https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VrcO6JaMrM
Please click on the link above and follow the path if needed
posted by Believer | 3:54 AM
|
0 comments
BULLETIN ARTICLESCREATION VS. EVOLUTIONDEITY OF CHRISTFACTUAL ACCURACYFACTUAL ACCURACYHISTORICITYPROPHEThe Old Testament book of Psalms constituted the hymnal of the Jewish nation, containing a collection of 150 songs, laments, and praises by various authors. Since the Old Testament canon was very likely completed no later than 400 B.C.,1 and since the Septuagint is known to have been produced circa 250 B.C.,2 the pronouncements in the Psalms predated the arrival of Jesus on the planet by centuries. Yet, within the sacred pages of the Psalms, scores of very detailed allusions pinpoint specific incidents that occurred in the life of Christ on Earth. These allusions constitute proof positive of the inspiration of the Bible.
For example, composed by David in the 10th century B.C., Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).
While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners,3 others question the historicity of such a claim.4 In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers.5 Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment.6 Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).
The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.
Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.
But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers’ need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.
In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.
Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:
Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back.7
Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.
1 H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 8; cf. Gleason Archer (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 440.
2 Albert Barnes (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint), pp. 193ff.
3 E.g., Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p.161; J.W. McGarvey (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), p. 725.
4 E.g., Alfred Edersheim (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.), 2:591-592.
5 William Davis (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton), 3:2651.
6 A.T. Robertson (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel), p. 147.
7 Flavius Josephus (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 3.7.4:203.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
posted by Believer | 3:34 AM
|
0 comments
The first time I heard the word aseity was while sitting in a seminary class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with Dr. D. A. Carson. He was my advisor during my seminary years, and I heard Dr. Carson say many times: “I’ve learned over the years that my students don’t remember everything I teach them . . . but they do tend to remember what I am most excited about!” God’s aseity was a doctrine that I still remember Dr. Carson being excited to teach!
God’s aseity refers to God being eternally and completely “of himself.” The word comes from the Latin. It’s a compound word made up of two smaller words: “a” (from) and “-se” (self). To talk about the aseity of God, then, is to say that God is from and of himself. He is completely self-originating and dependent on nothing other than himself.
When we’re talking about God’s aseity, we are referring to the way that God has existed from eternity past completely independently of anything else—completely “of himself”—and therefore satisfied and delighted in himself. It goes without saying that this is not a “communicable” attribute of God (humans don’t share this attribute with God!). Now, here’s how I found this doctrine connecting with other systematic theological categories.
What does God’s aseity mean for the creation of the world?
I remember learning about creation (Genesis 1–2) in a Sunday school class when I was probably 6 or 7 years old. One of the kids asked the Sunday school teacher, “Why did God make Adam and Eve?” I remember her answering something like this: “God made Adam and Eve because he was ‘lonely’ and he wanted people to be with him and be his friends.”
Is that correct? Why would God choose to create the universe and human beings?
The doctrine of aseity tells us that God’s decision to create cannot be because of any deficiency in God. He didn’t need the universe in order to be happy. He wasn’t lonely without us! So, why create?
God’s creation of the universe—and human beings—must be the abundant, joyful, gracious overflow of his goodness and kindness. What an amazing thought! God’s creation must be a result of his joyful delight to share and display his glory in all the universe and with all his creatures!
What does God’s aseity mean for the salvation of sinners?
In Genesis 3, God could have been justifiably done with humanity! Adam and Eve had been living in the Garden of Eden, walking with God, enjoying his creation and stewarding it, and living in perfect fellowship with their Creator. And in that terrible moment, they listened to the lies of Satan and rebelled against the word of their good God. God could have wiped humanity from the earth, but he doesn’t do that.
Instead, we get Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelion or “first gospel.” God looks far into the future and promises that Eve’s seed—his own Son—will crush the head of the serpent and destroy Satan, sin, and death for his sinful people! The question is Why?
I want to suggest that the doctrine of God’s aseity gives us only one answer: God does this out of his sheer delight in demonstrating his grace! It’s the joyful overflow of God’s demonstration of this aspect of his character: his mercy and grace.
In the wake of the Fall of Adam and Eve, God delights in revealing his gracious character through the redemptive work of his Son for sinners, which would not have been the case if sin had never entered the world. In other words, the work of redemption gives us an opportunity to see God’s character and sing praises to him that would not have been possible without sin!
You can see this in the “songs of heaven” that the apostle John witnesses in his visions of Revelation 4 and 5. In Revelation 4, he sees and hears the angelic beings singing to God the Father as Creator. Simply because of creation, God deserves glory and praise! But then in Revelation 5, John hears the angels singing a “new” song. What’s new about it? It’s a song of praise to the Lamb—specifically because of Christ’s work of redemption through the cross.
Why would the God of aseity choose to save sinners who had rebelled against him? He does it from the sheer delight of demonstrating his grace.
What does God’s aseity mean for what he wants from us?
One could argue that this is the most important question of life: What does God, who made me, want from me? In considering his aseity, I think it’s Isaiah 66:1–2 that provides God’s answer to this question:
Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”
What does the God of aseity want from me? God says, I made everything. I don’t need your temple or any ‘house’ that you might build for me. The very earth is like a footstool for me!
This was, by the way, in stark contrast with the pagan deities of the Canaanite peoples. Their idols were thought to rely on the sacrifices and rituals that their followers gave them. God is saying through the prophet Isaiah, I’m not like that! He even clarifies in Psalm 50 that he doesn’t eat the bulls and goats that his people offer to him in sacrifice.
So, if God doesn’t need anything from us, then what does he want from us? Simply this, according to Isaiah 66:2: that we be “humble and contrite,” and that we “tremble” at his “Word.” God delights in people who humbly delight in him, trembling in both awe and joy at his life-giving word.
The doctrine of God’s aseity, then, makes it very clear what we bring to the table in our relationship with God. What is the one thing we have to offer that he doesn’t? Simply our need. We bring to the God of aseity the gaping opposite of aseity. We bring him our sin—and our need. As Jonathan Edwards wrote: “The only thing we contribute to our salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.” And God the Father, in Christ, delights to both forgive us and adopt us as sons and daughters.
What does God’s aseity mean for eternity ahead of us?
If we were to fast-forward one million years into the future, to find ourselves with Jesus and God’s people in the new heaven and new earth, what does God’s aseity tell us about that eternal existence?
We can conclude that God certainly doesn’t need us to “work the farm” in the new heavens and new earth! The apostle Paul tells us that we’ll “judge angels” one day and John tells us we’ll “reign with Christ.” But it’s not as if God needs our help in his eternal judgement and reign.
Here’s what we must conclude: It must be that God delights to share his glory and even his reign with his redeemed people, for all eternity. When we think about eternal life stretching out before us, we should think about our Savior’s delight to share his joy with us—to welcome us into his glory and to offer us eternally fulfilling work and worship.
God does this not out of any need or deficiency, but out of his abundant grace and sheer delight.
Do you see how this attribute of God touches so many different aspects of Christian doctrine?
Christian, this is an attribute of God that ought to make you say of him, What a God! He doesn’t need us, but he delights to give himself to us through the redeeming work of his Son. And, for all eternity to come, we will share in the joy and reign of the God of aseity, who has shared himself with those who so desperately need him.
Jon Nielson is the author of Knowing God’s Truth: An Introduction to Systematic Theology.
posted by Believer | 1:30 AM
|
0 comments
Twenty years ago, Anna Quindlen—a writer for the New York Times, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a recipient of prestigious honorary degrees—gave this advice to a group of graduating seniors:
Each of you is as different as your fingertips. Why should you march to any lockstep? Our love of lockstep is our greatest curse, the source of all that bedevils us. It is the source of homophobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, terrorism, bigotry of every variety and hue because it tells us that there is one right way to do things, to look, to behave, to feel, when the only right way is to feel your heart hammering inside you and to listen to what its timpani is saying.1
These inspiring graduation speeches and sermons, presented by Kevin DeYoung, offer counter-cultural advice for high school and college students, guiding them to put Christ first as independent adults.
That’s fairly typical commencement counsel: “Follow your dreams. March to the beat of your own drummer. Be true to yourself.”2
I’d like to offer different advice: “Do not follow your dreams. Do not march to the beat of your own drummer. And whatever you do, do not be true to yourself.”
If you think I’m being a little hyperbolic, you’re right. I’ll provide some nuance to this advice at the end. But I believe it’s important to state the matter provocatively because our world screams at us in thousands of commercials, movies, and songs that the best way to live, the only authentic way to live, is for you to be you, for you to live out your truth, for you to find your true self and then have the courage to live accordingly.
The Bible, on the other hand, tells us, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12). Think of the story of Esau who sold his birthright for a pot of stew. “Let me eat some of that red stew,” he said, “for I am exhausted. I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” (Gen. 25:30, 32). Esau was consumed with his desires.
Esau was defined by his desires, and they deceived him. Esau is depicted as an animal. You can see this more clearly in the original Hebrew. All he can think of is the red stuff, the red stuff (ha-adom, ha-adom). He exaggerates the extent of his need. He wasn’t literally going to die. (Like kids saying when dinner is a half hour late, “I’m starving!”). Esau is emotional and impulsive. He is fainting, gasping, gulping. You can almost see him wiping off his mouth, throwing down a napkin, and letting out a loud belch as he walks away from his meal of stew. He was not made nobler for satisfying his desires. He was made lower. He became like an animal. That’s what the text wants us to see. Esau the skillful hunter was prey to his own appetites. He had a better identity as the firstborn of Isaac, but he gave that away. He became a profane man, treating what was sacred with irreverence and disrespect.
The world tells us that our identity is found in what we desire. So to deny the fulfillment of what you desire is to deny your truest identity. We are all awash in what Carl Trueman calls “expressive individualism.”3 The idea is that you are what you feel, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I’m sure you remember Elsa’s anthem “Let It Go” from Frozen. With its emphasis on testing the limits and breaking through, it’s no wonder the song and the character Elsa have become a favorite in the LGTBQ+ community.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me I’m free.4
What could be more indicative of the spirit of the age?
Throughout most of history, philosophers and theologians have distinguished between affections (which are motions of the will) and passions (which sweep over us unbidden). That’s why the Westminster Confession says God is without parts and passions. The Westminster divines were using “passion” not as we do to mean intense zeal. They were saying, God does not have an emotional life like we do. He is Pure Act; nothing happens to him. He is never rendered passive.
The salvation we all know we need is not to be found by looking within ourselves but by looking for grace outside ourselves.
Consequently, the Western tradition, especially in the Christian tradition, has insisted that the lower appetites must be constrained by reason and the grace of God working within us. In fact, the Reformed tradition goes one step further and reminds us that we can be misled by all our faculties. That’s what we mean by the phrase “totally depraved”—our passions are broken, our reason is not entirely reliable, and our wills, apart from Christ, are bound to sin.
Most people you will encounter in life—and maybe you, reading this today—operate with an unspoken assumption that shapes and defines every argument, every instinct, and the way you look at the world and look at yourself. The assumption is this: is equals ought. Importantly, the is here is no longer about your body. It’s not about some physical givenness. “My body tells me something true about myself even when I don’t feel that it is true.” That mindset is no longer assumed. Now it is assumed that what you feel about yourself, or believe about yourself, or perceive about yourself tells you who you are and how you should behave.
Is equals ought conditions us to believe: “This is what I feel like, so this is what I should do; and if you tell me I can’t do that, or that I should be something or someone other than I feel myself to be, you are attacking the very heart of my personhood.”
What’s wrong with this philosophical assumption? Besides being devoid of any objective, empirical, scientific facts, the assumption is entirely at odds with Christian anthropology. The only way is equals ought can work is if there is no doctrine of the fall—if our instincts are never self-deceived, if our desires are never self-centered, and if our dreams are never self-destructive.
The salvation we all know we need is not to be found by looking within ourselves but by looking for grace outside ourselves. G. K. Chesterton said it so well:
That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.5
Like most heresies, the is equals ought heresy is partially true. It grasps something we want to affirm; namely, that ethics must be rooted in ontology. That’s just a fancy way of saying identity does shape obligation. Is does equal ought, if you have a doctrine of sin, regeneration, union with Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The great theologian of our age, Lady Gaga, was right: you were born that way. The good news of Jesus Christ is that you can be born again another way.
Notes:
This article is adapted from Do Not Be True to Yourself: Countercultural Advice for the Rest of Your Life by Kevin DeYoung.
posted by Believer | 3:18 AM
|
0 comments
Please click on the link above and follow the path provided
posted by Believer | 3:00 AM
|
0 comments
https://apologeticspress.org/video/is-god-speaking-to-you-today/
Please click on the link above and follow the prompts provided
posted by Believer | 1:30 AM
|
0 comments
Skeptics argue that the Bible is a book of mythology, filled with inconsistencies and impossibilities. Clarence Darrow, the agnostic defense attorney in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, scoffed at the Bible’s account of Cain finding a wife, asking William Jennings Bryan, “Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?”1 Writing in Biblical Archaeology Review, Marry Leith argued that the text implies there must have been “other people ‘out there’ when God created Adam and Eve” from whom Cain picked a wife.2 Genesis 3:20, however, indicates that “all living” descended from Eve. If God created only Adam and Eve, and all other humans came from them, and Eve had only birthed Cain and Abel by the time Abel was murdered, who was Cain’s wife (Genesis 4:17)?
First, as discussed elsewhere,3 Genesis 4 gives several indications that a significant amount of time likely passed between the birth of Cain and Abel and the murder of Abel. If humanity was being fruitful and multiplying as God commanded (Genesis 1:28), it is reasonable to assume that Adam and Eve were not waiting many years before conceiving their next child. Genesis 5:4 indicates that Adam and Eve did, in fact, have “other sons and daughters” which are not listed in the text. If they had a single child every two years (i.e., no twins), and their children began marrying at the age of 19 and immediately began having children as well, there would have been roughly 300 people on the Earth by the time Cain was 1004—a plausible age as to when Cain may have killed his brother.5 Cain likely married either a sister or niece.
Some see a problem with that explanation, as it implies that Cain (and many others) were forced to commit incest—an illicit union in God’s sight. God’s law concerning incest, however, was not instituted until the Law of Moses came into effect (Leviticus 18), likely at least 2,500 years after Creation.
It is generally assumed that the reason God outlawed incest at that point was due to the state of the human genome by the time of Moses. Incestuous relations significantly increase the likelihood of birth defects, as well as deleterious psychological problems.6 A child inherits 23 chromosomes from each of his parents. By having children with close relatives, many of those chromosomes are duplicated in the offspring—including those genes that are deleterious, rapidly increasing the odds of major physical problems.
When God created Adam and Eve, however, their genomes were pristine—without defect. Duplicate chromosomes would not have caused the defects observed today. After Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden, denied the “healing effects” of the Tree of Life, and were subjected to the cursed Earth (Genesis 3:14-19), their bodies and genomes would have begun to suffer the effects of entropy in earnest.
The Universe, and everything in it, is growing “old like a garment”—gradually decaying (Psalm 102:25-26). Ultraviolet and other forms of radiation (especially radiation from the Flood), as well as other mutagens and DNA replication errors have increased the accumulation of mutations in the genome. After over two millennia of genetic entropy, by the time of Moses the number of mutations within the human genome would have begun to make incest a dangerous practice.
Cain would have married a close relative. However, as would be predicted if the Bible is inspired by the God Who created the genome, and therefore knew of the growing dangers of incest long before humans had discovered the genome, God asserted Himself at the right time and prohibited the dangerous practice that He had previously sanctioned.
1 “Scopes Trial: Excerpts from the Court Transcripts,” Day 7, http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion/trial_transcripts.html.
2 Mary Joan Winn Leith (2013), “Who Did Cain Marry?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 39[6]:22, November/December.
3 Eric Lyons (2013), “Does Genesis 4 Indicate that God Specifically Created Others Besides Adam and Eve?” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4585.
4 NOTE: If the lifespans of the 300 were roughly that of the patriarchs of Genesis 5, death from old age would not have occurred by that point. It is possible that some of the 300 died from other causes, but it is also likely that children were being born sooner than every two years and that twins were common since God wished for the Earth to be filled (Genesis 1:28; 9:1). Regardless, even if half of the 300 had died, Cain still would have had dozens of possible marriage candidates.
5 Lyons.
6 J. Henderson (1983), “Is Incest Harmful?” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 28[1]:34-40; Hal Herzog (2012), “The Problem With Incest,” Psychology Today On-line, October 11, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest.
| Suggested Resources | |
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
posted by Believer | 2:30 AM
|
0 comments
The usual ploy of atheists in their efforts to discredit the inspiration and integrity of the Bible is to attempt to pit one passage against another, claiming they have pinpointed a discrepancy. Typical of these attempts is the refusal to evaluate the textual data objectively and fairly. In his debate with Apologetics Press staff writer Kyle Butt on the campus of the University of South Carolina, atheist Dan Barker insisted that God endorsed human sacrifice by His alleged morally irresponsible act of ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. In his first speech, Barker stated:
Does he [God] accept human sacrifice? In some verses yes, in some verses no. Remember the thing about when Abraham, he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. By the way, Abraham should have said, “No way, I’m better than you, I’m not going to kill my son.”1
Ironically, due to the aimless, subjective nature of atheistic “ethics,” atheists have no objective basis or absolute standard by which to evaluate the taking of life—even animal or plant life. Yet, even very liberal thinkers have conceded circumstances under which it might be appropriate to terminate the life of a fellow human being (e.g., if a person were guilty of mass murder). The Bible quite properly identifies a variety of circumstances under which the taking of human life is moral and rational—including God’s own execution of large numbers of people throughout history (e.g., the Flood in Genesis 6-9). The Law of Moses included a minimum of 16 capital crimes.2 If at least one instance of taking human life is morally justifiable in the mind of the atheist, God cannot rightly be indicted for stipulating the instance. It becomes merely a matter of determining the ethical appropriateness of any given instance. It is no longer a matter of if it is morally right to require the death of a person, but simply when it is right to do so.
Another factor to consider in ascertaining whether God can rightly order the death of a person pertains to the very nature of human life itself in the great scheme of things. If humans possess an immortal soul, a spirit, then killing the body does not extinguish that life. As Jesus declared: “And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:4-5). If there is an afterlife, terminating physical life on Earth is not actually a termination of that life, since conscious existence continues in the afterlife. Hence, again, the question is not whether human life may be terminated in this life, but only the conditions under which life may be taken and who is authorized to do so.
The passage in question is found in Genesis 22. The stated purpose of the incident pertains to God’s desire to “test” Abraham (Genesis 22:1), i.e., enable Abraham to recognize and demonstrate the level of his own faith in God. God’s instruction to Abraham is found in these words: “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Genesis 22:2). A series of events then transpire over a period of three days—giving Abraham sufficient time to assess in his own mind the depth of his faith and commitment to God. James spotlights this very feature:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (2:21-24, emp. added).
Observe that James wrote as if Abraham actually completed God’s directive (“offered”), which shows that the objective was to test Abraham’s willingness to obey—without actually completing the deed.
The Bible clearly affirms that God would never require an immoral act—including child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2). In the book of Kings, God condemned the Israelites for mimicking the abominable practice of the Amorites who offered their children as sacrifices to their pagan gods. He vehemently insisted: “I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination” (e.g., Jeremiah 32:35; cf. 19:5). It did not enter God’s mind to actually have Abraham kill his son. Here, then, is the salient question: is it morally wrong for God to test a person’s faith and commitment by ordering him to perform an act,3 while not actually intending to require (or allow) the person to do so?
The Bible is its own best interpreter, and if one honestly desires to arrive at the truth (John 7:17), and will do what the Bible itself insists is necessary to achieve that goal, i.e., apply oneself diligently to studying, examining, and weighing the biblical evidence (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15), one can ascertain whether the Bible actually contradicts itself and whether God is morally irresponsible. The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews solves the dilemma posed by Dan Barker. Read carefully his assessment of Abraham’s action regarding his son:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense (Hebrews 11:17-19, emp. added).
Observe that in Abraham’s mind, Isaac was as good as dead, i.e., he fully intended to sacrifice his son as directed. However, one cannot successfully maintain that Abraham was guilty of agreeing to commit an immoral act—since he fully believed that the death of his son would be immediately reversed. The strength of this conviction (which is the central feature of Abraham’s great faith) is further seen in the fact that he informed the servants: “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you” (Hebrew plural, nasucach, Genesis 22:5, emp. added). Abraham fully recognized that the moral nature of deity would not sanction child sacrifice. God’s prior declaration, that Isaac would be the one through whom He would fulfill His promises to Abraham, was sufficient proof that God would circumvent his action by raising Isaac from the dead.
After a careful evaluation of the textual data, we are forced to conclude that, though God instructed Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice, the purpose of the command was merely to enable Abraham to manifest the strength of his faith and trust in God, and that it did not enter God’s mind actually to have Abraham kill his son. Isaac was, in fact, a foreshadowing of the coming Christ. Incredibly, the perfect nature of God required that He sacrifice Himself in the person of His Son in our behalf: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all…demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 8:32; 5:8).
1 Kyle Butt and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate, Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/952.
2 Dave Miller (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” https://apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
posted by Believer | 2:00 AM
|
0 comments
