Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Notes en marge to a post by Doug Chaplin

He asks:

Should we insist on the action of the Cross understood as God choosing suffering over action, insult over revenge, forgiveness over condemnation as determinative, and thus make this the interpretative key for reading the violent texts as human misunderstandings of God’s love and person? Or should we continue to hold to the violent texts and see the Cross as one way in which God exercises a unified power to give life and bring death, a postponement of a wrathful judgement, but not a cancellation of it? And in making up our minds whether we plump for one of those two or reject them as a false opposition, what do we do about all the ways in which Jesus’ non-violent acceptance of the Cross is portrayed in the language of violence: displaying the forces of evil as captive and subjugated in his imperial triumph?

Elisha as Flawed Super-Hero: The Advantages of a Unitive Reading of Scripture

Contemporary Christians read their Bibles in schizophrenic fashion. They project onto the Old Testament the attitudes they find objectionable, and project onto the New Testament the "enlightened" opinions they have, whether or nor they are actually there (and whether or not they are actually enlightened). The OT is full of benighted, bloodthirsty people who worship a bloodthirsty God. The NT is full of flower children at peace with the world, who sing “Let it be” and “Kum ba yah” and worship a God of love.

It’s all phoney baloney.

The Power to Kill and Restore to Life (Part Two)

The previous post ended on a false note. It is not strictly true that rabbis and pastors and Jews and Christians in general no longer have the power of the keys. They only wish they didn’t.

The Power to Kill and Restore to Life (Part 1)

David Ker is asking questions. What are we supposed to do with a passage like 2 Kgs 2:23-25?