What the Church Doesn't Tell You

Facing my finitude

When I retired from Missouri State University after twenty-five years of teaching religious studies, holding one graduate degree in the confessional study of religion, and two graduate degrees in the academic study of religion, I decided to ask myself what I as a twenty-first century human being thought about the verities of religion and Christianity in particular. I determined to wrestle with its truths, if any, in the public eye through an online blog.

Last month (August, 2026) I published a second book of my findings with Pickwick Publications, a publishing arm of Wipf and Stock, Publishers, entitled What the Church Doesn’t Tell You. Pondering Christian Tradition. It is a record of my personal odyssey critically pondering aspects of my own religious faith, and how I went about engaging the boundaries between the faith I had been taught and human reason.

From the Back Cover

This book “is aimed at curious readers wanting to explore how the rise of modern critical thinking since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment impacts Christian faith and belief today. The Enlightenment, a philosophical and scientific movement in Europe and America, gave birth to the critical method and witnessed the rise of reliance on human reason, both of which have continued to threaten a revealed religion and the hegemony of Christian belief based on ideas of the supernatural…”

Table of Contents

There are six chapters consisting of brief essays of two to three annotated pages each on topics related to: The Nature of the Universe, Life and Politics, Christian Beliefs and Experience, The Bible, The Nature of God, Jesus and Christology, The Church. The essays, written in the period from 2019 to 2026, appeared first on my blog, entitled “Wry Thoughts about Religion,” then revised for print media, and published in the present volume of essays.

            The book was not planned out in the abstract but grew out of my personal engagement with life. Thus, ideas for the essays emerged from newspapers, the evening news, sermons I heard from my pew at the back of the church, a personal reading of the Bible, comments made to me by others, and its chapter titles emerged from the diversity of subjects that I had addressed over time in the essays.

From the Introduction

In ecclesiastical traditions writing generally serves the purpose of reaffirming faith. The present collection of essays, on the other hand, belong to what I would call a “gadfly” tradition. Encountering gadflies in nature is a completely negative experience, but in society they can be either positive or negative. The earliest and perhaps the best-known social gadfly was Socrates. According to Plato, “Socrates refrains from expounding complicated views of his own, preferring instead to question those who claim to have such views themselves.” The Athenians charged him with impiety. In his defense Socrates argued that God had fastened him upon the city as a gadfly to urge them toward virtue. The trial ended in a sentence of death for Socrates (4–5).

From the Epilogue

The American Theologian Robert W. Funk wrote “at what point does the discrepancy between what I know, or think I know…and what I am willing to say publicly become so acute that my personal integrity is at stake.” He goes on to describe how he had dissembled and attempted to avoid asking difficult questions and/or answering them candidly by shifting from the parish ministry to the academic world and then from seminary to the secular university. Along the way he discovered that the fundamental issue is the nature of faith itself. He found that what he knew or thought he knew undermined the original affirmations he had received from those who had preceded him both in faith and the scholarly guild. This book poses the question, “What does one do then?”

Order the Book?

Charles W. Hedrick, What the Church Doesn’t Tell You. Pondering Christian Tradition (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2026).

The book may be ordered from Wipf and Stock Publishers. $51.00; 384 pages.

199 West 8^th Ave, Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401–2960

Tel 1-541–344–1528

orders@wipfandstock.com

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

The Earliest Christian Confession?

The confession “Jesus is Lord” has been described as “the earliest Christian confession.”¹

One can scarcely be absolutely certain, however, that it is the earliest, since actual dating for the New Testament (NT) writings is unknown, and critically reasoned dates are the best that can be done. A second reason is that early Christianity was not a uniform movement but rather diverse. In the canonical texts we primarily are given the fourth-century orthodox view of the early Christian movements.

The confession, “Jesus is Lord,” has also been described as “primitive,”² suggesting that it might have emerged with the earliest followers of Jesus. Perhaps it is primitive, but even that cannot be confirmed on the basis of our extant materials. Nevertheless, it is true that this confession, bare of Christological dressing, is found in the letters of the earliest writer of NT literature, the Apostle Paul:

No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)

If you confess that “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

One can say that this confession is certainly less theologically advanced in the role it ascribes to Jesus, when compared to other very generous Christological epithets awarded Jesus elsewhere in the New Testament. “Jesus is Lord” is lacking many of these more generous claims for him. Instead, Jesus in this confession is simply “the Lord (ho kurios).” Other Christian confessions and creeds give him more extravagant epithets, for example: Jesus, the anointed (christos)[of God] (1 Cor 8:6); raised from the dead (Rom 10:9); the savior (2 Tim 1:10); equal with God (Phil 2:6); the agent of creation and human existence (1 Cor 8:6); Son of God (1 John 4:15); the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15); in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Col 1:19); the reconciler of all things (Col 1:20); the abolisher of death (2 Tim 1:10); the imprint of God’s very being (Heb 1:3); Jesus is God (John 20:28).³

            The confession, “Jesus is Lord,” is stripped of all such Christological glitter, and describes Jesus as Lord/Master. According to LSJ, the Greek word kurios (Lord), when used of people, has the meaning of “having power or authority over.”⁴ It can also be used of things. The term appears to have had a wide range of uses, such as being simply the head of a household or the leader of a nation, or an ancient Greek God.⁵ Thus, in itself, the word kurios does not necessarily carry the idea of deity, as is assumed by some.⁶ The expression kurios evoked political and common social concerns. Thus, the confession “Jesus is Lord” was understood to challenge “Caesar is Lord,” which the Romans demanded be confessed, probably as much for political reasons (Josephus, Jewish Wars, 7.418–419), as for religious reasons (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8.2),⁷ since the Roman Senate had deified the emperor Augustus after his death, and temples and shrines were erected to honor his tutelary genius (spirit).⁸

            Nevertheless, it is important to note that the term Lord is the most prominent epithet for Jesus that appears in First Thessalonians, “the oldest document in the NT,”⁹ Paul’s earliest writing. In general, the letter reflects little in the way of high Christological epithets. Jesus is referred to as simply the Lord Jesus 6 times (2:15, 19. 3:11, 13; 4:1, 2); as the Lord 10 times (1:6, 8; 3:8, 12; 4:15, bis, 16, 17; 5:12, 26);¹⁰ and as simply Jesus, thrice (1:10; 4:14, bis). These titles are slightly elevated when the term christos (the Anointed) is used with the “plainer” epithets. Several times he is called the Lord Jesus Christ (1;1, 3;5:9, 23, 28) and as Christ Jesus (2:14; 5:18), or simply Christ (4:16).

The cross is not glorified in First Thessalonians. Jesus is simply “killed” by the “Judahites (2:15, usually translated “Jews”), but in some unexplained way his dying was “for us” (5:10). One clearly sees a difference when comparing certain of Paul’s statements about the cross and the death of Jesus in his later writings (Rom 3:24–25; 1 Cor 1:17–18, 23–24; 1 Cor 15:3–4; Gal 3:1,14; Gal 6:14; Phil 2:8). That what appears to be a primitive confession elsewhere in the NT (because it is stripped bare of generous Christological epithets), dominates in the oldest Christian writing increases the probability that it is the earliest confession of which we know.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New ICC Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 582.

²Fee, First Corinthians, 579.

³Compare the Nicene Creed, Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church 93^rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 28-29.

⁴Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, comp., A Greek-English Lexicon (revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).

⁵Werner Foerster, “κύριος,” pages 1039–1058 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965).

⁶Fee, First Corinthians, 581. Fee is likely correct that Paul would have seen the term kurios in his situation as meaning “absolute allegiance to” a divinity, but what meaning might it have had in its earliest use?

⁷Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions (J. K. S Reid, trans.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 28–29.

⁸Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization, Selected Readings (2 vols.; 3^rd ed.; New York: Columbia, 1990). Volume 1: The Republic and the Augustinian Age, 620–640.

⁹Edgar Krentz, “Thessalonians, First and Second Epistles to the,” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary 6:515.

¹⁰1 Thessalonians 5:2 could refer to the Lord God and the end of the cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13) or perhaps the day of the return of Jesus (1Cor 1:8).

Do You have a Favorite Pew Spot?

My daughter asked me last Sunday: “Where do you sit in church and why did you select that spot?” I thought readers might like to hear my response, even though they may not have reflected on where and why they situate themselves in a particular spot in the auditorium/sanctuary for religious services. My daughter was curious because she sits toward the back.

I am not sure there is anything significant about where one sits in church. There may be about why they sit there, so we may learn something about ourselves by asking the question. I am relatively certain that position in religious acts has little significance to God (if God there be),¹ although I think it is probable that church goers sit where they do for a variety of reasons, both conscious and unconscious reasons.

The Baptist church I attend is a three aisled church with two rows of pews. I regularly sit in the fourth pew from the rear of the church next to the outer aisle on the left facing the pulpit. I tell myself I sit there for utilitarian reasons, since it is under the loudspeaker, which aids in my fading hearing. But there are loudspeakers evenly spaced throughout the auditorium, which raises questions about the utility aspect of where I sit.

I like to sit towards the back of the auditorium because I can easily see most of the people attending the service that morning. And I also like to sit on the aisle because I can easily and more quickly get out of the pew when the service is done and not get caught in the crowd exiting after the service. Because of my balance problems, I have difficulty walking in a crowd, even with a cane.

I find this pew position to be quite comfortable. I have learned the names of those who generally sit around me, who, like I, usually also sit in the same place each Sunday. I have grown accustomed to viewing the service from where I sit, and there is something to say for the comfort of familiar surroundings. Besides, sometimes you like to be around people you know before the service begins. In fact, now that I think of it, everyone I know, attending the service, seems to sit generally in the same place each week.

There is, however, another possibility: that I sit where I do in church for reasons I may have repressed in my unconscious. Unlike the tax collector in Jesus’ story about two men, a Pharisee and a tax collector praying in the temple (Luke 18:10–14), I may have repressed the real reasons I sit where I do. The tax collector in the story seems fully conscious why he stands some distance away to offer his prayer to God (18:13). His distant location in the room corresponds to his sense of alienation from God and perhaps from others as well (18:13).

Sigmund Freud is usually given credit for discovering the unconscious, which he defined “as a reservoir of primitive motives and threatening memories hidden from awareness” in the mind. It is “[i]n classic Freudian theory, a part of the mind that houses emotional memories, desires, and feelings that would be threatening if brought to consciousness.”²

It is possible that I have subconsciously repressed my reasons for sitting where I do. For example, I am not formally a member of the church I have been attending for about four years. They consider me a “regular attender,”³ a classification the church formally recognizes. Thus, I may unconsciously take up a position toward the back of the auditorium because it is a position commensurate with my formal level of participation in church activities. That is to say, I sit where I do to reflect my status as a nonmember who is not fully involved in church activities. Hence, I may unconsciously think I ought to sit in the back some distance away from the center of activities at the front. I hasten to add that my conscious reason for sitting where I do is that I find it a comfortable spot, but who knows what is really going on in their repressed unconscious?

Why do you think you sit where you do in religious services?

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹For example, there is no prescribed “position” for prayer, for example: see Hedrick, “Representing Prayer in Mark and Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 22.3 (Fall 1995), 254.

²P. G. Zimbardo, R. L. Johnson., and V. McCann, Psychology. Core Concepts (6th ed.; Boston: Pearson, 2000), 342.

³A category of relationship to the church. For example, the “Church Roll” is titled: “Members and Regular Attendees.”

Is there a Definitive New Testament?

Is there such a thing as a definitive New Testament? By definitive I mean to say a Greek New Testament that is “most nearly complete and accurate, [and] authoritative.”¹ That is to ask, is there a version of the Greek New Testament that serves as the standard to which translations in all languages are compared for accuracy?

            Actually, I can answer this question. There is no such thing, in fact, as a definitive New Testament.² This essay aims to give one small example as to why there is no definitive Greek New Testament. In church services one recent Sunday morning (May 17, 2026), the pastor was expounding on Luke 24:44–53. I was following along using two English translations and the Greek New Testament.³ Suddenly, I found a glaring difference between the two translations. For the beginning of verse 24:52 the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) read the following:

“And they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy…”

While the Revised English Bible (REB) read the following:

“And they <…> returned to Jerusalem full of great joy…”

The pointed brackets indicate text missing from the translation and hence the difference between the two translations.

Much to my surprise the words “worshipped him and” were missing in the REB! So the minister must have been reading from the NRSV (or a similar translation) because he made a point of emphasizing their worship of Jesus (literally “bowed the knee to him”) in his remarks on the passage.

So, I turned to see what the Greek text read. The Nestle-Aland 28^th edition included the Greek words ^[]proskunēsantes auton^\ “worshipped him.” The marks around the Greek words (^[]…^\) indicate that “the words, clauses, or sentences between the signs are omitted by the witnesses cited.”

The witnesses cited by the Nestle-Aland edition were: Codex Bezae (5^th /6^th century), Old Latin Manuscripts (4^th to the 13^th centuries), and the Sinaitic Syriac (4^th century).⁴ Some of these ancient Latin and Syriac versions eliminating the phrase are relatively early. But they are much later than the original autograph (of which there is no copy).

The Bible Society Committee that decided to include the phrase “worshipped him” was sharply divided. A minority of the committee voted not to include “worshipped him” in the text, considering them to be scribal interpolations. The majority, however, considered them to have been either accidentally or deliberately omitted from the text.⁵ The minority of the committee argued that one can discern “a Christological-theological motivation that accounts for” the words being added to the text but “no clear reason that accounts for their having been omitted.”⁶

There is a tendency on the part of the scribes of the Western Text (Bezae, Old Latin and Sinaitic Syriac) “to adjust” the text:

Words, clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness…Another equally important characteristic is a disposition to enrich the text at the cost of its purity by alterations or additions taken from traditional and perhaps from apocryphal or other non-biblical sources.⁷

Here is some additional information as to how this disagreement between manuscripts is treated in modern translations: Constantine Tischendorf did not include the words “They worshipped him and” in the text but put them in a note.⁸ The New International Version (NIV) includes them in the text (the NIV is the most popular translation of the Bible by sales in America). An American Translation excludes “worshipped him and” (this is the translation of the New Testament scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed). The New American Bible for Catholics has the words in the text but translates them as “they did him homage.” The Holman Christian Standard Bible includes them in the text translating them as “After worshipping him.” The New American Standard Version does not include the words “worshipping him” in the text and has no note about them. The modern Greek translation of the Greek Orthodox church includes them in the text. Westcott and Hort (text critics of a previous century) preferred the shorter reading in Luke 24:52, regarding the words “worshipped him” as “Western non-interpolations” (in spite of the “generally inferior Western witnesses”).⁹

            What should we conclude from the brief essay? It is: The Bible does not spring immediately from the mouth of God to the printed page of the book on the table beside your bed. It must first pass through the inspired (or not) brains of the original writers and debatable ambiguities of modern textual criticism, as well as the theological biases and peccadillos of modern translators. The New Testament, it turns out, is much less, or perhaps much more than the original autographs.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹M. Agnes, Ed. in Chief, Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4^th ed.), under definitive.

²I give my reasons for thinking such to be the case in Hedrick, “The Greek New Testament is a Virtual Text.” Wry Guy Blog, Saturday August 8, 2020: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2020/08/the-greek-new-testament-is-virtual-text.html.

³The Greek New Testament was the Nestle-Aland 28^th edition.

⁴See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3^rd ed.; Oxford: 1992).

⁵Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2^nd ed.; United Bible Societies, 1994), 163. See also the “Note on Western Non-Interpolations,” 164–66.

⁶Metzger, Textual Commentary, 166.

⁷Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 132—33. Metzger quotes Westcott and Hort.

⁸Constantinus Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (2^nd ed., 1860).

⁹Metzger, Textual Commentary, 164–65.

Do Messages come from Beyond the Grave?

I have been told by many, whom I consider to be above average intelligence, that they have received on more than one occasion what they believed to be nonverbal signs from deceased loved ones. Of course, if the messages were nonverbal, they must, by necessity, to have taken the form of an event of some sort that would be sign-receivers understand as being directed specifically at them—some sign-event that others would see as rather benign or commonplace, and not highly charged with any special significance. In other words, the sign-event requires interpretation by a particular sign-receiver to turn the sign into a personal “message,” which others are not able to see in the event. The fact that the “sign” requires interpretation by the sign-receiver to turn it into a “message” also renders the “message” suspect, since the message is dependent on the interpretation of the sign-receiver. How can one know that the “message” is not just wishful thinking on the part of the sign-receiver?

            Since I have never knowingly received such a sign from deceased loved ones or close friends (in fairness, perhaps I was just too dense and could not recognize the sign to be a sign), that set me to thinking: can the dead really send signs with nonverbal messages? For the Greek poet Homer (if there actually was a Homer) that may not be the case. In The Odyssey (Book XI) The Nymph, Circe, told Odysseus to seek the counsel of the dead, blind, Theban seer, Teiresias, so as to find his way back home to Ithaki following the ten-year Trojan War. To learn the wisdom of the seer, Odysseus had to travel to Hades, where dead souls are “housed” as little more than oblivious shadows. By drinking the blood, which Odysseus provided, Teiresias recovered his memory and visionary powers temporarily, and was able to advise Odysseus on the perils of his homeward journey. In other words, there was no possibility of signs being sent from the beyond. Nevertheless, there was a possibility of a message, but it was not sent to Odysseus as commonplace event. He had to go to Hades to get it from Teiresias himself.

            On the other hand, in the Roman tradition “Nearly everyone was affected by the desire for signs about the future: ‘Heaven consorts directly but with few [as in prophetic inspiration], and rarely, but to the great majority gives signs from which arises the art called divination’” (Plutarch, On the Sign of Socrates 24 [Moralia 593D].”¹ And the Latin writer, Cicero, notes the following: “Now I am aware of no people, however refined and learned or however savage and ignorant, which does not think that signs are given of future events, and that certain persons can recognize those signs and foretell events before they occur.” (Cicero, Divination 1.1.2. W. A. Falconer, trans. [LCL. Harvard, 222-223]). But these are messages sent by the Gods, not by deceased loved ones.

            In the Old Testament (1 Samuel 28), there is a situation similar to that in The Odyssey. The Israelite King Saul was facing an imminent military attack by the Philistines. His prayers to God in the crisis went unanswered. His “Hail Mary” solution was to consult a medium at Endor (although Saul himself had earlier deported all mediums and wizards out of the land); he asked her to “divine by a spirit and bring up [from Sheol]” whomever he requested (1 Sam 28:8 RSV). He asked that she bring up from Sheol (the place of the dead) the Lord’s Prophet Samuel who delivered to Saul a verbal message he did not want to hear (1 Sam 28:15–20). So, it appears, that in the Old Testament, there are no arcane commonplace nonverbal events serving as signs to be converted into “messages” from the dead to particular living persons, who must interpret the signs—and there is always the risk that they will interpret the sign (if indeed it was a sign) incorrectly.

Two other comments from Job (7:9–10) and Ecclesiastes (9:5) suggest the unlikelihood that there could be signs from the dead to the living.

            In the New Testament the situation is similar. I only know two narratives that involve messages from beyond the grave and neither narrative features commonplace events serving as signs whose nonverbal message must be teased out of the event by the receiver’s interpretation. In the early Christian gospels, the narrative of the Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2–10; Matt 17:1–9; Luke 9:28–36) features the deceased figures, Moses and Elijah, who appeared before Jesus (and also James and John) and were talking with him.² There is in the narrative a message from beyond the grave but it is verbal, specific, and narrated by two great figures of Israelite tradition, who personally appear before Jesus. No personal interpretation of a commonplace event is necessary.

The second story is found only in a Lucan narrative about a rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). The situation of the beggar was tragic, while the rich man lived in luxury. Lazarus died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s Bosom and the rich man died and was buried. Through the flames of Hades he still could see Lazarus and requested Father Abram to permit Lazarus to come to his aid and briefly relieve his sufferings but was told that there was a great chasm fixed between them that permitted no passage between each location, nor apparently did the fixed chasm permit Lazarus to deliver a message to the rich man’s five brothers (Luke 16:26–31). This narrative appears to contradict the Transfiguration narrative in that Moses and Elijah apparently found a way to bridge the chasm between Abraham’s Bosom and the Land of the Living.

Paul does describe a trip into the third Heaven and then to Paradise by “a man, in Christ,” “where this man heard things that cannot be told, which a man may not utter” (2 Cor 12:2–4). While not directly on the point of the deceased sending coded signs to be interpreted as messages by the living, it does suggest that what goes on in heaven, must stay in heaven.

If the dead in Hades have been consigned to oblivion in the land of forgetfulness,³ how will they devise and send signs containing nonverbal messages to be interpreted by the living and thus bridge the chasm that was thought to separate Abraham’s Bosom from Hades?

Well, at least, it is something to ponder when you next think you see a sign!

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3^rd ed.; Eerdmans, 2003), 220.

²In Matthew and Mark, the subject of the conversation is unstated but Luke notes that it was about the departure Jesus was to accomplish at Jerusalem (that is his death and ascension, Luke 9:31).

³ See the Wry Guy Blog: Hedrick, “The Land of Forgetfulness.” http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=The+Land+of+Forgetfulness

A Personal Complaint Against Celestial Wisdom

I have a personal complaint against Divine Wisdom (God, if God there be) who manages our tiny solar system on the outer edge of the great Milky Way Galaxy. We have been taught in our religious myths of origin that God created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in it (Gen 1:1–31): male and female, God created them from the same bone and flesh (Gen 2:21–23); and in their coupling they become one (Gen 2:1; cf. 1 Cor 6:16), a supportive, symbiotic relationship. After living together for 60 years or so, couples have so completely bonded that they consider themselves two halves of one whole (at least I did). Such is the case with many happy marriages: the two, now united as one, expect to continue enjoying long lives together, for they have been gifted by the creator with eternity in their minds (Eccl 3:11). Yet one day the union unexpectedly ends with the untimely death of one or the other, leaving the surviving half to cope with life’s issues apart from the whole.

My complaint is this: the breaking-up of long-time intimate unions is wasteful in the extreme. Divine Wisdom should have made a better plan.

As one might surmise, my angry charges against the considerable powers of the universe have gone unnoticed and unaddressed. Complaints about the mismanagement of the universe, however, are not presumptuous for even Jesus complained about the actions of God as he was dying: “My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me.” (Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46)

In the Protestant Old Testament, biblical writers show no hesitation in complaining to the Almighty for perceived mistreatment at God’s hands (so to speak). The Psalter (Israel’s hymnbook), for example, has a type of psalm described as a complaint, or a lament, psalm. Here are few brief examples of complaints from the Psalms:

“My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.” (Ps 22:11 RSV)

“O Lord God of Hosts, how long wilt thou be angry with thy people’s prayers? Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in full measure.” (Ps 80:4-5 RSV)

“Thou hast sold thy people for a trifle demanding no high price for them.” (Ps 44:12 RSV)

Job also complained bitterly of God’s mistreatment of himself and others (see, in particular, Job 9:20–24):

“God has cast me into the mire and I have become like dust and ashes. I cry to thee and thou dost not answer me. I stand and thou dost not heed me. Thou hast turned cruel to me; with the might of thy hand, thou dost persecute me.” (Job 30:19–21 RSV)

“If I sin, what do I do to thee, thou watcher of men? Why hast thou made me thy mark? Why have I become a burden to thee? Why dost thou not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity.” (Job 7:20–21 RSV)

“I am innocent, but God denies me justice. Although I am right, I am considered a liar; although I am guiltless his arrow inflicts an incurable wound.” (Job 34:5–6 NIV)

God responds to Job’s criticisms (Job 38:1—40:2; 40:6—41:34), but God’s response never directly addresses Job’s specific criticisms of God’s behavior. God’s answer boils down to: I am bigger, better, and stronger than you, as Job’s responses seem to acknowledge (Job 49:3–5); so, Job acquiesces (Job 42:1–5).

            In the New Testament, however, the writers are more pious, or cowed, and defend God’s perceived mistreatments of people (Rom 9:14–23; Heb 12:3–11). In the New Testament, there are only two specific complaints against God of which I know; one, the evangelist attributes to Jesus, quoting Psalm 22:11 (Mark 15:34/Matt 27:46), and the other, John attributes to slain martyrs, who complain that God has delayed judgment and not avenged them: “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth.” (Rev 6:10 RSV)

            Does God pay any attention to our complaints about his divine misbehavior, do you suppose? Clearly, in the Old Testament people believed their complaints could have an influence on divine behavior. In the New Testament, however, Paul’s answer to that question is: God does what he wants (Rom 9:14–18) and your perceived mistreatment at God’s hands (so to speak) depends on his mercy.

            That is not a very satisfying response! God’s inconsistent, erratic, or capricious behavior (as suggested by Paul) is a genuine handicap to trusting God to do the right thing.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

Ash Wednesday and Lent

Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, happens on Feb 18 this year. It is a church event that begins a forty-day season of penitence and fasting leading up to the celebration of Easter. On Ash Wednesday ashes are marked on worshipper's foreheads to symbolize they are beginning the Lenten journey. Lent (the word means Springtime) is one of those religious observances of the Christian Church worldwide that I did not experience in my youth.¹ Although some churches in the Anabaptist tradition do observe it,² the Baptist church of my youth did not (First Baptist Church, Greenville, Mississippi, 1940-52). On the other hand, the small Baptist church that I now attend (Grace Baptist, Gladstone, Missouri) does observe it—ashes and all.³

In the fourth century the church invented Lent institutionalizing it with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving as its basis and incorporating these religious acts into the Easter celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Lent has been practiced as 40 days of self-denial, altruism, and spiritual renewal preceding Easter. The Lenten season is promoted as a time of religious renewal, incorporating, as it does, personal contemplation, simple living, and personal honesty. It begins on Ash Wednesday and extends 40 days to resurrection Sunday (this year April 5). The church modeled the 40-day period on Jesus' temptation by Satan in the Wilderness (Mark 1:12–13; compare Matt 4–11/Luke 4:1–13 from the Q tradition). Only Matthew describes it as a period of fasting, however. Luke says that Jesus did not eat during this period. Mark says nothing about food. The difference between dieting and fasting is that fasting is given a religious connotation.

The earliest date for the observance of Lent in Christianity is 325 CE, following the Council of Nicaea, although the custom of fasting in connection with Holy Week goes back to the second century.⁴ Thus, Lent, as such, was not a part of the religious practices of the earliest first-century Jesus-gatherings as reflected in the genuine Pauline letters, for example. Nevertheless, fasting and prayer as a religious exercise were part of the Israelite tradition and hence were practiced in Judea during the time of Jesus (Luke 2:37). In fact, "the practice of fasting is found in all religions" and was "spread across the whole of the ancient world."⁵

Matthew gives a litany of criticisms attributed to Jesus as to how some practiced praying and fasting in Matt 6:1–18. One of these criticisms can easily be applied to the modern Christian practice of Lent, specifically with respect to marking one's face with ashes to indicate that one is observing the Lenten practice of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving:

And whenever you fast do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt 6:17–18 NRSV)

Do some make a parade of their almsgiving? Jesus criticized that practice, as well (Matt 6:1-4).⁶ It is a mystery to me why some churches continue the practice of Ash Wednesday and persist in its observance of ashes on the forehead in the light of these rather pertinent remarks attributed to Jesus.

Another aspect of Lent, mentioned earlier in this essay, is that of self-denial, likely derived from the idea of denying oneself food. The earliest Jesus-followers did practice a kind of self-denial, but it wasn't like the Lenten practice of denying oneself a few things one enjoys for a short period, like not drinking beer or not eating sweets during Lent, for example. Paul described his commitment to Christ as an all-consuming life-commitment; everything else by comparison he considered trash, loss, rubbish (Phil 3:7–11; Luke 9:23–24). Compared to Paul's idea of self-denial, the contemporary observance of Lent pales in comparison—the personal sacrifices are too little, the time frame too short.⁷

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent

²https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anabaptists. Greenville First Baptist belonged to the Southern Baptist Convention.

³Grace Baptist Church belongs to the American Baptist Convention.

⁴https://groundworkonline.com/blog/a-short-version-of-the-long-history-of-lent

⁵J. Behm, "νῆστις" [nēstis, fasting], vol. 4.26 in G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967).

⁶Hedrick, http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=Alms

⁷This essay appeared first on March 24, 2025. It appears here again edited and expanded: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=Lent

Greek Mythology in the New Testament: Tartarus

Here is an interesting question for my friends who regard the Bible as being literally the Word of God, Himself: Must I believe everything written in its pages to be truth revealed from God?* There may be the odd equivocation here and there, but my impression is that religious leaders, whose beliefs about the Bible correspond to what a majority of Southern Baptists are said to believe, would answer that question in the affirmative.¹

There are reports in the Bible, however, that will cause a twenty-first century human being, who has had a basic science course, to pause before answering. One incident that comes immediately to mind is God causing the sun to remain at its zenith in the heavens and not go down for an entire day. Practically, this means the earth pauses in its journey around the sun. The incident is reported in the book of Jashar, which is not in the Bible, but it is also found in Joshua 10:12-14, which is in the Bible. There are also many other things in the Bible that might even tax the incredulity of a generally credulous true believer.²

            There is one passage, however, in Second Peter that, if pondered, just might undermine how most Baptists (and others) view the Bible (well, except for true believers, who are generally disinclined to ponder what they read).

For if God did not spare the angels who had sinned, but delivered them down captive into Tartarus in chains of nether darkness in custody until judgment…(2 Pet 2:4a, my translation)³

The word translated Tartarus is tartarōsas. It does not signify a person, place, or thing; it is a participle from the verbal form tartaroō, describing an action. In this case, "being held captive in Tartarus."

            I don't know of a story in the Bible about angels, who having sinned, were cast into nether darkness into Tartarus, but the Book of Enoch has a report about sinful angels and their fate (1 Enoch 10:4, 11-12).⁴ In Greek mythology Tartarus is both an earth-God (one of the earliest primeval Gods of Greek tradition, Hesiod, Theogony,115-129) and it is also a place, the deepest location beneath the earth. It is

as far beneath the earth as heaven is above the earth; for so far is it from earth to Tartarus. For a brazen anvil falling down from heaven nine nights and days would reach the earth upon the tenth; and again, a brazen anvil falling from earth nine nights and days would reach Tartarus upon the tenth. (Hesiod, Theogony, 721–725)

Tartarus is lower even than Hades. The ancient Greek poet, Homer, describes the distance from Hades down to Tartarus being, "as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth" (Iliad 8. 16). Hades is the abode of the dead and Tartarus is reserved for the enemies of the Gods.

            Hadēs, is another bolt out of the Greek mythological blue: in Greek mythology Hades is also an ancient Greek God and a location beneath the earth, where people are punished for their sins.⁵

            How are believers in the Bible, as in some sense "the Word of God," supposed to handle what are standard features of Greek mythology appearing in the Bible? Are they mandated to take aspects of Greek mythology as God's Word?

            What they believe about these texts does not alter what they are, however: texts written by human beings whose inspiration by God could never be investigated; texts collected by human beings whose names are lost to memory; texts translated into numerous language, human beings choosing the modern language equivalent for the Greek and the Hebrew; texts whose Hebrew and Greek words that appear in the critical text are decided by human beings (text critics) and translators by judicious comparison of the ancient manuscripts that have survived.

            The truth is: the Bible is a collection of selected Hebrew and Greek texts that point toward a particular understanding of God.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Here, for example, is what Southern Baptists say that a majority of Southern Baptists believe about the Scriptures: "The Baptist Faith and Message Statement 2000," https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#i

²See Charles W. Hedrick, "Superstition, faith, and the Marginal Relevance of the Bible" in Unmasking Biblical Faiths. The Marginal Relevance of the Bible for Contemporary Religious Faith (Eugene, Or: Cascade, 2019), 1-12.

³Compare a similar translation in the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a translation that is associated with the Southern Baptists.

⁴See also Gen 5:1-4; Jude 6.

⁵And a regular word for the place of punishment in the New Testament. For example, Hadēs: Matt 11:23, 16:18, Acts 2:31, Rev 1:18. Gehenna (generally translated Hell) is another name for a place of punishment in the New Testament: Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Mark 9:47, Jas 3:6.

What Do Gods Do?

There is more than one God being worshipped around the world, so answering this question will depend on knowing which God one is referring-to and what is being said about that God, since all Gods do not behave alike. With those two caveats stated, this (it seems to me) is the rule: Gods do what they are thought to do—no more, no less! Basically, God is an idea that "exists" in most human minds. Hence, God has no "objectified existence"—that is, an "over-there-ness away from me" that can be pointed-to. God "is" (only in a sense) akin to an invisible immaterial spirit—and even that is too concrete. There is no spot in the entire universe where God can be located as a "material existing thing" as a person might be. Nor is God spread pervasively throughout the universe "in all things." To think in such a way is to objectify God by identifying God in some way with living creatures and plants (flora and fauna), and inanimate objects. A saying in the Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus, however, says precisely that: "Split a piece of wood; I am there. Take up a stone and you will find me there" (77b; cf. Colossians 1:17). All Gods (if Gods there be) do not inhabit a space time continuum in the universe as human beings do.

Primitive societies, however, did make one-to-one identifications between their idols (things representing God) and the spirit of mana thought to infuse their idols. The Greeks and Romans also objectified their Gods, representing them in statuary and even thinking that sometimes the God had taken human form. They even believed their statuary possessed some of the essential power of the God. For example, in the council chamber of the city of Stratonicea (West Coast of Asia Minor) there stood the statues of Zeus and Hecate, which were said in a formal city decree to "perform good deeds of great power." The citizenry celebrated their miracles daily by sacrifice, burning incense, praying, and giving thanks.

Christians, on the other hand, generally have not objectified God, with one noticeable exception. In the 5^th century Nicene Creed Jesus, the Jewish sage, is elevated to "true God of true God" and worshipped and glorified. This is apparently a dual movement consisting of God becoming man and man becoming God: it may be thought of as an instance of divine spirit "infused" into flesh and blood, or the materializing of immaterial divine spirit into human matter. He was not always the Son of God (Rom 1:3).

An easier answered historical question, however, is what is God represented as doing in the Bible? That question can at least be investigated. The Bible is divided into two divisions: Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Among other things these divisions are characterized by two completely different thought worlds: Semitic (Hebrew Bible) and Hellenistic (New Testament). Hebrew Bible describes what God does from the perspective of Old Testament faiths according to Hebrew tradition, and the New Testament, drawing on the Old Testament, describes what earlier followers of Jesus believed about God's behavior from the perspective of New Testament faiths.

"Christian" ideas about what God does come much later as expressed in the early Christian creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries and later, which are not part of the biblical tradition, although Christians argue that both the Hebrew tradition and the early Jesus tradition inform Christian beliefs.

Between the two divisions of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the New Testament lies Jesus of Nazareth. The thought world (how he expressed himself) of Jesus is indebted to the Hebrew/Jewish traditions. Christian theology is partly based on the sayings of Jesus, the Jewish sage, and partly on Graeco-Roman ideas of divinity. The question becomes: according to Jesus, the Jewish sage, what does God do? The most critical sifting of all sayings attributed to Jesus in early Christian literature of the first and second centuries by the Jesus Seminar suggests that there is only modest God-language to be found in the residue of Jesus sayings that survived the lapses of memory of his earliest followers, and what was attributed to him in the piety of the later church. What little there is suggests that God is not sectarian but cares for good people and bad people alike (Matt 5:45b), even to the extent of providing for their daily needs, like feeding and clothing them (Matt 5:25–30; 7:11; 10:29–31). Jesus prayed for the daily provision of the basic necessities of life, as though he himself were indigent (Matt 5:11), and he thought that God's watch-care over the world extended to "numbering the hair on peoples' heads" and micromanaging the deaths of sparrows (Matt 10:29-31). He knows how to give good things to those who ask him (Matt 7:7–11). People of means, on the other hand, will have difficulty entering God's imperial rule (Mark 10:28; Matt 6:24).

When it comes to Gods, the biggest mistake most people make is thinking that their personal beliefs control what God does. As Job said, in a sudden flash of understanding, "Shall we receive good at the hand of God and not evil" (Job 2:10, cf. 30:26). In short, the ways of the Gods (if Gods there be) are inscrutable.¹

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹This essay first appeared on this blog on June 13, 2013. It later appeared in print in Hedrick, Unmasking Biblical Faiths (2019). It appears here again reedited and expanded.

Some Personal Perspectives on Religion

This essay describes a few practical guidelines for engaging religious traditions that have evolved from my personal experience and pondering. So far as I know they are not yet writ in any book; they are personal insights to which I have come through the years. I consider them to be truisms¹ for me in the practice and the study of religions. They are simply commonsense observations of which it is easy to lose sight, particularly in the practice of religion.

What is true in religion depends on whom you ask. There is no ultimate religious truth, but all people hold religious views as seem right to them. Religious truths are not verifiable and that is religion’s Achilles heel, a fact leading to competing religious truths.

Religious faith cannot reasonably demand that I believe whatever I find to be patently false or illogical. Actually, religion does make such truth claims, but, if I think about it, I am under no obligation to believe what I am told, if I find it to be incredulous.

I have discovered through the years that I have no independent knowledge of Gods, spirits, or other supernatural “entities.” I only know what I have read, what others have told me and what I have worked out for myself through my own ponderings. In general, religious professionals are too partisan, in favor of their own set of beliefs, to be trusted with giving unbiased and objective answers to questions about religion. They give answers based on the perspectives of their own personal faith.

I cannot read the minds of those closest to me; so, I never know what others are thinking; even if they tell me what they think, I have no way to verify it. The same is true of literary characters in a narrative. When a reader is told by the narrator what is going on in the mind of a character that is the author putting thoughts in the minds of his characters. In short, do not confuse the literary character of a gospel, for example, with the actual historical figure on which the literary character is based, for literary characters in a narrative are always inventions of authors.

Many believe the Bible to be a Holy collection of texts, divinely inspired. That idea cannot be proven in whole or in part. It is an opinion. What can be proven is that the Bible owes its existence to human ingenuity and labor. The role human beings played in creating the Bible is easily demonstrated. Human beings authored the ancient manuscripts that comprise the Bible. Others gathered them from the literary stream of Western civilization into collections. Scholars (called text critics) decide what the words of your Bible probably originally read from among the ancient copies of manuscripts. And human beings translate these ancient texts into modern languages. Text Critics and translators do not always agree. Hence various translations of the Bible do not agree in all particulars.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Truism: “a statement, the truth of which is obvious or well-known, commonplace.” Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4^th ed., 2002), under “truism.”

Things Jesus may have said

Or perhaps he didn’t say it after all. In Luke 14:1–6 there is a certain disagreement in the manuscript tradition between manuscripts. The question is what is the earliest recoverable reading for Luke 14:5?

And he said to them, “Which of you shall have…or an ox fall into a well, will not immediately draw him/it out on the Sabbath Day?”

Here is the problem: The oldest reading for the missing word in the passage above is uios (son). It pairs up with ox (bous) to make a rather incongruous pair: if your son or your ox falls into a well will you not immediately draw him out? Of course, you would; you would break sabbath laws and rescue your son! Children are a heritage from God, the psalmist believed (Ps 127:3). You have absolutely no choice assuming you are humane, religiously inclined, and concerned about pleasing God. And the saying seems to assume that to be the case on the part of those hearing the saying.

            Later copyists, however, in some manuscripts changed son (uios) to ass (onos) as making a better pairing (compare Luke 13:15) with ox (bous), or changed the word son to sheep (probaton). A few manuscripts even use all three words: son, donkey, sheep.* Since one of the canons of textual criticism is “the more difficult reading is to be preferred,” the preferred reading, text critics aver, appears to be son.**

The similar saying in Luke 13:15 reads:

You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manager, and lead it away to water it?

There is a third saying appearing in Matt 12:11, which reads:

What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?

None of these three sayings, as related as they are in concept and style, have parallels in the other two synoptics.

The Jesus Seminar in its deliberations did not regard Luke 13:15 as originating with Jesus. On the other hand, Luke 14:5 and Matthew 12:11 were given gray ratings.***

The rationale of the Fellows of the Seminar with regard to Luke 14:5 was that the historical Jesus did not debate the finer point of Torah nor did he debate about sabbath observance (like the rabbis). “The Fellows of the Seminar strongly agreed that Jesus did engage in activities that suggested that he had little concern for sabbath observance.”**** His actions, however, could have provoked those who did care about sabbath observance, which could have led to arguments about proper sabbath observance.

            The two earliest texts (P⁴⁵ P⁷⁵) that read “son” are from the third century. This time frame allows for over 100 years from original composition of Luke to the copyists in the third century, during which time texts were copied and altered. In other words, earliest recoverable forms are not the original and are still suspect.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

*Metzger, Textual Commentary, 138–39.

**The King James Version, however, reads ass/donkey, as does the New King James Version.

***See Funk, et al., The Five Gospels, 36. A gray rating indicates: “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.”

****Funk, et al., Five Gospels, 350.

Does God care about Baseball?

Judging from life among the thorns in the Vale of Tears we call earth, it is at least questionable that God is concerned with the minutiae of individual human lives, or for that matter even with the mega problems that plague whole nations on the globe. During the second world war the belt buckles of German soldiers were etched with the slogan, “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). Of course, the allied troops thought the same thing, because they too believed their cause was just. And this clash of claims for God’s concern and support in the enterprises of our lives naturally raises my question about the minutiae of individual lives. For example, the nation cares about baseball. It is referred to as our “national pastime,” part of the minutiae of our lives. But does God care about baseball, about who wins and loses?

            Are we to suppose that God follows baseball and the individual statistics of each athlete, perhaps has a favorite baseball team, and even decides the outcomes of games? I once saw a pitcher, who, after throwing the winning pitch in a baseball game, made the sign of the cross, kissed his fingers, and pointed upward, thanking God for the win. In American popular religion most of us believe God does get involved in the minutiae of human life, even numbering the hairs on certain human heads and deciding the deaths of sparrows (Matt 10:29-30). But with such a complicated universe to run, surely God has weightier concerns than sparrows, hairs in the drain—and the Cardinals/Royals game. In terms of universal importance, which team wins the pennant seems a rather insignificant event. Other events clearly have a more profound impact on human life than baseball games. True, the outcome of a Cardinals/Royals game is more significant than the number of hairs that showed up in my drain this morning, but totally insignificant when compared to the Israeli/Hamas war and the plight of families in the war zone. Some diehard fans may disagree, but in terms of significant impact on human life baseball games fall completely off the radar screen for everyone, except, perhaps, for those involved in the industry.

            It comforts us to think there is a master plan to life. Believing that life is “scripted” helps us cope with tragedy and loss. Life must make sense, and our individual tragedies must have some meaning in the grand scheme of things—or so we insist. Even the death of a butterfly must have a place in God’s “master plan” for the universe. The alternative—thinking that we live in an “unscripted” and arbitrary universe is a frightening concept. In an arbitrary universe no master plan exists. What happens, just happens! Under those conditions, life’s meaning is what each of us makes of the random events that constitute our lives. I personally do not like that alternative and hope, as everyone else, that affairs in my life are part of some grand benevolent design for the universe. Yet, I am a little dubious when someone tells me God spends time counting the hairs in my drain, marking the demise of individual sparrows, or following the progress of a favorite baseball team. Such micromanaging will not work for CEO’s in large organizations—and the universe, if anything, is large. Effective management gives priority to the more significant. In a global crisis, I don’t want to think of God worrying with minutiae, like the welfare of the one barren tomato plant in my garden. Micromanagement on God’s part may be why we have natural disasters, like floods, earthquakes, and epidemics—because God has taken his eyes off the big picture. Other disasters, like wars, are inevitably the result of human contrivance, although even God is given credit for starting wars in the Bible.¹

            One should not too quickly criticize the divine Administrator of the universe, however, since we have only the barest inkling of what’s involved in running the universe. The universe may be unlimited, and if so, that is a lot of turf to cover, even for God—or so God suggested to Job (Job 38–41) when Job bitterly complained that God had treated him unfairly. If God is weighing the outcomes of ballgames and neglecting the causes of war, he has likely fallen out of touch with what is really happening in the universe—or at least in this small corner of an out-of-the-way galaxy. Surely God can find better things to do with his time than ponder the pennant.²

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹See, for example, Numbers 31:1–31, the war God began with the Midianites. Why did God begin the war? See Numbers 25:16–18.

²This essay first appeared sometime before 2006 as an editorial in the Springfield, Missouri Newsleader. It was published later, in 2009 in a collection of essays: Charles W. Hedrick, House of Faith or Enchanted Forest. American Popular Belief in an Age of Reason (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), 7-9. It appears here edited, revised, and updated.

Does God Wink?

The ancient writers of the Bible tended to describe God anthropomorphically, meaning they generally described God as having humanoid characteristics (having an appearance or character resembling that of a human). The ancient Greeks and Romans even represented their Gods as humans in statuary, only the statues were much larger than humans, suggesting they conceived their Gods as oversized humans who behaved in a similar human manner. The ancient Israelites were forbidden to make graven images (Lev 26:1), but that apparently did not stop them from conceiving God anthropomorphically.

My brief comment above points out the difficulty of conceiving and describing Gods (if Gods there be). Language fails when it comes to describing God. In the later New Testament postscript, God is spirit (John 4:24), which means God is unseen (John 1:18).¹ Although the writer of Exodus may have described Moses as having seen God's backside (Exod 33:17-23), spirits don't have backsides, or even front sides, for that matter.

I was prompted to raise the question posited in my title last week when a checker (a fiftyish attractive lady) at the grocery store winked at this nonagenarian. It has happened before with grocery store checkers, usually accompanied by a term of endearment with which one would address a child, like "sweetie" (a sort of tribute to my advanced age). But in this case, the wink did not seem age-related. I am told there are many reasons one may wink. It is after all a non-verbal act, so the wink's recipient must guess its meaning.

            Here is what I got from Google's AI when I googled winking:

People wink to communicate subtly, expressing things like friendliness, sexual interest, or that they're not being serious. It can also be a way of indicating shared knowledge or a secret. Essentially, winking is a deliberate, subtle signal that can convey various meanings depending on the context.²

There are at least three words in the Bible of which I am aware that translators have rendered into English using the word "wink." In Hebrew, they are qarats (Ps 35:19, Prov 6:13, 10:10) and razzam (Job 15:12). In the New Testament the Greek huperoraō (Acts 17:30), and in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books there is one, the Greek word dianeuō (Sirach 27:22). None of the passages in Hebrew Bible represent God winking, but they all portray winking as a negative act. For example, Sirach 27:22 RSV reads, "He that winks with the eyes works evil…"

To judge from the several English translations on my shelf, only the King James Version of 1611 represents God as winking (Acts 17:30), a translation rejected by the New King James Version of 1982 that reads "overlooked" for huperoraō. The Bauer/Danker Greek-English Lexicon (3^rd ed., 2000) recommends as translations for huperoraō: "to indulgently take no notice of, overlook, disregard." It appears that the 1611 King James Version has translated the Greek by rendering huperoraō metaphorically, for "to wink at" is defined in the dictionary as "to pretend not to see, as in connivance"³—or to disregard. The Modern Greek version of Acts 17:30 reads in part: Ho Theos pareblepse to chronia tēs agnoias (God turns a blind eye to the times of their ignorance…"), which is another metaphorical way of saying "winks at" or disregards.⁴

Does God wink? Well if he has eyes, as some biblical writers seemed to think (Gen 6:3; Deut 11:12; 2 Chron 16:9; Amos 9:8; Heb 4:13), I suppose he could have managed a wink or two. The biblical writers do not chronicle God's activities 24/7.

Describing God as having human feelings and physical characteristics, is surely far off the mark. God (if God there be) is the Indescribable Other, whom "no one has ever seen" (John 1:18). The fact of the matter is that we only know about God from what we read and from what others tell us, or from what we conjecture, which is surely conditioned by information from reading and the testimony of others.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Hedrick, Unmasking Biblical Faiths, 172-77.

²Compare Wikipedia's statement on winking" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wink

³Webster's New World College Dictionary, under wink.

⁴A metaphor is describing one thing in terms appropriate for another thing—like describing God in terms appropriate for a human being.