Many laws in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) relate to diet and hygiene for the Hebrew people. Theologians for centuries thought that these merely served a ceremonial function or formed a cultural barrier to separate Israel from the surrounding pagan cultures. However, with the rise of modern medicine and the germ theory of disease in the nineteenth century, it was recognized that obeying these laws also confers important health benefits. These commands are unique compared with the health practices of neighboring cultures in Old Testament times, suggesting that God inspired Moses in giving these laws. Moreover, they show that God's rules are not arbitrary and that He has our best interests at heart.
Laws instructing people to wash after touching the dead or sick (Lv 13-15; Nm 19), to properly dispose of excrement and blood (Lv 17:13; Dt 23:12-13), and to isolate (quarantine) diseased individuals and anything that they touch (Lv 13) are extremely effective at limiting the spread of disease. Modern medicine has also shown that circumcision brings a health benefit-the wives of circumcised men have a much lower risk of contracting cervical cancer because the lack of a foreskin reduces the male's ability to harbor and transmit the human papillomavirus. Interestingly, the study of blood clotting factor levels in newborns has also shown that circumcision on the eighth day-the age prescribed to Abraham (Gn 17:12)-is the safest time in a male's life to have this surgery.
As our understanding of germs and parasites improves, the Old Testament prohibitions against eating unclean animals, or even associating with them, receive increasing medical verification. For example, people commonly argue that we no longer need to treat pigs as unclean because we now know how to cook pork well. However, modern research on the flu virus shows that most new deadly strains of influenza arise under conditions where people are in close contact with pigs and birds. Pigs function as a bridge between the bird and human forms of influenza; thus new deadly flu outbreaks usually originate in China, Hong Kong, and other areas where people live in close proximity to pigs.
The medical benefits of many other commandments are well known, even if modern culture is not inclined to obey them. For example, avoiding adultery and fornication is the best way to protect oneself against sexually transmitted diseases (Ex 20:14; Pr 5); avoiding addictions will spare one from alcohol, drug, and tobacco related diseases (Pr 20:1; 23:19-21,29-35); and prayer, meditation, and treating others fairly minimize the damaging effects of stress (Lv 19:13-18; Ps 23; 27:1-3;91:3-7). Modern medicine shows that "living by the Book" brings many practical blessings, just as God promised (Ex 15:26), which makes it all the more reasonable to trust God regarding promised spiritual blessings.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Does the Bible Provide Ethical Guidance for Business? By Scott B. Rae
Scripture has much to say about economic life, and that teaching encompasses more than simply personal finance. Here's a summary of the Bible's ethical guidance for business.
First, God calls men and women to business. In Genesis 1-2 God ordains work as part of His calling to Adam and Eve. They were intended to work the garden as a part of their role in exercising dominion over creation. Work has intrinsic value and is the way in which human beings fulfill the ongoing mandate to subdue the earth. It wasn't instituted as a consequence of the entrance of sin into the world, though sin did serve to make work more taxing and difficult. From the beginning, work has been blessed by God. Thus His people working in business are doing His work in the world in the same way that a pastor is doing His work in the church. The Bible also calls people to work in order to support themselves and their families (2 Th 3:6-12; 1 Tm 5:8), to take care of the poor (Eph 4:28), to support the church and its outreaches (1 Co 16:1-3) and to provide a platform for sharing one's faith.
Second, the Bible teaches that business is to be run with, integrity. The Bible makes it clear that business is to be conducted honestly and is not to be used as a mechanism to exploit others, especially the vulnerable. The Mosaic Law contains numerous mandates regarding business integrity. For example, Leviticus 19:35 mandates that one's weights and measures be accurate-something very important in an agricultural society. Further, Proverbs makes clear that God demands integrity in one's business dealings (Pr 10:9; 11:1). The prophets demanded that those in business not use their resources to exploit the poor (Am 2:6-7; 4:1; Mc 6:10-12). The command to "act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God" applies to business and establishes values of justice, love, and humility that should govern one's business dealings (Mc 6:8). Jesus continued this emphasis in the NT. He instructed tax collectors to collect only what was prescribed (Lk 3:12-13), urged His hearers to take care of the poor (Mt 25:31-46), and taught that business is a legitimate enterprise if conducted with integrity (Mt 25:14-30). Likewise, the apostles suggested that work is necessary, that idleness is sinful, and that generosity for the - poor is not only virtuous but mandatory.
Third, the Bible condemns greed but condones an ambition for contentment. Greed motivates most of the unethical behavior in business today as ever. The Bible is clear that greed is a vice that needs to be put away once someone comes to faith in Christ (1 Co 6:10; Col 3:5). By contrast, contentment is a virtue to be cultivated (1 Tm 6:6-8). Paul made it clear that the love of money, not the mere possession of wealth, is the root of all kinds of evil. In the ancient world, it was not uncommon for someone to acquire wealth through means that exploited others. The notion that someone could do well financially and also do good for the community is relatively new, coming as a result of the emergence of capitalism-a system that itself cannot function well without a proper ethical foundation.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
First, God calls men and women to business. In Genesis 1-2 God ordains work as part of His calling to Adam and Eve. They were intended to work the garden as a part of their role in exercising dominion over creation. Work has intrinsic value and is the way in which human beings fulfill the ongoing mandate to subdue the earth. It wasn't instituted as a consequence of the entrance of sin into the world, though sin did serve to make work more taxing and difficult. From the beginning, work has been blessed by God. Thus His people working in business are doing His work in the world in the same way that a pastor is doing His work in the church. The Bible also calls people to work in order to support themselves and their families (2 Th 3:6-12; 1 Tm 5:8), to take care of the poor (Eph 4:28), to support the church and its outreaches (1 Co 16:1-3) and to provide a platform for sharing one's faith.
Second, the Bible teaches that business is to be run with, integrity. The Bible makes it clear that business is to be conducted honestly and is not to be used as a mechanism to exploit others, especially the vulnerable. The Mosaic Law contains numerous mandates regarding business integrity. For example, Leviticus 19:35 mandates that one's weights and measures be accurate-something very important in an agricultural society. Further, Proverbs makes clear that God demands integrity in one's business dealings (Pr 10:9; 11:1). The prophets demanded that those in business not use their resources to exploit the poor (Am 2:6-7; 4:1; Mc 6:10-12). The command to "act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God" applies to business and establishes values of justice, love, and humility that should govern one's business dealings (Mc 6:8). Jesus continued this emphasis in the NT. He instructed tax collectors to collect only what was prescribed (Lk 3:12-13), urged His hearers to take care of the poor (Mt 25:31-46), and taught that business is a legitimate enterprise if conducted with integrity (Mt 25:14-30). Likewise, the apostles suggested that work is necessary, that idleness is sinful, and that generosity for the - poor is not only virtuous but mandatory.
Third, the Bible condemns greed but condones an ambition for contentment. Greed motivates most of the unethical behavior in business today as ever. The Bible is clear that greed is a vice that needs to be put away once someone comes to faith in Christ (1 Co 6:10; Col 3:5). By contrast, contentment is a virtue to be cultivated (1 Tm 6:6-8). Paul made it clear that the love of money, not the mere possession of wealth, is the root of all kinds of evil. In the ancient world, it was not uncommon for someone to acquire wealth through means that exploited others. The notion that someone could do well financially and also do good for the community is relatively new, coming as a result of the emergence of capitalism-a system that itself cannot function well without a proper ethical foundation.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible
Who Wrote the Pentateuch and When Was It Written? By Daniel J. Block
Although Jewish and Christian tradition almost unanimously recognize Moses as author of the Pentateuch, few issues relating to the OT now are debated as hotly, and in few issues is the gulf between critical and evangelical scholarship so wide. Many conservative scholars continue to believe that Moses wrote virtually all of the Pentateuch with his own hand. So long as critical scholars recognized Moses as an historical figure, in principle his involvement in the composition of the Pentateuch was not excluded-unless, of course he was thought to be illiterate. However, from the middle of the nineteenth century A.D., especially following Julius Wellhausen, most critical scholars have rejected Moses having a significant role in the origin of the Pentateuch.
The questioning began early with doubts whether Moses recorded his own death and burial (Dt 34), knew of a place in northern Israel called Dan (Gn 14:14; cp. Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:28-29), or referred to the conquest of Canaan as having occurred in the past (Dt 2:12). Thus scholars developed an alternative explanation for the origin of the Pentateuch known as the Documentary Hypothesis. According to the classical form of the theory, the Pentateuch is the product of a long and complex literary, evolution, specifically incorporating at least four major literary strands composed independently over several centuries and not combined in the present form until the time of Ezra (fifth century B.C.). These sources are identified as J, E, D, and P. J represents a ninth century B.C. (c. 850) document that originated in Judah, distinguished by its preference for the name Yahweh (Jehovah, hence the "J"). The E source preferred the divine title Elohim, and theoretically was composed in Israel in the eighth century B.C. The D stands for Deuteronomy, supposedly written around 621 B.C. to lend support to Josiah's reforms. The priestly document, P, supposedly was composed c. 500 B.C. by priests seeking to preserve their own version of Israel's history. According to the theory, these sources were compiled and combined in the middle of the fifth century B.C. Nehemiah 8 recounts the moment when Ezra publicly read the Pentateuch as a unit for the first time. Because Joshua describes the fulfillment of the promises of land to the patriarchs and because of stylistic links to Deuteronomy, Gerhard von Rad added Joshua to the pentateuchal corpus, calling the six books the Hexateuch.
Variations of the Documentary Hypothesis prevailed for more than a century. However, due to advances in literary studies, today the state of pentateuchal scholarship is confused, with new theories or radical modifications appearing often. The new theories push the dates for pentateuchal origin ever later. R. N. Whybray argued that the Pentateuch is a unitary composition written in the fourth century B.C., inspired perhaps by the Greek Histories of Herodotus.
The internal evidence suggests that Moses kept a record of Israel's experiences in - the desert (Ex 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27; Nm 33:1,2; Dt 31:9,11). Furthermore, many statements in the OT credit the Pentateuch to Moses (e.g., Jos 1:8; 8:31,32; 1 Kg 2:3; 2 Kg 14:6; Ezr 6:18; Neh 13:1; Dn 9:11-13; Mal 4:4), and the NT identifies the Torah very closely with him (Mt 19:8; Jn 5:46,47; 7.19; Ac 3:22; Rm 10:5). A series of additional features within the text point to an early date for its composition: (1) the forms of the names and many of the actions of the patriarchs make best sense in a second - millennium B.C. environment; (2) the narratives suggest a thorough acquaintance with Egypt; (3) Egyptian loanwords appear with greater frequency in the Pentateuch than anywhere else in the OT; (4) the name Moses itself suggests an Egyptian setting for the story; (5) the general viewpoint of the narrative is foreign to Canaan; (6) the seasons are Egyptian; the flora and fauna are Egyptian and Sinaitic; (7) in some instances the geography reflects a foreign viewpoint (e.g., a comment like that found in Genesis 33:18, "the Canaanite city of Shechem," is unlikely after the exile because by then Israel had been in the land for 900 years); (8) and archaisms in the language (like the use of the third person singular pronoun, hi for both genders).
It is doubtful he wrote the account of his death in Deuteronomy 34. Frequently the text provides explanatory notes updating facts for a later audience, such as, "Esau (that is Edom)," in Genesis 36:1; the aboriginal inhabitants of the Transjordan, Deuteronomy 2:10-12. Furthermore, the form of the cursive Canaanite script that Moses probably used was still in its infancy and was replaced with the square Aramaic script in the postexilic period, and the vowels were added a millennium later. The archaic qualities of the poems (such as Gn 49; Ex 15) in contrast to the surrounding narrative suggests the latter may have been updated periodically in accordance with the evolution of the Hebrew language. This may explain why the grammar and syntax of Deuteronomy in its present form reads much like Jeremiah, who lived long after Moses. At the same time Moses could have used a scribe or secretary.
There is no reason to doubt that Moses wrote down the speeches he delivered (Dt 31:9-13), or that when he came down from Mount Sinai, he arranged for the transcription of the revelation he had received on the mountain, if he did not write it all himself. Just as the pieces of the tabernacle were constructed and woven by skilled craftsmen and finally assembled by Moses (Ex 35-40), so literary craftsmen may have composed some bits and pieces of the Pentateuch and submitted them to Moses, who then approved them. When exactly the Pentateuch achieved its present form we may only speculate (Dt suggests some time after the death of Moses), but it seems likely that by the time David organized the temple worship, the contents of the Torah were fixed.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
The questioning began early with doubts whether Moses recorded his own death and burial (Dt 34), knew of a place in northern Israel called Dan (Gn 14:14; cp. Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:28-29), or referred to the conquest of Canaan as having occurred in the past (Dt 2:12). Thus scholars developed an alternative explanation for the origin of the Pentateuch known as the Documentary Hypothesis. According to the classical form of the theory, the Pentateuch is the product of a long and complex literary, evolution, specifically incorporating at least four major literary strands composed independently over several centuries and not combined in the present form until the time of Ezra (fifth century B.C.). These sources are identified as J, E, D, and P. J represents a ninth century B.C. (c. 850) document that originated in Judah, distinguished by its preference for the name Yahweh (Jehovah, hence the "J"). The E source preferred the divine title Elohim, and theoretically was composed in Israel in the eighth century B.C. The D stands for Deuteronomy, supposedly written around 621 B.C. to lend support to Josiah's reforms. The priestly document, P, supposedly was composed c. 500 B.C. by priests seeking to preserve their own version of Israel's history. According to the theory, these sources were compiled and combined in the middle of the fifth century B.C. Nehemiah 8 recounts the moment when Ezra publicly read the Pentateuch as a unit for the first time. Because Joshua describes the fulfillment of the promises of land to the patriarchs and because of stylistic links to Deuteronomy, Gerhard von Rad added Joshua to the pentateuchal corpus, calling the six books the Hexateuch.
Variations of the Documentary Hypothesis prevailed for more than a century. However, due to advances in literary studies, today the state of pentateuchal scholarship is confused, with new theories or radical modifications appearing often. The new theories push the dates for pentateuchal origin ever later. R. N. Whybray argued that the Pentateuch is a unitary composition written in the fourth century B.C., inspired perhaps by the Greek Histories of Herodotus.
The internal evidence suggests that Moses kept a record of Israel's experiences in - the desert (Ex 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27; Nm 33:1,2; Dt 31:9,11). Furthermore, many statements in the OT credit the Pentateuch to Moses (e.g., Jos 1:8; 8:31,32; 1 Kg 2:3; 2 Kg 14:6; Ezr 6:18; Neh 13:1; Dn 9:11-13; Mal 4:4), and the NT identifies the Torah very closely with him (Mt 19:8; Jn 5:46,47; 7.19; Ac 3:22; Rm 10:5). A series of additional features within the text point to an early date for its composition: (1) the forms of the names and many of the actions of the patriarchs make best sense in a second - millennium B.C. environment; (2) the narratives suggest a thorough acquaintance with Egypt; (3) Egyptian loanwords appear with greater frequency in the Pentateuch than anywhere else in the OT; (4) the name Moses itself suggests an Egyptian setting for the story; (5) the general viewpoint of the narrative is foreign to Canaan; (6) the seasons are Egyptian; the flora and fauna are Egyptian and Sinaitic; (7) in some instances the geography reflects a foreign viewpoint (e.g., a comment like that found in Genesis 33:18, "the Canaanite city of Shechem," is unlikely after the exile because by then Israel had been in the land for 900 years); (8) and archaisms in the language (like the use of the third person singular pronoun, hi for both genders).
It is doubtful he wrote the account of his death in Deuteronomy 34. Frequently the text provides explanatory notes updating facts for a later audience, such as, "Esau (that is Edom)," in Genesis 36:1; the aboriginal inhabitants of the Transjordan, Deuteronomy 2:10-12. Furthermore, the form of the cursive Canaanite script that Moses probably used was still in its infancy and was replaced with the square Aramaic script in the postexilic period, and the vowels were added a millennium later. The archaic qualities of the poems (such as Gn 49; Ex 15) in contrast to the surrounding narrative suggests the latter may have been updated periodically in accordance with the evolution of the Hebrew language. This may explain why the grammar and syntax of Deuteronomy in its present form reads much like Jeremiah, who lived long after Moses. At the same time Moses could have used a scribe or secretary.
There is no reason to doubt that Moses wrote down the speeches he delivered (Dt 31:9-13), or that when he came down from Mount Sinai, he arranged for the transcription of the revelation he had received on the mountain, if he did not write it all himself. Just as the pieces of the tabernacle were constructed and woven by skilled craftsmen and finally assembled by Moses (Ex 35-40), so literary craftsmen may have composed some bits and pieces of the Pentateuch and submitted them to Moses, who then approved them. When exactly the Pentateuch achieved its present form we may only speculate (Dt suggests some time after the death of Moses), but it seems likely that by the time David organized the temple worship, the contents of the Torah were fixed.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Does the Bible Affirm Open Theism? By John M. Frame
A group of thinkers known as "open theists," such as Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, and William Hasker, seek to do justice to the give-and-take in Scripture between God and human beings. For example, in Exodus 32:7-10, God tells Moses He will destroy Israel for worshiping the golden calf and raise up a new nation from Moses himself. Moses intercedes, however, and in verse 14 God "Change His mind." God also seems to change his mind in several places, such as in Isaiah 38:1-5, where Isaiah prophesies that King Hezekiah will die, but in response to Hezekiah's repentance adds 15 years to his life. Another example is Jonah 3-4, where God retracts an announcement of judgment in response to Nineveh's repentance.
From these and other such passages, the open theists infer that God is a temporal being (not "above time," as in much traditional theology, but within time), that He changes His mind, that His plans are influenced by creatures, that He sometimes regrets actions that He has performed (as Gn 6:6), and that He does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future. In their view, God's regretting and relenting come - about because free human decisions are utterly undetermined and unpredictable. Therefore, God must adjust His plans to the free choices of human beings.
We should not ignore these "relenting" passages. On the other hand, we should also not forget the pervasive biblical emphasis on God's sovereign control of the world and His exhaustive knowledge of past, present, and future. God brings about natural events (Ps 65:9-11; 135:5-7), even apparently random ones (Pr 16:33). He controls the smallest details of nature (Mt 10:29-30). He governs human history (Is 10:5-12; 14:24-27; Ac 17:26). If someone dies accidentally, it is because "God caused it to happen" (Ex 21:12-13). Contrary to open theism, God brings about human free decisions, even sinful ones (Gn 45:5-8; Jdg 14:4; 2 Sm 24; Is 44:28; Lk 22:22; Ac 2:23-24; Rv 17:17). He hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21; 7:3), and others as well (Dt 2:30; Jos 11:18-20; 1 Sm 2:25; 2 Ch 25:20), for His own purposes (Rm 9:17). He is also the source of human faith (Jn 6:37,44,65; Ac 13:48; 16:14-15; 18:27; Eph 2:410; 2 Tm 1:9) and repentance (Zch 12:10; Ac 5:31; 11:18). So human freedom is not indeterminate as open theists maintain. We are free in that we do what we want to do, but behind our plans and desires are those of God (Jms 4:13-16).
In general, God "works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will" (Eph 1:11; cp. Lm 3:37-38; Rm 8:28; 11:33-36). And God cannot fail at anything He seeks to do (Ps 33:11; 115:3; 135:6; Pr 21:30; Is 14:27; 43:13; 46:10; 55:11; Dn 4:35; Rv 3:7).
Since God controls everything, He knows everything, including the future. Knowing the future is a test of a true prophet (Dt 18:22) and indeed of a true God (Is 41:21-23; 42:9; 43:9-12; 44:7; 48:3-7). Through His prophets God often predicts the future centuries in advance (as Gn 9:26-27). Contrary to the open theists, who think God cannot anticipate human free decisions, He often predicts human behavior in detail (1 Sm 10:1-7; Jr 37:6-10; Mt 26:34). He predicts the behavior and character of human beings in the distant future (1 Kg 13:1-4; Is 44:28-45:13).
How, then, should we understand God's "relenting"? For one thing, God states as a general policy in Jeremiah 18:5-10 that if He announces judgment and people repent, He will relent; He will do the same if He pronounces blessing and people do evil. In other words, relenting is part of God's unchanging plan, not a change forced on Him by His ignorance. Further, God is not only transcendent (beyond our experience) but also immanent (involved in our experience). He has dwelled on earth in the tabernacle and temple, in Christ, and in His general omnipresence (Ps 139:712). When God interacts with people in time, He does one thing, then another. He curses, then He blesses. His actions are in temporal sequence and are therefore, in one sense, changing. But these changes are the outworking of God's eternal plan, which does not change.
It is important, then, to see God as working from both above and below, in eternity and in time, and not only within time, as open theists propose.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
From these and other such passages, the open theists infer that God is a temporal being (not "above time," as in much traditional theology, but within time), that He changes His mind, that His plans are influenced by creatures, that He sometimes regrets actions that He has performed (as Gn 6:6), and that He does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future. In their view, God's regretting and relenting come - about because free human decisions are utterly undetermined and unpredictable. Therefore, God must adjust His plans to the free choices of human beings.
We should not ignore these "relenting" passages. On the other hand, we should also not forget the pervasive biblical emphasis on God's sovereign control of the world and His exhaustive knowledge of past, present, and future. God brings about natural events (Ps 65:9-11; 135:5-7), even apparently random ones (Pr 16:33). He controls the smallest details of nature (Mt 10:29-30). He governs human history (Is 10:5-12; 14:24-27; Ac 17:26). If someone dies accidentally, it is because "God caused it to happen" (Ex 21:12-13). Contrary to open theism, God brings about human free decisions, even sinful ones (Gn 45:5-8; Jdg 14:4; 2 Sm 24; Is 44:28; Lk 22:22; Ac 2:23-24; Rv 17:17). He hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21; 7:3), and others as well (Dt 2:30; Jos 11:18-20; 1 Sm 2:25; 2 Ch 25:20), for His own purposes (Rm 9:17). He is also the source of human faith (Jn 6:37,44,65; Ac 13:48; 16:14-15; 18:27; Eph 2:410; 2 Tm 1:9) and repentance (Zch 12:10; Ac 5:31; 11:18). So human freedom is not indeterminate as open theists maintain. We are free in that we do what we want to do, but behind our plans and desires are those of God (Jms 4:13-16).
In general, God "works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will" (Eph 1:11; cp. Lm 3:37-38; Rm 8:28; 11:33-36). And God cannot fail at anything He seeks to do (Ps 33:11; 115:3; 135:6; Pr 21:30; Is 14:27; 43:13; 46:10; 55:11; Dn 4:35; Rv 3:7).
Since God controls everything, He knows everything, including the future. Knowing the future is a test of a true prophet (Dt 18:22) and indeed of a true God (Is 41:21-23; 42:9; 43:9-12; 44:7; 48:3-7). Through His prophets God often predicts the future centuries in advance (as Gn 9:26-27). Contrary to the open theists, who think God cannot anticipate human free decisions, He often predicts human behavior in detail (1 Sm 10:1-7; Jr 37:6-10; Mt 26:34). He predicts the behavior and character of human beings in the distant future (1 Kg 13:1-4; Is 44:28-45:13).
How, then, should we understand God's "relenting"? For one thing, God states as a general policy in Jeremiah 18:5-10 that if He announces judgment and people repent, He will relent; He will do the same if He pronounces blessing and people do evil. In other words, relenting is part of God's unchanging plan, not a change forced on Him by His ignorance. Further, God is not only transcendent (beyond our experience) but also immanent (involved in our experience). He has dwelled on earth in the tabernacle and temple, in Christ, and in His general omnipresence (Ps 139:712). When God interacts with people in time, He does one thing, then another. He curses, then He blesses. His actions are in temporal sequence and are therefore, in one sense, changing. But these changes are the outworking of God's eternal plan, which does not change.
It is important, then, to see God as working from both above and below, in eternity and in time, and not only within time, as open theists propose.
Extracted from the Apologetics Study Bible.
The Uniqueness of Israel's Religion By E. Ray Clendenen
Biblical scholars have been jubilant over the discovery of law tablets and other literature from the ancient Near East as well as the ruins of structures such as - multichambered temples. Such discoveries have done much to help us understand the cultural and literary climate in which Israel and its Scripture arose and developed. But with these advances comes a nagging question. Why would a religion based on revelation have so much in common with religions that are only products of human imagination?
First, paganism is a corruption of an earlier, pure religion. The worship of the only true God did not develop from animism (the belief in many spirits) to ethical - monotheism (the one-God belief of the Jews) according to an evolutionary scheme, as modernists claim. The Bible teaches that paganism began to develop when sin - corrupted the worship of the true God (Rm 1:18-23). Thus some of the similarities between paganism and biblical faith could result from a common memory (however faulty) of early events and an earlier legitimate worship that lingers in human personality and culture.
Second, the nations, peoples, and cultures of the world, in spite of their rejection of God, have not developed independently of the Lord's supervision (Dt 2:5,9,19; Am 1:3-2:16; 9:7). On the contrary, their course of departure has been within divinely decreed limits, and they have been included from the beginning in God's redemptive purposes (Gn 12:1-3). Thus, just as God prepared the NT world for the proclamation of the gospel, so also He prepared the ancient Near East culturally for the revelation of the divine name in Israel. That is, the forms that Israel shared with the surrounding peoples were products of God's common grace, though perverted in the nations' case (and frequently in Israel) by paganism.
Third, however the forms of paganism arose, when God began revealing to the patriarchs and early generations of Israel how He was to be worshiped, it was only reasonable that He would employ forms that would have some meaning to them. That would mean using familiar events, symbols, and practices that could be redirected and filled with new meaning. Thus, while the forms of Israel's faith shared many elements with their pagan neighbors, the substance or heart of Yahweh worship could diverge drastically.
Old Testament faith had five main distinctives. First and foremost, it was to be - monotheistic and exclusivistic. Cities in the ancient Near East were often filled with temples to various gods. Each of Babylon's nine city gates was dedicated to a different god. Practitioners of other religions often expended great effort in either identifying their gods with those of other nations or demonstrating the subordination of other gods to their patron deity. But Israel's God demanded not a special place in a pantheon but exclusive allegiance. In the context of ancient Near Eastern polytheism, the call of Deuteronomy 6:4 to the worship of Yahweh as the one true God would have seemed revolutionary.
Monotheism also differed from polytheism in the nature of worship itself. By definition, polytheism precluded wholehearted devotion and loyalty to one god. If divine power existed in many gods, none could possess unlimited wisdom or power, and the activities of one god could often be counteracted by the activities of another. The divine will was thus fragmented so that a person could never be safe from divine displeasure and punishment since the will of one god may very well conflict with that of another. But if there is only one God, we can be wholehearted in our devotion to him, as Deuteronomy 6:5 goes on to demand.
The second distinctive was that the God of Israel was transcendent and self-sufficient. He was not the personification of nature with a sovereignty limited to the earth, the heavens, or the underworld. He did not need to be tended or fed in his temple like a Babylonian or Egyptian god. Nor did He need other divine or human assistance through religious rites to maintain cosmic and political order and agricultural productivity. Egyptian temple rituals were the means by which the people contributed to holding the forces of chaos at bay, and Canaanite fertility rites ensured continuing agricultural and human productivity. Yahweh is rather the transcendent One who created an inanimate universe of nature out of nothing and who continually maintains and controls it for His glory. "The profoundest insight of Hebrew religion," John-Oswalt declares, may be that "Whatever God is, he is not the world around us." This means that magic has no part in biblical worship.
The third distinctive is that although God is transcendent, He has not kept His character or His will hidden as did the gods of other peoples. T. Jacobsen describes the Babylonian god Enlil-this way: "Man can never be fully at ease with Enlil, can never know what he has in mind.... In his wild moods of destructiveness he is unreachable, deaf to all appeals." Where the other peoples had to search continually for the divine will through divination, try to awaken divine interest through bodily mutilation (1 Kg 18:26-29), and avoid misfortune through incantations and the wearing of amulets, the Lord had revealed His will in His written Word (Dt 4:6-8).
The fourth distinctive was the nature of the relationship between God and His people. Israel's relationship with Yahweh was based on divine election in which God established in history a covenant with His people. No other ancient people in that part of the world had a covenantal relationship with their god. The Bible presents mankind as the "crown of creation" and the natural world as theirs to oversee and enjoy. But the foreign gods were primarily feudal gods of the land, which they had created for themselves. People were little more than serfs, a necessary nuisance seldom receiving more than a brief expression of pity or remorse for their grievous situation. But the Lord had formed a people, bound them to each other and to Himself self by covenant, and pledged to shepherd them faithfully forever by His grace and to guard jealously their relationship to Him.
Finally, while the Lord ordained the use of ritual in worship, He abhorred ritual that aimed at divine manipulation. The only actions that pleased God were those that arose from the heart (Hs 6:4-6), and true worship was to be accompanied by joy in the Lord (Dt 12:12,18). Thus biblical religion gives at the same time a higher view of humanity and a higher view of God-omnipotent, undivided, purposeful, merciful, uniformly righteous, and deserving of our undivided love. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests, singing to the Lord and declaring His glory among the nations day after day (1 Ch 16:23).
First, paganism is a corruption of an earlier, pure religion. The worship of the only true God did not develop from animism (the belief in many spirits) to ethical - monotheism (the one-God belief of the Jews) according to an evolutionary scheme, as modernists claim. The Bible teaches that paganism began to develop when sin - corrupted the worship of the true God (Rm 1:18-23). Thus some of the similarities between paganism and biblical faith could result from a common memory (however faulty) of early events and an earlier legitimate worship that lingers in human personality and culture.
Second, the nations, peoples, and cultures of the world, in spite of their rejection of God, have not developed independently of the Lord's supervision (Dt 2:5,9,19; Am 1:3-2:16; 9:7). On the contrary, their course of departure has been within divinely decreed limits, and they have been included from the beginning in God's redemptive purposes (Gn 12:1-3). Thus, just as God prepared the NT world for the proclamation of the gospel, so also He prepared the ancient Near East culturally for the revelation of the divine name in Israel. That is, the forms that Israel shared with the surrounding peoples were products of God's common grace, though perverted in the nations' case (and frequently in Israel) by paganism.
Third, however the forms of paganism arose, when God began revealing to the patriarchs and early generations of Israel how He was to be worshiped, it was only reasonable that He would employ forms that would have some meaning to them. That would mean using familiar events, symbols, and practices that could be redirected and filled with new meaning. Thus, while the forms of Israel's faith shared many elements with their pagan neighbors, the substance or heart of Yahweh worship could diverge drastically.
Old Testament faith had five main distinctives. First and foremost, it was to be - monotheistic and exclusivistic. Cities in the ancient Near East were often filled with temples to various gods. Each of Babylon's nine city gates was dedicated to a different god. Practitioners of other religions often expended great effort in either identifying their gods with those of other nations or demonstrating the subordination of other gods to their patron deity. But Israel's God demanded not a special place in a pantheon but exclusive allegiance. In the context of ancient Near Eastern polytheism, the call of Deuteronomy 6:4 to the worship of Yahweh as the one true God would have seemed revolutionary.
Monotheism also differed from polytheism in the nature of worship itself. By definition, polytheism precluded wholehearted devotion and loyalty to one god. If divine power existed in many gods, none could possess unlimited wisdom or power, and the activities of one god could often be counteracted by the activities of another. The divine will was thus fragmented so that a person could never be safe from divine displeasure and punishment since the will of one god may very well conflict with that of another. But if there is only one God, we can be wholehearted in our devotion to him, as Deuteronomy 6:5 goes on to demand.
The second distinctive was that the God of Israel was transcendent and self-sufficient. He was not the personification of nature with a sovereignty limited to the earth, the heavens, or the underworld. He did not need to be tended or fed in his temple like a Babylonian or Egyptian god. Nor did He need other divine or human assistance through religious rites to maintain cosmic and political order and agricultural productivity. Egyptian temple rituals were the means by which the people contributed to holding the forces of chaos at bay, and Canaanite fertility rites ensured continuing agricultural and human productivity. Yahweh is rather the transcendent One who created an inanimate universe of nature out of nothing and who continually maintains and controls it for His glory. "The profoundest insight of Hebrew religion," John-Oswalt declares, may be that "Whatever God is, he is not the world around us." This means that magic has no part in biblical worship.
The third distinctive is that although God is transcendent, He has not kept His character or His will hidden as did the gods of other peoples. T. Jacobsen describes the Babylonian god Enlil-this way: "Man can never be fully at ease with Enlil, can never know what he has in mind.... In his wild moods of destructiveness he is unreachable, deaf to all appeals." Where the other peoples had to search continually for the divine will through divination, try to awaken divine interest through bodily mutilation (1 Kg 18:26-29), and avoid misfortune through incantations and the wearing of amulets, the Lord had revealed His will in His written Word (Dt 4:6-8).
The fourth distinctive was the nature of the relationship between God and His people. Israel's relationship with Yahweh was based on divine election in which God established in history a covenant with His people. No other ancient people in that part of the world had a covenantal relationship with their god. The Bible presents mankind as the "crown of creation" and the natural world as theirs to oversee and enjoy. But the foreign gods were primarily feudal gods of the land, which they had created for themselves. People were little more than serfs, a necessary nuisance seldom receiving more than a brief expression of pity or remorse for their grievous situation. But the Lord had formed a people, bound them to each other and to Himself self by covenant, and pledged to shepherd them faithfully forever by His grace and to guard jealously their relationship to Him.
Finally, while the Lord ordained the use of ritual in worship, He abhorred ritual that aimed at divine manipulation. The only actions that pleased God were those that arose from the heart (Hs 6:4-6), and true worship was to be accompanied by joy in the Lord (Dt 12:12,18). Thus biblical religion gives at the same time a higher view of humanity and a higher view of God-omnipotent, undivided, purposeful, merciful, uniformly righteous, and deserving of our undivided love. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests, singing to the Lord and declaring His glory among the nations day after day (1 Ch 16:23).
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Is the Old Testament Ethical? By Christopher Wright
The prevailing prejudice against Scripture is that the Old Testament portrays a violent God of a violent people and is filled with narratives recounting horrendous events with disreputable people playing major roles. Is the Old Testament ethical? Here are some reasons why it is.
It was ethical enough for Jesus. Jesus accepted the truth and ethical validity of the OT ("the Scriptures") in His own life, mission, and teaching. His noted "you have heard that it was said ... but I tell you" (see Mt 6-7) sayings don't contradict or criticize the OT but either deepen its demands or correct distorted popular inferences. "Love your neighbor" meant "Hate your enemy" to many in Jesus' day, even though the OT never says any such thing. Jesus reminded His hearers that the same chapter (Lv 19) also says, "Love the alien as yourself," extending this to include "Love your enemy." Jesus thus affirmed and strengthened the OT ethic.
Narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved. We assume wrongly that if a story is in Scripture it must be "what God wanted." But biblical narrators dealt with the real world and described it as it was, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity. We shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval. Old Testament stories often challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and patience in continually working out His purpose through such morally compromised people and to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides.
The conquest of Canaan must be understood for what it was. This event, rightly, is troubling to sensitive readers. We can't ignore its horror, but some perspectives can help us evaluate it ethically.
• It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel's long history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy kings or military rivals.
• We must allow for the exaggerated language of warfare. Israel, like other ancient Near East nations whose documents we possess, had a rhetoric of war that often exceeded reality.
• It was an act of God's justice and punishment on a morally degraded society. The conquest shouldn't be portrayed as random genocide or ethnic cleansing. The wickedness of Canaanite society was anticipated (Gn 15:16) and described in moral and social terms (Lv 18:24; 20:23; Dt 9:5; 12:29-31). This interpretation is accepted in the NT (e.g., Heb 11:31 speaks of the Canaanites as "those who disobeyed," implying awareness of choosing to persist in sin-as the Bible affirms of all human beings). There's a huge moral difference between violence that's arbitrary and violence inflicted within the moral framework of punishment (this is true in human society as much as in divine perspective). It doesn't make it "nice," but it changes the ethical evaluation significantly.
• God threatened to do the same to Israel – and He did. In the conquest God used Israel as the agent of punishment on the Canaanites. God warned Israel if they behaved like the Canaanites, He would treat them as His enemy in the same way and inflict the same punishment on them using other nations (Lv 26:17; Dt 28:25-68). In the course of Israel's long history in OT times, God repeatedly did so, demonstrating His moral consistency in international justice. It wasn't a matter of favoritism. If anything, Israel's status as God's chosen people, the OT argues, exposed them more to God's judgment and - historical punishment than the Canaanites who experienced the conquest. Those choosing to live as God's enemies eventually face God's judgment.
• The conquest anticipated the final judgment. Like the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, the story of Canaan’s conquest stands in Scriptures as a prototypical narrative, or one that foreshadows what is to come. Scripture affirms that ultimately, in the final judgment, the wicked will face the awful reality of God's wrath through exclusion, punishment, and destruction. Then God's ethical justice will finally be vindicated. But at certain points in history, such as during the conquest period, God demonstrates the power of His judgment. Rahab's story, set in the midst of the conquest narrative, also demonstrates the power of repentance, faith, and God's willingness to spare His enemies when they choose to identify with God's people. Rahab thus enters the NT hall of fame-and faith;(Heb 11:31; Jms 2:25).
An eye for an eye is remarkably humane. Unfortunately this phrase sums up for many what OT law and ethics are all about. Even then they misunderstand that this expression-almost certainly metaphorical, not literal-wasn't a license for unlimited vengeance but precisely the opposite: it established the fundamental legal principle of proportionality; that is, punishment mustn't exceed the gravity of the offense. The rest of OT law, when compared with law codes from contemporary ancient societies (e.g., Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite), shows a remarkable humanitarian concern, especially for the socially weak, poor, and marginalized (the classic trio of "the widow, the orphan, and the alien"). Israel's laws operated with ethical priorities of human life above material property and of human needs over legal rights. Not surprisingly, then, Jesus (who clearly endorsed the same priorities) could affirm that He had no intention of abolishing the Law and the Prophets but rather of fulfilling them.
It was ethical enough for Jesus. Jesus accepted the truth and ethical validity of the OT ("the Scriptures") in His own life, mission, and teaching. His noted "you have heard that it was said ... but I tell you" (see Mt 6-7) sayings don't contradict or criticize the OT but either deepen its demands or correct distorted popular inferences. "Love your neighbor" meant "Hate your enemy" to many in Jesus' day, even though the OT never says any such thing. Jesus reminded His hearers that the same chapter (Lv 19) also says, "Love the alien as yourself," extending this to include "Love your enemy." Jesus thus affirmed and strengthened the OT ethic.
Narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved. We assume wrongly that if a story is in Scripture it must be "what God wanted." But biblical narrators dealt with the real world and described it as it was, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity. We shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval. Old Testament stories often challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and patience in continually working out His purpose through such morally compromised people and to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides.
The conquest of Canaan must be understood for what it was. This event, rightly, is troubling to sensitive readers. We can't ignore its horror, but some perspectives can help us evaluate it ethically.
• It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel's long history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy kings or military rivals.
• We must allow for the exaggerated language of warfare. Israel, like other ancient Near East nations whose documents we possess, had a rhetoric of war that often exceeded reality.
• It was an act of God's justice and punishment on a morally degraded society. The conquest shouldn't be portrayed as random genocide or ethnic cleansing. The wickedness of Canaanite society was anticipated (Gn 15:16) and described in moral and social terms (Lv 18:24; 20:23; Dt 9:5; 12:29-31). This interpretation is accepted in the NT (e.g., Heb 11:31 speaks of the Canaanites as "those who disobeyed," implying awareness of choosing to persist in sin-as the Bible affirms of all human beings). There's a huge moral difference between violence that's arbitrary and violence inflicted within the moral framework of punishment (this is true in human society as much as in divine perspective). It doesn't make it "nice," but it changes the ethical evaluation significantly.
• God threatened to do the same to Israel – and He did. In the conquest God used Israel as the agent of punishment on the Canaanites. God warned Israel if they behaved like the Canaanites, He would treat them as His enemy in the same way and inflict the same punishment on them using other nations (Lv 26:17; Dt 28:25-68). In the course of Israel's long history in OT times, God repeatedly did so, demonstrating His moral consistency in international justice. It wasn't a matter of favoritism. If anything, Israel's status as God's chosen people, the OT argues, exposed them more to God's judgment and - historical punishment than the Canaanites who experienced the conquest. Those choosing to live as God's enemies eventually face God's judgment.
• The conquest anticipated the final judgment. Like the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, the story of Canaan’s conquest stands in Scriptures as a prototypical narrative, or one that foreshadows what is to come. Scripture affirms that ultimately, in the final judgment, the wicked will face the awful reality of God's wrath through exclusion, punishment, and destruction. Then God's ethical justice will finally be vindicated. But at certain points in history, such as during the conquest period, God demonstrates the power of His judgment. Rahab's story, set in the midst of the conquest narrative, also demonstrates the power of repentance, faith, and God's willingness to spare His enemies when they choose to identify with God's people. Rahab thus enters the NT hall of fame-and faith;(Heb 11:31; Jms 2:25).
An eye for an eye is remarkably humane. Unfortunately this phrase sums up for many what OT law and ethics are all about. Even then they misunderstand that this expression-almost certainly metaphorical, not literal-wasn't a license for unlimited vengeance but precisely the opposite: it established the fundamental legal principle of proportionality; that is, punishment mustn't exceed the gravity of the offense. The rest of OT law, when compared with law codes from contemporary ancient societies (e.g., Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite), shows a remarkable humanitarian concern, especially for the socially weak, poor, and marginalized (the classic trio of "the widow, the orphan, and the alien"). Israel's laws operated with ethical priorities of human life above material property and of human needs over legal rights. Not surprisingly, then, Jesus (who clearly endorsed the same priorities) could affirm that He had no intention of abolishing the Law and the Prophets but rather of fulfilling them.
Are Miracles Believable? By Ronald H. Nash
Miracles are essential to the historic Christian faith. If Jesus Christ was not God incarnate, and if Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, then the Christian faith as we know it from history and the Scriptures would not-could not-be true (see Rm 10:9-10). It is, then, easy to see why enemies of the Christian faith direct many of their attacks against these two miracles of Christ's incarnation and resurrection in particular and against the possibility of miracles in general.
What one believes about the possibility of miracles comes from that person's worldview. On the question of miracles the critical worldview distinction is between naturalism and supernaturalism. For a naturalist, the universe is analogous to a closed box. Everything that happens inside the box is caused by, or is explicable in terms of, other things that exist within the box. Nothing (including God) exists outside the box; therefore, nothing outside the box we call the universe or nature can have any causal effect within the box. To quote the famous naturalist Carl Sagan, the cosmos is all that is or ever has been or ever will be. The major reason, then, why naturalists do not believe in miracles is because their worldview prevents them from believing.
If a naturalist suddenly begins to consider the possibility that miracles are really possible, he has begun to move away from naturalism and toward a different worldview. Any person with a naturalistic worldview could not consistently believe in miracles. No arguments on behalf of the miraculous can possibly succeed with such a person. The proper way to address the unbelief of such a person is to begin by challenging his naturalism
The worldview of Christian theism affirms the existence of a personal God who transcends nature, who exists "outside the box." Christian supernaturalism denies the eternity of nature. God created the world freely and ex nihilo (out of nothing). The universe is contingent in the sense that it would not have begun to exist without out God's creative act and it could not continue to exist without God's sustaining activity. The very laws of the cosmos that naturalists believe make miracles impossible were created by this God. Indeed one of naturalism's major problems is explaining how mindless forces could give rise to minds, knowledge, and sound reasoning.
What one believes about the possibility of miracles comes from that person's worldview. On the question of miracles the critical worldview distinction is between naturalism and supernaturalism. For a naturalist, the universe is analogous to a closed box. Everything that happens inside the box is caused by, or is explicable in terms of, other things that exist within the box. Nothing (including God) exists outside the box; therefore, nothing outside the box we call the universe or nature can have any causal effect within the box. To quote the famous naturalist Carl Sagan, the cosmos is all that is or ever has been or ever will be. The major reason, then, why naturalists do not believe in miracles is because their worldview prevents them from believing.
If a naturalist suddenly begins to consider the possibility that miracles are really possible, he has begun to move away from naturalism and toward a different worldview. Any person with a naturalistic worldview could not consistently believe in miracles. No arguments on behalf of the miraculous can possibly succeed with such a person. The proper way to address the unbelief of such a person is to begin by challenging his naturalism
The worldview of Christian theism affirms the existence of a personal God who transcends nature, who exists "outside the box." Christian supernaturalism denies the eternity of nature. God created the world freely and ex nihilo (out of nothing). The universe is contingent in the sense that it would not have begun to exist without out God's creative act and it could not continue to exist without God's sustaining activity. The very laws of the cosmos that naturalists believe make miracles impossible were created by this God. Indeed one of naturalism's major problems is explaining how mindless forces could give rise to minds, knowledge, and sound reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)