Selflessness

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

You are definitely an other, otherwise you would be able to predict what I will say next, and vice versa. Even if our minds were hooked together, we would be able to recognize “self” thoughts from “other” thoughts (because, for one, you undoubtedly think things I would never think of, and vice versa, due to each of us being surrounded by different information). Therefore you are separate from my self, and my self is separate from you, and this is not an illusion. However – if our brains hooked up indefinitely… rather than eventually not being able to tell eachother apart thought-wise, perhaps we would keep generating uniquely different thoughts unpredictable to eachother, because it would be impossible to merge our selves together? Anyway, the burden of proof is on you when it comes to whether or not ‘separate self’ is an illusion… And it really is irrelevant to a discussion on selflessness/selfishness. Because if our selves were to merge, there would still be others, and the discussion would remain – unless all selves everywhere were to merge. Until then (not that it will ever happen)…

Selflessness is the reason we are still alive right now. Without the other-focus of our mothers (or dads, where applicable… or another family member, friend of the family, stranger – some other human, basically), we would have died as infants. It is good to care for yourself the same reason it is good to care for others (self is equally important as others), but this is not selfish unless it is to the exclusion of others.

Ayn Rand said that it was wrong to be selfless, and that selfishness got a bad rap. When I was an atheist I used to say that to be completely selfless is to be completely dead. But that is based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be selfless. Acts of love toward others can be rewarding. The reward, whether or not accompanied by rewards in this life, is a spiritual one, and those are the rewards you should seek, because rewards rooted in the temporal do not last and miss the point. Does this mean being “selfless” is being “selfish” — no — not if you understand that “selfish” does not mean you love (uncorrupted love) yourself as you should — and selflessness does! Rand would’ve said it like this: “acting in your own rational self interest”. Selflessness, if understood correctly, better serves the individual (as part of a whole) than selfishness (even Rand’s idea of selfishness), which is seen in the first sentence of your quote directly below. Rand gave selflessness a bad rap, gave it meaning it does not have, for how can you love others as you love yourself, if you don’t love yourself? Ironically, I used to use that little insight to defend her definition of selfishness, which is devoid of uncorrupted love.

It isn’t about being rewarded, and especially not in the ‘selfish’ sense. Ayn Rand says that altruistic/selfless values require it to be ‘bad’ to experience blessing – that is wrong. When you are motivated to perform an act that is good for someone else (because you’ve experienced the love of God, and you want others to experience it), and you are glad that it is good for them (whether or not it is good for you), roses bloom in your spiritual garden, the fragrance is astounding, the birds are all singing… love is in the air. The more you share this garden with others, the more it blooms, the more they can sense the fragrance, and before you know it, their garden is blooming, the whole world is a garden… filled with random acts of kindness… and even an Ayn Rand can see how it works to everyone’s best interest…. I can’t do this on my own… none of us can. On my own, my garden turns into a sewer. I imagine it would’ve gotten a whole lot worse if God hadn’t intervened – but that’s just my imagination, because obviously God never intended on not intervening.

Rand said that selfishness does not require sacrificing others (but it does, though not at the level of the brute, and in so doing, requires sacrificing a more genuinely happy self), but would not grant that selflessness does not require sacrificing self. She built a lot of straw men that are not found in selfless values (for example, “that man’s desire to live is evil—that man’s life, as such, is evil”). Selflessness can include self-sacrifice, but doing a good deed for someone else doesn’t have to be difficult. And if you are motivated (from love) to go out of your way to do these selfless acts, from which you benefit only in knowing that someone else was made happy (or otherwise improved) by it, whether or not it involves self-sacrifice, how is this wrong? How is an outpouring of love wrong? It isn’t. Rand was just not motivated to do it, didn’t want to be motivated to do it, and took offense to those who made her feel as if she should be motivated to do it, so she rationalized her way out of it. I did the same thing to excuse my behavior as an atheist – until I no longer cared about excuses. She admitted she could not practice the altruist morality (her explanation for her cynicism) – and like I said, none of us can. For that, we need God, and we need to know that He loves us, warts and all, which is why He sacrificed Himself for us. See my “Faith vs. Works” thread for a fuller discussion on the fact that acts of love are the output of one who has come to know God’s grace (and not a way of earning that grace). First grace, then acts of love.

Moulding the subject matter of this article: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/zimbardo07/zimbardo07_index.html to fit a discussion on selfishness/selflessness and how it relates to the will – heroism is a selfless act, whether by intention (free will) or by nature or habit (blind will) (another category is being led in the Spirit, which is not the focus of the discussion). A selfless act is focused on “other” whereas a selfish act is not. Loving oneself is necessary in order to love others as one loves oneself. Rand said this: “the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action” – if only she had meant that “the other” is a reflection of the actor… but she didn’t mean that. She meant that an act you yourself do not benefit from is a wrong action (a sin, evil). She contradicts herself by implying there is no sin, no evil, no wrong actions of this sort, because “A ‘selfless,’ ‘disinterested’ love is a contradiction in terms.” However, that is based on an incorrect understanding of “selfless”. It doesn’t mean “disinterested” – it just means the interest is focused on “other”. I like the Zimbardo page because it pretty much means the smallest selfless act is an act of heroism. You want to see a hero, look at your mother (assuming she was an overall good one). His point about ‘superhuman heroes’ making us feel as if it is pointless to try to be a hero – is a good one. In the quote you provided, he says there is little known about the psychology of heroism, but elsewhere in his paper he makes reference to what studies have revealed on selflessness (a concept which was not included in that first use of the word “heroism”). Did you read the rest of his paper? If it wasn’t enough for you, I can dig up the empirical data you requested previously (but so can you). As to why “more religious people with socially-politically active parents did nothing to help” – well… there are so many factors, but if I had to guess — some people claim to be “religious” who do not have the mindset that selfless acts are just the way things ought to be done. Not all religious people are at the same leg of the journey in their walk with God. Plus, it isn’t called a “narrow road” for nothin’.

Thinking here…

Intentional sin is only possible if you know the will of God but reject it. Sin is what goes against the will of God (which is love). So you can do something unloving, against the will of God, you can sin – unintentionally. When you come to know what you’ve done, you will look back with regret. God’s forgiveness covers all of it… intentional and unintentional. And it is what you intend that really matters to Him. In the case of giving/loving… it can’t be done on accident, you’re right. Otherwise “losers weepers” would read “givers weepers” (somewhat of a lame example, I know). The difference between selflessness and selfishness is fundamentally “focus” – is it primarily on others or self? And focus, of course, is intentional.

So — Is focus intentional, or can selfless heroism result from blind will?

Or… is intention compatible with blind will? No, and yes. Habit conforms to a pattern of intention. Such patterns shape our response to various drives/instincts. This is the explanation behind obese people who eat even though their brain has released hormones which signal “I’m full.” They intentionally ignore the signals (becoming more and more desensitized to them) — they instead intentionally pay more attention to indulging themselves with tasty morsels. At least, that’s my theory.

This is one reason why it is so important to make selfless choices by habit (in behaviour, and in thought… see “meme” thread), so that in the heat of the moment, or when your guard is down, your behaviour confirms a pattern of selfless past intention, rather than resulting in something you look back on with regret. Walking closely with God guarantees a selfless pattern of intention.

So, focus is not necessarily intentional. It may just be from habit which confirms a pattern of past intention, and it could be influenced by instinct — but as far as we know what influences us habitually/genetically/biologically, we have the power to counteract it wilfully (the freer our will). We can ignore signals to focus on self like we can ignore signals which say “I’m full.” Knowing when to ignore the signals and when to wilfully obey them comes with knowing God.

It is interesting that you can not love unintentionally (if you grant that habitual love conforms to a pattern of past intention, and if you grant intention to animals who love… insofar as it is not against their will to show affection or perform selfless acts of heroism… if you grant that level of love as love, and I do), but you can sin unintentionally. I guess you could unintentionally conform to God’s will if you didn’t know that loving is God’s will. The only problem with that is the love of which we are capable apart from God is a mere hint of the love He desires to share with us, and in turn share with eachother.

One who suggests that “giving, or generosity, is fundamentally about the giver,” is really asking whether we love because the person is inherently lovable or deserving of or needful of love – or whether we love because we’ve got love to give. There is selfish giving (which isn’t really giving) and there is other-focused, selfless giving. Sometimes we do what we call “love” not out of ‘having love to give’ but out of a deficit (read Plato’s Symposium). Other times, the best times, we love because God gives us His love, and we’ve got plenty left over to share. A good analogy is the well of creativity. Some seem to have bottomless wells, others’ dry up easily. God’s well of creativity and love is infinite and one-and-the-same, and we draw from it when we walk with Him. His power (love, creativity) is perfected in our weakness (deficit) (2 Cor 12:9).

Posted in Divine Essentialism, Golden Rule | Leave a comment

Dawkins’ "Meme" and the Living Word of God :^)

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

I have been reading “Consciousness Explained” by Daniel Dennet (Back Bay Books, 1991) – in it he talks a lot about Richard Dawkins’ memes. “Meme” is the title Dawkins gives to the “idea” (in his book “The Selfish Gene”) to call attention to the fact that ideas replicate via minds. In chapter 11 “Memes: The New Replicators” (at one time available on-line, and may still be), Dawkins presents the idea that since memes are replicators, like genes, they are alive. This got me thinkin’ about the Word, of course.

Dawkins says your average meme is highly “subject to continuous mutation” between minds (not exact copies are made… miscommunication occurs) – but then contradicts himself by mentioning that a different understanding of Darwinism is a meme entirely separate from the Darwinism meme (though owing its existence to the earlier meme). This is a contradiction because it says both that 1) memes mutate, and 2) stay in tact (rather than mutating), but produce offspring which may be different (if that is what is meant by mutation, then this discussion on memes brings up something very subtle, but very important — especially to a discussion of the Word). Just like Dawkins mentioned of the Darwinism meme – if you (like Dawkins) have an incorrect understanding of the Word – you don’t have the Word – you have a completely different meme (see my “Against Gnosticism” thread for an example of an incorrect understanding of the Word). However — though maybe nobody has the original Darwinism meme in their minds (now, or in the future) — God will not let that happen to His Word. It is unchanging and everlasting.

Whereas Dawkins pins down memes as “selfish” replicators – he seems to neglect that in order to “rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators” – we must combat with memes which favor altruism. So… that would make them… selfish altruism memes (oxymoron)? I think he may have just gone too far with the “selfish” thing (thought himself in knots or something). Memes are not selfish, and neither are genes – they are, as he said earlier – “unconscious, blind replicators” (unlike the Word, of course, which wants to get in your mind) – and he should have stopped there. It is not inherently evil to love yourself (I say that because Dawkins seems to like the shock-value of calling things “selfish” – therefore putting an evil spin on it), for how can you love your neighbor as yourself (or treat others as you would have them treat you), if you hate yourself? If the altruism memes populated more minds and had more of an effect on the world than the malevolent-selfish memes, it would not be a result of competition (as if the memes know time in a mind is a limited resource). Memes do not fight over minds any more than chicken nuggets fight over stomachs. It means people got fed up with malevolence; won over by Love (John 1:1, 1 John 4:9) – the most superior (not to mention aesthetically pleasing) of all memes, by which all memes must be measured. Real competition is willful and can be seen in humans taking the reigns of their blind-replicator memes (holding every thought captive, 2 Cor 10:5) and surrendering to God’s superior memes (Eph 6:17-18), so that He can rid us (far better than we ever can) of the cancer of malignant memes (Hebrews 10:22).

If you get a kick out of Dawkins’ memes – perhaps you’ll get a kick (like I do) out of a (not exhaustive) study of the Word as living (Dawkins says “memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically” … as “self-replicating brain structures, actual patterns of neurological wiring-up that reconstitute themselves in one brain after another.”) (I have resisted the urge to replace every instance of “Word” or “Scriptures” with “Meme” or “Memes”.) After the study I go into (sorta) the ethical implications if you consider values-transmission in the light of Dawkins’ memes.

All quotes from Scripture and from study notes are taken from Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.

The word “Scripture” below refers to both OT (Old Testament) and NT (New Testament) – see 1 Tim 5:18, which quotes from Deut 25:4 and Luke 10:7, calling them both “Scripture” (although the NT was still forming at the time… keep in mind there was a time in which the OT was still forming, as well).

Isaiah 55:11 “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”

NASB note: My word. Especially the promises of vv.3,5,12. The word is viewed as a messenger also in 9:8, Ps. 107:20. Cf. John 1:1. succeeding. See 46:10-11 and note; cf. 40:8; Heb 4:12.

Jeremiah 23:28-29 “‘The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?’ declares the Lord. ‘Is not My word like fire?’ declares the Lord, ‘and like a hammer which shatters a rock?’”

NASB note vv.28-29: The true word of God is symbolized in three figures of speech (grain, fire, hammer).
NASB note v. 28: straw…grain. Of the two, only grain can feed and nourish [see note on 15:16 – NASB note: “I ate them” means “I digested them, I made them a part of me” (see Ezek 2:8-3:3; Rev 10:9-10)].
NASB note v. 29: like fire. See note on 20:9. The fire of the divine word ultimately tests “the quality of each man’s work” (1 Cor 3:13). like a hammer. Similarly, the divine word works relentlessly, like a sword or hammer, to judge “the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12).

John 1:1-3, 14, 18 “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

NASB note v.1: Word. Greeks use this term not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind—the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews, on the other hand, used it as a way of referring to God. Thus John used a term that was meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles. with God. The Word was distinct from the Father. was God. Jesus was God in the fullest sense (see note on Rom 9:5). The prologue (vv.1-18) begins and ends with a ringing affirmation of His deity (see note on v.18).
NASB note v.14: became. Indicates transition; the Word existed before He became a man. flesh. A strong, almost crude, word that stresses the reality of Christ’s manhood. dwelt among us, and we saw His glory. The Greek for “dwelt” is connected with the word for “tent/tabernacle”; the verse would have reminded John’s Jewish readers of the tent of meeting, which was filled by the glory of God (Ex 40:34-35). Christ revealed His glory to His disciples by the miracles He performed (see 2:11) and by His death and resurrection. [ There is more to the note if you’re interested. ]
NASB note v.18: has made Him known. Sometimes in the OT people are said to have seen God (e.g., Ex 24:9-11). But we are also told that no one can see God and live (Ex 33:20). Therefore, since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion. Now, however, Christ has made Him known.

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

NASB note: word of God. God’s truth was revealed by Jesus (the incarnate Word; see John 1:1, 14), but it has also been given verbally, the word referred to here. This dynamic word of God, active in accomplishing God’s purposes, appears in both the OT and the NT [see, on your own, Ps 107:20; 147:15, 18; Is 40:8; 55:11; Gal 3:8; Eph 5:26; James 1:18 (NASB note: the “word of truth” is the “proclamation of the gospel”); 1 Pet 1:23-25]. The author of Hebrews describes it as a living power that judges as with an all-seeing eye, penetrating a person’s innermost being. soul and spirit…joints and marrow. The totality and depth of one’s being.

1 Peter 1:23-25 “23 …for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For, ‘All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, 25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.’ And this is the word which was preached to you.”

NASB note v.23: born again…through the…word of God. The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5), but the word of God also plays an important role (see James 1:18), for it presents the gospel to the sinner and calls on him to repent and believe in Christ (see v.25). seed which is perishable…imperishable. In this context the seed is doubtless the word of God, which is imperishable, living and enduring.

Additional verses: Psalm 19:7-11; 33:4,6; 104:4; 107:20; 119:92-93, 105; Mark 13:31; Eph 6:17; Col 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Heb 6:5.

A nice quote from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “Major Bible Themes” (revised by John F. Walvoord) (Zondervan, 1974), from chapter 1: “The Bible: The Word of God” p. 15: “Because of the combination of human and supernatural qualities which enter into the Bible, a similarity may be observed between the Bible as the written Word and the Lord Jesus Christ as the living Word (Ichthus: in case the semantics confuse you, both the Bible and Jesus communicate the living Word – refer to the verses above). They are both supernatural in origin, presenting an inscrutable and perfect blending of that which is divine and that which is human. They both exercise a transforming power over those who believe, and are alike allowed of God to be set at nought and rejected by those who do not believe. The untainted, undiminished divine perfections are embodied in each. The revelations which they disclose are at once as simple as the mental capacity of a child, and as complex as the infinite treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge, and as enduring as the God whom they reveal.”

Question to ask yourself: If you consider that memes must have time in your mind in order to germinate – what memes are you entertaining? – how much time are you giving to them? Which memes would you prefer to have growing in your head? Is your mind a meme cesspool or a meme Eden (if you say “Eden” you’re lying)? If you feel powerless to escape the current conditions of your mind, you’re wrong – His power is perfected in your weakness (2 Cor 12:9) – take the hand He is holding out to you. Once He’s got you, there’s no going back, do you hear? Don’t you dare let go. He’s not going anywhere – He’s been here all along. Yes, even at your worst. It’s never too late.

I scribbled a few notes this time last year (11/24/05) about memes in terms of schemas. Not sure how correct I was, but here’s the nitty gritty: bad schemas are resistant to change, like strong memes. In that sense, they can be thought of as “plaque” on the mind (sort of reminds me of the “truth with teeth” thing, but anyway…). Good schemas and good memes can be thought of as the healthy germs from which our body actually benefits. You can immunize yourself against bad memes by injecting yourself with the Word. Lining yourself up with the Word is equivalent to preventive medicine (daily Bible study, being part of a church fellowship, selfless acts and what not, are like brushing and flossing and routine cleanings). Neglect your mind with all sorts of junk-memes, and you’ll suffer spiritually (see my “Madness as Spiritual Suffering” thread) in one way or another. God can work a miracle in your mind. Just ask. 1 Thess 5:17; Matthew 6:5-15; 7:7; 18:20; Luke 11:1; 22:32; John 9:31; Psalm 25:8, 86:5; James 5:16 (all relevant verses on prayer).

Another way to ask the same question: What are the implications of Dawkins’ memes on values transmission? I would like to put in there (your thought-soup) that God’s value-memes are far superior to anything the world has to offer – thank God we can choose them, rather than being stuck with inferior value-memes. Sort of reminds me of the section where Dawkins mentions memes do not necessarily have to support the life of the mind they indwell (which, for me, harkens back to “the wages of sin is death”) – any gene for jumping off cliffs before reaching puberty would be doomed to failure, but a meme for such a thing (refer to the number of accidents blamed and yet to be blamed on the “Jackass” movies) can flourish, as long as it does not indwell every existent mind and cause extinction. (I was just as goofy when I was kid – I’m not saying that pulling life-threatening stunts in childhood is, in-and-of-itself, sin – don’t get me wrong… just an illustration.) Don’t forget how this paragraph started… lol.

Check out “Biology as Literature – Learning to read the molecular book of life.”
http://www.ucsd.tv/sciencematters/5403.shtml

I like to watch that and think about meme-transcription.

Posted in Richard Dawkins | Leave a comment

WANTED: The Old Testament — dead… or alive?

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

WANTED: The Old Testament – dead… or alive?

So that this doesn’t turn into a faith vs. works discussion – please see my thread on that subject, if this thread should ever trigger the opening of the “faith vs. works” file in your brain.

I have observed some poetic use of the phrase “dead letter” here at ILP and wanted to clear up some possible confusion about Paul’s view of the oldness of the letter (Rom 7:6). There are two senses of the word “letter” when New Testament authors use it in a negative context.

In one sense, they are referring to “going through the motions” (externally following the letter – sometimes just traditions of men and not the Law itself) in an effort to earn God’s favor, as opposed to being indwelt by the Spirit of grace in acceptance of His freely-given, un-earnable love (empowering us to follow the spirit of the law because we love God, rather than “following the letter” because we think that’s how to earn God’s love… which demonstrably can’t be earned). Following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, does not result in going crazy in sin – as seen in Matthew 5:17-48, the standard is raised when you follow the spirit of the law. Jesus wants the law to penetrate all the way into the deepest parts of our being. He does not want an outward show for the sake of appearance.

In another sense, the term “letter” is also used to refer to the fact that the law by itself can only show us our error, whereas it is God’s grace (unearned love) that makes us right with Him … not by getting rid of the law… but by writing it on our hearts (kinda like burning it into our memory, but better) with a demonstration of freely-given love in Jesus’ death and resurrection (loving us the way the law expects us to love) (Gal 5:14).

When the phrase “dead letter” (not found in the New Testament) was used poetically in ILP – the author was referring to the Old Testament in its entirety… as if God’s Word is not “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12) and needed some artistic freshening-up. The New Testament writers did not consider the writings of “The Law and the Prophets” to be “dead letter” – here’s how they did feel about it…

Jesus and the Old Testament
Dick France

Jesus’ Bible was the Old Testament. He quoted it frequently (at least 40 direct quotations are found in the Gospels) and more often referred indirectly to its stories and teaching (some 70 clear allusions in the Gospels). His quotations often came with the simple but decisive introduction ‘It is written’. Sometimes He spoke more directly about its importance:
* ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:17-18).
* ‘Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44).
* ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35).

Some of His harshest words were reserved for those who tried to evade the plain commands of God in the Old Testament by means of human traditions, however venerable (Mark 7:1-13). [Ichthus: note on Matthew 23, also from Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible: “Jesus launches into a scathing attack on Israel’s legalistic, but much-respected religious leaders. The man who cared so deeply and had such patience with ordinary people – even the wicked, the weak-willed and the stupid – could not stomach the religious sham, the self-righteous pride, the hair-splitting pedantry He saw in these Pharisees and scribes.” Note on Mark 7:1-23, ibid: “…it is possible for the observance of ‘tradition’ to empty God’s plain command of all meaning (v.13). Jesus points out that humanity’s real problem is not dirty hands but the deep-down pollution of mind, heart and will, which no amount of washing can clean. The concept is so radical (the idea of clean and unclean foods is so much part of Jewish thinking) that even the disciples need further explanation.”]

The authority of the Old Testament
In controversy Jesus regularly used a quotation from the Old Testament to settle the argument (see, for instance, Matthew 12:3-4, 5-7; 21:13, 16; 22:31-32, 43-44). It was an effective method, since other Jews also accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but this was no mere public stance to meet people on their own grounds. Even in private the Old Testament was the basis of His life. When tempted in the wilderness, it was the Old Testament that He turned for guidance (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10), and even in His final agony on the cross it was words form the Old Testament that He uttered (Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46, quoting Psalms 22:1; 31:5).

In teaching His disciples, Jesus was always using Old Testament language, sometimes by direct quotation, but often simply weaving familiar Old Testament words into His sayings. For instance, His mysterious prediction of future events in Matthew 24:29-31 draws on no fewer than seven Old Testament passages in just three verses (Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; Daniel 7:13; Zechariah 12:12; Isaiah 27:13; Deuteronomy 30:4; Zechariah 2:6).

Some of Jesus’ most central ethical teaching comes directly from the Law of Moses (see Matthew 19:18-19, drawing on the Ten Commandments, and Matthew 22:37-40 drawing on Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). His Sermon on the Mount contains a striking sequence of examples where He examines Old Testament texts and themes, and explains how they should be applied to practical Christian living (Matthew 5:21-48).

His complain about other Jewish teachers was that they did not explore the full implications of these divine commands; their superficial and wooden interpretations missed the point, and prevented them from discovering the revealed will of God.

The fulfillment of the Old Testament
Jesus cam to ‘fulfill’ the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17). In His teaching we soon discover that this did not mean merely reinforcing its teaching. Indeed sometimes He offered quite daring new insights, as, for example, His pronouncement that ‘What goes into your mouth does not make you unclean, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what makes you unclean’ (Matthew 15:11; contrast the food laws in Leviticus 11). It was more by His own life, and supremely His death, that He brought its fulfillment.

So He often talked about His own role in the light of Old Testament models. As Jesus walked with two disciples after His resurrection, Luke tells us tat ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said concerning Himself in all the Scriptures’ (Luke 24:27). But this was merely the climax of the way He had been teaching them all through His ministry.

Sometimes H referred to the Old Testament people or events as ‘foreshadowings’ of his own life (e.g. Matthew 12:40-42); sometimes He quoted explicit predictions of one who was to come (e.g. Luke 4:17-21; 22:37). Again and again He insisted that He must suffer and die, because this was what had been written about Him (e.g. Mark 8:31; 9:12-13; Luke 18:31; Mark 14:21, 27; Matthew 26:54; Luke 24:44-47).

He had come to ‘fulfill’, and there was a divine compulsion about what was written. It must be fulfilled.

The Old Testament was for Jesus not just a book of interesting historical records, but the authoritative word of God. He believed its statements, endorsed its teaching, obeyed its commands, and set Himself to fulfill the pattern of redemption which it had laid down.

His uncompromising acceptance of the Old Testament as the Word of God set the pattern for His followers, including the writers of the New Testament books, who delighted to trace the connections between Jesus and the Old Testament, and fully shared His conviction of its authority. The Old Testament has rightly been described as ‘the sub-structure of New Testament theology’. Without the Old Testament you will never understand the New – indeed you will never make sense of Jesus.

–pp. 569-570, Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.

The Old Testament in the New Testament
Dick France

The Old Testament was the Bible of Jesus (see above), and the writers of the New Testament books continued to appeal to its authority. There are something like 250 direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and around 1,000 clear allusions.

The early Christians were so steeped in the Old Testament that its language came naturally to them.

To take two examples:
*The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) do not actually quote from the Old Testament, but verses 3-4 are obviously modeled on Isaiah 61:1-3 and verse 5 on Psalm 37:11 – and practically every phrase can be roughly paralleled in the Old Testament.
*The Book of Revelation contains no formal quotation, but it is modeled throughout on Old Testament passages, particularly from Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.

Sometimes, no doubt, they used familiar scriptural language just because it was a part of their normal vocabulary. Sometimes they quoted legal and ethical texts as continuing guides for the life of the people of God. But often when they quoted or echoed the Old Testament they had a more deliberate theological purpose. They believed, as Jesus Himself had made clear, that He had come to fulfill what had gone before, and they delighted to trace the connections.

Fulfillment of scripture
Often the New Testament writers point out how the predictions of the Old Testament prophets have come true in the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and continue to be fulfilled in the growth of His church.

Matthew includes in his Gospel a dozen quotations with introductions such as ‘all this happened to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet’ (Matthew 1:22-23; 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23, etc.).

The records of early Christian sermons in Acts are full of claims for the fulfillment of scripture (e.g. Acts 2:25-36; 3:22-26; 13:32-41).

Some passages seem to have been special favourites and are quoted repeatedly (e.g. Psalm 110:1; 118:22; Isaiah 53; Daniel 7:13-14). These were passages which Jesus Himself had used to explain His mission, and His followers continued to draw on them in preaching and debate.

Prefigurings
But sometimes the New Testament writers appealed to passages which were not in themselves predictions of the future, but which they nonetheless believed to have been ‘fulfilled’ in the coming of Christ.

Jesus had made many such claims (e.g. Matthew 12:3-6, 40-42; 13:13-14; mark 7:6-7), but the fullest use of this method is found in Hebrews, where the writer goes through the most important people and institutions of Old Testament Israel, especially the ritual of worship in the Tabernacle, and shows how they find their fulfillment in Jesus, as the true high priest and the perfect, final sacrifice.

This principle is known as ‘typology’. Persons, institutions and events of the Old Testament are understood as ‘types’ (models, prefigurements) of the decisive work of God which was to take place with the coming of Christ. The aim of typology is to show how Jesus fulfills not only the explicit predictions of the Old Testament, but its whole fabric, to establish His coming as the final, complete embodiment of God’s saving work through the ages.

Sources and use of quotations
Quite often the words quoted in the New Testament are not the same as we find in our Old Testament text. Usually the differences are insignificant, but sometimes they are quite striking (e.g. Matthew 27:9-10 compared with Zechariah 11:12-13).

Often the difference is due to the fact that the New Testament writers are using a different text from the one now found in our Old Testament. Most New Testament quotations reflect the Greek Septuagint text, which quite often differs from the Hebrew. Sometimes they seem to be quoting other forms of the text, such as we can now find in the Aramaic targums (paraphrases).

But sometimes the explanation is that the New Testament writers were not reluctant to adapt the wording themselves, in order to bring out the interpretation and the application of the text as they saw it. The purpose was not to change the meaning, but to bring it out more clearly for their readers, sometimes by incorporating the interpretation into the wording of the quotation, just as a modern preacher will often paraphrase a biblical text in order to ‘get the message across’ and to help those who listen to see how it applies to their circumstances.

Once the first Christians had understood that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, they came to read it not simply for its own sake but in the light of that fulfillment. So they were able to find pointers to Jesus in places where other Jews would not see them, and were willing to exercise freedom in interpretation from which we might shrink in order to give full expression to their conviction that, as Jesus Himself put it, Moses (and the other Old Testament writers) ‘wrote about me’ (John 5:46).

–pp. 742-743, Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999

As for the reference to the Old Testament as “dead letter” – I tell you this… if you like reading Tolkein… which is reading fiction… you will be a million times more impressed with the non-fiction events recorded in the Bible, which have a similar flavor to what Tolkein was trying to do. If you like movies like Indiana Jones and National Treasure (minus the Masons malarkey), which are steeped in history and relics and artifacts and what-not (though they are, indeed, fiction) – you will love researching what you find in the Bible. My Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible has all sorts of pictures of old artifacts and references to ancient literature – and if you have money, you can go see them for yourself.

I don’t think the Old Testament needs any artistic freshening up – I think you just need to do a little digging and uncover its myriad hidden treasures… then go write a poem about it or something. I recommend “The Message” on XM radio… but that’s just me.

Speaking of writing a poem about it… here’s one:

Straightway Swept Away

To: my King

I came to You broken with fear and trembling
You stretched out Your hand and mastered my ascending
Plucked from the fire, chosen before the beginning
Resurrected by the finger of God, dancing
Done with spineless speculating, with pretending
Everything else in my life all foreshadowing
Found understanding in the shadow of Your wing
The mire Your incorruptible love transcending
In indelible ink, in Your own blood writing
To suffer death for friends, Son of God descending
The narrow path Your Word ever enlightening
Spongy mirror of my heart Your will reflecting
By You my soul walking, for Your return waiting

“Something so amazing, in a heart so dark and dim, when the walls fall down, and the light comes in” – Sara Groves, Something Changed

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

The Conquest of Canaan

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

The background of the Hebrews’ link with Canaan (later the land “Israel”) (the inhabitants of Canaan sacrificed their children in the fire, see below) is this: Abram (later “Abraham”) moves with his father, his wife (Sarai, later “Sarah”) and his nephew (Lot) (among others) from Ur in Mesopotamia to Haran (in the settled world of the post-Babel nations, in what is now Iraq). In Haran God gives Abram “The Promise(s)” if he will go with God to “the land which I will show you.” This land is Canaan, which is why it is also called the Promised Land. However, because of a famine, Abram first goes to Egypt (precursor to what would happen later). Isaac is born in Canaan, and Jacob (later “Israel”) is born to Isaac. Jacob flees Canaan out of fear for his brother Esau (back into to what is now Iraq), then flees back to Canaan out of fear for his father-in-law, Laban (Jacob and Esau make amends). Joseph, Judah, and the other ten brothers are born to Jacob in various places amidst all this back-and-forth, all twelve brothers composing the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Eleven of the brothers (although Reuben is not all for it, but keeps the secret) sell Joseph into slavery out of jealousy, and he winds up in Egypt. Joseph gains Pharaoh’s favor by interpreting his dream when no one else could, and Pharaoh makes him governor. The dream he interpreted predicted famine, which allows preparation for it as governor, so his brothers in Canaan have to request grain from Joseph in Egypt during the famine (so widespread it affects both Egypt and Canaan). Because Joseph forgives his brothers, the whole family moves down to Egypt and the Israelites prosper and multiply until a new Pharaoh is in power (200 years after Joseph’s death) who enslaves the Israelites and attempts to decrease their numbers by having their midwives kill their babies. Moses escapes this as a baby and grows up to be used by God to free the enslaved Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land.

The Israelites are told before even entering the Promised Land to “utterly destroy” the inhabitants of the land so that they could not teach the Israelites to worship other gods (Ex 23:20-33; Deut 7:1-11; 20:17-18). Why? —

Take a moment to recall that when God promised Abram a son in Abram and Sarai’s old age, at the same time He told him his offspring from this son would return to Canaan four generations (400 years) later (after their slavery in a land that is not theirs), when the iniquity of the Amorite is complete (Gen 15:13-21). The Zondervan NASB study note on Genesis 15:16 reads, “Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their ‘worship’ was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination (cf. Deut 18:9-12). God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.” To answer your question more directly, Navigator – “Are you actually defending slaughtering people because they refuse to follow the true God?” — The Canaanites serve as an example of what man is capable of, and how God deals with him, when he separates himself from God and goes his own way. When the Israelites arrive to the land God has promised them, the Canaanites are ripe for judgment, and the Israelites are the people God uses to bring about that judgment. The Canaanites are the bad guy in the movie – the one who does all sorts of evil unchecked. The Israelites are the hero in the movie – the one who attempts to put an end to the bad guy, even though it means risking death and becoming like the bad guy as long as he’s still around to influence the hero… so that nobody has to worry about the bad guy terrorizing them anymore. Some may feel sorry for the bad guy and wonder if he could have been reformed. Others point out that it is an insult to the bad guy to assume he didn’t know any better. God is patient with the bad guy, though He is saddened and angered by the choices he’s made. But those who trust the hero’s God, trust Him with the bad guy, too. The only people who hate the hero, are the people who relate more with the bad guy, and want to go their own way – which ends in death, hate, and deception. God’s way is life, love, and truth, and this is seen in His judgment of the Canaanites (and Israel).

Because the Israelites do not trust God when He tells them to enter and take possession of the hill country of the Amorites, God makes them wander around in the desert for 40 years to teach them to trust Him (He supplies their food and water, and directs them in where to go by cloud and fire), until all the generation who did not trust God (though they experienced the miracles of The Exodus from Egypt) have died, and only their offspring are left to enter the Promised Land. Taking over where their parents left off, the Israelites’ first battle is with the king of Arad (Canaanite) – a battle their parents had lost a generation before, because they did not fight in God’s timing (at His commission) – Arad provokes the battle. The next two victories, also provoked, are against Sihon (king of the Amorites) and Og (king of Bashan), both of whom are instigators after Israel requests the freedom to pass through the land of the Amorites. They haven’t even fully entered the land and the Israelites are already engaging in the fertility rites of Baal of Peor and are held accountable (Numb 25:1-9), going on to destroy the Midianites who “caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord” (Numb 31:1-18). Moses dies and Joshua takes over (by God’s appointment… also note that every victory is owed to God, and every loss is owed to going their own way). The Israelites take Jericho… and by the end of the conquest it is clear they have not completely rid the land of its inhabitants, ushering in the time of the judges who are necessary to deliver Israel from those they left alive during the Conquest. What is more, once the generation of the Conquest dies, their offspring succumb to Canaanite influence, worshipping the gods (Baals) of the people of the land. Eventually this leads to their exile from the Promised Land (but they are restored… and there’s lots, lots more to the story, which is still in progress as we speak).

For more information on who was sacrificing their children (atleast sometimes by making them pass through the fire, which was one method of sacrifice), and to whom (and where the one true and loving God stood on this) see: Lev 20:1-5; 18:21; Deut 12:29-31; 18:10; 1 Kin 11:5,7; 16:31-33; 21:26; 2 Kin 3:26-27; 16:3 (same as 2 Chr 28:2-3); 17:17; 21:6; 23:10 (Jer 19:5-15); 2 Chr 33:6; Jer 7:31-32; 32:35. These verses as a source are unbiased, because some of them are self-incriminating. Don’t forget earlier reference the artifacts found at Ras Shamra (“against gods” post). To remember that the names of the gods mentioned are interchangeable with other gods, see “against gods” post. See note on Judg 10:6 and 16:23 as to the Philistines. This page offers a good answer as to the Amalekites: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html There’s much more than the quote provides. I haven’t been able to read the whole page yet, as I just found it, but I trust this site in general:

The Amalekite initiative looks like an ordered annihilation.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'” (I Sam 15.2f)
The situation is thus:
1. The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).
2. They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau’s twin Jacob.
3. They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev–a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel–had they believed the promises of God.
4. As soon as Israel escapes Egypt–before they can even ‘catch their breath’–the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel.
5. Their first targets were the helpless:
Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget! (Deut 25.17-19).
6. Before the attack on Amalek is initiated by Israel, the innocent are told to ‘move away’ from them: Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites. (I Sam 15.5f). This action would have also served to give the people of Amalek plenty of notice (i.e., time to ‘move away’ themselves), and the impending attack by Saul–especially with the troop counts reported!–would hardly have been a surprise. Some of them would likely have fled–we KNOW all of them were not killed, since they ‘lived to fight/raid again’ in David’s time (I Sam 27,30) and even in Hezekiah’s time (200-300 years later!, 1 Chr 4.43).
Kaiser notes in EBC: Exodus 17.8:
Amalek’s assault on Israel drew the anger of God on two counts: (1) they failed to recognize the hand and plan of God in Israel’s life and destiny (even the farther-removed Canaanites of Jericho had been given plenty to think about when they heard about the Exodus–Josh 2.10); and (2) the first targets of their warfare were the sick, aged, and tired of Israel who lagged behind the line of march (Deut 25:17-19).
But Amalek continues to repeatedly oppress, terrorize, and vandalize Israel for between 200 and 400 more years! And yet, Amalekites were freely accepted as immigrants to Israel during this period.
Let’s note again that (1) they had plenty of access to ‘truth’ (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel; (2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards(!); (3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people–and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away; (5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents (who refused to flee or join Israel earlier) died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed–as homeless orphans–by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, disease, and other raiders; or instead of being captured and sold as foreign slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)–they are victims of their fathers’ terrorist and oppressive habits toward Israel; (6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites) and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household).
[This brief summary above was objected to by a passionate writer, who asked Shouldn’t the butchering of Amalekite children be considered war crimes? (Feb 19/2000, Part one:159k), and centers mostly on the emotionally difficult problem of the killing of the children (of Amalekites, but it would extend generally to the Canaanites and others as well).]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

The Conquest and the Ethical Question of War

Many readers of Joshua (and other OT books) are deeply troubled by the role that warfare plays in this account of God’s dealings with His people. Not a few relieve their ethical scruples by ascribing the author’s perspective to a pre-Christian (and sub-Christian) stage of moral development that the Christian, in the light of Christ’s teaching, must repudiate and transcend. Hence the main thread of the narrative line of Joshua is an offense to them.

It must be remembered, however, that the book of Joshua does not address itself to the abstract ethical question of war as a means for gaining human ends. It can only be understood in the context of the history of redemption unfolding in the Pentateuch, with its interplay of divine grace and judgment. Of that story it is the direct continuations.

Joshua is not an epic account of Israel’s heroic generation or the story of Israel’s conquest of Canaan with the aid of her national deity. It is rather the story of how God, to whom the whole world belongs, at one stage in the history of redemption reconquered a portion of the earth from the powers of this world that had claimed it for themselves, defending their claims by force of arms and reliance on their false gods. It tells how God commissioned His people, under His servant Joshua, to take Canaan in His name out of the hands of the idolatrous and dissolute Canaanites (whose measure of sin was now full; see Gen 15:16). It tells how He aided them in that enterprise and gave them conditional tenancy in His land in fulfillment of the ancient pledge.

Joshua is the story of the kingdom of God breaking into the world of nations at a time when national and political entities were viewed as the creation of the gods and living proofs of their power. Thus the Lord’s triumph over the Canaanites testified to the world that the God of Israel is the one true and living God, whose claim on the world is absolute. It was also the warming to the nations that the irresistible advance of the kingdom of God would ultimately disinherit all those who opposed it, giving place in the earth only to those who acknowledge and serve the Lord. At once an act of redemption and of judgment, it gave notice of the outcome of history and anticipated the eschatological destiny of mankind and the creation.

The battles for Canaan were therefore the Lord’s war, undertaken at a particular time in the program of redemption. God gave His people under Joshua no commission or license to conquer the world with the sword but a particular, limited mission. The conquered land itself would not become Israel’s national possession by right of conquest, but it belonged to the Lord. So the land had to be cleansed of all remnants of paganism. Its people and their wealth were not for Israel to seize as the booty of war from which to enrich themselves (as Achan tried to do, ch. 7) but were placed under God’s ban (were to be devoted to God to dispense with as He pleased). On that land Israel was to establish a commonwealth faithful to the righteous rule of God and thus be a witness (and a blessing) to the nations. If she herself became unfaithful and conformed to Canaanite culture and practice, she would in turn lose her place in the Lord’s land—as she almost did in the days of the judges, and as she eventually did in the exile.

War is a terrible curse that the human race brings on itself as it seeks to possess the earth by its own unrighteous ways. But it pales before the curse that awaits all those who do not heed God’s testimony to Himself or His warnings—those who oppose the rule of God and reject His offer of grace. The God of the second Joshua (Jesus) is the God of the first Joshua also. Although now for a time He reaches out to the whole world with the gospel (and commissions His people urgently to carry His offer of peace to all nations), the sword of His judgment waits in the wings—and His second Joshua will wield it (Rev 19:11-16).

– p. 271 essay preceding book of Joshua in Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.

Posted in Apologetics | 1 Comment

Sin

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Sin/evil is co-creating (exercising free will) apart from God (love). We are able to do this because we are made in the image of God. What we are supposed to do with free will is love (defined by God) freely.

An excerpt on sin from my “faith vs. works” thread:

In the history of philosophy there have been many attempts to define happiness, even to set it as the ultimate good. The question of happiness is one of what really matters, and that we experience a loving relationship with God and eachother is what really matters*. Happiness – a better word for it might be “blessedness” – is not “an emotion often dependent on outward circumstances,”** and it “refers to ultimate well-being and distinctive spiritual joy.”** Another way to describe the state of happiness or blessedness is as the peace of God – “not merely a psychological state of mind, but an inner tranquility based on peace with God”***. Miss Marshall says there is no quick fix toward happiness, but those who get right with God know that this happiness is granted in a defining moment, whereas good choices, rather than being a path to happiness as Marshall argues, are the output of a person who is already at peace with God. True happiness is not earned by good acts, but accepted by faith. Concepts labeled happiness which don’t fit the above definition are rooted in the temporal and so can be diminished by the trials and hardships of this life. Experiencing the not always rewarding feeling produced by Golden Rule^ choices is not the same as the spiritual joy, the inner tranquility, the well-being which motivates those choices even in the midst of adversity.

* See Mark 12:28-31; Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:14
** Excerpt from study note on Matthew 5:3, Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.
*** Excerpt from study note on Philippians 4:7, Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.
^ See Matthew 7:12*

I also touched on ‘sin’ in the same thread:

Jesus (God the Son) laid down His life on the cross (John 3:14-16) as an act of eternal, unconditional love for every soul (John 12:32), settling, once and for all, our debt of death (Hebrews 10:1-18), which is the consequent of sin [violating the royal law of Love (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 7:12, 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) – Rom 3:23, 6:23]. This is how God shows us that He loves us no matter what (1 John 4:9, Romans 5:8). He rose from the dead, defeating death, and He promises eternal life to those who accept it: John 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:3-6; 1 John 5:11-13. This is the Music we dance to.

Sin is the obstacle of happiness (happiness, ultimately, being realized in oneness with God) – it separates us from God. Getting rid of sin is essentially righting a wrong, ending separation from God, bringing us back to oneness with God – atonement. This understanding was developed using OT sacrifices and Jesus’ NT sacrifice – communicating that it is God who provides the means of atonement – it is He who rights the wrong and brings (in my case, yanks) us back to Him. If we reject that, we reject Him. If we reject Him, we reject Love, Truth, and Life.

To Sartre, I would’ve said that to sin is to act or not act in bad faith (James 4:17). Not acting includes not helping someone who needs help, because our idols take priority (Matt 25:31-46; this passage also defines sin against God). Note that the concept of “switching perspectives” (was this a concept Nietzsche supported… or just someone with whom I used to play poker?) is covered by the Golden Rule, as you would want someone to put themselves in your shoes when considering how to behave with you. Sartre denounces private virtues as “belonging to someone with an uneasy conscience,” and I concur, except in the case of those without conscience, who mislabel their interests as “virtues”. So, while Sartre supports subjectivism, in that he sees man as the originator of value, he also undermines it, by dismissing private virtues (refer to the relativist fallacy, and consider the phrase ‘subjectivist fallacy’). In my thread on Dawkins’ “meme” I point to the reality that some values, temporal and finite, originate from man (subjectivity), but God’s values are eternal and unchanging (and we can subjectively choose His values, which brings us to Keirkegaard’s “Subjectivity is Truth” – not that I’m totally in his camp).

The English word sin derives from Old English synn., recorded in use as early as the 9th century.[1] The same root appears in several other Germanic languages, e.g. Old Norse synd, or German Sünde. There is presumably a Germanic root *sun(d)jō (literally “it is true”).[2] The word may derive, ultimately, from *es-, one of the Proto-Indo-European roots that meant “to be,” and is a present participle, “being.” Latin, also has an old present participle of esse in the word sons, sont-, which came to mean “guilty” in Latin.[citation needed] The root meaning would appear to be, “it is true;” that is, “the charge has been proven.” The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) [ Ichthus: Strong’s 2403 in Hebrew, 264, 266 in Greek ] is usually translated as sin in the New Testament; it means “to miss the mark” or “to miss the target” which was also used in Old English archery. …

“Sin” was also the name of the Babylonian moon god. Some students in recent times have postulated a connection with the modern English word “sin”[citation needed], but this is likely a folk-etymology.

– found on Wikipedia

What is the mark (or the point) referred to above that has been missed (Romans 3:23)? –the glory of God, the way humans were intended to be. The glory we had before sin poisoned the well, is restored by Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 2:5-9). When we sin, we become “alienated from ourselves, each other, our environment and ultimately from the ground of being itself,” as felix dacat mentioned.

*If God knew all, he should have taught people about things like sanitation, micro-biology, etc. And not just commanded them to conform within some sort of quasi-mundane-ritualism…

– Dan

Without the microscope and the technology which progressed to it, they would not have understood even if He did teach them about microbiology. The uncleanness typified sin, and how the uncleanness was dealt with made them distinct from their pagan neighbors, rather than leaving a vacuum to be filled by their pagan neighbors’ fertility cults, which involved temple prostitution, child sacrifice, etc.. There is a lot we have left to learn about the universe. If God were to reveal it all to us now (assuming we’d be able to recognize all the information given in the revelation), many of us would wish He had let us find out for ourselves. Discovery is a gift. If one wants to know more than one has access to with the current theories, and one is following God – all one needs to do is ask, and God will lead him/her in the right direction… Most importantly: if someone wants to make things right between you and them, do you whip out a human biology text and start talking about cytotoxic T cells?

Basically, “free will was the cause or mechanism which led to sin.

– Dan

The point is love, but without the option to sin (miss the point), love (voluntary) is impossible. The choice is not in the past… we are presented with it every moment. You mention “a sense of accomplishment, a sense of security, a sense of gratification” when a Christian freely chooses love – and I refer you to what I’ve written above regarding happiness. You mention “the price paid is life itself” – yes. My old life is dead. Good riddance.

http://www.answers.com/sin
Quote:
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2.Theology.
A- Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
B- A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v., sinned, sin•ning, sins.
1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

Jesus’ death [ by crucifixion ] was the epitome of Christian legacy: to destroy the physical, to gain the metaphysical. To destroy the immoral, to gain the moral. To suppress the carnal, in order to set free the unnatural. …
[ Ichthus: observe the ol’ switcharoo — ] Expect nothing less but mechanistic result from all animals. It’s only disturbing if you mistake any of them for “human”.

– Dan

You, anchored in the physical universe, a biological human, are subject to many mechanisms beyond your control. This is disturbing only if you desire more control than you will ever realistically, naturally have.

The point of Jesus’ sacrifice (and the OT sacrifices) was not to destroy the physical to gain the metaphysical – it was to point out how precious our lives are – to point out how sin messes it up – and to point out how God restores us to a loving relationship with Him (true life) even though we mess it up.

Sin is marketed as moral “independence” though some may view it as “independence from morality” – on that note, as to the moral/immoral, natural/unnatural aspect of what you said – here’s this:

A reference to natural laws reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” wherein he mentions that the moral law (the law of love) is not one we naturally follow… which reminds me of Dan’s mention that Christianity tries to destroy the natural. But, while I agree in principle with C.S. Lewis, I don’t think God’s law (of love) is unnatural. I think it is what nature is created for, but nature has been corrupted — the well poisoned (and forgiven, depending on which side of the faith-fence you are perceiving from). It is unreasonable to call anything you experience unnatural, because if it really were, it would not be experienced in the natural universe. Therefore, supernatural does not equal unnatural — it means there is more to nature than our conceptual frameworks have allowed for previously. I think it was also Dan (or was it Nietzsche, I just skimmed him recently?) who said Christianity gave “world” a negative connotation. But that only applies to one use of the word “world”. He left out that God so loved the world… (John 3:16). The “world” with a negative connotation is the one that sets itself against the law of love (God) (that is the “world” that hates those who follow God… the law of love… but, though God is not “of them” — He still loves them).

I reviewed Nietzsche’s “The Religious Mood” and “The Natural History of Morals” from “Beyond Good and Evil” (contained within an anthology I can’t toss out because, a) it doesn’t belong to me, and b) it contains work by authors which I’d hate to throw out) — and here is my short answer — The law (which reveals sin, though sin existed before it) was not given to enslave us, it was given to those who had been set free by God (read Exodus), to those God intended to be free and to freely follow the law (of love) (hence free will) with the goal that it would become written on our hearts (Jer 31:31) and followed out of love for it, with His strength (Rom 6:14, 16-23; 7-4-6, 14-25; 8:1-15) – for we are all too weak to love (uncorrupted love) on our own (and we were never meant to). On our own, we adapt love into what it is not (still perhaps calling it love, though it isn’t, or feigning to abandon it altogether, though we cannot). That pretty much sums up sin.

If that bums ya out, go back up and read the happiness part.

Posted in Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

Peter Stoner’s probabilities of Jesus fulfilling 8 prophecies over which He had no human control

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Empirical Data of God’s Involvement in History — Part I

Peter Stoner’s probabilities of Jesus fulfilling 8 prophecies over which He had no human control —

This excerpt comes from Peter Stoner from his book “Science Speaks”, and is endorsed in its forward by H. Harold Hartzler of the American Science Affiliation, Goshen College — http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8

A challenge to critics is added by Stoner’s grandson (starting on page 4).

***

If the reader does not agree with the estimates given, he may make his own estimates and then carry them through to their logical conclusions.
We considered the following eight prophecies:

1. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).

This prophecy predicts that the Christ is to be born in Bethlehem. Since this is the first prophecy to be considered there are no previously set restrictions, so our question is: One man in how many, the world over, has been born in Bethlehem?

The best estimate which we can make of this comes from the attempt to find out the average population of Bethlehem, from Micah down to the present time, and divide it by the average population of the earth during the same period. One member of the class was an assistant in the library so he was assigned to get this information. He reported at the next meeting that the best determination of the ratio that he could determine was one to 280,000. Since the probable population of the earth has averaged less than two billion, the population of Bethlehem has averaged less than 7,150. Our answer may be expressed in the form that one man in 7,150/2,000,000,000 or one man in 2.8 x 105 was born in Bethlehem.

2. “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).

Our question here is: Of the men who have been born in Bethlehem, one man in how many has had a forerunner to prepare his way? John the Baptist, of course, was the forerunner of Christ. But since there appears to be no material difference between the people born in Bethlehem and those born any other place in the world, the question can just as well be general: One man in how many, the world over, has had a forerunner to prepare his way?

The students said that the prophecy apparently referred to a special messenger of God, whose one duty was to prepare the way for the work of Christ, so there is a further restriction added. The students finally agreed on one in 1,000 as being extremely conservative. Most of the members thought the estimate should be much larger. We will use the estimate as 1 in 103.

3. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation: lowly, and riding upon … a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9).
Our question then is: One man in how many, who was born in Bethlehem and had a forerunner, did enter Jerusalem as a king riding on a colt the foal of an ass? This becomes so restrictive that we should consider an equivalent question: One man in how many, who has entered Jerusalem as a ruler, has entered riding on a colt the foal of an ass?

The students said that this was a very hard thing to place an estimate on. They knew of no one but Christ who had so entered. The students thought that at least in more modern times any one entering Jerusalem as a king would use a more dignified means of transportation. They agreed to place an estimate of 1 in 104. We will use 1 in 102.

4. “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”(Zech. 13:6).

Christ was betrayed by Judas, one of His disciples, causing Him to be put to death, wounds being made in His hands.

There seems to be no relation between the fulfillment of this prophecy and those which we have previously considered. We may then ask the question: One man in how many, the world over, has been betrayed by a friend, and that betrayal has resulted in his being wounded in his hands?
The students said that it was very rare to be betrayed by a friend, and still rarer for the betrayal to involve wounding in the hands. One in 1.000 was finally agreed upon, though most of the students would have preferred a larger number. So we will use the 1 in 103.

5. “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12).

The question here is very simple: Of the people who have been betrayed, one in how many has been betrayed for exactly thirty pieces of silver?
The students thought this would be extremely rare and set their estimate as one in 10,000, or 1 in 104. We will us 1 in 103.

6. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (Zech. 11:13).

This is extremely specific. All thirty pieces of silver are not to be returned. They are to be cast down in the house of the Lord, and they are to go to the potter. You will recall that Judas in remorse tried to return the thirty pieces of silver, cut the chief priest would not accept them. So Judas threw them down on the floor of the temple and went and hanged himself. The chief priest then took the money and bought a field of the potter to bury strangers in. Our question is: One man in how many, after receiving a bribe for the betrayal of a friend, had returned the money, had it refused, had thrown it on the floor in the house of the Lord, and then had it used to purchase a field from the potter?

The students said they doubted if there has ever been another incident involving all of these items, but they agreed on an estimate of one in 100,000. They were very sure that this was conservative. So we use the estimate as 1 in 105.

7. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
One man in how many, after fulfilling the above prophecies, when he is oppressed and afflicted and is on trial for his life, though innocent, will make no defense for himself?

Again my students said they did not know that this had ever happened in any case other than Christ’s. At least it is extremely rare, so they placed their estimate as one in 10,000 or 1 in 104. We will use 1 in 103.

8. “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet”(Ps. 22:16).
The Jews are still looking for the coming of Christ; in fact, He might have come any time after these prophecies were written up to the present time, or even on into the future. So our question is: One man in how many, from the time of David on, has been crucified?
After studying the methods of execution down through the ages and their frequency, the students agreed to estimate this probability at one in 10,000 or 1 in 104, which we will use.

If these estimates are considered fair, one man in how many men, the world over, will fulfill all eight prophecies? This question can be answered by applying our principles of probability. In other words, by multiplying all of our estimates together, or 1 in 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104. This gives 1 in 2.8 x 1028, where 28 means that we have 28 ciphers following the 2.8. Let us simplify and reduce the number by calling it 1 in 1028. Written out this number is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This is the answer to the question: One man in how many men has fulfilled these eight prophecies? But we are really concerned with the answer to the question: What is the chance that any man might have lived from the day of these prophecies down to the present time and have fulfilled all of the eight prophecies? We can answer this question by dividing our 1028 by the total number of people who have lived since the time of these prophecies. The best information available indicates the number to be about 88 billion or 8.8 x 1010.

To simplify the computation let us call the number 1011. By dividing these two numbers we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017.

Editor’s note: It is probable that 88 billion or 8.8 x 1010 assumes a growth rate for the earth’s population which is much too small – that most of the people who have ever lived are still alive today – suggesting that this number may be too large by a factor of ten. If so, this will affect the final result by the same factor of ten; ten times fewer total people who might have fulfilled these prophecies means only one tenth the chance that one of them might have done it by accident. Our number would become 1018 instead of 1017. The number used in this book is very conservative.

This was added by Stoner’s grandson:

A Challenge to Critics of Chapter 3
By Don Stoner

Critics of my grandfather’s book have suggested many possible errors. Among these, that the estimates may be too high, or that the events are statistically connected – so that fulfilling one prophecy will virtually guarantee fulfillment of another. Although my grandfather repeatedly invited critics to supply their own estimates and see what happens, I have found that most critics are content to skip the exercise; so, I have included this chapter as an example of what sort of numbers a person playing the devil’s advocate might obtain. Every attempt has been made to keep these estimates conservative beyond any reasonable challenge:

1. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).

This prophecy predicts that the Christ will come out of Bethlehem. In Micah 5:3 we learn that Bethlehem is also to be his place of birth. This greatly limits the total number of candidates which could possibly be the Messiah to those who came from Bethlehem. In this passage (particularly Micah 5:4) we also see that the Christ must be male.

The present population of Bethlehem is about 20,000, but the average population of the ancient city stayed well under 10,000. If we assume a very high birth rate of 40 / year / 1000 population (modern Africa averages 41, Asia 24, Europe 11), this means less than 400 individuals per year would have been born in Bethlehem. Because about half of these would be female, this further restricts the total number of possible Messiah candidates to less than 200 individuals per year.

2. “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah, the Prince, (Anointed One, the ruler) comes, there will be seven `sevens’, and sixty-two ‘sevens.'”

Daniel 9:25

In addition to where the Messiah will come from, we are also told when he will come. This will further restrict the candidates from which we can draw.

The clock started in 445 B.C. when Artaxerxes Longimanus issued the decree to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem”. From that time we are told to count off 49 (7×7) and 434 (62×7) periods (understood as years in other similar Biblical passages). This puts the Messiah at about 483 years after 445 B.C. or at about A.D. 39 (there being no zero year). Because different calendars were used by different ancient people, the length of these “years” might have been as short as 360 days (very likely the length of the calendar Daniel used in Babylon) or as long as 365.25 days. If the shorter year is assumed, the 483-year span is reduced by 360/365.25 to about 476 years – 7 years less or about A.D. 31 (coincident with the final part of Jesus’ ministry – when “his hour had come”).
There are many different ways we might understand “when” the Messiah “comes.” These might include, when he is born, when he assumes power, or when he is “cut off” (e.g. Daniel 9:26). If we assume the Messiah lives 100 years, in addition to the 7 year uncertainty in our date, we have a 107 year window beginning in 69 B.C. and extending until A.D. 39 for the birth of the Messiah. Taken together with the place of birth, this reduces the number of candidate Messiahs to less than 107 x 200 or less than 21400.

If we allow that there might have been as many as about 25,000 men who could potentially have been considered the Messiah, we are being sufficiently generous that we probably will not be challenged. King Herod, in Matthew 2:16, appears to have felt he had a much tighter window (2 years) than we have assumed here. (Of course, Herod had additional information which we cannot use here.)

3. “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).

This prophecy evidently refers to a special messenger of God, whose one duty was to prepare the way for the work of Christ, so there is a further restriction added. Our question here is: Of the men who have been born in Bethlehem during the allowed window, one man in how many has had a forerunner to prepare his way? John the Baptist, of course, was the forerunner of Jesus, but for how many of the other 25,000 might we have allowed that the prophecy had been adequately fulfilled? This was a time of unrest for Israel and various false prophets of one kind or another were fairly common. Most, of course, were proclaiming themselves. Were there as many as a hundred prophets proclaiming someone other than themselves? A thousand? Of these, how many were featuring a Messiah from Bethlehem?

Let’s assume there were 1250 prophets (about one a month) all featuring a Messiah, from Bethlehem, other than themselves. (Assuming one in every 20 candidates had a prophet to “prepare the way”.) Surely we are being sufficiently generous. This brings our candidates down to 1250 – one a month from Bethlehem, and with a forerunner.

4. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation: lowly, and riding upon … a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9).
Our question then is: One man in how many, who was born in Bethlehem and had a forerunner, did enter Jerusalem as a king being lowly and riding on a colt the foal of an ass? If we assume that a plot is afoot to imitate the Messiah for profit or other gain, we might expect the perpetrators to deliberately set this one up. Unlike the “messenger” above, this one requires no lengthy advance planning. And perhaps even a seeker of wealth and power could act lowly long enough to pull this one off.

5. “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”(Zech. 13:6).

5b. “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet”(Ps. 22:16).

Christ was betrayed by Judas, one of His disciples, causing Him to be put to death, puncture wounds being made in His hands and feet. Betrayal is, by definition, not an element subject to advance planning. Neither is crucifixion something one would deliberately want to include in one’s plans. Still, crucifixion was the standard method of execution at this time and betrayal was not too unusual.

Let’s assume one man in 10 of those in high profile roles got betrayed and crucified. Now our number of candidates is down to 125. (All from Bethlehem, all with forerunners, and all betrayed and crucified within the critical century.) If this sounds less than generous, remember that the population of Bethlehem is less than 10,000 and we are assuming a crucifixion rate totaling more than 2% of its male population within 107 years (ignoring any additional crucifixions of those not having forerunners – presumably a much greater number).

6. “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12).

The question here is: Of the people who have been betrayed, one in how many has been betrayed for exactly thirty pieces of silver? Remembering that betrayal is not a planned element, this must be left to chance alone. If planning is involved, we must consider the likelihood that the religious leaders of the day might wish to avoid prophesied quantities, such as “30 pieces of silver,” in their payoffs.

What motivation causes one friend to betray another? A small amount of money? Not likely. We might expect either a larger amount or different motivation entirely. Perhaps the chances are as good as one in fifty of exactly matching the amount; they are certainly not as good as one chance in 10.

If we assume one in ten, the number of viable candidates are now down to less than 13.

7. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (Zech. 11:13).

This is extremely specific. All thirty pieces of silver are not to be either kept or returned. They are to be cast down in the house of the Lord, and they are to go to the potter. You will recall that Judas in remorse tried to return the thirty pieces of silver, but the chief priest would not accept them. So Judas threw them down on the floor of the temple and went and hanged himself. The chief priest then took the money and bought a field of the potter to bury strangers in.

Our question is: One man in how many, after receiving a bribe for the betrayal of a friend, would return the money, have it refused, throw it on the floor in the house of the Lord, and then have it used to purchase a field from the potter? This is also outside of the control of conspirators.
Money is valuable. Most who accept it keep it. Those few who attempt to return it are likely to find willing help. This has to be a one in a hundred shot from the beginning, without including the “temple” and “potter” elements.

Furthermore, if we are allowing for conspiracy, we must remember that the others involved in this drama have their own goals. If the Messiah knows to line up a donkey, we should expect the Jewish priests be motivated to avoid destinations like a “potter” as determinedly as amounts like “thirty.” These elements must be considered chance at best. A one in a thousand shot for this prophecy must be considered conservative.

If 13 candidates are each subjected to a one in a thousand chance, there is less than one chance in 75 than even one of them will succeed.
8. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
One man in how many, after fulfilling the above prophecies, when he is oppressed and afflicted and is on trial for his life, though innocent, will make no defense for himself? It is difficult to imagine why anyone would do this. Any conspiracy theory has to end here – there is nothing left to gain and a great deal to loose. One in a hundred is probably generous. Perhaps a candidate who was mute would fulfill this prophecy; we should not expect it of one who was able to speak. We will assume one in a hundred.

This brings the chances against a candidate fulfilling these prophecies down to less than one in 7500.

9. “They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.” Psalm 22:18

Dividing of garments between attending Roman soldiers was normal at crucifixions, but casting lots was not. We know from John 19:23,24 the reason why this exception was made; one garment was seamless so they decided to cast lots for it instead of tear it. What are the odds against this exception? This seems to have been a rare event since the soldiers had to discuss how to deal with it. Surely it would be conservative to assign a probability of one in twenty-five.

This brings the chances down to one in 187,500.

10. “He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death.” Isaiah 53:9

The fact that he was crucified probably takes care of the first half of this prophecy. But how many are buried with the rich? In Matthew 27:57 we find a rich man named Joseph getting the body of Jesus from Pilate and placing it in his own tomb. What odds do we assume here? One in ten? One in six?

If we say one in six, our chances drop to less than one in a million of any man fulfilling these 10 prophecies.

If the odds of the Biblical authors of making these predictions, without divine aid, are as “good” as one in a million, we must still conclude that it was sufficiently improbable as to be unreasonable to assume. We must still conclude the presence of divine inspiration.

The above is taken from:
http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html#c8

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | 1 Comment

Sir Robert Anderson’s calculations linking Daniel’s "Seventy Weeks" prophecy and Jesus’ crucifixion

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Empirical Data of God’s Involvement in History — Part II

Sir Robert Anderson’s calculations linking Daniel’s “Seventy Weeks” prophecy and Jesus’ crucifixion —

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robert_Anderson

“The Coming Prince” / Chapter X / Fulfillment of the Prophecy:
http://philologos.org/__eb-tcp/chap10.htm

“THE secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children.” (Deuteronomy 29:29) And among the “things which are revealed” fulfilled prophecy has a foremost place. In presence of the events in which it has been accomplished, its meaning lies upon the surface. Let the facts of the Passion be admitted, and their relation to the twenty-second Psalm is indisputable. There are profound depths of spiritual significance in the Psalmist’s words, because of the nature of the facts which have fulfilled them; but the testimony which the prophecy affords is addressed to all, and he who runs may read it. Is it possible then, it may be asked, that the true interpretation of this prophecy of the Seventy Weeks involves so much inquiry and discussion?

Such an objection is perfectly legitimate; but the answer to it will be found in distinguishing between the difficulties which appear in the prophecy itself, and those which depend entirely on the controversy to which it has given rise. The writings of Daniel have been more the object of hostile criticism than any other portion of the Scripture, and the closing verses of the ninth chapter have always been a principal point of attack. And necessarily so, for if that single passage can be proved to be a prophecy, it establishes the character of the book as a Divine revelation. Daniel’s visions admittedly describe historical events between the days of Nebuchadnezzar and of Antiochus Epiphanes; therefore skepticism assumes that the writer lived in Maccabean times. But this assumption, put forward without even a decent pretense of proof, is utterly refuted by pointing to a portion of the prophecy fulfilled at a later date; and accordingly it is of vital moment to the skeptic to discredit the prediction of the Seventy Weeks.

The prophecy has suffered nothing from the attacks of its assailants, but much at the hands of its friends. No elaborate argument would be necessary to elucidate its meaning, were it not for the difficulties raised by Christian expositors. If everything that Christian writers have written on the subject could be wiped out and forgotten, the fulfillment of the vision, so far as it has been in fact fulfilled, would be clear upon the open page of history. Out of deference to these writers, and also in the hope of removing prejudices which are fatal to the right understanding of the subject, these difficulties have here been discussed. It now remains only to recapitulate the conclusions which have been recorded in the preceding pages.

The scepter of earthly power which was entrusted to the house of David, was transferred to the Gentiles in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, to remain in Gentile hands “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

The blessings promised to Judah and Jerusalem were postponed till after a period described as “seventy weeks”; and at the close of the sixty-ninth week of this era the Messiah should be “cut off.”

These seventy weeks represent seventy times seven prophetic years of 360 days, to be reckoned from the issuing of an edict for the rebuilding of the city – “the street and rampart,” of Jerusalem.

The edict in question was the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longitmanus in the twentieth year of his reign, authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild the fortifications of Jerusalem.

The date of Artaxerxes’s reign can be definitely ascertained – not from elaborate disquisitions by biblical commentators and prophetic writers, but by the united voice of secular historians and chronologers.

The statement of St. Luke is explicit and unequivocal, that our Lord’s public ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. It is equally clear that it began shortly before the Passover, The date of it can thus be fixed as between August A.D. 28 and April A.D. 29. The Passover of the crucifixion therefore was in A.D. 32, when Christ was betrayed on the night of the Paschal Supper, and put to death on the day of the Paschal Feast.

If then the foregoing conclusions be well founded we should expect to find that the period intervening between the edict of Artaxerxes and the Passion was 483 prophetic years. And accuracy as absolute as the nature of the case permits is no more than men are here entitled to demand. There can be no loose reckoning in a Divine chronology; and if God has deigned to mark on human calendars the fulfillment of His purposes as foretold in prophecy, the strictest scrutiny shall fail to detect miscalculation or mistake.

The Persian edict which restored the autonomy of Judah was issued in the Jewish month of Nisan. It may in fact have been dated the 1st of Nisan, but no other day being named, the prophetic period must be reckoned, according to a practice common with the Jews, from the Jewish New Year’s Day.[1] The seventy weeks are therefore to be computed from the 1st of Nisan B.C. 445.[2]

1. “On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of kings, and for festivals.” – Mishna, treatise “Rosh Hash.”

2. The wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days” (Nehemiah 6: l5). Now fifty-two days, measured back from the 25th Elul, brings us to the 3rd Ab. Therefore Nehemiah must have arrived not later than 1st Ab, and apparently some days earlier (Nehemiah 2:11). Compare this with Ezra’s journey thirteen years before. “For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month (Ab) came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him” (Ezra 7:9). I infer therefore that Nehemiah also set out early in the first month.

The chronological parallelisms between the respective journeys of Ezra and Nehemiah have suggested the ingenious theory that both went up to Jerusalem together, Ezra 7 and Nehemiah 2 relating to the same event. This is based upon the supposition that the regnal years of Artaxerxes, according to Persian computation, were reckoned from his birth, a supposition, however, which is fanciful and arbitrary, though described by its author as “by no means unlikely” (Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch., 2., 110: Rev. D. H. Haigh, 4th Feb., 1873).

Now the great characteristic of the Jewish sacred year has remained unchanged ever since the memorable night when the equinoctial moon beamed down upon the huts of Israel in Egypt, bloodstained by the Paschal sacrifice; and there is neither doubt nor difficulty in fixing within narrow limits the Julian date of the 1st of Nisan in any year whatever. In B.C.. 445 the new moon by which the Passover was regulated was on the 13th of March at 7h. 9m. A. M.[3] And accordingly the 1st Nisan may be assigned to the 14th March.

3. For this calculation I am indebted to the courtesy of the Astronomer Royal, whose reply to my inquiry on the subject is appended:

“ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH.”
June 26th, I877.

“SIR, – I have had the moon’s place calculated from Largeteau’s Tables in Additions to the Connaisance des Tems 1846, by one of my assistants, and have no doubt of its correctness. The place being calculated for – 444, March 12d. 20h., French reckoning, or March 12d. 8h. P. M., it appears that the said time was short of New Moon by about 8h. 47m., and therefore the New Moon occurred at 4h. 47m. A. M., March 13th, Paris time.”

I am, etc.,

” (Signed,) G. B. AIRY.”

The new moon, therefore, occurred at Jerusalem on the 13th March, B. C. 445 (444 Astronomical) at 7h. 9m. A. M.

But the language of the prophecy is clear: “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks.” An era therefore of sixty-nine “weeks,” or 483 prophetic years reckoned from the 14th March, B.C. 445, should close with some event to satisfy the words, “unto the Messiah the Prince.”

The date of the nativity could not possibly have been the termination of the period, for then the sixty-nine weeks must have ended thirty-three years before Messiah’s death.

If the beginning of His public ministry be fixed upon, difficulties of another kind present themselves. When the Lord began to preach, the kingdom was not presented as a fact accomplished in His advent, but as a hope the realization of which, though at the very door, was still to be fulfilled. He took up the Baptist’s testimony, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” His ministry was a preparation for the kingdom, leading up to the time when in fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures He should publicly declare Himself as the Son of David, the King of Israel, and claim the homage of the nation. It was the nation’s guilt that the cross and not the throne was the climax of His life on earth.

No student of the Gospel narrative can fail to see that the Lord’s last visit to Jerusalem was not only in fact, but in the purpose of it, the crisis of His ministry, the goal towards which it had been directed. After the first tokens had been given that the nation would reject His Messianic claims, He had shunned all public recognition of them. But now the twofold testimony of His words and His works had been fully rendered, and His entry into the Holy City was to proclaim His Messiahship and to receive His doom. Again and again His apostles even had been charged that they should not make Him known. But now He accepted the acclamations of “the whole multitude of the disciples,” and silenced the remonstrance of the Pharisees with the indignant rebuke, “I tell you if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” (Luke 19:39, 40)

The full significance of the words which follow in the Gospel of St. Luke is concealed by a slight interpolation in the text. As the shouts broke forth from His disciples, “Hosanna to the Son of David! blessed is the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!” He looked off toward the Holy City and exclaimed, “If thou also hadst known, even on this day, the things which belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes!”[4] The time of Jerusalem’s visitation had come, and she knew it not. Long ere then the nation had rejected Him, but this was the predestined day when their choice must be irrevocable, – the day so distinctly signalized in Scripture as the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! behold thy King cometh unto thee!” (Zechariah 9:9) Of all the days of the ministry of Christ on earth, no other will satisfy so well the angel’s words, unto Messiah the Prince.”

4. ei egnos kai su kai ge en ta hamera tauta ta pros eipanan sou k. t. l. (Luke 19:42). The received text inserts sou after hamera, but the best MSS. (Alex. Vat. Sin., etc.) agree in omitting it. kai sou, “thou also, as well as these my disciples.” kai ge et quidem – “even” (Alford, Gr. Test. in loco). The Revised Version reads, “If thou hadst known in this day,” etc.
And the date of it can be ascertained. In accordance with the Jewish custom, the Lord went up to Jerusalem upon the 8th Nisan, “six days before the Passover.”[5] But as the 14th, on which the Paschal Supper was eaten, fell that year upon a Thursday, the 8th was the preceding Friday. He must have spent the Sabbath, therefore, at Bethany; and on the evening of the 9th, after the Sabbath had ended, the Supper took place in Martha’s house. Upon the following day, the 10th Nisan, He entered Jerusalem as recorded in the Gospels.[6]

5. “When the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus,” i. e., Nisan (Josephus, Wars, 6. 5, 3). “And the Jews’ Passover was nigh at hand, and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem, before the Passover, to purify themselves…Then Jesus, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany” (John 11:55; 12:1).

6. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 230.
The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th April, A.D. 32. What then was the length of the period intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the public advent of “Messiah the Prince,” – between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D. 32? THE INTERVAL CONTAINED EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173, 880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS, the first sixty-nine weeks of Gabriel’s prophecy.[7]

7. The 1st Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the edict to rebuild Jerusalem) was 14th March, B. C. 445. The 10th Nisan in Passion Week (Christ’s entry into Jerusalem) was 6th April, A. D. 32. The intervening period was 476 years and 24 days (the days being reckoned inclusively, as required by the language of the prophecy, and in accordance with the Jewish practice).

But 476 x 365= 173, 740 days
Add (14 March to 6th April, both inclusive) 24 days
Add for leap years 116 days
Equals a total of 173,880 days

And 69 weeks of prophetic years of 360 days (or 69 x 7 x 360) 173, 880 days.

It may be well to offer here two explanatory remarks. First; in reckoning years from B. C. to A. D., one year must always be omitted; for it is obvious, ex. gr., that from B. C. 1 to A. D. I was not two years, but one year. B. C. 1 ought to be described as B. C. 0, and it is so reckoned by astronomers, who would describe the historical date B. C. 445, as 444. And secondly, the Julian year is 11m. 10 46s., or about the 129th part of a day, longer than the mean solar year. The Julian calendar, therefore, contains three leap years too many in four centuries, an error which had amounted to eleven days in A. D. 17527 when our English calendar was corrected by declaring the 3rd September to be the 14th September, and by introducing the Gregorian reform which reckons three secular years out of four as common years; ex. gr., 1700, 1800 and 1900 are common years, and 2000 is a leap year. “Old Christmas day” is still marked in our calendars, and observed in some localities, on the 6th January; and to this day the calendar remains uncorrected in Russia. (See Appendix 4, p. 306 note 8.)

Much there is in Holy Writ which unbelief may value and revere, while utterly refusing to accept it as Divine; but prophecy admits of no half-faith. The prediction of the “seventy weeks” was either a gross and impious imposture, or else it was in the fullest and strictest sense God-breathed.[8: theopneustos (2 Timothy 3:16).] It may be that in days to come, when Judah’s great home-bringing shall restore to Jerusalem the rightful owners of its soil, the Jews themselves shall yet rake up from deep beneath its ruins the records of the great king’s decree and of the Nazarene’s rejection, and they for whom the prophecy was given will thus be confronted with proofs of its fulfillment. Meanwhile what judgment shall be passed on it by fair and thoughtful men? To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to nothing more than happy coincidences involves a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who accepts the book of Daniel as Divine. There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind in refusing truth must needs take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity.

The above was taken from:
http://philologos.org/__eb-tcp/chap10.htm

From Wikipedia —
Sir Robert Anderson used lunar data to fix the date of the first day of the first month of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the day implied in Nehemiah) to March 14, 445 BC. He showed that, based on various apparent refererences to the Great Tribulation both as three and a half years and also as 1260 days, 360 days could be fixed as the length of what he called a “prophetic year”. He fixed the end date to April 6, 32, which he offered as the date of the Triumphal Entry. Alva McClain and others have since concurred with this viewpoint. There have been objections raised to some of Anderson’s calculations, with debate on both sides. For instance, later calculations have confirmed that Anderson was off by two days, as the opening date was a Friday, but the closing date a Sunday, something that could not happen in a whole number of seven-time periods. Also, Babylonian records appear to show a leap month in 445 BC (so Nisan 1, the date of the decree, should be one month later on April 13). Moreover, Sunday, April 6 was almost certainly not Nisan 10, and more likely Nisan 6, with Passover eight days later on Monday the 14th.

Harold Hoehner set forth revisions to Anderson and gave an opening date of March 4, 444 BC (the one year shift being due to a different accession date of Artaxerxes) with the end of the 69 weeks on March 30, 33. The same errors with Anderson’s calculations also plague Hoehner’s, for he miscalculated the length of a year. The leap month means that Nisan 1 probably occurred on April 3 or 4. Ron Bigalke Jr. set forth revisions to Anderson and Hoehner based on the year of Artaxerxes succession as August 465 BC which Hoehner timed as December 465 BC. According to Bigalke, the end of the 69 weeks may be March 26, 33. However, this event loses its significance as the Triumphal Entry, for it does not occur on Sunday as church tradition dictates, nor on Monday as some new interpretations report. Bigalke did indicate the problem of a 26 March date since it would be too soon before Jesus’ arrival in Bethany and the Passover. He stated that Hoehner did admit the possibility that Artaxerxes may have given permission to Nehemiah later than 1 Nisan. Bigalke’s conclusion was if the starting date was 5 Nisan (which Hoehner left possible) then the number of days would be an exact 173,880 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox | 6 Comments

Madness as Spiritual Suffering

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

During my daily Bible study a few months back, I ran across a very interesting verse which hit home:

Deuteronomy 28:28: “The Lord will smite you with madness and with blindness and bewilderment of heart.”

No doubt there are too many suffering folks today, walking around in a haze, or in haze-rejecting madness, who would benefit from knowing they are spiritually suffering and only the One who made them can heal them… and all they have to do is draw near.

That isn’t to say that everyone who suffers is being punished by God (suffering builds character and yields positive results, after all). But everyone who suffers can definitely find healing in Him. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest,” (Matthew 11:28).

Jer 23:19-20 “Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand this.”

Jer 30:23-24 “Behold, the tempest of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, A sweeping tempest; It will burst on the head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the Lord will not turn back Until He has performed and until He has accomplished The intent of His heart; In the latter days you will understand this.”

Posted in Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

Against gods, goddesses, and syncretism.

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

Against the gods… and godesses. Against syncretism.

A list of interchangeable mother-goddess names (something for worshippers of the “sacred feminine” or “the goddess” to consider):
–Ishtar (Babylon)
–Asherah/Ashtoroth/Ashtoreth/Astarte/Ashtart (Phoenicians/Arameans/Mesopotamia)
–Aphrodite (Greek)/Venus (Roman)
–Inana (ancient Sumeria)
–Anat (Canaan)
–Isis (one title: “queen of heaven” – see Ishtar listing) (Egypt).
–Perhaps Cybele/Artemis/Diana are interchangeable with the rest, as well (see below).
Most certainly there are other mother-goddess concepts which would be interchangeable with these. It is easy to see why God punished the Israelites for worshipping these false gods and goddesses, when you learn what this study reveals about how these goddesses and their god counterparts were/are worshipped. Such forms of worship do not celebrate or respect femininity, but disgracefully and without honor trample it in the mud. The male gods (Baals) are often counterparts to the mother-goddesses, and Satan is considered the ruler of them (Matthew 10:24-28; Luke 11:14-26). When all is said and done, he will be thrown down (read Revelation). All who go after the Baals and their mother-goddesses would do well to remember this and turn back.

Important. For those of you who have read Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and perhaps a book like “Secrets of the Code” edited by Dan Burstein (if you haven’t, you’re not missing much) – I highly recommend you read “Breaking the da Vinci Code” by Darrel L. Bock, Ph.D (Thomas Nelson, 2004). If you’re planning on reading “The Da Vinci Code” – I recommend you read Bock’s book first, and perhaps after, as well. I ignored Dan Brown until my brother loaned one of his novels to me sometime before Thanksgiving… right after I finished a study on early Gnosticism (see my “Against Gnosticism” thread). Perfect timing.

One listing you won’t find mentioned in the Bible is “Baphomet” – an idol (said to come from the god Pan, a god whom a city formerly known as Paneas, an ancient name now known as Banias, was named after, a city then called Caesarea Philippi in Matthew 16:13, according to the Zondervan NASB study note on that verse) worshipped by a “secret” society which worships the “sacred feminine” – always a mask-phrase for “female sexuality” (as if pornography weren’t habitual enough for some, cults like this turn sex into ritual and try to blend it with spirituality – ensuring a loyal, sex-addicted congregation who will take their secrets with them to the grave, if they die still enslaved). This particular “secret” society was led for many years by a fool referring to himself as the “Great Beast 666” (see Revelation 13; refer to my “Against Gnosticism” thread for references to “antichrist” and “antichrists”), set up for the purpose of spiritual rebellion. Out of His enduring, patient love, God allows it, just as He allowed, for a time (more than once), the spiritual rebellion of the Israelites… there is a lesson to be learned that so far remains a mystery to this mystery cult, and all other mystery cults. I pray they learn soon, as I did, that it isn’t too late to turn back and make a fresh start (Judg 10:13-16). Not that it will be easy. The Lord disciplines those He loves (Psalm 119:71-72; Job 2:10; Isaiah 35:4; Proverbs 3:12; Psalm 30:5; Psalm 51:8).

Greek pantheon … Acts 17:16-34 (Mars Hill in Athens). In “Eternity in their Hearts,” Don Richardson points out that it was a Pythian oracle (see Acts 16:16, the slave-girl had a “python” spirit which Paul cast out), who told Nicias to seek Epimenides in Crete. This is not the only instance when God used a pagan to get His message across. See Numbers 22-24 (Balaam). Richardson also points out that Epimenides “used Zeus as a personal name for the Almighty in another part of the very poem which Paul the apostle quoted in Titus 1:12!” He explains the changes that “Zeus” went through which no longer make it eligible as a name for God, making it necessary for Paul to use the term Theos, and John to use the terms Theos and Logos, instead (“fulfilling rather than destroying something valid in Greek philosophy” – emphasis Richardson’s). Such changes in meaning (like the change in “Zeus”) also threatened Christian terms in the early years of Christianity, necessitating the early theological councils (such as the one held at Nicaea) of the church fathers. I can quote more at your request, but I strongly recommend you buy the book.

Zeus…Hermes. Zondervan NASB study notes on Acts 14:8-18 – Zeus (the Roman Jupiter) was the patron god of the city, and his temple was there (Lystra). People who came to bring sacrifices to Zeus apparently decided to make an offering to Paul and Barnabas instead. The identification of Zeus with Barnabas may indicate that his appearance was more imposing, and Paul was identified as the god Hermes (the Roman Mercury/Mercurious) because he was the spokesman (see 28:6). This incident may have been occasioned by an ancient legend that told of a supposed visit to the same general area by Zeus and Hermes. They were, however, not recognized by anyone but an old couple. So the people of Lystra were determined not to allow such an oversight to happen again.

Artemis (also called Cybele) – Goddess of the Ephesians (Roman Diana)

Paul’s third mission (Acts 19-21:6) excerpt from Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.
19 Silversmiths riot at Ephesus
19:1-7. If Paul could win the people of Ephesus (the provincial capital) to the Christian faith the news would spread through the whole province of Asia. Verse 10 indicates that this is just what happened. It is likely that all seven churches mentioned in Revelation 1:11, as well as those at Colossae and Hierapolis, were founded during this period.
Teaching and healing go together, and the news of a remarkable exorcism (13-17) spreads like wildfire through the city.
So effective is Paul’s ministry in communicating the message that ‘gods made with hands are not gods at all’ (26) that it cuts the takings of the silversmiths making images of the city’s famous goddess, Artemis. They stir the whole place to uproar, dragging Paul’s companions to the great theatre, and chanting slogans. After two hours of this, the town clerk manages to calm them down. Like Gallio at Corinth he declares the Christians innocent (37).
Magic… books (19) Such was the city’s name for magical papyrus scrolls of spells that these were known in the Roman world as ‘Ephesian letters’.
Artemis (Diana) (24) The cult adopted the name of the Greek goddess, but continued to worship the mother-goddess fertility figure of the region’s ancient religion (Ichthus: the same practice as the “secret” society who adopted Baphomet as their idol). The temple was one of the seven wonders of the world, four times the size of the Parthenon. The ‘sacred stone’ (35) was a meteorite, supposed to resemble the goddess, and kept in the temple.

Aphrodite – Zondervan NASB study bible notes on 1 Cor 10:14 – flee from idolatry. Like that described in Ex 32:1-6. Corinthian Christians had come out of a background of paganism. Temples for the worship of Apollo, Asclepius, Demeter, Aphrodite and other pagan gods and goddesses were seen daily by the Corinthians as they engaged in the activities of everyday life. The worship of Aphrodite, with its many sacred prostitutes, was a particularly strong temptation. Ichthus: See above, “Interchangeable mother-goddess names” and note on Judges 2:13 below.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon excerpt from Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.
The exiles from Judah were brought to the great city of Babylon which Nebuchadnezzar had rebuilt. The inner city was protected by a wide moat and double walls of brick (3.7m/12ft and 6.5m/21ft thick), with room for a military road at parapet level between them. Of the eight great gateways, the Ishtar Gate, built to honor the Babylonian god Marduk (Ichthus: see “Bel” below), is best known today.
The gateway is decorated with alternate rows of bulls (symbol of the weather god Adad) and dragons (symbol of Marduk) made of glazed brick. The Procession Street (along which statues of the gods were carried at the New Year festival) led from the gate to the city centre and the great temples. Its walls were of blue enameled brick with a relief of lions (symbol of Ishtar) in red, yellow and white. Babylon contained dozens of temples. Most important was the ziggurat of Marduk (biblical Merodach), the patron god of the city, with his temple beside it.
Nebuchadnezzar built a complex of palaces at the north, beside the Ishtar Gate. It was here that Daniel came, to join the king’s court.

Ishtar – Jer 7:18; 44. Zondervan NASB study bible note on Jer 7:18 – children…fathers…women. Entire families participate in idolatrous worship. cakes. See 44:19. queen of heaven. A Babylonian title for Ishtar, an important goddess in the Babylonian pantheon (see 44:17-19,25) (see also the above ‘interchangeable mother-goddess names’: Isis, and the info. on Asherah below). drink offerings to other gods. And sometimes to the queen of heaven herself (see 44:19,25). to spite me. See Deut 31:29.

Bel “lord” (Babylon) – Patron god of Babylon (Is 46:1; Jer 51:44), Merodach (Marduk) title (Jer 50:2). Zondervan NASB note Is. 46:1 Bel.The name “Bel” is equivalent to Canaanite “Baal” (see below) and means “lord.” Nebo. Nabu, the god of learning and writing who was the son of Marduk. Strong’s USGB: King Nebuchadnezzar’s name means “Nebo, defend the boundary”.

Asherah (Phoenicians/Arameans)/Ashtaroth/Ashtoreth/Astarte – Mesopotamian Ishtar; mother goddess linked with fertility, love and war, like the Canaanite god Baal.
1. Translated “groves,” the female counterpart of Baal (Judg 3:7) (NASB: ‘Asheroth’); 1 Kin 18:19. Translated “Ashtoreth” (plural) in (Judg 2:13), Asa’s mother worships (1 Kin 15:13), curtains for, made by women (woven in the Temple!) (2 Kin 23:7) …where there were also houses for male cult prostitutes (ibid), vessels of, destroyed by Josiah (2 Kin 23:4). 2. (Groves) Idolatrous shrine (Deut 12:3; 2 Kin 21:7), destruction of, commanded (Ex 34:13), Israel’s fondness for (Jer 17:2), punishment (Isaiah 27:9).

Ashtoreth (Canaan) – the name given by the Hebrews to the goddess Ashtart (Astarte). A. A mother goddess of love, fertility and war worshiped by: Philistines (1 Sam 31:10), Sidonians (1 Kin 11:5, 33), Hebrews (see below). B. Israel’s relation to: ensnared by (Judg 2:13; 10:6), repent of, in Samuel’s time (1 Sam 7:3,4; 12:10), worship of, by Solomon (1 Kin 11:5, 33), destroyed by Josiah (2 Kin 23:13).

Exodus 34:13 Zondervan NASB study note: Asherim. Symbols of Asherah, the name of the consort (wife) of El, the chief Canaanite god. Wooden poles, perhaps carved in her image, were often set up in her honor and placed near other pagan objects of worship (see, e.g., Judg 6:25).

1 Sam 7:3 Zondervan NASB study note: Ashtaroth. The Hebrew plural of Ashtoreth, who was a goddess of love, fertility and war, worshiped in various forms by many peoples of the ancient Near East, including the Canaanites (see note on Judg 2:13). The worship of Ashtoreth is frequently combined with the worship of Baal (see v.4;12:10; Judg 2:13; 3:7; 10:6), in accordance with the common practice in fertility cults to associate male and female deities.

1 Kings 14:15 Zondervan NASB study note: Asherim. Ahijah perceived that Jeroboam’s use of golden bulls in worship would inevitably lead to the adoption of other elements of Canaanite nature religion. The goddess Asherah was the consort of El (see notes on Ex 34:13; Judg 2:13), and the Asherim were probably wooden representations of the goddess (see note on Ex 34:13).

Judges 2:13 Zondervan NASB study note: Ashtaroth. Female deities such as Ashtoreth (consort of Baal) and Asherah (consort of El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon). Ashtoreth was associated with the evening star and was the beautiful goddess of war and fertility. She was worshipped as Ishtar in Babylonia and as Ashtart in Aram. To the Greeks she was Astarte or Aphrodite, and to the Romans, Venus. Worship of the Ashtoreths involved extremely lascivious practices (1 Kin 14:24).

1 Kings 14:24 Zondervan NASB study note: male cult prostitutes. Ritual prostitution was an important feature of Canaanite fertility religion. The Israelites had been warned by Moses not to engage in this abominable practice (see Deut 23:17-18, “dog” meaning “male prostitute”; see also 1 Kin 15:12; 2 Kin 23:7; Hos 4:14).

Baal – Canaanite god of weather, war, fertility: 1 Kings 18.

Elijah’s challenge: God or Baal?[b] excerpt from Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999.
Jezebel is fanatical for her religion. For three years she has done all in her power to eliminate the worship of God in Israel (4). Now Elijah returns—one against 450—with a challenge. Let’s put this to the test and see who is the real God.
Baal is impotent—no more able to produce fire than to send the needed rain. It’s God who is ‘the living Lord’. The fire burns the saturated offering. The people shout ‘The Lord alone is God.’ The prophets of Baal are slaughtered. And the drought ends. But for all this, there will be no deep and lasting religious reform.

From Strong’s USGB: Baal (Canaan) “lord, possessor, husband” (1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 17:16). A. The nature of: The male god of the Phoenicians and Canaanites; the counterpart of the female Ashtaroth (see above) (Judg 10:6; 1 Sam 7:4) — connected with immorality (Num 25:1-9; Hos 9:10), incense burned to (Jer 7:9), kissing (showing homage to) the image of (1 Kin 19:18; Hos 13:1,2), dervish rites by priests of (1 Kin 18:26,28), children burned in fire of (Jer 7:31-32; 19:5), eating sacrifices offered to the dead [Ps 106:28 (see Num 25:1-9)]. B. History of: Among Moabites in Moses’ time (Num 22:41), altars built to, during time of judges [Judge 2:11-14; 6:28-32 (NASB note on v. 30: The Israelites were so apostate that they were willing to kill one of their own people for the cause of Baal (contrast Deut 13:6-10, where God told Moses that idolaters must be stoned)], Jezebel introduces into Israel (1 Kin 16:31,32), Elijah’s overthrow of, on Mt. Carmel (1 Kin 18:17-40), Athaliah introduces it into Judah (2 Kin 11:17-20; 2 Chr 22:2-4), revived again in Israel and Judah (Hos 2:8; Amos 5:26), Ahaz makes images to (burned his sons in fire) (2 Chr 28:2-4), Manasseh worships (made his son pass through the fire) (2 Kin 21:2-9), altars everywhere (Jer 11:13), overthrown by Josiah (2 Kin 23:4,5), denounced by prophets (Jer 19:4,5; Ezek 16:15-59) (again, child sacrifice), historic retrospect (Rom 11:4).

Baal-berith “lord of covenant” – a god (Baal) of Shechem (Judg 8:33; 9:4), also called El-berith “god of the covenant” (Judg 9:46).

Baalim “lords” (plural of Baal) — deities of Canaanite polytheism (Judg 10:10-14).

Baal-peor; Baal of Peor “lord of Peor” (Moab) – a Moabite god (Num 25:1-5), infected Israel; 24,000 died (Num 25:1-9), vengeance taken on (Num 31:1-18), sin long remembered (Deut 4:3,4; Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28,29), historic reminder (1 Cor 10:8). [b]1 Corinthians 10:7-14 Zondervan NASB study note: Refers to Israel’s joining herself to Baal of Peor (Num 25:1-9), participating in the worship of this god of the Moabites and engaging in sexual immorality with the prostitute virgins who worshiped this god. See Exodus 32:6 (Zondervan NASB note: the people sat down…rose up to play. A pagan symbol evoked pagan religious practices. Paul quotes this sentence as a vivid example of Israel’s tendency toward idolatry. The Hebrew verb translated “rose up to play” often has sexual connotations (see, e.g., “caressing,” Gen 26:8). Immoral orgies frequently accompanied pagan worship in ancient times. See also listing on “Aphrodite” above.

Baali “my master (lord)” — A title rejected by Jehovah (Hos 2:16). Zondervan NASB note: Ishi means “my husband,” and Baali means “my master.” Of the two Hebrew words for husband, one (master) is identical with the name of the god Baal. There will be such a vigorous reaction against Baal worship that this Hebrew word for “master” will no longer be used for the Lord. (Ichthus: see also John 15:15.)

Judges 2:13 Zondervan NASB note: Baal. Means “lord.” Baal, the god worshiped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians, was variously known to them as the son of Dagon (see note on Judg 10:6 below) and the son of El. In Aram (Syria) he was called Hadad and in Babylonia Adad. Believed to give fertility to the womb and life-giving rain to the soil, he is pictured as standing on a bull, a popular symbol of fertility and strength [see 1 Kin 12:28; Zondervan NASB note: two golden calves. Pagan gods of the Arameans and Canaanites were often represented as standing on calves or bulls as symbols of their strength and fertility. behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt. Like Aaron (Ex 32:4-5), Jeroboam attempted to combine the pagan calf symbol with the worship of the Lord, though he attempted no physical representation of the Lord—no “god” stood on the backs of his bulls]. The storm cloud was his chariot, thunder his voice, and lightning his spear and arrows. The worship of Baal involved sacred prostitution and sometimes even child sacrifice (see Jer 19:5). The stories of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kin 17-2 Kin 13), as well as many other OT passages, directly or indirectly protest Baal-ism (e.g., Ps 29:3-9; 68:1-4,32-34; 93:1-5; 97:1-5; Jer 10:12-16; 14:22; Hos 2:8,16-17; Amos 5:8).

Numbers 25:1 Zondervan NASB study note: play the harlot. Israel’s engagement in the fertility rites of Baal involved not only the evil of sexual immorality. It was also a breach of covenant with the Lord, a worship of the gods of the land (vv.2-3) and a foretaste of the people’s ruin in the unfolding of their history.

1 Kings 18:26,28 Zondervan NASB study notes: leaped about the altar. The ecstatic cultic dance was part of the pagan ritual intended to arouse the deity to perform some desired action. until the blood gushed out. Self-inflicted wounds (causing blood to flow) were symbolic of self-sacrifice as an extreme method of arousing the deity to action. Such mutilation of the body was strictly forbidden in the Mosaic law (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1).

Jeremiah 7:31 (referred by 19:5) Zondervan NASB note: Topheth. See v.32; 19:6,11-14; see also note on Is. 30:33. The word may be of Aramaic origin with the meaning “fireplace,” though in cultures outside Israel it was used as a common noun meaning “place of child sacrifice.” Its vocalization was perhaps intentionally conformed to that of Hebrew bosheth, “shameful thing” (see note on Judg 6:32), often used in connection with idol worship (see notes on 2:26; 3:25). The OT Topheth had a fire pit (see Is 30:33), into which the hapless children were apparently thrown. burn their sons and their daughters in the fire. A horrible ritual, prohibited in the law of Moses (see Lev 18:21 and note; Deut 18:10) but practiced by Ahaz (see 2 Kin 16:2-3) and Manasseh (2 Kin 21:1,6).

Isaiah 30:33 Zondervan NASB note: Topheth. A region outside Jerusalem where children were sacrificed to Molech (see 2 Kin 23:10; Jer 7:31-32; 19:6,11-14), the god of the Ammonites (see 1 Kin 11:7). Thus it was a place of burning.

Judges 2:11 Zondervan NASB note: Baals. The many local forms of this Canaanite deity (see note on v. 13).

1 Kings 16:31 Zondervan NASB note: Baal. Perhaps Melqart, the local manifestation of Baal in Tyre, whose worship was brought to Israel by Jezebel. It is probable that Ahab participated in the worship of this deity at the time of his marriage. The names of Ahab’s sons (Ahaziah, “The Lord grasps”; Joram, “The Lord is exalted”) suggest that Ahab did not intend to replace the worship of the Lord with the worship of Baal but to worship both deities in a syncretistic way.

1 Kings 18:21 Zondervan NASB note: hesitate. The Hebrew for this word is the same as that used for “leaped” in v.26 (see note there). Elijah speaks with biting irony: In her religious ambivalence Israel is but engaging in a wild and futile religious “dance.” If the Lord is God, follow Him, but if Baal, follow him. Elijah placed a clear choice before the people. He drew a sharp contrast between the worship of the Lord and that of Baal, to eliminate the apostate idea that both deities could be worshiped in a syncretistic way.

Hosea 2:8 (NASB) reads: “For she does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, And lavished on her silver and gold, Which they used for Baal.” Zondervan NASB note: The Canaanites attributed grain, wine and oil to Baal. They used silver and gold for making idols (see 8:4; 9:6; 13:2). Baal was believed to control the weather and the fertility of crops, animals and man (see note on Judg 2:13).

2 Kings 16:3 Zondervan NASB note: made his son pass through the fire. Israel had been warned by Moses not to engage in this pagan rite (see Lev 18:21; Deut 18:10). In Israel the firstborn son in each household was to be consecrated to the Lord and redeemed by a payment of five shekels to the priests (see Ex 13:1,11-13; Num 18:16). See also 3:27; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; 2 Chr 28:3; Jer 7:31; 32:35.

Ezekiel 16:15-59 Zondervan NASB study notes: 15 harlot. The accusation of prostitution referred both to spiritual turning away from the Lord and to physical involvement with the fertility rites of Canaanite paganism (cf. Jer 3:1-5; Hos 4:13-15; 9:1). harlotries. Sexual favors. Verb and noun forms of the Hebrew for this word occur 23 times in this chapter. every passer-by. Cf. Gen. 38:14-16. 16 clothes. All of the Lord’s previous gifts were used by Jerusalem in prostituting herself. Cloths of some kind were needed in the Asherah cult practices (see 2 Kin 23:7). They may have been used as curtains or as bedding (see Amos 2:7-8). 17 male images. Phallic symbols or pictures of naked men (see 23:14). 20 sons and daughters…sacrificed. See 20:26,31; 23:37; 2 Kin 21:6; 23:10; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35. Laws against child sacrifice are recorded in Lev 18:21; 20:2; Deut 12:31; 18:10. 24 shrine…high place. Cultic prostitution was moved from the high places (v.15), which were outside the towns, into Jerusalem.

Judges 10:6 Zondervan NASB study bible notes: gods of Aram. The chief gods were Hadad (Baal), Mot [Job 18:14 NASB note – king of terrors. A vivid figure of speech referring to death, which is personified in v.13. Canaanite literature pictured death as the devouring god Mot. Isaiah reverses the figure and envisions the Lord as swallowing up death forever (Is 25:8; see 1 Cor 15:54)], Anath and Rimmon [2 Kings 5:18 NASB note: Rimmon. Also known as Hadad (and in Canaan and Phoenicia as Baal), this Aramean deity was the god of storm (Rimmon means “thunderer”) and war. The two names were sometimes combined (see note on Zech 12:11 – Hadadrimmon is mourned, as the fertility god Tammuz is wept for in Ezek 8:14)]. gods of Sidon. The Sidonians worhsiped essentially the same gods as the Canaanites (see notes on 2:11,13). gods of Moab. The chief deity of Moab was Chemosh. From Strong’s USGB: Chemosh “fire, hearth” (Moab) (Judges 11:24) — the god of the Moabites (Num 21:29), children sacrificed to (2 Kin 3:27), Solomon builds altars to (1 Kin 11:7), Josiah destroys altars of (2 Kin 23:13). gods of the sons of Ammon. Molech was the chief Ammonite deity (see 1 Kin 11:7) and was sometimes worshiped by the offering of human sacrifice (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; 2 Kin 23:10). This god is also called Milcom (see 1 Kin 11:5; 2 Kin 23:13; see also note on Lev 18:21). Both Molech and Milcom are forms of a Semitic word for “king.” From Strong’s USGB: Milcom (Molech) “king” (Ammon) — Solomon went after (1 Kings 11:5), Ammonites worshiped after introduced by Solomon (1 Kin 11:7) by human sacrifice (2 Kin 23:10) which was strongly condemned (Lev 18:21), altar destroyed by Josiah (2 Kin 23:12,13). gods of the Philistines. While the Philistines worshiped most of the Canaanite gods, their most popular deities appear to have been Dagon [from Strong’s USGB: Dagon “fish” (Philistine) — the national god of the Philistines (Judg 16:23), falls before the ark (1 Sam 5:1-7)] and Beel-zebub. The name Dagon is the same as the Hebrew word for “grain,” suggesting that he was a vegetation deity. He was worshiped in Babylonia as early as the second millennium B.C. Baal-zebub was worshiped in Ekron (2 Kin 1:2-3,6,16). The name means “lord of the flies,” a deliberate change by followers of the Lord (Yahweh) to ridicule and protest the worship of Baal-zebul (Baal the prince), a name known from the ancient Canaanite texts. From Strong’s USGB: Baalzebub “lord of flies” (Philistine) (Luke 11:15,19-23) — a Philistine god at Ekron (2 Kin 1:2), Ahaziah inquired of (2 Kin 1:2,6,16), also called Beelzebul in Matt 10:25 (NASB note: Beelzebul. Satan, the ruler of demons) and 12:24, prince of demons (Matt 12:24,27), identified as Satan (Matt 12:26).

The New Testament word for hell — the Greek word transliterated “Gehenna” – has its roots in this very thread. See the references in this thread to “Topheth” in the notes on Jer 7:31 and Is 30:33. This is an excerpt from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament): Gehenna (#1067) – Mk. 9:43, 45, 48*; Neh. 11:30; Josh. 18:16; 2 Chr. 28:3*; Jer. 7:31*,32 (– the valley of the son of lamentation, or of the sons of lamentation; according to the common opinion [Grk] is the name of a man; Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem [yet apparently beginning on the W. see Josh. 15:8; which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i.e. of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 K. 23:10*, also see note on 1 Kin 11:5*, which shows a link with the goddess Ashtoreth), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted with putrefaction, it came to pass the that place was called [Grk] [this common explanation of the descriptive gen. [Grk] is found in Rabbi David Kimchi (fl. C. A.D. 1200). Some suppose the gen. to refer not to purifying fires but to the fires of Moloch; others regard it as the natural symbol of penalty (cf. Lev 10:2; Num. 16:35; 2 K. 1; Ps 11:6; also Matt. 3:11; 13:42, etc.). …and then this name was transferred to that place in Hades where the wicked after death will suffer punishment: Matt 5:22*,29-30; 10:28*; Lk 12:5*; James 3:6*; Matt 23:33; [Grk], worthy of punishment in Gehenna, Matt 23:15*.

Going back to pagan idolatry, or trying to blend it with Christianity, is warned against in the New Testament. See the first three posts in my “Against Gnosticism” thread. See also references in Revelation 2 to Jezebel (an epithet recalling the Jezebel of the OT; see 1 Kings 16:21; 2 Kings 9:22,30-37) and the Nicolaitans, who promoted the syncretism of paganism and Christianity (also see listings on Artemis and Aphrodite, found above). Any time we try to do things apart from God, who is Truth and Love, we mess it up, and it becomes perversion of truth, and corruption of love. Those who forget or ignore the lessons learned in history, are doomed to repeat and relearn them. It isn’t too late to remember and know God. If He hasn’t introduced Himself to you personally – He is with you right now… just acknowledge it and accept Him as a permanent resident in your heart. This thread provides examples of what God is not – but there is plenty in the Word which explains who God is. Check it out. A good starting point is my thread “The Abrahamic Covenant – Backbone of the Gosepl.”

In addition to “Breaking the Da Vinci Code” by Darrel L. Bock, Ph.D (Thomas Nelson, 2004), I highly recommend “Eternity in their Hearts,” by Don Richardson (Regal, 2005).

[ Disclaimer: “god” should be understood like “Santa” when the god being represented is not a demon or Satan, but is instead a figment of the imagination (like Santa). Note: this study does not name every god (little ‘g’) named in or outside the Bible, but it is against them, too. ]

Posted in Against Gnosticism | Leave a comment

Lord Calls the Lowly

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Maryann Spikes

“The Lord usually calls the lowly rather than the mighty to act for Him.” – footnote for Judges 6:15, from Zondervan’s New American Standard Study Bible.

Three examples: Gideon, Jacob, and Saul.

Gideon: “O Lord, how shall I deliver Israel? Behold, my family is the least in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my father’s house.” (Judg. 6:15) God uses Gideon to defeat Midian, thereby delivering Israel.

Jacob (the younger son of Isaac): “And the older shall receive the younger.” (Gen 25:23) NASB footnote: “God’s people are the product not of natural or worldly development but of (God’s) sovereign intervention in the affairs of men.” Jacob, grandson of Abraham, is used by God to father the 12 heads of the tribes of Israel. NASB note: “God’s blessing on mankind” [ the “covenant promises (originally) made to Abraham” ] “would be fulfilled in and through Jacob and his offspring.”

Saul: “Am I not a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel, and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin?” (1 Sam 9:21) God grants Israel’s request for a king through Saul, who delivers them from the Ammonites.

NASB footnote for 1 Sam 2:4-5, 8 “God often works contrary to natural expectations and brings about surprising reversals.” God “raises the poor”. He opens the wombs of the aged. The strongest person is of no strength compared to God, who gives strength to the weak. What man of wealth possesses more than God? – in that light, what man of wealth even possesses anything, relative to God’s possession of everything? The whole universe is a teaching tool, God’s classroom.

2D. God Used Different Personalities and Styles

Inspiration can also include God’s use of different personalities—with their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies—to record His word. One need only compare the powerful style of Isaiah with the mournful tone of Jeremiah in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Luke manifests a marked medical interest, while James is distinctly practical, Paul is theological and polemical, and John writes with simplicity. God has communicated through a multiplicity of human personalities, each having unique literary characteristics.

The traditional biblical authors include a lawgiver (Moses), a general (Joshua), prophets (Samuel, Isaiah, et al.), kings (David and Solomon), a musician (Asaph), a herdsman (Amos), a prince and statesman (Daniel), a priest (Ezra), a tax collector (Matthew), a physician (Luke), a scholar (Paul), and fishermen (Peter and John). God used the variety of occupations and circumstances represented by biblical writers, as well as their unique personal interests and character traits, to reflect His timeless truths.

– p. 339 “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” (Nelson, 1999) by Josh McDowell.

Against the elitism of Gnosticism:

God loves those who are incapable of understanding (we are all ignorant relative to Him — even those who received direct revelation)… to Him, they (the ignorant) are not hopeless. Gnosis is like the food group you should avoid, ‘cause it leads to heart disease and what-not, except gnosis leads to spiritual disease. It is all the unhealthy additives that work against health, though they may taste good (like the fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). There are healthy alternatives that also taste good, so why ingest what will only muck up your system?

All you need to know (be aware of) in order to be saved is God’s plan of salvation. Anything over and above that is going “too far” and putting words in God’s mouth — misrepresenting God.

Posted in Against Gnosticism | Leave a comment