Willing Instruments of Murder

When Paul argues that all people are under sin in Romans 3:9-18, he does not simply argue that all people have spilled some milk on the table or made mistakes, as it is often presented. Instead, he argues that all people are murderers.

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the sin. As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”     “Their mouths are full of curses and bitterness.”
 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
     ruin and misery mark their ways,
 and the way of peace they do not know.”
     “There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Their throats are open graves and their tongues practice deceit. How does deception relate to murder? I would argue that it is in the convincing of either a murderer to commit murder or in the convincing of someone to take his own life. In this regard, I would hold that philosophers will be held accountable for the murders that their philosophies produced in others, whether they themselves ever raised a fist against another man or not. Are only Stalin and Hitler to blame for their murders? Should we not also see fault in the philosophies that convinced them to become so? Is it only the Hutu people who took up machetes against the Tutsi to blame, or is it also the radio hosts with their dehumanizing propaganda who have hands full of blood? Is Ted Bundy alone to be blamed for his rape and murder, or do Friedrich Nietzsche and Aldous Huxley share any blame for convincing him of the worldview that justified his breach of what he viewed now as merely social taboo?

If a man convinces another man to become a murderer, is he not equally a part in that murder? Does not one often feel the need to justify the act with the philosophy to match? Do these ideas not give permission to the murderer to act as he does? But how does everyone become the devil on the shoulders of killers? 

I would argue that everyone convinces other people to take their own lives. The deceived, in turn, adopt philosophies, as well as practices that assume those philosophies, that work to convince others to take their own lives. They do this by convincing other people to take upon themselves false worldviews and practices that lead to their damnation and exile from the eternal land of the living. As those in obedience to God become His priests who present His truth to the world in both word and deed, so also the disobedient to Christ is a priest for the devil, the murderer of all mankind, that presents his argument to the world.

Every man's life is an argument for a worldview. Every man's truth claims are dogmas concerning the nature of reality. In speaking these dogmas or living them out, each person does his part in convincing others to believe and do the same.

In this regard, the throat is truly an open grave ready for all who come near it to fall in. The tongue is an instrument of deadly deceit. The poison of adders is on their lips.

Hence, when Paul argues that no man is good, he is not merely saying that no man is without faults or makes mistakes. He is saying that every person is evil. Every person is a murderer.

With this understanding, one can see that all mankind is, indeed, damned, and not in a position of favor with God. God, as the good and just Judge, will not be brushing off murder and arbitrarily setting murderers free.

The only Person in a position of favor with God is Jesus Christ, who is the exact opposite of the rest of the murderers that make up fallen mankind. He is the Savior. He saves life rather than murdering it.

Hence, it is only through a unification with Jesus Christ, who has God's favor, that a murderer can have his crimes paid for in Christ's death, as well as obtain the favor of God that the Lord Jesus has, having now become one with Him through faith.

There, therefore, is no hope outside of Christ. When Christ comes and calls out for all mankind to repent, He is calling for all to repent of their murder. The wrath of God abides upon all murderers. God has no favor upon them. They all bear sentence of Cain banished into exile. Indeed, the Bible argues that God hates murderers. However, He loves and favors His life-giving Son with whom He is forever well pleased. He alone, therefore, is the hope of a lost humanity covered in one another's blood; and without Him, rest assured, every man will pay for what he has done . . . and for what he has said.

Huxley Affirms Romans 1

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever." (Alduous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization)

Biblical Theology XIX: Isaiah

Isaiah exists in three major sections (1–39, 40–55, and 56–66). Each section is a prophecy concerning God’s people in various stages of judgment and redemption. The first is Isaiah prophesying judgment over Israel and Judah for their bad theology (i.e., idolatry and places of worship) and ethics (injustice and lack of concern for the covenant poor). Isaiah predicts that the north will no longer be a nation after the Assyrians wipe them out, and that the south will go into exile. There are two cities, the lofty city and the new Jerusalem, one representing rebellious humanity and the other representing the righteous remnant. The second section is from describes the time of the exile. It picks up on the promises of hope for the remnant that Isaiah promised in the earlier section. The final portion describes Judah back in the land, and it argues that the return to the land is not the final fulfillment of the promises. Instead, the prophet predicts a day when the inheritance of Israel will be the wealth and submission of all nations, perpetual life will be given to its people, and a new heavens and earth will be made. The return from the exile, then, is merely a microcosmic foreshadowing of the eschatological age to come when faithful Israel will become all that God purposed them to be.

Theology: The book begins by arguing that Israel has lost sight of who God is. A donkey knows its master, but Israel does not know God. God calls His people, therefore, to repentance by coming to know Him again through His judgment of Israel. Isaiah himself becomes a representative of this repentance. He witnesses God’s awesome holiness and this causes him to repent. A burning coal, something very painful, is placed on his lips, not to destroy him, but to purify him. In the same way, God’s holiness will be displayed in His judgment of Israel and the other nations. It will wipe away false Israel, but true Israel, the remnant, will come to know God through it and be purified by it as Isaiah was purified by the burning coal.

Judah will be delivered from its enemies (i.e., pagans and false covenant members), and the sign of this promise will be an ‘almah giving birth to a child. The child will be called Immanuel. Later, a child is promised, like this child, to deliver God’s people, and his name is beyond comprehension, mediator, mighty God, everlasting father. He will take upon himself rule and authority.

In the book, the exile is seen as insufficient to cleanse Israel of their sins, and so a suffering servant is prophesied as the federal head through which Israel will finally be cleansed and restored. This servant will be unjustly killed, not for his own sin, but for the sin of his people. He will then be restored to “long life,” which is terminology for perpetual life in the Old Testament. He will then be “high and lifted up,” which is terminology said of God throughout the book. The messianic overtones throughout the book, therefore, convey the idea that the promises given to Israel must take place through the Davidic king prophesied. It is the house of David that is in view that will ultimately deliver the people from their sins and their oppressors (both internal and external enemies). The people only need to repent to take part in the promises given to that house. Because Israel functioned as a priesthood to the nations, when they are judged, there is no priest left for the world. Hence, the world is judged because there is no more mediator left between the Holy God and wicked men. All nations will again be brought to God through Israel’s Messiah, who will restore Israel as the royal priesthood of the nations.

Ethics: There is no indication that if someone repents he or she would escape the judgment of God upon the nation. The judgments of God themselves convey His holiness/justice, and they are, then, a necessary act for the sanctification of God’s people, as it causes them to understand who God is. Instead, individual repentance determines whether a person will be a part of the remnant who will eventually enter the holy city, the new heavens and earth, the age to come. This is an important point, since many might have thought that repentance would stay the wrath of God when, in fact, it only turns that same fire into a purifying one instead of an all-consuming one. Instead, a lack of repentance indicates a lack of understanding who God is, and an obliviousness to what world one’s evil actions are leading. Only those who know God in His holiness will repent, and only the repentant will be cleansed of their sin and take part of the paradisal world to come. Repentance is acknowledging God’s holiness and remorse for our own sinfulness, and is expressed by confession, ceasing to do evil, and learning to do good.

The Son of Man Riding on the Clouds as Possible Polemic in the Book of Daniel

The idea that God rides on the clouds like a chariot has a long history in the ancient Near East and the Bible.

It appears in Daniel 7 in reference to the Son of Man, who will take over the world when he receives his kingdom from the Ancient of Days, shattering all of the existing nations before him.

It is worth pursuing the question of Daniel's audience in terms of this imagery since it is likely polemical.

On the one hand, it could be just an adoption of the previous polemic used throughout the OT that pitted YHWH against Baal, the storm god, who rode on the clouds. In that regard, it would only carry the idea of supremity in general.

However, it is significant that Marduk is also the supreme deity in Babylonian religion (albeit with some coregency with Nabu), and is also the storm god who rides on the clouds. This would fit the setting of Daniel as one that is written in the Babylonian period. However, even for the traditional date of Daniel this is not the setting of the composition, as it would have to be written at the very earliest in the Persian period, since the book covers some of this period.

However, the Persians don't worship a specific storm god, so there would be no polemic at the time of the composition. The reign of the storm is divided between two lesser gods, Vayu and Tishtrya, who are not the supreme deity in Persian religion.

Still, it is possible for this view to take the text as a prophecy written down in the Babylonian period. The text does set it up as being received in the Babylonian kingdom. One could, therefore, argue that it is a polemic against the Babylonian god Marduk. The problem is that the polemic of YHWH riding the clouds as a chariot instead of Baal exists because there is a real threat to Israel assigning some sovereignty to Baal, and so the polemic is created. At the time of supposed composition during the Persian period, however, there is no threat of Jews falling into Marduk worship. Marduk is a failed god by then. Babylon is fallen to the Persian god Ahura-Mazda. Why would anyone be tempted to follow Marduk?

However, there is a real threat that Judah would worship Zeus in the time of Antiochus IV. I would suggest that since the last kingdom in view throughout the book is the Seleucid Empire, that the book's polemics are aimed there. The god of Antiochus IV, the real antagonist of the book worships Zeus, again, the supreme god who is the storm god. He rides the clouds and has ultimate power. It is likely for this reason that the Son of Man is viewed as riding on the clouds of heaven. The same type of polemic is then later used by John against Zeus/Jupiter in the Book of Revelation. Many Jews, in an effort to become Hellenized, had forsaken YHWH for (or at least identified Him as) Zeus with Antiochus Epiphanes as his manifestation on earth.

It would make sense that the polemic in Chapter 7 would present the Son of Man, the Kingdom/Empire of God, as headed up by a divine king that sovereignly rules over the domain that is being falsely assigned to Zeus at the time of Antiochus. As the earthly kingdom that has been incorrectly assumed to belong to pagans will be given over to Israel and its King, the heavenly kingdom that has been incorrectly assumed to belong to a pagan god belongs to both the Ancient of Days and His king. In this way, the Son of Man imagery both refers to Israel (i.e., the human in contrast to the beasts that describe the pagan nations) and to Israel's Divine King (since the nations at the beginning and end of the inclusio in the text are often characterized by a particular king that rules them, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV).

This is yet another piece of the puzzle that shows that the Book of Daniel is likely addressing a situation not during the time of the Babylonian captivity, but rather during the reign of the Seleucids.

A Tale of Two Epistemologies

Sinking, sinking, with holes in the boat. Only they without will stay afloat.

I recently had a Facebook exchange with an unbeliever that reminded me how much our culture needs to think more about epistemology. I made the statement that objective moral statements cannot be made without an objective source confirming objective moral principles from a universally transcendent source. In other words, revelation from God is needed in order to make objective moral statements. It is not just that the belief in God is needed, but that a reliable, external communication from God is needed in order to confirm that our moral sentiments are also reliable.

This also goes to knowing in general. What I find is that those who reject that we have a reliable, external source of revelation from God simply do not understand how this relates to their ability to know what is true or good. The person objecting to my statement seemed to think the Christian and the atheist are in the same boat.

The problem is that they simply are not. One can say that if atheism is true, then they are in the same boat in terms of knowing what is true or good (i.e., neither can); but one cannot say that, given their ultimate beliefs, they are in the same boat in terms of what they can claim. The Christian does not believe that atheism is true. Hence, what he believes is true gives him the ability to make claims about morality and truth that are consistent with his ultimate beliefs. 

The atheist, however, self admittedly (although not often aware of it), does not have an ultimate belief that allows him to make claims concerning truth and morality that are consistent with his ultimate beliefs. 

This person wanted to argue that the epistemic question cannot be confirmed, seemingly arguing that one must confirm things empirically, but morality can be confirmed empirically in terms of how much harm it brings to someone. One can see the cohesiveness of this argument floating away from them. 

First, epistemic questions are answered in two ways: 1. One merely believes ultimate beliefs so one cannot evaluate them with some other belief, otherwise, they are not ultimate. This means that there is nothing in terms of ultimate beliefs that can be confirmed by us empirically. Empirical verificationism itself begs its ultimate beliefs, and it ends up being self-refuting if placed in that role by itself. We simply believe our starting points in terms of our metaphysics, sources of authority, etc. 2. One can weigh whether secondary beliefs, especially universal sentiments, are consistent with our ultimate beliefs. In other words, if there is a belief that we can know what is true and morally good, but we have a belief system that cannot reliably confirm what is true and morally good outside of ourselves, this shows an inconsistency that may speak to the truthfulness of one idea or the other. Either we can confirm our secondary beliefs, and therefore, make these claims over others, or we cannot due to our ultimate beliefs. 

Second to this, empirical verificationism cannot be confirmed as the only way of knowing without assuming the validity of its metaphyiscal assumptions and ultimate beliefs. In essence, there is no way of arguing that empirical verificationism is reliable without begging the question as to whether empirical verificationism is reliable.

Thirdly, moving the question of morality over to what harms or whatnot is merely ignoring the question. Who is to say that the most harm is immoral? Why is it immoral to harm stardust? All sorts of questions from ultimate beliefs need to be answered before one even steps on the ground of measuring actions as moral.

What this means is that the Christian's epistemology (one where both empiricism and belief in a reliable report, such as he believes the Bible is) is consistent with his claims concerning objective truth and good. The atheist's claims, however, are not. The best the atheist can do is answer, "Maybe," to every question. It is inconsistent for him to critique the Christian's view of morality or even truth claims without first establishing his own ability to make those claims in continuity with his ultimate beliefs. 

So we are not in the same boat in terms of what we are claiming, not by a longshot. The atheist (or really anyone without an externally reliable source of revelation that comes from a transcendent mind), therefore, must force on others his subjective opinion, which, according to his own worldview, is merely a guess in the dark that can never be confirmed. The Christian (or anyone believing in one of the three major revelatory religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is not making the same claims. Whether his ultimate beliefs are true or not is a different question, but his ultimate beliefs allow him to make the claims that he does. One is a sinking boat and the other stays afloat.