The Sibylline Oracles of the Pseudepigrapha, Part 3 Final

In the Tenth Generation – Sibylline Oracles, Book 4

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/08/in-the-tenth-generation-sibylline-oracles-book-4/

by Phillip J. Long

August 8, 2016

As described by Collins, the Fourth Sibylline is a “political oracle” updated by a Jew in the late first century (OTP 1:381). Of special interest is the scheme of history the book presents: four kingdoms, a conflagration, then the resurrection and judgment. Since this is not a Christian work, we are reading a view of history and eschatology that may be used as context for New Testament studies, especially in describing messianic hopes during the ministry of Jesus.

The Sibyl describes herself as speaking “unfailing truths” (1-5). This opening sets the prophecy compatible with the Old Testament in the mouth of a pagan prophetess. Despite being a pagan, the Sibyl condemns idolatry as an offense against the great God (6-23). God has comprehensive knowledge: “He sees all at once but is seen by no one himself” (12). Therefore, this oracle of ten generations is true. The righteous will receive great blessing from the Great God (24-39). The righteous are described in terms or behaviors: rejection of idolatry, sexual conduct, mockery of the foolishness of pagans.

Lines 40-48 form an introduction to the Ten Generations / Four Kingdoms. Men are slow to respond to God, but his judgment is coming nonetheless. Eventually God will enable pious men to serve him after the accomplishment of the tenth kingdom. The first kingdom is Assyria (49-53). The first six generations occur while Assyrians rule the world, from the time of the flood. The second kingdom is the Medes (54-64). They only rule for two generations. Their time will end when the Euphrates flows with blood and the Medes and Persians both flee over the great waters. The third kingdom is Persia, the greatest of the kingdoms (65-87). They will be overcome by Greece, although Greece itself will be in political chaos. This kingdom will last until the tenth generation. The fourth kingdom is the least described; many nations are listed as falling to the final kingdom, but no actual kingdom is mentioned in this section (88-101). Likely each line could be related to some battle or political movement in early Roman history.

The rise of Rome is detailed in (102-114), described as a “great Italian war” under which the whole world will serve. When an evil storm of war will come from Italy, Jerusalem will be destroyed (115-129). The invaders will commit repulsive murders in front of the temple. A leader of Rome will come from Syria and burn the Temple and slaughter many men and women (a reference to Titus). There will be a great earthquake which destroy Salamis and Paphos and flood Cyprus.

A series of cataclysmic signs are described which will occur after the fall of Jerusalem (130-151). Vesuvius is used as an example in 130-134; the wrath of the God of Heaven caused the mountain to explode (The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompey may be in the background of the imagery of the trumpet judgments in Revelation 8. Wars and famine will occur throughout the world.

People in the last times will be “unworthy men” doing “unholy deeds (152-161). They are foolish and infantile; God is “gnashing his teeth in wrath” and will destroy them “at once in a great conflagration.” In the light of the imminent conflagration, the writer urges his readers to stop provoking God and seek forgiveness (162-170). Remarkably, Collins (or the editor of OTP 1:388) describes this section as “Conversion and Baptism” despite the fact baptism is not mentioned, nor is conversion to the Jewish faith. The earth will be destroyed in fire and a very great sign, with sword and trumpet, at the rising of the sun (171-178).

Finally, the Sibyl describes the resurrection of the dead (179-192). After the conflagration, God will “put to sleep” the fire and fashion bones from the ashes and “raise up mortals again.” This resurrection imagery is similar to Ezekiel 37 in that bodies are re-created from bones. People are raised to face judgment and will be assigned either to Tartarus and Gehenna for punishment or to the “delightful and pleasant light of the sun.”

* * * * * * * * * *

A Star Will Shine – Sibylline Oracles Book 5.1-154

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/09/a-star-will-shine-sibylline-oracles-book-5-1-154/

by Phillip J. Long

August 9, 2016

The Fifth Sibylline is eschatological, similar in many ways to book 3. There is a clear expectation of an enemy of God who will oppress the people and a savior sent from God to rescue his people. Collins considers this an example of Diaspora / Egyptian Judaism (OTP 1:390-391). As such it may be a guide to Jewish expectations in the first century with more to say about the context of Revelation than the ministry of Jesus. Still, the general eschatological outline (oppression, salvation via a messiah, judgment, rest) seems to be present here as well.

This Sibyl begins with a review of the history of “the Latin race” (1-51). The history becomes most detailed in line 28, “one who has fifty as an initial” becomes commander, this is Nero. He is an “athlete, charioteer, murderer and one who dares ten thousand things.” The history concludes with Hadrian (one who will have his name on the sea – the Adriatic, line 46) and Marcus Aurelius, a “most excellent, outstanding, dark-haired one.” While in some cases this is cryptic, it is not impossible to figure out these historical references.

This is not Nero (from "Games of Thrones")

Egypt faces destruction in the final days (52-92).From the east will come “a savage minded man, much bloodied and raving nonsense” (93-110). This king will conquer the west then turn toward Egypt and lay everything to waste. Only a third of life will remain for “wretched mortals” after this evil man conquers. Collins relates this paragraph to the Nero myth. While I cannot disagree with him, it is not at all obvious this evil man from the east is the same evil one as in 28f. Lines 137-154 are far more explicit in identifying Nero as the eschatological man of evil.The east will be destroyed (111-134). This section mentions places in Greece and Asia Minor; islands will sink and earthquakes will rip apart cities.

A godlike man comes from Rome (a Nero-like figure? 137-154). He will come from the Medes and Persians and will seize the Temple and destroy it, burning the citizens of the city. Despite the fact Nero died before the Temple was destroyed, he was the emperor who ordered Vespasian into Palestine in the first place. He is therefore blamed for destroying Jerusalem and the Temple.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Burning Sun among the Stars – Sibylline Oracles Book 5.155-531

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/09/the-burning-sun-among-the-stars-sibylline-oracles-book-5-155-531/

by Phillip J. Long

August 9, 2016

A series of oracles against nations follows (163-227, 286-360). Rome, Egypt, the Gauls, and the Ethiopians are listed for special condemnation in the first section, Asia and Europe in the second. The city of Corinth is singled out for special attention in 214-227. There are various exhortations interspersed in this section along with occasional returns to the theme of the coming enemy. These are consistently identified by Collins as “The Return of Nero” despite some being very vague and not at all clearly referring to the Nero myth. 214-227, for example, is a condemnation of Corinth and only very peripherally about Nero, if at all. That there is a short condemnation of arrogance (228-238) following this section may be related to the arrogance of the Roman emperors.

A long section praises the Jews as the people of God (238-285). This section looks forward to the time when Israel will once again be the “center of the world” and the world will come to Jerusalem to worship, including a prayer for the “fertile and luxurious land of Judea (328-332).

The coming enemy of God is described again in 361-385. He is a matricide and devises evil schemes in his mind. He will conquer all the lands and like a wintery blast he will make war everywhere. His end comes when fire rains down on men from heaven and all war ceases. An exhortation is attached to this description, encouraging people (Rome) from all sorts of sexual sins presumably associated with Nero (matricide, pedophile, etc., 386-396).

The oracle describes the destruction of the temple by a great horde of illustrious men (397-413). The king who destroyed the temple is said to have died by the hand of the Immortal after he left the land, which is odd since Titus did not die in any unusual way.

A blessed man comes from the “expanses of heaven” with a scepter in his hand which he was given by God himself (414-433). He will return wealth to those from whom it was stolen and make the city of God shine as a brilliant light, more brilliant than the sun and moon. The temple will be rebuilt as an ornament and all the righteous will see it. Both the east and west will sing the glory of God; all the wretched will be judged.

In the context of judgment, the oracle turns against Babylon, the classic enemy of God (434-446). They had been the sole kingdom ruling the earth, but in the end they had to send to Rome for assistance. Catastrophic disasters will happen in those days (447-484): The seas will dry up, Roman ships will no longer sail (Revelation 18, the lament of the seaman). Apocalyptic signs include Locust, bloody war, and invasions over frozen rivers, wild animals attacking people, and weakness all over earth, moonless nights and a mist covering the whole world.

Egypt will be converted in the last days (448-511). People in Egypt will decide to build a temple to God in an attempt to worship God correctly, but it will be destroyed; God will therefore rain terrible judgments on the land. This may be a reference to the temple at Leontopolis (Collins OTP 1:405, note i4, but the prediction could be taken as eschatological as well).

The Oracle concludes with a terrible battle in the stars – the constellations themselves are destroyed and the sky becomes starless (512-531). This seems odd, but there may be a subtle condemnation of astrology here. It is possible judgment has come to such a point that the stars are no longer able to guide so it is as if they have gone away.

* * * * * * * * * *

Christian or Gnostic? – Sibylline Oracles, Book 7

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/13/christian-or-gnostic-sibylline-oracle-book-7/

by Phillip J. Long

August 13, 2016

This is the least structured of the oracles and is probably a collection of various sources. The work is Christian and probably is not based on any Jewish material. As such, the Seventh Oracle represents the other end of the tangent begun in the earlier Jewish oracles. Christians placed prophecies in the mouth of a pagan oracle in order to give a universal validity to the claims of Christianity.

This oracle seems not only Christian, but in some ways Gnostic. Collins lists five allusions to Gnostic ideas but concludes that the presence of these elements do not make the book Gnostic. In the same way earlier oracles drew on pagan mythology, so to this Christian oracle is drawing on Gnosticism (OTP 1:409).

• Several European cites will be destroyed, Rhodes will be the first (1-6). The flood is briefly described (7-15). This section is fragmentary, but makes Phrygia the location of Ararat as in 1 Enoch.A general oracle against the nations, although the focus is on Egypt (16-28).

• A brief, fragmented description of a messiah figure (29-39). It is hard to get the sense of this prophecy since much is missing. God entrusts his throne to someone from the house of David. The angels sleep under his feet (33). He is a “young shoot putting forth eyes from the root.” (38)

• Various nations and cities are condemned (40-63). Colophon and Corinth are mentioned specifically as destroyed by the Roman Ares.

• Christ’s baptism is described with a special emphasis on the people not recognizing him as their God when he came up from the water (64-75).

• Sacrifice will be replaced by prayer, alms giving, and care for the poor (76-91).

• Lines 91a-95 are a fragment which may continue the theme from the previous section, but there is not enough there to see this clearly.

• Various nations and cities are condemned (96-116), including Sardina, Mygdonia, Macedonia and Rome, Thebes.

• A “woe” against the “evil spirit sea,” which will be devoured by fire in the chaotic end of the world (118-131).

• Those who falsely claim to be Hebrews and make money from prophecy will be destroyed (132-138).

After the third “circling of years” when the first ogdoad is seen, he will begat a “pure mind of men” and no one will plow a crooked row anymore (139-149). Ogdoad can refer to eight frog/snake gods worshiped at Hermopolis, Egypt, although this does not fit the context well. Ogdoad is also a Gnostic concept relating to the aeons (Edwin Yamauchi, “The Gnostics and History” JETS 14 (1971): 29-40, 31). The word is used to describe a place in the HermeticDiscourse on the Eighth and Ninth: “The Eighth or Ogdoad is described as the place or sphere where souls and angels continuously praise the Ninth with hymns; the Ninth or Ennead is the dwelling place of Nous or Divine Mind” (Ruth Majerick, “Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth” in ABD 2:210-211). It is possible this reference refers to Jesus in some kind of numeric wordplay, since the name Jesus Christ is often rendered 888. Finally, all people in this restored world will “eat dewy manna with white teeth” (148-149, cf. Revelation 2:17).

The oracle concludes with a confession of faith from the sibyl. This is part of the sibylline formula: the pagan prophetess confesses faith in God and claims her oracles are true.

* * * * * * * * * *

Nero Redivivus – Sibylline Oracles, Book 8.1-216

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/15/nero-redivivus-sibylline-oracle-book-8-1-159/

by Phillip J. Long

August 15, 2016

The eighth Sibylline oracle contains a wealth of clear historical allusions. The first 216 lines are probably Jewish with some Christian interpolations. The second half of the book draws together various sources, nearly all Christian and interested in developing Christology. We are therefore dealing with an oracle at the Christian end of the spectrum, placing Christian theology in the mouth of a pagan seer.

The Sibyl beings with a description of the kingdoms of the world: the Persians, the Medes, the Ethiopians, Assyria Babylon, Macedonia, and then the “famous lawless kingdom of the Italians” (1-16). These kingdoms will be judged, “the mills of God grind fine flour, though late” (14, OTP comments this is an old Greek proverb).

Greed is condemned (17-36). Greed is the “source of impiety and forerunner of disorder, deviser of wars, a hostile troubler of peace” (24-25). Like Revelation 18, the writer characterizes Roman as a greedy nation and an oppressor the poor. Because of their greed, Rome will be destroyed “one day” by a heavenly affliction and no god will be able to save them (37-49). Their wealth will be laid low and the race will become lifeless corpses.

Lines 50-67 describe Hadrian as the “luxurious one” who inspects the world with polluted foot, giving gifts.” This is an allusion to Hadrian’s tour of the provinces in A.D. 121-130. He will participate in magical shrines and “display a child of the gods” (His favorite son was deified in A.D. 130 after he was accidently drowned in Egypt). Three kings will rule after Hadrian, “fulfilling the name of the heavenly God whose power is both now and for all ages.”

The next section concerns the return of Nero during the reign of “an old man,” Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180). A “matricidal exile returns from the ends of the earth” and will control dominions far and wide (68-72).

Rome will be judged (73-109, 123-130). They will be brought down from their great height by “gigantic hands” (100) and be made to dwell under the earth, everyone will hear bellowing from Hades and the gnashing of teeth. All will be judged in the great tribunal of God (110-122). This section is inserted into the condemnation of Rome and breaks off after a long list of “equality” statements (there will be no king, no tyrant, etc.) The age will be “common to all.” (Cf. 1 Enoch 53:6-7, the “leveling” of social groups in Matthew 3). In lines 131-138 Hadrian is praised as ruling “by the counsels of the great God without contamination.”

The text breaks off with “When the time of the phoenix comes” (139-159), but it is enough for Collins to once again identify this as a text about the return of Nero. By the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Nero would have been long dead, so the image of the Phoenix is appropriate to describe the rebirth of this enemy of God’s people. He will return to ravage the race of peoples, the nation of the Hebrews.

This section is an allusion to the persistent rumor Nero faked his death in A.D. 68 and would eventually return to his rightful place as emperor of Rome. Some scholars detect this in Revelation 13 where the first beast (representing Rome) appears to have died but is revived by the second beast. Sometimes this is used to date Revelation early, since the possibility of Nero’s return would diminish by the 90s since Nero would have been quite old by then. But this oracle implies Nero could return nearly 100 years after his own death, rising like a Phoenix to persecute God’s people once again.

The final and greatest evil will come upon the Rhodians (160-168). This section is perhaps related to the first in the oracle since it includes Rhodes as central to the final judgment of Rome (which will become a “street,” probably a reference to Rome becoming insignificant). The holy prince will gain control of the scepters of the world and Rome will fall (169-177). Various signs of the end are listed in 178-216. There are several breaks in the text, but the usually catastrophic “wrath of God” things are present. Of note is line 205, there will be a resurrection of the dead, the swift racing of the lame, the deaf will hear and the blind will see.

* * * * * * * * * *

Christological Poems – Sibylline Oracles, Book 8.217-500

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/16/christological-poems-sibylline-oracle-book-8-217-500/

by Phillip J. Long

August 16, 2016

Lines 217-250 of the eighth Sibylline oracle form an acrostic poem based on “Jesus Christ Son of God, Savior, Cross.” The theme of the poem is eschatology and much is drawn from the Old Testament (the heavens will roll up, Isa 34:4, for example.) The oracle makes a connection between Jesus and the Old Testament messiah figure and concludes with a statement that “this is our God, no proclaimed in acrostics, the king, the immortal savior who suffered for us.”

The second Christological poem (251-336) includes many references to the life of Christ: feeding the 5000 in line 275; “your king comes on a foal of a donkey;” the passion in 280-284; “the veil of the Temple will be rent, and in midday there will be dark monstrous night for three hours” (305-306). Jesus goes to Hades announcing hope for all (perhaps a hint of the “harrowing of hell,” 1 Peter 3:19). The resurrection of Jesus is clear, “and then, returning from the dead, he will come to light, first of the resurrection, showing a beginning to the elect” (313). This is followed by an eschatological fragment in 337-358. The catastrophic signs found elsewhere in the Sibyllines reappear..

A lengthy speech by God himself condemns idolatry (359-428). There is a consistent theme in this poem of God as creator and the offense of man worshiping creation. God has, for example, “formed eyes and ears, seeing and hearing” (368) and knows every thought. “Abandoning the Creator, they worshiped licentiousness. All have gifts from me but give them to useless things, and they think all these things useful, like my honors making burnt offerings at meals, as to their own dead.” Similar to Romans 1:18f, humans have abandoned their creator, pursuit of sexual sin 381.

The hymn to God appearing in lines 429-455 is similar to pagan thinking about God (OTP 1:427, note t2). God is “Self-begotten, undefiled, everlasting, eternal” (429). Like the Jewish use of Greek mythology in the early Sibyls or the Christian use of Gnosticism in the seventh Sibyl, this writer / compiler has drawn on Greco-Roman philosophy to describe God.

The poem concerning the incarnation in 456-479 reflects fairly advanced theology and the Virgin Mary is featured prominently. The archangel Gabriel says to Mary, “‘Receive God, Virgin, in your immaculate bosom.’ Thus speaking, he breathed in the grace of God, even to one who was always a maiden.” (461-462). It is possible it was appended at a later date when Mary becomes more important in Catholic theology.

The final paragraph on ethics closed the book (480-500). The Christian reader is admonished to never “approach the sanctuaries of temples nor to pour libations to statues nor to honor them with prayers” (487-489) nor “to defile the light of the sky with smoke from burnt offerings” (494). Perhaps this exhortation to abstain from sacrifice reflects a period when Christians were not yet fully depaganized, making sacrifices in order to appear loyal to civic cults.

* * * * * * * * * *

A History of the World – Sibylline Oracles, Book 11

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/17/a-history-of-the-world-sibylline-oracles-book-11/

by Phillip J. Long

August 17, 2016

Collins dates this book to the “turn of the era” and considers it an example of Diaspora Judaism. We are therefore back to the early part of the development of the format of the sibyl, but as Collins notes, this is very different than Sibylline 3 and 5 (OTP 1:432).

This text is not particularly religions but is political propaganda, interested in Egyptian political movements. As such, there is no familiar eschatology at all in the book, but rather a history of the political relationship between Rome and Egypt. This book is valuable for setting the context of other Diaspora books, but has little to say for New Testament backgrounds. Common features of the book include a ten-generation history of the world (line 14) and a series of oracles working through the kingdoms which ruled the world through those ten generations (Egypt, Persian, Media, India / Ethiopia, the Assyrians, Macedonia, then Rome).

There is remarkable is a summary of the Trojan War (123-163) and a reference to Virgil (164-171). Alexander the Great receives a long poem 195-223, (“the one whose name begins with the first letter”). The diadochi are described (223-243), with the final sections detailing the intrigue of Cleopatra (243-260) and eventually Julius Caesar (261-276).

The writer of the oracle predicts (or expresses some wishful thinking) that Egypt will fall (276-314) and be judged by God himself (311-314):

"Therefore God himself, the imperishable prince who lives in the sky, will utterly destroy you and impel you to lamentation, and you will make amends for what you formerly did lawlessly. At last you will realize that the anger of God has come upon you."

There is no hint of Christian editing (no allusion to Jesus or a coming Kingdom, for example). In fact, the book ends with the words of the Sibyl who will be confirmed at Panopeia as a “true seer, chanter of oracles, though someone will call me a messenger with frenzied spirit.”

* * * * * * * * * *

Roman Emperors – Sibylline Oracles, Book 12

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/18/roman-emperors-sibylline-oracles-book-12/

by Phillip J. Long

August 18, 2016

This Oracle continues the themes of book 11, extending the history into the currant era. Augustus is described as a ruler no other Roman will ever exceed, a man God approved for this hour (14-35). There is a brief “Christian insertion” in 30-34 which predicts the coming of the Messiah, the “bright star like the sun.

The book includes sections on the emperors of Rome, including a comment about their character and history, usually a comment about their appearance, hair color, etc. and a hint at their name (the one with the number three hundred as his first initial). This serves to show the “riddle” of Rev 13:18 (the number of the beast) was common enough in the ancient world. NB: the numbers in parenthesis are lines in the oracle, not dates.

• Tiberius (37-47, he will rule wearing purple, and “sack the city with high gates”).

• Gaius (48-66, a man with “deceitful locks”).

• Claudius (68-75, terrible signs accompany his reign, darkness at noon). OTP1:447, note m states there were four solar eclipses during his reign.

• Nero (78-94), “a terrible snake, an athlete, charioteer and murderer” who later flees and perishes wretchedly).

• Galba, Otho, and Vitelius (95-98)

• Vespasian (99-116, a “great destroyer”).

• Titus (117-123, a noble lord who falls by deceit).

• Domitian (124-143, all mortals will love him but he will receive a wound in the middle of his chest). This is rarely mentioned as a potential background to the wounding of the beast in Revelation 13, which is remarkable since Domitian is often cited as the emperor in the immediate context of Revelation.

• Nerva (143-146, a majestic man, slain and gone to Hades).

• Trajan (147-163, a mighty warrior who will die on foreign soil).

• Hadrian (164-175, a silver-haired man who will bring a long peace).

• The Antonines (176-185, three who rule for three decades).

• Marcus Aurelius (186-205, a man who knows many wise things, at whose prayer it will rain).

• Commodus (206-223, he will live dangerously and will suffer evil in a bath).

• The Death of Commodus (224-235, when the destructive time is near for Rome).

• Pertinax (236-244, a man who will shed blood with sharp bronze swords).

• Didius Iulianus (245-249, he will have a swift fate, mighty in war and smitten by iron).

• Pescennius Niger (250-255, another warrior, will die on the Assyrian plains).

• Septimus Severus (256-268, a resourceful and crafty man who knows what is expedient).

• Alexander Severus (269-288, he will reign with an infant and have the name of a Macedonian prince).

The conclusion to the book is a warning that those who honor God and forget idols will have joy (289-299). What is remarkable about this conclusion is that none of these kings could be said to have honored God in the least. In general this review of history is quite complimentary to the Roman emperors. One might expect a Christian writer to have portrayed Domitian, for example, as a great evil ruler because of his persecution of the church. Unless, of course, Domitian was not a great persecutor as many scholars have claimed.

This may help several scholars who have argued external persecution is not the problem in the book of Revelation. See for example Alan James Beagley, The “Sitz Im Leben” of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987). For a brief summary of Beagley’s position, see his article “Babylon” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Development (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 111-112.

[End of Sibylline Oracles]

First Impressions of the NIV Cultural Background Study Bible

Today I would like to pass along Peter Enns comments on the NIV Cultural Background Study Bible in observing how evangelical apologetics pretends towards "academic rigor" while keeping to its own internal standards of what is, and isn't biblical, according to the handbook of evangelical theology. Pointedly, as reflected in several recent articles on Radical Theology (see list immediately after these comments) this isn't true as evangelical doctrine holds to its own kind of "archaeological reality" while refusing any admit to post-foundational studies such as found in Radical Theology.

R.E. Slater

August 19, 2016

• Devolution is the New Evolution: Christianity's need for Radical Theology

• The Choice Before Nations to Love and Forgive

• Embracing the Dark Side of Doubt & Uncertainty

• R.E. Slater - Radical Reflections on God, Faith, and the Bible

* * * * * * * * * * *

THE BRAND NEW NIV CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS STUDY BIBLE—SOME FIRST IMPRESSIONS

http://www.peteenns.com/the-brand-new-niv-cultural-backgrounds-study-bible-some-first-impressions/

Posted by PeteEnns

August 15, 2016 in book notes and reviews

I just received the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (to be released August 23, available in hardcover, leather, and e-version) and spent a day reading through significant portions of it.

When an evangelical Bible commentary or study Bible is published, I get an initial feel for it by seeing how perennial evangelical hot-button issues are handled, like: 

• creation, Adam, and the Flood (i.e., myth)

• historicity of the Exodus 

• historicity and ethics of the conquest (especially archaeology of Jericho)

• historicity of David and Solomon

• Chronicles as a midrash of the Deuteornomistic history

• authorship issues especially Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, Pastoral Epistles

• theological diversity and contradiction in the Gospels

• Paul and the New Perspective on Judaism

Let me be clear. I do not mean to say that I look to see whether the authors agree with me or mainstream biblical scholarship (which has its own variety), but whether non-evangelical readings are dismissed, marginalized, or misrepresented.

In other words, I am looking to see whether the book leads evangelicals to an awareness of broader academic discussions or whether it is oriented toward evangelical apologetics. My initial impression is that NIVCBSB is much more the former with relatively little the latter.

I’d be lying if I said that I stood up and cheered on each page. To be sure, this is an evangelical study Bible—theological borders delimit the range of options the authors can take, and so qualifications abound. This is to be expected, but all in all, I feel safe recommending this study Bible as a learned and valuable resource from an evangelical perspective without being overly concerned that the reader will be strongarmed by evangelical apologetics.

First, here are a few examples from the OT to give you a bit of a feel for the study Bible, followed by some brief observations about the NT portion.

Adam is presumed throughout to be a historical figure. There is a good essay on “Adam and Jewish Tradition” (p. 1957), but, disappointingly nothing on Adam in the ancient Mesopotamian context. The silence is deafening, though I suppose in the current climate of tensions over Adam an essay on the mythic setting of the Adam story is too much to ask.

But the other essays covering the opening chapters of Genesis will be instructive for readers. For example, the essay on the serpent of Genesis 3 (p. 12) makes very clear that the serpent is only equated with Satan under the influence of the NT and Christian theology, which would not have been on the OT author’s mind. I find it refreshing (if also a bit striking) that in an evangelical publication the NT reading is not given the final word on what Genesis means.

Concerning the Flood, source-criticism is simply ignored (which is better than misrepresenting it as passé among biblical scholars, a common verdict among evangelicals). The stated purpose of the story, however, is worth underscoring: its value is in helping us “see how the Israelites would have understood the whole event differently than their neighbors” (p. 21, my emphasis).

In other words—lets not miss what’s happening here—we are told that the Flood story gives us Israel’s perspective on an event (local Mesopotamian deluge), which is very different indeed from saying it gives an essentially accurate account of history. I’m relieved that an apologetic note was not struck in a study Bible that is supposed to be fixed on backgrounds material.

On p. 32 we read of the value of ancient Near Eastern mythological literature for understanding Genesis: it helps us see Genesis with ancient eyes rather than imposing upon it modern expectations.

That point is hardly news within evangelicalism (especially given the fact that John Walton is the OT editor), but thankfully missing here is the confused and too-common rapid qualification that, though mythic, the Bible nevertheless records history. Even if the author/editor of this portion of the study Bible believes that, the note doesn’t reflect it.

Too often evangelicals give “myth” a respectful nod of recognition (it can’t be tabled forever, after all), but they tend not to grab the mythic tiger by the tail and just say it: “Yes, myth is the correct genre category for this text, not history.” But still, seeing “myth” treated without first completely de-clawing it is worth noting.

Of course, things can get quite heated when the topic turns to the doctrinal implications of recognizing the mythic nature of parts of the Bible. Maybe one day Zondervan can publish a “Doctrinal Implications Study Bible” (text me, Katya).

The treatment of the historicity of the exodus is also worth noting. The relevant essays (pp. 104; 116-17; 118-19) freely admit the event cannot be “determined with certainty” and we are lacking a “precise and convincing historical framework” (p. 104). The best we can do is argue for what is “possible, plausible, or even probable” (p. 116).

To be sure, the exodus is still presumed to be an event that took place sometime during the New Kingdom in Egypt (1550-1069 BC), and unfortunately there is no discernable probing into what way the biblical story is historical. But readers will certainly be alerted that the evidence for the exodus is essentially nonexistent and the best we can do is comment on its plausibility.

I have to say I was taken off guard by the essay on the Passover. Albeit briefly, the essay acknowledges that,

certain elements in the Passover suggest that at its roots may be a nomadic herdmen’s ritual in which they sought both protection from demonic attack as they moved to summer pasture and fertility for their herds in the new breeding season (p. 129).

Such a comment, though commonplace outside of evangelicalism, requires more discussion here, as it raises the question—largely unaddressed in this volume—of the impact cultural backgrounds has had on evangelical theology.

Seeing these sorts of observations through to the end is precisely what has led generations of evangelicals to feel the need to rethink the nature of Scripture, particularly Scripture as an inerrant account of historical events. This comment on the Passover is not innocent. It cries out for explanation and can’t simply be dropped.

Israelite origins is a vexing scholarly issue, and the study Bible unsurprisingly steers clear of anything that might contravene the biblical narrative. Having said that, though assumed to be an historical event, the historical problems with the biblical account of the fall of Jericho are not ignored (pp. 368-69). Rather than a major population area, Jericho was a “small settlement” and likely primarily a “military compound, a small fort” containing perhaps “an inn or hostel” and with “100 soldiers or fewer guarding it.”

This interpretation is not universal among scholars, and it seems geared toward latching the biblical story to a verifiable historical moment (there was a Jericho at the time of the conquest and something didhappen there). Nevertheless, this reconstruction is at odds with the biblical story. So how to explain it? The essay gently concedes, without using the term, that the biblical story is an exaggeration that served to bolster Joshua’s reputation (which some might call “propaganda”).

We are not told when such an exaggeration to bolster Joshua’s reputation would have been written (within a generation? half a millennium later?), nor (once again) is it suggested what impact this conclusion might have on typical evangelical expectations about biblical inspiration, but at least we are moving in the right direction.

One concern I have, though, with the handling of Jericho and other violent episodes (e.g., Flood, exodus, and the Midianite war in Numbers 30) is that the morality of these actions is not addressed or questioned, at least not that I could see. I was very surprised to see no essay on “Divine violence” or “warfare in the Ancient Near East.” Cultural backgrounds could easily have been used to explain that biblical writers portray God in ways reflected in well-documented texts from Israel’s Iron Age tribalistic neighbors.

Cultural backgrounds could easily have been used to explain that the biblical writers portrayed God in ways that reflected well-documented texts from Israel’s Iron Age tribalistic neighbors. I suspect that the topic was avoided because it raises serious questions about the historical factuality of the conquest accounts.

I was hopeful that authorship issues might be addressed with some meaningful flexibility, but that was largely not the case. Ancient parallels to Deuteronomy are 2nd millennium rather than 1st. The apparent introduction of the divine name Yahweh in Exodus 6:2-3, a key text for source critics, receives an innocuous comment (p. 15).

On the still controversial question of the authorship of Isaiah, we read, “The compositional history of Isaiah is debated, with numerous competing views as to the number of authors and time of composition” (p. 1103). While true, this is also misleading.

There are certainly debates about the composition of Isaiah, but every biblical scholar in the solar system, outside of some (by no means all) evangelical circles, agrees that the 8th-century prophet is not responsible for all 66 chapters, and that the final form of the book dates to the exilic and postexilic periods.

If authorship issues are to be addressed at all, something as fundamentally accepted as multiple Isaianic authorship deserves clearer mention. Rather, the comment suggests that the matter is up for grabs and the scholarly world is in a state of confusion. It isn’t.

One final note on authorship concerns Daniel. Affirming a 6th-century date has been a veritable one-question orthodoxy exam in evangelicalism, whereas a 2nd-century date is considered to be one of the surest conclusions of modern scholarship (and accepted among some evangelicals).

With that in mind, on p. 1414 we read the following. Though expressed in evangelical speak (“try to say it without actually saying it and make sure you say something about the Bible’s reliability”), I for one appreciate the effort:

Though the book occasionally has Daniel speaking in the first person, the narratives are largely third person. Daniel is not named as the author. While there is no reason to question the authenticity of the accounts of the book, the fact that many narrative traditions were preserved orally, perhaps even for centuries before being committed to writing, results in uncertainty concerning when and by whom the book was compiled.

Translation: 6th-century authorship is not a slam dunk and the story might not have been written down until many centuries later. Though we read here hardly a ringing endorsement of the mainstream view, and with the typical qualification about Daniel’s unquestioned “authenticity” (though was does that mean?), this comment will likely give readers something to think about: Daniel is in some sense “late.”

But, again, if the authorship if Daniel is going to be addressed at all, some mention should be made of the essentially ubiquitous view, which is based on a “cultural background” issue, namely the havoc wreaked by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned from 175-164 BC).

Moving more quickly to the New Testament portion of the study Bible, here too we see many valuable and learned essays that will inform readers. I did feel, however, that the tone was more apologetic throughout, and often times seemed to me digress from the purpose of a cultural backgrounds study Bible.

Inordinate space, for example, is given to establishing the historical veracity of the Gospels and their sources, including the plausibility of the authorship ascriptions and miracles. However interesting these issues may be, they are not backgrounds issues for understanding the text.

What I was hoping to find was more focus on the cultural settings of the various Gospel writers that yielded their unique interpretations on Jesus (though see “The ‘Jews’ and ‘Jewish Leaders’ in John’s Gospel,” p. 1810). Likewise, essays on Jesus’ trial (p. 1672) and the location of Jesus’ tomb (p. 1678) are interesting, but I would rather have seen essays on “legal systems” or “burial practices in Greco-Roman Palestine” or something of that nature.

For the life of me, I have no idea why an essay discussing the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin (p. 1728) is included in a cultural backgrounds study Bible.

I was surprised that missing was an essay on the well known Priene Calendar Inscription (an account of Caesar Augustus’s divine birth and proclamation as “savior,” which is “Good News” for all). This inscription is a stunningly important cultural background for Mark or the Lukan birth narrative. Instead we see numerous synchronic charts: resurrection appearances (p. 1799), miracles of Jesus (p. 1808), harmonies of the Gospels (pp. 1858-64) and the events of Passion Week (pp. 1722-23). (The same holds for the Epistles [qualifications for elders, p. 2112; the “greater than” sayings in Hebrews, p. 2142.)

I cannot say synchronic charts should by no means appear in a backgrounds study Bible, but I would rather have seen that space devoted to more essays like the one on the triclinium (dining room in a Roman house, p. 1840) or “Houses in the Holy Land” (1640-41). Perhaps robust essays on the structure of the family in Greco-Roman society (though “marriage roles in antiquity” touches on it, pp. 2064-65), or the background for the language of “citizenship” or the “church” (ekklesia) that Paul reframes (though the latter is [too briefly] defined in “Key New Testament Terms,” p. 1585).

Again, there are many helpful essays and notes in the New Testament section. Let me mention in particular the non-alarmist and contextually sensitive essay on homosexuality in antiquity (p. 1950), and about as balanced a nod as one might expect to the New Perspective on Paul (“Paul’s Jewish Opponents,” p. 2047). But I felt I had to wade through less interesting and less relevant material along the way, almost at points loosing track that this was a cultural backgrounds Bible.

To sum up, the visuals are striking and inviting, and this volume will be a wonderful aid for many, particularly for those readers who might otherwise be jarred by the depth and breadth to which our Bible owes its existence, culturally speaking, to the settings in which its various parts were written. It is well worth the investment of $49.99 ($36.98 on Amazon).

My Spidey sense is tuned in to where authors tip-toe around or package issues in ways that are more palatable for evangelicals, some of which I note above. But, as they say in the publishing world, “Know your audience.” Readers just need to be aware that these essays, though wonderfully informative, quite often offer a perspective that many (or most) scholars in the field would either qualify or even disagree with.

Let me end this brief post by revisiting a point I alluded to once or twice. On the first page of the study Bible, we read:

This study Bible has been purpose-built to do one thing: in increase your understanding of the cultural nuances behind the text of God’s Word so that your study experience, and your knowledge of the realities behind the ideas in the text, is enriched and expanded (p. v, my emphasis).

Indeed, the reader’s understanding will be increased, enriched, and expanded from studying Scripture aided by this volume. And on one level this is a fine and innocuous statement to make.

The irony, however, is that it is precisely such culturally informed study of the contexts of the Bible over the last 150 years that has led to significant challenges for evangelical theology.

The cultural context of Scripture cannot be presented as a safe haven of rest for the person in the pew, just a bit of background information that one can safely tack onto evangelical theology. Though not always the case, exposure to “Bible in context” has brought evangelical theology under careful scrutiny more often than not.

The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible does a good job of presenting some challenging material in a sober and unthreatening manner for its intended audience, and so it is not free of evangelical pre-packaging. At the end of the day, however, the challenges of the study of Scripture in historical context will not be adequately addressed that way.

Having said all this, I plan to consult it regularly for backgrounds issues for any course I teach, in conjunction with other sources as needed. And I will warmly recommend it and refer others to it, though with some possible qualifications of my own, depending on the person’s degree of familiarity with the topic.

- Peter Enns

*I talk more about the nature of the Bible in its historical contexts in The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014), Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker 2005/2015), and The Evolution of Adam (Baker, 2012).

Devolution is the New Evolution: Christianity's need for Radical Theology

One of the challenges for radical theology is to consistently bring conflict
back into the heart of community so that the thinking of those involved is
disrupted in ways that are both creative and productive. - anon


Is 'radical theology' anything other than a 21st century incarnation
of  the New Testament 'faith vs works' conversation? - anon


Yes, because being radical would mean returning to
the "roots of" therefore live works not by faith.
- anon


When once perceiving radical theology's substance I thought it to be the
very same conversation of "faith v. works" but updated for today's followers
of Jesus in a postmodern context. But perhaps wider because it embraces
all those who doubt but still pursue faith with works. - res

Not too many years ago astute Christians began to wake up to the idea that their faith had changed. Not for the better but for the worse. Perhaps it was more to the fact that they were the ones that actually were changing in a religious tradition that pointed to God as much as away from God.

These were Christians who wished to follow what they had been taught but differently from what a secular Christian religion was telling them. That their faith needed a radical updating into contemporary society focusing on the simple things like recentering their Christian faith in Jesus, and in His Spirit, rather than in a Christian religion lost unto itself. Or in what their faith group was telling them was important to believe or act on. Things like God is not love first, last, and always, but that these are outcomes to our obedience to Him. And if we do not obey God than God becomes to us a controlling, threatening God who uses divine anger, coercion, judgment, and even hell, to get His way.

It began to cross these discerning Christian minds that what we love may not be what God loves. That what we think should be important to God is not important to God Himself. Or descriptive of who He is. Rather, these things more describe us - our lust for control and power; our idolatries of God's Person and Work; our desire to make ourselves righteous before God misbelieving ourselves to be God's testimonies to His greater gospel of peace and love.

However, Radical theology then comes along to presage all these ideas around the person and work of Jesus (sic, ideas like "God and the Other"). Not around a doctrine, or a Christian movement, or a type of faith association. This latter would be known as a "radical (de)orthodoxy" (led by faith groups espousing neo-Calvinism for instance). I say de-orthodoxy because a true orthodoxy - a postmodern, obedient, humanitarian-focused orthodoxy - is the truer radical orthodoxy or radical theology. But of course all good words are mis-shapened and bent into angular forms when well-meaning - but undiscerning - Christians come along claiming as true something that is false. And so we are to beware of orthodoxies claiming one thing but actually becoming the very idols they themselves claim they are not. These then are de-orthodoxies. Idolatrous religions. Not radical except in the idea of being radically religious rather than radically spiritual as hallmarked by the following of Jesus.

As observed by friend and fellow-theologian Peter Enns: "The Christian Faith for the Deconverted gives reasons for Christians to get a new faith after the one they had lost." He taps into the idea that Christians need to talk about things in western Christianity that drive people away (e.g., the quest for power, the rejection of science and academia, the need for shunning and exclusivity). Things which are actually windows into what the Christian faith has devolved into instead of what it really is all about.

And so, we have now come full circle in describing why many Christians are beginning to wake up to the idea that their faith has changed - and not for the better. That they must return to their orthodox faith by deconstructing its errors, its ingraciousness, its inhumanities which point away from God and not towards God. We might call this yet another "Great Awakening" but unlike any previous awakening that has occurred in the Reformation era. This one drives us from the Christian faith back into the Christian faith in a much more radical reformation or reconstruction of what Jesus' redemption means in the insistence of God's heart within all of His creation. That it must burn itself up before it can be purified and offered as incense to the holy altar of God. That we must repent of our sin and error and enter into a period of doubt and mistrust until God's Spirit leads us out again from our wilderness period of waste and darkness unto His paths of light and grace.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

August 18, 2016

*for further reference: https://www.goodreads.com/genres/radical-theology

* * * * * * * * * * *

ADDENDUM

No sooner had I written an article about "Christianity and The Other" when I find it's antithesis in "The Other" as espoused by a well-meaning, but wholly unstudied, writer who throws words around betraying his own faith and religion:

In the article that follows radical theology is misunderstood when Evangelical hermeneutics is applied to the postmodern understanding of New Testament faith. That is, when it  interprets radical theology you get the result of foundational entrenchment rather than post-foundational enlightenment (I also like the idea of entanglement). Further, the classic Evangelical description of "faith in faith" is misapplied and upended to it's circumvented understanding of radical theology. However, a post-foundational faith looks at the results of someone's faith, not simply their belief structures. That is, whether it is humanitarian, humane, ethical, moral, Jesus-centered or oppressive and self-centered. To simply have faith in faith is not enough as we pyros know. There must be substance to faith if it is to be worthy. Now a classicist will say that they understand faith and works in this same regard not realizing that without uncertainty and doubt they can never depart their classical foundational system that puts belief over all other aspects of faith. Thus its struggle with radical theology which first destroys the foundational aspects of faith of it's certainties, verities, and belief structures in order for it to rise above a man-made religion more idolatrous than Divine.

R.E. Slater

August 18, 2016

~ [Start of Article] ~

Christian Certainty: The Only Sin Left

https://stephenmcalpine.com/2016/08/04/christian-certainty-the-only-sin-left/

04ThursdayAug 2016

Posted by stephenmcalpine in Uncategorized

Christianity is all too often a day late and a dollar short on many things.  And when it comes to the matter of conviction, once again evangelical writers and influencers are short-changing us.

Just as the secular culture is jettisoning uncertainty at a rate of knots, many in the Church are espousing its virtues, whilst pointing out the pitfalls of certainty in the process.

I say this in light of a new book by Peter Enns, (formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary) which I have yet to read, but which, if the reviews and comments about it are any indication, is another nail in the coffin of post-evangelical Christianity. In other words, his crisis of faith should be your crisis of faith too.  What better way to use the skills honed in several decades of evangelical learning than to tear that down.  Or  better still, tear down the faith of  your kids.

That’s right, according to Enns, and his many acolytes, there is only one big hairy sin left for Christians these days, and that’s the sin of certainty.

Whilst secularism hardens into deep certainty and conviction, growing more zealous by the year, the future hope for evangelicalism in particularly is, apparently, less certainty.

Enns’ new book “The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desire Ours Trust Not Our Correct Beliefs” is his latest work on his road away from a traditional confessional faith.  And it’s a beautiful beguiling title.  Until you work out that the Bible does not differentiate between trust and belief.  But note that he said “correct” beliefs; which conjures up all sorts of Pharisaical and Puritanical nastiness, does it not?

A glowing review of his book can be found at Evangelicals for Social Action. This has been linked to Facebook. That review plus a list of comments on the  FB thread, picqued my interest.

The review begins with nary a flush of embarrassment with this certain statement:

Children of evangelical parents are at risk. Raised with the belief that the truth can be cornered, they live in a world that suggests quite the opposite. As cultural pressures increase, parents and pastors double down. The kids feel torn and are left without meaningful onramps to a more open and humane framing of faith.

Woah, I see your problem!  I mean, let’s do the time warp again. We live in a world that suggests that truth cannot be cornered? Please!   We live in a world that is currently executing an agenda of deep truth and zealotry on all sorts of matters, especially in relation to ethics, sexuality, and the goal of life – personal fulfilment.  Truth has been cornered and flogged into submission by the culture. Looks like someone missed that particular train.

Or this for example from the reviewer:

The book provides a meaningful “third way” between unflappable dogmatic certainty and relativistic skepticism. In philosophical terms, it is a welcome depiction of critical realism discipleship that avoids the arrogance of foundationalism and the skepticism of postmodernism.

Again I ask, What skepticism?  In the 1980s at university perhaps.  But even that skepticism about truth was directly pointed at one target only, the Christian framework of the Western world and the Western canon.  That skepticism was a mere ruse. A well considered technique to raze the landscape in order to rebuild something different.

And what a rebuild!  Out of the debris of post-foundationalism  soaring brutalist tower blocks of zeal have arisen; gargantuan dogmatic constructions that dehumanise and overshadow anything to the contrary.

 Universities are prime examples.  The “what is truth?” meh of the 1980s has been replaced with a deep dark certainty in which, ironically, professors are fearful of their students – worried that the wrong word or an off-hand remark will have them hauled before the star chamber.

But what of Christian certainty?  Why would Christians jettison certainty at precisely the time the culture is gearing up? The critical mistake made by the post-evangelical cohort is that certainty always equals pride, something the reviewer simply assume when he states:

The move from a confident, settled transcendent perspective to a humbler, exploratory transcendent perspective is a major frame shift.

In other words it’s not possible to be both confident in the gospel and humble about it at the same time.  That, quite frankly, is nonsense. Indeed the opposite is the case – it’s completely possible to be uncertain and proud.

The Bible, (part of the problem for Enns in general in his books), encourages certainty.  Hence we have Luke writing to Theophilus:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 thatyou may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

And Peter says to the church in 2Peter1:19:

 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Indeed the very gospel of John is written that:

… you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31).

Notice how all three of these examples showcase that what is written is trustworthy? That what is written is certain? That is anathema to the Christian moving away from certainty and it’s a central plank to Enns’ other writings.  (Have a read here for a generous, but critical review of his other work).

Even the flow of salvation history is the movement from less certainty in the shadow of the Old Testament to the more certain fulfilment of the New Testament.  Hence we have Hebrews:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 

And that certainty will be even more certain when we see Jesus face to face.  We are on a certainty trajectory, not having yet arrived – that is for sure -, but a trajectory in a direction nonetheless.

Now let’s be clear.  Our certainty is in the person of Jesus.  Our theological certainties are not ends in themselves, but a means to drive us closer to Jesus and find our certainty in him.  But these go together.  There would have been no apostolic witness, and definitely no apostolic bravery to spread the gospel news in the face of hatred, death and privations, if the apostles were not rock solid certain about it. And they were certain enough about it to write it down and call others to the certainty of it too.

It follows then, that when certainty in the biblical witness or the authority of that witness is  removed, then there can be no certainty in Jesus. Full stop.  This is blindingly obvious in the ensuing Facebook exchange.

ME: A good robust biblical argument against certainty would be welcome, but when the author and reviewer’s premise is the uncertainty of Scripture then there’s not even a platform for debate!

My FB Friend: I’m just not sure about scripture. I love it. It speaks to me but my faith sits in God a bit more than in scripture. I Do actually hold a high view of it. But certainty? Not too much of that here, Does God love me? Pretty certain. 

ME: You are certain of that on the basis of?

MFBF:  My faith ?

ME: Sounds suspiciously like love is love.

In other words I am certain on the basis of my certainty.  That’s a circular argument. I have faith in my faith on the basis of my faith. At least he ended it with a question mark.  Can’t be too certain about these things!

But do you see what that does?  It does not do away with certainty, it simply removes it from critique, locking it away in a deep subjectivism that is unreachable and unteachable. It is impervious, hermetically sealed off from any word to the contrary.  That is ultimate certainty right there.

The reviewer confidently (with certainty?) states that this is a book to give to your children if you want them to continue in the faith.  Au contraire!  This is a book that evangelicals on the way out of any definition of orthodoxy buy for themselves in the faint hope that they can hand on their Christian ethic to their children whilst jettisoning the theology.  That proved to be a disaster for the liberal church of the sixties and seventies, yet in true “day late, dollar short” style, evangelicals are lining up and signing up.

The reviewer concludes:

Enns is a worthy exemplar for the coming generation. Out of the pain of his personal history has come a roadmap to a better, accepting, honest, and faithful evangelicalism. This book is an onramp to spiritual sanity.

Actually Enns has built an off-ramp that leads to an unfinished bridge that will leave your children’s faith a smouldering wreck in the bottom of a ravine. That’s where the real risk  is.  And that’s where the real sin is too.

- Stephen McAlpine