Monday, May 25, 2020

Divorce and Remarriage Links


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
 
 


Saturday, May 23, 2020

Crucifying Jesus All Over Again: The Modern Killing and Replacement of Christ in Western Christianity


When the crowds were told that Pilate would release to them either their king or a murderer, they opted for the murderer and demanded instead that he get rid of Christ by executing Him.

A man named Barabbas was imprisoned with rebels who had committed murder during an insurrection. Then the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to release a prisoner for them, as was his custom. So Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to release the king of the Jews for you?” (For he knew that the chief priests had handed him over because of envy.) But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas instead. So Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you want me to do with the one you call king of the Jews?” They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilate asked them, “Why? What has he done wrong?” But they shouted more insistently, “Crucify him!” Because he wanted to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them. Then, after he had Jesus flogged, he handed him over to be crucified. 
 
The name of the man is said to have been Barabbas, which is Aramaic for “Son of the Father.” Hence, the replaced the real Son of the Father for a murderous imposter because they found him to be a more palatable alternative to Him. 

As shocking as it might seem, this same scenario repeats itself over and over again throughout time. The Bible tells us that an antichrist is coming and that many antichrists have already come from the time of the New Testament forward. The word “antichrist” is often thought to mean “one who is against Christ” but the Greek preposition anti in the New Testament largely has the meaning of “instead of/in the stead of” or “replacement,” which means that an antichrist is “one who replaces Christ” with another Christ. Indeed, John speaks of those who deny the Father and the Son by rejecting the true Christ. They also deny that Jesus has come in the flesh. All of this was denied because these characteristics about Jesus were less than palatable to the philosophical and moral sensibilities of the culture at the time. Paul also talks about false apostles teaching the church to follow “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11). The centuries to follow would see great controversy with many attempting to replace the Jesus of the Bible with another one. Supplanting Christ seems to be the regular activity of heretics.

The Jesus of the Bible is full of grace and truth. He has great compassion upon sinners who come to Him in their need to be restored to God. His love, as the love of the God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament, endures forever. However, I would argue that an antichrist is not an antichrist because it looks nothing like the Jesus of the Bible, but because it takes only a part of Jesus and leaves the other part on the cutting-room floor. It emphasizes certain attributes to the exclusion of others, as though Jesus’ demand that His people live in holiness and His wrath poured out upon the wicked in fiery judgment when He returns is somehow contrary to the mercy and love He has for His people. Indeed, His fiery wrath upon the wicked is an extension of His love for the righteous who have been redeemed by Him. He rids the world of chaos and chaotic agents in order to give them a new heaven and earth where righteousness dwells. He, therefore, is just as much an enemy of the unrepentant wicked as He is a friend to the repentant sinner. He has just as much anger and judgment for those described in the New Testament as unreasoning animals who claim to know Him that He does for those who are restored to the image of God through their unification with Him by faith.

The inclusive Jesus of the Enlightenment and modern America wants to bring peace and harmony to the world in its present condition. The Jesus of the Bible brings a sword to wage war against the present world so that even a close-knit family will be at war with one another over Him. The Jesus of the American church affirms everyone no matter what they are doing. The Jesus of the Bible calls all to repentance from their sin and self-directed lives, lest they perish. 

I once gave a sermon entitled, “Why Jesus Is Not God.” Of course, my congregation knew that I affirmed the Ecumenical Creeds of the ancient Church, so they knew I was getting at something else altogether. That something else was to argue that Jesus is not the God of American religion. He is not a generic benevolent deity who then goes on in the New Testament to define a brand new God, different from the one in the Old Testament, to us. Instead, as John argues in his Gospel, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. He’s the Word through whom God created all that has been made, the One who made a covenant with Abraham, the I AM who spoke to Moses in the wilderness, one with the Father, dividing the children of Satan from the children of God by confirming the judgment of the former and the salvation of the latter.

This revelation from John may come as a shock to the modern proponent of Americanity, who largely believes that Jesus came to reveal an all new vision of God that corrects the old vision of God in the Old Testament. That God was exclusive and mean, but Jesus is inclusive and nice. That vision of God was angry, but Jesus’ vision is favorable. Where the God of the Old Testament wants to burn everyone with fire for their sins, Jesus just wants to give everyone a hug and tell them not to worry about their sin because he’s got their back. This Jesus only has wrath upon those who judge others for their sins. He is not all that concerned with sins in general. 

In American religious discourse, two “Jesuses” often emerge: One is revealed as the God of the Old Testament who saved His people by destroying their enemies, including the wicked among them, and the other one had a show on PBS where he visited the land of make-believe along with his trolley. By replacing the biblically-revealed Jesus with the persona of someone like Mr. Rogers, who represents the non-judgmental Jesus who accepts everyone at His table and just wants everyone to be His neighbor, the modern Church is guilty of proclaiming an antichrist rather than Christ.

This preaching of an antichrist is the primary reason when one finally hears the words of the real Christ, he boldly proclaims, “Well, that’s not my Jesus!” Indeed, it is not, and that is precisely the problem.

The counterclaim to all of this is that no one knows everything about God or Jesus, and therefore, no one would know Him well enough to avoid worshiping an antichrist. The problem with this common postmodern claim is that it fails to make the distinction between exhaustive and sufficient knowledge. One may not exhaustively know everything about his wife, but he has sufficient enough knowledge to distinguish his wife from other women, so that he can recognize his wife and say, “This is my wife,” as well as also saying, “This is not my wife.” If found in bed with another woman, no one will accept the claim that he was not guilty of adultery because he could not distinguish between the women due to a lack of exhaustive knowledge pertaining to his wife. In the same way, because God has given to His people sufficient knowledge of Himself and His Son via biblical revelation, one can say, “This is the true Jesus,” and at the same time say of another Jesus, “This is not the true Jesus, but an antichrist.” In essence, just because one does not know everything does not mean at all that he knows nothing; and what is known can be used to distinguish between true and false claims, specifically in this context, about God and Jesus. 

However conservative and orthodox an institution or person may be, the truth of the matter is that the assumption of Enlightenment inclusivism, even in its smallest seed form, will always tend toward removing the biblical version of Jesus from the center of theology and the religious life. Either the biblical Jesus will be exchanged for one supporting the religious ideas of the culture, or His role in those things will be diminished from being the center of one’s theology and practice to becoming a sentimental figure (like Santa Claus to Christmas) who is helpful, but largely unnecessary to one’s relationship with God.

But what is it to deny the true Jesus in order to replace Him with a fake one but to repeat the first act of betrayal by desiring the true Christ to be dead and the fake one to supplant Him. In this way, the denial of the real Jesus is nothing more than apostates calling out for the Church to crucify Jesus and to give them a Barabbas instead. Their condemnation is truly just.

So the next time you hear the phrase, "My Jesus would never." or "That's not my Jesus," or "Jesus loves everyone" or "Jesus would never divide or condemn" etc., then be sure you are hearing an echo of that deicidic crowd that called out to Pilate so long ago, "Give us Barabbas" and of Jesus, "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!"

Friday, May 22, 2020

Why Does Adultery Carry with It the Penalty of Capital Punishment?

Many are unaware of this, but God actually tolerates some sexual relationships in the Old Testament that He does not allow in the New. For instance, although there are laws against the daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute, or fathers making their daughters into prostitutes, there is no law against prostitution itself. Likewise, there is no law against divorce and the law even acknowledges the divorce situation without sanctioning or condemning it. Polygamy is tolerated as well. They are all viewed as less than God's will, but they do not carry with them a legal penalty much less a death penalty.

I’ve argued in the past that these are tolerated because although they are not desirable for preservational purposes they are capable of fulfilling creational ones. Many wives have many children (Gen 30:1-24). A divorced young wife can still bear children from her new marriage. Likewise, even prostitution can still be a means of creation (Gen 38:15-24).

But, of course, adultery still produces children. It just doesn’t produce it for the person to whom the woman is married. And that is precisely one of the reasons it deserves the death penalty. In an act of betrayal much like when a husband murders the wife he is sworn to protect, it takes the life of the husband from him.

Now, it should be said that adultery in the ancient Near East and Old Testament always involves a married woman. A married man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman is not considered adultery in the Old Testament. The New Testament will expand it to woman, and therefore, what I say here will apply to the woman as well, but it was first and foremost a sin against the husband.

One of the reasons that it is a sin against the husband in the Old Testament is because the purpose of the sexual act was to procreate and the marriage union was made to give the husband multiple opportunities to produce children for his household. Children are one with their father. They are a part of him and expand his household in the ancient Near Eastern world. Every sexual encounter, therefore, with a man’s spouse is an opportunity where a child might be created and the man would live on upon the earth even after he dies. Every sexual encounter stolen away robs him of this opportunity and the very extension of his life through his children. Hence, when a woman robs a man of these sexual encounters in order to give them to another man to whom she is not married, she is essentially taking his life away from him.

The covenant of marriage, therefore, not only includes the idea that the man will take care of his wife with food, shelter, etc., but that both the husband and the wife will give these sexual opportunities to one another, and when they do not, it is a breaking of the covenant. But refraining from a sexual opportunity to be celibate is not equal to refraining because that opportunity is given to another.
Much like the idea that sexual immorality is a sexual act performed that is not procreational and not the same as refraining from sexual activity even though it can be sinful to do so, adultery is giving the opportunity to extend the husband’s life and household that was promised in the covenant of marriage to one to whom the wife is not married and has not covenanted with her. The act of betrayal is something like a woman who says she will feed her kids but later takes their food and gives it to the kids down the street to whom she is not obligated instead while her kids starve to death.

In this regard, adultery is a supreme act of hatred toward one’s spouse, i.e., the very person that she promised to love. Adultery is not often spoken of in terms of murder and hatred, but it is very much a part of that same type of act. Jesus says that degrading your brother is an act of murder, and John repeats that not providing for your brother’s need is an act of hatred and murder. How much more is it an act of murder to degrade one’s spouse, steal away the child who might have had through the sexual act given to another, and deprive him of his need to be the image of God in his sexuality? Is it not the wiping out of his child so that the child of another might live. Is this not a type of murder too? And does not murder deserve the death penalty?

What the New Testament does is acknowledge that this very same thing is true when it comes to men going off with other woman to whom they are not married. Hence, adultery is expanded to be this type of betrayal regardless of which spouse is involved. For this reason, when these covenantal promises are expanded to be more consistent with God's purposes of marriage revealed in Genesis 1-2, suddenly divorce and remarriage, prostitution, and polygamy become adultery as well, and are therefore prohibited by the New Testament.

This is sexual immorality also in that because adultery carries the death penalty with it, even the child who is created through the adulterous union will be killed, and thus, it is also anticreational (something that cannot be said strictly of prostitution, divorce and remarriage, or polygamy) and therefore sexually immoral (Lev 18:30). To be sure, there are other issues, other sins involved in the sin of adultery.  There are issues of ownership and issues relating to the picture and work that God means to convey through the marital relationship and its sexual practices. But adultery seems to carry the death penalty primarily for its theft of life from the spouse, namely, the life of the possible child who God might give to the spouse through it.

Our culture tends to portray adultery as fun and exciting, and present faithfulness in marriage as boring, spouses as undesirable or less desirable than non-spouses, and adultery as a casual commonality that often has good reasons behind it. It is hardly viewed as a type of murder for which there is never a good reason because it the sexual act is not linked to procreation. The marriage covenant, therefore, is not linked to procreation. So people are left with the sense that they are not really doing anything hateful toward their spouse except deceiving them. This is why some couples also think that as long as they are open with one another, adultery is morally acceptable, but it remains evil for the same reasons above whether the other spouse accepts it or not. And if he or she really knew what it was, only a fool and an evil person would be accepting toward an act of hatred and murder committed toward him or her and his or her children.

This also means that pornography, day-dreaming of another person, masturbation, contraception, abortion, etc. are acts of adultery in the sense that they steal the opportunity for the sexual act to give a spouse a child and are guilty, therefore, of the same crimes mentioned above.

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Were the Ancient Israelites Materialists?

"The Hebrews were materialists who believe in a wholistic view of the human being and the Greeks substance dualists who see the human as made up of at least two parts."

I can hardly blame anyone for believing this statement. The idea that the ancient Israelites are materialists in contrast to the Greeks who are substance dualists is a common myth that gets repeated over and over again ad nauseam.

Materialism, when it comes to anthropology, is the belief that human beings are only made up of the physical body that has a life force to it but that life force, whatever it may be, dies when the body dies because there is no other element to the human being that can live apart from the body. In contrast, substance dualism is the belief that human beings are made up of both spirit and body (perhaps more elements but primarily a visible and an invisible nature), and hence, the spirit lives on after the body dies.

First, let's deal with the fact that the ancient Near Eastern religion absolutely affirms a belief that man is, at least, made up of spirit and body. It likely would divide man up even more. For instance, some Egyptian texts seem to divide man up into numerous parts: various parts of the body, his ba, his ka, etc.

The spirits of individuals were thought to be able to travel at night when the body was asleep. Hence, dreams provided access to the world of the spirits because one's spirit traveled there. Likewise, the very idea of talking to spirits, whether those of gods or the dead, had to do with the fact that the spirit was disconnected from the body in order to enter into the realm of spirits. Hence, prophets, seers, mediums, necromancers, etc. went into a trancelike state, much like sleeping while awake, in order to let their spirits connect to that spirit realm and receive information from it.

Funeral rites were important in honoring the dead because the dead often needed them to survive the netherworld. Many looked for omens from the dead. The netherworld is talked about quite a bit as a place where the dead are conscious. Obviously, if one is separated from the body in death, and yet still conscious, that assumes a body-spirit distinction.

If the ancient Israelites believe similarly to their surrounding culture then they are substance dualists like the Greeks and are not somehow their anthropological opposites. If this were true then a whole lot of verses don't make a whole lot of sense.

But what about Israel and the Bible itself? It is possible that Israel had different beliefs. However, if the ancient Israelites did not accept common ideas found in ancient Near Eastern culture of an afterlife in the netherworld involving their spirits, and at the very least, a dualistic anthropology, how is that they are constantly warned not to talk to the dead or consult anyone who talks to the spirits of the dead?

Leviticus 19:31 warns: "Do not turn to the spirits of the dead and do not seek the spirits of dead family members to become unclean by them. I am the Lord your God." 

In Deuteronomy 18:11, it reads וחבר חבר ושאל אוב וידעני ודרש אל המתים [There must never be found among you anyone who] casts spells, inquires of spirits of the dead, gets information from the dead, or a necromancer (lit. one who seeks after those who have died).

Lev 20:6 “‘The person who turns to the spirits of the dead and familiar spirits to commit prostitution by going after them, I will set my face against that person and cut him off from the midst of his people.

1Ch 10:13 So Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord and did not obey the Lord’s instructions; he even tried to conjure up underworld spirits.

Isa 8:19 They will say to you, “Seek oracles at the pits used to conjure up underworld spirits, from the magicians who chirp and mutter incantations. Should people not seek oracles from their gods, by asking the dead about the destiny of the living?”

Isa 19:3 The Egyptians will panic, and I will confuse their strategy. They will seek guidance from the idols and from the spirits of the dead,from the pits used to conjure up underworld spirits, and from the magicians.

2Ki 21:6 He passed his son through the fire and practiced divination and omen reading. He set up a ritual pit to conjure up underworld spirits, and appointed magicians to supervise it. He did a great amount of evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.

2Ki 23:24 Josiah also got rid of the ritual pits used to conjure up spirits, the magicians, personal idols, disgusting images, and all the detestable idols that had appeared in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem. In this way he carried out the terms of the law recorded on the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the Lord’s temple.

Isa 29:4 You will fall; while lying on the ground you will speak;from the dust where you lie, your words will be heard. Your voice will sound like a spirit speaking from the underworld; from the dust you will chirp as if muttering an incantation.

Isa 3:3 captains of groups of fifty,the respected citizens, advisers and those skilled in magical arts, and those who know incantations.

Jer 27:9 So do not listen to your prophets or to those who claim to predict the future by divination, by dreams, by consulting the dead, or by practicing magic. They keep telling you, ‘You do not need to be subject to the king of Babylon.’

Now, one could argue that these texts are merely speaking phenomenologically in terms of describing only what the people think they are doing, and not actually what they are doing. The problem with this line of interpretation is that it ignores texts that affirm that this is being done as well as never saying that these people are deluded and not actually talking to spirits of dead humans.

In 1 Samuel 28:7-15, we see the following narrative described.

So Saul instructed his servants, “Find me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go to her and inquire of her.” His servants replied to him, “There is a woman who is a medium in Endor.”
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothing and left, accompanied by two of his men. They came to the woman at night and said, “Use your ritual pit to conjure up for me the one I tell you.”
9 But the woman said to him, “Look, you are aware of what Saul has done; he has removed the mediums and magicians from the land! Why are you trapping me so you can put me to death?” 10 But Saul swore an oath to her by the Lord, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not incur guilt in this matter!” 11 The woman replied, “Who is it that I should bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up for me Samuel.”
12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out loudly. The woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” 13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid! But what have you seen?” The woman replied to Saul, “I have seen a supernatural being coming up from the ground!” 14 He said to her, “What about his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up! He is wrapped in a robe!”
Then Saul realized it was Samuel, and he bowed his face toward the ground and kneeled down. 15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” 

This narrative evidences that the Bible affirms the ancient Israelite and Near Eastern view that when the body of humans die, their spirits remain conscious in another realm. In other words, humans are not just physical, but also have spirits that can think, travel and speak apart from the body. Saul believes the woman can conjure the spirit of Samuel (v. 11). The woman says she conjures the spirit (v. 13). The Bible affirms that she conjured the spirit of Samuel (v. 12, 20). This would be impossible if Samuel were only made up of his physical body which is dead and buried.

Leviticus 20:27 states: "“‘A man or woman who has in them a spirit of the dead or a spirit of a family member must be put to death. They must pelt them with stones; their blood guilt is on themselves.’”

Notice that the text does not say that they are to put to death one who claims to have a spirit of a dead person or a family member in them, but rather one who is channeling the spirit of a dead human being. 

Furthermore, there are strange uses of language that describe what happens when a human dies. In Psalm 90:10 (an old Psalm and the only one attributed to Moses), the years of a human pass quickly and then the text says that "we fly away." Some have argued that this refers to life flying away as a bird, but it does not say "it flies away," but rather נעפה "we fly away."

When Job (26:5-6) describes the makeup of the cosmos, he describes the reaction of the netherworld to God.

5 “The dead tremble—
those beneath the waters
and all that live in them.
6 The underworld is naked before God

When the Bible talks about the dead not being able to praise God or do any more labor, etc. it is not talking about what they can or cannot do in the netherworld but about what they can contribute here upon the earth. They descend into silence, as in Ps 115:17, because those living upon the earth can no longer hear them, not because they no longer exist.

What all of this means is that the ancient Israelites, and the Old Testament, affirms substance dualism, not materialism.

But if this is true, why is there an emphasis on the physical world in the Hebrew Bible over the spirit realm in contrast to the New Testament's emphasis on the life of the Spirit in the here and now? Why not more talk of heaven and hell and the world of the spirits?

The answer to these questions is found in what God is promising to His people in the Old Testament if they are faithful. They are not inheriting heaven. They are inheriting the earth. Hence, the physical world is being promised to them. The Old Testament does not emphasize an otherworldly setting because it is not the final destination of saints. Instead, it emphasizes the inheritance and prosperity of this world that will be given to all of God's people. Why would it emphasize an intermediate state?

In contrast, the reason why an intermediate state and the realm of spirits is mentioned more in the New Testament is because of the already-not yet paradigm, where Christians are spiritual Israel who now gain access to the inheritance to come only spiritually in the here and now. It is a downpayment to them as they wait for their full inheritance by becoming physical Israel and inheriting its physical promises. Hence, the New Testament agrees with the Old that eternity is not about inheriting heaven but inheriting the earth (Matt 5:5) and ruling upon it (Rev 5:10), but it also affirms that the physical promises must wait until the very end and so the intermediate state provides comfort for Christians who die (1 Thes 4:13-18; Phil 1:20-24; 2 Cor 5:6-9).

Furthermore, the spirit-flesh dichotomy, often erroneously seen as a product of Greek influence, in the New Testament is important because of the "already not yet" nature of salvation where God has united us to Christ through the Spirit and we are regenerated in our spirits, but our bodies are not yet redeemed (John 5:24-29;  Rom 6-8). Hence, the distinction between spirit and flesh is important to understand the order of salvation as it is applied to us.

So the Israelites were being promised contingent upon their holiness that they would receive the world, which is what God's people were meant to inherit from the beginning (Gen 1:28; Rev 21-22). They failed to follow God in holiness, however, and did not receive it. It will be received through Christ now, but not immediately as God saves men in their spirits first and then in their bodies with the rest of the physical world (Rom 8; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21). They also provided a picture of that inheritance to the church to come. But the church is now in the state in between where understanding the salvation already applied and given is of the spirit first and looks forward to the salvation that is not yet applied to the physical body.

Either way, the idea that the ancient Israelites are materialists is ignorant of both the ancient Near Eastern cognitive culture and the Hebrew Bible's affirmation of those beliefs. There is no Hebrews believed this and Greeks believed that nonsense. They may emphasize one over the other differently, but they do not disagree on the matter of substance dualism.

This does not at all mean that the spirit and body should be radically divorced in any way or thought of as opposed in their ontology, as various Platonists would assume, but simply that man is his body and he is his spirit and they are created and meant to be one. The enmity between them is not a natural one in the intermediate state but an effect of both the Fall and the partial application of redemption that has already been obtained from Christ.