A review of David Instone-Brewer's Bible Contexts Series - Chapter 20: Cain's "wife"

Dr. David Instone-Brewer is an eminent Bible Scholar in England, one of the experts responsible for the last tranche of changes to the NIV. He knows a lot more than I do about a lot of things, and since he makes it easy to access most of what he writes, I follow him to my advantage--especially in the area of Old Testament Studies, which is his specialty. What I've learned from him, however, are generally facts and insights I hadn't been exposed to before. I don't sit at his feet for much of what he weaves into his teaching, which are just standard tenets of atheism (although I admit, some of them are new to me as well). For although he identifies as an evangelical, he nonetheless looks to atheist scholars and their disciples to inform his interpretation of the Scriptures--and is thus oft led astray.

Dr. D is greatly hampered in his ability to gain insights from the book of Genesis, believing as he does that it was composed as a sort of religious fiction during the Babylonian captivity to inspire Jews not to lose hope in their present situation, or something along those lines. He doesn't believe that it is even intended to be a serious historical record, and certainly not that it was compiled from written eyewitness accounts. There is therefore no apparent limit to the imaginations his mind can supply from a reading of this section of the Scriptures, guided by the speculations of the atheists which lie behind much of his theology. And since he drinks deeply at the font of those who have no access to absolute truth, he all but admits that what he sincerely believes to be true today may be ridiculed a decade or a century from now, as atheist philosophers discard old and unworkable alternative explanations for how the world works, and imagine new ones yet to be disproven. This approach leads him far astray from orthodox understanding. 

Take, for example, his chapter on Cain's Wife. He already reinterprets the first two chapters of Genesis in an atheistic framework, starting with a random humanoid whose ancestral line went back to stardust. He then departs from the atheist narrative just a bit to give God credit for taking this human-looking animal, the pinnacle of billions of years of random evolution, miraculously granting him a human spirit, and then--in a most unusual departure from his involvement of the previous billions of years, and in a biological process we can hardly imagine, much less explain scientifically--splitting off a half-clone which became the first human woman. He then set the newly enlightened couple in special walled enclosure he called Eden and commanded them not to eat a certain fruit. They did so regardless, and as a result they were cast out of Eden to resume their evolutionary progress without any life-sustaining access to the fruit of the tree that conveyed some sort of immortality. And here enters Cain's Wife, who he proposes was a non-human, implying along the way that the host of present mankind must be descended from her.

I hesitate to critique Dr. D in any area of actual OT Studies, as he is an acknowledged expert in both the Hebrew language and rabbinical literature. But here he has left far behind anything directly related to the Hebrew Scriptures to dabble in Evolutionary Biology, in which he is no expert--leaving me on much firmer ground to dispute him. [Edit: he does claim biological expertise based on his undergraduate studies, but then, so could I, having sat for General Science in Bible College.]

I will be interacting in this post with Chapter 20 of his book Bible Contexts which, at least for now, can be found at his website http://www.biblecontexts.com/. He introduces the chapter as follows:

If Cain married someone living outside Eden, this would explain some strange details in Genesis. It would also explain how our gene pool contains so much variation.

---

His book is all about explaining strange details in Genesis with even stranger speculations. He sees a problem with God selecting just two humanoids--really, only one--to begin the human family tree. Although his God is capable of many amazing feats, Dr. D seems constrained by his acceptance of atheist teaching to place the Laws of Nature at a higher tier on the hierarchy than that occupied by Nature's God. The God who could split the first man in half at the sub-cellular level to produce the first woman was nonetheless stumped at providing this pair's descendants with enough genetic variety to produce the four blood types, so He needed to pull in some genes from the neighboring humanoids to pull it off. Thus, Cain's Wife. 

Now Mrs. Cain was not a Neanderthal, mind you--Cain had already inherited those genes from his long-dead humanoid ancestors. What she provided instead was access to the "rich gene pool" that had resulted from millions of years of primate evolution. Dr. D uses a modern analogy to explain why this was not only sufficient, but necessary, if humanity were to survive The Fall:

 Cain could, of course, have married his sister – though the Bible doesn’t say this happened. It is difficult to imagine her wanting to marry a brother (especially the nasty brother who murdered the nice one). Presumably this incest wouldn’t be dangerous like it is today because God could have made sure there weren’t any dangerous recessive genes in Adam’s chromosomes. However, our human race would be very weak if the entire gene pool had been limited to just Adam’s chromosomes. Restricted gene pools often cause problems in overrefined agricultural animals or crop lines because this makes them vulnerable to pests and changes in the environment. This is solved by interbreeding with wild species to reinvigorate the gene pool by introducing more variety.

Here he makes a mistake commonly perpetuated by pseudoscientists, assuming that a genetic bottleneck always results in a dangerously depleted gene pool. The reason modern agricultural crops and animals have depleted gene pools, and wild varieties don't, is precisely the result of human intervention to breed out unwanted variation. Absent that unnatural selection, a fairly robust set of genes will continue to be passed on, even in a small population. But racism is a powerful and primordial urge, such that organisms resist hybridisation and generally seek to mate with creatures most like themselves, resulting in further speciation, as any organisms that depart from the standard in the same direction tend to seek out each other for breeding, leaving an even more depleted genome to their descendants. Were it not for the balancing act of another primordial urge--that of men, having gone forth to conquer, seeking and finding sexual release amongst the females of the conquered races--humans would be much more genetically depleted than we are. 

If I were to hypothesize myself, I would say that God created Adam with two completely different sets of chromosomes, with each of the millions of gene pairs consisting of different alleles. Thus Eve was far more distant from Adam, genetically, than any two humans are today; at the time she was split off from him, she only shared 50 per cent of his genetic material. And if God were powerful enough to pull off forming yet another haploid set for the rest of Eve, then he only shared half of her genome--providing far more diversity than Cain could have brought into the young race by impregnating a distant descendant of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Adam could well have carried one haploid gene for Type A blood, and one for Type B. We don't even have to split that in half again to get all three of the blood types just among their children, provided that Eve possessed the same. And if, post-Fall, any two of their children ended up with an allele that lacked the information for producing either the A or B antigen, Type O could emerge as early as their grandchildren's generation. It's a stupendous pity that Dr. D, with all his learning, didn't see how God could accomplish this without having Cain interbreed with a non-human. 

       Mutations occur very rarely, unless there are carcinogens present. This is good, because most mutations are dangerous – as seen by the effects of carcinogens. Reproductive cells are protected from mutations by DNA repair mechanisms, which make sure that accidental mutations are rarely passed on to our children. A few do get through – on average sixty-four mutations – though this is tiny compared to the three billion base pairs that are copied perfectly.⁴ However, some of these are so harmful that they result in miscarriage – about 10 percent of pregnancies end this way. So even a small increase in mutation rate would result in a lot more miscarriages.

Dr. D goes on at length to describe just how humanly impossible it would have been for God to actually get the human race going with just two people. Okay, and where does the book of Genesis imply that God can't do anything humanly impossible? This cognitive dissonance would be laughable, did he not with such sincerity lend credence to the atheist hypotheses. Of course, the way heredity works now, in our currently depleted human population, where any two humans on the planet share at least 99.9 per cent of the same genome, does not necessarily speak to how things would have worked back when they shared barely half of that. We don't really have any idea what a genuinely rich gene pool looks like, as the nature of genetic recombination means that some genes go missing with each successive generation, and after several thousands of years, every genome has become depleted to one extent or another--unnatural selection greatly accelerating the process. And since this goes against the collective wisdom of Evolution--which imagines, contrary to all evidence, the gene pool at large becoming progressively richer over time--Dr. D. just isn't going to hear this from his atheist mentors or their disciples.

So whom DID Cain marry? Well, as all scholars have noted, Genesis doesn't say. And why should it? If humanity began with only one man and one woman, and no ape-men to "enrich the gene pool," then of course he married his sister. Anyone with even half a human brain could figure that out with just a little help; there's no need to state the obvious. All we need is the succinct statement of the compiler of Genesis 3 that Eve was "the mother of all living." That leaves no room for any previous races to insert their alleles into the human genome, period. 

Dr. D should have stuck with interpreting and explaining the Bible, and left fairy-tale speculations to those who reject the Genesis account out of theological necessity. 

How God solved a marriage problem

I came across this report from a missionary in West Africa, and was immediately struck by the biblical response of the woman toward her husband. Had she lived in "a more civilised nation," she would have been told that it were her right, yea her duty, to put herself away from such a husband at once. Instead, she chose the biblical model of winning him by her silence. And then--God intervened. Here's the story (edited slightly to provide confidentiality):

A native woman stood up at the annual church meeting this past March in a predominately Islamic region. The woman testified that she had stood in the same meeting last year to ask for prayer for her Muslim husband's salvation. He often beat her for following Christ and refusing to attend mosque. She stood up to give an update.

A few months earlier, she had told him she wanted to attend a week-long church meeting. Her husband was livid. A whole week? Who would cook his food? Clean his house? She should be in the mosque and forget church. He beat her severely -- again. Nearly all Christian women that convert from Islam are illiterate. Many make these meetings a priority to ask Bible questions because they cannot read or obtain a Bible on their own. 

This Christian woman was determined to go to the church meeting, no matter her husband's violence. Still enraged, he locked up the house as soon as she left, declaring to the neighbors that his wife would never enter his home again. To make his point, he threw the key into the river as he headed to his girlfriend's house for the week.

The lady enjoyed the conference and headed home on Friday, stopping by the local market to buy fish. She planned to have a hearty meal ready for her husband when he came home from Friday prayers at the mosque. She had no idea that her husband had already locked her out of her home for good. Arriving home, she was puzzled that the house was locked up tight. She needed to start preparing the meal, so she borrowed a pot from her neighbor and began to clean the fish.

When she cut open the fish, a key fell out of its belly. Puzzled, she examined it and remarked to her neighbor that the key looked similar to her own house key. Her neighbor urged her to try it in the lock; and it worked! She opened up the house, cleaned it, and got her husband's supper ready for him.

As the husband walked home from Friday prayers at the mosque, he saw his house open and a fire going in the outdoor kitchen. Again, he was enraged, thinking the neighbors had helped his wife break the door or the locks, but on examination, he found nothing had been harmed. When he demanded to know how she got back into their house, she told him the strange story of the key in the fish's belly. Stunned, he didn't say another word.

Until Saturday night. He asked his wife if he could attend church the next morning. After Sunday morning church service, the man asked to speak to the pastor privately. He recounted the incredulous story about his house key and said, "I want to serve the God of the Christians. He is the One who knows and has power to do what no one else can." 

That Christian woman beamed as she talked. God had answered many prayers that her husband would repent and follow Christ. In his Gospel, Matthew tells of a fish caught with a coin in its mouth for taxes (Matthew 17). In 2018, a house key in a fish's belly became a key to the Kingdom for a Muslim man. 

Our Lord is still a Fisher of Men.

Is Mike Pearl being honest?

This blog has been hard on Mike Pearl's theology, but generally supportive of his child-raising teaching. This article, for example, (other than the crude language) is a real gem. I recommend that every parent read it regularly. What follows is not an attack on Mike Pearl's teachings on child-raising; it is a caution that no matter how careful you are, there is no guarantee that all of your grandchildren will rise up and call you blessed, or desire to walk in your ways. And folks, we may as well admit it; if Mike Pearl won't, I will. Let this not be an opportunity to gloat, but to try to learn how to do even better at passing on the torch to the next generation. And to go into marriage with our eyes wide open.

Mike has said that his five grown children are all the credentials he needs as an authority on child raising. And anyone wanting to know about his five children--and their children--can read the "Meet the Pearls" page on his website, nogreaterjoy.org.

But there's something fishy about the "Meet the Pearls" page. Over the course of the previous four years, it remained unchanged right up until September 2015. It seemed high time for an update on the number of grandchildren, since three of their children had announced a 'newest' member way back in 2011. But when the page was finally updated, something chilling happened. Yes, Shalom had two more children--the rest had left bearing--but what had happened to the three of Gabe's? Of what follows, that in bold had been quietly deleted from his update.

Gabriel Pearl is the firstborn son of Mike and Debi. He is a leader in the community, a man of integrity, and a fine example to the many young men whom he employs and teaches. Gabriel is a builder, hunter, and “volleyball king” of the community. Lori is right beside him on every project, from the volleyball court to the deer stand. Gabe and Lori are parents of Jocelyn, Laife and their newest addition, Joshua Gabriel.

You see, several months after their fourth child, Liam (Mike and Debi's unacknowledged* 21st grandchild), was born, Gabe's wife Lori left him, took the kids back to her parents' home near Columbus, started working, and changed her name. We could say they got a divorce, but--following Mike's no-license policy--they'd never been legally married. Thus there was no legal impediment for her to leave him, nor for Gabe to add another wife, Elizabeth, in April of 2017.

Now, the fact that his oldest son is 'divorced and remarried' may not be a direct reflection on Mike Pearl's childrearing credentials. And it's certainly an awkward situation to find himself in. But a lack of honesty does impinge on his credibility. And it's a concern that, like Arthur Blessitt and Pat Williams, Mike Pearl has gone online to cover up a failed marriage, even to the point of deleting mention of three of his twenty-one grandchildren--and pretending that the last one* hadn't even been born.

That's not being honest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the archives: first version of "Meet the Pearls" page,  Dec. 2011 - Aug. 2015

Michael & Debi Pearl

Michael and Debi Pearl were both raised in Memphis, Tennessee, in good homes, by parents who were faithful to point them to God. Mike, a graduate of Mid-South Bible College in Memphis, has been active in evangelism and the work of the ministry since he was a teenager. He worked with Union Mission in Memphis for 25 years, while he and Debi also ministered to the many military families in Memphis and pastored churches. They moved to rural Tennessee where they continued in the work by holding Bible studies in local homes, which eventually led to regular meetings of the local body of believers, and by starting the prison ministry. God eventually led them into the ministry of writing on child training and family relationships, which they now feel is their life’s work and calling. In addition to the child training ministry, the work of the prison ministry, missions, Bible studies, and family life is still ongoing. The Pearls have been married since 1971, and have 5 children and 18 grandchildren. The Pearl children have always been involved in their parents’ ministry, and in their adulthood continue to be involved in some way in ministering where they are.

Rebekah (Pearl) Anast

Rebekah Anast is the firstborn child of Michael and Debi Pearl and author of the book Rebekahs Diary. Her husband Gabriel is a web designer. Gabe and Beka are so much alike we get them confused sometimes. They enjoy biking and exploring the high desert of New Mexico with their six children, Joseph Courage, Ryshoni Joy, Hannah Sunshine, Elijah Music, Chaiyah Eve and newest addition Alitsia Rin.

Gabriel Pearl

Gabriel Pearl is the firstborn son of Mike and Debi. He is a leader in the community, a man of integrity, and a fine example to the many young men whom he employs and teaches. Gabriel is a builder, hunter, and “volleyball king” of the community. Lori is right beside him on every project, from the volleyball court to the deer stand. Gabe and Lori are parents of Jocelyn, Laife and their newest addition, Joshua Gabriel.

Nathan Pearl

 

Nathan and Zephyr reside in TN along with their four children. Nathan is the Pearls’ third child. Like his dad, Nathan has a love for study, writing, and awful puns. He is also a builder, and invests a lot of time in the young men of the community. Zephyr is Nathan’s best buddy, and if you need a rock-bottom price on anything Zephyr knows where to find it. Nathan and Zephyr also own Cane Creek Coffee, which offers high-mountain, naturally-grown coffee and Amish soy candles. They discovered this coffee while traveling around the Honduran countryside, and could not live without it.

Shalom (Pearl) Brand

Shalom is Mike and Debi’s fourth child. She is married to Justin Brand, auto mechanic and metal artist. Justin and Shalom often accompany Mike and Debi on their seminars, making arrangements, driving, and selling books and audio materials. Shalom has always been the most energetic person in the family and the cheerful mediator in any situation. Daughter Gracie is as cute as a bug and just as energetic! Laila Truth looks just like her mama. The newest member of the family is a little boy, Parker Ford.

Shoshanna (Pearl) Easling

Shoshanna is Mike and Debi’s fifth child. She is married to James Easling, inventor and builder. They are the owners of The Bulk Herb Store, Thread Tree, Shoshanna Gardens, and Well Tell Me. James and Shoshanna live in middle Tennessee with their son, Jeremiah James, and daughter, Penelope Jane, where they operate their businesses. They are in love with each other and life in general, and dont seem to be able to stop smiling.
------------------------------------------------------

The following version has been on the site since September 2015. The other changes to the Pearl children's biographies are: 

and (deleted: newest addition) Alitsia Rin. 

deleted: Nathan and Zephyr reside in TN along with their four children. . . . Nathan and Zephyr also own Cane Creek Coffee, which offers high-mountain, naturally-grown coffee and Amish soy candles. They discovered this coffee while traveling around the Honduran countryside, and could not live without it. 
added: Nathan and Zephyr and their four children live in Hawaii. 

deleted: the newest addition is 
added: is all boy and loves dirt bikes. Roland and Hudson are the latest additions.

Michael & Debi Pearl

Michael and Debi Pearl were both raised in Memphis, Tennessee, in good homes, by parents who were faithful to point them to God. Mike, a graduate of Mid-South Bible College in Memphis (now Victory University), has been active in evangelism and the work of the ministry since he was a teenager. He worked with Union Mission in Memphis for 25 years, while he and Debi also ministered to the many military families in Memphis and pastored churches. They moved to rural Tennessee where they continued in the work by holding Bible studies in local homes, which eventually led to regular meetings of the local body of believers, and by starting the prison ministry. God eventually led them into the ministry of writing on child training and family relationships, which they now feel is their life’s work and calling. In addition to the child training ministry, the work of the prison ministry, missions, Bible studies, and family life is still ongoing. The Pearls have been married since 1971, and have 5 children and 20 grandchildren (and counting!). The Pearl children have always been involved in their parents’ ministry, and in their adulthood continue to be involved in some way in ministering where they are.

Rebekah (Pearl) Anast

Rebekah Anast is the firstborn child of Michael and Debi Pearl and author of the book Rebekahs Diary. Her husband Gabriel is a web designer. Gabe and Beka are so much alike we get them confused sometimes. They enjoy biking and exploring the high desert of New Mexico with their six children, Joseph Courage, Ryshoni Joy, Hannah Sunshine, Elijah Music, Chaiyah Eve and Alitsia Rin.

Gabriel Pearl

Gabriel Pearl is the firstborn son of Mike and Debi. He is a leader in his community, a man of integrity, and a fine example to the many young men he employs and teaches. Gabriel is a builder, hunter, outdoorsman, and “volleyball king.”

Nathan Pearl

 

Nathan is the Pearls’ third child. Like his dad, Nathan has a love for study, writing, and awful puns. He is also a builder, and has invested a lot of time in the young men of the community. Zephyr is Nathan’s best buddy, and if you need a rock-bottom price on anythingZephyr knows where to find it. Nathan and Zephyr and their four children live in Hawaii.

Shalom (Pearl) Brand

Shalom is Mike and Debi’s fourth child. She is married to Justin Brand, auto mechanic and metal artist. Justin and Shalom often accompany Mike and Debi on their seminars, making arrangements, driving, and selling books and audio materials. Shalom has always been the most energetic person in the family and the cheerful mediator in any situation. Daughter Gracie is as cute as a bug and just as energetic! Laila Truth looks just like her mama. Parker Ford is all boy and loves dirt bikes. Roland and Hudson are the latest additions.

Shoshanna (Pearl) Easling

Shoshanna is Mike and Debi’s fifth child. She is married to James Easling, inventor and builder. They are the owners of The Bulk Herb Store, Shoshanna Gardens, and Well Tell Me. James and Shoshanna live in middle Tennessee with their son, Jeremiah James, and daughter, Penelope Jane, where they operate their businesses. They are in love with each other and life in general, and dont seem to be able to stop smiling.

------------------------------------------------------

And finally, Gabe's article lauding his wife on the ngj website.

Lori in better days . . .

• 
  
• December 15, 2007
• 
  

  
  

She Can Bring Home the Bacon…Venison

By Gabriel Pearl

Fog caused by the heavy dew from the night before was making it hard to see in the early dawn light. Looking at the sky through the thick canopy of trees, I guessed it was about 20 minutes before sunup. The wind was light but steady, drifting down the valley we were in. We had a large poplar tree about 3 feet in diameter to our backs. I was debating whether I should go ahead and put a new tape in my brand-new, high-definition Sony camcorder when I heard a little sound. It was faint and seemed to come from up the hill. I didn’t think it could be a deer, because we had just walked off that ridge in the pre-dawn twilight not 10 minutes before, and even though we tried to be quiet, we definitely snapped a few twigs; yet there was that crunch again. I was sure now that I heard it, and that it was close. As I strained to see through the thick atmosphere, suddenly the huge rack of a buck distinguished itself from the fog. You never get over that first-sight thrill.

It was mid November, the time of year in Tennessee when people don their ridiculously orange vests and hats, get up in the morning 2 hours earlier than anyone should be up, and excitedly go out to sit in the cold woods without moving until every bone in their body is sore from sitting in one spot, just in hopes of seeing a deer. We call it deer season, and I love every bit of it.

I was blessed to marry a woman who not only understands my love for the woods, but likes to get out and deer hunt with me sometimes. But duties at home have kept her mostly out of the woods for the last few years, so you can imagine my excitement when her sister happily volunteered to babysit, freeing my wife to go with me on opening morning of rifle season. We decided the night before that I would just carry the camera, and she would do all the shooting. Our living room looked like a sporting goods store, with camouflage, deer calls, and gear spread out all over the floor.

I must admit that I was thoroughly zonked when the alarm clock went off, but after a microwaved bacon biscuit and a horrible cup of instant coffee from the local gas station, we were ready to go.

The piece of property we hunt on is over 600 acres of prime deer and turkey habitat in middle Tennessee, surrounded by creeks, rivers, and cornfields. I leased it about 4 years ago, with hopes that careful management might produce trophy bucks one day. What I mean by managing it is simply: We don’t shoot any young deer (less than 3 years old). Anywhere from 4 to 6 is getting old for a deer.

I consider myself a dedicated hunter, out there every year and throughout the season, sitting high in tree stands nearly every day, waiting for that trophy buck. So far, I’ve taken only 1 trophy buck on this new piece of property, and that was last year.

As a rule, I usually try to walk to my tree stands to keep the deer from knowing that I’m coming, but Lori is 7 months pregnant, a condition not really conducive to long walks in the dark with rubber boots on, so I opted to drive the 4-wheeler as close as possible. I turned the lights off about the last 400 yards and squinted my eyes in the early twilight to stay in the middle of the logging road.

Now here we were, sitting at the base of this old tree with a trophy buck walking our way. With one glance I could see the buck was 4, maybe 5 years old, definitely a mature 8-pointer. I couldn’t believe it. He was scent-checking a small tree only about 25 feet away. In a hushed, excited whisper, I told Lori, “Don’t move, there’s a buck.”

“Where?” she silently mouthed. She was looking up the ridge to her left, but just at that moment, the buck began to walk out into clear view. At 20 yards away now, it walked behind a large tree. That was the chance she was waiting for. I proudly watched as she seized the moment and brought her .308 up to her shoulder in one swift motion. The safety, normally silent, broke the morning silence with a faint snap. That was all it took. This deer had not made it to his ripe old age by being stupid. Peering around the edge of the tree with only his eyes and ears sticking out, he quickly picked out our camouflaged forms sitting against the tree. In a flash, he threw up his tail and began to run up the valley away from us. As a last ditch effort, I whistled as loudly as I could in hopes of startling him into stopping to investigate the sound. At 80 yards, he stopped for a brief second to look back. That was all she needed. Lori had been following him in the scope the whole time, and as quickly as it started, it was over. I got some kind of woman!

(c) 2007 No Greater Joy from https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/she-can-bring-home-the-bacon-venison/ 

Used by permission.

The former Lori Pearl, now in her new life as a working single mom:

photo posted to numerous websites

*On the back cover of his 2015 book, The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage (in which he says a divorced and remarried person should repent of it before the church), Mike says that he and Debi have "more than twenty grandchildren." 

UPDATE July 2018: Shoshana announced on Instagram that she and James have entered a government-approved civil union, for the purpose of estate planning.

Germanwings Flight 9525: The Religious Connection

Inasmuch as I have become a source for research on air disasters, I'm compelled to write about the most recent no-survivors air transport crash. As soon as I heard that the plane descended smoothly into the side of the Alps in clear weather, my only response was, "Islamic pilot." I listened over the next few days to hear the name of the pilot, but when it was finally released, along with the information that the pilot had been locked out of the cockpit (an ironic unintended consequence to post-911 security), the name was not Islamic after all. It appears that mental illness, not religious duty, led the copilot to commit mass suicide.

Indeed, there could be an element of mental illness in all recent mass suicide air disasters. Carrying a parachute could have saved a life in many of these cases, but banning passengers from using cell phones aloft has, in another unintended consequence, limited what can be learned from them.

Apparently the main reason for limiting the use of electronic equipment aboard a cruising airliner is due to their potential drain on the plane's wifi bandwidth--as if a simple cell phone or laptop would be capable of doing such a thing.

Getting back to copilot Andreas Lubitz:  It turns out that his outwardly happy life wasn't so happy after all: his girlfriend, whom he intended to marry, had broken off the relationship. This makes this tragedy another unintended consequence of the decriminalization of adultery: adulterers no longer face the death penalty--but, if they are pilots, their passengers face death all the same.

A review of Roger Hertzler's exposition of Jerome's Instructions for Fabiola's Penance

Roger Herzler's latest book, Dear Pastor: A Plea for honesty About Divorce and Remarriage is now on my desk. Having read half a dozen different books on this topic over the past 25 years, I was surprised to see him take an angle I hadn't seen before: he focuses on the long-term interaction between Jerome and a woman named Fabiola.

Now, unless you are really up on your hagiography, you've probably never heard of Saint Fabiola, whose feast day is December 27. Considering that she allegedly founded the first public hospice in the West, one would think she'd have her name on the front of more medical buildings.  At any rate, this is not what makes her worthy of Roger's mention. Oh, no. She comes into his sights for the sole reason that she was twice married, and twice divorced--and why. But on the specifics of those events--and the reasons behind them--Roger's account comes into conflict with much of what can now be read about Fabiola, dating back to the first extensive treatment of her in a 2-volume biography of Jerome by French historian Amandee Thierry in 1867.


Fabiola was a Roman noblewoman from the gens Fabia. On that all sources agree, and that her birth date is unknown; her feast day is (naturally) based on the date of her death in 399 or 400 (the Anno Domini dating system not yet being in place, it's impossible to be precise to the very year).

About the year 394 AD, a church leader named Jerome received a letter from a fellow pastor asking for counsel. A woman named Fabiola had committed her life to Christ, he wrote, and desired to enter into communion with them as a congregation. The question he had in regard to the marital status of this woman. Fabiola was happily married, it seemed, but not to her first husband. She had been married before, but had gotten divorced and then married again while her first husband was still living. What should he tell this woman who was applying for membership in the local body, and more importantly, in the body of Christ?

So begins Chapter 1 of Dear Pastor. But how much of this is based on the actual record, and how much did Roger read into the story? Let's begin by listing the assertions, sentence by sentence.

"About the year 394 AD, a church leader named Jerome received a letter from a fellow pastor asking for counsel." First of all, it's only a bit of a stretch to call Jerome 'a church leader.' He was an ascetic, a Bible translator, and a missionary to the poor. Whatever authority he held in the church at large was not due to any office, but rather to the respect that his command of the Scriptures engendered. "A fellow pastor," on the other hand, goes way too far. The person in question was Amandus, later Bishop of Bordeaux. Unlike Jerome, he actually served a congregation. The language Roger uses attempts to set a modern scene to the question, which starts us astray from the very first sentence. And he goes from there:

"A woman named Fabiola had committed her life to Christ, he wrote, and desired to enter into communion with them as a congregation." Now, Amandus never mentioned the woman's name, but from Jerome's eulogy of Fabiola it's pretty clear that she was the woman in question. We don't have Amandus' original letter, but here is Jerome's reply, as quoted in the Appendix directly from Letter 55 of the Works of Jerome, edited by Philip Schaff :

I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words: “ask him, (that is me) whether a woman who has left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault. [this apparently written by Fabiola herself, attached to a list Amandus' Bible questions]”

As I read the case put I recall the verse “they make excuses for their sins.” We are all human and all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will leads us to do we attribute to a necessity of nature. It is as though a young man were to say, “I am over-borne by my body, the glow of nature kindles my passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive organs call for sexual intercourse.” Or again a murderer might say, “I was in want, I stood in need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of cold and hunger.”

Tell the sister, therefore, who thus enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle. “Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” And in another place: “the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress.

You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another.

The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.” Mark what he says: “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer. Wherefore the apostles seeing how heavy the yoke of marriage was thus made said to Him: “if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry,” and the Lord replied, “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” And immediately by the instance of the three eunuchs he shows the blessedness of virginity which is bound by no carnal tie.

I have not been able quite to determine what it is that she means by the words “has found herself compelled” to marry again. What is this compulsion of which she speaks? Was she overborne by a crowd and ravished against her will? If so, why has she not, thus victimized, subsequently put away her ravisher? Let her read the books of Moses and she will find that if violence is offered to a betrothed virgin in a city and she does not cry out, she is punished as an adulteress: but if she is forced in the field, she is innocent of sin and her ravisher alone is amenable to the laws.

Therefore if your sister, who, as she says, has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive the body of Christ and not to be accounted an adulteress, let her do penance; so far at least as from the time she begins to repent to have no farther intercourse with that second husband who ought to be called not a husband but an adulterer. If this seems hard to her and if she cannot leave one whom she has once loved and will not prefer the Lord to sensual pleasure, let her hear the declaration of the apostle: “ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils,” and in another place: “what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial?”

What I am about to say may sound novel but after all it is not new but old for it is supported by the witness of the Old Testament. If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now; for it is written in Deuteronomy:
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
Wherefore, I beseech you, do your best to comfort her and to urge her to seek salvation. Diseased flesh calls for the knife and the searing-iron. The wound is to blame and not the healing art, if with a cruelty that is really kindness a physician to spare does not spare, and to be merciful is cruel.

Now, there are several works from the pen of Jerome that do mention Fabiola, in addition to the eulogy fully quoted by Roger. In fact, the two were friends, and Fabiola traveled to Bethlehem to visit him not long after he wrote this letter. Thierry weaves them all together, shifts the chronology around a bit, and ends up with a woman whose most important decision in life was to become a nun. Naturally, we don't expect someone who isn't a lifelong Catholic to take the same approach. But still, Roger peers at Fabiola's life through the thick spectacles of his own sitz im leben:

"The question he had in regard to the marital status of this woman. Fabiola was happily married, it seemed, but not to her first husband. She had been married before, but had gotten divorced and then married again while her first husband was still living."

Roger Hertzler begins chapter 5,

 When Jerome gave his counsel that Fabiola needed to separate herself from her second marriage in order to be right with God, was he trying to introduce some radical new teaching? Was he trampling underfoot that which had been taught by church leaders prior to him? Or was his counsel in harmony with what the church as a whole had believed up until that point? The following quotes from A Dictionary of Early  Christian Beliefs show us a glimpse of how this subect was viewed by certain church fathers who had lived prior to Jerome:

 In accordance with the modern twist he gives the story, Roger is rather careful not to point out that  church leaders of Jerome's day believed it was wrong to be married twice, period: even after the death of the spouse, they considered a second marriage to be immoral:

"With the utmost strictness, we excommunicate digamists, as bringing infamy upon the Paraclete by the irregularity of their discipline. The self-same liminal limit we fix for adulterers also and fornicators; dooming them to pour forth tears barren of peace, and to regain from the Church no ampler return than the publication of their disgrace (Tertullian, De puditicia, 1)."

This quote, found in full in the Dictionary, is conspicuously absent from Dear Pastor, though Roger quotes Tertullian's other writings extensively--more times than any other Church Father.

"What should he tell this woman who was applying for membership in the local body, and more importantly, in the body of Christ?"

"Applying for membership" is quite the anachronism here. Rome had already come under the control of the State Church, and Faviola had no doubt long since become a member. What she was asking for was communion without penance--a totally foreign idea to a member of the modern Protestant movement.

Okay, so the style of Roger Hertzler's book is decidedly contemporary, and he views the ancient church through his modern glasses: So What? The real question is, "Are modern Christians bound by timeless principles first promulgated by Jerome in his writings concerning Fabiola?"

I'll hold off on the answer to that question, as I have yet to see anyone from the other side of the question make even so much as a passing mention of Fabiola. Until they do, I must concede the field to Roger Hertzler.

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. --Proverbs 18:17 ESV

UPDATE DEC 26, 2012
I'll go ahead and give a quote here--from Asterius, a 4th-century Bishop of Amasea--that will probably be brought up in future discussions of this topic. It's not all that well known, having been published in 1904 and long out of print. But it's now available online, at this website. 

"You who change your wives as readily as your garments; who build bridal chambers as often and as easily as you build booths for feasts; who marry money, and deal in women; who if provoked a little immediately write a bill of divorcement; you who leave many widows while you are yet alive; believe me, marriage is terminated only by death or adultery."

Timo Miller--it's complicated

Well, Timo Miller will soon be safely back in Nicaragua, but yet another "not known to be related" Miller has been handcuffed in his place:

A Virginia man who federal prosecutors say helped a woman leave the country with her daughter so she wouldn't have to turn custody of the girl over to her former lesbian partner surrendered Tuesday to face charges he aided in international parental kidnapping. 

A complaint unsealed Tuesday said Kenneth L. Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Va., arranged passage for Lisa Miller to travel to Canada before flying with her daughter in September 2009 to Nicaragua, where she was sheltered for a time by a group of Mennonite missionaries. Kenneth Miller appeared in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Vt., on Tuesday and was released, said U.S. Attorney Tristram Coffin, who would provide no further information about the case. 

The affidavit made public Tuesday indicated that Timothy Miller had helped provide the information that led to the charges against Kenneth Miller. The affidavit says Timothy Miller arranged passage for Lisa Miller and her daughter, paying for the tickets with his mother-in-law's credit card, but Kenneth Miller had told him he would be reimbursed for the price of the tickets.

So, it wasn't Lisa he was willing to rat on, but his alleged co-conspirator (and fellow Beachy minister). This man is much better prepared for the court battle he faces than was Timo, who was blindsided by the FBI. And the FBI isn't crowing about the arrest this time:

“The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont stated that Kenneth L. Miller, 46, of Stuarts Draft, Virginia, surrendered today to face charges stemming from his role in the international parental kidnapping by Lisa Miller of a child who has been the subject of a dispute of parental rights in Rutland, Vermont family court since 2004.

According to the complaint unsealed today, Kenneth L. Miller contacted associates in Nicaragua and Canada to request their support for Lisa Miller as she fled the United States with the daughter she shared with her civil union partner in 2009. The complaint alleges that at Kenneth Miller’s direction, the individuals purchased plane tickets for Lisa Miller and her child to fly from Canada to Nicaragua, and transported Miller and her child from a hotel in Canada to the airport for her flights. The complaint further indicates that Kenneth Miller maintained contact with two cellular telephones that appeared to travel from Virginia to Canada in advance of Lisa Miller’s departure from Canada. A grand jury has previously returned an indictment charging Lisa Miller with international parental kidnapping.

The United States Attorney emphasizes that the charges contained in the complaint are merely accusations and that the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. If he is convicted, Kenneth Miller faces a maximum possible sentence of up to three years in prison; however, the actual sentence in the event of a conviction will be determined in accordance with the federal sentencing guidelines and the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Mr. Miller is represented by Dennis Boyle of Boyle, Autry, and Murphy, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and local counsel Brooks G. McArthur of Jarvis, McArthur and Williams.

The United States Attorney commended the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their hard work on this matter.”

I sense a cutback in the heated rhetoric that surrounded Timo's arrest.  And that everybody is being more careful--even the FBI.

UPDATE: As in the case of Timo, there is a website set up for those interested in following Ken Miller's case: www.millercase.org. The big difference is that this site is merely a policy statement and not a source of updates [UPDATE: this has since changed, as the site has grown and developed].

I should clarify my statement above, in which I used the colloquial expression "rat on." I don't believe that Timo at any point would be willing to disclose Isabella's location in exchange for his own freedom. He faced three years of detention at most; Isabella, almost ten. Nor was it so simple as a matter of him being released in exchange for "ratting on" Ken Miller. That statement was purely from the apparent perspective of the prosecution, who seem to have very little clue what this case is all about. Timo was out of the country when all of the alleged crimes were committed; thus the prosecution had a very weak case against him. However, since he was not physically in the States, they were able to proceed with the fiction that his crimes had been committed in Vermont.

Ken Miller, however, is an entirely case altogether. The man had already left the country when all this went down, thus has been out of reach of the FBI. Clearly, he returned to the U.S. knowing that he would be arrested once he reached American soil. He is not trying to run from what he did, but is quite willing to take whatever punishment is dished out, should he be found a criminal for what he did out of conscience. But since all of the activities in which the court is interested took place in Virginia, he will insist on being tried there. There is no validity to their claim that he did anything in the "Federal District of Vermont."

Should the Feds admit that Virginia is the place where the deeds were done, expect quite a few more arrests to follow. So far, they've only been biting at the very bottom of the food chain, and there are quite a few people in the chain between Lisa and Ken.

UPDATE February 2013:
I believe that the Feds still have a case against the Baptists who handed off Lisa and Isabella to the Mennonites. In an interesting coincidence, Tip Killingsworth, one of the Baptist suspects, has also gone to Ireland as a missionary in the interim. By choosing to spend the next year--at least--behind bars rather than testify against his Baptist co-conspirators, Ken has complicated the prosecution's case a little. We're still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

UPDATE September 2016:
The other shoe has dropped. But so far only half of the co-conspirators have been tried: Timo will apparently be next.

Lisa Miller updates

The following information is from an interview Lisa Miller gave in 2008:

-Janet Jenkins did not think she would be able to bond with Isabella because she was not her own flesh.
-Lisa was a foster parent at the time she became pregnant with Isabella and had to give the child up.
Janet said of Isabella; "I don’t want to have any responsibility for her – she’s not my child but I just want to see her once in a while."
-Janet told Lisa she wanted to kill her. This was when Lisa left the relationship.
-Janet requested that their civil union be dissolved so she could file for bankruptcy.
-Lisa is the only one named on Isabella's birth certificate; there is no mention of Janet Jenkins.

And in further news:
During the last month the US detectives, the US embassy people and the local police have been harassing the Jinotega brethren. (They have also questioned [Timo's parents] and two of Timo’s brothers.) They are constantly watching and trailing the Jinotega brethren and again and again ask them a lot of questions. They have even said that if they do not help them find out where Lisa is, they could deport some of them, or put them in jail or do what the local police do here when they investigate. (And that is not nice. It's a vicious threat!) They are not very nice about the whole thing and almost force people to talk. This has been a very tiring time for the brethren there.

Toward the beginning of all this they had come to the Jinotega school/church house combination to pick Lisa up, but God had sent her away already. Later they brought in a bunch of Special Forces to invade the house she had been living in. But she was gone.

A vote for same-sex marriage: The TNIV and Mark 10:12

92, 821 views

The Committee for Bible Translation (known throughout this blog as the CBT) has closed the door for suggestions to improve the NIV/TNIV, as the two versions will be rendered obsolete by the newer and improveder NIV set to come out next year.

In one sense, this is too bad. In another sense, it's too late. There is only so much that can be done to improve the TNIV without either:

a) Reverting to the old reading of the NIV
b) Reverting to the reading (or at least the meaning) of the KJV
c) Violating the copyright of one of the other two dozen English New Testaments in print.

Take, for example, Mark 10:11-12. This is how it would read in a modern language KJV:

And he said to them, "Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away her husband, and is married to another, she commits adultery.

The message is pretty clear. Whether a man or woman initiates a divorce, he or she becomes guilty of adultery by remarrying.

Now, I don't think this could be said any more plainly than the reading of the NLT:

He told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries someone else, she commits adultery.”

You can't get more gender-inclusive than that. But how does the gender-inclusive TNIV read? Well, the same as the old NIV did:

He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Notice the difference? The TNIV, blind as ever to the need to make generic feminine constructions gender-neutral, leaves a glaring loophole for same-sex marriage by either partner. A loophole that never existed in the KJV. And doesn't exist in the NLT.

Ah, you say, but the TNIV most accurately translates the Greek here, which does specify the gender of the new spouse in each case.

So what?

The CBT has shown wanton disregard for any number of places where the Greek specifies the gender--specifically, masculine gender. On what grounds do they show such respect for it here?

They certainly can't claim that they are trying to make the Bible more understandable to Today's Young Person, who needs to know, and really should be able to find out from reading the Bible, the opinion of their Creator on "same-sex marriage." Not the opinion of gay and lesbian members of a translation team.

UPDATE OCTOBER 2011: There was no change to the NNIV. The loophole remains.
UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2016: Now that marriage between homosexuals is a protected right in a growing number of judicial and ecclesiastical districts, the NNIV is already out of date.
Wow, that sure didn't take long.