The Jewish leadership finally has what they want. They have Jesus in custody. It is late at night, the city is sleeping and before long everything is going to be public. These moments contrast the depth of human depravity with the unwavering courage, integrity, and purpose of Jesus. Imagine being there in that ancient courtyard, and not just as observers but as disciples – seeking to understand what it means to stand for truth and faith amidst adversity.
After His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was led late at night to the house of Annas the father-in-law of the high priest, He had been high priest until the Romans appointed Caiaphas. But for many Jews, Annas was still the legitimate high priest. He questions Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. We get an indication here that he is looking to accuse him of rebellion. Jesus responds as he had before, saying that he has always taught openly. Jesus is struck by one of the guards which is illegal under the Law. (Jn 18:19-23)
Still bound, Jesus is taken to Caiaphas the official high priest. By this time, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council, had gathered. They too are looking for evidence to put him to death.
Hastily summoned, this was no ordinary meeting. Filled with tension and secrecy, it was hidden from the crowds who only recently welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem as the ‘son of David’. The leaders were eager to find grounds to accuse Jesus and to justify handing Him over to the Roman authorities. (Mrk 14:55-64)
False Testimonies and the Search for Guilt Mrk 14:55-64
The Gospels recount how many false witnesses came forward, yet their testimonies did not agree. The council was frustrated. Despite their efforts, they could not establish consistent evidence. Jesus remained silent, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah: “He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:7)
These passages reveal important truths about human nature; People will lie to achieve their purposes. They will lie to justify bad behaviour and they will lie to manipulate others
The law of Moses condemned false testimony, applying the same punishment to perjurers as the accused would receive were he was found guilty. Duet 18:18-19
The silence of Jesus was a sign of strength and not weakness. He refused to answer false accusations, for the burden of proof was upon the accuser. He demonstrated integrity and self-control, in the face of systemic injustice. He did not defend Himself or become angry. He trusted His identity and His Father’s will.
Jesus knew that what was happening was deeply wrong, and so do we. I don’t know about you, but I identify with Peter a lot in this moment. It feels like someone should do something. Jesus has already pointed out that he could have called twelve legions of angels. But His primary motive was compassion for us, and for that reason he allowed this to happen, so that we don’t have to face the consequences for our sin.
Jesus was silent before his accusers, but now sends us to speak on his behalf and for their rescue.
The Declaration of Identity
Finally, the high priest pressed Jesus, asking: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus replied, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)
As we have been saying, I want to see those angels, I want to see the high priest get us comeuppance. That doesn’t happen on Friday but it will soon be Sunday.
Jesus does not shrink back from saying the very think that will get him killed. He is quoting from Daniel 7:13 the son of man received dominion. The Jews understood exactly what he was saying and it is a clear claim to divinity.
The high priest understands this immediately and condemns Jesus to death for Blasphemy. All of the court’s pent up frustration is then taken out on our Lord as he is beaten and mocked. Lk 22:63-65. They blindfold him and ask him to prophesy – to tell them who it was that hit him…adding insult to injury.
We mentioned earlier that people will lie to get their way. When lies fail, ridicule comes to the rescue. Nothing has changed. It is still the stock and trade of the wicked to mock and ridicule Christianity.
Some modern day mockers are just now waking up to their error. Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and author of “the God Delusion” had only negative things to say about Christian faith. Now as England is losing it’s Christian heritage to Islam he recently and grudgingly admitted, that he appreciated and had benifitted from Christian culture.
Before we leave this point I want to remind all of us that while Jesus was speaking of his ‘second coming’, he had also predicted the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The course set by the Sanhedrin would hasten the first and put them on the wrong side of the judgment seat of God. And while Jerusalem has fallen, God still offers grace. But He will not extend grace or forgiveness to those who persist in sin or who ridicule His Son.
Betrayal, Denial, Regret (Jn 18:17; Mat 26:69-72; Mat 26:73-74; Lk 22:60-62)
At the ‘trial’ of Jesus, three things took place under oath. False witnesses lied, Peter denied and Jesus testified. Behind closed doors, the court condemned. And in the couryard outside…one of Jesus’ closest disciples denied Him three times. It was ‘lawfare’, before the word was coined. A rogue legal system waging war in the name of justice. Jesus’ courage and conviction stand in stark contrast to Peter’s fear and failure.
It forces us to ask, what would we do, had we been there? This question is not hypothetical, for we are there and have that choice every time injustice is done. When lies are promoted, and when someone mocks truth and righteousness, it is our turn to speak up.
After the resurrection, Jesus forgave Peter and restored him. But Peter knew that he was wrong, right after it happened. And while he wept bitterly, he trusted in the promise that Jesus had made…that he would repent and one day ‘strengthen his brethren’ (Luke 22:32). By contrast, when Judas failed, he gave up all hope.
The trial before the Sanhedrin ultimately points us to God’s capacity to redeem even our deepest failures.
Having turned back to the Lord, Peter went on to declare salvation in Jesus. Knowing that he himself had been forgiven, he offered forgiveness in Christ to those who had crucified the Lord’s Messiah Acts 2:36.
This powerful and inspiring story of redemption assures us, that while also fail and sometimes in very serious ways, God is willing to forgive. He has forgiven Peter for denying Jesus at the very moment when He suffered the greatest injustice in history. God used Peter to do great things, advancing the borders of His Kingdom. Therefore, God can restore and use us as well.
All told, the trial of Jesus reminds us that the wicked will be wicked, for that is the nature of evil. The question that remains is… what will the good do? What will those who have been united with Christ and who partake of his goodness, do with that goodness? Will they be faithful or break faith with the Lord?
May we always stand for Truth.
In a world of shifting values and false accusations, let us hold fast to our convictions as Christ did. May our integrity be evident, even when misunderstood.
May we trust in God’s Purpose:
Jesus’ trial was no accident. It was a necessary step in God’s redemptive plan. When we face injustice or suffering, let us trust that God will work through it for greater good.
May we embrace compassion and forgiveness
Like Peter, we may stumble under pressure. Yet, Christ’s response is not condemnation, but restoration. Let us accept His forgiveness and extend it to others.
The night of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin was dark, but it gave way to the dawn of resurrection. Let us, as followers of Jesus in our time and place, draw courage from His example, speaking truth with love, and resting in the assurance that God’s justice and mercy will have the final word.
May the example of Jesus empower us to live faithfully, with hope and courage, as we journey through trials of our own.
I remember a story William Woodson told to illustrate the postmodern notion of truth. It was a story about a first-grade class that decided to adopt a rabbit as the class pet. They got the new rabbit and all the children were excited and happy to care for and play with the new class member. One of the first things the children wanted to do was give their pet a name. Several were suggested, and they talked about which one suited the rabbit best. During the discussion one of the children asked, “shouldn’t we know if the rabbit is a boy or girl?” The teacher, at this point stepped in and offered to help. She examined the rabbit closely and could not identify the sex. Then they called the pet shop and asked them, but they didn’t know the sex either. Finally, the teacher decided it was not that important, and she would just have the children vote to decide the gender of the new pet. This was no problem since the children didn’t care, and their joy from the pet would not be affected in any way by what gender it was.
This is a lighthearted story and we can all understand the teacher’s dilemma. However, this way of thinking is not only applied to classroom pets. In fact, the intent of Postmodern Philosophers and Academics was to deny the existence of truth as a category.
Jean-Francis Lyotard defined postmodernism as “incredulity toward metanarratives.” That is, any claim to universal/widely applicable objective truth is to be rejected. We might ask why take issue with metanarratives and truth?
The initial advocates of Postmodern thinking would tie it back to Marx saying metanarratives are used to oppress and so if liberation is to be achieved, metanarratives must go. It is true that truth often restricts. Consider, that because gravity exists as an objective reality, I can’t lift many of the things I might want to. But pretending that the 20 pounds that I can lift is the same as the 200 that I can’t, is no solution and has lost any meaningful relationship to reality.
Philosopher Steven Hicks has argued that, in fact, what the founders of postmodern thought were trying to do, was to salvage socialism. Touted as the modern scientific way to plan an economy, it had nevertheless failed historically, every time it was instituted. How then to ignore empirical evidence and cling to an ideology that only works in the imagination of its advocates? The answer: develop a system of thought which minimizes the value of empirical evidence and objective truth. Thus the rise and appeal of Postmodernism. On a popular level, many are in love with the idea of being able to prescribe reality rather then merely describing it.
Nowhere is this freedom more celebrated than in the area of sexual morality and the rejection of biological norms. In Dr. Woodson’s story they should have asked the rabbit for its pronouns. Postmodernism empowers the normalization of sexual perversion, by creating ‘new realities’ with words alone. If we can ‘speak new realities into existence’, then absolutely anything goes.
The academic work of two members of the Frankfurt school (a group of German Marxist scholars who fled the Nazi’s for the United States) formed the foundation for most of modern sociology.
Theador Adorno and Herbert Marcuse wrote on human sexuality. Adorno wrote “The Authoritarian Personality” in which he described those with heterosexual and family desires – as potential fascists. In a similar vein, Marcuse’s “Eros and Civilization” (a response to Freud’s Civilization and it’s Discontents) argued that sexual repression was one of the limits that needed to be removed. He believed this was necessary to achieve the Marxist utopia, which he believed, society was destined to become (Marcuse did warn that sex could also distract from the rebellion and so had to be approached with some care).
Another key thinker and contributor to legitimizing perversion was French Postmodernist Michel Foucault. Foucault is the most cited scholar of modern times. His influence on postmodern thought and cultural Marxism (Critical Theory) is deep and pervasive. Foucault was also deeply sexually depraved. Jordan Peterson once commented that Foucault was highly intelligent and that he turned that powerful intellect to one primary goal, satisfying his depraved sexual desires (I have changed the wording to be more appropriate). Is it any wonder then that Foucault’s intellectual descendants have specifically targeted sexuality?
It is well established scientifically that men and women are different; physiologically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically. These differences have been demonstrated across cultures. Yet we are told that gender is a spectrum and different from sex. We can admit that some expressions of sexuality are cultural and these are not considered primary factors by any reasonable person. No one thinks that wearing a dress instead of pants has anything to do with someone’s core identity. Dr. Woodson described many areas in which postmodernism had moved many, even among the lord’s people away from truth. He suggested that the best response to postmodernism was a return to a biblical worldview, including a biblical understanding of gender and sexuality.
Dr. Woodson could not have known (although perhaps would not be surprised to learn) that sex and gender would become such prominent political and social issues. His illustration is even more apt because the response it initiates in its hearers is the same response we naturally have, to being told that sexuality is self-determined. Just as the class is not in a place to determine the gender of the rabbit no person is in a position to determine their own sex. Furthermore, it should come as a surprise to no one, that when humans are told that there is no such things as right and wrong, the first and most frequent way they will act out is sexually. Sadly, like all sin this is to their own detriment and we are living with the fallout of fifty years of sexual misconduct.
As Dr. Woodson would have advocated, we need to point people back to a better way, to God’s way of approaching all of life. May God help us in this effort
Barrie ON
Imagine going to see a movie. It is a love story about a young couple who get married. He is from a strong wealthy background with a good job and a successful life. She has a shady past and has lived a hard life (a woman with a history). The man and woman start life together and have children. For a while, life good. He is a doting husband who loves her deeply. The young woman is beautiful and draws the attention of all kinds of men. She likes this and in time, her husband is convinced that some of the children she bears are not his. Eventually she leaves him for ‘greener pastures’ and takes up with other men. This seems to go well, until her looks fade and her male ‘friends’ lose interest. In the end, she becomes a prostitute and then a slave. It is as a slave that her first husband finds her and buys her at auction. He takes her home and restores everything that she once enjoyed. It reads like a Hollywood script, but it is the life of Hosea and his wife Gomer.
God uses this real-life story to reveal just how much He loves His people, even when they have treated him with contempt. He wants to renew his covenant with them, if only they are willing (Hos 4:1, 6.) But like any marriage, this relationship must grow and develop. And given their past, it is up to Israel to show herself trustworthy.
What does it mean to know someone?
I was a big fan of Michael Jordan but could never say I know him. The Hebrew word Yada means intimate knowledge, the way we get to know close friends or spouses. God wants us to Yada Him Hos 6:3. God uses the marriage relationship with it’s intimacy, it’s commitment, it’s trust and oneness to help us understand the kind of relationship we are to have with Him.
The New Testament also uses marriage to teach us about our relationship with God Ephesians 5:22-33. Learning to know a person is not always easy but must be done if we are to really have a relationship and not just an acquaintance.
Getting to know someone takes time. Spending time with someone allows you to move beyond information about them, to experiences with them. There are no short cuts to experience. It takes of lifetime of living and loving each other – to truly know each other. And what applies to our friends and family, is also true of our relationship with God. It allows our relationships to be rich and fulfilling. It opens our hearts to the influence of those whom we know and trust.
Trust is the key. Love and trust go hand in hand and are at the foundation of our relationship with God. But they do not come easy. It takes an investment of time and energy to develop the kind of trust that we should have.
That’s how it was with Hosea and Gomer. Hosea loved Gomer. He loved her, even when he could no longer trust her. That’s why he tested her faithfulness when he restored her. It took time to rebuild trust.
God is like that. He loves us, even when we sin. He has given us every reason to trust him…even when we have broken trust with Him. And while he has forgiven us, we may feel like He will never really trust us again. To overcome those feelings, we need to get to ‘know’ God all over again.
We can do that by believing what he has said and experiencing God’s faithfulness over time. This does not happen without effort on our part and especially not without constant communication. God speaks to us through his word (1 Cor. 2:12-13) and has revealed himself. We must pay close attention to what He is saying and take it to heart. The things that God has done in history are plain to see in scripture, and we can experience them by seeing similarities between His actions in the past and what is happening today in our own lives.
It has often been said that the best indication of future behavior is past behavior. As we interact with God’s work through history not only do we see the positive and negative examples of others, but we see what God has done and how he has delivered His people over and over again. As we spend time in study we must understand that what we read is not just a timeline of historical events but a carefully and lovingly edited history chosen by God Himself to allow us to understand who he is and how to live with Him.
We also learn that communication with God is not a one-way street. God reminds us that he knows us and is attentive. He listens to us when we speak to Him. So we must prioritize our communication with God (1 Thess 5:17) When we pray, we speak to the creator who is both intimate, transcendent and all powerful. We also understand that as we seek to understand God, he knows us and knows our needs better than even we know ourselves. He applies that knowledge to our prayer life and hears us even when we don’t know what to say, Romans 8:26.
The marriage relationship emphasized in Hosea is meant to convey God’s Covenant Loyalty, His “hesed”, Hosea 6:6. He calls us to respond in kind. Just as a marriage is more than just two people living together, our relationship with God must be about loyalty and devotion.
Gomer enjoyed the blessings of being married, while insisting upon ‘keeping her options open’. She did not consider Hosea or what it meant to be a wife. In order to be married to God, we must give up all efforts to find a ‘better offer’. Marriage is exclusive and calls for covenant loyalty, which is why God uses this word to describe his relationship with Israel.
When Israel became God’s people, it was on the terms of the covenant set out by God at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 27-29). It was by keeping that covenant that they revealed their love for God and their devotion to Him. The book of Deuteronomy explains how grace and obedience are perfectly woven together.
Having entered God’s new covenant, members of the Lord’s church enjoy a better one, purchased by the blood of God’s Son (Hebrews 9:11-15). Yet, it is still our devotion to God, revealed by doing His will, that seals our vow and keeps covenant with Him (John 14:15; 15:9). As in any marriage, our relationship with God must be typified by spiritual faithfulness.
As a nation, Israel was never faithful to God. Hosea uses the term whoredom 16 times in the book. Israel’s sin was not a one time thing. Rebellion and betrayal broke God’s heart.
When God sent prophets, it was not to ‘get them’, it was to ‘get them back’. God wanted them back as His people, even when they were ‘not my people’. The book of Hosea and the prophetic work of the man – was an effort to get through to Israel and to touch their hearts. To let them know that God still loved them and even as time was running out, that it was not too late.
A hardened heart is a powerful thing. Israel did not turn back to God. But God hopes that when we read this book, we will be touched in a way that they were not. The book of Hosea tell us that God loves us – even when we sin, and he wants us back. He calls us to repent. And he gives us the most powerful reason of all for coming back. We are his children – unless we choose to fully and finally renounce him forever (Hosea 11:3-4 )
As children grow up, they learn to understand that their behavior doesn’t upset their parents because they are breaking rules, but because they are breaking their hearts. This is how it is with God. We obey not because we love keeping rules but because we love God. We too struggle with spiritual adultery. For example, the apostle Paul identifies greed as idolatry Colossians 3:5. It is an easy temptation to fall for since income and security go hand in hand. If we don’t notice God’s signature on our paycheck and put our trust in money, it is easy for greed to take over. It is when God is absent from our thinking that we allow other things to take His place.
God loves us. He cares for us even when we betray Him and sent his Son to die for us while we were his enemies Rom 5:10. He loves us, whether or not we love Him back. But he cannot and will not save us, unless we do. We must love Him in return and having become his children all over again, we must remain faithful.
Barrie ON
Opposition and claims to Deity:
The feast of booths or Tabernacles was one of three feasts which all Jewish males were required to attend (Duet 16:16) along with the Feast of unleavened bread and the feast of weeks)
The feast was celebrated at the end of the harvest season after crops were gathered and processed. It took place in the month Tishri which would correspond with September/ October in the Georgian Calendar.
The feast was for 7 days with an eighth day added to the end, so it began and ended on a Sabbath. Each day included sacrifices beginning with 13 bulls and decreasing one each day until the final Sabbath, for a total of 70 bulls. There were also libation offerings and lamps were lit and continued to burn for the week.
As it was practiced in Jesus’ day, the feast involved 3 distinct emphases. The past, the present and the future were all bundled together in this one event.
As mentioned, all Jewish males were expected to attend, which of course included Jesus. By this time in his ministry, Jesus has gained considerable notoriety, especially in Galilee. Between John 6:4, where Passover is mentioned and John 7, where we have the feast of booths, considerable time has passed covering the events of Mat 15-18; Mk 7-9; Lk 9:18-50. Given Jesus reputation and the large number of people going to Jerusalem. Expectations were running high.
The people were also aware that tensions existed between Jesus and the religious leadership. If Jesus appeared at the feast, no one knew if this would be the showdown that would end the life and ministry of Jesus, or, provide the moment that he stepped into his role as political leader and messiah. At the very least, people were excited and full of expectation and speculation.
Rather treating John 7-8 chronologically, let’s set out to answer three questions.
Perceptions of Jesus
John introduces the Lord’s trip to Jerusalem by highlighting a conversation while he was still in Galilee. Jesus’ brothers were aware of the situation that we have been discussing and so they bring it up. They ask “are you going to Judea?”. Everyone is expecting you and it seems that if you want to be legitimate and recognized, this is the time and place (Jn 7:2-9). As a side note, Mk 6:3 relates, that His brother’s were: James, Joses, Judas and Simon along with his sisters. Jesus responded that he is not going up with them. And he seems to let them think that he may not go at all, but he doesn’t say that. He just tells them to go on ahead of him. His refusal is perhaps best understood in terms of declining to go on their terms or for the purposes that they suggest.
John specifically points out that they didn’t believe in Jesus, so it is hard to know exactly what his brothers intended. What they said may have been a blend of sarcasm and disbelief, but in any case they seem to be calling Jesus out to some degree. Time to put up or shut up. To which Jesus responded – that he and they are in different situations and that his purposes are not to fulfill worldly expectations.
John next takes us to Jerusalem itself where the crowds are speculating about what Jesus will do. Some are grumbling about him or as the NIV translates it, they are “whispering” which is probably a good way to put it (Jn 7:10-13). Some say that “he is a good man,” while others replied that “he is leading the people astray.” But everyone was wondering…“where is he?”
Those who believed that he was the messiah asked “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?” (Jn 7:31). Others held him to be a prophet but not necessarily the messiah. The situation was further exacerbated by a general fear of the religious leaders – so no one is speaking up publicly..
The Jews (John’s way of referring to the religious establishment) wonder how Jesus is so knowledgeable when he has not been trained by an established Rabbi? What would we think if we heard someone with no formal education, speak with knowledge and insight on a subject that is difficult (Jn7:15). We would be impressed. Yet the leaders dismissed the idea that he might be the messiah and were not in any way favourably disposed toward him.
So, when Jesus did arrive, “The Pharisees and chief priests sent officers (temple guards) to arrest Him” (Jn 8:32-36). When the guards returned empty-handed, they were asked, “why didn’t you arrest him?” They exclaimed “No one ever spoke like this man” (Jn 8:46).
The Pharisees dismiss the thought that Jesus spoke with knowledge and authority since it does not take much to impress an ignorant crowd. So they ask instead “Not one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?”
When the leaders dismissed Jesus so lightly, they were committing the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Nicodemus weighed in at this point and asked if they pass judgment without investigation?. Jesus had already said, “Do not judge by appearance but judge with right judgment.” Now Nicodemus points out that they are doing that very thing. His advice may be part of the reason that Jesus was able to continue teaching as he does. But John explains that the real reason he was not arrested was because “his time had not yet come.”
It may be helpful for us to reflect on our own response to Jesus in light of the opinions of others around us. How are we affected by the opinions of others?
Jesus was not content to let people draw their own conclusions. In the midst of these conversations He made a series of powerful claims.
He said: “If anyone thirsts let him come to me and drink. Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” John explains that this was a reference to the Holy Spirit who had not been given because Jesus has not yet been glorified (Jn 7:37-39).
The feast of Tabernacles thanked God for sending rain in its season, to ensure a successful harvest. It also commemorated God’s providence in the wilderness, with water from ‘the rock’. But the feast was also forward looking. The leaders associated the salvation that Isaiah promised (12:3) with the coming of the messiah. Isaiah wrote of a time to come for Israel, saying… “therefore you will joyously draw water from the springs of salvation.” In anticipation of that day, and on each morning of the feast, a priest would take a golden pitcher filled with water from the pool of Siloam to the temple and pour it out at the base of the alter. This ceremony was accompanied by rejoicing before the Lord and blowing the rams horn (shofar).
It was then while the celebrants thanked God for life-giving water, that Jesus identified himself as the source of living water. He was repeating a promise that he had made to the woman at the well in John chapter four. Reading to the end of Acts, we come to understand that it is those who are baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of their sins who receive the blessing of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Jesus went on to say – “I am the Light of the world, whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). He was drawing on another tradition observed at the feast of tabernacles.
The feast was a reenactment of Israel’s time in the wilderness. While there, the presence of God was visible as a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. To symbolize the fire of the God’s presence, there was a ‘lamp-lighting’ ceremony on the first night of the feast in the court of women. There were four large menorah’s – seventy five feet high and the light was so brilliant that the Mishna says there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the light. So, when Jesus claimed to the ‘the light of the world’, in the context of this feast, he was claiming to be the God who was symbolized by that light.
Now in scripture, the word light is sometimes used metaphorically. In John 1, the writer described Jesus as “the life…which upon coming to earth, was the light of men” (Jn 1:4). It has the quality of being “the light that shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. It is “The true light, which gives light to everyone was coming into the world.”
What John means is that Jesus is both the source of physical life and of eternal life. Those who want to see must accept his words as truth, and those who want eternal life must have faith in Jesus and obey his commands.
The Pharisees objected, saying that he is bearing witness about himself. Jesus responds that based on two witnesses’, truth can be established and he offers himself and the father. Everyone who is put on trial can testify on their own behalf and their testimony is as valid as that of any other witness.
Jesus also said: “Before Abraham was I AM,”
John has made it clear that Jesus was God and that he existed in heaven with the Father before creation. So while others debated the identity of Jesus, he claimed to be God, in no uncertain terms. The Jews had just asked him how, he could have known Abraham, since he is not yet 50 years of age. Jesus answered, “before Abraham ever existed I AM.” He applied the words that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, to himself. This was the clearest possible claim to deity yet and the Jews knew it. It would be blasphemy except for the fact that Jesus really is God.
He then turned the tables on them. While they were putting him on trial, they were the ones on trial before almighty God. And their relationship with God would turn on their acceptance and obedience to Jesus, or their rejection of him.
To illustrate this, Jesus pointed that if anyone is truly setting out to obey God, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority 7:17.
In the address that follows:
John 7:24 summarizes much of Jesus interaction with those at the feast as well as John’s overall description of the situation. It reads: “I told you that you would die in your sins for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
It is only when we trust in Jesus as our Divine King and Saviour that we can have any hope of redemption. John 7-8 reminds us that while we are making a decision about Jesus, God is making a decision about us. Everything turns on this.
The point is, that we don’t get to choose our own version of Jesus. He claimed to be the Son of God. We either accept that or we do not, but Jesus does not give us the option of redefining who He is.
Today, Jesus calls us to believe that he is God’s Son. To repent of sin, make our faith known to others and to be immersed for the forgiveness of sin. God will forgive us on the strength of Jesus sacrifice and indwell us in the person of the Holy Spirit.
Nothing we will ever do will be more important than how we respond to Jesus.
Barrie ON
Anyone even remotely aware of social media religious content has heard of the book of Enoch. It seems anyone who wants to claim knowledge of ancient mystical secrets unknown to the modern world cites the book of Enoch. If they are questioned about the legitimacy of this book, they are quick to point out that the New Testament quotes it, so it must be a reliable source. They may go on to claim it was the source material for Genesis. That it explains the origins of Greek and Roman mythology. That it describes a golden anti antediluvian world of giants and demigods who built significant ancient structures and maybe even became demons.One of those making such claims is Billy Carson who has been largely delegitimized by his appearance alongside Wes Huff on a recent podcast. Many of his ilk still claim to have special insights into the past, the future and the Spirit world, largely because of their extra-Biblical knowledge of ancient bible related texts. Chief among these sources is the book of Enoch.
For the purpose of this article, I would like to address a fairly simple question. What is the book of Enoch and what does it mean that Jude quotes from it.
The book describes a golden anti antediluvian world of giants and demigods who built all of the significant ancient structures and maybe even became daemons. It is an ancient pseudepigraphal book which along with a number of oth
A recent popular example is Billy Carson ( of 4biddenknowledge fame ). He made guest appearances on the Joe Rogan podcast, as well as other large interview style online talk shows. He has been largely delegitimized by his appearance alongside Wes Huff (PHD candidate and ancient document scholar at University of Toronto) on Mark Minard’s Elevating Beyond Podcast. Many of his ilk still claim to have special insights into the past and future and the spirit world, largely because of their knowledge of ancient bible related texts. Michael Knowles hosted Tim Alberino aka “the rogue archaeologist” who drew heavily from the book of Enoch in his presentation.
For this article, I would like to address two fairly simple questions. What is the book of Enoch and what does it mean that Jude quotes from it.
The book of Enoch is part of the pseudepigrapha, these are books written during the intertestamental period and attributed to Jewish patriarchs. Often these books seek to explain or otherwise amplify texts from scripture which people may be curious about but which do not get a great deal of attention by inspired authors. We might compare this today to fan fiction, which seeks to flesh out minor incidents that a favourite novel only alludes to.
Specifically, the book of Enoch starts from Genesis 5:21-24 and 6:1-4. In this text we read
“ When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”
This description stands out because unlike everyone else in the chapter Enoch is not said to have died. This becomes a matter of considerable discussion for Jewish interpreters. Enoch is also seventh from Adam a number often believed to have special theological significance. Because we have more information about Enoch than most others in the chapter, he seems to be a character of some significance and yet we know relatively little about him. The book of Enoch takes advantage of this lack of detail and uses it as an opportunity to fill in the blanks with elaborate fictitious content.
The work we are discussing is rightly called 1st Enoch as differentiated from 2nd and 3rd Enoch which are different books with different focuses. Furthermore it should be pointed out that even 1st Enoch is widely acknowledged to be a conglomeration of several different sources.
The historical Enoch lived before the flood, The book of Enoch appears to have been written thousands of years later during the intertestamental period. So the man mentioned in Genesis five can’t be the actual author. We do find the book among the dead sea scrolls which says something about it’s age and popularity in the years leading up to the life of Christ.
The book contains several visions of Enoch which tell of fallen angels, a coming messiah, the future state of the faithful, and God’s justice winning out in the end.
The discussion of fallen angels has been the matter most discussed in recent times. In connection with that, the book speculates on who the sons of God were in Genesis 6:1-4. Further how their intermarriage with the daughters of men led to the rise and activities of the Nephilim. Curiosity seekers are draw to these questions and eager to believe that this book has answers provided by a reliable person who was there when it happened. The problem of course is that Enoch was long gone before someone assumed his name and wrote an imaginary version of events.
This document gained enough popularity to be included in the collection of works among the dead sea scrolls. Fragments of it were found in Cave 4 at Qumran along with fragments from 574 other manuscripts. It was part of a library that included portions of Biblical books, Biblical commentaries, Apocryphal books, books on Jewish law, prayers, sectarian documents and others.
The book is also quoted by some early church fathers again indicating familiarity with, and popularity among, not just ancient Jews but also ancient Christians.
This brings us to our second point of discussion why does Jude quote it?
Jude is writing to warn of false teaching and further to encourage the faithful to defend the truth (Jude 3-4). He offers a series of warnings giving examples of those who have abandoned God’s truth down through history. Then beginning in verse 8 Jude starts to describe the nature of these people.
As a final warning Jude makes the point that Enoch seventh from Adam prophesied about these people saying “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousand of his holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Jude is using a well-known contemporary source as an example of the point he is making. In doing so Jude does not force us to conclude that 1st Enoch was inspired by God or that it was written by Enoch. He is simply using a truth expressed by an influential contemporary work to bolster his warning. The most we can say is that Jude guided by inspiration believes the statement describing judgment to be a true warning worth heeding.
It should be noted that Jude is not the only New Testament writer to do this. The Apostle Paul quoted a number of popular writings to make various points in his teaching:
Jude may have used a quote from a different pseudepigraphical book “The assumption of Moses” in verse 9. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen attribute the quote to that work.
The same principle is at play, Jude is using a cultural reference that his readers would be familiar with to make his point. As mentioned above, these examples do not mean that Paul or Jude affirm anything more than the specific quote used. It is still a common practice for a teacher to use a quotation that hearers or readers will understand and identify with. We should not read too much into the fact that New Testament authors sometimes do this.
Ancient religious writing can help us gain insights into the concepts with which people were familiar. They can also help translators learn about words and phrases. They may supply important historical context, helping us understand the meaning of scripture.
That said, there was a reason ancient Jews didn’t accept 1st Enoch as an inspired book or include it in the Bible. Rather, they saw it as human speculation not divine revelation.
Lest we miss the point, we would all do well to heed Jude’s warning as it remains as important today as it was for those who first read it.
________________________
Further Reading: If you are interested in reading the whole document, there are various free sources online. An excellent 2 volume work edited by James Charlesworth and entitled “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” can be ordered online.
2 Chronicles 10
“I wish there was a way to know you were in the good old days before you’ve actually left them” – Andy Bernard.
If you are old enough to remember the good old days, you might be a little older than me. If on the other hand you wonder what was good about no Tic-Toc and no Door Dash, you might be a little younger. We are living in a world where things are changing fast. We used to argue with our neighbours, but can now argue with people in other countries and in real-time.
Change comes with challenges and opportunities. We all struggle to navigate change. But we also know one thing for sure…the people who are older than us are the ones who have messed up the world. And the people who are younger than us are now messing up the world. Only our generation knows what they are doing.
You might think that this is a recent phenomenon facilitated by internet culture and social media. Not so. Intergenerational bias goes way back.
There was once a wise king in Israel, who achieved a great deal in service to God and his people. But his ambition outran his wisdom and he redirected his devotion to God to his wives and their gods. So he crushed his people with taxes and built pagan temples in Jerusalem. God’s response was to shrink his kingdom to two tribes and humble his posterity.
Following Solomon’s death in 2 Chronicles 10, we find his son Rehoboam trying to fill his father’s shoes. He gathered all of Israel to Shechem to make a new covenant with them. Led by Jeroboam, the people promised to serve Reheboam if he relaxed the heavy taxes of his father. They wanted to make their lives better under new leadership and pressed the advantage handed them by a government in transition.
So Rehoboam asked his father’s advisors (the old guard) for advice. They recommended that he give the people what they had asked for. This was not what Rehoboam was looking for. He may have been offended by the implication that he lacked the strength of his father. And it may have been that he was not ready to let go of the lavish lifestyle afforded by that income.
At any rate, he didn’t accept their advice, and instead sought the counsel of the friends who he had grown up with. They were of a very different opinion. Today they might have said “Okay Boomer, me and my homies think that’s cap, I’m way more goated than the old guy.” (If you’re struggling to understand that sentence just ask a nine year old.). In other words…”no new deal”. ‘Be a man and they will respect you’.
Generational differences and bias have been around as long as there have been generations. Rehoboam listened to his contemporaries and we know how that turned out. Under Jeroboam, 10 of the tribes rebelled and the nation was split into Israel in the North and Judah in the south.
In 1 Chron 12:32 we are told that when David was king he relied upon the advice of the “Men of Issachar who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” Rehoboam also had access to such men, who had read the situation and knew that it was time to back off. But he was young, proud, privileged and rich. He was out of touch with his people and didn’t know what he didn’t know.
When it comes to generational conflict, the fact is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Life is hard and it is complicated. God said that it would be, because we are living in a fallen world. Most people are doing their best to make their way in whatever circumstance they are in. When combined with the word of God, age and experience produce wisdom. It makes sense to share that wisdom so that each generation might benefit from the past and start in a better place. To do that, each must see others in a favourable light. Those who rely opon the wisdom of their elders – do so with respect and gratitude. Those who mentor as they teach – respect the generation upon which they must rely in their senior years and who will carry on the Lord’s work. Nothing is gained and much is lost when the generations fail to co-operate. The way forward is hand in hand with each other and with our Lord.
In a somewhat surprising twist, our culture has reached a strange place. While it’s been popular for some time to push back against “societally imposes gender norms” no one anticipated that push back would extend to rejecting DNA. Yet in a recent health class my son was instructed by his teacher that gender was a spectrum which had little or no relation to biology. His class of grade 8 students responded in an interesting way to the instruction, but we can save that story for the end of this review. If you were to guess how my son responded, you might suspect that his response would be informed by his moral and religious upbringing (As his father I hope that you would be right). You might think something like well of course he feels that way his dad is a preacher.
However, what if you were to guess how a sex researcher would respond to such instruction. What if I told you that this particular sex researcher was female and liberal in her politics? Further that she held a PHD in Neuroscience and self-described as a sexologist? The person I am describing as some may have guessed is Dr. Debra Soh the author or “The End of Gender.” Dr Soh describes herself as sex positive (that is in favor of a more liberal view of sexuality) and as working to combat sexual stigma and shame. With that brief background one might suppose that Dr. Soh does not hold a Godly view of human sexuality and that would be accurate. We might also suspect that she would be completely on board with the current trend to divorce sex from gender and promote gender as something that is fluid and constructed socially rather than biologically. It is on this last point and a number of others that Dr. Soh defies the current progressive view as completely unscientific and unsupported by evidence.
The book is organized into eleven chapters nine of which debunk specific myths about sex and identity in society.
It is probably helpful to let Dr. Soh define sex and gender at this point. Sex refers to biological identity and is based on chromosomes or gametes. Gender is the outward expression of one’s biology. With this in mind we can proceed to a brief overview of the chapters.
Dr. Soh introduces her book by lamenting a problem facing the study of biology. The problem for Dr. Soh is that politics and activism are being allowed to restrict scientific inquiry. Research that does not support the current politically correct talking points, like men can get pregnant or gender is a social construct, is simply not allowed. Having pursued hard science with a desire to learn and share scientific discovery this is deeply troubling to her. With this motivation in mind, she sets out to offer the real science on various myths regarding sex and identity that have captured the modern imagination.
Myth number one, Biological sex is a spectrum.
This key introductory chapter primarily addresses two aspects of this myth.
First that biological sex is not a spectrum but rather a binary defined by which gametes an individual produces eggs for females and sperm for males. Secondly, the idea that biological sex is a social construct. Soh points out that males and females are different in several specific ways which are not subject to cultural influence (there is more on this in later chapters). She also addresses the enforcement of certain language related to the term “sex assigned at birth” and other related terms. She makes the powerful point that “Activists wish to reinvent sex in this way because it allows for the separation of sex from an objective basis in reality. Adopting this position allows for science and logic, which currently serve as barriers to their unsupported theories, to be taken off the table when discussing gender.” Soh finishes this chapter by pointing to real life examples of unscientific ideas that are taught as facts in schools and the problems that this can create. In simple language, Dr. Soh explains why the current view of a sexual spectrum is not accurate or helpful.
Myth number two: Gender is a social construct.
In this chapter Soh primarily focuses on the brain. Since Gender is the expression of sexuality it is largely driven by mental processes. Thus Dr. Soh points out that human brains are sexually dimorphic. Male and female brains differ in both structure and function. Specifically, she points out that differences exist in the hippocampus, amygdala and interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus. Further, men have a greater number of connective tissues running from the front to the back while women have a greater number running from side to side. Functionally brains are also sexually dimorphic. Differences exist in verbal fluency (greater affinity in women) and mental rotation (greater proficiency among men). Men and women’s amygdala’s react very differently to visual sexual stimuli. Soh goes on to point out that even many traits that are sometimes claimed to be socially informed are due to exposure to testosterone in utero. She adds several other physiological differences and makes a critical point. Ignoring differences between men and women leads to bad research and wrong medical treatment. She goes on to discuss and largely debunk the accusation of sexism in STEM. Dr. Soh does a great job of summarizing the relevant studies and making them accessible for the non-initiated reader.
Myth number Three: There are More Than Two Genders.
In this chapter as the title implies Soh makes the point that there are only two genders, male and female. She points out that even the language used to describe transgender feelings are only meaningful because they assume a gender binary.
She helpfully adds two further discussions. First, that being a male or female doesn’t mean strict adherence to a set of rules (this was once common knowledge). Soh states that boys and girls can still be boys and girls while being interested in things that are not traditionally associated with their gender. Even more helpfully, she adds that some of the underlying thinking that comes with contemporary gender identity is very problematic. For example, she quotes a girl who said, “girls are weak, but I feel strong so must identify as a man.” She also speaks about young people who don’t like some of the changes that come with puberty, such as periods, saying, that since they don’t like that aspect of being a woman, they won’t be one. She rightly concludes that individuals should feel free to be themselves but be taught that changing genders is not needed or helpful in doing that. In a world where we often hear about tens or hundreds of gender identities it is helpful to have a neuroscientist explain why this notion is unscientific.
Myth number four: Sexual orientation and Gender identity are unrelated.
Soh says a “New, bizarre strain of thinking has sprung forth. Due to the trendiness in conceptualizing gender and sex as a spectra, the concept of “sexual fluidity” claims that anyone can be gay , and that human sexuality is in actuality free floating.” She contrasts this notion with the previously hard fought and presumably won idea, that sexual attraction is innate. In other words, people are born with a certain sexual attraction. Soh includes some of the most current discussions of sexual orientation and homosexuality. It may relate to an immune response in the body, or to a neurological difference in which some brains become partially feminized. Whichever theory turns out to be accurate or most accurate is irrelevant, the point Soh is making is that attraction likely stems from a biological cause not a sociological or cultural one. She makes a great point here which is that if sexual orientation is fluid, flexible and choosable (sic) then so is gender identity. This is exactly the opposite of the argument many transgender activists are trying to make.
In this Chapter Soh also includes a discussion of gender non-conforming children, an issue which has been the focus of much of the current discussion. Here she makes the point that gender stabilizes as a person reaches puberty and the vast majority of gender dysphoric children grow out of their condition. The current trend of early transitioning caused one author to describe the whole situation as simply sterilizing gay people. Soh also points out in this chapter that “it remains unclear whether the brain differences are a reflection of gender identity. She also makes the key point that when someone is struggling with gender dysphoria their issues with their gender would more appropriately be considered a symptom of another mental health condition. Studies have shown that this is the case in 75% of those dealing with gender dysphoria.
Dr. Soh demonstrates in this chapter and throughout the book a great deal of compassion. Her desire is to do what’s best for people with real problems. While it’s already been noted that Dr. Soh is an atheist, she does an admirable job of sharing the truth in love . It is this chapter that a Christian reader is likely to take issue with the most. It is helpful to keep in mind that identifying a natural cause or predisposition for a behaviour, does not morally justify it.
Myth number five: Children with Gender Dysphoria should transition.
Dr. Soh’s short answer is no. She offers the following reasons.
As Christians we would oppose this outside of actual medical conditions related to DNA.
Soh makes some other powerful points in this chapter: she explains that there is no such thing as a transgender child because; “Transgender is an identity and political label denoting that an individual identifies as the opposite sex. Children, and particularly pre-pubescent children, do not possess the emotional maturity to identify this way.”
She also laments the current medical approach of “gender affirming care” which is mandated by law in many jurisdictions. This is done despite having no evidentiary foundation. She addresses the common claim that this is an effort to avoid suicide, noting there is no difference in pre-and post-transition suicide rates. Further pointing out that no children were actually involved in the cited studies.
Lastly, she discusses rapid onset gender dysphoria. This phenomenon is new and largely found among teenage girls. Dr. Soh gives some credence to the social contagion explanation. She asserts that this is largely a result of peer pressure and negative experiences. She shares the story of one girl who had been a repeat victim of sexual assault and who said if she was a boy no one would bother her anymore. She ends the chapter by predicting that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of transition regret and closes by saying “When society looks back in horror- we tried to warn you.”
Myth 6 No differences exist between trans women and women who were born women.
Soh describes her position well saying “It feels insensitive to point out that transgender women are in any way different than women who were born women… But we can agree that transgender people deserve equal rights and legal protection while acknowledging that some biological differences do exist.” In the chapter Soh addresses the issues surrounding what is called inclusive language. She rejects the strange rules regarding the use of terms like people who menstruate or have certain body parts or functions. She also points out that gender neutral spaces can and have been used by predators to gain access to victims. Finally, she addresses sports in which transgender men have been allowed to compete as women. As has often been done she stresses: First that this unfairly disadvantages biological women because trans men are not a threat to competitive male athletes. Second, she points out that trans women have considerable advantages by virtue of being born male. Again, it should be remembered that Dr. Soh has no moral axe to grind in relation to these issues which can cause some pause for those of us who do. It is expected that the Christian reader will rightly take issue with some details in this chapter.
Myth 7 Women Should behave like men in sex and dating.
In this chapter we take a break from the discussion related to gender and politics and instead focus on the predominant approach to sexuality in modern western culture. Louise Perry has called this sexual disenchantment, in other words reducing sex to simply a physical behaviour with nothing sacred or special about it. Here Soh points out that men and women have different motivations and desires when it comes to sexual behaviour and dating. She pushes back quite effectively on the idea that men and women are the same and that sex differences are socially imposed and can be unlearned. She argues that it hurts women to behave like men.
She addresses the idea that gender norms are a social construct by pointing out that similar beauty and desirability standards exist across time and culture.
She also addresses the current concept of toxic masculinity, pointing out that women are often quite harmful to one another, and so toxic behaviour is not restricted to one sex. She also points out that women prefer men who demonstrate what she calls benevolent sexism. We might simply call it respecting sex differences.
Myth 8 Gender-Neutral Parenting works.
In this chapter Soh deals with the idea that gender typical traits are taught to children from the moment they are born (in other words socially constructed). If Children are raised in a gender-neutral environment, they will not display gender differences. She cites several examples of this effort being adopted by government, hospitals, and schools. She insightfully questions how this idea can be reconciled with the idea of trans children. Dr. Soh points out that gender typical behaviour is normal and healthy. Related to this the concern that a child may have been “assigned the wrong sex at birth” is dealt with. Soh responds saying that its greater than 99% chance that upon reaching adulthood the child will be the sex that everyone thought it was. By saying 99% she allows for true medical intersex disorders not the current gender fluid thinking. Soh reiterates, that gender is largely biological. However, she speculates that this will cause some to start theorizing that gender stereotypes are learned before birth. She spends a good bit of the chapter examining the case of David Reimer and the debunked theories of John Money who’s views still hold considerable influence despite having been completely debunked. She includes a discussion on what parents can do. Here she suggests that parents help girls fight the pressure to be more like boys and vice-versa. She says we need to stop pretending that the sexes are identical.
Myth number nine, Sexology and Social Justice make good be fellows.
This chapter reveals much of what drives the author to write such a book and illuminates some of the harmful consequences associated with political correctness. Soh states “Activism has no place in scientific research. There is no such things as “feminist science.” ‘queer science,” liberal or conservative science.” Soh again cites troubling examples of political ideas being applied to science in a very illiberal way. She warns us to examine anything published in the last few years to determine if the information that it shares is scientific or propagandistic. She also discusses the cost to your career in academia and in general to speaking out in defence of truth or in criticism of progressive activism. She offers examples of preschool children being taught about queer rights, and a school in British Columbia putting up posters addressing white privilege. She calls for parents and others to speak up saying “The only reason this manner of thinking keeps proliferating is our silence.”
Dr. Soh concludes with a short epilogue entitled “the end of academic freedom”. In it she shares more examples of social justice taking truth captive. She laments the trends that she sees in her own field of sexology. And she fears the negative impact that unscientific and often harmful ideologies are having upon our institutions.
Having considered this overview of the book, Christians will take issue with the liberal stance that the author takes on sexuality. Christians will also disagree with some of the theories that she advances especially regarding homosexuality. Having said that, Dr. Soh’s insights as a Neuroscientist and sex researcher are quite informative. Further Dr. Soh’s philosophical background lends considerable credibility to her views when discussing moral issues with unbelievers.
Becoming familiar with the data that she brings to bear and working to understand the scientific insights that she offers can go a very long way in aiding discussions about human sexuality with our children, with our congregations and Sunday school classes. We can use these truths to prepare university students to respond intelligently to the pressure they will face to buy into the current progressive trends surrounding sex and gender.
Familiarizing ourselves with Dr. Soh’s research and insights can give us a greater ability to show the love of God and truth of the gospel to those embroiled personally in gender confusion.
This book is not easy to read and is of primary value for the scientific and biological information that it offers. It is also of value in that it confronts current gender ideology on a scientific level, which is an area of the discussion that we in the church may not be prepared to do. Thus, it is a valuable resource.
I’ll end by saying that all hope is not lost. When my son’s teacher presented the myth that there are more than two genders, many students in his grade 8 class took issue. In fact, there were so many comments made in opposition to the teacher that she cut the discussion short in frustration. I consider this a win and a perfect application of Dr. Soh’s request that we all speak up. I feel compelled to ask, if a class of grade 8 students have the courage to stand on their convictions, then what is stopping the adults around them from doing so.
Kevin Cleary
Should II Corinthians be just one book? Has it been edited and redacted by someone at a later time?
Does it consist of multiple letters penned by Paul to Corinth then later stitched together? Could it contain the sorrowful letter or previous letter referenced by Paul himself? One does not have to look far to find all of these theories and more offered to explain the content of II Corinthians we will consider if these theories are supported by the text and by good historical investigation. To begin we must establish the circumstances which prompted Paul to write.
In addition to this background we must consider the challenge of having your influence and message rejected by those you love. Further that rejection is in favor of false teachers who advocate for syncretism with idolatry, and Judaism. Who are not interested in the well-being of the congregation but only their own selfish desires.
In II Corinthians we find a book consisting of thirteen chapters purported to be composed by Paul to the Christians living and worshiping in the Achaean city of Corinth. The letter contains various discussions all of which relate to Paul’s relationship with these Christians and the strain placed on that relationship because of a few factors.
This is the general outline we can arrive at by a careful reading of the letter along with the book of Acts. Some have looked at the book which is perhaps more personal and emotional than other of Paul’s writings and considered it to be somewhat disjointed. This they have accounted for by proposing multiple letters and various alternative historical reconstructions. II Corinthians is said to be not one letter based on one occasion, but a number of letters based on a number of occasions.
Here are some of the most common proposals:
It Is especially common to propose that chapters 1-9 are one letter which fit the occasion of Paul’s fourth correspondence with Corinth. In this scenario Chapters 10-13 constitute the painful letter referred to in 2:3 and 7:8. This suggestion was first made by J. S. Semler in 1776 and has continued to have some popularity up to present day (Barnett, 2011).
This is by no means the only proposal which has been suggested.
Some scholars have said removing 2:14-7:5 makes for a more natural reading and thus concluded that the content from 2:15-7:4 must be from a different letter which has been inserted.
Beyond this, others have said that 6:14-7:1 does not sound much like Paul at all and must have been taken from another source. Possibly Qumran writings, and then inserted into the book.
The similarity between chapters 8 and 9 have led some to suggest that they are different letters 9 being written to follow up and bolster the message of 8.
Finally, one further suggestion has been made, that chapters 10-13 do not constitute the painful letter but rather represent a fifth correspondence between Paul and Corinth authored upon receiving a bad report from Titus when he returned from delivering the Fourth letter which would be II Cor 1-9 (Long, 2004, p. 1).
If we accept these various theories, we are left with not one but potentially 5 fragments of letters which have been stitched together by redactors resulting in what we have as II Corinthians.
These letters / letter fragments would be;
The various constructions resulting in these fragments can be left to a different discussion as each commentator will offer a reconstruction which favours their particular theory. The question which draws our attention is not what historical reconstruction, but why the number and variety of reconstructions. For that answer we must look to the literary problems that some identify in the book.
The First issue to which most commentators point is a seemingly drastic change in tone between II Corinthians 1-9 and II Corinthians 10-13. Kruse explains the sentiment of many who hold this view when he says: “it is psychologically impossible for Paul to have written chapters 1-9 and 10-13 at the same time” (Kruse, 1987, p. 28). Kruse goes on to say “what we see in chapters 1-9 is Paul’s response to a crisis resolved. While in chapters 10-13 we have a fresh crisis which is far from resolution.” He adds to this a further point which is to say the initial crisis was caused by one individual but the later involves a whole group of intruders.
While any reader of 2 Corinthians will readily admit that a change of tone is evident as we begin chapter 10, most consider a number of good reasons to maintain the unity of the letter.
Other points raised have to do with time references and geography.
The are often combined with the previous points we have discussed to form a sort of preponderance of evidence. We have already addressed the weakness of those points. We will add that it was not at all uncommon in the ancient mind to consider Macedonia quite different from “Greece” and notice that these were different Roman provinces from the time of Augustus.
In support of the theory that 2:14-7:4 were inserted, it is said that reading 2:13 connected to 7:5 makes for a smoother reading. It’s worth noting however that similar points to those raised in regards to 10-13 can be made of 2:14-7:4. These chapters make sense where they are given what Paul is trying to do in the letter. Furthermore, it is reasonable that Paul re-introduce his travel in 7:5 because he is well aware that he has digressed and wants to remind his readers of the travel narrative.
In relation to 6:13-7:1, the passage forms a strong appeal for separation from Idolatry and it makes perfect sense that Paul, quoting the Old Testament, would sound similar to other contemporary Jewish sects using the same source. Again it is not warranted to suggest editorial modification in this case.
Lastly chapters 8 and 9 are sometimes said to be too similar and would therefore not likely be found in the same letter, and especially not in such close proximity. Furthermore, Paul’s use of the phrase “Now concerning” is said to indicate that he is introducing a new topic, showing that chapter 9 was at one time separate from chapter 8. Yet it has already been shown that the phrase works well as a resumption of the discussion in chapter 8:16-24 (D.A. Carson, 1992, p. 277).
To the previous point, the content of the chapters 8 and 9, while similar, make good sense when read together as a strong appeal to take action. Notice also that 9:3 relies on the previous introduction of the brothers that we have in 8:16-23. Thus, the alleged insertion of chapter 8 or 9 is not necessitated by the text but refuted instead.
Having considered not only the most prolific proposed separation between chapter 1-9 and 10-13, but also a number of others, we can safely conclude that these suggestions cause at least as many problems as they solve. Not only are they unwarranted by the internal evidence, they lack any support whatsoever from external evidence, which is arguably a weightier matter. There is no external evidence of any kind which would call the unity of II Corinthians into question.
There are no manuscripts which end at chapter 9, there are no fragments that contain only chapters 10-13 or 3-6 or 8 or 9 or which are missing 6:13-7:1. Not only that, there are no citations or allusions to these fragmented letters in any writings of the Church fathers. I am aware that Ignatius doesn’t mention 2 Corinthians but if there were 7 letters of Paul to Corinth in circulation, we would expect that to get some attention. If not by Ignatius, then by someone else, but we simply don’t see it.
Given that there is no external or manuscript evidence for these various fragment theories why are they so pervasive? Craig Evans once explained why such speculative theories were advanced in the field of Historical Jesus Research. He made the point that “with a large number of people pursuing terminal degrees and tenure and even notoriety, there is often a great temptation to push the facts beyond where they should go.” I might suggest a similar motive here. If you write a scholarly paper which says 2 Corinthians was written by Paul in basically the form we have in the NT nobody is likely to read that paper. If you claim to have uncovered Paul’s lost letters, that’s going to get some attention. Furthermore, we are in an area of Biblical studies which has little new by way of factual evidence to consider. This leaves it ripe for speculation and suggestion. I am not disparaging good detailed historical research or the field of biblical studies, but simply reminding us all to read widely and to examine our theories carefully. I might also point out that as with all fields it is possible even for scholars to be caught up in what is trendy.
A further note on historical reconstruction in general is also in order. It is good and helpful to dig into the historical context of any part of scripture. However, unless we are directly drawing on the text our reconstruction cannot be allowed to alter our application of revealed truth. Whether it be Kraig Keeners work on household codes applied to Eph 5 or John Boswell’s re-framing of Rom 1 or many others. We cannot allow an imagined historical reconstruction to overshadow revealed truth.
We conclude therefore, that efforts to understand 2 Corinthians as a series of literary fragments, clumsily stitched together by an unknown editor, are long on speculation, and short on fact. They offer no better interpretive approaches than the one suggested by the book itself. They lack compelling historical evidence and are completely undone by the absence of supporting textual evidence. Though most of these theories still attribute all of the book to the apostle Paul, they are unwarranted and unhelpful to anyone seeking a better understanding of the book.
What is helpful is the powerful example of Paul, as he pours out his heart to the Corinthians, making every effort to restore the fallen and protect those in danger. He doesn’t hide that he is upset and frustrated, rather he opens his heart to the very people who broke it in hopes that finally that will be enough to save them.
Works Cited
Barnett, Paul. Paul, Chronology and the unity of 2 Corinthians. Aug 2011. <http://paulbarnett.info/2011/09/paul-chronology-and-the-unity-of-2-corinthians/>.
Burnett, Paul. The New International Commentary On the New Testament The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids MI: Erdmans , 2018.
D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1992.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Dowers Grove Illinois USA: Intervarsity Press, 1990.
Kruse, Colin. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 2 Corinthians. Leicester England: Intervarsity press , 1987.
Land, Christopher. The Integrity of 2 Corinthians from a Linguistic Perspective. Hamilton Ont, 2013.
Long, Fredrick J. Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthian. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
In 2 Corinthians Paul is describing his travel plans in relation to Corinth. He mentioned not finding Titus in Troas and so leaving even though there was a good opportunity. He carried on to Macedonia.
He pauses in chapter 2 verse 14 to thank God who always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. He goes on to say that “We are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
Paul paints us a picture of a Roman triumph and if we take a few minutes to see this illustration with first century glasses it comes to life with meaning and clarity. A Roman Triumph was given by the senate to a general who had won a great victory. To be eligible, a general had to have met certain conditions:
| Conditions for granting the right to triumph |
| the triumphant had to be a current or former dictator, consul or praetor and had to hold any of the above-mentioned offices during the war; the leader had to act according to the will of the gods, that is to have the so-called ius auspicii in the area; the commander had to personally lead the troops; the chief had to be proclaimed emperor, a title he held to triumph; the war had to be waged against an external enemy (civil war was not accepted); as a result of the war, the new territory had to be incorporated (regaining the lost territory was not accepted); in a single battle, at least 5,000 enemies must have died with proportionally lower own losses, triumph did not come for victory at sea; the winner had to bring the army to the walls of Rome. |
(Jasinski)
A Tribute was a sort of formal honour, combined with a religious ceremony involving a parade and a celebration. It would sometimes last for multiple days. It would proceed as follows: The Senate, headed by the magistrates. Trumpeters to announce the arrival. Carts laden with the spoils of war, at times vast fortunes. White bulls and oxen for sacrifice. Elephants and rare animals or exotic flora from the conquered countries. The arms and insignia of the leaders of the conquered enemy. The enemy leaders themselves, with their relatives and other captives. The lictors of the Imperator in single file (these were the executioners), their faces wreathed with laurel. The Imperator himself, in a circular chariot drawn by four horses. He was attired in a gold-embroidered robe and a flowered tunic; he held a laurel bough in his right hand, a sceptre in his left, and wore a laurel wreath on his head. The adult sons and officers of the Imperator. The entire body of infantry, with laurel adorned spears (Britannica).
Along with these, just behind the captives, would be incense bearers, people throwing flowers and spreading perfume as well as some carrying spices from the conquered land. “The smell of incense burnt to the gods in a Roman triumphal procession would have had different connotations for different people. For the victorious general and his soldiers, and for the welcoming crowds, the aroma would be associated with the joy of victory. But for the prisoners of war the aroma could only have been associated with the fate of slavery or death which awaited them (Kruse). While some have wanted to make the connection to OT sacrifice these Roman practices seem to better fit the context as well as the application of the passage. One can imagine this fragrant scene which for some was the fragrance of victory and glory and peace while to others the last leg of their journey to impending doom.
There is further debate about where Paul stands in the parade, is he a captive of Christ being ushered to his death which connects with his ongoing suffering or is he a victorious combatant returning home. The challenge is that both seem to fit the theme of strength in weakness and glory in suffering which is a key element in the book of 2 Corinthians and Paul’s ministry and indeed all Christians ministries. I would contend however, that Paul and all the faithful are not captives but victors, as this fits best with the phrase “leads us in triumphal procession.
The aroma doesn’t change, but the meaning does as with many things in life. Consider that Paul is addressing a group containing those who have responded differently to his message. He is also addressing people who have had their friends, family members, fellow citizens respond differently to their message. The message that Paul shares is the one that we share “Through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him.”
We must ask why is this such a divisive message? Why does the aroma of Christ cause such a strong response? Why not simply “Live and let live” as the saying goes? The reason is…that people know. Just as surely as those captives and victors knew their fate as they marched in a Roman triumph, people know. They know they could be better, they know they are guilty, they know their lives are missing a key ingredient. The message and example of Jesus challenges them to change. They know that certain behaviours are wrong. They know. The only way they can carry on as if everything is fine is by telling themselves every day, that nothing is wrong. Then comes Jesus, perfectly just and loving and right and even though they hate the thought of it, they know that right is right and wrong is wrong.
We are living in a time when people are being forced to admit it, on large cultural stages. Joe Rogan on a recent podcast said, “we need Jesus.” Russel Brand, the hedonistic shock comedian and actor was recently baptized. Ayan Hirsi Ali left Islam due to the abuses she suffered in the name of a false God and turned to Atheism. She has now more recently claimed Christian faith. In her explanation she states that Atheism does not offer the kind of uniting truth that societies need. Even the likes of notorious atheist Richard Dawkins stated in a recent interview that he sees the value in a Christian culture.
The Aroma of Christ is so powerful, so compelling and beautiful that when presented with it, people know. It’s like a vegan smelling bacon. They may refuse to eat it, but they know it smells amazing. This is becoming a more and more undeniable conclusion. We have said this before, but the conditions of our current society are exactly what one would expect in a world untethered from a moral law and a divine Law Giver. Jesus offers the only hope for a world like ours – Joe Rogan was more right than he could have possibly imagined.
In light of the situation illustrated Paul asks: Who is sufficient for these things?
Paul is setting up a contrast. It is not a contrast of character but of content. Paul is superior to these peddlers of the gospel not because of who he is but because of what he shares: The fragrance of the knowledge of him. He later makes a similar point when in chapter 4 he says “we carry this treasure in jars of clay. To show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” It is God’s Triumph that is being celebrated in the imagery that Paul has created and it is the knowledge of this victory that Paul proclaims, and to which people are responding. As Christians we must engage in conversation with those we are trying to reach in a way that is comfortable and effective. A big part of doing this is understanding this imagery, it’s not about us. It is all about God’s victory and about partaking in it or remaining on the losing side.
We can’t compromise the message.
When we stayed in Tennessee recently, we had an Air B and B. The owners had placed glade plug ins all around the house. We didn’t enjoy the smell, so guess what we did? When people respond badly to a message, the temptation is to change the message in hopes that some other one will be more appealing. This is the nature of Triumph. There is a winner. God is the winner and proclaiming his victory over sin and death is absolutely good news. Some people are enamoured with sin and actually dead in it, and don’t want to be told that they are on the losing side. This is not to say that we adopt a self-righteous attitude. Remember that we are reading II Corinthians, which was written by Paul after this church had rejected him and who were at that very time entertaining false teachers over and above Paul. Yet Paul wrote to them in love, without compromising the truth, and calls us to do the same.
The imagery that Paul used presented a powerful and well-known image for his first century audience. It also presents a powerful message for us. Despite the circumstances of our lives, and no matter how difficult, God always leads us in Triumphal procession. ‘In Christ’ we participate in that Triumph so that through us he spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. This also means that we are to some, a fragrance from death to death, but to others a fragrance from life to life.
Barrie, Ontario
Peter writes to Christians who are called to live faithfully in the face of mounting opposition (I Pet 1:6) In the face of persecution and suffering, Peter wants to encourage faithfulness and to enable the effectiveness of God’s people. He doesn’t want them just to hang on and get by, but wants them to grow and thrive as they achieve God’s good purposes in the world.
One of my favorite stories of Christian love is one that comes from a trip that my family calls the worst vacation ever. I was not with them but most of the rest of my family was. They were traveling to Alabama to attend a wedding, but while they were in route Hurricane Katrina hit destroying the venue and much of the coast. Thankfully they realized what had happened and stopped heading south while in Tennessee. But as they started back, they ran into car trouble in Franklin Kentucky. This was Saturday night, and they found a motel but were at a loss as to what to do – except for Sunday morning. Everyone knows what to do then. They found the local congregation of the Lord’s people and showed up for Sunday services. Thankfully the Church in Franklin also knew what to do. They were friendly and welcoming and made sure that before services were over, they knew who these strangers were and what they were doing. When they learned the situation one of the members (a manager at the local Ford dealership) opened the auto shop where he worked and got the repairs done on the mini van. The members there also made sure that everyone was fed and comfortable and had extra money to cover added expenses including the car repair which they also paid for.
If you had never heard the phrase “going above and beyond” you might invent it just to describe the care and hospitality demonstrated by the Franklin Ky Church of Christ. I would suggest though that it describes or should describe the attitude and behaviour of all Christians as they live their Christian duty and demonstrate their love one for another. I might further suggest that this is exactly the kind of thing that Peter has in mind as he reaches out to the struggling faithful.
God always Goes Above and Beyond Expectations – Consider:
What about us though, do we care?
James describes a man who sees his brother in need James 2:15-16 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? I must add that I hear another story every day of some brother or sister who called or picked something up or took time to check in on someone else. I also know that there are times when I withdraw my concern when I think to myself, I don’t have time to help with that or I don’t have the means. God didn’t just care, he invested his heart in us, he sees us in need, separated and alone and he doesn’t just give us a hand – he provided a way to make us all that we could be. He has redeemed us and then added us to his family, secured our eternity and made us Holy as Priests I Pet 2:9-12. It would be like paying someone’s debt then buying them a new house.
You’re Not Just Righteous, so don’t just be right (I Peter 1:14-15) “As obedient children do not be conformed to the passions of you former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct”.
Remember when Jesus said, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 5:20)? Maybe you read that and thought, what? how is that even possible? certainly the original hearers would have thought this. This is a key concept that we need to understand. God is perfect I Jn 1:5. “In him is no darkness at all.” So only those who are perfect can be in his Kingdom. The scribes and Pharisees certainly didn’t qualify. But Jesus wasn’t talking about a person who did all the right stuff at all the right times. The righteousness that comes from God is not about being right it’s about being made anew. I Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light”.
Do we read that and say “wow I’m pretty impressive!” I must really be something to be qualified for all that. Of course not, we understand that our own efforts are worthless and hopeless unless empowered by God. I unapologetically work as hard as I can to obey God and live according to his word and I believe every Christian must do that. However, I don’t for one second think that I am doing it alone or that I have achieved anything. I obey because of who I am because of what God’s grace has done in my life. A truly righteous person lives God’s will to the best of their ability because of what God has done, because of who they are in Christ. They do not do so in order to accomplish their own salvation. You can’t get there by your own efforts. So don’t just be right, understand that you are God’s child…that you are freed from sin and death and then live like it!
When God works he does more than we can ask or imagine . He goes so far beyond what we need and beyond what we can even understand. As we live this life we are to be a manifestation of the God whom we serve. People need to look at us and see a reflection of our Saviour. If that is to be the case then his Church has to look as special as he says it is. His people need to look as sanctified as he says they are. Jesus said that “I when I am lifted up will draw all men unto me”. Are we lifting him up in our lives in our churches to the extent that people can see the light that they so desperately need and experience the Love and Grace that God wants to show them.
Barrie ON
Photo used with permission. Source link: https://www.photos-public-domain.com/2011/03/02/sun-in-blue-sky/
David Berlinski comments that mathematicians often see themselves as slightly above other academic disciplines. There are two reasons for this. First, they have serious doubts about the rigor of other academic disciplines and second, they distain the imprecision of non-mathematical arguments (Berlinski).
What then would motivate a mathematician to seriously study sociology? It was feminist glaciology. You may wonder what that could be and so did James Lindsay a Mathematician. He was reading a paper “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research” (Carey). He could not believe that an article claiming to be focused on physical science could be so devoid of factual measurement or argumentation. As a mathematician he had generally worked from the assumption that serious research involved facts, physical measurements and carefully cited and reasoned arguments. His disappointment and frustration led him to share his concerns with some collogues who would start a project now known as “The Grievance Studies Affair.”
In order to demonstrate their thesis that the humanities had been taken over by a political agenda and lacked any academic credibility, Lindsay teamed up with two other scholars; Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian. They planned to write hoax papers and submit them to academic journals in the areas of gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their effort was highly successful with seven out of twenty papers accepted for publication. Seven more were in review when they came forward ending the experiment (Mounk).
This effort involved a great deal of research into the core concepts and philosophical assumptions of what they called grievance studies (what today we usually call “wokeness”). A more technically correct label would be “Critical Studies.” You may be familiar with the term “Critical” because of its notoriety in relation to “Critical Race Theory,” which is but one of many areas of studies that can be labeled “critical.”
Since the results of the “Grievance Studies Affair” became public James Lindsay has found a role as a public intellectual lecturing and writing on “critical theory” and its various expressions. Lindsay posts much of his work on his web site “New Discourses.” Helen Pluckrose the other author of the paper has also gained considerable notoriety from her involvement in the “Grievance Studies Affair”. As expected she does not find herself welcomed by her previous colleagues as a humanities researcher, rather she works as a political and culture writer and is the founder of Counterweight, an organization that seeks to work against the enforcement of wokeness in various institutions.
Clearly, both authors come to their effort from a strong background of academic research and personal experience. In the book “Cynical Theories,” the authors seek to define and offer informed criticism of wokeness as an ideology, as well as offer a better alternative, which is modern liberalism. Their general thesis is that wokeness is applied postmodernism. Therefore it carries with it the weaknesses of postmodernism. They are not arguing that the world does not have any social problems, rather that liberalism offers a better way forward.
Before we can discuss this claim and how the authors advance it a brief definition of wokeness, or critical theory is in order. Critical Theory goes back to Karl Marx and his economic binary of the bourgeois and proletariat. Later, thinkers influenced by Marx liked his idea of oppressor and oppressed as a way to understand society but modified his theory somewhat. It was not the capitalists oppressing the workers (although that was still true) rather, it was western culture also known as white Christian culture oppressing subordinate cultures. In order to change culture, and end oppression it is necessary to help people see this oppression and once aware of it respond accordingly. Those who engage in the effort to identify oppression, make people aware of it, and then cause them to respond to it, label themselves “critical theorists.” They have been doing their work for some time in sociology departments of universities. As their field has expanded and developed over time it has broken down into various sub-disciplines. These disciplines are now specific areas of study, but they all share the oppressor oppressed understanding of society.
It is not at all surprising to see critical theorist finding common ground with postmodernism because postmodernism postulates that all metanarratives are power grabs. Critical theorists are deeply concerned about such power grabs and see them everywhere. They are also largely convinced that everything is a social construct perpetuated by language. Again, this sounds perfectly postmodern. There is however one major fly in the ointment. That fly is the social binary, which is without a doubt, a metanarrative and therefore to be rejected, according to postmodernism.
In order to prove their thesis that wokeness (critical theory) is postmodernism applied, the authors first establish two principles and four themes of postmodernism. They then seek to demonstrate that these principles have informed and influenced each category of Critical Theory.
The authors identify the two principals of postmodernism as:
The authors identify four major themes of postmodernism as:
Following the chapters introducing postmodernism Lindsay and Pluckrose examine each of the major disciplines of critical theory to demonstrate how the above principles and themes have been brought to bear in each area as follows:
Postcolonial Theory:
Western colonizers enforce their perception of truth on marginalized indigenous populations through language and ideological privilege. Valuing rationality, empirical evidence, testing and measuring as objective ways of accessing truth disregards “other ways of knowing.” Therefore accepted ways of knowing must be rejected in favour of non-western (read non-rational/ testable) methods.
Standpoint theory:
This comes heavily into play here with the suggestion that various perspectives offer unique insights which can’t be perceived by those outside of a given community. Colonial/ western voices should be diminished while indigenous voices should be prioritized. Here, the authors point out how postmodern rejection of objective truth and its insistence that any truth claim is in fact a power play from the foundation of Postcolonial Theory.
Queer Theory:
Despite the term queer usually being associated with sexuality, in this case it is considered – departure from the normal. Normal is understood as oppressive and problematic. Rather queer theory seeks to do away with the concept of normal such that all variance is equal and equally valid. In order to achieve this, Queer Theory seeks to “deconstruct discourses” in order to delegitimize categories that currently seem obvious and useful to us. This certainly includes categories like male and female but wants to press further toward categories like human/animal, living/mechanical, and even right/wrong. In this case again, the authors highlight a rejection of objective truth as well as the use of language to enforce a particular perspective.
Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality:
This is a deeply American theory which holds that people are inherently racist and that the power dynamic is the white oppressor class enforcing their cultural dominance over everyone else but especially black people. Further intersectionality holds that oppression is felt more depending on factors such as gender and sexuality. This chapter requires some nuance as postmodernism is rejected as yet another attempt by white males to enforce cultural dominance. Intersectionality however fits a postmodern view quite well as it seeks to accommodate various perspectives and experiences weighing and or valuing them in terms of oppression.
Feminisms and Gender Studies:
Feminism in its current form is considerably different than its’ past iterations. It is not simply seeking equality between genders. It is easy to see how Marx’s power dynamic could be easily taken onboard and applied to males oppressing females. However, this seems hard to maintain with a postmodern rejection of categories derived from accurate perceptions of reality. The authors rightly point out that this has led to a divide within feminism. Some holding to the idea that “woman” is a real category while others have moved toward a more postmodern perception of gender as a social construct, focusing on one’s standpoint rather than actual biological gender.
Disability and Fat Studies:
Disability studies began with a noble goal of making the world more accommodating to those with physical and mental disabilities. No one takes issue with this. However, disability studies go further in borrowing principles from queer theory which relies on postmodernism to reject the idea that anything can be said to be normal. Further it is considered problematic to hold the view that being able bodied and neurotypical is preferable in any way to being disabled in some way.
Fat studies uses similar ideas to those discussed under queer theory to reject the notion that anything can be said to be normal. This includes body size. It also seeks to reject objective truth claims about health and well-being in favour of standpoint theory in which each situation provides its own truth which cannot be understood and more importantly cannot be questioned.
Social justice is broken into two chapters;
Social justice scholarship is said to have adopted postmodern claims about truth as a power grab. They accept this as absolute truth. The authors suggest the only absolute truth. This is of course a metanarrative. If this sounds contradictory that’s because it is. Critical scholars have taken one key element from postmodernism but don’t hold to the philosophy. The authors point out that this represents a practical evolution of postmodern thought. They do seem to miss one of the key components of Critical Theory; liberation.
Liberation is the greatest goal of critical theorists not truth. Thus they are happy to adopt one tenet of postmodernism because of it’s practical value to their goal, even if they elevate it to an explanatory role pure postmodern philosophy would not. Ideas are assessed by Critical Theorists based on their effectiveness not their accuracy.
For example: Social justice scholarship is deeply concerned about the identity of those involved in it. It is considered deeply problematic to read the work of white males, while minorities are to be favoured even if they are not as academically credible. This example works well to demonstrate both the scholarship and action components.
Finally, the authors suggest that critical theory does not offer anything helpful to society, rather, liberalism with its freedom and equality does. The authors describe liberalism as adhering to the correspondence theory of truth. As valuing objective investigation and freedom of opinion to express that which has been investigated. Liberalism is said to have “firm tenets of individual liberty, equality of opportunity, free and open inquiry, free speech and debate, and humanism.” The authors credit these principles as having led to all of the advancements, freedoms, and rights that we have come to accept as foundational in the modern west.
The last chapter is a strong appeal to abandon the dogmatism of wokeness in favour of the freedom of modern liberal democracy.
Having considered the overall content of the book, we can say that it is a good treatment of the subject matter. There are some areas which could be improved.
Conspicuously absent is a chapter on “Critical Pedagogy.” Given the current climate and the centrality of this discussion to education it seems like an obvious inclusion. I have also heard James Lindsay speak in an interview addressing Critical Pedagogy very effectively (Lindsay). There was some discussion of this in the application chapter but again it seems that Lindsay has enough content and that it’s of sufficient importance to justify its own chapter.
The authors suggest modern Liberalism as the best alternative to critical theory crediting it with bringing about the rights and freedoms we value in our modern age. Perhaps the authors’ own bias is showing here. While I laud their effort to push back against Critical Theory and its influence the human dignity, equality and freedom that authors desire is a result of Christian influence on Western civilization. Tom Holland has demonstrated this powerfully in his book “Dominion” which outlines the rise and influence of Christianity in the west and how it has created modern civilized society (Holland).
There is much to recommend the content and organization of cynical theories. The authors demonstrate a high level of understanding in regard to both postmodern thought and critical theory. They have clearly spent extensive time and energy getting to know and understand each of the sub-disciplines they have described and critiqued. Having the chapters correspond to sub-disciplines also serves the practical purpose of allowing the reader to access information quickly and easily. I would recommend that readers take time to read the first two chapters defining postmodernism before jumping into a specific discussion.
That said, considering Critical theory primarily as an application of postmodernism means that the authors have in many cases not given Marx or the early Frankfurt school enough credit. This has caused them to miss the devotion to liberation that motivates and informs Critical Theory at least as much as postmodern thought.
History plays a central role in each chapter as the authors seek to lay out the development of key ideas. However they seem to forget that Critical Theory extends back further than Foucault and Derrida to Hegel and Marx. This brings their thesis into question as these thinkers could not have been influenced by postmodernism. The same could also be said of other influential critical scholars from the Frankfurt school and institution for social research. This is not to deny the legitimacy of their claims as the influence of postmodernism is evident among critical scholars. The authors could have noted this and then carried on to say that later Marxist’s found new breath in Foucault and Derrida which allowed them to present their ideas in a more convincing way.
In terms of organization, we have already commented on the utility of addressing various disciplines by chapter. Neil Shenvi has presented similar material but organized by key concepts rather than by disciplines. The authors could have been more well-rounded in their approach had they delineated these concepts which are common to all branches of Critical theory.
Shenvi outlines them as follows:
Each of these concepts is identifiable in “Cynical Theories” however by not specifically identifying and defining each one the authors leave the reader to questions how they are identifying Grievance studies. It would not have taken long to point out that the above four concepts are as central to contemporary critical theory (wokeness) as postmodernism and maybe more.
Overall “Cynical Theories” is an excellent treatment of a deeply troubling aspect of modern culture. It can help us to understand and oppose harmful ideas. It is organized in a helpful way and very well researched. If I were going to recommend one book on the subject this would probably be the one. However, it could have been more complete by thoroughly outlining the history of critical theory and adding a stand along definition before discussing the contribution of postmodernism. The authors have demonstrated considerable influence from postmodern thought on current critical theory but may overstate their case. To gain a more balanced view I would strongly recommend readers familiarize themselves with the work of Neil Shenvi (Shenvi) before reading Cynical Theories. With that qualification I can recommend the book.
Barrie ON
Works Cited
Berlinski, David. Science After Babel. Seatle: Discovery Institue Press, 2023.
Carey, Mark. Sage Journals. 9 July 2016. <Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research>.
Holland, Tom. Dominion. New York: Baisc Books, 2021.
Lindsay, James. You Might Already Be A Member. 15 06 2023. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnrdyphape4&t=9s>.
Mounk, Yascha. What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Acedemia. 5 10 2018. <https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/>.
Shenvi, Neil. Shenvi Apologetics. 2021. <https://shenviapologetics.com/intro-to-critical-theory/>.
I will shortly be traveling for a time in the US. In order to do this it is important to be able
to identify myself to the border guard. I could arrive at the border thinking I know who I am and surely when the border guard sees me he will know it too. Yep that’s Kevin Cleary, definitely a Canadian Citizen. As convenient as it would be if this were the case, the reality is that the guard will want proof. He will want the right “documentation”. For this purpose, I have a passport. Issued by the Canadian government, it has my picture and identifies me, proving that I’m Canadian. And based on that, I should have no problem crossing the border and continuing my trip.
Christians have another aspect to our identity, and it is that we are God’s people. Thus, in the same way that a passport or birth certificate certifies our physical identity we need something that documents who we are spiritually. Is there such a thing? Can we know that we belong to God and that God identifies us as his own?
The answer is yes! Unlike the passport that I have to carry with me, our documentation comes from God and is with us all the time.
In Ephesians 1:13 Paul says God has been given the Holy Spirit to us as a seal. This is not the kind of seal that keeps our food fresh. It is an identifying marker indicating ownership. 2nd Timothy 2:19 assures us that God knows those who are his and it is comforting for the saved to know that our documentation before God has come from above.
So God knows that we are His – but can we know it as well? Has God provided a way for us to know that we are saved? What documents might we consult to reach the same conclusion?
When I approach the border, I invariably find myself touching my pocket or getting my passport out to assure myself that I have everything in order. I say it’s because of the sign telling me to have my documents ready, but even if there were no sign, I would still have my passport in hand and open to the right page – ready to hand it out the window.
As citizens of heaven, wouldn’t it be reassuring to have similar documentation for our trip into eternity? (Phil 3:20). The answer of course is yes, and yes again. God has not left us to wonder about our standing before him or what will happen when we leave this life behind. He has told us what we need to do to have everything in order and to keep it that way.
The word of God supplies this information in its most up to date form in the New Testament. Passages like 1st Corinthians 2:6-16; John 16:12-14; II Peter 1:21; II Timothy 3:15-17” assure us that God has spoken and that divine inspiration conveys divine authority to the message that has been preserved. God’s word assures us that once ‘in Christ’, our sins are forgiven. We have been washed, sanctified and justified – to put us right with God (1st Cor 6:11) And having been joined spiritually to Jesus, we are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit (Rom 8:31-39).
This is our documentation. No wonder that so many who are approaching death do it with Bible in hand. Like me at the border – they want to know that everything is in order.
Knowing then how to know that we are right with God, let’s obey God so that bibles in our hands have also transformed our hearts. For they reveal the Lord Jesus who is responsible for our salvation and is the true object of our love.
(Anyone who wants to know specifically what the Bible says about how to be saved see: Rom 1:16; 10:9-10; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-4; Gal 3:27)
Barrie ON
