In a world
where you want to read something that isn’t terrible
one book
at least
will suffice:

Rook

Barnes & Noble Nook: I’ve just uploaded it for the first time. Should be available in a couple days.

Apple iBooks: Awaiting seller account authorization.

It was written by an ordinary fellow named Robert Calef in response to Cotton Mather’s Wonders of the Invisible World, an account and justification (as far as I am aware) of the Salem Witch Trials.

It’s funny because it’s just how I would respond. I’ll post some of the text below. Calef argues that the witch trials are a manifestation of the rejection of sola scriptura and an appropriation of “heathenism and popery.”

Amen, Bro. Calef.

Pro-war prejudice ruins John MacArthur’s interpretations of the texts below—and, of course, I’m otherwise sympathetic to MacArthur. I’m going to deal with all his examples. Here’s the video; watch it first.

Luke 14:31

Saying that a king counts his costs before going to war doesn’t say anything about the moral status of engaging in war. A king counting his costs is an example of shrewdness. The metaphor certainly doesn’t “elevate” war as such or make it “noble.”

And, just like Luke 16.1-9 (the parable of the dishonest manager), Jesus’ usage of a metaphor doesn’t mean that the activity or persons in the metaphor are to be commended in themselves—Jesus uses them merely as examples of particular characteristics. In both cases, the characteristic is shrewdness. It’s not about being pro-war or pro-white-collar-crime.

Luke 22:36

This one is bad.

This is the passage where Jesus asks if the disciples have any weapons, the disciples say they’ve got two swords, and Jesus says, “It is enough.”

From this, MacArthur says that Jesus was pro-war? MacArthur explicitly says this validates violent self-defense, which is a more plausible reading, but it’s still off the mark. If Jesus is concerned about self defense, 1/6 of your company being armed with just swords (and no armor!) is hardly “enough” to defend yourself from anyone who might feasibly try to take the disciples by force. Because you know who was trying to do that? The Roman and Jewish authorities, who have actual soldiers with spears and swords and armor. Two swords among 13 people is in no way enough for self defense.

Then what’s Jesus talking about?

Here’s the actual text:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
(Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

Now we see why Jesus tells them this; this text is explicit about it! Jesus wants them to have swords so that a particular scripture will be fulfilled: “And he was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). So the disciples’ having of swords, even just two, means that Jesus will be numbered with the transgressors.

Ah . . . so maybe Jesus wants his disciples to be armed so that the charges of his being another king will stick: look! There’s his guard! He’s got armed men traveling with him! He’s a threat to Caesar! Without those swords, Jesus’ disciples are just some dudes. And, you know what, guess what happens when they corner Jesus in the garden? Peter uses one of those swords to cut off Malchus’s ear. Boom: numbered with the transgressors.

That’s what the passage is about. (Note that this interpretation also ruins the Vatican’s two-swords-as-religious-and-political-power interpretation.) But, if you’re looking for a quick maybe-this-will-support-war passage without really caring what the text is saying, you get what MacArthur said.

MacArthur’s performance here makes me sad. Based on what another guest (a pro-peace figure) said, Larry King says, “How can we know? Based on whatever verse anyone reads, you can back up anything.”

Well, King is right—if you don’t bother with serious attempts at exegesis.

John 18:36

As an argument for war (if you can believe it) MacArthur uses John 18.36! Do you know what John 18.36 says!?

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
(John 18:36 ESV)

!?!?!?!

Jesus’ point is that his kingdom isn’t like the kingdoms of the world—the ones over whom Satan has dominion (see the temptation narrative). Since the servants of the kingdoms of this world are fighting and Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, his servants are not fighting! And, if Jesus’ servants won’t fight in order to prevent the son of God from being crucified by murderous pagans, what in the world would they fight a war over!?