All posts by jbair

The Day that the Lord Did Make

The Day that the Lord Did Make

  • One of the most remarkable prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures points to the coming of the Messiah to the city of Jerusalem to the very day.

Have you ever sung the chorus, “This is the day that the Lord has made,/We will rejoice and be glad in it”? Or perhaps you have recited it in church or have read it in the Bible?

We sing , speak, or read it and apply it to the day we are having. That is fine, but when it was written, the Holy Spirit had another day in mind. A day that was yet to come, but one which David and the righteous inhabitants of Jerusalem were looking forward to.

What the Original Psalm Says

That chorus about the day that the Lord has made is taken from Psalm 118. Even today it is part of what is sung as the Passover Praise or Hallel, Psalms 113 through 118. It is reasonable to assume that when Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn after the Passover meal (Mark 14:26), the hymn was one or all of these praise Psalms. Long before Jesus’ ministry they were associated with Passover in the minds of the Jewish people.

Let’s review part of what Psalm 118 says:

I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the Lord has done. The Lord has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death. Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord through which the righteous may enter. I will give you thanks for you have answered me; you have become my salvation.

The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

O Lord, save us; O Lord, grant us success. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. From the house of the Lord we bless you. The Lord is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar. (Psalm 118:17-27)

That is where the clause “This is the day that the Lord has made” came from. What does it mean? Jesus Himself gives us a clue.

What Jesus Said the Psalm Meant to Him

There is one time when Jesus refers to these verses. Jesus was teaching and debating in the Temple during Passover preparation the day after Palm Sunday. He had told a parable about the owner of a vineyard who let his tenants run the vineyard. They persecuted the owner’s servants and, finally, killed his son. Then Jesus said:

Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, it is marvelous in our eyes”? (Matthew 21:42).

Jesus had this verse in mind. Certainly He is applying it to Himself, to the son whom the tenants kill, to the stone rejected by the builders. He emphasizes that the Lord has done it, and it is marvelous, amazing.

It would be most appropriate for Jesus to refer to this passage considering the events of the day before. Jesus had entered Jerusalem on a donkey, and crowds greeted him, spreading branches on the road and crying out, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 21:8,9).

What Does Hosanna Mean?

Look at what the people said. Precisely the words of Psalm 118, verse 26. Those verses were understood to refer to the Messiah. They were not meant for anyone else, since he alone was the “righteous” who “may enter.” They were also repeating the words to Psalm 118 in their shout, “Hosanna!” Hosanna is the Aramaic for the Hebrew hosahanna. The words, which would have been familiar to any Jew because they are part of the Hallel, the first words of verse 25 of Psalm 118. They mean, “Save us,” or “Please save us.” (If the crowd were saying the Hebrew word, hosanna could also be the New Testament Greek rendering, as the Greek pronunciation or transliteration is always a bit different from the original.)

So the people of Jerusalem were calling out to Jesus as he entered. They were recognizing him as the righteous one who could enter in the name of the Lord. And, using the language of Psalm 118, they were asking Him to save them. Only God’s Messiah could save.

Psalm 118 – Triumph and Sacrifice

Looking back to Psalm 118, we can begin to see that Psalm 118 is prophetically significant. Jesus was blessed by the people “out of the house of Lord,” as we are told He was acclaimed right into the Temple (Matthew 21:15). So Psalm 118 describes a procession, a triumphal procession, where the Messiah, the King, the Son of David is recognized.

Note one other thing in Psalm 118. The procession described in the Psalm is joyful. The people are glad and full of praise. But the procession ends at the altar. The procession ends at the Temple, yes, but it is, in reality, like Passover, a sacrificial celebration. “With boughs in hand, join the festal procession up to horns of the altar.”

Yes, the boughs are in hand. The one who saves is coming. But the procession ends at the horns of the altar. The procession ends in sacrifice. The one being acclaimed is the King, but he is also the victim, the bound Lamb slain on the altar.

That is amazing. That is something only the Lord could do. It is marvelous. Palm Sunday was Jesus’ “triumphal entry,” but only Jesus seemed to know that it would end his sacrificial death. Yet, that is precisely what the Psalmist was describing.

Jesus’ “Triumphal Procession” to the City

We are told in Luke that the procession began on the Mount of Olives which is to the east of Jerusalem. Jesus rode down the Mount, across the brook Kidron, and into one of the city gates which leads to the Temple (presumably the Golden Gate which has been closed now for centuries).

As He looked upon the city from the Mount, He wept. He wept for Jerusalem “because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:44) The King James Version says “the day of the Lord’s visitation.”

What did He mean by that? Jesus had come to Jerusalem may times before. Why was this particular day “the time of God’s coming”?

In John’s account of the triumphal entry, he reminds us that this was a fulfillment of what the prophet Zechariah had written.

Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written:
Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt. (John 12:14,15; Zechariah 9:9)

The prophet had seen Zion’s king coming on a donkey. Here was the fulfillment. In Zechariah 9:9 we have the added words, “Your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation.” He is the Messiah, the King. He is righteous. He has salvation. It is right to say Hosanna to Him. The crowd shouting “Hosanna” and Psalm 118 understood this.

The Purpose of the Procession – Sacrifice and Covenant

Zechariah continues in a vein similar to Psalm 118. “As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit” (Zechariah 9:11). Just as the context of Psalm 118 includes sacrifice, so Zechariah tells us that the Lord’s covenant includes blood. Zechariah also emphasizes that the salvation of Messiah is not just for Jews or Jerusalem:

He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:10)

So, yes, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was described prophetically in at least two different places, the Psalms and Zechariah. This was certainly a day that the Lord wanted His people to recognize and remember.

We should also note that when Jesus entered the Temple, he threw down the tables of the moneychangers (Matthew 21:12,13). This is often called “the cleansing of the Temple.” That would be most appropriate for a procession which would end at the horns of the altar. Before a sacrifice could be made, the altar had to be cleansed. The Temple had become corrupt. It had to be purged in spirit before the perfect sacrifice could be made.

Jesus’ discussions and debates in the Temple area from Palm Sunday to His arrest point to His ministry that week even more. One other Psalm Jesus quoted besides Psalm 118 was Psalm 110. It was the Scripture that silenced his opponents.

Psalm 110 – Messiah as Son of David and Priest

Jesus was reminding his opponents that He was the Son of David, as the crowds had proclaimed. He then went on:

“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”‘ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:42-46).

Jesus is clearly claiming that Messiah, whoever He may be, is God. But he is also saying that He is the One because He is the Son of David who has fulfilled prophecy. But that Psalm He quoted also makes another claim about Messiah.

Like the passage from Zechariah, the Psalm emphasizes Messiah’s rule, but it also tells us:

The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are priest forever, in the order of Melchizidek.” (Psalm 110:4)

So the Messiah will be a priest. Not a priest in the line of Aaron, but in the order of Melchizedek. So part of Jesus’ ministry is that of priest, where He would have to come to the Temple. By His sacrificial death on the Cross, He also interceded for us. He brought salvation as the prophet said.

The Priesthood of Melchizedek

Melchizedek was a different priest, though. We read about him in a few verses in Genesis where we are told two things about who he was.

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram. (Genesis 14:18,19)

He was priest. He was also king. And not just any king, but the king of Salem, or Jerusalem. (The prefix “Jeru-” just means “city.” Salem was probably not a yet city in Abram’s day.) So Messiah would be a priest, but also king of Jerusalem.

Who was the next king of Jerusalem we read about after Melchizedek? David, of course. And Jesus was the heir to David. So Jesus was declaring not only His religious authority, but His right to Judah, and even more specifically to Jerusalem. Yet Jerusalem, He had said, did not recognize when her king was coming.

Jesus’ Ancestry Not in Dispute

It is also worth pointing out that in all the opposition to Jesus, no one is recorded who seriously disputed His ancestry. Earlier in His ministry some people questioned this in John 7:42. But the issue was not brought up again. Indeed, Temple records would have shown both Jesus’ ancestry and his birthplace. He was a descendant of David. No one rebuked His followers for saying that.

The Timing of the Coming of the King

There is one more very specific prophecy concerning the Anointed king coming to Jerusalem. It sheds light on Psalm 118 and Zechariah 9. It also is a solid demonstration of the accuracy of Bible prophecy.

Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Daniel 9:25,26)

This prophecy is remarkable for several reasons. It tells us that the Anointed One, the Messiah, will be “cut off” or killed. It also tells us that He will come before the city and the Temple are destroyed. This means the Messiah had to have come before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. It also tells us Messiah would not only die, but be killed. The only way He could still be a “priest forever” would be if there is a resurrection.

In addition, the prophecy sets a date for the coming of the Anointed One to Jerusalem comes as ruler and savior. The “sevens” or, in some translations, “weeks”, (the Hebrew is the same) mean here “seven years.” If it is 62+7, or 69, times seven years from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem till Messiah’s coming, we should be able to figure out the date He would appear to the city.

The Prophetic Calendar

This is complicated slightly because it appears that whenever the Scripture uses years for computing, it uses 360-day or “lunar” years. We see this from the Book of Genesis (7:11,24; 8:3,4) where five months is 150 days to the Book of Revelation (12:6,14; 13:5) where 1260 days equal three and a half years. This means that the 69 times 7, or 483, are lunar years. Converting 483 lunar years to the 365.24-day solar years which we use today, we get 476 years, 25 days, and about six hours.

The order to rebuild and restore which specifically mentioned Jerusalem’s streets and defenses was issued in 444 B.C. This was in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes of Persia who gave the order to Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 2:1 and 2:7-10). The walls were clearly built in “distressing times” because much of the Book of Nehemiah tells of the opposition he encountered, and that even the construction workers had to wear swords.

We can even date the exact date of the order to rebuild because common Jewish practice was to date official orders from the first of the of the year. The order was given in the month of Nisan according to Nehemiah 2:1. Nisan is the beginning of spring, the month of Passover, and corresponds to our March or early April. This is the first month of the year according to Numbers 28:16.

The months in the Jewish calendar begin on the day of the New Moon. From astronomical calculations of the phases of the moon, we know that Nisan 1 in 444 B.C. was March 4 in our calendar. 476 solar years and 25 days from the fourth of March 444 B.C. comes out to Sunday, March 29, A.D. 33. That was the Sunday before Passover in the year 33–the likeliest date for the triumphal entry.1

The prophecy of Daniel computed Messiah’s entry to the very day!

Not only was Jesus “the Lamb slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), but God had foretold the very day in which He would come as King to present Himself to the city for sacrifice. No wonder Jesus could emphatically call that day as Jerusalem’s day of visitation. No wonder Jesus could say to those who told Him to tell His followers to be quiet: “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” (Luke 19:40)

That was the day of Messiah’s coming. That was the day the people of the city recognized Him as King and Savior. That was the day that branches were cut down in a procession which led to the Temple, and, ultimately to the altar of sacrifice. That day had been designated to the very day centuries before. That was the day that the Lord had made!

Postscript: What We Can Learn from This?

This is an example of remarkable dating of events from the Bible. There are others, and they all point to the uniqueness of Bible prophecy. This shows us a few things about what we can and cannot do about date-setting, especially end-times date-setting.

First, it is important to understand that as far as we can tell, no contemporary of Jesus, other than Jesus Himself, was using the prophecy of Daniel to count the years very specifically. The Bible does give us a sense that some Jews were aware that they might be living in Messianic times. The prophet Simeon, who prophesied over the infant Jesus, was one such person. The Talmud tells us that certain events in Judea, especially the complete Roman takeover of the government in A.D. 6, made some Jews mourn that Messiah had not come in spite of the loss of Jewish sovereignty. John the Baptist certainly attracted a following with his message of repentance and the coming of the Kingdom.

However, there is nothing to indicate that any of these would have been counting days or years from Daniel. Daniel himself, we are told, was apparently the one Jew who recognized that the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah were coming to a close. Clearly, this did not matter to a majority of Jews, as most of them stayed in Babylon. A minority of probably fewer than ten percent resettled the Holy Land. Since Daniel is described as a leader of the Persian wise men, it is certainly a possibility that the Magi who came from the East were familiar with Daniel’s writings. That could explain why they sought the King of the Jews, but the Bible is silent on that.

Jesus tells us to be ready at all times because we do not know when the Lord will return. He emphasized in Acts 1:6 and 7 that it is not for us to know:

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

And he said unto them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

As we have seen, Jesus said that even He did not know:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

It would not be surprising that in the future heavenly kingdom, the Lord might show various prophecies which point specifically to the timing of the Day of the Lord. But, like the prophecy of the weeks of Daniel, or those prophecies concerning Messiah’s origins, we really will not understand them until they come to pass.

Second, God is precise. There are certain things that will happen as the end approaches. The Bible gives us a lot of indications. A number of passages have the phrase, “In the latter days,” or “In the last days,” or “In the day of the Lord.” We can look for patterns and expect certain signs.

Since certain passages in Revelation speak precisely of 1290 days and three and a half years, whenever those events come to pass, it may be possible for alert believers to come close to understanding when those days will be over. There have been a number of books, both fiction and non-fiction, which purport to set scenarios for those last years. There is so much symbolism, and so many similar but not identical prophecies, that I believe it is impossible to predict much now. As they come to pass, that may change.

Third, God is in control. He has shown things to his servants the prophets. (Hebrews 1:1) The flow of history has God behind it. How much is human will and how much is God’s permission, I am at a loss to say. However, God can see the beginning from the end. He knows what will happen.

Fourth, the church can be strong because the God of the Bible is true. We can have confidence in what the Bible foretells. It may be delayed. It may not make complete sense to us until after the fact, but the world has a destined meeting time with Jesus. As the time draws near and we become more aware of the tribulation around us, we can be excited. Those who are not submitted to the Lordship of Jesus have time to do so before it is too late. The Lord will return for a vigorous church. People will see and know the difference between what God promises and what “the world” promises.

Jesus rules.

Note

1 There are a number of reasons why A.D. 33 is the likeliest year apart from this prophecy. Passover began that year on a Thursday evening. We are told that Jesus was approximately 30 years old when He began His public ministry, and he ministered publicly for about three to four years. When Dionysus (or Dennis) Exiguus computed the birth year of Jesus in the year 535, he assumed Jesus was 33 at the time of His crucifixion. This is why the year A.D. 1 was set when it was. Some external evidence today suggests Dennis may have missed the birth date by a few years, but he was working backwards from the death date. (This is mostly from the assumed death date of Herod the Great, but a recent study showed that the oldest printed version of Josephus contained a copyist’s error when compared to all manuscripts, and Josephus’s record gives us that date.) A.D. 33 also corresponds well with the various political events mentioned in the Gospels – Tiberius as Emperor, Herod and Herodias, John the Baptist, Pilate as a beleaguered governor, among others. It also has been noted that during the Passover in A.D. 33 there was a total lunar eclipse (perhaps the “blood moon” referred to in Acts 2:20) which actually began at 3:00 p.m. Friday. In Jerusalem the rising moon was already in eclipse.

Bibliography

Collver, Albert. Calendar Explorer. St. Louis: C.H.P. Software, 1996. Software. Available: <http://www.softlookup.com/display.asp?id=6110>.

Hoehner, Harold. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1977. Print.

Jones, Floyed Nolen. Chronology of the Old Testament. 16th Ed. Green Forest AR: Master Books, 2005. Print.

Larson, Frederick A.The Star of Bethlehem. 2015. Web. 12 December 2006. <http://www.bethlehemstar.com/>.

McDowell, Josh. Daniel in the Critics’ Den. San Bernardino CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979. Print.

Copyright©1999 James Bair, All rights reserved.

Live Right and Find Happiness – Review

Dave Barry. Live Right and Find Happiness. New York: Putnam, 2015. Print.

This is going to be a short review because I was too easily distracted reading this book. Dave Barry is one of the funniest writers around. Live Right and Find Happiness is ostensibly written to his fourteen-year-old daughter about safe driving, sports, and how to live a fulfilling life. I lost track at the number of times I laughed out loud reading this book. As I write this, my wife is reading it and I hear guffaws coming from her direction occasionally.

Live Right and Find Happiness does contain some scatological language, but it mostly features Barry’s typical humor style—hyperbole. Good hyperbole always has an element of truth in it. So, for example, he tell us that when his daughter was two and joined him watching American football on television she said:

When the teams lines up: “Ready!”
When the ball is snapped: “Fall down!”

Read this and have a lot of fun—especially if there is a specific sport you hate (he nails all the biggies) or you have your doubts about either the news media or the Russians. Who doesn’t?

A Note on the Sad Puppies and Wired

While I am not a true Science Fiction fan, I do enjoy reading some from time to time as anyone who read this blog may realize. I heard about a protest over the Hugo awards and asked a friend who is a true Sci-Fi fan about it. It turned out she was a Sad Puppy supporter and had been turned off by the preachy political correctness of recent Hugo and Nebula winners.

I only mention this because my friend is (1) female and (2) a programmer—precisely the kind of person the latest issue (Nov. 2015) of Wired magazine was trying to promote. The issue had a number of articles lamenting the preponderance of white and Asian males in tech jobs. There was an article about a group called Black Girls Code and another about a female Mixed Martial Arts champion and a couple about technical people involved in the Black Lives Matter movement. All were attempts to illustrate women and minorities who stood out in fields where they were a significant minority.

It also had an article about the Sad Puppies, the informal group that was protesting some of the recent Hugo and Nebula awards because of their political correctness and lack of engaging story lines. To illustrate a supposedly typical sad puppy, they interviewed a sci-fi fan who lives in the Italian Alps and sounds (if the reporting is accurate) like a true bigot. Come on! This was a hatchet job from the get-go! Wired has done a lot better. Perhaps instead of interviewing normal sad puppies like my friend, Wired wanted to show off some political correctness, and decided that gunning for an award was more important than getting the facts straight.

Some people do like to read stories without being lectured to or preached at. It does not mean that they are bigots.

Bunker Hill – Review

Nathaniel Philbrick. Bunker Hill. New York: Viking, 2013. Print.

Do not be misled by the title. Bunker Hill is about the beginnings of the American Revolution in the Boston area. It is divided into nearly equal thirds.

The first third of Bunker Hill is about the events leading up to the battle. It begins, after a little background (e.g., the 1761 Writs of Assistance), with the arrival of occupying troops to Boston in 1768. It reminds us that the American Revolution was not a Rousseauvian romantic re-structuring of society, but a genuine attempt to regain the governments and rights that had gradually been taken away. We are reminded of the 1676 Massachusetts constitution. I was reminded of Ben Franklin’s reaction to a British Lord’s view of the king in 1757.

Bunker Hill includes the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the March on Salem, Lexington, Concord, Paul Revere, and Chelsea Creek. If the reader has never heard of these things, this is a good place to start. Philbrick makes these events come alive and helps us understand both sides.

The provincials (Philbrick’s preferred term) of Massachusetts began meeting secretly in a ruling body outside of Boston after the King closed the legislature and set up martial law. Philbrick records some of the deliberations. The provincials did not keep written records of the meetings to help avoid any English reprisals. We only know about them because in the 1930s the correspondence of General Gage, the military governor, was rediscovered. A spy had passed the deliberations on to him. (For a detailed history of the independent Massachusetts legislatures and county conventions see Ray Raphael’s The First American Revolution.)

While Bunker Hill tells us a lot about many of the patriot leaders like John and Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Israel Putnam, Artemas Ward, William Prescott, Henry Knox, and others, it devotes more of the first two thirds of the book to Dr. Joseph Warren. He seemed to be everywhere, and he was the leader that nearly everyone in Boston, including the British hierarchy, respected. John Quincy Adams, seven years old in 1775, would recall the doctor fondly for saving his right hand through his medical skills. At least one person who lived in Boston during the siege and observed both sides said that if Warren had lived, Washington would have been “an obscurity.” (248)

The details concerning the politics and the fighting before Bunker Hill really show us how the British occupiers and New England “Yankees” came to such an impasse.

I had never made the connection that the British General Hugh Percy, who led one of the units to Concord and back in April 1775, was the 31-year-old Duke of Northumberland and a direct descendant of Hotspur and the rebels of Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I. Because I grew up in a small suburb of Boston (still semi-rural at the time), I recognized family names of many of the provincials in Bunker Hill. Most of the schools in our town were named after Revolutionary War soldiers who had lived there—some appear in this book. The book also mentions Nathaniel Ames of Dedham, Massachusetts, a key figure in Charles Slack’s book reviewed here recently.

Philbrick notes that many of the most capable provincial soldiers like Washington and Putnam were veterans of the French and Indian War. They knew about fighting in their own territory, and that is likely a major cause of the English underestimating the opposition. Henry Knox was too young to have fought in that war, but as a bookseller he had read many military manuals and would prove to be an effective engineer and artilleryman.

The middle third or so of the book is about the actual Battle of Bunker Hill. It notes the actions leading up to the attack, Gage’s decision to fight the militias camped in Charlestown, and how it took three attacks for the British regulars to take the hills. We are reminded the actual battle took place on Breed’s Hill. Bunker Hill was the taller hill that overlooked it.

We are told how New Hampshire’s John Stark, a veteran of Rogers’ Rangers, and Connecticut’s Thomas Knowlton built fortifications and led men on the provincial left that completely prevented the elite Welsh Fusiliers from making a flank attack. Philbrick also reconstructs as best he can the death of Dr. Warren—shot in the head at close range by an officer’s pistol.

The last third of the book, then, describes the siege of Boston. Though the British won Charlestown and Bunker Hill in this battle, they had so many casualties that they could go no farther. They also had burned most of the houses in Charlestown, so there was not much left for their martial law to rule over.

A few weeks after Bunker Hill, George Washington arrived in Cambridge with a commission to organize an army under the auspices of the Continental Congress. Washington, Ward, and others would construct siege fortifications surrounding Boston and Charlestown. Back then both towns were on peninsulas that had very narrow necks connecting them to the mainland. By early winter provincial privateers had successfully kept even most shipping out of Boston Harbor.

Colonel Knox ably transported sixty-odd British cannon from Fort Ticonderoga in New York to Dorchester Heights, a third peninsula south of Boston overlooking the city at such a height that artillery from Boston could not reach it. The whole time Washington wanted to attack Boston, but his other generals who were mostly New Englanders did not want to see Boston destroyed. Besides, even Washington admitted that they were low on gunpowder.

On the evening of March 4 into the morning of March 5, 1776, Knox, Quartermaster Thomas Mifflin, French and Indian War veteran John Thomas, and 800 soldiers constructed a fort with cannon on Dorchester Heights. The British in Boston could not believe what they saw when they awoke the next morning. One British officer wrote that it was “and expedition equal to that of the Genii belonging to Aladdin’s wonderful lamp.” (280) General Howe thought the provincials did more in one night “than his whole army would have done in six months.” (280) The British estimated that the Continental Army must have had 15 to 20 thousand men just to build the fort.

Though this reviewer never knew the details, he knew enough of Boston tradition to know that this was the beginning of the end for England in Boston. They were suffering. They were nearly completely cut off by land and sea. Sunday, March 17, 1776, is celebrated to this day not only as St. Patrick’s Day (Philbrick tells us that there were enough Irish Protestants in Boston to celebrate this holiday since 1737) but also as Evacuation Day.

In passing, Philbrick notes that while Washington was in Massachusetts, Phillis Wheatley wrote her poem “To His Excellency George Washington” and mailed it to him. (“Your Excellency” was the standard way to address generals.) Washington let a lot of personal correspondence unopened for months. When he finally read her poem in February of 1776, he wrote back complimenting her and telling her that if she were ever near his headquarters, “I shall be happy to see a person so favored by the muses.” (278)

There is a very moving epilogue, just a few pages, that tells of June 17, 1843, when the Bunker Hill Monument was dedicated. We see it from the perspective of a now-aged John Quincy Adams who had heard the fighting from his home in Quincy when he was seven and could now hear the pomp and circumstance from the same vantage point.

The Battle of Bunker Hill’s casualty list was high. The Americans had 115 killed and 305 wounded. General Howe would say of Dr. Warren’s death, “This victim was worth five hundred of their men.” Philbrick notes that this is “high praise indeed.” (230) Of the 2,200 British regulars involved, 1,054 had been killed or wounded. General Howe would write, “The success is too dearly bought.” (230) It would be the bloodiest battle of the entire Revolutionary War—and independence had not even been declared!

Several people over the years had recommended books by Nathaniel Philbrick to me. I believe his The Mayflower was the last book my father read (on tape, by then he was unable to hold books for any length of time) before he passed away, a patriot to the end. Bunker Hill was so well done in so many way, I am sure that it will not be the not be the last book by him that I will read, God willing.

Signing Their Lives Away – Review

Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnese. Signing Their Lives Away. Philadelphia: Quirk Books, 2009. Print.

Signing Their Lives Away is subtitled The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence. It contains brief biographies of each of the fifty-six signers arranged by state north to south. It tells its stories with a certain amount of history and lots of trivia.

It is clear that one of the authors’ motivations is to set the record straight. Other similar accounts, they claim, either said things that were mistake or unproven. If anything, Signing Their Lives Away goes in the opposite direction by denying things that were recorded by reliable sources.

So some have said that New Hampshire’s Josiah Bartlett had his home burned by the British during the war. Actually, it was burned by a Tory mob in1774. Although the authors at times seem almost pro-British, we do note that yes, there were sometimes Tory mobs in the colonies, too.

The authors suggest that Ben Franklin really never conducted his kite experiment. It was simply an untested hypothesis he got credit for. It makes this writer wonder why Franklin invented the lightning rod, then, on an untested hypothesis.

They even question whether Delaware’s Caesar Rodney made his overnight ride to Philadelphia to cast the vote which approved the Declaration. As proof to the authors that this event did occur, I will use the Miracle on 34th Street argument. The United States Postal Service issued a postage stamp commemorating the event. Would the Postal Service celebrate something that did not happen?

Two signers, though, really did have a rough time of it during the war. Both were from New Jersey, where the king’s troops were stationed for many years. Abraham Clark had at least two sons captured by the British with at least one dying on a prison hulk. John Hart was on the run, even spending time in caves, when British soldiers were in his neck of the woods.

We also learn that Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey designed the American flag. Betsy Ross, wife of signer George Ross’s nephew, may have sewn a flag and likely does get credit for cutting the five-pointed stars. Hopkinson’s stars had six points.

I always wondered about Richard Stockton, who has a New Jersey Turnpike rest area named after him. Since a couple other Jersey rest areas are named after writers (viz., Walt Whitman and Joyce Kilmer) for a long time I thought that rest area was named after the author of “The Lady or the Tiger” until they put up a plaque explaining who their Richard Stockton was.

We are reminded that the Declaration of Independence, while largely written by Thomas Jefferson, was officially drafted by a committee which included Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and John Adams. Signing Their Lives Away tells us that Franklin actually suggested the adjective self-evident to describe the truths of natural law named in the Declaration. That makes sense from what he said about the Bible in his Autobiography—that, in so many words, many of the Bible’s truths are self-evident also.

The library where I found Signing Their Lives Away files it with Young Adult books. That is appropriate for the reading level. It would be accessible for short reports on many of the Founders. Most of the entries are three to five page sketches.

The book contains some curiosities. It has a list of the men who presided over the United States in Congress under the Articles of Confederation. These ten men technically were presidents of the United States before George Washington. It has a quotation from King George III in reaction to the Declaration.

It also notes that six men signed both the Declaration and the Constitution; three signed those two documents plus the Articles of Confederation; and Roger Sherman of Connecticut signed those three plus the Articles of Association, which established the Continental Congress in 1774. The book calls him the Über-Signer.

There are a few minor questions or quibbles. At one point Signing Their Lives Away speaks of “some British soldiers who fired into an angy mob, killing five colonists.” (26, 27) For some reason—political correctness? pro-Tory sympathies?—it does not name this incident by what history books usually call it: the Boston Massacre. It is also not clear that the authors were aware that the British Empire did not change from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar until 1752. A few times when Signing Their Lives Away notes that a date of an event is uncertain, it may because it occurred before 1752 and different accounts use different calendars.

Signing Their Lives Away is a light read, but it does help us appreciate our founders in spite of personal shortcomings that the book seems all too happy to point out. Back in 1965 Bob Dylan sang, “I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.” Signing Their Lives Away demonstrates that his lament still applies.

Flash – Review

Rachel Anne Ridge. Flash. Carol Stream IL: Tyndale, 2015. Print.

Flash is subtitled The Homeless Donkey Who Taught Me about Life, Faith, and Second Chances. The book has a kind of cutesy cover of a donkey holding a daisy in its mouth—like Ferdinand, the bull with the delicate ego? The donkey itself is not especially cute, nor is the book named after him. As I was reading Flash, I was not thinking of the typical adopted animal book. Such books can be sentimental and entertaining. For example, I still think Old Yeller is one of the saddest movies ever made.

For one thing, Flash is not really a chronological tale—at least, not after the first chapter which tells us how the Ridge family from the same Texas country town as American sniper Chris Kyle took in an abandoned young donkey and named it Flash. It is not even like Wesley the Owl (a personal favorite) which, like this book, deals with some hard questions. It may sound odd, but Flash the book reminded me of Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

As Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance examined the question of what it means to do something well, so Flash examines what it means to live life well. The donkey Flash seemed to know how to get the most out of the circumstances of his life, and with the author’s help we can learn to make the most of ours. One chapter compares the thousands who turned out for Chris Kyle’s funeral procession with the services for a lonely old lady who died with no family and only a hospice nurse in attendance. How can we make our life count? It is not by being rich or famous. Jesus called it an abundant life. (John 10:10)

Flash is not especially didactic or preachy. Indeed, my favorite line from the book is actually a quotation from C. S. Lewis: “Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes, but when you look back, everything is different.” (178) That is one of Ridge’s main themes. We do change. But if we head in the direction of the life well lived, changes will happen, and the important changes will be good. We might not always be aware of them, but we will be able to look back and say, “What a journey! Isn’t life most interesting?”

I should mention, too, that while the book does mention a few deaths as already noted, the donkey lives. According to the author’s blog, Flash is still alive. So, no, this is not like Old Yeller or The Yearling or countless cat and dog tales where the pet dies at the end. Flash does not ignore the reality of death, but it is primarily a celebration of life…with hints on how to enjoy your own.

The Worst Class Trip Ever – Review

Dave Barry. The Worst Class Trip Ever. New York: Disney, 2015. Print.

I confess I have not entirely forgiven Dave Barry for giving up his newspaper column. His articles/stories/fairy tales were lots of fun. Many a Sunday they cheered me up. I once wrote him a letter, to which he kindly replied. Now he has come out with a YA book in the style which made him famous.

The Worst Class Trip Ever tells of Wyatt and Matt and a few other friends on their eighth grade class trip to Washington DC. The school where I teach took eighth graders to Washington for many years, and some years wild stories would circulate afterwards. This book looked like it could be fun. It was.

Wyatt tells the story. Right from the beginning we get a sense of what the story is going to be like. Eighth graders are canny. Some would argue that they are the smartest people in the world. But eighth graders also tend to be hyperactive and rarely consider the consequences of their actions. One teacher at my school said that if schools were smart, they would just give eighth graders a sabbatical. It is about time they had one anyhow.

Wyatt tells us right at the beginning:

Don’t get me wrong: Matt is my best friend. But he can be an idiot. But when we were in kindergarten, pretty much all the boys were idiots, so he did not stand out so much, and we became best friends. So now, even though we’re in eighth grade, and he’s sometimes unbelievably annoying, I’m kind of stuck with him.(3)

Another friend is Cameron, a boy whose personal hygiene is erratic and who has the enviable skill (at least to eighth grade boys) of being able to pass gas on demand. Yeah, and Wyatt has a crush on the beautiful Suzana, who, like most eighth grade girls, is a head taller than the boys, so she goes out with one of the few tall boys in the class.

(I recall one year an opposing coach challenged our school’s junior high girls’ basketball team. He claimed that the girls were too tall to be in junior high—the opposite of Chinese gymnastics, I guess. But all the girls were indeed in seventh or eighth grade.)

The eighth grade boys, of course, can’t stay still or keep their mouths shut on the airplane and pretty soon find themselves at odds with a couple of foreigners on the same flight from Miami to Washington. One is a big, burly guy with tattooed arms. His companion is a slight, long-haired man with a very unusual-looking electronic device. The boys’ imaginations go wild, and they begin to think these guys are terrorists.

The story gets wilder and funnier. Dave Barry does have a highly developed sense of humor. As the story comes to a climax, though, it is almost like something from Tony Abbot’s Danger Guys stories—breathless action that is barely believable but quite entertaining.

Some of the humor is straight from a textbook on how to be an eighth grader. A friend is not on the bus? When the teacher is doing the head count, ask for help in opening a window. While the teacher is helping, have someone in front sneak to the back. He gets counted twice, but the teacher thinks everyone is on board.

Only someone in middle school would think that a cigarette lighter shaped like a pistol is a cool souvenir. How will they get it past airport security? Well, they don’t, but…

Lots of fun. Especially if you know eighth graders. Love them or hate them, the world would be a perfect place if it were ruled by them.

Go Set a Watchman – Review

Harper Lee. Go Set a Watchman. New York: Harper, 2015. Print.

 For thus hath the LORD said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth. (Isaiah 21:6 KJV)

It appears that some reviewers are trying to compare Go Set a Watchman to To Kill a Mockingbird. They truly are different stories even if they involve many of the same characters.

Harper Lee has an engaging manner of telling a story. Readers of To Kill a Mockingbird recall that the frame of the novel was the trial of Tom Robinson. Yet there were many other episodes that had little to do with the main plot but gave insight into the Finch family and Maycomb, Alabama. Among those were Scout’s first days of school and its Deweyism, Calpurnia’s church, the roly-poly bugs, and the mysteries of the Radley family.

Go Set a Watchman is like that, too. Now Scout goes by Jean Louise and is twenty-six. She lives and works in New York and has returned to Maycomb for a two-week visit. Many of the episodes seem unrelated to the frame (if there is one): a visit to the now-retired Calpurnia, the attempts to theologically “modernize” the Methodist Church, and some humorous reminiscences of Jean Louise’s teen years.

It is indeed difficult to tell what the frame of Go Set a Watchman exactly is. Is it the Jean Louise Finch and Hank Clinton romance? Is it Jean Louise’s discovery that both Hank and Atticus attended a White Citizens’ Council meeting? Or is the tale really a collection of vignettes held together by Jean Louise’s visit to her home?

Hank was Jem’s best friend. Since Jem died of the same congenital problem that killed their mother at an early age, Atticus has taken Hank under his wing and is grooming him to take over his law practice. Hank has had a crush on Jean Louise since high school, but his family is not a socially prominent as the Finches, and Jean Louise has doubts about marrying him or even staying in Maycomb.

Atticus Finch is much more in the background. Jean Louise realizes that her father has become her idol and it is time to get a grip on reality. Instead of Atticus, the person who really plays grown-up in Go Set a Watchman is Uncle Jack Finch. He is the one who tells her that “every man’s watchman is his conscience,” and till then she had leaned on Atticus “assuming that your answers would always be his answers.” (325)

While this kind of Erik Erikson identity crisis is universal, Go Set a Watchman is distinctly Southern. In a way, it is dealing with problems or at least situations that are normally gone nowadays. Did Atticus attend the Citizens’ Council meeting because he was a racist (well, he is condescending) or because he was a watchman who wanted to make sure the WCC did not get out of hand as it had in other places?

Unless you count Tidewater Virginia when I was in the service, and that is more military than Southern, I have not lived in the South. I am no expert on Southern women. I just think of what the Beach Boys sang:

The Southern girls with the way they talk
They knock me out when I’m down there.

However, it does strike me that three well-known Southern writers all bring up details of female figure enhancement in their writing. Scarlett O’Hara is very serious about Melanie being too flat-chested and not doing anything about it in Gone With the Wind. Amanda Wingfield in The Glass Menagerie embarrassed her daughter Laura when she tries to get her to wear a pair of “gay deceivers.” Jean Louise tells a hilarious story of her attempt to wear them at a school dance. Hank, with a suggestion from Atticus, gets her out of trouble.

Even in that example, we can see a change in the generations. Margaret Mitchell never questions the variety of techniques women used to make themselves more attractive to men. Tennessee Williams sees that as being somewhat old-fashioned, but modesty forbids really discussing the subject. Harper Lee is able to laugh at it. Southern women are changing. Does Jean Louise even have to have a man?

Lee lets us know that such changes take time. Jean Louise rightly questions her father’s attendance at the meeting. “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.” (Ecclesiastes 1:4 KJV) Her generation is growing up. Her generation will raise up new watchmen, and they will be different. At the very least the language of the ladies will be saltier.

Maybe some things will change too much. The questions Go Set a Watchman notes as an undercurrent in mainline churches “notoriously short on theology” (114) in the 1950s have well nigh destroyed some of them—at least in terms of membership, attendance, and core beliefs.

Perhaps, though, some things will not change enough for Jean Louise’s generation. She is no racist, nor is she an Aunt Alexandra, but Jean Louise is enough of a Finch to admit that Uncle Jack is probably right about Hank. As appealing as Hank is to her, he was raised by a single mother and still seen socially as “trash” in spite of his education and tutelage under Atticus. It would be another generation or so before a Southern lawyer raised by a single mother of low social standing would marry a Wellesley grad and go on to be elected President. His name was Clinton, too. Is that a coincidence?

Civil War Memories – Review

Civil War Memories: Lost Tales of the Civil War. Ed. S. T. Joshi. Nashville TN: Nelson, 2000. Print.

This collection of nineteen short stories and two poems is an eclectic representation of stories about the American Civil War written by people who lived through it or were born shortly afterwards. It does give varied views of the war. While some are war stories, more are about the effects of the war on the civilian population or the war’s aftermath. A few are classics, others are long forgotten, and in one or two cases, deserve to remain so.

Although the subtitle of Civil War Memories calls these “lost tales,” a good number are fairly well known to students of the Civil War or of American Literature. Stephen Crane’s “Three Miraculous Soldiers,” Ambrose Bierce’s “Three and Three Are One,” and Louisa May Alcott’s “My Contraband” have all been anthologized and are fairly well known. Mark Twain’s “Lucretia Smith’s Soldier” was hardly lost.

Still, some stories are interesting to note. Possibly the earliest piece of fiction to come out of the war, published in 1862, is “John Lamar” by Rebecca Harding Davis. It is a tightly written story with a solid symbolic quality to it. Davis was a Southerner, but this story has echoes of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” or Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. Davis subtly suggests that God is somehow behind this war, and He is using it to bring justice.

It came as no surprise to me that the longest story in this collection was authored by Henry James. “The Story of a Year” reminded me of his Portrait of a Lady. The tale focuses on a woman whose beau goes off to war and her psychological reaction to things, including another man, in the year he is gone. It has a touch of humor and no small amount of irony. If you like James, you’ll like “The Story of a Year.”

Some stories were very touching. “Bayou L’Ombre” by Grace King and “The Eve of the Fourth” were moving stories about to reactions to war events on the home front, one in the South, and one in the North. “A Wizard from Gettysburg” is a fascinating story by Kate Chopin. Chopin is known today mostly for her proto-feminist The Awakening. “A Wizard from Gettysburg” is very different, though it is also set among the postwar upper class of Louisiana. I believe this story could make a good film, or, perhaps like Bierce’s “Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” a great Twilight Zone episode.

A few stories may be curiosities. “The Bloodhounds” by W. C. Morrow is an intense story of a typical deserter who returns to work on his family farm, but in this case he is tracked down by patrollers looking for AWOL soldiers. Ironically, before the war, the “paterollers” would have been looking for escaped slaves.

John William De Forest’s “An Independent Ku-Klux” may be worth skipping. The editor admits he included it as a curiosity. It is supposed to funny—except that it isn’t. De Forest was a Northern carpetbagger who worked hard for the rights of freed slaves, but one might read his story and dismiss him as a racist except that the white people in it are crudely venal.

One of the most moving and optimistic stories here is Sarah Orne Jewett’s “A War Debt.” This story has also been fairly widely anthologized. It indirectly involves a “slender girl, pale and spirited, with a look of care beyond her years” (264) representing the South and Thomas Burton IV who believed “his grandmother was the most charming woman in the world” (259) representing the Yankees. On a symbolic level, it looks to a final reconciliation between North and South. We are all, after all, Americans. E pluribus Unum and illegitimi non carborundum.

The Cat Sitter’s Whiskers – Review

Blaize and John Clement. The Cat Sitter’s Whiskers. New York: St. Martin’s, 2015. Print.

This is approximately the tenth Dixie Hemingway mystery. I may have read one a long time ago because the main character is vaguely familiar. Ms. Hemingway is a pet sitter in Sarasota, Florida. She is a former sheriff’s deputy, and like amateur sleuths from Father Brown to the Hardy Boys, she always seems to find herself in the middle of a mystery. (How I envied those Hardy Boys when I was a kid—how did they keep finding mysteries? I would have been happy with one!)

Early one morning as she is making her first stop to check on various pets, she is knocked out while observing a strange ritual being acted out by a masked intruder. The police do not honestly believe her unusual tale, especially since nothing is missing from her clients’ house.

The only potential witness is the paper delivery man, Levi, someone she has known from town since grammar school. His car passed her on the road right near the house where she was attacked. When she goes to look him up at his place—she finds his body. The plot thickens. The blood coagulates.

There are a lot of curious characters in The Cat Sitter’s Whiskers. We have Detective McKenzie who investigates such crimes and appears to be scatterbrained and OCD at the same time. There is Levi’s stridently jealous fiancée. We discover a mysterious woman who claims Levi picked her up at a club and abused her a few hours before he was murdered. There are the politically correct gay brother and Dixie’s “almost boyfriend” who is a Seminole lawyer.

The Cat Sitter’s Whiskers is a humorous diversion. It makes Florida appealing—beaches, fragrant flowers, beautiful sunsets—and maybe a bit rough—murders, beatings, drug dealers, criminal syndicates. There are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.

Though all the Dixie Hemingway stories have something about cats in the title, our protagonist is a pet sitter, so there are dogs and few other creatures as well. Unlike the Chet and Bernie series, the animals are incidental to the story. They are mostly used to introduce us to characters in the mystery. I am definitely a dog person—many cats make me sneeze—but that makes little difference in these books.