Posts on the Image of God

I was asked to make some of my posts on the image more accessible. Here they are below.

PART I 

PART II 

PART III

PART IV

Also see:

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-two-seeds-literary-connectivity-in.html 

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2020/01/are-image-and-likeness-of-god-two.html

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/10/why-imago-dei-is-not-characteristic-of.html 

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-imago-dei-in-reformed-confessions.html 

https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/10/does-bible-consider-all-humanity.html

 

What Is a Bible?

What is a Bible? That may sound like strange question to you but the answer to that question is much more important than you might first realize. In fact, how you answer the question is a good predictor of whether you will be influenced by secular arguments against the inerrancy of the Bible.

To many people, a Bible is an object, a volume of multiple books with words that cannot be altered. Yet, it is clear that this is not what a Bible is. The people of Israel had a Bible when all they had was the Law of Moses. Likewise, we see that the words of various books can change. There is a longer and shorter form of Jeremiah. Then there is the question of what manuscript tradition of both the Old and New Testament we are talking about. Does the text of 1QIsa or 1QIsab contain the accurate version of Isaiah? Is it the longer or shorter ending of Mark that transmits the original autograph correctly? Are any of the translations Bibles? The Samaritan Pentateuch? The LXX? The Syriac? The Vulgate? The KJV? The NASB?

All of these concerns are irrelevant, however, if we understand that a Bible is any document, written or digital, that inerrantly relates the divinely revealed religion of God. By “inerrantly” I mean that it does not teach any error in what it seeks to convey. Hence, it really does not matter whether one has the LXX and does not know of the various Hebrew traditions. It really does not matter whether one believes the shorter ending of Mark versus the longer ending. It does not matter whether one has the shorter version of Jeremiah versus the longer version. What variation of words, word order, length of text, etc. has no bearing upon whether one has an inerrant Bible. Likewise, since word variation is irrelevant, any translation that inerrantly teaches the divinely revealed religion of God is a Bible. The LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Qumran manuscripts, the Leningrad Codex, the “Alexandrian” traditions, the Byzantine traditions, the eclectic texts of Stephanus or Erasmus or Wescott and Hort or UBS or NA, electronic Bibles are all Bibles because they all inerrantly teach the same divinely revealed religion of God.

None of them teach a different religion. By “religion” I mean a different theology and ethics or a different history of redemption. They all teach the same religion. It may be taught in a different order or with different words or in different places but they all teach the same religion nonetheless.

I think this is important to understand when people hear the apologists of the Enlightenment like Bart Ehrman. God has preserved the religion that He wanted humans to understand in order to believe and follow Him; and the amazing thing is that he has done it, not by preserving some single golden tablet that can have no variation in it, but rather by multiplying its diversity in numerous textual traditions, canons, and translations, all of which agree with one another about the central message of what God has done to save humanity, the theology the people of God need to believe, and the ethics they need to follow.

So what is a Bible? It is the Word of God to man, testifying to him of what God has done for him and how he must respond to God in light of it. In that regard, all of these quibbles over who has the correct Bible are nonsensical.

Tim Keller's Abortion Theory Applied to Jews in Nazi Germany

Let's imagine that the arguments often made by left-leaning evangelicals who want to vote for pro-abortion candidates was applied to something other than the killing of babies. Instead, let's imagine it was applied to Jews in Nazi Germany. Let's say you have the option to vote for Nazis who want to push the killing of Jews forward or German candidates who are a mixed bag of apathetic to anti-Final Solution policy makers. 

In comes a pastor arguing that maybe the best way to cut down on the killing of Jews is actually by voting for the Nazis. After all, the Nazis have a plan to get people out of poverty, and poverty is the number 1 reason so many people are against the Jews. The Jews were blamed by many Germans for the economic depression of Germany. Maybe, as time goes on, and the Nazi economic policies lift the average German out of poverty, less and less Jews will be executed because hostilities will decrease. Maybe the road to what the Christians want, i.e., less unjust killing of the innocent, is the one that votes for Nazis instead of against them.

Now, let me say that this type of argument can only be made by someone who thinks manipulation via appeasement of the depraved is the means through which justice must be established. The question becomes whether the Bible supports this pastor's methods. In fact, it does not.

The Bible supports the absolute opposition of any unjust position. It explicitly decries any spilling of innocent blood as murder. It does not bargain with murderers. It does not appease people so that they are less murderous. It does not install them in office because they pass out free candy to the people who would otherwise murder the innocent. That is because the goal is not to have less murders. The goal is to exalt God in the midst of murderers, call them to repentance and punish them. 

The real problem with these types of arguments is that they would never be made about Nazis and Jews. That's because Jews are considered real people. The reason why Keller can argue that candidates who are going to fund and push for the availability of killing babies are viable candidates Christians can vote for is because, despite what leftist evangelicals often claim, they don't really see babies as people. 

This is why they get really upset when children are separated from their parents at the border but wouldn't frankly bat an eye if those same children had been executed in an abortion clinic a few years before. How about making an argument that we should vote for the Klan in order to cause these racists to feel less disenfranchised and maybe we'll get rid of their racism that way? How about arguing that we should install more pedophile priests into ministry because it's better to have them there distracted by ministry than out on the street picking up many more children if they had nothing better to do?

This is not how the Bible has us deal with evil. Evil is denounced by God's people. The evil men are removed from among us. Repentance and the gospel are preached to remove it permanently. 

So how does this relate to an election when you have two parties that are not necessarily Christian? You would vote for the party that will do less evil and allow more good to be done by the Church. You would vote against whatever party was killing less of the innocent and might even seek to eventually abolish the practice. Most of all, you would preach the gospel and call all to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the One true King, since evil can only be permanently removed by Him.

In essence, this is an argument that I addressed with my very first post on this blog. The appeasement of evil in order to suppress evil only increases it. https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2011/08/tale-of-two-arguments.html

Divorce and Remarriage Series

 Divorce and Remarriage: History and Methodology

Divorce and Remarriage, Part 2: Overview of the NT Teaching

Divorce and Remarriage, Part 3: The Meaning of Porneia

Divorce and Remarriage, Part 4: 1 Corinthians 7

Divorce and Remarriage, Part 5: The OT Texts

Divorce and Remarriage, Part 6: Where to Go from Here

Popular Alternative Methodologies in Biblical Interpretation

 Here is a list of some terms that others and myself have coined for alternative ways of interpreting Scripture that don't include exegesis. Of course, the most common term used is eisegesis, where one imports something into the text that isn't there but there are many more colorful ways one can interpret the text to consider.

Myopiagesis - when one can only seem to see the verse and not the immediate, literary or canonical context of the verse in front of him. Also can be applied to those without any skill or insight that would lead to seeing the verse in its larger context.

Narcigesis - when one sees himself in the heroes of Scripture and makes all Scripture, rather than about the glory of God through Jesus Christ, about himself. 

Assumegesis - when one assumes that he already knows what Scripture teaches about a topic or what a Bible passage already means without consideration of context or further study.

Likegesis - when one picks the interpretation that sounds right to him. In this method of interpretation, the interpretation that resonates most with his traditions and thinking must be the right one, since God would not say anything that he finds to be unpalatable or runs contrary to his desired self-image or lifestyle. 

Ignoregesis - when one ignores all arguments of his interpretations to the contrary. Also could be referred to as "blindanddeafegesis."

Note: The popularity of these methods display the reason why the plurality of scriptural interpretations in the modern church by their mere existence do not support the claim of their validity.

Observations on Jesus' Statements to Pilate

I find Jesus' statetment to Pilate to be illuminating in terms of what view of government He taught. Ask yourself whether the following sounds like Jesus had a libertarian view that Pilate does not have authority to punish Him as an innocent man or whether He has the view that Pilate's authority is given to him to use at his own discretion, and therefore, he retains it even when not exercising it justly. 

 

"So Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.” (John 19:10-11) 

 

Jesus acknowledgs that Pilate has authority over Him but because it was given to him from "above," which can only refer to God in the context of John. 

Hence, God has given Pilate authority over Jesus who Pilate now is going to condemn unjustly. Jesus acknowledges that Pilate is doing this unjustly because although he states the one who delivered Him up has the greater sin, that very statement implies that Pilate is sinning. 

At no time in this conversation does Jesus say that Pilate doesn't have the authority to do this sinful and unjust thing toward Him. Instead, the opposite is affirmed. 

Hence, authorities can sin in their use of the authority given to them by God without losing their authority. Of course, it is understood that they will be judged by God for abusing it.

The Stoning of the Rebellious Adult Son

 https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99421171318540&target=safari