square with the role and activity of God depicted in the ancestral narratives.”—Jacob and the Divine Trickster, page 7

<idle musing>
New book starting today. No easy answers, are there? God is a messy God in that he gets involved with us on a daily basis. I personally wouldn't trade the immanence of God for a nice, sterile, easily digested theologically pretty god. I need him to much!
</idle musing>

Huh? Can you repeat that one more time?

“If Elohim does not mean ‘a god’ or ‘gods’ but ‘God’ (capitalized) [in Genesis 1], then Elohim is used here [Psalm 82] as a determined noun, although Elohim is morphologically undetermined. The determination of Elohim in Gen 1 is not established by an article. Elohim seems here to be sufficiently determined by itself. Of course, this determination of Elohim is different from the regular kind of determination established by the definite article. Elohim and HaElohim need to be distinguished from one another. Elohim does not mean ‘the god’ (that is: this one out the midst of other gods) but just ‘God’ (capitalized): the one and only God.”—Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, page 284

<idle musing>
Confused yet? What he is saying is that the gods in Psalm 82 are in juxtaposition with God. The gods have failed (see this post) and are being fired...
</idle musing>

Final excerpt of From Fratricide to Forgiveness

“Because of its realism about the human condition, the stories of Genesis are well suited to serve as “metaphors for life.” The characters it portrays are not lofty, saintly types who remain forever separated from the rest of the human race. They are limited, fallible, and imperfect. Genesis is an anthology of moral difficulty. It is a collection of stories in which individuals face limitations of every type and must take extreme measures to prevent the eruption of violence in their midst. Genesis is not an ethical training manual for the morally elite but a survival guide for an imperfect humanity.”—From Fratricide to Forgiveness, page 180

<idle musing>
Isn't that the truth? That's one of the things we need to remember about the Bible; it is an eminently realistic book. It takes people who are just as screwed up as anyone you will find anywhere in the world—and then shows you what God can do. If he can do that with them, then he can take your life and transform it as well. "Bible people" aren't superhuman heroes; they are regular people that allow (or not, in some cases) God to get a hold on them.

That's the final post from From Fratricide to Forgiveness. I hope you've enjoyed it; I know I enjoyed reading it...
</idle musing>

Thought for a valentine's day

Andy Kerr, our webmaster, and I were talking the other day and he made a very memorable statement that I think is true:

Romance novels are to women what porn is to men.

Now, before you attack me, stop and think about it. Both set up impossible constructs. Both hit on a sore spot in many marriages. Both have been responsible for untold numbers of misunderstandings and incorrect expectations in relationships. The difference is that one uses real people and dehumanizes them; the other just sets up imaginary people—but dehumanizes the existing relationships...

And, one is found in Christian bookstores across the land...praise God the other one isn't!