Just two scriptures listed for the 5 minute student talk last night regarding husbands. Not like the old days, when there might be a few paragraphs for source material. Just two scriptures.

Colossians 3:19 was the first: “You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry with them.”

This appears to be a guy thing. There is no reciprocal counsel for wives not to be bitterly angry with husbands. There are other bits of counsel, but not this one. It means that, either women don’t get angry, or guys are so used to people being angry at them that it rolls off them like water off a duck. At any rate, it seems ‘bitter anger’ from a husband wounds more deeply than from a wife, perhaps on account of the sense of betrayal—he being the last person she expects to scream at her.

Not too long before, in the ministry, I had spoken with a divorced woman. She spoke of her ex as not a bad guy overall, but she hadn’t been able to deal with his “anger issues.” Almost as though she knew about the verse—but she didn’t, or at any rate it never came up. Unknowingly, she corroborated it.

Then there was the fact that it is not ‘anger’ that Colossians speaks of, but ‘bitter anger.’ It suggests a darker, more enduring quality, something that may have become default mode. A guy takes his frustrations out on his wife, for example. She is not the source of them—his daily trials are, even his own shortcomings—but he takes them out on her. Don’t think of that dust-up between Paul and Barnabas. They got over it. Think of something more lasting.

Many translations render the Greek word, not as ‘bitterly angry,’ but as ‘harsh.’ In that case, think of Rehoboam, the lout who said his little finger would be thinker than his dad’s hips. Bitter anger or harshness: pick your poison, because both are.

Then there was consideration of how married men in the congregation may diligently apply all the Bible counsel on smooth interacting with others—summarized and refined into that new brochure, ‘Love People—Make Disciples’—to everyone one they encounter except their wives! They feel with the latter that can “be themselves.” No need to apply any artificial traits. What they miss is that the traits should not be artificial, not for one endeavoring to put on the Christlike personality. The effort should be that they be deep-seated and genuine. The first person upon whom to express them should be their wives, not the last.

This was a good lead into the second scripture, Ephesians 5:33. “Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself;”

Even men who are hard themselves will not break a leg and keep walking on it. In the final analysis, men accommodate their needs and learn to be kind to themselves. From God’s point of view, your wife is yourself. He is the one who calls husband and wife “one flesh.” So, brothers have to shape up where they have to. We have assignments. We work hard at assignments and hope to get more. Our wives are our first “assignment.” Flub that one up and nothing else really matters.

After the meeting, someone pointed out the latest Watchtower (January, 2025) with an article directed at Christian husbands but nothing following for wives. In the past, if one was discussed, the other one would not be far behind. I thought maybe it was like that talk from the new GB member, either he or the other one, and now both have been rendered veterans by two newer ones still. He related the experience of a sister dressed provocatively at the Kingdom Hall, at least in someone’s opinion, and the suggestion that brothers counsel her. “I think that’s husband territory,” one of them said. So maybe if there is not a follow up article directed at sisters, it is for that reason. Christ (in this case the undershepherds that represent him) has direct headship over the man. Not so with the sisters, however. There is a layer in between. 

Not that I would think they’d let it go over the provocative sister. If she was provocative enough, they might lean into the husband. But what if (gulp) the husband was a non-believer, or if she was single? Then they might put a bug in the ear of an older mature sister, ideally one who does not dress as a sack of potatoes herself and can empathize with wanting to present one’s best appearance.

******  The bookstore

Great. Just great. My car breaks down exactly at the door of the Assembly Hall as I am dropping someone off!

The downside? It’s embarrassing!

The upside? (which almost became a downside; it was so frequent) For the next 2 hours, until the tow truck arrived, (trust me on this—it needed a tow) brothers kept coming out to see if I needed help. They are all so nice and I am reminded of my non believing dad 40 years ago at my wedding saying to his own brother, ‘C’mon Joe, let’s go out in the parking lot for a smoke. These people are so nice I can’t stand it.’

Being brothers, many of them took for granted that they could get me going right then and there. I had to explain to each and every one that they couldn’t.

Among brothers, there are always some who really are mechanical. One of them quickly diagnosed the issue. No, it wasn’t the slave cylinder, he said, after diving into the interior and pointing out all the possible culprits, but the master cylinder, since the clutch pedal wouldn’t rise on its own. At 194K the car has a right to misbehave. But the tow truck took so long in coming that I sent someone in to the chairman’s office to say if they needed an afternoon interview for the ‘Exercise Patience’ theme, I was available. The Assembly Hall was then being used for the Regional Convention.

No, it wasn’t all the fault of the towing company. Some of it was the roadside assistance app that couldn’t fathom how Tom Harley could possibly be the same as Thomas Harley and so kept issuing denials of service without explanation. With a person, you could straighten in out in 2 seconds, but in the AI world it is not that way. It is, instead, like when your wife, though she has always been friendly, one day locks you out of the house without the hint of a reason and won’t tell you why other than to say that you should have been paying attention.

And no, I hadn’t waited till the last minute to address the issue. I had been nursing it for a few weeks. Sometimes problems go away on their own. Alas, this one did not.

***Revised, in connection with a discussion of ‘the kingdom of God does not come with striking observableness:’

For me, it does come with striking observableness, in the form of a car that breaks down at the Assembly Hall door. You know you have gone directly from last of the last days to last of the last of the last days, perhaps even last of the last of the last of the last days when your car does that. Cars will break down from time to time, maybe on the way to the grocery store, maybe in the grocery store lot, and one does not draw any spiritual conclusions. Even breaking down in the Assembly Hall lot does not make one ‘see the light.’ But when in breaks down at the Assembly Hall front door, Yes—striking observbleness there, no question.

Then, half of all brothers being gearheads, you must suffer a constant onslaught of people sure they can fix whatever the problem there is right then and there, and you have to painstakingly explain to each one that they cannot. Then, one who really does know his stuff, dives into the interior, sees it isn’t the slave cylinder, but the master cylinder, since the clutch pedal won’t rise on its own, and agrees that my goose is really cooked.

Then, the tow truck takes so long to arrive that (this happened during the Regional Convention, not mine, where I had dropped someone off) I send in word that if they need a brother to interview for the any Exercise Patience talk I’m available. Not the tow truck companies fault, but the roadside app, which cannot fathom how Tom Harley could possibly be the same as Thomas Harley and so kept issuing denials of service without explanation. With a person, you could straighten in out in 2 seconds, but in the AI world it is not that way. It is, instead, like when your wife, though she has always been friendly, one day locks you out of the house without the hint of a reason and won’t tell you why.

This is the same car that I used in ‘Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction’ to illustrate the point that you don’t need perfection to get you from point A to point B, only something serviceable and that if it breaks down you can repair it as you go. So it is with Jehovah’s visible organization driving the tangled and crazy roads of this system of things—it need not be perfect, though that would be preferable. It need only be serviceable. I wrote:

“Facts are overrated. You never have them all and if you wait for them all to come in you never do anything. There is no “fact” that is not incessantly resisted and debated by those who don’t want to go in a given direction, so they never do all come in. Eventually, you must just go with what you have, trusting that you can make repairs along the way if need be. You need a serviceable vehicle to get from point A to point B. It need not be perfect. Just like my wife and recently completed a road trip to Florida and back, stopping in at seven sets of friends and one set of relatives along the way. Though I’ve flown several times, I had never driven the distance.

“If you are from up north, as I am, you can depend upon countless friends who have moved south but to varying degrees. In time, they form a series of islands from which you can hop one to another. We only stayed two nights in hotels during our two and a half weeks on the road. All else was the hospitality of friends and the nice thing is that we could do it all over again with a different set of friends. Such is the benefit of spiritual family. Two of them even put us up into their unused time-shares. Our vehicle was serviceable, not perfect, with 180K miles and rust just beginning to peek through. We didn’t feel we had to make it perfect before we left home. We even had occasion for a repair. Blowing out a tire at 70 mph, I limped from the expressway, crossing several lanes when I saw an opening, took the exit ramp, and pulled into the first parking lot I saw. After swapping the bum tire for a donut, locals recommended a nearby shop. They fixed me up with a replacement tire in barely any time at all.

“Hasn’t the worldwide organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses done the same a few times? You think it’s easy holding firm to God in the last of the last days, what with religions seizing upon any misstep as evidence you are a false prophet and skeptics dismissing God because they confuse him with Santa Claus who’s supposed to shower down presents no matter what? It isn’t.”

Now my old car sits in the drive beside a shiny new one, which does the heavy duty. Like Old Jack, Sam Herd’s boyhood mule, I water it every day. I don’t throw if away just because it has grown old. Indeed, my wife hates the new one (you sit down too low and it is less easy to climb in and out) and will only drive the old one. If I protest, she likens herself to old wine that cannot be poured into new wine skins.

******  The bookstore

From one circuit overseer visit to the next, a period of about six months, new normals begin to develop in the congregation. Subtle ones, not bad, nothing for which anyone would have to say ‘Stop doing that!’ Things just reflecting the different personalities in the congregation. ‘Slight imbalances’ maybe is the phrase to use. Personal innovations, some which work pretty well, others not so much. The CO visit is like fine-tuning, serving to nudge ones into closer cooperation. Nudge—not shove—and people only partly do it. But they all take note and implement the improved focus, at least to a degree. Then other new normals begin to develop, or maybe the old ones begin to reassert themselves, and the pattern begins again.

It is the advantage of organization. Without it, the new normals grow and magnify and innovate and butt heads with competing normals to the point where factions begin to develop. The CO is a feature so that the worldwide congregation pulls unitedly, he being a direct link to the Christian governing body. If you want to get anything done, you organize. It magnifies your ability. It is a latent power that humans have, to coordinate their efforts and thus get more done. Paul used the analogy of directing his blows, rather than striking the air. There is no need to quote the “power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely” line. If you do it right, it doesn’t.

Doing it right involves everyone, from the top down, more notably at the top, since there is where the “power” lies, repeatedly putting on the Christian garment. It is repeated clothing oneself with the fruitage of the spirit, and continually monitoring that appearance in the mirror of James. No one can become too prickly over hearing counsel from another. The CO’s talk, one of them, referred to “the spirit that is now operating in the sons of disobedience,” the spirit that makes people “prickly.” A previous speaker gave the analogy of calling a soft tire to the attention of a brother—it is unsafe, he might be unawares, and it could cause him harm. “Oh, yeah?!” the hothead shoots back. “Well, your car has a dent in the fender!” It doesn’t hurt to develop a forgiving spirit, either, since the psalm says (130:3): “If errors were what you watch, O Jah, Then who, O Jehovah, could stand?” Errors are all people watch in the overall world today, and nobody stands. Don’t bring that niggling mindset into the congregation.

The Watchtower Study for that week (July 2024 issue) contrasted kings of Israel, some of whom were bad, though they did some good things, and some of those who were good, though they did some bad things. Responding to correction was a major factor to determine who was who. David and Hezekiah, particularly David, blundered badly, but responded to correction. Amaziah, on the other hand, shot back at the prophet correcting him, “Did we appoint you as an adviser to the king?” (Para 10)

Another talk during the COs visit touched upon Eve’s words to the Devil in Genesis 3, who is trying to draw her away and she is taking the bait. “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” he says, knowing full well he did. Eve’s answer as to what God said: “You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.” It’s probably not a bad idea not to touch it, but it is a stipulation God never made. Does upping the requirement show her well on her way to discontent, as in complaining “Sheesh, we can’t even touch it!” even though God never said it? It makes me think of discontented ones today, exaggerating the inconveniences of serving with Jehovah’s people, which do exist, but they are not that bad, so that a third party later reads the complaint and says, ‘Whoa! They can’t even touch it! What an oppressive bunch!”

Chatting with the CO in service, he said the latest brochure, now being used to train pioneers, ‘Love People—Make Disciples’ had changed, not only his interaction with people, but the nature of that interaction. It is a very subtle shift. Never has it been said not to love people.  Always, love has been understood as the motivating force behind what ministers of the good news do. But it is like the tiniest adjustment at the source of a stream that, many miles downstream, produces a torrent in an entirely different direction.

******  The bookstore

Rivers in the Bible are sometimes symbolic. Maybe, also the ones of Psalm 93.

The rivers have surged, O Jehovah, The rivers have surged and roared; The rivers keep surging and pounding. (93:3)

They have surged. Repeat and add: they have surged and roared. Repeat as continuious action, and escalate to pounding: The rivers keep surging and pounding. 

Jehovah is above them all, triumphant, as though the rivers here are a disruptive thing:

Above the sound of many waters, Mightier than the breaking waves of the sea, Jehovah is majestic in the heights. (93:4) The opening two verses set up that scenario, too. 

The Research Guide doesn’t touch it. The Insight Book does. Sometimes invading armies are “rivers.” Makes sense.

“Therefore look! Jehovah will bring against them The mighty and vast waters of the River, The king of As·syrʹi·a and all his glory. He will come up over all his streambeds And overflow all his banks.”  Isa 8:7

The comparison I like best is the Devil disgorging rivers of water and the earth swallows it up to save the woman:

“And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth.”

So I told Duncan about it, but he didn’t call on me during the gems review. He knew I would just be blowing smoke. Besides, he thought of the river, clear as crystal, that flows from the throne 

Turn the page and rivers are clapping their hands. I’m not sure how rivers can do that:

Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains shout joyfully together. (98:8)

At Isaiah 42:10, the rivers are like unmentionables:

The reason I believe better sanitation and not vaccines (as has been claimed) resulted in the greater expanded life expectancy during the 20th century is found at Psalm 90:10:

“The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.”

So there it is, written maybe four thousand years ago. Yet, in the year 1900, the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years. Had humans not deviated from the sanitation principles found in the Old Testament, would it not have been the 70 or 80 from the Bible? Unsafe working conditions also played a part, no doubt, but the role of sanitation is still a huge factor.

Today, that 70-to-80 has improved to 80-to-90, and that probably is the role of modern medicine, which may include some vaccines. But the science zealot who tried to tell me how far we have come, since in the Middle Ages, people “crapped in a bucket and threw it out on the street,” consequently dying at thirty—well, that has nothing to do with science. It has to do with correcting (even if unknowingly) a prior neglect of the Old Testament which held that you’re supposed to bury your poop.

We pull a lot of useful verses out of the 90th psalm, verse 10 among them. However, this time around in the congregation Bible reading, verse 13 caught my attention.

“Return, O Jehovah! How long will this last? Have pity on your servants.”

How long will what last? Is it a special period of anger on God’s part? One might easily think it upon reading 7, 8, 9, and 11:

“For we are consumed by your anger And terrified by your rage.  (7) You place our errors in front of you; Our secrets are exposed by the light of your face. (8) Our days ebb away because of your fury; And our years come to an end like a whisper. (9) . . . Who can fathom the power of your anger? Your fury is as great as the fear you deserve. (11)

And yet, the specific affliction appears to be no more than what verse 10 speaks of, that we get 70 years, 80 at best. See how many verses chronicle the fleetingness of life today.

“You make mortal man return to dust; You say: ‘Return, you sons of men.’” (3) For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night. (4) You sweep them away; they become like mere sleep; In the morning they are like grass that sprouts. (5) In the morning it blossoms and is renewed, But by evening it withers and dries up. (6)

That’s just ordinary life he is talking about. No special punishment there. What’s with this psalm?

Unless . . . unless . . could this be one of those passages in which the author reveals truths he is unaware of himself, the Bible being the product of “men [who] spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit?” (2 Peter 1:21)

People settle for so little today. Totally obsessed with what years are left of their present life, most totally ignore the far longer period after their present life runs its course. Is the psalmist lamenting how that circumstance came about? After all, why does God “make mortal man return to dust [and] say: “Return, you sons of men?” Man was intended to live forever. But rebelling against him, in the oldest transgression of history, in the easy-to-understand act of eating an off-limits fruit—the only thing that was off-limits—had the effect of pulling their own plug from the power source. Thereafter, the blades spinning ever slower, till their offspring many generations downstream, are stuck with a life expectancy of 70 or 80 years that quickly pass by and are filled with trouble.

How long will that “punishment” last, you might picture the psalmist saying, having no knowledge then of the means God would employ to reverse it.

It’s an application I like. Even the aforementioned verses (7-9, 11) of God’s anger could be looked at as that original rebellion being what he is angry about. It is maybe one of those passages that has more than one application. Even if it isn’t, we can assign it one, since the assignment would be in keeping with “the pattern of healthful words.” We used to call such passages antitypes. But now, we drop down to a safer level and say, ‘This reminds me of that.”

***

It’s rare to see life as God sees it. But now that we’ve all learned to do photo montages at memorial talks, it begins to happen. A person’s entire life scrolls by in just a few minutes.  Not too different from the psalm:

“For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night. You sweep them away; they become like mere sleep; In the morning they are like grass that sprouts. In the morning it blossoms and is renewed, But by evening it withers and dries up. . . . The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong. . . . They quickly pass by, and away we fly.” (Psalm 90: 4-10)

******  The bookstore

At a home Bible study, the kind that Jehovah’s Witnesses offer, Darrel had a question. He brought up Exodus 22: 29-30.

“You shall give me the firstborn of your sons. You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep.” (New International Version) This meant, he worried, that you burn up your firstborn child for God, same as you would your ox and your sheep. “You must do the same”—he repeated the expression.

He got it from the atheists, I’ve no doubt. They would make a burnt offering of the entire Bible were it up to them. He doesn’t necessarily buy into it. He just doesn’t want to be snowed—by the atheists or by the Witnesses. He even apologizes for raising the question, as though for rocking the boat. ‘What—are you kidding me?’ I tell him. ‘We’d be worried if you didn’t have questions.’

Should one be flustered? The snippet quoted does sort of sound like you’re supposed burn your sons. It will not do just to say, ‘It doesn’t mean that!’ Unless you explain why it doesn’t, it comes across as though you are covering up a crime. The challenge is enough to send the one conducting the study scurrying in search of other scriptures to shed light on the passage—using one scripture to explain another, the tried and true method in the JW world. Me, I’m just the companion, sitting there, taking up space.

Actually, just backing out some and taking the entire passage into account would answer the question, but this is not immediately apparent. The entire passage reads:

“You shall not delay the offering of your harvest and your press. You shall give me the firstborn of your sons. You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.”

Three things are being compared in the expanded passage, not two: 1) the first offerings of the harvest and [wine]press, 2) your own firstborn, and 3) the firstborn of the oxen and sheep. You must "do the same," not with the manner of sacrifice, but that all are subject to sacrifice. Grain and drink offerings were not done in the same manner as animal sacrifices. Neither would people be.

And here the atheists are trying to get him all pumped up over that passage! 'Well, it sure sounds like you're supposed to burn your son just like your ox or sheep,’ they mutter. 'If it’s not that way, it could have been explained more clearly!' Really? When we read of a celebrity roast, does anyone expect an asterisk explaining that they're not literally roasted (though many of them should be)?

In time, the conductor emerges with a verse from Jeremiah that explains it all. He had one of three to choose from; the prophet makes the point that many times. Referring to when Israel went carousing with their rowdy neighbors (the nations surrounding them) and in time picked up their bad habits, the prophet speaks for God and says, “they built the high places of Baal in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to Baal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of and that had never even come into my heart.” (Jeremiah 19:5) Okay? If it “had never even come into [his] heart,” he’s not going to command his people do it. It is Baal they are thinking of.

Ezekiel confirms what Jeremiah related. The raucous neighbors did such things. When Israel proved unfaithful to its God, Jehovah, it followed suit:

“Because they did not carry out my judicial decisions and they rejected my statutes, they profaned my sabbaths, and they followed after the disgusting idols of their forefathers. I also allowed them to follow regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not have life. I let them become defiled by their own sacrifices—when they made every firstborn child pass through the fire—in order to make them desolate, so that they would know that I am Jehovah.” (bolding mine)

These appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall flat to persons schooled in higher criticism. They will object that Exodus is a work of ‘the priestly tradition’ and Jeremiah a work of ‘the prophetic tradition.’ The two traditions fought like cats and dogs—you wouldn’t appeal to one for support of the other. But Darell is not a person of higher criticism. He is a person of common sense. The point registers with him. Had it not, maybe an appeal to an earlier portion of Exodus (4:22-23) would have sufficed. There, Moses is directed, “You must say to Pharʹaoh, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Israel is my son, my firstborn. I say to you, Send my son away so that he may serve me.”’” See what God wanted from his firstborn? He wanted service, not burnt remains. Since both quotes are from Exodus, the comparison might work with a higher critic. Though, it might not; even within a given Bible book, they claim to be able to see both the priestly and prophetic traditions squabbling with one another.

Thing is, to the higher critic, any words attributed to God are really human in origin. They cannot prove God by their scientific method, and the scientific method is all they recognize. God, for them, is a human construct. So, necessarily, words attributed to God are merely that of some human spinning his own theology. Moreover, how strong can a human construct be? Strong enough to fly in the face of tribal neighbors who did indeed offer children as burnt sacrifices? The critics judge it is not. Therefore, when Jeremiah and Ezekiel present Jehovah as condemning the practice, they are to the critics just reformers proclaiming what they would like to see, not what is. They are just whistleblowers. Their protests are but the protests of human prophets, not of God himself, who is imaginary. To the higher critics, Jehovah is a tribal god like all the rest. The religious zealots that are Jeremiah and Ezekiel may try to extricate him from the abhorrent practice, but it will not fly with higher critics. All gods to them are really but one god, and all are figments of the common human urge to worship what they can neither control nor understand. The human sciences of sociology and anthropology lead them to conclude that if one god did it, they all did. A passage such as Leviticus 18: 24-25 makes little impression on them: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” To them, it is like the words of an ascending politician explaining why he must beat up on his rivals. He is just talking sweet until he gains power, whereupon he will revert to true form.

Biblical passages drawing a favorable distinction between the God of the Bible and the gods of surrounding nations are defused by the critics in short order. For example, a passage of Deuteronomy: (FN 4:5-8)

“See, I [Moses] have taught you regulations and judicial decisions, just as Jehovah my God has commanded me, for you to do that way in the midst of the land to which you are going to take possession of it. And you must keep and do them, because this is wisdom on your part and understanding on your part before the eyes of the peoples who will hear of all these regulations, and they will certainly say, ‘This great nation is undoubtedly a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has gods near to it the way Jehovah our God is in all our calling upon him? And what great nation is there that has righteous regulations and judicial decisions like all this law that I am putting before you today.  Deut 4:5-8

With no way to ascertain that there is a God, the higher critic regards the above as a concoction of Moses, who was a great man hoping to impose his theology upon a resistant nation. He is attributing his own forward vision to God, saying the ways of his god are best, when he actually should be saying, ‘My ways are best.’

As an exercise, in the following summation of 2 Kings 17:7-18, replace every mention of Jehovah (FN traditionally thought to be Jeremiah, though you won’t be able to ram that by the higher critics, either). with the name of the author writing the account. Doing so moves it into the realm of a political statement, not one of God. Modern critics can identify with political statements. They cannot with statements of faith, so they repackage the latter as the former:

“[Calamity] happened because the people of Israel had sinned against Jehovah their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the control of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshipped other gods, they followed the customs of the nations that Jehovah had driven out from before the Israelites, and they followed the customs that the kings of Israel had established. The Israelites were pursuing the things that were not right according to Jehovah their God. They kept building high places in all their cities, from watchtower to fortified city. They kept setting up for themselves sacred pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every luxuriant tree; and on all the high places they would make sacrificial smoke just as the nations did that Jehovah had driven into exile from before them. They kept doing wicked things to offend Jehovah. They continued to serve disgusting idols, about which Jehovah had told them: “You must not do this!” Jehovah kept warning Israel and Judah through all his prophets and every visionary, saying: “Turn back from your wicked ways! Keep my commandments and my statutes according to all the law that I commanded your forefathers and that I sent to you through my servants the prophets.” But they did not listen, and they remained just as stubborn as their forefathers who had not shown faith in Jehovah their God. They continued rejecting his regulations and his covenant that he had made with their forefathers and his reminders that he had given to warn them, and they kept following worthless idols and became worthless themselves, imitating the nations all around them that Jehovah had commanded them not to imitate. They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baal. They also made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, they practiced divination and looked for omens, and they kept devoting themselves to do what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, to offend him. So Jehovah was very angry with Israel, so that he removed them from his sight.”

None of the above is God’s complaint, according to the higher critics. It is all the complaint of Jeremiah—or whoever is writing as though Jeremiah.

So destructive to faith is higher criticism that it ought to be as banned as DDT and thalidomide, for it triggers no fewer spiritual stillbirths. Instead, it is the method of theological preference today. If you shop the theological schools for your church pastor, it is what you most likely have inflicted upon your congregation. Jehovah’s Witnesses will have none of it. To them, the words of Peter apply, that “prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) Those words of Peter lead them to assume unity of scripture, not inherent discord between them. It necessarily makes scripture more powerful. You can focus things that are united. You cannot things that are disunited.

******  The bookstore

There are 18 verses in Psalm 88. Save for verse 13, not a single positive thought is expressed. Everything is disastrous. Nothing good anywhere. Plus, the psalmist all but blames God: ‘When are you going to pour out your loving-kindness—when I’m dead?’ He makes the point repeatedly.

Look those verses over. You can’t find a positive thought. Except for 13: “But I still cry to you for help, O Jehovah, Each morning my prayer comes before you.” Though, he immediately follows up (verse 14) that it does him no good: “Why, O Jehovah, do you reject me? Why do you hide your face from me?” The question is nowhere answered.  He has tried the “peace of God will safeguard your heart” thing. It hasn’t worked, and so he tells God about it!

Psalm 88 is just like the Book of Job, but without the preface pulling back the heavenly curtain to explain what it’s all about. What is this psalm even doing in the Bible, which is overall a book of faith? You could easily get all cynical over it, were that your inclination. Nowhere is the psalmist’s faith rewarded. But it is steadfast, if only by force of habit, per verse 13. Is it the more powerful on that account? Life is not consistently rosy. It can be horrendous for the long periods of time.

There is precious little commentary on this psalm from the JW Library app, which likes to focus on the positive. No wonder. There’s nothing positive here, save for the verse about hanging in there with prayer. ‘Sometimes we have to wait awhile’ is the gist of the Library’s sole remark (on 13). There’s one other remark, too, but it is simply the definition of a term.

The fellow is going through a trough. Sometimes we are in troughs. Don’t feel unique if it has ever happened to you. The ground has been plowed before. If you have ever felt as the psalmist, don’t feel bad. Or, at least, don’t feel guilty about feeling bad. Part of the roller coaster of life, someone said during field service, which delivers both good times and bad.

It reminded me of how the circuit overseer said he would get carsick as a boy. The solution? Fix your gaze far off into the horizon, the one thing that does not change. So it is that the psalmist fixes his gaze upon God to carry him through a rough period of life.

******  The bookstore

Lately, my wife and I have added ‘Mankind’s Search for God’ into our family study. Published in 1990. It was a good read for me when it came out, but I also wondered what was the point. Whereas the book tells of an huge population shift, many times I’ve told people that, at its time of release, one came across only three groups of people in the U.S.—white, black, and Hispanic. Maybe in huge cities there were other populations, and one could always find the odd duck out of the water, but in the mid-sized city that was mine, all but 99% were of those three groups.

Turned out the book was just ahead of its time. Within ten years, the trickle of cultures/nationalities/religions began. Now it is a torrent, as people hop from sinking nations onto ones that are sinking more slowly. The brothers in the big cities were already seeing it back in 1990.

It is a reference work, really, and yet there are printed questions, as though it was designed for congregation study that never came. Quite a bit different from any other study book. Best remembered is the chapters comparing and contrasting all the large religions. But there are also chapters as to how the theory of evolution modified the search for God itself.

”During the 19th century, however, the picture began to change. The theory of evolution was sweeping through intellectual circles. That, along with the advent of scientific inquiry, caused many to question established systems, including religion. Recognizing the limitations of looking for clues within existing religion, some scholars turned to the remains of early civilizations or to the remote corners of the world where people still lived in primitive societies. They tried to apply to these the methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and so forth, hoping to discover a clue as to how religion began and why.” p23

The book names a few of these scholars. Tylor, Marett, Frazer, Freud has a paragraph apiece, with a few details as to the theories they proposed. At last, all are dismissed with the observation of paragraph 15:

“Numerous other theories that are attempts to explain the origin of religion could be cited. Most of them, however, have been forgotten, and none of them have really stood out as more credible or acceptable than the others. Why? Simply because there was never any historical evidence or proof that these theories were true. They were purely products of some investigator’s imagination or conjecture, soon to be replaced by the next one that came along.”

Then, an appeal to another book (World Religions—From Ancient History to the Present), which says: “In the past too many theorists were concerned not simply to describe or explain religion but to explain it away, feeling that if the early forms were shown to be based upon illusions then the later and higher religions might be undermined.” (Italics mine)

Thing is, we normally have zero interest in such things. If it is not a Bible topic itself, we don’t touch it. The book is an aberration from all else we print. All these names have popped up in background reading to maybe incorporate in my current work-in-progress, but I was real surprised to see it here, even in truncated form. Probably in the end, someone decided that it really does nothing for the building up of faith (other than provide a contrast), so for that reason it never made it into congregation study. Or maybe, it was never meant to, but in that case, why the study questions?

******  The bookstore

When a full-time-service couple moves into town, they may have several congregations to choose from. I try to woo them into mine. ‘Frankly, in some of those other congregations,’ I tell them, ‘I’m not sure they even believe in God.’ It’s a joke. Everyone knows it’s a joke. They laugh.

But in the world of theologians, it’s no joke. Theologians may not. And if they do not, their credentials as theologian are not diminished. ‘How could they not believe in God?’ the uninitiated who supposes the two all but synonymous might ask. The answer is that theology is not a study of God. It is a study of humans. Specifically, it is a study of human interaction with the concept of a divine. As such, it does not even assume that there is a divine. The concept is what counts, not whether the concept has “the quality of existence.” Frequently, theologians are agnostic. Sometimes, they are atheist.

Since their limited tools of rational measurement leave them unable to verify spiritual interpretations, they don’t try. They leave that area, huge though it is, untouched. Instead, those trained in higher criticism judge religious belief entirely by its effect upon people and society. When they entertain arguments as to God’s existence, arguments categorized as ontological, cosmological, and teleological—they generally find flaws with all. James Hall considers numerous examples of each argument and in every case arrives at what he calls a ‘Scottish verdict’—undecided. He ends his 36-part lecture series on the Philosophy of Religion with the plea that religious people take more seriously the notion that they may be wrong. Why? Because when they don’t, they tend to persecute those believing differently.

Just tamp them all down some so that human reason might rule the roost; that is his position. No wonder he downplays any dualism theodicy that implies some things are beyond human control. Strong faith is not amenable to his tools of choice. he prefers you make it weak. As a hobby, as a dimly motivating background philosophy, it is okay, but for anything serious, just shelve it, please. “I wish you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth,” Jesus says. Hall’s reply is that lukewarm with have to do.

It may be that religious people persecute those of different beliefs in his world—clearly, they do—but in the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not. As people who integrate the scriptures, rather than assume each one an island oblivious to all others, they are motivated by the Old Testament verse put in New Testament context, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” If there is any persecuting to be done, it will not be at their hands. Witnesses do not even engage in the ‘soft violence’ of stirring up politicians to force their ways upon people by law. But those addicted to changing the world, by force, if necessary, cannot abide the expanded ‘vengeance is mine’ passage:

Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good. (Romans 12: 17-21)

They do like the part about “heaping fiery coals” upon the heads of their opponents, but alas, it is not a literal recommendation. It is a reference to how metals can be softened to make them more pliable, and how acts of kindness can have that effect upon people.

Thus, one need not water down faith, as Hall appears to advocate. Assume unity of scripture and you are fine. Assume the ‘vengeance is mine’ passage is the insertion of some renegade theological peacenik, however, and you can see why he wants to dilute all systems of faith—they just go at each other like baking soda and vinegar.

******  The bookstore

Here is someone who gets right to the point. After a quick little genuflect to show he  still had the overall picture—“God is truly good to Israel, to those pure in heart,”  (Psalm 73:1) he relates how he almost lost it.

As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped.” (vs 2)

The problem? He became envious! Few things are as corrosive as envy.

 “For I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked.  For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men. Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. . . Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They just keep increasing their wealth.” (3-12)

And just how do these ones feel about God? They tell him to take a hike!

“They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” (vs 11) And it goes well for them! The game never gets old. The deck never gets cold.

They don’t all hit the party scene upon forgetting God! They don’t all turn to drugs and sex and the bottle! Someone at the meeting cited 2 Timothy 3:2-5, with its laundry list of bad traits typifying the last days:

“For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.” 

It works for some. Some dance with the tune and they make out just fine! It was enough to make Asaph pull his hair out! If he were living in modern times, he’d be whining about being misled, about being brainwashed, about the Levites lying to him! In fact, when a recent Watchtower study incorporated Psalm 73 for the benefit of any feeling what Asaph did, virulent ex-Witnesses were all over it, but spinning it without reference to Asaph or the psalm. Instead, they spun it in terms of politics and cult manipulation; you know, further manipulation to keep the deluded in line. I mean, sheesh—if you’re going to carry on about Jehovah’s Witnesses, you must also carry on about what motivates them, not change that motivation to something else. It’s as though the grousers have forgotten that there are such things as scriptures.

The ones who forsake God (from vs 11) don’t actually say they no longer believe in him. They just act as though they don’t. They have their religion but they have learned to keep it in its place—last place. Here Asaph is exerting himself every day, keeping God in first place, crossing Ts and dotting Is, while “the arrogant,” and “the wicked” are “not troubled” over anything!  Their “bodies are healthy.” When they die—at least they have not escaped that bit of unpleasantness—there is “no pain in their death.” It’s as though they say, “Well, it’s been a fine run. Remind me to do it again sometime,” as they reach to switch off the light.

It’s driving Asaph mad! “Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence. And I was troubled all day long; Every morning I was chastised.” (13-14) Every morning he asked himself! “Why am I still doing this, striving so hard to measure up for God? Where is it getting me?” It’s a little like when we left our snowy clime to visit friends down south and they said, “Yeah, why are you still up there?” (And, in fact, why are we? Probably because it’s not so bad a test as Asaph’s.)

“But if I had said these things, I would have betrayed your people.” (15)

Great! So, he can’t even complain about it! It wouldn’t be “upbuilding.” You don’t want to rain on everyone else’s parade at the Kingdom Hall. You want to say, “Attaboy! Keep it up!” But it’s getting harder for him to do. “When I tried to understand it, It was troubling to me.” (16)

Sorry to those who hoped for something a little more dramatic, but the solution appears to have been to “hit the books.”

“Until I entered the grand sanctuary of God, And I discerned their future. Surely you place them on slippery ground. You make them fall to their ruin. How suddenly they are devastated! How sudden is their finish as they come to a terrible end!”

A terrible end? Like in the Braveheart movie, where William Wallace’s chum confides, as both are under heavy arrow bombardment, that he had prayed to the good Lord, and the good Lord was pretty sure he could get him out of this spot. “But you’re finished!”      (*He used a cruder synonym, not ‘finished.’)

There is an Act II! How could Asaph have forgotten that? The opening act is not also the closing act! If it was, the naysayers would be right. He is knocking himself out for nothing. But it’s not! It’s as though Asaph awakens from a bad dream: “Like a dream when one wakes up, O Jehovah, When you rouse yourself, you will dismiss their image.” (Vs 20)

 “I was unreasoning and lacked understanding” he says, once he has corrected himself. “I was like a senseless beast before you.” (vs 22)

Whoa! There it is! A reference to those who quickly settle that this life is all there is, to those who imagine nothing beyond the present 70-90 years.  They are like ‘senseless beasts!’ And Asaph had almost become one of them! No more!

“But now I am continually with you; You have taken hold of my right hand. You guide me with your advice, And afterward you will lead me to glory.

Whom do I have in the heavens? And besides you I desire nothing on earth. My body and my heart may fail, But God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.

Truly, those keeping far from you will perish. You will put an end to everyone who immorally leaves you. But as for me, drawing near to God is good for me. I have made the Sovereign Lord Jehovah my refuge, To declare all your works.” (vs 23-28)

Back on track, he is. The opening act is not also the closing act. He’s setting himself out to weather the entire play, not just the first act.

***Sorry, that Psalm 73 reference to the people who have it made recalled for me when my new bride and I went to a gala hi-brow affair where everyone was dressed to the nines. Tuxes and gowns! When intermission came and all were out in the foyer sipping drinks, each one of which cost more than the antifreeze in my car, I whispered to my wife, “Here are people we don’t usually hang out with—the wicked!”

Yes, I know, I know. Completely unfair. No doubt, most were nice. My new wife looked at me oddly—but I couldn’t resist.

******  The bookstore