Tolkien as Divine Stroyteller

Recently I’ve been re-watching the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy (extended version, of course) which has resurfaced an old idea in my head. Each time that I read or watch some of Tolkien’s saga of Middle Earth, I am struck more and more by the depth of the story. Not only is there great depth of detail… who can help but be impressed that he wrote a number of new languages for his world? But he also instilled an incredible consistency of plot and drama throughout the story. It’s quite funny to watch the screenwriters for the movies try to determine which portions of the book to put on film! Not that I think I could do better! That’s just my point. There are so many stories which Tolkien has woven together, and the stories have so much background, depth, and involvement that it’s near impossible to summarize it in 11 ½ hrs!

In fact, what impresses me most about Tolkien’s story telling is that he didn’t just make up a story. He first created a world. And then out of that world, which has histories and cultures of its own, he pulls one snapshot of a story… the quest to destroy the ring… and spends three books focused on it, all the while letting the reader have glimpses of the surrounding world which he has created. All of the detail, all of the history, and all of the drama set up that one story. It is the central drama to which all others contribute.

I know people debate whether Tolkien meant his story to be “Christian.” I don’t care if he did, and I’m not really interested in that here. I would like to suggest the possibility of using Tolkien (as an author) as an analogy toward thinking about God as a Divine Storyteller.

God has constructed this grand tale. Reading history, one cannot help but be struck by the immensity of it all! In fact, the detail and scope of ancient history almost dwarfs the story of the Messiah. Studying all of the ancient history and languages is a lot of fun (yes… you heard me right, “fun”). Studying all of the back-narratives even helps one to appreciate the main narrative when it comes along, but while the rest of the detail is important, it’s essentially meaningless if one misses the grand, central drama. If one misses Christ’s role, then what is the point of the rest?

Genesis Genealogies

I was recently reading Genesis 5 again and was very intrigued by the genealogies, ages, and timeline of the Genesis prehistory. So, I decided to add up all of the ages and see how it looked. This chart is a summary of when each of the generations from Adam to Jacob lived. At that point the Biblical text stops giving us enough numbers to continue the chain (the “years” which I use simply begin in the year 0 with creation and count up).

There were a number of things that surprised me. For instance, Noah was the first generation since Adam died. That’s right, Lamek (Noah’s dad) could have known Adam. Even more surprising is how long Noah and Shem lived. In fact, Abraham could have known Noah! That shocked me. Not only that, Abraham actually died about 15 years before Shem did. I find that really shocking. Also, Jacob and Shem’s lives actually overlap as well. This raises some interesting questions about where such old men (Noah and Shem) would have lived during the rise of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations… Mesopotamia? There are lots of other interesting things in the chart, but I’ll let you look at it for yourself.

Of course, all of this assumes that we are supposed to understand these numbers to indicate a mathematically strict account of these men’s lives. There may be some other options. Some people have pointed out that these accounts are similar to other ancient texts which claim that a few ancient people lived for thousands of years. This could mean that long life is simply an old literary device meant to indicate something else, such as prestige.

Still other scholars point out that genealogies seem to be summaries which don’t mention everyone in the chain. This can be seen by the fact that Luke 3:36 says Shelah was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxad. But Genesis 10:24 seems to be saying that Shelah was the son (not the grandson) of Arphaxad. Apparently the author must be leaving gaps in the record. However, gaps in the genealogies is a big subject which I don’t have space to go into here. To see some of the work that’s been done in this area just google “Bible genealogy gaps.”

Because my chart isn't very clear on here, you should check out the similar chart on blueletterbible.

The Reason for God

I recently wrote a post for my church's ShelfLife website (our online theological book club if you will). Different members have written posts for each chapter of our current book, Tim Keller's The Reason for God. My post is about chapter 8, where he discusses different "proofs" or "clues" for God. You can find it here: watermarkblogs.org/shelflife/

This book is a great basic introduction to apologetics. If you want to learn how to defend the faith, you should definitely grab a copy. Reading it might be a good second step :)

What Does Sovereignty Mean?

In this post, I really just want to ask a question. Is God sovereign? And what does that mean? I know that most of us have strong opinions on this (even if we don’t realize we do). I definitely have my own opinions on the matter, but I want to hear what other people think. I think that there are difficult questions for either side, so don’t just give a yes or no, but try to answer (as best you can) the difficult questions surrounding your view. (Please include other questions if you can think of some that I overlooked).

If you do believe that God controls everything then (1) how do you still account for human responsibility and (2) how do you account for evil? Is God responsible for it?

If you do not believe that God controls everything then (1) is he truly omnipotent and omniscient (does he know the future?) and (2) is it possible that his ultimate plan could fail?

Keep it friendly :)

American Patriotism or Worship?

In ancient Rome the line between patriotism and worship was often non-existent. This was not so much a unity of state and religion as we conceive of it in Medieval European terms. It was not the religion that the emperor chose to support, but the popularly accepted way of understanding reality. Naturally, the state used these emotionally packed symbols and beliefs to encourage loyalty among it’s populace. Dead emperors were even sometimes declared to be gods.

As I learn about the Roman popular cult, I naturally compare it to America. We pride ourselves on our separation of church and state (meaning that we have no state-sponsored religion), but where do we draw the line between patriotism and worship? When do our use of emotionally packed symbols and our glorification of past leaders and generations become cultic? It’s interesting by way of example to see what is engraved above ol’ Abes head in the Lincoln Memorial: “In this temple as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever.” Note the consistent use of religious language.

As Christians I believe we are called to submit to the state and to serve it when necessary. But we need to be sure to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25)

So far I’ve only really raised the question. I haven’t quite got the answer yet. Something to think about.

Yeshua (Jesus) in the Talmud

The Sanhedrin is, of course, the top Jewish legal court. In this text they have been explaining court procedure and defending their decisions where they have departed from their own rules. Keep in mind that this is not a Christian document (which would be bias towards Christ) but a Jewish one. The following quotation is taken from Sanhedrin Tractate 43b:

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [the Nazarean] was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried. ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any who can say anything for his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of Passover. ‘Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not an enticer, concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?”

We could spend forever discussing this passage; however, there are four things I’d like to note:

1. This is pretty strong non-Christian evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This Jewish record corresponds in many ways to the Gospel accounts.

2. Jesus is accused of sorcery. This contradicts the modern tendency to call him a great teacher but claim that he never did anything supernatural. The Sanhedrin acknowledges that supernatural things were taking place, but just as the New Testament claims, they ascribed his work to the devil instead of God (see Matthew 12:24).

3. He is accused of apostasy. In other words, he wasn’t just teaching nice stuff. He was really stirring the waters. The Sanhedrin felt that he was changing their religion.

4. They quote Deut 13:8: “ Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him,” as a justification for seeking capital punishment. This is in a larger section of the law dealing with what to do to a Jewish person who entices people to follow other gods (Deut 6-10). In other words, they felt like he was encouraging people to follow another god (Who do you suppose was the other god?). The law is very clear. You have to kill the person.

Just a quick qualification: I know that this is a touchy subject. If you perceive this at all as in anyway anti-semitic, I apologize. That is not at all my intent. This is just an interesting historical insight, getting the other side of the crucifixion story if you will.

Cardinal Sadoleto vs John Calvin

In 1539, in the midst of the Protestant Reformation, Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto sent a letter to the people of Geneva encouraging them to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. The leaders of the city found themselves inadequate to supply the reply which they felt that the letter required. So, in order to provide the best answer possible, they sent for help. Calvin was not in Geneva at the time. He had been exiled from Geneva over a dispute with the city government, but when the need arose, the Genevois could think of no one better suited to the task than the great theologian. The result of these letters is one of the clearest presentations of the arguments on either side of the Reformation debate (the letters are published as A Reformation Debate, edited by John C. Olin).

Judging from his letter, Sadoleto seems to be either unaware of the key issues in the debate, unable to argue them, or unwilling to argue them. While his letter is profuse with confessions of love for the Genevois church, his arguments for their repentance are unsatisfying. He essentially gives an emotional appeal. His argument mostly consists of attacking the personal credibility of the reformers and encouraging the Genevois that they should at least try to save their own souls. He consistently assumes that the Roman Church is the true church. While he does briefly skirt the issue of justification by faith alone, he never engages the core issue of ecclesiology. Why is submission to the Pope necessary for membership in the church, and therefore, for salvation?

Calvin’s letter is quite polite as well (that’s one of the nice things about this conversation; it’s one of the most polite exchanges between Catholics and Protestants that I’ve seen from the 16th century). Calvin readily engages the ecclesiological question. He argues that the Roman hierarchy is not equivalent to the universal church, but that the Protestants actually have a greater similarity with the early church and a greater agreement with the Scriptures. He also provides ample examples of his arguments from the fathers and the Bible (something Sadoleto failed to do). One of the funniest things in the book is that in defense of his view of the Eucharist, Calvin does not offer any explanation of his own view but cheekily refers Sadoleto to read Augustine’s Epistle to Dardanus. The point is, Calvin’s theology is more true to the ancient traditions of the church than is the Cardinal’s, or even the Pope’s.

While more work has been done on both sides since then to develop these arguments, these letters provide a fascinating insight into the world of the 16th century when the reformation was born.