Top Real bible Questions: Israel part 5

Posted: April 15, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

One of the most beautiful reports that I have heard about is that there is a church in Israel where both Jewish and Palestinian Christians come together to worship God in one place.  I am sure that there might be more, but my home church has supported and visited this church of rare brotherhood (I won’t mention its name or location for security reasons).  It lets me know what is possible in Christ and in this world, and gives me hope for the future.

There are two issues that I am asked about that didn’t fit into the previous posts.  Are all Gentile Christians called to support the Jews and Israel?  In missions and life, we usually talk about each Christian being called to a specific people group (often their own) or sub group in society (like businessmen).  But, in addition, are we all called to the Jews as Gentiles?  The most often quoted passage in support of this is Psalms 122:6 “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!”.  When David writes this, Jerusalem has just become the capital of Israel, God’s theocracy.  The other passage is Romans 15:27, “For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings.”  Here Paul was trying to raise funds from the Gentile church to help the Jews of Palestine and Jerusalem afflicted by a famine.  He saw the offering as a crown on his theology of the olive tree (Rom. 11), Gentiles grafted into one tree with the Jews.

There is a difference however between praying for the peace of Jerusalem, giving to help the poor, and giving money to a secular government or to a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C.  I am not making a value statement here, but I am saying that you should be careful before saying that what you are doing has a “Biblical mandate” behind it.

The other issue is will Israel be the place of the final battle and return of Jesus?  This question can only be answered by a larger look at eschatology that we will do later in this series on top Bible questions.  In a short answer, people who hold a view called premillenial dispensationalism believe that the end times predictions are speaking about literal Israel, and so 1948 and the formation of modern Israel was key to end times prophecies.  Another view called amillenialism believes that the end times predictions are speaking of spiritual or figurative Israel, and so Jesus’ return to Earth will be all at once and global in nature.  The posts on the millenium quetion will go more into detail.

I would like to finish this series of posts with three warnings. First, let’s not simply write off the Jews as being irrelevant to the future of the church.  Paul makes it clear in 11:12 of Romans what their salvation would mean for the world, and it sounds pretty good to me (especially since I am one :).  There is a reason that Paul would go first to the synagogue and then switch to the Gentiles when he entered a new city.  He knew the foundation of theology and the Old Testament that the Jews already had, propelling them forward much faster in their Christianity once they accepted Jesus.

Second, let’s not ignore what is ACTUALLY happening in the modern nation of Israel, giving any of the parties involved a “free pass” to commit crimes and atrocities.  No matter what view you end up with, we can not excuse the violation, torture, or killing of any people group.  God is love (1 John 1), and we as Christians should be known for our love.  I have seen too many Christians turn a blind eye to sins committed by a people group due to their eschatology or views on Israel.

Third, we must not forget that a key focus of the New Testament when it comes to the church is the unity of the people.  Ephesians 4:1ff grind this into the heads of the believers with the repetition of “one”, “one”, “one”.  Not only is this a call to see the reconciliation of Jews and Palestinians, but also among Christians who have differing views on Israel.  What is happening in Israel is difficult and sad, but what is happening with division in the church is inexcusable.  We are one body, one new man, and one church of Jesus Christ.  He is the God of Jews, but also of the Gentiles.  And He is one, right?

Top Real Bible Questions: Israel part 4

Posted: April 13, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

Being in Israel was a odd mix of experiences and learning opportunities.  On one level, there was the connection with Biblical history and archeology.  On another level, there was the modern political situation with the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  One moment, I would be looking at various layers of destruction in the ruins of Jericho, and the next moment I was being shown a checkpoint where someone blew themselves up last year.  All of it served to complicate my views on Israel and God’s plan.  Things were much simpler sitting in a classroom in the United States, far removed from the pain and suffering of the land.

So, when people ask me about my views on Israel, I have my views from political science, my views from the Bible, and then I have my personal feelings as an ethnic Jew who has visited the modern nation.  Even though I can discuss passages that pertain to Israel, like we have done the last two posts, in the end, my view of Israel comes from looking at the whole of God’s redemptive plan.  From Genesis to Deuteronomy, God unfolds His plan to create a holy nation bound to Him in covenant and love.  That theocracy was to be guided by priests, prophets, and elders to serve a holy, loving God.  Under civil, ceremonial, and moral law, Israel was given the blessing of being a witness to the surrounding nations by being set apart.

Unfortunately, as the story goes on from Judges to Esther, it is one long, sad tale of their disobedience, idolatry, and social injustice.  This covenant breaking was met with stiff justice as they were taken out of the land and exiled, stripped of the temple, kingship, and their homes. It is abundantly clear that man can’t obtain his own righteousness through the law.  As a physical nation, Israel “blasphemed the name of God among the nations” (Romans 2:24, Isaiah 52:5), and God spoke through the prophets that a new covenant would be needed (Jeremiah 31:31-34).  In this “New” covenant, the law would be on their hearts (Jer. 31), God’s Spirit would be in them (Joel 2:28), and the Suffering Servant would die so that they might have forgiveness from sins (Isaiah 53).

When Jesus did come to earth, He made it clear that He was not there to be king nor to establish a physical kingdom (John 6:15).  The disciples and Jews struggled with this as their messianic expectations were for Israel to be restored and the Romans expelled.  Instead of staying in Jerusalem, Jesus commanded the early church to go out to the “ends of Earth” (Acts 1:8).  Paul’s definition of the “body of Christ”, the church, is one that is spiritual and made up of all ethnicities all over the world (Ephesians 2:14-22).  The old covenant, law, was seen by Paul and the author of Hebrews as a “shadow” of the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:1).  Hebrews 1 – 10 is a consistent argument to not look back to the old covenant, as something much better is here now in Christ.

The question then is, does it fit with this plan to go back to a physical kingdom?  Why would God reestablish Israel as a nation in our modern times, almost two thousand years after it fell to the Romans?  I have heard two different arguments about this, and neither necessitate you being a believer in replacement theology or Christian Zionism.

First, many believe that God is not “going back” to a physical kingdom, but He is merely adding the physical kingdom to the already existing spiritual one in the church.  They point to numerous Scriptures that they feel support their view.  In Acts 1:6, the disciples ask Jesus if He is now going to restore the kingdom of Israel.  Jesus’ reply in Acts 1:7 says, “It is not for you to know the times”.  Jesus doesn’t say, “I am never going to do that”, but instead just tells them that it isn’t their place to know when this will occur.  In Romans 11:11-32, Paul talks about God’s plan to bring the Jews to Him through jealousy of the Gentile believers.  “All Israel being saved” in 11:26 is interpreted to be a huge wave of Jews that will turn back to God shortly before the return of Jesus.  Obviously, this view then interprets most of the Old Testament predictions about the Jews return and Israel in a literal fashion.

Second, some believe that God has concrete plans for the Jews and Israel, but that they are not fulfillments of Biblical prophecy.  This view states that the old covenant is dead, and with it was His focus on a physical nation.  Jesus came to reveal the spiritual kingdom, and it would make no sense to go back to a physical nation anymore.  God does love the Jews and has given them special blessings and gifts, but their existence as a political nation is not necessary for the return of Jesus.  Fitting with this view, they interpret most Old Testament predictions about the future of Israel as pertaining to the church (spiritual fulfillment).  They don’t view the church as replacing Israel at all, but rather they have been “grafted in” to true Israel alongside their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters.  There was never a “replacement”, only an “addition”.

In the next post, I will wrap up this question by addressing a few passages that didn’t fit yet with our previous posts.  Again, there is no way to do full justice to this issue on a blog, but my prayer is that these posts help you and spur you to press into the word of God.  There are so many books and sermons out there on this subject, but we should build our foundation from the Bible alone.  No matter what our view ends up being, let us not grow weary in praying for peace in this situation.  Jews and Palestinians have suffered for so long, and much of our world has given up on the peace process all together.  One new man in Christ.

Top Real Bible Questions: Israel part 3

Posted: April 12, 2012 in Israel, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

You have to love those “Ah ha” moments in life.  Like when you figure out that you have to push the bottle cap DOWN as you twist it off (stupid child proof caps).  Or when you realize that the speed limit on that road wasn’t 65 mph, but actually 45 mph, and the police don’t seem to care about your ignorance.  Maybe it is when you finally figure out how to start a new roll of toilet paper without ripping off three layers (seriously, you couldn’t design this any easier???).  For me, I love those “ah ha” moments when you are reading the Bible.  One of my biggest ones came while reading Romans 9.

In Romans 9:6 says, “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”  What???  What does that mean that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”??? That seems to be a completely illogical statement from Paul.  As you read the rest of the chapter, you begin to understand what Paul is doing.  He creates two different Israels in this chapter:  one is the literal nation made up of the physical Jewish people group; the other is a figurative Israel, or spiritual Israel, that has nothing to do with bloodlines and heritage, but has everything to do with faith in Jesus.  He describes how to be in this spiritual Israel in verse 8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”  He makes this same point in Galatians 3:7-9, “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”

Paul had been building up to this point in the whole book of Romans.  The church of Rome had split into groups of both Jewish and Gentile home churches.  There was much fighting and ethnic issues between the two groups (Rom. 14:1-15:13).  Paul needed to show them how they are now one body, both Jew and Gentile, in the church of Christ.  He starts with creating a figurative circumcision and Jew in Rom. 2:28-29, “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.”  This would have been radical enough if Paul stopped there, but he didn’t.  He went on in chapter 4 to declare that there are figurative descendants of Abraham.  As we saw from Galatians, these spiritual descendants are both Jew and Gentile, and are only Abraham’s children due to their faith in Jesus.

So, if we have figurative circumcision, Jews, and Abraham’s children, the next step was just a logical progression:  we can have a figurative (or spiritual) Israel.  This does NOT mean that there is no longer a physical Israel, or that it isn’t important.  In chapters 9 – 11, Paul continues to go back and forth from the physical Jews to spiritual Israel.  I believe that this teaching of Paul’s is one reason that replacement theologians went in the direction that they did.  They had solid Biblical truth in the concept of spiritual Israel.  The real questions however are: 1) how does the teaching of spiritual Israel affect God’s current plans for the Jewish people?; and 2) how does the concept of spiritual Israel affect our interpretation of the fulifillment of Old Testament predictions?  As we saw already, replacement theology sees spiritual Israel as completely replacing physical Israel, therefore God is only focusing on the spiritual Israel in New Testament times, and all Old Testament predictions not fulfilled already in history or Jesus, should be applied to the church.

Let’s tackle the question on Old Testament predictions first, and then we can deal with God’s overall redemptive plan in the next post.  If all Old Testament predictions were fulfilled either in a literal or figurative way, we would have an easy job.  Unfortunately, the Bible just doesn’t do that.  Some predictions have a very literal fulfillment, which is exactly what we would expect to happen.  For example, Micah 5:2 predicts that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born in Bethlehem, and in Matthew 2:1-6, that is exactly what happened.  However, in Amos 9:11-12, Amos predicts that “David’s shelter” will be rebuilt, Jerusalem will be restored, and that they will possess the surrounding nations.  We would expect this to be fulfilled in a literal way.  In Acts 15:12-21, James, the brother of Jesus, stands up and declares that Amos’s prediction has been fulfilled through the Gentile inclusion in the church.  This means that there is a figurative or spiritual fulifillment of Amos in that God is buidling up the spiritual Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26).

The dilemma then is how do we know if an Old Testament prediction will have a literal or a figurative/spiritual fulfillment?  The real answer is that unless the New Testament specifically gives us the fulfillment, we can’t be 100% sure.  Remember how sure the disciples and Jews were about how they thought the predictions about the Messiah would be fulfilled.  They were all looking to a physical king who would come and kick out the Romans and reestablish Israel, and so they missed Jesus and his true mission often.  Hindsight is always 20/20 when it comes to Biblical predictions.  Isaiah 11:11 could have a literal fulfillment in God regathering the Jews, or it could have a figurative one.  We will have to find another way to make our decision on which one is right.  Don’t you love cliffhangers?  Tune in next time, when we tackle that issue.  It will take us to the ultimate big picture question: how does Israel fit into the overall redemptive plan of God for all time?  Easy, right?

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.

Older Entries
Newer Entries