critical thinking and intellectual honesty

Posted on September 8, 2014 by christopher fisher

Critical thinking is crucial in forming rational beliefs about the world. Those who reject critical thinking risk highly irrational and false beliefs. Although individuals can believe truths independent of critical examination, the danger of such thinking is proportional to the long term effects of that belief. Although some commentators on this website have been highly irrational, they probably will not suffer the any immediate or future consequences of their irrational beliefs besides public shaming. Not everything is trivial though.

The Christian generic belief is that there is life after death, granted by God based on criteria. Broadly, Christianity is most split on questions of “Who is God?” and “What is the criteria for eternal life?” These questions have huge consequences. Sub-questions to this include “How accurate is the Bible?” and “How is the Bible best understood?” Using the elements of critical thinking helps us evaluate claims on these issues. From criticalthinking.org:

CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don’t yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, “What can be done about the education system in America?” is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the “problem” to be. A clearer question might be “What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?”

If there is a claim “God is omniscient.” Clarity would ask: “In what way is God omniscient?” “Is this analogous to anything else?” “What would be an example of a characteristic that would make something not omniscient?”

ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in “Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight.”

If there is a claim that “God is omniscient.” Accuracy would ask is “What evidence exists to suggest God is omniscient?” “What would constitute valid evidence to show that?”

PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is overweight.” (We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Precision would ask: “The beginning of what?” “What constitutes ‘the end’?” “When exactly does God declare the end?”

RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the “effort” does not measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Relevance would ask: “Does declaring the end from the beginning have anything to do with omniscience?” “Is there anything else that would enable God to declare the end from the beginning besides direct knowledge of the future?”

DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, “Just say No!” which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Depth would ask: “Is that a convenient superficial understanding of the context or is the context more nuanced?” “Is the context suggesting a different understanding of this proof?”

BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Breadth would ask: “How would the ancient Hebrews have understood this statement?” “How would someone who does not ascribe to omniscience, view this statement?”

LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is “logical.” When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not “make sense,” the combination is not logical.

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Logic would ask: “Does this actually prove omniscience?” “Is omniscience even the logical conclusion of that statement?” “Does God declaring the end from the beginning actually contradict omniscience because it suggests the declaration was not eternal?”

FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? Human think is often biased in the direction of the thinker – in what are the perceived interests of the thinker. Humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others on the same plane with their own rights and needs. We therefore must actively work to make sure we are applying the intellectual standard of fairness to our thinking. Since we naturally see ourselves as fair even when we are unfair, this can be very difficult. A commitment to fairmindedness is a starting place.

If the claim is that “God declaring the end from the beginning proves omniscience.” Fairness would ask: “Do I have a vested interest in this statement being true or false?” “What would a neutral third party think about this statement?” “Am I fairly understanding critics of this statement?”

Posted in critical thinking | Leave a comment

aslan on the jerusalem council

Posted on September 7, 2014 by christopher fisher

From Reza Aslan’s book Zealot:

Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem took place about a decade later, sometime around 50 C.E., and was far less cordial than the first. He had been summoned to appear before a meeting of the Apostolic Council to defend his self-designated role as missionary to the gentiles (Paul insists he was not summoned to Jerusalem but went of his own accord because Jesus told him to). With his companion Barnabas and an uncircumcised Greek convert named Titus by his side, Paul stood before James, Peter, John, and the elders of the Jerusalem assembly to strongly defend the message he had been proclaiming to the gentiles.

… According to Luke, James, in his capacity as leader of the Jerusalem assembly and head of the Apostolic Council, blessed Paul’s teachings, decreeing that thenceforth gentiles would be welcomed into the community without having to follow the Law of Moses, so long as they “abstain from things polluted by idols, from prostitution, from [eating] things that have been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15: 1– 21). Luke’s description of the meeting is an obvious ploy to legitimate Paul’s ministry by stamping it with the approval of none other than “the brother of the Lord.” However, Paul’s own account of the Apostolic Council, written in a letter to the Galatians not long after it had taken place, paints a completely different picture of what happened in Jerusalem. Paul claims that he was ambushed at the Apostolic Council by a group of “false believers” (those still accepting the primacy of the Temple and Torah) who had been secretly spying on him and his ministry. Although Paul reveals little detail about the meeting, he cannot mask his rage at the treatment he says he received at the hands of “the supposedly acknowledged leaders” of the church: James, Peter, and John. Paul says he “refused to submit to them, not even for a minute,” as neither they, nor their opinion of his ministry, made any difference to him whatsoever (Galatians 2: 1– 10). Whatever took place during the Apostolic Council, it appears that the meeting concluded with a promise by James, the leader of the Jerusalem assembly, not to compel Paul’s gentile followers to be circumcised. Yet what happened soon afterward indicates that he and James were far from reconciled: almost immediately after Paul left Jerusalem, James began sending his own missionaries to Paul’s congregations in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, and most other places where Paul had built a following, in order to correct Paul’s unorthodox teachings about Jesus…

Nevertheless, James’s delegations seem to have had an impact, for Paul repeatedly lambastes his congregations for abandoning him: “I am amazed at how quickly you have deserted the one who called you” (Galatians 1: 6). He implores his followers not to listen to these delegations, or to anyone else for that matter, but only to him: “If anyone else preaches a gospel contrary to the gospel you received [from me], let him be damned” (Galatians 1: 9). Even if that gospel comes “from an angel in heaven ,” Paul writes, his congregations should ignore it (Galatians 1: 8). Instead, they should obey Paul and only Paul: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11: 1)…

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)…

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.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

aslan defines messiah

Posted on September 7, 2014 by christopher fisher

From the very recommendable book “Zealot” by Muslim author Reza Aslan:

Messiah means “anointed one.” The title alludes to the practice of pouring or smearing oil on someone charged with divine office: a king, like Saul, or David, or Solomon; a priest, like Aaron and his sons, who were consecrated to do God’s work; a prophet, like Isaiah or Elisha, who bore a special relationship with God, an intimacy that comes with being designated God’s representative on earth. The messiah was popularly believed to be the descendant of King David, and so his principal task was to rebuild David’s kingdom and reestablish the nation of Israel. Thus, to call oneself the messiah at the time of the Roman occupation was tantamount to declaring war on Rome.

And:

Some believed the messiah would be a restorative figure who would return the Jews to their previous position of power and glory. Others viewed the messiah in more apocalyptic and utopian terms, as someone who would annihilate the present world and build a new, more just world upon its ruins. There were those who thought the messiah would be a king, and those who thought he’d be a priest. The Essenes apparently awaited two separate messiahs— one kingly, the other priestly—though most Jews thought of the messiah as possessing a combination of both traits. Nevertheless, among the crowd of Jews gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles, there seems to have been a fair consensus about who the messiah is supposed to be and what the messiah is supposed to do: he is the descendant of King David; he comes to restore Israel, to free the Jews from the yoke of occupation, and to establish God’s rule in Jerusalem.

Posted in Jesus, Jewish History | Leave a comment

the trinity explained

Posted on August 29, 2014 by christopher fisher

Posted in Humor, videos | 2 Comments

understanding psalms 139

Posted on August 24, 2014 by christopher fisher

King David, as I have written before, was a great Open Theist poet. King David’s psalms praise God for God’s careful and meticulous involvement in King David’s own life. King David was God’s anointed, and King David was very keen on that point. King David focuses his psalms almost exclusively on his own relationship with God, speaking often of his special relationship with God. The Bible also affirms this throughout: God loved King David to such an extent that God allowed King David to retain the kingdom of Israel even after he committed the same offense for which it was taken from Saul (compare 1Sa 13 to 1Sa 30:20). King David even survived murdering Uriah the Hittite. The Bible describes King David as a man after God’s own heart (Act 13:22). This is the historical context of King David’s psalms.

Although Psalms 139 is just one of around 80 or more psalms authored by King David, it is the most utilized by those engaging in Negative Theology. There is good reason for this: King David’s other psalms strongly contradict the Classical attributes whereas this one can be construed to accept it (in an inconsistent manner). It is no wonder that very specific verses of one particular psalm are triumphed over the thousands of other verses. But Psalms 139 is not the proof text which Classical Theologians believe:

Psa 139:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O LORD, you have searched me and known me!

The first verse starts with King David claiming that God has searched him. Normal reading comprehension would conclude that King David probably thought that God does not do this for everyone. After all, the entire psalm is filled with very personal claims, claims that are special only because they apply to him. If God treated everyone the same way as David, this destroys the emotion and meaning behind King David’s words.

Notice also that God searches to know. This counters the Negative attributes of omniscience, eternality (timelessness), and omnipotence. God has to act to know. God does not inherently know. God does not look into the future to know. God does not create and know His creation. God, instead, searches David in order to know David. Those adhering to Negative Theology have to ignore the natural implications of the very same verses they use to make their points. King David did not write this psalm with Negative Theology in mind.

In this verse, King David makes a very personal claim, that God searches David and knows David. This is meaningful to David. This sets David apart from others. This is David saying he has a personal connection with God.

Psa 139:2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.

Here David praises God because God knows David and keeps a special watch on David’s activities.

Along with the normal ways this text contradicts the Negative attributes, notice that there is an element of location involved with “afar”. Although this could mean “You understand what I will think in future times” or “You understand what I think although I cannot see You”, the “afar” is systematically used for location throughout the Bible (Pro 25:25, Isa 13:5, Isa 17:13). It makes more sense as a statement saying “although you are not near me, you know me, and that is powerful and special.” Besides God, the phrase “afar” is used mainly for far away countries and variations of the phrase are used for people when the people are far but visible. King David is saying, “while you are far away you keep watch on me”. David thinks God is watching him from a distant location.

Psa 139:3 You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.
Psa 139:4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

One Open Theist casually commented about this passage:

Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, my daughter knows it all. It’s uncanny. Almost like we have lived together so long she really knows me, who I am, and how I think. She will even say sometimes, ” I know what you are thinking.” And she is right.

This verse is likewise about David’s special relationship. The context is precisely that. God knows David’s path, his lying down, and all his ways. It is very personal.

Notice David’s pride concerning how well God knows and watches him. David then says that even before he speaks, God knows what he will say. This is hardly evidence for God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future. It is not written as if that was part of David’s normal theology. If King David believed God knew from time eternity what King David would say then why would King David speak in such a limited scope about God’s knowledge? Why would King David not write: “You knew from before the world began what I would say today, tomorrow, and in 20 years from now.” No, King David believes God searches him to know him (see verse 1). King David does not believe in omniscience nor does he write in such a fashion that would be expected of Negative Theology.

Straightforwardly, King David is impressed that God knows him so well that God knows what David will say. In modern America, this figure of speech is used all the time. People who know each other very well are said to finish each other’s sentences. The idea is intimate knowledge, not exhausting foreknowledge of all events. The idea is a special bond, not a generic praise. If this was a claim for exhaustive foreknowledge, it would contradict the flow of the chapter.

Psa 139:5 You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.
Psa 139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.
Psa 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
Psa 139:9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
Psa 139:10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.
Psa 139:11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,”
Psa 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.

Verse 7 and 8 are commonly used for Classical Theists to claim God is omnipresent. As expected, verse 9 through 12 are often not mentioned although they are in the same block of thought. Looking at these verses, it becomes clear that King David is not talking about God being physically located somewhere. As established throughout King David’s psalms, God is said to be in heaven (Psa 3:4, Psa 5:3, Psa 14:2, Psa 33:13, Psa 53:2, Psa 80:14, Psa 102:19, etc). Even in verse 2, God is said to be afar off.

The question becomes: “is verse 2 and every other reference by King David figurative or are these verses figurative?” Understanding the block of text as a concerted thought reveals the real answer.

Verse 5 is about being hedged in. Assumedly this means by God’s protection and guidance (verse 10). Verse 6 is an exclamation that this is an amazing revelation. Verse 7 asks where can David flee? Is David asking “where can I go to find space in which God is not located?” or is David asking “If I tried to run, could I get away from your power and protection (fitting the hedged theme)?” Verse 8 talks about heaven and hell (which seems to mean in the sky and under the dirt). Verse 9 talks about the farthest directions on earth and islands. Verse 10 restates the starting theme of Psalms 139, that God directs David. King David starts the verse by exclaiming “even there”. King David is impressed that God can extend God’s power to those remote locations.

Verse 11 and 12 are very interesting. King David makes the argument that God can see him even at night. If literal, King David is making a point that no Negative Theologian would ever make. If King David thought that God sees everything and knows everything, why would he make clarification that God can see him in the darkness of night? It would be a lot easier to just write: “God has all knowledge. God had known every action of my life from before I was born”. The idea that God can see you when you turn out the lights would be a given. But this is not how King David writes. Instead, King David writes as if he has no familiarity with omniscience (or any other Negative attribute) even being a theological option.

In reality, King David seems also to be addressing a common claim by those who rejected God that “God cannot see what we do” (Psa 10:11, Psa 59:7,Psa 64:5, Psa 73:11, Psa 94:7, Eze 9:9). King David does not, nor any other Biblical writer, answer these objections with straightforward Negative Theology. King David takes a reverse and specific stance: “God can see me everywhere”. King David claims that God can see him no matter how far he runs and no matter the lighting conditions.

The most straightforward reading of this block of verses seems to be that David knows God will not abandon him. Although David could try to flee, God would always be with him (the prophet Jonah did try to flee to ill effect). Although God is “afar”, God can see through the dark and through the dirt and through the sea to aid King David.

Alternatively, David could be using a series of figurative expressions. The text is filled with figurative expressions. When King David writes “Your hand shall lead me”, no casual reader would assume anything other than God helps David throughout life. No one thinks God uses his hands to take ahold of David and walk him physically down the street. Likewise, all other statements could be similarly figurative in this text. When King David talks about heaven and hell, light and dark, King David might be referring to “good times” and “bad times”. God does not abandon King David in either the good or bad times.

Both heaven and hell are used figuratively in modern speech and in the Bible. Compare the use of “hell” to other psalms:

Psa 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol [hell], or let your holy one see corruption.

Psa 86:13 For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol [hell].

Psa 116:3 The snares of death encompassed me; the pangs of Sheol [hell] laid hold on me; I suffered distress and anguish.

Hell was a figurative state of being. It is much like modern soldiers stating that “war is hell”. When people were close to death or their enemies were surrounding them, they figuratively said they were in hell and asked for salvation. Heaven could be the opposite, although there are no clear examples of this in the Bible. But heaven is often used in a figurative way. In Psalms: heaven is personified (Psa 50:6), heaven is where God resides (Psa 102:19), and heaven is where birds fly (Psa 8:8). It is not out of the question that heaven is also a metaphor for joyful living.

The last option, the one taken by Negative theologians, is that this verse means God is physically located everywhere. This seems to break the flow of the text. Notice:

God protects David. God is everywhere. God protects David. God can see in the dark.

Contrast:

God protects David. God will protect David everywhere. God protects David. God will protect David in the dark.

To summarize the possible meanings of this text:
1. David cannot go anywhere where God’s power does not extend.
2. God will be with David through both prosperity and adversity.
3. God is physically located everywhere and David cannot find a square inch of space that God does not inhabit.

Option 1 seems the most straightforward. Option 2 seems probable. Option 3 does not fit the theme of the chapter. If King David was a Negative theologian, this block of text would most likely be written much differently.

Keeping with the very personal theme in this chapter, King David describes his time in the womb:

Psa 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

In context, King David is speaking about fetology (the development of unborn babies). In verse 13, David starts talking about how his parts were “formed”. In verse 14, David says he was “made”. In verse 15, David was “made” and “woven”. Then in verse 16, the ESV uses the word “formed” in reference to “days”. But “days” seems to be the wrong translation. Per the KJV:

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

The KJV translators saw that King David’s subject did not stray. King David was still talking about fetology in verse 16. David is talking about being formed in the womb. God saw David developing in the womb, had a blueprint (book), and David’s fetal development followed that path. David’s point is not “fatalism”, but that his “fetal development was not Ad Hoc”. Before David developed as a baby, that path had been designed by God.

The KJV translation drew heavily on the Geneva translation. John Calvin writes of this verse:

Some read ימים, yamim, in the nominative case, when days were made; the sense being, according to them — All my bones were written in thy book, O God! from the beginning of the world, when days were first formed by thee, and when as yet none of them actually existed. The other is the more natural meaning, That the different parts of the human body are formed in a succession of time; for in the first germ there is no arrangement of parts, or proportion of members, but it is developed, and takes its peculiar form progressively.

The phrase “the days that were formed for me” seems to be a gross mistranslation. The Hebrew “days” does not have a definite article. The forming is a future tense. The phrase is more likely rendered like the King James: “which in continuance were fashioned”. This would be in reference to the substance (the “golem”). The substance or the writing is being formed over a period of days. The days are not being formed. Most likely David’s point is that as his body develops that God simultaneously records this in His book. God is watching and recording as baby David develops. This adverbial use of “days” is highlighted in several translations:

International Standard Version
Your eyes looked upon my embryo, and everything was recorded in your book. The days scheduled for my formation were inscribed, even though not one of them had come yet.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Thine eyes did see my substance yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which were then formed, without lacking one of them.

Darby Bible Translation
Thine eyes did see my unformed substance, and in thy book all [my members] were written; [during many] days were they fashioned, when [as yet] there was none of them.

English Revised Version
Thine eyes did see mine unperfect substance, and in thy book were all my members written, which day by day were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Thy eyes saw my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

In these translations the idea is that King David’s substance is being formed. David’s unformed body is planned for development before it is complete. The days are not being formed. The body parts are being formed. It is a very personal image: God is watching and guiding King David’s fetal formation.

To put this in perspective, in verses 13, 14, and 15, David is talking about how his body is designed during pregnancy. In the last verse, King David’s subject remains the same. The entire passage is about fetal development.

Negative theologians attempt to change verse 15 into some statement about David’s entire life being predestined. This would not fit the theme of the surrounding verses. If that was the case, verse 15 would be an abrupt subject change followed by another abrupt subject change in verse 17.

Assuming, however, that the Negative theologians are right and David was referring to his entire life being planned, this could also fit normal speech without necessitating omniscience. After all, what parent does not have plans for their own children’s lives? Some go so far as to use their power and influence to press their children into specific life paths. Would it be out of normal human understand for one of those children to say: “Before I was born, all your plans were known, the days fashioned for me.” Although David might have demurred, the Bible describes God having to seek David out (1Sa 13:14) after Saul’s failure. David was generally seen as contingency plan. In any case, it is a stretch of credulity to use this one verse to show omniscience of David’s entire life (not to mention all people’s lives ever).

Psa 139:17 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Psa 139:18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you.

If this was keeping in theme with the chapter and the previous verses, the opening phrase might better be rendered “how precious also are Your thoughts about me” (as the New English Translation renders the verse) or even “how precious also are Your thoughts (about me) [implied] to me”. Several versions use a similar translation to this. This rendering would fit the last phrase in this block “When I awake, I am still with You.” God would be continually thinking about King David. Recall God’s thoughts about David in the beginning of this psalm. God knows when David sits and rises (v 2). God understands David from far away (v 2). God is acquainted with all David’s ways (v 3). God even knows what David will say before he says it (v 4). David’s amazement is directed to God’s special focus on the life of times of David.

The standard interpretation is that David is in awe of God’s intelligence. If that is the case then David is continually thinking about God, even as he wakes up. This is a possibility, although it might break the flow of what David is communicating about God’s special notice of David. “I awake, and I am still with you” would also be hard to place.

Psa 139:19 Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me!
Psa 139:20 They speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies take your name in vain.
Psa 139:21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
Psa 139:22 I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.

Note, David was widely considered a man after “God’s own heart”. One reoccurring theme throughout the psalms of David is a hatred of the wicked and coming slaughter of the wicked. David shows his solidarity with God by proclaiming that God’s enemies are also his own. David shows utter disgust towards those who “rise up against” God. Several times in David’s writings, David illustrates this with some very bloody imagery (see Psa 58:10 and Psa 68:23). For all the positive aspects of King David, one of his key failings was his violence (1Ch 22:8), possibly an artifact of his dramatic and aggressive nature that endured him to God in the first place.

In keeping with this dramatic flair, King David challenges God to test him:

Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts!
Psa 139:24 And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!

After disclaiming evil men, King David gives a straightforward petition for God to search him, test him, and prove that he is not wicked. David is not under the impression that God’s knowledge extends to potential future acts or branching contingent futures or even extents of current hearts under hypothetical scenarios. In other words, David believed in free will. The heart/mind could only be proved through experience.

Instead, King David invites God to prove David such that God can know David is reliable and righteous. King David’s point is that even if God were to press King David, he would remain faithful. King David beams with self-confidence. God could see David’s challenge, understanding David would not offer the challenge unless he could pass. Alternatively, the invitation could lead to an actual test. This would be welcomed by David.

King David ends this section with a petition for God to lead him in righteousness. David wants God to act and to teach. David assumes that if God does not lead then David might falter. David wants God to be intimately involved in his life.

In Psalms 139, God is depicted as immensely personal with King David, but God is not omnipresent. Although God is far away, it is as if God is with King David. There is a sort of virtual omnipresence being described (at least in relation to King David’s life). God protects King David through his life. King David marvels at God’s personal attention. King David does not believe God is omniscient, but that God learns through searching and testing. King David does not believe the future is set, but believes God can lead and guide.

King David is not familiar with Negative Theology. Importing these concepts into the text break the flow and meaning of the text. Psalms 139 shows the danger of forcing texts to conform to abstract theology. A psalm about a personal relationship is generalized and expropriated by individuals in very different circumstances. As such Psalms 139 loses its meaning.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, History, Immutablility, Jewish History, Morality, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 9 Comments

stone touchscreens

Posted on August 24, 2014 by christopher fisher

I was showing my young boys a tv show which recounted the events of Moses on Mount Sinai. I explained to them the events as they were being depicted on the screen. Moses ascends to Mount Sinai. Moses speaks with God. Moses then receives the stone tablets and descends the mountain.

After the show was over, I quizzed my boys to ensure they understood the story.

Me: “What did God give Moses on Mt Sinai?”
The boys: “Stone touchscreens.”

This answer is definitely a testament to our modern amazing standard of living. It was beyond them that Moses had to live in a world without modern technology, electricity, and conveniences.

Posted in Humor, Vanity | Leave a comment

israel chosen as a priest nation

Posted on August 24, 2014 by christopher fisher

One of God’s favorite individuals throughout the Bible was Abraham. Abraham showed exceptional faith towards God and a promise of a continued loyalty to God. For this, God blesses Abraham. The specific blessing was that Abraham’s descendants would bless the world:

Gen 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

And,

Gen 26:4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;

God’s particular method under which Abraham’s descendants would bless the world was to create them into a chosen people under whom the rest of the world would be proselytized. In Exodus, God explains this to Israel:

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.
Exo 19:6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Note that this is all conditional. Because Abraham was faithful, his progeny were chosen to be priests. In this verse, as long as those individuals remain faithful, God will grant them this special privilege. If they strayed, God had latitude to revoke His promise.

God chose Israel to be a priest nation, one which would evangelize the world. For this reason God gave them the law and created a special bond with them, such that the entire would could become God-fearers:

Deu 4:5 “Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess.
Deu 4:6 Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
Deu 4:7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him?

This theme is a prominent subtheme in the Bible, masked by the major theme of God trying to just capture the loyalty of His chosen people. One cannot begin to proselytize without first having a core of people able to proselytize. In Isaiah, the prophet waxes hopeful that Israel would finally become that light to the world:

Isa 42:6 “I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,
Isa 42:7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.

In Isaiah 42, Israel was stated to bring freedom from darkness to the gentiles. This is obviously figurative. Israel was not called to build electric lights or lockpicking sets. Israel was called to proselytize for God.

Isa 49:6 Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ “

In Isaiah 49, God states that He will use Israel to bring salvation to the “ends of the earth”. This salvation consisted of peace, justice, and prosperity. See Isaiah 42:1 and Isaiah 61:5:

Isa 42:1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

And,

Isa 61:5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
Isa 61:6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, And in their glory you shall boast.
Isa 61:7 Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore in their land they shall possess double; Everlasting joy shall be theirs.

Isaiah 61 is probably referring to the prosperity of the priests to whom the Gentiles bring offerings, but the land is depicted as peaceful and prosperous in order to make this happen. This coincides with another Biblical theme that nations who serve God are blessed materially.

The Psalms echo this same subtheme:

Psa 67:2 That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.
Psa 67:3 Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You.
Psa 67:4 Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth. Selah
Psa 67:5 Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You.

And,

Psa 98:2 The LORD has made known His salvation; His righteousness He has revealed in the sight of the nations.
Psa 98:3 He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
Psa 98:4 Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth; Break forth in song, rejoice, and sing praises.
…
Psa 98:9 For He is coming to judge the earth. With righteousness He shall judge the world, And the peoples with equity.

And,

Psa 117:1 Praise the LORD, all you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples!
Psa 117:2 For His merciful kindness is great toward us, And the truth of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD!

God’s goal is to reach the entire world. This is an enduring goal and is repeated throughout the Bible. This theme possibly extends into the New Testament (Mat 28:19, Mar 16:15). Note that there is no indication of full acceptance of Gentiles as equal to Jews until the arrival of Paul (Rom 10:12). Before Paul, Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be equal to Jews. God accepted these Gentiles precisely because He was building a priest nation. If an individual desired God enough to partake in the law, that granted entrance into the body of Israel.

We see this first described in Exodus. In Exodus, the Jews have finally become a nation and soon deal with their first converts. A host of gentiles exit Egypt under the protection of Israel:

Exo 12:37 Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children.
Exo 12:38 A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds—a great deal of livestock.

These Gentiles were allowed Israelite status by keeping to ordinances handed down by Moses, ordinances which they were present to receive at Mount Sinai:

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.
Exo 12:49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

This is echoed elsewhere:

Isa 56:3 Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; Nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.”
Isa 56:4 For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant,
Isa 56:5 Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off.
Isa 56:6 “Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants— Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant—
Isa 56:7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
Isa 56:8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him Others besides those who are gathered to him.”

In Isaiah, God is said to accept all who serve God (although in Deuteronomy 23 God imposes some limitation based on national tensions). Verse 7 even uses the acceptance of these Gentiles as a foreshadowing of the proselytization of all nations. All the Gentiles had to do was follow the law. A fleeting reference to this can also be found in Nehemiah:

Neh 10:28 Now the rest of the people—the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, the Nethinim, and all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands to the Law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, everyone who had knowledge and understanding—

At the time of Nehemiah, there was a large contingent of foreigners who served God. This seems to have been a constant in the history of Israel, so much so that the Roman author Cassius Dio records:

They have also another name that has been acquired,–i.e., the country has been called Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know from what source this title was first given them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of foreign race, who cherish their customs.

In Isaiah 66, the prophet even extends the priesthood status (even the Levite status) to some of these foreigners:

Isa 66:18 “For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory.
Isa 66:19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles.
Isa 66:20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the LORD, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the LORD.

One theme of the Bible is that Israel was chosen as a priest nation by benefit of being descended from Abraham. Throughout the Bible God attempts to mold them into a priest nation, who was then to proselytize the world. In this way, the entire world would have fellowship with God. God was not just singularly concerned only with Israel, but sought to use them as a vessel to reach all mankind. As such, God built in conditions by which foreigners could become grafted into His chosen people and serve as priests to the rest of the world. God even promises some Gentiles the coveted status of Levitical priesthood. Such was God’s plans for Israel, His end purpose, and His acceptance of the Gentiles.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, God, History, Jewish History, Theology | 7 Comments

redating the new testament

Posted on August 22, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Redating the New Testament, AT Robinson lists the following dates for the books of the New Testament:

James c. 47-8
1 Thessalonians early 50
2 Thessalonians 50-1
1 Corinthians spring 55
1 Timothy autumn 55
2 Corinthians early 56
Galatians later 56
Romans early 57
Titus late spring 57
Philippians spring 58
Philemon summer 58
Colossians summer 58
Ephesians late summer 58
2 Timothy autumn 58
The Didache c. 40-60
Mark c. 45-60
Matthew c. 40-60+
Luke -57-60+
Jude 61-2
2 Peter 61-2
Acts -57-62+
1, 2, 3 John c. 60-65
1 Peter spring 65
John c. -40-65+
Hebrews c. 67
Revelation late 68 (-70)
1 Clement early 70
Barnabas c. 75
The Shepherd of
Hermas -c. 85

Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

nt wright on the kingdom of God

Posted on August 22, 2014 by christopher fisher

From the unofficial NT Write page:

But ‘theocracy’, in a sense yet to be defined, is of course what is meant by ‘the kingdom of God’, which the synoptic gospels highlight at the central motif of Jesus’ public announcements and which the fourth gospel presupposes as his central theme (the first time we meet it in John it seems to be assumed that this is what Jesus is all about). We know from Josephus that the revolutionaries, in the last century before the disastrous Roman-Jewish war, took as their battle-cry the slogan ‘no king but God!’ Presumably they thought they knew how God would exercise that kingly rule. Probably they imagined themselves having some role as divine agents. But we should not doubt that ‘God’s kingdom’ denoted the long-awaited rule of Israel’s God on earth as in heaven. The widespread assumption today that ‘the kingdom of God’ denotes another realm altogether, for instance that of the ‘heaven’ to which God’s people might hope to go after their death, was not on the first-century agenda. When Jesus spoke about God’s kingdom, and taught his followers to pray that it would arrive ‘on earth as in heaven’, he was right in the middle of first-century Jewish theocratic aspirations.

Posted in Jesus, People, Theology | 1 Comment

God’s double standard

Posted on August 22, 2014 by christopher fisher

God really loved King David. From Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament:

Nonetheless, these contrasts function as countertestimony concerning the character of Yahweh. They attest that Yahweh is not a consistent God of command and sanction or, alternatively, of deed and consequence. Conversely, they attest that Yahweh is not a God who consistently forgives. There is slippage about sanctions on occasion, but the slippage always seems to work toward the advantage of David and against Saul…

Saul will lose partly because David is bold, lucky, attractive, and “destined.” Saul will lose because “forces” conspire against him. Israel, moreover, does not hesitate to assign those conspiring forces exactly to Yahweh. Thus:

• Yahweh will deceive in order to advance David (1 Sam 16: 1);
• Yahweh will counsel Samuel to listen to the people (8: 7, 9, 22), and crush Saul for the same action (1 Sam 15: 24);
• Yahweh will eliminate Saul for taking Amalekite spoil (15: 18– 21), but will disregard David’s like action (30: 19– 20);
• Yahweh will forgive David (2 Sam 12: 13), but refuse Saul’s confession (1 Sam 15: 24). Yahweh will be arbitrary in David’s favor and need justify it to none, certainly not to Saul or to Saul’s readers.

Posted in God, Immutablility, Theology | 1 Comment