I thought this was an insightful comment about a former member of an Acts 29 church. I've seen this over and over again in Evangelicals and their leaning toward liberalism.
"I am wondering about whether this is part of a trend that I see. I used to attend a former Acts 29 church. When i first started attending 8 years ago the church was solid theologically, would discuss theological topics, sermons were solidly biblical etc (we had James N Anderson give lectures!). Oddly though, over the last few years political liberalism has seeped into the congregation, the church has began to move leftward in subtle ways. During this shift I noticed a marked reduction in theology talk, and more talk about “apologizing” to minorities (gays became a very important group to apologize to.). Many in the congregation also began to flirt with the idea that we need to be more “Inclusive” etc.
It seems that if you think “inclusion” is an ultimate good, and many in our era do so, then it’s not a big step to say, “ if xtianity is against inclusion it’s false” people come to the reasonable conclusion that xtianity is not inclusive and walk away. Because of course God would be inclusive."
Monday, July 29, 2019
The Sexual Prosperity Gospel
Like Harris, I was raised in a dating culture and saw no issues with it until later. Unlike Harris, I still think courtship is biblical and dating is not. However, I don't think Harris' courtship model was ever really true courtship that incorporated parents in the mix as much as it should have. I always looked at his model as a more conservative form of dating.
In any case, however, I do think that the element brought out in this article is very real and very important to understand. We do what we do with our relationships to glorify God, not to get a better life or anything in life from it. One only need read the dispute literature in Scripture like Ecclesiastes or Job to know that doing something right does not neccesarily lead to getting a better anything in life, especially since it is through hardship and suffering and God withholding our desires from us often that is the means through which He is creating us/conforming us to the image of His Son.
/https://religionnews.com/2019/07/26/joshua-harris-and-the-sexual-prosperity-gospel/
In any case, however, I do think that the element brought out in this article is very real and very important to understand. We do what we do with our relationships to glorify God, not to get a better life or anything in life from it. One only need read the dispute literature in Scripture like Ecclesiastes or Job to know that doing something right does not neccesarily lead to getting a better anything in life, especially since it is through hardship and suffering and God withholding our desires from us often that is the means through which He is creating us/conforming us to the image of His Son.
/https://religionnews.com/2019/07/26/joshua-harris-and-the-sexual-prosperity-gospel/
Good Bereans?
Evangelicals love to quote the passage in Acts 17:11 about the faithful Bereans searching the Scriptures to make sure Paul's interpretations are correct. They're great examples of the low-church, Individualist's paradigm that gives responsibility to the laity to judge the teachings of the church given to them.
However, is this what the text is actually teaching? Here are some key points that indicate that this is an abuse of this text.
1. They're in a synagogue with rabbis, not in their homes with their individual Bibles. They are being led by teachers to evaluate Paul's statements.
2. Paul's interpretations are given to him by Christ supernaturally in visions, etc. How exactly are they judging his interpretations in Scripture? They could just give those verses a Jewish spin, or apply anachronistically apply the historic-grammitcal approach and refute what Paul is saying. This gives us an indication that what they are searching is whether or not the Scriptures actually contain the things that Paul is quoting, i.e., that it actually says something Paul says that it says. They're not evaluating his interpretations. How exactly does one evaluate an interpretation that had to be revealed to him? In fact, in the Greek it literally just says that they daily examined the Scriptures, not to check his interpretations, but to see τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως "whether they held these things likewise," i.e., as Paul had said the Sciptures held these things.
3. How was it Luke's point in including this verse to argue that every laymen should check his Bible teachers if, in fact, the average laymen did not own his own Bible and study it personally, nor would he until the advent of the Gutenberg Press 1500 years later?
4. Ephesians 4 lays out that God gives teachers in various forms to the church in order to equip and grow it. Paul instructs Timothy to preach and teach the Word. Elders are also to teach and are qualified by their teaching ability in contrast to even deacons much less laymen. Laymen are never told to study their own Bibles in order to become equipped and discern for themselves what is true and false in a person's teaching. Again, they don't even have them. This means that God would actually require laymen to be faithful in an area they cannot be for another 1500 years. That narrative fits the common Evangelical/Baptist idea that the church essentially fell off the planet until they came along, but it doesn't fit Jesus words very well that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the church.
5. Evangelicalism's individualism is very much a rejection of the biblical and historical means by which believers are equipped and given discernment. As such, it is both unbiblical and historically anachronistic.
I realize that children of the post-enlightenment world have a radical mistrust of authority. They don't want to be dependent upon others. Such ideas scare them. "Sounds like a cult!" they proclaim with zeal as they comfort themselves in their radical departure from the biblical means of discipleship. But everyone is already dependent upon other people who have taught them, books, music, etc. The issue is what source the Bible wants people to be dependent upon. Ultimately, it is a trust in God, upon Whom we are all dependent, that He will lead His people to the right place and into the truth, but that trust must be coupled with an attitude of teachableness toward His Word and faithfulness in one's life.
However, is this what the text is actually teaching? Here are some key points that indicate that this is an abuse of this text.
1. They're in a synagogue with rabbis, not in their homes with their individual Bibles. They are being led by teachers to evaluate Paul's statements.
2. Paul's interpretations are given to him by Christ supernaturally in visions, etc. How exactly are they judging his interpretations in Scripture? They could just give those verses a Jewish spin, or apply anachronistically apply the historic-grammitcal approach and refute what Paul is saying. This gives us an indication that what they are searching is whether or not the Scriptures actually contain the things that Paul is quoting, i.e., that it actually says something Paul says that it says. They're not evaluating his interpretations. How exactly does one evaluate an interpretation that had to be revealed to him? In fact, in the Greek it literally just says that they daily examined the Scriptures, not to check his interpretations, but to see τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως "whether they held these things likewise," i.e., as Paul had said the Sciptures held these things.
3. How was it Luke's point in including this verse to argue that every laymen should check his Bible teachers if, in fact, the average laymen did not own his own Bible and study it personally, nor would he until the advent of the Gutenberg Press 1500 years later?
4. Ephesians 4 lays out that God gives teachers in various forms to the church in order to equip and grow it. Paul instructs Timothy to preach and teach the Word. Elders are also to teach and are qualified by their teaching ability in contrast to even deacons much less laymen. Laymen are never told to study their own Bibles in order to become equipped and discern for themselves what is true and false in a person's teaching. Again, they don't even have them. This means that God would actually require laymen to be faithful in an area they cannot be for another 1500 years. That narrative fits the common Evangelical/Baptist idea that the church essentially fell off the planet until they came along, but it doesn't fit Jesus words very well that the gates of Hades would never prevail against the church.
5. Evangelicalism's individualism is very much a rejection of the biblical and historical means by which believers are equipped and given discernment. As such, it is both unbiblical and historically anachronistic.
I realize that children of the post-enlightenment world have a radical mistrust of authority. They don't want to be dependent upon others. Such ideas scare them. "Sounds like a cult!" they proclaim with zeal as they comfort themselves in their radical departure from the biblical means of discipleship. But everyone is already dependent upon other people who have taught them, books, music, etc. The issue is what source the Bible wants people to be dependent upon. Ultimately, it is a trust in God, upon Whom we are all dependent, that He will lead His people to the right place and into the truth, but that trust must be coupled with an attitude of teachableness toward His Word and faithfulness in one's life.
Saturday, July 27, 2019
I Kissed Evangelicalism Goodbye: My Thoughts on Joshua Harris' Apostasy
Every once in a while, when he was alive, my dad would watch Abbot and Costello. Bud Abbott was the straight man, and Lou Costello the comic, or "banana man." This made up what is called a comic duo, where one man sets up, or "feeds," another in an act. It was all entertaining because one would identify with Bud Abbott as a rational man, and then get hit by the humor of the irrational funny man, as though the two were at odds with one another. In reality, they were both working together, one to set up the other, and to draw the audience in.
I remember sitting in the lounge of my dorm at Moody with some fellow classmates and hearing one of them talk about his belief that Evangelicalism was dying out. I said to him, "Really, I view Evangelicalism as orthodox Christianity." He said, rather astonished, "Really?"
Over the years, I came to realize why he was so astonished, and just how ignorant my belief was. That's because my true education began, not at Moody, but at Trinity and Westminster, where I started to learn the Bible and Christian theology at an advanced level. This allowed me to begin to see how much modern Evangelicalism was a superficial counterfeit of orthodox Christianity, not the champion of it that it had made itself out to be.
There are, of course, elements of orthodox Christianity within Evangelicalism, which is why it had become such a convincing counterfeit. It originally held up the Bible as the infallible Word of God, affirmed core Christian doctrines like the Trinity and justification by faith, etc.
However, that is all that it affirmed. There was never a fullness to its orthodoxy, a healthy weight on its bones. It always somewhat resembled an anorexic teenager, just enough skin on it to pass as living, but largely malnutritioned and dying.
What I realized over the years is that Evangelicalism is a part of a larger American religion that assumes all sorts of Enlightement and Post-Enlightment ideas in its view of knowledge, God, experience, sexuality, etc. In fact, what I came to realize at a certain point was that it was simply a more conservative form of the liberal theology that it pretended, and still pretends, to fight against.
I often use the term "Americanity" to describe the cult of American "christianity" that includes the flavors of liberalism, fundamentalism, evangelicalism, emergings, etc.; but in reality, they are all the same slurpee with different food coloring.
This is largely due to the fact that, at the end of the day, they all get their ideas from the same source, the self.
Oh, I know, Evangelicalism says it gets its ideas from the Bible, but does it really? The most important practice to grow as a Christian in Evangelicalism is to study your own Bible. Where is this concept in Scripture? The most important practice that leads to growth in Scripture is to set yourself under the discipleship of an apostolic church that teaches the Bible (Eph 4). That's quite a difference. It also means that one is connected to the Christianity that has been taught and learned for 2000 years before.
What that means is that one is constantly reforming, questioning one's secular culture and religious traditions, not by the standard of his Evangelical cult or the wider consensus of American culture, but by the Word of God as it has been understood throughout history and is exegeted in the community of the Holy Spirit that is the church. It is this measuring stick that gives a framework for thinking about any issue.
But Evangelicalism, at the very first, was primarily concerned for how the world around it perceived it. It wanted to be more respected by the larger culture. It argued that Christians should be more involved secular academics, which coupled with the desire to be accepted, resulted in the apostasy of many an academic Christian who soon realized that acceptance by the secular academy meant abandonment of Christian orthodoxy, not just an adoption of critical methods of study. It was meant to be less divisive over secondary issues, a designation it gave to anything outside of the skeleton of what it considered orthodox.
The effect that this had was that Evangelicals reduced what was required of one to believe he was a Christian. Some stayed on an inerrant Bible and the Trinity. Some went so far as to simply believe that one had to believe in Jesus in some way or another. Others believed that one needed only affirm that one is saved by grace. Whatever the boundary marker, it was so narrow a path that one could hardly blame the weary traveler from falling off of it.
And therein lies the problem of Evangelicalism. It isn't a robust worldview. It doesn't provide anyone a framework for thinking through issues and living them out in the Christian life. It's designed specifically as a blanket to be placed over whatever worldview one already has. It's much like the Roman Empire, desiring to grow bigger by assuming the cultures of everything in its path to the point where there is nothing distinctive about the Empire from the world before it was conquered by it. It certainly obtained for Evangelicalism bigger buildings and masses of people, but that's only because there was nothing to offend anyone anymore. People could just believe whatever they wished without the threat of walking outside the faith. After all, they still believe in the Trinity even though their ethics all came from superficial music, movies, newsmedia, school, etc.
Since you can believe all sorts of things, there isn't much left to distinguish Evangelicalism from any other American belief system. Even Hindus and Muslims believe in Jesus in some way. Even Roman Catholics and EO's believe in the Trinity (which is why many Evangelicals think they're just another denominational option for them). Every religion on the planet has an idea of grace.
What does all of this have to do with the apostasy of Joshua Harris? His apostasy, and the statements he makes in his declaration, are a further reminder that Evangelicals are more influenced by their culture than they would like to admit.
For instance, he states that his previous views, i.e., the ones that were closer to orthodox Christianity, were "bigoted." This is an odd assessement from someone who no longer has a transcedent measuring stick. Where did he get the idea that such was bigotry? Oh yes. Popular opinion among the unbelieving masses. He also states that he is in a state of deconstruction; but how exactly would one know one's trajectory of thought without a standard? Oh yes, the standard is culture. One is moving toward culture and further away from an orthdox Christian worldview.
My point is that Harris already had a framework in place that eventually convinced him that orthodox Christianity was false, even while truly believing certain doctrines and practices that belonged to orthodox Christianity. I see this in every apostate that Evangelicalism produces. It is a system bereft of understanding.
I say this because anyone who thinks long and hard about it, anyone who is actually educated in the matter, would not come out acting like he knew a better way. The only options are Christianity or radical skepticism to the point that one cannot identify what is bigoted, what is right, what is harmful, etc.
But Harris comes out of Evangelicalism bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, knowing that everything is going to be alright, that he should apologize to unbelievers because the views he critiqued in the past are morally valid after all, and that his former views were wrong. How exactly does he know any of this? Because the real religious authority for the Evangelical is not the Bible or the historical church, or even his modern local church. It is culture. Evangelicalism, because it does not present the whole counsel of God as vital to its members, does not teach it, and now does not know it, ends up just being the straight man setting up the comic of secular culture. Only the punch line isn't all that funny. It leads to destruction, to divorce, to hopelessness, and to ruined lives that are convinced they are happy because they were living in some sort of legalism rather than in a loving relationship toward God that sought the truth and good in everything from the sources God commanded they be sought.
In essence, Evangelicalism is a rebellious movement form the get go. It is not a surprise that what is begun in apostasy ends in apostasy. So I am an apostate too. I apostasized from the cult of Evangelicalism. I kissed it goodbye. But I did not give up one chair in the cult meeting just to sit down in another as Harris did. By adopting genuine Christianity as a comprehensive worldview obtained from the whole counsel of God, I walked out of the building altogether.
I remember sitting in the lounge of my dorm at Moody with some fellow classmates and hearing one of them talk about his belief that Evangelicalism was dying out. I said to him, "Really, I view Evangelicalism as orthodox Christianity." He said, rather astonished, "Really?"
Over the years, I came to realize why he was so astonished, and just how ignorant my belief was. That's because my true education began, not at Moody, but at Trinity and Westminster, where I started to learn the Bible and Christian theology at an advanced level. This allowed me to begin to see how much modern Evangelicalism was a superficial counterfeit of orthodox Christianity, not the champion of it that it had made itself out to be.
There are, of course, elements of orthodox Christianity within Evangelicalism, which is why it had become such a convincing counterfeit. It originally held up the Bible as the infallible Word of God, affirmed core Christian doctrines like the Trinity and justification by faith, etc.
However, that is all that it affirmed. There was never a fullness to its orthodoxy, a healthy weight on its bones. It always somewhat resembled an anorexic teenager, just enough skin on it to pass as living, but largely malnutritioned and dying.
What I realized over the years is that Evangelicalism is a part of a larger American religion that assumes all sorts of Enlightement and Post-Enlightment ideas in its view of knowledge, God, experience, sexuality, etc. In fact, what I came to realize at a certain point was that it was simply a more conservative form of the liberal theology that it pretended, and still pretends, to fight against.
I often use the term "Americanity" to describe the cult of American "christianity" that includes the flavors of liberalism, fundamentalism, evangelicalism, emergings, etc.; but in reality, they are all the same slurpee with different food coloring.
This is largely due to the fact that, at the end of the day, they all get their ideas from the same source, the self.
Oh, I know, Evangelicalism says it gets its ideas from the Bible, but does it really? The most important practice to grow as a Christian in Evangelicalism is to study your own Bible. Where is this concept in Scripture? The most important practice that leads to growth in Scripture is to set yourself under the discipleship of an apostolic church that teaches the Bible (Eph 4). That's quite a difference. It also means that one is connected to the Christianity that has been taught and learned for 2000 years before.
What that means is that one is constantly reforming, questioning one's secular culture and religious traditions, not by the standard of his Evangelical cult or the wider consensus of American culture, but by the Word of God as it has been understood throughout history and is exegeted in the community of the Holy Spirit that is the church. It is this measuring stick that gives a framework for thinking about any issue.
But Evangelicalism, at the very first, was primarily concerned for how the world around it perceived it. It wanted to be more respected by the larger culture. It argued that Christians should be more involved secular academics, which coupled with the desire to be accepted, resulted in the apostasy of many an academic Christian who soon realized that acceptance by the secular academy meant abandonment of Christian orthodoxy, not just an adoption of critical methods of study. It was meant to be less divisive over secondary issues, a designation it gave to anything outside of the skeleton of what it considered orthodox.
The effect that this had was that Evangelicals reduced what was required of one to believe he was a Christian. Some stayed on an inerrant Bible and the Trinity. Some went so far as to simply believe that one had to believe in Jesus in some way or another. Others believed that one needed only affirm that one is saved by grace. Whatever the boundary marker, it was so narrow a path that one could hardly blame the weary traveler from falling off of it.
And therein lies the problem of Evangelicalism. It isn't a robust worldview. It doesn't provide anyone a framework for thinking through issues and living them out in the Christian life. It's designed specifically as a blanket to be placed over whatever worldview one already has. It's much like the Roman Empire, desiring to grow bigger by assuming the cultures of everything in its path to the point where there is nothing distinctive about the Empire from the world before it was conquered by it. It certainly obtained for Evangelicalism bigger buildings and masses of people, but that's only because there was nothing to offend anyone anymore. People could just believe whatever they wished without the threat of walking outside the faith. After all, they still believe in the Trinity even though their ethics all came from superficial music, movies, newsmedia, school, etc.
Since you can believe all sorts of things, there isn't much left to distinguish Evangelicalism from any other American belief system. Even Hindus and Muslims believe in Jesus in some way. Even Roman Catholics and EO's believe in the Trinity (which is why many Evangelicals think they're just another denominational option for them). Every religion on the planet has an idea of grace.
What does all of this have to do with the apostasy of Joshua Harris? His apostasy, and the statements he makes in his declaration, are a further reminder that Evangelicals are more influenced by their culture than they would like to admit.
For instance, he states that his previous views, i.e., the ones that were closer to orthodox Christianity, were "bigoted." This is an odd assessement from someone who no longer has a transcedent measuring stick. Where did he get the idea that such was bigotry? Oh yes. Popular opinion among the unbelieving masses. He also states that he is in a state of deconstruction; but how exactly would one know one's trajectory of thought without a standard? Oh yes, the standard is culture. One is moving toward culture and further away from an orthdox Christian worldview.
My point is that Harris already had a framework in place that eventually convinced him that orthodox Christianity was false, even while truly believing certain doctrines and practices that belonged to orthodox Christianity. I see this in every apostate that Evangelicalism produces. It is a system bereft of understanding.
I say this because anyone who thinks long and hard about it, anyone who is actually educated in the matter, would not come out acting like he knew a better way. The only options are Christianity or radical skepticism to the point that one cannot identify what is bigoted, what is right, what is harmful, etc.
But Harris comes out of Evangelicalism bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, knowing that everything is going to be alright, that he should apologize to unbelievers because the views he critiqued in the past are morally valid after all, and that his former views were wrong. How exactly does he know any of this? Because the real religious authority for the Evangelical is not the Bible or the historical church, or even his modern local church. It is culture. Evangelicalism, because it does not present the whole counsel of God as vital to its members, does not teach it, and now does not know it, ends up just being the straight man setting up the comic of secular culture. Only the punch line isn't all that funny. It leads to destruction, to divorce, to hopelessness, and to ruined lives that are convinced they are happy because they were living in some sort of legalism rather than in a loving relationship toward God that sought the truth and good in everything from the sources God commanded they be sought.
In essence, Evangelicalism is a rebellious movement form the get go. It is not a surprise that what is begun in apostasy ends in apostasy. So I am an apostate too. I apostasized from the cult of Evangelicalism. I kissed it goodbye. But I did not give up one chair in the cult meeting just to sit down in another as Harris did. By adopting genuine Christianity as a comprehensive worldview obtained from the whole counsel of God, I walked out of the building altogether.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Romantic or Blessed Language When Speaking to or about God?
The ladies have been writing some good posts over at BoneofBones. April had a great article concerning contemporary speech and music that displayed romantic gestures toward God. To this article I would add just two things.
Jesus as my boyfriend is certainly a different picture of Christ than the one where He stands up to the most furocious powers of nature, the wind and the sea, and tells them to be silent . . . and they obey Him! Jesus isn't our boyfriend. He's our Lord and our God.
1. Although we often have to point out that God is neither male nor female, it is actually not true that His own self-expression to us is genderless. God overwhelmingly communicates Himself to us through maleness. The pronouns used for Himself, the imagery, the designations as Father rather than Mother, King rather than Queen, Lord rather than Mistress are important. His incarnation is that of a man, Christ Jesus, who is the Son and not the Daughter of God.
Although God does use analogies a couple times between Himself and a woman, it is always to compare His love for His people with a mother's love for her children (or a hen's love for its chicks). It is never as a woman to be desired.
This creates a potential issue for men who speak romantically of God. In essence, it is not only an effeminization of men, but perhaps, even a type of homosexuality rather than ordered, heterosexual sex that is being pictured in this type of language.
Truly, sex is an analogy between our relationship with God. It is meant to communicate in an earthly relationship the joy and pleasure one has in the presence of God. The Song of Songs is meant to display this. But this is an analogy, not a vocabulary presented by the Bible of direct speech one should employ when speaking to God or about Him. This is much in the same way that analogies, like God being a hen or a mother, are made of God and His relationship to us, but should not form our language in speaking to God (as though referring to God as our Mother or the Great Chicken is appropriate for creatures claiming to have reverence toward their Creator).
2. On the flip side of things, the romantic language used for people often crosses the line of worship. Talking about another person as one's "everything." or "sole desire," or "rock in life," etc. are all things that should actually be said of God and not of other human beings. In this regard, not only are modern songs and declarations about one's partner sappy and empty (I often have to wonder if a particular song declaring one's eternal love for another is said of a girlfriend that he had twenty girlfriends ago), they are outright idolatrous.
Human beings are not meant to function as the fulfillment of one another's purpose and meaning. God does that for humans who have been made to worship Him and Him alone.
So on the one hand, language that should not be used of God is spilling over into our vocabulary toward God, and on the other, language that should not be used of humans is spilling over into our vocabulary toward one another. In essence, we are a people who have transgressed the boundaries of the Creator/creature distinction, the holy and the profane. We are polytheists and polygamists, looking for our gods and our lovers wherever we can find them, even mixing them together as the Greek myths of old.
We likely do this because we have been trained to think that our relationships are only meaningful and fulfilling if they are emotionally exciting, and romantic relationships cause our dopamine fountains to runneth over more than any other relationship. But God is not valuable to my life because of the way He makes me feel. His value is not subjective to me. It is intrinsic to Him, and this causes me to value Him beyond my subjective feelings. There is no need to become sappy about God in some futile effort to allow Him to compete with all of the other drugs around me, including romantic relationships. Instead, it is through the truth that our eyes are opened, we see God's beauty and value, and therefore, make application to our lives that God is worthy to be worshiped, not because He makes me feel a certain way, but because all things were made by Him and for Him. I would call this blessed language. It is a language which acknowledges the greatness of God and what He has done for us without the degrading of Him into a means to meet my emotionally romantic needs. Romantic relationships in our culture are one of the many drugs with which we intoxicate ourselves in our self worship, but God is not an aspirin to be used as pain medication to hide a broken life, as we use our other drugs. He is life and health itself. Our language, as it does in the Bible, should reflect this sort of exaltation, and call the winds and waves of emotionally romantic speech to be silent.
Jesus as my boyfriend is certainly a different picture of Christ than the one where He stands up to the most furocious powers of nature, the wind and the sea, and tells them to be silent . . . and they obey Him! Jesus isn't our boyfriend. He's our Lord and our God.
1. Although we often have to point out that God is neither male nor female, it is actually not true that His own self-expression to us is genderless. God overwhelmingly communicates Himself to us through maleness. The pronouns used for Himself, the imagery, the designations as Father rather than Mother, King rather than Queen, Lord rather than Mistress are important. His incarnation is that of a man, Christ Jesus, who is the Son and not the Daughter of God.
Although God does use analogies a couple times between Himself and a woman, it is always to compare His love for His people with a mother's love for her children (or a hen's love for its chicks). It is never as a woman to be desired.
This creates a potential issue for men who speak romantically of God. In essence, it is not only an effeminization of men, but perhaps, even a type of homosexuality rather than ordered, heterosexual sex that is being pictured in this type of language.
Truly, sex is an analogy between our relationship with God. It is meant to communicate in an earthly relationship the joy and pleasure one has in the presence of God. The Song of Songs is meant to display this. But this is an analogy, not a vocabulary presented by the Bible of direct speech one should employ when speaking to God or about Him. This is much in the same way that analogies, like God being a hen or a mother, are made of God and His relationship to us, but should not form our language in speaking to God (as though referring to God as our Mother or the Great Chicken is appropriate for creatures claiming to have reverence toward their Creator).
2. On the flip side of things, the romantic language used for people often crosses the line of worship. Talking about another person as one's "everything." or "sole desire," or "rock in life," etc. are all things that should actually be said of God and not of other human beings. In this regard, not only are modern songs and declarations about one's partner sappy and empty (I often have to wonder if a particular song declaring one's eternal love for another is said of a girlfriend that he had twenty girlfriends ago), they are outright idolatrous.
Human beings are not meant to function as the fulfillment of one another's purpose and meaning. God does that for humans who have been made to worship Him and Him alone.
So on the one hand, language that should not be used of God is spilling over into our vocabulary toward God, and on the other, language that should not be used of humans is spilling over into our vocabulary toward one another. In essence, we are a people who have transgressed the boundaries of the Creator/creature distinction, the holy and the profane. We are polytheists and polygamists, looking for our gods and our lovers wherever we can find them, even mixing them together as the Greek myths of old.
We likely do this because we have been trained to think that our relationships are only meaningful and fulfilling if they are emotionally exciting, and romantic relationships cause our dopamine fountains to runneth over more than any other relationship. But God is not valuable to my life because of the way He makes me feel. His value is not subjective to me. It is intrinsic to Him, and this causes me to value Him beyond my subjective feelings. There is no need to become sappy about God in some futile effort to allow Him to compete with all of the other drugs around me, including romantic relationships. Instead, it is through the truth that our eyes are opened, we see God's beauty and value, and therefore, make application to our lives that God is worthy to be worshiped, not because He makes me feel a certain way, but because all things were made by Him and for Him. I would call this blessed language. It is a language which acknowledges the greatness of God and what He has done for us without the degrading of Him into a means to meet my emotionally romantic needs. Romantic relationships in our culture are one of the many drugs with which we intoxicate ourselves in our self worship, but God is not an aspirin to be used as pain medication to hide a broken life, as we use our other drugs. He is life and health itself. Our language, as it does in the Bible, should reflect this sort of exaltation, and call the winds and waves of emotionally romantic speech to be silent.
The Rationale between Old Testament and New Testament Differences in Marital Ethics
According to Jesus, Genesis presents God's ultimate will in creation concerning marriage. There is to be one woman and one man and the two are to become one flesh. That's it. He then goes on to argue that this is why if a man and woman are divorced and remarried they are committing adultery. But, as the Pharisees objected, wasn't this permitted in the Law?
And whatever happened to good ol' polygamy? Wasn't that permitted as well?
And there is no law against prostitution, so why is it condemned in the New Testament?
Some would argue that it just reflects the changing ethics of marriage in culture. When in an ancient Near Eastern society that accepted polygamy, the Bible was OK with it. When in a monogamous culture like that of the Graeco-Roman empires, the Bible changed its mind. This, of course, is not the reason for the Bible's stance on these things.
For one, this doesn't explain why the New Testament takes a stricter stance against prostitution and divorce and remarriage than the Law does, since both are perfectly acceptable in Graeco-Roman culture.
Secondly, what is used and permitted by God is not necessarily pleasing to God and in accordance with His ultimate will. In other words, it may be the case that God merely tolerated these things, creating through a slow process of weaning His people off of bad ideas and practices until the fulness of Christ and the Spirit would come to restore the vision presented at creation.
But how would we know this? We would have to have some indications in the Old Testament that God was only tolerating these things, even though they were not in accordance with His ideal. Do we have such indications? Yes, we do.
Let's start with prostitution. There is no law against it. Men used prostitutes (e.g., Judah, the spies who end up at Rahab's brothel, etc.) in the same way that men use them in many third world countries around the world. But even though they are not outlawed, God does not view the sleeping with a prostitute favorably.
For one, He prohibits men from making their daughters prostitutes (Lev 19:29). Leviticus 21:7 prohibits his priests from marrying prostitutes, who are said to be defiled. If God had no problem with prostitution, then why are they viewed as defiled and priests forbidden to marry them? God frequently uses prostitution as a way of talking about the disgusting acts of other nations and even of rebellious Israel. A girl who whores herself and then attempts to marry a man without telling him first is to be put to death. Why all of this fuss if God has no problem with prostitution? In fact, God does make a law that no ethnic Israelite woman or man is to be a cult prostitute, even though a non-ethnic Israelite member of the community could be (Deut 29:17), and no money gained from prostitution was to be given to the Lord to fulfill a vow (29:18).
So was prostitution permitted? Yes. Was it in complete accordance with the will of God for male and female? No. Hence, when the New Testament comes along, Christ has died and ascended as High Priest, unification with God through Christ via the Holy Spirit has occurred, the ultimate will of God in creation is to be sought and all else abandoned as evil.
But what about polygamy? Any indication that the Old Testament sees it as a bad thing, even though it is never prohibited explicitly and even used by God to communicate ideas? Yes, lots.
First of all, polygamy is almost always viewed as a hostile environment for everyone involved. Jealousy between the wives (e.g., Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah), as well as rivalry between the sons (e.g., the rilvaries between Abraham's sons, Isaac's sons, Jacob's sons, David's sons, Solomon's sons, etc.). This also created an exhausting environment for the husband. In Deuteronomy 17:17, the law forbids the king to take numerous wives because there is a threat that it will turn his heart away (i.e., cause him to focus on them and not the Lord or the people he is to rule in righteousness). Instead, the godly instruction of Proverbs speaks only of devotion to one's wife (singular), and the Greatest Song, the Song of Songs, that allegorizes the relationship between God and His people does so by presenting only one man and one woman in that relationship, displaying that God's idealic picture is for one man and one woman to join together in a pleasure and joy not shared with anyone else.
Finally, we come to divorce. It is permitted in the Law, as the others are as well, but along with the others, it is not in accordance with God's will as it is manifested in creation. Hence, God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). His priests are not to marry a divorced woman (Lev 21:7). Even for a former husband to marry a woman now divorced from a second husband is a defilement and an abomination to the Lord (Deut 24:1-4). Why would these things be said if God had no problem with it? If He was not just tolerating it, but really did not see it as outside the boundaries of His created will?
Now, here is why I believe God did tolerate it in the Old Testament, but does so no more. These are all in line with the main aspect of the creation ethic, which is the creation of a covenant human being, but not in line with the preservational aspect, as it created a hostile environment for the children and their possible upbringing. The sexual act between a prostitute, a concubine, a divorced woman is ordered in terms of it having the possibility of creating human life among the covenant people. These are, therefore, tolerated, even though they are not completely in accordance with the preservational and fully ordered ideal of the creation ethic (i.e., that which is in accordance with the creation mandate in Gen 1:28-30).
Because they are not fully ordered and in accordance with His ultimate will, God does not like them. There is something disordered about them, something defiled and corrupt, but tolerable enough to be used for His purposes until the time of Christ.
When Christ comes, however, He is unifying His people to God, whereby they partake of the very divine nature, and demands now that they be fully ordered in all of their marital and sexual practices. Hence, we get the conversation between Christ and the Pharisees, where Christ tells them that anything less that the ideal of the one male and one female becoming one flesh is of the sin of adultery. This would include prostitution and polygamy.
This is also why things that are completely disordered and a complete rejection of the creation ethic are not tolerated at all. Homosexuality, bestiality, incest, strictly defined adultery, etc. are all in this group.
An analogy of this might be the fact that God does not prohibit the belief in many gods in the original giving of the law, but instead only that the Israelites are to worship Him as their God alone. It is only later, as God teaches them slowly, that there actually are no other gods beside Him. God creates with patience over time. He is not an instructor that pulls the rug out from underneath His people before the time when they can handle it. When the Holy Spirit is given to them in Christ, then, and only then, are they able to receive all things fully.
What this means, therefore, is that those who believe that divorce is acceptable today are arguing against the rationale of the Bible. If divorce is acceptable, why not polygamy? In fact, the same type of disorderliness that is in divorce (i.e., a threat to children due to there being a non-biological parent, often with his or her own children, creating a hostile environment for them, and the unfaithfulness to a one flesh union between one man and one woman while they live) is also in polygamy. It is not that such hostile environments could not be created by more ordered situations, but that these disordered situations have been created by the people involved and not just by circumstance (as would be in the case of one marrying a widow with children for instance).
The fact that all of these are presented in a negative light throughout the Old Testament and rejected by the New, tells us that God has called the people of the kingdom to His original ideal and will concerning the one flesh union in marriage between one man and one woman until death do they part, to its restoration in becoming what marriage was meant to become as a means of God's work in completing creation.
And whatever happened to good ol' polygamy? Wasn't that permitted as well?
And there is no law against prostitution, so why is it condemned in the New Testament?
Some would argue that it just reflects the changing ethics of marriage in culture. When in an ancient Near Eastern society that accepted polygamy, the Bible was OK with it. When in a monogamous culture like that of the Graeco-Roman empires, the Bible changed its mind. This, of course, is not the reason for the Bible's stance on these things.
For one, this doesn't explain why the New Testament takes a stricter stance against prostitution and divorce and remarriage than the Law does, since both are perfectly acceptable in Graeco-Roman culture.
Secondly, what is used and permitted by God is not necessarily pleasing to God and in accordance with His ultimate will. In other words, it may be the case that God merely tolerated these things, creating through a slow process of weaning His people off of bad ideas and practices until the fulness of Christ and the Spirit would come to restore the vision presented at creation.
But how would we know this? We would have to have some indications in the Old Testament that God was only tolerating these things, even though they were not in accordance with His ideal. Do we have such indications? Yes, we do.
Let's start with prostitution. There is no law against it. Men used prostitutes (e.g., Judah, the spies who end up at Rahab's brothel, etc.) in the same way that men use them in many third world countries around the world. But even though they are not outlawed, God does not view the sleeping with a prostitute favorably.
For one, He prohibits men from making their daughters prostitutes (Lev 19:29). Leviticus 21:7 prohibits his priests from marrying prostitutes, who are said to be defiled. If God had no problem with prostitution, then why are they viewed as defiled and priests forbidden to marry them? God frequently uses prostitution as a way of talking about the disgusting acts of other nations and even of rebellious Israel. A girl who whores herself and then attempts to marry a man without telling him first is to be put to death. Why all of this fuss if God has no problem with prostitution? In fact, God does make a law that no ethnic Israelite woman or man is to be a cult prostitute, even though a non-ethnic Israelite member of the community could be (Deut 29:17), and no money gained from prostitution was to be given to the Lord to fulfill a vow (29:18).
So was prostitution permitted? Yes. Was it in complete accordance with the will of God for male and female? No. Hence, when the New Testament comes along, Christ has died and ascended as High Priest, unification with God through Christ via the Holy Spirit has occurred, the ultimate will of God in creation is to be sought and all else abandoned as evil.
But what about polygamy? Any indication that the Old Testament sees it as a bad thing, even though it is never prohibited explicitly and even used by God to communicate ideas? Yes, lots.
First of all, polygamy is almost always viewed as a hostile environment for everyone involved. Jealousy between the wives (e.g., Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah), as well as rivalry between the sons (e.g., the rilvaries between Abraham's sons, Isaac's sons, Jacob's sons, David's sons, Solomon's sons, etc.). This also created an exhausting environment for the husband. In Deuteronomy 17:17, the law forbids the king to take numerous wives because there is a threat that it will turn his heart away (i.e., cause him to focus on them and not the Lord or the people he is to rule in righteousness). Instead, the godly instruction of Proverbs speaks only of devotion to one's wife (singular), and the Greatest Song, the Song of Songs, that allegorizes the relationship between God and His people does so by presenting only one man and one woman in that relationship, displaying that God's idealic picture is for one man and one woman to join together in a pleasure and joy not shared with anyone else.
Finally, we come to divorce. It is permitted in the Law, as the others are as well, but along with the others, it is not in accordance with God's will as it is manifested in creation. Hence, God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). His priests are not to marry a divorced woman (Lev 21:7). Even for a former husband to marry a woman now divorced from a second husband is a defilement and an abomination to the Lord (Deut 24:1-4). Why would these things be said if God had no problem with it? If He was not just tolerating it, but really did not see it as outside the boundaries of His created will?
Now, here is why I believe God did tolerate it in the Old Testament, but does so no more. These are all in line with the main aspect of the creation ethic, which is the creation of a covenant human being, but not in line with the preservational aspect, as it created a hostile environment for the children and their possible upbringing. The sexual act between a prostitute, a concubine, a divorced woman is ordered in terms of it having the possibility of creating human life among the covenant people. These are, therefore, tolerated, even though they are not completely in accordance with the preservational and fully ordered ideal of the creation ethic (i.e., that which is in accordance with the creation mandate in Gen 1:28-30).
Because they are not fully ordered and in accordance with His ultimate will, God does not like them. There is something disordered about them, something defiled and corrupt, but tolerable enough to be used for His purposes until the time of Christ.
When Christ comes, however, He is unifying His people to God, whereby they partake of the very divine nature, and demands now that they be fully ordered in all of their marital and sexual practices. Hence, we get the conversation between Christ and the Pharisees, where Christ tells them that anything less that the ideal of the one male and one female becoming one flesh is of the sin of adultery. This would include prostitution and polygamy.
This is also why things that are completely disordered and a complete rejection of the creation ethic are not tolerated at all. Homosexuality, bestiality, incest, strictly defined adultery, etc. are all in this group.
An analogy of this might be the fact that God does not prohibit the belief in many gods in the original giving of the law, but instead only that the Israelites are to worship Him as their God alone. It is only later, as God teaches them slowly, that there actually are no other gods beside Him. God creates with patience over time. He is not an instructor that pulls the rug out from underneath His people before the time when they can handle it. When the Holy Spirit is given to them in Christ, then, and only then, are they able to receive all things fully.
What this means, therefore, is that those who believe that divorce is acceptable today are arguing against the rationale of the Bible. If divorce is acceptable, why not polygamy? In fact, the same type of disorderliness that is in divorce (i.e., a threat to children due to there being a non-biological parent, often with his or her own children, creating a hostile environment for them, and the unfaithfulness to a one flesh union between one man and one woman while they live) is also in polygamy. It is not that such hostile environments could not be created by more ordered situations, but that these disordered situations have been created by the people involved and not just by circumstance (as would be in the case of one marrying a widow with children for instance).
The fact that all of these are presented in a negative light throughout the Old Testament and rejected by the New, tells us that God has called the people of the kingdom to His original ideal and will concerning the one flesh union in marriage between one man and one woman until death do they part, to its restoration in becoming what marriage was meant to become as a means of God's work in completing creation.
If God Is Love, Only the Christian God Is True
I think it's an important argument to point out that if, in fact, there is a God, and love is one of His attributes (or even if one wants to argue God is only love), that only the Christian God can be the One that actually exists.
First, let me say that we must only consider the religions that have historically claimed to be revelations from God from the beginning of humanity. Any Johnny-come-lately religions that want to counter my argument below with something new are self-admittedly to be rejected. This is because any God who is loving would not have left humanity without revelation of Himself and the truth in general for thousands of years. Such would be unloving, and we are discussing a God who is loving.
This means that the pool from which we have to choose is reduced to a bit of a puddle. We are left with pantheism/monism, where god is everything and a singularity (only existing in multiplicity as an illusion), panentheism, which, again, is monistic and god, which includes creation, is one and usually evolving (so its attributes are not eternal), polytheism, which is almost always pantheistic or monotheistic in its original state, where the multiplicity of gods are created at a point in time, but not eternally distinguished, the monotheism of Judaism and Islam, and the triune monotheism of Christianity.
Now, if God's love is an inherent attribute, then panentheism is immediately dismissed, as love would be a created thing that is produced in time. It isn't really something that is inherent to god at all, but a created thing that god was not at one time. It should also be said that if God's attributes are not eternal then neither is God, and if God is not eternal, He is not God.
The other views have even bigger problems. To say that one is loving implies an object. If love is an eternal attribute of God, then God must have an eternal object of His love, or merely saying that God is eternally loving is reducing love to nothing, as when there is nothing to love, one cannot be declared to be loving.
One cannot say that creation functions this way for God, as creation would either have to be God (as in panentheism) or be as eternal as God, but non-god. Since creation is not eternal in all of these religions (as either creation does not exist and is the one god, or it is created by god), it cannot be the eternal object of God's love.
Likewise, God merely seeing and knowing a creation that at one time was not but will come about is to argue that God's existence is contingent upon creation. If God is eternally loving as an inherent and eternal attribute, then creation must exist in the "future" of God in order for God to exist, but this is like saying that a chicken exists because he will lay the egg from which he himself will hatch. He must exist in order to lay the egg and the egg must exist in order for him to exist in order to lay it. This is nonsense. Hence, creation cannot function as the eternal object of God's love in any of these systems.
Since they all claim that God is eternally loving, they are all proven to be false. This includes Judaism and Islam.
The only religion left is that of Christianity, where the Father has an eternal object of love in the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son has an eternal object of love in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has an eternal object of His love in the Son and the Father.
Hence, of all of the religions that claim that love is an attribute of God, only one among the historic religions making the claim can be true. As strange as we find the Trinity, it ends up being the most logical option of all.
First, let me say that we must only consider the religions that have historically claimed to be revelations from God from the beginning of humanity. Any Johnny-come-lately religions that want to counter my argument below with something new are self-admittedly to be rejected. This is because any God who is loving would not have left humanity without revelation of Himself and the truth in general for thousands of years. Such would be unloving, and we are discussing a God who is loving.
This means that the pool from which we have to choose is reduced to a bit of a puddle. We are left with pantheism/monism, where god is everything and a singularity (only existing in multiplicity as an illusion), panentheism, which, again, is monistic and god, which includes creation, is one and usually evolving (so its attributes are not eternal), polytheism, which is almost always pantheistic or monotheistic in its original state, where the multiplicity of gods are created at a point in time, but not eternally distinguished, the monotheism of Judaism and Islam, and the triune monotheism of Christianity.
Now, if God's love is an inherent attribute, then panentheism is immediately dismissed, as love would be a created thing that is produced in time. It isn't really something that is inherent to god at all, but a created thing that god was not at one time. It should also be said that if God's attributes are not eternal then neither is God, and if God is not eternal, He is not God.
The other views have even bigger problems. To say that one is loving implies an object. If love is an eternal attribute of God, then God must have an eternal object of His love, or merely saying that God is eternally loving is reducing love to nothing, as when there is nothing to love, one cannot be declared to be loving.
One cannot say that creation functions this way for God, as creation would either have to be God (as in panentheism) or be as eternal as God, but non-god. Since creation is not eternal in all of these religions (as either creation does not exist and is the one god, or it is created by god), it cannot be the eternal object of God's love.
Likewise, God merely seeing and knowing a creation that at one time was not but will come about is to argue that God's existence is contingent upon creation. If God is eternally loving as an inherent and eternal attribute, then creation must exist in the "future" of God in order for God to exist, but this is like saying that a chicken exists because he will lay the egg from which he himself will hatch. He must exist in order to lay the egg and the egg must exist in order for him to exist in order to lay it. This is nonsense. Hence, creation cannot function as the eternal object of God's love in any of these systems.
Since they all claim that God is eternally loving, they are all proven to be false. This includes Judaism and Islam.
The only religion left is that of Christianity, where the Father has an eternal object of love in the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son has an eternal object of love in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has an eternal object of His love in the Son and the Father.
Hence, of all of the religions that claim that love is an attribute of God, only one among the historic religions making the claim can be true. As strange as we find the Trinity, it ends up being the most logical option of all.
The Historical De-Victimization of Christianity as the Pathway to an American Genocide
Just to be clear, I don't think a genocide is coming in the next couple years. However, I do think we are at the beginning stages where rhetoric has ramped up and is now beginning to turn to violence more and more.
Genocides have largely been conducted in the last century by the "oppressed" overcoming their "oppressors." They're just revolutions that, by way of necessity, construct their paths to utopia with the corpses of those who stand in the way. Poor Germany was imprisoned in poverty by those greedy Jews, so the Nazi heroes came and rescued them by removing this threat and working toward their better world. Those moderners who prevented Cambodia from entering into the bliss of a simple and equal society needed to be "re-educated" (i.e., killed) because it was really for the best. Those Tutsi cockroaches were holding the poor Hutu people down, so it was necessary to take a machete to these criminals who stood in the way of the peace, love, and harmony that would come about once they were gone. But, you see, all of these oppressors deserve it because, well, they're oppressors, and oppressors aren't victims, they're criminals who must be exiled or executed for their crimes.
Christians were also in the way of utopia. In fact, society has always seen them as in the way. They were called the "haters of mankind" because they prevented Rome from achieving its glory and strength by insisting on dishonoring Caesar and the gods and honoring their exclusive Savior instead. This is why Roman persecution was so persistent from the time of Domitian to the time of Diocletian with very few breaks in between (only a few emperors, like Hadrian, let up on them). Yet, one would never know this if he entered a modern classroom in an Ivy League school or read any popular books about these Christian persecutions.
That's because it has become trendy to take the most radical minimalist and deconstructionist approaches to historiography when it comes to Christian persecutions that one can possible take. Yet, it is also trendy to find as many instances of women and homosexuals who were oppressed as possible, and ignore any favorable treatment they have received throughout history.
Indeed, the feminist paradigm would have us believe that women were never treated well in history, and that society was set against their thriving rather than set up for their thriving, as those premodern women longed for the day they could enter male sports and go out and fight wars. The distortion of the historical record is a common one, but never moreso than in a postmodern society, where history is just propaganda to secure power. Because of this, there is no need to follow a historical report, as that is just one person's utilization of the events for his own propagandastic support of the group he wants in power. Why should he get to have all of the power? The postmodern historian wants to wield that same sword for his own purposes, and he often uses it to support his own group as heroic and those who counter his group as villainous.
Because the world is upside-down, it misidentifies the heroes and villains quite often. Jesus Himself is called "Satan" by the world. He is adversarial to the peace and tranquility brought about by not rocking the boat and letting people do and believe whatever they want.
We are told that Christians are really the oppressors throughout history and that their persecutions by the Romans weren't really that bad or that broad in scope. I just listened to a lecture by a Yale professor the other day who only mentioned the small persecutions under Nero, Decius, and Diocletian. It's hard to deny these, but some scholars attempt to deny the Neronian one as well. I guess those letters from Pliny the Younger to Trajan and from Valerian in jail or all of those slaughters that were allowed to take place under Marcus Aurelius (whether he decreed them or not) or numerous reports by the actual people being oppressed must have all been fabricated.
Brian Jones wrote a book arguing that no real persecution of Christians took place under Domitian, and it has now become en vogue within the academy. But what exactly is the motivation behind this rewriting of Christian history?
And why is Christian history viewed from the standpoint of European kings that claimed the religion but persecuted its actual followers throughout that history? Why is there this false perception that Christians persecuted others who were not Christians when, in fact, the biggest group persecuted by these pagans in power who took upon the name of Christ were actual devoted Christians?
Why do we hear stories of Constantine forcing orthodox Christianity on the masses when he was actually busy forcing Arianism on the orthodox Christians? Why do we hear of evil Christians killing Muslims in the Crusades when the initial response was an action of self-defense against Muslim oppressors and the horde that eventually arrived, now filled with murderers and thieves who had no Christian values at all, sacked a Christian city, not a Muslim one?
Here is what I think has happened. Victimization has become the vehicle of power in our postmodern culture. There is no truth, just power. Hence, those who use their power to elevate one thing above another, or one person above another, are oppressors and those who are not elevated or pushed down are victims in need of justice. Ironically, they are given a greater amount of power than even their oppressors in order to offset this imbalance.
The problem is that our current culture's narrative is wrapped around seeing non-Christians as the victims of a supposed Christian majority in history and even today. The last thing this narrative needs is to present Christians as victims. That would just flip the entire script. How can Christians be oppressors if we see them being slaughtered throughout history? How can we overcome these oppressors if they are the true victims? If those in power (in politics, the news media, the entertainment media, the academy), all who have the loudest voices and influence in our culture, are the true oppressors of Christians who are misrepresented, demonized for their moral beliefs that are called unloving and hate speech, demonized for their exclusive beliefs that divide, etc., that means that Christians should be protected and not destroyed. They are the true victims, as they are not seeking to violently oppress anyone, but rather to proclaim a message that condemns our culture and to live in peace with all men so far as it depends upon them.
If Christians are the victims, they can't be the oppressors, and that cannot stand because the devil, ultimately, is always working on his genocide plan for Christians. He's always working toward their destruction in one way or another. Either internally via corrupting the message and witness of the church or externally by pressuring through power and violence to conform and comply to the false religions and worldviews of our pagan societies.
Because of this, the academy, the media, the average atheist troll on the internet will continue to erase actual reported Christian history (i.e., the only history that is verified via report), and reconstruct a new history and narrative for Christians--one where they are the criminals, the oppressors, the haters in the way of utopia for the rest of society. And for that, they must forced to conform or removed.
There is no more public debate to be had. Debating is for those who believe in transcendent truth. Postmodernity assumes either that there isn't one or that it cannot be known. Hence, all that is left is the group with the biggest guns and the willingness to use them. All they see is power, and all life is just the struggle to obtain it so that a revolutionary's vision can be realized over the oppressive visions of others.
We are on the road to our genocide. There is nothing we can do about that. We don't have as loud of voices to correct all of these pseudo-narratives. It won't likely happen any time soon, but we're moving up the road little by little. Perhaps, it's time in God's eyes to wake the church up from its moral and theological slumber. Perhaps, we were always meant to be seen as the haters of the world, as the messengers of Satan. After all, our Lord was called the same.
Genocides have largely been conducted in the last century by the "oppressed" overcoming their "oppressors." They're just revolutions that, by way of necessity, construct their paths to utopia with the corpses of those who stand in the way. Poor Germany was imprisoned in poverty by those greedy Jews, so the Nazi heroes came and rescued them by removing this threat and working toward their better world. Those moderners who prevented Cambodia from entering into the bliss of a simple and equal society needed to be "re-educated" (i.e., killed) because it was really for the best. Those Tutsi cockroaches were holding the poor Hutu people down, so it was necessary to take a machete to these criminals who stood in the way of the peace, love, and harmony that would come about once they were gone. But, you see, all of these oppressors deserve it because, well, they're oppressors, and oppressors aren't victims, they're criminals who must be exiled or executed for their crimes.
Christians were also in the way of utopia. In fact, society has always seen them as in the way. They were called the "haters of mankind" because they prevented Rome from achieving its glory and strength by insisting on dishonoring Caesar and the gods and honoring their exclusive Savior instead. This is why Roman persecution was so persistent from the time of Domitian to the time of Diocletian with very few breaks in between (only a few emperors, like Hadrian, let up on them). Yet, one would never know this if he entered a modern classroom in an Ivy League school or read any popular books about these Christian persecutions.
That's because it has become trendy to take the most radical minimalist and deconstructionist approaches to historiography when it comes to Christian persecutions that one can possible take. Yet, it is also trendy to find as many instances of women and homosexuals who were oppressed as possible, and ignore any favorable treatment they have received throughout history.
Indeed, the feminist paradigm would have us believe that women were never treated well in history, and that society was set against their thriving rather than set up for their thriving, as those premodern women longed for the day they could enter male sports and go out and fight wars. The distortion of the historical record is a common one, but never moreso than in a postmodern society, where history is just propaganda to secure power. Because of this, there is no need to follow a historical report, as that is just one person's utilization of the events for his own propagandastic support of the group he wants in power. Why should he get to have all of the power? The postmodern historian wants to wield that same sword for his own purposes, and he often uses it to support his own group as heroic and those who counter his group as villainous.
Because the world is upside-down, it misidentifies the heroes and villains quite often. Jesus Himself is called "Satan" by the world. He is adversarial to the peace and tranquility brought about by not rocking the boat and letting people do and believe whatever they want.
We are told that Christians are really the oppressors throughout history and that their persecutions by the Romans weren't really that bad or that broad in scope. I just listened to a lecture by a Yale professor the other day who only mentioned the small persecutions under Nero, Decius, and Diocletian. It's hard to deny these, but some scholars attempt to deny the Neronian one as well. I guess those letters from Pliny the Younger to Trajan and from Valerian in jail or all of those slaughters that were allowed to take place under Marcus Aurelius (whether he decreed them or not) or numerous reports by the actual people being oppressed must have all been fabricated.
Brian Jones wrote a book arguing that no real persecution of Christians took place under Domitian, and it has now become en vogue within the academy. But what exactly is the motivation behind this rewriting of Christian history?
And why is Christian history viewed from the standpoint of European kings that claimed the religion but persecuted its actual followers throughout that history? Why is there this false perception that Christians persecuted others who were not Christians when, in fact, the biggest group persecuted by these pagans in power who took upon the name of Christ were actual devoted Christians?
Why do we hear stories of Constantine forcing orthodox Christianity on the masses when he was actually busy forcing Arianism on the orthodox Christians? Why do we hear of evil Christians killing Muslims in the Crusades when the initial response was an action of self-defense against Muslim oppressors and the horde that eventually arrived, now filled with murderers and thieves who had no Christian values at all, sacked a Christian city, not a Muslim one?
Here is what I think has happened. Victimization has become the vehicle of power in our postmodern culture. There is no truth, just power. Hence, those who use their power to elevate one thing above another, or one person above another, are oppressors and those who are not elevated or pushed down are victims in need of justice. Ironically, they are given a greater amount of power than even their oppressors in order to offset this imbalance.
The problem is that our current culture's narrative is wrapped around seeing non-Christians as the victims of a supposed Christian majority in history and even today. The last thing this narrative needs is to present Christians as victims. That would just flip the entire script. How can Christians be oppressors if we see them being slaughtered throughout history? How can we overcome these oppressors if they are the true victims? If those in power (in politics, the news media, the entertainment media, the academy), all who have the loudest voices and influence in our culture, are the true oppressors of Christians who are misrepresented, demonized for their moral beliefs that are called unloving and hate speech, demonized for their exclusive beliefs that divide, etc., that means that Christians should be protected and not destroyed. They are the true victims, as they are not seeking to violently oppress anyone, but rather to proclaim a message that condemns our culture and to live in peace with all men so far as it depends upon them.
If Christians are the victims, they can't be the oppressors, and that cannot stand because the devil, ultimately, is always working on his genocide plan for Christians. He's always working toward their destruction in one way or another. Either internally via corrupting the message and witness of the church or externally by pressuring through power and violence to conform and comply to the false religions and worldviews of our pagan societies.
Because of this, the academy, the media, the average atheist troll on the internet will continue to erase actual reported Christian history (i.e., the only history that is verified via report), and reconstruct a new history and narrative for Christians--one where they are the criminals, the oppressors, the haters in the way of utopia for the rest of society. And for that, they must forced to conform or removed.
There is no more public debate to be had. Debating is for those who believe in transcendent truth. Postmodernity assumes either that there isn't one or that it cannot be known. Hence, all that is left is the group with the biggest guns and the willingness to use them. All they see is power, and all life is just the struggle to obtain it so that a revolutionary's vision can be realized over the oppressive visions of others.
We are on the road to our genocide. There is nothing we can do about that. We don't have as loud of voices to correct all of these pseudo-narratives. It won't likely happen any time soon, but we're moving up the road little by little. Perhaps, it's time in God's eyes to wake the church up from its moral and theological slumber. Perhaps, we were always meant to be seen as the haters of the world, as the messengers of Satan. After all, our Lord was called the same.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Would the Bible Have Supported the Transatlantic Slave-Trade?
It is often claimed that the Bible supports slavery, and by this, it is meant that it would support the African slave-trade of the previous four centuries or so. This is meant to argue that the Bible is evil, or that it has cultural ethics that should be ignored. This is then applied to homosexuality and gender roles, and it is then argued that, just like slavery, the Bible's teaching on these issues represent its dependence upon its primitive culture. A hermeneutic where all biblical ethics are challenged or an outright rejection of the Bible as man-made is then put forth--all from this idea.
It is clear that the Bible supports two kinds of slavery: the slavery of criminals as punishment (including captives of war--captive of war were considered international criminals who attacked the state), or voluntary slavery, where if an individual or family was destitute and needed to survive, they could place themselves into the institution of slavery.
The first is still practiced by us (ever heard of the chaingang or seen prisoners picking up trash on the side of the road? Do you know where your license plate came from?). The second is a form of indentured servitude that, frankly, is rather benign to the modern world. It might be more like signing a ten or twenty year binding contract with someone than anything we really think of when we think of the word "slavery."
This doesn't mean that slaves were always treated well, but it is clear that the Bible was against the mistreatment of slaves as much as it was against the mistreatment of masters by their slaves.
Biblical slavery looked very much different than what the modern distortion looked like. Slaves were often employed as teachers, doctors, butlers/maids, personal assistants, etc.
However, it is clear that the Bible would absolutely condemn what became the modern slave-trade.
In Exodus 21:16, the text states וגנב איש ומכרו ונמצא בידו מות יומת "And one who kidnaps a man and sells him or is found in one's possession is definitely to be put to death."
Now, some translations have translated the phrase בידו "in his hand" to refer only to the one who kidnaps the man. Even if this is the case, it would mean that any time a man steals another man to sell him into slavery, that man is not to be paid for the slave, but executed, thus condemning the modern slave-trade outright.
However, it is curious that the second verb נמצא is joined with a conjunctive, rather than disjunctive waw. What that might mean is that one would translate the verse as "one who kidnaps a man and sells him and is found in his possession is to be put to death." The verse would make no sense unless the conjunction was including perhaps a different person, meaning that both the kidnapper and the one who buys such a slave is to be put to death, thus condemning any purchasing of a slave that is kidnapped.
Various translations, like the ESV, acknowldge this. “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
The punishment is emphatic in the Hebrew. There is no wiggle room. He is absolutely to be put to death for this.
Either way the verse is taken, the Bible condemns the modern slave-trade. In no way does it condone it if, in fact, it demands that people who do this are to be put to death. Anyone who purchased a kidnapped person would be condemned either way with the one who kidnapped him.
Certainly, the Bible was used to support this abomination due to sloppy exegesis and assumption of terms (i.e., if the Bible is ok with slavery in the ancient world, it must be ok with all forms of slavery). But, as always, a closer reading of the text should wipe this common objection to the Bible off the map.
It is clear that the Bible supports two kinds of slavery: the slavery of criminals as punishment (including captives of war--captive of war were considered international criminals who attacked the state), or voluntary slavery, where if an individual or family was destitute and needed to survive, they could place themselves into the institution of slavery.
The first is still practiced by us (ever heard of the chaingang or seen prisoners picking up trash on the side of the road? Do you know where your license plate came from?). The second is a form of indentured servitude that, frankly, is rather benign to the modern world. It might be more like signing a ten or twenty year binding contract with someone than anything we really think of when we think of the word "slavery."
This doesn't mean that slaves were always treated well, but it is clear that the Bible was against the mistreatment of slaves as much as it was against the mistreatment of masters by their slaves.
Biblical slavery looked very much different than what the modern distortion looked like. Slaves were often employed as teachers, doctors, butlers/maids, personal assistants, etc.
However, it is clear that the Bible would absolutely condemn what became the modern slave-trade.
In Exodus 21:16, the text states וגנב איש ומכרו ונמצא בידו מות יומת "And one who kidnaps a man and sells him or is found in one's possession is definitely to be put to death."
Now, some translations have translated the phrase בידו "in his hand" to refer only to the one who kidnaps the man. Even if this is the case, it would mean that any time a man steals another man to sell him into slavery, that man is not to be paid for the slave, but executed, thus condemning the modern slave-trade outright.
However, it is curious that the second verb נמצא is joined with a conjunctive, rather than disjunctive waw. What that might mean is that one would translate the verse as "one who kidnaps a man and sells him and is found in his possession is to be put to death." The verse would make no sense unless the conjunction was including perhaps a different person, meaning that both the kidnapper and the one who buys such a slave is to be put to death, thus condemning any purchasing of a slave that is kidnapped.
Various translations, like the ESV, acknowldge this. “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
The punishment is emphatic in the Hebrew. There is no wiggle room. He is absolutely to be put to death for this.
Either way the verse is taken, the Bible condemns the modern slave-trade. In no way does it condone it if, in fact, it demands that people who do this are to be put to death. Anyone who purchased a kidnapped person would be condemned either way with the one who kidnapped him.
Certainly, the Bible was used to support this abomination due to sloppy exegesis and assumption of terms (i.e., if the Bible is ok with slavery in the ancient world, it must be ok with all forms of slavery). But, as always, a closer reading of the text should wipe this common objection to the Bible off the map.
Should Christians Implement the Mosaic Law When in Government?
I imagine if “Theonomy” were to be defined as “the belief that if Christians are in power, they ought to use God’s Word to guide them in the construction of laws,” then I would be a Theonomist. Surely, the divine revelation should guide all law, but it is the whole of that revelation, taking into consideration the intent of God with the law for the unbeliever and believer, the gospel mission of the church, and the theology of Scripture concerning the depravity of man in light of all of that. In my opinion, some theories of theonomy, perhaps the most prominent ones that I have heard from people, fail to do this.
Instead, there seems to be a recurring argument about the Mosaic law code specifically that is used by the Theonomists of that variety, and it goes something like this: “God’s law is the highest and most perfect law. Hence, we should use God’s law as human laws because they are divinely inspired and perfect, whereas man-made laws are imperfect and may not capture the perfection of God’s.”
The problem with this argument is not that I don’t agree with the statement that God’s law is the highest and most perfect law, but that I do agree with it, and that is the problem with the system.
I don’t say this to be demeaning, but I do really have to wonder if people who make this argument have every thoroughly read the whole Mosaic law, and what imposing it on unbelievers would essentially mean.
Of course, there is the distinction between civil, moral, and ceremonial that is thought to help with this, but I would argue that it actually does not help all that much if the law is understood.
The civil law is not something different than the moral law. All are meant to be used to worship YHWH. In fact, this is what distinguishes the civil law in the Mosaic law code from the almost identical civil laws in other law codes like Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, Hammurapi, etc. It is not that the laws are that different, but that they are to be used as worship of YHWH. When not used this way, one is not obeying them. And although one could argue that this is an unseen use of the law, it is not an unseen use when the person is known to be an unbeliever.
On top of this, explicit civil laws that would kill anyone who worships another god in its many forms, does not observe the Sabbath, etc. make it clear that any unbeliever is to be put to death. What this would mean is that all of the unbelievers would either be forced to lie, and thus, ironically, break the law, or if found out, executed. This would not be an implementation of the law over unbelievers, but simply an extermination of all unbelievers.
But this does not take the purpose of the law for unbelievers into consideration. God’s law to unbelievers is to convict them so that they repent and believe the gospel; but this treatment of the law would destroy all unbelievers before they got to chance, or it would simply create a society where the Inquisition reigns. In reality, this use of the law is in the way of the gospel and the mission of the church. The mission of the church is to save lives, but the law’s purpose is to kill the unbeliever/the agent of chaos and remove him from the land of the living. If it is implemented over the whole of society, and eventually, over the whole earth, there will be no unbelievers left to evangelize. It will also turn Christianity into a religion like Islam in that it advances itself through the literal sword rather than the Word.
Anyone who worships another god (Ex 22:20; also Ex 20:4;Deut 17:2-7), blasphemes God (Lev 24:16), anyone who gives a false prophecy, which would be anyone who adhered to any other religion on the planet (Deut 13:1-15; 18:20), etc.
Now, one can pick all of these out, or even remove the intent of the law to worship YHWH alone, all together, but I thought the entire argument was that God’s law was perfect and did not need to be altered either in its descriptions of crimes or its punishments. That would include not only that the intent of the law is to be used for worship of YHWH, but also the idea that no civil law can be removed from it, and these laws are civil laws with civil punishments of execution.
For instance, Joel McDurmon attempts to argue that only some of the Mosaic civil laws are binding, precisely, because it would create an obvious problem if all were. He defines Theonomy as follows:
For instance, Joel McDurmon attempts to argue that only some of the Mosaic civil laws are binding, precisely, because it would create an obvious problem if all were. He defines Theonomy as follows:
"Theonomy is the biblical teaching that Mosaic law contains perpetual moral standards for living, including some civil laws, which remain obligatory for today.
This makes it clear up front that Theonomy is 1) about moral standards for living, not justification or salvation, 2) includes, but is not limited to, civil government, and 3) involves only some, not all, of Mosaic law."
This is far more agreeable, but the problem is that it fails to note the purpose of the whole law, and even the individual laws as worship of YHWH, not as merely secular laws to follow. Otherwise, we are just saying that, in so far as, the Mosaic law contains certain laws of physical preservation that mimic the law codes in other nations, we should implement them; but this is a far cry from the argument that is often made concerning God's law being perfect. If it is perfect, then all of the laws should be implemented, including their specific intent in the Mosaic law code.
The truth of the matter is that God did not set the Mosaic law over all of the nations, but rather put a law of minimal order in their hearts for the purpose of their physical preservation, so that they would be preserved for a time to hear the gospel and all the nations would be saved.
Hence, there is a lot of overlap between those natural laws and God’s law expressed through Moses, but they do not include the worship of Him and the observing of His specific religion for the precise purpose of saving mankind rather than immediately destroying them. God did enact His law upon humanity once in the flood. That was something that He did not wish to do again until the end because humans are evil from their youth and would have to be destroyed before God could save many of them.
What we would need to set up as Christians in government is a law like the ones God set up over the nations He desired to save, not a law like the Mosaic law code that actually kills even all of Israel without the gospel.
And who would be the perfect executioner and judge of the law, but God, who can see how every man does not obey it in his thoughts and secret actions? But He does not enforce it over mankind for the purpose of saving mankind. If God does not do this, therefore, why would we?
Instead, a Christian government should make a clear path for the mission of the Christian Church, and not get in its way. This means that a Christian government would NOT implement the Mosaic law code as their law. Hence, the argument often used to establish this kind of theonomy is actually an argument for why it should not be established.
Was There a Persecution under Domitian?
Gentry calls into question the very persecution under Domitian. This is a common ploy of revisionist history, as all historical texts that comment upon the situation are ignored or held in suspect, and this gives the ability to the modern historian to replace that reported narrative with their own interpretation of history.
Gentry states:
Gentry states:
Furthermore, it is remarkable that though Suetonius credited Nero with the persecution of Christians, he makes no mention of Domitian’s alleged persecution . . . Thus, the documentary evidence for a general imperial persecution of Christianity under Domitian is deemed questionable by a number of competent scholars.[1]
Actually, Suetonius only brings up the Neronian persecution to defame Nero as the real culprit of the crimes committed against Rome, not because he cares about what is occurring with Christians, who he clearly detests. This is not only an argumentum silentio fallacy but ignores the purpose of Suetonius’s work. Suetonius does not mention Nerva or Trajan at all either, since his purpose is to teach Hadrian and his successors something about men who seek power and how they should conduct themselves. He wishes to do this without offending the Nerva-Antonine line, of which Hadrian is a part, by doing it. He is not merely writing a history and biography of people named Caesar. Should one suggest, then, that there was no Nerva-Antonine dynasty because Suetonius, who was alive during it, did not mention it? That would seem like a much larger oversight if one were truly writing a history of the emperors up until his day rather than a polemic geared toward a specific purpose. In fact, there are numerous events that occur during the reigns of the Caesars that are not attested in his work. This has little to do with whether they occurred. It should also be noted that many scholars deny a Neronian persecution at all using he same type of revisionist methodologies. Yet, Gentry does not accept those. He conveniently applies these conclusions to Domitian’s persecution, but not to Nero’s. It should also be pointed out that no known persecution from the time of Trajan would be known if not for Pliny verifying the procedures for dealing with Christians. Without this letter, these scholars would likely dismiss the idea that Christians had been persecuted on a larger scale under Trajan as well.
Gentry again argues:
We must carefully note that the punishment was exclusively directed against Christians as such – as a genus. Clearly Christians were punished as Christians, unlike the situation with Domitian. Furthermore, the punishment was due to their “mischievous superstition” and alleged “hatred (odium) of the human race. ” 10] Henderson suggests that the role of the emperor cult in the Neronian spectacle is presumed in the emperor worship sections of Revelation: “The great crime is ‘Caesar-worship.’ This of course suits Domitian. But ji-om the other eviderue it suits Nero as well – when the Christians suffered as Christians.”
Gentry here is sidestepping an important issue and characterizing the persecution as singling out Christians as Christians; but what he fails to note is that they are not being persecuted by Nero because they did not worship the emperor and his image, as Revelation puts it, but for Nero’s crime of setting the city on fire. They were surely hated for their piety and lack of participation in the general worship of the gods, but there is no evidence that Nero persecuted them for not worshiping him. In other words, this is why Christians were hated and made for good scapegoats, but they were put to death for their supposed hatred toward humanity by setting Rome ablaze.
Gentry is correct to say that because the great crime is “Caesar-worship” that this means that Domitian fits the bill. The problem for Gentry is that Nero does not. Nero does not exalt himself into a deity before his death. Domitian is the first emperor to consider himself a living deity, having given himself the title Dominus et Deus “Lord and God.” Instead, Nero does not persecute the Christians for not worshiping him, but for burning Rome. They are blamed because they are Christians, but they are not being put to death because they refuse to partake in the imperial cult, as the saints in Revelation are.
Instead, the other emperor in question, Domitian, is not only suitable to fit this description, as Gentry himself admits here, but is the only one who is suitable out of the emperors in the first century, as there is no evidence that any of the emperors in the first century persecute Christians for not worshiping them and their images, except for Domitian. Domitian would have persecuted Christians for the specific reason that they were committing blasphemy against the gods and treason against the empire for not participating in the emperor cult, as well as not paying respect to the other gods. This would have been seen by Domitian in particular as a destabilization of the empire and his rule, and as we are told by historians, he was a tyrant over the people like no other before him. Domitian took any criticism, even of his gladiators, personally "as offending his divinity (divinitatem) and his deity (numen)" (Pan. 3 3.4). Unlike all other emperors before him who waited until death to be treated as deity, there were “extraordinary claims to divinity made by Domitian during his lifetime.”[2]
Gentry seems aware that the nature of Nero’s persecution is an issue, as he attempts to argue that Revelation does not require Nero’s persecution to be a direct persecution due to the fact that Christians will not worship Nero. He argues:
We note here at the outset that a formal, legal relationship of emperor worship to the Neronian persecution is not absolutely required by the prophetic message contained in Revelation. Two considerations lead us to this statement. In the first place, even upon purely secular (i.e., naturalistic, anti-prophetic) presuppositions the ideas embodied in Revelation 13 can be perceived as subtly lurking behind the persecution of Nero. For the very existence of the emperor cult and its employment by Nero himself surely would suggest to the mind even of a mere non-inspired enthusiast both the religious incompatibility of the Christian faith in regard to the divine pretensions of the emperor, as well as the inexorable drift to deadly confrontation . . . In the second place, it could be that the prophecy of Revelation speaks of the underlying philosophical and spiritual issues engaged, rather than the external publicly advertised and judicially sanctioned ones. (277).
The problem with this argument is that Revelation is specifically encouraging Christians to not participate in the emperor cult, and provides the reason for their persecution and executions as due to their “not worshiping the beast and his image,” suggesting that what brought about the sentence of death was their unwillingness to participate in the imperial cult, not because they were a good scapegoat upon whom Nero could blame his destruction of the city. There is simply no evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary, that Nero would have employed the imperial cult as any sort of litmus test for Christians in Rome, since living emperors were not worshiped as gods in Rome during the time of Nero.[3] Since the beast in revelation is being worshiped, John does not seem to be referencing the Neronian persecution.
Furthermore, the litmus test described by Pliny the Younger fifteen years after Domitian’s reign seems to suggest that Christians were specifically being put to death in the later years of the first century and earlier years of the second because they did not renounce their exclusive devotion to Christianity by worshiping the gods and the image of the emperor. In his letter to Trajan, he states:
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do—these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
The nature of the latter persecution appears much more in line with the descriptions the reader is given in the Book of Revelation, whereas the nature of Nero’s persecution over the burning of the city does not seem like it at all. In fact, there is no indication that those Christians could recant Christ and worship the emperor in order to receive pardon, since they were branded as having committed a crime punishable by death. John, however, indicates in his book that there are those who are worshiping the beast and his image, and therefore, compromising in order to save their lives.
Furthermore, since Nero did not exalt himself to a living deity, the litmus test would not have been based upon whether these people worshiped his image. This test only makes sense under Domitian’s reign.
Even more than this, there is absolutely no evidence that Nero banished people for the crime of burning the city. They were given the death penalty for the crime. Domitian, however, executes and banishes Christians. This is significant because John is writing from the island of Patmos to which he has been banished “because of the word of God and the testimony concerning Jesus” (1:9). It is unlikely, therefore, that the Book of Revelation is describing the persecution under Nero.
But, at this point, it is not even necessary to quibble over this matter, as even if one were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the reason given in Revelation for this imperial persecution of Christians is merely a root cause of other reasons Christians were persecuted, the book is clear that Nero (the fifth king who is dead) is not the manifestation of the beast that is persecuting the Christians in Revelation, but rather the beast in its manifestation as the eighth king, who clearly represents Domitian. It is the beast manifested in the eighth king who concerns John, not the original fifth one. This eighth king is certainly like the fifth in that he persecuted Christians, but he persecutes them for not worshiping him and his image, much like the newly appointed governor of Bithynia-Pontus (i.e., Turkey), Pliny describes, in his above letter, of a persecution that seems to have been going on for some time before him.
Because of this refusal, which in turn occasioned other refusals on the part of the Christians, they were hated, imprisoned, banished to lonely islands, condemned to work as slaves in the mines, cast to the lions as a public spectacle and executed by the sword. …Christians were always in danger (p.45). However, the Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. (ESJ 8:16, July, 181).
“Despite the Roman hatred for the church and Christianity as a whole, the short reign of these emperors did not account for any serious church persecution. Just writes, ―there are no recorded persecutions of the church during the reign of emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius” (European Scientific Journal 8:16, July, p. 182).
“There are no accounts of serious church persecutions during his reign. Schiff (1997) observes, ―during the rapidly succeeding reign of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian and Titus, the church so far as we know suffered no very serious persecution (7).” (Ibid. 182)
“No serious church persecution was recorded during his [i.e., Titus’s] reign apart from his destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.” Ibid, 183
Christians, in their rejection of Roman gods and of many Roman traditions, stood in the way of Domitian and this caused persecution for them. The Jews, however, were not left out as Domitian regarded them as one with Christians. Austin (1983) notes, ―…he declared a widespread persecution of Christians and Jews‖ (p. 62). Numerous lies were made up during this time to harm the Christians- such as Christians were responsible for every famine, epidemic or earthquake that afflicted any part of the Roman Empire. III. Nature of Persecution. Domitian was a cruel person, and so in his hatred, he issued an order that no Christian, once brought before the tribunal should be exempted from punishment without renouncing his religion. When Christians were brought before Domitian‘s council they were told to swear an oath of allegiance to him and if they refused, they were killed. Among those killed were Domitian‘s cousins, Flavius Clemens and M‘ Aciluis Glabrio, both consuls. He also banished Domitilla for atheism. Austin (1983) notes, ―Tradition holds it was during the Domitian persecutions that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos‖ (p. 62). (Emeka C. Ekeke, Persecution and Martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire from AD 54 TO 100: A Lesson for the 21st Century Church 183).
The Romans did not sharply distinguish religion from politics; for religion was a function of the state, and the worship of the gods which were recognized by the state was part of the duty of the citizen. Emperor-worship therefore expressed the attitude of the worshiper toward the emperor as the embodiment of imperial power . . . They accepted the religious devotion of the people as an evidence of political loyalty.[4]
Emperors before Domitian, however, seem to accept only vague titles of divinity. They are afforded honor as one who would become a ddeity, but even upon his deathbed, Vespasian, the father of Domitian, implied, even if jokingly, that he was becoming a god upon his death, and was not one in life.
Mark Galli, Christianity Today, Christian History, Persecution in the Early Church: A Gallery of Emperors:
Domitian was the first emperor to have himself officially titled in Rome as “God the Lord.” He insisted that other people hail his greatness with acclamations like “Lord of the earth,” “Invincible,” “Glory,” “Holy,” and “Thou Alone.” When he ordered people to give him divine honors, Jews, and no doubt Christians, balked. The resulting persecution of Jews is well-documented; that of Christians is not. However, the beast that the author of Revelation describes, as well as the events in the book, are perhaps best interpreted as hidden allusions to the rule of Domitian. In addition, Flavius Clemens, consul in 95, and his wife, Flavia Domitilla, were executed and exiled, respectively, by Domitian’s orders; many historians suspect this was because they were Christians.
Eusebius confirms that no other emperor persecuted Christians other than Nero and Domitian when he states that “he [Domitian] was the second [emperor] who raised a persecution against us” (Eccl Hist 3:17). He also quotes the earlier work of Melito, who states that in the first century, “Nero and Domitian, alone, stimulated by certain malicious persons, showed a disposition to slander our faith.” Tertullian also states that both Nero and Domitian were the first century emperors who “raged with the imperial sword against this teaching.” He stated that Domitian was “a good deal of a Nero in cruelty” (Apol. 5). Hegesippus states that the persecution ceased when Domitian realized that the kingdom about which Christians spoke was an eternal one, not a temporal one that was seeking to overthrow the Roman Empire.
Domitian was the first to declare himself a living god, the manifestation of Jupiter himself, and as such, would have put more stock in the sacrifices made to him as to a deity. To fail to worship him was to fail to worship Jupiter, and was a subversive action taken against the stability of the empire. This would have added to his suspicion that Christians wanted to replace the empire with their own. It was not until the end of his reign when he may have learned otherwise and softened his stance against them.
Eusebius gives a lengthy description of Domitian’s persecutions and John’s punishment due to them
.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ. But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.
After Domitian died, the Roman Senate decided that Domitian's honors were to be cancelled due to his tyrannical rule, and that those who had been wrongly banished would be allowed to return to their homes and given back their property. It is at this point, Eusebius tells us, that John returned from his banishment on the island “according to an ancient Christian tradition” (Eus 22.17–20).
Cassius Dio records the punishment of a few people on the charge of “atheism,” a term that referenced, not a denial of any one deity, but a denial of the the Roman gods and the deified emperors specifically.
And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. But Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and, in particular, made to fight as a gladiator with wild beasts. (Historia Romana 67.14)
In the Chronicles written by Bruttius,[5] Eusebius mentions that Domitilla was punished because she was a Christian, evidencing that the term “atheist” referred to Christians, and they were viewed as a sect of Judaism, even though Christianity would have been seen as a particularly troublesome sect within Judaism.
Hegesippus is also cited by Eusebius, and he mentions the persecution under Domitian as well. The problem is that modern decontstructionist historians thrive on the fact that many histories are lost to us. Hence, they can cast doubt on their works as they survive only through the quotations of other sources. However, when an argument from silence seeks to counter a report, the report should be given the benefit of the doubt, as a report is evidence and speculation is not.[6]
Tertullian (Apol 5.4) mentions the persecution as something Domitian unleashed for a short time, but then halted it, bringing back many he had banished. Neither the early Christian writers nor the Book of Revelation necessarily refer to a lengthy and widespread genocide. Preterists, like Mathison, however, exploit the deconstructionist view in order to give more weight to their view that Nero is the main beast in conflict with Christ in Revelation. He argues:
While there is a great deal of evidence for severe persecution of Christians under Nero, no clear evidence has yet been found indicating that Christians were systematically persecuted under Domitian.”[7]
Mathison has fallen prey to the idea that literary evidence is not evidence. These deconstructionist historians ignore the literary evidence when it does not suit their hypotheses, and they make their claims based on material culture, which almost never yields definitive evidence for any narrative one way or the other. There is no clear evidence that Abraham really existed, or the exodus or Canaanite conquest really took place according to deconstructionist methods. In fact, most of the Bible is wrong in their eyes because it is not substantiated by their interpretations of material culture. What is significant in understanding historical events is the literary witness left behind. The community that would comment upon such an event, like the Domitian persecutions, would be the Christian community who were most affected by it. The Roman historians would care little about it. However, even they note the tyranny of Domitian. They just speak about it in generalities and not in the specifics of persecuted Christians.
There is also a bit of a moving of the goal post in Mathison’s comment, and common misconception by revisionists, as no one needs to prove that there was a “systematic” persecution under Domitian. The Apocalypse describes persecution and pressure to partake in the imperial cult that leads to death for many Christians. It says nothing about their being official laws and some sort of systematic genocide of Christians occurring. Even the Neronian persecution is thought to be localized to the Christians in Rome, yet the book describes the churches in Asia Minor as possibly going through this persecution. The point that John desires to make in the book is only that when Christians are faced with martyrdom or idolatrous compromise, they should choose death because they serve Christ who “holds the keys of death and the grave.” His point is not to comment upon how vast the persecution may be.
If Pliny the Younger had not written to Trajan to clarify the correct manner of investigation needed to put Christians to death, modern historians would have never known that a systematic persecution was taking place under Trajan. Not even the Christians mention it. Yet, it is clear from that correspondence that Christians are regularly being put to death for not worshiping the gods and the emperor through his image.
What is also important to note is that this persecution in Revelation, according to the literary sources and the Apocalypse itself, includes, not only death, but also banishment. John himself is said to be affected by this tribulation and banished for it. Banishment, however, is not a punishment under the Neronian persecution, as that persecution is not about worshiping Nero, but is a sentence of death placed upon all Christians in Rome for the crimes against humanity, specifically because they were blamed for setting the city on fire. All evidence points to only one punishment, i.e., death, handed out to Christians, and only execution, not banishment, would make sense if they were being sentenced for that particular crime. As stated before, then the persecution under Nero does not fit the description of the persecution in the Book of Revelation.
Furthermore, Domitian is the only emperor who fits the description of the beast in Revelation 17. Mathison wants to argue that the beast is Rome, but this is a confusion of what John is arguing. The beast, i.e., Rome, is personified in two of its kings. Hence, the “beast” in 13:18 is said to be a man whose number is 666, which Mathison and most scholars agree is the title “Nero Caesar.” The beast, i.e., Nero, is dead in Chapter 17 and then comes back in the form of an eighth king.
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. (vv. 9–11)
Any attempt to make this about the Roman Empire as a whole fails to deal with what is explicitly said in the book about the beast. Verse 11 calls this eighth king “the beast who was and is not and is also an eighth king and yet is one of the seven and is going off to destruction.” Notice that the beast who was, i.e., Nero, is no longer alive when John is writing. Instead, as one of the seven kings, he will return again as an eighth king. It is the eighth king with whom John is concerned. It is the eighth king who will persecute Christians and attack Christ, not the fifth king, Nero, who has already died. Hence, John cannot be describing the persecution under Nero. If he is not describing that persecution then there is only one other persecution in the first century that fits the description of Revelation and that is the one under Domitian, and if the usurpers are taken out of the count of legitimate kings, Domitian is the eighth king of the Roman Empire.
Furthermore, the fact that the beast is said to be only one of the seven kings and not all of them informs the reader that they do not represent the Roman Empire, nor all of the kings, as a whole. Instead, only these specific two kings, which are presented as two manifestations of the same demonic forces coming up from the abyss, are said to be “the beast.” So when John moves from the generic empire to the specific kings, he is no longer speaking in generalities. The depiction of the empire as the beast is meant to move the reader from generalities to specifics, not to confuse the general with the specific. What this means is that one cannot attempt to make the text about the Roman Empire when it is, in fact, describing these two kings specifically, as the text itself states.
Instead, all of these sources combined present a picture of the following: (1) There was, indeed, a noteworthy persecution under Domitian. (2) This persecution included executions of Christians. (3) It included banishing Christians. (4) It included impoverishing Christians by seizure of their property. (5) It likely included a litmus test where the accused, if they denied being Christians, were made to worship the pagan gods, repudiate Christ, and worship the emperor through his image. (6) Christians were given a time of relief from the persecution. (7) This persecution was only one of two brought against the Christians in the first century, the first being under Nero for different reasons and with only one judicial sentence for the crime of treason via arson, i.e., death.
This evidence fits the description in the Book of Revelation, as there are two beasts in the book who persecute Christians, not one. Nero is the proto-beast who is already dead in the book, whereas Domitian becomes the eighth beast with which John is primarily concerned. He returns in the demonic spirit of Nero, presented as one who ascends up from the place from which the demonic forces ascend, to persecute Christians and oppose Christ.
[1] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 289.
[2] Daniel N. Schowalter, The Emperor and the Gods: Images from the Time of Trajan (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 54.
[3] The Roman worship of emperors is complicated and often misunderstood. Although they are given divine honors during their lifetimes, before Domitian, they did not regularly receive worship from citizens. The titles of deity were largely propagandistic rhetoric used to subdue the conquered states outside of Rome. After the time of Augustus, it was not until after an emperor died that he became truly divine and worthy of worship in the imperial cult. Only during and after Domitian’s reign do they seem to demand this type of worship during their lifetimes. Until then, the attitude that is displayed in Augustus, as noted by Henry F. Burton, prevails: “But Augustus refused to accept divine honors at Rome. He allowed no temple to be erected to him in the city. He was under no illusion as to his divine powers” (The Biblical World The University of Chicago Press, 40.2 1912 82). Roman citizens were even forbidden to partake in the imperial cult, and ironically, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were not made gods after their deaths by the senate, but were only given divine honors during their lifetimes in the Eastern provinces like Asia Minor (Ibid. 83). This is the very location of the persecution in the Book of Revelation, as opposed to Nero’s persecution in the city of Rome, takes place.
[4] Burton, Worship of the Roman Emperors 86
[5] Many in the deconstructionist movement within historiography come to the Christian persecutions in the first century with an extreme skepticism that is, frankly, unwarranted. The idea that the lost history was merely a fictionalized account made up by Christians is speculative and a case of confirmation bias. I agree with B. M. Levick and J. W. Rich that “such extreme sceptism is difficult to accept. The supposed literary fabrication seems unnecessarily elaborate, and one might wonder why the perpetrator did not choose a more celebrated family for his fictional historian” (“Bruttius” in T. J. Cornell [ed.], The Fragments of the Roman Historians: Volume 1: Introduction 594). The attempt to argue that an “empire-wide” persecution is not evident within any official reports fails to note how the prosecution of individuals would be officially viewed versus how they would have been viewed by the Christians who were being prosecuted. As Paul Middleton (“Christology, Martyrdom, and Vindication in the Gospel of Mark and the Apocalypse: Two New Testament Views,” in Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado, eds. Chris Keith & Dieter T. Roth [London: Bloombury T&T Clark, 2015], 221) notes, “To insist upon a persecution/prosecution distinction is artificial; to the Romans all actions taken against Christians were prosecution for misdemeanor rather than persecution, while Christians would interpret all such action as manifestations of the suffering anticipated in the NT on account of Jesus’ name.”
[6] A good example of a wayward deconstructionist history of Domitian is that of Brian Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London/New York: Routledge, 1992). Alain M. Gowing sums up the problem with such a history as follows: “It is in Jones' handling of the literary evidence, however, that I find some missed (or perhaps purposefully ignored) opportunities. That evidence, from which we derive our most memorable impressions of Domitian, is of course notoriously difficult to assess, as Jones repeatedly and rightly reminds us. Waters (op. cit.) addressed precisely this problem, with good results: admitting that caution is indeed warranted, he conceded that ‘all this smoke must indicate at least a few glowing embers’ (p. 50) and managed to extract from the literary sources a credible characterization of Domitian. By contrast, Jones' attitude toward those same sources is seldom expounded and often frustratingly ambivalent. At points he admits that some of the evidence may be reliable (‘the view of [Domitian's] reign propounded by Nerva's senate and repeated throughout the dynasty could even be accurate -- although inevitably hostile, it was not inevitably wrong’, p. 161), yet at other times he implies that it is in fact ‘inevitably wrong’ (‘... [Domitian] left no heir to deify him and so, unlike Nerva, he was not able to 'guide' the literary tradition to the 'correct' interpretation of events’, p. 163). But the ‘inevitable hostility’ of writers such as Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius is assumed rather than proven in this book. Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, Jones rarely engages in direct confrontation with the literary evidence. Admittedly, it is not his purpose to examine Pliny's or Tacitus' attitude toward Domitian, but in light of the overwhelming and understandable influence these authors have exercised on modern views of the emperor, it seems remiss not to have established with clarity the criteria by which their testimony has been either accepted or rejected. Most worrisome is the fact that the (proverbial) non-specialist who turns to this book for an introduction to Domitian will come away with a very fragmented notion of what the bulk of the literary evidence says about him” (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 3.06.10).
[7] From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009) 645-46.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)