the status of homer in the ancient world

Posted on May 3, 2014 by christopher fisher

Homer wrote the Odyssey and the Iliad between 750 and 650 BC. Around 570 BC, Xenophanes introduced the notion that the Greek gods were false. Instead, the real god was without body:

Clement of Alexandria Miscellanies 5. 109: Xenophanes of Colophon puts it well indeed in teaching that god is one and without a body (asomatos): “There is one god, greatest among gods and men, who is not like human beings either in form (demas) or in thought (noema).”

Xenophanes began to criticize the Greek gods:

Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos 9. 193: “Xenophanes, refuting Homer and Hesiod and their followers, says: ‘Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods everything which is shame (oneidea) and blame (psogos) for human beings: stealing, committing adultery, and deceiving one another.'”

This notion became popular by the time of Plato. Plato openly writes that he would abolish the Greek myths in his ideal state:

But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer –these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.

In Plato we see the beginnings of a new trend. Homer’s stories are becoming allegorized. In order to salvage Homer, the Greeks had started saying that Homer did not actually mean these stories to be true. Instead, the stories teach principles. It was even claimed that Homer did not believe the stories to be true, but instead believed in a Platonic principle of god:

And the poet Homer, using the license of poetry, and rivalling the original opinion of Orpheus regarding the plurality of the gods, mentions, indeed, several gods in a mythical style, lest he should seem to sing in a different strain from the poem of Orpheus

This is from Justin Martyr’s Address to the Greeks. Justin later states:

In this passage Homer seems to me without doubt to have learnt in Egypt, like Plato, concerning the one God, and plainly and openly to declare this, that he who trusts in the really existent God makes no account of those that do not exist. For thus the poet, in another passage, and employing another but equivalent word, to wit, a pronoun, made use of the same participle employed by Plato to designate the really existent God, concerning whom Plato said, “What that is which always exists, and has no birth.”

Although Justin is a self-proclaimed Christian he is not appealing to anything new in Greek culture. The Greeks had long taken Homer as allegorical, ascribing very Platonic ideas about god to Homer. Homer’s status can best be compared to the Bible. Although many modern Christians do not believe that many events described in the Bible actually happened (such as Moses convincing God to repent in Exodus 32), they see themselves as true to the Bible. They allegorize and reinterpret the events to fit their theology, no matter how poorly it fits the Bible. The Greeks did this too. Here is Plutarch:

Let us begin with the beginning and creation of the whole universe, which Thales the Milesian refers to the substance water, and let us see whether Homer first discovered this when he said (I. xiv. 246):—

Even to the stream of old Oceanus Prime origin of all.

After him Xenophanes of Colophon, laying down that the first elements were water and land, seems to have taken this conception from the Homeric poems (I. vii. 99):—

To dust and water turn all ye who here inglorious sit.

For he indicates their dissolution into the original elements of the universe. But the most likely opinion makes four elements,— fire, air, water, earth. These Homer shows he knows, as in many places he makes mention of them.

Plutarch drew from Homer, although it was not present, the Greek understanding of elemental creation of the Earth. Reading Plutarch’s work, the entire narrative is filled with such examples. In fact, Plutarch attributes to Homer the understanding of all science:

Homer, who was in time first among most poets and by his power first of all poets, we justly read first, thereby gaining the greatest advantages for our language, for our intellect, and for practical knowledge.

…

And indeed in these fabulous narratives, if one reads not unattentively but carefully each element of what is said, Homer appears to have been at home in the whole sphere and art of logic, and to have supplied many incentives, and as it were seeds of all kinds of thought and action to his posterity, not to poets alone, but to the authors of historical and scientific works.

To Homer, Plutarch describes the same general thoughts outlined by Justin Martyr. Everyone reinterpreted Homer into myth. Their claim became one echoed by modern Christians about the Bible: Homer really believed in Platonic god/gods and had to dumb down his writing for the audience:

But poetry requires gods who are active; that he may bring the notion of them to the intelligence of his readers he gives bodies to the gods. But there is no other form of bodies than man’s capable of understanding and reason. Therefore he gives the likeness of each one of the gods the greatest beauty and adornment. He has shown also that images and statues of the gods must be fashioned accurately after the pattern of a man to furnish the suggestion to those less intelligent, that the gods exist.

The lesson Christians should learn is that it is all too easy to dishonestly supplant the words of a text with wrong understandings in order to salvage theology. The case of Homer should serve as an illustration and a warning.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Greek History, Plato, Textual Criticism, Theology | 1 Comment

greek calvinists

Posted on May 3, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the time of Jesus, Greek religion had already mainly converted to Platonism. As such, Homer became an embarrassment. In order to salvage Homer, Greek theologians began reinterpreting him. Here is Plutarch in Morals:

So, when thou readest in Homer of Gods thrown out of heaven headlong one by another, or Gods wounded by men and quarrelling and brawling with each other, thou mayest readily, if thou wilt, say to him, —

Sure thy invention here was sorely out,
Or thou hadst said far better things, no doubt; [Il. VIII. 358.]

yea, and thou dost so elsewhere, and according as thou thinkest, to wit, in these passages of thine: —

The Gods, removed from all that men doth grieve,
A quiet and contented life do live.
Herein the immortal Gods for ever blest
Feel endless joys and undisturbed rest.
The Gods, who have themselves no cause to grieve,
For wretched man a web of sorrow weave. [Il. VI. 138; Odyss. VI. 46; Il. XXIV. 526.]

For these argue sound and true opinions of the Gods; but those other were only feigned to raise passions in men.

What is happening here is that Homer describes the gods as quarrelsome. The Greeks did not want to believe it. As such, they adopted the same technique the Calvinists now do when speaking about God in the Old Testament. Moses just wrote Genesis 18 or Exodus 32 for our sake. Moses did not really mean what he wrote. Moses only did so to raise our own emotions.

The reader can judge how intellectually honest the Greeks were treating the texts of Homer, and as a parallel, judge how intellectually honest the Calvinists treat the text of the Old Testament.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Figures of Speech, Open Theism, Theology | 2 Comments

hermeneutics

Posted on May 3, 2014 by christopher fisher

Hermeneutics is defined as methods of Biblical interpretation, although this term would also apply to other religious texts such as the Greek Iliad and Odyssey or any other ancient document. The Bible is a historical text, much like the array of Greek and Roman writings yet in existence, so the correct method of treating the text should be similar. The guiding principle of anyone wishing to seek the truth is to figure out what the original author was attempting to communicate to their original audience. An important note: this does not reveal what the original author necessarily believed, but instead what the original author wanted his audience to believe. The particular genre of the work should be taken into consideration (poetry, historical narrative, proverbs, etc).

Because the Bible was written by more than one author, each book should be able to stand alone. In other words, hypothetically the author of Genesis might be convinced that God had hands, while the author of John might believe God is ethereal. If the books contradict, they should not be forced into harmonization. A very dishonest way to treat the text is to deny the straightforward teaching of one book due to the implications that might not line up with an entirely different book by a different author. If harmonization is possible, it should be possible within the realm of human idioms and the contextual point of the problem passages.

The Bible is true or false based on its own merits and internal consistency. No one should stretch the text to force a harmonization of the text. No one, also, should import outside theology and force it upon the text. If the Bible does not portray God as outside of time, ever, then to impose that belief onto the Bible is particularly dishonest to the text. If God, in reality, is outside of time then the Bible is false and unsalvageable.

Any valid interpretations of the text should line up with human understandings of writing genres (poetry, historical narrative, myth, allegories, etc.). Any valid interpretation should also fall in line with known idioms and figures of speech. It is not valid for someone to make up a figure of speech utterly foreign to human experience and then label the text as that figure of speech.

The great thing about the Bible being written by multiple independent writers is that the Bible often serves as its own commentators.

Were the events in Exodus 32 (where Moses convinces God to not destroy Israel because foreign nations would think less of God) historical, mythical, allegorical, poetical, or a figure of speech? Luckily, this event is recounted throughout the Bible:

In Deuteronomy 14, this is taken as a historical event (presented from Moses’ perspective).
In Ezekiel 20, this is taken as a historical event (presented from God’s perspective).
In Psalms 106, this is taken as a historical event (presented from a future Israelite’s perspective).

The ancient Israelites took Exodus (at least that part of Exodus) as a historical event; not poetry, not an idiom, not a made up concept that invalidates the events described. As such, the face value reading of Exodus is that Exodus is a historical narrative advocating a particular view of God that the author wanted the audience to believe. In other words, the Exodus is historical advocacy. The events are written as true events in history which also contains a particular view of Israel and God that the author wants the audience to believe (as opposed to competing views of history, Israel, or God). The text should be read with that outlook in mind. To say, “the author was just dumbing down the events for the sake of man” is extremely dishonest to the text because the opposite is true. The author was building a picture of God to supplant other views of God held by his audience.

In short, if we do not understand the genre of a book (some people claim that Job is a mythical allegory), then we should look to the earliest commentaries by Israel (Ezekiel 14 treats Job as historical).

Whenever we want to know the meaning of any book, especially the Bible, it is important to read the text with the intent to understand what the original author was attempting to communicate to his original audience. In no case should we ignore what the author writes due to the implications of the statement.

Posted in Bible, Figures of Speech, Textual Criticism | Leave a comment

peter enns and a fake letter to paul

Posted on April 28, 2014 by christopher fisher

From Peter Enns’s blog, he imagines what a return letter to Paul from the Romans may have looked like:

Dear Paul,

We read your letter with great interest, and it sparked no little amount of commotion among your fellow Jews.
Have you lost your mind?

We believe in Jesus as you do, and like you we are still scratching our heads a bit about why our messiah came in humility and weakness, even dying a criminal’s death, and then was raised. You’ve actually helped us quite a bit on those things, especially early on in your letter, and we much appreciate it.

But Paul, you’re Jewish. You’re one of us. Do you really think that the God of our fathers would simply reverse course and expect us to figure out that Jesus the Galilean brought an end to our ancient traditions–especially given how (according to the stories we heard) Jesus himself never said any of what you’re saying here?

We’ve never met, though your reputation precedes you. We believe that you are an apostle, but do you really think we should just take your word for it that all that we’ve known is now, at best, an add-on and at worst a hindrance to true faith in the God of our fathers?

And we appreciate how fervently and creatively you cite scripture to support your point, but don’t you think you took your creative readings of scripture a bit too far? Was obedience to Torah really never central to the Lord’s overall plan? We’ve read our scripture cover to cover many times and we can’t find where God even hints at that idea.

Your reading of the story of our father Abraham to marginalize Torah-keeping is way over the top, and your handling of the Psalms and the Prophets to show how the Lord has always “elected” Gentiles is…well…you might as well say that there is really no advantage at all to being a Jew–like we’re one big mistake.

You try to get out of that implication a couple of times in your letter. You sense the dilemma, but frankly you don’t do a very good job of talking your way out of it.

And then toward the end of your letter, when you talk about clean and unclean foods (which seems to be the real point of your letter), you call “weak” those who have the courage and faithfulness amid our pagan culture to maintain God’s holy laws, given by him to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and you call others “strong” for not doing so.

So, what’s up with that?

Paul, we cannot stress this enough: you can’t just pick and choose what parts of scripture you think are worth holding on to.
After all, if everyone did that, there’d be chaos. And where does it end, Paul? Once you start denying one part of scripture, there is no logical reason not to deny anything else. And then what happens to the authority of scripture?

You can’t do this sort of thing with God’s word and you can’t claim that God is telling you to deny what God had told us from ancient days up to know.

We respect you as our brother, Paul, but when you finally pay us a visit, which we do hope will happen in the not-too-distant future, we would like to sit down with you and hear from you more clearly your reasoning process in all of this–exactly how Jesus’s death and resurrection, which we firmly believe, leads you to draw the conclusion that God is turning his back on the very traditions he commanded.

So, those are our main concerns. If in the meantime you decide to write back, could you please work on writing shorter sentences, and maybe not breaking off in mid-sentence to follow another train of thought? That would help us a lot.
We would also appreciate it you used certain key words a bit more consistently–like faith, righteousness, and law. We see some ambiguity here and it’s already caused us no end of debate.

Most sincerely,

Your brothers and sisters in the faith,

fellow children of our father Abraham, according to the flesh

I think this would be fairly accurate, except for the niceness and attempts to be understanding.

Posted in Church History | Leave a comment

swearing, profanity, crude language, and the Bible

Posted on April 28, 2014 by christopher fisher

In modern usage, swearing and profanity is defined as using any vulgar language. The Biblical definitions are slightly different.

Profanity

From the 10 Commandments:

Exo 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Taking God’s name in vain was a serious sin. For this reason, even today many Jews refrain from writing “God” or “Yahweh”. The web site Jewishworldreview.com changes all references to God into “G-d”. To profane God’s name (to take God’s name out of the temple) was a sin. This is a really important point. It would be wrong to conflate “using course words” with “taking God’s name in vain”. To do so would be, itself, profaning God’s name. It would be saying God’s name is on par with coarse language. The Biblical sin of profanity is limited to only God’s name.

Swearing

Another prohibition is against swearing. Swearing is not vulgar language in the Biblical context. Instead it is placing oaths on propositions using the name of God. In the Bible, Israel was notorious for swearing oaths. An example:

Gen 24:3 and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell;

In the Old Testament, swearing was allowed, conditionally:

Lev 19:12 And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

God even swears on His own name:

Gen 22:16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—
Gen 22:17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

But when Jesus came, it seems God had grown tired of all the false swearing on His name. The prohibition seems to have been expanded to preclude false swearing altogether. Jesus is not overturning the previous law, but he is expounding on it. Instead of swearing by God’s name, people were to refrain from swearing entirely. Jesus says “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”:

Mat 5:33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

This is reiterated by James:

Jas 5:12 But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No,” lest you fall into judgment.

Presumably, this would lead to Israel being more truthful in general. If the only time a promise were to be fulfilled was during swearing, that creates a vacuum for abusing normal promises. Jesus and James were promoting truthfulness without swearing (not necessarily saying swearing is immoral). Jesus and James were also protecting God’s name.

Crude Language

1Ki 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

The Bible has all kinds of crude language. In 1 Kings 16, a coarse illustration is given to mean “men”. The phrase is “he left him not one that pisseth against a wall” which refers to someone with the proper organs to stand while peeing. This is a crude way to say “men”. The New King James translators cover the idiom and just translate it “men” (a bad translation practice).

While crude language is not necessarily wrong, Paul warns against it:

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

This might not be particularly against solitary words, such as modern swear words. Instead the idea seems to be not to communicate flasehoods or evil. The word is logos and has a host of meanings. In Matthew 28:15 it means a particular “series of sentences” even though the word is singular:

Mat 28:15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

But Paul’s statement can be extended to single swear words. But the real question is “Do those swear words edify?” The answer might not always be “no”.

Other verses used to condemn swear words are:

Col 3:8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

Jas 3:9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.
Jas 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.

Psa 34:13 Keep your tongue from evil, And your lips from speaking deceit.

These are not necessarily against course word usage, although they can be taken as such. The principle that instead seems to be stressed is general communication. Coarse words are on par with course sentences.

What this should tell Christians, is that although general avoidance of vulgarity is good, it is not necessarily a sin to use coarse language.

Posted in Bible, Morality, Theology | Leave a comment

the church in the old testament

Posted on April 23, 2014 by christopher fisher

There is a claim among Acts 2 dispensationalists that “church” is a dispensational term. The claim is that the church was established by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament. After all, the word “church” is not used in the Old Testament.

This reasoning is highly flawed. It ignores one key difference between the Old and New Testament: they were written in different languages. That means both were interpreted into English, and it could very well easily be that the translators just chose not to use the word “church” in the Old Testament.

Luckily there is a way to test this claim. In the few hundred years before the birth of Jesus, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek. This is known as the Septuagint (LXX). This is most likely the Bible that the Jews commonly used, as they were very Helenized by the time of Jesus.

If the LXX uses the same Greek world in the Old Testament as the Greek word for “church” in the New Testament, this would be powerful evidence that the “church” is not a dispensational term. In fact, the word ekklesia (G1577), the Greek word for “church”, is used over 70 times in the Old Testament.

In Deuteronomy 4 it refers to Israel:

Deu 4:10 … Gather the people to Me…

In Deuteronomy 23, it refers to Israel (“assembly”):

Deu 23:8 The children of the third generation born to them [foreigners] may enter the assembly of the LORD.

In Kings, it likewise refers to Israel:

1Ki 8:55 And he stood, and blessed all the congregation of Israel with a loud voice, saying,

And again:

1Ch 13:4 Then all the assembly said that they would do so, for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.

And again:

Mic 2:5 Therefore you will have no one to determine boundaries by lot In the assembly of the LORD.

All 77 times it is used, the concept is “God’s people” (or “Church” would be a good translation).

The word “ekklesia” is used throughout the Old Testament and seems not to be represented in the English due to translation bias. This fact, contrary to the Acts 2 dispensationalists’ original claim, is very damaging to the idea that the “Church” is a dispensational idea. The Church, just like the rest of Jesus’ and the Disciples’ ministry, is a very Old Testament concept.

edit: Because the Jews of Jesus’ time used the LXX, Jesus would have been aware of the Old Testament usage of “ekklesia”. There is no reason to think he had a different meaning.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Theology | Leave a comment

moses convinces God to look good – exodus 32

Posted on April 21, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Exodus 32, God sees Israel’s first major rebellion against Him. While Moses is on Mount Sinai talking to God about commandments for Israel, Israel camps below and builds a false idol in the shape of a calf. God then begins plotting to destroy all of Israel:

Exo 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
Exo 32:10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”

God states that He has seen Israel. God watched them rebel after a few days without Moses’ leadership. God then commands Moses to leave him alone. God says that He will destroy Israel and then use Moses’ lineage to fulfill God’s promise to Abraham.

What happens next is stunning:

Exo 32:11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Exo 32:12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people.
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ ”
Exo 32:14 So the LORD [repented] from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Moses literally convinces God not to destroy Israel. Notice Moses’ argument:

1. Israel was God’s people
2. God expended great power to lead His people out of Egypt
3. If God were to destroy Israel, the Egyptians would think poorly of God
4. Israel is the offspring of notable individuals to whom God made promises
5. That promise was specifically an eternal inheritance

To a classical theologian, perhaps point 1 or point 4 would be the key points of argumentation. But the Bible stresses that it was particularly due to the pagan conceptions about God that God changed His mind. If God were to kill Israel, that would look terrible on God’s character. God had a chosen people. God used His great power to free them from Egypt. Then if God were to slaughter them in the wilderness, all the pagans would think very poorly on God. They would view God as a suicide cult God, who saves His people just to destroy them. God cared very much about this foreign people’s perceptions of Him and changed His mind based on this line of argumentation.

In verse 32, God repents of the evil He said He would do. In case it was not clear, Ezekiel 20 recaps the reason:

Eze 20:8 But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, ‘I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.’
Eze 20:9 But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Notice that God ignores Moses’ other key points and focuses just on foreign perception. Moses literally convinced God not to destroy a nation because that action would not look very well to a neutral observer. Without Moses and Moses’ arguments, Israel would have been destroyed. In case Exodus 32 is not clear, Moses recaps in Deuteronomy:

Deu 9:13 “Furthermore the LORD spoke to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed they are a stiff-necked people.
Deu 9:14 Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.’
…
Deu 9:19 For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the LORD was angry with you, to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me at that time also.
Deu 9:20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.

Moses recounts that God listened to him. God listened to Moses. Not only did God listen to Moses’ intercessions for the people, but also to Moses’ personal intercessions for Aaron. Moses says “God would have destroyed him”. It appeared Moses changed God’s mind.

The Exodus event was central to Jewish theology, so it is recapped time and time again. Each time, it is recapped as a normal reading without 21st Century theology attached. In Psalms 106, the text explicitly states again that Moses was the reason Israel was not destroyed:

Psa 106:23 Therefore He said that He would destroy them, Had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, To turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them.

Moses intervened in God’s plan. God had a plan to destroy Israel. Moses did not want Israel to be destroyed, and thus Moses argued in favor of sparing Israel. God listened to Moses (Moses had very convincing arguments). And God repented of what He said He was going to do.

This is not the only event in which these exact things happen. When Israel first reaches the Promised Land, Israel is too afraid to enter. God again starts plotting to destroy them:

Num 14:11 Then the LORD said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?
Num 14:12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”

Moses again intervenes. This time Moses sticks to his key point: how God’s wrath would be perceived by pagans:

Num 14:13 And Moses said to the LORD: “Then the Egyptians will hear it, for by Your might You brought these people up from among them,
Num 14:14 and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, LORD, are among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.
Num 14:15 Now if You kill these people as one man, then the nations which have heard of Your fame will speak, saying,
Num 14:16 ‘Because the LORD was not able to bring this people to the land which He swore to give them, therefore He killed them in the wilderness.’
…
Num 14:19 Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”
Num 14:20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;

Moses’ argument basically remains unchanged. If God were to kill Israel it would look really bad on Israel. The Egyptians would see Israel leaving, then the next news they would hear is that all of Israel was found dead in the wilderness. They might even think God just was not capable of leading Israel into their Promised Land. The pagan people would have no respect for God.

This convinced God, again. God repents of the evil He said He would do. Ezekiel 20 recaps this reason:

Eze 20:13 Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they did not walk in My statutes; they despised My judgments, ‘which, if a man does, he shall live by them’; and they greatly defiled My Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them.
Eze 20:14 But I acted for My name’s sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles, in whose sight I had brought them out.

This is the second time that God changes His mind and spares Israel because of how God’s actions may be perceived. Ezekiel 20 goes on to show that even both these events (Exodus 32 and Numbers 14) are not alone. God time and time again spares Israel for this explicit reason.

This event is also recapped in Deuteronomy 9. Again Moses says that God said He would destroy Israel. Again Moses convinces God not to destroy Israel. Again Moses uses the exact same argument that God would impugn His own character by such action:

Deu 9:25 “Thus I prostrated myself before the LORD; forty days and forty nights I kept prostrating myself, because the LORD had said He would destroy you.
Deu 9:26 Therefore I prayed to the LORD, and said: ‘O Lord GOD, do not destroy Your people and Your inheritance whom You have redeemed through Your greatness, whom You have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Deu 9:27 Remember Your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; do not look on the stubbornness of this people, or on their wickedness or their sin,
Deu 9:28 lest the land from which You brought us should say, “Because the LORD was not able to bring them to the land which He promised them, and because He hated them, He has brought them out to kill them in the wilderness.”
Deu 9:29 Yet they are Your people and Your inheritance, whom You brought out by Your mighty power and by Your outstretched arm.’

Moses convinces God again. Moses’ personal relationship and Moses’ persuasive abilities actually affected God. God knew this about Moses and passively points out Moses’ abilities in a later (centuries later) judgment against Israel:

Jer 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, “Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth.

God is saying in this verse that He is so certainly set against Israel that not even Moses (and Samuel) could convince Him otherwise. The listener, who would be familiar with Exodus, would understand inherently that this was a high hurdle. Moses could convince God to spare wickedly rebellious people. If Moses was unable to convince God, no one could.

In conclusion:

Exodus 32 is not meant to be taken figuratively. God really meant to destroy Israel. God really was furious with Israel. Moses really did convince God not to destroy Israel. God really did listen to Moses’ reasoning. And God really was concerned about how His own actions would make Him appear to other nations. The Bible could not be more explicit about these facts. The Exodus is God’s defining moment to Israel, it was taken very seriously by the writers of the Bible and is meant to be taken very seriously by the readers.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Prophecy, Theology | 12 Comments

the black market for legal controlled drugs

Posted on April 21, 2014 by christopher fisher

A while back, I listened to an NPR story about black market drugs. These were normal drugs like Viagra and pimple medication. Because patents and copyrights create a framework for overpriced medicine, black markets in generic knockoffs are thriving.

The heart of the story:

In the course of Savage’s research, he and his team placed over 800 test orders and typically received their chosen medications in a timely fashion.

“We’ve maybe only had one time where we didn’t get anything,” said Savage. They tested some of the drugs they received, and all had the proper amount of the active ingredient.

Savage says the vast majority of customers are ordering erectile dysfunction drugs. Others order painkillers or stimulants for recreational use. But up to 15 percent of orders come from people seeking medications to treat chronic health conditions, likely because they can’t afford to purchase them through legal avenues.

Not only do black market vendors deliver the medicine that is advertised, but they do so at a fraction of the cost of regulated medicine. The black market price has to account for the risk of the spam advertisers, the third party vendors, and any other risks of governmental infringement. What this means is that although the black market prices are currently dirt cheap, prices would plummet even more without government to create a monopoly.

What this also tells us is that those who believe the government regulations are the only thing that saves us from dying of poison by unregulated drugs are out of touch with reality.

NPR hosts the audio and text here.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, Goverment, prices | Leave a comment

the conditional eternal kingdom of israel

Posted on April 19, 2014 by christopher fisher

In 1 Samuel 8, Israel demands a king. God feels rejected (1Sa 8:7) but appoints Saul (possibly a late fulfillment of Deuteronomy 17:15). God planned to use Saul and set Saul’s kingdom up forever. But Saul fails. God then revokes His plan of an eternal kingdom for Saul. The Bible describes Saul’s eternal legacy being revoked on two separate occasions:

1Sa 13:13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
1Sa 13:14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.”

In verse 13, Samuel tells Saul that Saul would have had his kingdom established forever. But Saul sinned. Saul had not waited for Samuel to perform a sacrifice. Saul’s motivation was to rally his troops to fight the Philistines through a morale boosting sacrifice. When Samuel did not show up on time, Saul took matters into his own hands. This angered God, and Samuel informs Saul that his kingdom had now been taken from him. Before this point, God had sought to establish Saul’s kingdom forever. After this point, Saul was lost to God.

Notice the action words. God “would have” established a kingdom. God “sought” a replacement. All of this happened “because” Saul had not obeyed God. The text very clearly shows that God had planned to use Saul and Saul’s lineage to rule over Israel forever. But after God saw that Saul was rebellious, God revoked His plans and decided to form a new plan. This is God reacting to unexpected human behavior. If God had known beforehand that Saul would rebel, God would not have anointed him as king. God also would not have planned to appoint Saul as king forever. God would not have to seek a replacement. God did not expect Saul to act in this manner.

But it seems God gave Saul another chance. In 1 Samuel 15, Saul again disappoints God. This time, Saul did not utterly destroy the enemies that he had conquered. Samuel confronts Saul, tells Saul that Saul’s own kingdom would be taken from him and then Samuel hacks to death the defeated pagan king:

1Sa 15:26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.”
1Sa 15:28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.

It is after this event in which God specifically states that if He knew Saul would rebel in this fashion then God would never had appointed Saul in the first place:

1Sa 15:11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night.

God is saying, very explicitly, that if He knew Saul would have rebelled then God would not have appointed him. This event seems to have sealed Saul’s fate. After this Saul never seems to be on good footing with God again. It is interesting to note that Saul reigns another 15 more years after this event.

In 1 Samuel 28 (towards the end of Saul’s life), Saul uses a medium to summon Samuel who had died in chapter 25. Samuel, not too happy, reminds Saul that God became Saul’s enemy and had given Saul’s kingdom to David:

1Sa 28:16 Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the LORD has departed from you and has become your enemy?
1Sa 28:17 And the LORD has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.
1Sa 28:18 Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day.

God “tore” the kingdom from Saul (the kingdom God was going to establish forever). God “gave” it to David. Samuel reminds Saul that this was because Saul chose not to obey God. Samuel cites the chapter 15 incident over the chapter 13 incident as the reason. Soon after, Saul dies in battle and David replaces Saul as king.

In 2 Samuel, God reveals to David that the eternal kingdom has now been given to him. This is after David brings the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem and David offers to build God a house. God seems to have been impressed by David’s zeal:

2Sa 7:12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
2Sa 7:14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
2Sa 7:15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you.
2Sa 7:16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.” ‘ “

In this text, God promises to build Solomon’s kingdom forever (Solomon’s name is not known at this point because he is not born until chapter 12, plus there will be several other competitors for the throne). God promises to punish any wrong doing but God also promises that Solomon would not have his throne be removed in the fashion of Saul. The idea is that even if Solomon turned out like Saul, Solomon’s kingdom would not be taken due to God’s relationship with David.

But David understood that even this unconditional statement could be revoked by God if Solomon becomes wicked. Although God promised not to take away Solomon’s kingdom, David reminds Solomon to follow God:

1Ki 2:1 Now the days of David drew near that he should die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying:
1Ki 2:2 “I go the way of all the earth; be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man.
1Ki 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn;
1Ki 2:4 that the LORD may fulfill His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,’ He said, ‘you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

This is paralleled in 1 Chronicles 28:

1Ch 28:6 Now He said to me, ‘It is your son Solomon who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father.
1Ch 28:7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever, if he is steadfast to observe My commandments and My judgments, as it is this day.’
1Ch 28:8 Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the assembly of the LORD, and in the hearing of our God, be careful to seek out all the commandments of the LORD your God, that you may possess this good land, and leave it as an inheritance for your children after you forever.
1Ch 28:9 “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever.

David understood that God’s promise of an enteral kingdom was conditional on David’s lineage remaining righteous. Although the prophecy was for an “eternal” kingdom and God had promised to show mercy after correction, God still could revoke His promise based on the actions of any king. If Solomon or Solomon’s heir were to forsake God, then their eternal kingdom would no longer be enteral.

Solomon acknowledges this conditional prophecy:

1Ki 8:25 Therefore, LORD God of Israel, now keep what You promised Your servant David my father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man sit before Me on the throne of Israel, only if your sons take heed to their way, that they walk before Me as you have walked before Me.’
1Ki 8:26 And now I pray, O God of Israel, let Your word come true, which You have spoken to Your servant David my father.

Paralleled in 1 Chronicles 6:

2Ch 6:15 You have kept what You promised Your servant David my father; You have both spoken with Your mouth and fulfilled it with Your hand, as it is this day.
2Ch 6:16 Therefore, LORD God of Israel, now keep what You promised Your servant David my father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man sit before Me on the throne of Israel, only if your sons take heed to their way, that they walk in My law as you have walked before Me.’
2Ch 6:17 And now, O LORD God of Israel, let Your word come true, which You have spoken to Your servant David.

Solomon points out that only if Solomon and his sons listen to God will God continue Solomon’s lineage. Chronicles points out that they must follow God’s law. This entire section represents Solomon praising God for faithfulness and also petitioning God to fulfill God’s promises in the future. The conditional nature of the eternal kingdom is highlighted.

When God speaks back to Solomon, the conditional nature of the eternal kingdom is again highlighted. God cites His original promise and warns Solomon that the eternal kingdom could be taken for disobedience:

1Ki 9:4 Now if you walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My judgments,
1Ki 9:5 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’
1Ki 9:6 But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them,
1Ki 9:7 then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
1Ki 9:8 And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss, and say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?’
1Ki 9:9 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the LORD has brought all this calamity on them.’ “

Paralleled in 2 Chronicles 7:

2Ch 7:17 As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, and do according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My judgments,
2Ch 7:18 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man as ruler in Israel.’
2Ch 7:19 “But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them,
2Ch 7:20 then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them; and this house which I have sanctified for My name I will cast out of My sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
2Ch 7:21 “And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land and this house?’
2Ch 7:22 Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore He has brought all this calamity on them.’ “

God’s warning is very harsh. God’s promised eternal kingdom is conditional on the kings who rule over it. If the kings worship other gods, God will revoke His promise and destroy the eternal kingdom. But as long as the kings are faithful to God, God will be faithful to the kings.

Solomon ends up rebelling against God in his old age. God, furious, decides to revoke the promise of an eternal kingdom:

1Ki 11:11 Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant.
1Ki 11:12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son.
1Ki 11:13 However I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of my servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.”

Notice God’s intense change of plans. God dissolved His promise of an eternal kingdom, but for David’s sake allowed a fractional kingdom to continue.

In conclusion:

God sought to give Saul an eternal kingdom but revoked that plan after Saul rebelled. God then regretted ever making Saul king and wished that He had not.

God then gave David the eternal kingdom, but this too was conditional (although originally not explicit, David, Solomon, and God later emphasized the conditional nature of this eternal kingdom). God did not seem to know when or if David’s lineage would ever forsake God. The eternal kingdom was only eternal if certain conditions were met.

Solomon inherited this promise, but things did not end well. Solomon started loyal to God but forsook God later in life. God then dissolved His promise and split the eternal kingdom into two parts, allowing David’s lineage to continue reigned over a fractional piece of the original promised kingdom.

God’s promises, although they look unconditional and promise something eternal, can be revoked if the actions of man warrant revocation. God can change plans at will and respond to unpredicted behaviors of human beings. As stated in Jeremiah 18, if a nation rebels against God, God is not bound to the promises He made to them.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, History, Immutablility, Jewish History, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 3 Comments

cut up chuck – the failure of utilitarianism

Posted on April 14, 2014 by christopher fisher

Economist Bryan Caplan has a post about utilitarianism in which he describes a scenario he calls “Cut up Chuck”:

The “Cut Up Chuck” Case: A homeless guy named Chuck comes into the ER with a treatable leg wound. But instead of treating his wound, Dan the ER doctor realizes that Chuck’s heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys are all healthy and in fact are all matches for five patients upstairs who are at death’s door and in need of donor organs. So Dr. Dan cuts up Chuck, passes out his organs, and saves five people who otherwise would have died. Question: Did Dr. Dan do the right thing?

One major point of the scenario is that it illustrates the common understanding that it is not right to cut up one random person to save five others. In other words, utilitarianism is wrong. The goal of any social or governmental program should not be “to maximize well-being”, to “maximize happiness” or to “maximize life saving”. Personal rights have a huge weight in morality.

Posted in Morality | Leave a comment