Scripture-ish

Ed Gallagher

Reflections on Scripture and culture. edmongallagher.substack.com

  1. 1d ago

    What about the Giants?

    A few people recently posed to me a question about the Nephilim in the Bible, which are often identified as giants. Fortunately, I have actually written something about these characters. The following is an excerpt from chapter 11 of my book Satan and His Friends, published last year by ACU Press. The chapter as a whole deals with the theme of rebel angels, mentioned in the New Testament and often identified with the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. The section excerpted here is called “What about the Giants?” This is just the main text of that section; if you want the footnotes, you’ll have to get the book. If the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 were just human beings and not angels, why would their offspring be gigantic? Or, actually, was the offspring gigantic? Is that the right way to interpret the terminology in Genesis 6:4? And, for that matter, are the beings that are (possibly) described as giants in Genesis 6:4 the offspring of the unions mentioned two verses earlier? I already admitted at the beginning of this discussion of Genesis 6 that I do not know the answers to these questions, but it might be valuable to explore the possibilities, the evidence, and the proposed interpretations. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. The word “giant” doesn’t appear in most English versions, I think. (The KJV and NKJV are exceptions.) That interpretation goes back to the LXX, which has the Greek word “giant” (γίγας) twice in verse 4, where the KJV has the word “giants” and where it has the term “mighty men.” For the LXX, the offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men were giants, but the Hebrew text reads differently. The NRSV represents the Hebrew well: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.” No giants here, unless the Nephilim are giants. It’s also not clear from the Hebrew whether the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God or whether they were just around back then at the time of the sons of God. Also, are the Nephilim the same as the “heroes”—the Hebrew term is gibborim—later in the verse, or are the offspring of the sons of God the heroes? Or are they all one and the same? The Hebrew allows for these possibilities: * nephilim = gibborim = children of sons of God with daughters of men * nephilim = gibborim ≠ children of sons of God with daughters of men * nephilim ≠ gibborim = children of sons of God with daughters of men The first option seems to be the interpretation of both the LXX and the targumim. The LXX is often interpreted as indicating more clearly than the Hebrew that the offspring of the marriages are giants. Certainly Philo (Questions on Genesis 1.92), our earliest interpreter of the LXX version of this story, regarded the giants as offspring of the marriages, as did Josephus (Antiquities 1.73). What are nephilim, anyway? The Hebrew word seems to be related to the verb naphal, “to fall,” and so perhaps the nephilim are “fallen ones.” That is the interpretation of Aquila, the second-century Jewish Greek translator (οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες). Aquila rendered gibborim as δυνατοί, “strong ones,” or, according to a different report, δυσίατοι, “incurable ones.” The slightly later translator, Symmachus, used the word οἱ βίαιοι, “violent ones,” for both nephilim and gibborim. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate has “giants” (gigantes) for nephilim and “strong ones” (potentes) for gibborim. Despite his translation, Jerome understood that the Hebrew nephilim is more easily understood as “fallen ones,” which, he pointed out, would work well as a description of the offspring of angels or righteous men who sinned. In other words, for Jerome, the description of the offspring as “fallen ones” lends no support to the angel-interpretation. But even if the word nephilim doesn’t mean “giants,” it may be that the nephilim (whatever the word itself means) were, in fact, gigantic. At least, their incredible height is implied in the only other passage in the Bible that uses the term. When the twelve spies returned to the camp after having scouted out the land of Canaan, they reported having encountered Nephilim. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them. (Num 13:33) For this verse also, the LXX renders nephilim as “giants.” Whatever the word means, it seems that the Nephilim in Canaan were really big people, and that the spies expected the other Israelites to be familiar with the group of people called Nephilim and to know that they are big people. The verse also connects the Nephilim to another label, the Anakites, the descendants of Anak. Another reference to Anak appears in Deuteronomy, where Moses reminds the Israelites about the land of Moab. The Emim—a large and numerous people, as tall as the Anakim—had formerly inhabited it. Like the Anakim, they are usually reckoned as Rephaim, though the Moabites call them Emim. (Deut 2:10–11) Again, the Anakim are tall, and other names associated with them are Emim (the Moabite name) and Rephaim. That last group comes up again later in the same chapter, again, in reference to Moab. It also is usually reckoned as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly inhabited it, though the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a strong and numerous people, as tall as the Anakim. (Deut 2:20–21) Moreover, there was a king named Og who was one of the Rephaim, in fact, their last surviving member (cf. Josh 13:12). And Og was big—or, at least, he had a big bed, so big it became a tourist attraction. Now only King Og of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. In fact his bed, an iron bed, can still be seen in Rabbah of the Ammonites. By the common cubit it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide. (Deut 3:11) There is also a valley called several times in Scripture “the valley of the Rephaim,” a term translated in the LXX as “valley of the Titans” (2 Sam 5:18) or “valley of giants” (1 Chron 11:15; 14:9). So, again, Rephaim had the reputation of being tall. If we put all these verses together, we can construct the following equivalencies. Nephilim > Anakim = Rephaim = Emim (Moabite name) = Zamzummim (Ammonite name) They are all very tall. It may be these tall people, and not all Amorites (= Canaanites; but see Gen 14:5; 15:20), that Amos has in mind when he describes the Amorites as very tall. Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them,whose height was like the height of cedars,and who was as strong as oaks;I destroyed his fruit above,and his roots beneath. (Amos 2:9) What happened to the Nephilim (or the Anakim or Rephaim or whatever)? The Israelite conquest reduced their number (cf. Num 13:22; Josh 15:14; Judg 1:10). While Joshua made war on the Anakim (Josh 11:21–23), he did not eliminate them completely; some remained in towns such as Gath (Josh 11:22). Have you heard of Gath before? That’s Goliath’s hometown (1 Sam 17:4). Gath was also the home of other words associated with a certain “Rapha” (= the Hebrew word; think: Rephaim) often translated “giant” (2 Sam 21:16–22; 1 Chron 20:4–8). So, were the Nephilim giants? According to biblical scholar John Day, “It is clear that the Nephilim are to be understood as giants” (p. 81), an interpretation arising from the evidence we have just examined, particularly the appearance of the Nephilim in the Promised Land (Num 13:33) and the association of the inhabitants of the Promised Land with great height (Amos 2:9), along with the association of the Nephilim with other tall people (Anakim, Rephaim, etc.; Deut 2:10, 20–21; 3:11). Of course, the problem with associating the Nephilim with the descendants of the sons of God in Genesis 6 is that there were still Nephilim in the land of Canaan in the time of the Israelite conquest. Why wouldn’t they be destroyed by the flood?… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  2. Oct 29

    Dracula and Martyrdom

    I was telling you why I love the 1897 novel Dracula so much, and what lessons I think a Christian might learn from Bram Stoker. Last time I introduced the novel and ended my thoughts with a focus on the eucharist. I myself have cited Dracula several times during communion meditations at church, and people tell me that those meditations are … um … memorable. But there is more to say about this book. Before getting to the moral qualities of the novel, some scattered thoughts— Money We’ll start with money: our heroes are all rich, and this is necessary for the story. One of them is a member of the British nobility, and along with his title, Lord Godalming also has a large fortune made larger by the will that Mrs. Westenra insisted her solicitor produce. Jonathan Harker starts the novel as middle class but inherits a sizeable fortune from Mr. Hawkins. Dr. Seward and Prof. Van Helsing seem to live comfortably, while the American Mr. Morris is very well-off. At one point in the novel (ch. 26), Mina expresses her gratitude that especially Godalming and Morris have so much money and spend it so generously. Their wealth allows them the time and resources to mount an effective challenge to the Count. Dracula does not discriminate; he targets rich and poor. Early in the novel we meet a woman who comes to Castle Dracula to accuse its master of taking her child, but she has no means of fighting back. She is merely one of the many nameless victims of this evil. To oppose such a powerful enemy requires money. As Jonathan Harker says in ch. 25, “Judge Moneybag will settle this case, I think!” Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Knowledge and Belief But there is also need of knowledge, and early in the novel most of its characters have no understanding of vampires. They do not believe in such nonsense. Jonathan Harker becomes acquainted with vampires during his stay at Castle Dracula, but he doesn’t have a name for what it is that he is witnessing. It is with the coming to England of the Dutchman Abraham Van Helsing in ch. 9 that light begins to dawn. He doesn’t save Lucy Westenra’s life, and he doesn’t fully understand the cause of her malady during her illness, but he has suspicions. In fact, after his very first interview with Lucy, Van Helsing says to his friend John, “This is no jest, but life and death, perhaps more” (Sept. 3). Take note: it is Van Helsing, the most elderly of the characters of the novel, who is the most open-minded. How old is Van Helsing? I think we are never told, but perhaps in his 60s. We are told that Dr. Seward is 29-years-old (ch. 5), and that the other men are all younger (ch. 25), so I suppose they are all around 23 or 24. Lucy apparently dies just before her twentieth birthday. Van Helsing is by far the oldest and wisest, and his wisdom is tied to his open mind. Are we accustomed to the elderly having an open mind? I’m not sure I’m accustomed to anyone, these days, having an open mind. It is reminiscent to me of the narrative about the blind man in John 9, and especially the efforts to convince the Pharisees that just maybe they don’t know everything about the ways of God. Less than a month after first meeting most of these people, Van Helsing makes this speech to the group, as recorded by Mina Harker on Sept 30 (ch. 18). There are such beings as vampires; some of us have evidence that they exist. Even had we not the proof of our own unhappy experience, the teachings and the records of the past give proof enough for sane peoples. I admit that at the first I was sceptic. Were it not that through long years I have train myself to keep an open mind, I could not have believe until such time as that fact thunder on my ear. ‘See! see! I prove; I prove.’ Alas! Had I known at the first what now I know—nay, had I even guess at him—one so precious life had been spared to many of us who did love her. But that is gone; and we must so work, that other poor souls perish not, whilst we can save. Again, the old one has to convince the younger ones to believe. I’ll let you read how he goes about doing that, except for one comment he makes to his friend, John Seward, while trying to convince him that he does not know everything about the world. This is before Van Helsing has mentioned the word “vampire.” What does Van Helsing want Seward to do? Van Helsing answers: To believe in things that you cannot. Let me illustrate. I heard once of an American who so defined faith: ‘that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue.’ For one, I follow that man. He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let a little bit of truth check the rush of a big truth, like a small rock does a railway truck. We get the small truth first. Good! We keep him, and we value him; but all the same we must not let him think himself all the truth in the universe. (ch. 14) I don’t particularly like the quotation from the American who said that faith was about believing things that you know to be untrue—that’s not how I would put it—but I like Van Helsing’s explanation, and I think such concepts always relevant, both to Christians and non-Christians. Just because we understand one truth doesn’t mean we understand all truth. I find this idea to be relevant to biblical interpretation, to politics, to many areas of life. This is a problem with the systematizers, I think; they want to press one truth to be the ruling truth, the most important truth, maybe the only truth, thereby simplifying things that ought not be simplified. Some things are, in fact, complex, and they should not be made easy. Hate Now, to the second aspect of the novel that I find helpful from a Christian perspective: hate. Count Dracula is responsible for the death of the young and beautiful and beloved Lucy Westenra, and he attempts to make a vampire out of Mina Harker. Our heroes have good reason to hate him—but Mina, of all people, won’t allow it. The scene is described in Dr. Seward’s diary entry for October 3 (ch. 23), when Mina speaks to the five men assembled in her room. She refers to the work of destroying Dracula as they destroyed the vampire version of Lucy. I won’t describe how they went about killing the undead Lucy; you’ve seen enough vampire movies to know how such things are usually done. The point that Mina makes is that the death of the undead Lucy released the real Lucy’s soul from the vampire curse and gave it rest, a point that she doesn’t need to drive home because all the men believe it; indeed, most of them would say that they witnessed it. But Mina makes the same point in reference to Dracula, whom no one loves as they had loved Lucy. I know that you must fight—that you must destroy even as you destroyed the false Lucy so that the true Lucy might live hereafter; but it is not a work of hate. That poor soul who has wrought all this misery is the saddest case of all. Just think what will be his joy when he, too, is destroyed in his worser part that his better part may have spiritual immortality. You must be pitiful to him, too, though it may not hold your hands from his destruction. This counsel from Mina, that they should not hate Dracula, fails to have an immediate effect even on her husband, Jonathan, who responds: “May God give him into my hand just for long enough to destroy that earthly life of him which we are aiming at. If beyond it I could send his soul for ever and ever to burning hell I would do it!” Who among us does not feel the hatred inspiring Harker? Mere death is not good enough for one who intentionally causes pain to others, who not only took the life of dear, sweet Lucy, but also—and more to the point for Jonathan Harker—took the innocence of Mina Harker. Not death, but suffering—that’s what Dracula deserves! How much suffering? Eternal. May he burn in hell for ever and ever! But here Mina return… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  3. Oct 26

    Dracula and the Sacred Wafer

    On the morning of May 16, Jonathan Harker began his diary entry with the following words: God preserve my sanity, for to this I am reduced. Safety and the assurance of safety are things of the past. Whilst I live on here there is but one thing to hope for, that I may not go mad, if, indeed, I be not mad already. If I be sane, then surely it is maddening to think that of all the foul things that lurk in this hateful place the Count is the least dreadful to me; that to him alone I can look for safety, even though this be only whilst I can serve his purpose. Great God! merciful God! Let me be calm, for out of that way lies madness indeed. As is clear from this diary entry, Mr. Harker is in desperate straits indeed, less than two weeks into his journey into unfamiliar regions. He is an English solicitor, sent by his employer, Mr. Hawkins, on a business journey to eastern Europe, to the old stately home of a foreign gentleman in order to explain the recent purchase of a home on the outskirts of London. The foreign gentleman is a tall, thin man, pale, with aquiline features. As the entry from Harker’s journal has already alerted us, this gentleman was a count, and his family name was Dracula. When Jonathan Harker received the commission to travel to Transylvania to be the guest of Count Dracula, the name raised no suspicions in him—nor, presumably, in the first readers of the 1897 novel Dracula by Bram Stoker. It was Stoker who introduced the name “Dracula” into the world of vampires. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Harker arrived at Castle Dracula on the 5th of May, and after a week as a guest in this old, drab castle, that seems to house only himself and his host, he writes the following: “What manner of man is this, or what manner of creature is it in the semblance of man?” (May 12). I’ll let you discover for yourself in the pages of the novel what leads to this despairing query. But even without knowing the specifics, you can guess in general what has happened. In a week with this Transylvanian count, Harker has gone from considering Dracula a charming if odd nobleman to now recognizing him as sinister and perhaps not human. Unfortunately he will spend several more weeks in the castle, unable to find an exit, and constantly fearful of the Count, but not only the Count. Will Harker survive? Can he escape the castle? Will he be reunited with his fiancee, Mina Murray? I love Dracula because it is one of the most Christian novels I have ever read. The novel Dracula is structured as a collection of contemporary accounts documenting some strange events over the course of a summer and fall in some year late in the nineteenth century. The opening item is a journal entry dated to May 3, and the last entry is dated November 6. There is no narrator; instead, we have diaries, or letters, or newspaper articles. Someone has collected these disparate materials in order to chronicle the facts concerning Count Dracula, as those facts became known to a few friends dedicated to destroying him. These friends are, first of all, Jonathan Harker and his fiance, Mina Murray, as well as Mina’s friend, the ill-fated Lucy Westenra, and also the three men who are in love with Lucy, namely, Dr. John Seward, Quincey P. Morris, and Arthur Holmwood, the future Lord Godalming. And then, of course, there is the friend of Dr. Seward, and his former teacher, from Amsterdam, Prof. Abraham Van Helsing. These five men—Harker, Seward, Van Helsing, Morris, and Godalming—along Harker’s wife, Mina, bind themselves by oath to avenge the death of their beloved Lucy. The collection of papers assembled in this novel—the diary entries and letters and newspaper clippings—describe Lucy’s death and the process of avenging her. We learn near the end of the novel that it was Mina Harker who assembled these documents. Why do I love the novel Dracula? Because it is one of the most Christian novels I have ever read, one of the most virtuous, one of the most noble. I love the novel because the characters bravely entrust themselves to God in their fight against evil. I love it because it inspires me to be a better person, to imitate Jesus more closely. Actually, I have never read the novel Dracula, not in the normal sense of the term “read.” About twenty years ago, before I moved to Alabama, I think, I tried to read it, but after about a hundred pages, I was so bored I put it down, and I have never picked it up again. But a few years later, I was in the local public library and came across a Recorded Books version of Dracula, one read by Alexander Spencer and Susan Adams, and I thought I would give it a try. I loved it. A few years later, I listened to it again, in October, and most years in October I decide to re-listen to that version of Dracula. I have found this version available on YouTube. Highly recommended. I cannot recommend the experience of reading the novel Dracula: I’ve never done it. And I won’t recommend to you any particular film version of the story. I’ve seen a few Dracula films, including the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi, which is a must-see for movie-lovers. But it is not much like the novel at all, and contains little of what I love in the story. But I can recommend the Recorded Books version that I mentioned; I’ve listened to it perhaps a couple dozen times. What about Dracula vs. Frankenstein? I don’t know who would win in a battle, but as for which book is better, that’s easy—Dracula. Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel about a scientist who assembles a man out of random body parts and then manages to create life is, I am sorry to say, pretty boring. The monster does a lot of whining in that novel. It doesn’t even come close to being scary. The recent film version on Netflix directed by Guillermo del Toro is excellent and much better than its source material. Back to Dracula: is it scary? Um, yes, some of it is, or was. Now at this late date, after having experienced the novel so many times, its power to frighten has diminished, though I still anticipate the thrill of certain sections: Jonathan Harker’s growing realization of his dangerous predicament at Castle Dracula early in the novel, and in chapter 7, the captain’s log found in the hands of the dead captain of the ship called the Demeter, who had lashed his own hands to the wheel of the vessel. But most of the novel is not scary exactly, more of a thriller. And I know you also are curious how much sex is in the novel. The answer: not much, certainly not as much as in the film versions. Is there any sex? Well, the sexiest part of the novel is near the beginning, at Castle Dracula in Transylvania, when Jonathan Harker, in a hypnotic state, encounters three women who materialize out of particles or dust in the air. While Harker is vaguely asleep on a couch, one of the women bends over him to—as he thinks—kiss his neck, and Harker admits that her approach excited him, but he also observed that as her mouth drew closer to his neck she strangely licked her lips. As it turned out, the two never made contact. So, like I said, no sex. Dracula moves to London, and there he does shenanigans. Let me tell you very briefly what the novel is about: Dracula moves to London, and there he does shenanigans. I’ve already introduced you to the main characters, including the woman Dracula kills upon first taking up residence in England, Lucy Westenra—or, he does not kill her exactly, but he slowly drains her blood until she becomes no longer alive, but not dead; she is undead. Lucy happens to be best friends with Mina Murray, and the two were on holiday together at the seaside resort of Whitby when the Demeter arrives into port, covered in fog and apparently completely unmanned except for the corpse at the wheel, and carrying only fifty boxes of earth. The local newspaper features a report on the arrival of… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  4. Oct 19

    Approaching the Bible as Scripture

    When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1 Thess 2:13) We should approach the Bible as Scripture. You might think, “Duh, the Bible is Scripture.” True, but let’s be more specific. The Bible is our Scripture because we’re Christians. The Quran is also Scripture, but I would not advise us to approach the Quran as Scripture because the Quran is not our Scripture since we’re not Muslims. How would we approach the Quran? We would read it with some critical distance, as a source of information on Muslim beliefs. We would not read it as a source of divine revelation, as a text through which God addresses us. That description needs nuance. God might address us through the Quran, just as he might address us through any literature, whether Plato’s Republic or Paradise Lost or Pride and Prejudice. Not just literature, but also great films or other media (e.g., the heavens, as we’ll see in a moment). One of my projects in life is to hear what God wants to tell me through all of these works. All truth is God’s truth. Is there truth in the Quran? I presume, though I have not read much of it. And yet, Christians have not regarded any of these works to be “the word of God” in the technical sense used for Christian Scripture. Perhaps God addresses people through the Quran or Paradise Lost, especially if they are seeking such divine communication, but Christians regard their Scriptures as the site from which we can anticipate hearing God’s voice most often and most directly. Indeed, it is the Christian Scriptures that should offer the training to the reader to discern the voice of God, so that his voice can be most fruitfully detected in other media. That’s what it means to call the Scriptures “canonical,” normative. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. There is more to say about all of this, such as the role of the Old Testament as canonical Scripture within a Christian theological system, and about differences in the biblical canon (e.g., does God speak through Tobit?). And at some point perhaps I will address these topics on this Substack, as I have done in my conventional academic publications. But for now let’s return to the subject of the present essay. A lot of people read the Bible not-as-Scripture. That’s what scholars do. In large measure, that’s what academic biblical studies is all about. I would argue, and I will argue in a later post (deo volente), that such a reading strategy is incredibly helpful for the purpose of reading the Bible as Scripture. I work at a school that exists to train Christian ministers, and a big part of how we do that is by training students in academic biblical studies. Now the value of academic biblical studies to ministers is variegated, not simply in helping them read the Bible as Scripture, but that is one way it is helpful to them. Listen: reading the Bible not-as-Scripture means that you cultivate critical distance toward the text, and you read it as a source of information on Christian beliefs. It seems obvious to me that such a reading strategy would be helpful to a Christian reading of Scripture, but it is certainly incomplete toward that end. At some point that critical distance that academic biblical studies requires needs to evaporate for a fully Christian reading. To read the Bible as Scripture requires that we not only read it as a statement of beliefs from people long ago in a foreign culture but also that we read it as a revelation from God to us. By the way, this matter of reading the Bible as Scripture is very in vogue right now; a lot of people like talking about it. A few times a year, it seems like, a book comes out promising to look at a portion of the Bible as Scripture. Maybe it started with Brevard Childs. In 1979 Fortress Press published his seminal book Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. But now you can find books on Reading the Gospels as Christian Scripture (by Joshua Jipp, Baker, 2024), or Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture (by Eric Tully, Baker, 2022), or 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture (by Stephen Chapman, Eerdmans, 2016), or Theological Hermeneutics and the Book of Numbers as Christian Scripture (by Richard Briggs, Notre Dame, 2018), or Reading the Psalms as Scripture (by James Hamilton and Matthew Damico, Lexham, 2024), or Reading the Psalms and Wisdom as Christian Scripture (by Christopher Ansberry, Baker, 2024). There is also the classic book by Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (2d ed., Liturgical Press, 1999). Now, as helpful as these books sound, I haven’t read many of them, though I have read the book by Childs that, I guess, got it all started. Let me nuance that statement a little: what Childs got started was not reading the Bible as Scripture—Christians have been doing that since Jesus—but academics talking about reading the Bible as Scripture. Since I haven’t read most of the books that claim to be doing it, I don’t really know how they think we ought to go about the project of reading the Bible as Scripture, or even what they think it means to do so. But here, again, is my understanding of the goal of a Christian reading of the biblical text: it means to attend to the divine voice in the text, to desire and seek to read the Bible for the purpose of hearing God speak, to encounter the living and active word of God. That is what I mean by approaching the Bible as Scripture To read the Bible not-as-Scripture is to read without this purpose. It is to read the Bible like any other book, in the phrase made famous by the Anglican clergyman Benjamin Jowett in 1860. We’ll get to Jowett some other time, and how reading the Bible like any other book might be good and helpful, indeed invigorating, spiritually edifying. But for now we want to know how to read the Bible like no other book. What is it that we want from the Bible when we read it as Christian Scripture? I have already given my answer a few times: we want to hear the voice of God. (Many writers say the same thing; this formulation is not at all unique to me.) As I have mapped out a path toward spiritual growth, the first step is “hear,” and the voice of God is my way of formulating what it is that we want to hear. You could say that people should hear the gospel, or the message of Christ, or Scripture. But I prefer to say that people should hear the voice of God, because it suggests that God mystically continues speaking through the ancient text, that the word of God is truly living and active, that God is, indeed, speaking directly to us in our own situation, if only we had ears to hear, if only our hearts were softened. As the psalmist said, “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart.” In Richard Foster’s book Celebration of Discipline, the very first discipline discussed is meditation, which is presented as a sine qua non of the Christian. Foster quotes Bonhoeffer’s explanation for the reason he meditates: “Because I am a Christian,” Bonhoeffer said. (I quoted Bonhoeffer last time; his guide to meditation can be found at DBWE 14, pp. 931–36.) But what is meditation? Foster answers (p. 17): “Christian meditation … is the ability to hear God’s voice and obey his word.” So maybe what I’m talking about is a meditative or contemplative approach to the Bible. Meditating on Scripture is for those who want to be like God. Now, Foster briefly explores other forms of meditation, other ways of hearing God’s voice, besides meditation on Scripture. We might think of Scripture that substantiates the point. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psa 19:1) The voice of the Lord is upon the waters. (Psa 29:3) The earth, nature, creation, provides testi… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  5. Oct 15

    Tracking Down Sources

    One of Abraham Lincoln’s famous quotations is “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” This excellent advice from our sixteenth president helpfully introduces our topic, which is tracking down sources. As Honest Abe, would tell us, when you find an interesting quotation or bit of information, you need to confirm it, trace it back to its origin, see if it’s true. When you are doing research on the Bible, for instance, a research paper, one of the tasks that you have to do is track down sources. You need to see the evidence for yourself. Let’s say you have a question about what kinds of things women would do in the first century. This is a question about which some people have much to say today, and they will offer a variety of opinions. These opinions might be interesting, but they are not evidence. What you really want is information deriving from the first century, first-hand information, from writers in the first century, or from archaeological artifacts dating to the first century. A good guide to such evidence on the topic of women in the first century is Susan Hylen, a New Testament professor at Emory. She has several books on the topic (for instance), and I have always found her work to be careful both in its citation of ancient evidence and in the conclusions drawn from that evidence. I trust her to be careful, because she has proven herself worthy of that trust—but, I do not trust her to provide the correct citation in any given instance. Everybody makes mistakes. Susan Hylen is great, but you still need to track down the sources, make sure that she cites Josephus correctly, that the paragraph number she provided is the correct one, and that Josephus really does say what she attributes to him, and that she has interpreted his meaning correctly. The only way to do that is to find the original passage in Josephus, read the passage, and read a little bit before it and a little bit after it to get the context. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. It has never been so easy to track down sources. Most of the ancient sources are freely available online in English translation, so that, as the apostle Paul might say, one is without excuse; there is no reason not to look up the original passage. And it must be done. Why? Why should we care so much about tracking down sources? Because … umm … you know … we are people who value truth. We have committed ourselves to guiding people into a deeper knowledge of matters divine, a sacred responsibility that should compel us to know what we’re talking about, and to refuse to affirm things that we don’t know. Oftentimes we are going to get into arguments that are finely nuanced, that turn on the meaning of particular Greek or Hebrew words, or that are affected by the proper interpretation of some extra-biblical source. And we should, you know, look at such evidence for ourselves so that we can help people work through the issues. Especially at HCU, an academic institution, we pursue academic excellence as a facet of Christian virtue, developing skills both practical and scholarly in order to help people and to glorify God. We are God’s images, and we have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and those good works are many and manifold. Doing our academic work in an excellent fashion is, in part, what we have been created in Christ Jesus to do. We need to take this stuff seriously. By the way, this is the reason I cite Wikipedia so frequently on Substack and in chapel speeches, and even in sermons. I would never—never!—rely on Wikipedia as an actual research source; I would never cite it in an academic paper. I cite it in speeches for two main reasons: to let you know where to find more information about a topic; and, even more importantly, to tell you that I have not done research on the topic. If I’m relying on Wikipedia, that means I don’t know what I’m talking about. I have done only the easiest, laziest, most basic amount of research; I wouldn’t even call it research, but “poking around.” No, it’s not even poking around; that’s the term I use for looking at a few books in the library to see what scholars are saying on a topic; it doesn’t rise to the level of research because it’s only a few books that I look at, and maybe a few primary sources. That’s poking around. Research is when I’m actually in the pursuit of a question, and I’m going to be pretty exhaustive in my search for the answer. Oftentimes for a Bible class or sermon or even a class at HCU, I don’t have time for real research, just some poking around down in the library. And a lot of times I don’t have time even to poke around, or I don’t have the interest, and so I just google something and read a Wikipedia article. But I almost always tell people when I’m relying on Wikipedia. When I do cite Wikipedia, I don’t mean to communicate that Wikipedia is a good research tool, but the exact opposite. Wikipedia is where you go before you start the process of research. And now I give you three bad examples, all from the published work of biblical scholars and theologians, people who should know better. Hippocrates on Women In the year 2020, a book called Women in the Bible was published by Westminster John Knox, written by Jamie Clark-Soles, a professor at Perkins School of Theology, the seminary attached to SMU in Dallas. On page 2 of her book, she presents a chart exhibiting eight quotations from historical sources, ranging from Hippocrates in the classical Greek period to Luther and Calvin in the sixteenth century. This chart is designed to illustrate, in the words of Clark-Soles, the availability of “an endless collection of choice quotations to prove that women have been considered inferior to men.” Now, let me say, I have no doubt that one can easily demonstrate such a thing, that throughout world history, in perhaps all societies, women have been considered inferior to men. I agree with Clark-Soles that this has been a common attitude, and I join with her in condemning it. I just wish she had done a better job of demonstrating it. To emphasize the pedantic point that is the subject of this essay, you should not rely on her chart, but use her chart as a guide to the sources, by all means go tracking down the sources yourself, and you’ll find that Clark-Soles has not always excerpted these quotations accurately. As I said, there are eight quotations, attributed to the following sources: * Hippocrates * Aristotle * Josephus * Philo * the Tosefta, a rabbinic document from the third century * Origen, a third-century Greek Christian * Martin Luther * John Calvin The first quotation is from Hippocrates, a Greek medical writer from around the time of Socrates. Clark-Soles attributes to Hippocrates these words, in quotation marks: “Males are warm, dry, and firm, and this is the norm. Females are cool, moist and spongy, these being defects.” That’s an interesting statement, and I have read enough about ancient views of women to say that it sounds plausible that Hippocrates said it. But where did he say it? It would be nice if Clark-Soles would tell us where Hippocrates made this statement, but she doesn’t; instead she cites a scholarly article written in 1991. You know what to do next, right? Go get the article. Under no circumstances are you to trust a scholar, and in this case thou shalt not assume that Clark-Soles has correctly cited the article, or that the 1991 article says what Clark-Soles attributes to it. Best case scenario here is that the 1991 article provides a quote from Hippocrates that is word-for-word what Clark-Soles quoted, and provides the reference to Hippocrates. That is not what the 1991 article provides. It turns out that the words presented by Clark-Soles in quotation marks are not a direct quotation at all, and not even a quotation from the scholarly article, but more of a summary from the article. The 1991 article was written by Lesley Dean-Jones ( This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  6. Oct 12

    On Reading the Bible

    Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest. (Joshua 1:7–9) Should Christians read the Bible? Well, yes, of course, and they can hardly avoid it if they are pious and go to church and Bible class. But I don’t mean to ask about Christians reading the Bible in group settings: public worship or Bible class or whatever. Should individual Christians read the Bible for private devotion? Yes, and no. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Or, actually, no and yes, and, again, no. Let’s talk about it. Ancient Believers Didn’t Read the Bible We’ll approach the question through the side door. Should individual Christians pray? Yes, that’s an easy one. The Bible talks a great deal about people of faith praying. “Pray without ceasing,” said the Apostle. Jesus gave much instruction on prayer. In the Old Testament, there’s an entire book, a long book, comprising 150 prayers. Next question, should Christians go to church? Let’s reword that: should Christians routinely gather with the saints to worship God? Yes, another easy question. The Bible has a great deal to say about corporate worship, in the Old and New Testament—or, at least, gathering and doing the activities we tend to associate with worship: singing, praying, exploring Scripture. (Maybe Tom Wadsworth would agree with that description.) Let me just remind you about the verse in Hebrews that says, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” What about Bible reading? Does the Bible tell people to read the Bible? We find instructions to listen to, or to hear, the word of God, or the message of the gospel. The prophets often call on the ancient Israelites and Judeans to pay attention, to listen, but they never tell them to read. Such a command would make no sense, because there was nothing to read, and even if there were, the common Israelite couldn’t read it. When I say there was nothing to read, I mean the Bible hadn’t been written yet. Isaiah certainly couldn’t tell people to read his book; his life was taken up with delivering the oracles that would eventually constitute the contents of the book of Isaiah. Some things were written—the Ten Commandments, for instance, but the only copy about which we know was stored in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle or Temple, and therefore not available for reading. We could assume that multiple copies of the Ten Commandments were made, chiseled in stone and displayed prominently in various spots of ancient Israel, just as in modern America. But then you have the problem of literacy. It is impossible to be very precise about ancient literacy, but a pretty common guess for the ancient world is that about ten percent of the population could read. It is almost precisely the reverse in modern America, with about ten percent of the population considered illiterate. How has it come about that so many people in modern America can read? It’s because for about two hundred years or more, American society has invested a great deal of money and effort on public education, with the fundamental goal of teaching people how to read. Learning to read is not easy. You don’t graduate first grade considered “literate,” even if you can read Dr. Seuss books. It takes years of training to be proficient to read complicated texts. And the Bible is most definitely a complicated text. Absent a well-funded public education program, widespread literacy is not going to just happen, not at the levels familiar to us. That’s a pretty good reason why a general requirement that Christians should read the Bible would have made no sense prior to the modern period. As Keith Stanglin (p. 159) has mentioned, at the time of the Reformation and following the invention of the printing press, early “Protestants usually stressed the obligation of all Christians to read their Bibles.” This was a new phenomenon. But there’s another reason we never find Jesus or Paul telling believers that they need to read the Bible. It’s not just that the concept of “Bible”—as in a collection of sacred books that you could hold in your hand—is an anachronism for the first century, but also because the individual books themselves were enormously expensive. Of course, everything was handmade: the leather or papyrus upon which the text was written, and the ink, and the process of writing itself, all done by hand. I have seen the plausible estimate that in the first century a scroll of the book of Isaiah would have cost about a month’s wages. Most believers did not have ready access to copies of the biblical books even if they had been trained to read them. That’s why the Bible contains no general command to believers to read the Bible as a regular habit, like prayer or the assembling of believers. Such instruction would make no sense in their world; it would have been impossible to carry out. General Bible reading is a very recent phenomenon. (For similar thoughts, see Brad East, pp. 119–20.) Christians Should Read the Bible But, yes, Christians should definitely read the Bible. I mean, Christians now, with the opportunity and the ability. The fact is, by this point, the Bible has been written down and collected together. There are a plethora of cheap Bibles available, and you can easily find an organization giving Bibles away if you need that. And we have all been trained to read at a very high level, at great expense in money and time. We are judged by God according to what we do with our opportunities, and we—Christians in twenty-first century America—have been granted the opportunity—almost unique in the history of the world—of reading the Bible for ourselves. Yes, we should read the Bible. This is especially true for church leaders: if any believers should be reading the Bible, it should be church leaders. They will be judged by God not only according to their opportunities but also in how they have led God’s people, and so they need humbly to seek the will of God through constant devotion to Scripture. Or Maybe Not? But do Christians need to read the Bible? Is that what God wants for us? Maybe not. Maybe the point is not reading but something else. Could reading the Bible be a distraction from what God wants us to do with Scripture? I’m asking these questions conscious of two influences: history and Socrates. The history we’ve already mentioned. Before the modern period, it would have made no sense to tell Christians generally that they need to read the Bible. What did such Christians do? Were they just not spiritual? Or did they do something with the Bible besides read it? That brings me to Socrates. The famous philosopher was not a big fan of writing. Yes, I get the irony that the only way I know about the opinion of Socrates is that his student Plato wrote it down. I’m sure Plato got the irony too. But still, listen to Socrates: For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem [275b] to know many things, when th… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  7. Oct 5

    What Is Scripture About?

    Communication is difficult. The point is proven time and again, and perhaps the people that are most familiar with the difficulty of communication are, on the one hand, parents, and on the other hand, preachers. Both groups of people, parents and preachers, frequently find themselves in the situation where they need the phrase, “no, that’s not what I meant.” There are, no doubt, several reasons why communication is difficult, but one of them is that the speaker and the hearer do not necessarily share presuppositions. Let me give you an example of this. I recall several years ago giving a sermon on the Lord’s Supper, in which I was trying to explain part of the deep significance of this meal, how it helps us conform to Christ since we are consuming his body and blood. It’s not the kind of lesson on communion that I had ever heard, certainly not in churches of Christ. To top if off, I delivered the sermon on Christmas Day, which happened to fall on a Sunday that year. I called the sermon “Incarnation and Reincarnation,” meaning just as the Word became flesh—incarnation—so also the Word takes on flesh in our lives—reincarnation—as represented in the Lord’s Supper, as our flesh and blood mingles with and is transformed by the flesh and blood of our Lord. I thought I was presenting a new and helpful way of thinking about this weekly ritual for the members of the very traditional congregation for which I was preaching. I was trying to be deep. So I was a little confused afterwards when one old man complimented my lesson by saying, “That’s what we need more of, the first principles.” Either he didn’t hear what I said, or I didn’t say what I thought I said. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. As I have reflected on that comment over the years, I have decided that this old man, who knew me and liked me, came into the sermon expecting to like the sermon. And the kinds of sermons he liked were “first principles” kinds of sermons. He heard what he wanted to hear. His expectations did not align with what I was trying to do. I take my share of the blame here; obviously I was not clear enough in my presentation. Communication is difficult. Or, let’s talk about politics for just a moment. I have a political point of view, a fundamental understanding about the nature of the country in which I live—America—and of the direction it ought to go. And I recognize that the country is highly polarized politically at the moment. There are people I enjoy listening to because they share my fundamental beliefs about America, and there are people I do not enjoy listening to. So recently I forced myself to listen to a podcast by people who do not align with my political views, but people that I consider intelligent. And it was hard to listen to that podcast. And it was helpful. And there were multiple times in that 45-minute podcast when I simply could not make sense out of what the person was saying. I mean, I heard the words, and I could get meaning out of those words, but I was convinced that the person could not have meant what I understood those words to mean, because that would be so stupid, so obviously incorrect. And these were intelligent people I was listening to. I wasn’t hearing something that made sense to me, partly, I think, because my political expectations were different from those of the people on the podcast. What is Scripture about? It’s about a lot of things, isn’t it? What are those statistics we often hear about the Bible? 66 books written by 40 different people in multiple languages over a period of more than a millennium, in several different cultures. There’s a lot in there. There’s history and law and parables and apocalypse and poetry and prophetic oracles and letters, and each of those genres can be further subdivided, and some biblical books attest multiple genres. So the Bible has a lot of stuff in it—which is part of the reason that the Bible is so difficult to read. What is the point of Scripture? What is it about? The Bible is not about me. I think it is true to say that Christians often open the Bible hoping to find it talking about them—and it does, sometimes, and in some ways. A little later we’ll talk about how the Bible addresses Christians. But in our culture the expectation that a Christian will have is very individualistic. I have a problem, and I want the Bible to address my problem. If a therapist can address an individual person’s problems, then surely my problem can be directly addressed in Scripture by God—who is basically an all-knowing therapist, right? When Bible-readers have this expectation, they are sure to be disappointed by most of the Bible, which they simply cannot understand through this paradigm. Again, it’s sorta understandable that modern Christians would approach the Bible with this paradigm, because they have been told ad infinitum that God loves me and longs for a personal relationship with me. Seems like the Bible ought to talk about that. So what is the point of Ezekiel? Or Leviticus? Or most of the Old Testament, really? Some of the psalms are nice, and the proverbs are relatively straightforward, though they aren’t very comforting. Did Paul really say that all Scripture is profitable? Maybe he was exaggerating just a little bit? So here’s the deal: the Bible is not about me. It is not about you. If you approach Scripture with that expectation, you will most definitely be disappointed. Let me tell you what the Bible is about: it’s about God, and it’s about us. Let’s talk about both of these in turn. Not Me, But God The Bible is about God. Wow, that’s profound, isn’t it. You might need to write that one on your hand so that you’ll remember it. I’ll wait. Let me be a little more specific: The Bible is not about me, it’s about God. When I turn to the Bible, what am I looking for? What do I think I’m going to be reading? What are my expectations? If you open Ezekiel with the idea that you’re going to read something immediately relevant for your daily life—well, yes, I would argue that you can find in Ezekiel passages relevant to your daily life, but that’s because I am convinced that knowledge of God is relevant to your daily life. It might not have an obvious, straightforward application to the particular problem you’re facing right now, but it will most definitely display to you the big-picture reality in which your entire life takes place. Not just Ezekiel, of course, but the entire Bible does that, because the Bible is about God. If you turn to Ezekiel looking to get out of the doldrums, or how to be compassionate, or how to have less stress—if you turn to Ezekiel expecting it to address you right now, you probably won’t find what you’re seeking. Listen, there is a correlation between the text of Ezekiel and the Christian life today, but it’s not a direct correlation. If you imagine that what God wants to do in Scripture is talk to you about you, many books of the Bible are going to confuse you, most definitely including Ezekiel. And you may decide that Ezekiel is not profitable, after all, no matter what Paul says about all Scripture. In Scripture, God wants to talk to you not about you but about himself. One of the most basic ideas in the Christian life is that you need to take the focus off of yourself and fill your mind with God, be led by the Spirit of God, squash your own will so that you can take on God’s will, so that you can say with our Lord, “not my will but yours be done.” That is how the Bible addresses you—by not addressing you, by telling you about God. And let me tell you something: if you open Ezekiel expecting to read something about God, you will find what you seek. God is all over that book. Christians have known this all along, of course, that the Bible is about God. The early church had a reading strategy for the Bible, and they called it the Rule of Faith. I’m talking about the church of the second … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

  8. Oct 1

    What Is Scripture For?

    I have previously proposed the use of the so-called “steps of salvation” as an avenue for spiritual growth. The first step is “hear,” and this essay is a first reflection on how to go about doing that. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the Evangelist Matthew records a story told by Jesus about two builders. You probably remember singing a song about them. The wise man built his house upon the rock, and when the rains came tumbling down, the house stood firm; but the foolish man built his house upon the sand, and the torrential rains caused his house to go splat. The point of this story, according to the song, is to encourage us to build our house on the Lord Jesus Christ, and what does that mean? Jesus himself explained the difference between the two builders: the wise builder exemplifies, according to Matthew 7, “whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them”; whereas the foolish builder illustrates “every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not.” The common element between both builders is hearing. If I may extend our Lord’s metaphor, they both receive the blueprints for the house, and they both study those blueprints, but only one of them builds his house according to the blueprints. To change images, only one of them follows the recipe. Only one of them executes the instructions of Jesus that they both hear. Thanks for reading Gallagher! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Hearing is not the problem. The problem is doing. What distinguishes these two men is action. And no wonder, for the words that they are being asked to perform are, as Jesus says, “these sayings of mine.” Which sayings exactly? Why, the Sermon on the Mount, of course, of which the conclusion is this very parable about the two builders. Hearing the Sermon on the Mount is fine, necessary, essential, but ultimately insufficient. Doing the Sermon on the Mount, now that’s what matters. And that’s hard. I completely understand the guy who wants to build his house not up to code, because building your house according to the code of Jesus is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The code of Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, is filled with stuff I don’t want to do. And I don’t mean avoiding anxiety. Yes, naturally, it would be nice to do such a thing, to avoid anxiety, but, as Jesus knew, that’s easier said than done. At least we all want to try that one. But what about the Golden Rule? or the prohibition on judging others? or the instructions on fasting? or the command to store up treasures in heaven and not on earth? or the command to turn the other check or to go the second mile or to pray for one’s enemies? I don’t really even want to try to follow that recipe, and the way my fellow church-goers talk makes me suspect that they have no interest in trying it either. Which means that we are the fools in Jesus’ parable, building our house without a foundation, counting on good weather. What is Scripture for? It’s for doing. Later in the Gospel of Matthew (16:24), we read these words, also in red: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Doing is important. How does this concept relate to the grace of God? And is doing really all that important? Doesn’t the grace of God mean that doing is not important? Yes, I see the tension. Take it up with Jesus. He’s the one that said that the son of man “shall reward every man according to his works.” The point I’m trying to make is that hearing is not the problem. Doing is the problem. Both builders heard, the wise builder and the foolish builder. Only one of them executed what they heard. Hearing is not the problem. Hearing is sometimes the problem. In the Gospel of Luke (8:18), Jesus says, “Take heed therefore how ye hear.” There are better and worse ways of hearing. This concept is illustrated for us in the Parable of the Sower, which is the immediate prelude to this saying of Jesus in the Third Gospel. When Jesus says “take heed how ye hear,” he is thinking about the Parable of the Sower. Remember that the seed represents the word of God that is distributed liberally, but people respond to that message in different ways, some better than others. Different kinds of people hear in different ways. “Take heed therefore how ye hear.” We might also think about the disciples of Jesus and how they struggled to hear Jesus. At one point, a group of Jesus’ disciples actually said about one of Jesus’ messages, “this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” (John 6:60). Even Jesus’ closest disciples routinely misunderstood him. One time he warned them about the leaven of the Pharisees, and the disciples thought Jesus was reprimanding them for not bringing bread (Mark 8:14–21). Their years spent with Jesus could be understood as training for how to hear. I want to talk to you about hearing, but I need to tell you that the point of Scripture is not hearing but doing. Scripture calls on its readers or hearers to respond to the message. There are some literary works that are, I guess, merely for reading or hearing—maybe a John Grisham book or something. I enjoy the TV show Monk, and part of what I enjoy is that it is empty calories; it’s fun, but there’s not much there that I take with me once the TV is off. Of course, many great works of art, whether literature or movies or whatever, do stick with a person and even encourage a particular behavior. I would say the movie It’s a Wonderful Life has a very clear message about how we the viewer ought to live. Same for Groundhog Day. Same for To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s maybe less true for many Shakespeare plays, that is, less true that these plays have a clear message about how people ought to live, but certainly the plays do force the audience who hears well to reflect on various aspects of life. These examples of great works of art get close to what Scripture is doing in calling for a response. A John Grisham novel is for reading and enjoying. Groundhog Day is for watching and enjoying but also for reflecting on life and perhaps encouraging better behavior. Scripture is for reading or hearing and enjoying and for reflecting on life and for repenting and for enacting in life. The point of a John Grisham novel has been achieved when you read it and enjoy it. That is not true of Scripture. Scripture is for doing. Just think for a moment about the premier passage on Scripture in the Christian Scriptures, Paul’s description of Scripture in his second letter to Timothy. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God”—or, we might say the person of God, anthrōpos—“may be perfect, throughly”—or completely—“furnished unto all good works.” Where does the profit of Scripture lie? Wherein is its usefulness? The Apostle supplies the answer: Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Scripture is for doing, not just hearing. Think back to the greatness that was Christian America, before the culture turned away from traditional values announced from America’s pulpits: before abortion on demand, before the sexual revolution, before prayer was removed from public schools. Think back to America in the 1950s, when placing the Ten Commandments in public spaces was uncontroversial. This was the decade when the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance by an act of Congress, and when “In God We Trust” became the official national motto. Was America a more Christian nation in the 1950s? This was the decade when the Little Rock Nine walked to school amid a howling mob of Christians. I have no doubt that people heard the word of God, but the point of Scripture is not hearing but doing. May we avoid sharing the guilt of our ancestors. As Thomas à Kempis wrote six c… This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit edmongallagher.substack.com

About

Reflections on Scripture and culture. edmongallagher.substack.com

You Might Also Like