Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Advertising is legal? Think of the Children!

Let's say you are a Christian against the legality of same-sex marriage (for unbelievers) because it somehow normalizes homosexuality and makes it more likely that young people (or older, for that matter) will engage in sin. That may not be the only reason for your opposition, but it's fairly common and the one I'm now addressing.

May I assume that you are also against all forms of advertising? Aren't virtually all advertisements designed to make people covet? Even advertising for Christian materials? Forget Calvin Klein, when Al Mohler or RC Sproul (just to take two examples) advertise their books and DVDs, aren't they attempting to get you to covet something that you don't really need?

The point of this short post is not to present a position on same-sex marriage.1 The point is to ask about hypocrisy--or maybe self-consistency. If you are truly worried about the legality of something leading to sin--then shouldn't you be fighting about the legality of advertising as forcefully as you argue (or argued) against the legality of same-sex marriage? Isn't a single sin of covetousness, apart from the finished work of Christ, enough for eternal damnation? So why aren't you rallying against advertising, which is ubiquitous and practiced as routine among unbelievers and believers?

1 You can infer my position from this: a) I am for full civil rights for all people (including LGBT people and including the unborn) and b) I see no call in the New Testament for us to attempt to legislate adherence to Christian morality by unbelievers.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Simplicity of God

A good friend has a post on this topic. I don't disagree with her reasoning (at least not in any substantive way)--but there is just something, well, je ne sais quoi about this topic. I somehow miss the importance of the God-is-Simple doctrine.

I’m fine agreeing (because I have no reason to disagree) that God is simple in that he is not composite—although I don’t see the necessity—it doesn’t change my view of God nor does scripture seem to indicate that it is important.

Of course, simplicity is always tied to immutability.

I’m also fine saying God is immutable in that he is eternal, he doesn’t change his mind (even as a result of our prayers!), his promises are trustworthy, and that his sovereignty is complete. I just don’t see the need to posit a detailed picture of the properties of God in the form of, what have always appeared to me, “just-so” arguments or requirements or explanations of his immutability.

Do we really have to be so careful? Is the refrain from the beloved hymn And Can It Be,

Amazing love! How can it be, 
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me? 

unorthodox? For surely God dying is the ultimate affront to immutability.

The chain from simplicity to immutability has a link to another divine property: impassibility.

I don’t think the impassibility of God means he is passionless. I think it means his passions never take control of his actions or cause his will to be thwarted. I understand that the language indicating that he is pleased, or angered, or long suffering, that he loves or hates, and that his disposition toward a person or persons can change, is anthropomorphic—but I believe the particular anthropomorphisms were inspired because they mean something--in fact, the doctrine of divine inspiration causes me to believe that the scriptures appearing to attribute emotions to God are as good as they could possibly be and come as close as they could possibly come in order to convey to our finite minds the divine reality. Rather than anthropomorphisms (inaccurately) hinting strongly at a God with something akin to emotions, could not The Holy Spirit have inspired language that was at least closer to representing a God without passions?

As simple as can be, but not simpler

The ultimate simple God is Aristotle’s “Unmoved mover.” I don’t believe God is that simple (and therefore he is not as simple as he could be). I believe He is a God of action, A God who moves, interacts, and responds. I believe his intellect, whatever that means—but it surely includes creative ability and the ability to covenant with himself and with us and to institute a plan of redemption—is complex and intricate.

I get a little nervous when we try to nail down these attributes of God. On the one hand we say that we can’t fully understand God, which is why he has to speak to us anthropomorphically. And yet we try to turn about and use our finite language to give precise, orthodox specifications of his simplicity, immutability, passions (or lack thereof), etc.

The Scottish saying: “your jaiket's on a shoogly nail” comes to mind.

Sacrosanct Christian Guilt

Even in many Christian circles that profess the Doctrines of Grace (or TULIP, or Calvinism, or Reformed, etc.) there is one inviolable Christian guilt: One's lack of ability to evangelize, to present the gospel to family, friends, co-workers, and complete strangers.

How many times have you heard Christians admit this as some sort of serious deficiency if not a dreadful sin, and how many times have pastors, elders, teachers, and Christians for whom this is routine send the message, no matter how obliquely, that we all should be doing this?

"It is not really easy for me either, but I do it, and you can too if you just are willing get out of your comfort zone."

I say to you, without diminishing the importance of evangelizing and proselytizing, that it is not for everyone. Living your faith, so as not to deny Christ--that I would say is by far the more universal command. But the body has many parts--all of which should work, in their own way, toward the common goal of spreading the gospel. You should not view something for which you are incapable as a test that you have failed. You will have a part to play and a contribution to make--but it may not be on the front lines.

Those who insist that jump-all-in evangelizing is a litmus test for true faith--they are the ones who should examine themselves. Pastors should not look down on those who cannot shepherd. Teachers should not feel superior to those who cannot teach. Those gifted in hospitality should not condemn those who are introverted. And those who are evangelists should use their gift, and not pressure others to join them.

The Great Commission, which is often used as a blunt instrument to create guilt is ill-suited for the task. It teaches no such thing.

But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Matt 28:16-19)

While not denying at all that the church has a mission to evangelize the world, it is clear that the Great Commission had an audience of eleven who, as messengers of God, were fully equipped with the ability to evangelize. They were to make disciples and baptize.

The next time someone uses the Great Commision to guilt or coerce you into evangelizing, ask them how many of those he evangelized did he, as required, also baptize?

Friday, July 21, 2017

It's getting ugly out there

I don’t know where I am on the political spectrum—I don’t fit anywhere on the traditional 1D left-to-right line. In the last election, I didn’t vote (Thank you God, that Trump lost Virginia anyway)—there was no major or third party candidate that could inspire me enough to walk (I’m that close) to the polling location. In fact, politics no longer interests me—and primarily I blame the misadventures of the Religious Right and their takeover of the Republican Party. Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Agee, Rick Warren—I literally blame everything wrong with politics on the likes of you—terrible developments that are either a direct result of your shenanigans or were unwelcome gifts born as reactions to your follies. You abdicated your duty, which was to preach the gospel, in a lust for power. It backfired and caused systemic damage. Shame on all of you.

But recently I have been paying attention to something interesting. The latest vicious take-no-prisoners internecine war is not between (nearly if not totally extinct) secular Republicans (where is the next Goldwater?) and the Religious Right, but between liberals/atheists and some hideous postmodern illiberal mutation available in several overlapping flavors: social justice warriors, third wave feminists, antifa, etc.

The now suddenly “how quaint” liberals/atheists, such As Dawkins, Harris, Coyne et. al.  are in a soul-war with slovenly, violent, authoritarian know-nothings. And the old-school liberals appear to be losing. And the amazing thing is that they share 99.43% of their political DNA with the group that is cannibalizing them.

Among liberals, it is really some kind of Clockwork Orange dystopian future where complete dumbasses are taking command and imposing dogma and speech patterns. Those traditional liberals disagreeing with the tiniest aspect of their orthodoxy—or of misusing terminology (the stress of making sure you know the right pronoun to use in all circumstances must be, for some, overwhelming) are Nazis, fascists, rape apologists, racists, bigots, Islamophopes, homophobes, transphobes, etc. Even though they bear no resemblance to actual Nazis, fascists, ... whatever. And,  but the way, it is considered quite acceptable to punch them, literally, because they are Nazis and who wouldn't punch a Nazi?

1984 style double-speak is the lingua franca of this group.

For example, one of the respected illiberal leaders is Linda Sarsour. She is supposedly a feminist. However, she is also a bully and an apologist for radical Islam. A feminist who argues that “it’s not so bad for women in the Islamic world”. Who argues that women (ex-Moslems!) who disagree and have the audacity to discuss misogyny in the Islamic world don’t deserve to be women and should have their vaginas taken away.

Who is this Ayaan Hirsi Ali whose vagina Sarsour wants to remove? From wikipedia:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, and former Dutch politician. She actively opposes honor violence, child marriage and female genital mutilation.
That's right, she's obviously an Islamophobe for opposing child marriage, honor violence, and female genital mutilation.

I don’t fully appreciate the dynamic. I think it is close to this: people like Sarsour (being gracious and stipulating for argument's sake that she is not a garden-variety charlatan milking a niche notoriety) cannot integrate ideas that, at times, are in tension. They lack this ability, crucial for critical thinking, so they simply avoid the tension by going into denial about one of the ideas. They react to an increased anti-immigration sentiment (which is certainly reasonable to oppose) by becoming apologists for the characteristics of Islam (such as misogyny) that they should also be opposing—presumably because they cannot simultaneously favor increased immigration while acknowledging negative features of Islam. They are incapable of what their smarter relatives (the traditional liberals) can handle easily—or at least successfully.

They (the illiberal mutations) claim to support free speech (which they certainly do not) while shutting down those who are guilty of hate-speech (which they get to define.) For some of us (strong free speech supporters) that would be wrong even if there was actual hate speech involved. But “hate speech” to this nascent species is, as you probably know, “speech we disagree with, or speech from anyone who has ever said, wrote, blogged, or tweeted something that is offensive to any of the in-crowd who says it is offensive.”

Case in point, Richard Dawkins. (For a fuller treatment, see Coyne's blog.)

Richard Dawkins has been disinvited from a talk he was to deliver at Berkeley. Berkeley, which birthed the free speech movement, has committed infanticide. Dawkins’ unpardonable sin: some tweets are, to someone who matters, offensive to Islam. (Dawkins is equal opportunity in his anti-religion writings. He goes after all the major religions. But only his criticism of Islam is offensive. If he had only limited his attacks to Christianity and Judaism all would be good.) 

Here is what the illiberal cowards at radio station KPFA, sponsors of the Dawkins event, wrote:
We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. 
 Doublespeak emphasis added.

This is not isolated. Across the country free speech is under attack by regressive illiberal thugs. 

Conservatives: do not treat this as a popcorn event—let’s watch the left eat its own! Instead you should be afraid. Very afraid.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

The New Community (Modified)

The New Community 
The Church up to ~45 AD 
Primary Source: F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame 

(GOAL: Do not view this as merely an exposition on the timeline, but as prima facie evidence of God’s providence.)

After the resurrection, the new community of Jesus’ followers was viewed as a new party within Judaism. The party was known as the Nazarenes, which is still the ordinary name for "Christians" in Hebrew. The name "Nazarenes" is probably due to Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, in Galilee, but that’s not certain. The root of the word means to observe, and some believe the early community may have been know as the observers.

The Nazarenes were not a mainstream party, like the Sadducees who dominated the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), or the Pharisees. They were a fringe party. In some ways like the Zealots, who also sought the kingdom of God, although the means were very different: The Zealots looked for a violent overthrow of Rome, while the Nazarenes believed that the return of Christ would inaugurate the kingdom. In ways they resembled the Essenes; both placed great value on personal purity (the Essenes , extreme separatists, a subgroup of which is probably responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, even eschewed temple sacrifice for fear of being defiled) and both practiced, in the early days, a form of communism.

There were, however, substantive differences. The Essenes were extremely diligent about the Sabbath and ceremonial adherence. The also rose daily to practice what appears to some to be borderline idolatrous worship of the sun, rather than the Son. They also practiced soothsaying and magic.

There was some intersection between the Nazarenes and the Zealots. One apostle was a Zealot. And Barabbas, whom the mob before Pilate chose for release over Jesus, was probably a Zealot, part of a failed insurrection that arose at the time of the crucifixion. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. (Mark 15:7)

Although Nazarenes was the party name, the early believers called their movement the Way, and referred to themselves as saints, brothers, and the poor. When Paul writes: They only asked us to remember the poor-- the very thing I also was eager to do. (Gal. 2:10) "The poor" probably refers to the entire nascent community of believers, not (literally) the financially strapped, although no doubt the early community was heavily biased toward the destitute.

The Nazarenes grew quickly, having tremendous appeal to the common man. The Sadducees and the great priestly families were politely disliked. The Pharisees set up standards of behavior that common men could never achieve, and at least some of the Pharisaic schools equated ignorance with accursedness, a sentiment that we find in John’s gospel when they complain: No! But this mob [followers of Jesus] that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them. (John 7:49) The Nazarenes, on the other hand, taught that the work of their salvation was already accomplished by Jesus and His redeeming death, to be claimed by those who acknowledge his deity and the resurrection.

As the apostles began preaching their good news, they soon numbered more than five thousand: But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand. (Acts 4:4) The Sadducees tried, in vain, to suppress the Nazarenes.

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. (Acts 5:17-18) 

Yet among some the Pharisees, even some in the Sanhedrin, there developed a tolerance toward the Nazarenes, and some of their number (including Paul) were even destined to join the movement. After all, the Nazarenes, like the Pharisees, tried to obey the law as best they could, and like the Pharisees, but unlike the Sadducees, they believed in bodily resurrection. True, from the point of view of the Pharisees, they were misguided in their insistence that Jesus fulfilled the biblical prophesies and had himself been resurrected, but the Nazarenes (the assumed) were mostly harmless—quite unlike the Zealots would could bring the wrath of Rome upon the entire citizenry. The Sadducees did believe in an after-life, but they did not anticipate bodily resurrection, arguing that the first mention of it comes in Daniel which, not having been penned by Moses, was non-authoritative. In a classic Perry Mason move, Paul later uses the stark differences in their views to save himself in a touchy situation when on trial in the Sanhedrin:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (Acts 23:6-7) 

In particular, one revered Pharisee named Gamaliel pushed for restraint in oppressing the Nazarenes, arguing with inescapable logic that if the movement is not of God it would die in spite of their tolerance, and if it is from God it would thrive in spite of their suppression. (see Acts 5:33-38). Gamaliel is quoted in the Talmud (a collection of rabbinical writings) as discussing an unnamed “impudent student.” Some have speculated that the student is Saul of Tarsus. It is easy to imagine: Saul (Paul) must never have been a very rewarding student, for contrary to Gamaliel’s teaching Saul oppressed the Nazarenes far more effectively than the Sadducees, only to then cross over in an instant to become their greatest teacher and evangelist. On one day Gamaliel may have been upset at Paul's severe tactics, and on the next day appalled by his total conversion.

The Nazarenes met in homes where they remembered Jesus’ death through a simple meal of bread and wine. Those who had been with Jesus taught the others what they had learned first-hand. New members were baptized in the name of Jesus. Considering themselves Jews, they kept the Sabbath and still kept to appointed hours of prayer at the temple. The new meal of bread and wine was partaken on the day after the Sabbath, i.e., the first day of the week, Sunday.

The importance of the Nazarenes living as good Jews cannot be overemphasized. It marked them as relatively harmless by the Pharisees, saving them from swift and sure persecution had they had no friends in the Sanhedrin. This early group of Nazarenes, in Jerusalem, is what we often call the Jerusalem church.

The Hellinists 

Although there were no Gentiles at first, there was more than just Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jews. There were the “Hellenists”. Hellenists were Jews whose roots were outside Palestine as a result of the diaspora-- the dispersion of Jews from Palestine, beginning with the Babylonian captivity. So vast was this scattering that in the first century there were a dozen synagogues in Rome. 1 Hellenists adopted Greek language and culture, which put them at odds with the Palestinian Jews. Often overlooked is the critical role played by the Hellenists in spreading the gospel beyond Jerusalem. And the very man who persecutes them, and whom they then seek to kill, takes up their cause as his life’s work.

The first need for administration and the first internal problem in the church is traceable to the tension between “Hebrews” and Hellinists. One early logistical problem was the distribution of food to the poor. Problems arose: Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. (Acts 6:1) The twelve apostles (Judas having been replaced by Matthias) appointed seven deacons to attend to lower-level duties. Probably all were Hellenists (all had Greek names, see Acts 6:5), and at least one, Nicolas of Antioch was not even a Jew. (He was, however, a proselyte, meaning he had previously converted to Judaism, was circumcised, and then became a Nazarene—as contrasted with the as yet nonexistent Gentile converts, who did not convert to Judaism but directly to Christianity.)

No doubt the selection of the seven was made in part to placate the Hellenists. Two of the seven, Stephen and Philip, surpassed expectations and became great teachers. In his amazing speech to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7), prior to being martyred, Stephen said:

But it was Solomon who built the house for him. "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. (Acts 7:47-48) 

This bold swipe at the temple, which enraged the Sanhedrin, may have been impossible for any of the Hebrews to make. Some charges against Stephen, although brought by false witnesses, may have accurately reflected his teachings:

They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us." (Acts 6:13-14) 

Stephen's martyrdom hints at Jewish bigotry toward the Hellenists: the Hebrews of the council had Stephen executed, while Peter and John, native Hebrews, were treated more leniently (Acts 5:40). Naming of Hellenists to positions of authority did not result in their complete assimilation into the Jerusalem church (anti-Hellenist bigotry). When the Sanhedrin initiated the first persecution of Christians, it seems to have been directed at the Hellenists:

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the miraculous signs he did, they all paid close attention to what he said (Acts 8:2-6) 


This does not mean that every Christian except the twelve was flushed out of Jerusalem, but most of the Hellenists were forced out. Philip, for example, escaped to Samaria. In the persecution one can perhaps glimpse the will of God: Hellenists, who would have been more familiar to the Gentiles than Hebrews, began spreading the gospel. Later, (Acts 12) we see the persecution turn toward the Hebrew Christians, resulting in the martyrdom of James, the brother of John.2 That persecution arose from King Herod Agrippa. Further evidence regarding bigotry toward the Hellenists is that the great persecutor Saul of Tarsus left Jerusalem to go after the fleeing Hellenists, while not lifting a hand against the apostles, who remained in the city.

Saul of Tarsus

In the late twenties AD, Gamaliel, the revered Pharisee, accepted a young student from Tarsus, in modern day Turkey, named Saul. He came from a distinguished Jewish family, and Saul's father was a Roman citizen, an honor which he inherited and valued. Interestingly, Saul’s family did not consider themselves to be Hellenists, as you might expect, Tarsus being a great Greek city at that time, but Hebrews, which is why He went by the Hebrew name Saul. Paul affirms this in his own writing, when speaking of himself he writes "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). He also shows great civic pride in his hometown, writing: Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people." (Acts 21:39)

Saul comes into his own around A.D. 30-33, as the Nazarene movement is flourishing. In the debate over the danger of the Christians, Saul crosses party lines, agreeing with the Sadducees, rather than his Pharisaical mentor, Gamaliel. It was precisely because the Pharisees were somewhat taken by the Nazarenes that concerned Saul. Indeed, not just uneducated Galileans (the learned held little respect of the Galileans, see John 7:52) were being duped, quite a few of his own party had joined the movement.

Saul did not see the Nazarenes as an amusing yet harmless fringe group, but as a blasphemous cult who claimed the Messiah had died a death designated for the accursed, not the favored by God. He (correctly) worried that this movement would ultimate split Judaism, and so with passion he sought to destroy it.

It is interesting that Saul used "because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse" (Deut. 21:23) to point out the blasphemy of the Nazarenes. It wasn’t until he himself joined the movement that Paul saw the incredible redemptive significance of the passage, later using it like this:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree (Gal. 3:13) 

Saul believed the two religions were incompatible. An opportunity for action arose when he encountered a stout member of the Nazarenes who, ironically, agreed him. Not one the apostles; they surely viewed “the Way” as the next stage of Judaism, and continued with their temple worship. It was the Hellenist Stephen, who saw Jesus “not only” as the risen savior, but also as the terminus for the existing age. The temple and its system would be replaced. Judaism wasn’t being upgraded, it was being supplanted. Stephen epitomized what concerned Saul: a radical, and, far from an uneducated Galilean bumpkin, he was an eloquent and persuasive Hellenist. He presided at Stephen’s execution, showing his approval by guarding the clothes of the witnesses as they stoned the saint (Acts 7:57).

Stephen’s stoning emboldened Saul and the Sanhedrin, who began systematic persecution, especially of the Hellenistic Christians. The Hellenists fled, and Saul, with official backing of the Sanhedrin (letters from the High Priest Caiaphas, whose authority was respected by the Roman overseers), set out for the outlying synagogues to capture the Nazarenes and return them to the Sanhedrin for trial. Note the bigotry at work here: the Hebrew Nazarenes, especially the apostles, were in Jerusalem, but Paul did not raise a hand toward them. He went after the Hellenists.

Saul left for Damascus, and as he neared the city he saw a blinding light, and the risen Lord stood before him. In a conversion that Calvinists can only view as the archetype of all conversions, we read:

He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (Acts 9:4-6) 

Paul, blinded, was assisted by his companions into Damascus. Meanwhile, instructed through visions, a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, who had been at risk from Saul’s aborted mission, served as the Lord’s messenger. On Paul's third day in Damascus, Ananias found him, Paul’s sight was restored, and he was baptized. Then Paul’s amazing journey began.

Using his reputation and official letters of travel and access, he toured the very synagogues he had intended to purge. Those in attendance would not have heard what they expected. Instead, Paul boldly proclaimed what just a short time before he had held as dangerous blasphemy: Jesus, the very one who died on a tree, was the Messiah. Those who had seen the resurrected Lord had been proven correct. Paul himself had seen him. He had been so very wrong about the tree.

It is not clear how quickly he arrived at a true understanding, but he did: The Messiah was accursed, Deut. 21:23, was not contradicted. The radical insight was that the Messiah had to become a curse in order to redeem those who couldn’t keep the law from suffering their just curse (Gal 3:13).

Paul’s preaching of Christ in Damascus and the surrounding area eventually incurred the wrath of the local Jewish authorities, who conspired to kill him. (Now many of different stripes wanted to kill Paul!) Paul escaped by being lowered to safety in a basket, through a window in the city wall. In the third year since he left for Damascus, Paul returned to Jerusalem, trying to contact the disciples. But they avoided him, afraid that his conversion was in reality a trick. Eventually Barnabas interceded on his behalf, testifying to the truthfulness of Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord, and finally Paul came face-to-face with the apostles.

God had other, bigger plans for Paul, and in a vision he told Paul to leave Jerusalem. No doubt this was in part for his safety, but in the larger scheme of God’s sovereignty we see that Paul’s real mission is about to commence. In Paul’s own words, recounting the episode:

"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking. 'Quick!' he said to me. 'Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.' " 'Lord,' I replied, 'these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.' "Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' " (Acts 22:17-21) 

Paul’s friends spirited him away, first to Caesarea and ultimately to Tarsus. His few years in Tarsus are a mystery. Some believe that Paul’s statement: What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ (Phil. 3:8) indicates disinheritance. The timelines suggest that some of his “forty stripes save one” lashings (2 Cor., 11:24) occurred at the hands of the Jews in Tarsus. Toward the end of this obscure period, he has a mysterious experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (2 Cor. 12:2-4)

This experience left him with an undisclosed lifelong physical ailment, a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7), which was apparently for his spiritual benefit.

Whether Paul thought he was wasting in obscurity is unknown. It is clear in hindsight that the Lord was strengthening him for his life’s work. And it commenced sometime in A.D. 45, when his friend Barnabas, who had commended him to the apostles, arrived like a bolt out of the blue. It seemed that the Lord had work to be done in Antioch, and Paul was the man for the job.

(And that would be the next class, if there were a next class!!)

1 Consider the amazing encounter of Paul, in Corinth, with the Romans Priscilla and Aquila described in Acts 18. There had been no mission trip to Rome, yet Paul encounters two exiles from Rome who are mature in their Christian faith. It must have been astounding.  

2 Not to be confused with Jesus’s brother James who was not one of the apostles, and was not a follower of his brother while Jesus lived (John 7:5). But James did have a Damascus road experience himself, for Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:7 that the risen Christ appeared to his brother James. James then rose to lead the Jerusalem church and was martyred later, in A.D. 62.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

One of my favorite elementary physics problems

A yo-yo is on a horizontal surface. It is pulled with a force F, as shown. It rolls without slipping. Does it roll left or right, and why?

Eagles or Vultures?

In response to a question regarding the second coming (and by extension, the final judgment) Jesus responds, in Matthew: 28

Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matt 24:28, ESV)

Hmm. Or is it:  

28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together. (Matt 24:28, NKJV)

and in Luke this response is recorded:  

37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (Luke 17:37, ESV)

Or is it:  

37 So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” (Luke 17:37, NKJV)

Vultures or eagles? Corpse or body? As for the latter, the Greek word translated as carcass or corpse in Matthew indeed refers to a dead body—while the word used by Luke can refer to either a live or dead body. The easiest way to resolve this is to assume that Luke was also referring to a dead body, but chose the more general word. Because reasons.

But what about eagles v. vultures? It gets confusing here. The Hebrew word in the Old Testament is sometimes used for both. The Septuagint then used the Greek eagle or vulture for the Hebrew word, as it was deemed appropriate, so there was already some precedent, in the Greek, for using eagle where one might also use vulture. Maybe that’s all there is to it.

There is also the theory that this was a proverbial saying, and that vulture was the word used proverbially, but eagle was substituted because a) it could be, as discussed above, or perhaps b) it made reference to the material cause of the appearance of the corpse (figuratively, Jerusalem) which was the Roman legions with their eagle standard.

Interesting speculation—no way to prove it.

Monday, July 17, 2017

I'll take "Lack of self-awareness" for $2000, Alex!

I don't know what to say.

Here is a video of Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis discussing the pseudo-scientific theory of a flat earth. The AIG "scientists" are not pleased that some fundamentalists, due to their overly literal exegesis, believe the earth is flat. In fact, to the AIG crowd it's downright embarrassing that, in this era of modern science, a Christian could hold such a obviously incorrect view.

And this bears no resemblance to fundamentalists, due to their overly literal exegesis, who believe the earth is less that 10,000 years old. No sir, no resemblance at all. Completely different.