Archive for March, 2012

“Real” Bible Question #9: The death penalty

Posted: March 28, 2012 in Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
1

I find it troubling when people tell me that God is only love, and that He would never judge anyone.  Rob Bell’s recent book “Love Wins” contains the tones of this sentiment, though it is couched in a more conservative fashion than the typical New Age teaching on this.  My one question that I send right back to these people is, “Would you like to live in a nation where there is no justice, no police, or no penalty for crimes against fellow citizens?”  Of course no one wants to live in a place where child molesters are left unpunished, and rapists roam the streets with impunity.

Enter the debate on the death penalty.  If we are all honest and admit that we want justice, the next question should be how that justice is carried out.  Ancient cultures chopped off people’s hands and stoned others to death (unfortunately people are still being stoned to death even today!).  Modern society mainly uses a combination of monetary fines and imprisonment.  However, for the most heinous of crimes, those involving murder, what type of penalty can nations use to adequately deter this act of taking another life?  For some, the ultimate punishment should be the death penalty.  Christians have for centuries based their view of the death penalty on the Bible.  My challenge in this has been to bring together my university degree in political science together with my years of studying and teaching the Bible.

There is no doubt that Old Testament (old covenant) Israel was commanded by God to use the death penalty for certain crimes.  The overarching principle is contained in Leviticus 24:17-20, “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.”  To some this law of “an eye for an eye” may seem vindictive or cruel, but in reality, it is exact justice.  In ancient times, there was not always a concept of exact justice, as whole villages were wiped out for a slight given against a king or powerful ruler.  God limited this type of out of control violence by limiting justice to exact retribution.

Other Christians say that the old covenant is dead (Hebrews 10), therefore this law is not binding and is superseded by New Testament commands.  Therefore, if Jesus repeals a law, then that is what is binding for Christians.  Jesus declares in Matthew 5:38-39, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ”  Isn’t this a direct repeal of the “eye for an eye” law?  Christian pacifists have used this verse not only as a repeal of the death penalty but also as a reason to dispute the just war doctrine.  Jesus’ kingdom is a spiritual one which was not a violent overthrow of the Roman Empire, and Jesus rebuked Peter for his use of the sword in His defense.

First, we need to establish that the OT law can’t be used to justify or “command” our view of the death penalty in our modern nations.  OT Israel was a theocracy, and much of its law was designed to be solely used within that context.  Of course, there is timeless truth contained within such standards as the Ten Commandments, but the most of the ones for both the ceremonial and civil codes can’t simply be taken out and directly applied today.  With the death penalty, that was based on a society that would turn to God to make a decision in a capital case.  It wasn’t ruled by a president or prime minister, but God Himself was the ultimate authority represented by the High Priest.  When is the last time you heard of a jury going out to deliberate and casting the Urim and Thummim for God’s answer???  Not only is the old covenant dead, but we don’t live in theocracies anymore, and as much as we might think of some of our nations as “Christian nations”, they are not close to the form of government laid out by God in the Pentateuch.

If we are to truly discuss the death penalty today, it has to be on the basis of its effectiveness as a deterrent to murder and heinous crimes, and using the Bible for foundational principles instead of absolute commands in this area.  If that is the case, as far as the Bible is concerned, one could make a plausible argument either way.  You could argue from the words of Christ that in the new covenant, our goal is the restoration and forgiveness of man, and this includes murderers.  Killing the criminal doesn’t give an opportunity to lead them to Christ.  On the other hand, you can argue that God’s character and nature is one of justice.  The New Testament speaks of the authority that God has given governments over people as in Romans 13:1-4, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

So again, we cannot use the Old Testament laws on the death penalty as our main backing for our modern views.  We will have to use these other Scriptures as guiding lights and come up with our own thoughts about it.  Just remember in this whole thing the story of the thief on the cross next to Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.  Here was a man under the Roman death penalty who confesses and believes in Jesus just before his death, in the middle of his execution!  The grace and timing of God are beyond our comprehension.  Up next, Top “Real” Bible Question # 8:  did the Flood really happen?

Top 10 “Real” Bible questions: #10 Age of Accountability

Posted: March 26, 2012 in Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions
9

Thank you Jesus, we are finally done with the Bible Urban Legend / Bible nerd questions!  Since I devoted so much time to those questions, I thought I should devote some time to a few “real” Bible questions.  I have already covered some issues that would have made the top 10 (God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, spiritual warfare, etc…), but there are tons of deep matters left.  I was thinking about avoiding some of these topics altogether out of the same basic instinct that says, “Don’t stick your foot in a bear trap.”  Unfortunately for you, I have never had much common sense with this kind of thing, so I will “boldly go where no intelligent Bible teacher should go”.  I will attempt to tread somewhat lightly and be as inductive as I can with presenting multiple views.  This isn’t being a “waffler” or a “ride the fence” kind of guy, but you must always decide for yourself what you believe.

“Real” Bible question #10:  the age of accountability (also related – infant baptism).  The more provocative title is, “Are babies born condemned to hell?”, but that sounds way too mean, so we will couch this as the age God holds people accountable for their sins.  As the doctrine of original sin developed, Christians in the early church had to wrestle with the ramifications of their views.  Those, like Augustine, who believed that original sin means that everyone is born condemned, struggled to explain to themselves and others how God could send young “innocents” to hell.  Several doctrines and practices sprung up from this including infant baptism, covenant theology, and the age of accountability teaching.

Infant baptism taught that babies could be baptized shortly after birth and that act would “cover” their sins until they could make their own decision for Christ.  How that actually works and the Scriptures to back it vary, although many of them explain how God’s grace works through the act of baptism.  Most stop short of saying that the infant is saved by the act of baptism, instead using it as a symbol of what God is extending to the infant.  I can find no Scriptural basis for this practice though.  You won’t find any commands in the epistles, nor stories in the narratives.  Only if you stretch Acts 16:15, and guess that there were infants who were baptized in Lydia’s “household”, could you come up with an example (very stretchy).  We see only adults baptized, and in Romans 6, Paul gives a symbolism which would only be understood by someone who has the ability to make the choice for Jesus.

Covenant theology states that the faith of the parents creates a “covenant” bond to God for the whole family.  The children are covered then by this covenant grace until they are old enough to make a decision on their own, or until they leave the “family”, meaning the household.  1 Corinthians 7:14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. ”  The terms Paul uses for the children are “unclean” and “holy”, not “saved” or “justified”.  For Paul, with a Jewish background and mindset, “clean” and “holy” have to do with a Levitical concept of clean and unclean from Leviticus 11 – 15.  This is not salvation discussed here, but ceremonial cleanliness.  Paul is speaking of believing spouses staying with unbelieving spouses for the sake of the children having a Christian authority and witness in the house (opening the way for them to be “clean” or “holy”, not necessitating it).

The age of accountability is a belief partially rooted in Jewish tradition (Bar Mitzveh) and backed by Isaiah 7.  Isaiah 7:14-16 states, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”  In this passage predicting the Messiah Jesus, a time element is introduced to predict an event which will happen prior, the destruction of two enemy kings of Israel.  Though this does discuss a child’s ability to discern good from evil, it doesn’t address the issue of salvation or condemnation at all.  It doesn’t say that the child is not accountable before it knows how to discern good and evil.  (Not to mention the nightmare argument over whether this is speaking of Jesus or Isaiah’s son!)

So, if it seems that the age of accountability, covenant theology, and infant baptism are all on shaky ground, what can we say to comfort those who have had infants or children die?  I can propose two answers that have brought me comfort and seem to have merit.  First, though we may not have Scriptures to explain this, we do know God’s character and nature.  Passages that speak of God’s love for children and the helpless like James and Deuteronomy lead me to believe that God’s mercy would cover those not “old” or “aware” enough to make a logical/faith based decision for Christ.

Second, the principle of Ezekiel 18 is strong and needs to be considered when looking at Romans 5 and the doctrine of original sin.  God judges the individual and the corporate group, but the eternal judgment of heaven or hell seems to only expressed on an individual basis. If we say that infants are born condemned to hell, I know that we have reformed theology behind us solidly, but I am not sure we have the entirety of Scripture behind us on this.  We have to bring that doctrine together with the doctrine of God’s judgment as clearly expressed on an individual basis there in Ezekiel.  If an infant hasn’t sinned, can it be condemned?  Of course, that brings us to the question of how old is a child when it sins.  Having four children, I know it is a young age, and so it still leaves a wide gap until they are 13 years old (the supposed age of accountability).

Bible question #10, is there an age of accountability, has to be answered with a “no” from concrete Scriptural evidence, but gets a “yes” from me based on Ezekiel 18 and the character and nature of God.  That is the best I can offer for now.  As I shared in the posts on suffering, my wife and I lost our first baby, so this question is not merely an academic one for me.  Coming up next, Top “Real” Bible Question #9: Does the Bible support the death penalty?  I can feel the heat rising already in this highly contentious issue.  Remember, Jesus loves you…. and He loves me too.

Melchizedek- #1 Bible Urban Legend

Posted: March 21, 2012 in Top Bible Nerd Questions, Topical Studies
9

Sometimes I wonder if the students get together and decide to make Melchizedek the main question throughout their time in Bible schools.  It is almost as if there is a conspiracy to drive their teachers clinically insane with endless arguments about if he is Jesus or not.  I have even had students make T-shirts that said, “Melchizedek is my homeboy”.  No life whatsoever.  If we only had the Genesis and Psalms reference to Melchizedek, I am sure that none of this would be an issue.  We could go ahead and stow Mel’s name away with such Bible name treasures like Shear-jashub and Abimelech.  Hebrews insured that Melchizedek would not go silently into that dark night.

Genesis 14:18-20 is where we encounter Mel for the first time (and yes that is a whopping 3 verses if you are counting).  He really is a side note to the more important story in chapter 14 of Abram rescuing his nephew Lot from raiding kings.  On his way back from the victory, we are told,”And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”  Even if this was all we had, it brings up some great questions.  How is Mel a “priest of the Most High”?  How does he know about Yahweh (the Lord)?  I thought only Abram knew.  How many others were there like Mel in history that we have no knowledge of?  Did God appear to all of them like Abram?  Mel’s story challenges me that often I have such a narrow view of God and the Gospel (it isn’t fair that He only appeared to the Jews is a complaint I often hear).

Salem is the same site that David will take about 1,000 years later from the Jebusites, and he turns it into his capital of Jerusalem.  The Jebusites are an idolatrous people group, so whatever was happening in Mel’s time is long over.  Abram did recognize Mel’s authority and priesthood since he gives one tenth (which is what the Hebrew word for tithe means) of the spoils of battle.  The mystery deepens with Mel in Psalm 110, the only other Old Testament passage to mention him.  Psalm 110 is a Messianic prediction of Jesus that says, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” In speaking about Jesus, the author has the revelation from God that the Messiah will be a priest, but after the order of Mel.  This is a surprise first of all because the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (Judah) and be a king, not a priest.  Secondly, if the Messiah was going to be a priest, why wouldn’t he be in the line of Aaron (Levi) like the other high priests of Israel?  Psalm 110 never explains this.

The author of Hebrews heavily utilizes Psalm 110 in his argument about the priesthood of Jesus.  Some scholars believe the whole letter of Hebrews originated from the author’s revelation of what Psalm 110 meant.  In chapter 7 of Hebrews, the author compares Jesus and Melchizedek, and then contrasts this order of priesthood with the Levitical order, with the clear conclusion that the priesthood of Mel is superior.  The big debate comes in here, as some believe that the author is not comparing Jesus to Mel, but that he is stating that Mel was Jesus (is Jesus since He is eternal).  Mel was a Christophany!  (an appearance of Jesus as a man before the incarnation; different from a theophany which is an appearance of God the father).

As the author connects Jesus and Mel, he says in 7:3, “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.”  If Mel was just a man, how could he have no beginning or end, no mother or father?  It must be Jesus then according to some.  However, there are two main problems with this view.  First, verse 7:3 says specifically, “resembling the Son of God” and verse 17 says, “This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek.”  Both of these are clear in English and the Greek that a comparison is being made between two different people!  The author’s main argument is based on a comparison, so it doesn’t work if you are saying that he is comparing Jesus to Jesus.  That isn’t a comparison.

Second, it is a misunderstanding of the way in which Jewish rabbis taught by using “arguments from silence”.  Genesis 14 never says that Mel didn’t have parents or that he had no beginning or end.  The author adding that to Hebrews 7 is an “argument from silence” and it is used to promote the comparison between Mel and Jesus.  You can’t push this in the way of Mel being Jesus, because Jesus most definitely had a father (God), a mother (Mary), and a genealogy (both in Matthew and Luke).  The comparison comes because Mel was a priest/king like Jesus, and because Mel was a priest called directly by God instead of being born into it (again like Jesus).

I know it is a cool thought that Jesus came around 2,000 BC and ran a whole city.  He has a name that screams to be put on a T-shirt.  My favorite moment in a Bible class came the moment that one of my students asked our teacher for the week if he thought Melchizedek was Jesus.  Our teacher just happened to be Dr. Ronald Youngblood, the Dr. Youngblood who was on the NIV translation team and edited the Nelson Bible Dictionary (in other words, not a normal schlub like me).  Dr. Youngblood didn’t skip a beat, didn’t go through several options, he just looked at the student and said, “No.  It is clear in the Greek that this is a comparison.”  That was it.  No debate.  Just the sweetest student got shut down by a teacher moment ever!  Thank you Dr. Youngblood.  You put an end to the # 1 Bible Urban Legend.

The Nephilim

Posted: March 19, 2012 in Top Bible Nerd Questions, Topical Studies
5

Why, O why is the Nephilim the number two Bible nerd question?  If I had a dollar for every minute I have wasted on this topic, I would be able to buy a Nephilim.  I mean, seriously, the story is beyond belief:  angels came down, had sex with human women, creating a race of half human, half angelic giant people called Nephilim.  You can’t buy that kind of entertainment.  And we wonder why non believers think we Christians are nuts! I even had a group of students one time intentionally put a whole teaching about the Nephilim on their homework to see what their graders would say (and again, you know who you are, please report to the principal’s office).

We can thank three main Scriptures for all of this fun: Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33, and Jude 6 (and connected is Jude 14).  Genesis is where the fun begins, so let’s start there. Genesis 6:1-3 says, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”  We began to discuss this chapter in the post on Cain, where chapter 4 gives us the ungodly line of Cain, and chapter 5 gives us the righteous line through Seth.  Immediately following this passage about the Nephilim is the whole story of the flood and God’s judgment on man for his violence and sin.  Nestled in between the genealogies and the Flood are these verses about intermarriage.  When we looked at spiritual warfare, we discovered that “sons of God” can refer to either angels or God’s people (usually men).  The main question here would be which one is God talking about?

The Hebrew word “Nephilim”‘s meaning is debated by Hebrew scholars.  Many say that it comes from the root word “to fall” therefore meaning that these men are the “fallen ones”.  Others translate it as “giants” going back to the King James translation.  King James used “giants” based on the Numbers 13:33 verse, so that isn’t proof of etymology either.  The text says that the “Nephilim” were “mighty men” and “men of renown”.  Other translations call them “heroes of old”.  The context of Genesis would point to the sons of God being the godly line of Seth and the daughters of men being the ungodly line of Cain.  The intermarriage of the two lines brought the ruin of all people, ending up in mankind being totally evil and deserving of the flood (except Noah).  The most contextual, common sense interpretation has nothing to do with angels.  Boo, no fun.

We could drop the whole thing, but Numbers 13:33 won’t let us off that easy.  “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  When the scouts of Israel went into the promised land after leaving Egypt, they reported back the unusually tall people called the Anak, who descended from the Nephilim.  It doesn’t give their height or anything about the origin of the Nephilim, but does connect them with the Anakim.  If we are to believe that these are the SAME Nephilim as in Genesis, then it means that Noah was a Nephilim!  Only he and his family survived the flood (I guess his wife could have been one and then his children were half Nephilim???)  It could be that these were a tall people group (yes, some people are taller than others) and the name Nephilim was used due to Jewish tradition about the legendary heroes of old.  The name then was borrowed from the past and was not intended to mean the group mentioned in Genesis.

Jewish tradition you say?  The plot thickens.  Extra biblical, Jewish literature contains a Jewish tradition that believed that the “sons of God” referred to angels (as in Job 1 -3).  The most famous of these “stories” is in the Book of Enoch.  Talk about a wacky read!  The Nephilim are said to be REALLY TALL, in one text being around 135 meters tall.  Trippy.  There is so much in this book that is completely made up and unbelievable.  Finally, we find the dead end.  Nah!  Jude keeps this alive by not only referring to fallen angels, but then goes on to quote from the actual book of Enoch!  Jude 6 says, “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.”  Jude 14 says, “It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones…”    Ok, so what does it mean that these angels left their “proper dwelling”?  Could that refer to the sons of God in Genesis 6?  If that is in Jude’s mind, it makes sense that later he would go on to fully quote from the Book of Enoch to provide more backing to final judgment.

First, the part about angels never mentions the Nephilim, or anything specific enough to connect it to Genesis.  Second, quoting from the Book of Enoch doesn’t mean Jude was saying everything in it was correct.  Paul quotes from pagan poets in Titus 1:12 and isn’t saying that everything that poet wrote was correct.  Third, Jesus says of angels in Matthew 22:6, “But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”  Does this Scripture lead us to believe angels are asexual beings?  The bottom line is that there is lots of weird stuff in Jewish extra biblical literature, so we can’t use that as support for what the Jews believed about Genesis 6 with the same authority as the Bible.  Other Rabbinic writing agree with the interpretation that the sons of God were the line of Seth.

This would make a really cool movie though, right?  Fallen angel babies turning into giant, super power bad guys?  That is why this Bible Urban Legend just won’t die, but I am giving this legend a firm “lame” conclusion.  Not true.  Sorry.  The point of Genesis is that man’s sinful nature almost led to the destruction of our whole race if not for the mercy of God extended through Noah and his family.  What fun is that lesson though compared to giants?  Next up, Bible Urban Legend #1 —  Melchizedek.  Someone please shoot me now.

Cain married his sister

Posted: March 18, 2012 in Top Bible Nerd Questions, Topical Studies
1

I warned you that these questions would not be the kind of questions that change your life.  Well, they could I guess, but that would be a little messed up.  Anyway, Bible Urban Legend #3 is Cain married his own sister.  Right behind the more comical, “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”, comes this question about who Cain would have married.  The obvious answer of his sister grosses most people out today, so they want to hear a different explanation of what could have happened.

Let’s review Genesis 1:1 – 4:15 so we understand where we can go with this question.  God creates Adam and Eve, and their rebellion brings their expulsion from the garden of Eden.  As chapter 4 begins, Eve gives birth to two sons, Cain and Abel, and they grow up to work the land and fields.  Cain kills Abel out of jealousy and anger, and God curses the ground so that Cain will no longer be able to have good harvests.  Cain’s reply is that God has doomed him to be a wanderer who will eventually be killed.  God gives Cain protection and Cain leaves from where Adam and Eve are living.

The next thing we know in 4:16 is, “Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.”  Where did his wife come from?  Why would he build a city for three people?  are there other people out there already?  As Genesis does to us several times, it gives us the bare minimum of information, leaving us with tons of questions.  The author of Genesis is merely trying to show how the line from Cain became an ungodly group of people.  These people are contrasted with the righteous line of Seth in chapter 5.  The author wasn’t trying to answer all of our other questions.

One prevalent theory that I have often heard is that Adam and Eve were the first humans God created, but not the last.  This assumes that God created other people who were instructed to be fruitful and multiply.  These people settled in the “land of Nod” instead of the area around Eden, and from them came Cain’s wife and those who would inhabit the city Cain eventually builds.  The main problem that I have with this theory is that IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE AT ALL!  It is a complete guess based on no evidence.  No where else in Scripture does it talk about God creating other people.  The genealogies of Genesis show the race of man descending only from Adam (through Seth and Cain).  The New Testament in passages like Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 seem predicated on Adam being the first and only man created instead of born.

What do we know then from the Bible?  People like Adam, Eve, Seth, and Cain lived for a VERY long time.  This means that they would have been able to have A LOT of children, and if they obeyed God’s command, they should have been being fruitful and multiplying.  Genesis 5 is only showing the line of leading patriarchs, and is not meant to imply that each man only had one son in the line of Seth.  In fact, 5:4 says of Adam, “The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.”  Genesis 1 – 4 seems unclear often when it comes to when things happened.  How old were Cain and Abel when they fought?  How much time from when Cain left to when he “knew his wife” and then built a city?  The reality is that it could have been hundreds of years between these events.  Seth could have also children in that time, and perhaps even Abel had children, although that seems unlikely based on the genealogies.

The most obvious answer then is that Cain either married one of his sisters or nieces.  We just don’t like that answer for two reasons: 1) the book of Leviticus seems to prohibit having sexual relations with close relatives like a sister or mother; and 2) we have our own cultural taboo against what we call incest.  Leviticus 18:6 and following prohibits Israelites from these kind of relations, although the Old Testament is full of Israelites marrying people they are related to (cousins), as ancient tribes often married within their own clan.  The cultural taboo also comes from genetic defects that often happen when close relatives have children (see European monarchies for numerous examples).  Without the genetic defects would we still have these cultural taboos?  Before the fall, genetic defects didn’t exist and it seems they were slowly increased with time after that fall.  That is why people lived so long, and God eventually lowers that ability in Genesis 6 (how He does that is unclear).

So, Bible Urban Legend #3 seems to be most likely TRUE.  Shocker, I know, but the evidence points to Cain marrying a close relative, although how close, we aren’t sure.  I believe the Leviticus laws against incest are right, and we are wise to see effects of genetic issues with close relative child bearing.  If it makes you feel better that God created other people for Cain to marry, then go ahead and do that.  It won’t make you a heretic, and probably shouldn’t make or break your faith.  The truth is that we live in a fallen world that is full of evil and sin.  Who knows how many things that we see as “normal” were not always that way?  At least in heaven, Jesus says we will be like the angels (seemingly implying we won’t be having kids anymore or possibly even “married” in the earthly sense), so we can bury this question in the afterlife.

Coming up next, Bible Urban Legend #2 the Nephilim were a race of half angel, half human giants.  Bring it on!

There are dinosaurs in the Bible

Posted: March 17, 2012 in Top Bible Nerd Questions, Topical Studies
4

Bible Urban Legend #4:  there are dinosaurs in the Bible.  I have to confess that this is one Bible nerd question that I love.  Mainly, because I grew up fascinated by dinosaurs.  Every Sunday after church, we would go to my grandmothers to eat lunch.  I rushed through my meal, because I knew that the Godzilla movie would start right at 1 p.m.  My most repeated nightmare as a kid was being chased by a dinosaur.  I have seen Jurassic Park waaaaayyy too many times, as we used it for a demo dvd when I worked at a television store (Circuit City if you must know, which will not go down as a highlight experience of my life…).  Some actually ask this question from a serious standpoint, as they are trying to think through how their faith and Christianity go together with science.  Science has proven that dinosaurs existed, and it would seem if Genesis starts with creation, then dinosaurs should be in the Bible somewhere, right?

The classic Scripture claimed to be talking about dinosaurs is Job 40:15-24.  Job is full of poetry and imagery, and the context of this chapter is that God finally answers Job’s complaints about his suffering.  God’s answer really isn’t the answer Job is wanting, but God challenges Job’s ability and right to question God’s plan and will.  He does so by asking Job where he was when God created the world, including a creature called in verse 15 “Behemoth”.  Most translations will confess that Hebrews scholars are unsure of what this large animal actually was.  The description of being a “grass eater” with a strength and a “stiff tail” could fit some of the dinosaurs scientists have discovered, but it could also fit an elephant or a hippopotamus.  In verse 19, it says it was “the first of God’s works” leading some to see a dinosaur, but again, the evidence is not conclusive.

There are two other Old Testaments creatures said to be dinosaurs.  One is often translated as “dragon” or “serpent”, and the other is the “leviathan”.  In Job 41:1, the “leviathan” is described as a strong creature, but could easily be talking about a number of different animals, including the crocodile.  The Isaiah 27:1 reference puts them together as “In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.”  Using synonymous paralellism of Hebrew poetry, it would seem that these three creatures are one in the same.  But does this verse show a dinosaur?  We need to remember that the Bible’s poetry uses common symbols and pictures from the original reader’s day and age.  Ancient mythology used several creatures to symbolize evil, such as dragons, “leviathan”, and a creature called “Rahab” in Isaiah 30:7, Job 26:12, and Psalm 89:10 .  The sea was a symbol of chaos and evil because of the unknowns associated with it.  When God destroys these creatures, He is destroying evil, not a T-Rex.

If we start saying that dragons and leviathans are actually dinosaurs, and not mythic creatures, where do we stop?  How about gryphons?  Some would say that these mythic creatures were based on dinosaurs, and while that may be true, it still wouldn’t be evidence of dinosaurs in the Bible.  We are challenged with bringing our faith together with science, but we can’t allow that process to try to force dinosaurs into the Bible!  Were there dinosaurs on the ark?  were dinosaurs nice to Adam and Eve before the fall, and then they had to hide from them afterward?  Good questions, but remember that the Bible is NOT a book of science.  That doesn’t mean that the Bible doesn’t contain scientific truth, but it is NOT the main goal of the Bible.  The Bible’s main goal is to help us to know God, understand His plan of redemption through Jesus, and how to make this world a better place until Jesus returns.

There are some great resources out there like “The Genesis Question” by Hugh Ross, or if you happen to be in Ohio, there is a well done Creation Museum you can visit with dinosaur exhibits and information.  Theories range from dinosaurs on the ark to dinosaurs living and dying out before man is even created.  The reality we face is that in science, there is insufficient evidence to fully know when the dinosaurs lived and why they became extinct.  We may not have dinosaurs in the Bible, but we do know that God created EVERYTHING (Genesis 1 -2), and it was all “good” and that would include dinosaurs.  God must have felt that was enough information for us to lead godly lives today, so we have to trust that.  Bible Urban Legend #4-  weak on evidence, so we must put in the “interesting only” category.  Coming up next, Bible Urban Legend #3- Cain married his sister (yuck!).  It keeps getting better.

I know you don’t have a “P.S.” in a blog, but that is where this comment belongs.  My own personal theory about dinosaurs is that they were in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.  In fact, I think Satan possessed one of them to talk to man, and that the “serpent” of Genesis 3 was some type of dinosaur.  When God judged the “serpent” in Genesis 3, He made the serpent go on it’s belly in the dust from then on, implying that it walked upright before this time.  So, because Satan used a dinosaur, the whole species was changed by the curse into reptiles that we know today as snakes, crocodiles, etc…  That is also why the term “dragon” is equated with Satan and the “serpent” in Revelation 12 and 20.  You are wondering right now, “is Sean serious about this whole theory???”  Another good question.

Bible Urban Legends

Posted: March 16, 2012 in Top Bible Nerd Questions
4

That brief commercial break was brought to you by “Studying Chinese”.  That’s right “Studying Chinese”, if you think you are pretty smart, just study Chinese, and find out just how not smart you really are.  Now, back to our show, that is the Bible, where we are starting a new series of posts called “Bible Urban Legends”.  I kind of waffled on the name of this series, as my other favorite title was, “Top 5 Bible nerd questions”.  Yes, these are the questions that students would ask me every year of my Bible school.  Not the deep Trinity or salvation questions, but those kind of questions that made you want to say, “You know, there really are dumb questions” and blow off all that teacher training you had. All my past Bible nerd students, and you know who you are, these posts are for you, although they may not be nearly as fun now that you aren’t trying to distract the whole class.

Bible Urban Legend #5 is……….After Jesus died on the cross, He went down to Hell and proclaimed His victory, stopped by Abraham’s bosom for the faithful, and then after delivering the faithful to heaven, was resurrected back into His body.  Most questions that I got from students about this really weren’t questions.  They were statements of enlightenment which they hoped would awe the class and myself with their Bible knowledge.  Occasionally, it was phrased as, “I heard that…..”  So, the question remains, is this Bible Urban Legend really true, and if so, where can we find it in Scripture?

People will point to 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 and Ephesians 4:7-10 as evidence of Jesus’ trip to Hell.  Let’s look at the 1 Peter passage first, and see if that is the context of Peter’s teaching.  In chapter 3, Peter is talking to a persecuted church, trying to encourage them that it is worthy to suffer for doing the right thing.  His ultimate example is Jesus, who ” also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.”  He follows this up with 4:6, “For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.”

When I bold it like this, and don’t give context, it would seem to back up our urban legend.  However, these are difficult passages and we must use the clear Scriptures to interpret the unclear.  No matter what we say these passages mean, they shouldn’t contradict what is clearly stated in Hebrews 9:27, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.”  There are no second chances in Hell.  Another way to read the 1 Peter passage, is that it isn’t talking about Jesus going to Hell and preaching to those who died during Noah’s time, but it is talking about how the Spirit of Christ was preaching THROUGH Noah to those who didn’t obey, and so are now “spirits in prison”.  The 4:6 passage then refers to either this, or Peter is talking about the “spiritually dead” instead of “physically dead”.  The point would be that just like in Noah’s day, there is still persecution for those who do right, but those that persecute you will end up just like those who rebelled in Noah’s day, “spirits in prison”.  Note that it never gives us WHEN this occurred other than the “days of Noah” and never says hell but “prison”.

In Ephesians 4, Paul quotes from Psalm 68:18 to talk about how Jesus has given gifts to the church.  In this context, he says in Ephesians 4:9, “In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?”  This passage is even more unclear than the one in 1 Peter.  It isn’t talking about when Jesus died, but instead the focus is on gifts.  What would Jesus going to Hell have to do with giving gifts to the church?  In the Asian cosmology (how they described the world around them), the earth was the lowest part of existence, and there were many levels or layers going up into the “heavens”.  Many scholars believe that “lower parts of the earth” refer to where we live on earth, and has nothing to do with Hell.  In Paul’s day, Asians were stupified by the fact that Jesus was God and would come down from heaven to where man was on earth.  This passage affirms that not only did Jesus come to “lowly” earth, but brought gifts as well.

Notice that parts of “legend” aren’t even in these verses, like the part about taking the good people to heaven that were waiting around.  You have to take other passages and then try to “piece the story together” if you are going to try to get all of this. (Don’t even get me started on the Abraham’s bosom thing!).  So, while I can see how this “Bible Urban Legend” got started, the evidence is not very strong, and is based on some difficult passages to interpret.  What did Jesus do for those three days in the grave?  I want to know as much as the next guy.  Did Jesus kick death in the teeth and shut down the power of Hell?  Of course He did!  But, no one got a second chance, and I can think of a lot better ways for Jesus to have spent that time other than going to Hell.  Hey, you just died on the cross, defeated sin, and now you get to go to Hell…. hmmm…… Coming up next, Bible Urban Legend #4 “There are dinosaurs in the Bible.”  Sweet.

I did the right thing and I am still suffering???

Posted: March 12, 2012 in Topical Studies, Why Christians suffer
3

Ok, ok, so I thought the book series that my wife bought was a little cheesy.  It is called “Heroes for Young Readers” and it puts famous missionaries and Christian heroes of the faith lives into poems for kids.  How can you reduce an amazing person’s life into something that always rhymes in four lines?  But I had to repent, because my little kids love these books and actually know who Jim Elliot is now.  There is a stack of them in our bathroom, and now I sneak a peek at them, and have learned quite a bit myself (the shame that I am learning church history in kids’ books…).  How do I explain to my seven year old why Jim Elliot died?  He was only 28 years old and was trying to reach out to and help a tribal people in Ecuador.  He died so young because he did exactly the right thing.

Our brain just has such a hard time computing the fact that we can suffer because we are doing the RIGHT thing in this world.  It just seems wrong and not fair, that we can suffer for the very reason that we are being obedient to God and trying to be a blessing to make this world a better place.  The Bible, however, makes it clear that sometimes when we are suffering, this is exactly the case.

1 Peter is one of the best books to look at this teaching.  Peter is trying to comfort and encourage the New Testament church, which has been undergoing persecution since its beginning.  He can’t give them the false hope that everything will get better eventually, and the fact is that it is about to get much worse.  A few short years after he writes this letter, Nero goes completely crazy (rather than just mostly crazy), and begins a massive persecution of Christians.  Peter can give them the big picture and share a few pieces of wisdom.  First, Peter says in 3:17, “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”  Lots of people in the world are suffering for doing evil; criminals are in jail, sexually immoral people have STDs, and manipulative, greedy people are lonely and depressed.  These people are not only suffering now for what they have done, they have no eternal reward to look forward to if they are not believers.  Peter reminds them that they could be suffering for no eternal purpose at all.

The second thing Peter reminds them of is in 3:18, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God”.  The reason Peter is confident that they will suffer for doing right, is that their very Lord, Jesus Christ, suffered for doing the right thing.  Jesus saw the eternal goal of bringing us back to God as worth the suffering on the cross.  Do we see our suffering as worth it?  We have to remember we suffer for an eternal prize, taking as many people to heaven with us. Stoics simply endure suffering, while ascetics welcome it.  Christians are neither.  We only suffer because God loved us, and we in turn love others so much that we are willing to give our lives for them.

Third, Peter says we should expect to suffer for doing right in 4:12, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. ”  Sometimes, we act so surprised when Satan attacks us, and cry out to God in disbelief that He allowed that to happen.  Peter knew it was coming, and so he was spiritually and mentally prepared for battle.  Paul tried to prepare Timothy in the same way in 2 Timothy 3:12, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”  I don’t see any maybes there.

Finally, Peter gives them the ultimate hope in 5:10, “And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.”  This suffering will not last forever!  Peter considered this life “a little while” in comparison to living in eternity with God in peace and blessing.  Jim Elliot is with Jesus in heaven, and he will never suffer again.  This whole series on suffering has been difficult to write, and I have noticed that it has been one of my least “popular” series of posts.  I know we don’t enjoy reading about suffering.  Some people think if they are reading about suffering, it means that God is about to lead them into a time of suffering and is preparing them.  I just know it is part of life, and of course, we would all rather skip it.  Some suffer more than others, but if we are to be ministers of hope into this world, we have to know how to comfort those in pain.  Jesus was the great physician who didn’t avoid people who were suffering, He was drawn right to them.

Only ourselves to blame

Posted: March 10, 2012 in Topical Studies, Why Christians suffer
0

When I was college, I used to work with our local electric company in the summers.  I lived in Kentucky then, and we would drive out to these remote spots in the countryside to do jobs.  One area we worked in would always take us right by this sign by the highway.  I knew the sign well, as when my family would drive to Cincinnati, my sisters and I would talk about the story behind the sign.  It was there in 1988, that a man was driving drunk and crashed into a school bus full of teenagers on a church youth group trip.  Many of the children died in the crash, and it was a horrible tragedy.   How could God allow this to happen?  How is this fair and right that these children died due to the actions of just one man?

The Bible is full of stories where the actions and sins of just one man (or woman, we want to be equal opportunity here)  completely affect and cause suffering for many.  In Kings and Chronicles, this is obvious in the lives of the kings and rulers like Ahab, Jezebel, Ahaz, Manasseh, and David.  We have already established that God doesn’t punish or judge people for the sins of others (Ezekiel 18).  However, God does allow the consequences of other people’s sins to affect both Christians and non Christians.  He is not “teaching us something” or “disciplining us” and it isn’t Satan directly doing something to us.  It is simply a world in which God allows man freedom of choice.

In Romans 1:18-22 Paul states that man has rejected God for idols, thereby bringing God’s wrath down upon himself.  What does this wrath really look like here?  It is not lightning bolts or enemy armies that we see in other judgment passages.  In 1:24-25, Paul gives God’s judgment, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”  God’s judgment was to let us do exactly what we wanted to do.  The chapter continues with lists of worse and worse sins.  Look what we do to each other, “They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,  foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

So, to take away horrible bus crashes and many of the horrible atrocities that happen, God would have to take away free will.  We want to blame God, but we need to blame ourselves.  Of course in the case of the bus crash, the real issue isn’t whether the drunk driver is to blame, it is how God could allow this?  how is this fair?  The hard answers are that God isn’t fair and there are no satisfying answers as to why God didn’t stop this tragedy from happening.  In Romans 9:16, Paul understands the question of God’s fairness, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”  God is just and merciful, not fair.

God created the world in His image and it was all “very good”.  Man didn’t like that world, wanted to be his own god, and so we have remade the world into our image.  That world is full of gang violence, wars, genocides, and death.  We can’t blame God for this suffering, as He “gave us up” to do what we wanted to do.  We want to think only of ourselves and drive drunk, regardless of the consequences it might inflict on others.  It scares me to death thinking about the times I drove drunk in college and what horrible things I could have done.  God will end this suffering when sinful nature is taken away at the end of time.  Until then, we  again should be there for people when things like this happen, without having to tell the person who to blame.  Until then, I will think of that sign beside the road and think carefully about how my actions can bring suffering to others.

Do you fear the Lord?

Posted: March 9, 2012 in Topical Studies, Why Christians suffer
0

Who really likes to talk about discipline?  Some trials and suffering in my life God?  Yes, please.  You won’t go into Borders or your bookstore and find that a book on God’s discipline has crossed over and finally moved the Left Behind display to the back of the store.  The Shack won’t be followed up another best seller called The Woodshed (where God takes you when He isn’t baking you scones or hanging out on the lake with you).  No one likes to be disciplined, unless you are an ascetic monk in a Dan Brown movie.  Yet, somewhere deep down inside us, we realize that this world would be complete chaos if not for the discipline of parents and our governments.  Those of us who are parents understand that our kids aren’t just naturally “good” all the time (understatement of the year?).  Recently I was pulled over here in Taiwan for turning out of the wrong lane (I used the dumb foreigner excuse, and it worked this time).  Of course, I would rather have not been disciplined, but I also am constantly complaining that the police don’t do more with crazy moto drivers that are driving down the wrong side of the road.

We can’t talk about why Christians suffer without talking about the discipline of God.  In my experience, the top two reasons Christians think they are suffering are spiritual warfare or discipline of God. I guess which they choose of these two often has to do with how guilty they are feeling, whether they have an angry God concept or not, or whether they think that there is a demon under every rock.  Hebrews 12 is one of the best teachings in the New Testament on discipline.  The author of Hebrews (insert your favorite theory here) says in 12:7-8, “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.”  The recipients of this letter were going through suffering, and God had shown the author that it was discipline.  He gives the always encouraging thought, “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”  Maybe don’t use this line in your next counseling session.

I believe most people think that God’s temporal discipline was only in the old covenant (Old Testament).  We read accounts in Joel of locust attacks and say, “Whew, am I glad that I don’t live in Old Testament Israel!”  Yes, it is true that we are not bound by the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26.  However, the New Testament has narrative and epistle examples of discipline in the church.  I already mentioned Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11.  This is a drastic example, but it had a profound effect, “And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.”  An example I don’t always hear much about is in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.  The Corinthian church is taking communion in an unholy fashion, and as  the judgment of God, Paul says, “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”  Wow!  I bet we will all think twice now before taking the tasteless wafer and little plastic cup of juice!

The bottom line is that the fear of the Lord in our lives is a GOOD thing.  Jews of the Old Testament understood this, and Solomon lays it down in Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”.  Only dumb people don’t fear God, and personally I would rather avoid both discipline and stupidity in my life.  Unfortunately, I hang on to old sins, develop new ones, and eventually need God’s discipline.  I have had times when bad things happen in my life, I pray and ask God what is going on, and He tells He is allowing the suffering to discipline me for some sin I need to get rid of.  That discipline has taken different forms from illness to busted water lines, and God always tells me because He wants me to change.  He knows that the sin is causing harm in my life and in the lives of those around me.

I want to say again that each time we face suffering, we have to go to God and ask Him what is going on.  It is not always discipline, just like it is not always from a fallen world.  There can be no set answers from us to other people like “there must be sin in the camp” (one of my least favorites for sure, partly because it is a heavy use of Christian jargon that makes us sound like we live on a compound and call our pastor the Prophet).  I would rather embrace the fear of the Lord rather than become a grace abuser who is always blaming other people (or God) for bad things.  Who’s your Daddy?

Older Entries