walter brueggemann on Scripture as advocacy

Posted on April 1, 2014 by christopher fisher

From Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament:

…it is clear that Israel’s testimony is intended to generate an accepted, normative narrative construal of reality in which the members of Israel can live… It is readily imaginable that other testimonies were always available in Israel, other construals of reality, some of which were powerful and attractive, some of which were no doubt more “commonsense” and more readily championed by the dominant legitimating power. Thus Israel’s testimony (as revelation that becomes canon) always has an edge of advocacy and urgency to it, for its members can, in any given circumstance, fall out of the life-world generated by this rhetoric. We may imagine that some who heard and accepted the testimony did so completely and without reserve… There is no reason to imagine that ancient Israel lacked the same passions and commitments known in our own contemporary communities concerning the same testimony.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Open Theism, Textual Criticism, Theology | Leave a comment

ban bossy – a case study in terrible statistics

Posted on March 31, 2014 by christopher fisher

Lately there has been a concerted push to ban the word “bossy”. The creator of this campaign quoted several studies in an effort to show that the term has negatively influenced young ladies. The problem with quoting statistics is that your arguments are easily torn to shreds if you do not understand what you are quoting. With statistics, people to need to understand “what is being measured”, “how is it being measured”, and “what are the likely implications” of that measurement. Crossing results from various studies is generally a terrible practice. But the Ban Boss bandwagon decided to go ahead anyways and get clobbered in the press.

Reason.com dissects the terrible use of statistics in detail:

“Girls are twice as likely as boys to worry that leadership roles will make them seem ‘bossy.'”

…

So what’s this about girls being twice as likely to worry that leadership roles would make them seem bossy? Well, the children who said they did not want to be leaders—again, fewer than one tenth of the total—were asked about the reasons for this lack of interest. In this small subsample, 29 percent of the girls and 13 percent of the boys agreed with the statement, “I do not want to seem bossy.” That’s about 2.5 percent of all girls, compared to just over one percent of boys. Truly, a dreadful scourge of future womanhood that calls for a massive social media campaign.

[Snip]

“The confidence gap starts early. Between elementary and high school, girls’ self–esteem drops 3.5 times more than boys.'”

The source for this is a 1991 study from the American Association of University Women, “Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America,” that amounts to 23-year-old junk science. Writing on the Psychology Today website in 2010, the late Susan Noelen-Hoeksma, a leading psychologist and a Yale University Professor, noted that “the study by the American Association of University Women was refuted by subsequent studies using large samples and better measures of self-esteem.” After reviewing the claims of a crisis in girls’ self-esteem and the relevant research, Noelen-Hoeksma concluded, “The phrase ‘much ado about nothing’ comes to mind.”

[Snip]

“By middle school, girls are 25 percent less likely than boys to say they like taking the lead.”

…

Ashe Snow, a columnist for The Washington Examiner, contacted the study’s author and learned that the question was only asked only once over the course of the study, so the wording which implies that girls become more leadership-averse as they get older is misleading. (“Change It Up” demonstrated the opposite.) Snow also demonstrates that another “Ban Bossy” claim—that “parents place a higher value on leadership for boys than for girls”—is based on a single statistic cherry-picked from a survey which, overall, shows that parents value leadership equally for their sons and daughters.

The default position when someone cites statistics should be skepticism. My wife and I always laugh at the 1 in 8 Americans experience hunger advertisements. In a country with no poverty and a major obesity problem among the lowest income earners, running out of Doritos is not struggling with hunger.

Posted in Statistics | Leave a comment

God creates a cascading contingency plan

Posted on March 30, 2014 by christopher fisher

Throughout the Bible, God prides Himself on leading Israel out of Egypt. God’s prophets point to the event incessantly, God highlights His own power by pointing to the event, and the Bible repeatedly links this event with God. Israel seems to have even incorporated the event into God’s normal name (“God who brought us out of Egypt”). Here is a small sample of verses:

1Sa 12:6 And Samuel said unto the people, It is the LORD that advanced Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt.

2Ki 17:36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.

2Ch 7:22 And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them.

Psa 81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Jer 32:21 And hast brought forth thy people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs, and with wonders, and with a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with great terror;

Both God and Israel link this event (the Exodus) with God’s power more than any other power event, including creation itself. The events themselves are described in Exodus 3-12. These chapters are extremely important in how God defines Himself. But the interesting thing is that this defining event has little to recommend itself to the classical depiction of God.

In Exodus 3, God introduces Himself to Moses. The text shows that God defines Himself relationally: “I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob”. The Bible could have just written “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” but the text stresses the personal relationships of each patriarch. God then spends some time convincing Moses that Moses should be God’s prophet (which still does not fully work, as evidenced in chapter 4).

God then tells Moses to go to Egypt and lead Israel free. But God expects hesitance from Pharaoh:

Exo 3:19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand.
Exo 3:20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.
Exo 3:21 And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty,

Because God knew Pharaoh’s character, God was sure that Pharaoh would not let Israel go easily. This is not God saying “I see the future and have exact knowledge”. This is God saying “I know who this prideful Pharaoh character is and what he will do.” This is not conducive to a classical understanding of God.

To use Pharaoh’s pride, God explains to Moses that He will accomplish “mighty works” such that not only Pharaoh’s pride is broken, but also the pride of the Egyptians. God wanted to use Pharaoh’s pride to illustrate His great power. In this context, God wants to “harden Pharaoh’s heart”.

Moses is not quite convinced even Israel will believe him (not to mention Pharaoh). God builds Moses a contingency plan of might works to first convince Israel and then perform before Pharaoh (Exo 4:21).

God first tells Moses to throw his staff onto the ground:

Exo 4:2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod.
Exo 4:3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.
Exo 4:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail” (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand),
Exo 4:5 “that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”

God shows Moses that Moses can accomplish miraculous signs. God helps Moses overcome his fear by commanding him to touch a viper. This is God’s first sign to the people (and then later to Pharaoh). God has just test ran His plan with Moses.

The text states the purpose of this plan. The reason God gives this sign is so that Israel may believe God (God takes this opportunity to define Himself relationally again). God expected Israel’s belief as a real possibility after this very first sign.

When Moses changes venues and attempts this sign in Exodus 7, the court magicians duplicate the event (casting doubt in Pharaoh’s mind about the power of God). This seems to lead to God skipping His second contingency plan (at least to Pharaoh): leprosy. Although God commanded Moses to perform “all miracles” in his power before Pharaoh, Moses and God used discretion in which ones would be the most effective. Pharaoh is never shown the leprosy although God uses it as a sign:

Exo 4:6 Furthermore the LORD said to him, “Now put your hand in your bosom.” And he put his hand in his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, like snow.
Exo 4:7 And He said, “Put your hand in your bosom again.” So he put his hand in his bosom again, and drew it out of his bosom, and behold, it was restored like his other flesh.
Exo 4:8 “Then it will be, if they do not believe you, nor heed the message of the first sign, that they may believe the message of the latter sign.

Although Moses might have used this sign to Israel (the text makes it sound like Aaron was actually the performer), this second sign was not used by Moses to Pharaoh. It could be that because Pharaoh’s magicians duplicated the first sign that God skipped this sign because it too was easily duplicable. God (or Moses) seems to have decided that the second miracle was not worth their time. Instead, God uses a stronger variant of a third contingency He devises.

Notice the “if they do not believe”. This is a theme in the text: God building conditionals in case of contingencies. God was unsure how many signs it would take to elicit the desired response from Israel. But God states that He is sure that they will believe the second sign: “that they may believe the message of the latter sign.” But in case they do not, God even builds in a third contingency:

Exo 4:9 And it shall be, if they do not believe even these two signs, or listen to your voice, that you shall take water from the river and pour it on the dry land. The water which you take from the river will become blood on the dry land.”

Although this sign might have been preformed by Moses before Israel, God opts for a more powerful variant when confronting Pharaoh. A day after Pharaoh’s magicians duplicated rods turning into snakes, Moses confronts Pharaoh at the river. Instead of turning water from a vase into blood, God seems to up the ante and turns the entire river to blood. A vase of water might not be very convincing with Pharaoh’s magicians undermining every event. Moses turns the river to blood, killing all the fish. The magicians seem to duplicate this too, at least on a smaller scale. Perhaps the magicians used vases of water. It could be the case that God was ensuring that even if the miracles were duplicable, the scale would make the duplication silly.

Back in Exodus 4, God’s final act to Pharaoh is death: killing Pharaoh’s son:

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn.
Exo 4:23 So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.

Of course in Exodus 12 this also does not happen in the manner described. Instead of just killing Pharaoh’s son, God kills the firstborn of all of Egypt including the livestock. God made this miracle His grand finally to really strike at the heart of Egypt. It is this miracle that succeeds in changing Pharaoh’s heart (only to revert to pride, allowing Pharaoh to be destroyed in the Red Sea). The text is real interesting. It cuts off as if a threat against Pharaoh’s son would have succeeded in changing Pharaoh’s mind and been unnecessary to actually carry out. The final showdown, where Pharaoh himself is killed, is never mentioned.

The Exodus is the defining event for God and Israel. God defines himself by leading Israel out of Egypt. God first recruited Moses (although Moses showed resistance) and then established a game plan. The text then shows God building multi-layered contingency plans, plans which were modified, partly discarded, partly augmented, and supplemented with new contingency plans. Here is an overview:

In Exodus 4: God tells Moses to show the rod turning into a snake, show his hand turning white, take a jar of water from the river and show it turning to blood, and tell Pharaoh that his son will die.

In Exodus 7-12, what happened is that Moses showed the rod turning to a snake. Moses skiped the hand turning white. Moses turned the entire river into blood (as opposed to a jar being poured onto dry land), Moses brought frogs, then lice, then flies, kills livestock, brings boils, then hail, then locusts, then darkness, then all of Egypt loses their firstborn (not just Pharaoh).

God’s plan works, and Israel takes all the spoils of Egypt with them into the desert.

God was extremely innovative in effecting the Exodus. That is God’s power at work, not fatalism or micromanagement. God is powerful because He can accomplish His purposes in spite of human resistance.

[edit 6/30/2014 to add in that the signs were first to Israel]

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, History, Jewish History, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Open Theism, Theology | 4 Comments

the jews believed in inherited salvation

Posted on March 30, 2014 by christopher fisher

In the time of Jesus, there was a prominent belief among the Jews that they would be “saved” expressly because they were Jewish. The Jews “inherited” salvation through Abraham. The New Testament has a running theme of countering this belief. The first ministry which the New Testament details is that of John the Baptist. His apocalyptic ministry was designed to convince the Jews to repent. As such, he had to counter this patriarchal, inherited salvation very early in his message:

Mat 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,
Mat 3:9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Paralleled in Luke:

Luk 3:8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

John’s point is very specific. The Jews believed that if God were to cut off Israel then God would be violating God’s promise to Israel. John counters this claim. John tells them to repent (the Jews were under the impression no repentance was necessary). John then explains how God could keep God’s promise to the Jews if they did not repent: by raising up new children of Abraham. John is countering the specific Jewish cliché that all Jews are saved by virtue of being Jewish.

Jesus also encounters this mentality:

Joh 8:33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
Joh 8:35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.
Joh 8:36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
Joh 8:37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
Joh 8:38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
Joh 8:39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.
Joh 8:41 You do the deeds of your father.”…

The claim was that due to being Abraham’s descendants that the Jews were not in bondage to sin. The Jews understood themselves as being saved apart from being righteous. Jesus tells them to repent, not to sin, and that they are not true children of Abraham (but of sin). Jesus is attacking inherited salvation by trying to sever the mental link between his listeners and Abraham’s lineage. Jesus’ point is that being descended from Abraham in no way guarantees salvation.

After Jesus’ death, this cliché was still alive and well. The letters in the New Testament attest to this fact. This might be hard for modern readers to understand, being separated by thousands of years after the culture in which these letters were written. But the letters consistently counter the claim that Jews are saved through Abraham apart from works.

The New Testament is written primarily in the form of letters. When the apostles were writing their letters they were not building sermonettes. The letters of the New Testament primarily are written to correct problems in the fledgling church. There is little moralizing and musing. The letters were written to address real issues. As such, when reading the letters of the New Testament the modern reader must realize they are reading one side of a conversation. The reader must put themselves in the mindset of piecing together the second half of the conversation.

The letter of James, most likely written very early, begins with countering this Jewish claim:

Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

Jewish Christians were claiming that their sin amplified God’s glory. God was using their sin to prove his righteousness in saving the Jews. James counters this idea. James says that God does not cause people to sin. God is in no way connected to sin.

James continued to counter this workless salvation throughout his letter:

Jas 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

And:

Jas 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
Jas 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

James’ argument is that the Jews must show works in order to be saved. Faith alone will not save them, as they claim. James uses for illustration both demons and Abraham. The choice of Abraham is particularly fitting for James’ point. The Jews were saying they were saved by virtue of being descended from Abraham. James says “no, even Abraham was saved by works.”

Paul encounters this cliché as well. In Romans, Paul is writing his only letter to a church he did not himself found. As such, Paul is writing to a Jewish church filled with mostly Jewish Christians. This is why Romans is heavily centered on Jewish themes. In the second chapter, Paul introduces his counter-argument to the Jewish claim of inherited salvation by outright stating that only the doers of the law are justified:

Rom 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

Paul follows this up by exposing Jewish sin:

Rom 2:17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
Rom 2:18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
Rom 2:19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
Rom 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
Rom 2:21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
Rom 2:22 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 2:23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
Rom 2:24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Notice Paul’s points. The Jews were boasting in God. The Jews were proselyting the Gentiles to be righteous. The Jews were sinning themselves. The Gentiles knew the Jews were sinners. And the Jews still believed they were saved (thus Paul must state that their circumcision is made uncircumcision).

Paul attacks the heart of the Jewish claim in the next section:

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)
Rom 3:6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

In verse 5, Paul is quoting the Jewish argument. The Jews were claiming as a mechanism for inherited salvation that the worse of a sinner that God saved, the more it would show God’s righteousness. This echoes the letter of James in which Jewish Christians were claiming their sin was from God.

Paul counters this by claiming that under this standard that God could not judge the world. God would be unfair not to save the lost Gentiles if God were to save the unrighteous Jews. Paul takes this opportunity to address false rumors about Paul’s own ministry. Paul was preaching salvation apart from the law, and the same accusation about inspiring lawlessness were leveled against Paul as were the Jews who believed in inherited salvation.

Paul continues on, countering this Jewish claim:

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Paul points out that no man is safe and that boasting in the law is vain. Later on, Paul takes the same stance that Jesus used for countering inherited salvation:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
…
Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
Rom 9:7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.”

Paul wishes himself dead to save all of Israel (something he knows is unrealistic). Paul’s point is that not all who are of Israel would be saved (contrary to popular belief). Paul then states that not all who are currently Israel are of Israel. Paul is saying the boarders of who are being saved extend wider than inheritance as even the pagans at the time noted. 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.

Paul then explains that although more than just Abraham’s descendants would be saved, that not all of Abraham’s descendants would be saved. Paul is creating a mental Venn diagram. Paul then explains how God’s promises do not apply to the parts of Israel which will be cut off. Paul illustrates:

Rom 9:7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.”
Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Paul’s point is that not all of Abraham’s decedents are considered Israel. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The decedents of Ishmael are not considered the seed of Abraham. Likewise, Isaac had two sons but only one is considered Israel:

Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”
Rom 9:10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac
Rom 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

Here is Paul’s point: not everyone who is descended from Abraham is saved. Likewise, those who are currently considered Jews should be under no impression that they too are saved expressly for being Jewish. Paul was countering this early Jewish cliché.

Throughout the New Testament, the text confronts and refutes the Jewish claim that salvation was of the Jews, that salvation was inherited and not earned. Jesus even states this common claim to flip it on its head:

Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

Here is the Biblical answer, salvation is of those who worship God.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, God, Jesus, Morality, Theology | 4 Comments

the religion of recycling

Posted on March 30, 2014 by christopher fisher

From an excellent article by Mike Munger:

My first experience with the recycling debate was in 2008, when I was asked to keynote a conference in Freemantle, Australia. The conference, called “Australia Recycles!,” was a gathering of recycling professionals and equipment vendors from around the Pacific rim…

I focused on glass, especially the kind of green glass used for wine bottles. Glass is heavy and inert. That means it’s expensive to cart around and handle, in addition to the problems of breaking and cutting workers. Glass is harmless in a landfill and breaks down into something very like the sand it came from….

As I was going through my presentation, I was surprised at the reaction of the audience of the conference. They weren’t angry; they were bored. When I finished, a man stood up and gave what seemed to be the response of the entire audience, given their nods and smiles: “Look, professor, we all know this. Everyone knows that there are problems with green glass. We all understand that there is no market for cullet. But it doesn’t matter. The main thing is to get people in the habit of recycling, because it’s the right thing to do.”

Posted in Economics, prices, Science | Leave a comment

the apocalypse of adam

Posted on March 28, 2014 by christopher fisher

The Apocalypse of Adam is an early gnostic apocalyptic document. There is no specific Christian themes, as opposed to Judaism. This may be, in fact, Jewish Gnosticism. The text is dated early, during the rise of Christianity and contains a brief account of the history of the world from creation to some sort of apocalypse.

The text fashions itself to have been quoting Adam. Familiar gnostic themes are present in the text. A strong gnostic belief was that the physical world was a less perfect emanation from an ideal. Many Gnostic groups believed that in order for the physical world to exist, several layers of emanations had to occur. In this fashion, Gnostics attempted to distance the physical world from God. The physical world was seen as evil, and Gnostics wanted thick buffers between it and God. After all, if the physical world was created directly by God then the brokenness would have to resemble Him. These emanations were called aeons:

When God had created me out of the earth, along with Eve, your mother, I went about with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal God.

In this text, both the emanations are present and the secret Gnosticism. Another strong gnostic theme is “knowledge”. To the Gnostic, there is a secret knowledge the understanding of which would move the hearer towards the divine. With this “knowledge” people could return to higher levels of being, reversing the emanations (in a way).

Then God, the ruler of the aeons and the powers, divided us in wrath. Then we became two aeons. And the glory in our heart(s) left us, me and your mother Eve, along with the first knowledge that breathed within us… After those days, the eternal knowledge of the God of truth withdrew from me and your mother Eve.

This text shows a dividing of an aeon. The result is that the secret knowledge is lost. Every aeon was a further departure from God. The breaking action seems to be sex. To the Platonists (of which gnostics were a subgroup), sex and physical pleasure was seen as base, something to be rejected. Sex would bind someone to the earth and not allow them to return to “the One” (the Platonistic term for god):

Then the God who created us, created a son from himself and Eve, your mother. I knew sweet desire for your mother, for […] in the thought of my […] I knew a sweet desire for your mother. Then the vigor of our eternal knowledge was destroyed in us, and weakness pursued us. Therefore the days of our life became few. For I knew that I had come under the authority of death.

Sex was seen as the “original sin”, a view echoed by Augustine a couple hundred years later. The text goes on to describe a prophecy of what is to come. The speaker, Adam, describes the flood of Noah which destroys all those who have fallen from the knowledge. Noah and his family create a pure race of Gnostics, but soon intermingle with a new breed of aeon (new men which had not descended from Noah):

They will say to Sakla, “What is the power of these men who stood in your presence, who were taken from the seed of Ham and Japheth, who will number four hundred men? They have been received into another aeonfrom which they had come forth, and they have overturned all the glory of your power and the dominion of your hand. For the seed of Noah through his sons has done all your will, and (so have) all the powers in the aeons over which your might rules, while both those men and the ones who are sojourners in their glory have not done your will. But they have turned (aside) your whole throng.”

After this, the text describes a persecution against the pure race, a deliverance of most, and a leaving of a few to keep on earth “fruit-bearing trees”. After this is done, a being called the illuminator (assumedly a being that proclaims the secret knowledge) preaches to men, and those men are then persecuted by the lesser aeons. The kingdoms wonder from whence the illuminator came and all offer their competing theories. A notable theme is a virgin birth, likely to be stressed because virgin births do not involve sex.

The next line sums up Gnosticism very succinctly:

Then the peoples will cry out with a great voice, saying, “Blessed is the soul of those men because they have known God with a knowledge of the truth! They shall live forever, because they have not been corrupted by their desire, along with the angels, nor have they accomplished the works of the powers, but they have stood in his presence in a knowledge of God like light that has come forth from fire and blood.

Eternal life, gnostic knowledge, hatred of desire, and returning to the One in light.

Posted in Augustine, Gnostics, Theology | 2 Comments

the worst failed Biblical prophecy

Posted on March 25, 2014 by christopher fisher

The scene is the turn of the first century AD. Israel is under the rule of the Roman Empire. Certain Jews are confident that God will soon save them and restore a righteous kingdom (Luk 1:71). Angels are seen prophesying a new ruler (Mat 2:6) who will reign forever (Luk 1:33).

John the Baptist begins preaching about the end of the world. To John, soon angels would descend on mankind, kill the wicked (Mat 3:10), and create a new city ruled by God or God’s delegate. John called this the “Kingdom of God” (Mat 3:2). To prepare for this coming apocalypse, John preaches that his hearers must flee from their sin (Mat 3:7), turn to God, and become righteous. Those who don’t will be burnt to death (Mat 3:12).

Jesus picks up this ministry. In this time John is killed and Jesus becomes the main preacher of the apocalypse. Jesus’ message is that very soon, God would separate the sheep and the goats (Mat 25:33), the righteous from the unrighteous. Those who turned to follow Jesus would live and the rest would be punished by angels (Mat 16:27). The angels were reapers sent to kill the unrighteous (Mat 13:39). They would round up the wicked and slaughter them (Mat 13:41). The rulers and current powers would be overthrown and supplanted by the Kingdom of God.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry, the apocalypse was at hand (Mat 4:17, 10:7, 21:34, Mar 1:15). People he spoke to would not die before it happened (Mat 16: 27-28). That generation would not pass away before it came (Mat 24: 25-34). Everyone would soon see the Son of Man sitting in the clouds (Mat 26: 63-64). The disciples could not even go through the cities of Israel before it happened (Mat 10:23). Jesus even stated that the current age was when everything would occur (Luk 21:22) and the end was nigh (Luk 21:28). The people Jesus spoke to would see it just as they see spring (Luk 21:31). Jesus chastised people for not seeing the time had come (Luk 12:56).

But something happened. Jesus was crucified. Jesus’ apostles took up his ministry, and they continued teaching the end was nigh (1 Pet 4:7). They believed they were living in the last days (Heb 1:2, 1 Pet 1:20). That it was the end of the ages (Heb 9:26). People could see the end (Heb. 10:25). It was described as the last hour (1 Joh 2:18). People should not bother planning for the future (Jas 4:13) and hope God allows them to live (Jas 4:15). The judge was at the door (Jas 5:8)! Some apostles even taught that although people were beginning to doubt the imminent apocalypse, their fears were unfounded (2Pe 3:9). The world would soon burn so people should remain righteous (2Pe 3:11).

The apocalypse was soon coming (Rev 3:11) and the righteous would be spared (Rev 3:10). Those who had been martyred call out for vengeance against those who killed them (Rev 6:10). Angels would slaughter the wicked in such numbers that blood would run as deep as a horse’s bridle (Rev 14:20).

The words of the end times were once sealed (Dan 12:4, 9) but now they are open and not to be sealed (Rev 22:10).

But the end never came. God did not send angels to kill the wicked. The Romans were not supplanted by a righteous Kingdom. The martyrs were not avenged. Instead Israel suffered hundreds of years of foreign dominance. When it comes to failed prophecy, never in the Bible were so many sources so certain, so specific, and so wrong.

So, only one of two things can be true:

1. The Bible is false.

or

2. There was some sort of unforeseen development that changed what was strongly predicted to happen. Unforeseen is the operative word. No prophet or apostle before or after Jesus, including Jesus, thought there was a chance that the end would not come imminently. That development would have to be strong enough to justify falsifying the prophecies of countless martyrs who died for it. This development would have to have been a mystery to those individuals. Everything only makes sense in light of dispensationalism, open theism, and Paul.

apocalypse

Posted in Bible, Church History, Dispensationalism, History, Jesus, Jewish History, Open Theism, Prophecy, Theology | 4 Comments

doing evil that good may come

Posted on March 23, 2014 by christopher fisher

Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)
Rom 3:6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

In Romans 3:8-9, Paul is addressing the Jewish prevailing thought that although the Jews are unrighteous, they will be saved due to their status as the chosen people. There was a claim among the Jews that Jewish unrighteousness was being used for God’s glory. The Jews being saved, although unrighteous, would contrast and amply God’s own righteousness, acting as a foil. The claim was that God would be unjust to exact vengeance on those He was using to amplifying His own righteousness. The entire verse 5 is Paul recounting this popular claim.

Paul next counters this claim. Paul offers several evidences. Paul’s first evidence is that if this was true, then to remain consistent, God would have to judge the Gentiles in the same matter. The Jewish belief was that the Gentiles would not be judged under the same standard, and the unrighteousness of the Gentiles would receive harsh judgement of God. Paul appeals to God’s consistency. Paul says God is not double minded, and God would be unjust to judge two separate groups on different standards.

In verse 7, Paul postures a hypothetical asking if what he is saying is morally right (as opposed to true). Paul says that even if he is lying, his lie is better than the Jewish portrayal. Paul appeals to moral consistency in God. Paul links God’s consistency to God’s glory. Paul is contrasting his view of God’s consistency with the Jewish claim of double standards.

This last verse has an odd translation in the KJV and NKJV. In Reading Through Romans, author C.R. Hume translates it as such:

Surely we are not to do evil so that good may come [of it] (as we are falsely accused of saying, as some people allege, and their condemnation is just)?

Paul takes the opportunity to address a false rumor about himself that parallels the Jewish claim. Rumors were circulating that Paul himself was teaching that Christians who sin then amplify God’s grace. Paul says this is not true, and, by extension, this Jewish claim was also not true. Paul states that condemnation of this view is “just”.

Posted in Bible, Morality, Theology | 4 Comments

the rape of dinah

Posted on March 21, 2014 by christopher fisher

In Genesis 34, a story is told of the “rape of Dinah”. The story can be briefly told as such. A local prince has sex with a daughter of Jacob. The prince wants to marry that daughter and comes to an agreement with Jacob to have all the men of the city circumcised. After the circumcision, the brothers enter the city with swords and kill all the men as revenge for their sister.

The first thing that must be noted is that this may not be a rape. The story starts:

Gen 34:1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
Gen 34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her.

Shechem sees Dinah, Shechem takes Dinah, Shechem lays with Dinah, and Shechem violates Dinah. None of these verbs necessitate rape or that Dinah did not willingly take part in this activity.

Just about the same word pattern is used elsewhere for consensual sex:

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This is contrasted to a rape, in which the man “forces” the woman:

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

In Deuteronomy 22:29 “humble” is the same word as “violate” in Genesis 34. This word is used for consensual sex. We might hypothesize about the motives of the translators of Genesis. The translators seem to be trying to justify the subsequent slaughter rather than engage in consistent translation.

Genesis does not portray Shechem as a villain. In fact, he seems to be regarded highly:

Gen 34:3 His soul was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to the young woman.
Gen 34:4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this young woman as a wife.”

Shechem speaks kindly to Dinah. Shechem loves her. We are not told about any of Dinah’s feelings throughout the entire text. The entire text treats her as an object, rather than exploring her thoughts. We can assume that any young girl, especially one who has consensual sex with a young man, would be flattered by a prince seeking to marry her. But we are not told her feelings. One revealing fact is that Dinah is not returned to Israel after the initial incident. Usually a rape involves a solitary event, not a long term kidnapping. Dinah may have stayed with Shechem because she liked him. The story continues:

Gen 34:7 And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done.

The sons of Jacob hear that Shechem had sex with their sister. Their outrage seems to be due to the fact that Shechem had dishonored Israel. Shechem, however, is trying his best to reconcile himself to Jacob. His father, Hamor, calls for a meeting to discuss avenues under which Dinah could marry Shechem:

Gen 34:8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.
Gen 34:9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.
Gen 34:10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.
Gen 34:11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.
Gen 34:12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

Hamor and Shechem offer a very lucrative deal. Not only would the sons of Jacob be given wives, but trade would be established, land would be given, and the two small nations would form an alliance. Shechem follows it up with asking to be forgiven and offering a blank check for dowry. Jacob, in the text, seems very receptive (not an action one might take if a rape was involved). But Jacob’s sons want revenge:

Gen 34:13 But the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father, and spoke deceitfully, because he had defiled Dinah their sister.
Gen 34:14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
Gen 34:15 But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised,
Gen 34:16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.
Gen 34:17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.

This text represents the sons of Israel being able to take Dinah away at any moment. It seems Shechem would willingly let her go and that she was not a captive. The brothers, instead of doing this, plan to kill Shechem and Shechem’s men in order to curb any potential retaliation for the death of Shechem. It should be remembered, these were the same brothers would also planned to kill their brother Joseph only 3 chapters later. These are not righteous men.

Shechem and Hamor leave thinking they had come into great fortune:

Gen 34:18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor’s son.
Gen 34:19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.
Gen 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,
Gen 34:21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
Gen 34:22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.
Gen 34:23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.

The text, almost like narrator dictation, labels Shechem as the most honorable in his family. He meant well. He meant to marry Dinah. He meant to form a lasting alliance with Jacob. He meant to become one with Israel, to the extent he would circumcise himself. He showed real dedication. All his people follow suit. They seem to be extremely loyal to Shechem and follow his advice. But this results in every males’ death:

Gen 34:24 And all who went out of the gate of his city heeded Hamor and Shechem his son; every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.
Gen 34:25 Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males.
Gen 34:26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.

Two brothers kill the entire city and then retrieve their sister. The other brothers follow up with pillage and slavery. Ironically, their actions are worse than the initiate action of Shechem, even if Shechem did rape Dinah:

Gen 34:27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.
Gen 34:28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,
Gen 34:29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

Jacob criticizes his sons, and fears for his life. In the next chapter Jacob flees to Bethel. The sons are unapologetic. As further evidence this was not a rape, they refer to their sister as a prostitute. They say: “Should Shechem deal with our sister as if she was a prostitute.” Prostitutes are not raped, but have sex for money. It seems highly likely that they saw their sister as eloping to be with a rich prince, rather than being raped:

Gen 34:30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.
Gen 34:31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

Posted in Bible, Jewish History, Morality | 3 Comments

morrell defines moral government theology

Posted on March 20, 2014 by christopher fisher

On Facebook, Jesse Morrell answers a question that was asked of him about Moral Government theology. Moral Government theology seems to be a strong movement in grassroots Christianity.

“moral government theology… Can you explain what you mean?”

God has a moral government over mankind. He has created us moral agents and has given us a moral law. And His moral law has sanctions. Sinners are rebels against the moral government of God. We deserve the governmental punishment of hell for our crimes. But God, as the Moral Governor of the Universe, offers us pardon. The reason He can offer us pardon without weakening or dishonoring His moral law is because He provided His own son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins, providing a substitute for the penalty that we deserve. Now the penalty we deserve can be remitted by His grace and mercy, if we will but repent and believe the gospel.

Posted in Theology | 1 Comment