This section of the book is an example of theodicy. The Encarta World English Dictionary (1999) defines theodicy as:
argument in defense of God’s goodness despite the existence of evil.
“Theodicy” derives from the French Théodicée, the title of a book by Gottfried Liebnitz. Literally, “theodicy” is “justice of the gods.” The French title depends upon two Greek words. Theo means “god” and dikē means “justice.”
I explain the etymology of “theodicy” because (a) I wish to be thorough, and (b) the sound of the word is ironic. I tread carefully in the realm of theodicy, for one can easily cross the line and enter the territory or idiocy, at best. At worst, one imagines that God is a moral monster and persuades oneself that piety requires one to affirm what one would otherwise condemn as indefensible within a split second.
The last point owes much a comment from Jennifer Wright Knust in an interview on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Radio regarding her book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire (2011). I recall that this comment, from an interview for a segment of the Tapestry program, refers to some of Dr. Knust’s students, whom she described as feeling obligated to affirm theological positions they would otherwise find repugnant. Yet their Biblical interpretation and theology of the authority of scripture compel them to defend that which they would otherwise condemn.
With that preface in mind, we turn to the theodicy of Ben Sira. It is a theodicy of mixed quality. How can one argue against good being the opposite of evil (33:14)? And how can one refute the caution against spiritual indolence and arrogance (32:18)? Yet 33:1 is unduly optimistic:
No evil will befall the man who fears the Lord,
but in trial he will deliver him again and again.
—Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)
It is not necessarily so. Do I need to name Jesus or any martyr for God? James L. Crenshaw writes:
The assertion of 33:1 flies in the face of reality, although many sages subscribed to this simplistic theology.
—The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 5 (1997), 787
Reality is frequently messy. A belief in a good God who micromanages an orderly and just universe may provide spiritual comfort. Yet reality refutes that simplistic theology. I write as an honest monotheist. I cannot let YHWH off the hook by blaming another deity for allowing everything from wars to the Holocaust to happen.
The classic Judeo-Christian approach to theodicy is to pair human free will and God’s providence. This method has much merit. In the Enuma Elish, the gods created humans to be servants. Yet in the rewritten Jewish mythology contained in Genesis 1, we read the profound truth that people bear the image of God. In other words, we encounter God in each other. We are lesser than God yet we have in inherent, elevated status. Furthermore, “yes” has meaning only when “no” is an option. The Bible contains many stories of people rebelling against God–practicing their option to say, “no.”
Yet this line of reasoning fails to answer some questions in a satisfactory manner. If we are to be spiritually and theologically honest, we must venture into uncomfortable territory. We must admit that God–the sole deity–remains on the hook. We must admit that many people have legitimate complaints against God. We may have legitimate reasons to complain against God. Fortunately, kvetching at God is a fine Jewish tradition and part of the inheritance of Christianity. Do we dare to kvetch at God?
If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them!
I also propose that, despite agreeing with the argument in the paragraph which immediately precedes the reference to St. Teresa of Ávila, I reject the assumption that God needs a human defense. Why would God require mortal beings to burnish the divine reputation?
I know an Episcopal priest who has a wonderful way of responding to people who tell him that they do not believe in God. He asks them to describe the God in whom they do not believe. Father Dann turns this scenario into an opportunity to engage with these individuals. Invariably, they describe God as a figure in whom the priest does not believe either.
I am a practicing Christian. Yet, when I hear how many of my co-religionists describe the God of their faith, I do not recognize the God of my faith.
Whenever one attempts a theodicy, one will do well to ask whether one’s God-concept is worth defending. One should also ask oneself if one presumes to know more than one does. Heresy originates with pious intentions, and one may commit heresy while engaging in theodicy.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF SAINT PAPHNUTIUS THE GREAT, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF UPPER THEBAID
THE FEAST OF ANNE HOULDITCH SHEPHERD, ANGLICAN NOVELIST AND HYMN WRITER
THE FEAST OF SAINT JEAN-GABRIEL PERBOYRE, FRENCH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, MISSIONARY, AND MARTYR IN CHINA, 1840
THE FEAST OF JOHN STAINER AND WALTER GALPIN ALCOCK, ANGLICAN CHURCH ORGANISTS AND COMPOSERS
THE FEAST OF SAINT PATIENS OF LYONS, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP
Ben Sira, true to his Jewish theological tradition, understands God as having created order from chaos in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Chaos is an enemy of gods in ancient Near Eastern mythology. More than one ancient myth depicts a deity as fighting then defeating chaos and/or an agent of it. In the Hebrew Bible–Psalms and Job, especially–YHWH vanquishes all the enemies those gods defeated. These passages which emphasize divine order in nature and YHWH’s victory over the foes of Marduk or whichever deity it was in a given myth teach us of the sovereignty and universality of God.
The focus on collective righteousness and sinfulness is thoroughly Jewish and Biblical. Yet it is alien to much of the population of my culture, fixated on rugged individualism. Of course, as we have read, Ben Sira did not ignore individual moral responsibility before God either. Yet, as we have seen, the author contextualized the individual aspect within the communal aspect. We of contemporary times would do well to follow this pattern, in mutuality.
We also read of the balance of divine judgment and mercy (17:19f). God punishes sins–in this life only, according to Ben Sira, who did not believe in an afterlife. God also forgives sins and welcomes penitence and penitents, we read.
Turn to the Lord and forsake your sins;
pray in his presence and lessen offenses.
Return to the Most High and turn away from iniquity,
and hate abominations intensely.
Know the justice and the judgments of God,
and stood firm the lot that is set before you,
in prayer to God, the Almighty.
–Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 17:25-26, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Version (2002)
“You” and “your” are singular in these verses. I know; I checked two French translations–La Bible de Jérusalem (1999) and La Bible en français courant (1996).
God is powerful and supreme. God surpasses human beings–“dust and ashes” (17:32b). And tracing the wonders of the Lord is impossible. God continues forever, but people die. Their lifespans–even the relatively long ones–are long. And God is more merciful than people.
The compassion of man is for his neighbor,
but the comparison of the Lord is for all living beings.
He rebukes and trains and teaches them,
and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock.
He has compassion on those who accept his discipline
and who are eager for his judgments.
–18:13-14, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)
Two words stand out in my mind. The first word is “rebuke.” In the Hebrew Bible, only YHWH has the authority to rebuke someone else. This is a point which Foster R. McCurley, Jr., makes in Ancient Myths and Biblical Faith: Scriptural Transformations (1983; reprint, 2007), 46. People in the Hebrew Bible may rebuke others, but they lack the authority to do so. Jude 9 reinforces this point in an allusion to the Assumption of Moses; even the archangel Michael did not presume to rebuke Satan. No, Michael said:
May the Lord rebuke you!
—The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)
The Synoptic Gospels mention Jesus rebuking demons and unclean spirits, mostly–and occasionally, wind, a fever, and people. Jesus rebukes twelve times in the Synoptic Gospels:
Matthew 8:26; 17:18;
Mark 1:25; 4:39; 8:33; 9:25;
Luke 4:35, 39; 4:41; 8:24; 9:42, 55.
Jesus, of course, had the divine authority to rebuke.
Lest I pick Biblical cherries and report incompletely, I point out the following examples from the New Testament:
St. Simon Peter rebuked Jesus in Matthew 16:22 and Mark 8:32. One can argue that the apostle did what he lacked the authority to do, though.
Luke 17:3 quotes Jesus as authorizing the rebuking of a sinner, to inspire repentance.
When we turn to epistles which bear the name of St. Paul the Apostle yet postdate him, we find three examples. We read counsel to rebuke those who persist in sin (1 Timothy 5:20). 2 Timothy 4:2 lists rebuking as a duty, alongside tasks including preaching, exhorting and teaching patiently. Titus 1:13 orders St. Titus to rebuke Cretans–“liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”–“that they may be sound in the faith.”
Luke 3:19 tells us that St. John the Baptist had rebuked Herod Antipas “because of Herodias.”
Luke 23:40 tells us that the penitent insurrectionist–St. Dismas, according to tradition–rebuke of the impenitent rebel–Gestus, according to tradition–who was mocking Jesus.
2 Peter 2:16, using the divine passive voice, tells us that God rebuked Balaam in Numbers 22:21-40.
So, according to the New Testament, people may legitimately rebuke each other sometimes. The severity of rebuking someone–as opposed to merely telling someone off–is vital to remember when considering this matter. People know partially, but God knows fully.
The second word is “discipline.” Discipline is not abuse. No, the purpose of discipline is to correct behavior. Divine discipline is a recurring theme in Hebrew wisdom literature. For example, we read in Wisdom of Solomon 3:5 that God disciplines the righteous. (The context in the Wisdom of Solomon is persecution–also present in the background of the Hebrew and Greek versions of Ecclesiasticus/Sirach.) Suffering–which God has not caused–becomes a method of spiritual discipline.
That may seem odd. Yet it makes sense to me. Suffering has improved my spiritual life and transformed me for the better. The suffering was not the work of God, but the positive effects of the suffering were the work of God. Perhaps you, O reader, can identify examples of this principle in your life or in the life of someone you know or have known. I have found that the light of God seems to shine brighter the darker one’s circumstances become.
Another point regarding discipline is that a loving parent or guardian disciplines a child. The lack of discipline does that child–or anyone else–no favors. Discipline is necessary for the individual and collective good.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
AUGUST 22, 2023 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF JACK LAYTON, CANADIAN ACTIVIST AND FEDERAL LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
THE FEAST OF JOHN DAVID CHAMBERS, ANGLICAN HYMN WRITER AND TRANSLATOR
THE FEAST OF SAINTS HRYHORII KHOMYSHYN, SYMEON LUKACH, AND IVAN SLEZYUK, UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND MARTYRS, 1947, 1964, AND 1973
THE FEAST OF SAINTS JOHN KEMBLE AND JOHN WALL, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND MARTYRS, 1679
THE FEAST OF SAINTS THOMAS PERRY, RICHARD KIRKMAN, AND WILLIAM LACEY, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC MARTYRS, 1572 AND 1582
Ben Sira combined thoughts from the Book of Proverbs with the Torah in a way the authors of Proverbs did not.
In the treasures of wisdom are wise sayings,
but godliness is an abomination to the sinner.
If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments,
and the Lord will supply it to you.
For the fear of the Lord is wisdom and instruction,
and he delights in fidelity and meekness.
–1:25-27, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)
The canon of scriptures is broad and generous enough to include conflicting opinions. This fact is one reason I reject both Biblical inerrancy and infallibility. History and science are two other reasons. I, as an Episcopalian, value scripture, tradition, and reason to matters of faith and theology.
Ben Sira’s cosmology was typical for his context. The literal reading of Genesis 1:1-2:4a requires one to understand the Earth as a disc with a dome above it, and with water below the disc and above the dome. This cosmology, imported from ancient residents of Mesopotamia, finds poetic expression in the first few verses of chapter 1.
Then we read of divine wisdom as a creation (verse 9) and a gift of God. The link between this concept and the presentation of Jesus as the Logos of God (John 1) is clear, with some theological changes on the road to John 1. But this is neither the time nor the place to rehash the Arian controversy of the 300s C.E.
Verse 32 distinguishes between righteous anger and unrighteous anger. There is no justification for unjust anger, we read; it leads to the angry person’s ruin. This is impossible to refute convincingly. I recall watching a true crime program years ago and learning that the duration of the average violent crime is three seconds. What happens during those three seconds damages, wrecks, and often claims lives. Beyond violent crime, grudges may have no effect on their targets, but they harm those who harbor and nurture them.
On the other hand, not becoming angry can indicate a grave moral failing. If systemic economic and other forms of social injustice do not anger someone, that person has a faulty moral conscience. People of good conscience may disagree about how best to correct such injustice, but they proceed from solid moral ground. Certain public figures on the far right describe themselves as champions of liberty yet praise Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, or minimize the horror of chattel slavery. If one can read those remarks and watch those videos yet not feel moral disgust, one is morally faulty.
Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 1, like the Book of Proverbs, is excessively optimistic (verse 12, for example). Given that I have already written about excessive, unrealistic optimism recently at this weblog, I choose not to repeat myself on this point in this post.
Despite that excessive and unrealistic optimism, much of chapter 1 does not require faith to accept. Faith is unnecessary when abundant evidence exists. One example follows:
Do not be a hypocrite before others,
over your lips keep watch.
–Verse 29, The New American Bible–Revised Edition (2011)
This is timeless advice. One may identify examples from the past and present, wherever or whenever one lives. Hypocrisy offends; it violates trust. Hypocrisy differs from changing one’s mind after examining and analyzing evidence or learning from experience. Hypocrisy is disingenuous. Furthermore, loose lips sink far more than ships; they frequently torpedo the hypocrite’s reputation and may provide incriminating evidence of an offense. How many people are in prison partially because of damning evidence they voluntarily posted on social media outlets?
According to the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship (ILCW) Lectionary (1973), as contained in the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978) and Lutheran Worship (1982)
For me to write about wives may seem or be ironic, for I have never married. I have, however, had a girlfriend, whom I loved dearly and struggled to keep alive for a decade, until her suicide. So, some of the material for this Sunday rings true for me in tangible ways.
Richard Elliott Friedman, in his Commentary on the Torah (2001), refers to Eve not as a helper for Adam but as
a strength corresponding to him.
Friedman notes that the Hebrew root ezer can mean both “helper” and “strength.” Then he continues to justify his translation choice by citing Genesis 1 (both males and females bear the image of God) and Genesis 2 (males and females are corresponding strengths).
Psalm 128 is not palatable to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, such as mine:
Your wife is like a fruitful vine
in the recesses of your house,
your children like young olive trees
around your table.
Look, it is thus
that the man is blessed who fears the LORD.
–Verses 3-4, Robert Alter
In Psalm 128, a pious wife stays home and bears and raises children.
The teachings of Jesus about marriage, divorce, remarriage, and children came in a cultural context. Some wealthy people used divorce and remarriage to increase their wealth and land holdings at the expense of others. And women and children were vulnerable members of their patriarchal society. Jesus affirmed the value and dignity of women, children, and the home.
Jesus also affirmed human dignity via the Incarnation:
It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people.
–Hebrews 2:16, The New Jerusalem Bible
“Expiate” is not a household word. It means:
An atoning sacrifice which obliterates sin from God’s sight and so restores to holiness and the divine favor.
–Raymond Abba, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, E-J (1962), 200
Such love requires of us who benefit from us who benefit from it that we love God. This faithful response manifests in how we treat each other.
So, how do we treat each other? Do we habitually affirm the dignity of people, especially those who differ from us? How do we think about matters of the equality of races, genders, et cetera? Do we recognize the image of God in all people? If so, how does that affect our attitudes and actions toward them? Or do we persist in harboring hateful prejudices, acting on them, and perhaps citing religion as a justification?
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
APRIL 27, 2024 COMMON ERA
THE NINETEENTH DAY OF EASTER
THE FEAST OF GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY; AND HIS SON, WILLIAM CROSWELL DOANE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ALBANY; HYMN WRITERS
THE FEAST OF SAINTS ANTONY AND THEODOSIUS OF KIEV, FOUNDERS OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX MONASTICISM; AND SAINT STEPHEN OF KIEV, RUSSIAN ORTHODOX ABBOT AND BISHOP
THE FEAST OF CHRISTINA ROSSETTI, POET AND RELIGIOUS WRITER
THE FEAST OF SAINTS REMACLUS OF MAASTRICHT, THEODORE OF MAASTRICHT, LAMBERT OF MAASTRICHT, HUBERT OF MAASTRICHT AND LIEGE, AND FLORIBERT OF MAASTRICT, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS; SAINT LANDRADA OF MUNSTERBILSEN, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBESS; AND SAINTS OTGER OF UTRECHT, PLECHELM OF GUELDERLAND, AND WIRO, ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES
THE FEAST OF SAINT ZITA OF TUSCANY, WORKER OF CHARITY
As I keep writing at this and other weblogs, “fear of God” is an unfortunate expression. TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures captures the meaning:
Yours is the power to forgive
so that you may be held in awe.
We all have learned childhood lessons we may question or renounce later in life. The more I mature in faith, the more I question childhood assumptions regarding theology. I have not, for a long time, regarded entrance to Heaven as depending upon passing a divine canonical examination. If it did, theological orthodoxy would constitute a saving work, and salvation would not be by grace. The most recent development in my thinking regarding Hell is approaching the concept as something nearer to Purgatory–a temporary reality and state of being. The Harrowing of Hell (1 Peter 4:6) influences me, as it has for years. The reasoning is: If Jesus did this once, he can do it again.
A more recent influence is Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, the author of Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (2009), the translator of a “ruthlessly literal” translation of the New Testament (2017), the author of That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (2019), and the author of Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief (2022). My copy That All Shall Be Saved contains marginalia in which I critique arguments and pieces thereof. One of Hart’s arguments proceeds from creation ex nihilo, a proposition I reject in favor of the Jewish doctrine of the creation of order from chaos (Genesis 1). So, that particular argument does not hold water with me. If x, then y. If x is a faulty proposition, that particular argument collapses upon itself. Nevertheless, Hart provides much food for thought, makes many cogent points, and offers a fine lesson in the history of theology, especially from the first five centuries of Christianity.
Hellfire-and-damnation preachers and teachers depict God as one who chomps at the bit to condemn people for their sins. Fear–not awe, but fear–is a powerful force for controlling behavior and changing it. Yet fear is not the approach in Psalm 130. No, hesed–steadfast love–is the approach in Psalm 130. And the focus in Psalm 130 is simultaneously individual and collective.
So is the focus in Psalm 131. In Psalm 131, God is like a mother and the psalmist is like an infant. That is a beautiful and potent image.
Divine judgment and mercy exist in balance. A good parent loves a child. Love includes discipline when necessary. Yet discipline is not abuse. God, as some of the faithful describe the deity, is an abusive and tyrannical figure. Any “orthodoxy” which requires thinking of God in those terms is a heresy. On the other end of the spectrum, any theology which gives short shrift to the judgment side of divine judgment and mercy is heretical, too. I do not pretend to know what the balance of divine judgment and mercy is, but my theology favors mercy more often than judgment.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
FEBRUARY 18, 2023 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF SAINTS COLMAN OF LINDISFARNE, AGILBERT, AND WILFRID, BISHOPS
THE FEAST OF SAINTS BARBASYMAS, SADOTH OF SELEUCIA, AND THEIR COMPANIONS, MARTYRS, 342
THE FEAST OF EDWARD SHIPPEN BARNES, U.S. PRESBYTERIAN ORGANIST, COMPOSER, AND WRITER
THE FEAST OF BLESSED GUIDO DI PIETRO, A.K.A. FRA ANGELICO, ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK AND ARTIST
THE FEAST OF JAMES DRUMMOND BURNS, SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER, HYMN WRITER, AND HYMN TRANSLATOR
THE FEAST OF JOHANNES DANIEL FALK, GERMAN POET, HYMN WRITER, AND SOCIAL WORKER
Psalm 26 bears striking similarities to Psalms 1 and 25. The placement of this tex as Psalm 26 makes sense as a follow-up to Psalm 25. However, Psalm 26 is a purely individual lament.
The psalmist is perplexed. He had assumed, as Job’s alleged friends did, that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. Yet the psalmist’s situation belies or seems to belie that theological position. Whether he requests a divine judgment or divine vindication depends on the interpreter/translator. Mitchell J. Dahood asserts that no vindication was necessary, for the psalmist, assured of his integrity, sought divine recognition of it. Robert Alter follows Dahood’s position. Yet TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures renders the germane verb as “vindicate,” as in, to grant the reward for righteousness.
Despite the Reformed insistence that human beings are damnable creatures by our corrupted nature, the Book of Psalms holds a higher opinion of people. We are a little less than divine–or as a familiar translation of Psalm 8 says,
a little lower than the angels.
This position is consistent with the image of God (Genesis 1:27). So, the Jewish and Roman Catholic assertions of human merit hold theological water.
We mere mortals still know far less than God does. Our “received wisdom” and inherited theological orthodoxy do not always match our circumstances. Will reality override a theory, or will we double-down in ideology? That is a matter we have the power decide for ourselves.
I write this post in politically perilous times. A vocal element of the body politic in the United States of America–my homeland–is openly authoritarian and fascistic in its inclination. Some elected members of the United States Congress support Russia in its war against the people of Ukraine and with that the insurrection of January 6, 2021, had succeeded. They say so openly. Antisemitism is more commonplace and edging back into the political mainstream. So is its equally vile cousin, Christian Nationalism, laced with racism.
Words matter in the Bible. Mythology tells us that God spoke the created order into existence (Genesis 1). The Law of Moses condemns bearing false witness. The penalty for perjury in the Law of Moses is to suffer the same fate one would have had the innocent person suffer. Psalm 12 condemns those with slippery and slick language–those with pernicious speech and flattering words. The imagery of cutting off lips and cutting off tongues is vivid in Psalm 12. This may disturb a reader, but, in context, those lips and tongues form words that serve as a weapon or an army for the wicked.
Poetry is poetry, of course. I oppose maiming anyone, especially in the name of God. Neither does this text favor maiming any person. Psalm 12 uses shocking language to attract attention. Shocking and sometimes inexact language is a rhetorical tool commonplace in the prophetic books and the Book of Psalms.
Words matter. Just as God, mythologically, spoke creation into existence, our words–in oral and written forms–help to shape our circumstances and those of others. This is why libel and slander are offenses that lead to court cases. This is why language that provokes violence falls outside the bounds of constitutional protection. This why if I were to engage in speech that led to someone’s needless injury or death, I would be criminally liable. I am a nice person who tries to keep faith with objective reality and live peaceably with others individuals in community, fortunately.
We ought to interpret Psalm 12 in the context of mutuality, a virtue hardwired into the Old and New Testaments. We human beings, who depend entirely upon God, depend upon each other, too. We are interdependent. We have responsibilities to and for each other. So, slick, slippery, and pernicious speech endangers the common good. Those who engage in such speech may be self-serving, but they also endanger themselves. The common good is their good, also.
May your words, O reader, build up the common good. And may you oppose those whose words endanger the common good. The love of God and your neighbors compels such attitudes and actions.
Psalms, 8, 19, and 104 share the theme of God in creation. God, who provides for the creatures, has made human beings little lower than the elohim, literally. And divine glory permeates the created order. Human beings have received the responsibility of exercising stewardship of nature.
We have failed, obviously. We have mistaken stewardship for ownership and the license for pollution and exploitation, usually in the name of short-term profits.
God delights in nature. Psalm 104 speaks of
Leviathan that you formed to sport in it.
We should also delight in nature.
The created order depends entirely on God. Human beings, as part of the created order, depend entirely upon God. Many of us labor under the delusion of rugged independence, though. Biblically, this is the essence of wickedness. When we imagine that we must and can rely on ourselves, the ends may seem to justify the means.
Elohim is an interesting word. It can mean “God” or “gods.” Elohim is plural. Yet, in Hebrew, it usually functions as singular. Elohim is a linguistic fossil of Hebrew polytheism. And, in Psalm 8, many translators render elohim as “the angels.” TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures translates elohim as “divine” in Psalm 8. Mitchell J. Dahood’s translation is literal; people are
a little lower than the gods.
When we recall Genesis 1, we may remember that people bear the image of God. Tselem is literally “idol,” not “image.” In other words, we meet God in human beings. We may also remember that God had pronounced human beings “very good” and other creations “good.” So, we are little less than divine.
The myth of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) condemns the collective arrogance that results from forgetting our place–higher than other animals and lower that God. We may vainly imagine ourselves to be all that and a bag of potato chips. Yet God, poetically, still has to come down and squint to see the projects of which we are so proud. Hubris goes before the fall. And, historically, the myth is a way of dividing the Mesopotamian empires that had menaced Israel and Judah.
When we accept that we all stand together before God, we can better treasure nature and each other. May we do so. May we transform our planet and our societies for the better.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
DECEMBER 15, 2022 COMMON ERA
THE NINETEENTH DAY OF ADVENT, YEAR A
THE FEAST OF THOMAS BENSON POLLOCK, ANGLICAN PRIEST AND HYMN WRITER
THE FEAST OF FRED D. GEALY, U.S. METHODIST MINISTER, MISSIONARY, MUSICIAN, AND BIBLICAL SCHOLAR
THE FEAST OF HENRY FOTHERGILL CHORLEY, ENGLISH NOVELIST, PLAYWRIGHT, AND LITERARY AND MUSIC CRITIC
THE FEAST OF JOHN HORDEN, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF MOOSENEE
THE FEAST OF RALPH WARDLAW, SCOTTISH CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER, HYMN WRITER, AND LITURGIST
THE FEAST OF ROBERT MCDONALD, ANGLICAN PRIEST AND MISSIONARY
According to the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship (ILCW) Lectionary (1973), as contained in the Lutheran Book of Worship (1978) and Lutheran Worship (1982)
One may use the word “mystery” in at least two ways. One may think of a situation in which gathering more information will eliminate confusion and enable arriving at a firm answer. The Holy Trinity is a mystery, but not in that way. Even if we mere mortals had all the information about the nature of God, we could not understand it. We can barely grasp what we do know, and what we know raises more questions than it resolves. So be it. The second meaning of “mystery” is an ancient definition: One can know something only by living into it. One can know God by faith, for example.
The Feast of the Holy Trinity is the only Christian feast of a doctrine. It is more than that, though. Lutheran minister and liturgist Philip H. Pfatteicher recommends thinking of Trinity Sunday as:
…the celebration of the richness of the being of God and the occasion of a thankful review of the now completed mystery of salvation, which is the work of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
—Commentary on theLutheran Book of Worship: Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context (1990), 301
A doctrine–especially the Holy Trinity–can seem abstract. Some people (including moi) like abstractions. However, abstractions leave others cold and spiritually unmoved. Salvation is not abstract, however; it is tangible. And how it works is a mystery in at least the second meaning of the word.
Happy Trinity Sunday!
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
APRIL 27, 2022 COMMON ERA
THE FEAST OF GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF NEW JERSEY; AND HIS SON, WILLIAM CROSWELL DOANE, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF ALBANY; HYMN WRITERS
THE FEAST OF SAINTS ANTONY AND THEODOSIUS OF KIEV, FOUNDERS OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX MONASTICISM; SAINT BARLAAM OF KIEV, RUSSIAN ORTHODOX ABBOT; AND SAINT STEPHEN OF KIEV, RUSSIAN ORTHODOX ABBOT AND BISHOP
THE FEAST OF CHRISTINA ROSSETTI, POET AND RELIGIOUS WRITER
THE FEAST OF SAINTS REMACLUS OF MAASTRICHT, THEODORE OF MAASTRICHT, LAMBERT OF MAASTRICHT, HUBERT OF MAASTRICHT AND LIEGE, AND FLORIBERT OF LIEGE, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS; SAINT LANDRADA OF MUNSTERBILSEN, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBESS; AND SAINTS OTGER OF UTRECHT, PLECHELM OF GUELDERLAND, AND WIRO, ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES
THE FEAST OF SAINT ZITA OF TUSCANY, WORKER OF CHARITY
The events of Luke 8:22-56 occur back-to-back in that Gospel’s chronology. The three stories demonstrate Jesus’s power over nature, demons, illness, and death.
In ancient Near Eastern mythology, the deep represented chaos. In Jewish theology, God created order from chaos in Genesis 1. In Revelation 21:1, the heaven and the new earth had no sea.
However one interprets Luke 8:22-25, know, O reader, that St. Luke wanted people to know that Jesus was the master over storms and that the Twelve did not yet understand who Jesus really was. The final detail, read in the context of Luke 8:19-21, does not flatter them.
Yet the Gerasene “demoniac” understood who Jesus really was.
I do not pretend to know what, in modern diagnostic categories, afflicted that Gerasene “demoniac.” As I keep writing ad nauseum in this series, I, being educated in modern science, understand that certain conditions have organic, not demonic, causes. In this respect, I know more than people did at the time of Jesus. And I, having been in an ill-fated relationship with a mentally-ill woman for a about a decade, understand why those not educated in science mistook mental illness as evidence of possession. These factors complicate my interpretation of Luke 8:26-39. So be it.
I choose to focus on verses 38 and 39.
The man, healed of whatever had afflicted him, was grateful. He begged to follow Jesus, who told him to return home and witness to what God had done. Jesus’s instructions to would-be followers varied according to circumstances. He told some to follow, others to go home, and one to divest himself of all wealth then to follow. Yet Jesus had some wealthy followers whom he did not instruct to divest themselves of wealth. And, oddly, in Luke 8:56, Jesus ordered the parents to keep an impossible secret.
What does Jesus tell you, O reader, to do?
Luke 8:40-56 weaves stories of two females–one a dead, young woman and the other a desperate woman with a hemorrhage. The stories tell us of these figures, rendered ritually impure–one via corpse impurity and the other via genital discharge. The corpse impurity also applied to everyone under Jairus’s roof. We read of the holiness of Jesus destroying the causes of ritual impurity in the germane people. We also read of Jesus restoring two females to their families and communities.
Who was Jesus?
That question continues as we keep reading the Gospel of Luke.
KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR
DECEMBER 31, 2021 COMMON ERA
THE SEVENTH DAY OF CHRISTMAS
NEW YEAR’S EVE
THE FEAST OF SAINT GIUSEPPINA NICOLI, ITALIAN ROMAN CATHOLIC NUN AND MINISTER TO THE POOR
THE FEAST OF HENRY IRVING LOUTTIT, JR., EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF GEORGIA
THE FEAST OF ROSSITER WORTHINGTON RAYMOND, U.S. NOVELIST, POET, HYMN WRITER, AND MINING ENGINEER
THE FEAST OF SAINT ZOTICUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PRIEST AND MARTYR, CIRCA 351
BLOGA THEOLOGICA 
You must be logged in to post a comment.