• About Dr. Steven Anderson

TruthOnlyBible

~ About the Bible, Christianity, and current events

TruthOnlyBible

Author Archives: Steven Anderson

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events, Ecclesiology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

make church great again, Pastor Trump, Reverend Trump, Trump Church

I do not desire to wade deeply into the politics of this year’s election season in the United States. I don’t see political action as something that will truly help people or solve the world’s problems. But the thought occurred to me the other day: what if Donald Trump had decided to start a church instead of running for president? Could the Trumpster succeed in the pastorate, as he has in politics? Trump is a businessman with a pragmatic, “do-whatever-it-takes-to-win” mentality. If he had decided to become a pastor, he might buy a beautiful building for his church, or, more likely, build a grand new one himself. He would hire experts who would tell him how to set up a church, get it running, and attract the initial congregation. He would find a way to get ordained. He would hire musicians to play whatever kind of music seemed most suitable. Every church service would be an impressive show, maybe with a steak dinner following. Experts on homiletics would write Trump’s sermons, which he would deliver with gusto. Sunday evenings might feature a concert in an outdoor amphitheater and fireworks afterward. Trump’s controversial comments on Muslims and politicians would make the news and lead people to believe that he is standing up for what is right. He would belittle pastors and churches who oppose him in order to get people to leave those churches and come to his church, which would be so much better.

With a high divorce rate among evangelicals and so much tolerance of sin, it is unlikely that most people would be bothered by Trump’s divorces, beauty pageants, casinos, and so forth. The standard of morality espoused by Trump would basically match what most people already believe and would give church members considerable freedom to live as they please. Trump’s theology would be somewhat erratic, novel, and idiosyncratic, but would likely be tolerated by many. In any case, Trump could not be voted out by the congregation, since he would own the church building. Perhaps he would offer perks for faithful members, such as free vacations at one of his resorts. Maybe he would give away raffle tickets every Sunday before the worship service, with a drawing held afterward. If the number of congregants started to decrease, he would immediately find out why and would shift course to bring them back. Big names would frequent Trump’s church to offer seminars and lead retreats. The church would have classes on financial responsibility and wealth creation, seminars on marriage and parenting, addiction recovery groups, a food pantry, and even Bible studies. Some of the teaching would seem very sound. The church would have a large counseling staff to help people work through their problems, and all of the counselors would be fully credentialed and experienced. Everything would be done first class. The youth group would take fun trips and compete for college scholarships; adults would go on cruises and take tours of the holy land. Trump’s staff would ghost-write books for him, which would make the bestseller lists. All things considered, I think if Donald Trump had decided to become a pastor instead of running for president, he would be widely regarded as a very successful pastor with a well-run church and a large following. Trump’s church might look very much like other prominent churches in the country, but with everything done bigger and better.

Many popular pastors of megachurches (and their wannabes in smaller churches) do in fact have the same pragmatic mentality as Donald Trump. I would suggest that these pastors and their followers have lost sight of what really makes a church successful. First and foremost, the church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to pastors or congregations, which means that things must be done His way, not our way. The church’s aim is to please Jesus Christ, not to build a personal empire or garner a huge following. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to church growth, if numerical growth is not the true goal of the church.

Decisions about how to do things in churches and Christian schools have now for decades been driven by pragmatic considerations about expansion and money. If starting a Saturday night service will bring in more people, then let’s do it, and let’s say that it doesn’t matter what day of the week you come to church. If having a rock band and a dance team attracts more people than having an organ and a choir, then let’s have the rock band and dance team. If most people now approve of women preaching, then let’s allow women to preach. If hosting a $100/plate dinner will raise funds for the building, then let’s have the dinner. Many other examples could be cited. The problem is that the church is not making its decisions by asking such questions as “What does God want us to do?” or “What does the Bible say we should do?” The questions driving the church’s decisions are ones such as “What will make the church grow?” and “What will bring in money?” It is time for the church to start making decisions again based solely on the Bible, and not on what people think is right or what will make a church “grow.”

There is no doubt that applying pragmatic strategies to achieve growth in a church can produce results. One reason why the Mormons have survived and expanded in spite of their patently absurd theology is because they require members go on evangelistic mission trips (two years full-time after high school) and to give ten percent of their income to the church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses require their members to do door-to-door evangelism. It is, of course, a good thing when Bible-believing Christians go on mission trips, give tithes to the church, and evangelize. However, the Bible requires that such things be done voluntarily; making them compulsory is a pragmatic shortcut to achieve church growth. Growth produced by shortcuts is always shallow and superficial, since it is not rooted in an overarching commitment to faithfulness to God and to His Word.

I may well end up voting for Donald Trump for president this fall, in spite of not agreeing with him about many things. But I would never vote for Donald Trump (or any of the other major candidates, for that matter) to be my pastor. It may be okay to vote for the least worst candidate for president (if your conscience allows you to do so), but the Bible sets forth qualifications for the pastorate that every pastor must meet. Donald Trump does not meet the biblical requirements to be a pastor, as stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Of course, Trump is not a pastor and has not said that he wants to be one. But I think if he had tried to become a prominent pastor, he could have gained wide acceptance. There already are many talented, pragmatic people who have made a name for themselves in the pastorate and are widely considered to be successful pastors, who nevertheless do not even meet the basic biblical qualifications for becoming a pastor.

We need to stop measuring success by numbers and fame, and start measuring success the way God measures it—by faithfulness to His Word.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

The lie of gambling

01 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Practical theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christian view of gambling

Casinos, lotteries, sports betting, and fantasy sports betting are ubiquitous in today’s America. Gambling is no longer the domain of Las Vegas or the local bar. There was a time, not too long ago, when gambling was taboo in evangelicalism; pastors would preach against it, and Christian schools would expel people who were caught doing it. Now it seems that gambling is increasingly seen as acceptable in evangelical Christian circles. Is this because the reasons for historic Christian opposition to gambling are no longer relevant in today’s culture, or is it because the church has wrongly acceded to the values of the culture?

Lotteries and casinos make money by relying on mathematical axioms (probability theory) which allow them to calculate revenue very precisely and reliably. Consider, for example, a lottery game in which a player has a 1 in 100 chance of winning $80, and game pieces are $1 each. If the game is played enough times—say 10,000—the laws of mathematics guarantee that the lottery will operate at about a 20 percent profit. Of course, it is possible that a player who only plays the game one time will come out $79 ahead. However, most people who buy lottery tickets buy them on a regular basis—especially if they win—and this means that they are mathematically guaranteed to lose money over time, just as the lottery operator is guaranteed to make money. The one exception is the few winners of large lottery jackpots; however, the odds of winning these jackpots are so small that someone who spends $10 on tickets every day for 40 years will very likely have just wasted $146,100. Actually, if that $10/day (= $304.38/mo.) was invested in the market at a 7% rate of interest (the average rate of return from the market over time), it would be worth $730,000 after 40 years, according to the government’s compound interest calculator. Smart people will do the math and go with the sure bet. Even if you only spend $10 a year on tickets when the jackpots are huge, that is still $10 a year you have wasted, not to mention the time you spent standing in line, ordering your tickets, and checking the numbers.

Some people might not understand why they are less likely to make money on gambling by playing frequently than by playing one time. The reason for this is that you can’t keep beating the odds. Let’s say you have a one in three chance of winning a particular game. If you play the game twice, you still have a one in three chance of winning on the second play, but your odds of winning both times are one in nine. You don’t have to win every time to come out ahead, but you do have to keep winning against the odds in order to make money over the long term. While the odds of making money on a particular game play may be one in three (still not a good bet), the odds of making money by playing that game thousands of times are astronomically high and mathematically impossible. In other words, since the games follow established mathematical principles, if you play enough times, your results will align with the odds. This is why the house always comes out ahead—with enough plays, they are mathematically guaranteed to do so. Using horoscopes, charms, and “lucky” numbers won’t change the mathematics and improve your odds.

One can also question whether it would actually be beneficial to win the lottery. Many virtues are produced through hard work, a disciplined life, and a sense of reliance on God to meet one’s daily needs. For most people who win big lottery jackpots, it does not turn out to be the fantastic dream they had imagined it would be. Instead, it ruins them—they waste their time and money leading a dissolute life, and sometimes they end up being just as broke as they were before. So the lottery is a lose-lose gamble—if you never hit the jackpot, you are out all your ticket money; if you do hit it, it wrecks your life. The few lottery winners who have not been ruined by their winnings are the ones who have continued to work hard as if they had not won and who have followed the guidance of financial advisors.

Betting is a little bit different than buying lottery tickets. Sometimes people can find ways to place bets in which the odds favor them and they can actually make money, such as people who find clever ways to bet on a game of golf. But swindling your playing partners out of money is certainly not a moral or ethical thing to do, and it is legally and physically dangerous. Since the only way you can make money on betting is if someone else loses, the whole practice of betting is unethical. In addition, betting usually leads to other unethical practices, such as rigged sports matches. Even if the odds of making money on sports betting were 50-50, the house always takes a cut, with the result that you will lose money over time. Surely it is a better use of one’s money and a more honorable occupation to work a job and earn a regular paycheck. And the best way never to lose a bet is never to place one.

Since the main problem with gambling is that it is a waste of money, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with accepting free lottery tickets (e.g., 10 free plays online for registering with a promo code) or free tokens to play in a casino. However, other considerations ought to give us pause about this. First, the reason why casinos offer free play is to get people hooked, and this is a serious danger (especially if you win). Second, if someone sees you playing games in the casino or walking into the lottery claims center, it will be a detriment to your Christian testimony (people will assume you are gambling). Third, you are unlikely to make enough money for the free play to be worth your time, effort, and gas money. The odds are against you winning anything big, and if you play games with smaller prizes and better odds you will only come away with a percentage of the small amount of free play they gave you. Fourth, casinos are extremely carnal places, full of booze, immorality, bad music, and plenty of pressure to gamble. There are many, many examples of compulsive gamblers in today’s world, stories of people who have gambled away everything they own. If that happens to you, you will not receive any sympathy from the casino or the state lottery—under no circumstances will they return your money, even if they know full well that they have ruined your life. So if you don’t want to start a gambling habit, you really are best off avoiding casinos altogether.

I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with entering free sweepstakes, although entering sweepstakes may not be a good idea for everyone or in every circumstance. By law in the United States, all sweepstakes must be truly free, with no purchase necessary to enter and with a purchase not improving one’s odds of winning. (Sweepstakes that appear to require a purchase always have an alternate means of entry described in the official rules in order to comply with the law. If a purchase was necessary, then it would be a pay-to-play scheme, i.e., gambling, and all the laws which regulate gambling would come into effect.) There are actually many free sweepstakes opportunities available online for United States residents. For many, entering these contests would be a waste of time. Some might fear that entering would start a bad habit. For others, entering sweepstakes might be a fun diversion and an opportunity to win some extra cash or goodies. The bottom line is, you should never pay to play—that way you can’t lose money. And never make a purchase out of guilt or sympathy for the company offering the promotion. I personally don’t like the idea of participating in contests such as the Monopoly games at McDonald’s or Albertsons, as it is essentially gambling when one is enticed to make purchases in order to get game pieces. (The alternate means of entry for these games is usually a mailed letter, which requires the purchase of a stamp and envelope.) I also won’t buy tickets at a benefit raffle—if I really want to give money to a good cause, I should decide to do so on the merits of the cause and my financial situation, not because I am hoping against long odds to come out ahead.

Most people understand that the odds at the casino and in the lottery are against them, even if they don’t fully grasp the mathematics. Gambling’s attraction therefore does not come from its wisdom as an investment choice. The attraction of gambling is the lie that there is an easier, faster way to make money than by having to work for it. People naturally want to have easy money instead of earning money through hard work. They also want to have their wealth now, instead of gradually saving up money over their working career and waiting for the interest to compound. So they believe the lie that they will get rich by buying lottery tickets or by gambling at the casino. In fact, the lottery and casino gambling are schemes to swindle people out of their hard-earned money by telling them they can win money when they mathematically can’t.

The lottery is a lie, and casino gambling is a lie. They tell that you could make money—big money—by playing, when in fact people who understand the math can see that they will lose money according to the odds of each game. If the casino sets up a game so it will make a 10 percent profit, that means you will (on average) only get $90 back for every $100 you gamble, and if you play enough times you will run out of money. It is actually the house that is guaranteed to make big money, and the players are guaranteed to lose. I personally don’t know anyone who makes a living by gambling in casinos or by playing the Daily 3. I only know hard-working people who go to casinos for vacations and lose their hard-earned money. As Christians, we need to be good stewards of the resources God entrusts to us, and that means not wasting our money on lottery tickets and casino games.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

The Secular View of Human Life

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christian view of human life, euthanasia

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, introduced legislation this past week to legalize assisted suicide (now called “physician assisted death”). Assisted suicide is also legal in places in the United States and Europe. This is just the latest manifestation of the consequences of abandoning the biblical view of human life as intrinsically valuable due to the fact that man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), as well as the explicit rejection of the ten commandments as a standard of morality. Assisted suicide may be seen as the next logical step following the legalization of abortion more than forty years ago.

Secular morality is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions and arbitrary value judgments. But certainly the theory of evolution teaches that man is just another animal. Ultimately, man is nothing more than a highly organized collection of matter in a meaningless universe. As such, human life only has the worth that man himself assigns to it. The criteria for assigning worth to life might be the perceived good of each individual, the good of the majority, or the good of the ruling class. In the context of contemporary Western liberal thought, the ruling class and the majority are one and the same, and therefore life should be treated in the way that the majority believes is best for itself. Many believe that a life of suffering is not worth living, and therefore it would be best for themselves personally if they could decide to end their lives when they lose hope or no longer find life pleasant. They also believe that caring for the elderly, the handicapped, the terminally ill, and others with serious and chronic medical conditions is an economic burden and a useless drain on the resources of the healthy.

I am not convinced that caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is in fact an economic burden. There are very many people who are employed to care for the sick and the elderly; viewed from this perspective, taking care of those in need is actually a positive economic activity which creates jobs. Further, caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is, from a biblical point of view, a blessing and a privilege, and therefore well worth the cost (cf. Matt 25:35-40). The people who are cared for enrich the world through their interactions with caregivers, as well as by other means. By contrast, the secular establishment talks about how much money is generated by activities such as sports, gambling, rock concerts, and other forms of entertainment. These activities are actually the real drain on the economy, since they generate no useful goods but are hugely expensive. Not only are these expenses completely unnecessary, they are counterproductive, since they promote lawlessness and immorality while taking time and money away from productive enterprises. The truth is, secular people simply like entertainment and do not like having to care for suffering people, since they lack love, and this is the real reason why they portray entertainment as a positive economic activity and caring for the elderly as an economic cost. Similarly, secularists view religion as a waste of time and money, when in fact it is a lack of (true) religion that is leading the world to destruction.

From a secular point of view, one could make a very good argument for infanticide. One could argue that babies born with serious birth defects would be better off having their lives terminated, since they would never enjoy life as adults, and would simply be a burden to their parents and other caretakers (there is no love for people in the secular mentality). Non-Christians would not accept the objection that man is created in the image of God, thereby making all human life precious, and that God has strictly forbidden the taking of human life (other than in self-defense or as judicial punishment for murder). It therefore seems very likely that infanticide will soon be practiced in the United States.

It also seems likely that laws which mandate involuntary euthanasia will soon follow laws which permit voluntary euthanasia. There was, in fact, talk of a “death committee” established under Obamacare to decide when seriously ill patients should no longer receive medical care. One of the consequences of government-run health care programs in a secular country is that an antichristian standard of medical morality is imposed upon the entire populace. If the government decides that it is not worth the financial cost to care for certain seriously ill patients, it would seem reasonable from a secular point to euthanize patients, rather than “pulling the plug” and watching them die slowly and miserably. But from a biblical point of view, man has no right to take human life; someone who does so is a murderer and must be killed by the authorities in retributive justice (Gen 9:5-6).

It is not only those who are physically sick whom the majority may judge to be unfit to live—a whole class of people may be deemed undesirable and therefore targeted for extermination. In Nazi Germany, this was the Jews; in leftist America, it would be evangelical Christians.

In many ancient pagan societies, the preferred form of entertainment was blood sport. There is no reason to think that the gladiatorial shows of the Roman Empire could not be revived in the United States. From a secular point of view, life has no ultimate value, so if two fighters give their consent they should be able to fight to the death. We are already seeing increasingly violent sport-fighting around the world, often with serious injuries to the participants. The wicked want to give expression to their wicked desires to harm others, and to watch others be harmed, and they have no love for those involved.

The movement to legalize drugs is another manifestation of the secular view of the cheapness of life. On the secular view, it is okay to destroy one’s mind, one’s health, and even one’s life if one obtains pleasure in the process. The rise in the murder rate and the suicide rate in the United States is also due to a view of human life as cheap.

One of the basic assumptions behind the push for assisted suicide is that there is no afterlife and no judgment for sin—once a man dies, he ceases to exist forever. But the Bible teaches that death will only end a person’s suffering if that person goes to heaven. For those who go to hell, their suffering will only be greatly intensified (Rev 14:9-13). The assumption that man is wholly physical and that death ends life forever is also behind the movement to cremate or even compost dead bodies. If we believe that our bodies are connected to our souls and will be raised someday, then we should want them to be treated with reverence. For more on this issue see this post and this one. It should be noted that the idea that man is simply a complex machine is absurd, since no machine can achieve consciousness or make voluntary decisions by a self-determined will. Man’s consciousness and will can only be explained by means of an immaterial soul.

It is not just the atheistic Western worldview in which life is seen as cheap. In the Shinto/Buddhist Japanese worldview, suicide is often seen as honorable, and large numbers of young Japanese men volunteered for suicide missions during World War II. In the Islamic worldview, suicide bombers may be seen as martyrs for their god. It is only in the biblical Christian worldview that life is seen as intrinsically precious and valuable. In the midst of ever-changing morality in society around us, let us remember the Bible’s teaching about human life: (1) Man is created in the image of God, which makes him different from the animals (Gen 1:26-27); (2) God forbids murder (Exod 20:13); (3) Life’s sufferings have positive value for followers of Christ (1 Pet 3:14); and (4) All men’s bodies will be raised and judged when Christ brings history to its final consummation (John 5:28-29).

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

Why did Jesus go to the cross?

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Gethsemane, music

This article is a response to some Christian hymns and songs that say something like, “The only reason Jesus went to the cross was for me. It was all because of His love for me!” This viewpoint leads to a serious theological problem when we read Mark 14:35, which describes what Jesus did in the Garden of Gethsemane: “And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.” We might think, “Oh, no! Jesus, how could You even consider the thought of not dying for my sins in order to save me? Don’t You care about me?” But as we read further in Mark’s account, we find that this was not what Jesus was thinking about at all. Jesus says nothing at Gethsemane about the salvation of His followers. If Jesus was waffling at Gethsemane over the question of whether to redeem His followers, He would have been discussing the issue with His disciples (who certainly would have urged Jesus not to go to the cross). Instead, Jesus prayed to God the Father about the possibility of avoiding the suffering which lay ahead of Him, but concluded by saying, “Not what I want, but what You want” (Mark 14:36). In fact, Jesus was going to the cross for the same basic reason that He originally came to earth as God incarnate: it was the Father’s will, and Jesus was absolutely committed to doing the Father’s will.

We tend to think of the cross as all about us. We think the whole reason why Jesus went to the cross was to save us. But from Jesus’ perspective, the cross was all about God. Jesus went to the cross in order to please His Father. Yes, He knew that He was the Good Shepherd, laying down His life for His sheep (John 10:11; 15:13; 1 John 3:16), but this was not His primary thought at Gethsemane. His primary thought was about doing the will of God. Even as He hung on the cross, Jesus’ thoughts remained consumed with God: He said, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”—not, “Oh you wicked people of the world, why did you do so much sin to make me have to suffer like this in order to redeem you?”

To be clear: Jesus never “waffled” or considered not going to the cross—Jesus was asking the Father if there was any other way, all the while maintaining His determination to follow the way the Father had determined for Him. Jesus’ prayer to be spared from the agony of the cross was not made without concern for the salvation of His followers. He had repeatedly assured His followers of His love for them and the certainty that He would save them. But when facing the most intense pain and suffering that anyone ever could face—the payment of an immeasurably great penalty for all the sins of the whole human race—Jesus felt intense stress and emotional pressure. He prayed that if there was some other way, the Father’s will might be accomplished without enduring the unimaginable agony of the cross. Yet when all others would have backed out, Jesus did in fact walk boldly to the cross and die, in submission to the will of His Father

Thus, from a theological point of view, it is most accurate to say that Jesus went to the cross to do the Father’s will, and that the Father sent Jesus to the cross in order to save the world. John 3:16 does not say “Jesus loved the world so much that He went to the cross to die for everyone’s sins.” It says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes on Him would not perish but have eternal life.” The reason why the Father sent Jesus to the cross was because of the greatness of the Father’s love for the people of this world (cf. Rom 5:8). While popular evangelical theology sees little or no difference between the Father and Jesus, the cross can only truly be understood in light of Jesus’ relationship to the Father.

As a point of application, it is wrong and self-centered for us to think of things as if they are all about ourselves. Jesus was not totally consumed with us when He went to the cross—He was totally consumed with God (the Father). We, too, need to be totally consumed about doing the will of God. If we are, it will result in doing what is best for our fellow man, since God loves mankind more than any of us ever could.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

Some insights from the 2016 Midwest ETS conference

14 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible scholarship

≈ 4 Comments

This past Friday and Saturday I had the privilege of attending the Midwest regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. I made many new friends at the conference and attended a number of helpful and interesting sessions, several of which are summarized below.

The well-known eighty-three year old theologian Millard Erickson gave a presentation which reflected on the past eighty years of American evangelical theology. He calls the period from 1936 to 1947 “the period of consolidation,” after liberals had finally won out in all the major denominations and institutions, and evangelicals had been forced to start their own churches and institutions. Erickson labels the period from 1947 to 1983 as “the period of construction,” in which evangelical scholars made the case for evangelical theology, in opposition to liberal theology, by means of positive contributions. In spite of denominational differences, evangelicals largely presented a united front in their efforts. Erickson labels the period from 1983 to the present as “the period of controversy,” in which evangelical scholarship has fractured over many theological issues, and evangelicals have debated each other as much or more than the liberals. Erickson lists biblical inerrancy as the foremost debated issue in evangelicalism, followed by the issue of gender roles. With regard to the present day situation, Erickson noted that many major theologians have passed from the scene in recent years, especially on the evangelical left, and that so far there is no clear future leader on either side. He believes the discipline of theology has been weakened by the increasing specialization of academia, so that most scholars can only engage in one specific aspect of the overall discussion, and are not broadly competent across the entire discipline. Also, evangelicalism has become increasingly fractured; according to Erickson, scholars on the evangelical left often are exclusively interested in dialogue and partnership with liberal scholarship, to the exclusion of the evangelical right. Another aspect of the present day situation is the popularization of the discussion. Seminaries are closing or downsizing, resulting in fewer trained theologians, while the great rise in social media has led to much theologizing being done on blogs, Facebook, and other social media. Some popular evangelical blogs are written by people with little or no formal training, and as a result often contain glaring, amateurish errors. Erickson encouraged the scholars in the audience to engage more in social media. Finally, looking forward to the future of evangelical theology, Erickson noted that it appears evangelicals will increasingly have to fight merely to have a platform to communicate—in contrast to past generations, in which evangelical scholars simply argued for evangelical theological viewpoints against liberal theological viewpoints. He specifically flagged political correctness as a major problem for evangelicals, since political correctness attempts to restrict what is even allowed to be said or suggested before the case for it can be made. Erickson called for more unity among evangelicals, even as he described how his own church is likely going to split over the call of a female minister whom he is recommending to the congregation. Erickson’s final exhortation was to prepare to fight the next battle, not the last battle or even the current one. He thinks academia is shifting away from the current postmodernism back to a form of modernism.

Jacob Prahlow, a Ph.D. student at Saint Louis University, presented an interesting paper on the Christology of the book of Revelation. Whether one studies the Christological controversies of the early church, modern theology books, or even commentaries on Revelation, there is a surprising lack of attention to the Christology of the book of Revelation. In fact, Revelation is replete with strong affirmations of Jesus’ divinity (His humanity is also affirmed in 1:13; 5:9; 11:8; 14:14). Clear references to Jesus as “Lord” are found in 11:8, 17:14, 19:16, and 22:20-21, although John’s preferred term for Jesus is “the Lamb” (in accord with 5:6), and John frequently calls the Father “Lord” (κύριος) as the Greek representation of the Hebrew term “Yahweh.” The title “Alpha and Omega,” used of Jesus in 22:12-13, is given as a title for God alone in 1:8 and 21:6. Jesus’ title “The First and the Last” (1:17; 2:8; 22:13) parallels God’s title “The One who is and who was and who is to come” (1:8; cf. Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12). Revelation 19:13 calls Jesus “the Word of God,” a theologically loaded title which is an affirmation of divinity (cf. John 1:1). Jesus is twice called “King of kings and Lord of lords” (17:14; 19:16), which implies that He is sovereign over everything and everyone in all of creation. Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 explicitly prohibit worship of anyone but God alone, yet the book approves of worship of Jesus/the Lamb (5:8-13). Jesus determines which names are in the book of life (3:5; 13:18), which means that He controls the eternal destiny of all men—who enters the lake of fire (20:15), and who enters the New Jerusalem (3:12). In chs. 1–3, Jesus very clearly claims lordship over the churches, calls God His Father (2:27; 3:5, 21), calls Himself (among other titles) “the Son of God” (2:18), and issues extraordinary promises that only God could make. In ch. 5, the Lamb was the only One in all of heaven, earth, or the underworld who was found worthy to take the seven-sealed scroll out of the hand of God and break its seals. In ch. 19, it is Jesus (“The Word of God”) who returns to earth to execute God’s judgment on the beast, the false prophet, and all the wicked in the earth. The very first verse of Revelation affirms that Jesus Christ revealed the whole vision of the book to His servant John. The final scene in the vision shows “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” as the temple and the light source of the New Jerusalem (21:22-23). All in all, the book of Revelation is at least as strong as any other book of the New Testament in its affirmations of the divinity of Jesus.

Marcus Leman, a Ph.D. candidate at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave a very helpful presentation on the utility of the Masoretic accents in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Old Testament. The accents have three basic functions: to mark stressed syllables, to mark the melody to be sung for each word (when the text is cantillated), and to mark syntactical breaks in the verse. The latter function of the accents is similar to a modern system of punctuation, but is different in that each word is given its own “punctuation mark” (accent) in order to identify precise syntactic, clausal, and semantic units. Understanding the meaning of these accents not only aids reading comprehension, but also allows the exegete to pull ready-made structural outlines out of the Hebrew text by understanding which accents are subordinate to other accents in the verse. One Hebrew professor in attendance at the session said he wonders whether he has been teaching Hebrew wrong for the last forty years. Leman’s work was based on that of his professor Russell Fuller, whose book on Hebrew accents is due out later this year.

Tremper Longman III gave a presentation on Old Testament commentaries, especially the various commentary series that he has edited or otherwise been involved with. I must say that I have some significant theological and practical disagreements with Longman, such as his adherence to theistic evolution and his view that every book of the Bible except Nahum(?!) was redacted after it was originally written. Longman promoted the new Story of God commentary series he is editing for Zondervan, but what he said about it made me not want to buy the series. He bragged about how they had gone out of their way to find women to write commentaries in the series (just under half the commentaries are to be authored by women), and that they had also found a woman to be one of the series editors. He specifically said they wanted to have as few white male Americans as possible writing books in the series, though he evidently made an exception for himself. One positive observation Longman made was that modernist (i.e., post-Reformation) commentaries had the virtue of not accepting premodern interpretations of the text. Many allegorical interpretations of the biblical text that are found in the (generally later) church fathers are repeated over and over again in medieval commentaries. Many post-Reformation Protestant writers, by contrast, saw the text as their sole authority and interpreted it literally, discarding the junk of allegorical exegesis. I will say that I am seeing an increasing amount of allegorical interpretation at ETS meetings and in commentaries, though it is rarely called “allegorical.” Texts are often read in highly symbolic ways so as to convey something other than their face-value, literal meaning.

Michael Wittmer of Grand Rapids Theological Seminary gave an excellent presentation in which he argued (against books by David Platt, John Piper, and Joe Rigney) that Christians can serve Jesus with an ordinary profession, and that it is okay for Christians to enjoy non-sinful pleasures and the good things of this world. Rigney’s ongoing affirmation of panentheism is particularly troubling, but it is the natural theological outgrowth of what his side is recommending on a practical level.

Finally, Abraham Kuruvilla of Dallas Theological Seminary gave a very engaging presentation on the exegetical process by which a sermon should be formed. My main problem with Kuruvilla’s hermeneutical model is that it treats the literal meaning of the text as of secondary importance (as can be seen in his commentary on Genesis). Nevertheless, I expect Kuruvilla’s work to continue to gain recognition in the evangelical world.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

A new direction in American foreign policy?

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

election 2016, Republican primary

I don’t typically write on politics, even though my bachelor’s degree was in political science. But this year’s presidential election in the United States potentially marks a watershed moment in the modern history of international relations. It appears increasingly likely that Donald Trump will win not only the Republican presidential nomination, but also the general election for president. If Donald Trump is elected president, I believe we will see a radical change in American foreign policy. While only time will tell exactly what would happen in a Trump presidency, here is how I read Trump’s agenda.

Donald Trump is an American nationalist. His nationalism resonates well with voters, although I do not believe it is entirely reflective of biblical Christian principles. Trump wants to grow America the way he grew his business, which means giving competitors bad deals. When he talks about “winning,” that means other countries will be losing. When he talks about bringing jobs and money back from overseas, that means underdeveloped countries will be losing those jobs and money. That might be good for the United States economy, at least in the near term. But Trump does not seem to be bothered by the idea that his policies may hurt the livelihood of people in other countries or that they may be ethically problematic. He seems only to view the economies of other countries as tools that can be used to grow the United States’ economy.

Ever since the United States became the most powerful country in the world, it has generally tried to be a good neighbor to the rest of the world. A classic example was the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with U.S. dollars after World War II, in contrast to the Treaty of Versailles which France and Britain used to punish Germany after World War I. I think that would change under a President Trump. Trump would seek to take advantage of the rest of the world for the United States’ economic profit. This is similar to the mentality of the Chinese government, which Trump has said on many occasions is “smart.” While his intentions alone are troubling from a moral point of view, the scary part is that Trump’s plan would probably work. The United States has incredible military and economic power, and if this power were ever abused there would be little the rest of the world could do about it. Trump would get his way. He could take oil from Iraq and Libya, he could take jobs and factories from Mexico, and he could force major corporations to relocate their headquarters and assets to the United States. He would also seek to manipulate global monetary policy in ways which remain to be seen. Gone will be the days when America helps other countries free of charge; under Trump, they will receive a bill for all expenses incurred. Further, since American society does not have the biblical Christian values that it once did, it is likely that the majority of the American public would approve of Trump’s efforts to enrich them at the expense of others. Trump’s agenda probably could not be stopped by either external or internal opposition.

The result of Trump’s actions would likely be to force the rest of the world to coalesce into regional blocs so as to be able to defend their interests on the world stage. The United Nations would become far less important, while Russia, China, and the European Union would organize and strengthen regional alliances in order to compete with the United States and each other. A new arms race would also ensue, as other countries recognize the need to build up military power in order to better resist the United States’ bullying. Sometime down the road, this bullying would lead to the destruction of the United States by those who hate it—but in the meanwhile Americans would enjoy great material prosperity.

A disclaimer: I am not writing this post as part of the anti-Trump campaign, although I plan to vote for Marco Rubio in the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Trump certainly has some un-Christian and un-presidential character qualities, and I have significant disagreements with some of his proposed policies. However, the Democratic candidates are directly hostile to biblical Christianity and pose an immediate threat to the ability of Christians to practice their faith, so I plan in the general election to vote for (not necessarily endorse) whomever the Republicans nominate. Thus, this article is essentially an observation on what may be coming in a Trump presidency, a call to awareness.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

An Interpretive Guide to the Bible

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible, Books

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

free books

I am pleased to announce that I am now making PDF copies of my eight-volume book series, Dr. Anderson’s Interpretive Guide to the Bible, available for free on my website.

With so many commentaries and study Bibles available, what makes Dr. Anderson’s Interpretive Guide to the Bible unique?

  1. These interpretive guides fill a gap in the literature by providing a synthetic overview of every book of the Bible in a way that commentaries and introductions do not.
  2. These interpretive guides are original scholarship, unlike much of what is produced today. They are the product of my own careful study of the Scriptures, and are not simply a slightly revised repetition of what you can read in other resources. I am an independent thinker, and you will find many original insights and ideas throughout these interpretive guides.
  3. My method of biblical interpretation emphasizes the primacy of the biblical text, and seeks to find its literal meaning. Most contemporary literature seeks to read the Bible through the grid of preformed theological ideas or background studies.
  4. Although I use and often recommend recent commentaries and other scholarly literature, I am writing from a traditional point of view that you will not read in other contemporary literature. Contemporary publishers only publish contemporary viewpoints. Those who enjoy reading classic commentaries, such as the ones by Keil & Delitzch or Albert Barnes, might like these interpretive guides.

These interpretive guides are similar enough to a Bible commentary so that some people would classify them as commentaries. However, they do not deal much with issues of translation or textual criticism, and do not deal extensively with interpretive details. This series is intended partly as an aid to reading, and partly as a starting point for more detailed exegesis. It is, essentially, a general guide to biblical interpretation, from which more specific interpretations may be developed.

These interpretive guides are intended for anyone who wants to study the Bible. There are some more advanced or technical discussions in them that only scholars are likely to follow, but there are also many things that virtually any Christian reader of the Bible can understand. These interpretive guides are designed to help but also challenge adult readers at all academic levels.

It is my hope that making these books available for free in PDF form will greatly increase their reach and their usefulness to the church. Please use these books, recommend them to others if you find them helpful, and check back occasionally for updated editions.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

The Urim and the Thummim

28 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

casting lots, ephod, oracle

One of the more mysterious expressions a Bible reader may encounter is “the Urim and the Thummim” (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Deut 33:8 [in reverse order]; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65). In fact, “Urim” and “Thummim” are not translations, but are rather transliterations of Hebrew words whose referent is disputed. If you have heard anything at all about the Urim and the Thummim, chances are good that you have heard one of several theories invented by modern scholars, without support from the Bible or ancient Jewish tradition.

Marginal notes in English Bibles translate the word “Urim” (‎אוּרִים) as “Lights,” although the plural of the common Hebrew word for light (אוֹר) is slightly different (אוֹרִים = “Orim”). By its form, Urim is the plural of the Hebrew word for “firelight” (אוּר), which is used in the plural form “Urim” in Isaiah 24:15 to refer to the east as the region of the fiery light of the rising sun. While some suggest that “Urim” and “Thummim” are each to be understood as an intensive plural which refers to a single object, Hebrew grammars question whether the intensive plural can be used of non-living things (IBHS §7.4.3; Joüon §136f), and in any case it is not necessary to interpret “Urim” and “Thummim” as intensives. Thus, “Urim” is best understood to mean “the fire-like lights” or “the ones shining like firelight.”

“Thummim” is, to begin with, an inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew word תֻּמִּים, in which the תּ is given a hard pronunciation; “Tummim” would be a more accurate transliteration, although convention now demands the spelling “Thummim.” Marginal notes in English Bibles translate the word “Thummim” as “Perfections,” although this translation does not seem like the right one for the Hebrew word that is used. (The translation of “Urim” and “Thummim” in the marginal notes of English Bibles as “lights” and “perfections” is evidently taken from the LXX text of Ezra 2:63.) “Thummim” is the plural form of the Hebrew word תֹּם, which occurs in the singular twenty-three times in the Old Testament. This word is usually translated as “integrity” (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:4; Job 4:6; Pss 26:1; 78:72; Prov 2:7), but also can be translated as “innocence” (Gen 20:5-6; 2 Sam 15:11; 1 Kgs 22:34; 2 Chr 18:33) or “completeness” (Job 21:23; Isa 47:9). Translating “Thummim” as “the blameless ones” seems to fit best with basic meaning of the word.

“Urim” and “Thummim” were names given to physical objects that were part of the high priest’s sacred garments. (Compare Solomon’s naming of the two main pillars of the temple porch as “Jachin” and “Boaz” in 1 Kings 7:21.) The high priest’s vest (called an “ephod”) contained shoulder pieces with two special onyx(?) stones set in sockets of gold (Exod 28:7-14). These stones were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel—six on one stone, and six on the other. The shoulder pieces were attached to the breastplate, a nine-inch square piece of heavy (double-thick) fabric with four rows of three gemstones set in sockets of gold (Exod 28:15-21). Each gemstone was engraved with the name of one of the twelve tribes (presumably naming Ephraim and Manasseh separately, and excluding Levi, which was represented by the high priest). The breastplate was hung from the shoulder pieces by means of gold chains that were connected to the sockets of the onyx stones on the shoulder pieces (Exod 28:22-25). The Urim and the Thummim are said in Exodus 28:30 to be set into the breastplate (literally, “and you shall set into the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim”; Leviticus 8:8 also reads “he set into the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim”). This evidently refers to the placement of the gemstones in their gold settings. The Urim and the Thummim seem to be identified in Exodus 28:29-30 with the gemstones which were engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel. The high priest’s breastplate is called “the breastplate of judgment” (Exod 28:15), since God revealed His judgments/decisions to the Israelites through the Urim and the Thummim on the breastplate. The Urim and the Thummim are evidently to be identified with the priest’s ephod that David often used to inquire, when he seemed to receive audible responses (1 Sam 23:6-12; 30:7-8). The word “ephod” refers to a linen garment, but can refer specifically to the breastplate on the garment that was used for inquiring of God—or, in some instances, for an object used for pagan divination (as in Judg 8:24-27; 17:5).

The most common scholarly interpretation of the Urim and Thummin since the nineteenth century has been to view them as a lot oracle. Scholars have hypothesized various ways in which this might work. One common form of the theory is that the Urim and the Thummim were two stones of similar size and shape that were placed in a pouch behind the breastplate of the high priest. One of these stones (the lighter colored Urim?) signified “Yes” (כֵּן), while the other (the darker colored Thummim?) signified “No” (לֹא). These stones could be used to obtain answers from God to Yes/No questions. When a question was asked, the priest would reach into his breastplate, shake the stones around, and, without looking, pull out one of the two stones. One problem with this theory is that “Urim” and “Thummim” are both plural forms, and so should refer to more than one stone. More importantly, the Bible never describes a pouch behind the high priest’s breastplate with stones in it; the Urim and the Thummim are identified with the stones set in the front of the high priest’s breastplate. This theory also cannot explain how one could fail to receive a response by Urim, as Saul did twice (1 Sam 14:36-37; 28:6). The verses which describe Saul’s failed inquiries only mention Urim, which does not fit with the theory that the Urim and the Thumim were used in conjunction to inquire of God. The Urim and the Thummim were different from the practice of casting lots, and their use should not be assumed in passages where the casting of lots is described (e.g., Josh 18:10; 1 Sam 14:41-42; 1 Chr 24:5). (Working on the assumption that the Urim and the Thummim were a lot oracle, many modern Bible versions, including the ESV, Message, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NRSV, and RSV, abandon the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 14:41 in favor of an LXX expansion which explicitly supports the “lot oracle” theory. This LXX expansion is apparently the source of the modern academic theory.)

The earliest ancient extrabiblical sources which describe the Urim and the Thummim describe a supernatural illumination of one or more of the stones in the high priest’s breastplate. Josephus (Ant. 3.8.9 §§214-18, available here; search within the page for “I will now treat”) describes how the sardonyx stone on the right shoulder piece of the high priest’s vestments would shine brilliantly when sacrifices were offered (on the Day of Atonement?), in order to indicate that God had accepted the sacrifice (if indeed He had accepted the sacrifice). Josephus also claims that the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate would shine brilliantly when the people of Israel marched out to battle, in order to signify that God was present with them and had accepted their prayer for victory (if God indeed had accepted their prayer for victory). Josephus’ claim fits with the meaning of the term “Urim” as “fire-like lights.” Josephus also states that the gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate were to be used to inquire of God, and he seems to imply that the stones would illuminate in response to an inquiry (Ant. 4.8.46 §311, available here; search within the page for “Moses taught”).

The Urim are mentioned in 4Q376 (= 1Q29 = 4Q375?), one of the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls” from Qumran. The text is very fragmentary, so it may very well have mentioned the Thummim also. After the mention of the Urim, the text describes the alternate shining of the stones on the right and left shoulder pieces of the high priest’s ephod at some national feast (the Day of Atonement?). The stones are said to contain “flashes of fire” and to “shine forth” to all the assembled people “until the priest finishes speaking.” Another portion of 4Q376 commands the people to do all that the priest tells them “in accordance with all this judgment,” which may be a reference to the decisions of God that were rendered through the Urim.

Another one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QpIsad, mentions the Urim and the Thummim and describes how they give light “like the sun in all its radiance.” This text is unfortunately fragmentary, but appears to identify the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate with the Urim and/or Thummim. Van Dam (The Urim and Thummim, 232) argues that the ancient traditions which describe the supernatural illumination of the stones are compelling, and suggests that this interpretation of the Urim and the Thummim only fell out of favor in Western scholarship since the seventeenth century due to a rationalistic, anti-supernatural worldview.

The Talmud and other Jewish literature contain multiple traditions regarding the Urim and the Thummim (see this page or this one, and search within the page for “Urim”). According to one tradition, when an inquiry was made, various letters of the names of the twelve tribes which were engraved on the stones would protrude or light up in order to spell out an answer. But since the names of the twelve tribes do not contain all the letters of the alphabet, this theory was expanded by various rabbis to include additional stones with additional words, and to have the illuminated letters pop out from the stones and arrange themselves into words. However, it must be remembered that these traditions come from a period centuries after the Urim and the Thummim were no longer in use. On the whole, the theory of illuminated letters seems like an embellishment based on the known fact that the stones in the breastplate would illuminate when the high priest spoke a message from God in response to an inquiry.

A more believable Jewish tradition (from the same Talmud tractate) taught that the inquirer would face the priest and his breastplate, while the priest turned his head toward the ark of the covenant. The inquirer would ask a question in a soft tone of voice, and the priest would verbally state God’s answer to the question (b. Yoma 73a). This looks like the method by which the process happened in passages which describe people inquiring of God (Judg 1:1-2; 20:27-28; 1 Sam 10:22; 23:9-12; 30:7-8; 2 Sam 2:1; 1 Chr 14:10-15). It is interesting that the Talmud also affirms that the priest who led the army into battle was allowed to wear the Urim and the Thummim when he did so, even if he was not the high priest. This fits with Josephus’ claim that the stones of the breastplate would illuminate at the start of a battle in order to signify God’s presence with the people. The Talmud also claims, believably, that only leaders of the nation could inquire of God through the Urim; the Urim could not be used by ordinary people or for common, everyday matters (b. Yoma 71b).

The suggestion that the high priest would receive a prophetic oracle from God in response to a formal inquiry through the Urim is the only one that that fits with the biblical passages noted above. The Urim and the Thummim are best viewed as separate objects. The Thummim (“perfections”) are never mentioned independently of the Urim (“lights”), but the Urim are twice mentioned in the Bible independently of the Thummim (Num 27:21; 1 Sam 28:6), both times in the context of using the Urim to inquire of God. The Thummim are never said to be used to inquire of God; they are simply mentioned as part of the high priest’s breastplate. Following Josephus’ description, the Thummim (“the blameless ones”) were the two onyx stones on the shoulder pieces of the high priest’s vestments, inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. They would light up brilliantly to signify that God had accepted the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, thereby making the tribes of Israel blameless before Him. The Urim (“the ones shining like firelight”) were the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate, inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. These stones would light up in brilliant colors to verify that the words spoken by the high priest in response to an inquiry were indeed received from God, as well as to signify that God had heard the people’s prayer for victory when they went out to battle. The shining of these stones showed visibly that God’s glory was manifested through the twelve tribes of Israel. The name of the tribe of Levi was not listed among “the blameless ones” (Thummim) or “the shining ones” (Urim), but is identified with the high priest as “the godly one” in Deuteronomy 33:8—And of Levi he said, “Your blameless ones and your shining ones are with your godly one.” In Old Testament times, the priests functioned as mediators between God and the people, representing both the people to God and God to the people. The Urim and the Thummim, with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed on them, were an important aspect of the mediatorial role of the priesthood.

The Mishnah states that the Urim and the Thummim ceased to exist “when the former prophets died” (search within this PDF for “Urim”), which the Talmud interprets as a reference to the time when the first temple was destroyed (search within this page for “Urim”). Josephus says the stones in the high priest’s breastplate stopped shining some two hundred years before he wrote (i.e., after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BC) due to the sins of the nation (Ant. 3.8.9 §218, available here; search within the page for “Now this breastplate”; compare J.W. 1.2.8 §§68-69, available here; search for within the page for “He it”). Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65 indicate that the Urim and the Thummim did not exist when the Israelites initially returned from exile, though there was an expectation that the high priest might have them at a future time. John 11:49-52 records an instance of the high priest receiving prophetic revelation from God as late as a few weeks before Jesus was crucified, though it does not say whether this revelation involved the Urim and the Thummim. Practically speaking, the use of the Urim to inquire of God seems to have ceased when a line of prophets arose (partway through the reign of David), after which time persons desiring a message from God would direct their inquiries to a prophet instead of the high priest. However, it seems likely that the Urim and the Thummim continued to shine miraculously in certain circumstances even after they ceased to be used for inquiring of God. If Josephus is to be believed, they stopped shining about one hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

Darius the Mede: A solution to his identity

08 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Archaeology, Bible

≈ 135 Comments

Tags

book of Daniel, Cyaxares II

[Para español haz clic aquí]

For a summary of views on Darius the Mede, see the following article: The Identifications of Darius the Mede (English) | Español | Français | Português | Norsk | Kiswahili | Русский | العربية | 中文 (繁體) | 中文 (简体) |

The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, a problem arises when trying to identify Darius the Mede in extrabiblical literature. Darius the Mede is generally considered fictional by modern critical scholarship. (There are a few critical writers who accept the historicity of Darius the Mede, but not many.) The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions.

When I started writing my dissertation on Darius the Mede, the scholarly discussion was essentially at an impasse. Neither evangelical nor critical scholars had any significant new ideas, and neither side found the other side’s arguments compelling. However, most scholars were unaware that the Greek historian Xenophon describes a Median king, whom he calls Cyaxares II, who corresponds very closely to Daniel’s Darius the Mede. The view that Cyaxares II is Darius the Mede was the standard Jewish and Christian interpretation from Josephus and Jerome until Keil in the 1870s, but it was abandoned after cuneiform inscriptions were discovered that seemed to support Herodotus’ account of the accession of Cyrus, which does not allow for the existence of Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.

The thesis that I argue in my 2014 Ph.D. dissertation and published book (both entitled Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal and available in pdf format here and here, or as a print book here) is that Cyrus shared power with a Median king until about two years after the fall of Babylon. This Median king is called Cyaxares (II) by the Greek historian Xenophon, but is known by his throne name Darius in the book of Daniel. Cyrus did not make a hostile conquest of Media, did not dethrone the last Median king, and did not become the highest regent in the Medo-Persian Empire until after the fall of Babylon. Cyrus was Darius’s co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm. Darius died naturally within two years after the fall of Babylon, and as he had no male heir and Cyrus had married his daughter, Cyrus inherited his position upon his death and united the Median and Persian kingdoms in a single throne.

My reconstruction of the accession of Cyrus is based largely on the detailed account given by the Greek historian Xenophon, which agrees remarkably well with the book of Daniel and is supported by a surprising variety of other ancient sources. The account of the accession of Cyrus given by the Greek historian Herodotus, which forms the basis for the reconstruction of these events by modern historians, is a legendary recasting of a propagandistic myth promoted by Cyrus as a means of legitimating his conquest in the minds of an unfavorable Babylonian populace. Cuneiform references to Cyrus (and his son Cambyses) as “king” soon after the fall of Babylon are easily explained through a coregency which lasted until the death of Darius the Mede/Cyaxares II.

Major supporting arguments made in the book include the following:

  1. The historical reliability of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was found to be much higher than scholarly consensus currently holds. (One scholar of Xenophon, Steven W. Hirsch, also argues for a much higher view of the historical reliability of the Cyropaedia.) Xenophon was found to be historically credible, and superior to Herodotus, with regard to his accounts of the royal upbringing of Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of Gobryas, and the marriage of Cyrus to Cyaxares’ daughter.
  2. The Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes (“Darius I”) states that two Medians who launched rebellions against Darius at separate times did so on the basis of (allegedly) false claims to be of the family of Cyaxares. The fact that they claimed a relation to Cyaxares, rather than to Astyages, is evidence that Cyaxares II did indeed exist and was the last Median king.
  3. The adoption of “Darius” and “Ahasuerus” (= Xerxes) as throne names of the first two Persian kings in the dynasty which followed that of Cyrus is evidence that they were used as throne names by kings of an earlier dynasty. This is indirect evidence that there indeed was a Median king named “Darius,” and another named “Ahasuerus,” as the book of Daniel presents them (Dan 9:1). The use of throne names by Persian kings also gives plausibility to the suggestion that the given name of Darius the Mede was “Cyaxares.”
  4. There are strong historical evidences that the Medes and the Persians had formed a confederated government, and that Herodotus’ story of Cyrus subjugating the Medes and deposing the last Median king is therefore historically inaccurate. Xenophon and Herodotus agree that the Median king Astyages gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses I, who was king of the Persians. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. A passage in the Persae of Aeschylus is noted in chapter 4 which presents Astyages as the founder of the alliance, though without naming him directly. Chapter 3 notes biblical texts which describe the Medes and Persians governing their empire jointly, and also notes abundant archeological evidence which presents the Medes as senior partners and equals with the Persians, rather than their vassals.
  5. The Harran Stele, which is an inscription of Nabonidus, mentions a certain “king of the land of the Medes” alongside the kings of Egypt and Arabia as Babylon’s leading enemies. This inscription was produced well after the supposed conquest of Media by Cyrus, and therefore seems to indicate that Cyrus did not depose the last Median king.
  6. The historian Berossus, whose history of Neo-Babylonia is well respected but poorly preserved, refers to the actions of an unspecified “King Darius” shortly after the fall of Babylon. The conventional version of the history of the period does not recognize any such “King Darius.”
  7. Valerius Harpocration, a professional researcher and lexicographer at the library of Alexandria, affirms in a lexical work that there was a king of the Medo-Persian Empire named “Darius” who reigned sometime before Darius Hystaspes. Once again, the conventional version of the history of the period has no explanation for this “Darius.”
  8. The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus, who wrote before Herodotus, describes two Median kings who preceded Cyrus as rulers of Medo-Persia. Although Aeschylus does not name these two kings, he presents the first as the founder of the dynasty, the second as his son and the king who was on the throne when Babylon fell, and the third, Cyrus, as the natural successor of the second king. The conventional history of the period does not recognize this second Median king.

Scholars tend to be skeptical when presented with new theories, and rightly so. My own dissertation committee at Dallas Theological Seminary was quite skeptical when I proposed the topic. However, after exhaustive research on the primary source texts for the period, the evidence supporting Xenophon’s description of a Median king reigning in parallel with Cyrus, and corresponding to Daniel’s Darius the Mede, was compelling. My work has been well received so far by evangelical Bible scholars, a number of whom have communicated to me that they are now advocating my position. Some others have told me that my work has spurred them to start their own research projects on Babylonian contract texts or related topics. Evangelical scholars seem quite happy to have a new solution to the problem of Darius the Mede which fits well with both the book of Daniel and extrabiblical literature. It is my hope that the evidence for identifying Cyaxares II with Darius the Mede will not only reinvigorate scholarly discussion on Darius the Mede, but also will also create a significant change in the way that Cyrus’ rise to power is understood by historians of Neo-Babylonia and Medo-Persia. In conclusion, I present a list of references to my book or dissertation in academic articles and online sources, starting with a few additional works of my own:

  1. After publishing my dissertation, I gave a presentation on Darius the Mede at the 2015 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, “Darius the Mede – The Evidence for Identifying Him with Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.”
  2. I coauthored an article with Rodger Young, “The Remembrance of Daniel’s Darius the Mede in Berossus and Harpocration,” that was published in the July–September 2016 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra (pages 315-23). This article was briefly reviewed by Brian Collins on his Exegesis and Theology site.
  3. I was the primary creator of the Daniel volume of the Photo Companion to the Bible (BiblePlaces.com, 2019). This volume can be consulted for photographs illustrating the archaeology of the book of Daniel. One photograph that is relevant to the issue of Darius the Mede is the one shown at the top of this post, which is a relief carving at Persepolis that depicts Median and Persian nobles as equal in status.
  4. My dissertation was favorably reviewed by Benjamin Noonan in the June 2015 issue of The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (p. 386 of the book reviews).
  5. Kirk MacGregor follows my line of argumentation on pages 51-54 of his April 2016 JISCA article “A Contemporary Defense of the Authenticity of Daniel.”
  6. Paul Tanner favors identifying Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II, and he includes extensive argumentation in his commentary on Daniel in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series; see also his book review on Amazon.
  7. John Goldingay cites my work on p. 293 of the revised edition of his commentary on Daniel (Logos; Amazon), and his summary of viewpoints on Darius the Mede relies heavily on my dissertation.
  8. Christian Varela has a lengthy article in Spanish, “Un Analisis De La Identidad De Dario El Medo del Libro De Daniel” (pages 324-53 in El Pueblo del Pacto: Hechos Destacadas de la Historia de Israel). Varela cites my book extensively while arguing from an Adventist perspective that Darius the Mede should be identified with Cyaxares II.
  9. James Bejon has an extensive discussion of Darius the Mede in his online commentary on Daniel (Appendix 5, starting on p. 9). Also available as a separate article.
  10. Rodger Young published an article, “Xenophon’s Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel,” in the June 2021 (vol. 64, no. 2) issue of JETS, pages 265-85. Young argues for the historicity of Cyaxares II from both biblical and extrabiblical sources.
  11. Rodger Young also published “How Darius the Mede Was Deleted from History and Who Did It,” Bible and Spade 35.3-4 (Summer/Fall 2022): 24-33.
  12. References to my work have also appeared on various Christian websites, such as Thomas Ross’ page about my book on his apologetics website, Peter Goeman’s blog article, Kyle Pope’s article in Focus Online, John Oakes’ reference in his Evidence for Christianity site, and the link on Eddie Van Gent’s Daniel Prophecies site.
  13. A Persian Farsi translation of my book has been published by Qoqnoos Press in Iran (ISBN: 9786220404651). It can be purchased from Agah Bookshop. A preview is available on Academia.edu. This is a highly relevant topic for an Iranian audience.
  14. I did an interview on Darius the Mede for a YouTube channel.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

03 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Creation, Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aliens in the Bible, Star Wars

Extraterrestrial life is a topic of great interest in modern Western culture, as evidenced by the recent success of the new Star Wars movie. While various people have differing conceptions of what aliens are or may be, the secular scientific conception of extraterrestrial life is one of biological life. Thus, in what follows in this post, by the terms “extraterrestrial life” and “aliens” I am referring to biological life, not to spirit beings.

Space agencies such as NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), along with numerous privately funded enterprises, have spent untold billions of dollars on programs designed to find life outside of the earth. Why are so many resources devoted to a search for something that has never been proven to exist? It is because extraterrestrial life is a key component of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. That is, if the earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, then it must be a special creation; man does not exist merely by accident. If, on the other hand, life arose by means of natural processes, then these same natural processes would have given rise to life in many other places, both in our own solar system and throughout the universe. Because evolutionists reject the idea that life is a special creation, they believe that life probably evolved in other places in the solar system (including Mars, comets, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus), and that life almost certainly exists in other places in the universe. At the same time, many people have considerable doubts about the existence of extraterrestrial life, since none has ever actually been found. Thus, the huge, decades-long search for extraterrestrial life by mainstream scientists is actually a search for evidence to support the assumptions an atheistic worldview.

A second motivation for the search for extraterrestrial life is that atheists, who claim not to believe in God, nevertheless sense that there is a greater reality outside of the earth and its physical processes. There must be other sentient beings out there, in possession of superior forces which we do not understand, and with knowledge and intelligence that far exceeds our own. Virtually no one believes that man is totally alone, without other intelligent beings in existence somewhere else. Fairy tales about aliens, presented in the context of evolution’s mythological history of the universe, have gripped the popular imagination in the same way that pagan legends and cosmogonies gripped the imagination of ancient man.

Far from confirming evolutionary theory, the search for extraterrestrial life has only raised more doubts and questions about Darwinian evolution, since it has come up empty-handed. First, the physical search for life on Mars and elsewhere in our solar system has found nothing; scientists are so desperate to find extraterrestrial life that merely the discovery that there is water on Mars, or that there has been water on Mars in the past, is trumpeted as powerful evidence that there is or once was life on Mars. In fact, water does not produce life; living organisms can only be produced by other living organisms (or by a special creative act of the living God). In addition, Mars is an extremely inhospitable environment for life; if large numbers of living organisms were transported from the earth to the Mars and then released, they would all die quickly.

Second, the search for communication signals from intelligent aliens living on planets outside of our solar system has found no such signals. One might object that we simply lack the technology to detect communication from the distant places where extraterrestrial life may exist. However, in fact we do have the technology to detect communication signals from across the Milky Way, or even from other galaxies, so the fact that we have not detected any communication from aliens is a great puzzle to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers. The Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico is capable of transmitting and detecting narrowband signals across a range of many thousands of light years. Although estimates vary, some sources claim that Arecibo could detect a duplicate of itself at the center of the Milky Way, or, with minor system improvements, could communicate with a hypothetical twin all the way on the edge of the galaxy; see this page and this one. Arecibo is nearly capable of trans-galactic communication, and we have the capability to build a more powerful system (Cyclops) that could certainly be used for trans-galactic communication. The first Arecibo Message, intended to establish communication with intelligent extraterrestrial life, was transmitted in 1974 to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away. Other messages have been sent since then, and Arecibo has been used to search for messages sent in our direction. (Apparently scientists assume that alien life must be friendly; they do not seem troubled by the possibility that by revealing our existence to a powerful and evil race of aliens, they may enslave man or wipe him out.)

The reasoning behind the use of Arecibo and similar projects for SETI runs as follows (from my friend Rodger Young): “very broadband signals as used in TV broadcasting are attenuated fairly quickly and most estimates are they could not be decoded outside our solar system. But narrow-band frequencies can transmit much farther. The most intelligent way to announce our presence to whoever-is-out-there would seem to be to broadcast at a single frequency, sending by binary signals something like the set of prime numbers that would show the whoevers that ‘Hey! We’re here; let’s try to communicate.’ ” If life on earth evolved by natural process, then life should have evolved in many other places by means of these same natural processes, and the trajectory of extraterrestrial civilizations should be similar in many ways to ours. Young states further, “According to the prevailing (evolutionary) viewpoint, there should be many, many civilizations out there who have evolved up to, and beyond, the point where they would have such broadcasters and receivers. If so, they would have the same curiosity about contacting other intelligences. One Web page estimated the number of stars in our galaxy as from 100 billion to 400 billion, although Wikipedia (‘Milky Way’) says this may be as high as one trillion. If only one out of a million such stars had planets capable of supporting life, then any theory that says that, given the right conditions, life will spontaneously evolve, should predict hundreds of thousands of sites in our galaxy where life has evolved at least to the level where we are now.”

Unfortunately for the theory, as Young states, “No signals have been detected. This is in spite of the fact, explained above, we are now capable of listening to a good part of our galaxy. . . . In summary, the lack of communication from out there, even though we have the capability to receive it, is a very, very great puzzle to the SETI people.”

For Christians who believe the Bible, it comes as no surprise that the search for extraterrestrial life has failed. It is clear from the creation account in Genesis 1 that everything in the physical universe was created for man. The earth was specially made to support biological life, and the sun, moon, and stars were created for the benefit of life on the earth. Further, all plant and animal life on the earth was created for the benefit of man, who is the center of the physical creation. Biological life outside of the earth—which is never mentioned or implied in the Bible—would serve no purpose, since it would be of no benefit to man. And for life to exist elsewhere would require a special creative act of God (life cannot evolve from non-living substances), and also a planet, a solar system, and galaxy designed to support life, requiring many more special acts of God. Such special creative acts of God would surely merit mention in Scripture, yet the Bible presents God’s plan of the ages as entirely about His dealings with man. Christ only became incarnate as a man, and He only died once, for Adam’s race, not for fallen folk on other planets (Rom 5:12-21; 6:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:16). History also involves angelic (spirit) beings, which were created to be intermediaries in God’s dealings with man (Heb 1:14). However, the history of the universe is centered completely around life on earth; and when Christ returns to the earth, He will destroy the whole universe and create a new heavens and a new earth (Matt 24:29; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 6:12-17 et al.). If intelligent life exists in the universe outside of the earth, surely it would have to be given due consideration at that time. The fact that it is not mentioned may rightly be taken as an implication that it does not exist. In addition, every time the Bible describes the final judgment and the eternal state, the only persons mentioned are men and angels (Rev 20:7-15 et al.). In eternity, God will move His throne from heaven to a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and His throne will be situated in a New Jerusalem, which is the capital city of the nation of Israel (Rev 21:22-23), although the nations of the earth and the kings of the earth may enter the city freely (Rev 21:24). There is no mention of aliens. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written above the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), and the names of the twelve apostles are written on its foundations (Rev 21:14). Everything about the eternal state of the righteous has to do with man and the earth, while the angels continue in their role as ministering spirits (Rev 21:12). There simply is no room in the Bible for aliens.

“Wait a minute,” someone might say, “the Bible just does not say anything about extraterrestrial life. The Bible therefore allows for its existence.” But the Bible does in fact deny the theories of extraterrestrial life in the shape that those theories took in the ancient world—legends, for example, about the gods of Greco-Roman mythology, their feats in the universe, and their identification with celestial objects (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The Old Testament repeatedly and emphatically denies the reality of the gods of pagan mythology and their supposed feats and dwelling places (2 Kgs 19:17-18; 1 Chr 16:26; Isa 44:12-20). But ancient man did not possess the telescopes, rockets, and other technologies which are necessary to understand the nature of celestial bodies outside of the earth. The ancients did not know that Mars is a planet similar in size and shape to the earth; to them, it was just a light in the night sky, no different from the stars except for its strange motions. Had ancient astronomers understood the nature of our solar system, extrasolar planetary systems, and the Milky Way galaxy, and had they known that there are an unfathomable number of stars and galaxies in the universe, they might well have postulated the existence of extraterrestrial life as modern secular science envisions it, and the Bible likely would have made a statement on that subject in response. But the Bible’s denial of ancient theories of extraterrestrial life are sufficient to disavow analogous theories in their modern form.

Additional resources regarding a biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life may be found on the Answers in Genesis website.

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

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow TruthOnlyBible on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 310 other subscribers

Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Archaeology
  • Bible
  • Bible prophecy
  • Bible scholarship
  • Biblical languages
  • Books
  • Christmas
  • Church history
  • Creation
  • Current events
  • Easter
  • Ecclesiology
  • Evangelism
  • History
  • Missions
  • Practical theology
  • Theology

RSS links

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Join 310 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d