Author: Nick Peters

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 8

Does Jesus offend? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

To be fair, with this first chapter of Richard Hays’s in this book, I think it’s important to agree that yes, Jesus is an offending figure to many. He was in His own time. Mr. Rogers doesn’t get crucified. Jesus was a problem to those around Him.

It’s a shame that this wasn’t thought of more as Richard Hays worked through this book. Jesus never sugar-coated or changed the gospel just to please people. I still remember the first time it was pointed out to me that when the rich young ruler walked away from Jesus after being told to sell everything, Jesus let Him walk away.

Yet despite this, we are being told that God has in fact changed His standards on an issue to go in a way that is less offensive to our culture. It’s awfully fascinating that the area Jesus wants to change us on is always our position on sex. We need to be more lenient there and let more things be allowed sexually.

If you have been wondering if all of this is about welcoming people, but still telling them to repent of sinful behavior, which would be just fine, then no. That is shown expressly to not be so.

Of course, if we go to the four Gospels looking for Jesus’s explicit teachings about homosexuality, we will look in vain; there’s not a word on this topic in the Gospels. But these foundational texts might offer us something else, perhaps something better: a collection of stories that teach us how to reframe ethical questions in light of God’s scandalously merciful character. As we revisit these well-known stories, I propose that we keep asking ourselves this question: How might the Gospel stories of Jesus’s convention-altering words and actions affect our thinking about norms for sexual relationships in our time?

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 125). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Yes. Jesus never said anything about same-sex relationships. He didn’t need to. This wasn’t a big debate in ancient Israel. Divorce? Big debate. Same-sex relationships? Not a bit.

What would more likely need to be shown is anyone from ancient Israel who held to any sort of position like that of the Hayses. If anything, Jesus’s silence should show his agreement on the Torah. Also, when questioned about marriage, He explicitly brought up that God made them male and female. After that, the two were to be brought together. That part was never under question.

If the theme of this book was that we need to show God’s love to same-sex attracted people in that saying while they struggle, God still loves them in their struggle and is willing to help them as they struggle, then I would have no problem. Every Christian should agree with that and celebrate that. That is not what we got. We ultimately get a god we can’t trust who just makes it up as He goes along.

Next time, we’ll look more at what Richard Hays has to say.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 7

What about the eunuchs? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Right now I’m reading a novel based on the book of Esther and the theme of being a eunuch shows up often. It’s quite painful to read about when I get to those parts and think about what they went through. Yet in Scripture, there are places where the eunuchs are promised blessing despite their condition.

So then Christopher says in this chapter:

If conservatives today find scriptural warrant for excluding sexual minorities, how much more did religious leaders in Isaiah’s time have warrant to exclude eunuchs? The prophet has no time for those traditions.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 106). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Major differences here.

For one thing, eunuchs for the most part are not eunuchs by choice. They are made that way because of the desire of a king for his harem to be safe and also for no man to be sleeping with the women he has. Meanwhile, those in the LGBTQ camp are participating in a behavior by choice.

Second, if we are talking about sexual minorities, why not “widen God’s mercy” all the way? Imagine what you would think if the sexual minority listed here was not the LGBTQ crowd, but instead pederast. What is to stop the argument from working? Scripture? Psssh. If God changed His mind on LGBTQ relationships, then He could also change His mind on pederasts. (To be clear, a pederast is what I say for what most people call pedophiles. Pedophiles do not really love children. They abuse children.)

Let’s consider this in light of how this chapter and section of the book is ended.

The fresh encounter with a surprising God sets the trajectory for the reimaginings and revisions that take place in the New Testament—and continue into our times. It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 114). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Again, then why not pederasts?

So what do we have in the end? We have a book that thus far has decided to take about 2,000 years of Scripture on the nature of God and chuck it in the trash and then make statements that lead to a philosophical nightmare. We also do not have ANY interaction with the major texts used from the Old Testament by conservatives. If one wants to say that God changed His mind and those do not apply, then we have a free-for-all ultimately. God could change His mind on murder or rape or anything else.

It’s not a good position to be in.

Next time, we’ll look at what Richard Hays has to say about the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Is That Feeling From God?

What is the fallacy in the modern approach to decision making? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m taking a brief break from the book of the Hayses to write about something else. Many readers know I have long been critical of approaches on hearing the voice of God as a normative practice. I was recently doing some reading of Blackaby and just really thought out the process that the Blackaby family uses and seeing the problems.

Note that this is a criticism of the methodology. It is not a criticism as people of those who practice this. I remain convinced that they think that they are being biblical and that they are helping people strengthen their relationship with God. I am sure we would all agree we want people to make wise decisions.

So here is the way it normally works out under what I will call the Blackaby Method. (BM)

1.  Person has a strong sense, impression, feeling.
2.  That is God speaking to them.
3.  That person acts on that.
4.  Positive result comes at the end.

Okay. #1 is indisputable. No one is denying that a person has a strong sense, impression, or feeling to do something. It can also not be denied that the person is acting on whatever that is. Finally, the cases presented are at least cases of what is perceived to be a good result.

Here’s one of the big problems. The methodology is shown to be true because #1 happens and yet it is implicitly assumed that #2 is true. If a person feels a strong sense to do something and they do it and they get a good result, then that was God acting on them.

The problem is that we can have strong senses (I will be saying this rather than listing all three from now on) on a various number of issues for a various number of means. I remember hearing about someone talking to a Mormon about their claim on the Book of Mormon being true because of a strong sense saying “Do you want your wife to act on those strong senses during that time of the month? That quickly got a no out of them.

Let’s consider another example many of us have. Falling in love. There is actually a name for this feeling called limerence. When we have it happen, all we do is think about the beloved for a time and have a hard time focusing on anything else. C.S. Lewis said it is a good thing that this feeling doesn’t last forever or else we would never get anything done.

Unfortunately, many people enter marriages based on that feeling and then when the feeling fades, they have trouble. When they meet someone else who gives them that feeling anew, they think that this must be the real thing. Unfortunately, this can also become a neverending cycle as the limerence DOES eventually fade.

I often get emails from people who are convinced they have committed the unpardonable sin. What do they base it on? A strong sense. They think that God is judging them and condemning them and that is based on their feelings. I take them back to Scripture and show that the fact that they care about being holy before God shows that God is still at work in their lives. We also then discuss what the unpardonable sin really is. To this day, I have not encountered one person through this who I think has committed that sin, and based on my understanding of it, I don’t think I ever will.

I happen to struggle with anxiety ever since my divorce and take medication to deal with it, but I know when anxiety has struck me strongly in the past, it’s hard to focus on anything else. I have had therapy sessions since coming here when I say “Yeah. I was greatly anxious on Thursday. Now, I can’t even really remember what it was about.”

Has it ever occurred to some of you who hold to BM that perhaps the strong sense you experience is not God, but maybe it’s just your own thinking as well based on your understanding of Scripture? Maybe you are using observation skills and thinking “That person looks like they need someone to talk to” and go over and talk to them. Does this take away from God? Not at all. You are still following biblical wisdom and trying to do what God commands.

Let’s look at BM in another way.

1.  A person has a strong sense that the Book of Mormon is true.
2.  That strong sense is from God.
3. That person acts on that belief and joins the Mormon church.
4. Thus, a good result has occurred.

A Mormon would hold to all of these. A Christian like myself would say that that is not the case. Someone joining the Mormon church is not good but rather a breaking away from Christianity.

So let’s look at #4 that is in common and the idea that a good result occurs. One problem with BM examples is that only positive ones are mentioned. There are probably several cases when people were following BM and they turn out to be wrong and those do not get recorded. To know if a methodology works, you need to look at as many examples as you can of when it was followed, not just the positive ones. If you read a Blackaby book or anyone else teaching this, you will only get the positive results which in turn are shown to demonstrate the BM is true.

It’s interesting the Mormon test to see if the Book of Mormon is true works the exact same way. If you don’t get the positive result, well the problem is you. You weren’t sincere. You weren’t really paying attention. If you do get the result they want, then that proves that the test is true. Either way, the Mormon method cannot be wrong.

Scripture is also full of people who do follow the will of God and do NOT have positive results, at least immediately. Yes. We will all have the resurrection and live eternally in glory, but short-term, we can have suffering. Hebrews 11 lists several people who had great faith and then to balance it out, the writer lists several people who underwent great suffering. Following the will of God will not always produce immediate good results for people. Being faithful can lead to great pain and suffering.

Some of you might be wondering that if you aren’t making decisions based on what you feel like God is telling you, what are you basing it on? Simple. Scripture and wisdom that God gives us all. Scripture is the ultimate authority that is infallible, but wisdom also gives us good sense for making wise decisions.

If someone asked me where my call comes from, I point to Matthew 28:18-20. We are to go into all the world making disciples. What more is needed? After that, I point to desire, ability, and opportunity. Do I have a strong desire to do this work? Do I have the ability? Do I have the chance? I have met enough pastors in my time who have a strong “Call to preach”, but are horrible preachers and do not understand Christianity.

Not everyone will go into a ministerial field, and thank God for that! Some people can be really excited and enthusiastic about something like plumbing. You and I might think “Why would someone want to learn how a toilet works?” It might not make much sense to us, but when we have our toilet suddenly start overflowing, we sure will be thankful someone had that passion.

So many goods in your life come because someone had desire, ability, and opportunity. It is the technology you use, the food you eat, the place you live in, etc. It is good some people care about making shoes. it is good some people care about building planes, trains, and automobiles. Many of us are passionate about books, but some people had to be passionate also about how to put a book together, not just writing a book, but making covers and pages and the process behind it.

Also, none of this is to steal a relationship with God from you. God has revealed Himself best in Scripture and the person of Jesus. The idea that God is revealing Himself to you through senses encourages you to look within to find God ultimately, which is not really a good idea. My approach tells you to look without, at general revelation and at special revelation revealed in Christ and Scripture.

Again, none of this is against people who follow this. It is saying that I consider this approach in the end dangerous and will lead people away from Scripture in the long run. The Bible has much to say about wisdom and making wise decisions. We should listen to it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 6

Does God go too far? Let’s plunge into the Deeper  Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Christopher tells us about how God goes too far sometimes in His judgment. Surely, I’m exaggerating that. Right?

If only I was.

God destroys in wrath, but God also repeatedly repents of his wrath. God changes his mind about his methods and decisions. Sometimes this takes the form of realizing after the fact that punishment has gone too far.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 91). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So we have then a story of a God who gets angry and then brings about destruction and then says “oopsie. I went too far that time.”

Excuse me. Why should I trust this god with anything? This doesn’t come across as the loving god that the Hayses want us to believe in. This comes across as a flippant god who will fly off on a whim and then want to say at the end, “Hey. A few lives lost. No harm done. Right?”

The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 92). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

It’s nice to know that Christopher has declared with one sentence that thousands of years of theologians and scholars didn’t take the Bible seriously. Where would we be without his magnificent wisdom to guide us? It would be bad enough to say that all of them were wrong. I am to believe that the church fathers, the medieval writers, and the reformers who held to classical doctrines didn’t take the Bible seriously?

Christopher brings up Calvin, who apparently didn’t take the Bible seriously. Whether you are a full-fledged 5-point Calvinist or a total devotee of Arminius, most all would agree at least that love his doctrine or hate it, Calvin took the Bible seriously. So what did Calvin say?

Calvin goes on to explain that “the change of mind is to be taken figuratively,” like every instance in which God is described in human terms. These descriptions of God are “accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it.”

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 95). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Which is a reasonable idea and what has been held for thousands of years. Unfortunately, it is also one Christopher doesn’t interact with. I remember when I was going through this book at first that I shared a quote on Facebook and someone said that the Bible says God doesn’t change His mind. Being humorous, I said “Well, maybe God changed His mind on if He changes His mind.” I thought it was funny.

And yet what do I soon see in the book itself?

All this tends to undermine the relevance of these statements. But in light of what we know about the Bible as a whole, it may be better to admit that there are indeed contrasting perspectives in dialogue with each other in the Bible. So if the Bible as a whole is the word of God, then perhaps we should say that God changes his mind about whether he changes his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 96). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Just even thinking about this leads to nonsense. God changes His mind on if He changes His mind? Did He forget His past apparently and that He had changed His mind? Did He say “I don’t change my mind” and then say “Oh. I do change my mind here” and then say “Well, I have changed my mind and now state that I never change my mind.” Do you need a Tylenol yet?

In the end of this chapter then, Christopher has written about a god who he says shows mercy. Unfortunately, we cannot trust this mercy since he could change his mind for all we know. Maybe tomorrow he will change his mind and decide to thoroughly punish all people who claim he changed his mind and that also say he is LGBTQ friendly.

The Hayses are an example of what happens when you fail to take seriously the history of the text and the tradition it came out of.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 5

Did God change His mind on war? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Christopher Hays says there is no better example of God changing His mind in the text than on looking at the way the Bible presents war.

So there’s a history here of war in Israel and then Christopher drops this on us:

Why would Isaiah have been concerned about a reaction against Cyrus? Perhaps because his anointing as king was a violation of the Mosaic law, which said: “you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your brothers you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (Deut 17:15).10 That was the word of the Lord—but now the Lord has changed his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 88). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I must have missed that part when Cyrus sat on the throne of David in Jerusalem…

Largely, what is in this chapter is an emotional appeal. If God’s plan was for the salvation of these people, why would He go to war against them? Well for starters, He did. Second, God’s plan was for things to come in the fullness of time. That would include having to protect Israel from those who wished to destroy her as well.

At this, many will go to the New Testament, which Christopher does not do, which is fine since he is focusing on the Old Testament. I personally do not think the New Testament is meant to give us instructions on warfare and when it is right to go to war or not. Most of us will never be in that position. Here in America, only 45 different people have ever been president and had to make the decision to send us into war or not.

The New Testament is more written to the average every day person. We do not know what foreign policy advice Jesus or Paul or any of the apostles would have given to a king if need be. We do know what rank and file people were instructed to do, but even then, instructions to turn the other cheek were not given in response to life-threatening violence, but to personal insults, meaning to stop the cycle of retaliation.

Ultimately, something that needs to be pointed out is that if God could change His covenants like Christopher says He did with Cyrus, how could anyone trust Him for salvation? He made a covenant promise with Israel and then broke it on His own? Why should I not think He won’t do the same with me someday if God changes His mind? If God can change His mind on what marriage is, then maybe God will change His mind and say you can marry your minor cousin someday and hey, who could say otherwise?

Christopher’s god is one that I do not recognize. I am thankful the God of Scripture is not like that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 4

Was the Law not good? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember how last time I said it gets worse?

Prepare yourselves. Here it comes.

In the midst of this speech, God says that because of the people’s disobedience, “I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD” (Ezek 20:25–26).

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 68). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

It has been my contention that for the Hayses to defend same-sex romantic relationships from the text, they will have to demean God and/or the text. This is a prime example. Christopher especially should know better. If he wants to say the law and statutes of God were not good, I think a guy named Paul would have something to say about that.

No. What is going on here is God is saying “You don’t want to live by my laws and statutes? Deal. Enjoy Babylon. See how you like their laws!”

And yet, it gets worse.

The implication probably isn’t immediately clear to those who don’t live by the Mosaic law, but God’s comment refers clearly to Exod 22:29b–30: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.” And how did they give oxen and sheep to God? By blood sacrifice—as Exodus 22:31 makes clear with its reference to eating meat.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 69). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem is, Christopher didn’t tell you all of what Exodus 22:29 said. If he had, you would have seen right through this.

“Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons.

This is about an offering of service more than anything else. It is certainly not human sacrifice! Even if we were unsure, it is best to read the text in a way of charity and the Israelites detested human sacrifice.

If the text has to be made to say this to justify what Christopher wants it to justify, then the mainstream reading is on good grounds.

He even takes this over to the story of Abraham and Isaac saying God doesn’t want human sacrifice, but wants people willing to sacrifice their children. Never mind the real historical context that this is seeing if Abraham trusts that Isaac will be the one who will fulfill the promise made.

The propagation of these Deuteronomic laws is generally associated with the reign of Josiah in the late seventh century BCE, which was also the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah goes farther than the other texts; in one of the book’s divine speeches, God similarly recounts “all the evil of the people of Israel and the people of Judah that they did to provoke me to anger” (Jer 32:32), including, “They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah to sin” (32:35). He doesn’t simply forbid the practice; he denies that God ever commanded it. This is irreconcilable with Ezekiel 20:25, which says God did command it.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 72). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Look at that paragraph very carefully.

According to Christopher Hays, in the Old Testament, God commanded human sacrifice.

And what does Christopher draw from this in the end?

The harmful effects of social pressures on LGBTQ youth can be measured in various ways, but one of the most stark, tragic, and comparable is their rate of suicides and suicide attempts. A recent study endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association reported that 20.1 percent of sexual minority teens reported attempting suicide in 2017—3.8 times the rate of heterosexual teens.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 74). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

If these people are willing to kill themselves like this, there is something deeper going on. He is really just engaging in emotional blackmail here and saying “If you do not affirm them the way they want to be affirmed, then they will kill themselves and it will be on your head.”

No. No, it isn’t.

If anything, I think what Christopher is doing is the unloving thing. He is enabling them in a path of destruction that will result not just in a temporary death, but an eternal one.

If he is also wrong on this, he will have to give an account before God, the one who he says commanded human sacrifice and gave laws to His people that were not good, why he did what he did.

My stance is made. I will stick with what Jews and Christians have always said about what the Bible says about LGBTQ relationships. He who marries the spirit of the age is destined to be a widow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 3

Has justice widened? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter starts with the story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers. They say their father did not participate in a rebellion against YHWH, but he had no sons. Why should his inheritance disappear? Moses takes their case to the Lord who agrees with the daughters, although later they are restricted in who they can marry to make sure they don’t take another tribe’s portion, which they accept.

It’s an interesting and a simple story. So what’s the big deal? Why is it in this chapter?

Hays presents it as a change in the attitude of God. Why? We are not told. All readers of Numbers will know is that this wasn’t included in the Law and it was a unique situation. On those cases, Moses would go to God for that one.

Apparently, this is supposed to be an opening to show God changing His mind allegedly on other issues.

Hays says that 1 Samuel 15 is another example and claims that Samuel misrepresents God by saying God doesn’t change His mind. Am I misrepresenting Hays? If only I was.

Humans, however, really like to put God in a box. We have already seen how Samuel, in his frustration at the failure of the king he anointed, misrepresents God by saying that God does not change his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 62). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So apparently, this is a part of Scripture where we are not presented with accurate information about God. This despite a prophet saying a clear prophecy that did indeed come true. It looks like to defend LGBTQ relationships from Scripture, you have to lower God.

Even looking at the case of Saul, it doesn’t argue what Hays claims. Had Saul been faithful, he would have had a lasting kingdom. Did God choose Saul knowing Saul would fall? Yes. God didn’t change His mind. Because the covenant was not argued, Saul was rejected. This didn’t surprise God at all.

There are passages of Scripture that on the surface do seem to indicate a change of mind. After reviewing this book, since it is an important topic, I do plan on writing on that one and showing why I think it’s anthropomorphic language. It’s meant to describe God to us in ways we can understand.

But getting back to Zelophehad….

The story of Zelophehad’s daughters suggests that the diversity and disagreements within the biblical laws are not an accident or an embarrassing error caught by pesky scholars. This story shows God himself taking part in reinterpreting and outright revising existing practices. In the Bible, God seems less troubled by change than his spokesmen are.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 64). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

So apparently God was ignorant when He gave the Law and hadn’t considered all the ramifications. At points like this, I don’t know what God the Hayses are presenting. He sure isn’t any that I recognize as the supreme being of YHWH revealed in Christ.

Later he says about the daughters that

The passage continues with a midrash on the women and their extraordinary faith: “They said, ‘God’s mercy is not like that of flesh and blood. The latter’s mercy is for the males more than for the females, but He who spoke and the world came into being is not that way. His mercy is for males and females.’” Paul seems also to have understood this when he wrote, “there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28), but clearly he still had to make the case in his time. In our time, new groups are asking for God’s mercy and asking to be accepted.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 67). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

Yet even within the Pauline corpus, there is a distinction between male and female. What is Paul talking about in that passage? He’s talking about that when it comes to salvation, there is no distinction. All are saved the same way and all are in Christ the same way.

Are others asking for God’s mercy? Yes. They can also get it, but they must repent. The problem is Hays is saying they don’t need to repent. He has left out that Zelophehad’s daughters are asking on behalf of a man who died for his own sins and did not participate in a rebellion against God.

Alas, it gets even worse.

Next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

An Addendum on Andrew Handley

How could God kill 70,000? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

After yesterday’s piece on Andrew Handley, it occurred to me that I had left something out and something important. It was in his last entry on the piece saying that God had outrageous morals. Let’s see what he said.

We’ve seen commands for rape, religious genocide, the killing of children, and human sacrifice. What we haven’t seen are the burning of whores, a ban on crippled people, or the killing of 70,000 men. There are 136 words in this paragraph, and if we linked a verse on every single word, it wouldn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the acts committed either by God’s hand or under his command that would be considered immoral—or blatantly insane—by today’s standards. But that’s the thing, right? Today’s standards are held to a different moral code than the standards of the 800 years or so before the birth of Christ. But, then again, how does that make any sense?

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 543). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Here we have a condemnation of the killing done by God. Note that it is just assumed that God has to abide by a moral code, which I said yesterday was false. There is nothing God is subservient to. God is good and that goodness is His nature. He is what it means to be, to exist. (If you want more information on the meaning of good, I recommend getting Edward Feser’s Aquinas which is on sale on Kindle as of this writing.)

Now let’s compare this with another statistic. Abortion. See the information here.

If you look at that chart, the positive is abortions do seem to be going down. Why is that? There are a number of factors, but one I can easily think of is that Americans are becoming more and more pro-life, Those who kill their own children tend to have less children to raise with that belief. Those who believe children are sacred tend to have more children to raise with that believe. It’s why I think the problem with leftist ideology is it is often a snake eating its own tail.

Let’s put aside even the idea of abortions done for rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. Regardless of where you stand on those, everyone should agree they are the minority. What this means is that most women are getting their abortions for other reasons and also, claiming it as a moral right.

Woman kills a life in her womb for her own personal reasons? A moral right we must defend.

God, the author and source of life who owes no one anything, takes the life that He provides and can resurrect even if He desires? A great evil that must be condemned.

Also, note that Handley ends this by saying it is repugnant to our morality. Okay, but who says our morality is the right one? Do we have some things right? Yes. Do we have some things wrong? Absolutely. This is true of EVERY time and place and culture. There is not one moral system that gets everything wrong.

Now as a Christian, I can say that morality has a goal of getting us to be good people and that there is a real and objective good. Yet if Handley takes a place of moral relativism, as he seems to in this piece, then there’s no such thing as the Bible having outrageous morals. They just have different ones. On moral relativism, there can be no grounds to really condemn them. You cannot like them, but you cannot call them wrong.

While I think Listverse does tend to try for accuracy, this list is one that was a failure across the board. Hint. If you’re going to study an ancient culture and people, you need to study the culture and the people themselves.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Why Did Listverse Let Andrew Handley Write On This?

Were these people in the Bible immoral? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been enjoying going through this book by Listverse. There are a lot of interesting claims in there I check up on to see what is going on with them. No doubt, a lot of writers have done excellent research.

Andrew Handley is not one of them.

Recently I read his list of 10 biblical characters with bad morals. Being a seminary student and someone who has spent decades studying the Bible, nothing he said surprised me. People with bad morals could be best read as “People who did things I don’t understand and/or like.”

So let’s see. The first one, not a shock, is Elisha. What does Handley say?

Here’s what happened: Elisha was walking into the city of Bethel when a group of kids ran out and started making fun of his bald head. It’s the only mention in the Bible that Elisha was bald, which is probably good, because the next thing Elisha did was curse the children to death. Immediately, two bears ran over and tore the kids to pieces. The most important—most Godly—prophet in the land brutally murdered 42 children because they laughed at him. He is now a venerated saint.

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 539). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Ha! What a wimp! Elisha couldn’t take some kids laughing at him because he was bald so he had 42 bears tear them to pieces!

Well, no.

First off, Elisha’s baldness was intentional. He shaved his head to demonstrate his life of consecration as a prophet to YHWH. Second, these weren’t kids. The word is used to refer to soldiers in the military also and likely, these were teenagers at least, and a crowd of at least 43, since it doesn’t say all were mauled, would be sufficient to be considered a threat. Third, go on up too, is saying that this is a generation telling the prophet that he should get lost like his master Elijah did, a reference that they don’t care about YHWH at all. Fourt, these kids weren’t torn to pieces. The bears in that area are Syrian Brown Bears and they weigh up to 550 pounds.

Next question. How do two bears that weigh that much hurt 42 people? Note. The text never says that they were torn to pieces. The word can refer to any number of injuries. Still, either a bear would have to move at supersonic speeds or else something else would happen.

Like the kids staying behind and fighting the bears. Why would they do that? Meat and honor both. Either way, the bears were powerful enough that 42 of the kids were injured, a good warning to a generation that could grow up denying God.

My ministry partner has two videos on this here.

Next up is the story of Jael. Who was she? She told the fleeing commander of the Canaanite army to come into her tent when he was on the run after being defeated by Israel in battle. One would have thought Jael would be an ally, but no. As he slept, she took a tent peg and ran it through his temple killing him on the spot. Never mind that Israel was the one being oppressed and Sisera was on the side of the oppressors.

Keep in mind that in Judges 5, a song is sang and an account is given picturing Sisera’s mother waiting for him to come back from battle.

28 “Through the window peered Sisera’s mother;
behind the lattice she cried out,
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?’
29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
indeed, she keeps saying to herself,
30 ‘Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
a woman or two for each man,

I want you to keep this in the back of your mind.

Next is David.

In 1 Samuel 27:8–11, David takes an army and invades several neighboring lands. The Bible doesn’t give any reason for him to do this, other than a side note that the people he killed were “of old the inhabitants of the land,” so it seems he was just wiping out the indigenous people. David’s army killed all the men and women in the towns he defeated, then carried all the livestock back to their own land, leaving the towns in ruin.

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 540). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

Handley is one of these people who expects the Bible to spell everything out. An Israelite reader would know that these were the people who were hurting the people of Israel at the time and were their enemies. David was on the run and hiding in Philistia from Saul. He knew that if word got out about what he was doing, the king of Philistia would not take it well, so he left no one behind who would tell the king what David was really doing while he was there. He was still fighting the enemies of Israel.

But Handley doesn’t understand that and assumes these people must have just been peaceful people minding their own business and David was just a great big meanie.

Next is Samson who killed 30 Philistines just for their clothing. Handley tells us this is just short of the 35 people Ted Bundy killed and not even counting the 1,000 Samson kills later with a jawbone. Never mind of course that Philistia is the bad guy in this scenario and they are oppressing the people of Israel. Israel is wanting deliverance from them. Apparently, Handley thinks people suffering under those who are mistreating them should just shut up and take it.

What about Elijah? Well, he has that famous contest with the prophets on Mt. Carmel and ends up killing all of them.

Mean! Mean! Mean!

Except Israel was a theocracy at the time and leading people away from God is an act of treason in such a situation. These people were also in service of an evil king as well. Elijah is protecting the people so they can get back to the covenant. Israel is in an agreement with God that they will abide by the terms of the covenant or judgment will come on them. Those who are leading the people astray are guilty of treason. There was no separation of church and state.

Handley isn’t too happy about Elijah calling down fire to burn those who come after him later, but again, this is the same kind of scenario.

Jephthah is the sixth. We know the story. He allegedly sacrificed his daughter in the flames. Of course, it’s not that cut and dry. My ministry partner has the lowdown on that one again. You can see the first video here and a second response video here.

Jehu is the seventh and his crime? He killed a lot of the prophets of Baal. Again, this is a case of people leading Israel into treason, much like Elisha.

Eighth is Joshua and this is what Handley says:

What the story doesn’t tell is that this an isolated battle; Joshua was on a zealous tirade all across Israel. Here are five meaningless words: Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. Each one of those is a city filled with people, which, according to Joshua Chapter 10, the army of Joshua completely devastated. He “utterly destroyed all that breathed.”

Frater, Jamie. Listverse.com’s Epic Book of Mind-Boggling Top 10 Lists: Unbelievable Facts and Astounding Trivia on Movies, Music, Crime, Celebrities, History, and More (p. 542). Ulysses Press. Kindle Edition.

They were filled with people?

Too bad he never demonstrates that.

No. The story of Rahab tells us that it was known that the people were coming for decades. A city would be more likely a more fortified region where the hardiest of warriors would live. Women and children would easily flee before any combat started. Also, the language of battle is extremely hyperbolic. This was the way ancients wrote about their conquests.

Ninth is Moses. Why? Well, look at Numbers 31 where he left alive the women who had not slept with a man! Why would he do that? Oh yes! The men wanted to sleep with them!

The text never says that happened and that Handley jumps to that conclusion first tells you more about how he views women than how the text does. “Gosh! The women who were virgins were kept alive! Obviously it was for sex! What other reason could there be?!”

Um. Handley. Women who aren’t virgins can have sex too. In fact, they already have!

I have written about this here.

So why were the virgins spared? Because they were innocent! This is about what happened in Numbers 25 and the women had seduced the men of Israel into abandoning YHWH. The women spared were young children who would be taken into the Israelite community. Sex slavery was not allowed and Deuteronomic law said even if a man wanted to take a woman in combat to be his wife, he had to give her a 30 day mourning period so no, these guys weren’t getting it hot and heavy that evening.

Oh by the way, think back to Sisera.

Israel defeats a man who will be seen as dividing up the women for spoil among his men.

BAD!

Israel is dividing up women allegedly?

ALSO BAD!

So I guess Israel was supposed to do nothing about people doing that then. Right?

And wouldn’t you know it? The last on the list is God. God has outrageous morals.

No, Handley. God doesn’t have outrageous morals. He has no morals.

Come again?

Yeah. That’s what I said. God does not have morals in the sense that he has a code that is called morality that He has to follow. There is nothing that God “ought” to do. No one can come after God and say “Well, God. Were you a good boy today? Did you preserve justice today?”

That does not mean God is evil though. God is good. All moral behavior is good but not all good behavior is necessarily moral. After all, morality is doing what you ought. Acts that go above and beyond what you ought are good acts, but they are not moral in the sense that you are commanded to do them.

Now God takes a life. Okay. Question. Who does God owe life to? On what grounds could someone go to God and say “You had no right to take the life of XYZ?”

None.

Most of Listverse’s material has been good, but lists like this can really damage their reputation. I have emailed them once before about a list they got the facts wrong in, but it was ignored. Hopefully they will change this one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Am I Calvinist?

How do I address this question? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and  find out.

Working at a seminary post office, I have new students come in from time to time and sometimes when we click on our interests, they want to ask me questions. I recently had someone ask me if I was a Calvinist. It’s a common question. I said I usually consider myself mere Christianity.

I said then that my problem with so much of this is that on a practical level, I really do not see the point. Let’s consdier the question of eternal security. Can someone lose their salvation or not? The answer to this question is either yes or no, but from a practical perspective, how does it matter?

If a person is struggling with sin, will a Calvinist and an Arminian both call the sinner to repentance? Yes. If a Calvinist or an Arminian is giving a sermon at a church, will they both encourage the audience to live holy lives and honor God with how they live? Yes. What about if someone says that they used to be a Christian and aren’t any more?

The Arminian is going to say that they lost their Christianity The Calvinist is going to say that they never had salvation to begin with. Whichever one is right, the conclusion is still the same. The person is not a Christian.

Let’s consider another question, what about evangelism The Calvinist will hold that God has indeed elected who will be saved. The Arminian is going to say that no one is predestined for salvation and we need to go out there and do evangelism.

If a Calvinist gets in a pulpit to speak about evangelism, will he not encourage the audience to do to the work of missions and enccourage them to support missions if they can’t do that themselves? An Arminian will say the exact same thing. It is true that either people are predestined to salvation. Yet once again, from a practical perspective, what difference does it make? Both of them are going to encourage evangelism and both of them are going to do evangelism.

So when it comes to the question, how do I answer? I usually just say this.

God is sovereign.

Man has free-will.

How do you unite those two?

Don’t know. Don’t care. It can be something fun to think about, but I see both of those in Scripture. I prefer to just leave it at that.

Can I get along with Calvinists just fine? Absolutely. My first boss at the post office was a Calvinist. We got along great. We still get along when he comes into the post office to pick up packages. He knew I wasn’t. No big deal. We disagreed on that, and we still could talk about politics and movies and video games just fine.

That is still my whole attitude Let’s discuss the issue,  but make it just that. It’s a discussion. At the end of the day, Calvinists and Arminians still bow the knee to the same Jesus and still have the same work. Let’s let what unites us be the most important.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)