Author Archives: Steven Anderson

Is playing the lottery the way to get rich?

21 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Practical theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

The gambling craze continues unabated in the United States. The amount of money Americans spend on lottery tickets has increased every year since the first state lottery was introduced in 1965, even when economic recessions have led to decreased spending in other economic sectors. In 2014, Americans spent more money on lottery tickets than they spent on sports tickets, books, video games, movie tickets, and music combined. Americans spend even more money on casino gambling than on lottery tickets, and they spend more than twice as much money on illegal sports betting than on lottery tickets and casino gambling combined; more money is bet on football alone every year than is spent on either casino gambling or lottery tickets. And legal betting (on sports and many other things) is increasingly popular, as is fantasy sports gambling.

Many poor and middle-income people play the lottery because they believe it is the only hope they have of ever becoming rich. A 2010 study showed that American households with annual take-home incomes of less than $13,000 spent an average of 9 percent of their income on lottery tickets. Let’s do the math. Nine percent of $13,000 is $1,170/year, or $97.50/month. Using the government’s compound interest calculator, if that same money were saved and invested in the market for 40 years at a 7 percent rate of interest (the average rate of return from the market over time), it would be worth $250,000 (compounding the interest quarterly). After 50 years, it would be worth $520,000. Thus, it is not true that the only way a poor person could ever hope to become rich is to buy lottery tickets and hope for a big win. The few poor people who do actually win big usually spend their winnings quickly anyway, because they have not learned financial responsibility and discipline. If someone living in poverty had simply saved the (gross) money he spent on lottery tickets, he would have $520,000 in an investment account at the end of his working life (from ages 18 to 68). Most poor people could easily save more money by eliminating some wasteful spending; for example, the average smoker spends 14 percent of his income on cigarettes. Other big unnecessary expenditures include cable TV, smartphones, and alcoholic beverages. It is safe to assume that the majority of poor and middle-income Americans could save $200/month over 50 years; if that money were invested in the market it would be worth over $1,000,000 and a low-income person could retire a millionaire.

Powerball is one of the most popular lottery games, due to its huge jackpots. The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are 1 in 292 million. Tickets cost either $2 or $3, depending on the options selected. Let’s say that someone who is intent on winning Powerball buys 10 tickets for $2 each every day, or 3,653 tickets every year. In order to have a better than 50 percent chance of winning the jackpot, that person would have to keep buying 10 tickets every day for 40,000 years! Obviously it is extremely unlikely that you will win the lottery in your lifetime, no matter how many tickets you buy. But if you consistently save and invest your money, the odds are extremely good that it will result in gaining a modest fortune. Saving is the wise choice.

Of course, there are other ways to become wealthy besides saving and investing. Many poor people have become wealthy by starting businesses, by creating and patenting inventions, or by achievements and promotions in their workplace. On the other hand, while hard work and inventiveness are admirable, I disagree with the philosophy promoted by many financial gurus that becoming rich should be one’s goal in life, and that people should only choose careers with lucrative incomes. The Bible is replete with warnings against the dangers of riches (Matt 19:23-24; Luke 6:24; James 1:9-11; 5:1-6), and it specifically warns against the love of money (Luke 16:13; 1 Tim 6:9-10) and trust in money (Prov 11:28; 23:5; 1 Tim 6:17-19). Yet if you want to give away your money, the right thing to do is to give it to the church or some other Christian cause, not to gamble it away. And we need to be wise stewards of the resources God has given us, including our financial resources. The Bible teaches that, as a general rule, people who make wise choices and work hard tend to accumulate wealth and enjoy financial stability (Prov 3:16; 8:18; 10:4; 14:24; 24:3-4), merely as a result of responsible living. Also, preparing for the future is a wise thing to do, and certainly it is a good idea in the modern world to save up money for the final years of one’s life. Buying lottery tickets will hurt your financial state, not help it.

For additional reasons why gambling is inadvisable, see this post.

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

What does it mean to partake of communion in an unworthy manner?

12 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Bible, Practical theology

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

In all of the churches I have attended, observation of the Lord’s Supper (communion) is preceded by a time of introspection, usually with a solemn warning given by the pastor. In some cultures there is a time of confession, in which people will stand up or come forward and confess to sins they have committed and/or will ask forgiveness from others in the congregation. While certainly it is a good idea for Christians to identify sin in their lives and repent of it, the Bible does not make this a requirement for participation in communion. The Bible passage that is at question on this issue is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (ASV):

But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper: 21 for in your eating each one taketh before [other] his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.

A bit of historical context is necessary to understand Paul’s instructions. The Corinthian church consisted of many local house churches, each with its own pastor. These small congregations would meet together periodically in a joint assembly. This assembly included a shared meal (probably called the Lord’s Supper, or possibly the “love feast” [ἀγάπη], as in in Jude 12), and the communion ordinance was observed as part of this meal. This practice had a good historical precedent: when the Lord first instituted the communion ordinance with His disciples, the bread was broken as part of a meal, and the cup was drunk after the meal.

While Paul must have personally directed the celebration of the Lord’s Supper when he planted the Corinthian church, the church had badly perverted this ordinance due to their selfishness, to the extent that Paul tells them in v. 17 that they would be better off not holding their joint services at all than doing them as they were. The problem is that some people (likely the rich) were hogging the food and drink during the meal, while others (likely the poor) were going hungry. Presumably a ceremonial bread was eaten during the meal and a cup was drunk after the meal, though Paul felt the need to give specific instructions about this as well. Those who were eating and drinking gluttonously while refusing to share their food with other believers were making a mockery of what was supposed to be a solemn remembrance of Christ’s death and their union with Christ’s body (the church).

Paul’s corrective is, first of all, to eat something at home if someone is ravenously hungry (vv. 26, 34), so that everyone will have enough to eat at the shared meal. Then, when meals are shared by the whole assembly, people are to give deference to others and ensure that everyone gets something to eat (v. 33). The Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated properly, with a formal eating of the bread during the meal and drinking of the cup afterward (vv. 23-28). Finally, Paul gives a solemn warning against observing the communion ordinance improperly, since improper observance had resulted in the deaths and illnesses of many Corinthian Christians. Because God takes abuse of the Lord’s Supper very seriously, Paul commands every individual in the church to examine himself when he takes communion to make sure he is doing it in the right way (vv. 27-32).

One of the interpretive issues in this passage is what it means to “eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner” (v. 27). In the Corinthian assembly, eating and drinking in an unworthy manner meant eating and drinking excessively at the communal meal, with the result that other brothers went hungry. Other forms of partaking unworthily could be imagined, but it is only a sin in the manner of partaking communion that is spoken of. Notice Paul does not say that you are better off not taking communion than partaking with unconfessed sin in your life, nor does he say, “confess your sins before taking communion.” He only warns against sinning in the actual manner in which communion is observed.

It should be emphasized that this is about partaking in an unworthy manner, not in an unworthy state. It is about an unworthy manner, not an unworthy man. That is what is v. 27 states. Verse 29 indicates that this is a sin which fails to treat the body of Christ—the church—properly (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). In spite of all the moral problems in Corinth, Paul never tells the Corinthians that they must repent of their immorality before they can take communion.

Read the passage again if you are not convinced. Paul never says that a genuine Christian should not, in certain circumstances, participate in communion. (Note: I think in that culture, children would not have been allowed to participate in either baptism or communion until coming of age; also, persons under church discipline would be barred from attending church meetings until they repented, and therefore could not participate in communion.) It is therefore unbiblical for a pastor to say that people with “unconfessed sin” should not participate in communion. Communion, like baptism, is an ordinance for every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, not just for an elite class of “spiritual” believers. (Many churches and pastors also refuse to baptize new or immature believers, and will only baptize Christians who are deemed to have reached a certain level of spiritual maturity.)

In v. 28, Paul does not say, “Do not eat of the bread or drink of the cup if you have unconfessed sin in your life.” Instead, he says that when you take communion you need to examine yourself to make sure you are doing it in the right way. This examining is not a deep introspection which involves recalling and confessing every sin one can think of. Instead, it is a brief consideration of whether one is indeed treating others right during the communion meal. If there is a problem, the solution is not to “let the elements pass,” but is rather to correct one’s manner of partaking right then and there. Paul never recommends that a believer not participate in communion or that the church should forbid unspiritual believers from participating in communion. It is only unbelievers who are forbidden to participate in communion, since communion signifies participation in the body of Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17).

The Old Testament equivalent to taking communion in an unworthy manner would be a priest who offered incense that was not commanded (Lev 10:1-2), or someone who was not a Levite offering a sacrifice or burning incense (1 Sam 13:7-13; 2 Chr 26:16-21). The issue in such cases is the manner in which a ritual is performed, not general sins in the life of the worshiper.

Misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 has caused much unnecessary anguish for Christians, and has caused many to needlessly refuse to partake of this ordinance when they could have and should have done so. Some people wonder if they are good enough to take communion. Often it is those with the most acute sensitivity to sin and the greatest fear of God who decide they are not worthy to take communion, when in fact these people may be the most spiritual members of the congregation. On the flip side of the coin, there are people who habitually skip communion because they do not want to give up specific sins, and they think by skipping communion they can continue living in these sins without experiencing God’s chastisement. I have heard some pastors name specific sins and declare that those who have committed those sins cannot participate in communion. All of this is wholly unbiblical. There is no sin that effectively bars a genuine Christian from participating in communion, except a sin in the manner of participation itself. Christ commanded His followers to observe the communion ordinance (“this do in remembrance of Me”). Communion is mandatory for all adult Christians (assuming we are speaking of communion properly observed, not, e.g., the Catholic Mass).

At the moment a Christian is saved (justified), all of his sins are forgiven—past, present, and future. The Christian’s status before God is “forgiven” no matter whether individual sins committed recently have been specifically confessed or not. He is part of the body of Christ, forever. There is therefore no reason to bar him from an ordinance which signifies participation in Christ’s body (the church). However, since God takes this ordinance very seriously, those who treat it lightly by mistreating other believers in the way they observe it can expect to experience God’s chastisement. As far as other sins are concerned, God will chasten believers for those sins whether they take communion or not (cf. Heb 12:4-11). Thus, while many Christians who do not want to repent of a sinful lifestyle have been led to believe that they can avoid God’s chastisement by not participating in communion, this is simply not the case. But only those who sin in the actual manner in which they participate in communion will receive God’s chastisement for partaking in an unworthy manner.

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

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Current events, Ecclesiology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

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.

The lie of gambling

01 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Practical theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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.

The Secular View of Human Life

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

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.

Why did Jesus go to the cross?

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

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.

Some insights from the 2016 Midwest ETS conference

14 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by 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.

A new direction in American foreign policy?

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in Current events

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

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.

An Interpretive Guide to the Bible

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Bible, Books

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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.

The Urim and the Thummim

28 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bible

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

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.