Category: Old Testament Law

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 9

What about 1 Timothy 4:1-5? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am once again quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

The Spirit expressly states that in the acharit-hayamim some people will apostatize from the faith by paying attention to deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come from the hypocrisy of liars whose own consciences have been burned, as if with a red-hot branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving by those who have come to trust and to know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing received with thanksgiving needs to be rejected, 5 because the word of God and prayer make it holy.

The acharit-hayamim is what you would likely recognize as something such as “The last days.”

This seems like a clear statement. We can eat most any food we want. Right? As long as we receive it with thanksgiving, it is holy. Right?

“Not so fast”, says 119 Ministries.

This means that the false teachers whom Paul gives his warning about are not people teaching obedience to God’s dietary laws. Think about it. If they were, then Messiah Yeshua would be a false teacher when he affirmed the validity of the dietary laws as part of the Torah and said that his followers will do and teach the least of the commandments (Matthew 5:17-20). Paul likewise would be a false teacher since he said, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). That indicates that Paul believes the dietary laws in Scripture are profitable for “training in righteousness.” So Paul cannot be saying those who teach obedience to God’s dietary laws are false teachers since he would be putting himself into the same category.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 116-117). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So what is the argument?

It reads as if they are saying, “Yes. If we read it as it is, it does seem to go against our position, but keep in mind that Paul holds that all Scripture is God-breathed and keep in mind what Jesus said about the Law.”

Which means there is no exegesis of the text itself. It is then circular reasoning. Their reasoning of the text must be correct because their reasoning of the other texts must be correct. As I have said earlier throughout this book, I find them lacking and again, I have one simple question about this if that is what they think.

“What about sacrifices?”

After all, the Law contained commands for animal sacrifices and Jesus’s statement in Matthew 5 doesn’t read, “Not one letter will disappear from the Law, except for that stuff about animal sacrifices because I am going to do away with them.”

Thus ends our look at this book. It is sad that in a book that is all about defending the Law, what we did not see at all was, well, a defense of the Law. We didn’t see exegesis of the Law. We didn’t get anything on animal sacrifices or anything of the sort.

Again, there’s a reason this stuff is not convincing.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 8

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

The first passage 119 Ministries wants to bring up is in Ephesians 2 and I am using the Complete Jewish Bible.

For he himself is our shalom — he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 15 by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,

The idea is that the case for hostility between Jews and Gentiles has been broken apart by Christ. Here is why 119 Ministries thinks that doesn’t work.

First, aren’t Christians—both Jews and Gentiles—supposed to be set apart (holy) and different from the world?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, and they are both holy and different because they are both members of the same covenant now which could not have been said before. Any Gentile was always welcome in the covenant, but they had to become Jewish first. Now, they don’t.

Second, if Ephesians 2:14-15 is saying that Yeshua abolished God’s Law, then it contradicts Yeshua’s own words: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). So, if we accept the traditional interpretation, then we have Paul directly contradicting Yeshua. Everything we have covered in this book shows that Paul agreed with the Messiah’s teachings, so any interpretation that causes Paul to contradict Yeshua is unacceptable.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 108). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this assumes that your prior interpretation is true. That case has been found to be flimsy.

Their third point is that the Law was never a point of division between Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles were always promised to eventually be in the covenant people. Yes. Eventually. Until then, the Law was something that set Jews apart from Gentiles.

The other passage we’ll look at is in Colossians 2.

So don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat. 17 These are a shadow of things that are coming, but the body is of the Messiah.

To which they say that the problem was that the Colossians were not following the Law the way it was meant to be followed. As they say:

An alternative interpretation more consistent with the context of the chapter (and Paul’s teaching elsewhere in Scripture) is that these false teachers were not judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah; they were judging the Colossians for failing to keep the Torah according to how they taught it should be kept. This makes more sense in light of the next verse, which describes these commands as “a shadow of the things to come” (v. 17). In other words, these commands not only point toward Christ’s work on the cross, but ongoing to his future work. That is why they are a shadow of things “to come,” not just things that have already happened.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 113-114). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

And those things to come have already come. Again, this is basic interpretation.

There’s a reason that this position is a minority one in Christianity today.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 7

So what about the Corinthian epistles? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

119 Ministries dives right in so let’s see what they have to say.

The first passage we’ll look at is 1 Corinthians 7:19, in which Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” As we covered in Chapter 3, Paul cannot mean circumcision itself has no value. Why? Because in the very same verse, Paul also says that “keeping the commandments of God” is what matters. Paul cannot say that circumcision is nothing and, in the same breath, affirm the importance of keeping God’s commandments, which include circumcision.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 97). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

So Paul cannot mean circumcision doesn’t matter, so let’s find a way to say that circumcision matters. Except, well, that’s what Paul says. If they want to say the commandments of God include circumcision, then they also include offering sacrifices. Do you get to pick and choose which ones you obey? If no, then start offering sacrifices. If yes, then you are guilty of what you condemn in evangelicals.

They then go to 1 Cor. 9:19-22. I will be quoting from the Complete Jewish Bible.

For although I am a free man, not bound to do anyone’s bidding, I have made myself a slave to all in order to win as many people as possible. 20 That is, with Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. 21 With those who live outside the framework of Torah, I put myself in the position of someone outside the Torah in order to win those outside the Torah — although I myself am not outside the framework of God’s Torah but within the framework of Torah as upheld by the Messiah. 22 With the “weak” I became “weak,” in order to win the “weak.” With all kinds of people I have become all kinds of things, so that in all kinds of circumstances I might save at least some of them.

To which they say:

But wouldn’t it be deceitful and hypocritical of Paul to hold to and exemplify the validity of the Torah to Jews but teach the opposite to Gentiles? Indeed, it would.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 100). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is the kind of interpretation I see from new atheists. This is not hypocrisy. It’s more along the lines of “When in Rome.” If I had Mormons visiting me, I would not start having a cup of tea around them. If you want to engage with Muslims, it’s best to not do so over a ham sandwich. If you want to reach Hindus, inviting them out for a burger is not a good idea. You could be fine with any of these, but you don’t violate the taboos of your audience. Everyone in the ancient world would have understood this. 119 Ministries do not.

We’ll next look at 2 Cor. 3 where they quote a Dr. Colin Kruse saying:

It is important to recognize that Paul does not imply that the law itself was fading away. The law as the expression of the will of God for human conduct is still valid. In fact, Paul says the purpose of God in bringing in the New Covenant of the Spirit was precisely that the righteous demands of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:4).3

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 105). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But if we are to move from one degree of glory to the next, then 119 Ministries is doing the opposite of what Paul desires. He wants us to move from the glory of the old covenant to that of the New. 119 Ministries is wishing to stay with the old covenant.

So next time we’ll look at Ephesians and Colossians.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 6

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

Galatians should be where many of the ideas of keeping the law for salvation come to die. Unfortunately, 119 Ministries is convinced otherwise. So what do they have to say? To start, let’s look at how they view the idea that the message of keeping the law was a gospel of men.

However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9). He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12). Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men. This is a crucial point! Obviously, the Law of God didn’t come from men; it came from God. And if the false doctrine being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 78). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the Law did come from God, and Paul acknowledges that, but throughout the book he treats the Law as a stepping stone. Going back to the Law when you have faith in Christ is going backwards. That makes that version a gospel of men. If one wanted to observe the Law not for salvation reasons but for traditional reasons, I doubt Paul would have a complaint. His choice not to is for the freedom he has in Christ.

What about Paul challenging Peter in Galatians 2?

Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—that would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 80-81). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

It is not known what was being ate, but Peter living like a Gentile could very well have been eating food that would be considered unclean to the Jewish community. When he backs away from that, then he is creating a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have never been obligated to live like Jews (i.e. Following the Law.) and Peter’s actions would be convincing them that they needed to.

It can also be asked that what difference does 119 Ministries see between ritual conversion and following the Law?

They later on look at Paul talking about the reason for adding the Law and quote James Dunn. (Credit where credit is due. At least he’s a legitimate scholar they would normally disagree with.)

Now In the case of 3.19a the issue centres on the meaning of χάριν [charin]. Here we need to recall that the word is the accusative form of χάρις [charis], ‘grace, favour’, and that its usual meaning as attested elsewhere in usage of the time is ‘for the sake of, on behalf of, on account of.’ This suggests a much more immediately gracious objective for the law than simply ‘to make conscious of transgressions,’ and certainly than ‘to provoke transgressions.’ It suggests, in fact, the purpose of the law as it was generally recognized within the (OT) scriptures and the Judaism of Paul’s time: that is, as a means of dealing with transgressions. In other words, what was probably in mind here was the whole sacrificial cult at whose centre was the provision of means for covering sin and removing guilt, means of atonement. [Emphasis added]2

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 87). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China is unknown. If they agree with Dunn, then we have to ask why do they not offer up sacrifices? 119 Ministries wants to accuse Christians of not following the Law, but if they believe it should be followed and is eternal and doesn’t change, then why are they not offering up sacrifices?

The next point to look at is in Galatians 5 when it is said that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you must follow the whole law.

If circumcision itself caused someone to fall away from Messiah, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? The traditional interpretation just doesn’t fit when considering all the evidence.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 94). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why? Because Timothy was Jewish and if they were witnessing to Jews and the Jews thought Timothy wasn’t circumcised, that would mean that they would likely tune out anything Paul said. Let’s suppose hypothetically that that isn’t correct seeing as it is never spelled out. If it is at least plausible, then we already have an answer. Of course, I think it is correct. The point is that there are ways to interpret this that do fit considering the evidence and considering 119 Ministries doesn’t counter such a simple one, how much research are they doing?

So next time, we’ll look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 5

What about Romans?

Chapter four really doesn’t have much to comment on, so let’s move to five. In this one, 119 Ministries covers Romans.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Romans 2:12-13) Paul is saying here that, although we are saved by grace, the doers of God’s Law are considered righteous before God and will be justified.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 49). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

For some reason, they leave off the next three verses.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So what were the Gentiles doing that was written on their hearts? Following dietary restrictions? Observing Sabbath? Having the feasts? Practicing circumcision? Offering sacrifices to YHWH? Not wearing mixed fabrics?

Nope. Paul must be talking about another aspect of the law. He has that in mind in the next few verses.

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

These are the moral requirements. Not the requirements that would be considered cultic. (Not in the sense of a cult, but in the sense of pertaining to the ritual practices.)

I can’t imagine why 119 Ministries left this out.

They also say one of the first big debates was in Acts 15 asking if you had to be circumcised to be saved.

Then, they would be instructed in Moses’ teaching every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21). As the Gentiles listen to the Torah, and as the teachers instruct them, they will eventually want to get circumcised in obedience to the Law of God.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 51). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

First off, that’s not what Acts 15:21 says:

For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

That’s from the Complete Jewish Bible. The early church by and large was not meeting in the synagogues but in the houses of the church members.

Second, no. Just no. There would not be a universe out there where the Greeks would hear the message and come to Jesus and then burst out with excitement, “Hey! I want to be circumcised now!”

Then Paul points to David as another example to show how God’s forgiveness is available for everyone who would put their faith in God (Romans 4:6-8). This forgiveness is for not only the Jews but also the Gentiles. Moreover, since Abraham was made righteous by his faith before he was circumcised, Gentiles likewise are made righteous before getting physically circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). The doctrine that some Jews were pushing in the first century—that Gentiles needed to get circumcised as a prerequisite to becoming part of God’s people—is false.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. Unfornuately, 119 Ministries misses the real point of this. They do say that just a few verses earlier Paul says we uphold the Law of God by faith. What Paul actually says is explained in Romans 4. He shows how it is that Abraham was justified. Not by the Law, but by faith. Therefore, if we want to uphold the Torah, we should see the Torah says that Abraham was justified by faith.

Without the Law, we would not have a clear definition of sin.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 54). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But this is false entirely. The Old Testament can condemn the Gentiles for their wicked actions even though they do not have the Law. They know right from wrong still. Cain knew it was wrong to kill his brother. Sodom and Gomorrah knew what they were doing was wrong. Joseph’s brothers knew it was wrong to sell him into slavery. It’s not as if Moses came down from the mountain and some Israelites said, “What? Murder is wrong?! We had no idea!”

Next, they bring up Romans 6.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

And say:

Traditionally, Paul’s statement that believers are not “under the law” has been understood to mean that we are free to disregard God’s Law. However, there is a problem with this interpretation—namely, Paul affirms the ongoing authority of the Law throughout Romans. He says we uphold the Law by faith (3:31). The Law is “holy and righteous and good” (7:12), “spiritual” (7:14), and Paul “delights” in it (7:22) and “serves” it (7:25). He says that believers fulfill the Law’s righteous requirements when we walk according to the Spirit (8:4), and that it’s the carnal mind of man, not the spiritual mind, that rebels against the Law (8:7). Therefore, “not under law” simply can’t mean, “freedom to disregard the Law of God.”

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 56). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I will hold off the interpretation of chapter 7 for when we get there, but we have already seen chapter 3 is just a wrong interpretation. So what of 7?

They start it off saying:

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3) How does it make sense for Paul to say that believers are now free from obeying God’s Law when his entire analogy here is predicated on the validity of the Torah’s laws concerning marriage?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 59). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Because that’s the language his Jewish opponents would understand? Just a guess.

So looking back, Paul says the law is spiritual and righteous and good. Indeed. It comes from God. How could it not be? However, part of the problem with chapter 7 is something that 119 Ministries never brings up. Who is speaking here?

Of course, Paul is writing the letter, but is he giving an autobiographical account? If so, then when was Paul alive apart from the Law? That’s what he says in verse 9.

This is what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

I was once alive outside the framework of Torah. But when the commandment really encountered me, sin sprang to life

Paul was raised a Jew all his life. He was never apart from it. If you go back to chapter 5, Paul references Adam. That is a figure that makes sense here. When he was given the commandment of God, sin sprang to life and took advantage of it. Ben Witherington in What’s in the Word? also says that the early Jews thought the sin in the garden was that of coveting.

Romans 8 then is the victorious life of the Christian.

So in the end, 119 Ministries does not understand Romans.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Chapter 3

What makes Paul hard to understand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

No Christian should say Paul is easy to understand. Our own Scripture in 2 Peter says that Paul writes many things that are hard to understand. It would be foolish to think we can do so easily. (Kind of like internet atheists do thinking they can just read the Bible and not bother studying it and know everything about it.)

119 Ministries at least agrees that Paul is hard to understand, but they think different things are hard to understand.

For instance, many Christians believe Paul taught that God’s Law has changed. However, it is impossible to come to that conclusion if you’ve read what the Old Testament says about the Law: “I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips” (Psalm 89:34). Surely God himself cannot be wrong, so that means the traditional understanding of Paul must be revisited. Many also believe that Paul called the Law of God bondage (Galatians 5:1). But the front of the book says that the Law of God brings liberty (Psalm 119:44-45).

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 29). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

But as we say in an earlier post, the Law has changed. Note also that the Psalm never says the Law is unchanged. It says the covenant is, and yet even in Jeremiah and Hebrews we see talk of a new covenant. There is some degree of change going on.

As for Psalm 119, why should this be a problem? There is always freedom in following the path of God. Yet at the same time, when God gives the new path in Christ, one is to follow that path and not the old.

119 Ministries also goes on to talk about the tension that is often presented in Paul:

Are you feeling the tension between the traditional interpretation of Paul and what he actually lived and taught? There’s more: Paul says that he serves the Law of God (Romans 7:25). Why serve a Law that is supposedly ended or made void? Paul called the Law “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). He said he “delights” in the law of God (Romans 7:22). He taught that the Holy Spirit leads to obedience to God’s Law while the carnal nature of man is opposed to God’s Law (Romans 8:3-8). And this is only in Romans!

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 31). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Yet Romans 7 is a notoriously difficult passage to deal with and 119 Ministries gives no indication that they understand that. My contention is that Romans 7 is not Paul being autobiographical. We see no hint of him struggling in Philippians 3 to follow the law and no one doubts that is autobiographical. Also, Paul says that once he was alive apart from the Law, but when could an orthodox Jew like Paul say he was ever not only apart from the law, but apart from it and alive?

No. A better understanding is that this is speaking as Adam, who was referred to back in Romans 5. In this, once the law came to life for him, he was filled with a desire for coveting, which was seen as the sin in the garden, desiring wisdom for oneself apart from God. Had he kept the law, it would have meant life for him.

As for the verses from Romans 8, here they are in the Complete Jewish Bible.

For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.

Notice that Paul says the Torah could not by itself bring righteousness. The idea in these passages goes along with the Law written on the heart in Romans 2. Because of the Spirit, we can keep the Law of God in the sense that we were meant to. Again, this is something 119 Ministries never addresses. Are we meant to offer sacrifices, for instance?

Unfortunately, 119 Ministries doesn’t really look at the best resources and ironically, in a chapter about misunderstanding Paul, demonstrate that they do indeed misunderstand Paul.

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

The Pauline Paradox Chapter 2

Who was Paul? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, 119 Ministries seeks to introduce us to Paul. In looking at Acts 15, they say:

As scholar J.K. McKee explains: The yoke being placed upon these non-Jewish Believers in the Messiah was a legalistic perversion of the Torah which demanded that if you do not observe it and convert to Judaism (perhaps according to the particular sect represented) you cannot be saved. It is a yoke that keeps people out of God’s intention, rather than one that welcomes them in.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 19). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Like me, McKee does not have a PhD yet, so while I can respect his educational prowess, I hesitate to use the word scholar yet. No. I would not describe myself as a scholar either. I remain consistent. That being said, I do agree that the Council decided to not make everyone follow Judaism to receive salvation, but I go further saying that they never have to follow Torah at all.

The Jerusalem Council passe down four requirements for the Gentiles. That means no necessity to follow the Law. Right?

Right?

No, according to James, the Gentile believers were to be welcomed every Sabbath at the synagogue, where they would learn the rest of the commandments (Acts 15:21). So, rather than abolishing the Law for Gentiles, the Jerusalem council actually reinforced Yeshua’s teaching that the Law is perpetually relevant and is to be taught to “all nations”—just not as a means to salvation.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 20). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

The believers were to be welcomed in the Synagogue every Sabbath? Is that what it says?

Let’s go to the Complete Jewish Bible.

Ya‘akov broke the silence to reply. “Brothers,” he said, “hear what I have to say. Shim‘on has told in detail what God did when he first began to show his concern for taking from among the Goyim a people to bear his name. And the words of the Prophets are in complete harmony with this for it is written,

‘“After this, I will return;
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David.
I will rebuild its ruins,
I will restore it,
so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
that is, all the Goyim who have been called by my name,”
says Adonai, who is doing these things.’

All this has been known for ages.

“Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim who are turning to God. Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”

All the text says is that Moses has been read every Sabbath. It says nothing about the believers worshipping on the Sabbath. Not so fast, says 119 Ministries!

After the Jerusalem council, we see that Paul continued to teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 16:13). In fact, Scripture says this was his “custom” (Acts 17:2). He did it “every Sabbath” (Acts 18:4).

That clinches it, does it not? Paul was in the synagogue every Sabbath.

Sad that one has to explain this so frequently.

If you went to a Middle Eastern country and you wanted to speak to Muslims, you would go to your local mosque on Friday. Why? Not because you specifically observe Friday, but because Muslims do. IF 119 Ministries wanted to speak to evangelical Christians at churches about this, they would find them at church on Sunday. Why does Paul visit the synagogues on Sabbath?

Because his intended audience goes to synagogue on the Sabbath!

By contrast, look in Acts 20 again at the Complete Jewish Bible.

On Motza’ei-Shabbat, when we were gathered to break bread, Sha’ul addressed them.

That phrase refers to the ending of the Sabbath, on Saturday night. If the new Christians worshipped on the Sabbath, why did Paul start this service on the night of the Sabbath towards the ending of it? We know this marked the start since he went on to preach so much that someone fell asleep and Paul had to revive him when he fell from a window.

The writers also talk about how Paul took a vow that fits the description of a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18. What of it? Paul never condemns following Jewish Law. He condemns the idea that Gentiles have to follow it. Much like the circumcision of Timothy, this could be an act done to not offend the Jews he wanted to reach.

They then quote a later part of the passage:

When they asked him to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent, but took leave of them, saying, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return again to you, God willing.” And he sailed from Ephesus. (Acts 18:20-21, NKJV)

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 20-21). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

I decided to look this up when I read it and strangest thing, I couldn’t find a reference to the feast in most translations. Fortunately, as a seminary student, plenty of professors come by who know this and the head of our textual research department came by just then. He looked it up and did say it was a textual variant, which one needs to ask why 119 Ministries did not mention this.

Not only that, look at what the Complete Jewish Bible says:

20 When they asked him to stay with them longer, he declined; 21 however, in his farewell he said, “God willing, I will come back to you.” Then he set sail from Ephesus.

No feast mentioned.

Strange.

When Paul comes before the high priest, 119 Ministries explains it saying:

The high priest, Ananias, ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul reacted by calling out Ananias as a hypocrite: Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (Acts 23:3) Interestingly, Paul appeals to the Law of God, which says only someone found guilty can be beaten (Deuteronomy 25:1-2), as his basis for calling Ananias a hypocrite. If the accusations that Paul taught against the Law were true, why would he appeal to the Law?

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 23-24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Followed by:

Notice that Paul did not try to justify his evil speech against Ananias, the high priest. Rather, he agreed with the Law of God and acknowledged his mistake. It wouldn’t make sense for him to appeal to the Law of God in his acknowledgment of his error if he believed the Law had been done away with.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 24). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Why indeed? How about this?

Paul shames the high priest for violating the law in doing this. He takes the authority that he knows the high priest holds and points out his violation of it. In making an apology for it, Paul in essence says “I am being more faithful than you are even though you are the one who claims to be under the Law.” Paul would have certainly recognized the high priest after all!

So far then, 119 Ministries has presented nothing strong backing their case.

We’ll continue next time asking why Paul is so confusing.

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

 

 

 

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox Chapter 1

How do we start this one? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Give credit where credit is due. This book starts with an excellent opening.

Fact: every pastor, theologian, and Bible teacher on the planet holds on to doctrinal error to some degree. An honest teacher will readily admit the possibility they are in error on some things. It’s foolish to think that we, or anyone else, has everything figured out or has all of the answers.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 7). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Indeed. We all do. I would like to think everything I teach here is correct, but I am sure it isn’t. While I would like to always be right, I would hate it if you think I am always right and don’t need to check up on what I say. Something I have learned in the PhD program here is the importance of teachability. My professors would agree with my natural intellect, but I think they also admire that I am willing to go to them for advice despite that. There is always something to learn.

Salvation is received by faith in Yeshua (Ephesians 2:8). We are not saved by anything we do. Our works cannot and never will have any causal relationship with our status as saved sons and daughters of God. However, though no causal relationship exists, works and salvation do correlate. The Bible is very clear on this (James 2:14-26). Works do not save us, but a true saving faith will produce works. We strive to be honest, give to the poor, etc., because of our salvation, not for our salvation. The same holds true for every commandment of God. Keeping God’s commandments is evidence that we have faith in God—that we believe his Word and follow it. Again, obedience to God’s commandments is the evidence of our saving faith, not the cause of it. It is correlational, not causal.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (pp. 7-8). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

This is again an excellent point. I would hope that 119 Ministries would not see what they teach as an essential. For instance, if you do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday or if you are a man, get circumcised if you are not, then you are not a Christian. I am of the persuasion that if you are a Christian and want to follow the Law, suppose for instance being a Messianic Jew and having a deep respect for the tradition, then have at it. As soon as you make it necessary for salvation, we have a problem.

Everyone that has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them should always be in the process of learning. Everyone is both a teacher and a student in some capacity. The only thing we can do—and certainly should do—is to test others and ourselves to the Word of God. We should love being corrected. Correction humbles us and helps us to know our Father in greater depth. Those are both wonderful things.

119 Ministries. The Pauline Paradox: What Did Paul Teach About the Law of God? (p. 9). 119 Ministries. Kindle Edition.

Again, another great statement. This is also why I ask people what was the last book they read they disagreed with. If you just read what you agree with and stay in your echo chamber, you will not do much learning.

Not too much further along, they quote Mark 7 in saying:

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Interesting in a book about the Law and what Jesus taught about it, they left out the following verses:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

But that being said, their point is that the Pharisees were very wrong in their doctrine and that nullifying what Moses wrote is a very bad thing. Of course, I presented some questions about this in yesterday’s post. This assumes that when Jesus rises from the dead, the Mosaic covenant is still in play. I contend that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD shows that that covenant has been replaced with a new one where the sign of the covenant is not the Law, but faith in Christ.

That being said, there is not too much disagreeable in this part of the book. We’ll see if that holds up as we go on through the book.

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

Book Plunge: The Pauline Paradox — Opening

Should we be following the Law today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am taking a brief hiatus from the look at God changing His mind to deal with this book.

The Pauline Paradox is a book that is put forward by 119 Ministries trying to argue that Christians should follow the Torah. I decided to get it because there are a number of people on the Jehovah’s Witnesses debate group on Facebook that have bought into this and go on and on about the Law of God. Rarely will you ever see these people say anything about Jesus.

This book is looking at the question that many Christians have when they hear about an organization like this? Isn’t Paul the grand teacher of the idea that we don’t follow the Law because we’re under grace? Indeed, this has been Christian teaching for hundreds of years. Even nowadays, much of New Testament scholarship has abandoned any idea that Paul invented Christianity. I will not be dealing with that latter claim here anyway, but I will contend that Paul is certainly right in line with His master Jesus.

Before looking at the book and what it talks about, I want to mention what it doesn’t talk about that is quite surprising.

That is the Law itself.

Oh, sure. We have a lot of talk about what Paul said about the Law and what Jesus said about the Law. That’s fine. We do not have much said about what the Law itself is. What is its purpose? How is it to be followed today?

You’ll see that Jesus said that until Heaven and Earth disappear, not one bit of the Law will pass away. Unfortunately, you won’t see a lot of sustained exegesis on that passage. Consider what Craig Blomberg by contrast says about Matthew 5:18.

Verse 18 reaffirms the absolute authority of all of the Scriptures down to the smallest components of individual words. They will endure for all time but with the important qualification “until everything is accomplished.” With the coming of Christ, many aspects of the law are brought to complete fruition (e.g., the need for sacrifices, on which see Hebrews). In other instances certain requirements of the law endure until Christ’s coming again (e.g., classically, love of neighbor and God). In short, Christian application of the Old Testament must always take into account both the continuities and the discontinuities with the New Testament. Given this hermeneutic, correct teaching and practice of all “these commandments” (v. 19, almost certainly referring back to the Old Testament law just mentioned) are crucial. Jesus will give six illustrations of such correct interpretation shortly (vv. 21–48).

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 104–105.

What actually happens is that Jesus in His interpretation is giving us a law that is even harder. Consider that the Law says “Do not murder.” Okay. Well, let me take a brief life-review here and think back…..yep! I’m good! Haven’t murdered anyone! That’s one of the big ten! Doing good!

“But I say to you, do not hate your brother.”

“Oh.”

All of a sudden, I realize I have done that and that that can still be a struggle.

“You have heard that it was said ‘Do not commit adultery.’ ”

Let’s see. I am divorced now, but I saved sex for marriage and I don’t do pornography and I have remained celibate while being divorced. Hey! Look at that! I’m doing good again!

“But I say to you, do not lust after a woman in your heart.”

“Okay. Not doing so good.”

Also, if we are to follow the Law, do we not have to offer sacrifices? That was a big part of the Law after all. Consider how Matthew 5 also says this:

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

What is the gift but a sacrifice? If the Law is still in full effect, should we not offer sacrifices?

In Exodus 12, the people were commanded to eat the Passover in their own homes. In Deut. 16, it was in the place God chose for them. In Lev. 17, meat was to be brought to the tabernacle. In Deut. 12, this is done away with because some people would live far away from the tabernacle and not get to eat meat at all.

Also, if Moses was the final word, then what about what came after? What about the Prophets? What about celebrations like Purim? Jesus is in the temple area during the Feast of Dedication which celebrates the Maccabean revolt which certainly did not show up in the Law.

What about something like slavery? Are we allowed to have slaves again? These are systems that had their place in the times of the Bible, but not so today. This is not to say that Orthodox Jews, for instance, can’t follow any of the Law, but certainly not all of it is possible.

So before we even begin looking at the very first chapter, I have questions. It is quite surprising that a book all about how Christians should follow the Law, really says very little about the Law.

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

 

Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 4

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

To begin with, in this chapter, I find it problematic to say God is either moral or immoral. He is good. Morality is doing as one ought which places an ought above someone that I don’t think applies to God. The only actions God is obligated to do are those that He has promised or fit into His nature.

So let’s get into what all Brucker says:

The origin and the existence of our innate moral display is almost as mysterious to many people as is the origin of the universe, but monotheists claim to have such sure knowledge that the non-religious do not.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 55). Kindle Edition.

Historically, monotheists have said everyone has access to the natural law. Everyone knows right and wrong. It’s almost as if Brucker didn’t bother engaging with any contrary thought before writing this book. Nah. That can’t be it.

If a monotheist believes there to exist a divinely-inspired moral code, they must also believe their all-powerful God to have the utmost morality and would apply it accordingly if they wish to label him as omnibenevolent and omniscient. If our moral perspective has been inspired by God, there ought to be an ultimate and non-flexible moral code. With that system for absolute morality, God must also be superfluous when following such a code himself. Furthermore, I would suggest that a knowledgeable and metaphysical mind would demonstrate a moral code inconceivable to the human mind – assuming of course that a mind such as that exists. The moral perspective from 3,500 years ago was much different than it is today. Progressive modern societies have demonstrated that we can collectively decide that senseless and unwarranted murder is reprehensible – something that the God of Abraham could neither command nor display.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 55-56). Kindle Edition.

So several parts here.

First, this is why I don’t say God is a moral being. It implies God is a part of creation following a moral code. Second, since I don’t have that, I don’t say God is the ultimate in morality. He is the ultimate in goodness. Third, God did condemn murder a number of times in Scripture so I don’t know what Brucker thinks he has done in discovering some new moral law or something. If your achievement for a progressive society is “We know murder is wrong” that’s not much of an achievement. Tune in tomorrow boys and girls when he discovers that water is wet.

He naturally goes with Elisha and the two bears. You can see more on that here. He also says we think God has only one principle. Love. Not at all. He has many others, including justice.

He also says that God says rape is okay citing this Scripture.

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 59-60). Kindle Edition.

So if the women are killed. That’s awful. If a man spares a woman and takes her into his house and provides for her, that’s also awful. Note before the man does anything, he has to wait a full month! That’s a common pattern in rape isn’t it? This was actually a way to look out for a woman and make sure she was provided for.

But what about this?

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 60). Kindle Edition.

Even a non-Christian has taken this one to task.

What about atheist morality?

Christians have often been said to have proclaimed, “We get our morals from God. Thus – Atheists have no morals.”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 62). Kindle Edition.

This does not follow. That an atheist doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean he  doesn’t know the moral law any more than he doesn’t know the basic laws of physics.

“What is keeping an atheist from murdering, stealing and raping?” It would take a sufficiently ignorant individual to say such a thing, as thousands of morally efficient atheists continue to prove them wrong today.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 62). Kindle Edition.

Except saying “Plenty of atheists don’t do this!” isn’t an answer to the question. I totally agree that plenty of atheists don’t do this. What is the reason? Someone like Tom Holland would say it is because they have a Christian background they refuse to acknowledge. What happens when those atheists get in power and no one is there to hold them accountable? Just look at how the Chinese and Russians in atheist regimes have treated their enemies.

Christians haven’t always done better! True enough, but yet when Christians act evil, that is in violation of Christianity. No tenet of atheism is violated when an atheist does evil.

Jesus spoke of many moral attributes that any modern secular humanist or atheist would consider as quite immoral. He advocated deserting one’s family if it meant a closer relationship with him. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Also, the limbs must be cut off from those who steal. If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut if off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire. How about killing enemies of him and his own? But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 63-64). Kindle Edition.

The first one is classical hyperbolic language and if Christianity is true, it would follow. What would we think of someone who said they wanted to serve God, but that their family would come before God? This does not mean you ignore your family, but your ultimate priority is to God.

The second is also hyperbole. It’s a shame that has to be explained to someone like Brucker. This is the way Jews spoke.

The final is a parable and historically, it is not about Jesus.

Naturally, Brucker has to say something about same-sex relationships.

But are homosexual tendencies unnatural? It is entirely reasonable to believe that the early members of the Abrahamic religions may have been unaware of such tendencies outside of human behavior. Today, over 1,500 species within the animal kingdom have been discovered displaying homosexual behavior among those populations – many of which maintain that homosexuality for their entire lives.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 70-71). Kindle Edition.

Indeed. So let’s look at the argument.

If a tendency is found in nature, it is natural.
Same-sex behavior is found in nature.
Same-sex behavior is natural.

That checks out.

Then there has to be this other implication.

If a behavior is natural, it is a good behavior.
Same-sex behavior is natural.
Same-sex behavior is good.

That also checks out, but if these syllogisms are accurate, we should be able to fit anything in and it fits. We can’t be selective or we are as Brucker says earlier, begging the question. Let’s go.

If a tendency is found in nature, it is natural.
Eating one’s young is found in nature.
Eating one’s young is natural.

If a behavior is natural, it is a good behavior.
Eating one’s young is natural.
Eating one’s young is good.

Brucker will have to show what part of either syllogism he denies and why.

I find this to be ironic because if an architect who designed human life existed, then he most certainly created the homosexual desire.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 71-72). Kindle Edition.

This does not follow at all. A Christian can easily say our desires are fallen. We have taken good desires and corrupted them.

The emotional pain and possible subsequent suicide are the fault of religious faith, something that I would expect a loving and morally superior God to neither directly or indirectly inflict on an innocent person. Does it not seem irrational to believe that a loving God would require one to relinquish their identity to achieve eternal life with him?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 72). Kindle Edition.

Brucker is awfully dehumanizing here by making who one does or doesn’t sleep with the basis of their identity. A Christians says the person’s identity is “Made in the image of God.” Who they sleep with is very very secondary. Also, if anyone commits suicide, religious or not, it is the person who does it. Others can influence it, but the person who does the act is the one who made the decision. They are not forced.

Every moral epoch that has been reached was not through the work put forth by the religiously-inspired but through secular and reason-based thinking.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 72). Kindle Edition.

I am sure someone like Wilberforce or King would be shocked to hear that their moral changes came about because of secular and reason-based thinking. Of course, I am not at all saying that religious thinking is not reason-based. It may or may not be. The same applies to secular thinking.

Stripping the argument of any philosophical connotation – by strictly looking at the morality within a structured society – it becomes quiet obvious that the inclination for doing well is merely a genetic byproduct meant to ensure the survival of species. Morality could be considered an evolutionary necessity, saying that those within any social system will survive far longer if those within that system treat one another with kindness and thus avoid recessive conflict. Let us take a bee hive for example. Within each and every hive, there exists an instinctual moral conduct. They work together, push through the adversity the colony may face, and protect the queen at all costs. The same can be said of an ant colony and the tireless efforts put forth by the worker ants; they help one another maintain the integrity of the group.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 74). Kindle Edition.

But if this is the case, then we are really pretending. There is really no true good and evil. There is just the want to survive. Yet what happens if I acquire power and no longer care about the survival of others? Plenty of atheist regimes show us what happens and about these, Brucker has nothing to say.

So, an atheist will burn in hell for eternity for not believing, but a mass-murderer will dine in heaven if he prays for forgiveness. What kind of morally-superior God would allow for such a loop-hole to exist? With that, I truly believe that religious belief is to blame for all negative behavior because religious beliefs allow ignorance, racism, and bigotry to flourish while hiding behind the facade of “moral pureness.”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 77). Kindle Edition.

So if God punishes a wicked person, He’s evil. If He forgives him, He’s also evil. Got it. Would Brucker prefer God want to punish someone instead? Also, what is responsible for the mass killings in atheist regimes? Is it religious belief?

There is naturally material on slavery to which you can search this blog for. Brucker also says that morality evolves, but if good and evil are constantly changing, then there is no absolute good or evil. He also cannot condemn past societies. Perhaps they were just doing what was moral for them then. There can also be no moral progress. Progress assumes a goal beyond oneself one is trying to reach.

Finally in wishing for a hope for the religious he says

What if they were to realize collectively that there was no absolute purpose to life and the order of the universe?

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 82). Kindle Edition.

I contend the people who think this are truly the most dangerous ones of all. It’s a shame Brucker wants us to embrace them.

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