Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Hermeneutical Foundations

Hermeneutics is defined as the theory or methodology in which one uses to interpret a piece of literature. In this case the piece of literature is scripture. The fundamental reason for controversy within the Christian church is the hermeneutics in which each side operates. It would be oversimplifying things to say that the distinction lies in whether we spiritualize or take as literal different passages of scripture; nevertheless, it is one of the main distinctions that must be made. Other important aspects that contribute to our differing hermeneutical structures are our culture and environment, our theological intelligence, our relationship with God, and all other predispositions we may have that inevitably factor into our interpretation of scripture. It is important to note that as humanity is apart from God a perfect interpretation of scripture is impossible. However, that does not mean Christians should just stop trying. God has revealed a portion of Himself to us in scripture. It is therefore our duty to gain a proper understanding of God’s divine revelation. Or as James put it “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NIV). The devil most certainly knows his scripture and uses it against followers of Christ like he used it against our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Mat. 4:1-11) Which makes the pursuit for a proper interpretation of scripture all the more important. At the close of this chapter I will provide a few tips on how this can be done, by no means is it a complete list but just a start for someone searching for answers to some of the controversies we will be covering in this book.

Before we get too far into the discussion about how to interpret the Bible I would like to speak briefly about how the cannon was created and formed into its current formulation (Genesis –Revelations). It is believed that Jesus Christ lived from about 7 AD to 33 AD though years vary between historians. The first New Testament book, 1 Thessalonians was believed to have been written about 49 AD, some time after the life of Christ. Between 54-63AD Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Philemon were all written. Mark and James were written between 64-69AD. In the 70’s and 80’s Colossians, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and 1 Peter were written. In the 90’s Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Gospel of John, 1, 2, and 3 John, Revelation, Jude, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy were written by their respective authors. Sometime after 100 2 Peter was written. The point here is that the writing of the New Testament took place well after the life of Christ over a span of more than fifty years. However, at this point they are all letters that different church’s have from the disciples. These letters were never brought together until around 200 AD. By 200 AD the gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and John were generally accepted into the cannon by the churches. It wasn’t until the Council of Carthage in 397 that a cannon of sacred scriptures was officially recognized[1] however, many potential books, like the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic gospels were thrown out under the discretion of the church fathers. It can be somewhat unsettling to think that the Bible was essentially established by a vote of the church fathers, nevertheless that is what happened. By 500 AD, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are generally accepted in their Greek and Latin form.  Twenty to seventy years passed between the life of Christ and the books of the Bible were written, and almost four hundred years passed until they were accepted as divinely inspired, from my perspective it is hard enough to remember what I had for dinner yesterday let alone what happened twenty plus years ago. There also seems to be a lot of human discretion in the decision making as far as which letters to include in the Cannon. How can this book possibly be completely accurate?  Not only that it was written in Greek adding translation problems to the mix. The inerrancy of scripture remains a foundation for Christian thought, especially for fundamentalists.

Christians would have to respond with divine sovereignty throughout the whole process. God lead the church fathers to select the letters that they did to include in scripture, God’s hand was on the writers of scripture and inspired them to write what they did. There is no mistakes in scripture as God would not allow it to happen each verse serves some purpose in God’s plan for His church. How these verses are interpreted remains of some contention. To this issue we now return.    

            The fundamentalists hold to a strict literal interpretation of most if not all of scripture. Rising up in the late nineteenth to early twentieth century as a reaction to liberal theological movements they sought to correct what they saw as fundamental problems rising out of the liberal theological movement with regard to the inerrancy of scripture. They believe that scripture should not be spiritualized or taken to be anything other than the literal truth that God has given us. For example, they believe the creation of the world was literally in a seven day period. They often believe the book of Revelation and the return of Jesus Christ for the most part to be literal and forthcoming. The inerrancy of scripture is of the highest priority for those in this group.

            The liberal theology movement that fundamentalists rose up against, push for a more spiritualized understanding of scripture. When liberal theologians look at scripture they look for the basic message being conveyed by a passage and what the passage would have meant to those reading it when it was written. When they look at passages like the creation story, for example, they look at it within its historical context and how the creation story acted as a unifier for a group of people—as Homer’s myths unified the Greek people—it gave them a common heritage and a sense of belonging. The truth it conveyed to the people coming out of exile in Egypt was that the God of Abraham created the world not the gods of the Egyptians (more on this in Chapter 11). They therefore spiritualize the text in order to get at what they see as the meaning the original audience would have found in the text.

Liberal theology is often closely associated with caring for the poor and needy. Many believe that God’s mission is to care for the poor, destitute, orphaned and widowed people of the world. In the Old Testament, this was shown through the year of jubilee and the leaving of the outside of the fields for the poor to come and harvest. In the New Testament, it is seen in the words and actions of Jesus. In word, with instances like the Sermon on the Mount where He says “blessed are the meek”, in the parable of the sheep in the goats where people are judged by what they did to the least of these. Also, in his encounter with the rich young man where He states “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. In action, Jesus showed His concern for the poor by eating and associating Himself with the outcasts of society, even the fact that he was born in a manger adds to this reversal of societal structure that liberal theology sees happening in scripture. Those who are on the bottom in society are the highest concern for Christ and should be for Christians in the eyes of many liberal theologians. Liberation theology is discussed in more depth in Chapter 14.

Within and between these groups there is much contention over which scriptures should be taken literally and which must be spiritualized. Which begs the question what to what degree should scripture be taken literally and to what extent can human reason be used in interpreting the scriptures?

Obviously, there will be wide contention between different denominations in trying to address this issue. On the one hand no prophecy or scripture came about by the prophet or writers own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) the cannon is in fact God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) written not by the wisdom of the world but by the grace of God (2 Corinthians 1:12-14). At the same time Jesus speaks to us in parables because though seeing we do not see, for the eyes of our hearts are not naturally attuned to God. After all, what are we to do with scriptures like Matthew 18:8-9,
“If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” (NIV)
Does God really expect Christians to be completely dismembered for His namesake, or is this statement a hyperbole or overstatement simply stating that Christians should do whatever it takes to avoid sin?

            Another example of this is Matthew 7:7, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you” (NIV). Does this mean that God will give us whatever we want, like a genie in a bottle? That most certainly is not my experience of Christianity and I would not want it to be that way. God in all of His wisdom will certainly do a much better job of deciding what I need than I will, and I trust Him to do that. Another example, going back to the rich young man encounter with Jesus, does God really expect us to give up everything we have to the poor in order to follow him?

            We are met here with a dilemma with regard to the inerrancy of scripture if we want to hold to a completely literal reading of scripture. We must admit some level of reasoning and rationale is necessary in order to properly interpret scripture. A way out to the problem would be, as the liberal theologian, to recognize the inerrancy of Gods meaning in scripture rather than our depraved interpretation of scripture. How then do we find Gods meaning in scripture? The easy answer here is we do not ever fully understand the God and the revelations He gives to us. There are however, some things we are capable of understanding at least in part, but never perfectly.

            In order to glean what we can from scripture we must consider the cultural context in which it was written, the overall meaning the author is trying to address, and the language it was written in. To assist us in this, things like encyclopedias, Bible commentaries, dictionaries, atlas, concordances and different versions of scripture can be helpful to understanding the meaning of a passage.

            Two thousand years have passed since Jesus walked among us, a lot has changed since then. The Roman Empire has fallen, Israel has received its independence and sovereignty, new technologies have been developed and Christianity has spread to the ends of the earth. The world has changed tremendously over the last twenty-one centuries. We now live in a relativistic, democratic, free market society that hardly resembles that in which the early Christians lived in.  Most of us do not know what it is like to live under persecution, to not have modern technology, or not have a bible in our homes to read and grow in our faith, all of which we so often take for granted. We can never escape the culture in which we grew up in, it has in fact become part of us and thereby affects our interpretation of scripture. However, we are all human, we are able to empathize with the people that lived through these periods of time. We are able to read their stories, their history and their life experiences, in order that we might begin to understand their culture and why they did the things that they did. We can never escape the fact that we are only indirectly an audience of the scriptures. The scriptures were originally letters to different churches addressing the issues facing that particular church at that particular time. Therefore, in order to gain a proper understanding of these letters we must understand why the author was writing that particular letter at that particular time. Thus requires researching the history and culture in which they were living.

            For example, in 1 Corinthians 11 it speaks of the roles of men and women and how woman was created for man which hints at the notion of a patriarchal society. Some have used verses like this to say that women should hold no leadership roles in the church, state, family or other entity over men. However, a better interpretation would include an understanding of the Corinthians culture. Culturally, it was a male dominated society. The Church was dividing and needed stability (1 Cor. 1). As the church can never be completely separated from the culture in which it is placed, Paul and Timothy use certain cultural norms to try to reach the people (become all things to all people in order that they might save some). They do not want gender roles to be a stumbling block for the people of the churches they are addressing. Let us not forget Deborah or Mary Magdalene and their roles in promoting the faith either. These women were champions of the faith. Keeping all of this in mind, what does it mean for today? That God calls whom he calls to certain positions within the church. Gender roles are no longer a dividing issue anymore and therefore Godly women are being called to serve the Lord their God in different ways then they had in the past. These portions of scripture are representative of the culture of the day, like the Old Testament laws were put in place for their respective cultures needs. The blood of Jesus Christ frees us from the law and past sins. The same Jesus maintains complete control over the Church in which he is the head over, guiding it as he sees fit. It is no mistake that women have held high positions in the Church, in fact it was predetermined from the beginning that these women would serve in these roles. Another example is in 1 Corinthians 11: 14 it says for a man to have long hair it is a disgrace to him. If we take this literally, the Nazarenes, like Sampson, are disgraceful. What are we to make of verses like this that seem so opposed to not only other parts of scripture? Must all men have short hair and all women have long hair in order to have grace? Certainly it would seem as if the Corinthian author misspoke or at the very least did not mean it in the fashion we are interpreting him. All of these laws are representative of the culture and addressed to specific issues that were occurring the churches.

Secondly, we cannot take verses out of context. We must honor the meanings of the author. It is possible to prove anything using the Bible as a book of truth if we take things out of context. The scriptures should dictate our beliefs not our beliefs dictate the meaning of scriptures. The context in which a verse is written does matter, even if one is conveying a truth with the verse taken out of context. For example, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb” (Psalms 139:13, NIV). Many times we hear this verse used by pro-life advocates in the abortion issue as justification for their belief that an embryo is a human being worthy of life and therefore it is murder to remove that embryo. If we take a look at it within the context it was written it takes on a different meaning If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day,  for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Is this passages primary purpose to convey that life begins at conception or is it merely stating that God’s handiwork is to be praised and we cannot flee from his presence? While abortion may be murder, and a truth may be conveyed in stating life begins at conception it provides grounds for saying that any verse can be used out of context if it expresses a truth about things. What I would then like to know is who is it that is deciding what is the truth? Inevitably, it is the person using it out of context. Taking verses out of context sets a bad precedent that leads to relativism in scripture. If you take a verse out of context to use it to prove a truth, you are just as likely to take a verse out of context to prove a falsehood.

Questions to ask when attempting to interpret scripture
Who was the book written for?
When was it written and under what conditions?
Why did the author write this book/ letter?
What is the main point the author is addressing?
How would the intended audience have interpreted the scripture?

The scriptures were originally written in either Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew languages. Meaning that scripture was translated into English. However, words and syntax do not always translate nicely from one language to another. Often sentences are structured differently or rhymes in one language do not rhyme in another. Which leaves translators are thereby met with a dilemma. Do they interpret the words of scripture literally as they appear or do they try to incorporate some of the semantics of the text into the translation or do they intermix between the two. As we can see three distinct classes of bibles immerge, the literal translations of scripture like the King James Version, the paraphrase versions like the Message and the middle road approach like the New International Version or the English Standard Version. All of which emphasize different aspects of the original manuscripts. People usually have their favorites with regard to which translation they like better but the best approach to understanding a passage of scripture is to look at the same passage from a version in each of the three classes of scripture.

No matter how hard we might try without divine accommodation via the Holy Spirit proper interpretations of the bible are impossible. One of my all time favorite Christian philosophers once said, “With God’s help we can understand the Bible all right. Every commentary detracts, and he who sits with ten open commentaries and reads the Scriptures–well he is probably writing the eleventh. He is certainly not dealing with the Scriptures” (Kill the Commentators). There is a lot of truth to statements like this, with so many commentaries and theories about the bible out there the bible can quickly become relativistic and meaningless. Only with God’s assistance might one begin to understand the revelations God has given us. However, we must be willing to do the work, invest the time and energy necessary for understanding such an important book. Proper scriptural interpretation is a divine gift, but a gift that does require a great deal of work.


[1]Books included in the Cannon were: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees,  4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John.

Paul's Speach to the Athenians--Acts 17

The Nature of God, Paul’s Evangelical Journey and Message to the Athenians
Paul was rushed out of Berea in Acts 17:13-15 and into Athens to await the arrival of Timothy and Silas. Athens, at this time was still free and had a university but it was living mostly on its reputation as an intellectual epicenter of the world. While Paul was in Athens, he was disturbed to find idols in the city and began to speak against the idolatry that went on in the city. He started speaking in the synagogue and then went into the marketplace and other places where the people gathered. While he was speaking, Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers confronted him about the new ideas that he brought into Athens. The Stoics placed a high emphasis on reason, obedience to duty, and self-sufficiency and had pantheistic views of deity; whereas the Epicureans were materialistic, hedonistic agnostics. They brought Paul to Mars’ Hill, in other versions it is referred to as the Areopagus, a bare marble hill next to the Acropolis in Athens. During the pre-classical period, the Areopagus served as a council of elders or the legislature of the city-state. After 462 BC most of their power was stripped and it served mainly as a murder tribunal. According to Greek mythology it was on this hill that Ares (the Roman god Mars) was tried for the murder of Alirrothios, Poseidon’s son.  Other myths say it was the site of Ostres’ trial for killing his stepmother, Clytemnestra and her lover, Aegisthus. Therefore, the message I see being conveyed was that the Greek gods were on trial. Numerous Greek gods were brought into the story including Dionysius, the person who was presiding over the ceremony and was one of the converts. Dionysius shared his name with a Greek god (also called Bacchus, the god of the grape harvest and wine). During the Maccabean period, a festival was held in Dionysius’s honor that the Jews were forced to participate in when the Athenians took over (2 Maccabees 6:1-5). Later, the Athenians pulled out of Jerusalem, gave the temple back to the Jews, and gave them equality. At this time Antiochus, an Athenian leader, converted to Judaism (2 Maccabees 9:12-18).These stories have some subtle connections with each other through the name Dionysius as well as an Athenian leaders conversion. Ultimately, it was one more Greek god that was brought into the story as a god that was foolishness to follow.
Turning to the speech in Acts 17:22-31, Paul began by stating that the Athenians were “very religious” according to the English Standard Version (ESV) but the American King James Version (AKJV) translated it “too superstitious” which exposed the controversy in interpreting the text. The term used has a positive and negative connotation as shown in the different ways that it was interpreted in the ESV and the AKJV. On the one hand, Paul might have been trying to engage his audience through complimenting them about their theological commitments. However, on the other hand, the writer was trying to expose the irony of being committed to theology but not knowing the true God, a notion that was picked up in verse twenty-three’s notion of an “unknown god”. In this sense the author was echoing John’s gospel when he said “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22, ESV). However, in another sense, Paul used the artifacts that were familiar to the Athenians to contextualize the message to them such that his message might communicate with them. There was also a mystical sense to the notion of an ‘unknown god’ in that the Christian God can be unknowable. Consider the ineffability of God; these notions were particularly prevalent in Medieval Philosophy particularly in the via-negativa or the apophatic way. Overall, this notion that God sits behind “clouds and thick darkness” (Psalms 97:2) connoting the mystery of God that could parallel an ‘unknown god’. However, there was no direct link between the true God and the unknown god to go too far into speculation.
In the next several verses, Paul was able to become all things to all people while remaining true to the Judaic teachings. Paul seemed to know quite a bit about Greek culture when he gave the speech on Mars’ Hill and he used that knowledge in order that he might reason with the people. However, he was very selective about what information he chose to use such that he remained faithful to the Old Testament prophets and the testimonies of the apostles.
Paul began his proclamation to the Athenians with the creation. The God that he was proclaiming to the Athenians was the Creator of everything. Theologically Paul was true to his roots on this point with the Genesis account of creation confirming this statement (c.f. Gen. 1:1, Isa. 42:5, Ac. 14:15). As the creator of all things it would therefore follow that He is also Lord and ruler over all things (c.f. Dt. 10:14, Ps. 115:16). Since God has then made all things and rules all things he cannot live in temples made by man after the creation (c.f. Acts 7:48). If God wanted a temple to live in He could speak it and it would be, he doesn’t require man to build it for Him. This point is explicitly stated in verse twenty-five that God was not served by humans, and is seen in Psalms 50:8-12. God was not served by man but instead served man by providing mankind with life and everything (c.f. Gn. 2:7, Jb 33:4, Jb. 27:3, Za. 12:1). Jesus came not to be served but to serve, helping those in need. As John Piper argued, “Everything that exists owes its existence to Him. Therefore, God’s zeal to seek His own glory and to be praised by men cannot be owing to His need to shore up some weakness or compensate for some deficiency” (John Piper, Desiring God, 46). God is self-sufficient and omnipotent, such a God not served by humanity but for His namesake serves the needs of His people. 
God’s omnipotence was again displayed in verse twenty-six. From Adam and Eve the “one man” that God created, God has made all nations (c.f. Gen. 3:20), that they might live on the “face of the earth”. This language was also used in the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8) and with reference to the final judgment (Luke 21:35) therefore having a judgment connection with it which was more directly stated in verse thirty-one. The verse argued that God controls time in the form of the change of the seasons as well as how much time people and institutions were given (c.f. Job 12:23, 14:5). God controlled boundaries of empires and what ground was habitable (c.f. Dt 32:8, Ps 74:17). The reason God did these things or the purpose for God’s intimate control in the affairs of mankind, verse twenty-seven argued was the hope that some might seek Him (c.f. Acts 15:17). In other words, for His namesake, for His glory God has an intimate connection with creation as displayed in the omnipresence connoted in the last portion of verse twenty-seven (c.f. Dt. 4:7, Jr. 23:23-24, Ps. 145:18). Part of the seeking process, Paul argued was that man might “feel their way towards Him”. The imagery connoted here (c.f. Dt. 28:29; Jb 5:14; 12:25; Is. 59:10) is like a blind man or walking in the darkness implying that the Athenians were spiritually blind (or living in darkness) to that which was right in front of them. Ultimately, unless God saturated Himself upon them overcoming the blindness they faced, everything that was preached was foolishness to them. However, this imagery also has a mystical sense to it as well, using the Psalm analogy of God being behind clouds and thick darkness noted earlier. Even Job had troubles finding God (Job 23:3, 8-9).
Paul again showed his knowledge of the Greek culture in verse twenty-eight. The first quote that Paul used was likely from Epimenides of Crete but potentially came from Minos of Crete when he was addressing his father Zeus after the Cretans claimed to have buried Zeus in one of their tombs. Minos of Crete in this work stated, “they fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high-the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies! But thou art not dead; thou art risen and alive for ever, for in thee we live and move and have our being.” Being risen from the dead seemed to have some connection to the resurrected Christ if this was the actual source of the quote. The second quote comes from a work by Aratus entitled “Phainomena.” This work was primarily about astronomy but the context of the quote seems to have some connection with verse twenty-six particularly with control of time and created things. Ultimately, what Paul did with these quotes was bring more gods into the discussion to indict them also as foolish to serve for the reasons he had and laid out and also to use them as examples to provide a glimpse at the true God.
From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.” (Callimachus, Hymns and Epigrams. Lycophron. Aratus. Translated by Mair, A. W. & G. R. Loeb Classical Library Volume 129. London: William Heinemann, 1921. emphasis added)

Paul took this notion of being God’s offspring which can also be found in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:38) to argue that if man was like God than God was not like other created things like gold and silver as mentioned in verse twenty-nine. Isaiah also meditated on what to compare with God (c.f. Is. 40:18-19, 25; 46:5) concluding that nothing could compare with God. There was also a shift from a catophatic discourse on the nature of God to an apophatic discourse in this verse. Ultimately, Paul was using the logic and reason of the Greeks, as well as things in Greek culture to contextualize his message to show that the true God was self-sufficient (has no need for man to serve them), omnipotent, omniscient, personal, and was like mankind (not like gold or silver) unlike the Greek gods.
Paul then shifted to the heart of his message in verses thirty and thirty-one. Up until that point, the Greeks were ignorant about the true God. As Acts: 14:16 argued, “In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways” but now they were no longer ignorant, now the Good News has been brought to them. Something had happened to allow the message to be brought to them. The Christ had come and opened up the gate for even the Greeks to come into the Way if only they can repent. This repentance is contrasted by the judgment of verse thirty-one. In a sense, it had characteristics of a fire and brimstone message either repent or face the judgment of God. As Isaiah (Isaiah 2:12) and numerous New Testament writers as well (c.f. Mt. 12:36; Rm. 2:16; I Cor. 3:13; II Pet. 2:9; I Jn. 4:17) had foretold there is coming a day when God will judge the world. The Christ has been appointed to judge the world (Acts 10:42) in righteousness (c.f. Ps. 9:8, 96:13, 98:9; I Pt. 2:23, Rm. 3:6) because he has risen from the dead (Acts 2:24). The problem was that such a notion of a bodily resurrection from the dead was foolishness to the Greeks. While some wanted to learn more about this topic and others were even converted to the faith, many quickly dismissed this message. This effect showed the saturated phenomenology that was involved in conversion.
Overall, the speech provided us with insight into contextualizing the Good News into a pagan culture. He complimented their theological efforts, used things that they were familiar with and advocated a theology that they could agree with to a large extent. However, never did he compromise on anything. All of his points could be demonstrated through scripture. At the same time, he challenged their line of thinking through showing the disparities between the true God and the idols that they had been worshiping.  He tried to reason with them that idol worship was foolishness and that they should turn from their ways because the Lord’s judgment was now upon them through the resurrected Messiah. In this way, this speech acted as a guide for evangelism in a pagan culture.
Secondly, there is coming a day when all of mankind will be judged. Therefore, one must repent from their sins and turn away from their wicked ways as seen in the example of Dionysius who became the second bishop in Athens. Even for us today, we need to be ready for judgment day by repenting of our sins and allowing God to fill us with Himself and become Lord of our lives.
From the passage are several implications pertaining to the nature of God. The first is our complete irrelevance in the work of a self-sufficient and almighty God who works all things for His glory. We see a vision of a God that is self-sufficient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and righteous in all His ways. Since the primary message was about the nature of God and His self-sufficiency it would seem to indicate that Luke was looking to emphasize that this is not the apostles work to spread the Good News, in fact, God doesn’t even need the apostles or any of creation but is already all in all. God in His grace has incorporated those whom He has called into the fold. The apostles are merely witnesses and beneficiaries of the resurrection. To use another quote from John Piper, “While there is a sense in which God has no need for creation at all (Acts 17:25) and is profoundly fulfilled and happy in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, yet there is in joy an urge to increase by expanding itself to others who, if necessary must first be created and redeemed. This divine urge is God’s desire for compounded joy that comes from having others share the very joy He has in Himself” (John Piper, Desiring God, 124).
Finally, the nature of God as seen in these verses implies the truth of saturated phenomenology. Even though what Paul was saying was true and to a large extent came out of their poets and thinkers as well, such thinking was foolishness to them. Notions of an incarnation, the resurrection of the dead, among others was completely backwards to the dominant philosophies. The only way for this to be overcome was for them to be saturated in the phenomenon of God. God must ultimately be the one that poured Himself out upon them. Again, it became evident that it was all about God and His continual work to make His glory known.
“God’s insistence that we ask Him to give us help so that he gets glory (Psalm 50:15 forces on us the startling fact that we must beware of serving God and take special care to let Him serve us lest we rob Him of His glory. This sounds very strange. Most of us think serving God is totally positive thing; we have not considered that serving God may be an insult to Him…Evidently, there is a way to serve God that would belittle Him as needy of our service. “The Son of Man came not to be served” (Mark 10:45). He aims to be the servant. He aims to get the glory as Giver.” (John Piper, Desiring God, 168)
Bibliography
“American King James Version”. True Grace Ministries. 1999.

“English Standard Version.” Illinois: Good News Publishers. 2001.

Hayes, Holly. “Areopogus (Mars’ Hill), Athens.” Sacred Destination. June 25, 2009. <http://www.sacred-destinations.com/greece/athens-areopagus-mars-hill>

Mair, A. W. & G. R. Loeb. Callimachus, Hymns and Epigrams. Lycophron. Aratus. Classical Library Volume 129. London: William Heinemann, 1921. <http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html>

Marshall, I Howard, “Acts”. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1999

Piper, John. “Desiring God, Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.” Colorado: Multnomah Books.  1996.

Why do some people do bad things?

Why do some people act in accordance to the law while other people willfully and knowingly disobey it? How we ultimately answer this question is going to depend upon what worldview we have when addressing this issue. From the secular perspective theories range from socio-economic motivations, biological or genetic disorders, our exposure to positive and negative influences and multiple others. And while certainly, these can all be risk factors nothing in any of these theories provides any decisive link between the theorized cause and its effect. For instance, not all poor people are criminals and therefore while poverty might contribute to the problem it is not a determining factor.

However, as God fearing Christians we needn’t be constrained to the physical realm as is too often the case. I heard of a pastor who argued that everyone is born with two wolves. A good wolf and a bad wolf, and which ever wolf we feed the most is going to become dominant. Essentially what this pastor was arguing for was how many positive verses negative influences we are exposed to determines if we are law-abiding or not. Therefore, for this pastor we should surround ourselves with positive influences so that we become law-abiding citizens. However, this approach takes God out of the equation completely. We, of our own free will, determine our “fate” for lack of a better term. Ignoring the divine providence that is involved in all aspects of our lives. Instead as Jonathan Edwards argues,  God “wills that evil come to pass…that good may come of it” (Edwards, “Concerning the Divine Decrees,” 542). This isn’t to say that God is the author of evil or that He does evil. Rather God uses evil so that His glory might be proclaimed and His purposes served . There are numerous examples of former prisoners finding Christ in prison or going into prison ministry when they are released, but these are just the ones that are readily apparent to us. There are many reasons that we may not be aware of as to why God allows certain sins. However, as Christians we believe that God does have a plan and a purpose for everything that is done in the world. Even though we may mean certain things like making false claims or performing illegal acts for evil God is able to use them for good (Genesis 50:20).

“The reason that people do evil or that evil things happens is that God allows it to happen. All of the devils, demons and forces of evil are controlled by God and subject to God’s ultimate authority (Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7, Job 42:2, Proverbs 16:33). This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible; namely, that God often expresses His will to be one way and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward His people, yet ordained that His people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25—“He turned their hearts to hate his people.”). He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let His people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of His people, but ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1, 10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordains that Jeroboam and the ten tribes rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15–16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of His Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26–30; 2 Timothy 2:26).” (John Piper, Desiring God Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 148-149)

God does work through evil and allows evil things to happen as seen is the examples given above. To simply overlook this fact or try to minimize God’s role and control over the forces of evil and how evil can be used for the glory of God misses the mark. While God puts us in situations and provides us with life experiences that shape us into being “good” or “bad” each and every aspect of our lives is under the sovereignty of God. Either God allows us to succumb to our human nature and sin or by His grace He allows us to do good. Or to use an analogy given by Jonathan Edwards in his famous sermon “Sinners at the Hand of an Angry God” people are like pieces of lead floating in the air. By all natural forces, we are doomed to fall into temptation and sin, however, it is by the grace of God that we are held up and lifted that we might glorify His name. Man isn’t a blank slate or neutral going into the world with two wolves to feed, we are by nature wretched sinners. If it wasn’t for the grace of God the world would be Leviathan, chaos, evil and selfishness would abound. However, it is not because God has graciously held our piece of lead up, he has not let us fall into the sins and temptations but lifts us up.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Ends of the Earth

While there are several narratives taking place throughout the Book of Acts one of the main ones surrounds the promise of Acts 1:8b “you will be by witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (NIV). While there is some interplay between these venues there seem to be some shifts from venue to venue throughout. (It is these shifts in setting are represented in my major headings for the outline.) The introduction of the story is in Jerusalem from the ascent of Christ to Pentecost as Luke sets the scene for the expansion of the Way that lies ahead of them. Pentecost is the exciting force of the story, as the first of the promises has come and the Good News is proclaimed to the nationalities that were present. The Way will continue to spread climaxing when Paul leaves to go back to Jerusalem. However, God is able to use this to bring Paul to Rome where Paul is able to display the power of God to the Romans amidst incarceration. The “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth” narrative as I will call it embodies within it the faithfulness of God, the restoration of Israel, the spread of the Good News and the witnessing through the Holy Spirit that goes with it. When needed I will provide some commentary from time to time on how the verses relate back to this theme as well as the message I see the author trying to convey through the text.   

I. Jerusalem (Acts 1:1-5:42)
            A. Empowering and Establishment of Witnesses (Acts 1:1-11)
                        1. Evidence of the Risen Jesus (Acts 1:1-3)
Luke begins by establishing that Jesus has in fact risen from the dead and has made himself known to the apostles who testify to this fact. He appeared over a period of forty days which is the period of purification and renewal (ex. Luke 4:20, Genesis 7:17) establishing witnesses and the foundations for His church.
                        2. The Promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-8)
Jesus instructs the apostles to be patient and wait for the Holy Spirit to empower and cleanse them. Jesus promises once they receive the spirit the will be His witnesses in the Jewish regions of Jerusalem and Judea, the semi-Jew region of Samaria and the ends of the earth, possibly illustrating a restoration of Israel and extension thereto in the kingdom.
                        3. The Promise Coming on the Clouds (Acts 1:9-11)
Clouds took Jesus into the heavens in fulfillment with the Daniel prophecy (Daniel 7:13). Clouds were what led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 13:21), it was out of a cloud that God asserted Jesus to be His Son (Luke 9:34-35) and it is clouds that surround God (Psalms 97:2), clouds are seen as a separator between the heavens and man. Christ had ascended to divinity and therefore could not be seen by mankind (Exodus 33:20). However, the departure comes with the promise of a second-coming. The message the heavenly bodies presented was a message of hope for the return but also hints at not becoming idle by waiting for a immediate return.    
B. Re-establishing the Twelve (Acts 1:12-26)
            1. Waiting in Prayer for the Promised Spirit (Acts 1: 12-14)
The Mount of Olives was an important aspect in Luke’s final chapters. It was from the Mount of Olives that Jesus sent the disciples ahead to prepare for Passover (Luke 19:29) and it was at the Mount of Olives where Jesus went to pray (Luke 22:39-45) and now Jesus ascent.  After this we do not see the Mount of Olives in Luke’s writings but the connection to the time of Passover remains. As they did at Passover they went to an upper room (Luke 22:12) to await the promise.
            2. The Twelfth Witness (Acts 1:15- 26)
The Twelve represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the restoration of Israel.
C. Giving of the Promised Spirit (Acts 2:1-47)
                        1. The Arrival of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-2)
2. Giving of Tongues (Acts 2:3-12)
In order for the world to hear the Good News, Babel’s curse must be lifted. The giving of the tongues facilitates the spreading of the Good News. All of the different groups that came to celebrate Pentecost brought the message to the different communities.
3. Doubting the Miracle (Acts 2:13)
Another element that becomes striking is the saturated phenomenology of what is taking place. While there are those that are able to see and believe there are those that have not been saturated by the phenomena that is taking place before their eyes.  It is these forces that are the villains of the story looking as it is later stated to win a fight against God as they try to contain the spread of the Good News.
4. Addressing the Skeptics (Acts 2:14-39)
            a. Fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:14-31)
            b. Exaltation of Jesus (Acts 2:32-36)
They have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus who now sits at the right hand of the Father. It is a core theme of the message that the apostles bring and is a repeated theme throughout much of Acts.
            c. Repentance, the Answer to God’s Call (Acts 2:37-39)
Another key aspect to the Good News is repentance.  Luke argues that the promise of forgiveness is for all whom God calls and moves to repentance. In many ways it is an answer to God’s calling in their lives. Therefore, leading people to repentance is a important aspect of the apostles ministry as they proclaim the Good News.  
5. Community of Believers (Acts 2:40-47)
In many ways, the apostles tried to build strong Christian communities that could depend on each other as they endured tribulations. This is one example of such a community but is certainly not the only way that Christians can be united. The importance of loving ones neighbors and caring for the poor but also supporting and strengthening those who also follow the Way are important pieces of the apostles ministry as it spreads.
D. Miracle of Jesus through the Apostles (Acts 3:1-26)
                        1. Leaping Cripples (Acts 3:1-10)
The lame will leap (Isaiah 35:6) when God comes to redeem. The healing is hard to dispute evidence of God’s working. It is one of the many signs and wonders that serve to fulfill prophecy and establish validity of their testimonies. This was one of the techniques used by God through the apostles to get peoples attention and bring people to salvation.
                        2. Jesus, Fulfiller of Prophecy (Acts 3:11-16)
                        3. Call to Repent for Christ’s Death (Acts 3:17-23)
                        4. Heirs of the Promise (Acts 3:24-26)
Luke explains how Abraham’s Covenant was first made for the Jews. Through an offspring of Abraham, all of the peoples may now be blessed. This begins to hint at the introduction of the Gentiles into the Covenant.
            E. Defense of Jesus (Acts 4:1-31)
            F. Community of Believers (Acts 4:32-5:10)
                        1. Love and Sharing (Acts 4:32-36)
                        2. Deceiving the Spirit, an Imperfect Society (Acts 5:1-11)
Luke again shows us a community but this time he puts Ananias and Sapphira into the story. Here Luke tries to illustrate that sin was present in the communities. This isn’t some utopia. However, it also shows the power of God to strike down these sinners and establishes a certain reverence. This acts as a deterrent for others who may try similar sins in other communities that the penalty of sin is death. More importantly it isn’t about the gift but the motivation behind it.
            G. Healing Shadow (Acts 5:12-16)
Along with Paul’s healing handkerchief (Acts 19:11-12) it is probably one of the strangest accounts of healing recorded in Acts. The healing shadow might hint back at Hezekiah’s shadow (2 Kings 20)  but they both likely have more to do with the culture at the time. At the very least they are acts of God that show that the apostles don’t even have to be present. God in His omnipotence can work through anything to bring about His divine will. 
            H. The Power and Joy of The Name (Acts 5:17-42)
1. Jails Cannot Contain The Name (Acts 5:17-25)
While the forces that be may try to contain the spread of the Name it cannot be done. God will either get them out or use them in their incarcerated state to bare witness to the Way. Parties or principalities cannot contain the Name but instead God sets those captive free that they might proclaim His Name to the nations.  God cannot be controlled but rather is in control of all things.
                        2. Following God Rather than Man (Acts 5:26-32)
                        3. Fighting God, A Losing Battle (Acts 5:33-40)
                        4. Suffering Yet Always Rejoicing (Acts 5:41-42)
Alright, so the Christian Hedonist in me couldn’t refuse this Pauline spinoff (2 Cor. 6:10) to accentuate the joy amidst suffering and persecution in this passage. However, the message of these two verses seem opposite to today’s society. How could someone be rejoicing after being whipped? We quickly condemn the people who were doing this for not allowing for freedom of religion. However, we tend to miss the fact that they were rejoicing about it as if it was some sort of reward. Verses like this, accentuating the joy that they had in being in service of the Lord, prevents this from being a horrific scene but in fact makes it a scene of victory. The apostles had reached the point that they were worthy of being persecuted.  What might seem to us to be a tragedy, God has made a victory. Amidst all of the adversity God only strengthens them with the joy that he gives that they might continue with their mission.

II. Judea and Samaria (Acts 6:1-8:40)
            A. Seven Witnesses (Acts 6:1-8:40)
                        1. Prayerful Delegation (Acts 6:1-7)
                        2. Stephen’s Great Sacrifice for The Name (Acts 6:8-8:1)
                                    a. Stephen and Moses (Acts 6:8-7:1)
Stephen embodied many of the same characteristics as Moses and is painted as a Moses like figure although he is accused of blaspheming the name of Moses.
                                    b. History of God’s People (Acts 7:2-43)
                                    c. The House of the Lord (Acts 7:44-50)
                                    d. Blame for Prophets Deaths (Acts 7:51-54)
                                    e. At the Right Hand (Acts 7:55-56)
                                    f. Stone Throwers Forgiven (Acts 7:57-8:1a)
3. Sending the Church to Preach (Acts 8:1b-4)
The persecution of Stephen was used by God to send the church into the next phase of God’s plan the ministry to Judea and Samaria. The church was forced out and so began to bring the Good News with them wherever they went. 
4. Calls Many through Phillip (Acts 8:5-40)
a. Filled with Joy (Acts 8:5-8)
b. The Spirit cannot be Bought (Acts 8:9-25)
c. Jesus the Eternal Sacrifice (Acts 8:26-40)

III. The Ends of the Earth (Acts 9:1-28:31)
            A. Preparing the Messenger (Acts 9:1-20)
1. Saul’s Blindness (Acts 9:1-9:9)
Before Saul is saturated by the phenomena on the road to Damascus, he suffered from a spiritual blindness. This spiritual blindness became a physical blindness until Ananias came to restore his sight and give him the Holy Spirit. Saul’s spiritual blindness did not allow him to see the Way is the authors key theme here. 
            2. Carry The Name to the Gentiles (Acts 9:10-16)
            3. Restoration of Sight (Acts 9:17-20)
            4. Saul, the Mouthpiece of God (Acts 9:20-31)
Saul is being prepared to bring the message to the ends of the earth. Saul provides the means by which the Good News will spread but it is Peter’s dream in the next section that provides the way for him to accomplish this that is theologically sound for the church.
B. Preparing the Church for the Gentiles (Acts 9:32-12:24)
            1. Healing the Saints (Acts 9:32-43)
            2. All that God Creates is Good (Acts 10:1-11:18)
Peter’s dream was what theologically opened the door for the Gentiles among believers in the Way, paving the way for Saul and others to bring the Gentiles into the Way.
            3. The Good News to the Greeks (Acts 11:19-30)
4. The Power of Prayer (Acts12:1-19)
5. Lord Strikes Herod (Acts 12:20-24)
More than anything this just provides some historical setting to the story. For the intended audience of Acts it also illustrates an aspect of God’s judgment on the rulers that had been oppressing them.
C. Sending the Messenger (Acts 12:25-21:26)
            1. Empowering of Paul (Acts 12:25-14:28)   
a. Blinding God’s Opposition (Acts 12:25-13:12)
                        b. Promises to Ancestors Fulfilled in Jesus (Acts 13:13-43)
                        c. A Light to the Gentiles (Acts 13:43-51)
                        d. Signs and Wonders through Paul (Acts 14:1-18)
                        e. Enduring Hardships for the Kingdom (Acts 14:19-22)
                        f. Dedicated to the Lord (Acts 14:23-28)
            2. Saved by Grace not Judaic Tradition (Acts 15:1-35)
                        a. Strengthening and Growth of the Church (Acts 15:36-16:5)
While there may be disagreements between man like at the council or between Paul and Barnabas the Way is never compromised, never does it falter, it keeps growing and strengthening.
            3. The Leading of the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:6-10)
                        a. Believe, Repent, and be Baptized (Acts 16:11-40)
            5. Amidst Hostility The Word Survives (Acts 17:1-15)
As much as Acts is about the spread of the Good News, God’s faithfulness is also a dominant theme. God always sees the apostles through and strengthens them during times of hostility
            6. God’s Self-Sufficiency (Acts 17:16-34)
Paul is in Athens, what at one time was an epicenter of scholasticism and knowledge but in many ways is beginning to die in that respect. Paul starts out by contextualizing his message by pointing out the inscription to an “unknown god”. People are drawn in by the message and want to know about this god that they had not heard about yet. However, this god is distinct from all of the others in that he is the creator of all things and is self-sufficient un-reliant on mans actions or offerings. If we look at the works of Dionysius one of the converts that day he portrays a mystical God of sorts. The point being that Paul’s message was about the nature of God primarily, as picked up by Dionysius. The ultimate climax is the resurrection of the dead, which divides the people between those that are intrigued by the topic and those who have not been saturated by the phenomena of the Good News. 

The primary message being the nature of God and His self-sufficiency would seem to indicate that Luke was looking to emphasize that this in not the apostles work to spread the Good News, in fact, God doesn’t even need the apostles or all of creation but is already all in all. God in His grace has incorporated those whom He has called into the fold. The apostles are merely witnesses and beneficiaries of the resurrection. 
            7. Proof from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 18)
                        a. Reason Together (Acts 18:1-5)
                        b. From Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 18:6-8)
Paul shakes his clothes out to show that he is ridding himself of the blame for the Jews unfaithfulness (Neh. 5:13, Acts 5:51), their blood is on their own heads. Instead, he shifts his attention to the Gentiles, those who are far off and have no knowledge of Judaism. 
                        c. For I Am With You (Acts 18:9-17)
                        d. Strengthening the Church (Acts 18:18-28)
Paul did not just convert people and never check up on them. He would return to them and revitalize the churches, strengthening them and guiding them as God wills. As opposed to some of the short term mission work and one day (or week) revivals that we see in our current day. Faith needs nurturing, and so while the Good News is spreading they are not forgetting to nurture those in places they have already been.
            8. Baptized in the Name of Jesus (19:1-7)
            9. All Hear and See the Working of God (Acts 19:8-12)
            10. Word Grows in Power (Acts 19:13-20)
While God through Paul and the other apostles were able to heal people through shadows, handkerchiefs, touch and command others who tried this were defeated by the spirits as they were abusing and misusing the Name. Both the Name and the Word of the Lord took on much more reverence and power because of it in the community. This is not a power from man but from God.
            11. For I am With You (19:23-20:6)
            12. Bringing Back to Life (Acts 20:7-12)
This is one of the resurrection of the dead stories this time of a young person. In some ways this mirrors Elisha resurrecting Shunammitte’s son (2 Kings 4:34) or Elijah’s raising of the widow’s son (1 Kings 17:21), in essence saying that this man is a prophet. But also providing proof to those who were present in a resurrection of the dead.
            13. Be Shepherd’s of the Church (Acts 20:13-20:38)
Paul knowing what lies ahead of him and so provides the church with some final instructions to shepherd the church, following the things that he has taught them. This is the end of the rising action in Acts.
            14. Spirit Pleads for Paul’s Life (Acts 21:1-16)
This is the climax of the story. Will Paul risk his life by going to Jerusalem against the guidance of the Spirit or will he continue his work with the Gentiles? Paul’s choice to go to Jerusalem starts a turning point. We are in a sense going back to where it all started. We will begin to see hints back to Jesus (before his death of the cross) through Paul as he purifies himself, goes to Jerusalem, faces numerous trials and is found to be without fault but kept imprisoned anyway. Like the story of Jesus, the world may see it as a tragedy when in fact it is a victory as the Good News is able to spread to Rome. 
            15. Purification (Acts 21: 17-26)
D. Christianity Stands Trial
            1. Accusations (Acts 21:27-36)
            2. Testimony of God’s Faithfulness (Acts 21:37-22:21)
            3. Protecting the Messenger (Acts 22:22-23:35)
            4. No Cause for Punishment (Acts 24:1-26:32)
                        a. The Resurrection of the Dead (Acts 24:1-27)
                        b. No Basis for Charge and Punishment (Acts 25:1-26:32)
            5. To Rome for the Sake of Christ (Acts 27:1-28:31)
                        a. Saved from the Storm (Acts 27:1-44)
                        b. Healing Ministry (Acts 28:1-10)
                        c. Witnessing in Rome (Acts 28:11-31)
While perhaps this outline is not as thorough as it should be, for an introductory thematic outline it should suffice. Acts encompasses many themes and narratives, many of which have been incorporated in some form through the outline and the commentaries provided. The major ones that deserve special highlighting are the spread of the Way to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth as well as the faithfulness of God who saw His followers through strengthening them and filling them with the joy that only He can provide. This is not a story about the apostles bringing the Good News to the ends of the earth, it is about God (through the apostles) proclaiming the Good News to the ends of the earth and saturating His called people’s hearts and minds with Himself in order that God might get all the Glory, Amen.

“Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”
Acts 5:41-42, ESV

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”
Acts 17:24-25, ESV

The Historical and Factual Development of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, A Comparison of James H. Jones and Susan M. Reverby’s Monographs on the Study

 Sources:
    Jones, James H. Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993.
     Reverby, Susan M. Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (herein after referred to as the Study) involved four-hundred African American men selected to take part, against their knowledge, in a Study that took place between 1932 and 1972. The United States government subjected these men to lumbar punctures and after they had died an autopsy. Nevertheless, the government left these men under the assumption that the government doctors were treating them. In their books Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition (herein after referred to as Bad Blood) and Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy (herein after referred to as Examining Tuskegee) by James H. Jones and Susan M. Reverby, respectively, had different emphases on the Study. Jones took more time to show the reasons why the Study started and why it continued. Reverby, only briefly provided the motivation behind the Study and reasons it continued, instead emphasized what happened to the doctors and patients after the Study and some of the abuses of the “Tuskegee” Study in other cases of bioethical violations. Jones made his argument from the perspective of the patients, in part because many of the doctors would not talk to him due to the poor media attention they had been getting. Whereas Reverby tried to present both the patients and the doctors sides fairly, and provided some credit to the counter-narrative of the doctors. Bad Blood, by James Jones, was the first book written on the Study. Jones was very active in the lawsuit that followed the Study and was able to interview some of the subjects and doctors involved in the Study. Reverby in her book, Examining Tuskegee, came much later and in many ways was indebted to Jones for some of his interviews and layout of the Study. However, to her benefit, she had previously classified resources, like the subjects’ medical records, at her disposal—resources Jones did not have when he wrote Bad Blood. From the differences in resources, some discrepancies between the two authors develop. For instance, whether the men could or did receive treatment, whether the women and children of the subjects were treated, and whether the Study had racist pretenses.  Finally, there were stylistic differences between Jones and Reverby that allowed Reverby to bring out more emotion from the reader and for Jones added to his credibility.  
Jones’s primary focus in his book was on why the Study started and why it continued for forty years. In summary, he argued that the Study started with the purpose of treating Negros with syphilis in rural communities. People thought of it as white man’s burden to take care of the Negro. Jones argued the germ theory had become popular and people worried that white man might contract some of the Negro’s germs. However, in the midst of the Great Depression, the Study’s funds were quickly exhausted. Everyone thought that the government Study was over. The Study was very successful as they were able to uncover a high concentration of syphilis in the Tuskegee community, the highest among the studied areas. This led one of the government doctors to the conclusion that this would be the perfect situation to repeat the Oslo Study, except with Negro subjects. Within a year after leaving, the government doctors were back in Tuskegee, this time for research rather than treatment, but the Negro subjects never knew that plans had changed.  The new plan was to perform several tests on the subjects over a year or so with the final test being a lumbar puncture, one of the more uncomfortable tests, and then conclude the Study. Things went along smoothly and the lumbar punctures executed, much to the dismay of the subjects, however, the results were not as definitive as the research doctors hoped. The only way to know what the effects of syphilis were on the subjects was to continue the Study to autopsy the subjects and find out exactly what role syphilis played. Therefore, the Study continued in order that they might autopsy the subjects. The only problem was that researchers had trouble getting the subjects back after subjecting them to the torture of the lumbar punctures. The government researchers had to bribe the subjects to come back with fifty-dollar burial stipends under the assumption that the government doctors could perform an autopsy upon their death. Particularly in the latter years, they began to receive letters questioning the ethics and science of the Study, but every time they had a council meeting, made up of rather biased council members, and every time decided to continue the Study. It was not until the media caught hold of the Study and released it to the public that the Study ended. Jones presented a chronological approach to the Study, how the Study started and why the Study continued from the subject’s perspective. Reverby argued in her book that Jones was limited in whom he could interview, because the media had painted the doctors in such a negative light, even to the extent of taking their words out of context, the research doctors were afraid to talk to anyone about the Study.[i] Jones carried his chronology out to a lawsuit, in which he contributed to through gathering evidence for the prosecution. Jones’s involvement in the study as well as the limitations placed on him by the media affected his view of the study.
Reverby, on the other hand, just summarized the Study in the first few chapters of her book and then turned to the effects of the Study on the subjects, the subject’s families, the nurses, the doctors and the society at large. The victims of the Study were rewarded monetary damage. Reverby argued that the free health care given to them by Congress was not sufficient because they already had that under Medicare. The government rewarded some of the monies to family members infected with syphilis through their relations with one of the subjects in the Study. Nurse Rivers was the coordinator of the Study and glue that held the Study together through her relationship with the subjects and their families. Although she would not say it on the record, when Jones interviewed her after the Study, she was one of the few involved in the Study to admit that they should have told the men they had syphilis and treated them rather than used them as guinea pigs.[ii]  In society, however, her name was ruined. “Rivers” became code for moral and scientific failure, racial and gender caste systems and misuse of power.[iii] The media lambasted the doctors who were involved in the Study. The media edited any comments the doctors made in such a way that it made them seem coldhearted and racist.[iv] After the Study, the doctors set up private practices until they retired. Reverby, because she wrote after Jones, was able to carry the effects of the Study through the presidential apology up to the Obama administration. Therefore, she was able to show different pieces of legislation that have come about because of the Study. These pieces of legislation included informed consent laws, the formation of panels for evaluation of the ethics behind future studies, and mandating participation of majority and minority races in future studies.
Because this legislation is in place, Reverby was particularly concerned about some of the mistaken facts about Tuskegee and the way in which people used Tuskegee as a metaphor in other studies with questionable bioethics. The first misconception that both Jones and Reverby noted was that government officials never injected the Subjects with syphilis. Reverby, argued this misconception came from three other cases, the first being the Sing Sing Penitentiary Study in the mid-1950s in which prisoner “volunteers” had syphilis injected into them.[v] The second happened at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn in 1964-65 where researchers injected aging patients with cancer cells. The third happened at the state-run Willowbrook Hospital on Staten Island New York from 1963-66 where children suffering from retardation orally consumed a live hepatitis virus.[vi] All of these studies became public around the same time as the Tuskegee Study became public and so an intermixing of facts occurred. The myths about the Tuskegee Study, along with the facts, took the form of a metaphor that society used for bioethical violations as well as conspiracy theories to cast suspicion on the government. Reverby also used these studies to show that Tuskegee was just one of many studies that were taking place during this time and of those studies probably did not cause near as much suffering in the subjects. 
Months before Clinton’s presidential apology for the Study, the debate was taking place about the ATZ Study, where the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control were conducting experiments on drugs used to fight HIV in Uganda. The researchers provided some of the subjects in this Study with experimental drugs but the controls were left without treatment. The fact that Uganda is a third world country where resources are scarce and medical attention slim have led some to use Tuskegee as a metaphor for the experiment. Conspiracy theorists have also used the Tuskegee experiment to draw suspicion on the government as the responsible party for HIV in African Americans, for which both Jones and Reverby argued is rather suspect. Reverby especially, argued that this was an inaccurate metaphor to use with regard to the ATZ Study and the HIV conspiracy. She argued that the counter-narratives of the doctors had some truth and therefore there must be some consideration of them in the Tuskegee story. In particular, the belief that latent syphilis would not cause any harm on the subjects[vii] and penicillin could cause reactions and be dangerous in certain circumstances. Often what the Tuskegee metaphor missed was the counter-narrative of the Tuskegee story. The Sing Sing Study showed the researchers that latent syphilis caused no further damage; the researchers at the Tuskegee Study were just working with the information from other studies. These counter-narratives were something that Reverby provided, which gave some credit especially when it came to the argument against the ways society uses “Tuskegee”.  Reverby, in the epilogue of her book, hoped that people would remember the Study but forget “Tuskegee” the metaphor. She argued that the United States no longer needs the metaphor to interpret injustice.[viii]
Reverby seemed to embrace this counter-narrative mentality in making an argument for both sides on particular issues. She argued the facts could go either way when she presented her arguments with regard to Nurse Rivers and Doctor Dibble. In the case of Nurse Rivers, she stated facts that showed Rivers was both a middle-class race traitor, who sought to make it in the white world, and as a powerless nurse who just followed the orders given to her by her superiors.[ix] She used the same argument for Dr. Dibble, a black doctor, at the local Tuskegee hospital. On the one hand, it was the only way for Nurse Rivers and Doctor Dibble to get the government’s aid and financial resources to help members of their race. There seemed to be times where they worked to treat some of the subjects. Nevertheless, they were major components of the Study and as such stood in the way of these men getting treatment. On the other hand, Jones presented only one view that painted Nurse Rivers as obedient to the doctor’s orders and Dr. Dibble as a black doctor who tried to make it in a white-man’s world. 
            Reverby and Jones had different resources at their disposal based on the time-period from which they were writing. Jones, with his influence in the lawsuit that followed the Study, was able to conduct interviews with some of the subjects, nurses and a few doctors that were willing to talk, despite the negative publicity they received from the media. He was able to speak directly with some of the victims of the Study and learn how they viewed the Study. By the time Reverby wrote her book, many of the subjects, doctors and nurses had died. Therefore, on numerous occasions throughout the book Reverby cited interviews done by Jones.  Reverby in her acknowledgement, argued she could not have written the book if it was not for the groundbreaking work done by Jones and the structure he laid out in his book Bad Blood. [x] Both Jones and Reverby did have access to correspondences and publications about the Study made by the government researchers. However, Reverby, for her part, did have resources like the subjects medical records, which was classified information when Jones wrote Bad Blood.  These medical records provided a new aspect to the Study when it came to the post-penicillin age and treatment. In 1945, when one-hundred-fourteen of the syphilitic subjects were still alive, fifty-eight of them had received penicillin. By 1971, only one of the subjects had not received penicillin.[xi] In most of the cases, these penicillin treatments were for other ailments diagnosed by the government doctors who referred the subjects to area doctors for treatment.  Painted in this light, the Study does not seem as dastardly and cruel as Jones made it seem. Jones argued the Study denied treatment to the subjects and blacklisted them from treatment at other area medical practices.
            Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease; therefore, it is likely that some of the wives and mistresses might have had syphilis, who in turn, might have given it to their offspring during childbirth. Reverby emphasized this more than Jones; however, because of the resources at their disposal, they arrived at different conclusions. Jones argued that the women did not receive treatment and Reverby argued that many of the women were treated. Jones argued that those involved in the Study tested women for syphilis when the Study started to avoid suspicion.[xii] However, Jones argued that the Study excluded women because of depleted funding during the Great Depression and because of the difficulty of examining women for physical signs of syphilis. The doctors’ excuse for not allowing women in the government program was that it would require them to undress.[xiii] Nevertheless, Nurse Rivers was still involved in the whole family’s life of all the subjects. Many of the subjects thought of her as their family’s personal nurse so the women received some medical attention in that way. However, Jones gave no indication that the Study treated the women and family members of the subjects for syphilis. Reverby, on the other hand, found evidence to support that the wives and families of the subjects received treatment for syphilis. Reverby argued that the Study treated the subjects to make them non-contagious, or so they thought.[xiv] Nevertheless, many wives and family members found to have syphilis were able to find treatment before the Study ended.[xv] Again, the evidence that they had available when they wrote their respective books on the topic, affected how they perceived the Study. While neither author condoned the Study, Reverby, used the gained evidence, to paint a slightly different picture of the Study, a picture that, during the penicillin era, allowed for subjects and their families to receive treatment.
            The Study used about four-hundred African Americans, which has led many in the post-Civil Rights Movement to argue that the Study was racist. During the time-period leading up to the Study there was a general presumption that germs and disease acted differently in different races. The Study’s mission was to contrast the result gathered by its Study on the Negro male with the Oslo Study conducted years earlier on the effects of syphilis on Caucasians. However, was the government’s motivation primarily racist in setting up the experiment? Reverby argued that it was and Jones not nearly as adamantly. Reverby did cite a government doctor who argued that the Study was not racist; he argued that it was because of the high concentration of syphilis in Tuskegee not the subject’s ethnicity as why the Study occurred at Tuskegee. If the same levels of syphilis were present in the hillbillies of West Virginia, the doctor argued, they would have done the Study in West Virginia.[xvi] However, Reverby was unsatisfied with that answer; she argued that since they knew about the Study of Caucasians in Oslo, the government would not need to use the scarce resources it had to repeat it. Reverby even argued that the Public Health Service’s best men helped to shape the racist attitudes of the day.[xvii] Therefore, Reverby concluded that the motivation behind the Study was racist.
Jones, on the other hand, distinguished between the racism of some of the government doctors, the government and standard practice at the time.  Jones argued that many in the Public Health Service that worked in the public hospitals countered the views made by others in the medical field that race played a factor in the disease.[xviii] Public health officials believed more in the power of science than the weakness of any race. Jones did however argue that socially some of the health officials were racially inclined but not in their professional practice.[xix] The public health officials behind the Tuskegee Study were racial liberals by the standards of the 1930’s, Jones argued.[xx] He argued that for the public health officials, Tuskegee provided an opportunity to conduct tests on syphilis that was impossible to duplicate. The public health officials did believe that syphilis was a fundamentally different disease in the Negro than in whites; however, considering the time-period in which they were operating in they were surprisingly liberal, at least at the professional level. Jones also argued that Negros who could afford a private doctor or whose plantation owner provided a doctor for them, received the same treatment as a white person would. In practice, Negros and whites were treated the same if they could afford the treatment. As many of the subjects were poor, they had never seen a doctor when the government did offer free health care through the Study. They were a susceptible population. Nevertheless, professionally doctors considered the Negros as equal to whites and provided them with the same treatment but socially they had some racial tendencies. 
            Jones and Reverby had different writing styles. Reverby tended to try to appeal to the readers emotions. She would frequently add italics or place key words and phrases in quotation marks to draw attention to them in an effort to appeal to the reader’s emotions. In some instances, she added italics to some of the correspondences of the doctors to accent some of the racism in their views. Reverby accented the dehumanizing nature of the Study and thereby appealed to the emotions of the reader in that way. The men of the Study were not patients but subjects, part of the “other”.[xxi] Jones also refers to the men as subjects; however, he never emphasized it as much as Reverby.
            A second difference in style is what they call the nationality of the men. Jones used the term “Negro” as the researchers did in the Study. However, Reverby being more politically correct used the term “African American” or “black”. While they are referring to the same thing, the term “Negro” carries with it a different connotation in today’s society as a racial slur. However, Jones’s use of “Negro” also seemed to make the book seem more historically accurate. The term “African American” is a more politically correct term and Reverby likely used it in order that it would not offend members of the African American race who might read the book. 
            Jones was able to have access to eyewitness testimonies at his disposal when he was writing Bad Blood, a luxury that Reverby, when writing Examining Tuskegee, was not able to enjoy. However, because other documentation became available, especially the medical records of the subjects, Reverby was able to make some deductions from those records and use some of Jones’s interviews for her book. Jones best emphasized what took place at Tuskegee, why the Study started and continued for as long as it did. Reverby in a sense picked up where Jones left off.  She showed the effects of the Study with monetary payoffs for victims, defamation of the doctors and nurses involved in the Study as well as the formation of ethical standards for research, including the requirement of informed consent as well as representation from the majority and minority races in experiments. However, she also emphasized the intangible effect of the Study in the way people use the Study as a metaphor inappropriately.  Each author’s style added their own personal touch to the work and they used it to connect the reader emotionally, provided historical credibility and avoided offending a contemporary audience.
The Tuskegee Study was a dark part of United States history that spanned across seven presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat. It continued through the Great Depression, World War II, the Nuremberg Trials, the invention of penicillin, the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement. The Study did not end because the government saw the error of their ways but it took the media exposing the Study to the public to end the Study, and even then, it was a struggle. Forty-years these men suffered in ignorance about the nature of the Study and the disease that was eroding their bodies. The Tuskegee Study was not an isolated incident but was part of a much broader problem of bioethical standards that, to some extent, continues up to this day. The four-hundred men in the Study became human lab-rats for the government and because of the color of their skin, they endured many hardships as syphilis began to ware upon their bodies, all in the name of science, and all at the hands of the United States government.


    [i] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009).  148
[ii] Susan M. Reverby,  Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 181
[iii] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 184
[iv] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 149
[v] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 201
[vi] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 190
[vii] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 230-231
[viii] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 240
[ix] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 168
[x]  Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). X
[xi] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009).  124-127
[xii] James H. Jones, Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. (New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993). 120
[xiii] James H. Jones, Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. (New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993). 165
[xiv] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 24
[xv] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009).129-131
[xvi] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 149
[xvii] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 22
[xviii] James H. Jones, Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. (New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993).  32
[xix] James H. Jones, Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. (New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993). 40
[xx] James H. Jones, Bad Blood, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment New and Expanded Edition. (New York: Free Press, 1981, 1993). 172
[xxi] Susan M. Reverby, Examining Tuskegee, The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2009). 19