Author Archives: Steven Anderson

Ur of the Chaldees: Abraham’s original home

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by in Bible

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, ,

Genesis 11:28-31 identifies Abraham’s original hometown as “Ur of the Chaldees,” or “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Sometime during Abraham’s adult life, probably while he was already about seventy years old, his father Terah moved the family clan to the city of Haran in northern Syria as the first step in a planned migration to the land of Canaan. Terah himself did not complete the journey; he died while the family was living in Haran. When Abraham was seventy-five years old, he received a personal call from God to migrate to Canaan (Gen 12:1-3). This caused a division in the family clan: Abraham’s nephew Lot went with him to Canaan, while the rest of Abraham’s family stayed in the area of Haran, where Abraham’s relatives are found living in later chapters of Genesis.

There are two ancient cities called “Ur” that are known from archaeology. By far the most famous is a city in southeastern Mesopotamia that was a great center of early civilization. A second Ur, which was far less prominent, is called “Ur in Haran” by an ancient tablet from Ebla. Islamic tradition identifies Shanliurfa, which is 24 miles (39 km) northwest of Haran, as Abraham’s original home. This city was refounded in the Hellenistic period as Edessa, and later became the center of the Syriac Christian community.

Although some scholars identify Ur of the Chaldees with the northern city of Ur, the arguments in favor of the southern location are compelling. In Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, he says that Abraham’s original home was in “the land of the Chaldeans” (Acts 7:4), a term which is used by other biblical writers to refer to southern Mesopotamia (e.g., Isa 23:13; Jer 25:12; Ezek 12:13). It seems that the author of Genesis intended to specify the southern location of Ur by identifying it as the one that is in the land of the Chaldeans. Stephen says that Abraham had to leave the land of the Chaldeans in order to travel to Haran (Acts 7:4), whereas the reference to the northern Ur as “Ur in Haran” shows that it already lay within the territory of Haran. Stephen also indicates in Acts 7:2 that what he means by “Mesopotamia”—Abraham’s original home—is a different region than the region around Haran, since he says that Abraham lived in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran.

Abraham’s relatives are found in later chapters of Genesis to be living near Haran in northern Syria/Aram (now part of Turkey). However, as has already been noted, this does not mean that “Ur of the Chaldees” was in northern Syria, since Genesis 11:31-32 states that Terah had moved Abraham’s extended family to Haran prior to Abraham’s journey to the land of Canaan with Lot (Gen 12:5). Since Arameans dominated the region around Haran, the Bible calls Laban “the Aramean” (Gen 25:20; 31:20, 24), and portrays Laban as a speaker of the Aramaic language in Genesis 31:47. Deuteronomy 26:5 even calls Jacob an “Aramean” because of his twenty years spent with Laban in Paddan-aram (near Haran). But Jacob and Laban could not have been of Aramean descent, since they were descended from Shem’s son Arpachshad (Gen 11:10-26), whereas the Arameans were descended from Shem’s son Aram (Gen 10:22-23).

Some scholars argue that because Abraham seems to be culturally Semitic in the Genesis narratives, he must have been from the northern location of Ur, which was in Aramean territory, and not from the southern location of Ur, which was in Sumerian territory. Several points may be noted against this argument. First, although the southern Ur was in Sumerian territory, it was culturally Hurrian, and the dates of modern secular archeology are divergent enough from the Bible’s chronology so that we cannot be certain which group dominated the city at the time of Abraham. Possibly Ur was already dominated by the Chaldeans (an Aramean tribe) at the time of Abraham. Alternatively, the reference to the Chaldeans could have been made by a later writer (I would argue Ezra) who updated some geographical references in the Pentateuch. Second, Abraham himself was a Semite by birth, and therefore would have retained the culture of his clan, regardless of where he lived. Third, although most of the stories in the Abraham narrative of Genesis occur in a Semitic cultural setting (the Canaanites spoke a Semitic language even though they were not Semites by blood), Abraham and Sarah chose to move to an urban, sophisticated Egyptian culture during a famine, and they evidently had little difficulty living in that culture. Lot, as well, chose to live in the large urban center of Sodom, which seems to indicate that the family was used to life in a big city with a mixed population. When Abraham seems to act like a Bedouin, it may just be that he is conforming to the culture of the land.

Ur in southern Mesopotamia was founded by the Sumerian people. But the earliest Semitic texts in Mesopotamia are also from Ur. The Sumerians called the early Semitic migrants “westerners.” Abraham was evidently part of the huge Semitic minority that lived in the large Sumerian city-state of Ur. Ur had hot and cold running water, a sewer system, multistory buildings, paved roads, major temples, ornate furniture, and a variety of metal instruments. The Sumerians developed a sexagesimal system that divided the hour into 60 minutes, the minute into 60 seconds, and the circle into 360 degrees—a system that we still use today. There were well developed law codes and a standard system of weights and measures. There was a system of canals connecting the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys to control floods and provide irrigation so farming could go on year-round. At the time of Abraham, Ur would have been on or very near the shore of the Persian Gulf, in the Euphrates River delta, though the vast amounts of sediment carried by the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have since filled in about 150 miles of the original gulf. There was probably a port on the gulf shore that was alive with trade and fishing boats.

In my job working for BiblePlaces, I have looked at pictures of more than 10,000 ancient artifacts from the collections of museums all over the world. One would think that the artifacts from the most ancient periods would be crude, and the craftsmanship would become finer in later periods. But I would say that the artifacts from Abraham’s Ur are among the most impressive of all. Their craftsmanship is finer, more luxurious, better, than most of what came later.

If Abraham was a wealthy man in Ur, as he appears to have been, he must have possessed many treasures of the finest craftsmanship and the most exquisite materials. He would have lived in a mansion in Ur that would probably still look impressive today. As an upper class, free man, he would have attained a high level of education and must have been literate and fluent in Sumerian, Akkadian, various other Semitic languages (e.g., Amorite, Aramaic), and probably Egyptian as a trade language. He would have enjoyed a refined urban life in a highly advanced center of civilization. To leave all of this in order to journey to Canaan would have meant a huge sacrifice of material comfort for Abraham. Abraham lived in a tent in Canaan, not in a house, and he lived in rugged fields, deserts, and mountains, away from the conveniences of civilization. Whereas Ur had a perpetually dry and sunny climate with a stable water supply from rivers, Canaan had a far messier and more unpredictable climate, with rain, snow, frost, dew, and so forth. The only two centers of advanced civilization near Canaan were Egypt and Sodom, both of which were spiritually problematic and outside of the area where God wanted Abraham to live.

When we read the narrative of the call of Abraham, it is easy to overlook the fact that Abraham gave up a lot of wealth and comfort when he left Ur and went to Canaan. Abraham also gave up the linguistic sophistication of Ur, since his descendants would adopt the language of the land of Canaan (Hebrew), which was not one of the major literary languages of the ancient world (outside of its use by Abraham’s descendants). That Abraham obeyed God’s call to settle his family in the land of Canaan shows that when he was forced to make a choice between God and money, he would choose God. The depth of Abraham’s commitment to God is shown again in Genesis 22, when Abraham chose to obey God even at the cost of his own son Isaac’s life. Abraham was truly a man with a great heart for God.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Is imprisonment as a punishment for a crime biblical?

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The United States is probably the world’s greatest proponent of imprisonment as punishment for crimes. For the recent past, the United States has consistently had the highest incarceration rate of any large country in the world. Most of the rest of the world has followed the United States’ example, and prison is the generally accepted method of punishing crime in the world today. It will be shocking to many Americans and Europeans to hear that the whole idea of a prison system does not have biblical support, and there are good reasons to believe that it is unsound.

The Law of Moses sets out what is, without a doubt, the ideal system of criminal justice. It must be the ideal, since the Law was devised directly and entirely by God Himself, as Israel’s King. It is striking, then, that there is no jail in the Law of Moses. Punishment is by physical and financial damages or death. Outside of the Mosaic code, jail is mentioned occasionally in the Old Testament (Gen 39:19–40:23; Jer 37:11-21), which shows that it existed at the time, though there was no jail in Hammurapi’s ancient law code, either. In Numbers 15:34, a man was held in custody pending a verdict, but it was assumed that the verdict would not be that he should remain in jail. So jail did exist at the time of Moses, but only as a place to temporarily hold the accused pending an investigation and trial. Jail finally became the societal norm by the time of the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament, although the Romans used their jail system in combination with other forms of punishment.

Jail is a terrible place that forces otherwise good men to act as criminals, and subjects them to great abuse from other criminals and from guards. It creates a great financial burden on society to care for the prison population. It creates a great social and financial burden for families who lose members of their family to jail. It condemns the incarcerated to a terrible living death. It is well established that in any country that has a prison system, otherwise good people who enter the prison system for minor offenses will often come out of jail as hardened criminals. Many are forced to join gangs, often along racial lines, as a means of surviving in prison. Many are horribly beaten, abused, and even killed; there were 9,000 reported instances of (homo)sexual assault in U. S. prisons in 2011 alone, and many more that were not reported. In America, about 70 percent of prisoners are rearrested within three years of their release. Society, meanwhile, loses the services of people who otherwise could be doing productive labor, and instead has to pay to take care of them. The idea of jail as punishment for crime ultimately comes from the Greco-Roman classical world—and, more recently, from England—not from the Bible.

(As an application, the Bible never recommends jail as discipline for children. The Bible recommends rebuke and non-injurious corporeal punishment for the discipline of children [cf. Prov 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14; 29:15, 17]. The idea that it is better for parents to send children to their rooms than it is to spank them does not come from the Bible, although the Bible does not forbid parents from sending children to their rooms. In my own experience, adults who are the best disciplined and best behaved are the ones who were disciplined physically as children, not the ones who were grounded and sent to their rooms.)

One of the fundamental flaws of the jail system (and also of extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern law codes, such as Hammurapi’s) is that it lacks a sense of punishment in proportion to the crime. Under the Mosaic Law, a thief had to make restitution for the thing which he stole, adding 20 percent to its value (Lev 6:4-5). If a man dug a pit and failed to cover it, and another man’s ox fell into the pit and died, the man who dug the pit was given the dead ox, but had to pay the price of the ox to the ox’s owner (Exod 21:33-34). The overall principle of justice in the Mosaic Law was equal recompense: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life (Exod 21:23-25). The punishment was to be exactly equal to the crime committed—no more, and no less. A murderer was to be put to death (Num 35:17). A man who knocked out his neighbor’s tooth was to have his own tooth knocked out (Lev 24:19). A false witness was to be given the sentence that would have been given to the man whom he falsely accused (Deut 19:16-19). In certain cases the judges could prescribe a limited number of lashes as punishment for unspecified crimes (Deut 25:1-3). Various other punishments are prescribed in the Mosaic Law for specific offenses, but always with the aim of equal recompense and preserving the moral fabric of society. This is a great contrast to the modern American legal system, in which often light sentences are given for serious crimes, while some minor offenses result in a long jail sentence and a heavy fine. Little or no concern is given to how the sentence might negatively impact the guilty person, his family, or all of society. The perfectly equal nature of the criminal justice system set out in the biblical Torah led Moses to boast, “What great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law, which I set before you today?” (Deut 4:8).

There are several other errors in the reasoning behind the prison system. One is the idea that all punishment that causes sensory pain is evil, whereas imprisonment is compassionate because it does not cause sensory pain (the same idea behind the movement to ban the spanking of children). However, I guarantee you that if you asked people who were being sentenced for a crime to choose between twenty years in prison or forty lashes, most of them would choose the forty lashes. They might be sore for a while, but they would still be free and able to work and to be at home with family. This shows that prison is actually a far more terrible punishment than lashes. God Himself often afflicts His people with physical problems in order to teach them lessons, and certainly God is not unjust. Even within the prison system, it is unfortunate that prisoners are punished for misbehavior by being placed in solitary confinement, rather than by being punished physically. Studies have repeatedly shown that solitary confinement creates mental and physical problems that are far more serious than the temporary, superficial injuries caused by appropriately administered physical punishments.

Many people today hold the mistaken notion that the purpose of the criminal justice system is not actually to inflict punishment on criminals, but is rather to isolate dangerous people from the rest of society and to rehabilitate them. The Bible, however, teaches that retribution is the basic purpose of the punishments inflicted by a criminal justice system (Rom 13:4). Another purpose of the criminal justice system is to restrain sin, whether by punishing people who commit crimes, or by others hearing of this punishment and being afraid to commit the same trespass. The ultimate deterrent to crime is capital punishment (cf. Deut 13:5, 11; 17:7, 12-13; 19:19-20; 21:21; 22:21-24; 24:7). Under the Mosaic Law, people who were so thoroughly wicked that they had to be removed from society—such as sorcerers (Exod 22:18), apostates (Deut 13:1-18), and uncontrollable rebellious teenagers (Deut 21:18-21)—were to be executed, rather than locked up in prison.

If people are in jail, they should have to work (or at least be given the opportunity to work), so as to make them productive contributors to society. But the American model is generally for the prisoners to be cared for at the public expense. Prisoners in America are given free meals, free medical, dental, and vision care, free clothes, free housing, 24/7 protection, and so forth—benefits that poor, hardworking people do not receive. Some of the worst criminals receive these benefits for decades, and the financial cost to society is enormous. According to a New York Times study, the city of New York’s annual cost per inmate was $167,731 in 2012. Nationwide, the average annual cost per inmate is a little more than $30,000. The moral cost to the prisoners themselves and to their families is even more devastating. Prison is an unbiblical idea that society truly cannot afford.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A troubling erosion of free speech (part two)

28 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

In my previous post, I noted how the liberty to speak freely against the sin of homosexuality is systematically eroding in the United States. But homosexuality is not the only issue for which the ability of Christians to speak their conscience is threatened. Another such issue is feminism. People who make statements supporting a traditional (biblical) view of the role of women as homemakers can expect to be punished for it. In fact, the modern homosexual movement was the natural product of the feminist movement, which has tried to erase distinctions between men and women and to destroy traditional/biblical principles of morality. This is a problem because the New Testament explicitly seeks to define different roles for men and women, both in the church (1 Cor 14:33b-35; 1 Tim 2:8-15) and in the home (Eph 5:22-33). The Old Testament is just as strong, for example giving as the sign of membership in the covenant community a mark that only males could bear (circumcision), only counting males in censuses, and only anointing males as priests and kings. The idea of redefining marriage started with the feminist movement, which sought to liberate women from the constraints of marriage, or at least from the constraints of a traditional marriage. The feminist movement has so much power in the culture that it has even rewritten the English language, banning the use of “man” as a generic reference to “humanity” (in contradiction of Gen 5:2), replacing “men working” signs on the highway with “workers ahead,” and so forth.

It almost goes without saying that the Bible speaks out in the strongest terms against false religions and false teachers. Yet today there is a huge push in the media, the government, and public education to treat all religions equally. Invariably, however, the religions that are highlighted in government educational campaigns are false religions such as Islam and Buddhism, rather than conservative Christianity. Also, while it used to be common for placards and signs with Bible verses on them to be posted in public buildings and public parks, and for Bible stories to be taught in public schools, today these are being removed; the first amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom has been reinterpreted in a way that makes secularism the state religion and actually prevents the free exercise of religion by Christians. In some countries, such as Canada, Christians who make strong statements against Islam or other religions can be punished for hate speech, although I have never heard of people who speak against biblical Christianity being punished in these countries.

Racism is a more complex issue, since the Bible does not condone racism (when properly defined). It is also true that many American Christians of an earlier generation were racially insensitive, or just plain racist. But lobbyists for homosexuality, feminism, and ecumenism have linked themselves with the civil rights agenda. As a result, racial issues are now less about not prejudging or hating individuals on the basis of their skin color than they are about promoting groups that are seen as historically disenfranchised (blacks, women, homosexuals, and non-Christians). The achievements of white male evangelical Christians—arguably the greatest historical positive influence in the United States—are now downplayed, and white men are the least desired group of people for jobs and promotions. Also, it is now possible for any criticism of a black person by a white person, or any arrest of a black person by a white police officer, to be viewed as a racist act, with potentially severe legal repercussions. Conversely, the African American community places a great deal of emphasis on the race issue, which blames other people for their problems, while they seem far less passionate about combating the endemic violence, immorality, drugs, anger, pride, stealing, disrespect, foul language, wicked music, and other sins that are truly wreaking havoc among them. The Bible makes statements about Jews (Acts 7:51-53; 1 Thess 2:14-15), Cretans (Titus 1:12-13), Canaanites (Gen 9:25-27), and women (1 Cor 14:33b-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15) that would be considered “prejudiced” by today’s standards, but that just shows that there is a problem with today’s standards—people do not want to be criticized or to be told that what they are doing is wrong. If someone could go to jail or be fired in America for saying about a modern racial or ethnic group what Paul said about Cretans in Titus 1:12-13, then there is a problem with our way of thinking about racial issues.

What about people who really do make racist statements? Surely it is unchristian, unforgiving, and oversensitive for someone to be ostracized without mercy, even after profuse apologies, simply for having said the “n” word sometime in the past. It is hypocritical for people in government and the media to act like people who have made racist remarks are “contaminated,” and since they themselves are righteous they cannot have anything to do with them anymore. Public figures use the name of God in vain openly every day, and they shamelessly promote and practice all sorts of immorality, yet there is no public outcry against such behavior which is so offensive in the sight of heaven. Racism is wrong, but there are far worse moral problems in America today.

Although the Bible teaches that all people are born with the same spiritual standing before God, that in the church everyone has the same spiritual privileges in Christ (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), and that there should be no partiality in judgment (Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17), the Bible does not teach that everyone should be treated equally. Different people in this world must be treated differently on the basis of their character, their position, their age, and their gender, among other factors. The Bible teaches that greater honor should be given to authority figures (Rom 13:17; 1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 6:1; 1 Pet 2:17), Bible teachers (Gal 6:6; Phil 2:29; 1 Tim 5:17), and older people (Lev 19:32; 1 Tim 5:1-2), for example. We should have greater respect for the righteous than for the wicked (cf. 2 Kgs 3:14; Esth 3:2; Heb 11:38). In the Old Testament, God blessed kings who pleased Him with extraordinary wealth, and He did not command those kings to distribute their wealth evenly to everyone in the country in order to keep some people from rising above others. God Himself will judge all men after this life is over, and He will give greater reward to some believers than to others, and greater punishment to some unbelievers than to others. The idea in modern America that a public employee should not treat a Baptist pastor any better than a gangster or a drug addict is not biblical, and it is a recipe for societal disaster (cf. Prov 26:1, 8).

Freedom of speech is a right contained in the United States Constitution, although not in the Bible. The Bible teaches that we must be very careful what we say, because we will be judged by God on the basis of our words (Matt 12:37). The Bible does, however, make statements on issues such as homosexuality, the role of women, and other religions that could easily be considered hate speech under contemporary laws of the United States and other Western countries. A ban on such speech is direct opposition to God, to God’s Word, and to God’s people. As pressure on Christians in the United States increases, it appears that sooner or later Christians will have to move to another country where they may speak their conscience without fearing for their personal safety or suffering official harassment. If so, Christians would be leaving America for the same reason for which the first immigrants originally came to America: to find freedom to worship God according to their conscience.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A troubling erosion of free speech (part one)

22 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Watching President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday was another reminder of the way in which any criticism of homosexuality or homosexuals has become completely taboo in the United States in recent years. Even voicing opposition to so-called homosexual marriage, which a great number of Americans still oppose (and which Obama himself did not openly support until public opinion allowed his position to “evolve”), can result in the loss of one’s job due to fear of a backlash from the aggressive homosexual lobby. Transgendering, which is the worst form of homosexuality, is now also presented as a civil right that cannot be spoken against—even though the Bible calls people who are merely cross-dressing “an abomination unto Jehovah” (Deut 22:5).

Homosexuals, like most others who are politically liberal, do not believe in freedom of conscience. They want to compel everyone to profess to hold the same basic beliefs that they do, whatever those may be at the moment. It is not enough for homosexuals merely to gain legal tolerance, which they already have. They want to force everyone in the world to approve of homosexuality, or maybe even to become homosexual. They want to jail people who lift up their voices against their perverse acts.

The classification of speech against homosexuals as “hate speech” is a big problem for Christians, because the Bible clearly calls homosexuality a sin. In fact, Romans 1:24-27 teaches that homosexuality is qualitatively different from other sins, because those who commit homosexual acts are actually behaving contrary to human nature, even in its fallen state. Homosexuals are acting contrary to their natural desires. Homosexuality is therefore the mark of those whom God has handed over to their sin for their own degradation. It follows from this that homosexuality always carries a whole set of other sins with it, as described in Romans 1:28-32.

The Old Testament is just as strong in its condemnation of homosexuality, prescribing the death penalty for acts of sodomy in Leviticus 20:13. Of course, this command was given in the context of a legal system for Old Testament Israel which is no longer in force. The New Testament does not prescribe a legal system, and homosexuals who converted to Christianity and repented of their sins were integrated into New Testament churches (1 Cor 6:9-11). Vigilante justice is not to be practiced by Christians (Rom 12:19). But if a modern-day government imposed capital punishment for homosexual acts—as some countries do—this could hardly be considered unjust since it is the same punishment that God called for when He wrote ancient Israel’s legal code. But what would happen to a public figure in America who called for the death penalty for homosexuals?

On the other side of the coin, I believe that the day is coming when homosexuals and other unbelievers will demand the death penalty for non-violent Christians who condemn them (cf. Rev 18:20, 24). Perhaps there will someday be public spectacles similar to those in ancient Rome, in which Christians are publicly murdered in front of a raucous crowd. American sports and entertainment are continually becoming more violent, with an emphasis on reality shows rather than mere acting. It is also possible that Christians will someday be sold as slaves to support a wealthy, privileged class of citizens (cf. Rev 13:16; 18:13).

In theory, pastors and lay Christians in America can still speak out against homosexuality, though in certain cases they could be prosecuted by the Justice Department for a civil rights violation. In practice, those who speak against homosexuality may lose their jobs and careers. This greatly increases pressure on Christians not to speak up, since it is obviously very difficult to survive without a job. In colleges and universities, students who voice opposition to homosexuality can expect to have a very difficult time passing classes and graduating. The popular ebook distributing service Smashwords will not list a book that “advocates hateful, discriminatory or racist views,” though it will publish any kind of pornography that is legal. In the future, it is possible that banks and credit card companies could refuse to do business with opponents of homosexuality, which in today’s society would make it nearly impossible to conduct any financial transactions whatsoever (a precursor, perhaps, to what is described in Revelation 13:17).

But homosexuality is not the only issue for which free speech is threatened. Some other troubling threats to freedom of speech will be described in my next post. A brief note of encouragement, though: God is still sovereign, and He will vindicate His people and prevail over all sin and sinners. The ultimate victory of God over the world is certain to come, and it will come soon.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

What does it mean to have a biblical view of history? (Part two)

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

In my last post, I introduced the subject of seeing history through biblical eyes, and gave three explanations of what this means. In today’s post, I will continue (and finish) with points four through seven of what it means to have a biblical view of history.

Point #4: History is the record of reality. It encompasses past, present, and future, and both that which is known empirically and that which is known by revelation. Limiting history to the past alone is insufficient, for what happened in the past created a series of outcomes that resulted in what now is, and again in what will be. The full significance of past events can only be known by showing their relation to the present and the future. Further, this is not just a historian’s subjective interpretation of what happened, but is something that is contained within the events themselves, as it were. It is insufficient to study the present without showing how it is a development from the past, or the (prophetic/predicted) future without showing its development from the present and the past.

Limiting history to that which is known empirically alone is also insufficient, for observations in the visible, physical realm point to the activities of beings in the unseen supernatural realm. The attempt to explain human history in terms of natural cause and effect alone always gives a very implausible and incomplete account of events. To fail to see the activity of God and Satan in the world is to fail to understand history.

The Bible presents the metanarrative of history. There are some who argue that the Bible is more a book of theology than a book of history. If the secular definition of the discipline of history is accepted, this is certainly true. However, if the Bible is allowed to challenge the very possibility of a history that is created on the basis of methodological naturalism, then the secular concept of history falls apart. In addition, this is only a modern definition of history; Christian historians before the twentieth century, and especially before the Enlightenment, did not see any place whatever for a history divorced from theology. And secular history does have theology running through it just the same: the attempt to explain all things without God is a theological endeavor, and incorporates the theological assumptions inherent in a secular worldview.

On the secular worldview, all that can ever be known about history is the available evidence, and thus it may be tempting to define history subjectively as the surviving evidence known to, and interpreted by, the historian. However, on the biblical worldview, all of reality is known by God and there is a full record of all that has happened in books in heaven. Thus, the things that are now hidden will be revealed in a future day (Eccl 12:14; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2-3; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12).

Point #5: The epistemic basis of history is faith in biblical revelation, not empiricism or rationalism. Secular scholarship begins with the presupposition that the Bible cannot be trusted, but scholarly study of extrabiblical archeological data, inscriptions, and literature can be trusted. Thus, critical scholars start with extrabiblical material, interpret it “on its own terms,” and then interpret the Bible in light of it. However, the claim that extrabiblical data can be interpreted on its own, apart from the Bible and theological presuppositions, is false. If the Bible is taken away, it must be replaced with a different presuppositional framework. Almost invariably, this framework is atheism or deism, the view that God does not intervene in the world. This presupposition then determines the conclusion of the research, for all other possibilities are ruled out from the start. The Bible will be viewed as a human product that is largely inaccurate due to its claims of divine activity in the world. But this approach begs numerous questions: how can presupposing the Bible’s untrustworthiness be justified? Why should extrabiblical material be presupposed to be more reliable than the Bible? And why should secular presuppositions be accepted? Christian scholars, especially, ought to have faith that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore ought to begin their historical analysis with the Bible and interpret the extrabiblical data in light of the Bible.

The Bible does not need to be verified by archeological or astronomical evidence. We know that the Bible is true because it is the Word of God, and as such is self-authenticating. The Bible does not become any more certain when archeological evidence is discovered that fits with what the Bible says.

Point #6: The Bible presents an anthrocentric view of history. According to the Bible, man was created at roughly the same time as the earth and the universe (cf. Mark 13:19), and thus is not possible to speak of a history of the earth or a history of the universe apart from the history of man. Man was created last in the creation week, since everything else in the universe was created for man—the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the animals, the plants, the seas, the dry land, and even the angels (cf. Heb 1:14). Man is both the pinnacle and the focus of creation. Man, in turn, was created for his Creator. The history of the universe is geocentric, and not just geocentric, but anthrocentric–and, in the ultimate sense, theocentric.

Point #7: The Bible elevates the history of Israel and of the Jewish people to a far higher plane of importance than that of any other people or nation in the history of the world. Many political and social events that might seem very significant in some ways, as well as the whole history of many civilizations that did not have direct contact with Israel, are considered relatively insignificant insofar as the overall plan and progress of history is concerned. The history of the Jewish people is the key to the history of the world, at least since the time of Abraham, because God is unfolding His plan of redemption through His covenants with Israel. The various stages through which the history of the Jews has passed are coterminous with the central events in the development of God’s plan of redemption, which are the events of real significance in the history of the entire human race. Redemptive history is the true history of the world, the true framework for understanding world events and the direction of world history. Almost immediately after man was created, he fell into sin; the rest of the Bible tells how and why God is going to come to the rescue of the human race, so that all of history prior to the Incarnation was “the preparation for that great mystery, and all subsequent history the gradual appropriation of its results” (Brooke Foss Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels [London: MacMillan, 1881], 47.). It is not true that the histories of all peoples, civilizations, and religions are equally important and ought to be given equal time. The history of God’s people (Israel, and in a different sense all believers) is what is really important for the overall course of world history.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

What does it mean to have a biblical view of history? (Part one)

08 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Those of us who live in Christian circles hear the word “worldview” frequently. Our worldview is the filter we use to interpret the world around us. To put it another way, our worldview is the lens through which we see reality. Having a biblical worldview is especially important when studying history, including not just past events but also current and future events. Seeing history through biblical eyes means seeing the spiritual significance of events around us, and not just the physical. The physical events around us are connected to the spiritual realm, and in fact the spiritual drives the physical. Most people only see the physical and do not see the real issues, which are the spiritual issues. They interpret events in terms of physical cause and effect, and miss the real reason why things are happening, and the direction in which they are going. Most people in the world do not recognize God’s sovereignty in directing history according to His plan, and they do not understand how present events fit into that plan.

What, specifically, does a biblical view of history consist of? First, the Bible presents a teleological (goal-oriented) view of history. There is purpose and direction in history, not just undirected occurrence or a meaningless cycle of events. History began in purpose, and it is heading toward ultimate goals and ends. The Bible teaches that the objective of history is the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth, an event which is initiated by the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. When this final purpose, and all it entails, is entirely fulfilled, history itself will end, so to speak, as an unchanging and eternal state of affairs is established. God created purposefully, unfolds history purposefully, and ends history purposefully. This is a very, very different worldview than all other views of history.

Second, history consists not just of undirected human action, but also supernatural intervention. History does not happen by accident, but according to God’s plan and purpose. Yet within that plan and purpose are men making free choices according to their own plans and purposes and Satan acting in opposition to God according to his own plans and purposes. It is always a challenge for the Christian historian to know how much of history to attribute to divine (or Satanic) action, and how much to attribute to human action. Most events involve a combination of both.

Third, history can only be understood properly when it is cast in terms of the conflict between the serpent and his seed and the woman and her seed as described in Genesis 3:15. Satan acts in history as the enemy of the human race and of its Redeemer, yet his opposition is used by God to bring about his own destruction in accordance with God’s purposes, for the death blow to the serpent is the direct result of his own attack on the woman’s seed. Ultimately, all of history after the fall must be viewed in terms of a spiritual conflict between God, as man’s friend, and Satan, as man’s foe, that is centered on the fate of the human race. Therefore two questions should be asked of every era of history: how is God working, and how is Satan working? Further, Genesis 3:15 can be viewed as the organizing principle of history, for all of the pivotal events in history are also the pivotal events in this conflict—the fall, the incarnation, the cross, the second advent, and the final judgment. To these could be added the call of Abraham and the covenants made with Abraham and the Jewish people. In short, it is impossible to understand history correctly without interpreting it in terms of the conflict described in Genesis 3:15.

To be continued . . .

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

New Year’s Day, a great time to start reading through the Bible

01 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Bible

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. – Matthew 4:4

Jesus’ reply to Satan in Matthew 4:4 implies that Christians should be nourished by the Word of God on a daily basis. Living and eating bread are daily activities, and so should be the consumption of spiritual nourishment from the Word. For such daily study of the Scriptures the Bereans were commended in Acts 17:11. We cannot live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God if we have not read every one of those words, or if we do not continue to read God’s words on a regular basis.

Throughout the Bible it is assumed that God’s people will read and know God’s Word, and yet reading the Bible is something that many Christians neglect to do. Some even feel that it is a matter of secondary importance to more “practical” issues or more “practical” books. Some people think the Bible is boring, and many will only read a paraphrase or rewrite of the Bible such as The Message, rather than an actual translation of what God said. But reading the Word must precede everything else in the spiritual life of the believer. Every Christian is first saved by hearing the Word (Rom 10:13-17), and the evangelist cannot be successful without it. The Word tells us how to pray. The Word of God is the primary tool that the Spirit of God uses to guide, convict, and teach us; such things as inner feelings and experiences are very much of secondary importance to the Word. Thus, believers cannot be filled with the Spirit or led by the Spirit without the Word. The Word tells us what love is, and how to love. It tells us what to believe, how to act and think, how a church should operate, and how to raise a family. It accurately reveals the whole history of the world, from beginning to end, and puts it in proper perspective. Thus, the study of the Word is the only means by which a Christian can grow in knowledge and in spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col 1:9)—all of which is essential for a proper Christian walk.

As a student of the Bible and a teacher of the Bible, by far my most helpful training in knowing and interpreting the Bible has been my own personal Bible reading and Bible study. Last year, 2014, was the fourteenth consecutive year that I have read the Bible from cover to cover. This has given me a knowledge of the Bible that I never could have gained from studying in the classroom. As I have studied theology and the writings of countless scholars in seminary, my analysis of their claims has constantly been framed by statements made in the Bible, rather than by a philosophical analysis or debates over archeology and methodology. Reading the Bible has enabled me to think of verses that are relevant for whatever the issue at hand may be, whereas if I had not read the Bible so many times I would not be aware of all the cross-references and connections.

I do not like most of the plans that I see today for reading through the Bible in a year. The length of each day’s reading varies widely, so that some readings are very short and some are very long. Also, most plans have one reading from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament each day, and sometimes a Psalm. This breaks up the continuity of the reading and hinders focused reflection. I like reading the Bible the way God inspired it—book by book, beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation. You can download the Bible Reading Schedule that I use here, or access my 2019 reading schedule as a Logos document here. Reading the books in the sequence they appear in the Bible allows one to follow God’s dealings with the human race as God’s plan unfolds sequentially through the ages. When you read the Bible in order, you begin each new year by reading Genesis, which tells how everything began, and you end each year by reading Revelation, which tells how everything ends. But if three chapters a day (on average) seem too much for you, I also have on my website a Bible Reading Record which allows you to check off chapters of the Bible one at a time as you read them.

Reading the Bible is obviously more profitable if one understands it, or has a guide to interpret it. Now that I have published my own Interpretive Guide to the Bible, this is of course the first resource that I recommend; it is available on my website here, or on my Amazon author page here. Many people use study Bibles to help with interpretation, but in my opinion these are a poor “crutch.” Because the study notes are right next to the biblical text, people tend to just read the notes right away rather than first thinking about the text on their own.

The most accurate English Bible translation is the 1901 American Standard Version, which is one of the few Bible versions out there that consistently relies on the oldest manuscripts for translation of the New Testament. It is also public domain, free of copyright restrictions, and free of headings supplied in the text by a translator or editor. The most accurate translation in modern English is the New American Standard Bible. In Spanish, the two most accurate translations are the 1960 Reina-Valera and La Biblia de las Américas. I personally do some of my Bible reading in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (i.e., not in a translation). My knowledge of the Spanish language has been greatly aided by my reading of the Bible in Spanish, and I can recommend reading the Bible in another language as a great way to improve one’s abilities in that language. But improving language knowledge is only of secondary importance to the transformation of one’s life and thought by hearing and obeying the Word of God.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The world’s most educated man

26 Friday Dec 2014

Posted by in Bible scholarship

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

Meeting with Dr. Nicholson

Today I met with Dr. Michael Nicholson for brunch. Dr. Nicholson is a truly unique man: he holds the unofficial world record for the most earned college degrees, at 30 and counting. Most of his degrees are master’s degrees, all of them are from fully accredited institutions (except maybe the first one), and none was earned online. Most of his degrees are from mid-level institutions of higher learning, and many are in various educational specialties. The Chronicle of Higher Education has called him “the most credentialed person in modern history.” Dr. Nicholson and I also have two alma maters in common: Grand Valley State University and Dallas Theological Seminary.

In my conversation with Dr. Nicholson, I found him to be professional but affable. He seemed like a nice guy, if a bit eccentric. As one might expect, he leads a disciplined life. He is also an evangelical Christian with a strong faith. He gets up every morning at 4:30am (without an alarm clock!), takes a two-mile walk, reads the Bible, and prays. He says he is not exceptionally gifted academically, but he always attends classes, arrives on time, does all the assignments, turns them in on time, and studies for tests. He meets the course requirements, but does not do extra work. He does not own a television.

Dr. Nicholson earned his B.R.E. (Bachelor of Religious Education) degree in 1963 and a Th.M. (Master of Theology) degree in 1967. He originally intended to get a Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary and teach, but his life took a series of twists and turns which led him to get two more master’s degrees and an Ed.D. in order to get teaching qualifications. (He did teach high school for two years during this time and worked as a counselor.) Then physical issues prevented him from taking a job with the stress of a full time professor, which resulted in a job writing parking tickets at Western Michigan University. His wife also had a job at WMU, and Dr. Nicholson took advantage of tuition discounts to earn a number of degrees from the university. In later years, he did some substitute teaching as well, but he also continued to earn more degrees. He currently leads music at a small country church and also leads a weekly song service at a nursing home, but never has felt comfortable with the idea of taking a pastoral ministry. At the age of 73 he graduated with his 30th degree earlier this month (an M.S. in Criminal Justice from Grand Valley State University), and he is considering earning even more degrees if his health allows it.

A disclaimer: while it may be that God has called Dr. Nicholson to a special ministry of earning college degrees, this certainly is not the will of God for most seminary graduates (thankfully!). As a rule, seminary graduates should use their degrees to teach, pastor, write, and so forth. I suppose Dr. Nicholson is the extreme example of the “eager student” who loves school and wants to learn everything. While most people with “eager student syndrome” eventually want to publish books and articles and obtain a professorship, Dr. Nicholson just kept learning and getting degrees. Also unlike most eager students, Dr. Nicholson actually had the opportunity to stay in school for his entire life.

But there was a more profound takeaway from my meeting with Dr. Nicholson than merely the curiosity of meeting a man with so many degrees, or enjoying the camaraderie that comes from shared alma maters. Sometimes secular people caricature conservative evangelical Christians as anti-intellectual ignoramuses. The way you hear these people talk, you would think for sure that all of the smartest, best-educated people in the world are atheists. In fact, Dr. Nicholson has had more education than anyone else in the world, as measured by college degrees earned, and all but two of his degrees are from non-religious institutions. After going through a lifetime of university classes, Dr. Nicholson still holds to the same basic Christian beliefs that he held before he first enrolled in college. He has never read, heard, or learned anything that destroyed his Christian faith or his confidence in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. He told me that his education has made his faith stronger because, he said, “the whole idea of an education is to pursue the truth, and God is truth.”

Here is a lesson for Christians: the Christian faith is true, and therefore Christians do not need to fear that there will be some archeological discovery, some scientific discovery, or a philosophical argument that will destroy the Christian religion. Scholars like Dr. Nicholson and I have read vast amounts of scholarship, we have had a very broad exposure to what else is “out there,” and we have heard “the other side” present its views every which way, yet the more we hear the better the Bible looks. There is no other religion or philosophical system out there that has “the real truth”; Christianity is the real truth. There is no archeological or scientific “fact” out there that proves even a single error in the Bible; the Bible is wholly and completely true. The reason why secular scholars reject the Bible and Christianity is not because of any genuine problem with the Bible or Christianity. Belief in the Bible is eminently reasonable by any measure, and the Christian faith can be proven true in many different ways. But acceptance of the Bible and of the Christian religion involves moral and spiritual issues, not just intellectual issues, and in fact the minds of unbelievers are blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4) and their hearts are hardened by sin (Eph 4:18). New Christians are born again by the transforming power of the Word of God and the Spirit of God, which illumines their minds and changes their way of thinking. Dr. Nicholson said about his unbelieving professors, “They think they know what they’re talking about, but they don’t know what’s going on right under their noses.”

You can read more about Dr. Nicholson here:

Here’s the list of 29 degrees (from the Kalamazoo Gazette)

Alumni with the most diplomas (from the GVSU alumni magazine)

Twenty-seven degrees and counting (from the Kalamazoo Gazette)

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The Johannine Christmas story

19 Friday Dec 2014

Posted by in Bible, Christmas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that has been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the unique One from the Father), full of grace and truth.

So begins the fourth Gospel. In the Johannine Christmas story, there are no shepherds, no wise men, no angels, and no manger. There is no Bethlehem and no Nazareth. There is no census, no king, and no inn. John does describe Jesus’ entrance into the world, but he does this by presenting the Christmas story as a theological narrative. The Gospel of John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, so John was able to assume that his readers had an understanding of Jesus’ earthly origins from Matthew and Luke. This allowed John to start his presentation of the good news (gospel) about Jesus with a theological overview of Jesus’ origins and ministry.

Rather than calling Jesus by His human name, John characterizes Jesus theologically as the eternal logos (Word) who is the Revealer of the Father. John begins his description of Jesus’ origins by describing the Word as the eternal God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the Giver of life, and the Revelation of God in the world (1:1-5). The Word’s coming was announced by a forerunner, John (1:6-8), and yet when He came, His own revelation of Himself was rejected by the world which He created and by His own people (1:9-11). However, even though the Word’s own did not receive Him, the invitation to receive Him is open to all, and those who receive Him become His own (1:12-13).

The rejection of the eternal Word by His own people was powerfully ironic, but John saves the most powerful irony for v. 14, in which he at last describes how it is that the Word came into the world and was manifested. The eternal Word, who is the perfect revelation of the Father’s glory, became flesh and dwelt among us! To either a Gentile or a Jew, this was and remains a mind-boggling concept: the Word became flesh, without ceasing to be God! John completes the prologue to his Gospel by describing how the Word’s incarnate glory was seen by the world, attested by John, and experienced by believers apart from the Law as the Revelation of God (1:14-18).

Babies are helpless and fully dependent, and yet even as that baby in Bethlehem’s manger cried out for His mother’s attention, He was at the same time upholding all things by the Word of His power (see Heb 1:3). Extraordinary, isn’t it? It is good to be reminded at the Christmas season that this Baby whom we celebrate is the Creator of all things. Our God was in that feed trough, the One whom we worship and serve.

Source note: Some of the material in this blog post is copied from Volume 6 of my Interpretive Guide to the Bible.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Exegetical insights from the Matthean Christmas narrative

15 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by in Bible

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

An English reader might miss the full significance of Matthew 1:16, which reads as follows: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

In English, the relative pronoun “who/whom” can refer to either a man or a woman, and to either a single individual or a group of people. But in Greek, the relative pronoun is spelled differently depending on whether it is referring to a man or a woman, and whether to a single person or a group. There are several places in the New Testament where this feature of the Greek language is useful for clarifying statements that are potentially ambiguous in an English translation. One of these places is Matthew 1:16.

A Christian English reader might assume on theological grounds that the word “whom” in Matthew 1:16 refers to Mary, but it could also be interpreted as referring to Joseph, or to both Joseph and Mary. However, in Greek, the ambiguity is removed. The word “whom” is a feminine singular pronoun. Because Joseph is masculine, and “Joseph and Mary” would be masculine plural, the feminine singular pronoun can only refer to Mary. Thus, Matthew 1:16 states that Jesus was born of Mary, but not Joseph. Matthew carefully worded this verse to protect the doctrine of Jesus’ virgin conception and birth. Beyond the use of the feminine singular relative pronoun, Matthew also uses the passive verb was born, rather than the active begat/bore, to avoid the implication that Mary was Jesus’ biological mother. Matthew thus carefully avoids saying either that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus or that Joseph was His biological father, but only that Mary gave birth to Jesus and that Joseph was her husband.

The next verse in Matthew’s Christmas narrative may seem a little puzzling to the modern reader: So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations. – Matthew 1:17

Have you ever wondered why Matthew makes a big deal out of the fact that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile, and fourteen from the exile until Christ? Matthew does this to show that Jesus came at the exact time when the next Davidic king was scheduled to appear. The generations from Abraham to David were the first period when Israel was without a Davidic king; the generations from David to the exile represent the time when Israel had a Davidic king; the generations from the exile to Christ were when Israel was again without a Davidic king. Thus, fourteen generations had gone by and it was again time for Israel to have a Davidic king. But while Matthew says there are fourteen generations from the exile until Christ, he only lists thirteen between Jechoniah and Jesus; therefore from the birth of Jesus until the beginning of John’s ministry another generation would have passed, and the time would be right for the next Davidic king to appear.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.