The Bible as a Mirror

"Every war needs killers and they can always be found. We always put ourselves in the skin of the victims and not of their killers - we never put ourselves in the skin of a Nazi or Khmer Rouge.  Yet between them and us there is very little difference, no more than between the victim and us."  (from this post)


Thanks to those who took the time to comment on my last post about those yucky Bible passages. I was nodding my head at times as I read each of them. They are things I've either encountered in this book, The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark, or not so long ago in other books.  It was kind of neat seeing them restated by all of you!

So what does the author suggest we do about those disturbing passages in the Bible?  Instead of glossing over them, ignoring them, or cutting them out of our text, we should retain and condemn them!

His argument throughout the book is that while the Bible may be inspired by God, it is not inerrant. It argues with itself and he believes God wants us to wrestle with the text, with what is stated and then come to just solutions for our societies.

Why acknowledge these texts are there? Why not cut them out completely? Because they are there.  And they shape many of our backgrounds more than we realize. He suggests the Bible is a mirror. It shows the good and bad of human nature.  It shows what we are capable of. What we are capable of justifying in God's name!  How many of us are appalled at radical Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and say "God is greater" right before blowing themselves up and often killing fellow Muslims?  How many of us are stunned that the Crusaders and people today of their same mindset can kill others because they believe God would have it that way?  And Jews who believe the land is theirs and if people are in the way they've got to go. Either they need to leave or face unpleasant consequences.  All because God - the scapegoat - said so. 

The Bible shows not perfect people, but imperfect prophets, kings, patriarchs and ordinary folks. Yes, even amongst the "chosen people."  You want to destroy your enemies? You want to keep virgin women as your own after conquering their people?  OK, write the history and say God commanded it.  Simple as that.

"The Bible reflects our doubt and our mediocrity.  It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between."  (pg. 218)

The author quotes John Collins who states, "There is no reason in principle why a text that is shocking might not be inspired. Such a text can raise our moral consciousness by forcing us to confront the fact that immoral actions are often carried out in the name of religion ... Rather than ask whether a text is revealed (and by what criteria could we possibly decide?), it is better to ask whether a text is revelatory, whether we learn something from it about human nature or about the way the world works. A text that is neither historically reliable nor morally edifying...may be all too revelatory about human nature."  (pg. 219)



You may recall this post from the American who was hosting a book club in Kosovo.  I remembered her words this morning as I thought about what to write in this post. 

...Is their bitterness, their fear so great that they could do to Serbs what Serbs did to them?  Could soft-spoken Veton burn a Serb village because his own was burned by Serbs? Would sweet, wide-eyed Enver, who loves basketball and never misses a class, stand by and watch while atrocities were committed?  Could any of these bright, kindhearted young people kill Serbs because they are Serbs?

And if I were in their shoes, what would I be capable of? Have I come to grips with the darkness in my own heart?


Thom Stark in The Human Faces of God believes God can speak to us through the texts. Whether they are passages that inspire us, make us feel the love or shock or disgust us. They mirror humanity, and show us what we are capable of doing to each other.


Feel free to share the texts that inspire or disgust you the most. What do you think of the author's idea that "their status as condemned is exactly their scriptural value"?  Do you think people are capable of all sorts of evil or just the rare few?  Any other thoughts?

Those Yucky Bible Passages

So I'm reading a book someone recommend many months ago and I got for my birthday.  Anyway there is a question in the last chapter about what we should do about disturbing biblical passages.  The main ones discussed were the ones about the genocide against Israel's enemies. You know where they are commanded by God to kill every man, woman and child. And in others where one could stay alive if she were a virgin woman (I suppose for sex slave purposes), but not if one were not a virgin - and definitely not a man.   Still others where God seemingly cared more for trees than people.  (Sounds like some extreme environmentalists I've heard of.)

I was going to share the author's words about those, but figured first I'd ask you.

Should we allegorize them?  Excise them from the text? Ignore them? Condemn them? Learn how to defeat our own enemies from them? Celebrate them as God's plan for keeping the line for the Messiah safe?

All, some, or none of the above.  Please tell me how you view them. How do you deal with them and explain them to others?

NT Manuscript Variations and Inspiration

For those of you who have been to Sunday School classes or youth events where your questions were dismissed by your teachers because "you should just accept things by faith and not question God," I am glad to read that not everyone is this way. Thankfully many people have questioned and not simply accepted things blindly, but searched and studied.  I liked this little snippet.  Maybe because it's comforting to know scholarly people have studied and come out stronger in their trust of Jesus as he is presented in the New Testament.


In The Case for the Real Jesus author Lee Strobel recalls an interview he had with Bruce Metzger   "a scholar who's universally acknowledged as the greatest textual critic of his generation."  Bart Ehrman "even dedicates Misquoting Jesus to him, calling him 'Doctor-Father' and saying he 'taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work.'"

Strobel was interviewing Metzger about the variations between New Testament manuscripts noting most of them "tend to be minor rather than substantive."

"Yes, yes, that's correct, " Metzger replied, adding: "The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church."

Then I recall asking him how his many decades of intensely studying the New Testament's text had affected his personal faith.  "Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very ancient."

"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith ____"

He jumped in before I could finish my sentence.  "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into the text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."

He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "Very well placed."   (pg. 99)

I just wanted to share this for those wondering what the Bible being inspired meant.


In an interview with Dan Wallace ...


"Seeking a crisp summary, I said, 'Complete this sentence: when Christians say the Bible is inspired, they mean that...'"

"'...that it's both the Word of God and the words of men.  Lewis Sperry Chafer put it well: "Without violating the authors' personalities, they wrote with their own feelings, literary abilities, and concerns. But in the end, God could say, That's exactly what I wanted to have written."'"  (pg. 74)

Good definition or would you say it differently?


Thoughts?

Canonization of Scripture

Last notes from The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi.  I know many will disagree, but this is the author's view of the canonization of Scripture.  It's kind of a follow-up to yesterday's post "...God is love. Love includes communication."

I wanted to share this perspective and hear your thoughts if you want your chance to be heard!  :)

I thought this might be interesting to those who claim Jesus didn't write or leave a book before he returned to heaven. 

Long before any church council met, Christ's original companions and followers in Jerusalem accepted the apostles' words as the Word of God....  How could the apostle John say to his readers that they already knew the truth and did not need anyone (not even a church council) to determine for them the word of God?  The first- and second-century church already knew which books had genuine apostolic authority behind  them.  They did not recognize canonization of the apostles' writings by a church council to begin laying down their lives for the Word of God. They had been affirming their faith in these writings, by choosing martyrdom, for more than two hundred years before Constantine.

The Old Testament canon existed before Jesus' time. Canonization of the New Testament became necessary only because spurious books began to appear claiming to have been written by the original apostles.  Canonization did not turn Paul's epistles into God's word.  The purpose of canonization was to refute the spurious works as inauthentic. ...

It is important to note that only one book in the New Testament, the Revelation (to John), claims to have been received supernaturally in visions, and this book met with the toughest scrutiny before being included in the canon.  A book with a similar title, The Revelation of Peter, was rejected. Why? Because Christianity is about public truth, not about private, subjective, unverifiable, secret, inner, "religious" experience.  Private intuition may indeed be from God, but it has to be publicly authenticated before the public can follow it. The Revelation of John was included in the canon precisely because it is not a "fax from heaven."  John "saw," "looked," and "heard" certain things and then wrote down his eyewitness account - exactly as he did in the gospel of John.  The church canonized books with known apostolic authority to undercut the deception of power-hungry "religious" prophets, apostles, and mystics. ...


The point is this: the church does not believe the Scriptures because the Council of Nicaea canonized some books.  ... The Council of Nicaea did not create the Bible.  The process of canonization of the New Testament began with a heretic, Marcion (AD 90-160), who identified a widely accepted canon in order to challenge it.  In response to such attempts, the church affirmed the New Testament canon in order to repudiate heresies.

Inclusion in the canon was not dependent on unverifiable "divine inspiration" but on verifiable matters.  The first was apostolic authority, including implied apostolic authority as in the case of the books of Mark, Luke, Acts, and the epistle to Hebrews. Equally important was theological harmony with the Old Testament canon that Jesus confirmed as the Word of God. The Gnostic forgeries did claim apostolic authorship, but they did not and could not claim harmony with the Old Testament. For example, John's Revelation is a very deliberate unpacking of the book of Daniel.  In Revelation 5, for example, the Lamb of God receives the title deed of the earth that had been promised to the Messiah in Psalm 2 and Psalm 110.  The chapters that follow become the key to explaining how Jesus was the Messiah prophesied by the Old Testament.

quotes from pg. 398-9

"...God is love. Love includes communication."

I finally finished The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi the other day and have just a few more notes to share.  Mostly this is for my benefit because I found this book helpful and wanted to record a few of the things that stood out to me. Really, there was much, much more, but I can't exactly reproduce the whole book, can I?  I'm aware that not everyone would like it as much as I did, but for me it was timely.  It gave me more assurance in the life-changing message of the Bible. And although the author is a Christian, he is not a Western one. (He is from Allahabad, India in the Uttar Pradesh state.) So I enjoyed the perspective of one not exactly like me writing about his own country in some aspects and all the historical ties he brought into the book.   Oddly enough, this month's issue of InTouch - which I shared recently often speaks to me on issues I am currently wondering about *cue spooky music* - came yesterday. The subject: the Word of God.  Coincidence?  (Usually in the June issue they speak about fathers because of Father's Day.)



Here are some of my last notes. I may do one more post with just a bit more depending on if I really want to type it. 

Private revelations cannot generally be confirmed as divinely inspired.  They may be supernaturally inspired, but how would we know if they are from God or from the devil, angels or demons?  Most books of the Bible are not revelations received in a subjective, trancelike experience.The Gospels, for example, claim to be objective public truth. They bear courageous witness to the public events of Jesus' teaching, miracles, prophecies, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension -- witnessed by five hundred people. The Gospel writers - "the evangelists" - challenged the interpretations of Jewish scholarship and a brutal Roman state.  They opened themselves to cross-examination. Matthew, Mark, and John gave eyewitness accounts as evidence for their truth. Luke described how he systematically researched the facts, carefully checking them out with eyewitnesses. This is a very human, scholarly way of writing indeed! ...

Ill-informed critics assume that Christians believe the Bible because the Roman Catholic Church councils declared it was God's Word.  The reality is that the Church believes the Bible because Jesus lived and died "in accordance to the scriptures." ...

[insert material about Jesus fulfilling Scripture and then an example from amoebas about how life and information transmission is related and reveals a God who speaks]


From the very beginning, the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) reveal a God who speaks: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."  Thus the Jewish worldview sees language as foundational to reality.  We human beings speak because we are made in the image of a Spirit who said, "Let us make man in our image."  Man became a "living soul" when God breathed his spirit ("breath") into a body of clay. Thus, human language has both spiritual and physical aspects.

The Bible teaches that God is love. Love includes communication. Both Old and New Testaments teach that God speaks to us because he loves us. He gave us the gift of language so we may know and love him and one another as his children. Love, Jesus taught, was the whole point of divine revelation, that is, communication.  In the Judeo-Christian understanding, love and language are aspects not of chemistry but of our psyche or soul.  Our chemistry is designed to facilitate love, knowledge, communication, and worship.

pg. 393-4


Have you ever had one of those timely things just happen to you?  A book or sermon or song or note from a friend that spoke to exactly what you were struggling with?  What do you think about love including communication?  Other thoughts?

Is God a Moral Monster? -- The Inefficient God, Exaggerated Language, Our Ideal God

Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan

I finished this book yesterday and wanted to do one last post with a few thoughts I noted from the book. I'd love to hear your feedback on any of this!



"The Scriptures reveal a sufficient God, not necessarily an efficient one."  (pg. 166)

I actually had to stop and think about this since our society values efficiency so much.  I had to consider the fact that inefficiency isn't always a bad trait.  Your thoughts?



Ever notice the Old Testament talk about utterly destroying all the people and animals including women and children and cringing at how God could command such a thing?  This author makes a case for this being exaggerated language frequently used in ancient history. He gives examples from other sources such as Egypt's Tuthmosis III, the Hittite king Mursilli II, Ramses II, Moab's king Mesha and a couple of others.  As the author states and maybe you've noticed in your own Bible reading, "groups of Canaanite peoples who apparently were 'totally destroyed' were still around when all was said and done (e.g. Judges 1)."  He writes: "The archaeological evidence nicely supports the biblical text; both of these point to minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel's gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance there." (pg. 185)

What do you think?



In a later chapter the author suggests:

"Maybe the ideal 'God' in the Westerner's mind is just too nice. We've lost sight of good and just while focusing on nice, tame, and manageable.  We've ignored sternness and severity (which makes us squirm), latching onto our own ideals of comfort and convenience. We've gotten rid of the God who presents a cosmic authority problem and substituted controllable gods of our own devising. We've focused on divine love at the expense of God's anger at what ultimately destroys us or undermines our fundamental well-being. ... Today's version of spirituality is tame and makes no demands on us.  A mere impersonal force behind it all doesn't call us on the carpet for our actions. ...  If we take God seriously, he will most certainly mess up our lives, make us uncomfortable, and even disorient us.  After all, we can easily get accustomed to our own self-serving agendas and idols.   The atheist has it almost right: humans regularly do make gods in their image.  Yet the biblical God isn't the kind we make up. He refuses to be manipulated by human schemes.  He makes us all -- including his true devotees -- uncomfortable, which in the end is what we truly need to overcome our self-centeredness."  (pg. 193)

Do you tend to agree? Disagree?  Share away!

Three Things

Yesterday I was catching up on posts from Staring at the View and one of them was "What I Believe" where the blog owner answered this question often posed to him by others.  (If you are interested in this recently-turned Lutheran's reply, I recommend his post.)  In the comments I read an agnostic's summary of what he believed. Actually it was a quote by Marcus Aurelius that I decided to share on Facebook.    That lead to a rather interesting thread.  What do you think of this quote?  Does it go along with your theological position pretty well?  Or not?

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."



Later in the day I was reading a short article on the story of the tax collector and Pharisee and the author used this partial quote from C.S. Lewis'  Mere Christianity.

"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.  All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing...the pleasures of power, of hatred. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute."

Here is the short parable in case you are interested. I even love the introductory statement!


 ⁹ To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: ¹⁰ “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

   ¹³ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

   ¹⁴ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” 

Lastly, one question from my latest book. The author provided this in the discussion section.

In what ways does the Old Testament appear misogynistic (woman hating)?  Does Israel's patriarchal society prove this point? Why or why not?

Thanks to everyone who has taken time to answer some or all of the questions thus far or involved in the discussion by adding your thoughts!  I have greatly enjoyed reading what you had to say!


Have a great weekend!

Is God a Moral Monster? -- Redemptive Movement of Scripture; Holiness Gap; God Involved in Everything

Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan

On a page leading towards a discussion of "The Redemptive Movement of Scripture," the author wrote these words. 

Note too that common ancient Near Eastern worship patterns and rituals -- sacrifices, priesthood, holy mountains/places, festivals, purification rites, circumcision -- are found in the law of Moses.  For example, we find in Hittite law a sheep being substituted for a man. In his providence, God appropriated certain symbols and rituals familiar to Israel and infused them with new meaning and significance in light of his saving, historical acts and his covenant relationship with Israel.  This "redemption" of ancient rituals and patterns and their incorporation into Israel's own story reflect common human longings to connect with "the sacred" or "the transcendent" or to find grace and forgiveness.  In God's historical redemption of Israel and later with the coming of Christ, the Lamb of God, these kinds of rituals and symbols were fulfilled in history and were put in proper perspective.

Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old Testament, we should freely acknowledge them.  We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1-2 and affirm with our critics that we don't have to advocate such practices for all societies.  We can also show that any of the objectionable practices we find in the Old Testament have a contrary witness in the Old Testament as well."  (pg. 62)

1. What do you think of the idea that God used common ancient Near Eastern worship patters and rituals and gave them new meaning and significance?

2.  Can you think of any objectionable practice having "a contrary witness in the Old Testament"?

3.  Do you agree that we should freely acknowledge "inferior moral attitudes and practices" encountered in the OT?  How do you handle them when talking to scoffers or even when trying to make sense of them to yourself?

Serious-minded Old Testament Jews were regularly reminded of the gap between God and themselves. To approach God was no light thing, and throughout an Israelite's daily life were many reminders of defilement, impurity, and barriers in worshiping God.  Attentive Israelites routinely experienced a "holiness gap" that existed between them and God.  ...  The law -- with all its purity requirements and sacrifices -- actually revealed human inadequacy and thus the need for humans to look beyond their own resources to God's gracious assistance.  (pg. 85-6)

The author reminds us that Paul called the law a "tutor" that leads us to Christ. 

4.  What do you think about this "holiness gap"?  Do you agree that the Law revealed inadequacies or do you believe keeping it all should be good enough for God and He should appreciate the effort?

5. Why do you think approaching God is "no light thing"?  Do you agree or disagree?

The author states that the underlying rationale for everything -- even the detailed food laws -- shows that God wanted His people to be different (holy) in every aspect of life.  "Living under God's reign should affect all of life... God isn't cordoned off to some private, religious realm."  (pg. 75)

Reminder:  Paul told the Corinthians, "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."  (10:31)

6. What do you think of God wanting to be involved in all aspects of life?  Do you think most people live this way or do they put God on a shelf like an insurance policy and only take Him out and use Him if something bad happens?  Why would people not want God involved in their lives? Are there certain areas perhaps that they don't want His input? 


Any other thoughts or comments on these topics?

Is God a Moral Monster? -- More Questions & Discussion

Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan


Before discussing some of those rather odd and difficult Old Testament laws, the author mentions how important it is to understand ancient Near Eastern culture and not judge their standards in the same light as our own.  In fact he states, "[R]ather than looking at Scripture from a post-Enlightenment critique...we can observe that Scripture itself acknowledges the inferiority of certain Old Testament standards."  (pg. 61)  Earlier he claimed that upon observing these people we would see "a culture whose social structures were badly damaged by the fall."

In the discussion section he asks:

1.  Is it useful to think of Israel's laws as realistic, "incremental" steps toward the ideal? Is this a serious problem?  Why or why not?

He gave the example of bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia and how perhaps many of the residents would balk if we suddenly brought tons of changes to the culture and social structure.  He argues that ancient Near Eastern society was brutal and, in a sense, God met the covenant people (i.e.,Children of Israel) half way by raising standards, but not in a drastic, ideal society way.  The author says the perfect world was before the fall, but after the fall it was characterized by patriarchy, misogyny, cruelty, slavery, inequality...you get the picture.

2.  How does Matthew 19:8...give insight regarding the less-than-ideal legislation in the law of Moses?

It reads:  "Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.'"


The OT record shows how Israel was told to do certain things in light of where God moved them.  For instance at one point they were used as tools of judgment and told to fight the native inhabitants and take the land of Canaan whereas when they were in exile for their disobedience, God told them to plant gardens, marry and prosper their masters so they,too,would prosper in this foreign place.  With that in mind, 3. Do you find the OT full of relativism or situational ethics? Is this a problem or just how life is? Should we live relativistically today or is there a set standard? 



The author also discusses how some New Atheists (and really there are many others; I know Muslims who would say the same thing) point out how awful some of the biblical characters are portrayed.  4. In light of this, how important is it to differentiate between is and ought as related to the OT?  Is meaning, yes, fallible human beings did this, but it does not mean we ought to live this way.  Honestly I feel anyone who reads the Old Testament would get the impression that just because something is recorded doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The Bible simply shows human nature, warts and all.  It's not white-washed history such as I'd expect a proud Jewish nation to record if they were the ones writing their own history and speaking of their national heroes!  Perhaps God was behind what was recorded for posterity. We can learn from their mistakes and know not to repeat those awful deeds.


Thoughts?


Bonus note from a previous chapter:   The author uses Moses and Abraham as examples of faith. Moses as a negative example of one who was given the Law yet failed to demonstrate the kind of faith Abraham displayed without the Law.  Moses is a "sobering reminder to legalistically minded Jews that having the law and keeping it scrupulously are inadequate for being right with God.  Rather, we're to approach him trustingly, depending on his grace and sufficiency rather than putting confidence in our own sufficiency."  (pg. 45)

Any thoughts on that?

Is God a Moral Monster? -- Questions for you

You may recall a few years back when Oprah Winfrey admitted she was turned off to Christianity when she heard a preacher affirm that God was a jealous God.  I even recall seeing some YouTube clip with her statement that jealousy is wrong so how can God get away with this?

I'm reading Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. In it Paul Copan replies to some of the criticism New Atheists have against the Tanakh's portrayal of God.

I wanted to ask you a few questions.

1.  What do you think of statements such as "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"?  Is there a good kind of jealousy and a bad kind?  Explain your answer.

2.  What do you think of the concept of divine vulnerability?  Do you believe God is vulnerable to what His creation does or does not do? Explain.

3.  Is anger always a bad thing? When is it appropriate?  When might it be virtuous?




On a lighter note, you may enjoy Michael's interview. Just where it says "mom," replace it with "aunt."  :)  

Tempting Jesus

Concerning Jesus, Hebrews 4:15 tells us,

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

And then there is that whole Satan-tempting-Jesus story in the gospels. Now for those who believe Jesus wasn't God this is no huge deal.  A man is tempted. Big deal. Happens every day.  He resisted all temptation?  Yes, bigger deal and hooray for his ability to do so!

But for we who believe Jesus is God, how do we make sense of it?  If Jesus knew he wouldn't fall for temptation because he is God and God is bigger than temptation then it really wasn't the same kind of struggle with temptation that we have.  So how could he sympathize with our weaknesses? Right?

 If I know I wouldn't be attracted to women because I prefer men, it's not a temptation to parade lovely ladies in front of me.  Sorry...only analogy I could think of. Or maybe I could have used coffee. Yes, if I know coffee wouldn't tempt me because I don't care for it, then offering coffee no matter how aromatic or delicious (to you), it wouldn't be a temptation for me.  Same with hazelnuts or pistachios...you get the idea.

I was reading a book today that said, "Christ in his human awareness voluntarily limited access to his divine knowledge so that he could suffer real temptation; Christ did not know that he could not sin. Christ freely chose by his human will to resist temptation; that is, his divine will did not overwhelm or impose itself upon his human will. ... Jesus lived his life in dependency on the empowering of the Spirit and, therefore, is an example for how we too can live victoriously over sin.  Just as Jesus was 'led by the Spirit' (Luke 4:1), we too as believers are to be 'led by the Spirit' (Rom. 8:14)."  With "moment-by-moment commitment to the will of his Father" Jesus did not yield to sin.

The author gave an analogy of our entering a room where the door closes and unknown to us the door is on a timed lock which means it will not open for two hours.  "You consider leaving once or twice, but in the end you freely choose to stay in the room for the full two hours. After you read a newspaper and some magazine articles, you decide to leave. By this time, the lock has automatically been released by the timer and you freely walk out the door.  Why did you stay in and not try to go out?  Because you freely decided to stay. Would you have been able to leave?  No."

Follow that?  :)

So all that to say, I wonder if when

²³Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Jesus was telling Peter that his offer was tempting Jesus and this was Jesus' way to yield to God's will and not man's desires.  No one wants to suffer and be rejected and killed.  Is this why Jesus told Peter he was a "stumbling block" to him?

Your thoughts on any of this are welcome.  I'd even like to know how YOU think of Jesus' temptations and whether or not this author makes any sense to you.  I actually like the part about Jesus being led by the Spirit as an example of how we are to live and be victorious over temptations in life. 

pgs. 141,142 -- That's Just YOUR Interpretation by Paul Copan

The Bible and those bats-as birds-things

Guess what, y'all!  I'm reading a new book! Surprising, I know.  :)

I finally finished the 500+ page A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. that I've discussed in recent days. It inspired posts on these topics.

Moses being the author of the Torah  
The reinterpretation of Jephthah's daughter being sacrificed for his rash vow
Why suffering though doing good
Does God allow Himself to look weak
King David and Jesus on the topic of enemies

(those are clickable links if you want to read them and add your own thoughts)

Thanks to all who left feedback on those posts!  Enjoyed it all as usual!

Now I'm reading another of my dad's books, An Historical Survey of the Old Testament by Eugene H. Merrill.  In the introductory chapter I found three statements that I wanted to record and discuss. 

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Jesus and the Apostles mention Mosaic authorship many times.  If one argued Jesus erroneously attributed Moses to the Pentateuch, this "is a reflection of His Divine omniscience" (not there) "or that He 'accommodated Himself to the ignorance of the people of His time,' which constitutes an assault upon His integrity."  -- pg.18

I just thought this was interesting as I posted about this Mosaic authorship not long ago.  If you don't believe Moses wrote the Torah, how do you explain Jesus and the apostles and their "error" in attributing the Torah to Moses?

On the inspiration of the Bible.

"[The biblical authors] were not permitted to invent their message, but they were permitted to express it within the bounds of their own intellectual and cultural resources, at the same time being divinely shielded from error of message content.  An uneducated, roughhewn Amos was given a divine message, but he was not expected to express it in a style and with words which were beyond his experience.  On the other hand a refined, cultured, poetic Isaiah was entrusted with revelation and permitted to express it in the inimical manner so much admired in his writings." -- pg. 9

I really liked this because it doesn't mean God dictated word for word what each person would say as if each author were a robot. If that were the case, you may not find the variety of styles presented in the Old Testament. And it would be hard to explain why a bat was considered a bird!  However, the message was not invented.  The divine message. Which doesn't rely on whether or not a bat can be scientifically categorized as a bird.  Compare this to the Quran which supposedly is word-for-word revelation from God. Does this leave any room for bats-as-birds scenarios? I'm not saying they are there, but what if those scrutinizing the Quran found such things?  Can they attribute it to a human messenger expressing himself within the bounds of his own intellect and cultural resources or do they explain it as God speaking in what was known by the humans at the time or something else entirely?

Historical and scientific matters.

"We certainly should expect the Old Testament, if it be the inspired Word of God, to be accurate in all historical and scientific matters with which it deals. Yet, and this is vitally important, we must always bear in mind the fact that the Old Testament does not always profess to speak in twentieth century scientific terms, but often employs the prescientific language of the day in which it was written." -- pg. 18

Maybe this is a bit contradictory from the above quote, but I still found it of interest for some reason. And now I found this when I googled "bat as bird in Old Testament." 

Question

When is a bat a bird? (Leviticus 11:13-19)
Leviticus 11:13-19 states that bats are birds. How can this be?

---

Answer

The Bible did not look forward and use modern biological categories, just like we in this century do not look 8000 years into the future and use names they will use then. In 8000 more years a bird may be called a ‘flycat,’ or some other unusual name, but for the time being we still call them birds. The Bible is using a rather generic category in which to group bats, as modern science uses a different classification system than the Ancient Near East. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds (and bats were a similar size, etc.).

We must to read the Bible from the view of its original audience (exegesis) and not bring modern categories, etc and read them upon it (isogesis). This is a common error made by many. Once, at a funeral, a person told me that baptism had to be done by dunking someone all the way under the water – as Jesus was buried 6’ under the ground. While this question is not meant to answer this specific question, what the person was doing was reading an American custom upon something that happened 2000 years ago – besides Jesus was not buried 6’ under – but sideways in a tomb! I then asked him if he baptized people sideways in a tomb, etc. … which laid his argument to rest.

The Ancient Near East categorized bats as birds in that time.


Source

Do you have any thoughts on any of this?

Notes: Moses Wrote The Torah

Background:  Some Bible scholars believe Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible whereas other scholars argue for editors during or after the Israelites' exile compiling the Torah (and other early OT books) from oral tradition and some written records.


A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. is a 500+ page book that my dad let me borrow.  I'm about halfway through and wanted to record some notes that I've made thus far. No use reading a book this size without learning something from it!  And if I don't write it down, I may forget. So...blogging it is.

The author presents theories of men who have varying thoughts on the authorship and time period in which the OT books were written.  His emphasis seems to be on Genesis and the rest of the Torah since many believe Moses did not write it and that the first five books of the Bible were compiled by editors during or after the Israelites' exile.  The author makes a case for the conservative view...reasons that make him believe Moses did write the Torah and why it had Aramaic loanwords and such things that others have used to "prove" it was written by editors during or post-exile.  It's a rather large and somewhat technical book. During parts of it I am merely wading through, while other areas are of some interest.

Chapter 8 dealing with The Authorship of the Pentateuch was really good. I thought the author made a strong case for his beliefs. He told how the editor/late date hypothesis made it such that when a P title for God was used in a supposed J text, the theorists had to make it such that the editors did a lot of copying, deleting and pasting within the text. (Yes, I realize editors delete and add a lot, but if you read the chapter you'd understand better why I took note of this.)

Despite the fact it was regularly done in other religions of that time, for some reason it seems unbelievable to the Late-Date Theorists that Moses could or would actually use TWO different words for God.  Elohim and Yahweh couldn't have both been used for God by ONE author within the same verse or chapter in their view.  The author states that Elohim was often used in passages about God as Creator whereas Yahweh or Jehovah was used in covenants between God and man.  (see pg. 125)

Regarding the two creation accounts, I found the "element of recapitulation" argument of interest.  The author claims this "technique" was "widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature.  The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance.  To the author of Genesis 1-2, the human race was obviously the crowning, or climatic, product of creation."  (pg. 127)

There is much more that took my attention, but people arguing that a Hebrew couldn't write books at that time perhaps did not realize Moses - as part of pharoah's household - was educated in Egypt  where "the art of writing was so widely cultivated that even the toilet articles employed by the women in the household contained an appropriate inscription."  (pg 118)  Also since Moses was part of the Israelite crowd wandering in the wilderness for all those years, why could he not have used some of that time to record what God wanted him to write?  The author has a chapter on archaeology that shows Semitic people were not as uneducated and illiterate as we may want to think they were.  Sophisticated writing has been unearthed.

Some argue that the Torah has some Aramaic loanwords which point to the exilic period when the Israelites were spread in regions that spoke Aramaic  (e.g. The book of Daniel has much Aramaic and was written during exile).  These scholars say the Torah should have no Aramaic words if it were written during Moses lifetime, however, the author makes a claim that Abraham and Sarah came from an area of the world that likely spoke Aramaic not to mention Aramaic and Hebrew along with several other Semitic languages are related somewhat.  Who knows where Aramaic left off and Hebrew began as far as the children of Israel go?  Hebrew could be an offshoot dialect of Aramaic...so having Aramaic in the Torah isn't really proof that it was written hundreds of years after its claim.  Not only would Abraham and Sarah likely speak Aramaic, but Isaac's wife, Rebekah, was brought back from that region and later Jacob went there, lived at least 14 years and married two women - Leah and Rachel - who may have spoken Aramaic. Leah, Rachel and their maidservants were the mothers of the Twelve Tribes of Israel so I don't find it hard to believe some of "mama's tongue" made it into the children's vocabulary and thus the Bible. (see pg. 138)

The author also found it curious that the Torah - if written post-exile where the "chosen line of David had reigned for more than four centuries in the holy city of Jerusalem" didn't have "a very strong and explicit sanction for the kingship."   He writes, "It is hardly conceivable that any patriotic Jewish author, who believed in the divine authorization of the Davidic dynasty, could have passed it over in complete silence."  (pg. 156)   Likewise Jerusalem is not spoken of with high regard as this holy city would be referred to in future biblical books. (pg. 163)  Actually Jerusalem is not even mentioned by name in the Torah.

"Although Jerusalem appears in the Hebrew Bible 669 times, it is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Instead when referring to Jerusalem, the term "the place that God will choose" is used."  (source)


The End.  :)

Quran -- Some Final Thoughts & Comparisons

Finally this post is done! It's from questions asked of me when I announced I'd finished reading the Quran. Please keep in mind these impressions are mine according to my reading. You are welcome to share your own similar or vastly different impressions if you'd like. So please know these are merely my opinions as is most everything else on this blog except what I quote from others. :-)

That said, I shall now move on.

What are your impressions of the Quran as a whole?

The Quran - as a reminder - is mostly made up of very small portions of the stories Bible readers recognize from the Old Testament and Gospel. For example, while there are many references to Moses and Pharaoh, there is not much about Moses' leadership among the Israelites and God's intervening care for the people as they wandered in the wilderness for forty years. And aside from Moses and Joseph, not much at all is shared from the other great Bible stories. No mentioning of Jesus' wonderful teachings or lessons you could learn from the Old Testament kings and judges and prophets. Mostly the message of the Quran was God's creative and sustaining power (which was good and often full of beautiful imagery!) and the fact that Muhammad wasn't a poet/sorcerer/madman and people who rejected his message would roast in hell while the believers would recline on couches, drink wine, eat fruit and enjoy gardens, rivers and women in heaven!

The Quran didn't really give hope for God's power in helping you overcome your wicked ways. It was more of a threat/fear-based model that if you disbelieve and disobey the prophet, you would go to hell. I didn't see any place where God said "come to Me and I will clean you and help you live a life pleasing to Me" such as He offers in the Bible. Instead striving, endeavoring, working very very hard is impressed upon those who want to be favored in God's eyes on judgment day. So maybe I should say it is a reward-based model as it did offer things pleasant to desert people as waiting in the hereafter for those who believed and obeyed Muhammad.

The Quran did away with the need for Jesus' blood. Man has become his own savior ... with some mercy of God thrown in there if you believed Muhammad.

Peace is only for believers. There is little call to show good works to your enemies and love them so they will see the divine goodness of God as He or His principles live out in you. While I do see outward goodness in Muslims and adore most of the Muslims I've met, I don't see this outward goodness to your enemies stressed in the Quran which seemed to have a more confrontational approach to unbelievers on par with the Joshua days in the OT when the Israelites were taking over the Promised Land.

Was it what you expected?

I think it was mostly what I expected as I knew going into my reading that Muslims believed strongly in working for salvation (or for God's favor) and this was only confirmed by what I read. I don't think I expected the same message over and over and over again. I felt the "Muhammad, don't worry. You are a prophet and not a poet/sorcerer/madman and We will vouch for you in this Quran" was distracting as was the constant need to threaten hell for disbelievers and promise reclining couches and big, bright-eyed maidens as rewards for believers. I read the Quran straight through so I'm sure these don't stick out to Muslims who just read favorite chapters and verses, but if you ever read the Quran straight through, you'll see what I mean. I like a little more variety and would have enjoyed hearing the stories of David, Solomon, Elijah, Jesus and others in more detail. There are a lot of life lessons to be learned from these Bible stories.

Did you like it overall?

Yeah, I enjoyed the experience of reading it and posting notes and reading the feedback from Muslims especially as they told me the background information on the verses. It was helpful in learning more about their faith and cherished beliefs.


Would you recommend the Quran to others?

I would recommend it to others so they could learn more about Muslims. I think it would be helpful to have a Muslim friend to explain some things as certain passages seem to come out of nowhere and a Muslim friend would be able to share the stories leading up to those particular revelations. This is particularly important for those passages that seem very harsh on unbelievers as the average non-Muslim reader would find this intolerance difficult to understand and merely be further proof in her mind that Islam is not a religion of peace as Muslims often say it is. A Muslim friend could provide much-needed context.

Did it give you any ideas about Muslims or Islam?

I already had ideas of Muslims and Islam from meeting people online, reading blogs and traveling to Syria last year. Most of my experiences with Muslims have been wonderful and I consider many of them as dear friends. The Quran was helpful in showing me a bit about their beliefs and where they are coming from. For instance it's not wise to expect Muslims to turn the other cheek or love their enemies as they are not commanded to do these things as followers of Jesus are. So I need to keep these things in mind when I deal with Muslims because we aren't coming from the same set standard. "The Reality" is different ... their holy book declares something different for them from what Jesus says for me and I would be wise to keep this in mind as I seek to understand my Muslim friends. That's just one example.



Lastly I was asked to share the message of both the Bible and Quran in five points. I tried to summarize them with the top things that stand out the most to me. Of course my thoughts on the Bible are more complex since I grew up with it.



MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE

1. God created all things good. He enjoyed fellowship with His creation.

2. Humans sinned and these offenses against a holy God broke fellowship. Think of your spouse cheating on you and how this raises a huge wall.

3. God didn't leave man in his separated (broken from fellowship) position, but made a way to restore fellowship. Therefore, belief in Jesus' work on the Cross is necessary for restored fellowship. The Cross represents the meeting of God's justice and mercy because God is both just and merciful. And God alone is the Savior.

4. When we put our trust in God's Way for salvation, He then enables us to live in ways that please Him. Thus our good works aren't performed to save us, but they are a result of walking daily with a holy, loving God.

5. Because God is Love, people know we are His disciples by the way we love others - our family, friends, the strangers on the street, even our enemies. It takes little effort to love those who are kindhearted and treat you well, yet God enables us to love people even when they are difficult.


MESSAGE OF THE QURAN

1. God wants our worship.

2. God does not have partners.

3. Although God is the savior, we must believe Muhammad's message, obey Muhammad and do good works (give to charity, pray, fight for God's causes, strive to do good) in order to have better chances at obtaining paradise. Because there are scales to weigh your good and bad deeds.

4. Muhammad is not a poet, sorcerer or madman as God vouches for him in the Quran and gives examples of previous prophets whose messages were rejected in like manner.

5. Be good to fellow Muslims, be unified, just and peaceful amongst yourselves. Mixed message on how to treat those outside of the faith - sometimes it was with some kindness, other times it was harsh fighting and still other times it seemed just leave them alone as long as they aren't bothering you.


Any other questions? Now feel free to share your own thoughts if you wish.

Original Sin & Depending on the Mercy of God

Last week when I announced that I'd finished reading the Quran, a couple friends asked my impressions of it as a whole, was it what I expected, did I like it overall, would I recommend it to others and whether it gave me any ideas about Muslims or Islam. Also I was asked to write down the messages of the Quran and Bible in five points each. The qualifier being "according to your reading" since ten people might read the Quran and Bible and come up with different thoughts on what are the five main points. That post is coming! I have the five points written, but want to review them for clarity. While writing those yesterday, I also jotted down some thoughts on sin nature/original sin that came to mind recently and I have decided to publish these notes first. Including this in my five-points post would make it too long. So here are some thoughts for you to consider. And I'd love to read your comments on this topic as well.

NOTE ON SIN NATURE

I was thinking about this the other day while cleaning or taking vitamins or something equally exciting. I recall Sarira giving a thought-out comment on Muslims believing in original purity rather than original sin. I am not sure if my thoughts are the norm for all Christians, but I wanted to explain briefly how I think of this concept. I know it's outlandish to birth this beautiful baby and believe it is an awful sinner since it hasn't had time to do anything wrong. I totally get that. I don't believe when I was born I was guilty of Adam and Eve's sin of eating the fruit from the tree nor was I guilty of the thievery of my greatgrandfather or the immorality of a great, great grandmother. I don't think you can pass down sins although I strongly believe you can pass down the consequences of sins. Just ask the little one born addicted to cocaine. He didn't snort crack yet his mother's sin affected his life even before he was born.

So as for original sin, I think of it more as a sin nature we inherit. A tendency towards first acting and reacting negatively instead of in a more positive way. Most parents that I know have never had to sit down and teach their children to be selfish with their toys or lie to get out of tough situations or bite when aggravated or even how to throw one of those lovely temper tantrums. I see those reactions coming with little effort whereas the good character qualities often take some learning and molding and reminders: "Say 'thank you.' What's the magic word? Say 'please.' Share with your sister!"

In some ways I see the Quran supporting these thoughts otherwise why would words like "strive" and "endeavor" be used in connection with doing good?

Dictionary.com says this is the meaning of "strive."

1. to exert oneself vigorously; try hard: He strove to make himself understood.

2. to make strenuous efforts toward any goal: to strive for success.

3. to contend in opposition, battle, or any conflict; compete.

4. to struggle vigorously, as in opposition or resistance: to strive against fate.

5. to rival; vie.

If we are born pure and basically good, it seems good deeds should spring forth from us more naturally than bad deeds, yet how many of you can honestly say that when someone cuts you off in traffic, your first thoughts are noble ones? If you are like me, you have to "try hard" or "make strenuous effort" to not react with a sharp word, honking your horn with emphasis or displaying a choice gesture for the offender! Why if goodness oozes from us, would the Quran use such a verb that has definitions such as "to exert oneself vigorously" or "compete." Those are definitions you could use for a World Cup athlete doing his best to score and put his team into the winning column! Not of one merely lounging by the pool reading a book as the good deeds just pop, pop, pop like grapes on the vine bursting forth with little effort.

You might be saying, "Why all this focus on sin lately? Why paint us to be dirty, unclean, filthy people?" Trust me, it's not that I like realizing I am a sinner or that my sins are a putrid stench and abomination to God. I prefer to think of myself as basically a good person with charming ways and a friendly, welcoming smile. However as I've been reading more lately: the Quran and the essays on Leviticus, I realize we must first recognize we are sinners before we can understand our need for a Savior.

That Savior being God alone.

And not our good works.

Until we realize we are unclean in God's eyes and that we are unable to clean ourselves good enough for God's presence, we will keep trying to save ourselves by our own efforts. Yet as Creason said in his essay on Leviticus and the contagious "uncleanness,"

"In struggling to remain clean, the perceptive Israelite recognized his inherent wickedness. No matter how hard he tried he could not please God. Ultimately he had to thrust himself on God, hoping in God's gracious salvation (Psa. 119:81). Modern men and women are no better able to satisfy God through personal efforts. Like the Israelites of long ago, we too must depend on the mercy of God."

And I think depending on the mercy of God is something on which both Muslims and Christians can agree though it's harder to practice.


Thoughts?

Separation of Church/Mosque & State

A good while back Samer and I were talking. He was sharing about the Islamic point of view and how Islam was a complete way of life. How you could not separate the church (errr, mosque) and state in Islam. Islam doesn't just regulate people spiritually, but it governs politically as well. There are rules for engaging in war - some very good rules, I might add. I truly find the Islamic rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners quite good.

So anyway, we were talking and I was in one of my states of disbelief at how all-inclusive Islam was in taking over people's lives when he asked:

"Wouldn't you want to live in a country where your Christian beliefs are what ruled the nation?"

Sounds delightful actually! Can you imagine a country where serving and honoring others was the norm? Where needy people were helped without complaint? Need the oil changed in your car? No problem, let me get my tools. Need your yard cleaned? Let me get my rake. And people loving each other and returning good for evil....utopia!

Sounds, well, divine.

The problem is that this church/state thing was tried before and, sadly, the Church just doesn't do well with a lot of power. It seems power has some magical ability to corrupt. So you start mixing the Church and the State and it becomes more of a control, power issue than spiritual one.

Plus there are various forms of Christians. There are some who just have attended church once in their lives or their families consider themselves Christian so they are as well. Then there are those of differing religious varieties - liberals, literalists, moderates. So whose Christianity will rule in the nation? It's rather subjective.

Just like sharia law is subjective to many Muslims. Whose interpretation will you follow?

Thus, I believe you can influence the State by the way you live and vote, however, you shouldn't use the State to force people to change. Quite frankly, the State is a poor substitute for God in changing people's lives. What we try to legislate (force people to do by law), God can simply do. And His way is more lasting and good because He gets to the heart of the matter by...changing hearts. Not merely outward compliance under threat of punishment.

All that just to say, I want to copy some quotes from God & Government...some of which relate to what I wrote above. I thought the author made some very good points in what he shared.


"The church, while not the Kingdom of God, is to live out the values of the Kingdom of God in this world, resisting the ever-present temptation to usher in the Kingdom of God by political means. Yet this is the temptation to which the church has most commonly succumbed, and certainly this is its greatest temptation today." (pg. 104)

"While human politics is based on the premise that society must be changed in order to change people, in the politics of the Kingdom it is people who must be changed in order to change society." (p. 105)

"If Christianity was true and meaningful, it must go deeper than that [life in Parliament]. It must not only save but serve. It must bring God's compassion to the oppressed as well as oppose the oppressors." (pg. 111)

"The kind of conflict that Wilberforce and other activist Christians experience -- between their Christian conscience and their politician mandates -- is unavoidable. Both church and state assert standards and values in society; both seek authority; both compete for allegiance. As members of both the religious and the political spheres, the Christian is bound to face conflict." (pg. 122)

Prior to Constantine's conversion to Christianity, believers in Jesus were routinely persecuted and martyred. "In A.D. 381 Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and in an ironic turnabout, church leaders began exploiting their new-found power. As historian F.F. Bruce has written: 'Christian leaders ... exploit[ed] the influential favor they enjoyed even when it meant subordinating the cause of justice to the apparent interest of their religion...they were inclined to allow the secular power too much control in church affairs ... Where church leaders were able to exercise political as well as spiritual authority, they did not enjoy any marked immunity from the universally corrupting tendency of power.'" (pg.124)

Heretics were suppressed at the order of this new church-state. In fact "the church turned to military conquest through a series of 'holy wars' that became more racial than religious. Jews, Muslims, and dark-skinned Christians were massacred alike. The goal was not to convert the populace, but to conquer it." (pg.125)

Religions had often been "assaulted but always in the name of other religions." Then came the French Revolution where "'irreligion became an all-prevailing passion, fierce, intolerant and predatory.'" As de Tocqueville put it, "'The total rejection of any religious belief, so contrary to man's natural instincts and so destructive of his peace of mind, came to be regarded by the masses as desirable.' The French Revolution was a conscious effort to replace the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of man. But the state must have some moral justification for its authority. Thus France's irreligion was soon replaced by a new faith -- man's worship of man." (pg. 125-26)

Social-gospel movement -- "[dissolved] Christian orthodoxy into a campaign to eliminate every social injustice, often through governmental means. Objectives became political and economic to the detriment of the spiritual. The reformers' well-intentioned efforts were shattered as social programs failed to produce the promised utopia, leaving observers to conclude, 'Things are no better. Where is your God now?'"

Today this happens on both the right and left, however, this "preoccupation with the political diverts the church from its primary mission."

"The political right is also subject to this temptation; many want to impose religious and cultural values by force of law, irrespective of the wishes of the electorate. This is as wrong and dangerous, as the secular left attempting to impose its values on society by force --usually via the courts." (pg. 132)

Re: New Jerusalems -- "If we believe that the Kingdom of Heaven can be established by political or economic measures, then we can hardly object to the claims of such a state to embrace the whole of life and to demand the total submission of the individual will and conscience." (pg.132 footnote)


Separation of church and state did not mean "religion and politics could be separated or religious values removed from the public arena. For one's political life is an expression of values, and religion, by definition, most profoundly influences values." (pg. 136)

Therefore "when laws were passed reflecting the consensus of Christian values in the land, no one panicked supposing that the Christian religion was being 'established' or that a sectarian morality was being imposed on an unwilling people. The point of the First Amendment was that such convictions could only become the law of the land if a majority of citizens could be persuaded (without coercion) of the merits of a particular proposition, whether they shared its religious foundation or not. Today's widespread attempt to relegate religion to the privacy of homes or churches would have been unimaginable to the founders of the republic -- even those who personally repudiated orthodox Christian faith. Though America has drifted far from the vision of its founders, this system continues to offer one of the world's most hopeful models in an otherwise contentious history of conflict." (pg. 137)

"Outwardly, we are a religious people, but inwardly our religious beliefs make no difference in how we live. We are obsessed with self; we live, raise families, govern, and die as though God does not exist." (pg. 245)


Thoughts? What do you think about separation of church/mosque and State? Do you agree that it is God who changes hearts and thus society or do you believe politics also plays an important role?

Focus on Leviticus - Part 2 of 2

This weekend I read eight short essays in a publication called Biblical Viewpoint: Focus on Leviticus. Please read part 1 here.

The conclusion ...

5. In speaking of contagious uncleanness (as some unclean "issues" were contagious like a disease) such as accidentally touching an unclean person or coming into contact with a quilt or saddle previously occupied by the unclean, the author is not satisfied with hygienic reasons, but looks again for spiritual lessons."In struggling to remain clean, the perceptive Israelite recognized his inherent wickedness. No matter how hard he tried he could not please God. Ultimately he had to thrust himself on God, hoping in God's gracious salvation (Psa. 119:81). Modern men and women are no better able to satisfy God through personal efforts. Like the Israelites of long ago, we too must depend on the mercy of God." (pg. 31 -- Creason)

This goes back to the Luke 18 parable of Jesus' that I mentioned in the first post. Also this thought of our being sinful is probably unpopular in our world because we like to believe we are basically good people who just sometimes do bad things. It's rather hard to believe God would see us as "unclean" and "sinful" when we try to bite our tongues and restrain ourselves from giving full vent to our anger against rude and cruel people. I totally get that. Our society has very few sins any more. Even things that 50 or 100 years ago would have made people blush and bring shame to them, no longer does. We have made a mockery of sin by making it beautiful and lovely and desirable instead of remembering sin is like a nasty, trash-and-dead-animal stench to our holy God. (Yeah, it's bad.)

6. About the Purification Laws -- "Uncleanness removed an Israelite from all contact with the Holy God, and this fellowship could only be restored through God-given purification rites. That God would provide these for His people gives testimony to His mercy. God desires that men see themselves as unclean sinners before Him; but more than that, He longs for them to experience His cleansing." (pg. 32 -- Creason)

I've said for a while that God is the Savior. But as Jesus told the self-righteous people of his time, it's not the healthy who need the physician, but the sick. Unless we realize we are sinners in need of a Savior (God), we can't experience His cleansing. Stop trying to clean yourself good enough for God! It's like giving your baby a pack of wipes and telling her to clean her dirty diaper. She just ends up smearing poop all over herself and probably the changing table and wall as well. Stop trying to be your own Savior and yield yourself to the One who can cleanse you and make you white as snow (Isaiah 1:18).

7. General Lessons from the Purification Laws --

First, the waiting periods meant separation from the sanctuary. This teaches that sin of all kinds breaks fellowship with God.

Second, the purification rituals were almost a daily part of life. As there was a need for constant ceremonial cleansing in Israel's day, so modern believers must seek cleansing from sin on a daily basis.

Third, God provided careful procedures for Israel's cleansing. Those who attempt to find God's acceptance any other way were sadly mistaken. In all eras, God's cleansing must come His way -- or not at all.

Fourth, many conditions required blood sacrifices, thus teaching that cleansing from sin demands expiation. The animal victims paid an awful price, the shedding of their life's blood. These pictured Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross of Calvary." (pg. 34-35 -- Creason)

8. One author suggested this as the key verse to understanding the purpose of this book --

¹¹ I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. ¹² I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people. ¹³ I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. (Lev. 26)

Thinking of this verse plus this main theme -- "Holiness is essential for fellowship with God." -- and it all makes a bit more sense.

At least to me. :)

Focus on Leviticus - Part 1 of 2

This weekend I read eight short essays in a publication called Biblical Viewpoint: Focus on Leviticus. Each essay was written by a different author and I found some of their thoughts incredibly interesting. I can't share all of them or I'd be reproducing much of the book, however, I wanted to take note of a few of them for my own easy review. In the introduction page, the main theme of Leviticus is given:

"Holiness is essential for fellowship with God."

One of the authors suggested Leviticus was a series of object lessons. Indeed as you read through this book of the Law, you notice how involved it is. I had never thought of Leviticus as object lessons for the Israelites, yet I recall how often Jesus used parables to teach important truths. God as the Creator of the human mind knows our abilities to learn and grasp truths often comes easier when we can visualize things or learn them through stories. Perhaps this is one reason for using object lessons. I don't know, but it was an interesting thought to consider.

Here are some of the thoughts I enjoyed from this book along with a bit of commentary from me.


1. "Not only does God's law prohibit the worship of other gods, it also demands that man worship God according to God's revealed will and way. Throughout Scripture, acceptable worship and approach to God has centered on the blood sacrifice. Man's salvation was won by the atoning work of Jesus Christ and there is no other way to God apart from that sacrifice. Without the shedding of the precious blood of Christ, there is no forgiveness of sins and no possible fellowship with God. The cross of Christ is the essence of the Gospel. That is God's revealed way." (pg. 17 -- Michael P.V. Barrett)

I totally get that by John the Baptist's declaration when he saw Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" (John 1:29)

Even Jesus said he came to give his life as a ransom for many (see Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45) and declared himself the only way to the Father (John 14:6).

Yes, Jesus declared it is a narrow way which leads to life (Matt. 7:13,14) perhaps because man always wants to reach God in his own way rather than God's way. Perhaps even the "Lord, Lord have we not done...in your name" verses show how it is essential to not merely do good things in Jesus' name or God's name, but to come to God as He prescribed. In short, we come to God in God's way or not at all.

2. The author contrasted the acceptable fire vs. the fire of judgment which was Nadab and Abihu's demise since they brought "strange fire" to the altar and were killed. He writes, "These two characters stand as a warning to all who think that pedigree or religion are viable alternatives to God's exclusive way to life. Their father was Aaron, the High Priest, and their uncle was Moses, the great Lawgiver and leader of Israel. They had a great heritage. They themselves were religious and had enjoyed many of the external privileges of religion. ... Godly heritage and religious experience are not guarantees of spiritual life. It is possible to be in the middle of true religion and simply ride the tide without a vital personal relationship to the Lord." (pg. 23 -- Barrett)

Notice how relationship with God - not heritage, religion or good works - is essential!

3. "These laws [of cleanness and uncleanness] functioned as 'schoolmasters' to bring men to Christ (Gal. 3:24). They illustrated the depths of man's fallen nature and created within him a healthy abhorrence for sin. Through them the perceptive Israelite recognized his inability to abide by God's demands. Bereft of all personal sufficiency, he learned to cast himself on the mercy of God." (pg. 27 -- James Frederick Creason, Jr.)

Keep that in mind as you read this parable of Jesus in Luke 18 and notice which praying person was considered "justified" by Christ.

⁹To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: ¹⁰"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. ¹²I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

¹³"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

¹⁴"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

4. The author described how scholars have tried to make sense of why God set certain animals as clean and some as unclean. He briefly covered theories of symbolism/allegory ("'Sin is the ugliness and spitefulness of the camel; the burrowing, secretive, wily disposition of the coney, the rabbit, and the fox; the filthy sensuality of the hog...'"), hygienic (e.g.scavenger birds might carry diseases), cultic (pigs were sacred to the Canaanites, yet bulls were also, but the latter were "clean" so?), arbitrary and election.

About arbitrary rules, this author writes, "They tested Israel's willingness to obey, since God made no attempt to explain the purpose behind them. Israel was to conform to these laws because Yahweh was her God (Lev. 11:44); her obedience was in no way dependent on her understanding. Man's rebellious heart is repulsed by rules which appear to be arbitrary, even when these come from God Himself. When God had proved this truth sufficiently, He did away with the laws." (pg. 29 -- Creason)

Haaaaa! How I can relate to disliking arbitrary rules! So, yeah, I can see the point of God wanting to prove to us we like to rebel against laws we don't understand. Actually the author said this theory deserved some respect yet he seemed to like the election theory best of them all.

I have a bit more, but I think I will stop for now as this post is already longer than I thought it would be! It was short 'til I added my commentary. *ahem*

Thoughts?

New Book: "Dying for Heaven"

Dying for Heaven by Ariel Glucklich is a book I found at the library last week. I didn't know anything about the author*, but thought the subject - "Holy Pleasure and Suicide Bombers -- Why the Best Qualities of Religion are Also its Most Dangerous" - seemed intriguing. The book was fair. More of a study on pleasure (using the example of food choices) and why people do what they do to maximize pleasure. Of course he tied it into religious pleasure including the love of God which translated into us loving God.

Chapters include such things as The Mysteries of Pleasure, The Varieties of Religious Pleasures, God's Love and the Prozac Effect, The Paradise Paradox: The Misery of Heaven-Addicts among others.

The Paradise Paradox chapter argued that we actually enjoy life less when we believe in heaven. This book discusses mystics, martyrs, militant Sufis (!? pg.217) and those today who willingly strap on a vest and blow themselves up for the sake of God. The focus is reaching a possible way to discourage such behavior as no one wants to play "chicken" with a trigger-happy person with a nuclear bomb at his fingertips. The author argues for the effective use of comedy in dealing with this problem.

The author told how Arabs have used humor throughout the centuries and made reference to one of these jokes (below) as told by Sharif Kanaana on this site.

"I want a Palestinian state," Arafat says to God, who wishes to fulfill a wish for him. God hummed and hawed. "It will not happen in your lifetime, Arafat." "I want Jerusalem." "Nor will this happen in your lifetime, Arafat." "Then at least I want to be as good-looking as George Clooney." "Arafat!" says God, "that won't even happen in my lifetime."

Pages of interest to me --

The ones speaking of Gandhi and his recommendations to Jews in Germany and the Hindus in Pakistan to "die because he believed in their potential moral superiority over the people who were out to kill them. In Gandhi's view, glad acceptance of voluntary destruction could thus act as a kind of lesson to the killers - a form of spiritual education about the nature of true joy." The author then reminds us of Gandhi's "own lifelong commitment to this form of martyrdom by repeatedly threatening to kill himself through fasting." (pg. 29) He agreed with another writer who called this "blackmail."

"If one can love God, one surely ought to love another human. In practice, however, no such horizontal love can be detected in large-scale groups. The majority of humans, even those who believe in God, mostly just love their relatives." (pg. 194) The author made mention of Leviticus 19:18 where Jews are told to love their neighbors and also to Jesus' words in John 13:34,35 and I got to wondering is the concept of loving others in the Quran? I'm trying to remember if I saw it there so far.

"Heaven is part of a broader intellectual and religious habit of mind that makes our life less fulfilling and ultimately less real. Heaven depletes life of its potential joy." (pg. 231) He likens a person believing in heaven to an inmate who knows he will get out of prison sooner if he behaves. Therefore, during life we constantly analyze everything to make sure we are good enough for heaven. (pg. 238) He argues "they could be much happier in this life if they eliminated the notion of heavenly reward from their religion." (pg. 241)

(From a Christian perspective, I would argue with the author that I'm not trying to work my way to heaven so I don't have that fear and worry of one who believes her every deed will be analyzed. Maybe I am silly and naive for that, but if I believe I can do nothing truly good without God's help, it's freeing. I struggle more with abiding in Him, having fellowship and relationship with Him instead of worrying that I'm not good enough or that that string of hateful words I used will tip the scales out of my favor in God's eyes. Relationship with God, living in close fellowship with Him, basking in His goodness to me -- in my opinion, that is the source of my joy and peace! So I would like to share this thought with Mr. Glucklich if I had a chance.)

"Acting for the sake of heaven will turn you into a spiritual addict. You will find yourself compelled to act entirely because you want something (reward) and not at all because you like it (joy)." (pg. 243)

(Perhaps this is true for those trying to earn salvation or who believe they must "be good" in order to please God. They see most everything as a suffering or hardship they must endure in order to gain a reward later. But why not live in the here and now and enjoy doing good because it's what God made you for? It's how He works in you to show Himself as good and holy to a needy world.)


* Found out through reading the book that he was born in Israel, his father was buried there and he has atheistic/humanistic views from what I could tell. He teaches in the US. See this:

Ariel Glucklich is a professor of religion at Georgetown University. He specializes in Hinduism and in the psychology and biology of religion. He is particularly interested in what motivates people to become and remain religious and the various ways that religion makes people self-destruct.