Clements, Ronald E. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon

Clements, Ronald E. Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. 278 pp. $34.95.

Introduction

Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon is authored by Ronald E. Clements. Clements is a well known Old Testament scholar who has written commentaries over Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Sheffield in 1961 and is one of the best known Baptist Old Testament scholars in Europe. He currently holds the position of the Davidson Professor of Old Testament at King's College in the University of London.

Summary

The primary function of this book is to discuss how historical oral prophetic messages were later taken and turned into literary works understood to be authoritative Scripture for both the Jewish and Christian tradition. Clement sets out with the understanding that the ascribed authors of these prophetic books were not the authors, or if they were, later editors came along and worked with the prophetic speeches. Therefore his aim is to show how oral messages went through a number of events before they were understood as canonical books.

The book’s structure is difficult because Clements did not write the chapters with any attempt at unity. In fact, this book is not a typical book were the author writes one chapter after the next, but rather this is a collection of essays written by Clements about this topic. However, the aim is to study the evolution of these written documents, trying to discern what was actually written by the prophet, and then to find what was later added to the original prophets by editors who sought to explain the circumstances, to bring about current cultural implications. In chapters one and two, he shows the method by which he is able to discover these things.

In Chapter three Clements discusses the issue of messianic hope in the Old Testament. Clements holds that the idea of a messianic savior is foreign to the Old Testament itself and that prophesies many consider messianic are actually not. He considers the modern approach to biblical exegesis, where the Old Testament is viewed through the lenses of the New Testament or Christ, to be a flawed method because it does not take into consideration how that text came to be. He argues that the way the New Testament uses the Old Testament is without direct regard to what the Old Testament author might have intended. He does however state that this was not a new approach to biblical interpretation, assuming that even Old Testament authors used the same method for their own purposes. To discuss how all of this plays out, he looks at the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah in chapter four.

The following six chapters deal with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. In these chapters, he focuses in on his main thesis of canonical development. Clement, from the very beginning, denies any possibility that these are the work of a single prophet. He even argues that when style, structure, and theology are the same, there is no reason to assume single authorship. He does argue against two theories of development: one being that many prophetic materials from many prophets were taken and made one or that there was some sort of disciples who took the prophet’s work and then added to it. Rather, he argues that the works were taken, and as time went along, redactors saw the authority of the prophetic messages for their time and edited and added to it to make it acceptable for their day.

The next five chapters deal with the rise of apocalyptic prophecy. He argues that any prophetic word in dealing with future events were always broad enough to fit any situation in the future, and where the picture is to limited, it is due to later editors adding to the original message to make it work.

The last three essays deal with the canonical form of the prophets. Critical scholarship has attacked the unity of the prophets, though many have argued for it, so Clements ask the question to why the New Testament sees the prophets as unified. He argues that the New Testament views the prophets as unified in the fact that they speak about a future salvation (192). How this happened is by the editorial work that came after the historical prophets. Clements states that there was an odd group of editors who came later adding to the prophetic messages, putting in their own theological implications, however never sought to damage the original message. As these later editors did their work, unity was formed within the prophets.

Critical Evaluation

Though Clements’s work is a fine addition and an aid in the continued study of canonical research, he is too quick to assert things that have little backing. Though many modern Bible critics agree with much of what Clements states about multiple Isaiahs, individuals collecting and arraigning a prophet’s messages, and later editorial work being done with a prophet’s works, the court is not in. He bases many of his findings on the assumption that the prophets were not the source of their own book. Because of this, he leaves the reader asking why we should assume this and what are the possible flaws that might be present if he is wrong.

Though Clements’s work is good for the academic community, it has little to no value for the typical church member or pastor. His writing is overly assumptive with no real value to the reader. He makes many arguments for his theory of canonization, but has little evidence to support his findings. Even when things seem to support a single prophetic author, style, structure, and theology, he still assumes that there had to be multiple authors. When dealing with future events prophesized that come about, he argues without cause that they must have been later editions (26-32). His only argument is that later editors are present and therefore it must have been something they did. Which again, is an assumption without foundation.

Interestingly, Clements finds that the ones making assumptions are those who hold the historical position of single authorship. He states, “The assumption concerning unity of authorship appeared to be a major factor in defending their inspiration and authenticity as prophetic writings” (217). He argues that those who hold to the historical position do so because of other theological reasons, not because of the information.

He states, “Admittedly there is no doubt that any attempt to analyze and locate the historical setting of a particular prophetic sayings must be fraught with some measure of uncertainty” (218). Though this statement is given to show support for his cause, it fails to do so. Though it is true that it is impossible to know scientifically what happened with each prophetic message, because uncertainty is present does not mean we should assume that the historical position is false. Therefore Clements’s position is that the person who holds to the single authorship is only because of external theological issues.

He does defend his argument from appearing completely liberal by saying, “This is not to deny that such prophet as Isaiah wrote down certain sayings, but to note that, as in the case of Jeremiah, these were messaged that had first been given orally” (218). He makes this statement so as to support some historical authorship, but at the same time leaves room for changes to come afterward. This is because “prophecy had originally been an oral literature which assumed a written form only after some interval of time had elapsed since its initial delivery” (220). Therefore, though the prophets were in some way apart of these prophesies, he argues that we should assume that they had changed over time before they were written down.

However critical Clements’s position is, his aim is not to destroy the authority of the text. Even though he argues for editorial work to have taken place, he states that it was done with the great care to keep the prophets’ words intact. He states,

Clearly there is a need for recognizing that the relationship which existed between the prophet and his editors, and which led to determine efforts to record a prophet’s actual words… At the same time there was evidently a need, as the complex literary structure of all the biblical prophetic collections reveals, to edit, record, and interpret those words with the help of some additional material and supplementation (224-25).

However, if such an assumption is taken, we have no reason to assume that the editors had the greatest purpose of keeping the messages intact. If there great aim was to interpret them and add to them to make them applicable for their current situation, why would we assume that they are at all equal to the original messages. Clement says the reason for such careful work of protecting the prophet’s work was “their profound respect for him made them eager and anxious interpreters of his words, spelling out in detail how they would be applied to the situation which his warnings and reproof had forewarned them of” (229). However, Clements’s arguments continue to be nothing more than loose assumptions without historical evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Old Testament Prophesies has it benefits and downfalls. These essays are a necessary discussion in the world of academia. Clement, though removed from the more conservative band, should not be seen as a liberal or heretic for his views. However, his works are not the best material for those not involved in canon development. His writing style is clear, but his material is uncommon to the most general church member. Thus, because of what appears to be a study based mostly on assumption, this book offers little value to the general church.

PHILOSOPHY OF EVANGELISM

PHILOSOPHY OF EVANGELISM

There is no doubt that the Bible calls all men and women to be evangelist. Matthew 28 is clear that the Christian is to be a maker of disciples because Jesus has been give all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, we as Christians should take the work of evangelism very seriously because the work of the evangelist is to make disciples. One could argue that there is nothing more important than the work of evangelizing the lost and bringing them to repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ. That is the work of the Christian. Our work is to reap the fields that are ripe. We are to expand the borders of the kingdom by speaking forth the gospel of Jesus Christ that those who are captive to the devil might know the truth and be set free from his grasp.

For this task, we should think about some different areas that will help us in the area of evangelism. Evangelism, though it does not take a seminary trained scholar to do, is not something that should be taken lightly and done with half-halfheartedness or half-mindedness. Thus we will work though some simple principles that together will make a philosophy of evangelism.

Becoming an Evangelistic

When it comes to the area of evangelism we must acknowledge that there will be both motivations and hindrances in accomplishing the task. There will be forces for us to evangelize the lost and there will be forces against us evangelizing the lost. Therefore, we must be ready capture the positive motivations and grow off of them while embracing the negative and learning how to minimize there strengths against us.

Motivations

The primary motivation for us to evangelize should be for the glory of God in the man Jesus Christ. Everything we do should ultimately be for the glory of God in Jesus Christ. So it would be foolish for us to give any reason as being primary apart from the glory of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15 is clear that what ever we do, it must be done with the primary focus of bringing glory to God. But how does evangelism bring glory to God?

There is nothing in this world more beautiful than to see the life of a wretched sinner, one separated from the love of God and at his core an enemy of God, turned to God with peace and adoption by God as son. The greatness of God is so magnified by such an act because it demonstrates the true beauty of His nature, that a sinner would be willing to turn away from the sin that he loves and cling to a Savior who died for Him.

It also magnifies God in that the kingdom of His Son Jesus Christ is expanding into the enemies territory as strong holds are being broken down. We should long to see more and more people become worshipers of Jesus Christ for He along is worthy of worship. We must take into account that there are over a billion Muslims who worship Allah, over a billion Chinese that worship the emperor, and over a billion Hindus who worship some three million gods, yet only Jesus is worthy of their praise. We should be like Paul in Acts 17, were when he saw the idols of the city he was provoked because only Jesus is worth of their praise. Only Jesus is in heaven seated at the Father's right hand and only He was worthy to open the scrolls mentioned in Revelation. Therefore we should hunger that men and women turn from their vain idols and worship the one and only true and living God.

The second motivation should be for the sake of the lost. The nature of things is that what we worship we will end up becoming like. This is seen quite clearly in the Exodus 32-34 narrative as the prophet of God, Moses, goes up the mountain of God to receive the Law of God. While he is gone the people force Aaron to make for them an idol that they may worship. The idol Aaron makes is that of a cow and he proclaims that this is the God who delivered the people out of bondage to Egypt. When Moses descends from the mountains and sees them he calls the people a stiff necked people. The imagery here is that because the people worshiped a cow which has a stiff neck, they to became stiff necked.

Jeremiah continues this thought when he said that the people became vain or worthless because the gods they worshiped were vain and worthless. Therefore, we should seek to be evangelist because we desire good and not harm for out fellow man. In a very generic sense all men are children of God, for all men come from His creation. But that is not enough to keep God from doing harm to those who reject Him. The Lord promises that those who do not give praise to God in the man Jesus Christ will be judged by the full fury of hell because of their great rebellion. However, God has provided for them an escape in His Son for all who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Therefore we should be motivated to evangelize because it saves people from themselves and from the wrath of God to come in the end.

Lastly, we should be motivated to evangelize because it is a command of God and we know that if we are faithful to keep His commands it will do us good. Ultimately, doing the work of an evangelist will bring sanctification into our lives. If we are faithful to do as God as commanded, He has promised to bless us abundantly in this life. Now that blessing is not material blessing like many assume, but it is the blessing of His presence and a growing relationship in love with Him. Though ultimately we should do what we do for the good of God and others, we can rejoice in the fact that we are blessed by it as well.

Hindrances

There are however hindrances to keep us from being men and women who preach the gospel. There are numerous hindrances that I could mention, but for the sake of time I will only mention one. That is that we fill it will in some way cause us harm, whether that be physical, emotional, or something else. We do not evangelize if we are Christians because we fill that it will cause us more harm than it is worth. Sadly, most of us (including myself) are not the evangelist we should be. The primary way to guard against this sort of hindrance is to understand that any sort of pain that we experience in this world will not compare to the glory we receive in the next. Our motivations should so far exceed the hindrance of self-preservation that it should never even effect us. But it does! Therefore we must always prepare ourselves for the attack of the evil one who will call our desire to evangelize into question and be ready to say, “No matter the cost, I will obey my Lord for His glory, the good of His elect, and for my own joy.”

Qualities in Evangelism

It should also be stated that the evangelist must be a man of high character. No one will ever listen to a man who preaches good news if he fails to live in accordance with it. The evangelist must be a man who is above reproach and is identified with a life like his Savior.

But the fact that he has a high moral character should extend past just keeping the moral code. The evangelist must also be a man of joy and compassion. When we look at the Savior, even when death was before Him, He was a man of joy and contentment. We to must be men of sovereign joy, knowing that out God holds the future in His hands. It is a sad thing to see a man try to tell someone about Jesus, all the while being negative about the circumstances of his life. If we are going to win men and women to Jesus Christ we have to show that He in fact brings us joy. Even if that joy is not placed in the things of this world, but in the things to come, being a Christian should bring about some since of happiness—especially since it means that we now have peace with God.

At the same time, we should be a people marked by compassion. Not only compassion for the sick, aged, widowed, orphaned, and oppressed, but for all sinners in general. To often we look at sinners with disgust because of their heinous acts of immorality, drunkenness, and murder, forgetting that if it were not for the saving grace of Jesus Christ, we do would be just like them. The fact that we are not all homosexuals, drunks, and murders is purely evidence to the grace of God. Therefore we should have a great deal of compassion on those who remain in sin and plead with them and with God that they might enter into the New Covenant, having their sins forgive and their minds changed. Because of the grace of God, we have been made new creatures, superior to the rest of the world by our union with Christ, but not superior in the sense that we are not better in and of ourselves, but superior in our responsibilities to share the gospel of God with all men. Therefore, we should have compassion on the sinner and extend to them the forgiveness of God in Christ Jesus that they might have fellowship with us.

Theology in Evangelism

For someone to be an effective evangelist he must in fact be a theologian. Now, I do not mean that he has to be able to explain the Trinity in concrete terms, nor does he have to be able to expound on the difficult union of divine and flesh in the man Jesus Christ. But he must be a theologian in the sense that He knows the gospel of God and why we call it good news. He must understand what we were before our conversion and what we are after it. He must understand that the law is what leads us to Christ and is not out means to salvation. To often, people seeking to please God by doing the work of evangelism do right in using the law of God to show people their need, but then, against the will of God, make it appear that if they were to keep the law they would find themselves justified before God by the law. We know from Scripture that the law was never given to save, but to condemn. Therefore, for a man to be an evangelist he must know the difference between law and gospel.

The law is what is required of man that he might be found blameless and secure his right to covenant blessings. However, we know that no man is able to keep the law and if you break the law in one area you have broken the whole law and therefore lose merit to obtain covenant blessings and therefore deserve the punishment due: eternal wrath. Thus, the law is a guide to proper living, but more than that, the law is a tutor teaching us of our need for the gospel.

The gospel is quite simply that which God has accomplished for us. The gospel is that God having seen our state of sin and rebellion, chose in divine wisdom to make His Son our substitute, and by placing Him on the judgment tree poured out His full measure of wrath meant for sin on Him so that those who come to Him would not find the wrath they are due, but the blessings merited by Christ's righteousness. Thus, the gospel is the peace of God made available to us by the death of His Son and now we are sons of God and co-inheritors with Christ of all things.

The gospel is not a changed life. The gospel is not a better family life. The gospel is not a community of people that love you. All of these things might be the consequence of the gospel being believed, but they in themselves are not the gospel. The evangelist must always remember that. The evangelist must remember that the gospel is what God has accomplished for us in His Son Jesus Christ.

Testimony in Evangelism

It is true though that our testimony can be a very powerful tool in evangelism. Our testimony is not the gospel, but it is the power of the gospel being manifested in real time. When a person once torn by sin is made whole by the power of the gospel, that speaks to the hearts of people who know what it is like to be torn. Our testimony is a starting point for the conversion of the gospel.

We must be careful however not to allow our testimony to become the center of our witnessing act. Our testimony is merely an introduction to what Jesus has done for us on the cross and by raising in power. It is by faith in this that a man is saved, not by desiring to be changed like the justified saint. Therefore, we should be ready to give an answer for the hope we have and we have the right to use our testimony to show the effectiveness of the gospel. Therefore, we should long to share our lives with people and by doing so open the door for sharing the good news of God in Christ Jesus.

Familial Evangelism

The last section of my paper will be focused on where evangelism takes place. There could be more divisions to these to make them more specific, but I feel that these three sections do the job well. The first is familial evangelism. What I mean by that is the evangelism that takes place inside one's own family.

Most of us I would say have a great deal of family members who are lost. Yet many times these tend to be the family members that we spend the least amount of effort in building relationships with. However, we should seek to build relationships with our lost family members that through those relationships we can share the good news of Jesus Christ.

What I have found in most family situations is that people genuinely want to be close to their families, whether immediate or distant. We as believers should seek to take advantage of peoples desires to be close to their families and make those connections for the kingdom of Jesus Christ. After we build a strong relationship with our family and show them that we really do love them and aren't just trying to use them, ofter times they will be very open to what we have to say (figuring that our lives are examples of what they should be). After these ties are built we can start to deal with the issue of sin in their lives and their need for a Savior. Something that usually isn't taken well by people who don't have a close relationship with you. Therefore we should take advantage of the opportunities God has given us by putting us in the families we are born into.

Relational Evangelism

The next area of evangelism is relational evangelism. This is much like familial, in that it starts with solid relationships of love and care, but differs in the fact that they are not family. In relational evangelism it starts by getting out into the world and meeting people and building friendships. These can start at jobs or social groups. The idea is to get out into the world and meet people and build relationships with them so that they can see that you care about them and can be trusted.

After having this sort of relationship for a while the person will begin to notice differences in you that he might not see in others. Because of this he will wonder about you and why you do what you do. It is at that time that out testimony must go beyond actions and into words. Because of our behavior before our friends, they will see us as experts on what we talk about. Not because we are scholars, but because we live it out. What we believe affects out lives. Therefore we should seek out ways to meet people and get into peoples lives that through those relationships we can share the goodness of Christ.

Confrontational Evangelism

The previous two forms of evangelism are probably the best and will most likely return the greatest amount of converts and therefore we need to be about the gospel with people we know well. However, the amount of people that we know is very limited. We don't have the time to build relationships with everyone. But in our day to day work we meet a tons of people. Therefore we should be about the work of doing evangelism with the people we meet every day.

A professor once told me a story about another professor who was traveling through the middle of nowhere when he came to a gas station. He stopped to get gas and went inside to pay. When he got in there to pay he felt a nudging of the Spirit to tell this young lady working at the counter about Jesus. He thought to himself how he did not know her and how she would not listen anyway. So he did not tell her about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As he was leaving another man walked into the gas station. He was a big man and sort of scary to look at. He walked right up to the counter and said to the lady, “You need Jesus!” The professor was shocked by this man's words and thought how he was doing it all wrong. He knew that was not the way to do evangelism. To the professors surprise the girl broke down in tears and said how she had been waiting all day for someone to tell her that. She had been waiting all day for someone to tell her of her need for a Savior and of a Savior who offers salvation.

The purpose of that story is not to set a standard for confrontational evangelism. Going up to someone and just telling them they need Jesus is not usually the best way. But it does show that the Spirit of God is working in ways we do not yet understand. God is at work preparing the harvest and as Jesus said, they are ready for the reaping. We must be men and women who are ready and willing to go out into the fields and gather, even if we do not have a good relationship with that person or if we do not have time to devote to hours of conversation. We must be ready to share the good news at any time. Therefore we must be devoted to confrontational evangelism.

Conclusion

This paper has set out a few of the guidelines for the work of evangelism. This should not be understood as a comprehensive work on evangelism though. Rather, it is a simply philosophy of evangelism. For a man to be an evangelist he must be motivated, while understanding the hindrances; have the qualities of an evangelist in his character; be theologically grounded and know that he is converting people to Christ and not to legalism or Christianity; how to use his testimony to open the door for the gospel; and lastly how important it is to evangelize family, friends, and strangers. With this simple philosophy one can be emboldened to do the work of evangelism and carry on the work of the Great Commission.

THE SHACK AND ITS FALSE VEIW OF THE TRINITY

THE SHACK AND ITS FALSE VEIW OF THE TRINITY

In recent months there has been a book that has swept the nation as being the next great Christian work. Eugene Peterson who is Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., also famously known for the The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language, says that, “When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!” Famous Christian recording artist Michael W. Smith said, “THE SHACK [sic] will leave you craving for the presence of God” and television co-host Kathy Lee Gifford says, “The Shack will change the way you think about God forever.”

So it is no wonder that this book is growing so fast in its popularity. People who once felt as though God was far off now feel like He is right next to them. However, the problem is that the god of The Shack, by William P. Young, is not the God of the Bible. He may appear to be the trinitarian God explained in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, but what we will see is that this god is far from the same; which is why Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church, says, “Regarding the Trinity, it's actually heretical.”

Therefore the purpose of this paper will be to discuss the trinity of The Shack and the Trinity of the Bible. To do so we will discuss the nature of the hierarchy within the three members of the God-head (and in doing so give a definition of the what the true nature of the Trinity is), to see the idolatry of Young's trinity, the distinction of the members in relation to the incarnation, and lastly our response to the Triune God and how we relate to Him. Thus this paper should not be understood as a comprehensive analysis of the Trinity, nor a solution to all the false teachings of The Shack, but rather it is a brief discussion of a few of the errors it makes in regard to the triune nature of God.

The Loss of Hierarchy Within the Trinity

The first endeavor we must take in this paper is to clearly define what the Trinity looks like. It should be understood that this portion of the paper is not meant to be a theological paper on the Trinity, but an introduction to the Trinity which will give the basis for which we can show the trinity of The Shack to be false. And there is probably no better place to start than the Nicene Creed. Even though it is not canonical or authoritative itself and therefore remains second order, it is the most trusted creed of the church's history.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

One area of trinitarian theology that The Shack gets right is that all the members of the Godhead are completely equal in being,

Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you're seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don't need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense to us (122).

Thus Young does well to notice that there is no since of hierarchy of being among the members of the Trinity. The Father is equal to the Son and the Son is equal to the Spirit and the Spirit is equal to the Father in since of being. They are all God and of the same substance.

Where Young fails and leads to a false trinity is in his understanding of the roles within the Trinity. Later on in the paper the nature of the Godhead in the incarnation will be discussed, but for this portion we will discuss the fact that the Father is superior to the Son and the Father and Son are superior to the Spirit in an economical sense, but not in a ontological sense. There is no “circle of relationship” that does away with hierarchy and hierarchy does make sense to the Trinity.

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul sets out to show the proper authority structure of all things. By them there is a precedence for the order of how the world should be ordered. But notice what Paul says in verse 3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” In biblical language it is clear that when one is referred as the head of another that implies authority. Now, one could argue that head does not mean authority in the relation between God and Christ. They might even like to make that argument between man and woman, holding that there is no hierarchy between the two. But almost no Christian would make the argument that Christ and man are equal. Therefore, it is clear that Christ is in authority to man, man to woman, and God to Jesus.

Even Jesus made such statements referring to the Father's authority when He said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28) and “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me” ( John 6:38). Therefore, the true Trinity has an economic hierarchy that does not interfere with the ontological nature of each member.

It should also be noted that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. This shows further hierarchy within the Trinity. For this reason He is called “Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11), the “Spirit of His Son" (Gal 4:6), the “Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7) and the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9). The fact that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus makes since because Jesus himself said that He would send Him (Jn 15:26). Therefore the Bible is clear that a hierarchy does exist between the members of the Trinity and to do away with it causes a false trinity, which is worthy of no worship or praise.

The Threat of Idolatry in a False Trinity

In The Shack, the image of God is falsified and limits the omnipresence of our Lord and Savior. From the first encounter that the main character, Mack, has with god, until his visit is complete, the author has God in an appearance and also changing appearances that are not found in Scripture and are indeed actually going against what Scripture says about the God of the Bible. There are many dangers in doing this type of action. By doing this, we are attempting to put our Creator in and as a part of His creation. We are also then, making a physical image of God which is forbidden by Scripture as well. We see Mack having open conversation, joking, laughing and even cursing in front of God without a mediator. This image that we see of god through the Author’s eyes, is not the same god as the God of the Bible.

In Mack’s first encounter, god (the Father) appears to him in flesh as a large beaming African-American woman. Later in the book, he then changes appearances into a gray haired man (incarnation issues to be discussed later in the paper). Yet, in Scripture it tells us that God must not be portrayed in an image, that be statue, flesh, etc. John 4:24 says, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." God is the Creator. Therefore, He Himself, can not be created into a creation (i.e. a fleshly image). Isaiah 64:8 says, “But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.” Again this is making the distinction between the Potter (Creator) and the clay (creation).

In Exodus 20:4 we read, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” We are told repeatedly in Scripture not to think of God in any form or image and to simply worship Him in spirit and truth. Many times Mack describes the clothes, the size of the body and human mannerisms that the god of the book has.

We are told by the Apostle Paul what happens when humans try and do this. In Romans 1:22-25 Paul says,

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

We must be aware that this is what is taking place in this book and the dangerous implications it can have on our own walks with Christ if we are to compare and say that the god in this book is the God of the Bible.

Mack is seen in the book as having open, face to face communication with God. However, we know that this is also spoken against in Scripture. 1 Timothy 2:15 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” As children of God we are able to approach the throne of God with boldness, however we are able to come and do this through the blood of Christ Jesus who is our mediator. Jesus Christ has the authority to be the mediator due the fact that He is the One who by His death and resurrection, has been found worthy to fulfill this task. He is our only way to God. Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Sin separates us from God. God can not look upon our sin. Isaiah 59:2 says, “...but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that He does not hear.” We might be able to commune face to face with the god of The Shack, but to commune with God we must approach Him through the Mediator, Jesus Christ. Therefore we should be weary of the idol The Shack has made for us.

The Biblical Understanding of the Trinity in Relation the Incarnation

Another disturbing theological error found in Young’s book is the idea that God the Father and the Holy Spirit took on human flesh. While it is true that God the Son took on human flesh at the incarnation, Young’s presentation blurs the biblical distinction between the persons of the Trinity. In the book, Papa (a female representation of God) says concerning the Godhead, “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed…we now became flesh and blood” (emphasis added, 99). It is important to first understand that the persons of the trinity are of the same essence, as the Nicene Creed and the testimony of Scripture affirm (Jn 10:30). However, the Bible makes it very clear that each person of the Trinity has a separate and distinct role. This is especially true in the incarnation and the work of redemption.

All four Gospels record that before he began His public ministry, Jesus went to the Jordan River, where He was baptized by John the Baptist. The Gospels say that after Jesus came up from the water, the Spirit descended and remained on Him. After this, Matthew, Mark, and Luke write that God’s voice came from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mat 3:17). While God was here declaring Christ’s messianic sonship, these texts also show a clear distinction between the persons of the Trinity. But according to Young, there was no distinction, as all three persons were made flesh at the incarnation. This is a clear distortion of the biblical presentation.

Further testimony from Jesus himself is also recorded in the Gospel of John, showing a clear distinction of roles within the Godhead. At the last supper, Jesus is explaining to his disciples what is about to take place in the days after he is betrayed, crucified, and raised. Here, he says to the disciples, “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (Jn 16:28). Jesus makes it clear here that he came into the world from the Father. In fact, he says the same thing about the Helper who was to come after him, that is, the Holy Spirit who also, “…proceeds from the Father…” (Jn 15:26). While God is definitely omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10), Jesus makes it clear in these passages that there is still some sense in which the manifested presence of God resides elsewhere, that is, in heaven. So, while Jesus was on the earth to do the will of God, the manifestation of Father was in heaven simultaneously. Once again, this is not to diminish the omnipresence of God. However, it clarifies the separate roles and persons of the Trinity.

Furthermore, Jesus says to his disciples in John 16:7: “…it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” Here, Jesus comforts his disciples in the face of His departure, promising that the Holy Spirit will be sent to them. A clear implication of this promise is that the Holy Spirit had not yet fully manifested Himself, even though Christ had. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said, “…if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you”, for, if the Helper was fully present with Christ, then he would have already been there because Christ was there. Thus, there was a sense in which the Helper was not yet fully present with the disciples. A different manifestation of the Holy Spirit was yet to come. The Holy Spirit had not been made into flesh with Jesus.

In regards to the Father, Young’s view of the incarnation is clearly in opposition to what Scripture says. For God told Moses, “…you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). In light of this passage, one might say that the only way to make sense of Jesus’ coming is to conclude that Jesus was not fully God. However, this denies Christ’s divinity and thus, his sufficient atonement. Rather, in trying to understand the great mystery that is the Trinity, one must be willing to conclude that it is simply beyond our understanding, for Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). The only way to relate these passages is to conclude that while Jesus was fully divine, he himself was and is a distinct person from the Father, as is the Spirit. The only other alternatives are to deny the divinity of Christ or to go against Exodus 33:20 as Young does. Thus, Young distorts the biblical presentation by blending roles within the Trinity in the incarnation.

Our Relationship With the Trinity

In the first three sections of this paper we dealt with the nature of the Trinity, the danger of idolatry which The Shack creates in its false trinity, and lastly how the three members of the Trinity have different roles in the incarnation. This last section will be spent on how we are to relate to the Trinity and how it differs from the imagery of the shack. In The Shack, Mack goes into the shack and has a meeting with god. In the meeting, not only is god portrayed as a larger black woman, which we have already discussed to be idolatry, but Mack has no reverence before God. In all biblical accounts, when a man goes before God it is with great fear.

In Isaiah 6, the prophet Isaiah pronounces a curse upon himself when he saw the Lord. After seeing the Seraphim crying out, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3), Isaiah says, “Woe is me, for I am ruined!” (6:5) The prophet was terrified because he, a sinner with “unclean lips” (6:5) was standing before a perfect and holy God.

Moses, in Exodus 33, prays to see the glory of God (18). God tells Moses that he will let him see His face, but he must hide himself in the cleft of the rock and only see his back side, because God said, “You cannot see my face, for no man can see Me and live!” (20). Then in Exodus 34 the Lord does pass by Moses as He said and when He did “Moses made haste to bow low toward the earth and worship” (8). Even though Moses has asked for God to pass before him, he bowed before the majesty of a holy God.

The last one we will look at is John the Apostle's experience found in Revelation 1. In verses 12 through 16 we see Jesus come in and speak to John. John speaks of Him in such majestic terms that all John can do is fall down at His feet as though dead (17). Thus John is just like the other members mentioned in the Bible who have terrifying experiences before the Lord. Coming into the presence of a holy God is not something that the biblical members found to be all that enjoyable. It was horrible for them.

Now some would argue that such experiences were not the case during the life and ministry of Jesus. However, the incarnation is something completely different from what came before it and what has taken place since His ascension. During the incarnation Jesus emptied Himself (Philippians 2:7) of His divine glory. This is not to say that He emptied Himself of His god-ness, but that He did not appear as He did before the incarnation and as He does now (the nature of the incarnation has been discussed at length earlier in this paper so I will not deal with that discussion at this point). What we must understand is that no member of the Trinity is like Jesus during his life and ministry. All members of the Trinity are now full of glory and terrifying to all who come upon Them.

However, that is not the idea of God that we get from The Shack. The trinitarian god of The Shack is weak, overly emotional, without power, lacking all holiness, and without any since of self-righteousness (a trait that only God is worthy of). What we find in The Shack is Mack using foul language before god (140, 224), Mack getting angry at god (92, 96), which at one point causes god to weep (92). What we do not see is a man before a omnipotent and holy God, but a man among another mere man. So even though The Shack tries to portray the God of the Bible (and I think Young genuinely does), he fails miserably and in the end creates an idol to be worshiped.

It is also good for us to look at Young's false view of Scripture. Though it might be wrong to say that Young is making intentional statements to reduce the value of Scripture, in the end he does so by elevating the worth of other things. The Bible is clear that it is the primary source of revelation to God's people. It can be argued (and I think it would be correct to say) that God can speak (in a very generic and loose sense) to us through different means of His general revelation. However, that is not the same as God's special revelation to us. We are dependent on the revelation of God in the Scriptures for all areas of life and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

However, in The Shack, Sarayu, who is suppose to be representing the Holy Spirit, says,

You might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or though people, or in Creation, or in your joy and sorrow. My ability to communicate is limitless, living and transforming, and it will always be tuned to Papa's goodness and love. And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles, look for relationship—a way of coming to be with us (198).

This is a completely foreign thought to the Scriptures and should be understood as a form of idolatry. God has spoken definitively in His Word, both in the written word and in the incarnate Word. There no longer remains any need for revelation from God (see Hebrews 1:1-4).

Conclusion

Thus, what we have is a book that has spread widely and quickly because what it does is lower the kind of God we have down to a god who is on our level. Moderns hate the idea of a God who has authority structures within Himself because that would make authority structures in our current social structure valid. It is simple to see why people would want to make God into an idol they can better relate to, which in the end is no god at all, so that they do not feel so inferior to His infinite attributes. Having a god who is like us makes him more manageable, but what you end up with is not God.

As for the incarnation, it is no wonder that Young wants to do away with the fact that the Son became flesh and the others remained as they were. For him, the other members of the Trinity need to be tamed, brought down to our level. And with his portrayal of the Son, we see that Young does not hold to a Son who has been highly exulted and praised. Jesus remains a middle eastern man to hang out with, not a majestic Lord who is awe inspiring.

Ultimately, what we must see is that The Shack is a book on theology, in which Young gives us his portrayal of God. Sadly, millions of people are being influenced by it and the god they are getting is trinitarian, but not the Trinity. Therefore, the reader must be ware of the dangers of this false god and make sure that the Trinity they worship is the Trinity of the Bible and not of some novel. The Trinity of the Bible is One of great power and majesty and all who seek to come to Him should do so in reverence and fear.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. 343 pp. $26.00.

Introduction

The Bible and the Future is authored by Anthony A. Hoekema. Hoekema, a native Dutchman, was born in 1913 and passed away in 1988. Around the age of ten he moved to the United States and eventually took up study at Calvin College. Upon completion at Calvin College he pursued graduate work at the University of Michigan and Calvin Theological Seminary, finishing with his doctorate in theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1953. He pastored several reformed Christian Churches until he took the associate professorship of Bible at Calvin College in 1956. In 1958 Hoekema was named Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, which he held until retirement in 1979. Though Hoekema was used by God as pastor and professor, his greatest value has been found in his writings. He was the author of Holy Spirit Baptism in 1972, The Bible and the Future in 1979, Created in God's Image in 1986 and Saved by Grace was released after his death in 1989, which demonstrated his great grasp of Scripture and keen systematic understanding of important doctrines of the church.

Summary

The Bible and the Future is a book clearly understood by its title. Hoekema’s aim is to give a biblical and systematic understanding of what the Bible has to say about last things. To do so the book is broken down into two main sections with the first dealing with inaugurated eschatology and the second dealing with future eschatology. The bulk of this book is found in the

second section dealing with future eschatology, but Hoekema first explains the current state of the creation in the section discussing inaugurated eschatology.

Hoekema argues that the whole of redemptive history has the aim of achieving the end. The biblical authors, of both the New and Old Covenants, are always concerned with the end and it would be improper to assume that thinking about the end should be limited to selected Old Testament authors like Daniel and New Testament authors like John. Rather, all biblical authors have in their sight a day what would come when creation would be restored and the people of God would be blessed (10).

This great hope of the end is introduced or inaugurated with the arrival of one who would come to restore all things, Jesus Christ. With the first advent of Christ, creation moves into something different than before. With the coming of the person and work of Christ, new creation beckons and the process of renewal is begun, but the full aspect of the new creation is not yet here. This is where the term “already-not yet” comes into play. The new creation is already taking place, but it is not yet fully brought about. The rest of the first section deals with how this new phase, the last days, is working itself out in redemptive history.

The second section deals with the eschatological events still to come. Because of the nature of eschatology, differences always arise between competing opinions. Hoekema’s view of the future eschatological events find themselves organized in the traditional amillennial fashion. Though Hoekema had a strong desire to push his particular view of the end, the majority of the second section is undisputed by most evangelical Christians. In chapters seventeen through twenty he discusses the great events that will come at the end of the age: the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, eternal punishment, and the new earth; which act as encouragements to the believer, both for the joy that awaits them and the sorrow that awaits the unregenerate. Such truths should press the believer to greater faithfulness in devotion and witness.

Critical Evaluation

Page after page of Hoekema’s fine work is a gift from a mind devoted to the Word of God, but few parts of this book have the amount of refreshment that the chapter on the resurrection of the body have. A doctrine neglected by many, resulting in a Christian culture whose awareness of it is almost none. Most of the church has no hope for the resurrection of the body, merely looking to the future of state of heaven, only intended to be intermediate at best by God.

Now one could argue that this chapter on the resurrection, chapter seventeen, is meant more to show where premillennialism is wrong, rather than to demonstrate what the resurrection will be like, and he could be right. However, flowing out of his argument is some important features of hope.

Hoekema points out something that is absolutely necessary for the Christian to understand. We are not meant to be spiritual beings separated from our bodies (239). As stated earlier, most of the Christian community only looks forward to heaven. They do not understand the importance or necessity of having a body. They fail to have the hope that some day they will be like Jesus.

Hoekema argues that many have the idea that the body is evil, which stems out of Greek philosophy. It could also be argued that Paul’s comparison between the Spirit and the flesh has lead many to falsely understand his point and lead to a form of dualism. However, Hoekema points out the easy objection to this way of thought. First, we know that Jesus Christ came in his first advent as a man with a physical body. If the body were evil, it would have been impossible for the perfect Son of God to dwell in flesh.

Some think of death as salvation from the body. Now, it could be argued, and Hoekema does, that death is salvation from sin because sin is absent in the intermediate stage, but it is not salvation from the body. Because when Christ died He was not saved from the body, because when He rose His body remained. The biblical authors went through great lengths to show that He was not a spirit, but remained a man (239). Hoekema says, “Though those who have died in Christ now enjoy a provisional happiness during the intermediate state, their happiness will not be complete until their bodies have been raised from the dead” (239).

In addition to that, the very “resurrection of Christ is the pledge and guarantee of the future resurrection of believers” (246). When one looks to the resurrection of Christ, is should press that person to long for his own resurrection. That is why the biblical authors use the imagery of first fruits and first born when they speak about Christ’s resurrection (246). Their aim is to stress that what Christ was in His resurrection, so God will bring about in like manner when He raises believers in the resurrection. “At the time of the resurrection, therefore, we who are in Christ shall be completely like him, not only as regards our spirits, but even as regards our bodies…the resurrection of Christ is the guarantee of the resurrection of believers” (246-47).

Another aspect of the resurrection worth mentioning is that it is necessary for Christ to accomplish His redemptive work. “This resurrection of believers is, in fact, a necessary aspect of Christ’s mediatorial work, for ‘the last enemy to be destroyed is death’” (248). If the believer were to remain in the intermediate stage, absent of body, then Christ could not destroy death. Death would be victorious. However, by the resurrection of believers into incorruptible bodies[1] that will never die, so Christ accomplishes the full measure of His mediatorial work in killing death once and for all in the resurrection.

The last aspect to be discussed is the hope of eternal perfection. The question could be asked, “Will man again fall into sin?” The resounding answer to that question is, no. It will be impossible for man to enter into sin again. Why? Because we are promised spiritual bodies. Some have misunderstood this spiritual body to be something different from what we have now. Though the resurrected body will be different, it will still be physical and material. So the term spiritual does not mean that the body will no longer have a material value to it. Rather, it means that the future body of the resurrection will be controlled by the Holy Spirit.

Hoekema says that “the spiritual body of the resurrection is one which will be totally, not just partially, dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit” (250). This is different from our current state in that we are now Spirit lead, but we still have the ability to reject the Spirit’s lead. However, in the resurrection, we will be Spirit ruled and we will remain always and forever submissive to the perfect will of God so that we will never again fall into sin. “Therefore the goal of God’s redemption is the resurrection of the physical body, and the creation of a new earth on which his redeemed people can live and serve God forever with glorified bodies” (250).

Conclusion

The church has a long way to go in restoring a correct view of eschatology and the hope it brings. Hoekema’s fine work is a gift to church in that journey. This book would be a good read for any pastor or layman who has an interest in the end times, but fails to see how creation is working towards renewal. Though this book is heavily amillennial and not very friendly towards dispensational views, it would be a good source for all in the evangelical church when it comes to understanding the hope that we have before us.

---

[1] “Our present bodies, so says Paul, are bodies of corruption (phthora); the seeds of disease and death are in them, so that it is only a question of time until these bodies die. But our bodies shall be raised in incorruption (aphtharsia). All liability to disease shall then be gone. No longer shall we then be on our way to certain death, as we are now, but we shall then enjoy an incorruptible kind of existence” (249).

Kutchins, Herb and Stuart A. Kirk. Making Us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders

Kutchins, Herb and Stuart A. Kirk. Making Us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders. New York: Free Press, 1997. 305 pp. $21.95.

Much can be said about the modern movement of psychology in the history of the Western world. Psychological thought and language is pervasive in Europe and America, more so than most actually realize. We have been conditioned to think and speak in a specific way. Because of this, psychology has become a major field of study and work. More college students are graduating with psychology related degrees than any other field. There is big money in the world of psychology.

Because of the great growth of psychology and psychologist, there had to be a way developed to keep the whole system under check. There had to be a way to regulate mental disorder classifications and treatments. Out of such a need came the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). With its first publication in 1979, the DSM has gone through three additional additions, with slight revisions in between. In Making Us Crazy: DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders, authors Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk discuss the many revisions, why they came, and the multiple problems caused by and with the DSM.

Kutchins is professor of social work at California State University in Sacramento with special interest in law, psychiatric diagnosis, and environmental justice. Kirk is a professor at University of California, Berkeley. He has focused his attention in the areas of interplay of science, social values and professional politics in the creation and use of the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. He himself was a former psychiatric social worker

and served on the Task Panel on Deinstitutionalization, Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care of President Carter's Commission on Mental Health. He also served as Dean of the School of Social Welfare at the State University of New York at Albany along with teaching at many other universities.

Summary

The DSM’s birth belongs to Robert L. Spitzer, “the godfather of modern psychiatric diagnoses” (4). Spitzer’s aim was to create a manual that was “scientifically sound” (5) to help with the development and treatments in the field of psychology. As the manual grew in popularity it became “a claim for professional jurisdiction by the American Psychiatric Association” (11). No longer could someone classify or treat a person without the DSM’s approval. This is important because money is involved.

The “DSM is the psychotherapist’s password for insurance reimbursement” (12). Secular counselors could not received payment from a patient’s insurance company for just talking with them. However, if a “psychotherapist” classifies someone as a mental patient according to the DSM, any treatment can be understood as equal to that of a medical physician and get paid for their services by insurance companies. This also became of great importance for drug companies wishing to profit from those with different issues (13).

Though the DSM has benefit to the psychiatric institution by giving them a fame work within to evaluate and treat patients, what has become very clear is that the DSM has more error than it would like to admit. This is why the DSM has gone through three complete revisions (46). That is why Kutchins and Kirk ask the question, “Is DSM reliable?” (49). They assert the “reliability using DSM is not particularly good. Mental health clinicians independently interviewing the same person in the community are as likely to agree as disagree that the person has a mental disorder and are as likely to agree as disagree on which of the over 300 DSM disorders is present...The unreliability of DSM is a chronic problem that the psychiatric establishment tried unsuccessfully to solve and would now rather ignore” (53-4).

To display the range of disagreement and change within the DSM, the authors first look at the issue of homosexuality (one time considered a mental disorder). The authors go to show that the change of homosexuality from bad to normal was not based on any sort of scientific research. The change was made because of militant acts of the homosexual community (61) and political pressure from within the APA (66). Because of these agents the DSM removed homosexuality from the DSM and replaced it with “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” (91) as a general diagnosis for those who might be homosexual, yet are not satisfied with it. Now, according to the principles of the DSM, if you are homosexual and happy, you are fine. This is completely different than was once stated by the DSM. Can the new diagnosis be trusted?

Other issues treated the same way by the author are war related mental disorders, masochistic personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder. These chapters focus and attempt to display how the DSM has went through many changes and why these changes are taking place. Most often, they do not change because of some new great scientific study that gives grand evidence and reason for the change, but because of pressures on the APA to change its findings.

Kutchins and Kirk also discuss the abuses of psychology against those of another race. In 1840 a census was taken of those who were in mental institutions. What was shocking was the difference in the ratio of African-American patients in the North and South. The number of African-American patients in the North far exceeded those in the South. In the South, “they believed that slavery made the difference!” (204). Based on this issue, as article was written in The Southern Literary Messenger which prescribed slavery for the sake of those enslaved (204). John C. Calhoun said, “Here is the proof of the necessity of slavery. The African is incapable of self-care and sinks into lunacy under the burden of freedom. It is a mercy to give him the guardianship and protection from mental health.” (205). Sadly, this sort of psychological thought was not limited only to those of African decent. Hitler used the same poor method against the Jews (214).

To end their work, Kutchins and Kirk argue that the DSM is not adequate to determine whether or not someone is mentally ill or has a “normal, nonpathological variance” (294); it is not specific enough to limit the diagnosis to a proper one, leaving researchers and clinicians “plenty of room to arrive at different diagnostic conclusions (unreliability) based on the same information” (255); and the “DSM’s definition of mental disorder is flawed, the claims of validity and reliability of the manual as a whole are shaky, and the causes of most mental disorders are unknown” (264). Thus they state with confidence, “Clearly, as we have shown in this book, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals benefit from DSM’s unrelenting expansion of domain, its attempts to sweep all manner of personal troubles under the medical umbrella and to rationalize those moves on the basis of research and science…Certainly, there are plenty of problems that we all have and a myriad of peculiar ways that we struggle…But could life be any different? Far too often, the psychiatric bible has been making us crazy—when we are just human” (264-5). Thus, they argue that the DSM is about power and money more than it is about helping people.

Critical Evaluation

Making Us Crazy is a fine work and should be read by anyone who is serious about the world of psychology or the counseling ministry in general. Its review of the history of the DSM is informative and useful in evaluating the how the psychiatric bible came into being and whether or not it is proving to be a helpful aid in helping people with their problems.

Positive Evaluations

One of the strengths of Making Us Crazy are its ability to show the history and backdrop of what caused to the multiple revisions the DSM has gone through. In chapter three, “The Fall and Rise of Homosexuality”, one of the most fascinating chapters of the book, the authors do a great job of showing how the DSM was challenged and eventually changed.

It should come as no surprise that the DSM would have changes along the way. It is only normal for scientific study to evolve as new information is gained and evaluated. What makes this book so powerful is the magnitude of research done by Kutchins and Kirk that shows that this change, and many changes, is accomplished no because of new research once hidden, but by a powerful movement that pressured for the changes in the DSM. They show that in 1971, the first major step was taken when “gays asked to meet with the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature to present a demand to delete homosexuality from DSM” (66). During this time, the number of gay psychiatrists was growing and they were beginning to put pressure on the committee to change. Finally, in December of 1973 “the board voted unanimously to delete Homosexuality from the diagnostic manual” (71).

Such findings go to show how unreliable DSM is. The diagnoses of the book are more governed by pressures than by science to often. Not to mention the other changes that happen at such a rapid rate, ones that might be more related to science, show the unstable nature of DSM. Kutchins and Kirk do a great job of showing the weakness of DSM and why it needs major work before it should be trusted as the primary means of diagnosing and treating patients.

Negative Evaluation

The primary weakness of Kutchins and Kirk’s work is that they fail to follow the road they start to the destination it leads. One of the primary flaws to the DSM that they point out is its rapid changing nature and its failed attempt at a definition (264). However, one could ask, on what ground can anyone declare that another person is mentally ill? By what standard can we rightfully make such a statement?

This is seen clearly in the issue of homosexuality. At one time, the majority of people saw homosexuality as a flaw in the makeup of some people’s minds. However, as time developed and homosexuality either grew or just became more socially acceptable, the APA was forced to change DSM’s claim that it was a mental disorder.

The question that has to be asked is how does a world governed by atheistic thought come to the conclusion of whether or not anything is right or wrong. In a world absent of God and supreme truth, we are left in a globe of atoms and molecules that are randomly bouncing back and forth without rhyme or reason. Take God out of the cosmos and you are left with moral and ethical suicide. No longer can someone make a claim that homosexuality is wrong because there is no external witness against it. What will be okay next?

The fact is, without moral absolutes brought on by a supreme being that is external to us, a DSM cannot exist. The DSM is dependent on the idea that people should act a certain way and think a certain way. But who is to say how that action should be? In the case of homosexuality, it was once seen as wrong and an illness, but now it is common and another healthy lifestyle for some. What other disorders will one day be wiped out of DSM because a large enough group of people have the so called disorder and live perfectly healthy lives? Could psychotherapist take the DSM and go to other lands and expect it to work, given the great differences between our culture and others? It does not seem likely.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Making Us Crazy should be an influential book and will hopefully stir many in the world of psychology to rethink the DSM. Kutchins and Kirk prove themselves to be experts in this area of study and will hopefully continue to press people to rethink how mental health is understood. Those who are serious about counseling should take their words seriously and think critically about the agenda of the APA. However, the reader should not fall short where the writers do and seek answers that Kutchins and Kirk fail to discuss.

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN HISTORY READING SUMMARIES

These were some summaries that I did for my Ancient Near Eastern History class. Some of it may be a bit boring, but for those interested in the date of the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, it might prove enjoyable.

Israel in Egypt

Israel, as is seen in the biblical narrative spent much time in Egypt. Most of that time was spent in the land of Goshen, which is located in the eastern delta.

Pyramid Development

One of the most popular features of Egypt are the pyramids. The pyramids started as “flattop rectangular mud-brick tombs” (2). These were developed by Imhotep and built for Pharaoh Djoser. The building began to become more sloped with smooth sides. What came about was the Red Pyramid which is commonly known as the first true pyramid. Contrary to what many teach, the pyramids where not worked on by any Israelites, but instead were built by local professional builders from surrounding villages.

Pyramid of 12^th Dynasty

Pharaoh Sesostris II was possibly the pharaoh who ruled during the time of Joseph. He built a pyramid that was much smaller than the great pyramids of Giza, and his was made of a mud-brick core with limestone as its casing. Today, all that remains is the core as the outer shell was torn away for other buildings. Sesostris II also wore a uraeus when he was buried. The hat like clothing item had a snake on it to protect him from evil and was made of pure gold.

Abraham

Abraham came to Egypt at the end of the First Intermediate Period. At this time, the 11^th Dynasty was starting to gain its power in Thebes and would eventually take control of all of Egypt. While Abraham was in Egypt he would have most likely met a king from the north who took the title of Pharaoh and would have seen the great pyramids of Giza.

Joseph

After Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, it was most likely that he would have come into Egypt by the Horus Road. He was sold into slavery of Potiphar right at about the time slavery started in Egypt. When the 12^th Dynasty took over they built their capital city at itj-tawy which is west of the Nile Delta. During this time, the pyramid of Pharaoh Sesostris II was built and would have been the pharaoh under whom Joseph rose to the position of vizier in Egypt. As the most powerful man in Egypt, he would have had right to visit the construction of the pyramid and may have been over the pharaoh’s burying there. So when Sesostris III rose to power, this was when the time of famine came. Sesostris III built his pyramid in Dahshur and Joseph may have been in charge of that. After the famine, Joseph may have retired to the land of Goshen. There was also a tomb found in Tell el-Daba where the bones are missing. Though it was common to rob tombs, bodies were not commonly taken. This tomb may have been empty because of the bones of Joseph taken back to Canaan.

Hyksos

The Hyksos were people who came to Egypt from southern Canaan and took over the eastern part of the delta. They took for themselves the title of pharaoh and ruled in Egypt for 108 years. They have come to be known as Egypt’s 15^th Dynasty. The Pharaoh who did not know of Joseph was probably a Hyksos pharaoh and the one who places Israelites into slavery. Once Egyptians forced out the Hyksos under Amosis, ruler of the 18^th Dynasty, they would have taken over it capital city Avaris, renaming it Peru-nefer.

Moses

The Bible tells of Moses’ salvation in the Nile and his adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter, probably Hatshepsut. This makes it seem like the royal family would have had a presence in Goshen. It was in the former Hyksos capital. There appears to be a palace that is in the right area and right time to be the palace where Moses was raised and confronted Pharaoh.

Rameses

The Bible records that Jacob and his family settled in the land of Rameses, were slaves there, and left from Rameses. However, the name Rameses was not around during the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt. It did not come along until the Pharaoh by that name. Thus, the scribes of the Bible edited the Scriptures later on to help the readers understand the location.

Egypt during the period of the Kingdom of Judah

During the time of the Babylonian empire, many Israelites traveled to Egyptian cities in the north for refuge. Memphis is only mentioned as a city of God’s judgment. Heliopolis was an important city in the Old Kingdom and was also said to be under God’s judgment. Bubastls was located in the delta and said to be under God’s judgment. Zoan is the Hebrew name for Tanis and became the official residence of the 21^st Dynasty during the time of the Judean monarchy. Tahpanhes became a safe haven for Jews, including Jeremiah, during the time of Babylonian invasion and Jeremiah pronounced judgment on them. Pelusium was a fortress in Egypt’s northeast corner. Migdol is another place where Jews resided during the Babylonian invasion and a city God judged.

Conclusion

The key to understanding Egyptian history is to consider the invasion of the Hyksos and how, from that point, on Egypt was very concerned with attackers form the north. Living in Egypt was a good experience for Israel, but when the Hyksos people came in who did not know Joseph, it lead to their slavery. Even after the restoration of Egyptian rule throughout Egypt, the Israelites still had to serve under slavery. Then during the invasion of Babylonia, many Jew traveled to Egypt, and it became clear that they could run, but they could not hide.

Cultural Change and the Confusion of Language in Ancient Sumer

The Sumer people come from the “land between the two rivers” (the Tigris and Euphrates), located in Mesopotamia. However, there are some questions that are still troubling about this ancient people. How did this civilization come into this area and dominate its culture. To discuss this, researchers have looked at both artifacts and language source materials.

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeologist seek to discern the differences between cultures and understand that different civilizations of an area in its timeline. To do this, they look at the material objects, understanding that many times people will share objects from culture to culture. Thus, they can link a connection between two cultures if they share something, such as pottery. They other thing is that archaeologist will give names to different cultures, but those names are for our sake and do not have to represent a people rightly.

Hassuna Culture

Hassuna culture is the earliest major culture in northern Mesopotamia during the period of 5500-5000 BC. The Hassuna people were primarily agricultural people and makers of pottery. They had some tools that were made of bone and stone, but the most common tool they used was a wooden stick with flint teeth for harvesting grain. The Hassuna culture was not completely restricted to themselves, but they have been found to trade with nations miles away on the coast.

Halaf Culture

Around 5000 BC the Hassuna culture was replaced by the Halaf which lasted until 4100 BC. The Halaf people developed very beautiful pottery that is copied from metallic vessels which show that they were a metal working people by this time. This supports the assumption that they were of the first people to use metal in the world.

Halaf civilization was much more advanced than most people in the world. Their cities had paved streets and homes with more than one room. They also had a developed religious system. But strangely, their civilization disappeared. Some have thought that maybe the flood was the cause of this, but the flood would have come much earlier than this. Rather, invasion or natural disasters are the most probable explanations.

Ubaid Culture

The Ubaid culture existed in the southern part of Mesopotamia near the Persian Gulf. This area is known as Sumer; and Shinar in the Bible. This region was not settled prior to 6000 BC. Its earliest cities came around 5600 BC. The Ubaid culture is best known for its increased use of metals and the invention of the wheel.

Uruk Culture

The Uruk culture lasted from 3750-3200 BC. This period is best known for its development in brick baking for monumental buildings. They discovered that if you bake the bricks, their strength is better and it is better to build monumental buildings. Thus, they were the first to create the first great temples. Another major advancement was their invention of the boat.

Proto-Literate Period

The proto-literate period was from 3200-3100 BC. The major advancement during this period was the invention of writing. This was so important because it allowed for records to be kept and then later discovered. Another advancement was irrigation which shows that by this time there was some degree of political organization and unification.

Literary Evidence

The writing developed during this period was cuneiform. What is strange about this early writings was that the language of these Sumerians was very distinct, but they had proper names that did not fit the language. This means there had to be an earlier people, though no artifacts are there to support it.

The “Sumerian Problem”

The Sumerian Problem has to do with the differences between the findings of archeologist and philologist. The archeologist, basing their argument on artifacts, argue that there have been one people living in the area. The philologist, basing their argument on language, argue that there have been different people living in the area because of the differences in languages.

A Biblical Answer

Though there does not seem to be a solution to this problem, the Bible has a very plausible answer. The answer that it gives is the judgment of God seen in the tower of Babel. We know that the ziggurats were starting to be built around this time and the tower of Babel appears to be a ziggurat. This answers the problem because archeologist tells us no one new came into the area during this time. It also makes since of the philologist’s arguments who claim that the languages changed. In fact, they did.

The Confusion of Language in Mesopotamia Tradition

This is further supported by different traditions such as “The Spell of Nudimmud” which speaks of a golden age when everyone spoke one language. It claims that a Babylonian god destroyed a temple and confused the speech of the builders. There is a strong connection between this tradition and the biblical account because of the word translated confounded. In conclusion, the biblical account answers the problems seen in the historical problem and should therefore be take seriously.

King Solomon in His Ancient Content

The Book of Kings tells the history of the kings of Israel. Dating this ancient book is difficult, but we can know it came at least before 200 BC when it was translated into Greek. The last recorded event is the elevation of Jehoiachin to the table of Awel-Marduk in 562 BC. However, the book tells of events happening in the time of Solomon dating back to 950 BC. Therefore, do the reports of Solomon come from accurate tradition or folklore? There is no doubt that the author was influenced by his theology, but that itself is not reason to assume his statements are factual.

The Cultural Context

The Solomon narrative tells in great detail about the sort of things Solomon’s craftsman made. Therefore, one thing to research first is to see if this sort of work was around in the tenth century.

The Use of Gold. It is clear that the building style of Solomon’s temple fits that of the tenth century with a porch, main hall, and sanctuary. Almost all of Solomon’s buildings and relationships fit this time period. However, most commentators reject the lavishness of the temple. They argue that even Ezekiel did not know of all the gold plating. Some argue that the removing of gold that comes later in Kings is evidence that the gold was never there. Others say that it might have been sprayed on, but not to the degree that Kings reports. There is tons of evidence that this was normal during this time. Mesopotamian resources claim to do the same thing over and over. Even the Egyptians are reported as doing this.

Even Solomon’s vessels and throne are reported as being made of gold. This appears to be a normal thing all through the near east. Golden vessels were expected in royal homes. Solomon’s throne does not have to be made of pure ivory, but it was a common phrase when a part of it was made with it. And this was a common practice of the time.

Amounts of Gold. Since we can understand Solomon using gold in this way, what can be said about the amount? Most would say it is impossible for it to be true. However, there is plenty of evidence of this much gold changing hands in ancient times. When kings would conquer people, it was customary for large amounts of gold to go from one to another. Egypt was rich with gold. So much so that some considered it to have gold like dust. This shows that it was customary to have exaggerated amounts of gold.

Sources of Gold. Another question then becomes could an Israelite king get that much gold. Egypt had her gold supply. Israel did not. The Bible reports that Solomon traded for gold from those who had access to it.

Palace Provisions. Another questioned account of the Solomon narrative are the provisions he required. However, this was not uncommon for the Babylonians and Egyptians. Sargon of Akkad boasted of 5,400 men eating at his table. Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria had a ten day feast for 69,574 people requiring a great deal of provisions.

The Archaeological Context

Another issue that arises is that there have been archaeological finds from that time, but they seem to be much more modest than what is reported. However, this should not be surprising given the number of times it has been burnt to the ground and rebuilt. When Herod did his renovations, it is possible that he wiped away all that remained of Solomon’s temple. We might be able to see the richness of Solomon by the way out lying cities lived. It would make since that as the kingdom grew, other cities would share in the richness.

Another question is why have no inscriptions of Solomon been found well, the fact that his palace was used by many kings makes since that his name would not be found in it. This should also not be too shocking since only sixteen out of one hundred-thirteen kings between 1000 and 600 BC have been discovered by inscriptions. And sadly, Israel did most of her writing on papyrus and not stone like others around them.

The Historical Context

The fact that Solomon does not appear in any of the written text of other kingdoms also cause problems for some. However, this problem is wide spread because we have very little documents from that time. There are no Assyrian or Babylonian records from that time. The Arameans did not start keeping records until the middle of the ninth century. Solomon’s ally, Tyre, have no records until the eighth century. Egypt only has a handful of inscriptions during this time. In reality, what we see with Solomon is normal for this time with many other kings.

The Nature of the Hebrew History Book

There is nothing else like the Hebrew history book in the entire ancient Near East. It tells both of the success and failure of Israel and her kings. Like other nations, it ascribes victory and defeat at the will of God. The Assyrians and Babylonians were also record keepers and we can assume that the writer of Kings used such works of Israel’s past to complete his work. Though it is filled with talk of God, this does not mean that it is not reliable. When checked against other sources, it has been found to be very accurate. Others argue that it is weak because of its lack of information about other nations. However, this is a weak argument because the author did not feel that it was necessary for the readers to understand. Others see differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint and claim that Kings was not a book by this time. Though it is possible that the writing might still be a little fluid, most study seems to show that it was a set book.

Conclusion

The Solomon Narrative can be a trusted source for the history of Israel based on what we know about the ancient Near East. Solomon acted like kings around him. Though his wealth and power are reason for some to skepticism, there are no obstacles in reading the Hebrew text the way it is written. From the side of scholarship, we have no reason to doubt the Bible’s claims about Solomon’s reign.

Moses and Hatshepsut

A major question that has perplexed man is, “Who was pharaoh during the Exodus”. Out of all the study of this, there are two time periods where scholars seem to come down on. Either it happened in the 15^th century or 13^th century B.C. Where someone comes down on this has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Many on both sides come down on either. However, the late date is the one most accepted by scholars, the early date is the one most supported by a clear reading of the Bible. Late daters arguer that there is no evidence of Israel in Canaan this early. But LoMusio argued that Moses lived in the 18^th Dynasty and this paper will discuss and strengthen his thoughts.

The 18^th Dynasty

Taking the date from the Bible, Moses would have been born during the reign of Thutmosis I and would have chartered the Exodus during the reign of Amenhotep. Thutmosis I did not have a son by his legitimate wife, but did have a daughter, Hatshepsut. Thus, Thutmosis II had to marry his half sister for religious rights to the throne. Hatshepsut was probably around 6 when Moses would have been born. When Thutmosis II died, Hatshepsut took the throne and held it till her death.

Moses, Hatshepsut and Dynasty 18

We are told from the Bible that Pharaoh’s daughter was the one who saved him from the river. We know that she had slaves and attendants and must have been a powerful woman to command people to do her bidding. Hatshepsut could very well be the daughter that the Bible speaks about. This also corresponds with the 18^th century tradition of identifying royal daughters as “pharaoh’s daughter”. Of all of Hatshepsut’s siblings, she was the only one alive and could be the only one to carry such a title.

When the pharaoh’s daughter found the boy, she had him returned to his mother, unknowingly, and Moses could have been with his family for years. This may be why he was empathetic towards the Hebrew who was being beaten. If this was the case, Moses would have been raised in the harem and taught like an Egyptian which makes since of Acts 7:22. When Hatshepsut died, her memory was erased from Egypt. This would make since if her son, Thutmosis III had to wait so long to become pharaoh.

A Chronology of Moses and Dynasty 18

The Bible says that Moses left Egypt when he was forty and that would mean right before Thutmosis took over. It could be that Thutmosis was afraid of Moses and it was good reason for Moses to get out of Egypt. We can also know that Thutmosis III was a builder and that would fit neatly with the biblical narrative.

Moses and the Pharaoh

Moses returned to Egypt to speak with Pharaoh after Thutmosis III had died and his son Amenhotep II has become king. This would have been about three or four years into his reign. The question is how could have Moses gained access to the Pharaoh, but being that he was his uncle-in-law, it makes since. Exodus says that Moses was even received well by Egyptians officials (11:3). So we see how Moses fits well into this dynasty.

Dynasty 18 and Dynasty 19 Compared

We can see why many people think the 19^th Dynasty is the dynasty of the Exodus because of the name Ramses, but the problem is that there is no strong woman like Hatshepsut. Another problem is that if Ramses II was Pharaoh, which most who hold to the late date do, this would mean that Moses was born in the previous dynasty and it is unlikely that a royal member of the previous dynasty would be aloud in the 19^th Dynasty. To fix this they must try to put Moses’ departure under Ramses’ reign but that does not fit the biblical account because God told him the one who threatened him was dead. Even the date of when Ramses’ son invaded Palestine and faced Israel does not make since with the biblical account.

Summary

Even though this cannot be proved 100%, it is very interesting how the events line up with the early date. The fact that “pharaoh’s daughter” caries that she should be a woman of power does not match up with the late date, but fits the early date very well. It may never be certain when the Exodus took place, but the data seems to match the early date more so than the late.

The Historical Study of Scripture: The Date of the Exodus

The dating of the Exodus has proven to be a difficult study in biblical scholarship with two main views. These difficulties really came to the forefront with the rise of modern historical research in the 19^th century. These methods changed the way people looked at the Bible. Historians ask the question, “What really happened”, but know that they will never really know. No longer is Scripture seen as the authoritative truth, but the artifacts tell the truth. Sometimes these artifacts supported the Bible, other times went against it. In regard to the Exodus, some find the facts pointing towards a later date while the Bible itself points to an early date.

The Early Date

Biblical Support for a 15^th Century Date (1440 BC). For some the Bible is the primary source of information on the matter. But this does not come without difficulties. First, is the Bible more concerned with data or myth? Second, we can tell that the Bible is more concerned about Israel’s relationship with God than it is with just telling history. Can it be trusted then? Third, another problem is that the Bible seems to contradict itself at places; so if you just take the Bible for what it says, what do you do when it disagrees? Therefore Dennis Bratcher thinks the Bible offers very little aid.

1 Kings 6:1 is the primary passage where the early date gets its credit. Early date people take the Bible’s claim of 480 years literally, but that is because of a misunderstood way of ancient dating. Such scientific methods of dating are relatively new. So many scholars think that this is meant to be an estimate and not a literal number. They say it is better to understand it as twelve generation at twenty-five years each equaling 300 years placing the date at 1260 BC, the late date.

Judges 11:26 also supports an early date. Jephthah in a dispute with the Ammomites said that Israel had been in the land for 300 years which shows for the early date. But some argue that Jephthah was not meaning to give an exact date, but is bulking up his argument. They also make him out to be an idiot who has no clue to history. They argue that there is no reason to assume this is accurate. Plus, they argue that the whole period of the Judges has bad dating so we cannot take it as accurate.

Historical Support for a 15^th Century Date (1440 BC). Since there is no literature from this period to support an exodus, artifacts give the only information we have. Jericho was thought to have been destroyed in 1400 BC which supported an early date. However, later findings support otherwise. Another city is Hazor which has destruction found in 1400 BC, but scholars say there is no reason to assume it was caused by Israelites.

Logical Support for a 15^th Century Date (1440 BC). Late daters argue that we should not think of Moses’ life divisions as actual. When three numbers are the same in the Bible, we should not assume they are real. Another argument for the early date is that a stele from Egypt says that there was a battle with them. The argument goes that they would have had to been in the land by this time. This does not work with the late date. But some think they could have been in the land long enough even with the late date. Another argument for the early date is the length of the day of the judges. However, late daters argue that this is not good enough because the lengths of each cannot be trusted and it is not known if they overlap. Thus, there is no logical reason to assume an early date.

The Late Date

Biblical Support for a 13^th Century Date (1290 BC). There is really no Scriptural support for a late date. The reason so much attention has been paid to the information above is to show that the Bible does not need to be trusted.

Historical Support for a 13^th Century Date (1290 BC). A historical argument for the late date is that there is little evidence of people living in the region of Moab and Edom during the time of the conquest. There has been a city found from that time, but late daters says there is no reason to assume that it was involved during the conquest.

Logical Support for a 13^th Century Date (1290 BC). Late daters argue that there is no way that Egyptians could have allowed Joseph to rise to the power that he did. Therefore they argue that he would have had to become powerful during the Hyksos rule in eastern Egypt. They also make many assumptions based on the name Rameses. Israel built a store city under that name and late daters argue that they would not have been able to do that before Pharaoh Rameses. We also see that Egypt invaded the land during the late 14^th to mid 13^th century. The Bible speaks nothing of this, and therefore logically it can be assumed that it could not have been with Israel.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that neither position is overly strong. The early date places to much weight on the Scriptures and late daters place to much weight on artifacts. In the end, we cannot know which is right. Therefore, we should think of the Exodus from a more theological perspective and see what it meant for the early readers more so than thinking it was just for us.