Review Published

I also recently wrote a review of a book I read for class for half.com. You can check that our by clicking on the title of this post.

Wall Torn Down: Biblical Theology of Race

I just got back the first paper I did for my Humanity class. It needed a little more work on proofreading. I barely finished it by the deadline, but still got an A. I will post the text of the article here:

Wall Torn Down: A Theology of Race

When understood in light of the redemption historical scheme, the diversity of data related to the issue of race gives way to a unified theme running throughout both testaments. That goal is that all of the different races would be reunited under the head of a new Adam. The diversity of the biblical witness will be presented in four strands of evidence.

Of course, the first biblical theme begins with the creation of Adam as the biological head of all humanity. This theme demonstrates that all races belong to one big human family. The second theme is the calling out of the Jews as God’s chosen people—beginning with Abraham. This theme is evidence that the Bible also presented a form of racial segregation that was obligatory for His people. The third theme is the Old Testament hint that the Gentiles would one day be included in redemption. Gentiles who, by virtue of the earlier referenced segregation theme, should not have been intermarried with, ended up in prominent places such as the genealogy of David—and ultimately Jesus. Finally, the concept of Christ as the new Adam indicates that in the New Covenant the earlier need for segregation had been fulfilled and humanity was no longer to be divided along ethnic lines.

A Biblical theology of race will by necessity draw from many other areas of doctrine. Creation, providence, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, and the relationship between the covenants et al. are all necessary doctrinal components to consider when synthesizing and articulating a Biblical theology of race. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that though diversity exists within the biblical teaching on this subject, the overarching teleological goal of God’s plan as revealed in Scripture is that all of the diverse human cultures would be united in the worship of the one creating and redeeming God. The underlining presupposition of this paper is that there is a predominant continuity between the covenants that is marked my specific areas of discontinuity which transforms the way in which Old Covenant ethical obligations are carried out within the New Covenant.

One Common Ancestor

The first theme which will be examined in this argument is the common origin that humanity has in Adam. This is one theme that all evangelicals should be in agreement about. It is clear, if one accepts the Genesis account of creation to be actually communicating something historical about the creation of humanity, that it teaches that Adam and Eve were the biological beginning of the species. It has even been argued that this is one area of biblical doctrine that can be verified by human genetic science.[1] Anyone who accepts the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis should understand that all humans of every ethnicity are all connected as a part of this one biological family.

The Creation Account

In the first chapter of Genesis, the narrator states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (vs. 27-28).[2] This passage is clearly teaching that when God created human beings, he began with one man—as we see from the pronoun “him.” This one man multiplied. It is left to the reader to understand that all further human beings would be a result of that multiplication. This understanding is further supported by the narrative in chapter three: “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living” (v. 20). Of course when the text says “yx lK ~a” (mother of all the living) it would be absurd to take that as “mother of all living creatures.” The only way that it makes sense to understand this phrase is plainly that Adam was stating that Eve would be the mother, and origin, of all the human species.

Table of Nations

The next evidence within this theme is what is known as the table of nations found in Genesis 10. This text gives the genealogy of all of Noah’s sons: Japheth, Ham, and Shem. There is almost a repeated refrain at the end of the genealogy of each son which states, “These are the sons of [X], according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, by their nations” (v. 20). The wording is not exact, but the same phrases close out each son’s genealogy. Then, the section is closed with this statement: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood” (v. 32). The first observation one should make from this is that the phrases “family,” “language,” “land,” and “nation” are each indicators used to define ethnicity or race. The most significant observation one should make about this passage, though, is that the narrator seems to be explaining how every ethnicity of the known world all descended from a common origin. [3] This list of nations should not necessarily be taken as exhaustive, but should be understood to be representative of every race. Biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos says of this passage, “There names are registered to express the principle that in the fullness of time the divine interposition meant to return to them again, and to re-enclose them in the sacred circle.”[4]

Tower of Babel

On the heels of the table of nations comes the narrative of the tower of Babel in Genesis eleven. Though the tower narrative comes later, it seems that it must have served as an explanation of what is given in the table of nations. Verse 1 states, “Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” Yet in just the preceding two verses the narrator made reference to various languages. On this basis it seems that the table of nations and the tower of Babel should be taken together as a whole. Noah’s posterity intended to make a name for themselves. Therefore they united in a project which God foresaw would destroy them. It seems that God’s action here had aspects of both punishment and grace. The dividing and scattering of peoples throughout the earth and the confusion of language was a matter of God making things more difficult for people—in this sense the tower seems to have been a curse. Yet as God often saved through his very acts of judgment, that appears to have been the case here. Gerhard von Rad notes in this regard, “[T]here is also to be seen, mysteriously associated with this punishment, a saving and sustaining activity on the part of God which accompanied man.”[5] The diversifying of humanity into various ethnicities served the purpose of God’s electing Israel—safeguarding the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15.

A Segregation Theme in Electing Israel

The next theme which will be examined is the fact that Israel was commanded not to intermarry with the surrounding Gentile nations. Though Israel had a common origin with all the rest of humanity, God’s purpose of salvation required the election of one nation to be separate.

The Life of Abraham

Abraham’s initial call is recorded in Genesis 12, where it records that Yahweh said to Abram,

Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed (vv. 1-3).

What is significant to the issue at hand is that God chose Abram to leave all of his relatives in order to establish a separate nation. As one traces the narrative of the patriarch’s this separateness is highlighted by a prohibition of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples. In chapter 24, the narrative illustrates this separation with Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. He says to his servant, “you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live” (v. 3). The same prohibition is given when Isaac speaks to Jacob in chapter 28. It seems clear that this prohibition was given for the purpose of preserving the elect “seed” from being washed away into being indistinguishable from the gentiles.

Mosaic Law

This theme of segregation continues from the patriarchal narratives to the giving of the law at Sinai. For one who accepts Mosaic authorship, it would seem that Moses recorded the earlier narrative prohibition from intermarriage with the Canaanites in order to prepare the congregation of Israel to live by the same obligation upon entering the land. Moses warns the people in Deuteronomy 7,

and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (vv. 2-4).

From an examination of the reasons associated with this text it seems the purpose for this prohibition was religious. God prohibited intermarriage in order to keep his people from being turned away from him into false belief. Therefore, this prohibition is primarily more about belief than it is about ethnicity.

This prohibition within the Mosaic law is carried on throughout the Old Testament. The sin that so many of Israel’s kings fell into was that of marrying foreign wives. So that when the return from exile is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah one of the specific sins that the people repent of is that of intermarrying with the surrounding nations. Ezra 9:2 states, “For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands.” A high priority for Israel was maintaining ethnic purity because this was the means that the people of God would remain loyal to him for the preservation of His plan to save.

Conclusions Arising from Segregation

This pervasive theme of the separateness of Israel is set in stark contrast to the other biblical themes presented by this paper. Here a few conclusions will be given which will help make sense of how this data can cohere in unity with the rest of Scripture. The diversity of races within the Bible can be reduced to merely two—Jew and “the nations.” Distinct races certainly existed within the group labeled “the nations,” yet it does not even seem that the Bible even addresses intermarriage between different people groups outside of Israel. This demonstrates the second point: that the distinction of Israel as separate from the nations was for a religious purpose. It was to ensure and preserve Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh. Third, it will be noted that the ethnic separateness of Israel corresponds to the “Holiness Code” of ethical obligations for God’s people—it’s purpose is to maintain the purity of a people set apart for Him.

Inclusion of Gentiles

In contrast to the segregation that was presented above, the Old Testament also expresses the concept that God’s teleological plan of redemption is intended for the entire human race. This theme will be observed in Abraham’s initial call, in exceptions to the prohibition against intermarriage, and in the prophetic anticipation of Gentile inclusion.

Abraham’s Call

Despite the fact that Abraham’s call is a movement toward segregation, even within that narrative there is language which presents God’s concern for all the nations. The segregated aspects were mentioned above. Here God’s purpose for the nations will be examined. In Genesis 12, the last phrase within the Abraham’s call quoted above states, “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (v. 3). Here we see that from the beginning, the purpose of Abraham’s being set apart was that he might be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Though God was calling Abraham to be the founder of a distinct race, his purpose was the blessing of all races.

Significant Exceptions

Within the storyline of the Old Testament, it is apparent that some gentiles intermarried with Israel—yet it is spoken of positively. If the emphasis upon segregation was monolithic, one would expect all marriages to foreigners would be pointed out as sinful, but this is not the case. The first such example that will be pointed out is that of Rahab. Rahab the prostitute was a Canaanite resident of Jericho. God had commanded the Israelites to devote the city entirely to the ban—to wipe out every living thing. Yet because of Rahab’s faith (as the author of Hebrews points out) she is spared. Not only is she spared, but she finds her way in to the genealogy of David and of Christ (Matt 1:5).

The next noteworthy example of this type is Ruth. She was of all things a Moabite. Not only were Israelites not to intermarry with the surrounding peoples, but particularly Moabites were not to be allowed in the assembly for worship—even to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3). Yet David was only three generations removed from his Moabite heritage (Ruth 4:21-22). There are other examples of this phenomenon in Scripture, but these two will demonstrate the point sufficiently. The only logical implication that one can draw from this apparent inconsistency is that God’s purpose was concerned more about religious loyalty to Him than about ethnic purity.

Prophetic Utterance

Various prophets also heralded a message of salvation which would not be exclusive to Jews, but would also include the nations. Though this theme exists in other prophets, for space considerations, only Isaiah will be considered here. Page after page, when one reads through Isaiah he finds the term “nations” time after time in reference to their being included. A paper of this brevity cannot begin to deal with every instance. Yet two examples of this language are found in chapters 2 and 66:

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it (2:2).

For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory (66:18).

These two examples demonstrate that part of the prophetic expectation of the Old Testament was the bringing in of the Gentile to the worship of Yahweh. [6]

A New Humanity

Finally, the emphasis of the New Testament concerning race is that in the cross, Christ became the head of a new humanity, tearing down ethnic barriers and uniting all believers in one family. This is demonstrated in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles as well.

Gospels

The most significant racial tension at the time was between Jews and Samaritans. In three places in the Gospels, Jesus had significant interactions with Samaritans. First in Luke 10, Jesus gives a hypothetical case of a Samaritan who cares for a man who was beaten and robbed. Here Jesus shocked his listeners by demonstrating that such ethnic barrier crossing actually pleases God. Next, in Luke 17 Jesus cleanses ten lepers. One came back to thank him, and the text points out that the one who came back was a Samaritan (v. 16). Once again, the text presents the Samaritan in a good light in contrast to the chosen Jewish people. Finally, in John 4, Jesus stops to talk at a well with a Samaritan woman. Again, this ethnic barrier crossing shocks even his disciples and demonstrates that Jesus came to break down those walls.

Another significant observation in the Gospels is that occasionally Jesus would complement the faith he sees in Gentiles. In Matthew 15:28 Jesus said that a Canaanite woman had great faith. Then in Luke 7:9 Jesus says of a centurion that he had greater faith than Jesus had seen in all of Israel. These Gentiles of great faith stand in stark contrast with Jesus disciples who were said to have little faith (Matt 17:20).

Acts

The first evidence in Acts of this them of a new humanity is in chapter 2 with the day of Pentecost. People from all different nations were gathered together in Jerusalem, and when the Spirit was sent each heard in their own language (vv. 8-11). John Stott notes that since the time of the church fathers, interpreters have understood that a connection exists between Pentecost and Babel.[7] Babel divided a unified people into many. In contrast, at Pentecost, diverse nations were united together “speaking of the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11).

Another significant matter in Acts is when, in chapter 10, Peter has a vision and is told to eat something that he initially thought was unclean. Peter is corrected by a voice that says, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (v. 15). Certainly, the vision must have meant more than just that the food laws were repealed. This vision was intended to teach that Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, but to be united within the Church.

Paul’s Teaching

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles also had many things to say that are relevant to the issue of race. Two texts will be examined here. First, Christ tore down the barrier separating the races. Ephesians 2:11-16 says,

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through he cross.

Here Paul demonstrates that through the cross, the barrier that divided Jew and Gentile—and by extension all races—was broken down. Jesus died to create a new humanity that was reconciled to God.[8]

Next it will be noted that all believers share as fellow heirs equally as Abraham’s descendants. Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.” Once again, it is clear that union with Christ unites all people who are His into one new humanity.

Implications for the Church

Three major implications of this doctrine now follow. First, all believers, as a part of the new humanity, are to be united as one family. This obligates believers to love their brothers and sisters of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds because we were all born again from an imperishable seed (1 Pet 1:22-23) that is more enduring than our natural biological heritage—all forms of racism are morally wrong. Second, in heaven one day, all races will stand together worshiping and it appears from Revelation 5:9 that racial distinctions will still exist. Yet they will serve the purpose of magnifying the glory of the one who purchased those men with His blood.[9] God will be glorified in that diversity. Finally, there is a continuity that exists between the covenants on this issue. Just as in the Old Covenant, God’s people were called to be separate; in the New Covenant the Church is still called to be separate. However, this segregation is no longer based upon ethnicity, but it calls believers to clearly distinguish between believers and unbelievers. The wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down, yet a new basis was established for distinguishing this new humanity—faith in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Piper, John. Brothers We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002.

Stott, John R. W. The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts. Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. vol. 1. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983.

Warren, Charles. Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002.

---

[1]Charles E. Warren, Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002), 1-2.

[2]All Scripture references will be from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, California: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

[3]The idea that associates the sons of Ham with black people and understands black slavery to be fulfillment of that curse is untenable, and will not be dealt with in the main argument of this paper. It is more persuasive that “the curse was a prophecy. It’s main purpose was to predict the subjugation of the Canaanites by the children of Israel.” T. B. Maston, The Bible and Race (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1959), 116.

[4]Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983), 59.

[5]Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 163.

[6]It may also be significant that the references are scattered throughout both halves of Isaiah. Thus, giving support for a unity of authorship.

[7]John R. W. Stott, The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts (Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990), 68.

[8]John Piper, Brothers, We are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 205-206.

[9]Ibid., 207-208.

School Has Begun

Well, I've gotten off to a good start with the new school year. I found out what I was reading at the beginning of the summer, and I finished all but two books for one class, and one for the other (I read 6 in all this summer). I'm only a few weeks in, and I have one of those two finished, and the other nearly finished. Then for the other class I'll just read a little at a time through the semester. But anyway, things are going well.

Amy recently got a promotion at work. She's no longer in dining services. She is now working in the Provosts office. Her title is "Administrative Assistant to the Associate VP of Academic Administration." It goes without saying, she's now making almost three times as much as me when you include her benefits package. But my job is nice. I get to spend a lot of time reading. I don't think I would survive this load without a job where I could study while I'm at work like this.

Summer Work

I've been working a lot so far this summer. Trying to get in more than 40 hours when I can. I've written two articles to be published in an Old Testament Survey Study Guide. I've got my doubts about their being good enough, but we'll see.

I've tried to spend good amounts of time with my family as well. We went on a trip to San Antonio, and Amy and I got to spend a night in a McKinney bed and breakfast while the kids stayed at her brother's. It was nice to have that night alone for our 7th anniversary.

That's right. Amy and I have been married 7 years. It has gone by so fast. I can't believe we already have a child that is almost three. It seems like our lives are getting away with us, and we have barely even got started. We've been out of college and married for 7 years, and I'm still in school working on yet another Master's degree, working a job that just doesn't get it done well enough, so that she is forced back into the workplace--away from our kids where she really wants to be.

The Lord has a plan for all of this. I'm not sure what it is yet, but He will bring something good out of it.

End of Semester Blues

I'm having a hard time doing anything. It's the end of the semester. I really don't have a lot to do, but I just don't feel like doing anything. I have been so bogged down all semester long that I feel very tired and I don't want to do the little that I have left.

Prayer:
"Oh Lord, help me. I'm weak and frail. I suffer from evil desires and indifference of feeling. Fill my heart with passion for you, your truth, your holiness, and your ways. Guide my steps as my spirit desires what my flesh shuns. Help me to be obedient, and passionate for your name, and your glory, as it is exhibited in my life.

Why Did Jesus Suffer?

I preached at my home church. Click on the title to hear.
It was my first time using power point in a sermon, and it really made things difficult for me. I had way too much information on the power point and it really distracted from my delivery. Other than that, I'm happy with my content.

The Gospel in Six Minutes

After 2 decades of walking with Jesus, I still need the Gospel--I'm still a sinner in need of grace.

What is Sin? And What It Isn't?

If anyone at all is reading this blog, then you know that I have interacted with some of the discussion on a blog by a feminist theology student. She is self professedly influenced by Mary Daly, a radical feminist at Boston College. Mary Daly has her own ideas about what "sin" is. Here is a quote from the New Yorker, from February 1996, that shows what she thinks that word means:

EVER since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a Radical Feminist Pirate and cultivating the Courage to Sin. The word "sin" is derived from the Indo-European root "es-," meaning "to be." When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, "to be" in the fullest sense is "to sin."

Now it is obvious that I disagree. I of course hold to what would be a "traditional" view of the definition of sin; however, let's take a look at what she has to say, and try to understand her method of hermeneutics, and see if this is anything close to what the Bible means when it uses the term "sin."

1. First of all, let's look at her use of etymology: She says that the word "sin" comes from the "Indo-European root 'es-,' meaning 'be.'" Well, this just may be true. I've never studied Indo-European language roots. So I grant that this is quite possible. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The Bible wasn't written in Indo-European, or English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. Why in the world, would we want to know about the origins of words used in a translation, when they have nothing at all to do with the original languages to which they refer. This is merely the fallacy of etymology at work. Don't be fooled.
   
2. Second, is it that usage determines the meaning of a word in a statement. Is it the etymology of a word? No one seriously thinks this is true. The meaning of words is determined by their usage in sentences. When I say, "the milk in the refrigerator is 'expired,'" do I intend the meaning of the term expired that is derived from its etymology--that it 'breathed out?'" Of course not, I mean it the way all native English speakers would understand it. The milk has gone bad and needs to be thrown out before it stinks. Which is what we should do with interpretations that are obviously violation of the intention of the author. Either this is willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what at text is saying, and undermines the ethical requirements of the social contract of human language, or it is an extremely naive attempt at scholarship.
   
3. Third what does the Greek word for "sin" mean? While, more extensive documentation could be done, I will use Thayer's Greek Definitions, simply because I have it in electronic form on a free bible software program.
   

1. ἁμαρτία
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb

These make up the word translated sin in the New Testament in its noun and verb forms.

4. Now, how does Hebrew use the word. For Hebrew the lexical information will be abbreviated for space and time considerations. I will not be looking up all the cognate uses. This data will come from the free version of BDB (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon):

חטּאת / חטּאה
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
Part of Speech: noun feminine

חטא
châṭâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to miss
1a2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
1a3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to bear loss
1b2) to make a sin-offering
1b3) to purify from sin
1b4) to purify from uncleanness
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to miss the mark
1c2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
1c3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way
1d2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Part of Speech: verb

אשׁמה
'ashmâh
BDB Definition:
1) guiltiness, guilt, offense, sin, wrong-doing
1a) doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense
1b) becoming guilty, guilt
1c) bringing a guilt-offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine

שׁגה
shâgâh
BDB Definition:
1) to go astray, stray, err
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to err, stray
1a2) to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err (in drunkenness)
1a3) to go astray (morally)
1a4) to commit sin of ignorance or inadvertence, err (ignorantly)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to lead astray
1b2) to lead astray, mislead (mentally)
1b3) to lead astray (morally)

These first two of these are the typical words used when the English translations use the word sin. The other two were a used much less frequently where we find the word sin. There may be others, and this is not the place for comprehensiveness. I'm just trying to demonstrate a point. Even if the "Indo-European root 'es-,'"does mean "to be" surely the English translators aren't stupid enough to think that's what was meant when they were reading the original languages.

The fact is, encouraging people to have the "Courage to Sin" is exactly what the last of the Hebrew definitions that I gave implies--to lead astray (morally)." Which makes me think of what Jesus said about those who lead others astray: Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

I hope that this encourages anyone reading this to pray for Ms. Daly and anyone whose ear she has captivated. Deconstructing the definition of a word for the promotion of an anti-biblical agenda, is a dangerous thing. Let us pray that their eyes would be opened to see the light of the gospel of truth.

Oops!

I've recently found that I need to be a little more careful on what I post. I've only been doing this for a little over a month, so I'm still learning about the "blogosphere." I recently found that it is not polite to post someone else's public words without asking them first. I had already known from reading other people's blogs that it was very problematic to post the content of private emails without permission. I didn't realize that it could also be offensive to post content that was already publicly accessible. I apologize to MasonDixon for posting the interchange from the last blog that I did, and in the future, anything more than a short quote will appear as a link rather than in the primary text. I didn't even know that anyone anyone read my blog!

Are Liberals Really More Tolerant Than Conservatives?

It has been interesting to watch that feminist blog that I had mentioned earlier. The author of the blog has been very nice to me in allowing me to dialogue with those on her page. And others have been equally polite. But just recently I have been blasted by one poster who basically told me to "buzz off." Click the title to link to the full conversation.

I had originally posted the conversation here. But since there was concern over me posting it without MasonDixon's permission, I decided to remove it, and you can just click the title of this entry to see for yourself.

Like I said, an interesting interchange. Quite ironic. I'm being told that I have an opinion that is not open to being challenged so I should buzz off, because he doesn't want to hear my opinion. I'm glad that I saw the irony in this situation or it might have angered me. Instead, I had a little fun with it.

Reflections on Sin and Grace

Reading Calvin's Institutes has been helpful for my own soul. I have found him to be very pastoral, and everything is connected to how it is used in the encouragement of our faith.

I am an unworthy sinner. I do not deserve God's gracious favor. I deserve to be cast into eternal torment this moment. I do not deserve even the grace that would sustain me through the writing of this post. By God's righteous justice, I should have been stricken dead long ago, and I should have been suffering the fires of Hell for the past 28 years.

That is enough to begin rejoicing. I'm not in Hell right now. God has been immeasurably kind to me in spite of my callous rebellion against His holiness. For 28 long years I have provoked His wrath against me. I have treated His kindness as if it were license to mock Him. I have lied, cheated, stolen, hated, and I have been idolatrous. I can find no reason for God to think me worthy of any of his kindness. Yet He has been kind to me.

He has given me every breath that I breath. He has given me every bit of nourishment that I have ever used to sustain my body. He has placed me in a country where the hostility toward His people is mild. He has given innumerable opportunities to hear His Gospel proclaimed--week after week--year after year--decade after decade. He has given me an inclination to desire to please Him--albeit weak and tainted. He has given me the opportunity to study His Word and His truth at an intensely deep level--though I am uncertain about how much it has changed me--stubborn as I am.

I have never suffered any kind of abuse that is common to many today. I have never gone hungry. Though I have been poor throughout my adult life, I have never gone without the ability to pay my bills--a grace that I certainly do not deserve.

God is good, and He has been good to me. Though I continue to struggle, fail, and despair--I have not lost hope. He has sustained a seed that He planted in me--however small the fruit--it is still fruit.

Yet I do not deny what I stated above: that certain interruptions of faith occasionally occur, according as its weakness is violently buffeted hither and thither; so in the thick darkness of temptations its light is snuffed out. Yet whatever happens, it ceases not its earnest quest for God. --John Calvin. III.II.24

My Comments on a Feminist Theology Student's Blog

Here are my comments from the blog that I had mentioned before. I am continuing in dialog, and if you would like to see the full conversation you can follow the link that is provided.

I read this post, and found it very interesting. I could not resist commenting. But first let me just come out and admit my perspective. I'm one of those who you might call a fundamentalist. Actually there is quite a spectrum even within this label, and I'm probably toward the middle of the spectrum of those willing to take the name. I'm currently working on a Master of Theology, and read Tillich this semester. What you had to say sounded much like him. I really only have one question: What place does the Bible hold in what you call Christianity?

Just trying to engage in dialog,

JFile

jfile said...

You said, "Bible is foundational; it is our primary text and a cornerstone of our tradition" If I'm not reading into what you said, I think this reveals something about where we would differ.

For you the Bible is foundational--I assume this means that it is a starting place. It is what we build on. I differ here. I would say that the Bible "defines" what it is to be Christian. It is not only where we must begin, but it is where we live and where we end. You say that it is our "primary" text--a primary text might just be the texts which come from the beginning of the movement. Written by people who were involved in its founding. Rather than primary, I believe that the Bible is our "authoritative text." It has the right to make demands on us, if we are to call ourselves Christians.

Also, you said that it is "a" cornerstone of our tradition. (I guess that may depend on how one uses the term cornerstone.)I don't see how there can be any other cornerstone but the one that was laid by the apostles and the prophets and ultimately by Jesus Himself.

I don't think that our differences are because you are using philosophical language either. They are much deeper than etymology or nomenclature. Our differences hinge not on the language we use but on the epistemology we employ and the way we see the nature of ultimate reality.

9:36 PM

jfile said...

I wouldn't claim to have it all figured out. I recognize that I have my own presuppositions--just as you have yours. No one comes to the text of scripture objectively. We all read it through the lenses of tradition. I concede that. We will always see things differently, but there are certain presuppositions that can help or hurt a person's understanding. Does a person come to the text to receive or to critique? Do we come to the text willing to accept it, or do we come with the presupposition that is hostile? Do we think that the Bible's message is clear enough so that people have fairly well understood it throughout the years, or is it only since the enlightenment that people have been able to understand it correctly, or is it something else altogether?

And then there is the philosophical presupposition: Is there objective truth that exists outside of us? In what way does our perception of the world match its ontological reality, and does the universe even have an ontological reality?

The answers to these questions are the presuppositions that determine our interpretation of Scripture.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think that there really is such a thing as an objective truth that is true for everyone. I may be delusional, but I think that I'm at least reasonably consistent, and that my understanding of things is at least coherent.

11:27 PM

jfile said...

Please forgive me for coming across as if it is my intellectual understanding of things that is superior. I cannot even begin to make that claim.

It has nothing to do with me at all. I am not the one who is consistent and coherent--truth, particularly Christian truth, is.

If I may, I have another question to provoke further discussion if you are willing: How are we to get our data that makes up the picture of who Jesus is? Where does it come from?

8:37 AM

jfile said...

I have to admit that I'm no scholar of Wesley. I'm much more comfortable with Calvin and Edwards.

I would have to agree that we do know God in some sense through reason and tradition, but these other means I would understand to be inferior to Scripture. Sin (the traditional definition) clouds our minds so that we do not understand rightly through reason, tradition has also often been simply wrong (the most indisputable example of this would be on the church's response to slavery in the early American experience). And experience is hardly an adequate means to know what the ultimate truths are. Experience is so varied, and human beings are so "finite" and frail that we are poor interpreters of it without aid of Scripture.

I admit my presupposition here. I accept that the Bible "is" God's revelation to man. It does not merely testify to it, nor does it merely contain it, but it is God's very word breathed out by His Spirit. I presuppose this because it seems to be the Bible's own estimation of itself. Paul said that all Scripture is God breathed. Peter said that Scripture was written as the spirit moved men to write. This is only a small sample, but if it is true, then it should be true of the whole.

With this presupposition, I would say that reason, tradition, and experience must all be governed by Scripture.

12:23 PM

jfile said...

tls,

Then do you admit in the above statement: "I don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity." That your view is in conflict with the Bible's statements about itself? 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21; et al.

Are you not saying that the Bible is wrong in its own estimation of itself? If that is the case, why should a person trust it in any respect?

The fact that there is a language barrier to the original languages is not an insurmountable hurtle. It may be a little more work, but it is possible to know what it says just as well as you can understand the words that I am typing.

Also, when you say that you don't believe that God has ever given direct revelation to humanity, do you mean in a written form, or do you mean in any form at all. Even Schliermacher speaks of an immediate experience of revelation when one realizes his feeling of absolute dependence. In my estimation this is not sufficient, but if even that is excluded--then God has not spoken at all, and we are left with merely man's reflections on a God that might or might not even exist. If God has not revealed himself then he is unknowable--so we might as well give up on it all because it is pointless anyway.

6:07 AM

jfile said...

tls

"The Bible was written by pre-modern communities of faith who did not yet have a developed understanding of epistemology."

Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were not that intelligent.

Then why should we care what they say?

"BECAUSE it is an honest account of particular communities' of faith understanding of and relationship with God."

Interpretation: The people who wrote the Bible were delusional.

Again, this really inspires my confidence.

"I am claiming that it is evidence of the interpreted nature of Scripture and all human experience."

Interpretation: If something has to be interpreted then we really cannot truly understand it.

On this basis all communication breaks down. Maybe this is because we disagree about what interpretation is. For me, interpretation is trying to understand what a text means. It seems that for you interpretation is to find what a text really means, because what it appears to be saying on the surface cannot possibly be what it actually means because that perceived meaning is in conflict with your world view.

Yes. All human language is interpreted, but it is nonsense to say that on that basis we cannot truly understand one another. You, yourself are working on the assumption that the words that you write make sense, and you have something that you intend to say. You would probably be quite offended if I treated your words the same way that most liberal scholarship takes the Bible. I know I'm going against the intellectual tide to say that a texts true meaning is based in what the author intended to communicate--but honestly we all know this is true. It cannot be lived out practically to treat language with such skepticism.

"Where I differ from Schliermacher is in understanding this affective experience as universal, that is the same from person to person, context to context."

This I can agree with--that is, our experiences differ from context to context. Schliermacher was unjustified in making this assumption. However, we do live on the same planet. There is some kind of objective reality that this experience testifies to; however varied our perceptions may be. I would argue that if God exists at all then God must have some objective essential nature.

Of course I know this goes against the existentialist hesitancy to say anything that predicates God for fear of objectifying Him. This whole concept destroys any idea that anything can actually be known about God.

"YES...but isn't that what faith is all about? How little is one's faith in God that they need a complete instruction book, without any ambiguity or complexity?" And might I add, without any objective reality.

That's not faith--at least not in the Biblical sense. Faith in the Biblical sense has an object. The Bible never asks anyone to make a leap of faith against all possible reason. The evidence for this is that it actually gives reasons to believe. Of course there is ambiguity and complexity, but there is also something real. Otherwise the whole matter of faith is just soap bubbles.

"The Bible is not to be read for content alone."

This is true as well. I'm sure that is why God revealed it in so many different genres. I'm not particularly a proponent of Barth, but I think he is right when he speaks of speech-acts. The Bible is not "just" revealing propositional statements--it is doing something. It is commanding, it is encouraging, it is teaching, it is rebuking, it is nourishing, it is penetrating, and it is breathing life into those who read it and have their ears open to hear what it says.

7:19 PM

I'm sure that there will be more dialogue to come. Stay tuned, and if you like, respond to what I have said.

Jerad

The Necessity of the Whole Bible

I was browsing through some of the other blogs with the same interests as I have, and found one by a student in Massachusetts who openly holds to feminist theology. I read her most recent post, and commented to her with one question: What role does the Bible play in what you call Christianity?

You may find her blog at http://marydaly.blogspot.com/.

In this article she explained her view of what Christianity is, and she used much language that you might hear in evangelical circles. However, this language had been redefined to fit her purposes. Is this a legitimate way to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? The only access that we have today to any historical knowledge of who Jesus is, is through the Bible. One might be tempted to look only to the gospels to find this picture. However, this is assuming that there is some contradiction between the gospels and the epistles--or the rest of the Bible for that matter.

And what historical arrogance we display when we think that we can judge who Jesus was better than those who knew him, and who knew his followers at the time that he walked this earth!

My point is this, if we do not agree with those who first called Christians about essential questions such as the nature of God, Sin, Humanity, and Reality, we have no business calling ourselves by the same name as them.

The theology that I read on that post is really merely giving new application to what Freidrich Schleirmacher began a few centuries ago--which gave birth to classical liberalism. In an attempt to make Christianity more reasonable to modern people, Schleirmacher rejected the historic Christian message and redefined his terms. Classic liberalism, in an attempt to then get something out of the Bible that they could accept redefined Jesus in to their own image. In a paraphrase, as Albert Switzer said all liberalism did was to look down into the well of history looking for Jesus, but all they saw was their own reflection looking back. This is the definition of idolatry--making God in man's image.