understanding jeremiah 18

Posted on December 8, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Jeremiah 18, God explains to Israel how He operates. Israel, at this time, was very wicked in the eyes of Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s purpose was twofold: to warn Israel of a coming destruction (which would prove God’s anger) and to potentially intimidate them into repentance. In Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah wants to give this sense of hope and sense doom, contingent on Israel’s actions:

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying:
Jer 18:2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.”
Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel.
Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

Jeremiah is called to the potter’s house. Before him is an live action illustration. The potter is building something great, but then something unexpected happens. The potter is then forced to rework the same clay into a new design, one worse than his original idea. The potter is reacting to new developments. Jeremiah makes this clear that this is the message:

Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
Jer 18:6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!
Jer 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
Jer 18:8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
Jer 18:9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
Jer 18:10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Yahweh, Himself, interprets this illustration. God is forming Israel. Israel can go two ways. Either Israel can rebel (enticing God to destroy them), or Israel can repent (sparing themselves from God’s wrath). Although God at one time promises destruction or blessings, God is not bound to these promises if the people change their ways.

In verse 8, God is said not to do what He “thought to do” (KJV). In verse 10, God is said not to do what He said He was going to do. Israel was under the impression that because God gave promises to Abraham, then God would not destroy them. This seems to be a reoccurring concept throughout the history of the Bible. Jeremiah is fighting this idea. Just because God promised Abraham, this does not make that promise assured. Promises are conditional.

Because Israel is currently evil, the text suggests that God is attempting to get them to repent. God has and does declare evil against them. God is shown to be currently devising destruction against them. This is to be mirrored by the potter starting to build his original creation. The idea is that this plan is not assured, and people can ward against these plans based on their own actions:

Jer 18:11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ‘ ”

God warns Israel to repent. God wants the scenario in verse 8 to occur: although God is planning to destroy Israel, God wants them to repent and avert destruction. But the people remain steadfast:

Jer 18:12 And they said, “That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.”

The people ignore Jeremiah’s warnings. The people ignore Jeremiah’s illustration of God responding. They declare faith in God as hopeless. They believe that in this life there is no reward for following God. They believe that there will be no consequences to their actions. They are denying that God can and will act against Israel.

Jer 18:13 Therefore thus says the LORD: “Ask now among the Gentiles, Who has heard such things? The virgin of Israel has done a very horrible thing.
Jer 18:14 Will a man leave the snow water of Lebanon, Which comes from the rock of the field? Will the cold flowing waters be forsaken for strange waters?
Jer 18:15 “Because My people have forgotten Me, They have burned incense to worthless idols. And they have caused themselves to stumble in their ways, From the ancient paths, To walk in pathways and not on a highway,
Jer 18:16 To make their land desolate and a perpetual hissing; Everyone who passes by it will be astonished And shake his head.

Yahweh is the God of Israel. The other nations are depicted as knowing this. As the other nations look towards Israel, they will see that Israel has denied their own God in favor of foreign gods (idols). In this text, Yahweh laments. There is shock and disbelief that Israel would deny their own God. It does not make sense. Just as abandoning fertile land in search of unknown land is inconceivable, Israel abandoning God is likewise inconceivable. God depicts a coming destruction that will destroy the land. If Israel is known for abandoning their God, God wants to ensure this is coupled with Israel being known for being utterly destroyed.

God then vows to destroy Israel in spite of their pleas.

Jer 18:17 I will scatter them as with an east wind before the enemy; I will show them the back and not the face In the day of their calamity.”

In this text, God shows abandonment of Israel. This is also a reoccurring theme in the Bible. As God punishes, God ignores the prayers of those being punished. God is depicted as hardening His heart, building up tolerance towards suffering. This is metaphorically illustrated by God hiding His face and showing them His back.

Jeremiah’s audience, far from accepting Jeremiah’s words, then turn against Jeremiah to do him harm. God’s warning for repentance has failed. The people ignored God and God’s invitation for blessings.

Jer 18:18 Then they said, “Come and let us devise plans against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come and let us attack him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words.”
Jer 18:19 Give heed to me, O LORD, And listen to the voice of those who contend with me!
Jer 18:20 Shall evil be repaid for good? For they have dug a pit for my life. Remember that I stood before You To speak good for them, To turn away Your wrath from them.

Jeremiah feels betrayed by God. God has risked Jeremiah’s life to preach God’s word, yet Jeremiah feels that God has not reciprocated in protection. Jeremiah often feels abandoned by God. In chapter 20, Jeremiah again laments that God has betrayed and deceived him (Jer 20:7). Jeremiah prays for God to intercede against his accusers. Jeremiah has preached destruction and repentance, now he wants God to follow through with God’s threats. Jeremiah prays for the death of his enemy:

Jer 18:21 Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, And pour out their blood By the force of the sword; Let their wives become widows And bereaved of their children. Let their men be put to death, Their young men be slain By the sword in battle.
Jer 18:22 Let a cry be heard from their houses, When You bring a troop suddenly upon them; For they have dug a pit to take me, And hidden snares for my feet.
Jer 18:23 Yet, LORD, You know all their counsel Which is against me, to slay me. Provide no atonement for their iniquity, Nor blot out their sin from Your sight; But let them be overthrown before You. Deal thus with them In the time of Your anger.

Jeremiah prays that God kill the children of his enemies. Jeremiah prays that his enemies are killed by the sword. Jeremiah’s idea of this judgment is a foreign army destroying Israel. Jeremiah attempts to convince God to act soon.

Jeremiah appeals to God’s knowledge of his enemies’ intentions, the intentions that Jeremiah already can discern. Jeremiah knows his enemies intend to kill him and points God to this critical fact. Jeremiah asks that God not show mercy and kill them (“blot out their sin from Your sight”). Jeremiah tries to get God to act as God is angry. The implication is that God is more prone to righteous vengeance when angry; God is harder to temper when mad.

The whole of Jeremiah 18 shows a basic unfamiliarity with negative theology. God is not depicted as aloof. God is not depicted as always acting, but preparing to act in a decisive and real way. God is not depicted as knowing the future in detail. Instead, God is depicted as changing based on the actions of the people. The people act, and then God sees this and responds. But in the text, the people reject God despite God’s efforts to convert them. Jeremiah then even goes so far as to request that God does not spare the wicked, even if they repent. Jeremiah believed he could influence God. Jeremiah believed God was active, passionate, and relational.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Open Theism, Theology | 1 Comment

aslan on james against paul

Posted on December 7, 2014 by christopher fisher

From Reza Aslan’s Zealot:

Regardless, by the year 57 C.E., the rumors about Paul’s teachings could no longer be ignored. And so, once again, he is summoned to Jerusalem to answer for himself.

This time, James confronts Paul directly, telling him that it has come to his attention that Paul has been teaching believers “to forsake Moses” and “not circumcise their children or observe the customs [of the law]” (Acts 21: 21). Paul does not respond to the accusation, though this is exactly what he has been teaching. He has even gone so far as to say that those who let themselves be circumcised will have “cut themselves off from Christ” (Galatians 5: 2– 4).

To clear up matters once and for all, James forces Paul to take part with four other men in a strict purification ritual in the Temple— the same Temple that Paul believes has been replaced by the blood of Jesus— so that “all will know there is nothing to the rumors said about you, and that you observe and guard the law ” (Acts 21: 24). Paul obeys; he seems to have no choice in the matter.

…

After the embarrassing spectacle at the Temple, in which he was forced to renounce everything he had been preaching for two decades, Paul wanted to get as far as he could from Jerusalem and the ever-tightening noose of control placed around his neck by James and the apostles. Besides, Rome seemed the perfect place for Paul.

And on the purification ritual:

What Luke is describing in this passage is called a “Nazirite vow” (Numbers 6: 2). Nazirites were strict devotees of the Law of Moses who pledged to abstain from wine and refused to shave their hair or come near a corpse for a set period of time, either as an act of piety or in return for the fulfillment of a wish , such as a healthy child or a safe journey (James himself may have been a Nazirite, as the description of those who take the vow perfectly matches the descriptions of him in the ancient chronicles ). Considering Paul’s views on the Law of Moses and the Temple of Jerusalem, his forced participation in such a ritual would have been hugely embarrassing for him. The entire purpose of the rite was to demonstrate to the Jerusalem assembly that he no longer believed what he had been preaching for nearly a decade. There is no other way to read Paul’s participation in the Nazirite vow except as a solemn renunciation of his ministry and a public declaration of James’s authority over him— all the more reason to doubt Luke’s depiction of Paul as simply going along with the ritual without comment or complaint.

Posted in Church History, Dispensationalism, Theology | 1 Comment

metaphors and anthropomorphisms

Posted on December 2, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the TV series Game of Thrones, there is a character called the Hand of the King. This character wears a bronze hand to signify who he is. No reader or watcher is confused by this title. No reader or watcher believes the king has a disembodied body part walking around in the form of a man. No, everyone understands the metaphorical title.

Hands are powerful. Hands can do thing. The hand of the king is something precious to the king, close to the king, extension of the king, and a symbol of his power. Likewise, anyone called the Hand of the King represents all these things. But because symbols are not absolute, the Hand of the King can be betrayed by the king or can likewise betray the king. The king can die and the hand can live on. Any sort of normal expected life outcomes are possible. The metaphor serves a purpose, but that purpose cannot be extended indefinitely. The immediate point of a metaphor is usually readily accessible to the audience.

Metaphors have meaning, usually obvious meaning. If the meaning is not readily accessible, then the metaphor loses meaning. If a King sends out a proclamation that he regrets making a law while at the same time repealing the law (“I regret I made the law, and now I will repeal it”), the regret is not a “metaphor” for repealing that law. If it were, then there would be no need to declare the resulting action of repealing the law. In this case, if the king did not actually “regret” making that law, a casual observer would rightly call the king a liar. The casual observer would not make excuses that “regret” is some sort of metaphor.

A very similar story occurs in Genesis 6:
God see the wickedness on Earth (v5).
God regrets making man (v6).
God declares He regrets making man and vows to destroy man (v7).
God finds an exception to His anger (v8).

There are those that label this story as a metaphor or an anthropomorphism. They claim that God always knew He would destroy the earth and had no regrets. They claim the regret communicates a change in process, not true regret. There are plenty of reasons this fails.

1. An entire story cannot be a metaphor or and idiom. Metaphors are limited to a word or sentence meant to mirror a similar concept for the sake of analogy or flare. Extended metaphors quickly lose comprehensibility or are called “fables” (and do not communicate truth).

2. In Genesis, there is no indication that the author believed that God actually foresaw the extent of wickedness in man before it happened. If the author truly believed that, then within 50 chapters one would expect some inkling of this belief. But this is not found, and instead, innumerable counter-texts can be found.

3. The metaphor must have meaning. It has to communicate something equivalent to the audience. There needs to be some conceptual overlap with reality. But the Classical theologians are amiss to explain what this is. If it is an idiom, it is not easily explained violating the very purpose and use of idioms.

Back to the Hand of the King: it is a metaphor, but it surprisingly tells the audience very little about the king. The King could be handless or have hands. The metaphor is not about the king’s hands but about a delegate. Metaphors are limited by context. One often used metaphor which ascribes “wings” to God is found multiple times in Psalms:

Psa 17:8 Keep me as the apple of Your eye; Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,

Psa 91:4 He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

These metaphors are common in human speech. People intuitively understand them and use them in every day speech. It is not hard to understand their meaning: If God is asked to hide someone under His wing we naturally envision a mother bird sheltering a baby bird as a parallel to what God would do. What these verses do not do is give the audience any sense as to if God does or does not have wings. That is not the point of these verses and would be terrible proof texts for either view.

What is needed would be a verse that is clearly not an idiom and which clear takes a position. Even then it has to be evaluated in context. Can that fact change? Does it hold of all contexts? That is the question.

Posted in Bible, critical thinking, Figures of Speech | Leave a comment

spirits have bodies

Posted on December 1, 2014 by christopher fisher

Joh 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

It is repeated ad nauseam that God does not have a body because God is spirit. But this seems to be a modern construct, most likely adopted from Platonism where the material world and physical forms were part of corruption. It was “transcendence from the physical world” that Platonism set as the goal, to escape the body. But this is not the Christian hope. Paul writes that the Christian hope is in a future body:

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

What is very interesting is the way which Paul words what particular type of body we will have. It will be a “spiritual” body. Not only that, but Paul states that just as we now have a earthly body in the image of God that we will have a spiritual body in the image of God:

1Co 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

Paul is stating that our substance will change to spirit, that spirit will have a body, and that spirit will bear the image of God. But what differentiates a spiritual body from a earthly body? Paul points to one key difference: immortality.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY.”

Like everyone else in the time of Paul, Paul was expecting God to usher in an Earthly Kingdom under which everyone would live. Outsiders would bring tribute. And God (or a delegate) would reign from inside the kingdom. This was to be the Kingdom of God. Even if the spiritual bodies that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians do not have “flesh and blood” (Luk 24:39), everyone understood spirits to have bodies.

There is another very interesting passage on spirits in the Bible. In Luke, Jesus appears to the 12 disciples. They are shocked. They think Jesus is a spirit. They had seen Jesus die and now they see Jesus standing in front of them. The 12 were not under the impression that spirits do not have bodies. Just like everyone today, they assumed that ghosts were spatially located and looked like people. In order to convince the 12 that he was not a spirit, Jesus shows them the holes in his hands. Jesus then states:

Luk 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Assuming that Luke is using “spirit” in the same way as Paul, it is safe to say that spiritual bodies do not have flesh and blood.

But I believe that Luke is speaking of a different type of “spirit” (in language, words have several uses) than Paul. The disciples were thinking that Jesus was a ghost. The disciples were not thinking that Jesus had a spiritual body as defined by Paul. Paul states that his spiritual body will be in the image of God. But the disciples were afraid of Jesus’ body, suggesting they were thinking about phantoms.

In any case, the Luke passage does not support the conclusion that spirits do not have bodies. It is evidence that spirits do have bodies. Every time the Bible talks about spirits, they have spatial location. From the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the earth (Gen 1:2) to Samuel being conjured (1Sa 28:14). The claim that because God is spirit that God has no body is a baseless claim. If anything, the default assumption should be that because God is spirit that He has a body.

Addendum:

One place which attributes a body to God that is not adequately answered by Classical theology is in Exodus 33. Moses asks to see God’s glory. God says no one can see His “face” and live (God does not say that He does not have a “face”). God compromises by showing Moses His backside. God places Moses in a cleft of a rock, covers Moses with God’s own hand, passes by the rock, and then lifts His hand to show Moses His backside. There is no possible way to misinterpret what happens in the text:

Exo 33:17 So the LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing that you have spoken; for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name.”
Exo 33:18 And he said, “Please, show me Your glory.”
Exo 33:19 Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
Exo 33:20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, “Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock.
Exo 33:22 So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by.
Exo 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”

Posted in Bible, Theology | 1 Comment

as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Posted on December 1, 2014 by christopher fisher

Act 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Calvinists often try to use Acts 13:48 to point to their concept of predestination. But this is just not the prooftext which they need. The context says nothing about fatalism, instead it is about people responding to preaching. As with any language, the text supports multiple translations. In this case, the verb “had been appointed” could just have easily have stated “appointed themselves”. This would turn the verse from a prooftext for Calvinism into a death knell for Calvinism:

Act 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as appointed themselves to eternal life believed.

Jesse Morrell explains why the context better fits the reflexive translation than the NKJV rendering:

3. Also notice the passive/middle ending “μένοι.” That means that ordained/disposed can be taken as something which was done to them (passive), in this case by the word, or something which they did to themselves (middle), in this case by allowing themselves to be properly influenced by the word. Given the context of this passage, especially in contrast with vs. 46 that uses the reflexive pronoun “ἑαυτοῦ” to say that they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, this verb “τεταγμένοι” should be understood to be in the middle voice. Context is the only key in determining whether a verb is in the passive or in the middle, as the ending is identical.

…

So with the imperfect indicative verb “ἦσαν” and the perfect middle verb “τεταγμένοι”, this passage is saying that those who believed were those who had continually disposed themselves to eternal life in the past, when the word was presented to them by Paul and Barnabas.

This understanding of the verse would make a lot of sense in the context of Paul’s ministry. Paul had a very hard time converting outsiders. Instead, Paul’s main body of converts came from the God-fearers. These were Gentiles who worshiped God but were too weak to undergo the critical conversion to Judaism via circumcision. The text would be saying that Paul captured this market of ready believers. This stirs up the Jews against Paul. Paul was stealing their converts into a religion that appalled them:

Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.

This fits Paul’s previous persecutions. Acts 13:49 is saying Paul converted the God-fearers.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Theology | 2 Comments

understanding psalms 90

Posted on November 25, 2014 by christopher fisher

Psalms 90 styles itself as a psalm written by Moses or passed down from Moses. The authorship is interesting concerning the content. The theme of the psalm is how man lives for a short time, yet God lives forever. In the author’s time, Israel had undergone hardships and experienced death. Israel was humbled, and this psalm asks that God once again turn His favor to Israel.

Psa 90:1 A Prayer Of Moses the Man of God. LORD, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.

Moses begins this psalm by affirming that God is a God of Israel. Since their inception with Abraham, God has been the focal point and Israel’s safety. It is safe to say that “us” and “our” refer to Israel due to Israel’s reoccurring group status within the Psalms and the particular content of this chapter.

Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

Moses next affirms God’s power while at the same time affirming His longevity. Notice that the author is claiming that God existed before the creation of the world. The phrase “from everlasting to everlasting” deals with timeframes. God has always existed and God always will exist. The context and face value meaning is not about timelessness. The following verses clarify, if there was any reasonable doubt. In fact, God being “everlasting” is contrasted with humans who live and then die:

Psa 90:3 You turn man to destruction, And say, “Return, O children of men.”

God kills people and then proclaims their deaths. Their body decays. The assumption is that this is contrasted with God who does not decay. The entire chapter is a long contrast between God and man. Even without being explicit, the reader understands this contrast.

Some say that “Return, O children of man” is a resurrection, as opposed to God declaring someone’s death. A third option is that the verse could be rendered: You turn a dying man into dust, but then can save him. The context (in which people die and fade away) gives support to the first option (God declaring death). But as the end of the chapter is about reconciliation, it could also be about salvation from death.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night.

Again, the author is contrasting time elements with God. Men come and go. God lives forever. It is not that God is “outside of time”. Instead, the author is adamant that God passes time as if it were nothing. All the imagery is about God living forever, watching men die.

This verse is explicit. This is not from man’s perspective. The verse is claiming to show God’s perspective. Time passes for God. Once one thousand years passes, in God’s view it is only as if a day has elapsed. This is the opposite of God being outside of time. Instead, this is talking about how God experiences time.

The idea of the verse is not at all alien to human understanding. As people age, the years seem to go faster and faster. When people are young, they feel that time stands still. When people are old, years pass by at an astonishing rate. If God has always lived (per verse 2), then time is of little notice to God. A hundred generations can die, and it would be a blip in God’s experience. This is really the point the author is trying to make:

Psa 90:5 You carry them away like a flood; They are like a sleep. In the morning they are like grass which grows up:
Psa 90:6 In the morning it flourishes and grows up; In the evening it is cut down and withers.

Men are compared to grass which quickly dies. They are a phantom dream in the night. They dissipate in the morning. They are washed away with the water. The contrast with verse 4 is apparent.

Psa 90:7 For we have been consumed by Your anger, And by Your wrath we are terrified.
Psa 90:8 You have set our iniquities before You, Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance.
Psa 90:9 For all our days have passed away in Your wrath; We finish our years like a sigh.

In these verses, God is portrayed as the one killing those who are wicked. God’s wrath consumes the sinners who believed their secret sins would go unpunished. Their lives end in a breath. The theme is a fleeting life. While we die, God lives on.

Psa 90:10 The days of our lives are seventy years; And if by reason of strength they are eighty years, Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

This is a very telling verse. It appears that those who made it to adulthood, in the time of Moses, held an average lifespan between 70 to 80 years. This would not be inconsistent with early lifespan studies done elsewhere. But even at 70 years, this is nothing. People soon die.

Psa 90:11 Who knows the power of Your anger? For as the fear of You, so is Your wrath.
Psa 90:12 So teach us to number our days, That we may gain a heart of wisdom.
Psa 90:13 Return, O LORD! How long? And have compassion on Your servants.

In these verses, the author implores God to cease punishment on Israel for their sins. Israel has gained wisdom by seeing the death of their people. The people have been humbled by their own frailty. The previous contrasting of man’s days with God’s days might serve a second purpose. The author asks God “how long?” This serves almost as a reminder that although God will live forever and might not regard the years, that God’s servants are very sensitive to time.

The author asks to spend his remaining days in peace:

Psa 90:14 Oh, satisfy us early with Your mercy, That we may rejoice and be glad all our days!
Psa 90:15 Make us glad according to the days in which You have afflicted us, The years in which we have seen evil.

The author asks for as many years of blessings as Israel has experienced in affliction. The affliction is attributed to God. God has the power to afflict and the power to bless. The author implores God to change His curses to blessings.

Psa 90:16 Let Your work appear to Your servants, And Your glory to their children.
Psa 90:17 And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us, And establish the work of our hands for us; Yes, establish the work of our hands.

This psalm ends on a hopeful note. God has cursed and God has killed, but God should return to Israel. God needs to create prosperity such that people can praise God. God can then be experienced by all. Once God has returned, then Israel’s projects and plans would be blessed. God would ensure Israel accomplishes their goals.

To Moses, God had power. God was causing afflictions in response to sin. But God could be moved to change. God could be moved to grant untold blessings and prosperity. The psalm starts by humbling mankind. The psalm debases man as a dying plant or fleeting dream. The psalm, at the same time, exalts God as the God who lives forever. With adequate praise and humility, God may be moved to mercy.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Immutablility, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

walter brueggemann on david’s celebrity

Posted on November 24, 2014 by christopher fisher

From Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament:

By focusing on this material, we immediately center on David, the “star” of Israel’s narrative, who pushes Israel’s storytellers to imaginative extremes. More than this, the text as we have it suggests that Yahweh is inordinately and irrationally committed to David. This uncommon commitment causes Yahweh to act in odd and unreliable ways. That this inordinate commitment can produce odd actions in Yahweh is itself an important theological datum in Israel’s cross-examination. It is as though when David enters the stage of Israel’s activity, Yahweh’s characteristic features of sovereignty and fidelity are strained and challenged. What interests us here is the awareness that the entry of David into the story can skew Yahweh’s way of being available to Israel. This skewedness in the direction of David can produce, as a downside, the sense of the tragic in the story of Saul, who never really had a chance in Israel’s imagination. Being juxtaposed to David, and given Yahweh’s peculiar attentiveness to David, Saul is the wrong man at the wrong time. But the wrongness is not given as a public, political datum—it eventuates only from Yahweh’s peculiar affection for David.

Posted in Bible, God, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

a critique of elihu’s speech against job

Posted on November 11, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the book of Job, Job has three friends approach him and condemn him for evil. Because Job was suffering, they were of the opinion that Job had some hidden evil. After a few rounds of back and forth, the friends quite down. A third party, Elihu, speaks up. He is angry at both Job and Job’s three friends:

Job 32:1 So these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.
Job 32:2 Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God.
Job 32:3 Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.
…
Job 32:5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was aroused.

It seems that Elihu wanted the three friends to keep pressing Job. Job does not answer their queries of a hidden sin. The friends give up. And Elihu is furious that they did not get Job to admit sin. Elihu was not necessarily mad at the friends’ particular responses (unless the “answer” is meant to mean a not yet disclosed reason for Job’s suffering). From Elihu’s further statements, it is clear that Elihu thinks Job has some hidden sin that the friends just have not uncovered as of yet. On this point Elihu is wrong.

Elihu is mad at Job because Job tries to justify himself rather than God. This seems like a legitimate point, as God levies similar arguments later the in the book.

Elihu then gives himself a little background (v6-10). He expresses dissatisfaction with the friends’ reasoning and also with their inability to counter Job’s arguments (v12-13). Elihu proclaims his indignation and eagerness to speak (v16-20). The entire chapter of Job 32 seems to be a long winded and substanceless rant on the part of Elihu (it is no wonder that Elihu’s modern critics label him as vain and boastful).

In chapter 33, the rant continues on for several verses. In verse 6, Elihu makes an interesting statement which could be taken as him claiming to be God’s voice or an intermediator between God and Job:

Job 33:6 Truly I am as your spokesman before God; I also have been formed out of clay.

Starting in verse 8, Elihu sums up Job’s argument:

Job 33:9 ‘I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent, and there is no iniquity in me.
Job 33:10 Yet He finds occasions against me, He counts me as His enemy;
Job 33:11 He puts my feet in the stocks, He watches all my paths.’

Job proclaims his innocence to God, counting God as his oppressor. Elihu says this statement is unrighteous (v12). Elihu then claims that God needs not respond (v13). Elihu adds that God does tell people things, and sometimes that is though messengers (v14-15, 23).

Elihu then claims that God uses evil to convert sinners, sparing their lives:

Job 33:17 In order to turn man from his deed, And conceal pride from man,
Job 33:18 He keeps back his soul from the Pit, And his life from perishing by the sword.

From these words, it seems Elihu considered himself as that intermediator to show Job that Job is unrighteous. Elihu is saying God is answering Job though Elihu’s own speech. Elihu ends this chapter by reaffirming his own message (v31-33).

In chapter 34, Elihu starts by affirming his own message again and then quoting more of Job’s statements which he finds improper:

Job 34:5 “For Job has said, ‘I am righteous, But God has taken away my justice;
Job 34:6 Should I lie concerning my right? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’
…
Job 34:9 For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God.’

Elihu’s response is that God does not do evil, but rewards the righteous with good:

Job 34:10 “Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.
Job 34:11 For He repays man according to his work, And makes man to find a reward according to his way.
Job 34:12 Surely God will never do wickedly, Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.

Elihu then points to God’s power. God can kill everything on Earth in a moment (v14). The idea seems to be Dignum Deo theology. Because God is powerful, God is duty bound to perform justice, punishing the wicked and blessing the righteous (v17). God is not partial to humans (v19-20). God knows what everyone does (v21). There need not be a trial before punishment for this reason (v24). God crushes the wicked in plain view of everyone (although their evil was in secret) (v25).

It is clear, Elihu is pointing to some sort of secret sin in Job’s life as the reason for this very public punishment. On this point, Elihu is wrong. Job is being targeted because God called Job “perfect” and Satan wanted to test out the theory. This is evidence towards Elihu not being a true witness, not contrasting the three friends but complementing their false ideas.

Elihu spends several more verses condemning Job as evil before adding:

Job 34:35 ‘Job speaks without knowledge, His words are without wisdom.’
Job 34:36 Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost, Because his answers are like those of wicked men!
Job 34:37 For he adds rebellion to his sin; He claps his hands among us, And multiplies his words against God.”

Elihu wishes even more pain on Job than Job has already endured, explicitly claiming Job has sinned before the tribulations started. Elihu begins his next chapter by proclaiming that sin and righteousness do not give God anything. Wickedness, Elihu states, hurts not God, but man:

Job 35:8 Your wickedness affects a man such as you, And your righteousness a son of man.

This is Elihu capping his rant about Job’s prior sin which begot all the evil. This is another piece of evidence of Elihu being a false witness.

Elihu next argues that when people are in need of help, they cry out to God (v9-12). God sometimes does not respond due to their pride (v12). This pride Elihu attributes to Job (v15-16). In this point also, Elihu is wrong. Satan is in control of the situation, and God’s deliverance is not anywhere stated to be contingent on Job’s pride.

In the next chapter, Elihu again claims to be speaking for God (v2). The next series of verses reiterate that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked (v3-16). Elihu then takes the opportunity to call Job wicked again:

Job 36:17 But you are filled with the judgment due the wicked; Judgment and justice take hold of you.

Elihu follows this by criticizing Job’s questions towards God (v18). Elihu claims God is righteous (v24), God’s work is visible (v25), and God is powerful (v27-33).

The entire next chapter speaks of God’s powerful works and awesome deeds. This echoes God’s own speech in the next few chapters. The point seems to be that no matter where we are and what is happening, God should be praised for God’s power. This seems as a legitimate point of Ehilu’s behalf.

In summary, Elihu has a few valid points but also many rehashed falsehoods from the three false witness friends. Elihu is correct in magnifying God, criticizing Job for magnifying himself, and also correct in that God does not owe a response to Job. Elihu is wrong that Job is wicked, that God is punishing Job, and that all visible good and evil are judgments from the hand of God.

Posted in Bible, Morality, Theology | 1 Comment

satan borrows God’s power to use against job

Posted on November 10, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the book of Job, Satan approaches God and offers up a bet against God’s most favored human being, Job. Satan actually makes two bets (the first of which Satan loses fairly quickly). Both bets involve supernatural acts levied against Job. In order to accomplish these acts, Satan seems to be in control but the power that is being used seems to be from God.

Satan starts his first bet:

Job 1:9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing?
Job 1:10 Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Here, there seems to be multiple dynamics at play. Satan tells God to “touch” Job, signifying God’s power will hurt Job. Satan is saying God will be the one touching Job. God then replies that Job is in Satan’s hand, just that Satan cannot hurt Job’s person. This repeats itself in the second chapter, as Satan proposes a new bet along the same lines.

Job 2:4 So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.
Job 2:5 But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
Job 2:6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
Job 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.

Again “God” is the one stretching out His hand against Job, but Job is in Satan’s hand and given leeway to do anything that does not kill Job. Again, Satan tells God to use God’s power against Job yet God tells Satan that Satan is in control.

Back in the first chapter, the fire is said to have come “from God”:

Job 1:16 While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; and I alone have escaped to tell you!”

Although in a quote (which is not necessarily truth) and possibly a figure of speech, this does attribute the fire being from God (at least in popular theology of that day). In the next chapter, God claims that Satan incited God against Job:

Job 2:3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.”

Both chapters indicate Satan is in charge and performing the acts, yet both chapters also indicate God is using His power (God is acting).

The next piece of evidence is that after the events all transpire in Job, another statement is made that the calamity came from God:

Job 42:11 Then all his brothers, all his sisters, and all those who had been his acquaintances before, came to him and ate food with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the LORD had brought upon him. Each one gave him a piece of silver and each a ring of gold.

Atheists say that the entire chapter is at odds with each other, but there seems to be a simpler solution:

Satan does not have his own power to perform his curses against Job. Satan must latch onto God’s power and God’s power must be used to fulfill the conditions of the bet. In essence, God is lending His power to Satan to use within parameters. In this sense, both God is the one bringing the evil against Job, yet Satan is the moral agent who is acting.

It appears at the time Job was written, the common understanding of angels did not extend to them being able to perform all these acts.

If this is accurate, Christians should incorporate this into their theology when talking about Satan. Satan is not the anti-thesis of God. Satan is not the origin of all evil. Instead, Satan has normal angel powers, and operates in a severely limited capacity compared to modern conceptions.

Also see: Understanding Satan

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Omnipotence, Open Theism, Theology | 3 Comments

elihu was a false prophet to job

Posted on November 9, 2014 by christopher fisher

From John Franklin Genung:

The friends, however, have exhausted their resources, and through three discourses have been silent, as it were, snuffed out of existence. It is at this point, then, that Elihu is introduced, to renew their contention with young constructive blood, and represent their cause (as he deems) better than they can themselves. He is essentially at one with them in condemning Job (Job 34:34-37); his only quarrel with them is on the score of the inconclusiveness of their arguments (32:3, 1). His self-portrayal is conceived in a decided spirit of satire on the part of the writer, not unmingled with a sardonic humor. He is very egotistic, very sure of the value of his ideas; much of his alleged prolixity is due to that voluble self-deprecation which betrays an inordinate opinion of oneself (compare Job 32:6-22)…

Very evidently, however, his ego is the center of his system; it is he who sets up as Job’s mediator (Job 33:5-7; compare Job 9:32-35), and his sage remarks on God’s power and wisdom in Nature are full of self-importance. All this seems designed to accentuate the almost ludicrous humiliation of his collapse when from a natural phenomenon the oncoming tempest shows unusual and supernatural signs. His words become disjointed and incoherent, and cease with a kind of attempt to recant his pretensions. And the verdict from the whirlwind is: “darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge.” Elihu thus has a real function in the story, as honorable as overweening self-confidence is apt to be.

Contrast with John Piper’s glowing praise of Elihu:

Five Reasons We Should Accept Elihu’s Counsel…
1. His Speech Is Presented as Something New
2. Six Chapters Devoted to His Words
3. Job’s Response to Elihu
4. God’s Response to Elihu
5. He Offers Something New and Helpful

Posted in Bible, God, Theology | 4 Comments