October 30, 2009
WWGHA (Chapter 18)
You can read Chapter Eighteen here.
Now we are really getting to the crux of the matter. Prayer and the Bible are important, but the question, “Who is Jesus?” is the thing on which everything else hangs.
This chapter is a very short introduction, and while I agree that Jesus claims to be God, I disagree on the author’s other point.
In Matthew 11 most agree that what John is inquiring about is not whether Jesus is God, but whether He is the Messiah (Greek: Christos). In Hebrew thought there were two Messiahs that were going to come: one to suffer and die under a curse, and another to triumphantly lead Israel out of captivity and slavery. Certain signs were supposed to accompany this Messiah, and that seems to be what John is asking about. The idea that the Messiah was actually God was not a common belief.
Besides this, finite miracles cannot prove an infinite God. That is, even the most impressive miracles don’t strictly speaking require an infinite God; all they require is a really, really powerful being. So, miracles can’t act as a logical proof of divinity by themselves. (Thanks to the Rev. Dr. Rob Sanders for teaching me this point.)
This makes very little difference for our present point though, since I heartily agree that Jesus claims in no uncertain terms to be God. It may, however, make a difference later in how we interpret certain passages, so I wanted to clarify.
WWGHA (Chapter 17)
You can read Chapter 17 here.
The majority of this chapter is a review, so I won’t have a lot to say. However, there is one point I’d like to respond to. The author writes,
But what if you need still more proof? If so, then here is a question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn’t a book written by God leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn’t you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight?
Instead, opening the Bible inevitably creates a feeling of dumbfoundment. Have you ever noticed that? Instead of brilliance, much of the Bible contains nonsense. The topics of the previous several chapters, where we discussed the Bible’s advocacy of slavery and animal sacrifice, the Bible’s misogyny and so on, are excellent examples. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can open the Bible to almost any page and find nonsense instead of wisdom.
As to why the Bible doesn’t leave many with this feeling (I am one for whom it does, from time to time at least), there may be a few good answers.
- It’s been around almost 2,000 years (the Old Testament longer, of course), so much of the wonder may very well have worn off for some.
- It tells us things from time to time that we don’t want to hear (like we don’t get to do whatever we want), and so that might cause us to look down on it somewhat.
- Ultimately the point of the Bible isn’t to impress or astound us, but to lead us into a relationship with God. (The Bible isn’t God trying to “prove Himself” to us.)
- Most of the most profound things it says (like God’s plan to save mankind through Jesus from the mess we’ve made) require knowing the whole story and can’t be summed up in a few words (i.e. the most profound things aren’t soundbites).
Many of the verses the author thinks irrelevant (like Psalm 89) I think are very relevant and powerfully moving. However, it may not be worth arguing for that. Instead I’ll conclude with three “soundbites” that I hope you find as astounding as I do. If you need some context for them, please let me know. Also, please let me know if you want more; I’m only giving 3 so things don’t take too long to read.
Romans 8:18-23
18 Yet what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.
1st Corinthians 13
1 If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. 3 If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5 or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. 6 It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. 7 Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.
8 Prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will become useless. But love will last forever! 9 Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! 10 But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless.
11 When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. 12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
13 Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.
John 17
1 After saying all these things, Jesus looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so he can give glory back to you. 2 For you have given him authority over everyone. He gives eternal life to each one you have given him. 3 And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth. 4 I brought glory to you here on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began.
6 “I have revealed you to the ones you gave me from this world. They were always yours. You gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything I have is a gift from you, 8 for I have passed on to them the message you gave me. They accepted it and know that I came from you, and they believe you sent me.
9 “My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. 10 All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory. 11 Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are. 12 During my time here, I protected them by the power of the name you gave me. I guarded them so that not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction, as the Scriptures foretold.
13 “Now I am coming to you. I told them many things while I was with them in this world so they would be filled with my joy. 14 I have given them your word. And the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to this world any more than I do. 17 Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. 19 And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth.
20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. 23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me. 24 Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began!
25 “O righteous Father, the world doesn’t know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me. 26 I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so. Then your love for me will be in them, and I will be in them.”
WWGHA (Chapter 16)
You can read Chapter Sixteen here.
I think this chapter is better answered by specifically addressing in turn each passage the author mentions.
Matthew 2
This was a horrendous massacre by Herod, and I have no idea why God allowed it to happen. He certainly could have stopped it, but chose to allow it. I have faith that something greater was accomplished than was lost, but I certainly don’t have any rational argument proving what it was. It is also important that we maintain the distinction between God allowing and God doing. This was allowed by God, but not done by Him.
Exodus 12:28
Though it was God who did the killing, at least part of the blame (and I say this not to excuse God, but to give the full account) lies with the Egyptians refusing to free the Israelites even when given ample opportunity and evidence that it was God’s will. With this one it is easier to come up with an account of the redeeming value (it led to the freeing of the Israelites, it acted as a sign for the seriousness of disobeying God, etc.) Even so, it is heartbreaking and difficult to understand because, it seems, God could have accomplished those things in some other way.
As a quick aside, we don’t know what happened to these children after they died. Were they brought into relationship with God? Did this keep them from following their parents and leaders in rebellion, ultimately saving them? Now this is just speculation, but the presence of an afterlife sort of “reframes” the significance of the death of the body. It doesn’t necessarily carry the same stong as it would if there were no afterlife. This doesn’t provide an answer of course, but it does help us keep an eye on the larger picture.
Isaiah 13
This is one of the many Old Testament passages warning about the seriousness of rejecting God and the result of that. This prophesy is against Babylon, which was one of the most murderous and perverse nations. Most explain this passage in terms of God bringing about justice and punishing those who have done evil. I’m not comfortable with this at all, but I understand the importance of justice. Ultimately, peace, goodness and love require that all injustice be answered.
One of the keys to understanding this is to understand that part of what Jesus was doing on the cross was taking the penalty of justice so that we wouldn’t have to. That is, He suffered both so that we wouldn’t have to ultimately suffer and so that, if we suffer in the mean time, we can be empowered to forgive and love those who cause the suffering. So, all the warnings about the penalty of our rebellion don’t have to come true for us; if we’ll allow it, Jesus’s death can stand in the place of our death. I’m not so idealistic as to thing that this answers all doubts and neatly ends debate, but if we forget this we fail to see a key piece of the puzzle.
Jeremiah 49:20 and Hosea 13
Similar to previous response.
Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 3
At least part of what’s going on here is this. The nations for which God commands all be killed are involved in witchcraft, murder, child-sacrifice, idolatry, etc. If Israel let people live, the nation ended up practicing the same kind of things (see Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 20:16-18 for God’s warning about this). Psalm 106:34-40 provides an example of this actually happening. The thought seems to be that this was necessary to keep safe those who were trying to follow God and behave rightly. Additionally, God will spare a nation if it repents (Jonah 3:10).
Noah’s Flood
My comments on this are similar to my response to the passages directly above. That is, we have to give a substantial place to God’s justice and the importance of submission to Him (i.e. embracing goodness). That being said, we couldn’t be human (or godly) without seriously wrestling with these things.
WWGHA (Chapter 15)
You can read Chapter Fifteen here.
In what follows I hope to provide a clear account of the Bible’s teaching on men and women. I believe this account will reveal that God loves and values men and women equally, but perhaps gives them different roles to play. I’m aware that many will understand this to be misogynistic and/or sexist even if it is clear that there is no inferiority-superiority at work. I’m afraid I don’t have a response to that. My goal is simply to refute the author’s claim that, “God seems to have a major problem with women.”
We read in Genesis 2 that woman (Eve) was made out of man’s (Adam’s) rib. What seems to be in view is that Eve “proceeds from” or “comes to exist” out of Adam. This certainly means that man holds a special place with regards to woman, but does it require that she is lesser than he is? Here it is helpful to look at the Trinity. The orthodox understanding is that though the Son proceeds from or is begotten from the Father, the Son is no less God, no less worthy of glory, no less important, etc. In fact, the Son plays an essential role in the activity of God. So, we cannot conclude that woman is less than man, worth less, etc. And she too has an essential part to play in creation.
Now a lot of people get messed up because Eve is called a “helper” to Adam; they think this means his role is central and hers is secondary. All that seems to be in view here is that: 1) Adam is lonely and is “missing something” in his life, and 2) the task of organizing and ruling creation is a big one, too big for one person, and 3) He can’t have kids by himself. So, Eve is created. The end of Genesis 1 links mankind being created in the image of God and the creation od both males and females. Clearly, women are essential is mankind is going to fully reflect the image of God and accomplish what God has set for us. In fact, the same word for “helper” is used about God several times (Psalm 70:5 is one example). Clearly there is not an implicit inferiority.
Next we get to Genesis 3 and the Fall, and Eve is stricken with the pain of childbirth and the promise that the man “shall rule over [her].” Two points here. First, the author’s assertion that Adam is not punished is false; he is to toil in pain against a curse so that the ground will produce food. Second, we see here an explicit mention of man’s tendency to dominate women as an effect of the Fall; it is not God’s desire. Thus, as Christians, we cannot understand patriarchy and all its related abuses as God’s will. We understand it as the result of sin that, as God re-establishes His kingdom, will fall away. The abuses we see are a product of evil, not good.
I need to make one confession here. The vast majority of the Church for the vast majority of history has gotten this issue almost completely wrong. So wrong, in fact, that many will question whether the reading I’m giving is actually there or if it simply me imposing an “enlightened” perspective onto the Biblical text. In what follows I hope to show a trajectory (as I did in the case of slavery) from the culture of the day, to the Old Testament, to the New Testament of increasing honor, respect and privilege for women. This would be evidence that, even though the Church has gotten it wrong a lot (partly because of the Fall, no doubt), the Scriptures tell a very different story. I would also like to apologize to any woman who has been offended, marginalized, abused or in any way mistreated by Christians. Please know that those actions certainly were not God’s will.
In the Old Testament we see that women were afforded few rights, and the vast majority of people regarded them as inferior. Now it is true that the Old Testament Law provided women a safety and security they would not have found anywhere else (and I don’t want to understate how important this is), but certainly it is a far cry from ideal. That being said, I’d like to briefly contend two of the author’s points.
- The author mentions how men are given a sign of the covenant (circumcision), but women are not. He concludes that women are not part of the covenant, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. Multiple women are praised for their faith (Miriam, Rahab and Deborah both come to mind). Deborah was a prophetess and a Judge (Judges 4), roles the Israelites would not have given to someone outside of the family of God. And she wasn’t the only one; the Old Testament has several references to prophetesses, women acting as the very mouths of God. It is peculiar that there was not a sign of the covenant for them (many argue that they were included in the covenant through their father), but one cannot conclude they were outside of the covenant.
- The author says that no books of the Bible were written by women. That may be true. It is not clear who wrote Ruth and Esther. However, having two books of the Old Testament with women as the main and title character was radically counter-cultural, evidence of the trajectory I spoke of earlier.
Moving on to the New Testament and Jesus we find an increased role and respect for women despite the culture of the day (Hebrew, Greek and Roman) being decidedly anti-women. Here is just a brief survey of what the New Testament says about women.
- The Holy Spirit enters both women and men (Acts 2:18).
- Paul refers to Tabitha as a disciple (Acts 9:36).
- Women prophesy (Acts 21:9).
- Paul refers to Phoebe as a deaconess (Romans 16:1).
- Paul refers to Priscilla as a coworker of his (Romans 16:3).
- Paul refers to Junia as an Apostle (Romans 16:7). *NOTE* – this translation is sometimes contested.
- In Christ there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28).
While we’re at it, let’s address a few of the author’s misconceptions about the New Testament.
- John 20:17 doesn’t have anything to do with Mary being a woman. The word is better translated “cling” than touch. The point seems to be that Mary is not to try to hold Jesus back or get the wrong idea and think that He is staying on the earth. There is nothing to support the author’s reading, and the author can’t make sense of how, if this were the case, Jesus would have chosen to reveal Himself to women first (which is a huge, huge deal!).
- When mentioning Ephesians 5:22-24 the author fails to put the passage in context. The previous verse says that everyone should be in submission to everyone else, and the next verse says that men are to love their wives, “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.” Clearly mutual submission and sacrificial love are supposed to characterize a marriage, particularly the actions of the husband.
- There is a good case to be made that 1 Peter 3:7 refers to the fact that, on average, women are physically weaker than men. In any event, one would have to present quite an argument to get this verse to support anything like the author’s main thesis.
So why, given all this, does Paul say things like “I do not permit women to teach,” and the like? Here you will get two radically different answers, and Christianity is largely divided on how to interpret the Bibles on this issue (i.e. both perspectives are widely supported).
One line of thought goes that, at the time Paul was writing, women were largely uneducated, to the extent that most could not read. The byproduct of this was that they were unfit to teach (not as women, but as uneducated people). One counter-cultural thing Paul did was to allow women to attend the same church meetings as men; thus, they could learn and grow in the faith.
The other line of thought is that God has given certain functions to women and certain functions to men, not because of an inequality of ability or worth, but for some other reason (I leave this vague because this is the place most fall back on the “mysteries” of God). Thus, while allowing for exceptions (like Deborah in the Old Testament, and some of the New Testament women mentioned above), the primary teaching and leadership duties are for men.
I’m not going to go into the intricacies of the two views, nor will I make a case for one over the other. What I will do is to conclude with some of the things both camps agree on. These are enough to show that, Biblically speaking, God does not have a problem with women.
- Women are not less intelligent, less respectable, less worthy of honor, less valuable, less useful, or less spiritual than men.
- God loves men and women equally, and has given an essential role for each to play.
- God, though referred to in the masculine, is not a man. In fact, both masculinity and femininity find their root in Him. (For a good survey of the Biblical, feminine imagery of God, go here.)
October 23, 2009
WWGHA (Chapter 14)
You can read Chapter Fourteen here.
In this chapter the author touches upon both animal sacrifice in the Old Testament and human sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) in the New Testament. The first thing to note is that Christianity does not advocate human sacrifice in the way that term is traditionally used. It is not a regular practice to be done continually; only one man had to die. It was not forced upon an unwilling victim, nor was it the dominant belief of the day; Jesus was willing and was the only one who understood why this needed to happen. This was not the sacrifice of a virgin in order to buy the loyalties of a deity; the Jews believed they were killing a blasphemer and the Romans, by all accounts, were just trying to keep the peace. Finally, this sacrifice was not simply the death of a man, it was also (in some way) the death of God. So, at the start we have to separate the death of Jesus from the vast majority of human sacrifice in other religions; whatever this was, it was a different thing (more will be said about this in my response to Chapter 21).
The most important thing we need to understand is why Jesus had to die. We need to understand what was going on. Only then can we decide if this was the irrational requirement of an insane God for his own pleasure or if it was the ultimate act of self-sacrifice for our sake. Toward this end I will describe, as best as I understand it, what is going on with Jesus’ death. This will be a fairly long process, and I’ll provide as much evidence as I can. From there, you’ll have to decide if this sounds like the plan of a belligerent, insane deity or of a loving God.
So, why did God create humans? Logically speaking it could not have been out of any need or lack, because a perfect God doesn’t lack anything. On the other hand He couldn’t have created us arbitrarily, because a perfect, rational God doesn’t act arbitrarily. All the Bible says is that we were created for Him (Colossians 1:16) and that He has a plan for us (Genesis 1:26-28).
What does it mean that we were created in His image? Here you’ll get a lot of different answers, but most agree that it at least means: rationality, creativity, limitless potential, ability to appreciate beauty, freedom, ability to love, social nature, ability to organize ourselves and our world, authority over parts of creation, ability to communicate, conscience, self-consciousness, will, morality, personality, responsibility, inherent value. Humans are existing with all these things and getting to meet with God face-to-face as He provides everything they need (Genesis 2).
So now we move on to the Fall (Genesis 3), and I won’t get too caught up in how exactly things went down (i.e. what parts are literal and what parts are metaphorical). The point seems to be that mankind began to doubt that what God says was true and began to worry that perhaps He was holding them back from greater knowledge (they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) that would make them like Him. So, rather than continuing to be dependent on Him, they decided they would choose independence (though they certainly didn’t understand the magnitude of their decision).
So why did this choice lead to the destruction, pain and suffering that Christians say it did? Here we need to bring in a little St. Augustine. Augustine argued that everything that has being, everything that exists, is good. This makes sense given that God is the creator of everything. How then do we explain evil? Augustine says that evil is the privation, or absence, of goodness. That is, something is evil when it ceases to be good; evil is not a force in and of itself. So, to rebel against God (as Adam and Eve did) is to choose death and destruction; it is to literally choose to cease existing since only those things which are good, which are in line with the will of God, exist. So, in this choice, they rejected all of the ways in which they were created in the image of God, damaging severely all of the beautiful things God has given them (listed above). This is why we see the promise of death following Adam and Eve’s rebellion (Genesis 2:17). And, because they had been given authority over the rest of creation, their actions had effects on it as well (Romans 8:20-21).
This story immediately leads to two questions: 1) Why did Adam and Eve continue to live? and 2) Why is there a devil and demons if evil doesn’t, strictly speaking, exist? I’ll answer question 1) as it pertains directly to Jesus’ death. I’ll leave 2) alone, but if you’d like an answer let me know.
What we see is that Adam and Eve started a process that, if not stopped, would ultimately lead to the complete annihilation of all of creation (I really don’t mean for this to sound as melodramatic as it does, but there’s no other way to communicate it). This means that, instead of being immortal, they are now alive but dying. They have chosen death, and it is slowly taking them. The beautiful thing (and a witness to the fact that they have not completely destroyed the image of God within themselves) is that they recognize this and want to side with God. And God provides a way.
We see God kill animals to provide garments for them so they wouldn’t have to feel shame (Genesis 3:21). Why garments of skin and not wool, for instance? Here is where I will venture into speculation. I can’t cite a verse to prove this, but I see it as the only way of making the whole story consistent. God killed animals because, if Adam and Eve were to survive death, they must be clothed in life. In this case, what might have been a literal covering of the body is also operating at a deeper level; their lives are being “covered”, protected. It is from this point of view that I will talk about animal sacrifice in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 17:11 (NIV) says,
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.
We can begin to see that animal sacrifice is not for the mere pleasure of a murderous deity. Rather, it is because life is the only thing that can stave off death. This helps us understand various passages in Scripture that cannot be made sense of by the author’s understanding of animal sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22 and Psalm 40:6 are two examples).
Thus, animal sacrifice was not the arbitrary requirement of God for His pleasure. Rather, it was the only way for humans not to die as they waited for the effects of their actions to be undone. Sacrifice is for us, not for God. And He takes no delight in it.
So, why don’t Christians sacrifice animals? The short answer is they don’t need to. For a longer answer I’m going to post the text of the beginning of Hebrews 10. Please read it, as I believe it supports what I have already said and provides the necessary bridge to the death of Jesus.
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ “ First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.” Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.” And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
So it is only the sacrifice of Jesus that can fully and finally put an end to death, undo the damage we did to ourselves and restore right relationship between God and man. Why? Because He is fully man and fully God.
Remember, mankind was made in the image of God and given authority over creation. And we messed it up . . . really badly. But because God gave mankind this authority and can’t take it back, it had to be one of us who, by living rightly and dying, undid things. And it is only by being infinite God that He could fully conquer death and, uniting humanity with divinity, restore what was lost between God and man.
I know that I moved through the story really quickly, and didn’t spell out everything fully or demonstrate all the logical connections. My goal was just to give the underlying story behind sacrifice in a way that helped make sense of it (no other religion has a detailed explanation that I’m aware of). Please ask as many questions as you want; I’ll do my best to answer them. From there it’s up to you to decide whether you can rationally accept it.
WWGHA (Chapter 13)
You can read Chapter Thirteen here.
The author cites several passages from the Old and New Testaments trying to build the case that God is pro-slavery. I will go passage-by-passage first, responding to the author’s comments. I will then conclude with some general remarks.
Genesis 17:12
The author says it is clear that God is comfortable with slavery, but that is simply one interpretation (and not a good one) of the fact that God simply does not question the morality of slavery in this passage. As we shall see later, there are other possible reasons for God not questioning the morality of slavery here, ones that are most consistent with the rest of Scripture.
Additionally, in this passage God commands that slaves be circumcised. Circumcision is the sign of the Covenant; it is a mark that you are included in the family of God. Slaves are included in the family of God! This certainly dispels any notion that they are not regarded as persons.
Exodus 12:43
Same deal.
Exodus 21:1
Here is a list of commands about how slaves are to be set free after a number of years, how they are to leave with everything/everyone that came with and nothing more, and regulations about how someone can become a slave for life if that person so chooses. These laws are part of the regulations ensuring the rights of slaves long before it was “popular” or common to do so. Therefore, they represent a counter-cultural rebuke of the abuse of slaves.
Exodus 21:20
This shows that a slave is a person whose life matters. I don’t like the latter part of the verse because its vagueness might allow abuses. Given that slavery was, on the whole, something people chose rather than being forced into, I don’t have a problem with slaves being punished (in the same way that workers might be punished).
Exodus 21:32
This verse doesn’t “place a value on slaves” any more than the courts awarding a widow money places a value on her husband. Rather, it is an attempt to award someone for their loss.
Leviticus 22:10
This verse is about special privileges afforded to slaves, further proof of their value and status as persons.
Leviticus 25:44
This is the clearest passage in support of the author’s point, and I don’t have a good response to it. Some of the general remarks I make at the end may shed a different light on this verse.
Luke 7:2
Jesus heals a slave here. His silence about the morality of slavery is not best understood as consent, which is the point I made about the passage in Genesis.
Colossians 3:22 and Titus 2:9
Given that Paul and Jesus often encourage faithful obedience even in unjust circumstances (1 Corinthians 6:7 and Matthew 5:39 are two examples), we can’t take this verse as condoning slavery.
Now, some thoughts.
- The author fails to mention the New Testament book of Philemon in which Paul exhorts Philemon to release his slave, Onesimus. We have to weigh this as we try to discover what the Biblical message about slavery is.
- The author also fails to mention several other passages that are important. I’ll only give a few examples. Exodus 20:21 says that slaves are to have the same Sabbath (day of rest) as everyone else. Exodus 21:26-27 says that slaves who have an eye permanently injured or have a tooth knocked out must be set free. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says that a slave who escapes is to be given refuge, nor returned to their master.
- The author seems to treat the Bible as a book that is supposed to tell us exactly what to do in every situation. He approaches the text as if it were a philosophical treatise on Ethics and reads accordingly. Under this interpretive lens, it makes sense that God failing to condemn slavery is tantamount to condoning it. However, I do not think this is the best way to approach Scripture for several reasons.
- This is not how the early Church read Scripture, nor is it how most Christians approach Scripture today.
- This view of Scripture cannot make sense of the Psalms, Jesus’ parables, and many other pieces of Scripture.
- If this were the purpose of Scripture, even primitive men not inspired by the Holy Spirit could have done a better job at making the moral precepts clear. Most of the Bible does not read as a rule book.
All of this being the case, it is still true that parts of the Bible (the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.) gives us moral precepts to act upon. And many of the verses discussing slavery art part of the Law, meaning they were precepts from God to the people of the time. So, how are we to understand God not condemning slavery? Here’s a thought experiment that I think might give us one way of understanding the Bible on this matter.
Suppose you are a parent of a rebellious son. He skips school, beats up other kids, steals from your wallet, etc. You want to have a healthy relationship with your son, and you want your son to do the right things. If you devote all of your time to telling him what to do and not to do, addressing every circumstance, he will begin to resent you and won’t be able to adjust all of the behaviors anyway. If, however, you give the kid a shorter list of things to do and not do, help him do them, and only add more little by little, there’s a chance of actual growth and relationship.
This is what I believe God is doing with us in the Bible. There is no way He could address every moral issue with us without causing us harm and inciting rebellion. So, He picks and chooses (in a way only an omniscient, perfectly loving Father could do), and puts up with our other bad behaviors for the time being.
Why believe that slavery is a case like this? Well, before the law there were little to no restrictions on how slaves could be treated; there was phenomenal injustice. With the law we see limits on the injustice and a pushing of the view that these slaves are humans. In the New Testament, we see Paul encouraging the release of a slave. So what we see in the history of Scripture is a trajectory toward the abolition of slavery. I would argue that this is a better indicator of God’s view on slavery, not His failure to condemn it in specific passages.
- As my last point, I’d like to point out that most (but not all) of the “slavery” in Biblical times was more like indentured servitude than what we know as slavery in America. Thus, it is very difficult to take the Biblical passages on slavery/servitude and apply them to the slavery in the history of our nation.
If you would like to read more about slavery in the Bible, I suggest the website below.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html
All this being said, some Christians approach the Bible the same way the author does, making it easy for critics to misunderstand how the Bible has been read for thousands of years. For this, I am truly sorry. It is also the case that some Christians (and some non-Christians as well) resisted the abolition of slavery. For this, I am sorry as well. The “Christian approach” is certainly to fight for the abolition of slavery and injustice, as William Wilberforce and many Christians did in Britain in the late 1700 – early 1800′s.
October 12, 2009
WWGHA (Chapter 12)
You can read Chapter Twelve here.
There isn’t a lot to respond to here. I agree with much of the author’s characterization, but I have a few disagreements that are significant. I will state them briefly now and flush them out as need be as I respond to future chapters.
- There is great disagreement among Christians on whether or not the Bible is “error-free”.
- Most Christians believe that the Bible is both the work of God and the work of men. They don’t view these as being contradictory. Good interpretation rests on figuring out in what sense the Scriptures are human and in what sense they are divine.
- Assuming a Biblical understanding of the word “law”, the Bible is not the law of the Lord. It contains the law of the Lord, but it also contains much more (parables, encouragement, etc.)
WWGHA (Chapter 11)
You can read Chapter Eleven here.
As this chapter is a review of what has come before, there are not any new points to respond to. Thus, my response to this chapter is contained in my response to the previous chapters.
WWGHA (Chapter 10)
You can read Chapter Ten here.
I agree with the author completely; most “battlefield prayers” are very poor evidence for the existence of God. I have heard a few examples where something clearly miraculous supposedly happened, but most stories seem to be easily explainable by coincidence. That doesn’t mean God isn’t involved; it just means we can’t conclude that based on the stories alone.
The author’s assertion that the ratio is proof that prayer doesn’t work is also suspect. The author hasn’t proven that certain prayers weren’t answered; he’s merely shown that there isn’t a good argument for the effectiveness of prayer. Also, you can’t infer a universal negative (no prayers work) from a particular negative (these prayers didn’t work).
As far as the “unconscionable arrogance” I just don’t buy it. I have never met someone who thought God saved them because they were His favorite, or they prayed hard enough, or etc. Nor have I met very many who would argue that God hated those whose prayers did not seem to get answered. This is simply not the spirit of the people who have their prayers answered.
In our joy, however, we do need to be careful not to offend or hurt those who have suffered great loss. The author is right about how this comes off to those who are suffering.
October 4, 2009
WWGHA (Chapter 9)
You can read Chapter Nine here.
This entire chapter is based on a faulty and unbiblical notion of prayer, which I have argued in an earlier chapter. Rather than repeating all that again, I will simply make a few observations about each of the author’s thought experiments. My main case against this chapter, however, is found in my response to Chapter Two (found here).
As far as the “two people praying for opposites” thought experiment, it is uncharitable to think that the authors of Scripture weren’t aware that this happens. In fact, Judaism arose in the context of polytheism, meaning the idea of “competing prayers” was a way of life. So, whatever the Bible promises about prayer, it cannot be reasonably thought to “commit” God to breaking the laws of logic.
With regards to the “casino” example, similar thoughts apply. The authors who God used to pen the Biblical promises would not have experienced anything like the casino phenomenon. So, there is no reason to think that that was what they intended to communicate by what they wrote.
Thus, I will not make use of the “cop outs” the author mentions at the beginning of the second to last section. I don’t need to because the author has misunderstood the Bible. As far as the point about the laws of probability, the author says this.
Another believer might say, “God can not bend the laws of probability, in the same way that he cannot bend the laws of nature. If God was constantly bending the laws of probability, they would not be laws anymore.” That makes sense, but that is not what Jesus said.
It’s worth noting three things.
- The author’s only rebuttal is based on a misunderstanding of the Biblical text. Therefore, for the time being at least, the believer’s response stands.
- It may very well be (and this is just a thought, not a proof of any kind) that God works in and through the law of probability. That is, just as we saw in the last chapter that God uses all things to accomplish His plan, perhaps He uses the law of probability to the same end. It could also be that, in the cases of things like cancer, the “cure rate” would be lower if God did not miraculously intervene.
- C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity argues that certain things (the nature of matter, physical laws, etc.) need to be fixed in general in order to allow for meaningful interaction and free will. It could be that the law of probability falls into this category as well.
That being said, God at least occasionally violates the laws of nature (e.g. the Resurrection of Jesus, the healing of the blind, etc.), so we should expect at least some of our prayers to do the same. And I know that at least some do. We cannot, however, expect what the author argues Christians should. That is not the nature of the promise.
