The Conquest of Canaan

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

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

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

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

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.

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

“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

Faith vs. Works / blind faith discussed

Our good works are the dancing which follows in response to the Music we hear by faith. First the Music… then the dancing… not the other way ‘round. Our good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (the Music).

Do you hear the Music of God’s saving grace?

Listen:

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.

So, every now and then a question comes up about whether we are saved by faith (hearing the music) or by works (dancing even if we don’t hear the music), due to a misinterpretation of James 2:14-16. I’ll type it up, give you some NASB notes, and follow some of the referenced verses.

“14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

NASB note vv. 14-26: In vv. 14-20, 24, 26 “faith” is not used in the sense of genuine, saving faith. Rather, it is demonic (v. 19), useless (v. 20) and dead (v. 26). It is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior. James is also not saying that a person is saved by works and not by genuine faith. Rather, he is saying, to use Martin Luther’s words, that a man is justified (declared righteous before God) by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Genuine faith will produce good deeds, but only faith in Christ saves. (For more information on justification see note on Rom 3:21-31).

NASB note vv. 15-16: This illustration of false faith is parallel to the illustration of false love found in 1 John 3:17. The latter passage calls for love in action; this one calls for faith in action.

NASB note v. 18: “You have faith and I have works.” The false claim is that there are “faith” Christians and “works” Christians, i.e., that faith and deeds can exist independently of eachother. “show me your faith without the works.” Irony; James denies the possibility of this.

NASB note v. 21: Apart from its context, this verse might seem to contradict the Biblical teaching that people are saved by faith and not by good deeds (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). But James means only that righteous action is evidence of genuine faith—not that it saves, for the verse (Gen 15:6) that he cites (v. 23) to substantiate his point says, “Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it [i.e., faith, not works] to him as righteousness.” Furthermore, Abraham’s act of faith recorded in Gen 15:6 occurred before he offered up Isaac, which was only a proof of the genuineness of his faith. As Paul wrote, the only thing that matters is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Faith that saves produces deeds.

NASB note v. 23: “the friend of God.” This designation (see 2 Chr 20:7) further describes Abraham’s relationship to God as one of complete acceptance.

NASB note v. 24: “not by faith alone.” Not by an intellectual assent to certain truths.

Next up: Romans 3:21-31, Galatians 2:16-21 and 5:6.

Romans 3:21-31

“21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary; we establish the Law.”

NASB note v. 24: “justified.” Paul uses the Greek verb for “justified” 27 times, mostly in Romans and Galatians. It is translated by some form of the English work “justify” 24 times, by “freed” three times (6:7,18,22), by “acquitted” once (1 Cor 4:4) and by “vindicated” once (1 Tim 3:16). The term describes what happens when someone believes in Christ as His Savior: From the negative viewpoint, God declares the person to be not guilty; from the positive viewpoint, He declares him to be righteous. He cancels the guilt of the person’s sin and credits righteousness to him. Paul emphasizes two points in this regard: 1. No one lives a perfectly good, holy, righteous life. On the contrary, “there is none righteous” (v.10), and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (v.23). “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (v.20). 2. But even though all are sinners and not sons, God will declare everyone who puts his trust in Jesus not guilty but righteous. This legal declaration is valid because Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin and lived a life of perfect righteousness that can in turn be imputed to us. This is the central theme of Romans and is stated in the theme verse, 1:17 (“the righteousness of God”). Christ’s righteousness (His obedience to God’s law and His sacrificial death) will be credited to believers as their own. Paul uses the word “credited” nine times in ch. 4 alone. “as a gift by His grace.” The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv.9-19), because of his trust in Christ God declares him righteous. This is stated in several ways here: (1) “as a gift” (for nothing), (2) “by His grace,” (3) “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” and (4) “through faith” (v. 25).

Galatians 2:16-21

“16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

NASB note v. 16: A key verse in Galatians (see Introduction: Theological Teaching). Three times it tells us that no one is justified by observing the law, and three times it underscores the indispensable requirement of placing one’s faith in Christ. “justified by faith.” The essence of the gospel message (see Rom 3:20,28; Phil 3:9; see also notes on Rom 3:24,28). Faith is the means by which justification is received, not its basis. “by the works of the Law.” Paul is not depreciating the Law itself, for he cleary maintained that God’s Law is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). He is arguing against illegitimate use of the OT Law that made the observance of that Law the grounds of acceptance with God.

NASB note v. 21: “Christ died needlessly.” To mingle legalism with grace distorts grace and makes a mockery of the cross.

Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” NASB note: “faith working through love.” Faith is not mere intellectual assent (see James 2:18-19) but a loving trust in God’s grace that expresses itself in acts of love (see 1 Thess 1:3).

Philippians 3:9 “and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,”. NASB note: “righteousness…from the Law.” See note on v. 6.

Philippians 3:6 “as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” NASB note: “righteousness…in the Law.” Righteousness produced by using the Law as an attempt to merit God’s approval and blessing (cf. v.9)—a use of the Law strongly opposed by Paul as contrary to the gospel itself. “blameless.” In terms of legalistic standards of scrupulous external conformity to the Law. Ichthus: this verse really must be read in its context to understand fully what Paul is talking about here. See Philippians chapter 3.

Jesus’ death did make it obvious that God loves us no matter what (nothing changed – but it was something we had to learn in time) – but that does not mean we no longer strive for excellence. A true interaction with God motivates us toward excellence, because we know He loves us regardless of imperfection. It makes slipping into the muck (made discernable by the Law) seem so utterly pointless.

Matthew 6:13 “And do not lead us into temptation” can also be translated “and do not put us to the test” – “but deliver us from evil.” I point that out because maybe there are others like myself who read that verse and at first think it implies God leads us into temptation (why else would we ask Him not to?) – whereas other verses say God does not lead us into temptation. The temptation (by Satan) of Jesus was a divinely intended test – He was lead into it by the Spirit (Matt 4:1-11). It was Satan who afflicted Job, but God who allowed it, to prove Job’s faith was genuine and not all calamity is God’s judgment. Neither tests resulted in sin, and both show how Satan is under God’s control. God does not tempt to sin, God does not want us to sin (James 1:13; 1 Cor 7:5). Does that mean that where there is sin, God’s sovereignty has stopped (another thought that entered my head)? No. Our freedom to reject love and responsibility to choose love is a built-in part of this grand creation over which God is sovereign. That we choose to reject love, that we choose to sin in His creation, does not equate to His endorsing what we chose – but it does equate to His endorsing “choice”. Without the possibility of rejecting God’s love (at the root of all sin), there is no possibility to choose it. Love must be chosen – it cannot be forced upon us. So Matthew 6:13 is acknowledging God as sovereign – Jesus just as well could have said, “Let us not wander off and get lost in sin – but lead us with the rest of the fold, away from the wolves who won’t come near your rod and staff without consequence.” Of course, Jesus said it much more concisely.

1 Cor 10:13 – “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.”

Always look for the way of escape – recognize it as provided by God. There is no greater feeling of victory than to overcome temptation by the power of God.

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” – Romans 12:21.

***

Now that that’s settled – I direct your attention to an excerpt of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene” – chapter 11: “Memes: the new replicators” – available on-line – or at least it was at one time:

“Another member of the religious meme complex is called faith. It means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. The story of Doubting Thomas is told, not so that we shall admire Thomas, but so that we can admire the other apostles in comparison. Thomas demanded evidence. Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence. The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation. The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”

Here is note seven of chapter 11 (ibid) titled “Blind faith can justify anything.” –

“I have had the predictable spate of letters from faith’s victims, protesting about my criticisms of it. Faith is such a successful brainwasher in its own favor, especially a brainwasher of children, that it is hard to break its hold. But what, after all, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something—it doesn’t matter what—in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway. It is this that makes the often-parroted claim that ‘evolution is a matter of faith’ so silly. People believe in evolution not because they arbitrarily want to believe it but because of overwhelming, publicly available evidence.

“I said ‘it doesn’t matter what’ the faithful believe, which suggests that people have faith in entirely daft, arbitrary things, like the electric monk in Douglas Adam’s delightful Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. He was purpose-built to do your believing for you, and very successful at it. On the day that we meet him, he unshakingly believes, against all the evidence, that everything in the world is pink. I don’t want to argue that things in which a particular individual has faith are necessarily daft. They may or may not be. The point is that there is no way of deciding whether they are, and no way of preferring one article of faith over another, because evidence is explicitly eschewed. Indeed the fact that true faith doesn’t need evidence is held up as its greatest virtue; this was the point of my quoting the story of the Doubting Thomas, the one really admirable member of the apostles.

“Faith cannot move mountains (though generations of children are solemnly told the contrary and believe it). But it is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness. It leads people to believe in whatever it is so strongly that in extreme cases they are prepared to kill and die for it without the need for further justification. Keith Henson has coined the name ‘memeoids’ for ‘victims that have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential … You see lots of these people on the evening news from such places as Belfast or Beirut’. Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb.”

I am not prepared to discuss the issue of faith (God) and war. I will have to do a study on that in the near future, especially considering its relevance to the war on terror. But for now I ask you to patiently set it aside.

Tim Keller defines religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot, and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that, though this is not an explicit ‘organized’ religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things. … All who say ‘You ought to do this’ or ‘You shouldn’t do that’ reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position,” (2; 15). So if Dawkins’ reasoning on the faith meme is accurate… even he is infected with it.

However, Dawkins fails to note that though Thomas doubted (no doubt the reason Dawkins considers him the most admirable of the apostles) – he was not rejected – he was given the evidence he needed (John 20:27). Dawkins says the other apostles’ faith is held up as worthy of imitation – but that is a false inference. They all thought they were seeing a ghost when Jesus appeared (Luke 24:37). Faith is believing what is promised. What was promised was Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas, like the others, doubted (and didn’t even fully understand) the promise until he saw evidence of its fulfillment. Jesus’ words had the same meaning as if a capable husband said to his doubting wife, “Have a little faith in me.” Her doubting was no blessing to her or to their relationship. Having faith would have blessed her and their relationship. Jesus was not advocating blind faith in incapable people, nor did He withhold evidence from the doubters. In many events recorded in the Bible is a sign given to reassure someone that the message they are receiving is from God.

No where in the Bible is blind faith advocated — we are instructed to test the spirits (to make sure the teacher is not teaching false doctrine) (1 John 4:1), to examine everything (1 Thess. 5:21). If blind faith were truly important, there would be no emphasis on discriminating between true and false teachers.

Faith and reason are not in conflict. The only one capable of certain knowledge is one whom is omniscient (God). All other forms of knowledge are varying degrees of faith (belief that), the stronger forms grounded in good reasoning and good evidence. Just because we are rational beings does not mean our reasoning is always without error — it is a skill/ability that needs exercise, just like an athlete must work to maintain athletic strength and ability. Our intuition is a source of rational knowledge acquired without the effort of reasoning, but (because we are not omniscient God) not an infallible source — good reasoning can fine-tune and sharpen our intuitions (bad reasoning can warp them). You cannot prove the existence of God, you can only weigh the clues… some gleaned intuitively… some arrived at by the use of reason… some revealed by God Himself (God’s being love requires that He has made Himself manifest, and that the evidence is on display). What God reveals of His rational-intuitive self will appeal to both God-given intuition and God-given reason (provided the intuition is not warped and the reasoning is not ‘bad’ — a condition God can heal). And even if you conclude that all the clues point to the existence of God (and reveal the nature of God), that is only intellectual assent (belief that) — more is required of you, due to the nature of God (Love). Your entire heart… faith (belief in)… the highest form of love (worship). This leap of faith is a rational one.

***

Happiness is the inner well-being resulting from being at peace with God.

“The Simple Truth about Happiness” by therapist Bethany A. Marshall leaves unanswered the question philosophers are asking when they ask “What is happiness?” In stating “Happiness is possessing the strength of character to make good choices,” which is “the by-product of good choices made daily, rather than a quick fix,” miss Marshall does not define what constitutes a good choice, nor does she define happiness. If she were to answer that a good choice is one that, when combined with other daily choices of a similar nature, produces a person characterized by happiness, the question “What is happiness?” reemerges.

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.

Even when a person is at peace with God, even when they have the motivation to make Golden Rule^ choices, they may find themselves on miss Marshall’s couch, benefiting from her education in conflict management. Their therapy will prove more successful in the long run, if they maintain a heart-to-heart with God, paid in full.

* 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*

Posted in Faith | 1 Comment

Fear — from a biblical perspective.

There are three relevant listings on page 73 in The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible’s Universal Subject Guide to the Bible (1990): Fear, Fear, godly, and Fearlessness. I inserted some Zondervan NASB notes.

Fear – anxiety caused by approaching danger
A. Causes of: disobedience (Gen 3:10), impending judgment (Heb 11:7), persecution (John 20:19), events of nature (Acts 27:17, 29), suspicion (Acts 9:26), uncertainty (2 Cor 11:3), final events (Luke 21:26), death (Heb 2:15).
B. Effects of: demoralization (1 Sam 13:5-8), paralysis (Matt 28:4), silent testimony (John 9:22).
C. Instances of: Abraham [Gen 20:11, NASB note: fear of God “Fear” in this phrase has the sense of reverential trust in God that includes commitment to His revealed will (word)], Jacob (Gen 32:11), soldiers (Matt 27:54).

Fear, godly
A. Defined as: hating evil (Prov 8:13), satisfying (Prov 14:27), sanctifying (Ps 19:9), beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7).
B. Motives to, God’s: majesty (Jer 10:7), holiness (Rev 15:4), forgiveness (Ps 130:4, NASB note: feared Honored, worshiped, trusted and served as the one true God. If God were not forgiving, people could only flee from Him in terror), power (Josh 4:23,24), goodness (1 Sam 12:24), judgment (Rev 14:7).
C. Examples of: Noah (Heb 11:7), Abraham (Gen 22:12), Jacob (Gen 28:16,17), Joseph (Gen 42:18), David (Ps 5:7, “reverence”), Obadiah (1 Kin 18:12), Job (Job 1:8), Nehemiah [Neh 5:15, NASB note: fear of God Those in high positions are in danger of abusing their authority over their subordinates if they forget that they themselves are servants of a superior “Master in heaven” (Col 4:1; cf. Gen 39:9; 2 Cor 5:11)], early Christians (Acts 9:31).

Fearlessness – without fear
A. Source of: believing God’s promises (Num 13:30), challenge of duty (Ex 32:26-29), regard for God’s holiness (Num 25:1-9), believing God (Acts 27:22-26).
B. Exemplified by: Abram (Gen 14:14-16), Jonathan (1 Sam 14:6-14), David (1 Sam 17:34-37 David vs. Goliath), Nehemiah (Neh 4:1-23), Hebrew men (Dan 3:16-30 Daniel and his friends in the fiery furnace), Peter and John [Acts 4:13, NASB note: confidence A certain boldness characterized by the assurance, authority and forthrightness of the apostles (2:29; 4:29; 28:31), and shared by the believers (4:31)], Paul (Acts 21:10-14).

While there do seem to be appropriate causes for fear, just remember that God is much greater than anything you may face in this life.

To fear the Lord is to take Him seriously. The one person in the universe most deserving our respect with reverence (how the word “fear” is meant in the verses below, as we shall soon see) and admiration is God. See my “worship” thread for more on this.

All of the verses in the index below speak positively of fearing the Lord and negatively of lacking the fear of the Lord. Below the index I will supply study notes from Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible (1999) – these will help explain what is meant by “fear” when we “fear the Lord”. Please see the original post for the NASB note on Gen 20:11. You will notice that this new post only refers to verses in the New Testament, as the goal is to show how we still take God seriously and respect Him under the new covenant of grace. God is still as awesome as ever.

It is our relationship to Him which has changed, if we accept it (Hebrews 10:19-25) [why couldn’t it be that way before? – because ideas… even THE Idea (the Word)… take time and experience for minds to digest… see my meme thread for more – to sum it up: to demonstrate to someone (teach them by example) that You love them no matter what (and expect them to do the same for others), there has to be a time before and after that demonstration, when You are not dying on the cross for their sins… …before that You are getting them ready to understand what the sacrifice means (some dude does that out of the blue, you put him in a straight jacket)… after that You are letting it sink in, and giving them plenty of time to accept or reject that You love them no matter what… and that You gave a sufficient demonstration of that – that no one could have done it for You – You had to come to them Yourself, or it would have meant nothing]. If you don’t get it yet – I can’t wait for you to realize how beautiful this is. It beats everything. He exists… and He is Truth and Love beyond anything you’ve lived or will live through in the world… On with the study…

Index of relevant verses in NT by Strong’s # — gleaned from Strong’s concordance’s listings on fear, feared, feareth, and fearing : 2124 Heb 5:7 (NASB: “piety”); 12:28 (NASB: “awe”); 2125 Heb 11:7 (NASB: “reverence”) 5398 Heb 10:26-31; 5399 Matt 10:28; Luke 12:5; Luke 18:2; Acts 10:2,22,34-35; 13:16,26; Rom 11:20; Col 3:22; 1 Pet 2:17; Rev 11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 19:5; 5401 Acts 9:31; Rom 3:18; 13:7; 2 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:21; Phil 2:12; 1 Pet 1:17; 3:2 (NASB: “respectful”); 1 John 4:18. Crosswalk has a free on-line lexicon so you can look these up by Strong’s #. Bob already covered some of the words in his first reply (ty).

Luke 12:5-7 note: fear Him. Respect His authority, stand in awe of His majesty and trust in Him. Verses 6-7 give the basis for trust. [ Ichthus: In keeping with the theme of this thread, it follows that if we fear God, we’ve no reason to fear anything else. See original post on “fearlessness”. ]

Acts 10:34-35 note: God is not one to show partiality. God does not favor an individual because of his station in life, his nationality or his material possessions (see not on James 2:1). He does, however, respect his character and judge his work. This is evident because “in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (v. 35). Cornelius already worshiped the true God, but this was not enough: He lacked faith in Christ (v. 36) (Ichthus: he does go on to accept Christ).

Romans 3:10-18 note: fear of God. Awesome reverence for God; the source of all godliness (see note on Gen 20:11).

Romans 11:20 note: fear. On the fear of God see note on Gen 20:11; see also Prov 3:7; Phil 2:12-13; Heb 4:1, “be careful”; 1 Pet 1:17.

Philippians 2:12 note: fear and trembling. Not because of doubt or anxiety; rather, the reference is to an active reverence and a singleness of purpose in response to God’s grace.

1 Peter 1:17 note: fear. Not terror, but wholesome reverence and respect for God, which is the basis for all godly living (cf. Prov 1:7; 8:13; 16:6).

1 Peter 3:2 note: chaste and respectful behavior. Their lives are to be marked by a moral purity that springs from reverence toward God.

1 John 4:18 note: no fear in love. There is no fear of God’s judgment because genuine love confirms salvation.

Revelation 15:4 note: Universal recognition of God is taught in both the OT (Ps 86:9; Is 45:22-23; Mal 1:11) and the NT (Phil 2:9-11).

Ways in which fearing God dispels irrational fears:

I. Healthy guilt/fear versus unhealthy guilt/fear: 2 Samuel 6:9 “So David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, ‘How can the ark of the Lord come to me?’” Zondervan NASB Study Bible note: “David’s anger was accompanied by fear—not the wholesome fear of proper honor and respect for the Lord (1 Sam 12:24; Josh 24:14) but an anxiety arising from acute sense of one’s own guilt (Gen 3:10; Deut 5:5).” That sort of conviction (guilt) is healthy. But there is guilt which is not healthy (an oversensitive, fallible conscience) – and for that, see 1 John 3:18-20.

“A guilty conscience that precedes sincere repentance is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. A guilty conscience following sincere repentance is condemnation that is not coming from God.” — Beth Moore.

II. “Fear not – for I am with you.” Those who have just given their hearts to God in a courageous leap of faith are very vulnerable to spiritual warfare and deception. Your mind may be flooded with doubts and fears… do not be overwhelmed, but see it as being tested by fire – a character-building opportunity to trust in God’s strength and truth. Calvary Chapel (your nearest one can be found by searching the web-site) has a handy free pamphlet that leads you through the Bible in a year – with a good study Bible (there are also free Bible study tools on-line; use Google.com to find them), that is an excellent way to get started on grounding your faith in solid doctrine. Remember these verses and stick close to God: Matthew 12:43-45/Luke 11:24-26 (after the initial change, you must rely on God’s living in your heart, a constant awareness of Him, to maintain the change). Rom 8:15,31; 2 Tim 1:7, Ps 118:6,18.

III. God is fair. Perhaps you are (or may become, if you don’t read and understand this) afraid you have committed “the unforgivable sin”? Here’s a short study on that: Job 2:9, Lev 24:10-16; Matt 12:30-32. Zondervan NASB note on Matt 12:31 “blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. The context (vv. 24,28,32) suggests that the ‘unpardonable sin’ was attributing to Satan Christ’s authenticating miracles done in the power of the Holy Spirit (see note on Mark 3:29).” Note on Mark 3:29 “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness. Jesus identifies this sin in v.30 (cf.v.22)—the teachers of the law attributed Jesus’ healing to Satan’s power rather than to the Holy Spirit.” Please note that the leaders’ motivation was not devotion to God, but maintaining status quo (John 11:48). Note that throughout the Gospels, Jesus’ challengers did not deny the reality of the (object lessons) of the miraculous signs He performed on the Sabbath, nor the fact that He did cast out demons – but took offense to Jesus’ not following the letter of the law in His challenge for them to follow instead the spirit of it – they took offense to His correcting them. They were basically saying, “It is not the Holy Spirit who empowers the miracles performed by our enemy, but since someone supernatural must be empowering them — it is the ruler of the demons who empowers them,” – how else would they be able to reject His message, which is equivalent to the message of the Holy Spirit? They, the ones most qualified to “recognize”, could not have seen more evidence of the Holy Spirit than that – God did everything He could to get the message through to them… there is nothing more He could have done without violating their free will. That is what they were rejecting – that is why it cannot be forgiven. It’s not that He stopped loving them. It’s that they rejected that love.

The unpardonable sin is not to be confused with “sin leading to death” (1 John 5:16-17 note: “In the context of this letter directed against Gnostic teaching, which denied the incarnation and threw off all moral restraints, it is probable that the ‘sin leading to death’ refers to the Gnostics’ adamant and persistent denial of the truth and to their shameless immorality. This kind of unrepentant sin leads to spiritual death. Another view is that this is sin that results in physical death. It is held that, because a believer continues to sin, God in judgment takes his life [cf. 1 Cor 11:30-32 note: ‘disciplined. As God’s redeemed children we are disciplined—just as a human father disciplines his child—so that we might repent of our sins (cf. 2 Cor 7:10) and grow in grace (2 Pet 3:18; Heb 12:7-11)’]. In either case, ‘sin not leading to death’ (v.17) is of a less serious nature.” But, after all is said and done – God knows the heart of a man… whether or not he was given a fair enough chance… and what to do about it. God is just (fair), and because of that, you have reason both to revere and to take comfort in Him (1 John 1:9-10, Ps 23:4).

Unlike the Ramones song – God does not take His love away from you. If you are not experiencing it, it is because you have rejected it, or believe the lie that it is conditional (or that He doesn’t exist). Believe the Truth. He loves you like nobody else can… and (speaking from experience) He knows how to get your attention… but, ultimately… it’s up to you to accept Him. You are only (Melville’s) Ishmael by choice. You can also be a son by choice. Granted – He already knows what you will choose. When you enter into His kingdom, it will feel like He has taken you out of the slums (consider the current condition of your mind) and is showing you around unimaginable beauty, as if you are a distinguished guest… and you will be. But you will be home. Come as you are, a prodigal son… He is the only one who can get rid of all your garbage and heal all your gangrenous open sores.

IV. He calms the storm. If you feel like you are losing control of your mind, for whatever reason:

1. God, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and ever-present (including in your mind), can make it stop or at least slow down to something less freakish – but you must ask Him first. This may seem like blackmail if you don’t want to ask God for help (but you do want help), but it really is up to you. No one else you talk to about it can do anything to help you (and may just think you’re crazy… and, in a sense, your experience definitely counts as ‘abnormal’… and they may stick you in the hospital–you don’t have to become dependent on meds), besides praying for you. This (your salvation) is between you and God. Just remember, when He gives you back a sense of control, do not change your mind about God, like Pharoah kept doing (Ex 7-14), and bring it on yourself all over again (or way worse, Matt 12:43-45) – and do not keep what you have learned to yourself (like the Gnostics do – see “Against Gnosticism” and “Illumination vs. Gnosis”). Ezekiel 3:8-9.
2. If you would like to know more about miracles and other spiritual gifts, see my most recent reply in “Illumination versus Gnosis” – and my “Signs” thread. Gnosis (whether or not it manifests as at least one of you understands it — accompanied by dissociation and delusion) is not God’s will for your mind – and He can make that stop, too (dissociation and delusion)… if you ask. Spiritual gifts and miracles do not have to be disturbing – but they often are at first, especially if you are a stranger to God.
3. If you think Satan is causing your experience (seeing as it is unpleasantly uncontrollable), and that scares you out of your wits, not only because Satan is scary (to those who are not God and are not trusting God, and believe Satan exists), but because you don’t even believe Satan exists, and that you even considered it makes you feel like you’re losing your mind – trust God, and He will give you the weapons of warfare (Eph 6:10-20). Know that if Satan has anything to do with it – it is not without God’s permission (research the testing of Job and tempting of Jesus).
4. If you doubt God exists in order to trust Him – take a leap of faith, and see what happens. You’ve lost control of your mind – what else do you have to lose? He will catch you.
5. If you’re worried you have the wrong concept of God, and so are trusting in what is not God when you trust in God (and you are understandably afraid of entrusting your mind to what is not God) – He hears you, and will help you come to know Him. It’s all in the Word – crack open your dusty Bible. All of my posts are a result of doing just that. See “Biblical criticism and interpretation” for starters.
6. If this has never happened to you, and you’d like to keep it that way… take a preemptive leap of faith and you’ll avoid the whole mess (He’ll prepare you for any spiritual gift or miracle you experience, rather than springing it on you unexpectedly). I know, it seems like blackmail… but it’s no different than saying “avoid risky behavior and only put good stuff into your body if you value your life.” The storm only happens to those who have willfully ingested copious amounts of bad memes. It’s a natural (spiritual) consequence – they practically signed up for it.
7. If you wish God would prove Himself to you (just shy of Armageddon), even if it really freaks you out – ask. And so that you know how to recognize Him when He does show Himself to you – fully research it in His Word. Perhaps He is waiting until you’ve read the entire Bible before He shows you? It is to your advantage. You don’t want to be freaked out.
8.  Studying apologetics never made anyone lose their mind, and genuine faith is never a blind leap.

Remember the key word: ask. Matthew 7:7. Revelation 3:20.

Here’s something kinda interesting on Matthew 7:7, btw…

Ask starts with “A”. Seek starts with “S”. Knock starts with “K”.

Put it all together: A. S. K.

ASK. He’s already right there, anyway.

Posted in Problem of Evil & Hell | Leave a comment

Jesus’ Claims to Divinity

I:

When Jesus said “I AM” (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9; 10:11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; Matt 27:43; Mark 14:62; John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; Rev 1:8, 17-18) – that was a direct claim of divinity. God told Abraham (edit, lol: Moses!…thanks, Glen) to say that he was sent by ‘I AM’ (Ex 3:14). The Jews listening to Jesus understood His claim (John 8:43-59) and were going to stone Him for blasphemy.

In claiming to be “I AM” (the one God) Jesus is claiming to be the only God there is, which rules out ordinary humans (He mentions the ordinary human Abraham specifically in John 8:58… keep reading). Keep in mind that one has to pick between these two contradictory criticisms: 1) Jesus claimed divinity in the sense that we can all be divine and 2) Jesus implied He was not God, in pointing out He believes there is only one God (Tunis’ claim – see III. and IV., and the Abrahamic Covenant thread). The reality is that Jesus claimed He is the only God there is (keep reading). If you think God cannot take physical form, you have a lot of explaining to do about theophany in the Old Testament (a small sampling: Gen 11:5; 18:1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33; 32:24; Ex 33:18-23; Num 11:25; 12:5; 14:10; Josh 5:13 – and that’s if you don’t count sound waves and thoughts). The captain/Captain of Joshua 5:13 might be an angel, rather than a theophany (not that God cannot take the form of an angel – as was the case when He wrestled with Jacob, see Gen 32:24-32 and Hosea 12:3-4). If God is the Captain… reminds me of Dead Poets Society… Oh Captain, my Captain!

II:

In my Abrahamic Covenant thread, I wrote: “In claiming to be ‘I AM’ (Ex 3:14) of the Jews, Jesus was claiming to be the God who made and keeps the Abrahamic Covenant (John 6:35; 8:12; 9:5; 10:7,9; 10:11,14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1,5; Matt 27:43; Mark 14:62; John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; Rev 1:8, 17-18).” But I left out the part (see I.) where the Jews showed they understood His claim by attempting to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:43-59).

One translation of “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” (transliteration of the Hebrew name) reads “I will be”. That led me to this site:
http://theory.standford.edu/~oldham/church/ehyeh-asher-ehyeh/index.html An excerpt:

Exodus 3.14 is the thesis statement for Exodus, but the impact of the verse is frequently lost when reading in English rather than in the more ambiguous and meaningful Hebrew. At the beginning of Exodus 3, God appears to Moses in the burning bush (3.2). Moses questions which god He is, that is, “‘What is your name?’” (3.13). God replies with a profound reply, defining Himself: Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh

No humans know the exact meaning of this name—much less how to translate it into English or Japanese or any other language. We do know that the Hebrew word “Ehyeh” has an imperfect aspect meaning it has not yet been completed, it might already be completed, or might be completed in the future. Thus, even when frequently translated as “I am who I am,” there is a sense that God acts, not just that God is. It can also be translated as “I was who I was” and “I will be who I will be”, emphasizing the past or the future.

The two different instances of “Ehyeh” need not have the same tense: “I am who I was” and “I will be who I was” both connote God as unchanging. “I am who I will be” indicates God is defined by how He continues to act in this world.

The slightly more liberal translation “I will be what tomorrow demands” returns us to the theme of Exodus. Despite four hundred thirty years of captivity in Egypt, God has not forgotten the Hebrew people nor has He stopped acting in the world. Not only will He continue to act in the world, He will ensure all the needs of the Hebrew people will be satisfied.

Thus, whenever I see the Lord’s name in the Bible or its shortened form “I am”, I remember that not only has God declared He still acts in the world but He ensures He will satisfy all our needs.

– Jeffrey D. Oldham

The Zondervan NASB Study Bible note on Exodus 3:12 points out that “The Hebrew word translated ‘I will be’ is the same as the one translated ‘I AM’ in v. 14.” It also notes that in v. 14, “I AM” is not completed by “be there” as “I will be” is completed by “be there” in v. 12. It refers us to 34:5-7 for “the Lord’s proclamation of the meaning and implications of His name” (NASB). Jesus was claiming all the meaning and implications of the Lord’s name in saying “I AM”. I didn’t say it before, so I’ll say it now: the Jews showed they understood His claim by attempting to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:43-59)

Jesus’ words in context:

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.

– Jesus (John 8:58)

“In the Greek, the words [ I am ] are solemnly emphatic and echo Exodus 3:14,” (NASB, 6:35). “Jesus did not say ‘I was’ but ‘I am,’ expressing the eternity of His being and His oneness with the Father (see 1:1). With this climactic statement Jesus concludes His speech that began with the related claim, ‘I am the Light of the world’ (v.12),” (NASB, 8:58). “The Jews could not interpret Jesus’ claim as other than blasphemy, for which stoning was the proper penalty (Lev 24:16),” (NASB, 8:59). Of course – God claiming to be God is not blasphemy… but the Jews did not recognize Jesus as God.

A repeat from I. — Keep in mind that one has to pick between these two contradictory criticisms: 1) Jesus claimed divinity in the sense that we can all be divine and 2) Jesus implied He was not God, in pointing out He believes there is only one God (Tunis’ claim – see III. and IV., and the Abrahamic Covenant thread). The reality is that Jesus claimed He is the only God there is (keep reading). If you think God cannot take physical form, you have a lot of explaining to do about theophany in the Old Testament (a small sampling: Gen 11:5; 18:1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33; 32:24; Ex 33:18-23; Num 11:25; 12:5; 14:10; Josh 5:13 – and that’s if you don’t count sound waves and thoughts). The captain/Captain of Joshua 5:13 might be an angel, rather than a theophany (not that God cannot take the form of an angel – as was the case when He wrestled with Jacob, see Gen 32:24-32 and Hosea 12:3-4). If God is the Captain… reminds me of Dead Poets Society… Oh Captain, my Captain!

Neither Jesus nor Paul introduced a ‘new kind of god’ – and that Jesus is God was not a “later development” (no one has claimed that the incarnation is presented as a systematic doctrine in the NT, but as a doctrine it is rooted there) – keep reading…

III.

“Son of God” is a Messianic title indicating the deity of Jesus Christ. His own claims (to deity): Matt 11:27; 26:59-66; 27:41-44; Mark 2:1-12 (Jesus does what only God can do: forgive sins); 14:61-64 (“Blessed One” is God; again more accusation of blasphemy – the Jews understood what He was claiming); John 5:17-47; 6:25-51; 7:16-31; 8:54-59; 10:22-39 (more accusation of blasphemy); 14:8-11; 17:1-5, 20-24; 19:7 (more accusation of blasphemy); also God’s word: Matt 17:1-8; Mark 1:9-11. The opinion of His disciples and others (concerning His deity): Matt 4:3; 8:29; 16: 13-20; 27:50-54; Mark 1:21-27 (Holy One of God); 3:11; 5:1-13; Luke 1:31-35; 4:34 (Holy One of God); 23:47 (“innocent” or “The Righteous One” … essentially equivalent to “the Son of God”); John 1:1, 14, 29-34, 43-51; 6:66-69 (Holy One of God); 11:23-27 (after raising Lazarus, the whole of the Sanhedrin are plotting His death: vv. 47-54); 20:28; Acts 2:22-36; 7:54-60; 9:17-22; 10:34-43; Rom 1:1-4; Eph 1:20-23; Phil 2:5-11 (vv. 6-11 may have been an early Christian hymn); Col 1:15-20; Heb 1; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:22-25; 4:9-16.

“Son (of God) (Matt 11:27) Jesus claims a unique relationship to God. The parent-child picture says that His relationship to God is something like that. ‘Sons of/children of’ is a common Hebrew idiom. It conveys the idea of shared nature or characteristics. ‘So when the New Testament says that Jesus is ‘the Son of God’ it is stating that Jesus shared the characteristics and nature of God Himself. He was claiming to be really and truly divine’ (John Drane),” (p. 561, Zondervan’s Handbook to the Bible, 1999).

IV.

Please note (regarding reference to ‘later development’), before reading the following, that no one knew who Constantine was when the New Testament books were being written…

‘God with us’—the incarnation
Dick France

One of the more puzzling things about the New Testament is the way its writers suggest, and occasionally say openly, that Jesus, a young carpenter from an obscure village who was executed in his early 30s, was also God. Not just ‘a god’, but God, the one true God of the Old Testament, present in human form.

They do not often say this in so many words. John’s Gospel begins by telling us that ‘the Word’ (a title for Jesus, as becomes clear in the Gospel) ‘was God’, and that this Word ‘became flesh and lived among us’ (John 1:1,14). At the end of the same Gospel the apostle Thomas, who notoriously refused at first to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, hails him as ‘My Lord and my God’ (John 20:28).

In a few other places in the New Testament Jesus appears to be called ‘God’ (e.g. Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20), though it is intriguing that in all these cases there is some question about the right reading of the text or the Greek words can be understood in a different way. This sort of language apparently did not yet come easily to the writers.

But these apparently direct statements that Jesus is God are only the tip of a huge theological iceberg. After all, the people who wrote the New Testament books were Jews, brought up from childhood to believe that there is only one God and that to speak of any human being in divine terms was blasphemy. No wonder phrases like ‘Jesus is God’ did not trip easily off their tongues. But in many other more subtle ways that belief comes to light all over the New Testament books.

Jesus often referred to Himself as the Son of God, and to God as in a unique sense His Father (e.g. Matthew 11:25-27; 24:36) and the Gospel writers tell us that God Himself described Jesus in this way (Mark 1:11; 9:7). His followers took up the theme: for instance, Jesus is called the Son of God 22 times in five short chapters of 1 John, and John says he wrote his Gospel so that his readers might believe that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31).

Such language from a Jew is not just politeness: no one else was ever described in this way, and no one else had dared to address God simply as ‘Abba’ (Father) as Jesus did (Mark 14:36). Sayings such as ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10:30), ‘whoever has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9), and ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’ (John 14:10-11) take us far beyond the ordinary worshipper’s sense of belonging to God. This is a unique family relationship; Father and Son share the same divine nature.

In Luke 1:35 the title ‘Son of God’ is linked with Jesus’ virgin birth. Although the title does not depend on Jesus’ being born of a virgin (after all, John, who stresses the title most, never mentions the virgin birth), the two ideas fit comfortably together (see ‘The virgin birth’).

Sometimes Jesus claimed to do things that only God can do, such as forgiving sins (Mark 2:5-12), judging (Matthew 7:21-23; 25:31-36), or giving life (John 5:25-29). Paul and John took this even further in the extraordinary claim that it was through Jesus that the world was created—and that means that He must be older than the universe! (John 1:1-4; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15-17). The New Testament writers associated Jesus so closely with God that they saw no problem in applying to Him Old Testament texts that were in fact about God (e.g. Romans 10:9-13; Hebrews 1:8-12).

Already within the New Testament there is evidence that Christians had begun to worship Jesus and pray to Him (Acts 7:59; 9:10-17; 1 Cor 1:2; Rev 5:8-14, etc.). Paul, writing to the Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth, preserves the prayer ‘Our Lord, come’ in the Aramaic form Maranatha, which shows that this was already by the mid-50s a familiar formula from the early Aramaic-speaking churches (1 Cor 16:22). Remember that these were Jewish people, praying to a man whom they had seen executed only a few years earlier, and you realize how amazing it is.

There are a few places in the New Testament where the language used to express Jesus’ divine nature and authority is so exalted that they are thought to be echoes of hymns or creeds which were already in use in the church’s worship. Chief among these are Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:2-3, and of course John 1:1-18. To read these passages carefully is to gain a thrilling impression of how Jesus’ followers had come to understand who He was within not much more than a generation after His life, death, and resurrection. They speak of Him not just as a man whose life began at Bethlehem in the days of Herod, but a son who has been from the beginning, who shared the Father’s glory before the world began (John 17:5,24), and whose life on earth was only a temporary ‘interruption’ of His heavenly glory.

This is what later came to be formulated as the ‘doctrine of the incarnation’ (which means literally the ‘enfleshing’, taking up the language of John 1:14). It is not presented to us in the New Testament as a systematic doctrine. Rather we share the exhilarating experience of Jesus’ first Jewish followers as they tried to make sense of the man they knew, and gradually came to realize who He really was.

But in their different ways they have left for us a rich source for theological discovery, and in their writings are all the raw materials for the fully developed Christian doctrine of the Son of God who ‘for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man’.

Perhaps Matthew expresses the truth most appropriately when he reminded his readers that the name Immanuel, the name of the virgin’s son, means simply ‘God with us’ (Matthew 1:23).

Matthew 14:33 “And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are certainly God’s Son!’”

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment