|
Critique of
Creation Spirituality |
||
|
In my critique of Creation Spirituality, I confine myself to McFague's Ecological Theology basically because it seems to be more systematic and accessible than Fox's. Initially, McFague doesn't ask us to buy into her approach to understanding the universe as the body of God. But what she does ask us to do is not unreasonable; that we, for the time being, "construct a reality" based on the metaphor of body of God as matter, with the propositions she advances in The Body of God: An Ecological Theology as guidelines. If we will do this, we might use the construction as a "lens" (19) for seeing ecology as the context for doing theology (21). This is an easier task, it seems, for those of the liberal and/or non-experiential traditions than others of us who are more conservative in our understanding of God, the universe, God in history, and eschatology. Nevertheless, I have attempted, and to some extent succeeded, in creating and peering through the lens. And I have seen something of great value and potential for my own pastoral and teaching ministry, and for learning my "fit" in the universe. CHARACTERISTICS Some of the more definitive components of Ecological Theology include the Organic Model, the Common Creation Story, a panentheistic ("all things in God") understanding of the nature of God, and a synthesis of science and religion. The Organic Model proposes that
The Organic Model is a model of the universe and of God: specifically, the universe as the body of God. Some 15 billion years ago ("In the beginning"), the universe came into being with the explosion of an incredible small and densely compacted body of matter (the "big bang," God creates from God's self [151-152]). Since all matter in the universe came from a common origin (God), all matter is intrinsically related. Through time and evolution, the tiny, beautiful earth is and has been teeming with diverse yet interrelated life, so many "cells" in the body of God. Since the universe and the earth are as yet unfinished, God is still active in creating. Although all created things have a common origin and make-up, no two creatures are exactly alike. God's body is unified in consistency, yet diverse in form. There are many levels of this creation, and the "higher and more complex the level, the more vulnerable it is and dependent upon the levels that support it" (106). This is the Common Creation Story, a story that is public and available to everyone - it is not limited to one religion or culture. Since the human species has the power of knowing and participating in creation, humanity is responsible for the outcome. This radically incarnate God, whose physical body is the universe, is transcendent and immediate. God is transcendent since God has been involved in the creation of God's body for billions of years before humanity was created (evolved) and God is the current source and motivating force (breath) behind all life and matter. God is also immanent in that God is in all bodily life, and bodies are like individual cells in God's body (141). McFague's poignant statement sums up her panentheism: "The transcendence of God is not available except as embodied" (133). This ecological theology is an ethical religion dedicated to changing the thought patterns of Christians (91). If all matter and especially all life is integrated in the body of God, then the wasteful, hurtful, disenfranchising and "sinful" behavior of humans toward humans, humans toward animals, humans toward other forms of matter, is tantamount to the willful destruction of God. And only humanity is uniquely equipped with free will, self-realization, and technological knowledge to preserve or destroy the earth and its inhabitants. To preserve our ecological niche in the universe, humans must acknowledge the sacredness of the body of God, and turn from sin, which is generally defined as "limitless greed." "The focus...is on thinking differently so that we might behave differently" (202). Changing thought patterns ultimately leads to changing behavioral patterns, reasons McFague. Ecological theology is of necessity wrapped in and dependent on the theories of contemporary science. Incredibly naive as it may seem, science is portrayed as completely objective; not a construction of reality, but "reality in its true, unvarnished state" (!) (91). I think maybe only the most inexperienced scientist would make such a claim. Notwithstanding, the current scientific understanding of genetics is particularly relevant to the organic model, since genetic matter is the common thread that runs through all living creatures. I judge that the regard for science, especially as it relates to origin theories, genetics, and evolution (not as Gould's ladder, but as "a bush with many branches" [78-79]) is one of this theology's strongest points. IS IT CHRISTIAN? Although the usual vocabulary of Christian terms is used in explaining ecological theology, McFague distances it from traditional Christianity, stressing that the focus of personal religion should no longer be on eternal life (heaven, kingdom, resurrection), hierarchical structures, scripture (merely a "touchstone text" used for Christians to construct distinctiveness [163-4]), or individualism (110). In fact, ecological theology is the very antithesis of a Christianity that conceptualizes Jesus as the personal savior of the individual (69-70). "Jesus of Nazareth" is of nowhere but Nazareth, and in no way unique except perhaps for being the focal point-person for Christianity, and the discoverer of McFague's "active dimensions" (see below). Even the Cosmic Christ, (who is "resurrected," i.e. freed from the body of Jesus of Nazareth [179]) is relegated to being merely "the metaphor for the scope of the body of God within a Christian framework" (160). The Jesus of ecological theology is a strange contradiction. As the old hymn inquires, "Have you any room for Jesus?" Ecological theology replies, "Of course, he can sleep on the couch." In fitting Jesus in, his message is corrupted. Salvation is completely for the "here-and-now" (181). Since we are part of God's body now, our relationship with God does not change with corporeal death. One becomes dust in the body of God. The central concept of basileia is ignored. The eschatology of last things is restricted to now things. Christian mileposts are confused to the point of loss of meaning: renewing of the spirit is equated with both baptism and second birth (147). This religion is thoroughly ecumenical. Lip-service is paid to the terminology of Christianity today, which may be discarded tomorrow for the next set of terms; no harm done - the valuable ecological message remains. My judgment is that this brand of theology is as Christian as any religious movement that takes Christian concepts and terms and radically redefines them to suit a particular point-of-view, no matter how valid it may be. God has become a cannibal here, as Christ has become dust particles in God's body. INTEGRATION As harsh as I've been, I do recognize that this ecological theology has virtues that Christianity desperately needs. Among them (in no particular order), (1) a turning away from individualism to ekklesia, (2) a serious theological approach to nature, (3) a liberating redefinition of sin, (4) a new dedication to compassion for the poor and oppressed, (5) and a new way of looking at God that is not monarchical, hierarchical, or exclusive. McFague primarily wants to change behavior through theology, and I applaud her vast efforts in the attempt. She has supplied us with not only the missing links in Christianity, but perhaps a partial methodology for teaching these concepts. I found several of what I consider excellent tools for spreading the useful parts of her gospel within her Christology. The "Christic Paradigm" is very attractive and will be useful. Active dimensions of the model include deconstruction of oppressive forces, hierarchical structures, and exclusive, narrow thinking, through the application of Jesus' parables; reconstruction through physical comforts and sustenance through his healing ministry; and prospection, that is, inclusion of all creation through his practices of eating. The passive dimension of the paradigm is the ideal that God suffers with the desparing and defeated. The trinitarian dimensions are helpful in teaching the three-fold God in ecological, organic terms (based in part on Exodus 33:20-23): The parent/mystery of God/invisible face, the lover/physicality of God/visible body, and the friend/mediation of visible and invisible/spirit. I believe the Christic Paradigm as a teaching tool has the potential to revolutionize the thinking of common Christians. I am excited at the prospect of developing it further within my own frame of reference in order to help McFague "change behaviors." I will starting with trying to change my own. FINAL THOUGHTS (1) I think we desperately need a theology of ecology. We need to see the failings of our faith as failings of human beings; we must somehow share in Christ's "gut-wrenching heart-brokeness," like he felt at the sight of the downtrodden crowds of Matthew 9:35 (or so I translate esplagchnisthe). Ecological theology may help open our eyes. Since it is behavior she wants to change, why not fit her model into an orthodox or conservative theology? It could be done so easily. As it stands, it is not accessible to those who really need to hear the message, due to the radical views expressed concerning the person of Jesus, the value of scripture, and traditional faith-models. (2) As I examine myself, I realize that I have never really felt much kinship with animals or nature. Could it be that we as humans have created our own "nature" of steel and circuitry and softness, thus have become alienated from the origin? (3) Changing our minds will not necessarily change our natures. I believe that by discarding supernatural conversion we leave it up to will power or genetic predisposition to compassion. Its easy to see how a a Dr. McFague might be innately or cognitively compassionate, but how about the uneducated, unsophisticated "wretch" who spends half a life in front of the television? There are so many such people. Will changing minds change behavior? "Once our ... spirits are free, will we share? ... No - I won't, we won't" (72). "Supernatural" conversion in the traditional sense does change people's minds and their behaviors, as William James academically observed in Varieties. (4) If God were so eminent, and all are made of God, in God, and of God, why is there such a tendency to not knowing our place (sin)? If God is sovereign over the earth, if God is omnipotent, and if God is benevolent, then why does evil exist, and why are earth's creatures the victims of it? Robert Capon, an Episcopal Priest and free-lance writer, tackles these questions in his book The Third Peacock: The Problem of God and Evil, an assigned reading in the class that I am writing this paper for: Revelation, Evil and the Trinity. Capon's theology is summed up on page 81 and 82:
Lots of fun, all right; but the language is far-fetched, and so are the concepts. The part of Capon's book that was most interesting to me was his analysis of a Bible pericope: the temptation of Christ, as found in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. I was surprised at just how differently I would analyze this story, and how my conclusions would be so different. So, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Capon's evaluation from an exegetical viewpoint, in order to determine if his interpretation of the temptation is tenable by scripture; if not, to come up with an alternative theory. The next step is to look at the text itself. EXEGESIS OF CAPON'S "III THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM" "The Problem" is the problem of evil in a world where God is "stage-managing history" (35). Capon uses the Temptation of Christ story (which redaction is not mentioned) to illustrate what he considers is the focus of the problem. I will limit this digest to his third chapter, first part. Capon (29): "There is no ontological evil" - I understand this to mean that no creature is inherently evil (in the nature of its being or origin). It follows that: Since the devil is a being, and being as such is good, then the devil is not "all bad." Further: Since the devil is not all bad, he may not always behave badly, and may indeed have good motives, as evidenced in the scripture by the devil's gracious request for Jesus to transmute a stone so that he might stave off his hunger (temptation 1); his thoughtful offer to give joint rule of the kingdoms of the earth to Jesus, since God was not doing a very good job of it (temptation 2); his benevolent desire to show the people of Jerusalem who Jesus really was by demonstrating heaven's miraculous power to rescue him from a jump from the top of the Temple (temptation 3). Indeed, Jesus does not feel that the devil's suggestions are "bad," and he actually follows those suggestions later on by (1) feeding of the five thousand (Luk 9:13ff), (2) taking "all power" after the resurrection (Mat 28:18), and (3) consenting to be the crucified, then rising from death. Actually, the only difference between what the devil suggested and what Jesus actually did lies in the method such feats were accomplished: (1) There was merely a problem of communication, because the devil and Jesus each had an unique point-of-view. Example: Devil: "If you are God, do something." Jesus: "I am; therefore, I'll do nothing." (2) The devil makes what seems to him (and to us, adds Capon) to be sensible, beneficial suggestions; Jesus responds by "parroting" scripture. (3) The devil wants power to be used for useful, beneficial purposes; Jesus feels that such power corrupts, and ultimately ruins any good work it may produce.
The "demonic style of power" is defined as the use of power with good intentions for good purposes. "Demonic" does not imply bad or evil, just different. But such a method, despite the best of intentions, "makes at least as much misery as the divine [style of power], if not more" (32). Nevertheless, Capon judges that Jesus' method (divine power) seems superior. But God's "power as such - even in so direct a use as miracle - remains invisible" (34-35). (The next chapter of the book is devoted to divine power, which might be the focus of some future essay.) EXEGESIS OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS The temptation of Christ by the devil is found in both Matthew and Luke 4. Since only a most truncated version is found in Mark (1.12,13), scholars relegate the source of the evangelists' material to Quelle, the "lost" sayings. I chose to exegete the Lukan redaction (4.1-13 NRSV) because of the spiritual nature of the books of Luke and Acts, and the spiritual nature of the problem of evil. Capon tells us that the scriptural account of the story of the temptation of Jesus is "condensed and stylized" (29). I would agree that it is stylized, according to each of the two redactors' theological background; but, from close analysis of the texts of the story and their possible relevance to Quelle, I do not feel they are condensed, but expanded.(Note: all Bible quotes are from the NRSV unless otherwise designated.) Who is Jesus?
In Luke 3.21,22, the holy spirit descends on Jesus after his baptism, while he is praying. This is a type of the descending of divided tongues of fire at Pentecost, and represents the Messianic gift of the Holy Spirit (Brown, et al 44:51.22): "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Act 1:8). The voice of God commends him: "You are my son, the beloved...." (Luk 3.22). As such, God expresses approval and acceptance. Luke further designates this time as the beginning of his ministry, at "about thirty years of age," the age of full fellowship in the community (Snyder 5). Then Luke traces the toledoth (genealogy) backwards from Joseph to "Adam, the son of God" (38), reflecting the Pauline premise that Jesus is the second Adam, a "life giving spirit" (1 Cor 15.45). The first Adam was to have dominion over the earth (Gen 1.26), but lost dominion through deception (Gen 3.24).Thus, Luke sees Jesus as the approved, empowered son of God in full fellowship with the sons of God (Gen 6.2); and the second Adam, having full authority over the earth and those who there dwell. At this point Jesus is completely consumed by the Holy Spirit, who leads him into the arid desert of Judea, where there is little more than dirt and rocks, as I can attest personally, having been there myself. Several authors I have read comment that, during the temptation, the Holy Spirit has forsaken Jesus to leave him to his own devises (Bonhoeffer, for instance [17]). I do not hold with this view in light of the preceding text of Jesus' baptism and empowerment. The Spirit "cast him out into the desert to be tempted" (Mark 1:12, mine) to fulfill God's plan, just as Jesus was "to be baptized" - to fulfill all righteousness (Mat 3:15). "Satan tempted Jesus to prove him faithless. God permitted him to be tested to prove him faithful." (Hobbs 48). The Holy Spirit was with him, and though he is "famished," he is filled with the Spirit." Who is the Devil?
The next most revealing passage in Lukan literature about the devil is the story of Paul at Paphos (Act 13.6ff). Paul and Barnabas were summoned by proconsul Sergius Paulus to explain their message. The official's sidekick was Bar-Jesus, or "Son of Jesus" (a Jewish false prophet), who tried to discourage the pro-consul from listening to the apostles' message. Paul addresses him as "son of the devil," "enemy of righteousness," "full of all deceit and villainy." Such modifiers may be applied to the Lukan devil as well as his son. Furthermore, Bar-Jesus is struck blind "for a while." Further references in Luke describing the devil are Luke 8.12 (the taker of the word from hearts) and Acts 10.38 (the oppressor). If we take the liberty of equating Luke's "devil" with his "Satan," we can progress a little farther. Satan has a kingdom (Luk 11.18), power of spiritual darkness (Act 26.18), and ability to "enter" at least some humans (22.3). Satan commands a host of demons (Luk 11.18). Furthermore, Jesus, before giving his disciples "authority over all the power of the enemy" including over Satan (Luk 10.19), proclaims that he "watched Satan fall from heaven like...lightning" (v. 18), equating Luke's Satan with the one who once stood accusing Joshua before (the angel of) the Lord (Zec 3.1), who was among the "sons of God" presenting himself to the Lord (Job 2.2), and who inflicted the righteous Job with "loathsome sores" from head to toe (v. 7). Thus, the devil (or Satan) was once one of the sons of God, now fallen to earth, and having at least some power on earth over humanity to oppress, inflict disease and mental disorder, accuse, and deceive. He is a spiritual being, the enemy of all that is just and righteous, and the arch-enemy of the Son of God in this passage. (Ezekiel 28:13ff may refer to the devil as having fallen from heaven. He was faultless at first, but sin was found in him and it corrupted him [Swihart 76].) In the desert now, Jesus fasts and prays (Luk 5.16) forty days, reliving the Exodus experience (Brown, et al 44:53) as redacted by the Deuteronomist ("Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments" [Deu 8:2]), where he is tempted, as follows: The First Temptation
A more accurate translation of the devil's question would be, "If you are a son of God...." There is no article in the Koine modifying "son," so I may imply the "a." A son of God in the sense of the book of Job might have power to transmute matter. "The" son of God certainly would, since "the" son of God has the same power as God (to be limited for the time being by his body of flesh). A noted scientist remarks about such "spiritual" beings:
The devil, a jealous, ex-son of God, thus commands Jesus to use his power in a way that is completely self-seeking. The devil is taking charge from the beginning; on whose will shall the Kingdom of God be established (Hobbs 50), and by what "philosophy of power" shall its methods be based (Capon 31)? In Matthew's redaction of this story from Quelle, stones (plural) are mentioned; which might be stretched to provide an implication of feeding the masses of hungry in Judea (Capon 30, Meier 30, and others). But Luke's first temptation is intentionally personal to demonstrate that the devil meant the stone-made-bread to be the food of the famished Jesus. Jesus answers with and allusion to Deuteronomy 8:3, and Luke continues to his parallel with Deuteronomy 8. In his reply, Jesus thus teaches that, although humankind may have to deal with life-threatening hunger, the main problem is spiritual starvation caused by sin (Mat 16:26) (Hobbs 50-51). The Second Temptation
"In an instant" are words found only in Luke. They mean "in a vision" (Brown, et al 44:53.1). The vision concerns political systems of rule. There is no parallel for verse 6 in Matthew; it reveals a little of Luke's understanding of his devil's perception of its own authority. In Matthew's version, Jesus is taken to the summit of the very high mountain (4.8), reminding the reader of Moses' viewing of the promised land from Mt. Nebo (Deu 34:1ff) (Meier 30). That the devil has a power (if not authority) over the world was not only perceived by Matthew and Luke, but was the understanding of the writer of John (see 12.31, etc.), Paul (Eph 6.11ff), and the Qumran sectarians (1QM passim, for example). Although the devil may control humankind to some degree through superhuman abilities and his unclean minions, Jesus proves over and over again to have the greater power. The devil tempts Jesus with power over corrupt political systems (basileias) of mankind and requires of him idolatry. Jesus replies with another quote from Deuteronomy (6.13). In the infancy narrative, Luke records that the apocalyptic Jesus will (and, as God, does) rule the earth. The Third Temptation
Jerusalem is where Jesus meets the devil at an "opportune time" (Luk 22.3ff) and is crucified and resurrected. The temple evokes the false religion of Luke's Jews. Yet this wicked city, though it has killed the prophets and will ultimately kill Jesus, is beloved by him (Luk 13:34). Furthermore, Jesus himself is the true Jerusalem, "perfectly fulfilling every prophetic hope" (Brown, et al 44:54.9). The devil bids him make a show of his death here and now, then come back to life if he is able, as a sign to those of the religious system. His intention is that Jesus die (Meier 30). He mimics Jesus' last replies to his testings, by quoting the Psalms of the great king of that city, David (Luke has said the "He shall reign over the house of David forever" [1.69ff AV]). Luke later has Jesus saying in retrospect "an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given..." (11:29). Here no other sign is given but Jesus' power of scripture, equating himself with God himself (quoting Deu 6.16)! CRITIQUE OF "THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM" Ontological Goodness Capon's primary premise upon which his interpretation of the temptation story stands is that there is no ontologically evil being or creature; primary evidence of which I assume he gets from the first creation myth found in Genesis 1: that God created "every living creature that moves...And God saw that it was good" (Gen 1:21). The characters in the temptation account that we must verify inherent goodness are the devil, humankind, and the human Jesus. The devil: The passage above, and those following, deal with creatures on the earth, created to live in a three-dimensional world. I find no mention in scripture of the devil or angels (fallen or otherwise) specifically being created good or evil, or as being created by God at all in the Genesis stories. (The New Testament gives some general accounts: Joh 1.3, Col 1.13, Heb 1.2; but these probably were not available to Luke or Matthew). Other early Jewish works may mention the creation of angels or demons (1 Enoch and Jubilees come to mind), but the Bible does not. Is the idea that the devil was not created by God, or at least not in the same genesis of humanity such a far-fetched idea? Summary: There is no direct scriptural evidence that the devil was created good, or in fact that God specifically created him at all. Humankind: Male and female were created in the image of God, according to God's likeness (Gen 1:26) in the first creation account. Indeed, here is an intelligent being created directly by God, and created good! Yet, this humankind (male and female) was a precursor or progenitor of the human race that came to be; and who has been created since? The process of creation has become procreation and birth; the image of God lost (this is my presumption). Humankind, once created according to the Bible, is now (1) born according to the scriptures of biology - inherently intelligent, but (2) not ontologically good, as evidenced by its faulty genetics, imperfections, and evil actions (see Capon 15ff). Here we have a difference in theological tradition: Capon is Catholic in outlook (the inherent goodness of creation); I am Reformed (creation has been compromised by sin). Jesus: According to our witnesses (Matthew and Luke), Jesus is the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit (Mat 1.18-23, Luk 1.35), and is one of Capon's "invisible miracles" of a creative God. The Luke passage to gennomenon hagion klethesetai huios theou ("the [thing] being born holy will be called son of God") indicates that holy is part and parcel of the child, who is equated with God through sonship. Jesus was a perfect representation of God, since he was "not of this creation" (Heb 9.11). I believe this is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was ontologically good, and Capon would certainly agree with me! The Intentions of the Devil The assertion that the devil's intentions were good or admirable in his questions to Jesus seem quite out of character. A scriptural comparison indicates that the devil is "the enemy of righteousness;" Jesus is the incarnation of holiness (Luk 1.35). The devil commands a host of demons; Jesus is protected by angels. The devil oppresses people, making them sick; Jesus gives "authority over all [such] power of the enemy." The devil has fallen to earth; Jesus descended from heaven, and is carried up to heaven (Luk 24.51). The devil has power to smite; Jesus has power to heal. The devil has his heart set on manipulating humanity; Jesus' mind is on the divine (Mat 16.23). The devil is all bad; or, using Capon's definition, evil. His intention in this passage has little to do with solving the needs of the hungry; rather in subordinating God to his power and cause. Did the devil want to feed the hungry masses? As I wrote earlier, several commentators mentioned in passing that Matthew's (but not Luke's) redaction of the "loaves" may have applied to the feeding of Israel, but it seems unlikely. If this was the writer's intention, the symbol of the loaves would have been more indicative of the situation, and would have tied in to later scriptures of the feeding of the masses. Did the devil want to "team up" to rule the kingdoms of the world? Surely the devil knew the saying, "Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house." ("If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?") (Luke 11.17b-18a). Did the devil want Jesus to show who he was through a demonstration of power? This pericope is similar to the account of Jesus' temptation by his brothers in John 7. These unbelieving brothers knew that certain Jews wanted to kill him in Jerusalem, so they tempted him to go there during the feast of tabernacles and perform some miracles, "for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world" (v. 4). The brothers wanted him dead, but it was not yet his time. Likewise, the devil wanted to see Jesus dead, not glorified. He did go to the feast, but secretly.
When the dialog is condensed, it seems quite clear - the devil is commanding and Jesus is teaching; this is a didactic in matters that the devil already knew. Jesus uses the oracles of God in his reply; he believed such were the record of God's dealings with humanity: the graphe as God's textbook on the care of humans, the nature of God, and the origin of the Son of God. He did nothing else - but what was there to do? Nothing else. The Demonic Style of Power Capon tells us that "The devil wants power to be used to do good" (31). He believes that the tempter of Christ and humanity is good, his intentions are good, and he does good. His power is used for good. Power used for benefit is termed "the demonic style of power." "Demonic" here has no evil connotation. Using scripture again, we can find demonic uses of power in abundance. Demons cause muteness (Mat 9.21), blindness (12.22), epilepsy (17.15), depression and associated illness (Mar 1.32), madness and superhuman strength (5,4), and perversion (Luk 9.2). (Now, with the advances of "modern" medicine, other causes are found for these afflictions; imbalance of brain chemistry, hereditary anomalies, psychosis. Yet, who is to say that these root causes are not the "chosen devices" of demons for the subjugation of humanity? See Capon's similar argument page 34-35.) No place do I find the devil or demons in scripture doing anything good or beneficial to humankind. I suggest that "demonic" is a misnomer, and that Capon's definition of "demonic power" is not demonic in any way, but benevolent, and that in many ways this type of power for good is used by God for good. {something happened to the rest of this essay - can't find it!}
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Temptation. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1955. Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy. The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice - Hall, Inc., 1968. Capon, Robert Farrar. The Third Peacock: The Problem of Good and Evil. San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1986. Hobbs, Herschel. An Exposition of the Four Gospels, Volume I. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1 - 7: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1985. Meier, John P. New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, Volume 3. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980. Swihart, Stephen D. Angels in Heaven and Earth. Plainfield, New Jersy: Logos International, 1979. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980. Snyder, Jackson. "Age-Status Stratification in the Qumran 'Rules'." Unpublished paper, 1992. Van Iersel, B. The Bible on The Temptations of Man. De Pere, Wis.: St. Norbert Abbey Press, 1966. |
||
| TOP |