Category: New Testament

Who is the Good Samaritan?

Who is the neighbor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This morning, I was working through a Gospel Notebook I have to do for a New Testament class where I am pretty much commenting on Scripture. I got to the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is something I have thought about for awhile, but I decided now was a good time to write about it.

Today, we have in some ways lost the impact of the Good Samaritan. The term “Good Samaritan” is actually a compliment to hear. I never cared for the show, but I understand the last episode of Seinfeld was about the breaking of a Good Samaritan Law that said you were supposed to help someone who was in need if you were capable.

If we want to really picture how different it is, what are some ways we could do so?

Here are some I have come up with and I will try to go from position to position.

An evangelical Christian was left for dead and a pastor and a seminary professor passed him by, but an atheist came by and had compassion on him.

A leftist was left for dead and a Marxist professor and a Democrat politician passed him by, but a MAGA supporter came by and had compassion on him.

An Israeli was left for dead and a rabbi and an evangelical Christian passed him by, but a member of Hamas came by and had compassion on him.

A conservative pro-life Christian was left for dead and a conservative politician and a pro-life activist passed him by, but a transgender person came by and had compassion on him.

In every case, we need to think for ourselves about what if we were the person who was beaten and left for dead. Think then about who it is you would expect to stop and help you, and yet they will pass you by. Then think about who you would consider to be your mortal enemy and then realize that if that person came by and had compassion on you, what would you do?

This is also why I included the Israeli and the Hamas member. If it was told today, one would think that the Hamas member would pull out his gun and finish the job. Nope. Instead, he ends up having compassion. You could expect that a fellow Jew could have compassion or an evangelical Christian, especially a dispensational one who talks about the love of Israel, would help him.

It’s a difficult question to think about since you have to really look at yourself and say “Who is it that I would find myself the most opposed to?” Then you have to ask yourself, “Who is it I would find myself most aligned to?” If you can look and realize that that person had compassion on you,

If we do this, we can return to the shock of the parable. We can realize who we disagree with the most and what we can do in how we treat them. It is not saying we should cease to disagree with them, but you can disagree with someone and love them, something our culture seems to forget. It also means that we need to be a neighbor to that person. It doesn’t mean we do everything they want, but it does mean we try to show love the best we can.

Who is your Good Samaritan?

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

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus. Paul vs. Judaism

Did the beliefs of Paul go against Judaism’s central beliefs? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes it’s hard to come back to this book because while these claims need to be answered, it can get tiresome to see the same kinds of things show up. Granted, Campbell is not as much a fundamentalist as many others are, he still is one in his approach. Nevertheless, let’s leap back into the matter. This time, we’ll see if Paul went against core beliefs of Judaism.

Obviously, the Christians would disagree with some beliefs of Judaism of their day, such as the role of the Law and if the Messiah had come, but there would be a lot of overlap. Christians use the same Old Testament that Jews see as their Scriptures today. Despite what many non-Christians would tell you, Christianity, which includes belief in the Trinity, is monotheistic. We do believe a good God created all things as well.

Campbell tells us that the Tanakh says repeatedly that God will not take human form. He gives four references. Let’s look at them. The first is Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
    Does he promise and not fulfill?

Next is Exodus 33:20

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Followed by 1 Samuel 15:29:

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

And last is 1 Kings 8:27

“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

Now maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see anywhere in those God saying “I will never dwell in human form among you.” It’s apparent that Campbell didn’t bother looking up any Christian scholarship on this. I don’t say that because Christian scholarship is unbiased, but if you’re going to say the Christian position can’t handle these verses, you need to at least look and see what they say about it.

With the Numbers reference:

God is different and separate from mankind, transcendent beyond the realm of humanity with all of its tendencies toward falsehood, deceit, misfortune, and calamity. Therefore he has no need to repent of any moral or ethical turpitude or misdeed. God is immutable, and his word bespeaks his incomparable integrity. On the other hand, Balaam and Balak were the antithesis of God, men of banal character. Concerning this pagan prophet Allen remarks, “He is himself the prime example of the distinction between God and man.” Balaam’s words were ineffective before God, for as the prophet often explained, “I can speak only what Yahweh speaks to me!” On the other hand, God’s word is entirely efficacious; what he says he will do, what he speaks he will accomplish.” His word is never uttered into the void and never fails to produce what he intends (Isa 55:11).
The word for God used here for the first of three times in this oracle is ʾēl, which derives from the basic word for deity in Semitic languages. Most often in the Hebrew Bible the term occurs in the plural form Elohim, denoting the power or majesty of the One True God (though occasionally of the multiple gods of the nations), or ʾēlîm, the plural form often used in reference to the plethora of gods and goddesses of the nations. The short form ʾēl often occurs in epithets that highlight some aspect of the relationship between God and his people, such as ʾēl-šadday (“God Almighty,” Gen 17:1), ʾēl-ʾĕmet (“God of Truth,” Ps 31:6). The present form ʾēl occurs by itself most often in the poetic materials of the wisdom, hymnic, and prophetic literature such as the Books of Job, Psalms, and Isaiah.

R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (vol. 3B; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 411.

The point in Numbers is about the behavior of God. Men lie and cheat and change their minds. God does not do that. His behavior is not like that of a man. It does not mean that God cannot take on the nature of a man. Man is not essentially a fallen creature. Man is fallen by virtue of Adam’s fall.

For Exodus:

God will only partially fulfill Moses’ request; he will let his goodness pass before him (v. 19) for no man can see God’s face and live. God further says that when his goodness passes before Moses, the name Yahweh will be proclaimed as part of the theophany. The proclamation of the divine name might hint that something of God’s eternal qualities are revealed to Moses. But even in this manifestation Moses has to be protected (vv. 21–22). God’s glory is to be more fully revealed in Jesus Christ: “we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father” (John 1:14).

James K. Hoffmeier, “Exodus,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (vol. 3; Baker reference library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 361.

God’s glory always comes veiled. There are theophanies in the Old Testament as well where people are said to see God. In the incarnation, there was a veil as well. 1 Samuel 15:29 is much akin to Numbers 23 so there’s no need to expand there further. The difference that is worthwhile is that this is a judgment God has made and God is not going to change His mind in it.

And for 1 Kings:

A crucial theological issue emerges before Solomon begins his specific petitions. If God is unique “in heaven above or on earth below” (8:23), and if “even the highest heaven cannot contain” the Lord, then Solomon correctly exclaims, “How much less this temple I have built!” Though Moses was a man “whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10), he was not allowed to see all God’s glory (Exod 33:7–23). God’s magnitude would simply overwhelm a human’s capacity to grasp it. Tokens of the Lord’s presence, such as clouds and pillars of fire (Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:10–11), appear, of course, and people cannot stay near them. On what basis, then, can Solomon hope that God will dwell on earth, in this temple? How will the Lord “live among the Israelites and … not abandon” (1 Kgs 6:13) them?
Solomon’s confidence in God’s willingness to condescend to human level must ultimately emerge from four principles. First, he knows God has revealed himself in the past, particularly in the lives of Moses, Joshua, and David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:21–26). Thus, Solomon does not pray for a brand new occurrence. Second, the king understands that the covenant described in written Scripture, in the Pentateuch, teaches that God desires a relationship with Israel as a nation and with individual Israelites (cf. Deut 7:7–9; 1 Kgs 8:23). He can approach God in prayer because he is the Lord’s “servant” and because Israel is the Lord’s people (8:30). Such assurance comes from the covenant itself.
Third, Solomon can expect God to fulfill the promise made in Deut 12:4–11 to “put his Name” (Deut 12:5) in a central worship site. Fourth, he can hope for God’s presence because of what he knows about God’s character. Since God is loving (1 Kgs 8:23), faithful (8:24), consistent (8:25), and relational (8:30), it is reasonable to assume that he will continue to meet human beings where they live. God is lofty, holy, and mysterious, yet approachable and personal at the same time. The temple will serve as the physical symbol of these divine realities. Here the unapproachable Lord becomes approachable and ready to help those who worship, sacrifice, and pray.

Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 143–144.

The point here is Solomon knows God will dwell with man, but he can’t believe it will happen. How can it be? This God who cannot be contained by the heavens will dwell with men? Solomon’s mind would be blown by the revelation in Christ.

Let’s give one final quote from Campbell.

Paul considers his authority from the visionary Christ so great that Paul can even contradict Moses. In Romans, Paul states that Moses was wrong when writing “the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the Law shall live by that righteousness.” Rom. 10:5-13. The passages Paul references, Lev. 18:1-5 and Deut. 6:24-25, clearly state that if a man keeps God’s laws he shall be righteous. But Paul vehemently disagreed. Paul even claimed the teaching of Moses brought death by leading people away from “the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:7-18. Because Moses is, according to Leviticus and Deuteronomy , speaking on God’s behalf, Paul is saying that God was wrong too, and that Paul’s authority is greater than that of God. Not surprisingly, Paul’s message was poorly received by the Jews of his day.

Let’s just say this. If you are interpreting this passage and you think you have interpreted it right so that Paul is not only saying Moses was wrong, but God is wrong, you need to recheck your interpretation.

We shall continue next time.

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

 

Paul’s Appearance and Muhammad’s Night Flight

How do the two compare? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been going through the Hadiths of Al-Bukhari lately where he narrates what people said about the life of Muhammand, the prophet of Islam. Tonight, I read about the Night Flight, which is the time that Muhammad says that he went to heaven. I have already written about that in comparison to the resurrection. Now I would like to compare it to the accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience.

“Sure. I can easily open up the Bible online, but where am I suppose to find the account of the journey in the night? No problem. I already did it for you. The Biblical references we are using meanwhile are in Acts 9, 22, and 26.

Let’s start by first comparing where these two people were socially. Paul was on the up and up. He was trained by the best of his time, was a Roman citizen, highly knowledgeable in Judaism and the pagan thought of his day, and would have been on the path to more and more greatness in his field.

Muhammad was a merchant. Nothing against merchants, but most of them don’t reach fame and glory as merchants.

What Paul got for his accounts is told in 2 Cor. 11. The list is not a good one to go through. What did Muhammad get? He fought in a lot of battles, received honor as being called Allah’s apostle, got a lot of booty in the form of wealth, and we can say he got a lot in another way in having multiple wives.

Paul went from being a somebody recognized by the leading officials of his day, a place of honor, to being an outcast and tying himself to one of the most despised if not the most despised movement of his day, never received great wealth or women, and was beheaded in prison.

From a purely social perspective, one of these men benefitted a lot more than the other.

Looking at the accounts of Paul, the first one in Acts 9 has it being said about him how much he must suffer for the name of Jesus. He is rendered blind and has to be led by the hand by those he formerly persecuted. These accounts do not really glorify Paul. From 2 Cor. 12, we also know Paul didn’t glorify himself. When he gave an account of what happened to him, he didn’t even say it was him directly and he says to avoid arrogance, he was given a thorn in the flesh and pleaded for it to be taken from him three times. This was done to make sure Paul would be humble.

Meanwhile, in Muhammad’s account, he is personally guided by the angel Gabriel, and at every step on the journey he is told how excellent his visit is and he gets to meet the who’s who of prophetic history and get the right hand of fellowship. He then becomes the advocate before Allah pleading for his people. Who does he go back and report to in this but Moses over and over.

One of these accounts has the main person looking awfully good.

Both accounts are subjective, but to be fair, there are some aspects of Paul’s account said to be objective, such as what his companions could have said or his being rendered blind. His change from persecutor to preacher is much better known. We don’t have this for Muhammad. All we have is his word.

So in the end, even if we can’t demonstrate one of them is definitely historical, I have to say the odds seem more in Paul’s favor. He would gain nothing from a worldly perspective and he was incredibly humbled in the accounts. From Muhammad, we have the opposite.

Make your choice which one you think is more likely to be true.

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

Death Denial

Do we act like it’s no longer real? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Several years ago, a man named John Boswell wrote a book on Christianity, tolerance, and homosexuality. His thesis was that in Christian history, homosexuality really wasn’t viewed as that big of a deal and that Scripture could not be used to make a case against it. Boswell was himself a homosexual and claimed Roman Catholic (I say claimed since many Roman Catholics would not really accept someone approving of and practicing same-sex sexual relationships). There was certainly a lot of information put in the book and I thought I remembered him being on Unbelievable? one time to debate it.

So I looked it up and found out that since Boswell died in 1994, that I was probably wrong. However, I have to say I was not surprised that he died of AIDS. It’s my understanding that we have better treatments for AIDS now, but when it came out, it was a killer in the community of the same-sex attracted. It was originally even known as GRID for Gay-Related Immuno Deficiency.

That got me thinking about how this man spent so much of his life defending a practice that led to his death and not only his death, but the deaths of many others. For a look at how this can happen, look at And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts. Shilts was himself someone with same-sex attraction who died of AIDS.

It’s part of our culture that we always think that this won’t happen to us. Many of us remember growing up and thinking somehow we would escape death. Some potion of immortality or something would be found in our lifetime. I somewhere suspect that many Christians think that we are “The generation” because surely their time won’t come. Surely God won’t allow us to suffer.

We all do this. We know it because we do many things that are unhealthy every day. This is especially prevalent in our sex culture. People sleep around as if the action won’t have any consequences, and when they come, such as pregnancy, STDS, failed relationships, guilt, etc., they’re shocked. Our age is an age that thinks somehow we can shun personal responsibility and not suffer consequences. Watch a sitcom or a movie. No one gets an STD. I used to tell men about to marry that when they were preparing for sex for the first time, to think about everything they had seen in movies and TV and then throw it out because it’s completely unrealistic.

Death comes in like something of a shock to us even though it has been a companion with us for the longest time. One can play a game where the character gets several extra lives, and indeed, we need to have that suspended disbelief because frankly, none of us would play many games where if you died, that was it and you had to start all the way from the beginning.

My ex-wife and I used to know someone named Steve. Steve was a big and tough biker type dude, but someone as gentle as can be. You could see a picture of him cuddling a kitten. He got esophageal cancer and he was shriveled up in the end. How much so? I would look tougher than he did at that point. I hate saying it, but such was the case.

When he died, I remember being at the funeral home. I remember walking around at one point while others were socializing and I went to the room where the casket was and I was thinking this had to be a mistake. Death came for the wrong man. In a gaming mindset, part of me wished I could have had an RPG battle with death then and get my friend back. Completely unrealistic to think about? Yep. I think we can all relate somehow though.

We often react to not just death, but any suffering, as if there is something unusual in the world. Shouldn’t our lives be happy and joyous always? If anything, the level of freedom that we can have in this country (Living in America) would be astounding to our ancestors of the past. As I write this, I think that I do have scoliosis. Today, I walk straight because I was treated with the unbelievable treatment of a steel rod on my spine. Who would have thought of such a thing in the past, and yet here it is a reality. Me 100 years ago would be walking like Quasimodo instead.

Our challenge is not to defeat death. We can’t. Not only that, we don’t need to. It’s already been done. Christ conquered it on the cross. We can realize it as an intruder still, but we also need to learn to accept it as real. Denying death won’t make it go away. We can try to fight against reality all we want, but in the end, reality will always win.

However, once again, as Christians, that’s a good thing. Reality is Jesus Christ conquered death and rose again. I remember years ago working with a friend who is a devout Christian now, but was severely doubting and sometimes it was exhausting. One day I went to my emails and saw one from him with the subject line “Jesus of Nazareth.” I braced myself for an onslaught of questions.

Instead, I saw this.

“He really did walk out of that grave, didn’t He?”

I still smile even as I think about that and write it out.

Yes, He did.

In a temporal sense, sometimes we hate reality.

But in the end, the real God revealed in the real Jesus who walked out of that real grave will give us a reality we can all enjoy and love.

I look forward to it.

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

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — The Self-Appointed Apostle

Did Paul appoint himself as apostle? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am returning to this one again to continue looking at the question of Paul. Campbell considers it dubious since Paul is the only one privy to his vision and we have no one else outside of Luke referring to Paul as an apostle. However, if Paul really believed he had this encounter with Jesus, rightly or wrongly, then it’s hard to see how he is self-appointed. In his mind, he is, rightly or wrongly, following the orders of a higher authority.

However, Campbell goes on to list this as self-serving. How, he never explains. What benefits did Paul gain from the Jesus movement? If he was wrong, he had forfeited an incredible position and career in Judaism, taken a position that would be blasphemous to YHWH if Jesus did not rise from the dead, and took on a position that resulted in the many trials that he underwent as described in 2 Cor. 11. The benefits certainly do not weigh out the costs, unless, of course, Christianity is true.

He also tells us Jesus only chose as apostles those who had been with him from the beginning, heard his teachings, witnessed his miracles, and been with him through his trials. He stresses that it was very important to Jesus that His disciples meet this criteria since they would be passing along His teachings.

Never mind that the first apostles Jesus chose hadn’t had any of these experiences at all. Never mind also that we only see these criteria being used in Acts 1 and we never see a divine word choosing another apostle. I am not saying they were wrong to do so, but this is never something that is said to be spelled out by Jesus. The requirements for being an apostle are simply being sent by Jesus and if Paul’s encounter is true, then Paul is an apostle. Also, there were others called apostles, such as Junia and her husband in Romans 16.

Campbell also says that when the eleven chose a replacement for Jesus, they pointedly did not choose Paul. Geez. Why could that be? Could it be because Paul was not a part of the Jesus movement then and it would be ridiculous to choose an outsider who had not embraced the message? Of course, if Jesus wants to do this, He can do so. Campbell acts like this was a deliberate rejection on the part of the apostles when it was that Paul wasn’t in the running at the time. Somehow, this translates to later times as if to show that the apostles were always suspicious of Paul.

Much of the material from here on is the same kind of material that you can find in a lot of anti-Paul materials that assumes an intense warfare going on between Paul and the apostles, something never mentioned by them or their own students, the early church fathers. (If 2 Peter is authentic, Peter did accept Paul, but of course, Campbell never bothers to look at this question.)

We will continue next time.

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

Book Plunge: Conceived by the Holy Spirit

What do I think of Rhyne Putman’s book on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm)? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Rhyne Putman is a good friend of mine and he was fine with sending me a review copy of his book on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm). If you want to read it, you will be waiting awhile as it comes out next year. Still, I wanted to write on it while it was fresh in my mind.

This book covers most every area of the Gospel narratives on the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and not just defending the doctrine, which needs to be done, but even more important after that, showing what difference it makes. Is it just a nice add-on to the story but if we lose it, no big deal? Not at all, says Putman. We need to look at the difference it makes to know that Jesus was virgin born. (Which I do affirm.)

Also, if you’re reading this and you’re a layman thinking “Great. Another academic work that will go over my head” then you are also mistaken. This is written for you. This is easily approachable and Putman explains his terms well. Not only that, but it’s perfect Christmas reading seeing as there are 25 chapters in this. Gather the family around and read one chapter a day and you can go through December 1-25 celebrating the virgin birth. (Which I do affirm.)

The first section of the book deals with the birth of the virgin-born king (Which I do affirm) in the narratives. Each part is looked at in detail and also specifies which objections are being answered. Want to look at something on the Lucan census? Go straight there! Want to see if the incarnation goes against pre-existence? You can find it! Want to just look at one particular part of the narratives, say if you’re a minister preparing a sermon? Not a problem! Go to it!

Part two then goes beyond this looking at the practice of the doctrine. Putman will take you through the church fathers to see what they say. (Also, Protestants like myself really do need to read the church fathers. The Reformers pointed to them regularly and it’s a shame that many in our churches don’t even know who they were.) He then goes through church history seeing what so many people said about how the doctrine applies to them. There is definitely a heavy Christmas theme here as many of the chapter headings refer to Christmas carols. Again, you can also go through and see objections that need to be answered, even the one that says Mary should have aborted.

Finally, he does have an appendix for those who are interested, on the Marian dogmas, particularly perpetual virginity. Putman walks a fine line here as he wants to make sure he is charitable to scholars who are of a different persuasion than he is whom he has learned much from. I hope that those who read through such a section, like Roman Catholics and Orthodox, will walk away saying that their position was treated fairly and even though they don’t agree with Putman, that he made his case and respected theirs.

Putman’s book is a delightful tour through the Gospels and through church history. If you want to bless your Christmas celebrations, get this book. Go through it. If children are old enough to understand the terms about virginity and other such ideas, have them join in. If you want to establish a new Christmas tradition, then let it be this one.

And on a side note, Putman is also definitely right about one other thing. Die Hard is indeed a Christmas movie.

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

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Isaiah 9:5-6

Do we have the correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:5-6? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We return now to Campbell’s book and we’re looking at this passage in Isaiah. Campbell argues that the child in the passage is Hezekiah. Does he have a case here?

Not really. Isaiah 7 is the one that starts all of this off with the Syro-Ephraimite war. Judah is being told that they need to join in to resist Assyria and if they don’t, the other nations will destroy Judah. Isaiah tells Ahaz to not worry about the situation. The whole plan will fall apart and Judah will survive.

Ahaz is highly resistant to this and Isaiah tells him to ask for a sign and Ahaz says “No! I will not ask for a sign!” Isaiah then says that he will get a sign anyway. The virgin shall be with child! While this is a prophecy of the virgin birth, which I do affirm, the immediate context is not about the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

The point of this prophecy is that the child will grow up and before he is done being weaned, the whole coalition will fall apart. The virgin in this case is the wife of Isaiah. She would have a child and the prophecy will be initially fulfilled.

Here then is a reason why this cannot be Hezekiah. Hezekiah was of the lineage of Judah and Isaiah would not be giving birth to a king like that. The child is instead Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

Campbell doesn’t really give much of an argument, but since I have said that this is about the virgin birth, which I do affirm, I should further expand on my position. The child in the case of Isaiah was never named Immanuel. Jesus was said to be Immanuel in the New Testament, meaning God with us. This could be an inclusio with bookends of the Gospel being “God With Us.”

The virgin birth, which I do affirm, is a greater fulfillment that was meant to be

for the whole of the House of David. The greater evil to be dealt with is the evil of sin. The prophecy points beyond the immediate situation and goes to a far-distant future.

Jesus is the one that is also truly God with us. Also, keep in mind that the writers of the LXX saw this as referring to a virgin by their usage of the word parthenos. Jesus is the true hope of Israel in the end and the one that is the ultimate sign of the person of God being with us.

The other part of this chapter is a look at Daniel 9. There is a lot that is said I understand in the appendix and I have not got to that point yet so we will get to that at a later date. It is a complex issue.

We will next time be looking at the effect of Paul on Christianity which I have a lot to say about. We’ll deal with that then.

And I affirm the virgin birth.

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

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus – Psalm 110:1

Will Jesus have His enemies made a footstool for His feet? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Campbell now goes to Psalm 110:1, which leaves me actually thankful I read the anti-Trinitarian book recently since Campbell has many of the same arguments. He says that the problem with Jesus’s usage of this against the Pharisees has a number of problems. The first is that this is assumed to be a Messianic prophecy. The second is that the second person is known to be God. The third is that everyone would have agreed on this.

The simple counter to this is that these are also assumptions. For one, I have no reason to trust Campbell on his statements on what is and isn’t a Messianic prophecy as he has presented no source whatsoever. Second, there is no interaction with any scholarship on New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. The third is that Jesus could not have presented any new insight whatsoever into the text.

He says the second word for Lord is Ladonee. I have open my Logos and not knowing that word, I have typed in Adonai and brought up the word as well as the Hebrew spelling. I have done this with a number of other Hebrew words. I have done this with Ladonee and nothing has come up. The best guess I have is that there is some form of punctuation that Campbell has translated a different way that no one before has done. If anyone has information otherwise, I am open to it.

He does say this is to a person of higher status, but never YHWH. Even if I granted that, in a sense, that should not surprise me as very rarely are two persons spoken of as YHWH in the same text in the Old Testament, though it is not unheard of. However, if someone is a higher status, it’s easy to say that God would qualify as a higher status than David. It would be a strong problem to the Pharisees to hear Jesus say “Okay. David has a son, but the son of the greatest king of Israel is actually superior to David. How can it be? How could the Messiah be greater than David?”

Again, Campbell also assumes the ignorance of the authors of the Gospels thinking that they just had the Septuagint and then figured the Hebrew must have both words necessarily referring to God. There is no indication that the writers would want to consider what the Hebrew said just because they are trying to convince their audience of something. This is especially the case if they know that there are people who are Jewish who are going to be reading this material.

Thus far, it looks like if anyone is ignorant of the material, it is actually Campbell instead. Campbell likely has simply read some anti-Trinitarian arguments, perhaps from Jewish counter-missionaries, and has not gone and bothered to see what others say. (Remember, there is no interacting with Michael Brown.) I have said many times to beware of the sound of one-hand clapping. It’s easy to sound convincing when you only give your argument.

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

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Bethlehem

Where was Jesus born? Let’s plunge into the Deeper waters and find out.

In this section, John Campbell is going to deal with the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Last time, we pointed out that Campbell nowhere argues with scholarship that tries to look at questions of how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. There’s no looking at how it was done in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Philo or Josephus or anyone else.

He says modern scholars say this refers to the clan of Bethlehem and not the town of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, he doesn’t name any of these scholars. He then goes on to say that the reference is to a clan and not to a town. This is a highly unusual reading historically and Glenn Miller has some great material from the sources showing that that you can read here.

He also states that Matthew and Luke hopelessly contradict one another in their birth narratives and cannot be harmonized. Unfortunately, nowhere does he attempt to show how this is the case nor does he interact with those who have tried to harmonize it. Finally, either way, we still have at that case then two independent sources claiming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

He also says that Jewish ancestry runs through the father and Joseph was not the father. First off, it isn’t so cut and dry as that. Unfortunately, Campbell offers no interaction with any sources for his claim of that sort. There are even some sources that openly dispute that claim.

The Code of Jewish Law clearly states that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of the father’s lineage (or whatever else may show up in a DNA test), while the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish.1 Matrilineal descent has been a fundamental principle of Torah since the Jewish people came into existence.

Hypothetically, it could be that these sources are wrong, but the problem is Campbell doesn’t give any for his position and if you have some sources that are Jewish saying that Jewish Law clearly states the contrary, who am I to believe? If I can’t trust Campbell on this basic point in just a quick web search, why should i trust him on any? What kind of research has he really done?

So let’s put in a bonus section. Right after this, he looks at Hosea 11:1 that says “Out of Egypt, I called my Son.” Campbell wants to remind us that the passage is about Ephraim coming out of Egypt and it is not messianic at all. Well, so much for Matthew. Right?

Matthew knows that it is not a Messianic prophecy, but he is saying this to show Jesus fulfilled the type of Israel here. Israel went down to Egypt and came out. Jesus did the same. Israel passes through the waters. Jesus is baptized by John. Israel goes to the mountain and receives the Law. Jesus climbs the mountain and ends up giving the Law. Don’t expect Campbell to interact with any of this. While I had hoping his book would be more substantial when I started since at least he accepts Jesus existed, the more I have gone through it, the more it is incredibly weak.

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

 

Book Plunge: Why Christians Are Wrong About Jesus — Messiah Proof Texts

Are there proof texts that Jesus is the Messiah? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One statement early on in this from Campbell that is right is that new religions were looked at in the ancient world with skepticism. However, he says religions associated with an old religion like Judaism, would have credibility. He gives no evidence of this claim. It certainly wouldn’t help when it was seen by the Jews themselves that Christianity was outside of them and that they opposed it.

He also says Paul and the Gospel writers should have been taken known Messianic prophecies. Which ones are these? He doesn’t say. I’m not saying there weren’t any, but Campbell has made the claim and he has not backed it.

I will be speaking on passages that I am highly familiar with. For others, I will defer to others. Isaiah 53 is an obvious starting place. Michael Brown (Someone who is the leading defender in Jewish apologetics and who Campbell does not interact with once) has spoken on this here. I also recommend the work of my friend Eric Chabot.

I find Campbell’s claims on Psalm 22 to be strange since the text I understand is difficult to translate and verse 16 is normally read to talk about hands and feet being pierced. He talks about the lions approaching David’s hands and feet except this is not what lions do. This is what is done when someone is crucified. Again, I refer again to Brown and Chabot.

He also says something about the Messianic Age not having come in 2,000 years. This is assuming a certain ideal of a Messianic Age, likely a dispensationalist one. I contend that the Messianic age has been here for around 2,000 years. Jesus is king right now.

He also says God’s system was a true prophet would be recognized by the leading sages of the generation, which would explain why so many prophets were killed. Campbell says that this is what was set up to be the case in Deuteronomy 17. Well, let’s see what it has to say.

Well, the first section is about claims that someone is enticing Israel to worship false gods and that is to be investigated. Nothing there about how to tell if a prophet is true or that the leading sages of the age will be able to tell if a prophet is true. What’s next?

Next is about legal courts. The idea is that if a case is too difficult for the court, go to the priest and the priest will inquire of God. Everyone must then listen to the ruling of the priest. Nothing in there about prophecy.

Finally, the last section in the chapter is about the king. These are good rules for the king to have, but there’s no reason to think the king was one of the leading sages of the day. I am puzzled then as to where in Deuteronomy 17 this passage is.

Next time we come to this book, we will be talking about the virgin birth (Which I do affirm) and the infancy of Jesus.

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