Category: Uncategorised

Benefits of Marriage

What does saying “I do” do? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Currently, I’m reading a book by Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite called “The Case for Marriage.” It was written before much of the same-sex debate today and is basically outlining why it is that marriage is beneficial for people. This is in contrast to the case of cohabitating couples, singles, divorced, and widowed.

I find it quite revealing and as I had been debating the topic often lately, I figured I would write from a personal perspective. Does marriage make a difference to a person?

I have said before that my wife and I both have Asperger’s. As a result, social relationships can be difficult for us, including marriage, and we have sought the advice of many counselors. This was before and after marriage. For myself, before I was married, I was constantly seeking advice from a good friend who has been married for a long time and whose marriage I wished to emulate. He and others gave me constant pearls of wisdom and our own counselor who did our counseling said he had so rarely seen a couple he thought was a match made in Heaven.

So where to begin?

An interesting place is diet. Aspies have unusual diets, something I don’t think I’ve gone into here. The only vegetable I eat for instance is raw cauliflower. My old roommate could testify that I would buy Tombstone pizzas or the equivalent and fix some every night. One pizza could last me four nights. I kept myself stockpiled. My diet was extremely limited to a small amount. I did not really have any fruits in my diet. In fact, I was and am scared of new foods. (Yes. I know it’s totally ridiculous. Being logical does not mean you are logical in all you believe. We all have places were emotion can tend to overwhelm us.)

My wife has problems with diet as well and I realized that if she is going to change and I am to encourage her to, then I must be the man and lead by example. As it stands, I am now at the point where usually I am having some kind of seafood most every night. Instead of just going to pizzerias for restaurants, we can also go to Mexican restaurants as I can eat quesadillas now which leaves my friends and family who have known me the longest wondering “What on Earth is going on?”

With leading, I’ll also tell you that my wife has led me some in a good way. We went on our honeymoon to Ocean Isle Beach. I have been terrified of water all my life. I still am. I do not know how to swim a lick. When I am in a pool, I am on the shallow end and near the edge. (I did start trying to learn to walk across a pool before the wedding to overcome my fear for my wife.) When we were on our honeymoon, my wife did take me into the pool and we were in the five foot section. I could always touch the floor, but I won’t deny I was scared still. There was a part of me saying “She’s trying to kill me.” Still, I trusted her. When it came to the ocean, she managed to get me out into waist high water. Right now we have a deal going that she’ll join me in the corn maze even though she’s claustrophobic as long as I join her on a ferris wheel though I’m scared of heights. (There are some rides she knows I should not try due to my back as I have scoliosis.)

Confidence is a great plus now. I used to be very skeptical about my own ability in apologetics. We all know that when we get compliments we can be tempted to think “They’re just saying that” or something of that sort. I found shortly after I got married that I was able to do much more in apologetics. It wasn’t because at the time I was studying more. In thinking about it, I believe I have come to the answer. In the past, I got my validation from my apologetics largely and my identity hung on it. It’s still a major part of me of course, but now my validation comes from my wife. She is a constant reminder of who I am. Because of her, I am more secure in myself and able to perform better. I notice it more when I debate now. I am able to handle criticisms much better and feel more in charge in debates.

Speaking of study, I am spending more time with that. There’s still time for gaming some still, but by and large, I am making it a point to read at least 100 pages a day now. Sometimes that can be difficult. Bluntly put, some books are boring. Still, I want to make sure to do the best that I can. (I also seem to have the problem of walking to the library and saying “I won’t order any more books. I have books at home to read.” I’m not doing a good job of following through with this.)

Marriage has taught me much about sacrifices. We have so much income for the two of us. What am I to do with what I have? I will often avoid getting something for myself because I know I want to get things for my wife. If I go without, I figure that’s fine. I have enough other stuff in my life that I can be satisfied and learn to find joy in them even more. Sacrifices are worthwhile if I know they bring joy and benefit to the Mrs.

Also, I have learned much more about holiness. The command to love as Christ loved the church is one that is serious and terrifying both. It requires that I stop and compare the way I treat Christ to what happens in my life. After all, none of us marry perfect people and none of us marrying are perfect people. I have told people that even if Jesus was married, and I don’t think He was, he would not have had a perfect marriage because he would have been married to an imperfect woman.

So if I get upset by something my Mrs. does, I can just say “How am I to Christ?” It is a good time that I can really examine myself and when I do, I often find much in me that I do not like. There will always be problems with me that I need to work out, but I am in the process of working them out.

Trust is built up as well in marriage. I am more confident in myself overall. A lot of this can be due to marriage being the place God designed for sexual intimacy. Those who know me know that I am hardly a fine specimen of fitness and strength. However, my Mrs. accepts me so what do I care what the rest of the world thinks? I am not out to please anyone else physically. I am only out to please her and her constant affirmation is a great benefit.

Sharing a bed with someone sexually is enjoyable of course, but there are other ways to share a bed that are significant. There is something special about praying with my wife every night before we go to bed. There is something special about knowing someone will be there when I wake up in the morning and any touch in the evening or early morning is a great way to end or start a day. If I can feel her hand, then I can relax a lot easier. (I am convinced one of my love languages is physical touch.)

Last night even, I had an awful night with one of the worst cases of sinus congestion I’ve had where I could not breathe at all lying down and was repeatedly getting up going to our linen closet finding any cure that I could. My wife was patient all the while. If anything, her only complaint she really had with me about the whole thing was that I didn’t wake her up to let her know everything that I needed.

Marriage is a source of great benefit and as a man, I think it especially with learning how to live with a woman. It is quite mind-boggling for us to go to the bathroom and think “What are all these things for?” I have to think outside my natural paradigm. When my Princess has a problem, my male side wants to logically tell the solution to it when she just wants to be heard and the best thing to do could be to not say anything but simply give an embrace. These are all things that are being learned, but the differences bring us closer together.

When it comes to intellectual stuff, my wife is more the emotional and artistic type. This makes it interesting for me when I explain a theological concept. I know to watch my terminology but many times, I also notice that my wife is picking up on the strange way I understand language at times in that I can interpret what people say very literally to make a humorous point about it.” I see this happening more and more. On the other hand, I’m developing a taste for artistic beauty, learning what it means to love, and becoming more emotional. These differences balance out again.

In closing, marriage is indeed great and a benefit. I hope hearing how mine has benefited me helps you to see how yours could be a benefit and if you have some thoughts on how it is, please share!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Is The Fig Tree Israel?

Has a common interpretation been incorrect? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I have a nightly practice where I will read a short passage of Scripture right before I turn out the lights and ask myself questions about it as I go to sleep. Bizarre, but my mind is one that is always running and I want it to have something concrete to run on. I have been going through the gospel of Mark and I read last night about the cleansing of the temple in Mark 11. If you know the passage, it is sandwiched in between the cursing of the fig tree and the death of the fig tree.

A common interpretation of the passage has been that the fig tree represents Israel, and there are reasons for understanding that. The fig tree was by all appearances one that would have fruit on it, and yet its appearance was deceitful. It did not have the fruit that Jesus expected. So was it with Israel as Jesus came to Israel expecting to see the fruit and when it came, he found that that fruit was not there. There could be some passages where the fig tree does represent Israel, but let’s consider that in Mark, it surrounds the cleansing of the temple.

What if the fig tree was not the symbol of Israel in this instance but was rather a symbol of the temple itself?

Earlier in the passage, Jesus has just entered Jerusalem in the triumphant entry and He did go to the temple and looked around and saw everything but since it was late, he left. The next day He is heading to the temple. What we can infer from this is that Jesus had seen what was going on in the temple and thought about it throughout the night and knew what it was that He was going to do. On the way, He sees a fig tree and the fig tree reminds Him of what is going on with the temple.

The temple was meant to be the place where God was supposed to dwell and share the blessings of YHWH with the world. The reality is that the temple had not done that. Israel had essentially kept YHWH to themselves. Places of the temple were such that Gentiles could not enter. This in spite of how Israel was said in Isaiah to be a light to the Gentiles. How could they be a light if they were keeping the light from them?

Instead, the temple was used to support the lifestyles of the religious people. This is something seen as well in the fact that Israelites had a way from the Pharisees to avoid taking care of their parents when instead they could just give the money to God. This can be seen as service to God, but there was a commandment given to honor parents and it is not holy to disobey such a command as if God had not considered the idea you have.

The Israelites were in a good place in many ways. They wanted to be free from Rome, but at the same time, they were allowed a good deal of freedom that other countries were not and they did not want to really rock the boat yet, the way Jesus was. When the Messiah shows up, great. Let him do that. It was important to maintain the status quo, but the sad reality is that the status quo was abhorrent to YHWH and keeping Israel from fulfilling its mission.

One aspect was the temple. It was believed that when the Messiah came he would either cleanse the temple or rebuild the temple. The reality is that Jesus did both. Jesus cleansed out this temple and it was abandoned. (Note when he leaves the Temple in Matthew He says to the Pharisees that “YOUR house is left desolate.”) It was no longer the house of YHWH. It was the house of the Pharisees.

So did Jesus rebuild the temple? Yes. The temple is in fact right here on Earth now. Where? It’s in the church. Paul in 1 Corinthians tells the people that they are God’s temple. This is an extraordinary statement for Paul to make especially considering that when he wrote 1 Corinthians, the Jerusalem temple was still standing. For Paul, it was already obsolete.

Going back to the fig tree then, we can see that when Jesus prepares to go to the temple, he curses the fig tree. When he leaves, the fig tree is indeed dead. Could Mark be drawing a parallel saying that Jesus is going to the temple and pronouncing it dead and after he has done that, the disciples get a vivid reminder that His action in the temple does indeed show that the current temple apparatus is of no use?

I am certainly more prone to see it this way and if you think that it could be or see a reason why that’s probably wrong, then let me know. We all should want to know what the Scripture itself says after all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Hawking’s Grand Design

Does the Grand Design do away with God. Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

“Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

So begins page 1 of the Grand Design and it is downhill from there. When the book speaks about science, it can be interested. Readers are presented with a fairly short read and several illustrations to facilitate learning. There is sporadic humor throughout the book. Since this is by two authors and it’s hard to tell who wrote what, I will just refer to this work as GD.

The opening claim about philosophy being dead makes me think of the idea I have that too often, science today can seem like a teenager who thinks he is the big man in the universe because he can drive the family car, forgetting that it is his parents who own the car, pay the insurance, put gas in the car, and do maintenance.

In saying this, I mean no disrespect to science. After all, it is not science that has this attitude, but certain scientists. These are scientists who believe they alone have the keys to knowledge and everyone else just better get in the back seat if they’re even allowed to ride in the journey at all. Too many new atheists and others are ready to throw out the philosophers and theologians. A warning to my fellow philosophers and theologians. Let us not make the same mistake.

A statement like this assumes philosophy and science works in the same way. Science works by increments with each new discovery being dependent on the latest discovery. Philosophy works with schools of thought. We still have Platonists vs. Aristotleans going on today. No one has really changed the ultimate beliefs of the schools of thought. They’ve just been working out what they said. Christians are not going to jettison belief in the Trinity any time soon nor are Muslims going to get rid of the Koran. Both will be working out the ramifications of their foundational beliefs.

In fact, a look through this book will suggest that perhaps GD should have studied some of that philosophy to avoid making mistakes. All that they say depends on a philosophical worldview. Are they idealists or realists? That’s philosophy. Are they epistemological relativists or not? That’s also philosophy.

On page 29, we are asked to consider three questions when we realize the universe is governed by laws.

What is the origin of the laws?
Are there any exceptions to the laws, i.e., miracles?
Is there only one set of possible laws?

GD admits that Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton all answered that God was the explanation for the Laws. For GD, this does not count as an explanation because we have a hard time understanding God. This is not an invalid answer. Why should it be? Scientists regularly posit unknown entities that they do not understand, such as sub-atomic particles, in order to explain data. Figuring out the nature of those particles is a mystery indeed, but the explanation makes sense.

Besides, if one does have a well thought-out theology, one can explain the mystery further. One could even take the general theistic concept found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and have that be an explanation for the origin of the universe. You could say “I know that there has to be some deity and he has to have some attributes such as X, Y, and Z, but how He has specifically revealed Himself I am still working out.”

As expected, GD is opposed to design and on page 34 we are told the book is rooted in scientific determinism. At this point, I wonder if I am reading the thoughts of the authors or just what it is they have to write because they are determined to do so. Can scientific determinism even verify itself? Can it determine that everything will work out scientifically in the future? If the universe is necessary and determined, then what does GD do with the problem of evil? Is it just that this has to happen and that’s tough, but you’d better suck it up and deal with it? Remember, the problem of evil is not just a problem for theists. Every worldview has to account for it.

Alas, that is a philosophical question and the authors think philosophy is dead, so it seems they will be without an answer to that question. If evil cannot be explained or is even a non-reality, could it be possible the same will apply to goodness? While they speak of an M-theory to explain everything, most of us would want an explanation of good and evil as well, including atheists!

On page 44, Gd says that realism is tempting but then bypasses it stating it is difficult to defend. In the very next sentence, they then say that “according to quantam physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definitive position or a definitive velocity unless and until these quantities are measured by an observer.”

Question. If realism is not true, then how can it be that there can be an accurate description of nature? This assumes nature is a certain way and can be accurately described, but this is what realism teaches. Ah, the perils of saying philosophy is dead.

If realism is not true, then what is it that is being talked about in the whole book? This is part of the problem. Science alone can never determine that there is an external world. Even Berkeley’s view of reality in that it was all an idea in the mind of God could account for science. If all we have is science, we cannot even establish that matter, the object of its study, even exists.

Once again, it is not science that is the problem but science divorced from its foundations, which quickly becomes bad science.

Our next stop will be page 164, which interestingly happens in a chapter discussing the Goldilocks zone. I am not defending ID here, but simply stating that these findings are compatible easily with ID. GD says ID has the implicit understanding that the designer of the universe is God.

This would not explain agnostics like Berlinski and others, but suppose that IDists do have that belief. If they are entering in scientific data to show that, what is the problem? If God is real, then believing in some sort of design can help science as we can look at why things are the way they are as well. If the God explanation is true, and we keep looking for a contrary explanation, we are not only giving a false explanation, but we are missing the real one, and all of this just to avoid God? Why on Earth? Why think God would be the death knell of science since God was actually the origin of much scientific progress today?

On page 172, we have the usual “Who created God?” question. GD does say that some realize there must be some entity that needs no creator and this is usually taken to mean God. Unfortunately, they do not state why theists hold this position. They do not state we believe that a being who is incapable of change but the cause of all other change must be for all other change to be possible. Beings that change are part of existence and moving from one mode of existence to another. God does not do that since existence is His nature.

Finally, on page 180, we read this toward the end.

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in chapter 6.”

Yes. You read that right.

If gravity exists, then something exists, so there is not nothing.

Gravity also acts on something else so something else must exist, hence there must be at least one thing.

Further, if gravity is a relation between two things at least, there must be at least two things.

Not only that, we have the same mistake of treating nothing as if it was something.

Finally, how is it that something can create itself. Only entities that exist can do actions like create and if something does not exist, it cannot create.

Perhaps some knowledge from a dead subject would have helped?

Also, we are regularly told about M-theory, but we are not told anything about what exactly it is and in fact are told it could be several theories. Keep in mind, it’s not allowed to posit a God who we do not understand, but it is perfectly allowable to posit a theory we do not understand. I am not against theories, but the sword should cut both ways.

In conclusion, those interested in science could enjoy the book, but do not come here expecting sound philosophy and/or theology or an understanding of either one. Once again, we have a case of the new priesthood wanting to vaunt its authority without being aware of the foundations it relies on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

More on Krauss’s Nothing

Will we have much ado about nothing? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last time, we noted how Krauss begins his book with early on asking “Who created God?” I had stated that I did not expect to find much more of substance in theology and philosophy beyond that. I was not disappointed.

This does not mean that the history of astronomy and the scientific information is uninteresting. Indeed, it is and this is to Krauss’s credit. When he talks in his field, he pays great attention to detail and wishes to make sure the information is presented accurately.

He’s not so charitable with other fields.

Myself, not knowing his field, will not really comment on it. This is sadly a lesson the new atheists haven’t learned thinking that their field of knowledge is often the only field and all others are just mere servants of their one field. If something is scientific, it is not worth talking about.

I find such an attitude not only wrong, but an insult to science. It is as if a true scientist will not trust his wife when she says she loves him but will need to do experiments. It is as if someone cannot know anything apart from what they learn in science. When science seeks to become a methodology and becomes a worldview instead, it quickly becomes as much holy writ as the very Scriptures atheistic scientists seek to denigrate.

Krauss does make mistakes that show a lack of study of those he critiques. For instance, he writes about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin on page 65 and how Aquinas answered this, except Aquinas did not answer it! No medieval asked it. They instead asked about the relation of angels to place. One can read question 52 of the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica for his look at this at newadvent.org. There will be a link at the end.

Starting on page 141, Krauss talks about miracles. Krauss states that miracles no longer occur though they apparently did in the past. Yet had he accepted the same testimony, he would hear they occur in the present. People today in the modern world believe they have been the recipient of a miracle or seen someone be.

Now of course, Krauss will not believe this, but what we are saying is that the testimony is there just as it was in the past. All Krauss believes is that they have not happened and the time period would not make a difference as we find claims in both periods. Why does he make a case then as if such claimants have ceased?

On page 143, Krauss says when we ask a Why question, we really mean a How. Perhaps sometimes we do, but upon what basis can he say that all why questions like this are how questions? Could it be some people are actually interested in asking why something does this even after they know how it does it? It’s more likely that Krauss is trying to avoid teleology, which is a strong indicator of purpose.

On page 144, Krauss argues that science makes new discoveries while theology does not. Most likely, Krauss could simply go to a library and get a theological journal first off and see what is being debated. Even if he could not find something new, his point is still invalid.

Philosophy and theology work differently. For those, we have had the foundations to work with for thousands of years. Most of us do not expect new data, but rather a deeper understanding of the data that we have and a newness in application. Perhaps we are not coming up with new moral principles, which is ridiculous, but that does not mean we dispatch with the ethicists and say they contribute nothing to knowledge.

You can be a good physicist today and never read Newton. You can be a good biologist today and never read Darwin. This is because those fields start from matter and go to other principles from there and rely on the latest material. A knowledge of how one got there could be fun and beneficial, but it is not essential.

On the contrary, with philosophy, you will need to know older material. You will need to know Plato, Augustine, Aristotle, and Aquinas, as well as numerous others. You will want to know what Descartes, Hume, Kant, and others have said. Later philosophers would most likely respond to the old systems without presenting much that is new, although some do of course. The same could be said of theology.

But the underlying idea is that theology and philosophy are not science, therefore they are not sources of knowledge.

On page 149, Krauss says his definition of nothing is empty space and that when he considers Aquinas and others, that this is what they had in mind. It is remarkable that in the same paragraph he talks about those who redefine the word when this is exactly what he has done right here. Aquinas meant “non-being.” He was a metaphysician and not a cosmologist. For an example of how Aquinas used it, see Question 45, article 1. I will show some of it here. I recommend reading the whole of his work on creation.

“I answer that, As said above (Question 44, Article 2), we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation. Now what proceeds by particular emanation, is not presupposed to that emanation; as when a man is generated, he was not before, but man is made from “not-man,” and white from “not-white.” Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the “not-being” which is “not-man,” so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the “not-being” which is “nothing.” ”

Please note this. Of all the times Krauss talks about what Aquinas thought, not once does he give a reference or directly quote. It is most likely that Krauss has never read a word of Aquinas. If he has read anything, it is likely a Wikipedia article on him. Krauss redefines what Aquinas means by nothing and then complains that too many people redefine what the word “nothing” means.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Chapter 11 is the greatest train wreck in the whole book.

Krauss starts with a question about morality and refers to Steven Pinker with the Euthyphro dilemma, as if this is something new for theologians. We’ve only had it since the time of Plato. Krauss is either unaware of the replies or doesn’t care, or a sad combination of both. No voluntarist would be convinced by his words as they know this objection. I would state how we know what is good differently by seeing what goodness itself is and realizing God is the perfection of goodness, but alas, such ideas never enter Krauss’s mind. One can be sure that there are simplistic disagreements with the Big Bang that Krauss would not want anyone putting forward, but he does the same with theology.

Krauss says in this chapter that the first cause or unmoved mover does not bear a relation to the God of the great religions of the world, but this is to say the argument is to prove a great religion. One could prove the Five Ways of Aquinas entirely and it could still be the case that Christianity is not true. Maybe Judaism or Islam or some other belief system is.

However, the deity shown through reason alone is not incompatible with the Christian God. It is just a small piece of the theistic pie of course, but it is still a piece and the existence of that piece is all that is needed to refute atheism.

On page 174, Krauss says that the idea of “Out of nothing, nothing comes” has no foundation in science. Perhaps it doesn’t when using the scientific meaning of nothing, but not the metaphysical meaning. Krauss has just changed the definition.

Krauss also speaks of how we say God created out of nothing. This is a misconception, as if nothing was something that God had to work with and with that nothing He pulled out something. What it means is God needed no pre-existing material to form anything. He merely created something more by His own will.

The sad reality is that in all of this, I see no clear explanation of how something comes from nothing. The book fails to deliver on its main promise.

Finally, in an Afterword by Richard Dawkins, Dawkins says that David Hume would not have to get out of his armchair to answer the objection that God did something because Hume would just say “Who created God?” It is amazing that Dawkins has been corrected on this ad infinitum, but he still plows on in the exact same direction.

Dawkins thinks that as one reads Krauss’s book, the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?” shrivels up. It is more likely instead that Dawkins has such an inferior grasp of the issues that he doesn’t realize that what he considers a knockout blow, in his own words, is nothing more than a tickle that brings some laughter. That atheists are convinced by this goes to show how little the atheists understand of what they speak.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Question 52 – http://newadvent.org/summa/1052.htm

Question 45 – http://newadvent.org/summa/1045.htm

Opening Thoughts On A Universe From Nothing

Does Krauss have a case? Let’s discuss it today on Deeper Waters.

Recently, an atheist told me I should read Lawrence Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing.” Naturally, I was at the library as soon as I could ordering it. I have just recently started it and true to what I have heard, I have thus far been disappointed.

At the outset, I have yet to finish the book and hope to soon. For the positive, I will say that when Krauss talks about the actual data itself, it is an interesting read. There is fascinating material on the history of the Big Bang Theory and learning how our universe works. Note that if someone finds a problem with Big Bang Cosmology, they should not object to it because it is scientific, but they should if they think it is bad science. For the person who does that, of course, they have to bring forward their case scientifically and show why the other is wrong.

The book is also written for the style of the layman in science. Krauss does explain his terms so those of us who do not understand science will be able to follow along somewhat. There are numerous illustrations throughout the book to facilitate knowledge.

So then, why am I, a non-scientist, critiquing a book on science?

Insofar as the book is scientific, I am not going to critique it. I am not going to argue why some scientific data is wrong and some is right. That is not my area and I believe people should comment on their areas. I will not dare challenge Krauss on cosmology. There are some Christians who might want to do that. I’m not one of them.

Yet while saying that, it would be good if Krauss had stayed in his area for when he does step out of it into theology and philosophy, he blunders greatly. Let’s look at the start as there was enough in the Preface to even tell me what was coming.

Krauss points out that people will ask “Where do the laws of physics come from?” and “Who created those laws?” Krauss says we can think we have the need to go to a first cause like in Plato, Aquinas, or the modern RCC. He then says the question comes to “Who created the creator?” In his words “After all, what is the difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one?”

Yes. Krauss thinks study for thousands of years in theology has never once thought of the question of “Who created God?” I’m reminded of how one atheist on TheologyWeb hearing the arguments from Aquinas said that Hume refuted Aquinas by asking “Who created God?” Aquinas would have just laughed at Hume.

Let’s start with Aristotle. Aristotle did believe in an eternal universe and yet, at the same time he was a monotheist who believed in one eternal God. He got there from reason. “Yeah,” the atheist says. “But he didn’t believe in the Christian God.” Correct. So what? He believed in a deity that is compatible with the Christian God in its nature but does not necessitate the Christian God. In fact, when Aquinas saw views in Aristotle he thought were incorrect, he was willing to refute Aristotle.

It would be difficult to say that Aristotle just wanted to believe in a god and so he made one up. Aristotle saw God as necessary to the system, though not in the way Aquinas did, and yet this did not go against his belief in an eternal universe. In fact, it was needed for the eternal universe. The two do not contradict. It’s not an either/or game.

As to why it could not be the universe that is the ultimate, Aquinas would have answered based on his doctrine of existence. The universe is material and thus undergoes change in its existing. It moves from one mode of existence to another. That shows that for the universe, existence is not primary. That for which existence is primary is that which does not change at all but simply exists.

In fact, its very nature is existence. This is why it makes no sense to ask “Who created God?” It’s like asking “What brought existence into existence?” Whatever it would have been would have had to exist and if it already existed, it could not bring existence into existence.

It is usually told that special pleading is going on. Aquinas does not explain change in God. That is because Aquinas sees no change in God. It’s not because he’s begging the question, but because he knows the chain must be explained by something that is pure actuality. That is something that is incapable of receiving change but can cause change in other beings. That something is God.

For someone who wants to say Aquinas’s argument does not prove the Christian God we answer “So what?” It’s not supposed to. It proves a small piece of theism. That is all. It proves enough that atheism is refuted. You will not be able to reason your way to Christianity. Christianity has philosophical ramifications, but is itself not a philosophy. It is a revealed truth.

Krauss also says that theologians and philosophers tell him he is speaking of nothing in an incorrect sense. Nothing is non-being in an ill-defined sense. The claim is quite ridiculous. If we are speaking of non-being, what can be said about it positively? That assumes that there is something that exists that has claims that can be said about it. There is not. Krauss also says:

“Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.”

It is hard to keep a straight face reading a sentence like this. We have had the concept of nothing and talked about it for thousands of years. Then, scientists come and define it according to their fields and yet, we are the ones who are supposedly changing the definition.

Now I’m not against physicists using the word “nothing” in a way that is relevant to their field. I am against them coming and saying “This is the only way it works and you have to use the word the way we use it.” I have the same problem in looking at the first way in Aquinas when the modern comes and says “Aquinas says motion! Let’s see what Newton says!” This assumes that while Aquinas and Newton could have used the same word, that the meaning was the same for a metaphysician as it was for a physicist hundreds of years apart.

Krauss also says that if no potential existed for creation, God couldn’t have created. Because of this, to use God is intellectual laziness.

I do not doubt punting to God with a God-of-the-gaps is intellectually lazy. This assumes however, that positing God any time must be a God-of-the-Gaps. Could it not be that there could be positive evidence for God and people honestly think God is the best explanation?

As for the potential of creation, the creation did not exist in non-being. That assumes non-being is something. The potential was an active potential God had. God has the capacity to create and to not create. This is not a change in Him as God is not receiving change but is rather causing change.

Overall, looking at just the preface of the book, I believe I am going to be disappointed. It will all hinge on what Krauss thinks nothing is. We’ll see as we go on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Most Spoiled Generation

Do we want what we wants when we wants it? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I just got done reading Thomas Sowell’s book “The Vision of the Anointed” and was thinking about the way our country is going, especially in light of a dialogue I’ve had going on on the web site of the local newspaper based on a letter to the editor I wrote on same-sex marriages.

Many people fear that our country could be in great danger due to economic troubles, and I agree we have great economic troubles. The idea for many Americans is that we want to get someone into the White House who we believe can fix the economy and get our nation running right.

There’s nothing wrong with fixing the economy, but really the purpose of the president has not been to lead the economy but to lead the nation. In what way is the nation to be led? Certainly in the case of war, but not just war. The nation is to be guided into being a nation of good citizens, of people who do the right and to preserve law and order.

When focusing on the economy, what if we saw the economy not as a cause of our problems but a symptom, and that first cause is instead a moral decline that has taken place in our nation and part of the symptoms of it in fact is our focus on the material things of the world rather than the building up of character.

Many of our economic problems could stem from our country spending beyond what we have. It is the crisis of “I want it!” There is also emergency thinking that says we have to fix this right away and focusing on short-term solutions rather than looking at the long-term picture.

That “I want it” is coming directly from our morality. Too often we are simply saying that someone has a right to something without giving a reason why or discussing what the ramifications of it would be. Someone wants to have an abortion. Are we going to really discuss it or just assume that it should be given because someone wants it.

Today, it’s same-sex marriage that is the issue. To say that we should have it because some people want it is not to give sufficient reason. There are many things I want but that does not mean I am entitled to have them. There are many things that we can all agree are good but that does not mean we are entitled to have them.

Let’s consider food. It would be good if we could feed everyone in the country. Does that mean that we should give them all a steak dinner every night? For many people, that would be good, but it just isn’t feasible to do.

If we were to do that, the funding would have to come from somewhere. Some people would be taxed. Those people would respond a certain way. Just because our idea is good and we thank that it should be done, that does not mean it can be pulled off. I would think it would be great if we could all teleport everywhere rather than have to spend time driving or flying. That would be great, but at this point, we cannot do it.

The same has often happened with our demand for justice. We know what needs to be done and if the law does not see things our way, we will react until they do. This is the case with rioting and vigilantes. It is the case of people thinking the world centers around them.

An excellent example of our wanting something right now is in our sexuality. Isn’t it interesting how many issues today are revolving around sex? What about abortion? What about homosexuality? What about sex education? What about birth control? Could it be that maybe we need to get in our heads that we should not have sex always just because we want it?

In apologetics, we often see that so many people don’t want to really study the Bible. They want knowledge, but they don’t want to have to work for it. For my readers, I can tell you I nearly always have a book with me and I like to get in at least 100 pages a day and that includes walking to the library often. (And by the way, I read when I walk as well.)

If we want to deal with problems in America, the first place to start is not our wallets. It is our hearts. If we can deal with the heart problem, we will also deal with the wallet problem. Of course, this will not happen immediately, and part of the problem is in thinking that there is a quick solution, but it can happen when we seek to build a people of character again.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Dimming Of Ebright

Does Ebright have a bright idea? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Over at Red Letter Christians, Ian Ebright has written an article entitled “Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation is an Example of an Overextended Church in Decline.” (Link at the end)

It’s pretty bad for me when right in the title I notice a problem.

Why am I categorized as anti-gay marriage? In reality, I am pro-marriage. It is another group wanting to come and change what marriage is. It is my policy in defense of my position to say that they are wrong. The opposition needs to show that what they are wanting is what marriage is, that it is good, and that they should be allowed to have it.

Why is it that sticking up for marriage is being seen right at the start as a negative position? Since our writer is a Christian, when Jesus is asked about divorce by the Pharisees, would it have been proper to say in the newspapers of the time “Anti-divorce teaching is overextending the bounds of Torah.”?

The first sentence already has the conspiracy going. The church is no longer content with governing itself. Now, it wants to use the tools of the government to order lives of consenting adults.

Tools of the government. You know, tools like free elections where people are allowed to vote and choose for themselves. These are people we’d normally call “consenting adults.” Meanwhile, in states like Iowa, the legislation has been passed by the courts without the vote of the people in fact forcing the beliefs of the courts on the populace.

Sounds like someone has their facts backwards.

Note also that the marriage side is not saying to storm into the bedrooms of homosexuals and punish them for Sodomy. They are free to do what they want to do. All we are saying is we will not recognize it as marriage.

Not to mention, why does consenting adults make it right? If consenting adults want to commit incest, will we say that they can get married? Consenting adults have threesomes often. Consenting adults divorce for dumb reasons. Consenting adults engage in polygamy.

Let’s also not forget that when the German cannibal Armin Meiwes wanted a specific victim to eat, he asked for a consenting adult. Everything was agreed upon! Somehow, I don’t think it was seen as a moral act just because it was between two consenting adults.

The writer then writes about all the freedom the church has. Why yes. The church has glorious freedom. True, we can speak, but notice some problems.

A worker who shares the gospel at his workplace could lose his job.

A preacher can get in trouble with the government for speaking on a political issue.

A student who prays at a school event like a graduation or a football game can face the wrath of the ACLU.

Christians in the media such as in sitcoms and movies are usually portrayed as ignorant and superstitious while the homosexuals are the laughable and enjoyable characters.

People at stores at Christmastime can be told to say to customers “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

Yet if you speak out saying you don’t think homosexuals should marry, you are a bigot, a homophobe, intolerant, and those are just listing some of the things I can put on a blog that are decent!

The writer then goes on to say the church is not content with ministry but wants to rule on private affairs.

Sorry to disappoint, but marriage is not a private affair.

When my wife and I got married, it was an incredibly public affair. We had a minister, her family, my family, and several good friends. (Including my best man who is going to be writing an excellent blog on this as well at RayadoRiver.wordpress.com.) While in Charlotte, we had someone fly in all the way from California for this event and our vows were done before God and man. That was a public affair.

When we are out in public, people know we are married. I am holding her hand we both wear our wedding rings. We can kiss each other in public and I can hold open doors for her and call her my Princess in public as well as refer to us as Mr. and Mrs. Peters.

That is public.

Now when we got married, what went on in the bedroom was indeed private. It is still private. This is the area that the church is not intruding upon. What we are wanting to protect is the public sphere, the sphere of marriage that is seen by all.

Furthermore, even the private aspect has a public demonstration. Let us suppose one day that Mrs. Peters and I have a child. Knowing that we are a faithful couple, that will be testimony to the world that we do have a sexual relationship. Every person you see today, you see because at one point, two people engaged in sexual activity together.

The idea then that Ebright is wanting to get out is exactly opposite of what he says.

Ebright now says the church and nation are getting weaker and more divided.

For the weaker aspect, I’d like to see some evidence. In what way are we weaker? Is our economy worse because we do not have this? Is our national defense worse? How are we weaker?

As for division, this assumes the church is the cause of the division. Note that where people have voted, they have always voted for marriage. It seems the dissenting opinion would be the one causing the division, but not so in the world of Ebright.

Furthermore, if there is division, it could be for a good reason. It could be some people think the purpose of marriage is something worth standing up for. Some people are realizing the church’s usual mechanism of “RETREAT!” which Ebright wants us to use again, doesn’t really work so well.

Amazingly is this sentence from Ebright.

“In a crusade for a more wholesome culture, we have injected pride, arrogance, hostility, and vitriol.”

Obviously, the more loving approach would be to tell people they’re intolerant and bigoted homophobes. Go look at some blogs sometime to see how the homosexual community and those who side with them can often speak of those who are for marriage. Desires of violence and death are quite common. When anyone has said the same to the homosexual community, the defenders of marriage have been quick to condemn such talk.

Ebright is once again on the opposite end.

Next is this paragraph:

“I have heard gay marriage argued against with the example of Nazi Germany, by people asking “where was the church then?” They say genocide is what happens when we fail to act on our morals as a church. I find it troubling that this is even considered a valid comparison to the GLBT community’s wish to marry. One is force, the other is consensual. Force turns sex into rape and employment into slavery. This is why the church is universally applauded when it combats sex trafficking, and esteems people otherwise harmed, neglected or left behind, because in those moments the church is elevating the individual rather than trying to restrict it.”

I have looked over and over this paragraph. It still makes no sense. I asked Rayadoriver their thoughts on it seeing as that blogger is much better in English than I and the thinking on it was mutual. This whole paragraph is a train wreck. I’m also not sure about who is making this comparison. I’ve read several blogs and have not seen it.

Ebright goes on to say that this is a form of consumerism in the church trying to make the culture look like it.

You know, all those Christians out there picketing to make Sunday church attendance mandatory and saying that one is not a citizen unless they’re a Christian. Oh wait. We’re not doing that. We’re not forcing Christianity on anyone. What we are doing is making a stake for our position and leaving it to the people to vote.

Why does Ebright have a problem with this? It’s as if he wants us to just lie down and do nothing. Just capitulate to the culture. Do not I as a Christian have a right to speak my beliefs in public and if I think they are good beliefs, to tell others why they should adopt them as well and live accordingly?

Does Ebright think the way of Christ is a good way worth sharing with the culture?

Ebright then compares being against SSM to the idea of being against tattoos, alcohol, and cursing.

Never mind that homosexuality is something condemned in both testaments and that marriage is a public affair affecting all of society whereas the most you could get a case for with the others is alcohol consumption which we already have laws regarding as well. Perhaps Ebright thinks that if that opinion is something Christians would encourage that we should get rid of it then.

He next speaks about the fight against pornography. That fight was lost, but the church was not silenced. Maybe it was better to just lose the battle.

Sure. Maybe it was better. We can just look at all the homes damaged by pornography, all the marriages split apart, the dehumanization of women, the lack of men being able to be men, the idolization of sex, etc. as just collateral damage. Sure. Those kinds of things happened, but the church can still minister!

The church has always been ministering and until Jesus returns, it will continue to do so. The church is meant to be salt and light in the world, but for people like Ebright, it would be best if we put ourselves under a bush, the very activity that Christ condemned.

Ebright then says:

“When you look at Christ, do you see Him forcing teaching or standards of living on everyone? He taught people to seek- as Rev. Earl F. Palmer said so correctly- seek is a freedom word. That means ministry is intended to grant people the dignity of choice as well as our patience. These ideas can be held along with the charge to go and make disciples.”

I am not sure which NT Ebright is reading. The gospel of Mark early on has Jesus calling people to repent. That term actually means that he is telling them to abandon their way of life and follow him. Jesus was a revolutionary, but he was not a military revolutionary. He was not planning a revolution against Rome. If anything, it was against the corrupt vision of His day.

Jesus was not meek and mild. Meek and mild teachers do not get crucified. People that do not stand up to the culture are ignored by the culture. Jesus regularly challenged the Pharisees on their own turf. True, He did not “force” his way, but Israel and America are not identical. Jesus certainly taught His way and encouraged others to follow, the action I’m suggesting we do and Ebright is suggesting we don’t do.

Let’s also not forget this little event on Passover week that involved a temple and making a whip. If any statement was revolutionary, it was that. This is quite likely the big event that got Jesus crucified and it was also a Messianic claim on His part.

Ebright then says that it’s time to stop forcing others to eat their vegetables. Force seems to be a favorite word. Unfortunately, force is never shown. It’s just asserted.

He also says homosexual marriage will not hurt your marriage any more than a neighbor having an affair. Let’s see how this logic works.

“Stop the fight against abortion! Abortion won’t harm your child!”

“Worry not about the neighbor abusing their child. It won’t hurt your child!”

Is this really the way Ebright wants followers of Christ to think? “If it will not hurt you, don’t worry about it.” Here I thought the biblical way was to esteem others as better than myself. It seems Ebright’s thinking is “Look out for number one.”

Ebright then has this quote.

““You’ve confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of a society. Not everything goes your way.” -Jon Stewart”

Excellent source right there. I’m convinced. Yes. Part of society is not everything goes your way. Correct. That’s because we live in a free civilization where we can vote and encourage people to vote our way. Let’s keep in mind that when Prop 8 was accepted, those opposed try to take the results of a free election to the courts. Meanwhile, when it was acceptable for a time in Maine, the people did a different tactic whereby they went around and got signatures, which was the state-approved way of handling a disagreement.

Yes. You won’t always get what you want and believe it or not, because you want your relationship to be called marriage, that does not mean the government should do that for you.

Ebright then ends with how we should be living more Christlike (You know, the guy who stood up to culture and got crucified” and that good biblical advice is to take care of your own family. (Is Ebright saying that he wants to impress on us his idea that we should take care of our own family? By his standards, is he not forcing this belief on us?) This is then being salt and light.

No. It is not. It is saying the Kingdom of God has no say on the kingdom of man.

As I check, there is nothing also in the piece about what the purpose of marriage is. There is nothing in the piece about what constitutes a family. There is nothing in the piece about the best environment in which to raise children. None of this is there. Now someone could say we’re wrong about all of those, but it seems Ebright is not even familiar with why a number of us are fighting this battle to begin with.

So this would mean Ebright is also wanting us to listen to him without him listening to us.

People like Ebright will continue to weaken the church in America and make it more and more irrelevant as has happened in England. Those who believe that the way of Christ has something to say to challenge the world will go out with that message. Ebright does not have to come along. After all, we do not believe in force.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The article can be found here

Kingdom Success

Want to be a success? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Just now, I got off the phone with a generous donor who donated to us through my work with Ratio Christi. He told me he was just helping me out with my work for the Kingdom and being on the front lines. I was comparing this to a job interview I was at this morning that was a group interview that also talked about success, success being based on how many sales were being made and how much money was being brought in.

It’s interesting to consider the different ideas of success.

Now I do appreciate donations coming in of course, but I can’t really define success in terms of money. I am not saying there is anything wrong with making money. Thank God some people do. There are people who God has given a gift for being able to raise money and these people can support the work of the Kingdom. If someone can make a lot of money and avoid greed, then by all means do so and enjoy your wealth. It is no sin to be rich and to make money.

This can be mixed with Christianity unfortunately in the idea of what is called the prosperity gospel. In this, the sign of the blessing of God is not only wealth, but the avoidance of sickness. Unfortunately, this is not coincided with the idea of hard work to earn wealth, but rather with having God bless you by speaking words of faith and acting actions of faith, most notably donating to televangelists.

The trouble is that there is no reason for God to reward sloth.

Let’s compare this with real success in the Kingdom. As I’ve said, there is nothing wrong with being successful in other fields provided they’re good fields to be in. If you play professional sports, be the best athlete you can be. If you’re a construction worker, put your heart and soul into building a building. In many a field, you can still use your talents for the advancement of the Kingdom.

In the world of apologetics in the Kingdom, there can be a lot of desires. There can be the desire to be known. There is the desire to have a reputation. There is the desire to do well in debate. There is the desire to know as much as possible. Again, these can all be good desires in themselves, but in the field, the great danger is to have those desires replace the great goal of any Christian including the apologist, knowing God.

Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant intellect in his day and there is a story that someone walked in on him one time when he was in prayer and this time, got a response. Aquinas was told “Thomas. You have written well of me. What reward would you desire?” Aquinas answered with “Only yourself Lord.” This is why we are told the Summa Theologica was never finished. Aquinas said that after what he had seen everything was as straw, and straw was used in that day to bury excrement.

When it comes to the greatest reward, is it the eternal reward. Success in the kingdom will not be measured by how many debates you won, although winning debates is important. It will not be measured by how many you discipled, although I also think that will be part of it. It will not be measured by how well you were seen in the eyes of the Christian community, though that is something important. It will be measured ultimately by your knowing of God and your being like His Son. If you are working on those, then work on the others as well secondarily.

Sometimes it can be easy to look at money, but there are far better things. Are you growing to be a good husband or wife? Are you one who shows love to your neighbor? Ultimately, it will not be what your fellow man says about your life that matters, but what your God eternally says about your life that matters, and perhaps if we all saw that eternal image that will never die away and chased after it instead of these temporary realities that can become idols, we would all live better. Indeed, when we treat the temporary as all that matters, we do make it an idol.

Let’s not worship any idols today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

How Not To Argue Marriage

Is there a way to not argue for marriage? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I recently got shown a letter in the local newspaper by a minister writing about how unconditional love demands the recognition of same-sex marriages. I was quite appalled at what I saw and immediately drafted out a response that after some shortening, the newspaper is going to put up.

In checking the web site to see what people are putting up, I notice the rampant quoting of Scripture. Now I love Scripture and think we should all know and treasure it, but I do not think the way we are going to win the marriage debate is by quoting Scripture.

Here in the South, it might have more credibility, but I’d like for you if you’re a Christian to imagine what it would mean for you if someone said that their Scripture, the Koran, tells you how it is you’re supposed to live. It could even be something you agree with as Islam does not approve of homosexuality, and yet you would not take it seriously. It is doubtful you’d go out saying “The Koran says the same thing!”

The problem is the person you’re usually dialoguing with will not accept the Bible as authoritative. Now if they do, that would change things, but even still there can be a problem.

What will usually happen is that someone will quote Leviticus 18 and tell how homosexuality is considered an abomination. The skeptic will reply “And so is eating shellfish. Should we do away with that?” Now I do not believe this is a good argument, but it is a common one. What will happen? You will immediately shift away from the topic of homosexuality to a debate on biblical inerrancy and interpretation.

In fact, you could, and I believe you can, win that argument and the person will then just say “Well that was also another time and culture.” This is a route where you could win the battle and lose the war. Of course, there is an answer to that, but would it not be best to avoid the debate altogether?

The moral commands of the Bible were not new. One does not need Scripture to know right from wrong. If you were to go to Leviticus 18 and 20, two passages that condemn homosexuality, you would find this. In both passages we are told that the nations Israel is dispossessing are being driven out because of these actions. In other words “They are getting punished for what they know is wrong.” If this knowledge could not be known, there would be no basis for punishment.

If this is the case, then instead of looking at just what Scripture says, which is informative, let’s look at why it says it. What is the reasoning that we can all possess that should show us that homosexual behavior is wrong and is part of general revelation?

There are many ways of doing this. Some people come from a medical perspective and show the dangers of the behavior. Some come from a statistical behavior and using social sciences study the behavior to show the problems. Some, like myself, come with a philosophical bent and seek to study sexuality that way and the family and show how it’s wrong.

These are all effective ways and prevent another great danger. When we reason with just the Bible, we are more prone to look like brain-dead fools. I am certainly not saying we are, but I am saying that that is how we will be perceived. We can actually take up the weapons of the enemy and meet them on their own turf and win. The one who loves the Bible should also love knowledge outside the Bible.

This will lead to better debates, debates we can all take more seriously, and let’s hope that they are.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Don’t Forget About Mary

The Mother of God? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Many of us who are Protestants can get nervous at this point in talking about Mary. It’s understandable. We don’t agree with the way other faith traditions have treated Mary and given her a place that we think is way too high. This would be a mistake. Let’s consider for instance the social gospel. This is the idea that Jesus came to tell us to love one another and give to the poor so we should be caring for the poor.

I’m as strong a capitalist as they come and realize that many people here see liberalism and remind us that Jesus came to teach the Kingdom of God, that His rule was coming, and to die for our sins. All of this is no doubt true. The great danger is that in acting against the social gospel, we can miss one point. Jesus did want us to care for the poor and to love our fellow man. Conservative capitalists should seek to do this.

Let’s take this back to Mary. At the start, I used the term Mother of God and this already gets people wondering. “God doesn’t have a mother! God has always been!” Yes. The title can be confusing, but while such objections can be raised, let’s make sure that we don’t forget something easily overlooked.

The church when saying this knew that already.

Yes. They knew darn well that God was eternal. They knew He does not have a mother, and yet they referred to Mary as the Mother of God. Why?

Part of the problem is treating God as if it was a personal name. There is the idea that when we say God, we must always refer to one person who is God and not say anything about His nature. When the Five Ways of Aquinas end with “And this, everyone knows to be God” it would have already been clear that when you say God, you are making some statements about the nature of God.

Consider what happens when someone tells you Jesus is God. We uphold that of course, but what do we mean? Greg Stafford, formerly with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, used to have a syllogism that went this way.

Jesus is God.
God is a Trinity.
Jesus is a Trinity.

The form of that syllogism is absolutely valid. Therefore, we need to find a problematic premise, but the top two premises are both statements we affirm and yet we don’t affirm the conclusion. What kind of situation are we in?

Let’s look at the first one to see. When we say “Jesus is God” do we mean “Jesus is the being who is the Trinity”? No. That’d be modalism. What we mean to say is that Jesus is a person who carries within Himself the full nature of God. That nature happens to be shared by three persons.

So let’s take this back to Mary. We are not saying that Mary gave birth to the being of God. That is nonsense. We are saying that Mary gave birth to a person who happens to have the full nature of God. That is difficult to understand, but not ipso facto nonsense.

Mary has a great position then in church history getting to give birth to Jesus. While I do not affirm her sinlessness or assumption or perpetual virginity, I and I would hope my fellow readers who are Protestants will affirm that this lady was given an incredibly special privilege we dare not take lightly.

It means that at the right time, God found just the right woman in Israel who he chose to be the mother of His Son. For thirty years, she would raise Him and care for Him and show Him how He ought to live. If some scholars are right and Joseph was dead when Jesus began His ministry, this would have been an even more challenging task.

In fact, usually in the gospels when she shows up, she’s not really acknowledged. Obviously, she plays a part in the birth narratives, but even then there’s a mystery. Luke writes about how she pondered events in her heart no doubt wondering what exactly would happen with this child. He also gives the words of Simeon that a sword would pierce her soul as well, and surely a number of mothers can say there’s no sword like losing your child.

When we see Jesus at the age of twelve in Luke, Jesus rebukes his parents to say “Didn’t you know I would be in my Father’s house?” It’s as if Mary should have known better. Why was it so hard to find Him? Surely such an event made an impression on her.

When in His ministry, Jesus’s family comes for Him, we find at one point that they think He is insane. There is no indication Mary is not part of this. Had she told Him about his miraculous birth and did she think that this was going to His head? We don’t have enough information to know for sure.

Later when His family seeks Him, Jesus tells them that His family are those who hear the Word of God and obey it. In a society that placed great emphasis on honoring family obligations, Jesus did just the opposite in putting His family in a distant position, something He told us we must do in Luke 14 to be His disciple. When a woman cries out that blessed is the womb that gave birth to Jesus and the breasts on which He nourished, he replies that blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.

Of the gospels, John alone has the future of the situation. While in the beginning, Jesus does rebuke His mother at one point telling her His time is not yet come, nevertheless He does as she says. In the end, we find that He has the beloved disciple be the one to take care of her.

If any time was perplexing to Mary, it would have been that weekend. The disciples had followed Him for but three years. She had been there all His life and Had been told He was the Messiah by Gabriel himself. Didn’t God know how the story was to turn out? How could crucifixion be what He had in mind all along? Had God deceived her? Had Mary just failed as the mother of the Messiah? Had she brought doom to all of Israel so that they would never be free from Rome?

It would be fascinating to know what went on in that time. It has been said that when a parent loses a child, they lose their future. Mary lost not only hers, or so she thought, but she had lost the future of Israel, not just for herself but maybe for everyone else. Was there any chance God would send another Messiah? We can’t be sure what she thought, but we can be sure her thoughts were not pleasant.

The last time we see Mary in the New Testament (I know some might say Revelation 12, but I do not see that as Mary) is in Acts. Mary is there with the rest of the disciples. There she has come to understand and no doubt with the coming of the Holy Spirit would understand more.

Perhaps what we need to do to understand best what it meant for Jesus to carry the hope of Israel on Him would be to consider what it was like for His mother. While there are ways we think that we should not see Mary, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. God chose a special woman for a special task, and may we all be ready for whatever special tasks He has for us, even if we just see ourselves as peasants.

In Christ,
Nick Peters