Archive for the ‘Topical Studies’ Category

Top Real Bible Question: Israel part 2

Posted: April 11, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

At the time I thought, “This conversation is getting too strange for me.”  I was talking with a (Gentile) woman from Pennsylvania who was wearing a Jewish prayer shawl (that’s not the strange part).  She had started by telling me that she followed all the Old Testament laws, including the dietary laws of Leviticus.  Then, she threw the big one on me by telling me that Jews today aren’t saved by faith, but are still under the law.  God has two ways for people to gain righteousness and entrance to heaven.  One for Jews and one for Gentiles.  I am not sure what disturbed me more, this American, suburban woman who was basically converting to Judaism, or the fact that she believed Jews are still under the old covenant.

The first thing we need to establish as we discuss the Jews is what Paul clearly states in the book of Romans. Romans 10:11-13 says, “For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  I don’t think it can be any clearer than that!  Whatever we say about modern Israel, we can’t hold any thoughts that would mean that God’s eternal salvation plan for the Jews is any different than the Gentiles.  The author of Hebrews also leaves little doubt that the whole old covenant is no longer binding. Hebrews 8:13 states, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

What is clear to me from Scripture is that though God doesn’t save the Jews in a different way, He still has a unique plan for them.  The problem with full blown replacement theology is that it leaves no place for this in the New Testament or God’s plan.  Paul states in Romans 11:28-29, “As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Yes, irrevocable means irrevocable.  We can’t “un-Jew” the Jews or “un-choose” them.  God has created this people group and given them special blessings, and no whining from Gentiles is going to change that.

The issue that is less clear in Scripture is what has become of the Abrahamic Covenant as regards the land of Israel.  Spiritually, Paul explains that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the promises made to Abram and the Jews in Genesis 12:1-4.  Galatians 3:16, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one,“And to your offspring,” who is Christ.”  Jesus is the “seed/offspring” that “all the families of the earth” are blessed in.  Through faith, we are all “children of Abraham”, both Jews and Gentiles.  What does this mean for the physical promises then?  We can’t quickly dismiss this covenant, because the New Testament never states that it has ended as we saw with the old covenant.

I have seen two answers to this issue.  First, some say that God ALREADY fulfilled the promise to give them the land as seen in 1 Kings 4:20-21, and no longer needs to do that today.  The problem with this view is that God keeps using the word “forever” to describe how long He has given the land to the Jews (Genesis 13:15, Exodus 32:13).  While it is true that we can pull out passages where God uses the word “forever” in regards to the old covenant (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 3:17), and that is clearly over, we still don’t have God declaring that about the Abrahamic Covenant in the New Testament.  The second answer that I have heard is that the land is “spiritual” now and not physical.  Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he came to bring a spiritual kingdom and not an earthly one.  God wouldn’t be going back to the physical anymore (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 10:1).

The bottom line is that as inductive students of the Bible, I don’t believe there is enough evidence to say that the land doesn’t still belong to the Jews as promised by God.  This still leaves many questions however, such as:  who is a Jew?  do we use the Biblical test or modern Israel’s?  does Israel have to be following God to receive this promise, or is it unconditional?  Most Jews today  in Israel are not Christians, nor are they even following the laws of Judaism.

In the end, I believe both the verses from Paul about “irrevocable gifts” combined with the Abrahamic Covenant, make replacement theology hard to justify.  Though it leaves us still with many questions about whether modern Israel is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy or not, it is fitting more with what we see in Scripture.  Next, we will examine the whole teaching on “spiritual Israel” and see what impact it has on our remaining questions.  I realize that fitting stuff like this into a post is ridiculous sometimes.  Any chance you guys would like to read a 50 page post?  I didn’t think so.

Top 10 Real Bible Question #6: Israel

Posted: April 8, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

There I was in Israel, having a picnic lunch next to the ancient ruins of Megiddo.  We had just finished hiking around the sites and listening to explanations of the different levels of destruction.  Suddenly, a massive armada of tour buses pulled up, and scores of tour guides poured out of the buses with their extremely American looking passengers.  The main leader of the tour was a famous Christian television personality who shall remain nameless (you’ll see why in a minute).  After a gospel quartet performed (bizarre place to do that), the TV guy preceded to give a teaching on how Megiddo figured into his end times views.  Then he dropped the bomb, “The antichrist is most likely here on Earth already, and I believe he is probably Jewish.”

Seriously??? Right there at the Israeli National Park of Megiddo, with Jews all around, this American Christian says that the antichrist is a Jew.  My point here is that people’s views on Israel and the Jews is all over the board.  From replacement theology to Christian Zionism, the church today has all kinds of “interesting” views on what God is doing with Israel.  For most of church history up until 1948 A.D., this discussion was moot since Israel didn’t exist as a nation.  Something then happened that seemed impossible and against all odds, the Jews reclaimed the promised land and Christians around the world scrambled to explain what was happening.

Replacement theologians explained that all we are witnessing is a modern historical event without Biblical significance.  They believe that in the New Covenant, the church has “replaced” Israel (physical) as God’s people.  All the Old Testament and New Testament predictions that were yet to be fulfilled will all be fulfilled in the church, not the physical nation of Israel.  Of course, saved Jews are part of the church, so God has not rejected the Jews at all.  Merely, the kingdom of Jesus was a spiritual one, not a physical one, where there is no more, “Jew or Greek (Galatians 3:28)”.  The view is not anti-Semitic, but sees no necessity for Israel to be a nation now for end times events to occur.

Christian Zionism falls at the exact opposite side of the spectrum.  They believe that the events happening now in modern Israel are a direct fulfillment of Old Testament predictions that God will “gather His people” and “restore them to the land (Isaiah 11:11-12)”.  Israel will be the site of the final battle in Revelation, and it is the church’s role to support Israel however it can.  This can include giving funds for Jews to return to Israel, lobbying their own governments to support Israel, and praying daily for the “peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6)”.  Most still believe Jews are saved by faith just like Gentiles, but still hold a special calling or status still in God’s eyes (the chosen people).

I have an interesting personal twist to my journey to explore the Bible on this topic.  I am Jewish.  Ok, ok, I am ethnically Jewish, but was raised as a Christian, and never even realized I was Jewish until I was in my 20’s.  I never thought through the care packages we got from my Mom’s family that included those flat, tasteless crackers (Matzah bread- unleavened bread for Passover).  Since it comes from my mother’s side, I could have applied to become an Israeli citizen, as they consider you 100% Jewish if it comes from your mother’s side.  I have gotten some interesting responses from people when I have shared this with them.  The most unusual was that in some Asian countries, they had this starry kind of look in their eye, like I was suddenly seen as being more “special”.

Starting in the next post, I will attempt to do what we have always done on this blog, digging into the Bible and trying to see what it says about this issue.  Don’t try to skip ahead to the end of this series and just look for “what Sean really thinks about all this”.  I will be presenting views and passages, not making absolute conclusions.  Honestly, there are godly, brilliant people on all sides of this issue, and the goal is to challenge us to ponder and pray.  Remember that the church has done everything from killing Jews in the Crusades to giving millions of dollars to support modern Israel.  That is an extreme difference.

Creation: when is a day not a day?

Posted: April 7, 2012 in creation, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

I went to a Christian school from 7th grade all the way to graduation.  It seemed like the only argument between Christians and non Christians was evolution vs. creation.  Every Christian science textbook had page after page of details, analysis, and debunking.  One time, I even argued for evolution just to annoy my science teacher and try to make things a little interesting in class (as a teacher now, I profusely apologize for antagonizing my teacher and have paid in full for all the Melchizedek questions I have gotten).  This is why discussing whether the days in Genesis 1 are literal or not is such a powder keg of a question.  People don’t just see it as a question about one chapter, but see the whole creation vs. evolution debate as riding on this interpretation.  I might as well give myself a paper cut and pour lemon juice on it rather than tackling this issue.

The main options that I have heard about Genesis 1 are: 1) Atheist- dismiss the whole Bible as myth and legend, especially the book of Genesis; 2) Theistic Evolutionist- believes that Genesis 1 is not literal, but a poetic expression that God created everything; believes God used evolution to accomplish creation; 3) Age theory- day isn’t a 24 hour day but should be seen as an “age” being thousands of years; 4) Gap theory- between day one and day two, there is a huge gap of time allowing for either long spans of time or the “restoration theory”; 5) Figurative days- Genesis 1 is a poetic way to express the truth that God created everything and it was “very good” (how long this took is unstated allowing for options on how old creation is); 6) Literal days- God literally took 6 days to create everything and rested on the 7th day.

First, we need to discuss the literal vs. figurative debate.  Many people have told me that the figurative approach is very harmful and dangerous.  They say, “if you don’t take Genesis chapter 1 literally, then you can’t believe the rest of the Bible.  I believe the Bible is literal and true.”  I can understand their heart, but as a method of interpretation, their statement doesn’t work at all.  The Bible is full of figurative language and passages that are meant to be taken figuratively.  The mistake that they make is assuming that literal and true are connected in a way as to make figurative and untrue as the necessary opposite.  However, things can be figurative and true!  It is just that the truth is contained within (or underneath) the figurative language.  For example, I am not literally the “body of Christ”.  Jesus had a real body.  Figuratively, I am the “body of Christ”, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 12 that the “body of Christ” can mean the church.  We take the “body of Christ” figuratively in 1 Corinthians 12, but we take it as truth.

How do we know when something is figurative or literal?  We make that decision all the time when people are talking or when we read literature like the Bible.  It is true that Genesis is historical narrative (stories) and so it is MOSTLY to be read literally (there really was a man named Abram who left his home).  However, there are parts that are to be taken figuratively (like the expression “Adam KNEW his wife” or Pharaoh’s dreams that Joseph interprets”).  The age debate is different in that it argues about the Hebrew word for “day” having different meanings, and is not arguing about whether it is literal or figurative.  So, is Genesis 1 to be taken literal or figurative?  You would have to look for evidence or clues that Moses meant it to be taken one way or another.

I won’t be discussing the atheist, theistic evolution, or gap theory in this post (or maybe ever since I am a science moron), but in deciding literal or figurative, it does affect the whole range of options.  I have never felt the gap theory has any credible evidence, and the first two options necessitate believing in evolution, which some Christians don’t.  The largest clue in figuring out how to interpret Genesis 1 comes actually from Genesis 2.  Everything is created in Genesis 1, but then it seems like we start all over again in Genesis 2.  Not only is the story of creation repeated, but parts of the story seem to change.  For example, in Genesis 1, man is the last thing created as the climax of creation.  In Genesis 2, God creates man and then creates all the plants for man to garden and after that, different animals as company for man.  Why is the order changed?  The formula that starts the story in Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens” is one that is repeated again in Genesis 5:1 to introduce the transition to Noah.  It is almost as if chapter 1 doesn’t fully belong with the literary style of the book.

I am NOT saying that Genesis 1 was added later or is not authentic and from Moses.  I am just saying that there are differences and contrasts that we can’t ignore.  This may be the biggest argument for seeing chapter 1 as using a figurative form of communication.  That would explain why we have two stories with “contradictions”.  We have both a figurative and literal description of creation.  Since the first is poetic, it is not meant to be exact in chronology, but beautiful in its art.  The point is that God was the creator, it was all “very good”, and man was the climax of His creation.  Then, chapter 2 gives the literal account to explain the purpose of man, plants, animals, and marriage (two genders), and begin the story of the Fall.  From this point on, the number 7 will be used often figuratively as the number of perfection or completion.  So, even if chapter 1 is figurative, there would still be literal truth contained in it (like God as creator).

As always, you must investigate this for yourself and make your own decision.  I would maintain that this choice DOES NOT necessitate that you fall into any of the main views that I listed above (there are way more options, but this is supposed to be a blog, not a encyclopedia).  People take chapter 1 literally, but still see lots of figurative parts of the Bible.  People take chapter 1 figuratively, but aren’t evolutionists at all.  I know for some people the whole creation vs. evolution thing seems like old news, and we “post moderns” have moved on from this trap to discuss more important issues like saving the spotted owl, but this is still very important.  Understanding how to interpret the Bible is also key.  Whew, I need a break from this deep stuff.  Time to move on to Top 10 “Real” Bible question #6 “What is God doing with Israel today?”.  At least this question doesn’t have much drama…

The flood- legend, myth, or the truth?

Posted: April 5, 2012 in The Flood, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

Let’s be honest for a moment.  The list of hard to believe parts of the flood story are many: how did all the animals fit on the boat? wouldn’t they try to eat each other? why hasn’t science found more proof of a global flood? how can you believe in the flood and be a young Earth believer?  Added to this is the fact that although it is a story of horrific judgment, American culture has seen fit to use it for children’s toys and crib bumpers.  How can you take something seriously when there is a Little People version of it?  Just yesterday, I was laughing up a storm watching Evan Almighty, the Steve Carell comedy based on the Flood story.  It didn’t make these questions go away.

There are two common questions that I get about the Flood.  1) Do you really believe that the Flood was global?  isn’t it more likely to have been just a regional flood?  2) Most ancient cultures have a flood story/ epic/ legend.  Isn’t it likely that the Bible “borrowed” from this common mythology in order to teach about the serious nature of sin?  Of course, this is taking it for granted that students believe the Bible and don’t simply dismiss the Flood story as not believable.  (By the way, the stories about people finding remnants of the Ark on Mount Ararat are not helping!  Get a life! Go back to looking for the Ark!)  Let’s tackle the myth angle first, and then move on to the more complicated one about local vs. global flood.

It is true that several other ancient cultures have flood stories in their mythology.  The Babylonian myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish has been the most popular one used to show how the Bible “borrows” from other cultures.  The oldest copies found are on cuneiform tablets dated to the 12th century B.C.  Liberal scholars were quick to point out that the oldest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament date to the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest being from around 250 B.C.).  Most believed at this point that the Bible originated during the time of the kings at the earliest, post exilic at the latest (around 700 – 500 B.C.).  Therefore, they concluded that the Bible was written at least several hundred years after the Babylonian Enuma Elish.  The parallels between the two stories include:  the flood occurring in Mesopotamia; the main character is warned and builds a boat to escape; the boat comes to rest on a mountain after flood; and birds are released to see if it is safe to disembark.  Even I must admit that the similarities are too great to be merely coincidental.

First, I believe that the Flood story and Genesis were written long before the oldest copy we have found dates to.  Using 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40, the Bible clearly states that the Exodus happened around 1446 B.C.  Since Moses is given as the author of the entire Pentateuch, he would have written the story of the Flood down around this time, way before the Enuma Elish was written.  I have no problem saying that someone “borrowed” from someone else, I merely maintain that it was the Babylonian legend that borrowed from the Biblical account.  Moses got the account passed down from Hebrew oral tradition, and it isn’t difficult to imagine this being passed from the Hebrews to the Babylonians, where the story was adapted into the Epic of Gilgamesh.  I actually believe that the multitude of flood stories in other cultures gives more weight to the truth of the Bible, as the other cultures corroborate the original story did actually take place (a common shared experience before these people groups descended from Noah’s sons).

As to whether the flood was local or not, I won’t attempt to make a huge scientific argument.  I am not a scientist (although I have played one on tv) and you can find other excellent blogs and sites that help you in that area (which is why I won’t be touching the whole “did the flood happen at all” scientific debate).  I will say that from Scripture, it would seem that it was a global flood.  Genesis 7:19 says that the “waters covered the mountains” and it is hard to see that happening from a local flood.  Also, Genesis 9:19 shows that Noah and his family were the only survivors.  If the flood was only local, other people would have survived.  Last, if the flood was only local, why couldn’t God have saved Noah a lot of time building the ark, and merely told him to leave the area???

Science is great, but the bottom line is that it can’t explain everything in the Bible.  That is why we use the word “supernatural” to explain certain events like the flood or people raising from the dead (and talking animals too).  God can make animals do whatever He wants, can figure out how to flood the whole world, and can decide how to divide up a super continent (if one actually existed).  We need to stop trying to always “prove” miracles, while at the same time appreciating how creation speaks of God all the time.  I am all for Christians who are astrophysicists as long as they don’t try to give me a natural explanation for how people can walk on water.  The Flood happened, killed everyone but Noah and his family, and God showed the harsh penalty of sin, while also showing His great mercy in saving anyone.

Don’t go and throw away all your cute Noah stuff just yet.  At the same time, I would seriously reconsider your plans to make those Bubonic plague baby crib bumpers.  Next up on the blog, Top 10 “Real” Bible Question # 7, “Are the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1 literal or figurative?”  No biggie, just the whole theory of Creationism is on the line…

“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.

Older Entries
Newer Entries