Category: New Testament

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 5

Is remarriage adultery? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So in this one, according to Madison, Jesus says all remarriage is adultery. We can be thankful that at least he went through the work of scholars like David Instone-Brewer and Craig Keener and….

If you’re laughing now, you know what’s coming.

Of course, he didn’t. Who needs to waste time with scholars?

This means that, according to Jesus, adultery is rampant among Christians, given the number of good believers who have been divorced and remarried. And one must wonder whether these followers of Jesus are admitting, when they get divorced, that God joining them together was his mistake?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 40). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

First in response to this, he at first assumes all these divorces are mutual. As someone like myself who is wrongfully divorced, I fought tooth and nail to save my marriage. I also don’t claim all marriages are joined together by God directly, in the sense of God leading people to marry one another, but I do say that even if God does do something, that doesn’t mean we can’t resist His will and go against it. God didn’t make the mistake. We did.

“…except on the ground of unchastity…” Is it possible that even the writer of one of the gospels was embarrassed by something Jesus taught and added a qualifier to tone it down?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. This either something explanatory put in, or else part of what Jesus said in the sermon. If anyone was divorced in Jewish thought, it would likely be assumed that they could remarry. The problem was that there were two schools of thought. One said you could divorce for any reason such as if she burned toast. Instone-Brewer has a quote from one rabbi who says divorce could take place if a prettier girl was found. (I got the book at the library and so am unable to quote it now.) The liberal side was from the Hillel school. The Shammai school tended to say divorce could only be allowed in the case of adultery.

Jesus steps into this discussion which is not about remarriage, but more about divorce. He sides with Shammai, but His case is strong. It needs to be a case of unfaithfulness to the covenant. I have had to do papers here on both the Gospels on divorce and Paul on divorce and came to the same conclusion. Scripture allows for remarriage in the case of wrongful divorce.

Madison goes on to say about Jesus’s command against lust that

So now Jesus is condemning sexual feelings, a teaching that ignores how we are built and has led to unnecessary shame and guilt for centuries. The Greek word translated “lust” in the passage could also mean “longing for” or “desiring.” Even the most devout Christians can’t help noticing when someone comes across to them as “really sexy” and feeling something that is more than simply appreciation. And anyone—Christian or not—who has ever had a partner understands how important sexual feelings can be in creating a mutual attraction between two individuals.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. Jesus is not condemning sexual feelings and desires. He condemns an action in this case. It is looking at another man’s wife with the intention to lust after her. He is right that the word used does refer to strong desire, but He forgets there is an action involved. Why does He condemn this? Because if you are willing to look, it means you are closer to doing. The same could be said for emotional affairs. Open the door for something that seems innocent and it’s not too long many times before it ends in a hotel room.

So once again, Madison doesn’t really understand the passages.

We’ll continue next time.

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

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 4

Will you give me everything you have? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? Well, David Madison doesn’t like that commandment.

If you’re a follower of Jesus, ponder the implications of this text for your own life. Is it even possible to give God all? And why does the powerful God who is described as self-sufficient require this level of commitment—a level that few, if any, believers even strive for, let alone attain.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 31). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

So in Christian thinking, God is the greatest good of all, the one who gives every good gift, redeems eventually from every suffering, forgives all your sin, loves you beyond measure, and everything else. Please, make sure you don’t overdo it in loving Him back.

God calls for the best and He deserves the best. What would it say if Jesus had said, “Oh, and make sure you give a little bit of honor to this God dude. Alright?”

He also talks about Ananias and Sapphira as an example and says most Christians either ignore it or explain it away.

I guess explain it away means “Give an explanation for it.”

Quite simple. They were never required to give everything. Peter says so in the text. They could have kept back some of it for themselves had they wanted. The problem was dishonesty and lying. They wanted to get all the glory for giving it all. For the fledgling church, it was needed to show that God is still serious about sin.

Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on. (Mark 12:43-44, NRSV) This script fits Mark’s theme about extreme commitment earlier in the same chapter, and religious bureaucrats have commonly championed “giving until it hurts.” Yes, it’s a legitimate point that the rich don’t deserve high praise for giving away what they won’t miss, but commending the poor widow for her deed? That’s another matter. Under any normal, rational idea of what makes sense, it was not smart that the widow “put in all she had to live on.” It’s more logical to wonder why Jesus didn’t help her get the money back. Why would Jesus commend a mindset that prompts a widow to give away—to a mammoth religious bureaucracy—all the money she has to live on?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 33). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Something to note here is all Jesus says is she gave more than the others did since she gave all she had to live on. He never directly praises her. Could He have been doing that in showing her faithfulness? Yes. Could it be though that the temple was charging higher taxes and she had to give in all that she had? Also, yes. Did Jesus do anything to help this widow out after? The text doesn’t say.

So what about this one?

So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. (Luke 14:33 NRSV) Certainly this teaching has not stood the test of time. Even the most faithful believers pay little or no attention to it—sure evidence that Christians wish Jesus hadn’t said it.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 34-35). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Actually, the original text doesn’t say possessions. It says all that he has. Looking at the text, what Jesus is talking about is total devotion. Don’t start building a tower unless you are ready to give it your all to finish it. Don’t go to war unless your all is sufficient to handle it. In the same way, if you want to be a disciple, make sure you’re all in.

Which would be standard for a disciple if he wanted to be devoted to a master’s teaching.

So once again, Madison gets basic things wrong that simple research could have answered.

We’ll continue next time.

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

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 3

Should you give me all your money? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Could you go ahead down to that Patreon link and give me all your money?

Now according to David Madison, you should do so immediately. Why? Jesus said to give to everyone who asks of you. Right? I just asked you. Why aren’t you giving?

We have the words of Jesus after all!

do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:42, NRSV)

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 25). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Oh wait. You’re thinking there’s bound to be some historical context to the message and Madison left that out? You know, that could be right. Let’s see.

As Blomberg says:

None of the commands of vv. 39–42 can easily be considered absolute; all must be read against the historical background of first-century Judaism. Nevertheless, in light of prevailing ethical thought Jesus contrasts radically with most others of his day in stressing the need to decisively break the natural chain of evil action and reaction that characterizes human relationships

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 113.

and

In v. 42 Jesus calls his followers to give to those who ask and not turn from those who would borrow. He presumes that the needs are genuine and commands us not to ignore them, but he does not specifically mandate how best we can help. As Augustine rightly noted, the text says “give to everyone that asks,” not “give everything to him that asks” (De Sermone Domine en Monte 67). Compare Jesus’ response to the request made of him in Luke 12:13–15. It is also crucial to note that “a willingness to forego one’s personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others (cf. Paul’s attitude in Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:8–12).” Verses 39–42 thus comprise a “focal instance” of nonretaliation; specific, extreme commands attract our attention to a key ethical theme that must be variously applied as circumstances change

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 113–114.

Also, Keener says:

One must surrender one’s possessions to whoever requests them (5:42). Judaism recognized giving to beggars who requested alms as a moral though not legal obligation (Guelich 1982: 223). It stressed both charity and a high work ethic; most beggars genuinely had no alternative means of income. Still, giving anything requested to whoever asks for it (cf. Corn. Nep. 5 [Cimon], 4.2, perhaps a rhetorical overstatement) would quickly leave the giver a beggar, too, once word of one’s limitless generosity spread; this practice would quickly reduce one to the possessionless lifestyle of Cynic mendicants (cf. Schweizer 1975: 130).
Some Jewish teachers also urged lending to those who wished to borrow (Moore 1971: 2:168; Bonsirven 1964: 152–53) or reproved those who would too quickly demand repayment (Sir 20:15); others, however, warned of the danger of losses (Sir 19:4; Syr. Men. Sent. 181–88). Likewise, although some sages considered usury the severest of sins (e.g., Tannaim in b. B. Meṣ. 71a; cf. Jos. Apion 2.208; Ant. 4.266; Ex. Rab. 31:13), businessmen found ways to get around biblical laws against usury (Gamoran 1976), and Gentile creditors (who naturally expected repayment, e.g., Mart. Epig. 2.3; 3.40) were more than ready to seize property to recover outstanding debts (P. Cairo Zen. 59001.39–43; P. Amh. 50; P. Oxy. 269).121 Further, despite pietists’ warnings against pursuing debts ruthlessly (Ps-Phocyl. 83; p. Taʿan. 3:11, §4), Jewish teachers also expected repayment (cf., e.g., Sir 8:12) and even devised ways to guarantee it, lest people quit lending (cf. Sanders 1992: 427–28). Whereas some teachers wanted to impose limits on charity (roughly 20 percent beyond tithes) lest one impoverish oneself out of well-intentioned devotion (Hengel 1974b: 20; cf. Jeremias 1969: 127), Jesus places no cap on giving. Yet while Jesus lived simply, especially once he began his itinerant ministry, Matthew implies that he did have a home (4:13). But if Jesus merely counseled, “Live simply,” without confronting his disciples with forceful images, they might define simplicity in terms of their desires rather than in terms of the world’s needs; his forceful rhetoric demands that his disciples contemplate his intention.
Again Jesus invites his hearers to grapple with his point, to which he will return with far greater force in 6:19–34. If nonresistance means disdaining one’s right to one’s own honor (5:38–39), one’s most basic possessions (5:40), and one’s labor and time (5:41) when others seek them by force, one must also disdain these things in view of the needs of the poor (5:42). When the kingdom comes, one’s deeds rather than one’s wealth will matter (6:19–21; cf. 25:34–46); in the meantime those who disdain everything else for the kingdom (13:44–45) must do with these other possessions what Jesus wills: give them to those who need them more (19:21). One’s “vested interests” must be in heaven, not on earth (6:19–21); if one cannot value the kingdom that much, one has no place in it (19:29–30).

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 201–202.

Both writers recognize that Jewish statements often had rhetorical overplay to them and there were various exceptions and Jesus expected some degree of common sense to them, the kind not found in atheistic writers apparently.

Madison goes on to speak about loving your enemies and saying:

The most pressing question here is: Does God the Father love his enemies? In the Old Testament, he is known as Yahweh—a raging tribal deity—and is not much improved in the New Testament: Jesus speaks of fiery hell and suffering worse than at the time of Noah when the Kingdom arrives. The idea that God loves his enemies is a pretty hard sell.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 29). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. It’s not a hard sell because God is not just love. God is also justice. Does Madison equate love to a grandfather in the sky who lets the children just get away with anything? That would not be love. I constantly get amazed that atheists asks why God doesn’t deal with evil in the world and when they find accounts of Him doing just that, they say that that was unloving.

But does it trouble you that Jesus is teaching his followers to base their choices about how to love on what reward they will receive? Wouldn’t it be better to be a loving person just because that’s who you are? Wouldn’t it be better to be generous with others just because that’s how you choose to live?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 29). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Except we all do that. Why do you choose to just be generous? It is because that does benefit you in some way. You feel better about yourself or think that you were doing the right thing. Jesus promises that you will be provided for.

And then possibly as Blomberg says:

“What reward will you get?” (v. 46) parallels “What are you doing more than others?” (v. 47), suggesting not the idea of compensation for doing good but the recurrent theme of the believer’s distinctiveness.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 115.

So no, I am not bothered.

If anything, I am bothered by wondering how little research Madison did on these passages.

We’ll continue next time.

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

 

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 5

Does Jesus just represent the Father? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Perry claims that the best way to speak of Jesus is as one who has the name of YHWH not because He is YHWH, but because He is representing YHWH.

The best sense for ‘included within the divine identity’ is representative identity – i.e. where someone
represents (acts for) someone else.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is kyrios, to the glory of God
the Father. Phil 2:9-11 (KJV revised); cf. Rom 14:1

First off, it’s noteworthy that in this passage, everything bows down to Jesus and to God, meaning that there is a differentiation going on between Jesus and everything else save the Father. Some of you astute readers will be thinking that Paul is quoting Isaiah here. We are about to get to that.

The name given to Jesus that is above every name is not the common Jewish name of ‘Jesus’ but that of
‘Yhwh’. As we have noted above, the type for this is the giving of the name to the Angel of the Lord.
This framework of name-bearing is indicative of representation (acting/speaking50 in someone’s name).
This is clear from the example of the Angel of the Lord where God instructs that the people were to obey
his voice because “my name is in/with him” (Exod 23:21). The identity here is representative, one in
which someone represents the authority and the will of another. As such, it does not confuse the persons
of God and the Angel of the Lord. We can, if we want, gloss this kind of identity as an ‘inclusive’ identity:
the representative is part of the identity of the one represented.

Nothing is said of what if someone does think the Angel of the Lord is the preincarnate Christ and actually an appearance of YHWH? There are numerous occasions in the Old Testament where someone talks to the Angel of the Lord and it is as if they are speaking to God. There are also times the Angel speaks as if He is God, notably in Exodus 3. Perry in a footnote says the prophets represented God, which is true, but no one ever confused Isaiah for YHWH.

Paul quotes Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9-11 which, while ‘anthropomorphic’, is quite specific in its personal
language: ‘my mouth’ and ‘unto me’ – this singular language doesn’t seem to offer much room for others
to receive obeisance.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
that unto me (yl yk) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:23 KJV)
Commentators assume that bowing ‘at the name of Jesus’ is equivalent to bowing before Jesus alone. It is
as if their exegesis drops ‘the name’ from their consideration of what Paul is saying. However, if you bow
‘at the name’ and that name is ‘Yhwh’, then Yahweh is involved as an indirect recipient of the obeisance
when the one being bowed to is a representative.

Absent is any mention of “I will not share my glory with another” from Isaiah 42:8. However, if Philippians says everyone bows at the name of Jesus and everyone is to bow to YHWH, it’s easy to make that parallel. It’s practically hard to avoid it.

In general, insofar as Christ does the same thing his Father does, the same action predicates are applied to
them both. For example,
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. 1 Thess 3:13 (KJV)
…and kyrios my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Zech 14:5 (KJV)

Yet this is not saying Jesus is doing the same action of YHWH. YHWH never comes to the Earth except at the end of Revelation and then it is the marriage of Heaven and Earth. It is Jesus that is coming to the Earth. Again, Paul is making a one-to-one parallel.

This allusion is an example of Yhwh texts that describe God acting on behalf of his people in the land.
The language of Yahweh coming in the person of another is seen, for example, in the case of the Arm of
the Lord (Isa 40:3; 10; 51:9; 53:1; John 12:38). This is God being manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16) and
fulfilling his own declaration, ‘I will be who I will be’ (Exod 3:1460). That God is manifest in someone on
the ground is indicated by the prediction that ‘his feet’ would stand on the Mount of Olives. As Adey
observes, “A Biblical criterion of being the true God is that God’s identity can be depicted by another”.
The predicates of action are equally applicable to Yahweh as they are to the person on the ground.
There are criteria of application for these predicates which are satisfied by Yahweh and the person on
the ground. The point here is not that the person bears the name ‘Yhwh’, nor that they necessarily
represent Yahweh (pace foreign potentates brought against Israel), though this may be true: the point is
that God is manifesting himself in someone through the Spirit – their actions are the actions of God. In
this sense, that person is included in an identity with God (and vice-versa) but without any confusion of
persons.

The fact that some people can possibly have a confusion of persons shows why Paul wrote the way he did, regularly saying theos for the Father and kurios for the Lord Jesus. Of course, it would be difficult to describe in many ways, but the solution is not to change the doctrine, but to change the language the best we can. Yet what happens if someone says contrary to what Perry thinks about this?

Fletcher-Louis states, “Time and again we find divine action or functions ascribed to Christ in a way that
now makes sense if Christ belongs within the divine identity and if he fully participates in the divine
nature.” What we need to question here is the ‘fully participates in the divine nature’. This sounds like
theologically motivated eisegesis designed to support later church doctrine.

Unfortunately, Perry doesn’t question it. It is fine to question what it means and that would be a great discussion to have, but his response is “It sounds like theologically motivated eisegesis designed to support later church doctrine.” Obviously, Perry is free from any theological motivations whatsoever. Suppose I said “Perry’s writing sounds like theologically motivated eisegesis in order to avoid a doctrine he disagrees with.” Could I be right? Sure. Is that an argument to reject Perry? Not at all. The motivations don’t matter. The data does.

The framework for understanding the same divine action being attributed to God and to Christ is
representative. This is clear from the use of ‘parentheses’ in Paul,
Now God himself and our Father, (even our Lord Jesus Christ), direct our way unto you. 1 Thess
3:11 (KJV revised); cf. 2 Thess 3:5
The singular verb ‘to direct’ is attached to the subject ‘God’ as shown by the emphasis ‘himself’, but the
guidance is through the Lord Jesus, as shown by the ‘even’ sense of the conjunction. Paul uses the same
construction for emphasis in 1 Thess 5:23, “May the God of peace himself (Auvto.j de. o` qeo.j) sanctify you
wholly”, and 1 Cor 8:6 makes the relationship clear: spiritual things are of the Father but through the Son
(see below).

When I look at 2 Thess. 3:5, it’s hard to find a translation besides the KJV that translates it this way. The majority don’t have a problem. Looking at the other translations, it looks that Paul is asking that the audience be directed to qualities of the Father and of the Son, but it would not be as if these were mutually exclusive to one or the other. Consider this for an example:

May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.

Are we to think that if you want love, you go to the Father, but if you want perseverance, you go to the Son? Now granted, the Son is the only one who has been incarnate and persevered in suffering, but we are also told that God is patient with us. I doubt Perry would also question that the Son has love for us.

As for from the Father and through the Son, I agree with this. This is because I see Jesus as God’s Wisdom. This does not remove Jesus from the divine nature.

The singular verb attaches to the emphasized subject, God the Father, but the parenthesis provides a
substitution for the reader, a device which therefore does not contravene the normal grammar of noun-verb agreement.66 Fletcher-Louis’ grammatical analysis is therefore wrong “two persons grammatically
expressed as one acting subject”. It is rather, two grammatical subjects (one primary, one secondary)
available for one action verb.

And Perry can win this battle and lose the war. I don’t have a problem with this in my view of Jesus. It’s also something that really makes sense to me seeing as I don’t hold to unipersonalism.

Next time, we will discuss typological identity.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 7

Is Jesus a myth? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s always amazing to me when someone like Brucker mocks Christians for going against the reigning orthodoxy in science which is evolution. Now whether you agree with it or not, it is absolutely true that evolution is the reigning scientific theory now. If someone goes against it, they need strong evidence. Brucker would accept that, but then he goes against the hugely overwhelming number of New Testament scholars of all theological viewpoints.

He can do that, but he needs really good evidence. While Moses is covered, I am going to focus on Jesus.

If such men were to have existed and the fantastic powers that are described of them were to have happened, then the historical data ought to match up without a doubt. When comparing these individuals with what the historical data represents, there exists nothing but doubt.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 119). Kindle Edition.

This assumes that everyone would have believed the claims of miracle working and then that those people who would be capable of writing would write it. Never mind also that there are plenty of historical figures that were written about much later than their time, such as Hannibal, Queen Boudica, or the German general Arminius. When Vesuvius erupted, we have only an off-the-cuff remark in a dialogue between Pliny and Tacitus. There are allusions, but historians aren’t writing about it. It’s not until we get to Cassius Dio that we learn that Herculaneum was also destroyed. Who wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem, a major event? Josephus.

Brucker just doesn’t know how history works.

The very idea that a supernatural and all-knowing creator must send his very son – who is also himself – to relinquish the born-in-sin from people whom he prescribed, absolutely seems irrational once analyzed objectively.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 124-125). Kindle Edition.

Since that hasn’t been analyzed objectively by Brucker, it’s a wonder how he would know. Also, if Brucker wants to talk about the Trinity, he should learn about the topic. Brucker would not put up with any Christian speaking on evolution who hasn’t studied it, and he shouldn’t, but he will speak freely on matters he knows nothing about.

The story abruptly ends with that, but in the book of Luke, it is described that, as a boy, Jesus visits the holy temple to sacrifice simply two doves as an offering to their God. After that, he returns home with Mary and Joseph where again, the story ends.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 126). Kindle Edition.

What a bizarre story! Did he not look at the text? The visit to the temple was the circumcision of Jesus and yet Jesus is the one offering the two doves? Jesus is also a their now? Did Brucker not edit this work at all? Did he not study the text at all?

Three of the four gospels again pick up with Jesus’ baptism being performed by the conspicuously-named John the Baptist.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 126). Kindle Edition.

Ah yes. Conspicuously named. It never occurs to Brucker that maybe he was called John the Baptist because he, I don’t know, baptized. Brucker must think any title or nickname was a conspicuous name. This is not someone who is an intellectual at all. He really seems to think that his parents nicknamed him “The Baptist” and he just started baptizing people. (No word on if he prepared casseroles or ate fried chicken.)

It’s apparent that not all four have corroborating accounts, which is in and of itself problematic.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 128). Kindle Edition.

Which actually means that they didn’t collude and didn’t try to work out the edges. That would mean that we have independent accounts which is somehow a problem? Go to most any event in history and you will find supposed inconsistencies between the accounts. The central core is still there regardless.

So now, let’s look at Brucker’s four main points.

1. The events, including miracle work, would have found their way into secular writing. 2. The Epistles written by Paul would have corroborated such events. 3. The Gospels were written much later than the Epistles were written by Paul, suggesting that many elements could have been fabricated. 4. Jesus resembles other demigods from that period of history.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 129). Kindle Edition.

For 1, Brucker gives us no reason to think this. I have written about why this is not the case.

For 2, Paul’s letter were situational and assumed high background knowledge on the part of the listeners. He was not writing to give a biography.

For 3, they could be fabricated, but he needs to show that. For instance, why do the Gospels consistently use the term “Son of Man” when it doesn’t show up abundantly in the epistles or even the church fathers? Why do they not talk about issues so often that Gentile Christians were concerned with? Why do the resurrection accounts not contain any Scriptural citations explaining the doctrine of the atonement?

For 4, this is simply not the case. The largest collection I know of online can be found here. Most scholars today don’t really take this hypothesis seriously and even Ehrman argues against it in Did Jesus Exist?

There exists only one some-what contemporary account of John the Baptist outside of New Testament writings, done so by the Jewish scholar Josephus from the first century CE. In his work Antiquities of the Jews, he claims John the Baptist may have in fact been killed as a result of his growing popularity among the Jewish community. If this was true, it most certainly disputes the Biblical claim presented.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 130). Kindle Edition.

Why? Let’s consider both claims are true. Herod arrested John because he was popular and wanted to silence them, came to like him, and then reluctantly put him to death based on his foolish oath. Problem resolved. Can I prove this is what happened? No, but if it could have happened that way and it’s easy to picture, then the burden is on Brucker.

Of course, Brucker writes about miracles and how they violate science. It’s as if he thinks ancient people didn’t understand how the world worked. Brucker assumes an approach that says miracles can’t happen without giving an argument for it.

Little evidence has been discovered linking his presence in Jerusalem during what would have been Jesus’ court appearance. Though not much is known of the man, historians and literature experts do believe he may have been an important figure in Judea during that time. From a stone tablet found in Judea in 1961 bearing the phrase “Pontius Pilate…Prefect of Judea…Has Dedicated”, it’s been common knowledge he reigned over Jerusalem, but most of the details remain unclear as much of it has been clouded in mystery.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 131). Kindle Edition.

I have never read of anyone doubting that Pilate was there. Maybe some have, but I haven’t read it. There can be no doubt that Pilate is a historical figure mentioned by others. (By the way, Tacitus mentions him one time and that is the same place he mentions Jesus, and this is someone Brucker doesn’t interact with.)

For that matter, he doesn’t interact with ANY extra-biblical references to the historical Jesus.

Finally, speaking about Moses and Jesus, he says:

Accepting the existence of such men has spawned nothing but hatred, bloodshed, bigotry, and ignorance.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 134). Kindle Edition.

Jesus presented the world with the greatest moral code we have ever had and the greatest incentive. He has provided hope and freedom to many. He has sponsored great artwork and literature and learning. True, some people have misused His life and message, but overall, the world is the better because of Jesus.

Brucker certainly has a chip on his shoulder quite likely driving his approach to the data.

Next time, we will conclude.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 6

Is the Bible history? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book is one that seems to get worse as it goes along. So this chapter is talking about history. Let’s see what we have.

Throughout the Old Testament, when God is being quoted he’s often speaking in plurality – flying in the face of most religious apologists who adamantly insist on there being only one God.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 104). Kindle Edition.

Right. Right. Obviously, every apologist has a problem with this. There are plenty of reasons for plurality.

One is the Trinity is speaking.

Two is the royal three is being used.

Three is that God is speaking to the Divine Council.

Any of these would work. It’s hard to imagine why Brucker doesn’t know about these. Nah! It’s easy to! Brucker just hates contrary thought!

I will touch on the existence of Jesus later in this work, but it is understood by historians that the following who claimed Jesus as their Messiah believed in a very different Jesus than the man whom Paul would eventually describe. He was not God-made-man, and he did not die for our sins – merely a self-described prophet who rose from the dead after death. It wasn’t until Paul and others elaborated on those beliefs and carried on with such did there become a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. It is very possible that the Jesus as we commonly understand today is only the product of the human imagination.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 109). Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t tell us who these historians are. The idea of Paul inventing Christianity was dealt a death blow years ago by E.P. Sanders. Since then, we know Paul fit in just fine with the Judaism of his time.

Jesus is said to have died roughly 33 CE, and Paul is said to have converted approximately 36 CE, but history tells us that Jewish and Judeo-Christians coexisted without quarrel for much longer than described.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 111). Kindle Edition.

It would be great to know which history this is. Does Brucker have one of Jews and Christians meeting together and holding hands and singing Kum-Bu-Yah?

Most who support the Christian faith may not know that the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were not written by those who’ve been given the credit. In fact, most contemporary Biblical scholars would also agree with me on this point, alluding to the fact that the stories of Jesus may have only been an oral tradition for fifty to 100 years. I find it impossible to believe that the story of Jesus remained the same as it was when he supposedly lived until it was first written down.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 111-112). Kindle Edition.

Brucker again doesn’t name any of these historians or why they think the way that they do. We accept authorship for other works on far weaker grounds than we do for the Gospels. Brucker can also say he finds it hard to believe a story remained the same. His disbelief is not an argument. (I plan on sometime soon doing a series on the Gospels with dating and authorship.)

If Christianity was true, and what is being taught today is meant to be believed as the word of God, why would it take such time to formulate the Gospels? If Jesus’ apostles were real, why would history suggest they weren’t the likely authors?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 112). Kindle Edition.

First, history doesn’t suggest that.

Second, writing was a laborious process, took a long time, cost a lot of money, and could only reach the people who could read and their audience. Oral tradition was free, reliable, quick, and could reach anyone who spoke. On the surface, Brucker’s question is understandable, but alas, it totally ignores the fact that this was a pre-Gutenberg society.

Next time, we look at the historicity of Jesus. Brucker does talk some about Moses, but I will choose to focus on Jesus.

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

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 8

Is Jesus God’s Wisdom? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In these replies, I have been contending that Jesus is God’s Wisdom. Today, we’re going to look into that a little bit more.

The most common interpretation of ‘all things’ in 1 Cor 8:6 is that this embraces the Genesis creation and
that the Son is being placed as the one through whom that creation came into being – “through/by
whom are all things”.
But to us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are85 all things, and we to/for him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through/by whom are all things, and we through/by him. 1 Cor 8:6
(KJV revised)

Yes. This is the most common interpretation and that’s for good reason. It makes sense of the passage. This is especially clear when you get to chapter 10 still about meat offered to idols and are told that the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. (1 Cor. 10:25-26)

But Perry says:

J. Murphy-O’Conner discusses cosmological readings of 1 Cor 8:6, showing how they are often based
on extra-Biblical comparisons with parallel texts that have ‘all things’ being of one God but through an
agent such as Wisdom or the Logos. He notes example philosophical texts from the Stoics and Philo, but
several Second Temple religious texts can be adduced for Wisdom having a role in creation. One
argument for a cosmological reading is that all things come from God, and so food comes from God, and
is acceptable. The problem with the argument is that vv. 1-7 is directed to those who already have this
knowledge; it is not directed to those who need persuasion. Another argument is a comparison with 1
Cor 11:12 where Paul states “but all things are of God”. However, it is not certain that Paul is making a
point here about creation; he could be making a contrast with the new creation as with 2 Cor 5:18 (“But
all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”). If we exclude creation as the
topic of v. 6, then the parallel between Christ and Wisdom vis-à-vis creative agency is diminished.

Naturally, Perry is not interacting with Second Temple thought, but he says that if Paul is saying this, then it seems that it would be something that they didn’t know. Well, by this standard, let’s point out some other things they didn’t know in the letter.

1 Cor. 11:23-26:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1 Cor. 15:3-7:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

So by Perry’s argument then, this material that Paul says he passed on to them, they would not have known about. Why present something they already knew?

Or maybe, just maybe, Paul is using what they already know to make a point….

We can certainly say if we exclude creation, then the Wisdom argument is diminished, but what difference does new creation make to Paul’s argument? Paul is talking about how to interact in this creation, not the new one. Does Perry think there will be meat for sale from pagan markets in the new creation?

The competing interpretation is soteriological. Within 1 Corinthians, Paul uses ‘all things’ to embrace
different concepts. First, he says that the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor 2:10-16). Such a person is
the recipient of the Spirit from God who works ‘all things in all’ (1 Cor 12:6; Eph 1:23) – all these things
are distributed throughout the body in terms of the spiritual gifts (‘spiritual things’, 1 Cor 12:1ff). All
things are for the believers so that the abundance of grace might be spread to all (Rom 8:28, 31-32; 2 Cor
4:14-15). This is why all things are ‘new’ in the new creation (2 Cor 5:17-18). Secondly, and politically, the
day will come when God will put all things under the feet of Christ, and after fulfilling his work, Christ
will deliver all things to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10-11). Of these two uses of ‘all things’, 1 Cor
8:6 would fall into the first category of ‘spiritual things’ because Paul is talking about knowledge in 1
Corinthians 8.88 Christians judge, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

But this faces the same problem. Paul throughout the section is talking about this creation. Why think the context has switched so spiritual matters when the question is about meat in the marketplace?

The underlying point here is that ‘all things’ is a common enough way to talk generally. Elsewhere, Paul
will refer to thrones, rulers, lordships and authorities as ‘all things’ (Col 1:16); he will comment that he has
suffered the loss of all things (Phil 3:8); and in his Mars Hill speech, Paul declares that God gives all
things to all. The ‘all things’ of 1 Cor 8:6 are the gifts of the Spirit which are ‘of’ the Father but ‘through’
Jesus Christ (e.g. Eph 2:18; Tit 3:5-6).

Perry has thrown this out without a reason why I should accept it. At this point, Hitchens’s Razor applies. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Perry has given me no reason to take his claim seriously and I see plenty to the contrary.

There is a further point of contrast with the cosmological reading. Paul states that believers are
‘through/by’ Jesus Christ – this is a reference to the new creation of men and women in Christ (Rom 6:11,
23; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 1:20; Gal 3:14; 6:15), who in turn receive the spiritual gifts. Paul’s point is based in the
present and not the past of the Genesis creation.

And when did those present things come about? Oh yes. In the Genesis creation. Paul is pointing to the beginning and the order God established. How else could He have done this?

Thus I conclude this paper thoroughly unpersuaded, at least of Perry’s point. If anything, I am more persuaded that the more traditional reading is the correct one.

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

 

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 7

Are those verses really about Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Perry asks if some passages are really about Jesus. Let’s go through them.

The use of Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, ‘Lord Jesus’, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…For there is no difference between the Jew
and the Greek: for the same lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Whosoever shall call
upon the name kyrios shall be saved. Rom 10:9-13 (KJV revised)
On the basis of the mention of the Lord Jesus in v. 9, it is assumed that ‘same lord over all’ and ‘call upon
the name kyrios’ equally refer to Jesus. Hence, Capes avers, “Since ku,rioj refers to Jesus in 10:9, he
probably had Jesus in mind here also.”

And this seems quite accurate to me, but what does Perry say?

An allusion or echo of Joel 2:32 exists in, “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ
our Lord” (1 Cor 1:2). This places Jesus into the position of the saviour that Yahweh occupies in the
‘calling’ of Joel 2:32. It could be used to support the claim of Capes about Rom 10:13 but, equally, we
should observe that the name ‘Yhwh’ is not referenced in 1 Cor 1:2. Since salvation is a matter of God working through Jesus, the appeal for salvation can be described directly in terms of Joel 2:32 and
Yahweh or in allusive terms referring to Christ.

An allusion? It’s an outright quote. Paul doesn’t speak of Jesus as a representative. He speaks of Him as the Lord. The name YHWH is not referenced in 1 Cor. 1:2? What of it? We have Romans 10:9 right there and right next to it 10:13. Wouldn’t that be a better go-to?

The expression ‘lord of all’ evokes God’s rule over the nations (Jew and Greek). In 1 Chron 29:11-12,
Yahweh is ‘head above all’ (LXX has, differently, ‘lord of all’) and ‘riches’ are also said to come from him
in this text. These two points of contact suggest that Paul is quoting from this prayer, but it is also
common enough to address Yahweh in these terms (e.g. 2 Chron 20:6).
This in turn suggests that the use of Joel 2:32 is also a reference to Yahweh – ‘calling upon the name of
the Lord’. This is a specific refrain74 in the Jewish Scriptures for invoking God to act as a saviour, see the
table below for examples.

Yet if we turned to Romans 9:5, we get that Jesus is God over all. The problem Perry has ultimately is “Well, if we take this and read it this way and look at it this way, it could possibly refer to this.” Maybe, but why should I pick that over the traditional interpretation that countless exegetes have said instead?

Another example of commentators mistaking identity is the quotation of Jer 9:23-24 in 1 Cor 1:31,
That, according as it is written, ‘He that glorieth, let him glory in kyrios’. 1 Cor 1:31 (KJV); cf. 2 Cor
10:17
Thus saith Yhwh, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his
might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me, that I am Yhwh which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and
righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight’, saith Yhwh Jer 9:23-24 (KJV revised)
The principal actor in Paul’s treatise in 1 Cor 1:19-31 is God: God destroys (v. 19); he brings to nothing
(v. 19); he has made (v. 20); he saves (v. 21); he chooses (vv. 27-28); and he makes (v. 30). Christ is the
‘object’ in the discourse – the ‘Wisdom of God’. It follows that v. 31 is a simple use of kyrios for ‘Yhwh’
and that the believer is to boast in God’s acts. Accordingly, Capes is simply wrong to conclude, “As indicated by his description of Christ’s work in 1:30, Paul quoted this Yahweh text (ku,riojin LXX,hwhy
in the Hebrew text) and applied it to Christ.”On the contrary, in v. 30 Christ is God’s work! The
boasting is related to the acts of God.

Yet again, what is the problem here? If we say Jesus is the Wisdom of God, then this fits with it. You can either glory in the Father at the work of Jesus or glory in Jesus that He is the one through whom the Father acts and either one works with a Trinitarian mindset.

So getting back to 1 Cor. 8:6, Perry says:

1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ with its prepositional
statements. If we compare these to 1 Cor 10:26, they disambiguate Paul’s quotation: the earth is ‘of the
Lord’ (tou/ kuri,ou) and it is God the Father ‘from whom’ or ‘out of whom’ are all things (evx ou–).

And again, reading this from a Wisdom approach, what is the problem? This is exactly what I would expect.

While Perry goes in, I really don’t see anything interacting with this Wisdom approach.

We shall continue next time.

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

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 6

How did Paul view Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are however literary identities. One kind is a typological identity.
Nevertheless, when it [the heart, v. 16] shall turn to kyrios, the veil shall be taken away. Now the
Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17 (KJV revised)
And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and
they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of
the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them…And till Moses had done
speaking with them, he put a veil on his face…But when Moses went in before Yhwh to speak
with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. Exod 34:30-34 (KJV revised)
The comparison here is with Moses ‘going in’ before Yhwh without a veil. The use of the verb ‘to turn’
picks up the children of Israel ‘outside’ who ‘turned away’ from Moses (Exod 34:31 – they turn back,
same verb in the LXX). Paul is saying that when the heart of the Jews turns to Yhwh, the veil will be taken
away, i.e. they will then be like Moses.
Paul’s first exegetical comment upon the incident is that ‘The Lord is the Spirit’. The identity here is
typological; Yahweh in Moses’ day stands for ‘the Spirit’ in Paul’s day. That Paul is thinking in terms of
typological comparison is shown by his earlier remarks. The Corinthians were not a letter written in
‘tablets’ of stone but one that was written in the ‘tablets’ of the heart with the Spirit of the living God (2
Cor 3:3). In order for the Jews to be such a letter, they would have to ‘turn’ to the Spirit. Paul is stating
this imperative by his assertion that ‘the Lord’ (Yahweh) is ‘the Spirit’.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Paul does mean the Lord is the Spirit.  Could this interpretation be possible? Sure, but why should I think it is likely? It is true that Perry goes on from here, but I find nothing that I think really clinches this argument. It’s as if he gets to make an assertion and then moves on. Responding to David Capes, he says:

Capes says that “the most convincing evidence that ku,rioj in [2 Cor] 3:16 refers to Jesus comes from [2
Cor] 4:5”,
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
2 Cor 4:5 (KJV revised)

Well, yes. That does seem convincing. Paul speaks of the Lord in one chapter and then a scant few verses later, he says Jesus is Lord, a common saying of his.

This illustrates the problem confronting exegetes; ku,rioj is used to refer to Yahweh and Jesus Christ and
commentators can get confused over usage. Paul’s point here in v. 5 is about the content of preaching,
whereas in the previous chapter, his concern has been with understanding the driving force of preaching
– the Spirit. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit takes the form of a typological comparison with Yahweh.
Capes is therefore simply mistaken. With typological identity, the type may have the same role, status or
function as the anti-type. In the comparison between Yahweh and the Spirit, both are the source of
instruction.

I look over this and I wonder how this is a response to what was said. The content of the preaching would be Jesus is Lord which would mean…..Jesus is Lord? And then when we see a reference to the Lord in 2 Cor. 3, perhaps that same Lord is Jesus? There doesn’t seem to be anything odd about this reading.

For Perry who seems to suspect theological motives under every interpretation he disagrees with, it looks like he is the one who is letting his theology guide his interpretation.

Next time, we will discuss alleged cases of mistaken identity.

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

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 4

Is Jesus YHWH? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What dose it mean to say Jesus is included in the divine identity?

If we consider relative identity (‘a is the same F as b’),45 it doesn’t seem that this framework will give us
an understanding for inclusive identity. Logically, two are one (the same) relative to their satisfying a
categorical predicate (‘the same F’; Fido and Pooch are the same breed’). Does Paul think that Jesus is the
same God as Yahweh? One doubt would be that he distinguishes them in terms of ‘God the Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ’. However, putting this doubt aside, if Paul believed that they were the same God,
this doesn’t necessarily imply that he is ‘including’ Jesus in the divine identity of Yahweh/God of Israel

Yet Perry never seems to define what is meant by this. Do we mean they are the same God? If you mean they are the same person, then no. I am not surprised that Jesus is differentiated from the Father. If anything, this convinces me. They needed two different ways to speak of them to avoid confusion.

The language of the divine nature deals with this. There are two persons at least that share the divine nature. Again, what that is needs to be fleshed out for us, but for the ancient audience in a high-context society familiar with Jewish thought, that would have been much better understood.

If we think of shared identity or group identity, these are examples of ‘inclusive’ identity. We might say
‘a is a member of the same class as b’. There are many gods and many lords and these would be classes in
which we might place the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ. Putting it in this way, doesn’t
obviously include Jesus in the class of many gods, but rather the class of many lords. In fact, 1 Cor 8:6
doesn’t lend itself to an inclusivity thesis, since Paul would seem to affirm that the “to–us” class of gods
has only one member and likewise the “to–us” class of lords. He assigns deity to the Father and lordship
to Jesus

IF Perry goes with this, then he would have to deny that the Father is Lord since the Father is not in the class of Lords but Jesus is. If Jesus not being in the category of gods means He cannot have the divine nature, then the Father not being included in the category of lords means He cannot have the nature of Lord. Is there any Jew that would remotely think that possible?

It is one thing to claim that Paul includes Jesus within the divine identity of the God of Israel; it is another
thing to show this worked out in his writing. We have noted the declarative quality of Christological
Monotheism. For example, we might ask whether (for Paul) it was God the Father that included Jesus
within his identity. If this were the case, and suppose that he did so through the bestowal of his Spirit
upon Jesus, does this have any implication as regards intrinsic deity in respect of Jesus? If Jesus is
included within the divine identity of the God of Israel, is the identity nevertheless still retained by the
God of Israel as his identity in such an inclusion?

Perry is responding more to adoptionism in this case than to Trinitarianism. First off, there is nothing that says Paul has to work this all out in his writing. In his society, his listeners would be expected to work that out and know the background knowledge to do that. Perry wants an ancient writing to read like a modern one.

Next time, we will look at some verses that seem to identify Jesus with YHWH in the New Testament.

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