Matthew Henry's Leeches

Bob Thiel has responded to criticism of his assertion that John (the disciple) canonized the New Testament. In a long posting that seems to lack any awareness of contemporary scholarship Bob quotes Matthew Henry's commentary in support.

Bob seems to think that this is a credible authority. Well, it may have been in the early 1700s (Matthew Henry died in 1714. His commentary first appeared in 1706.) Nearly all of Bob's citations come from books that predate the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first. To pontificate on the canon without bothering to get up to speed with modern studies is a lot like trying to treat high blood pressure with leeches.

The canon question is one of the "trunk of the tree" issues for understanding not only what the Bible is, but just as importantly what it isn't. Bob launches into rampant fantasy when he tries to proof-text his position by citing a verse in Isaiah:

The Old Testament Book of Isaiah prophesied that the LORD’s disciples would bind up and seal the Bible. Notice the following:

Bind up the testimony, Seal the law among my disciples (Isaiah 8:16).

To suggest that this has anything to do with the New Testament comes close to willful stupidity. On this dubious basis Bob proceeds to build his house of cards.

Bob finishes with a quote from Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Well, not actually Bauer himself, but a comment from James Moffatt (the guy who translated the Bible in the 1930s) which appears in an appendix to that book. I'd recommend Bob actually read the full book (which I suspect he hasn't - want to borrow my copy Bob?) rather than cherry-picking quotes. Bauer's book is one of the truly ground-breaking studies in early church history, and while Moffatt may have had reservations about his thesis, he would surely have laughed out loud at the rigidly fundamentalist twist Bob gives to his words.

Again, Harry Gamble's book is one Bob should sit down with. Also highly recommended is Lee McDonald's The Formation of Christian Biblical Canon. McDonald isn't a wicked liberal or agnostic, but a Baptist pastor and a professor at Fuller. In the meantime, it might be wise to retire Matthew Henry's three hundred year-old commentary and update to Eerdmans. Realistically though, I can't see Bob doing any of the above.

Did John finalize the New Testament canon?

Not a chance.

Feast Flick

A few days back the UCG Feast video was posted here, today it's LCG's turn. Below you can view the first ten minutes. After a blah blah introduction by Richard Ames there's a notable change of pace - the sort of thing you'd expect from the Mormon church as they relate the myth of Kobol with a straight face. There's a cheesy voice-over as planet Earth hoves into view, the church eras get ticked off until, ta-dah, Herb dies and the LCG triumphantly succeeds it... or should that be secedes from it?

Despite the bells and whistles this is reminiscent of Scientology on a budget.

The whole series - for those with far too much time on their hands and iron-clad constitutions - is online over at the Shadows of WCG blog.

Thiel Misapplies Revelation verses

The canon question is one that has fascinated me for a very long time. How did our Bible come to be? LCG's unofficial expert on such things, Bob Thiel, PhD., recorded this jaw-dropping statement on his blog today:

... it was the Apostle John who God used to fix the New Testament canon

I was momentarily caught off guard by this assertion. Gazooks, how could I have missed something as important as that! Bob provides a link to a monograph on this subject by his own good-self. Eager to learn at the feet of one of LCG's finest scholars I immediately clicked across to find this:

The Bible also shows that disciple John finalized the Bible through his writing of the Book of Revelation,

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

Uh, Bob, there's a problem here - well, several actually, but let's focus on the most obvious. It concerns the term "this book." Simply put, there was no "book" of the New Testament at this stage, and it's doubtful the technology even existed at the time to create a codex big enough to hold all the material between two covers that later constituted the New Testament.

"This book" clearly means Revelation, nothing more, i.e. "the book of this prophecy." I invite Bob to check any credible one-volume commentary - Eerdmans, Oxford, HarperCollins, New Jerome etc. (no, Adam Clarke doesn't count!) Closing the canon? That isn't what it means. "John" is concerned about others who might alter his words, not people who might write further Christian literature.

The verses Bob cites have an eerie parallel in the non-canonical (and much earlier) book of 1 Enoch:

And now I know this mystery, that sinners will alter and copy the words of truth, and pervert many and lie and invent great fabrications, and write books in their own names.
Would that they would write all my words in truth, and neither remove nor alter these words, but write in truth all that I testify to them (1 Enoch 104:10-11).

Perceptive fellow, Enoch. You could almost imagine the author of Revelation thinking about how he could avoid the charge of "great fabrications," and then launching a preemptive strike by out-Enoching Enoch... but I suppose that's too cynical by far...

Bob might like to read Harry Gamble's excellent little volume called The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning before indulging in future flights of fancy on this whole subject of the canon. It's hard to imagine a better introduction to the issues, and he could save himself a lot of potential embarrassment.

In any event, Bob's proof text disappears in a puff of smoke.

Moron of the Week

And this prestigious award goes to Alton "Don" Billingsley for these brain-dead comments on his sect's website.

The choice of Senator Obama to become the new president by the American people (the tribe of Manasseh of Israel) was contrary to what the LORD had commanded of those who were to be established as kings (or leaders) over the House of Israel:

“You shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren, you shall set as a king over you; you may NOT SET A FOREIGNER over you, who is NOT your brother (of the Israelites race)” (Deuteronomy 17:15).

The choice of Senator Obama by the American people (the tribe of Manasseh) is the rejection of a command from the LORD given long ago to Israel, as the chosen nation of God that had no time limits.

What a complete plonker.

In case Don wasn't aware...

Obama is a United States citizen, every bit as much as he is. Would Don really want to create a second-class category of citizens - those who couldn't prove their "Israelite" pedigree? (I guess the answer to that is "yes.") Could Don prove his lineage?

Obama has as many Caucasian genes (via his mother) as African. Does Don realize that?

The presidency of the US is not the same thing as monarchy. Has Don studied any history - American or otherwise? Did he ever take civics classes?

That's without arguing over the claim that America is Manasseh, which is patently absurd.

Statements like Billingsley's are reminiscent of Nazi race doctrine. In the 1930s views like these were lethal. Today, thank God, they're just plain pathetic.

Weinland's End Time Dance

The Two Witnesses continue to fox-trot through the prophetic daisies, seemingly oblivious to the failure of previous prognostications.

The Two Witnesses are, of course, Ron and Laura Weinland.

The Gruesome Twosome had their dates all worked out twelve months ago. The 1335 days began on February 2nd, when the 144,000 were sealed. On March 18 the Seventh Seal was opened, and the 1290 days kicked in. Then on April 17 we reached the 1260 days, the First Trumpet sounded and the Great Tribulation began - the three and a half year countdown till the return of Jesus Christ.

Now Ron is whistling a different tune, and it ain't Dixie.

Ron has moved the dates up. The 1335 days began on September 30, the Seventh Seal will be opened on November 14 (not long to wait for that one), and the Trib is scheduled for December 14. For more detail see Weinland Watch.

How does Ron explain the volte-face?

Since things did not happen in the original time frame that was given because God had not given this 50th Truth, those who were responding solely out of fear and desire for self-preservation are no longer seeking God’s help. Those who are skeptics, critics and mockers have only grown bolder in their deceived and misguided confidence…

Deceived and misguided confidence? That's rich coming from the guy who said he'd stand by his inane ravings, and walk away from his ministry if proved wrong. Version II? Is there anyone actually stupid enough to swallow this stuff?

There once was a prophet named Ron,
Who sought to inspire a great throng.
"Just give me your tithes,
It'll save all your lives,
Or you'll die when the Trib comes along."
What will Ron and Laura do when November 14 arrives, and a month later the Tribulation turns into another no-show? Third time lucky?

Meantime why not compose your own limerick in tribute to Ron's tenacity (no objectionable vocabulary please.)

75 years Through Rose Tinted Lenses

2008 marked the 75th anniversary of the distinctive Feast of Tabernacles tradition which began with a handful of observers in Belknap Springs, Oregon. The United Church of God marked the milestone this year with a 1 hour, 6 minute video, which you can view below. If a full hour sounds a bit daunting, try the first 40 minutes, which is a nostalgic backward glance with some great photographs of years gone by and reminisces by old timers. There is little there to reflect the painful side of that history - the focus is on positive memories - but even so many people may find it fascinating in parts. I had no idea that radio station KORE, for example, is still there, churning out religious broadcasts decades after Herbert W. Armstrong began his radio ministry there.

The video is professionally produced, and quite a trip into the history - admittedly the idealized, airbrushed history - of the movement Herbert Armstrong launched.

Dan, the serpent's trail

One of the fun things about BI (that's British Israelism for the uninitiated) is the name game - the attempt to find significance in names of people and places that "prove" the theory. The classic example lies in all those places in Europe which can be tortuously linked to the tribe of Dan because - wait for it - they have the letters d and n cohabiting in suspicious proximity.

A peculiar variation championed (or was that chumpioned) by the late Gerald Waterhouse had particular significance attached to family names. Armstrong - he of the strong arm. God, Waterhouse famously observed, did not call someone named Peabody to be His apostle.

Rabid Armstrongists continue this hallowed tradition. Robert on his blog states that the name Obama means "Son of Prophecy" in Hebrew. No doubt this gem will be shared widely as many conservative brethren try to make sense of the election of the first black president - and far beyond the pocket universe of COGdom wherever literally-inclined Bible believers gather. But consider these comments from an AW reader:

Name: obama
Origin: African Etymology
Meaning (no case): bending, leaning ...
The name Obama is said to be a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya. [WikiName]

Hebrew has nothing to do with anything unless one is Hebrew. And then it has nothing to do with anything for the Hebrew person... Waterhouse was sent to water the House of God, i.e. the church. More like pee on it... or perhaps hose it down and put out the fires of critical thinking. Tkach was a weaver. Weaving schemes and themes that signified nothing. Armstrong had a strong arm as in strong arming the brethren...

Rod is the Rod of Iron we all just know will force the love of God, truth and Church into people, or else. Weinland means "he who whines" because they both need to be in the witness protection program.

Flurry rhymes with slurry as in slurred speech. Graham means bland cracker designed to lessen sexual urges. Hinn means "he who hinders." Bush means "he who hears the voice of God through vegetation." Amen

Amen indeed!

Congratulations America

Democracy: thank God for it.

Can Anyone Make Sense Of This?

I read theological tomes regularly, some because I have to if I want to chip away at a degree, some (and I suppose this marks me as a truly sad and cloistered soul) because I actually find them fascinating.

But can anyone make sense of this?

Bruce Hales and Joe Tkach

Bruce and Joe: two blokes with a lot in common.

Bruce is the "Elect Vessel" of the Exclusive Brethren. Joe is Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God.

Neither man was elected to his respective office.

Both men inherited the position from their deceased dad.

Both men have brought in reforms during their administration.

Both men have their job for life, or at least as long as they want it.

Both men reportedly surround themselves with suck-ups.

Of course there are huge differences as well. Differences of style, heritage and dogma. Current WCG members undoubtedly have the better deal of the two in terms of freedom of thought and action. But when it comes to the joys of hierarchical leadership, both leaders are singing out of the same hymn book: Papa knows best.

The Exclusive Brethren are the spiritual descendants of the mad Irish evangelist John Nelson Darby, the man who invented the "rapture" doctrine. They're kith and kin with the Open Brethren (also called Christian Brethren), a larger, more moderate and congregationalist movement. The British scholar F.F. Bruce was a member of the Open Brethren. There's little doubt which of these Plymouth Brethren factions is the healthier and more balanced.

So why does Joe continue to champion a toxic, sectarian form of church governance - the exclusive rather than the open option?

Self interest? Stupidity? Sheer bloody-mindedness?

Of course Joe is more than capable of justifying his sinecure, but is he convincing anyone? Why live in a medieval fiefdom when you can attend a church where you and your family can play a meaningful role? Why would you sell your kids into second-class citizenship in a church that will permit them no say in the direction that church will take over the course of their lifetimes?

We understand why the followers of Meredith, Flurry and Pack throw away their independence, but Tkach claims to be something different, something better and more enlightened. He talks the talk, but talk is cheap. And what about the spineless functionaries who are complicit in what Joe misleadingly calls "episcopal" government? How does Mike Feazell justify the continued disenfranchisement of the brethren (with a small "B").

WCG and the Exclusive Brethren, Tkach and Hales. Perhaps not so very different.

For a perspective on the Exclusive Brethren that in many ways parallels that of ex-WCG members, take a look at http://peebs.net/