"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
One aspect of the argument made against the Christian position of the Scriptural errancy is that is the Biblical Scriptures are found to be wrong on smaller details (such as dates, numbers, historical or scientific facts), then such a finding casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the longer details of the Scriptures as a whole. However, such an argument could be similarly applied to the known and universally agreed upon existence of textual variances in ALL the known Scriptural documents. Yet, the existence of these textual variances does not cast any such serious about the reliability of the Scriptural message (in either parts or whole) for evangelical, inerrantist scholars.
I bring this analogy up not because I desire to convince anyone that the Scripture are errant. I myself do not hold to that position; rather, I believe that the original documents of the Scriptures are inerrant. Of course, my own interpretation of the doctrine of inerrancy can be somewhat at variance with most of the conservatives with whom I associate and fellowship. Furthermore, because I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of what many Christian believers mean when they refer to themselves as “errantists” or even understand the reasons why many Christian believers refuse to adopt the designation of “inerrancy”, I often defend various “errantists” for various and always particular reasons. Such a defense would thus categorize me as a “moderate” in the label-making department Paul Pressler (see A Hill on Which to Die, x.). However, since I neither care what Judge Pressler thinks about this matter nor even believe him to be any sort of learned authority about subject of “Scriptural inerrancy”, I am most dutifully self-described as a conservative, evangelical Christian who holds to the label of “inerrantist”.
Therefore, I bring up this analogy in order to spread ecumenical tolerance among the various Christian factions. I bring up this analogy in order to soften the minds and hearts of my fellow conservative, evangelical Christians by introducing to them a palatable reason why some Christians can honestly and faithfully hold to the position of “Scriptural errancy”.
Allow me to paraphrase Emil Brunner's illustration about the errancy of Scripture. It's like hearing Carouso singing on a phonograph. We hear a scratch here or there, a little white noise as they say today, but through it all is the unmistakable voice of the Master (see The Christian Doctrine of God, vol. 1: 107-113.)
I have often heard this illustration denounced and mocked by evangelical pastors and professors (mainly the latter). But could not such illustration also be made to bolster the existence of the textual variances in the Scriptural documents?
Allow me to make such thoughts more personal:
Recall the “King James Only” Christians and other Fundamentalists whose blind and unthinking approaches to their Faith practice excludes any hint that there could ever be any textual variances in the Scriptures: “GOD WOULD NOT ALLOW IT!”
Recall your own first belief about the nature of the Bible. Recall your first reaction when told by someone that the various documents of the Bible do not agree with each other 100% of the time. Did you believe it? Did you think that the people who believe this are liberals? Did you think that they could not possibly be Christians? How did you finally come to accept this view as true, if you have in fact done so?
Thus I think that we need to be quite tolerant of those who hold to “Scriptural errancy”. We need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because 1) we all once had a theological viewpoint that was proven to be wrong and 2) we all currently have a theological viewpoint that will be proven to be wrong.
More importantly, we need to give grace to those who have incorrect theology because God gave US grace when we had and have incorrect theology.
See also:
Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture
Inerrant Art
Inerrancy and the SBC
The Heighth of Goliath
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
On the Death of Animals
Here is a puzzle about the nature of the earth prior to the Fall of Man.
One of the traditional beliefs among some conservative Christian groups is that prior to Adam’s sin the situation of the earth there was absolutely NO DEATH either spiritual or physical of any kind. Thus, this view states that not only did Man not face death prior to the Fall but neither did Animals. In fact, the killing of Animals was an unknown idea prior to the Fall. In other words, lions, tigers, and eagles did not hunt and kill smaller Animals for food. Such carnivore deaths are a result of the Fall and not a result of God’s intended creation. If the Fall had not occurred, it is reasoned, then Animals would not be killing other Animals for food but killing plants for food.
(What Venus fly traps would be eating is still a mystery. I have heard that plants are not a part of the “death” consequences of the Fall. I am not sure where insects and fish are categorized. I really do not know where those insects which look like sticks are found either.)
Thus, we have noted scholars writing anti-evolutionary articles for the BP about pythons swallowing pigs whole and how this cannot be God’s intention. Indeed, one of the major problems many conservative Christians have with evolution and old earth geology is not simply that it theorizes a progressive change of God’s creation over long periods of time but that it necessitates the view that Animals died before Man even existed, let alone before Man fell into sin. Furthermore, it presumes that Man’s biological ancestors were also subject to physical death. Thus, the view among some conservative Christian groups is that death could not have existed before the Fall of Man into sin.
But there is a real problem with this view.
1) Examine the carnivore Animals of God’s creation: lions, cheetahs, eagles, bear, vultures, wolves, sharks, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO HUNT AND KILL OTHER ANIMALS. The teeth, the claws, the speed, and the senses – it is all designed to find, chase down, kill, tear apart and devour other Animals.
2) Examine many of the Animals of God’s creation that are hunted by carnivores: deer, skunks, porcupines, elephants, rhinoceroses, fish, lizards, rabbits, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO ESCAPE, DEFEND AND HIDE FROM OTHER ANIMALS. The camouflage, the speed, the defensive capabilities are a part of their being. These capabilities assume a life of potential death and the ability to kill and avoid being killed.
If we state hold to a traditional theological view that Animals were not originally intended by God to kill each other as a part of his “good” earth, then how do we explain that they were created with the potential to do so?
There are a few possible explanations:
1) God intention in creating Animals was for them to never kill each other. However, since God knew that Man would Fall and send the Animal kingdom in a killing disorder, he purposely created them with the abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed.
For obvious reasons, this is not a very satisfying explanation.
2) God never intended Animals to kill each other and did not create them with that potential. However, after the Fall, Animals developed the properties and abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed. Thus, the curse upon the earth by Adam resulted in “Lions” acquiring claws, teeth, and scary roars. This is a theory held by many “Creationists”, however, there are problems. Essentially, those who advocate this theory are arguing for a form of biological evolution occurring, albeit in rapid time. They are arguing that over a very short period of time Animals changed or evolved from peaceful herbivores to villainess carnivores as a result of the Fall. Also, Animals evolved from creatures not needing to defend themselves into creatures that with the ability to defend themselves.
The irony of this position is that it is the very position held by biological evolutionists. The only difference is one of time. Biological evolutionists believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of millions of years. Those “Creationists” who hold to the position above believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of a few years or less.
The “Creationist” version of this theory is not a very satisfying explanation either. If we then hold that Animals changed over a brief period of time in order to adapt to their environment, we are actually assenting to the biological evolutionist view. With this admission, combined with the fossil record and the various dating methods available, I prefer to hold to the biological evolutionary theory.
3) Since I hold to the biological evolutionary theory, I believe that God’s creation of Animals was a process of development to meet the environmental needs of these creatures. The distinction between my belief and the previous belief in this respect is that I agree with biological evolutionists that the process was one of millions of years and not a few years or less.
But a distinction between myself and the first tow theories is that I do not see the death of Animals as a result of the Fall. I won’t go into too much detail about this belief now except for the following statement:
Animals are not created in the “image of God” and do not have the ability to relate to God on a personal level. Animals are created out of nothing and go back into nothing. They are never promised immortality by God and have done nothing to either gain or lose such an eternal state. Thus, their death is not a bad thing; it is a natural thing. The killing of an animal is not in of itself a bad thing and is never treated as such in the Scriptures. Animals were created and destroyed long before God created Man and God is perfectly fine with the natural order of animals killing other animals and attempting to avoid being killed. God created them for such an existence and, thus, that is their existence. Such an existence would have continued even if Man had not fallen into sin. The death of an Animal by another Animal is no more out of the realm of God’s intention for Creation than the death of a plant by an Animal. We may not like this scenario, but that is nevertheless the scenario God has deemed appropriate for his Creation.
One of the traditional beliefs among some conservative Christian groups is that prior to Adam’s sin the situation of the earth there was absolutely NO DEATH either spiritual or physical of any kind. Thus, this view states that not only did Man not face death prior to the Fall but neither did Animals. In fact, the killing of Animals was an unknown idea prior to the Fall. In other words, lions, tigers, and eagles did not hunt and kill smaller Animals for food. Such carnivore deaths are a result of the Fall and not a result of God’s intended creation. If the Fall had not occurred, it is reasoned, then Animals would not be killing other Animals for food but killing plants for food.
(What Venus fly traps would be eating is still a mystery. I have heard that plants are not a part of the “death” consequences of the Fall. I am not sure where insects and fish are categorized. I really do not know where those insects which look like sticks are found either.)
Thus, we have noted scholars writing anti-evolutionary articles for the BP about pythons swallowing pigs whole and how this cannot be God’s intention. Indeed, one of the major problems many conservative Christians have with evolution and old earth geology is not simply that it theorizes a progressive change of God’s creation over long periods of time but that it necessitates the view that Animals died before Man even existed, let alone before Man fell into sin. Furthermore, it presumes that Man’s biological ancestors were also subject to physical death. Thus, the view among some conservative Christian groups is that death could not have existed before the Fall of Man into sin.
But there is a real problem with this view.
1) Examine the carnivore Animals of God’s creation: lions, cheetahs, eagles, bear, vultures, wolves, sharks, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO HUNT AND KILL OTHER ANIMALS. The teeth, the claws, the speed, and the senses – it is all designed to find, chase down, kill, tear apart and devour other Animals.
2) Examine many of the Animals of God’s creation that are hunted by carnivores: deer, skunks, porcupines, elephants, rhinoceroses, fish, lizards, rabbits, etc. They are DESIGNED BY GOD TO ESCAPE, DEFEND AND HIDE FROM OTHER ANIMALS. The camouflage, the speed, the defensive capabilities are a part of their being. These capabilities assume a life of potential death and the ability to kill and avoid being killed.
If we state hold to a traditional theological view that Animals were not originally intended by God to kill each other as a part of his “good” earth, then how do we explain that they were created with the potential to do so?
There are a few possible explanations:
1) God intention in creating Animals was for them to never kill each other. However, since God knew that Man would Fall and send the Animal kingdom in a killing disorder, he purposely created them with the abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed.
For obvious reasons, this is not a very satisfying explanation.
2) God never intended Animals to kill each other and did not create them with that potential. However, after the Fall, Animals developed the properties and abilities to kill other animals and also avoid being killed. Thus, the curse upon the earth by Adam resulted in “Lions” acquiring claws, teeth, and scary roars. This is a theory held by many “Creationists”, however, there are problems. Essentially, those who advocate this theory are arguing for a form of biological evolution occurring, albeit in rapid time. They are arguing that over a very short period of time Animals changed or evolved from peaceful herbivores to villainess carnivores as a result of the Fall. Also, Animals evolved from creatures not needing to defend themselves into creatures that with the ability to defend themselves.
The irony of this position is that it is the very position held by biological evolutionists. The only difference is one of time. Biological evolutionists believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of millions of years. Those “Creationists” who hold to the position above believe that Animals adapted to the needs necessary for their survival over periods of a few years or less.
The “Creationist” version of this theory is not a very satisfying explanation either. If we then hold that Animals changed over a brief period of time in order to adapt to their environment, we are actually assenting to the biological evolutionist view. With this admission, combined with the fossil record and the various dating methods available, I prefer to hold to the biological evolutionary theory.
3) Since I hold to the biological evolutionary theory, I believe that God’s creation of Animals was a process of development to meet the environmental needs of these creatures. The distinction between my belief and the previous belief in this respect is that I agree with biological evolutionists that the process was one of millions of years and not a few years or less.
But a distinction between myself and the first tow theories is that I do not see the death of Animals as a result of the Fall. I won’t go into too much detail about this belief now except for the following statement:
Animals are not created in the “image of God” and do not have the ability to relate to God on a personal level. Animals are created out of nothing and go back into nothing. They are never promised immortality by God and have done nothing to either gain or lose such an eternal state. Thus, their death is not a bad thing; it is a natural thing. The killing of an animal is not in of itself a bad thing and is never treated as such in the Scriptures. Animals were created and destroyed long before God created Man and God is perfectly fine with the natural order of animals killing other animals and attempting to avoid being killed. God created them for such an existence and, thus, that is their existence. Such an existence would have continued even if Man had not fallen into sin. The death of an Animal by another Animal is no more out of the realm of God’s intention for Creation than the death of a plant by an Animal. We may not like this scenario, but that is nevertheless the scenario God has deemed appropriate for his Creation.
Monday, February 26, 2007
For those people who are suffering with sins related to the homosexual lifestyle:
For those people who are suffering with sins related to the homosexual lifestyle:
I have often talked to people in the gay lifestyle and told them my understanding of the Christian’s Faith perspective about the subject of homosexuality. I have told them that God does not approve of the gay lifestyle.
A frequent response to my POV of the matter is that the gay person loves another person of the same sex.
Here is my reply:
“Of course you love another person of the same sex. You should. God wants you to love other people. He wants you to love your family, your neighbors, your enemies, and every one you meet, male or female. God wants you to love him. God loves you. God wants everyone to love you. I love you as well. Let me introduce you to God. He will show you what loves really means and the proper ways to love different people.”
It is this last sentence that is the key for those of us in the Church to communicate. We should love all but true love means loving people in the proper way. To love someone in an improper manner is doing that person either harm or injustice.
For examples:
We are called to love the Lord with all our hearts. This is the most important love.
We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is the second most important love.
However, if we love another human being more than God, we do an injustice to God, to the person, and to our selves. That is not love.
If we love another more than ourselves, we do injustice to them and ourselves. This is not love.
Furthermore, there are many ways in which we express our love to various people in our lives. Family members, spouses, children, friends, co-workers, anyone we meet. Yet we do not express that same love in the same way to every person. How we express love to our spouses is different than how we express love to our family and friends. To do otherwise is not love.
Thus, while I appreciate and applaud the love gay people have for their significant others, I do believe you are not expressing your love in a loving manner. There is a more loving and more fulfilling way. I would be more than happy to introduce you to him. His name is Jesus.
I have often talked to people in the gay lifestyle and told them my understanding of the Christian’s Faith perspective about the subject of homosexuality. I have told them that God does not approve of the gay lifestyle.
A frequent response to my POV of the matter is that the gay person loves another person of the same sex.
Here is my reply:
“Of course you love another person of the same sex. You should. God wants you to love other people. He wants you to love your family, your neighbors, your enemies, and every one you meet, male or female. God wants you to love him. God loves you. God wants everyone to love you. I love you as well. Let me introduce you to God. He will show you what loves really means and the proper ways to love different people.”
It is this last sentence that is the key for those of us in the Church to communicate. We should love all but true love means loving people in the proper way. To love someone in an improper manner is doing that person either harm or injustice.
For examples:
We are called to love the Lord with all our hearts. This is the most important love.
We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is the second most important love.
However, if we love another human being more than God, we do an injustice to God, to the person, and to our selves. That is not love.
If we love another more than ourselves, we do injustice to them and ourselves. This is not love.
Furthermore, there are many ways in which we express our love to various people in our lives. Family members, spouses, children, friends, co-workers, anyone we meet. Yet we do not express that same love in the same way to every person. How we express love to our spouses is different than how we express love to our family and friends. To do otherwise is not love.
Thus, while I appreciate and applaud the love gay people have for their significant others, I do believe you are not expressing your love in a loving manner. There is a more loving and more fulfilling way. I would be more than happy to introduce you to him. His name is Jesus.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Stumbling Blocks for the Glory of God
Do you ever recall those times when Christians are talking about some particular new cultural fad? It’s usually a fad that some conservative evangelical Christians do not like but either which the Bible has nothing to say or which (even better) the Bible actually approves.
Conservative evangelical Christians, of course, believe that the Scriptures are the authority on almost all matters that the individual believer will experience. Thus the conservative evangelical Christian knows that drunkenness, fornication, adultery are wrong because the Bible says so. Thus conservative evangelical Christian can find a basis for the sins they dislike: homosexuality, greed, gossip, etc. All well and good, right?
But, as mentioned above, sometimes conservative evangelical Christians dislike something of which the Bible is either silent or approving.
You know the kind of stuff I’m talking about? Alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, tattoos and body piercings, women teaching Hebrew, women working outside of the home, that sort of thing.
Now there some of these topics are expressly approved in the Scriptures and some are not mentioned. But if one is a conservative evangelical Christian and doesn’t like one of these practices, what then is one to do?
Now the spiritually mature thing to do is to remain silent and pray to God for greater tolerance. Once could also recognize that simply because we do not like something then God must automatically agree with us.
One could be that Christ-like but then people would be going around doing things one does not like. And one certainly can’t have that!
I have noticed two ways in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.
The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to designate that thing as a stumbling block for some people and then apply this verse:
“Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9)
And no one better disagree or they have just argued against God! Oh, yes, alcohol consumption is a stumbling block for some people so NO ONE is allowed to consume alcohol EVER even in the privacy of their own home despite what Jesus and the Scriptures say to the contrary. The same goes for women wearing pants, private prayer language. Although the Scriptures
But what else can be a stumbling block? Sex for one thing. “Alright, no more sex, even with your spouse in the privacy of your own home. Why? Because sex can be a stumbling block for some people.” Food. “We have too many overweight people in this country. Your body is a temple. No more sugar, fats, or caffeine. Why? Because food can be a stumbling block for some people.” Video games. Money. Sports. Cars. Careers.
Isn’t it the case that EVERYTHING COULD become a stumbling block? Really, is there anything that could not cause some one to sin?
Are we thus obliged to not to anything? No, because not doing anything might be a stumbling block for someone guilty of the sin of sloth.
You see my point.
And this is the most well known example of people attempting to get their own selfish way despite what Scriptures teaches. There is another method by which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.
The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to ask the question of whether or not this thing brings glory to God. Here is an example I find hilarious:
“In relation to tattoos and body piercings, a good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Bible does not command against tattoos or body piercings, but it also does not give us any reason to believe God would have us get tattoos or body piercings.”
So if it does not bring glory to God then we shouldn’t do it.
“Should I wear my shirt tails out or tuck them in?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I have my salad with ranch or blue cheese dressing?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch football or basketball?
“Should I get a latte or a white chocolate mocha?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch Lost or 24?
“Should I listen to contemporary Christian music or “classical” Christian music?
“Should I read John Piper or should I read the Bible?” Which brings glory to God?
I gave seven examples instead of six because I thought seven examples would bring glory to God more than six.
Of course, whenever someone does anything we do not like we can always mention another option for the person to so which could “bring God more glory”. Hence, “don’t read John Piper’s book; read the actual Word of God which will bring more glory to God.” Where does it end?
And what is so amazing about this use of legalism is that those things which do not bring glory to God for those who do not like that thing, yep, it also doesn’t bring glory to God for those who do like those things. What a coincidence? What are the odds?
You see the point of such a Scriptural position? Those who employ it can employ it can do so for ANYTHING but keep themselves exempt. They can argue that anything of their own choosing causes “another to stumble” or “doesn’t bring glory to God” and anyone who disagrees with them is sinning and disobeying the Word of God. Monstrous!
But then how else can someone who personally dislikes alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, women teaching Hebrew, and women working outside of the home ever argue against them when the Scripture teaches the exact opposite?
This is how cultural traditions are raised to the level of Scripture.
And for those in the traditional churches who look down upon contemporary churches ...
this is how one “waters down the Gospel” and presents and “easy” Christ.
Or, rather, YOU are a stumbling block for people by setting a standard for discipleship higher than that advocated by Christ. Thus, YOU are the one not bringing glory to God.
Not so nice, is it?
Conservative evangelical Christians, of course, believe that the Scriptures are the authority on almost all matters that the individual believer will experience. Thus the conservative evangelical Christian knows that drunkenness, fornication, adultery are wrong because the Bible says so. Thus conservative evangelical Christian can find a basis for the sins they dislike: homosexuality, greed, gossip, etc. All well and good, right?
But, as mentioned above, sometimes conservative evangelical Christians dislike something of which the Bible is either silent or approving.
You know the kind of stuff I’m talking about? Alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, tattoos and body piercings, women teaching Hebrew, women working outside of the home, that sort of thing.
Now there some of these topics are expressly approved in the Scriptures and some are not mentioned. But if one is a conservative evangelical Christian and doesn’t like one of these practices, what then is one to do?
Now the spiritually mature thing to do is to remain silent and pray to God for greater tolerance. Once could also recognize that simply because we do not like something then God must automatically agree with us.
One could be that Christ-like but then people would be going around doing things one does not like. And one certainly can’t have that!
I have noticed two ways in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.
The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to designate that thing as a stumbling block for some people and then apply this verse:
“Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9)
And no one better disagree or they have just argued against God! Oh, yes, alcohol consumption is a stumbling block for some people so NO ONE is allowed to consume alcohol EVER even in the privacy of their own home despite what Jesus and the Scriptures say to the contrary. The same goes for women wearing pants, private prayer language. Although the Scriptures
But what else can be a stumbling block? Sex for one thing. “Alright, no more sex, even with your spouse in the privacy of your own home. Why? Because sex can be a stumbling block for some people.” Food. “We have too many overweight people in this country. Your body is a temple. No more sugar, fats, or caffeine. Why? Because food can be a stumbling block for some people.” Video games. Money. Sports. Cars. Careers.
Isn’t it the case that EVERYTHING COULD become a stumbling block? Really, is there anything that could not cause some one to sin?
Are we thus obliged to not to anything? No, because not doing anything might be a stumbling block for someone guilty of the sin of sloth.
You see my point.
And this is the most well known example of people attempting to get their own selfish way despite what Scriptures teaches. There is another method by which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.
The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to ask the question of whether or not this thing brings glory to God. Here is an example I find hilarious:
“In relation to tattoos and body piercings, a good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Bible does not command against tattoos or body piercings, but it also does not give us any reason to believe God would have us get tattoos or body piercings.”
So if it does not bring glory to God then we shouldn’t do it.
“Should I wear my shirt tails out or tuck them in?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I have my salad with ranch or blue cheese dressing?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch football or basketball?
“Should I get a latte or a white chocolate mocha?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch Lost or 24?
“Should I listen to contemporary Christian music or “classical” Christian music?
“Should I read John Piper or should I read the Bible?” Which brings glory to God?
I gave seven examples instead of six because I thought seven examples would bring glory to God more than six.
Of course, whenever someone does anything we do not like we can always mention another option for the person to so which could “bring God more glory”. Hence, “don’t read John Piper’s book; read the actual Word of God which will bring more glory to God.” Where does it end?
And what is so amazing about this use of legalism is that those things which do not bring glory to God for those who do not like that thing, yep, it also doesn’t bring glory to God for those who do like those things. What a coincidence? What are the odds?
You see the point of such a Scriptural position? Those who employ it can employ it can do so for ANYTHING but keep themselves exempt. They can argue that anything of their own choosing causes “another to stumble” or “doesn’t bring glory to God” and anyone who disagrees with them is sinning and disobeying the Word of God. Monstrous!
But then how else can someone who personally dislikes alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, women teaching Hebrew, and women working outside of the home ever argue against them when the Scripture teaches the exact opposite?
This is how cultural traditions are raised to the level of Scripture.
And for those in the traditional churches who look down upon contemporary churches ...
this is how one “waters down the Gospel” and presents and “easy” Christ.
Or, rather, YOU are a stumbling block for people by setting a standard for discipleship higher than that advocated by Christ. Thus, YOU are the one not bringing glory to God.
Not so nice, is it?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Global Warming
Let it be known: I, PC, believe that the average temperature of the planet Earth is warming. Furthermore, I, PC, believe that human beings are contributing to Global Warming.
Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.
Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.
The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.
Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.
Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.
And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.
Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.
The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming
- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.
- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.
- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.
- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.
- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.
- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.
- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.
- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.
- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.
- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.
So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?
1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.
I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.
2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.
Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.
3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.
A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.
B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.
C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.
D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.
E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.
F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?
G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?
Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?
I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.
1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.
2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.
For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.
Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.
There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.
Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:
1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.
2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.
3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.
Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.
1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.
Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.
So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.
How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.
The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.
Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.
Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.
The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.
Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.
Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.
And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.
Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.
The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming
- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.
- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.
- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.
- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.
- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.
- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.
- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.
- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.
- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.
- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.
So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?
1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.
I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.
2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.
Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.
3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.
A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.
B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.
C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.
D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.
E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.
F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?
G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?
Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?
I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.
1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.
2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.
For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.
Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.
There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.
Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:
1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.
2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.
3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.
Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.
1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.
3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.
Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.
So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.
How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.
The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Unopened Box
Let us consider scenario in which one comes upon an unopened box. You are told that the contents of this box might hold either an important gift or perhaps the answer to the question one most desires to know. Regardless to whether or not the contents of the box is what one wants or needs, one is given absolutely certainty that the contents are absolutely not harmful in the least.
Given this above scenario, would you open the box?
...
Now explain to me why it is that so many people will not even attempt to just see if God in Christ is what it claims to be?
Given this above scenario, would you open the box?
...
Now explain to me why it is that so many people will not even attempt to just see if God in Christ is what it claims to be?
Monday, February 19, 2007
A Quick Question on the Sufficiency of the Scriptures
Did you ever notice that the doctrine of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures breaks down with the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity?
Friends with the President
Let us consider scenario in which one is given the opportunity to be friends with the President of the United States of America (whoever he or she may be). Let us also consider that in this scenario, you are given access to the President’s private phone number. With this friendship and this phone number you have access to the President and he or she will always take your call and do what can be done to help you with any problem you could possibly be having.
Given the above scenario ...
Would you want to be the friends with the President?
Would you want to have such access to the President?
Would you want to have the ability to make requests and then have him or her answer them to the best of his or her ability?
Would you want to be in the position of having the President listen to you?
Again, would you want to be the friends with the President?
...
Now take the above scenario and subsequent questions and replace the designator President and replace it with the designator God.
Now explain why people do not want to a relationship with God.
Given the above scenario ...
Would you want to be the friends with the President?
Would you want to have such access to the President?
Would you want to have the ability to make requests and then have him or her answer them to the best of his or her ability?
Would you want to be in the position of having the President listen to you?
Again, would you want to be the friends with the President?
...
Now take the above scenario and subsequent questions and replace the designator President and replace it with the designator God.
Now explain why people do not want to a relationship with God.
Friday, February 16, 2007
I have a friend ...
I have a friend who recently moved to Fort Worth. She is an ordained Presbyterian minister who teaches Preaching. She has taught at a few universities and divinity schools, including Duke Divinity. My friend who is an ordained Presbyterian female minister who teaches Preaching asked me whether I thought there were any faculty positions open for her at MY seminary.
...
I swear, I almost couldn’t catch my breath from laughing.
...
I swear, I almost couldn’t catch my breath from laughing.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The Dance
How did dancing begin?
I beleive that dancing began when a more speculative person observed another individual walking or moving. At some point in the person’s observations of the other’s walk, there occurred a particular movement which caught the attention of the more speculative observer. This attention-grabbing movement could have been anything from a slight gesture to extreme gesticulation, but it had to be so novel that the observer or observers attempted to mimic the movement they had observed.
As other people attempted this movement, their differentiations and interpretations created new novelties that others attempted to mimic. Before long it began to occur to those who tried to mimic this novel movement and to those who watched the attempts at mimicking and aping the movement that there were those who were better at recreating the movement than others. Soon both subjective and objective opinions began to emerge as to whom best copied the movement.
It quickly became evident to all that particular types of movers were better than others. Particular groups of movers and observers arose and began to openly identify and make firm declarations about what constituted best performed movement or dance and what particular interpretation of the dance movement was best. Those groups which felt unduly fringed by their own performances and interpretations of the dance began to create their own separate groups totally devoted to a specific way of performing the dance.
I beleive that dancing began when a more speculative person observed another individual walking or moving. At some point in the person’s observations of the other’s walk, there occurred a particular movement which caught the attention of the more speculative observer. This attention-grabbing movement could have been anything from a slight gesture to extreme gesticulation, but it had to be so novel that the observer or observers attempted to mimic the movement they had observed.
As other people attempted this movement, their differentiations and interpretations created new novelties that others attempted to mimic. Before long it began to occur to those who tried to mimic this novel movement and to those who watched the attempts at mimicking and aping the movement that there were those who were better at recreating the movement than others. Soon both subjective and objective opinions began to emerge as to whom best copied the movement.
It quickly became evident to all that particular types of movers were better than others. Particular groups of movers and observers arose and began to openly identify and make firm declarations about what constituted best performed movement or dance and what particular interpretation of the dance movement was best. Those groups which felt unduly fringed by their own performances and interpretations of the dance began to create their own separate groups totally devoted to a specific way of performing the dance.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Language, Culture, and Mythology Concerning Jacob Wrestling with an Elohiym
Your thoughts on the following regarding the 'elohiym? As far as I'm aware, there are only 4 ways 'elohiym is used: 1)as meaning God - the God of Israel (YHWH), 2) meaning the god or gods that were the false idols and statues, 3) as an angel, or 4)a man with the status of judge, who has been given God's authority to exercise judgement here on earth. #4 is easily ruled out simply due to the text and context. #2 is ruled out by the fact that any man who would wrestle with a statue all night is crazy, and to be injured by it is just sad.
There are other ways in which this term is used. But even within these 4 there are various meanings.
Elohiym is a generic term for “god”. It can refer to the true god (Yahweh) or to false gods (Baal, Astarte, Dagon, etc.). It can also be used to refer to “angels” that are often called “sons of God”.
Thus we could divide these particular brands of elohiym into two groups: “good elohiym” (“angels” if you will) and “bad elohiym” (“angels” or “demons” if you will).
For instance, in Job 1:6, “there was a day when the sons of god [ben 'elohiym] came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Satan came also among them.”
The Satan is probably of the same kind as the “sons of god” bit quite malicious.
Another instance is in Genesis 6:1-7, where “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose …There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
The result of this inter-deistic coupling is the Flood to cleanse the earth.
And just as “good elohiym” (“angels”) are not necessarily tied to specific places and objects so also “bad elohiym” (“demons”).
Now the context of Genesis 32 is in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) idea of
“pagan gods” and “false gods”.
The way in which Canaanite (ANE) idolatry worked is that the idol was an object by which people could petition their gods. Not all pagan gods were connected to idols and even those that were connected to idols were not always with the idol.
Recall 1 Kings 18 when Elijah and the prophets of Baal went to Mt. Carmel to petition their respective gods. There was nothing there except an altar to Baal and an altar to Yahweh.
“High places” were hills and mountains (there are a lot of them in Palestine) where pagans went to sacrifice to various members of the Baal pantheon.
Worship of Yahweh worked in a similar way but the meaning was far different. People also went to high places to commune with Yahweh (Mt. Carmel, Sinai, Zion, etc.) The Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were objects and places where the Israelites went to commune with Yahweh. God was not tied to these objects (any more than he is tied to Jerusalem of the Jewish people in general) but they were places that helped people of the time commune with him. A modern version of this is the local church.
One notable difference is that making an idol with image of Yahweh was strictly forbidden.
All this is to say that Jacob could wrestle with a malicious elohiym and it not be an idol. It could be a bad “son of God” (“fallen angel”, “demon”), like the ones from Genesis 6, Job 1, or even one possessing another human (like the demons possessing the man and then the swine herd of Matt 8, Mark 5, Luke 8).
To say that the "god of that statue" would be his competitor, you would first have to show evidence that Jacob believed there actually existed any other gods that were not man-made. We know this to be the opposite as Jacob claims many times to follow the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. This is YHWH.
One can mistakenly believe in existence of other gods and still follow the one true God Yahweh.
Again, the term elohiym used to refer to gods (little “g”) is a generic term that applies to all supra-human beings (angels, “demons”, pagan gods, and the one true God, Yahweh). In our terminology it is equivalent to the term “spiritual being”.
I myself believe in one true God who is a spiritual being, but I also believe in the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim, seraphim, etc.). I also believe that these various spiritual beings can take a physical form and a part from idols. This does not contradict my belief that there is one true God, Yahweh.
Do men make idol gods? Yes. Do men recognize as gods those malicious spiritual beings that pose as gods? Unfortunately, yes.
This leaves us with two possible answers. #1, the 'elohiym is YHWH, or #3, the 'elohiym is an angel.
Again, a fallen angel is an angel none the less.
Being that we first look to scripture for interpreting scripture, we would need to see what three key passages say. First, we have Gen. 32:28-30. The 'elohiym claims that Jacob has striven with "God and men", Jacob names that place Peniel-Face of God- because he had "seen God face to face, yet [his] life had been preserved (This would not have been a concern had he simply seen an angel or demon.
Again, elohiym can mean “God” or “god”. Context makes the determination.
While many biblical characters fell down as dead men in fear upon seeing an angel, there was no reason to assume you were lucky to be alive after the fact.
True, both Abraham and Lot did not fall down having seen angels in Genesis 18 and 19. Of course, Abraham did not fall down when he met and talked with Yahweh face to face in Gen 18.
Why? because the angels always started with "fear not" and gave a mission to do.
They do not always say “fear not” (Genesis 18-19).
The ONLY reason for Jacob to be thankful his life had been preserved is because for sinful man to see YHWH face to face they believed meant death.
Nope, Genesis 18 proves you wrong.
This is echoed throughout scripture, especially the OT.) This passage gives us our first hint that Jacob would believe he had seen YHWH not an angel, certainly not a malicious one, but it's not enough to conclude....
If he had indeed seen Yahweh and believed it to be true then it is odd that he did not say “Yahweh.” Everywhere else in Genesis where God takes physical form he is referred to as “Yahweh” and not just “God”. Furthermore, Jacob has seen angels several times already, including earlier in the seen, yet he does not refer to the person as either “Yahweh” or “angel”.
Next we must look in Gen. 48:15-16 "He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked (meaning YHWH), the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, (meaning YHWH), The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" The Angel here is synonymous with the previous mentionings of YHWH. Why would Jacob have reason to say an Angel had redeemed him from anything? Because he had striven with that Angel (used here meaning the same as YHWH) back in Gen. 32. In Hebrew the term is: hammal`'ak used in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for YHWH. This is the second time we get the impression that Jacob meant YHWH, but it still needs one more...
And that is the thing: Genesis 32 does not call the elohiym either “Yahweh” or “angel”.
But it is interesting and an example of what I am stating: not every use of the word “angel” designates a typical “angel” as “Son of God” and not every use of elohiym designates either “God” or “good angel”.
If Jacob (or the writer) meant “angel of the Lord (Yahweh)” neither of them said it. If they meant ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”), then they still didn’t say it. We know Jacob knows about ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”) because he uses it in the prior chapter in Genesis 31:11: “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream.”
No, both Jacob and the writer know that this figure was neither Yahweh nor “good angel”, but something quite vicious.
Hosea 12:2-5 "the LORD (YHWH) also has a dispute with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; He (YHWH) will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God (YHWH). Yes, he wrestled with the angel (the disputed term) and prevailed; he wept and sought His (from the text this is YHWH ref in Hebrew)favor. He found Him (YHWH) at Bethel and there He (YHWH) spoke with us, even the LORD (YHWH), the God of hosts (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH)is His (YHWH)name.
Okay, first this is Hosea using the character of Jacob (Israel) to speak about his contemporary Israelite generation. Hence, verse 4: “he found him [in] Bethel, and there he spake with US.” Hence, verse 2: “The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him,” which refers to the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel during the time of Hosea. “Jacob” is often a poetic name for Israel used by the writing prophets and points back to the historical and literary figure of the Jacob of Genesis. This is what Hosea is doing here (see Hosea 11:12).
Now the text:
“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:” (Hosea 12:3)
Okay, all good here. Jacob wrestled with Esau and got the birth right with power from God.
“Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:4)
Again, Hosea identifies the figure as an angel and not Yahweh. But really, how could Jacob prevail over Yahweh?
“and showed pity [chanan] unto him:” (Hosea 12:4)
How can Jacob show prevail against Yahweh and then show Yahweh pity? No.
Sorry, the behavior of the elohiym in Genesis 32, including Jacob’s response, and Hosea’s description of the event shows that it really, really cannot be Yahweh.
Now so far, we've had the hint it COULD be YHWH from Gen. 32, we've had Jacob himself interpret this as YHWH from Gen. 32 and Gen 48, and now Hosea will add his own interpretation. Hosea is in the middle of the passage talking about YHWH's disposition towards Jacob and his descendents, and in comes the word, 'elohiym, into the mix. Now if it stopped there, we might be left wondering, but Hosea tells us who this 'elohiym is in 2 big ways. First he uses the same Hebrew as in Gen 48 and in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for God (YHWH) uses mal`ak. This is the same wording, and right in the middle of a discussion about God (YHWH) and Jacob. But then Hosea qualifies his comment on 'elohiym by vv 5: "Even the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name." Taken together we have little conclusion other than the use of 'elohiym referenced in Gen. 32 is in reference to YHWH. Not an idol, a man, or an angel, and certainly not a malicious angel.
Yes, sorry. See all above.
Remember there are not divisions in the Hebrew sentences and paragraphs. These are interpretations by contemporary translators. Just as Hosea 11:12 should go with Hosea chapter 12 so also verse 3a “he met him at Bethel” starts a new paragraph.
Need proof?
“Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.” (Hosea 12:6-7)
Obviously, verse 6 is about God and verse 6 is not. Here is the next example.
“And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labors they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin. I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast.” (Hosea 12:8-9)
Again, obviously, verse 8 is about Ephraim/Israel/Jacob and verse 9 is not.
Context, context, context. Yahweh does not lose “battles” and no one shows “pity” upon him.
It is because Yahweh was with Jacob that the latter prevailed over Esau and the elohiym. It is because of Yahweh that Jacob could show “pity” to the malicious angel.
This chapter in Hosea shows that early interpreters of the Genesis 32 story understood the elohiym to be something or someone other than Yahweh.
One last point to make is that if what you say is correct about the mythology, then you would be arguing that anyone who has tried to interpret Genesis without a thorough understanding of Canaanite mythology would be wrong due to ignorance. This would make centuries worth of brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors, wrong. Also, it would be a flawed hermeneutic which you wouldn't continue using into the NT. Or would you? Would you tell me that I couldn't understand the book of Romans properly if I didn't fully understand the Roman pantheon? The message has nothing to do with the pantheon or the legends associated with it, it has everything to do with the gospel of Christ. Mythology has never been needed to understand scripture, and doesn't in this case any more than any other. Of course mythology was rampant in that day. That's why God had the Israelites drive out the pagan "idolotrous" nations when they cleansed the land. But just because the pagan nations believed in and worshipped the idols, doesn't mean that Jacob did, or would have even considered that catching an evil spirit would grant him wishes. Nonsense! Jacob followed YHWH as did Abraham and Isaac his fathers. To claim differently, you really need to prove differently.
Let me ask you: have you ever changed your interpretation of a Scriptural passage after you learned a little bit about the culture in which the passage was written?
Why do we have newer translations? We are continually finding better manuscripts which give us a better idea of what the original document stated.
Brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors are often wrong. Take Augustine: he had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed a particular but incorrect view of original sin which is still held by most of the Christian world.
Heck, for 1300 years almost all of Christendom held to the ransom view of the atonement. Now almost no one believes that view is correct.
Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Moody, Graham, and every other great Christian leader have been wrong with some things and we are no different. Everyone always is getting some theology wrong. By grace, we are given enough of the right theology in order to be saved and grow as a Christian.
But with regards to ANE mythology, one does not need to know the local, historical mythology to understand the point of the passage: Jacob has struggled with men and gods and has prevailed. One does not have to know that the “Sons of God” are “angels” to know that they are spiritual beings. One does not have to know that an elohiym can also be interpreted as a “bad angel” to understand that the “god” here is malicious. However, if one does not Hebrew then they are at the mercy of the errant translator: “Do I interpret elohiym as ‘God’, ‘god’, ‘angel’, ‘judge’, ‘idol’ or ‘gods’?”
One does have to know Hebrew to interpret Genesis, right? I mean, the story was written in Hebrew. We have to know Hebrew in order to understand it. Thankfully, God has raised people up throughout history to learn the language and translate it into various languages (Greek, Latin, Middle English, German, and modern English, etc.). Anyone who reads the original Hebrew and does not have the best knowledge of it will be wrong due to ignorance, right? Again, Augustine had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed an incorrect view of original sin.
Not “wishes”, but a “blessing”. “Blessing” is a specific act like that of “curse”. One can bless another and curse another. One can bless man and God just as one can curse man and God.
I am not claiming that Jacob, Isaac or Abraham did not follow Yahweh (though Abraham did follow false gods in his former life). Again, the belief in the existence of other spiritual beings does not exclude the sole worship of the one true God, Yahweh.
Do you believe in the existence of angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim and seraphim? If you do not then it doesn’t make you an apostate believer or unfaithful to God. I know lots of believers who think that angels and demons are mythological and not based in reality. I disagree but understand how and why they think so.
This has been a very good and helpful discussion for me. I am currently reviewing my Hebrew grammar. It's not very easy but this exercise is helping.
There are other ways in which this term is used. But even within these 4 there are various meanings.
Elohiym is a generic term for “god”. It can refer to the true god (Yahweh) or to false gods (Baal, Astarte, Dagon, etc.). It can also be used to refer to “angels” that are often called “sons of God”.
Thus we could divide these particular brands of elohiym into two groups: “good elohiym” (“angels” if you will) and “bad elohiym” (“angels” or “demons” if you will).
For instance, in Job 1:6, “there was a day when the sons of god [ben 'elohiym] came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Satan came also among them.”
The Satan is probably of the same kind as the “sons of god” bit quite malicious.
Another instance is in Genesis 6:1-7, where “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose …There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
The result of this inter-deistic coupling is the Flood to cleanse the earth.
And just as “good elohiym” (“angels”) are not necessarily tied to specific places and objects so also “bad elohiym” (“demons”).
Now the context of Genesis 32 is in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) idea of
“pagan gods” and “false gods”.
The way in which Canaanite (ANE) idolatry worked is that the idol was an object by which people could petition their gods. Not all pagan gods were connected to idols and even those that were connected to idols were not always with the idol.
Recall 1 Kings 18 when Elijah and the prophets of Baal went to Mt. Carmel to petition their respective gods. There was nothing there except an altar to Baal and an altar to Yahweh.
“High places” were hills and mountains (there are a lot of them in Palestine) where pagans went to sacrifice to various members of the Baal pantheon.
Worship of Yahweh worked in a similar way but the meaning was far different. People also went to high places to commune with Yahweh (Mt. Carmel, Sinai, Zion, etc.) The Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were objects and places where the Israelites went to commune with Yahweh. God was not tied to these objects (any more than he is tied to Jerusalem of the Jewish people in general) but they were places that helped people of the time commune with him. A modern version of this is the local church.
One notable difference is that making an idol with image of Yahweh was strictly forbidden.
All this is to say that Jacob could wrestle with a malicious elohiym and it not be an idol. It could be a bad “son of God” (“fallen angel”, “demon”), like the ones from Genesis 6, Job 1, or even one possessing another human (like the demons possessing the man and then the swine herd of Matt 8, Mark 5, Luke 8).
To say that the "god of that statue" would be his competitor, you would first have to show evidence that Jacob believed there actually existed any other gods that were not man-made. We know this to be the opposite as Jacob claims many times to follow the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. This is YHWH.
One can mistakenly believe in existence of other gods and still follow the one true God Yahweh.
Again, the term elohiym used to refer to gods (little “g”) is a generic term that applies to all supra-human beings (angels, “demons”, pagan gods, and the one true God, Yahweh). In our terminology it is equivalent to the term “spiritual being”.
I myself believe in one true God who is a spiritual being, but I also believe in the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim, seraphim, etc.). I also believe that these various spiritual beings can take a physical form and a part from idols. This does not contradict my belief that there is one true God, Yahweh.
Do men make idol gods? Yes. Do men recognize as gods those malicious spiritual beings that pose as gods? Unfortunately, yes.
This leaves us with two possible answers. #1, the 'elohiym is YHWH, or #3, the 'elohiym is an angel.
Again, a fallen angel is an angel none the less.
Being that we first look to scripture for interpreting scripture, we would need to see what three key passages say. First, we have Gen. 32:28-30. The 'elohiym claims that Jacob has striven with "God and men", Jacob names that place Peniel-Face of God- because he had "seen God face to face, yet [his] life had been preserved (This would not have been a concern had he simply seen an angel or demon.
Again, elohiym can mean “God” or “god”. Context makes the determination.
While many biblical characters fell down as dead men in fear upon seeing an angel, there was no reason to assume you were lucky to be alive after the fact.
True, both Abraham and Lot did not fall down having seen angels in Genesis 18 and 19. Of course, Abraham did not fall down when he met and talked with Yahweh face to face in Gen 18.
Why? because the angels always started with "fear not" and gave a mission to do.
They do not always say “fear not” (Genesis 18-19).
The ONLY reason for Jacob to be thankful his life had been preserved is because for sinful man to see YHWH face to face they believed meant death.
Nope, Genesis 18 proves you wrong.
This is echoed throughout scripture, especially the OT.) This passage gives us our first hint that Jacob would believe he had seen YHWH not an angel, certainly not a malicious one, but it's not enough to conclude....
If he had indeed seen Yahweh and believed it to be true then it is odd that he did not say “Yahweh.” Everywhere else in Genesis where God takes physical form he is referred to as “Yahweh” and not just “God”. Furthermore, Jacob has seen angels several times already, including earlier in the seen, yet he does not refer to the person as either “Yahweh” or “angel”.
Next we must look in Gen. 48:15-16 "He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked (meaning YHWH), the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, (meaning YHWH), The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" The Angel here is synonymous with the previous mentionings of YHWH. Why would Jacob have reason to say an Angel had redeemed him from anything? Because he had striven with that Angel (used here meaning the same as YHWH) back in Gen. 32. In Hebrew the term is: hammal`'ak used in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for YHWH. This is the second time we get the impression that Jacob meant YHWH, but it still needs one more...
And that is the thing: Genesis 32 does not call the elohiym either “Yahweh” or “angel”.
But it is interesting and an example of what I am stating: not every use of the word “angel” designates a typical “angel” as “Son of God” and not every use of elohiym designates either “God” or “good angel”.
If Jacob (or the writer) meant “angel of the Lord (Yahweh)” neither of them said it. If they meant ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”), then they still didn’t say it. We know Jacob knows about ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”) because he uses it in the prior chapter in Genesis 31:11: “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream.”
No, both Jacob and the writer know that this figure was neither Yahweh nor “good angel”, but something quite vicious.
Hosea 12:2-5 "the LORD (YHWH) also has a dispute with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; He (YHWH) will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God (YHWH). Yes, he wrestled with the angel (the disputed term) and prevailed; he wept and sought His (from the text this is YHWH ref in Hebrew)favor. He found Him (YHWH) at Bethel and there He (YHWH) spoke with us, even the LORD (YHWH), the God of hosts (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH)is His (YHWH)name.
Okay, first this is Hosea using the character of Jacob (Israel) to speak about his contemporary Israelite generation. Hence, verse 4: “he found him [in] Bethel, and there he spake with US.” Hence, verse 2: “The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him,” which refers to the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel during the time of Hosea. “Jacob” is often a poetic name for Israel used by the writing prophets and points back to the historical and literary figure of the Jacob of Genesis. This is what Hosea is doing here (see Hosea 11:12).
Now the text:
“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:” (Hosea 12:3)
Okay, all good here. Jacob wrestled with Esau and got the birth right with power from God.
“Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:4)
Again, Hosea identifies the figure as an angel and not Yahweh. But really, how could Jacob prevail over Yahweh?
“and showed pity [chanan] unto him:” (Hosea 12:4)
How can Jacob show prevail against Yahweh and then show Yahweh pity? No.
Sorry, the behavior of the elohiym in Genesis 32, including Jacob’s response, and Hosea’s description of the event shows that it really, really cannot be Yahweh.
Now so far, we've had the hint it COULD be YHWH from Gen. 32, we've had Jacob himself interpret this as YHWH from Gen. 32 and Gen 48, and now Hosea will add his own interpretation. Hosea is in the middle of the passage talking about YHWH's disposition towards Jacob and his descendents, and in comes the word, 'elohiym, into the mix. Now if it stopped there, we might be left wondering, but Hosea tells us who this 'elohiym is in 2 big ways. First he uses the same Hebrew as in Gen 48 and in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for God (YHWH) uses mal`ak. This is the same wording, and right in the middle of a discussion about God (YHWH) and Jacob. But then Hosea qualifies his comment on 'elohiym by vv 5: "Even the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name." Taken together we have little conclusion other than the use of 'elohiym referenced in Gen. 32 is in reference to YHWH. Not an idol, a man, or an angel, and certainly not a malicious angel.
Yes, sorry. See all above.
Remember there are not divisions in the Hebrew sentences and paragraphs. These are interpretations by contemporary translators. Just as Hosea 11:12 should go with Hosea chapter 12 so also verse 3a “he met him at Bethel” starts a new paragraph.
Need proof?
“Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.” (Hosea 12:6-7)
Obviously, verse 6 is about God and verse 6 is not. Here is the next example.
“And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labors they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin. I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast.” (Hosea 12:8-9)
Again, obviously, verse 8 is about Ephraim/Israel/Jacob and verse 9 is not.
Context, context, context. Yahweh does not lose “battles” and no one shows “pity” upon him.
It is because Yahweh was with Jacob that the latter prevailed over Esau and the elohiym. It is because of Yahweh that Jacob could show “pity” to the malicious angel.
This chapter in Hosea shows that early interpreters of the Genesis 32 story understood the elohiym to be something or someone other than Yahweh.
One last point to make is that if what you say is correct about the mythology, then you would be arguing that anyone who has tried to interpret Genesis without a thorough understanding of Canaanite mythology would be wrong due to ignorance. This would make centuries worth of brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors, wrong. Also, it would be a flawed hermeneutic which you wouldn't continue using into the NT. Or would you? Would you tell me that I couldn't understand the book of Romans properly if I didn't fully understand the Roman pantheon? The message has nothing to do with the pantheon or the legends associated with it, it has everything to do with the gospel of Christ. Mythology has never been needed to understand scripture, and doesn't in this case any more than any other. Of course mythology was rampant in that day. That's why God had the Israelites drive out the pagan "idolotrous" nations when they cleansed the land. But just because the pagan nations believed in and worshipped the idols, doesn't mean that Jacob did, or would have even considered that catching an evil spirit would grant him wishes. Nonsense! Jacob followed YHWH as did Abraham and Isaac his fathers. To claim differently, you really need to prove differently.
Let me ask you: have you ever changed your interpretation of a Scriptural passage after you learned a little bit about the culture in which the passage was written?
Why do we have newer translations? We are continually finding better manuscripts which give us a better idea of what the original document stated.
Brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors are often wrong. Take Augustine: he had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed a particular but incorrect view of original sin which is still held by most of the Christian world.
Heck, for 1300 years almost all of Christendom held to the ransom view of the atonement. Now almost no one believes that view is correct.
Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Moody, Graham, and every other great Christian leader have been wrong with some things and we are no different. Everyone always is getting some theology wrong. By grace, we are given enough of the right theology in order to be saved and grow as a Christian.
But with regards to ANE mythology, one does not need to know the local, historical mythology to understand the point of the passage: Jacob has struggled with men and gods and has prevailed. One does not have to know that the “Sons of God” are “angels” to know that they are spiritual beings. One does not have to know that an elohiym can also be interpreted as a “bad angel” to understand that the “god” here is malicious. However, if one does not Hebrew then they are at the mercy of the errant translator: “Do I interpret elohiym as ‘God’, ‘god’, ‘angel’, ‘judge’, ‘idol’ or ‘gods’?”
One does have to know Hebrew to interpret Genesis, right? I mean, the story was written in Hebrew. We have to know Hebrew in order to understand it. Thankfully, God has raised people up throughout history to learn the language and translate it into various languages (Greek, Latin, Middle English, German, and modern English, etc.). Anyone who reads the original Hebrew and does not have the best knowledge of it will be wrong due to ignorance, right? Again, Augustine had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed an incorrect view of original sin.
Not “wishes”, but a “blessing”. “Blessing” is a specific act like that of “curse”. One can bless another and curse another. One can bless man and God just as one can curse man and God.
I am not claiming that Jacob, Isaac or Abraham did not follow Yahweh (though Abraham did follow false gods in his former life). Again, the belief in the existence of other spiritual beings does not exclude the sole worship of the one true God, Yahweh.
Do you believe in the existence of angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim and seraphim? If you do not then it doesn’t make you an apostate believer or unfaithful to God. I know lots of believers who think that angels and demons are mythological and not based in reality. I disagree but understand how and why they think so.
This has been a very good and helpful discussion for me. I am currently reviewing my Hebrew grammar. It's not very easy but this exercise is helping.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Is the Elohiym of Genesis 32 Malicious?
Your thoughts on possibly a theophany??
There are several theophanies in Genesis (chapters 2-3, and 18 being the most obvious). All are J-Writings. Theophanies are a particular characteristic of J’s style. In these episodes, Yahweh (God) is never identified as iysh (man), he is always identified as Yahweh. He is only once characterized like a man (‘enowsh, Genesis 18) but only because Abraham looks up to see 3 “men” (‘enowsh) two of which are identified as angels. Indeed the passage begins “Yahweh appeared” and then we read” three men” were there. The word is seldom used in the singular and then only in poetry of the post-Exilic writings.
Now Hosea lived 740–725 BCE. Just two hundred or so years after the J-writer wrote the prophet writes:
“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)
At least Hosea believed it to be an angel and not Yahweh (God).
V.23 says that he sent all his family, and all his possessions over the river, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. Why send all of your help and support over, and not at least cry out for help. Even at night, someone should have been able to come back across to help him had he so desired.
We do not know how far away Jacob was from the rest of the encampment. We do not know if Jacob actually desired help from his servants or family.
About the wrestling match, is this a battle of the physical only, or also a battle of the will? My questions are because of the following:V25 states that the man simply touched the socket of the hip and wrenched it. The hip is the hardest joint in the body to wrench. It is surrounded by the biggest strongest muscles in the body, and to "wrench" one is rare. To "wrench" someone else's is VERY rare, and nigh on to impossible. Such power suggests that Jacob shouldn't have been able to overcome a mere physical battle by strength.
Yet Jacob did prevail in the wrestling match until almost morning. The elohiym was only able to make headway thru a physical act of “touching” hip bone.
The man tells him in v28 that his name shall not be "deceiver" anymore, but "he struggles with God", or "Israel". This suggests not only a theophany, but also more than a mere struggle of the flesh, but also of the will.
The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”
For example:
“And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods [elohiym] , but put no fire [under].” (1 Kings 18:25)
In V.29 Jacob asks the man his name and the man says Why do you ask my name? This implies that Jacob shouldn't need to ask.
No, it doesn’t. Pure speculation. And even if the elohiym’s question did mean “You shouldn’t have to ask,” that still doesn’t signify why Jacob shouldn’t need to ask.
Could it be that he has been struggling with this same person all of his life and has finally worn it down to a physical confrontation being necessary?
Is there any evidence that it does mean that?
Which he lost.
That’s just the point. He did not lose. He won! That is clear in the story in Genesis 32 and in Hosea’s interpretation in Hosea 12:2-4.
The request for Jacob to let him God is not a desperate cry of "oh my the sun is coming up and I'll melt, let me go", it seems a gentle command of I could force you as I just proved, but it's time this battle ended, and this was for you and I alone, we must settle this. Again, possibility of a theophany, and more than a physical battle.
The elohyim asks Jacob to let him go.
Jacob tells him he shall do so on 1 condition: that he be blessed.
The battle ends on Jacob’s terms and not the elohyim’s.
This scenario would be odd even if Yahweh was explicitly referenced. It would be even odder given Jacob’s humble prayer to Yahweh in the previous verses 33:9-12. It would be a complete turn around of Jacob’s character arc in his relationship to Yahweh.
V. 30 states that Jacob called the place Peniel ("face of God") because he said he "saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.". Again, this suggests a theophany and more than a physical match up. Especially since after NOT being told the man's name, Jacob states that he wrestled with God. One could dismiss this as a misunderstanding, except for he finishes with "and lived to tell the tale" suggesting he knew his opponent and how serious a confrontation it had been.
The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”
Let’s reconstruct this:
If Jacob was wrestling with Yahweh then he did not have know until after verse 29. In verse 28 the elohiym states: “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” If Jacob realizes here that he is wrestling with a supra-human being, he doesn’t know for sure it is Yahweh because in verse 29 he wants the elohiym to tell his name. Why would he want the person to tell him his name? He already knew it. Regardless, the elohiym does not give his name. In verse 30 we read this: “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” Even here Jacob does not state the name “Yahweh” if he believes it, only the generic term elohiym.
You're correct to rule out Esau, because immediately AFTER this, he looks up and Esau is approaching. If he had just wrestled him, Esau would have been right there. He had not yet faced his brother for his deceptions against him.
Yes, but see below.
Why assume that the "man" is trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God's promise? That is never stated, and it's not as if the text says that Jacob was held back. It says he remained alone(indicating on purpose), and a man wrestled with him.
“Good Angels” do the will of God. The “wrestling angel” would have been doing the will of God. But the angel actually bends to the will of Jacob and not the intention of his own. It ends on Jacob’s terms and not the “angels.”
If this is the case, then Jacob has not bent himself to God’s will. He has done just the opposite! In all the previous scenes he has obeyed God. There is nothing in the text that suggests he isn’t obeying God now or that there is a negative consequence to the disobedience of usurping the will of God via the “angel”.
Jacob out-wrestles the “angel”. The “angel” then dislodges the hip bone. Jacob still prevails. The “angel” tells Jacob to let him go. Jacob replies that he will only if he is given a blessing. The “angel” agrees. Jacob gets his blessing and lets the “angel” go. Really, how could Jacob beat a “good angel”? (See the angels in Sodom at Genesis)
However, if the elohiym had been against God’s will, then it should not be surprising that Jacob defeats the elohiym because he IS doing God’s will.
All of this suggests that the elohiym is not doing God’s will. Thus, a “fallen” elohiym.
So then what is the elohiym’s purpose?
1) Edge of promise land
The wrestling match occurs at the outer edge of the Jabbok river. The river is a well-known natural boundary which separated the tribes of Israel from the people of Ammon (Num 21:24; Deut 2:37, 3:16; Josh 12:2). On the western side of the river is the “promise land”. Jacob has already received the promise of the land from Isaac (instead of Esau) who received it from Abraham. God promised the land to Abraham. Jacob flees Esau because he stole the “blessing” but goes to his kinsmen and finds wives and has children (children of his kinsmen who will receive the blessing from Jacob). Esau, on the other hand, has found wives among the Canaanites (Gen 28:8), displeasing his family (foreign wives and that sort of thing). Now Jacob has the blessing, he has the family, but he does not yet have the land. Therefore, Yahweh tells him to go home but that he will be with Jacob (31:3). He journey’s back to the land of the promise dreading his confrontation with Esau. Now Jacob has been seeing visions for quite a while now.
In Gen 28:11-16 at Bethel, still inside the land, Jacob has a dream about the angels and the ladder, in which Yahweh promises the land to him.
“And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;” (Gen 28:13)
Again in a dream in Gen 31:11, Jacob gets a vision of an angel which explicitly recalls the Bethel incident at Gen 28:11-16, telling him about the land to be acquired.
Now when he enters the area right before the Jabbok river he sees more angels.
“And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This [is] God's host [or camp]: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim [meaning two camps].” (Gen 32:1-2)
Now Jacob is about to pass over the river Jabbok and into the promise land and confront Esau. He sends his family into the promise land before him.
“And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two women servants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok. And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had. And Jacob was left alone.” (Gen 3:22ff.)
So now Jacob is alone outside the promise land and about to confront his brother to claim his blessing that God has already given him.
2. Connection with Esau
I do think there is a definite connection between the elohiym and Esau. And not just because of the wrestling and the struggling. Look at the next chapter and verse 10:
“And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of god, and thou wast pleased with me.”
The writer is making a connection here but I am not sure which. I know that some scholars think that the elohiym is Esau’s “guardian angel”. I am not prepared to go that far, though the idea does have some later precedence in the NT (see Acts 12:12-15).
3. Blessing
Another connection with Esau is mention of the “blessing.”
Jacob has struggled with Esau to receive a blessing.
Jacob struggles with the elohiym to receive a blessing.
In both situations, Jacob prevailed.
This is the prophet Hosea’s interpretation:
“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)
This is the character of the elohiym’s interpretation:
“And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with a god and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Gen 32:28)
This is the character of Jacob’s interpretation:
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen 32:30)
Thus, the connection with Esau suggests that both struggles are concerned with that of THE blessing. The evidence for such an interpretation is strengthened by the placement of the struggle just outside the border of the “blessing” (the promise land).
This is why I hold to the position that the elohiym is malicious.
It sounds as if your main two lines of argument are that 1) it sounds malicious to you, and 2) Canaanite mythology. But why enter mythology into the picture, and I've already asked about the "malicous" part.
The book is full of Canaanite mythology. The whole Bible is full of Canaanite myths. Usually, the writers are either refuting a pagan notion or showing God’s power over the pagan religion. Since Esau is considered the ancestors of the Edomites, and since a significantly identifiable amount of the Edomites worshipped pagan Canaanite gods (El, Baal, Asherah, and probably Chemosh), it shouldn’t be surprising that the J-Writer is mentioning a Canaanite “god” in order to show its impotence at the will of Yahweh.
Jacob has known all of his life that everything he had he had obtained by deceitful means, this would haunt me, and I imagine it would him as well. Being raised to believe in the One True God as he was, it would be understandable that he would recognize him when he met him, and would indicate purpose in him desiring to be blessed outside of trickery for once. It seems this was a dogged determination of Jacob finally realizing he couldn't go forward to the promised land without God being on his side. Again, desiring a blessing.
And that’s the point. He still gets a blessing thru trickery. He grabs an elohiym and doesn’t let go until he gets a blessing.
Jacob knew God was on his side the entire journey and stated as such.
Although I can definitely see your reasoning, I still disagree with the demon being as opposed to an angel. In response to 1a) I don't think the elohiyim was preventing Jacob from fulfilling God's promise, but rather the elohiyim is wrestling with Jacob b/c Jacob is not trusting God (see Jacob's prayer and follow up fearful actions in regards to seeing Esau)in the promise God has already made hence the "you have wrestled with God and man"...ie the fact that Jacob is overly fearful of Esau...this especially echoes a good interpretation given the previous verses leading up to the WWE wrestling match. I agree with 1b, it is a spirit=angel. 1c gives good proof that the elohiyiim was in fact an angel...if the elohiyim was a "fallen" angel or demon, why wouldn't Hosea read that way (if one holds to Scripture interprets Scripture, this is quite substantial evidence)?
Hosea would not have known about demons or fallen angles in the NT sense. That idea was not revealed to the Israelites and Jews until well after the exile. For Hosea to call in an angel is not wrong; just not complete. Sort of like how the book of Samuel has David call for the census but Chronicles mentions that the Satan tempted him. Neither is wrong but the Chronicles is a latter version reflecting greater revelation.
If it was an angel in the sense of being a “good angel” then why did neither Jacob or the author say as much? Angels have appeared throughout the narrative from Abraham onward. Jacob himself has seen angels on 3 different occasions (Gen 28:11-16; Gen 31:11; and also just before in Gen 32:1-2). He even spoke with one in Gen 31:11. In all these other occasions, the angels are identified by the author. In all the relevant occasions, Jacob knows that he is seeing angels. Whatever he saw in Genesis 32:30 was something far different from what he had previously experienced.
In response to 2a, the scene is dark and I believe Jacob really doesn't realize who he is wrestling with....furthermore, angels are unique in the way they look and Scripture does seem to portray them looking like men. In response to 2b, see 1a response above...it was God's bidding to have the angel wrestle with Jacob b/c of Jacob's distrust in Yahweh. In a sense, God is teaching Jacob a lesson...a lesson that will be remembered for generations (hip). In response to 2c, the goal of the angel wasn't to overpower Jacob...furthermore, even if the elohiyim was a demon, you still have the same argument to deal with...how could Jacob overpower a spirit demon?
That could be God’s purpose with the Smackdown, but such an intention does not necessarily negate the idea that the elohiym was malicious. Yahweh could have allowed the malicious “angel” to wrestle Jacob in order to teach Jacob a lesson. But I do not see anything in the prior episodes that warrant this lesson by Yahweh or any evidence that it was such a lesson. There is nothing in this episode which suggests that Jacob learned any lesson from this incident – surely nothing that made him turn further to Yahweh. Indeed, he reflects upon the episode in light of what he has experienced and not his relationship with Yahweh.
How could Jacob overpower a spirit demon? Again, if Jacob is acting according the will of Yahweh, then I would more likelier believe he would defeat a demon spirit than if he defeated an angel that was doing God’s will. Given the option, I choose Jacob’s success over the evil spirit. Anyway, Jacob “struggled” with Esau who was far stronger and powerful than himself and won.
Lastly, see above for response to 3a, 3b, 3c. 3d helps both of our arguments the same. 3i I agree with, although it helps both the same. 3ii and 3iii are on your side, I agree....however, the Hosea text, which is inspired, says angel which I think outweighs any mythology. Furthermore, your points against can be handled as seen above.
See above. A “fallen angel” is an “angel” none the less.
Lastly, thanks for the info on names and blessings...this was very insightful. Interestingly, I did notice that there was not one case of a demon or malicious spirit blessing or renaming...only other men, God, or angels. If one holds to the demon theory, one would have to say that this is the only case of a demon blessing and changing a name and the name of the Father of the Jewish nation mind you...this would not sit well with Pat Robertson (smiles).
It would be the only case of an “angel” wrestling with a man. It would be the only case of connection between an “angel” and a man (Esau) (Acts 12 just states that this was a belief and not that the belief is a reality).
Sorry, I do not catch the Pat Robertson joke. Disp(s)ensationalism?
A very insightful discussion! I learned quite a lot.
There are several theophanies in Genesis (chapters 2-3, and 18 being the most obvious). All are J-Writings. Theophanies are a particular characteristic of J’s style. In these episodes, Yahweh (God) is never identified as iysh (man), he is always identified as Yahweh. He is only once characterized like a man (‘enowsh, Genesis 18) but only because Abraham looks up to see 3 “men” (‘enowsh) two of which are identified as angels. Indeed the passage begins “Yahweh appeared” and then we read” three men” were there. The word is seldom used in the singular and then only in poetry of the post-Exilic writings.
Now Hosea lived 740–725 BCE. Just two hundred or so years after the J-writer wrote the prophet writes:
“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)
At least Hosea believed it to be an angel and not Yahweh (God).
V.23 says that he sent all his family, and all his possessions over the river, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. Why send all of your help and support over, and not at least cry out for help. Even at night, someone should have been able to come back across to help him had he so desired.
We do not know how far away Jacob was from the rest of the encampment. We do not know if Jacob actually desired help from his servants or family.
About the wrestling match, is this a battle of the physical only, or also a battle of the will? My questions are because of the following:V25 states that the man simply touched the socket of the hip and wrenched it. The hip is the hardest joint in the body to wrench. It is surrounded by the biggest strongest muscles in the body, and to "wrench" one is rare. To "wrench" someone else's is VERY rare, and nigh on to impossible. Such power suggests that Jacob shouldn't have been able to overcome a mere physical battle by strength.
Yet Jacob did prevail in the wrestling match until almost morning. The elohiym was only able to make headway thru a physical act of “touching” hip bone.
The man tells him in v28 that his name shall not be "deceiver" anymore, but "he struggles with God", or "Israel". This suggests not only a theophany, but also more than a mere struggle of the flesh, but also of the will.
The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”
For example:
“And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods [elohiym] , but put no fire [under].” (1 Kings 18:25)
In V.29 Jacob asks the man his name and the man says Why do you ask my name? This implies that Jacob shouldn't need to ask.
No, it doesn’t. Pure speculation. And even if the elohiym’s question did mean “You shouldn’t have to ask,” that still doesn’t signify why Jacob shouldn’t need to ask.
Could it be that he has been struggling with this same person all of his life and has finally worn it down to a physical confrontation being necessary?
Is there any evidence that it does mean that?
Which he lost.
That’s just the point. He did not lose. He won! That is clear in the story in Genesis 32 and in Hosea’s interpretation in Hosea 12:2-4.
The request for Jacob to let him God is not a desperate cry of "oh my the sun is coming up and I'll melt, let me go", it seems a gentle command of I could force you as I just proved, but it's time this battle ended, and this was for you and I alone, we must settle this. Again, possibility of a theophany, and more than a physical battle.
The elohyim asks Jacob to let him go.
Jacob tells him he shall do so on 1 condition: that he be blessed.
The battle ends on Jacob’s terms and not the elohyim’s.
This scenario would be odd even if Yahweh was explicitly referenced. It would be even odder given Jacob’s humble prayer to Yahweh in the previous verses 33:9-12. It would be a complete turn around of Jacob’s character arc in his relationship to Yahweh.
V. 30 states that Jacob called the place Peniel ("face of God") because he said he "saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.". Again, this suggests a theophany and more than a physical match up. Especially since after NOT being told the man's name, Jacob states that he wrestled with God. One could dismiss this as a misunderstanding, except for he finishes with "and lived to tell the tale" suggesting he knew his opponent and how serious a confrontation it had been.
The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”
Let’s reconstruct this:
If Jacob was wrestling with Yahweh then he did not have know until after verse 29. In verse 28 the elohiym states: “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” If Jacob realizes here that he is wrestling with a supra-human being, he doesn’t know for sure it is Yahweh because in verse 29 he wants the elohiym to tell his name. Why would he want the person to tell him his name? He already knew it. Regardless, the elohiym does not give his name. In verse 30 we read this: “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” Even here Jacob does not state the name “Yahweh” if he believes it, only the generic term elohiym.
You're correct to rule out Esau, because immediately AFTER this, he looks up and Esau is approaching. If he had just wrestled him, Esau would have been right there. He had not yet faced his brother for his deceptions against him.
Yes, but see below.
Why assume that the "man" is trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God's promise? That is never stated, and it's not as if the text says that Jacob was held back. It says he remained alone(indicating on purpose), and a man wrestled with him.
“Good Angels” do the will of God. The “wrestling angel” would have been doing the will of God. But the angel actually bends to the will of Jacob and not the intention of his own. It ends on Jacob’s terms and not the “angels.”
If this is the case, then Jacob has not bent himself to God’s will. He has done just the opposite! In all the previous scenes he has obeyed God. There is nothing in the text that suggests he isn’t obeying God now or that there is a negative consequence to the disobedience of usurping the will of God via the “angel”.
Jacob out-wrestles the “angel”. The “angel” then dislodges the hip bone. Jacob still prevails. The “angel” tells Jacob to let him go. Jacob replies that he will only if he is given a blessing. The “angel” agrees. Jacob gets his blessing and lets the “angel” go. Really, how could Jacob beat a “good angel”? (See the angels in Sodom at Genesis)
However, if the elohiym had been against God’s will, then it should not be surprising that Jacob defeats the elohiym because he IS doing God’s will.
All of this suggests that the elohiym is not doing God’s will. Thus, a “fallen” elohiym.
So then what is the elohiym’s purpose?
1) Edge of promise land
The wrestling match occurs at the outer edge of the Jabbok river. The river is a well-known natural boundary which separated the tribes of Israel from the people of Ammon (Num 21:24; Deut 2:37, 3:16; Josh 12:2). On the western side of the river is the “promise land”. Jacob has already received the promise of the land from Isaac (instead of Esau) who received it from Abraham. God promised the land to Abraham. Jacob flees Esau because he stole the “blessing” but goes to his kinsmen and finds wives and has children (children of his kinsmen who will receive the blessing from Jacob). Esau, on the other hand, has found wives among the Canaanites (Gen 28:8), displeasing his family (foreign wives and that sort of thing). Now Jacob has the blessing, he has the family, but he does not yet have the land. Therefore, Yahweh tells him to go home but that he will be with Jacob (31:3). He journey’s back to the land of the promise dreading his confrontation with Esau. Now Jacob has been seeing visions for quite a while now.
In Gen 28:11-16 at Bethel, still inside the land, Jacob has a dream about the angels and the ladder, in which Yahweh promises the land to him.
“And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;” (Gen 28:13)
Again in a dream in Gen 31:11, Jacob gets a vision of an angel which explicitly recalls the Bethel incident at Gen 28:11-16, telling him about the land to be acquired.
Now when he enters the area right before the Jabbok river he sees more angels.
“And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This [is] God's host [or camp]: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim [meaning two camps].” (Gen 32:1-2)
Now Jacob is about to pass over the river Jabbok and into the promise land and confront Esau. He sends his family into the promise land before him.
“And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two women servants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok. And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had. And Jacob was left alone.” (Gen 3:22ff.)
So now Jacob is alone outside the promise land and about to confront his brother to claim his blessing that God has already given him.
2. Connection with Esau
I do think there is a definite connection between the elohiym and Esau. And not just because of the wrestling and the struggling. Look at the next chapter and verse 10:
“And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of god, and thou wast pleased with me.”
The writer is making a connection here but I am not sure which. I know that some scholars think that the elohiym is Esau’s “guardian angel”. I am not prepared to go that far, though the idea does have some later precedence in the NT (see Acts 12:12-15).
3. Blessing
Another connection with Esau is mention of the “blessing.”
Jacob has struggled with Esau to receive a blessing.
Jacob struggles with the elohiym to receive a blessing.
In both situations, Jacob prevailed.
This is the prophet Hosea’s interpretation:
“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)
This is the character of the elohiym’s interpretation:
“And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with a god and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Gen 32:28)
This is the character of Jacob’s interpretation:
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen 32:30)
Thus, the connection with Esau suggests that both struggles are concerned with that of THE blessing. The evidence for such an interpretation is strengthened by the placement of the struggle just outside the border of the “blessing” (the promise land).
This is why I hold to the position that the elohiym is malicious.
It sounds as if your main two lines of argument are that 1) it sounds malicious to you, and 2) Canaanite mythology. But why enter mythology into the picture, and I've already asked about the "malicous" part.
The book is full of Canaanite mythology. The whole Bible is full of Canaanite myths. Usually, the writers are either refuting a pagan notion or showing God’s power over the pagan religion. Since Esau is considered the ancestors of the Edomites, and since a significantly identifiable amount of the Edomites worshipped pagan Canaanite gods (El, Baal, Asherah, and probably Chemosh), it shouldn’t be surprising that the J-Writer is mentioning a Canaanite “god” in order to show its impotence at the will of Yahweh.
Jacob has known all of his life that everything he had he had obtained by deceitful means, this would haunt me, and I imagine it would him as well. Being raised to believe in the One True God as he was, it would be understandable that he would recognize him when he met him, and would indicate purpose in him desiring to be blessed outside of trickery for once. It seems this was a dogged determination of Jacob finally realizing he couldn't go forward to the promised land without God being on his side. Again, desiring a blessing.
And that’s the point. He still gets a blessing thru trickery. He grabs an elohiym and doesn’t let go until he gets a blessing.
Jacob knew God was on his side the entire journey and stated as such.
Although I can definitely see your reasoning, I still disagree with the demon being as opposed to an angel. In response to 1a) I don't think the elohiyim was preventing Jacob from fulfilling God's promise, but rather the elohiyim is wrestling with Jacob b/c Jacob is not trusting God (see Jacob's prayer and follow up fearful actions in regards to seeing Esau)in the promise God has already made hence the "you have wrestled with God and man"...ie the fact that Jacob is overly fearful of Esau...this especially echoes a good interpretation given the previous verses leading up to the WWE wrestling match. I agree with 1b, it is a spirit=angel. 1c gives good proof that the elohiyiim was in fact an angel...if the elohiyim was a "fallen" angel or demon, why wouldn't Hosea read that way (if one holds to Scripture interprets Scripture, this is quite substantial evidence)?
Hosea would not have known about demons or fallen angles in the NT sense. That idea was not revealed to the Israelites and Jews until well after the exile. For Hosea to call in an angel is not wrong; just not complete. Sort of like how the book of Samuel has David call for the census but Chronicles mentions that the Satan tempted him. Neither is wrong but the Chronicles is a latter version reflecting greater revelation.
If it was an angel in the sense of being a “good angel” then why did neither Jacob or the author say as much? Angels have appeared throughout the narrative from Abraham onward. Jacob himself has seen angels on 3 different occasions (Gen 28:11-16; Gen 31:11; and also just before in Gen 32:1-2). He even spoke with one in Gen 31:11. In all these other occasions, the angels are identified by the author. In all the relevant occasions, Jacob knows that he is seeing angels. Whatever he saw in Genesis 32:30 was something far different from what he had previously experienced.
In response to 2a, the scene is dark and I believe Jacob really doesn't realize who he is wrestling with....furthermore, angels are unique in the way they look and Scripture does seem to portray them looking like men. In response to 2b, see 1a response above...it was God's bidding to have the angel wrestle with Jacob b/c of Jacob's distrust in Yahweh. In a sense, God is teaching Jacob a lesson...a lesson that will be remembered for generations (hip). In response to 2c, the goal of the angel wasn't to overpower Jacob...furthermore, even if the elohiyim was a demon, you still have the same argument to deal with...how could Jacob overpower a spirit demon?
That could be God’s purpose with the Smackdown, but such an intention does not necessarily negate the idea that the elohiym was malicious. Yahweh could have allowed the malicious “angel” to wrestle Jacob in order to teach Jacob a lesson. But I do not see anything in the prior episodes that warrant this lesson by Yahweh or any evidence that it was such a lesson. There is nothing in this episode which suggests that Jacob learned any lesson from this incident – surely nothing that made him turn further to Yahweh. Indeed, he reflects upon the episode in light of what he has experienced and not his relationship with Yahweh.
How could Jacob overpower a spirit demon? Again, if Jacob is acting according the will of Yahweh, then I would more likelier believe he would defeat a demon spirit than if he defeated an angel that was doing God’s will. Given the option, I choose Jacob’s success over the evil spirit. Anyway, Jacob “struggled” with Esau who was far stronger and powerful than himself and won.
Lastly, see above for response to 3a, 3b, 3c. 3d helps both of our arguments the same. 3i I agree with, although it helps both the same. 3ii and 3iii are on your side, I agree....however, the Hosea text, which is inspired, says angel which I think outweighs any mythology. Furthermore, your points against can be handled as seen above.
See above. A “fallen angel” is an “angel” none the less.
Lastly, thanks for the info on names and blessings...this was very insightful. Interestingly, I did notice that there was not one case of a demon or malicious spirit blessing or renaming...only other men, God, or angels. If one holds to the demon theory, one would have to say that this is the only case of a demon blessing and changing a name and the name of the Father of the Jewish nation mind you...this would not sit well with Pat Robertson (smiles).
It would be the only case of an “angel” wrestling with a man. It would be the only case of connection between an “angel” and a man (Esau) (Acts 12 just states that this was a belief and not that the belief is a reality).
Sorry, I do not catch the Pat Robertson joke. Disp(s)ensationalism?
A very insightful discussion! I learned quite a lot.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Blessings and Names: The Identity of Jacob's Opponent in Genesis 32
"The issue you have to address when looking at the Gen 32 passage is that the elohiyim renames and blesses Jacob...if you agree with Westermann on the river demon theory which it appears you do, then how do you explain a river demon blessing Jacob and changing his name? Not only that, but you have to come to terms with Jacob asking an evil spirit for a blessing and I don't think the Cananite mythology of evil deities getting caught is valid for blessing and changing Jacob's name to Israel(32:27). Naming and blessing someone was no little matter, where in Scriptures is there any evidence of anyone other than God or an angel on behalf of God naming and blessing? It makes more sense that this was simply an angel of God under God's reign. Both of these contextual facts make it hard for me to accept Westermann's interpretation.” - Travis
Very good points and questions.
One does not have to be God (Yahweh) or even a “good” person to bless another.
Isaac blesses Jacob (Gen 28:31)
Laban blesses his sons and daughters (Gen 31:55)
Moses and Aaron bless the people (Ex 39:43; Lev. 9:22-23).
Jacob blesses his sons (Gen 49:28)
Melchizedek blesses Abram (Abraham) by El Elyon (Gen 14:19), which Abram quickly identifies as Yahweh El Elyon( v. 22)
One can bless themselves (Jer 4:2)
One can bless an idol (Is 66:3)
One can bless a neighbor and then be cursed (Prov 27:14)
One can bless God (Ps 119; 124; 134; 145:1, 2, 10, 21)
Balaam blessed the Israelites at the consternation of Balak (Numbers 22-24). Note that he did so under the orders of God even though he was also being ordered by Balak to curse them. He could have done either.
Also, the word in Genesis 32 for “bless” (barak) can also mean “curse” or “blaspheme”.
The blessing that Jacob received from the elohiym came after wrestling with it all night long. The elohiym did not want to bless Jacob. It was something that Jacob forced out of the elohiym thru trickery, which is how he got his previous blessing from Isaac.
In Genesis 33, the “blessing” (Barakah) is something that can be given back and forth between Esau and Jacob.
It’s too tough to go with the elohiym as Esau … I really wish it was Esau. It would be far more poetic and a brilliant piece of writing by the J-Writer. Jacob and Esau struggle in the womb, Jacob and Esau struggle by the Jabok river (a pun on Jacob’s name). Jacob gets a blessing again by trickery. However, other than these wonderful coincidences I cannot find any evidence that it is Esau. All the clearly stated evidence is to the contrary.
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that the being was some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
Perhaps there is some vicarious or literary (symbolic) connection intended by the author but it’s not clearly stated.
Name changes does not have to come from Yahweh, angels, or parents (whether good or bad).
Hadassah to Esther (Est 2:7)
Daniel to Belteshazzar (Dan 1:7)
Hananiah to Shadrach (Dan 1:7)
Mishael to Meshach (Dan 1:7)
Azariah to Abednego (Dan 1:7)
Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34)
Mattaniah to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17)
Thus a malicious spirit blessing and renaming is not out of the realm of possibility.
What are the options? God, Angel, “Demon”, Man
It is definitely not God. It’s definitely not a Man. The choices are either an Angel or a “Demon”.
Here are the reasons why I doubt the “good angel” interpretation:
a) In Genesis 32:1-2, when at Mahanaim, Jacob sees angels of God and recognizes them as such. The wrestling incident is only a short time later, he refers to the “man” as a “god” and not an “angel”. If he had just seen angels then we presume he would know another one when he sees it.
b) If an “angel of God” was wrestling with Jacob and preventing him from entering into the promise land it would be theologically tantamount to God trying to prevent Jacob from entering the land because “angels of God” do God’s bidding.
c) I doubt that a mere man like Jacob could overpower an angelic being who was doing the will of God.
Here are the reasons why I prefer the “bad demon” or elohiym interpretation:
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that later prophets understood the figure as some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
d) Looking at Canaanite mythology, in the era in which this story takes place, the people of this age and culture did believe in such spirits.
i. Night time was the understood time for spiritual attacks.
ii. Localized spirit-demons were believed to exist in these times. There was an ancient belief the Jabbok river was protected by a localized deity.
iii. Such deities were said to give blessings if they were caught, sort of like the fairy tales of catching gnomes, fairies or leprechauns.
These are the reasons why I think the Scriptures suggest that Jacob wrestled with and elohiym and not a man, God nor ones of his angels.
Very good points and questions.
One does not have to be God (Yahweh) or even a “good” person to bless another.
Isaac blesses Jacob (Gen 28:31)
Laban blesses his sons and daughters (Gen 31:55)
Moses and Aaron bless the people (Ex 39:43; Lev. 9:22-23).
Jacob blesses his sons (Gen 49:28)
Melchizedek blesses Abram (Abraham) by El Elyon (Gen 14:19), which Abram quickly identifies as Yahweh El Elyon( v. 22)
One can bless themselves (Jer 4:2)
One can bless an idol (Is 66:3)
One can bless a neighbor and then be cursed (Prov 27:14)
One can bless God (Ps 119; 124; 134; 145:1, 2, 10, 21)
Balaam blessed the Israelites at the consternation of Balak (Numbers 22-24). Note that he did so under the orders of God even though he was also being ordered by Balak to curse them. He could have done either.
Also, the word in Genesis 32 for “bless” (barak) can also mean “curse” or “blaspheme”.
The blessing that Jacob received from the elohiym came after wrestling with it all night long. The elohiym did not want to bless Jacob. It was something that Jacob forced out of the elohiym thru trickery, which is how he got his previous blessing from Isaac.
In Genesis 33, the “blessing” (Barakah) is something that can be given back and forth between Esau and Jacob.
It’s too tough to go with the elohiym as Esau … I really wish it was Esau. It would be far more poetic and a brilliant piece of writing by the J-Writer. Jacob and Esau struggle in the womb, Jacob and Esau struggle by the Jabok river (a pun on Jacob’s name). Jacob gets a blessing again by trickery. However, other than these wonderful coincidences I cannot find any evidence that it is Esau. All the clearly stated evidence is to the contrary.
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that the being was some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
Perhaps there is some vicarious or literary (symbolic) connection intended by the author but it’s not clearly stated.
Name changes does not have to come from Yahweh, angels, or parents (whether good or bad).
Hadassah to Esther (Est 2:7)
Daniel to Belteshazzar (Dan 1:7)
Hananiah to Shadrach (Dan 1:7)
Mishael to Meshach (Dan 1:7)
Azariah to Abednego (Dan 1:7)
Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34)
Mattaniah to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17)
Thus a malicious spirit blessing and renaming is not out of the realm of possibility.
What are the options? God, Angel, “Demon”, Man
It is definitely not God. It’s definitely not a Man. The choices are either an Angel or a “Demon”.
Here are the reasons why I doubt the “good angel” interpretation:
a) In Genesis 32:1-2, when at Mahanaim, Jacob sees angels of God and recognizes them as such. The wrestling incident is only a short time later, he refers to the “man” as a “god” and not an “angel”. If he had just seen angels then we presume he would know another one when he sees it.
b) If an “angel of God” was wrestling with Jacob and preventing him from entering into the promise land it would be theologically tantamount to God trying to prevent Jacob from entering the land because “angels of God” do God’s bidding.
c) I doubt that a mere man like Jacob could overpower an angelic being who was doing the will of God.
Here are the reasons why I prefer the “bad demon” or elohiym interpretation:
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that later prophets understood the figure as some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
d) Looking at Canaanite mythology, in the era in which this story takes place, the people of this age and culture did believe in such spirits.
i. Night time was the understood time for spiritual attacks.
ii. Localized spirit-demons were believed to exist in these times. There was an ancient belief the Jabbok river was protected by a localized deity.
iii. Such deities were said to give blessings if they were caught, sort of like the fairy tales of catching gnomes, fairies or leprechauns.
These are the reasons why I think the Scriptures suggest that Jacob wrestled with and elohiym and not a man, God nor ones of his angels.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
"Do They Know It's Christmas?": An Open Letter from the Angel Gabriel to the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks
To the Shepherds Abiding in the Field, Keeping Watch Over Your Flocks:
Be Afraid! Be Very Very Afraid!
I say this with love but also with frustration.
As a professional messenger it grieves me to no end to see such moments of complete heralding incompetence among you at the very time of the year when more people are reflecting on Christ than any other time.
Granted you are all rank amateurs in comparison with those like myself, but you are far more professional that the sheep you continually shepherd. Thus it would be a somewhat dubious excuse for me to chalk your ineptitude up to simple naiveté, though, I admit, that is part of the problem.
For crissake, lepers and the lame have better announcement skills than your selves!
Every Christmas you conservative shepherds who are admittedly on the fringe of the American Church seem to enjoy the great twirling frustrations you spin yourselves into as you whine and moan about how secular the non-Christian world is during Christmas.
Yes, each Christmas you ascend upon every ever-expanding mode of information dispersal (of which the Angelic Union has thankfully never had to strike over) to decry the fact that the American secular culture doesn’t recognize your particular brand of holiday cheer.
Those of you conservative shepherds who seem to have enough financial support to waste your time proceed to go out and threaten various non-Christian businesses and non-Christian governments not to attempt anything which might be deemed un-Christian during this holiday season; things such as suggesting employees say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” or not allowing a nativity scene or a Christmas tree on particular properties or even not allowing The Charlie Brown Christmas special to be played (which I happen to enjoy).
One can certainly understand why this approach is taken by you shepherds:
1) It works for the ACLU and other interest groups, why not for Christian groups?
2) Surely the fate of the kingdom of God in America rests upon how you all view Christmas and whether you allow the Salvation Army to panhandle (even though most of you conservative shepherds dislike the Salvation Army because it is deemed to be too liberal, ecumenical and focused on the social gospel).
3) It’s not enough that the secular American culture allows you to freely worship God in Christ and preach the Good News; they must be forced to acknowledge and agree with you in this holiday event. Really, why is it you think that it's so hard for non-Christians to acknowledge Christ?
4) It is a lot more fun and easy to gripe and whine than to preach the Good News of Luke 2:14 and 4:18-19.
It’s these last two points which are so interesting to me as an angel. There is this continual historical myopia among you evangelical shepherds (not that it is simply limited to them and not every human and angelic being) that the situation today is so vastly different than it was just the year before you born. Yes, it seems that each of you believe that prior to your own births the entire American culture was completely different with regards to Christmas than it is today. “Back in the day,” you say, "everyone in American cultural life (nearly) recognized Christmas as a Christian holiday. It is only now that our American culture has overlooked this Roman Catholic holiday" that is off by the actual date by some 6 months or so.
A side note:
Actually December 25th is the date of the pagan Roman festival honoring Saturnalia called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun."It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth. The New Testament does not give a specific date. Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Jesus was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221. The identification of the birthdate of Jesus did not at first inspire feasting or celebration. Tertullian does not mention it as a major feast day in the Church of Roman Africa. The earliest reference to the celebration of Christmas is in the Calendar of Filocalus, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354. In the east, meanwhile, Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival focused on the baptism of Jesus. Christmas was promoted in the east as part of the revival of Catholicism following the death of the pro-Arian Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378. The feast was introduced to Constantinople in 379, to Antioch in about 380, and to Alexandria in about 430. Christmas was especially controversial in 4th century Constantinople, being the "fortress of Arianism," as Edward Gibbon described it. The feast disappeared after Gregory of Nazianzus resigned as bishop in 381, although it was reintroduced by John Chrysostom in about 400. In the Early Middle Ages, Christmas Day was overshadowed by Epiphany, which in the west focused on the visit of the magi. The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned on Christmas Day in 800. King William I of England was crowned on Christmas Day 1066.
In all actuality, the American (or even the Western) culture has changed very little in their reverence for “authentic” Christmas in the past 1000 years (I should know). Even a casual look at historical traditions (even over the past century) will give evidence of this.
Think about the traditional Christmas complaints:
The TV channels today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.
Nonsense! When have they ever recognized the true meaning of Christmas? Look back at past TV programs from the 50s. Where do they honor Christ? The Honeymooners, I Love Lucy, The Jack Benny Program, etc. Where is Christ mentioned? Nowhere. All of them are secular and commercial.
Recall The Charlie Brown Christmas special. In 1965, the show was complaining about over commercialization of Christmas.
BTW – It was the Coca-Cola Company, who asked Schulz (a Christian) to produce an animated Christmas special for television. Schulz, in turn, suggested hiring animator and director Bill Melendez, whom Schulz had worked with while creating a Peanuts-themed advertising campaign for the Ford Motor Company.
You know the Coca-Cola Company. They are the ones who began promoting Coke with Santa in the 1920s.
The movies today don’t recognize “authentic” Christmas as they used to.
Yes, remember all those great Christmas movies of the past: It’s a Wonderful Life (a grossly inaccurate portrayal of angels, but do you see our Union suing?), Miracle on 34th Street (which, in 1947, referenced the commercialization of Christmas), and all those various versions of A Christmas Carol starting in 1935.
BTW – A Christmas Carol, published in 1946, was the first Christmas story written by Charles Dickens. This was followed by:
o The Chimes (1844)
o The Cricket on the Hearth (1845)
o The Battle of Life (1846)
o The Haunted Man (1848)
o A Christmas Tree (1850)
o What Christmas is, as We Grow Older (1851)
o The Poor Relation's Story (1852)
o The Child's Story (1852)
o The Schoolboy's Story (1853)
o Nobody's Story (1853)
o The Seven Poor Travellers (1854)
o The Holly-tree Inn (1855)
o The Wreck of the Golden Mary (1856)
o The Perils of Certain English Prisoners (1857)
o Going into Society (1858)
o The Haunted House (1859)
o A Message from the Sea (1860)
o Tom Tiddler's Ground (1861)
o Somebody's Luggage (1862)
o Mrs Lirriper's Lodgings (1863)
o Mrs Lirriper's Legacy (1864)
o Doctor Marigold's Prescriptions (1865)
o Mugby Junction (1866)
o No Thoroughfare (1867)
Charles Dickens is a Christian.
In truth, when you get right down to it, both businesses (be it Coca-Cola or Walmart, the TV Networks or the film studios, the cartoonists or book publishers) and politicians (be they Republicans and Democrats or Constantine, Charlemagne and William the Conqueror) want money and votes. In order to get these things they will honor what they want to honor and refrain from what they want to refrain. Most importantly, THEY DO NOT WANT TO OFFEND!!!
Particularly businesses, they do not want at all to be involved in either religion or politics. Businesses do not want to offend either Republicans or Democrats. They certainly do not want to offend the religious, be they Christian or not! “The customer is always right, and let’s not get into a situation that makes the customer think that we think they’re wrong.”
But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas:
1) Which “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should they honor? Roman Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? Evangelical? Fundamentalist?
2) Should they focus on the shepherds or the Magi or both?
3) What color should each of the Magi be?
4) What color should the baby Jesus be? How about Mary and Joseph?
5) What specific interpretation of the “authentic” Christian Christmas tradition should various businesses focus on?
“They should focus on mine!” I hear you say.
Of course, businesses are quite willing and able to get their selves involved in interdenominational religious disputes. That’s quite good for business.
I recall when Mel Gibson (a Christian) made The Passion of the Christ. Protestant evangelical shepherds complained that it was too Roman Catholic. Protestant liberal shepherds complained that it was too focused on the events and not on the meaning of the events. Roman Catholic shepherds were complaining that it was too pre-Vatican II. Jews complained that it was anti-Semitic. Fundamentalist shepherds complained that it was anti-Semitic enough. I complained that it was too violent and didn't have any angels in the film, but I kept such complaints to myself.
Now imagine having that same dispute over Christmas.
But let us say that businesses did honor “authentic” Christian Christmas in a way that was acceptable to all Christian traditions:
1) Should Nike put Air Jordans on the feet of the Magi?
2) Should Pampers put name-brand diapers on the holy infant?
3) Should the heralding angels hold an Ipod playing the latest version of the Rod Stewart Christmas album? (Do not be afraid of bad Rod Stewart Christmases; we eventually took out John Denver for this reason. Be patient.)
4) Should the stable be cleaned by Mary with a Hoover vacuum?
5) Should the Magi bring an Elmo doll, a DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (a very good adventure film, I think), and a Calvin Klein perfume?
“Of course not!” I hear you say. “That is offensive to my religious sensibilities and it’s the commercialization of Christmas! Businesses should not use the Christian religion to sell goods! Cleanse the Temple!”
Yes, there isn’t any outrage when Santa goes to Home Depot, but imagine if Joseph and a pregnant Mary showed up and got a room at Motel 6 because they’ll “leave the light on for you."
Do you really think businesses want to tempt that sort of fate?
As an anglophile, I frequent the British culture even during the Christmas holiday.
Great Britain (as you all know) has a state-run church. The Church of England is THE church of England and its religious leaders are frequently appointed by the British government. The state-run television networks are dutiful in providing religious broadcasting to the people of England. During the Christmas season, the religious broadcasting provides plenty of religious holiday cheer.
Even more so, the various non-religious television programs are extremely good at devoting their Christmas time to giving the viewing public the true meaning of Christmas.
Yes, the British are traditionalists at heart and have no problem whatsoever in giving public time to religious sentiments of the “authentic” Christian Christmas. Most of the British themselves are not religious even in the traditional and cultural sense of the word but they still have no qualms of televising without derision the view that Christmas is a time to celebrate the arrival of the son of God on earth and will then read the Christmas story from the Bible (I submit to you two recent examples: the episode called “Winter” on the show The Vicar of Dibley and the movie Bernard and the Genie).
Yes, the “authentic” Christian Christmas is recognized in Britain as it has for over 1000 years ... and still the vast majority of Britons are indifferent to Christ on a personal level. Yet, they look “across the pond” to the Western nation with the most commercial of Christmases and marvel at the great percentage of citizens who have a personal relationship with God in Christ.
Therefore, I submit that instead of b*tchin’ about how the secular American culture does not agree with you about how to best interpret and observe this particular Roman Catholic religious observance or whining like a bunch of stereotypical ACLU activists about how you're offended by the lack of “authentic” Christian Christmas observances, why not go out like the good little shepherds that you are and glorify and praise God for all the things that you have heard and seen, and actually tell people the following:
“Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10f.)
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14)
“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32)
“The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18f.)
Stop sitting there sulking like a bunch of wounded sheep bleating and begging beneath the table of public cultural recognition when, in actuality, you are the one’s at the table and the culture is spiritually starving to death by your feet. Tell them how they can eat, offer them the food, invite them to the table. Don’t sit there moaning about the lack of corporate sponsorship for the Good News but actually go out and proclaim the Good News.
THEY WON'T KNOW IT'S CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM. THEY WON’T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET AND OBSERVE CHRISTMAS UNTIL YOU GO OUT TELL THEM.
So make like good little shepherds and get the flock out and into the world.
Yours Truly,
The angel, Gabriel, Esq.
P.S. That “bell-ringing” and “getting wings” nonsense from It’s a Wonderful Life is complete rubbish. We do not have wings. Still, you do not see us suing Frank Capra. Water off a ducks back. Anyway, I prefer Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)