foxtrot on predestination

Posted on November 5, 2013 by christopher fisher

An old Foxtrot cartoon:

Posted in Calvinism, Humor, Theology | Leave a comment

Biblical interpretation

Posted on November 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

During a recent interview with Economist Russ Roberts, Emily Oster was recounting a debate she had with a doctor on the relative harms of various activities for pregnant ladies. She insisted that the data should lead us to the conclusions of what activities are safe and what activities are harmful. The doctor tried to dismiss the data. Her response:

Are you kidding? You HAVE to make these decisions with data. What is your other system? What? I don’t even… this is the only system we have. There is not some secret “other” system.

Russ Roberts added by saying there is superstition and folklore.

This parallels nicely to Biblical interpretation. The one legitimate way to read the Bible is to ask “what is the writer trying to communicate to his audience”. There is not some “secret other system” of interpreting the Bible, although Christians throughout history have tried to do so. These “secret other systems” are the equivalent of superstition and folklore (and if they turn out to be correct, it is only through coincidence).

Augustine, in his Confessions, complains about those who take the Bible on face value. Augustine explains his “secret other system”:

11. Already have You told me, O Lord, with a strong voice, in my inner ear, that You are eternal, having alone immortality. Since You are not changed by any shape or motion, nor is Your will altered by times, because no will which changes is immortal. This in Your sight is clear to me, and let it become more and more clear, I beseech You; and in that manifestation let me abide more soberly under Your wings. Likewise have You said to me, O Lord, with a strong voice, in my inner ear, that You have made all natures and substances, which are not what You Yourself art, and yet they are; and that only is not from You which is not, and the motion of the will from You who art, to that which in a less degree is, because such motion is guilt and sin; and that no one’s sin does either hurt You, or disturb the order of Your rule, either first or last.

Augustine relied on his inward contemplation to discern things about God. He used meditation to gain his knowledge. Later on Augustine talks about using his inward eye to read the Bible in light of his knowledge gained through introspection:

29. From all these truths, of which they doubt not whose inner eye You have granted to see such things, and who immoveably believe Moses, Your servant, to have spoken in the spirit of truth;

Augustine then lists off a handful of spiritual ways to interpret “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Augustine then criticizes those who just take the words on face value:

For some, when they read or hear these words, think that God as a man or some mass gifted with immense power, by some new and sudden resolve, had, outside itself, as if at distant places, created heaven and earth, two great bodies above and below, wherein all things were to be contained. And when they hear, God said, Let it be made, and it was made, they think of words begun and ended, sounding in times and passing away, after the departure of which that came into being which was commanded to be; and whatever else of the kind their familiarity with the world would suggest. In whom, being as yet little ones, while their weakness by this humble kind of speech is carried on as if in a mother’s bosom, their faith is healthfully built up, by which they have and hold as certain that God made all natures, which in wondrous variety their senses perceive on every side.

Notice the ad hominem attacks. Augustine’s one response to those who took the Bible literally was “well, you are stupid and don’t understand.” This is not an actual argument. Augustine really didn’t have an argument, and previously revealed he had turned away from Christianity when he took the Bible on face value. To Augustine, if the Bible was true, Christianity was false.

To summarize, Augustine endorses various and innumerable ways to interpret the clear text of the Bible in a spiritual and Platonistic fashion. He endorses all views except those who read the words and then take them on face value. To Augustine, the one actually legitimate way to read the Bible is incorrect, and the numerous and varying ways to spiritualize the text are true. Augustine endorsed superstition and folklore.

Posted in Augustine, Bible, Church Fathers, Theology | 3 Comments

paul may have had a female companion

Posted on November 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

A commenter pointed out that Paul seems to be countering an unquoted critic in 1 Corinthians. This seems likely:

1Co 9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

In verse 3, Paul is saying he is being examined and then begins a long list of rhetorical questions (possibly meant to answer the unnamed, unquoted examiner). Verse 5 is about female companions. Paul may be answering a critic who discredits Paul by pointing to a female traveling companion (possibly not a wife because Paul says earlier he is not married (1Co 7:8)).

It seems that Paul, not unlike Jesus (Mat 27:55), had females who would follow him during his ministry.

Posted in Bible, Church History, History | 1 Comment

why Biblical prophecies fail

Posted on November 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

Throughout the Bible there are failed prediction prophecies. I am not referring to prophecies that just were not clear prophecies in the first place (such as Matthews’ “fulfillments”). I am not also talking about prophecies that were fulfilled in an unexpected way (like a Messiah that dies on a Cross instead of leading a revolution). Instead, some prophecies of the future say that one specific thing would happen but something entirely different happens.

Sometimes the Bible gives reasons for the prophecy failure. In Jonah we read about God’s plans to destroy Nineveh:

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Jonah is preaching on behalf of God, the people believe God (meaning that they believe God would destroy Nineveh in 40 days) and they repent of their ways in an effort to change God’s plans. This is explicitly stated. The king of Nineveh proclaims:

Jon 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

The king was not certain but he expected that God would change His mind about destroying Nineveh. The text states that God also repents (as predicted by the king):

Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

In Jonah, we see a prophecy of the future (one believed to be true by the people) which subsequently does not happen, and the people attribute it to God seeing the people’s repentance. Not only that but Jonah himself had a feeling that God was subject to change the outcome of future prophesied events based on the actions of people:

Jon 4:2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

The entire Jonah incident is an illustration of the principle laid out in Jeremiah 18:

Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

This verse makes very clear that sometimes God’s expectations change. God thinks to punish a people, the people repent, and then God repents of the evil that He “thought to do unto them”. Because the future is not set, when God predicts the future it can still change if people change.

Sometimes there are prophecies in the Bible that fail for no apparent reason:

Eze 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon…
Eze 26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field…
Eze 26:12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches,
Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more…

Ezekiel is very clear about God’s prophecy. God is angry with Tyre. God commissions a particular person (Nebuchadrezzar) to destroy them in the present time (not hundreds of years later). Nebuchadrezzar is given a long list of undeniable harms that he will do unto Tyre. But then, none of it happens:

Eze 29:18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
Eze 29:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
Eze 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

God makes no apologies. Nebuchadrezzar did not get “wages”. He fought endlessly and did not prevail. The prophecy then changes and Nebuchadrezzar is redirected towards Egypt. The prophecy against Tyre never was fulfilled. Historically, we know the prophecy against Egypt also failed. There does not seem to be a stated reason why this failed. But we might be able to gain insight from Judges:

Jdg 1:2 And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.
…
Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

In Judges, God’s prophecy again fails. The text states that this is because the enemy “had chariots of iron”. But we should note that the Bible shows God sucking people alive to hell (Num 16:32) and striking individuals dead (Act 5:5). God could have just killed the charioteers. Why didn’t God just kill His enemies to fulfill his prophecy?

When reading the Bible, it becomes apparent that God’s preference for prophecy fulfillment is through human beings. When Zacharias questioned naming John the Baptist the name “John”, God just made Zacharias mute until he obeyed (Luk 1). God did not force his mouth to say “John”, and Zacharias could have still named John something else (presumably). But Zacharias preferred naming his son sensibly. God used pressure to fulfill His will.

Likewise, Cyrus was prophesied to rebuild the temple. God “stirred” him up by showing him prophecy of the Jews. What king wouldn’t “fulfill” a prophecy about himself that was over 150 years old? That kind of action engenders incalculable political clout. Cyrus makes fast work of his benevolence:

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
Ezr 1:3 Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem.

This is mirrored in archeology on an inscription known as the Cyrus Cylinder:

From [?] to Assur and [from] Susa, Agade, Esnunna, Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der, as far as the region of Gutium, the sacred centers on the other side of the Tigris, whose sanctuaries had been abandoned for a long time, I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings.

So Cyrus fulfilled prophecy for political gain.

But what happens when people fail God or third parties show unpredicted behavior. God makes a prophecy and people either do not live up to God’s expectations, downright refuse to cooperate, or a third party acts differently than expected (maybe Tyre fights longer and harder than predicted). Is God required to force that prophecy to come true? If God promises to bless someone, and that person decides to commit suicide the next hour, is God required to force the individual to stay alive just to make the blessing a reality?

Also, if God promises to give a people a land and God’s people are not innovative enough or do not fight hard enough, then is God required to intervene? The Bible records several of these types of failed prophecies. God is not required to go out of His way to force a prophecy to come true in spite of the actions of man. God might just let a prophecy fail and move on.

In other words, God makes prophecies but is not required to use all possible means to make that prophecy come true. Sometimes God lets prophecies fail (and records it in the Bible). This is not because God couldn’t fulfill prophecy. This is because God prefers to work through human beings, and human beings are fickle creatures.

The Calvinists, who believe God controls all things and knows all events in the future, have no response for obviously failed prophecy.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Jewish History, Omnipotence, Open Theism, Prophecy, Theology | 7 Comments

divorce for abandonment

Posted on November 1, 2013 by christopher fisher

The question was presented to me on the nature of Biblical divorce. Are there any circumstances (such as spousal abandonment) which would warrant a divorce? The answer is twofold:

1. Abandonment is divorce. There is no “divorce for abandonment”. They are the same thing.
2. Even if abandonment was not divorce, when Jesus is talking about divorce he might be taking for granted that divorce for abandonment is acceptable. Paul even mentions abandonment as being reason “not to be bound” to marriage.

Abandonment is divorce

It is very important to understand the definition of both marriage and divorce. In American culture, these things are synonymous with government documents. Americans are obsessed with legal documents and often confuse what is written on paper with what is real.

This obsession with legal documents is a modern phenomenon. The ancient Israelites had no formal documentation process for marriage. Marriage was defined as a cultural recognition that two individuals were married, coupled with a sexual bond. It was not until after the time of Jesus that marriage contracts (not even governmental licenses) began to be used in Israel.

We see illustrations of documentless marriage throughout the Bible. Jacob marries two women (Gen 29), a feast is described for Leah’s wedding, but nothing for Rachel’s (the father had ulterior motives to get Jacob drunk the first night).

We see from Abraham and Sarah’s marriage that no one even knew they were married (Gen 12, Gen 20).

In Ruth, we see Boaz attempting to get Ruth’s in-laws to give him the rights to Ruth as a wife. The marriage is a public declaration. It also alludes to sex being a key event:

Rth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.

Samson seems to pick out a wife, have a feast, and is considered married during the feast (Jdg 14).

It is important to see that marriage was not Biblically merged with the State. The state did not issue “Marriage Licenses” and the Bible never prescribes one. Likewise, divorce was also not contingent on State documents. Long before Catholic Popes started requiring Church sanctioned “annulments”, divorce was standard practice (initiated with no State involvement).

The one document that the Bible does discuss was actually a protection for the wife. In ancient Israel, not only did divorced wives face the stigma currently faced by divorced women, but men might not even want to marry the divorced woman for fear that the original husband might come and reclaim her. To protect the woman, Moses required a “Bill of Divorce” (a private document explaining the wife was divorced). Once divorced, a further protection was that the husband could never remarry the wife. It is telling that the man required no equivalent “Bill of Divorce” (he did not need the same protections).

The divorce was not the “Bill of Divorce” but the “sending away”. Once a husband sent away his wife, she was divorced whether or not she had this paper (that would make her life slightly easier). Even the Hebrew word for divorce (gaw-rash’) literally means “to drive out”. God “drove man” out of Eden (Gen 3:24). Abraham “drove out” the bondswoman (Gen 21:10).

When Paul talks about divorce (in the case of an unbelieving wife leaving a husband), the divorce is the abandonment. Paul does not say, “if she leaves, then divorce her.” Paul says:

1Co 7:15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

What this means for the modern Christian is that we need to start thinking in terms of God’s law, not man’s law. The government does not tell us who is married and who is divorced. A piece of paper does not define reality. Actions have meaning. If two people claim to be married, we should take their word for it even if it later turns out that there is no Marriage certificate on file. If a husband abandons his wife, she is divorced regardless if she has a “divorce certificate”. For example, if a husband withdraws physical and finance support for a decade, his wife has every right to remarry.

Abandonment is a common sense reason for divorce

Pretend a woman is married to an axe murderer, or a child molester, or an abusive husband. Pretend a woman is married to a husband who abandons her sexual, physically, or financially. No one instinctively forbids divorce in these cases. It is not only morally accepted, but sometimes coerced:

Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus’ day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the “any cause” divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!

Paul, as show before, allowed divorce for abandonment. He was not contradicting Jesus when Jesus said divorce was only acceptable for immorality. Instead, Jesus’ statement was more likely referring to a specific cultural question:

One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” (Matt. 19:3). This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the “any cause” divorce. By the time of Jesus, this “any cause” divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce….

When Jesus answered with a resounding no, he wasn’t condemning “divorce for any cause,” but rather the newly invented “any cause” divorce. Jesus agreed firmly with the second group that the phrase didn’t mean divorce was allowable for “immorality” and for “any cause,” but that Deutermonomy 24:1 referred to no type of divorce “except immorality.”

In short, divorce for abandonment is a non-concept. Divorce is abandonment. Not only is divorce for abandonment acceptable (by modern understandings of the words) but also divorce for neglect. Paul says to not be bound in the case of abandonment, meaning “marry whom you would like.”

Here is David Instone-Brewer (author of Divorce and Remarriage in the Church) on the issue:

Posted in Bible, Goverment, Jewish History, Morality, Textual Criticism, Theology | 1 Comment

john cassian on literalism

Posted on October 30, 2013 by christopher fisher

John Cassian actually provides an interesting example of a “literal” reading of the Bible that is taken to absurd extent. Apparently there were some monks who misinterpreted Jesus’ command to “take up your cross”:

whosoever takes not up his cross and follows after Me is not worthy of Me; a passage which some most earnest monks, having indeed a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge Romans 10:2 understood literally, and so made themselves wooden crosses, and carried them about constantly on their shoulders, and so were the cause not of edification but of ridicule on the part of all who saw them.

Most people understand Jesus’ command as figurative, as evident by most Christians not engaging in these types of activities. A relevant question in these types of scenarios is “what did the hearers do or think”. Absolutely no person is recorded as hearing this and then picking up a real cross. This seemed to have been a local idiom, probably because the Roman’s liked to use crosses for execution. The idiom would mean, like it does today, that you will be persecuted for your beliefs (or face hardships).

Any time someone reads the Bible, the first thought should be “what is the text trying to communicate to the audience of the text.” Did the hearers understand the text literally or did they take it metaphorically? Did they believe the story was literal (like God talking to Moses) or was the text trying to communicate some sort of spiritual truth? Examples like monks picking up wooden crosses serves as a straw-man argument for people like John Cassian to avoid addressing real criticisms of his interpretation style.

Posted in Bible, Church Fathers, Church History, Figures of Speech, Textual Criticism, Theology | Leave a comment

john cassian on anthropomorphism

Posted on October 30, 2013 by christopher fisher

The Calvinist modus operandi is to start with a priory (preconceived ideas) on the attributes of God and then interpret the text of the Bible in light of those concepts. Augustine actually admits to this in his Confessions (chapter 12). But John Cassian (360–435AD) actually provides a very good example of this kind of thinking in his Institutes. Cassian claims that because we understand God’s eternal nature, that the proclamations of God in the Bible must be taken metaphorically:

And so as without horrible profanity these things cannot be understood literally of Him who is declared by the authority of Holy Scripture to be invisible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inestimable, simple, and uncompounded, so neither can the passion of anger and wrath be attributed to that unchangeable nature without fearful blasphemy. For we ought to see that the limbs signify the divine powers and boundless operations of God, which can only be represented to us by the familiar expression of limbs: by the mouth we should understand that His utterances are meant, which are of His mercy continually poured into the secret senses of the soul, or which He spoke among our fathers and the prophets: by the eyes we can understand the boundless character of His sight with which He sees and looks through all things, and so nothing is hidden from Him of what is done or can be done by us, or even thought. By the expression hands, we understand His providence and work, by which He is the creator and author of all things; the arms are the emblems of His might and government, with which He upholds, rules and controls all things. And not to speak of other things, what else does the hoary hair of His head signify but the eternity and perpetuity of Deity, through which He is without any beginning, and before all times, and excels all creatures? So then also when we read of the anger or fury of the Lord, we should take it not ἀνθρωποπαθῶς ; i.e., according to an unworthy meaning of human passion, but in a sense worthy of God, who is free from all passion; so that by this we should understand that He is the judge and avenger of all the unjust things which are done in this world

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Church Fathers, Figures of Speech, God, History, Textual Criticism, Theology | Leave a comment

the church fathers claim a pagan as their own

Posted on October 30, 2013 by christopher fisher

Ammonius Saccas was a Greek philosopher who was active around 240AD. Ammonius Saccas taught Neoplatonism and spawned two renowned pupils: the Christian Origen and the Neoplatonist Plotinus. Plotinus, in turn, had a pupil who claims to have also known Origen. His name was Porphyry, and he claims that Ammonius was once Christian but converted away (he also exposes Origen’s Greek influences):

…I refer to Origen, who is highly honored by the teachers of these doctrines.

6. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his.

7. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws [Platonism]. But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness [Christianity]…

8. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chæremon the Stoic, and of Cornutus. Becoming acquainted through them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures.

Eusebius provides some commentary on these claims:

9. These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work against the Christians. He speaks truly of the industry and learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the Greeks, and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs.

10. For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned.

So, Ammonius was a renowned Platonic philosopher that mentored Plotinus. Plotinus’ own pupil talks about Ammonius’ rejection of Christianity, but Eusebius who lived in Palestine (Ammonius taught in Alexandria) and writing decades(?) after Porphyry, claims that Porphyry was wrong. His evidence is existent books by Ammonius (now lost to time).

Eusebius also references to Ammonius elsewhere:

Ammonius the Alexandrian, having exerted a great deal of energy and effort as was necessary, bequeaths to us a harmonized account of the four gospels. Alongside the Gospel according to Matthew, he placed the corresponding sections of the other gospels.

Jerome (347-420) echoes Eusebius’ claims that Ammonius remained a Christian:

Ammonius, a talented man of great philosophical learning, was distinguished at Alexandria, at the same time. Among many and distinguished monuments of his genius, is the elaborate work which he composed On the harmony of Moses and Jesus, and the Gospel canons, which he worked out, and which Eusebius of Caesarea, afterwards followed. Porphyry falsely accused him of having become a heathen again, after being a Christian, but it is certain that he continued a Christian until the very end of his life.

The church fathers were eager to count Ammonius as one of their own. But looking at what we know of Ammonius, he seems more like a gnostic or Platonist. No one would dispute that Ammonius taught Neoplatonism. Plotinus said of Ammonius “Here is the man I have been looking for”, and then became his devoted disciple. Porphyry writes:

Plotinus himself remained a long time without writing, but he began to base his Conferences on what he had gathered from his studies under Ammonius.

Plotinus’ teachings (our best source of Neoplatonistic beliefs) are said to have been taught by Ammonius! Ammonius also had “secret teachings” that his disciples attempted to keep hidden (a practice mirroring Gnosticism or mystery cults):

Erennius, Origen [this is not the Christian Origen], and Plotinus had made a compact not to disclose any of the doctrines which Ammonius had revealed to them. Plotinus kept faith, and in all his intercourse with his associates divulged nothing of Ammonius’ system.

The Church Fathers were very eager to include this devoted Neoplatonist as one of their own. This is very telling of the intellectual culture of Christianity in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It also makes one wonder what was contained in Ammonius’ books (e.g. On the harmony of Moses and Jesus) if Ammonius actually did write these books.

Posted in Church Fathers, Church History, Greek History, History, Plotinus | 1 Comment

revealing quote by early Christian critic

Posted on October 30, 2013 by christopher fisher

In a now lost (burned) book by early Church critic Porphyry, he points out that the Christians of his time abandoned the literal interpretation of the Bible to embrace theology foreign to the Bible. As recorded in Eusibius’ Church History:

Some persons, desiring to find a solution of the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that the plain words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hidden mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they make their explanations.

Edit: As a post note. This was a common criticism levied by Jews, Manicheans, Donatists, Gnostics (who wanted to claim the OT God was a lesser God), and Platonists. Celsus writes the same criticism:

The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give all these things an allegorical meaning; and, Because they are ashamed of these things, they take refuge in allegory.

Posted in Bible, Bible Critics, Theology | Leave a comment

the Biblical way to assassinate a tyrant

Posted on October 26, 2013 by christopher fisher

In Judges 3 there is an interesting story that details how Eglon the Moabite was assassinated by the Jews. The first part of the story is that God raised up Eglon to punish the Jews:

Jdg 3:12 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD. So the LORD strengthened Eglon king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the LORD.

So God is using a pagan government and has ordained that government for his purpose. Eglon rules 18 years over Israel and oppresses Israel. In response, a single man is “raised up” by God to kill Eglon. What happens next is a somewhat humorous instance of divine assassination:

Jdg 3:14 So the children of Israel served Eglon king of Moab eighteen years.
Jdg 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them: Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. By him the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon king of Moab.
Jdg 3:16 Now Ehud made himself a dagger (it was double-edged and a cubit in length) and fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh.
Jdg 3:17 So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. (Now Eglon was a very fat man.)
Jdg 3:18 And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who had carried the tribute.
Jdg 3:19 But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” He said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him.
Jdg 3:20 So Ehud came to him (now he was sitting upstairs in his cool private chamber). Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat.
Jdg 3:21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.
Jdg 3:22 Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out.

The scene brings up many questions. How did Ehud know that he was being “raised up” by God? Did Ehud take this upon himself? Is Ehud the ancient version of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Would Dietrich Bonhoeffer likewise have been justified in killing Hitler because he was “raised up” by God? When is political assassination of tyrants acceptable? To what extent is God involved in selecting and raising his agents? When Paul says to be subject to the government (Rom 13:1), would Paul have condemned a successful Israeli freedom campaign against the Romans?

These are valid questions.

Posted in Bible, God, Morality, Theology | Leave a comment