Looking for the One: a disappointing book that meant to encourage us

 In “Looking for the One” by David McIver, the author tells many stories about interacting with individuals in non-religious settings: planes, trains, automobiles, parks, etc. While the author has many poignant stories admitting wonderful insights from God with regard to whom he should approach and how—and encouraging us to not be timid—I was disappointed that he had no stories about “looking “ for the least or last in our society. McIver never seemed to go outside of his comfort zone. For those hoping to be emboldened to talk to unhoused people, beggars, the foreigners (Lev. 19.34), and any others of a different ethnic or socioeconomic class, this book fails to be role model on how to love “them” as we love ourselves and those in our “tribes.”

Though many of us fear rejection by friends and family, and that hinders us from sharing what we’re learning—even what we’re doubting—and how we’re growing in our faith, we may or may not find it easier to talk to strangers, people we’ll never see again or maintain a long-term relationship with. Many of us might find it easier to talk with those on planes, trains and automobiles because they’ll go away. And if they go away muttering to themselves about our idiocy, we’ll never know and our self-esteem remains intact.

Even so, most of us struggle to talk with people outside our socioeconomic class—whether they be the super-wealthy or the super-poor. We don’t share but a few life experiences. We may not share values or goals or lifestyle choices. We might be in awe of their good fortune (and it is often luck that propelled many for being in the right place at the right time knowing the right people) or we might be fearful we could end up on the streets by being in the wrong place at the wrong time (e.g. an accident that generates high repair or medical bills and leaves us bankrupt).

The title—looking for the one—made me hopeful that I would learn to see the least, the lost and the last in our society and in our world. In counterpoint to McIver’s promptings by the Holy Spirit, I recall a story by Francis Chan. He described going to the beach for some “quiet time” with God. He got his blanket, a latte and a muffin. He felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to answer the questions, “Aren’t you cute sitting here on the beach? Where do you think I [God] am?” He reluctantly admitted that the Holy Spirit was probably downtown amidst all of His greatest, and beloved, creations. Chan’s story prompted me to change my quarterly retreats from a forest setting to a downtown public library setting where I knew many of my unhoused acquaintances hang out to stay warm/cool (depending on the season). Unfortunately, McIver doesn’t venture out his comfort zone; he’s not the role model or pioneer that I hoped to learn from.

God’s Blueprint: a Stephen Maltz book that almost hits on every cylinder

 From my Goodreads review: I enjoy Maltz’s perspective on scripture and Hebrew interpretation so I was looking forward to reading this book. While he emphasizes (which in opening chapter he uses the term ‘empathizes’ instead) the overall themes found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), he notes he’s not going verse by verse like other commentaries. He summarizes the through-lines in the final chapters that appear from beginning to end (Genesis to Malachi).

I didn’t find any new ideas here unfortunately. And I found many omissions and perhaps a mischaracterization or two of God’s behavior. In the retelling of the scriptures, Maltz highlights the events where God seems only disappointed in us; not like Zephaniah’s oratory in 3.17 of being in our midst, calming our fears and rejoicing over us. Maltz claims that God “shouts” at us periodically, for example, at Job when God “confronts” him. While God can be displeased and speaks quietly (not in the storm to Elijah) or from the whirlwind (Job), we forget that God made His creation in His own image and was pleased. This is a theme that Maltz misses. God can be disappointed we’re not living up to our potential, but forgiveness and prodding, coaching, leading abounds. Let’s take the case of Job. God has already declared him to be upright and above reproach. At the end of the book, God says Job has spoken accurately about Him and God is furious at the Job’s friends. Why then would we read God’s dialogue with Job as a harangue? What kind of justice-loving, gracious, fatherly god would “blast” a beaten-down man who has suffered a lot—especially going on and on about how weak or minuscule mankind is compared to other creatures or nature? Why couldn’t we read “stand up like a man” as an exhortation to stop wallowing and live up to the image of God in which Job is created? Why couldn’t we read the tone of voice (missing in text only) as compassionate—as if saying “though you, Job, can’t do all these great things, you are still important to me and that’s why I have appeared to you”? Why can’t we read Job’s disparaging response as humility and self-esteem building—“Please listen and I will speak. I will ask questions and you give me answers…therefore I detest myself and humble myself before you [because You still love me and have deigned to acknowledge my concerns and fears]? [Perhaps Job is reciting God’s opening words with the addition of “please” as an acceptance of the invitation to dialogue.]

The end of Job does fit Maltz’s noted theme of God blessing those who bless “you” and cursing those who curse “you.” And I appreciate the author pointing that out.

Lost World of the Prophets: this new book helps us better understand biblical prophecy

 From my Goodreads review: Walton comprehensively lays out the genres of prophetic writing and how we should read them. For example, not all prophecy is apocalyptic or future-telling or should be read that way. Most often prophecy is the explicit expression from a deity—in this case the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He also covers the difficulties of scriptural prophecy that doesn’t seem to have occurred in the descriptive way that is expressed. However, he does compare the Hebraic prophetic writings to extant other Middle Eastern prophecies. This is enlightening to why and how well the Hebrews maintained their writings. It’s especially interesting that what survived in the Hebrew Scriptures, contrary to other practices, are not often complimentary to the king or priests God addresses. The author of this book covers the various forms and uses of prophecy.

This is not a commentary on prophetic scriptures but gives us the framework on how to understand the context and possible interpretations. Interestingly, for Christians, Walton covers key prophetic passages in the Greek scriptures (New Testament): Matthew 24-25 and Revelation. He does this to illustrate his principles for approaching prophecy and how they can/should be used throughout the Bible.

Though this author doesn’t address this, the writing of Jonathan Cahn in the “The Harbinger” is a poor interpretation of Hebrew prophecies directed at Israel. Cahn unadvisedly assumes they can be used as a prophecy for the United States in light of the events of 9/11/01. Walton would caution taking a word directed at one favored nation to another that may or may not be favored; likewise, taking a word directed at an unfavored nation cannot be applied to a favored nation. We might ask only how we might be guilty of similar practices as a nation as Israel, if we want to heed the indictments, judgments and instructions given to His people. Cahn overlooked that the USA is more like the Roman Empire or Egypt (where oppressed believers emigrated to escape persecution in their home country) than Israel. Walton’s treatise here helps us understand other books that claim to interpret prophecies.

I laughed when I read one of Walton’s subheadings: “Living in the End Times (Everyone Believes They Are, and That is Okay)”

Next time I have to teach a prophetic passage, or a passage that refers to earlier verses because the scripture writer believes it’s been fulfilled contemporaneously, I will refer to Walton’s book for guidance.

I appreciate having gotten an advanced copy from the publisher.

Hodder Commentary on Mark: perhaps nothing new here

 From my Goodreads review: Moore gives us a well-researched and comprehensive commentary on the Gospel According to Mark. It’s laid out well with the verses and commentary interspersed, and multitudinous citations. The language, phrasing and structure careens between academia and vernacular. Some readers may get lost in the bounce. 

While the author spends time on the difference between a Gospel “of” and a Gospel “according to,” unfortunately I didn’t find a concise, consolidated description of Mark’s (or Peter’s) description of what the Gospel is and isn’t. The description is scattered throughout the commentary. Most of the description relates to the teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Except for the first, this can’t be the Gospel that Jesus preached. So what is the Good News that Jesus taught? According to Moore, it’s simply, “I’m here. The Kingdom is [now] here and God loves you though the circumstances don’t seem to indicate it, and even if everyone else despise you, lepers and tax collectors and so on.” This might be enough for the Good News, but this message sometimes gets lost in the analysis of verses and passages.

Besides this, I’m not sure why Hodder felt the need to compile new commentaries when there seems to be nothing new in this one that can’t be found in many other commentaries. For example, the usual understanding of Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is that He wanted to avoid suffering. Most “interpreters”—as does Moore—fail to account for the great brotherly love of family, friends, armed service members who will sacrifice for one another. So wouldn’t Christ follow His own teaching: “No greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15.13). No commentators answer why Christ’s love is less than some of our own flawed, self-centered friends who would sacrifice for us. Nor do many commentators answer what cup Christ wants to “pass from Me.” The most immediate antecedent is the cup of the covenant. Why would Christ pray that the cup of the covenant be taken away? One interpreter has said that the “pass from” is like a river overflowing its banks. Perhaps Christ is praying the covenant overflow and flood the world and His anguish is that He must rely on flawed disciples, like Peter who will deny knowing Him. If there’s to be more commentaries written, let’s explore alternative understandings that are grounded in a holistic perspective and context.

I’m appreciative of the publisher for providing an early copy.

New Testament in Color: a new book worth getting

From my Goodreads review: Perhaps you’ve read a familiar scripture verse or passage and had it mean something new to you—because you’re in a new stage in life like dating, marriage, divorce, widow-hood, being a child of a parent and now a parent, early career versus late career or retirement, migration from rural to urban or vice versa. Similarly, if you have a different familial history or geographic origin than the majority culture, the scripture passages might appear differently to you. Thus we can learn much from the contributors to the “New Testament in Color.” They provide a commentary on each of the books of the New Testament (Greek scriptures) as well as several other essays. The introduction to the Gospel of Mark is worth the price of the whole book. They do not exegete each verse but provide a minority perspective on the theme(s) of a passage throughout the book(s). We get to read insights from Black (African American), Asian American, First Nation, Hispanic (Latino/a), minority female scholars and more.

They acknowledge that they are approaching this as North American residents, some from many generations on the margin, sometimes 2nd generation immigrants or transplants from another country. Thus, their perspective is somewhat limited by the time lapse from their family’s original culture. Still these commentaries are scholarly, personal and insightful. For example, though outside the scope of this work, one contributor illuminates the coldness of First Nations people to embrace easily the Israelites crossing the Jordan—as perhaps an act of colonization—to displace the current inhabitants of Canaan.

There were a few places I thought a more non-European perspective could be expressed but wasn’t: the jailer’s household being baptized because of the patriarch’s experience with Paul and Silas; the silent conflict of Philip (one of the original apostles) warning Paul on his return to Jerusalem because Paul is ignoring the elders of the community; the provoking of anger perhaps when Jesus praises the centurion’s faith over his own disciples’, the crowd’s, his mother Mary’s and the baptized John’s. And there were a few where better insights are given. Such as Peter’s vision in Acts 10 and being told to eat unclean food just before being summoned to a Roman centurion’s household: most interpreters focus purely on the cultural challenge—one Peter has already faced—while this book’s interpreter here focuses on the socioeconomic power clash between Peter, a poor Jew, and Cornelius. Like the power conflict between an urban Black and White metro law enforcement officer, who’s been taught that blacks are criminals and it may be the only portion of that group they’ve interacted with. Both would be totally unfamiliar with each other except as powerful/powerless, oppressive/rebellious stereotypes.. The centurion would have been educated that the Israelites were kicked out of Egypt so many generations ago so that their diseases (aka the plagues) wouldn’t contaminate the Egyptian populace. The centurion then wouldn’t have wanted to engage much with the “slum-dwelling” Jewish inhabitants, and yet kneels contritely before Peter.

If you’ve never been challenged to ask different questions when you read scripture—like you haven’t read this book or “Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes”—then you really need to pick up this commentary.

I’m thankful for the publisher allowing me to see an early copy.

Hodder Commentary on Acts: Generally good but not handling the difficult questions

 From my Goodreads review: Salter provides a fairly comprehensive commentary on the Book of Acts, utilizing scholarship and historical accounts. It would be helpful for many to have a basic understanding of the earliest decades of The Way (the new Christian “church”). It’s easy to read and understand and answers many of the most common questions about this part of Christian scriptures.

Like many commentaries, but unlike the best ones, Salter does not present many contrary viewpoints or deal with the really difficult questions. For example, I found his view of Paul/Saul to be one of extreme reverence, almost making Paul infallible and equal to Christ. Such as Paul’s return to Jerusalem, recounted in Acts 20-21, he avoids how to interpret 20:22-23 with 21:4. In the earlier verses, Paul says he’s compelled by the Spirit (capitalized in most translations to show the deity). Or is he compelled in his own spirit? Because Paul admits that he’s been warned by the Holy Spirit—note the distinction—of the imprisonment and afflictions if he goes there. And then on his journey, Paul is greeted by church members in Tyre who proclaim that the Spirit (again, often capitalized) is indicating that Paul should not go to Jerusalem. Salter does not answer whether it’s the Holy Spirit in all three messages, or just the one so designated. The alternative is that Paul’s own spirit says, “Go” while the church leaders’ vibe (lower case spirit) is that Paul should not go. And the only divine message is one predicting his fate. Salter does not acknowledge that perhaps Paul’s hubris as the Great Evangelist compels him towards the Jewish capital. Salter only exalts Paul’s determination to suffer, if he must, for the cause. But what cause? Jerusalem already had plenty of apostles, evangelists, teachers. If death occurs in Jerusalem, as might be expected, it does not further any potential mission to Rome. 

In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and in the Gospels, we’re given portraits of many flawed people of faith who stumbled, imperfectly trying to live up to God’s expectations. I didn’t find anything like that in this commentary. Even Peter, who needs to be told three times in a vision to eat “unclean” (non-kosher) food (Acts 10), is viewed favorably in this commentary. Peter’s obtuseness or cultural reluctance or stubbornness is not mentioned (as is often found in commentaries)…or was he already open to new relationships, staying with a tanner (an awful, odorous job) because he had already communed with a tax collector and Zealot and a half-Jewish/half-Greek as fellow disciples?. Peter had already learned from the Christ how to relate to non-Jews: his spiritual brothers and sisters in the inner circle, throughout Samaria, the Decapolis, Tyre/Sidon, etc.. So what really is the lesson of Peter’s vision? Salter in some ways just gives us the Sunday School answer here. 

If you need a basic single volume commentary on the book of Acts, you can’t go wrong. But you might do better as well with a bit more thought.

I appreciate getting an advanced copy from the publisher.

Islamic Moses

 From my Goodreads review: Akyol provides a critical survey of history and scriptural interpretation for Islamic and Jewish relations (and Christian thrown in occasionally). After comparing and contrasting Q’uranic and Hebrew scripture depictions of Moses (Moshe), he moves on to the oscillating political and religious alliances/conflicts between Muhammed and his contemporary neighbors. The author then tracks these same hot-warm-cold relationships through the next centuries, through philosophical and economic collaborations, into our late 20th and early 21st century antagonism. While showing that for much of parallel and interwoven experiences through the centuries, Islam and Judaism coexisted and it wasn’t until the last hundred years, Islam seems to have adopted Christianity’s anti-Judaism based in conspiratorial and fantastic myths. (I won’t say anti-Semitic since Arabic is also a Semitic language.) The reasons: perhaps power hunger for a return to Ottoman Empire, misreading of Q’uranic passages; vengeance over Western-based slights or…. 

While I’m appreciative of the publisher for providing an advance copy, I was unable to read the Epilogue in which the author shares how to restore Islamic-Jewish friendships and peace. Akyol’s work here is important for anyone interested in this topic and a worthwhile companion to his analysis of Islamic and Christian perspectives of Jesus/Isa.