As reported in the New Testament, the Old Testament is there or our instruction and edification.
One thing that I think all too often goes unremarked is an event such as when Aaron and his sons were advised to bless the children of Israel thusly:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
The Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
Numbers 6:22-27, excerpted
Of course, that was directed to the priests of God's Chosen people of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, those who truly follow His Word instead of some twisted version of it have become the Chosen People of the Christian Age (I. Peter 2:9-10) and priests ourselves.
As such, it seems Christians would be well served to find sayings such as the above and bless one another with them rather than sayings like "catch you later" or "good luck".
Of course, this is a habit hard to form, but well worth doing so.
In that frame of mind I would say, Thank you for reading and until we come together in person or spirit once more, may the peace of God be in your heart and may His presence overshadow your for good.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
God versus Evolution
Genesis is generally referred to as being defined as "beginning", "beginnings" or more rarely "coming into being".
And right in the first verse of the first book, both chronologically and in location within the collection of books known collectively as "the Bible" it makes an explicit, controversial claim.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The first couple of chapters present the Creation twice; first a broad overview, then a retelling highlighting the key event.
These chapters are at the heart of why the debate over phrases such as "evolution", "intelligent design", "theistic evolution" exists, should exist, and must exist.
I would reference II Timothy 3:16 for one reason; when it says "ALL Scripture is inspired by God" it comes from the Greek word Theopneustos" which literally means God-breathed.
Genesis being part of Holy Scripture*, if the account of how the world was created is false, then all of Scripture can safely be discarded and, indeed, per its own claims, SHOULD be discarded. (I Corinthians 15:19)
Thus the truth or falsehood of the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, and did so in the manner prescribed, is fundamental to accepting or rejecting the other words found within the Holy Writ.
Of course, there is a major problem with the issue. Specifically, if the Bible is accurate, then there were three beings present at creation; God, the Spirit of God (verses 1-3) and the one who would later be known as Jesus (John 1:1).
The nature of these three as three separate yet one is an issue unresolved by man for centuries and unlikely to be resolved prior to judgment when God may choose to reveal this mystery.
Be that as it may, there were no human witnesses until Adam and subsequently Eve were created.
The same, of course, holds true for the other major hypothesis of how the earth came into being, that is evolution. The idea that life started 'somehow" and through a variety of mutations became other sorts of life eventually resulting in humans is a brief description that hardly gets into the depths of the hypothesis...
Then again, it is all but impossible to describe accurately what evolutionary hypothesis is since it is in a constant state of flux. Earth age fluctuates wildly, with 4.55 billion years or so being one common number, another being a few hundred million years either way from about 13.7 billion years.
This is an important distinction since the widely differing quantities of time result in very different ideas of when, how, and through what steps the process was accomplished.
It is not out of a desire to be unfair to one point of view that I cannot formulate the latest idea; it is because there is no general consensus on how it happened, simply an oft-cited "widely held view" that it did.
So what we have are two different ideas of where the world came from which result in two very different views of the meaning of life.
Of course, saying two views is a broad oversimplification of the situation. Even within those who claim to believe in God there are shades of grey in how they interpret Genesis.
Theistic evolutionists, terrified of appearing the fool, hedge their bets by calling the very book they claim to believe a liar, positing millions of years between each "day" of Creation.
One reason for this is the very idea that the earth is several billions of years old.
There is indeed one passage in Genesis that presents the possibility of a great deal of time passing, depending on your reading of verses one and two.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."
And by the end of verse 5, it explicitly states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
It can certainly be one possible understanding of this that time did not begin for a period of...well, for lack of a better word, time for years, centuries, millenniums, or even epochs before God created light.
Chapter 2, verse one thru three seem to indicate otherwise, seeming to quite clearly state the work was accomplished within 7 days.
This is troubling for people who take at face value the idea that the earth is billions of years old.
I find it troubling that people are troubled by this.
If indeed there is a God of such power, vision, and will that could and did create the heavens, earth, and everything living within the earth, then certainly He has the power to create it with all the attributes of an earth of great age; mineral deposits for the use of people could be created, for example.
At the same time, whether there was a period of time between verse 2 and 3 of chapter one or not, the Bible unequivocally makes a claim that tears apart the root of evolution.
"...And the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...", "...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind..." (verses 11-12), "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good." (25)
So a couple of very important points here.
1) Each thing listed produced "after his kind". Change between species...a fish becoming a bird, a monkey becoming a man, a tree becoming a fish...these controvert the "God-breathed" scripture. One or the other can be true...but not both.
2) If God created imperfect, unfinished beings, he would not have then declared it to be good, nor rested from the"work which He had made" since it was unfinished.
There is one other very important point to make from the Scriptural account of the beginning of life. It is a very unpopular point with people, but if there is a God, His statement supersedes the desires of "enlightened" people.
Animals were created after their kind. Plants were created after their kind.
Man is created in the image of God (vs. 26-27).
Man is created in a different manner. He is explicitly given dominion over animals. This is not to advocate animal cruelty, but it is an indictment of the "animal rights" movement which puts animals on the level of humanity.
They are not. They are not designed to be equal, to have equal importance or equal roles.
There is one further dispute Genesis has with evolution. Skip ahead a few chapters to chapter 7, when the flood occurs. Inside the ark are 2 of unclean and 7 of clean animals, Noah and his family. Outside the ark is complete, utter destruction. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Polystrate fossils, inverted strata, the results of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and other evidences certainly point to the probability that a catastrophic event of a worldwide nature took place.
Those of us who accept the Scripture, where it speaks to history, to be accurate, thus believe those evidences most likely stem from the flood related in these passages.
Since there are genealogies from Adam and Eve and then, other genealogies begun stemming from Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, it rapidly becomes quite clear that evolution and the Bible are quite incompatible.
If one is true then the other is false. And vice versa.
It is an important debate. If the Biblical account is true then the rules God set forth apply whether we like them or not.
Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes.
Suddenly Hitler is evil only to people who disagree with him. Manson should be considered a hero.
The person who declares any other person wrong or evil without adding the phrase "in my opinion" has indicted them self with the deepest shrouds of hypocrisy since right and wrong have no foundation, being merely the result of personal opinion, perhaps influenced by the prevailing wisdom of the day.
Clearly I find it of utmost import to research the truth or falsehood both of Creationism and evolution.
I have spent several weeks doing that once again...it is a practice of mine to research the most recent developments.
Oddly, in Creationism, the most recent developments are repeatedly two-fold:
1) people giving up their faith and trying to harmonize their compromised religious views with the latest bright lights of evolutions
2) people realizing the incompatibility of Scripture with monkeys turning into humans and returning to the Scriptural view.
In proponents of evolution, it is a constant moving target as new research proves the last "next great idea" was fatally flawed.
So they replace it with the theme "there are so many proofs of evolution that we do not need to show any, but we will show why the evidence for the opposing side does not mean what it says."
Ultimately, belief in Creation or belief in evolution puts a person clearly, irrefutably on one side or the other; belief in Scripture or lack thereof.
Those who believe in Scripture would be well served to spend more time following it.
Those who don't...well, it already does not affect them, so they should be really, really sure. The cost if wrong is high.
* The books considered part of Holy Scripture is a fascinating and deep study far too involved for the scope of this piece. For clarity, I consider only Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation to comprise completely and entirely the true Scriptural canon; 66 books gathered into one.
And right in the first verse of the first book, both chronologically and in location within the collection of books known collectively as "the Bible" it makes an explicit, controversial claim.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
The first couple of chapters present the Creation twice; first a broad overview, then a retelling highlighting the key event.
These chapters are at the heart of why the debate over phrases such as "evolution", "intelligent design", "theistic evolution" exists, should exist, and must exist.
I would reference II Timothy 3:16 for one reason; when it says "ALL Scripture is inspired by God" it comes from the Greek word Theopneustos" which literally means God-breathed.
Genesis being part of Holy Scripture*, if the account of how the world was created is false, then all of Scripture can safely be discarded and, indeed, per its own claims, SHOULD be discarded. (I Corinthians 15:19)
Thus the truth or falsehood of the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, and did so in the manner prescribed, is fundamental to accepting or rejecting the other words found within the Holy Writ.
Of course, there is a major problem with the issue. Specifically, if the Bible is accurate, then there were three beings present at creation; God, the Spirit of God (verses 1-3) and the one who would later be known as Jesus (John 1:1).
The nature of these three as three separate yet one is an issue unresolved by man for centuries and unlikely to be resolved prior to judgment when God may choose to reveal this mystery.
Be that as it may, there were no human witnesses until Adam and subsequently Eve were created.
The same, of course, holds true for the other major hypothesis of how the earth came into being, that is evolution. The idea that life started 'somehow" and through a variety of mutations became other sorts of life eventually resulting in humans is a brief description that hardly gets into the depths of the hypothesis...
Then again, it is all but impossible to describe accurately what evolutionary hypothesis is since it is in a constant state of flux. Earth age fluctuates wildly, with 4.55 billion years or so being one common number, another being a few hundred million years either way from about 13.7 billion years.
This is an important distinction since the widely differing quantities of time result in very different ideas of when, how, and through what steps the process was accomplished.
It is not out of a desire to be unfair to one point of view that I cannot formulate the latest idea; it is because there is no general consensus on how it happened, simply an oft-cited "widely held view" that it did.
So what we have are two different ideas of where the world came from which result in two very different views of the meaning of life.
Of course, saying two views is a broad oversimplification of the situation. Even within those who claim to believe in God there are shades of grey in how they interpret Genesis.
Theistic evolutionists, terrified of appearing the fool, hedge their bets by calling the very book they claim to believe a liar, positing millions of years between each "day" of Creation.
One reason for this is the very idea that the earth is several billions of years old.
There is indeed one passage in Genesis that presents the possibility of a great deal of time passing, depending on your reading of verses one and two.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."
And by the end of verse 5, it explicitly states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
It can certainly be one possible understanding of this that time did not begin for a period of...well, for lack of a better word, time for years, centuries, millenniums, or even epochs before God created light.
Chapter 2, verse one thru three seem to indicate otherwise, seeming to quite clearly state the work was accomplished within 7 days.
This is troubling for people who take at face value the idea that the earth is billions of years old.
I find it troubling that people are troubled by this.
If indeed there is a God of such power, vision, and will that could and did create the heavens, earth, and everything living within the earth, then certainly He has the power to create it with all the attributes of an earth of great age; mineral deposits for the use of people could be created, for example.
At the same time, whether there was a period of time between verse 2 and 3 of chapter one or not, the Bible unequivocally makes a claim that tears apart the root of evolution.
"...And the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...", "...And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind..." (verses 11-12), "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good." (25)
So a couple of very important points here.
1) Each thing listed produced "after his kind". Change between species...a fish becoming a bird, a monkey becoming a man, a tree becoming a fish...these controvert the "God-breathed" scripture. One or the other can be true...but not both.
2) If God created imperfect, unfinished beings, he would not have then declared it to be good, nor rested from the"work which He had made" since it was unfinished.
There is one other very important point to make from the Scriptural account of the beginning of life. It is a very unpopular point with people, but if there is a God, His statement supersedes the desires of "enlightened" people.
Animals were created after their kind. Plants were created after their kind.
Man is created in the image of God (vs. 26-27).
Man is created in a different manner. He is explicitly given dominion over animals. This is not to advocate animal cruelty, but it is an indictment of the "animal rights" movement which puts animals on the level of humanity.
They are not. They are not designed to be equal, to have equal importance or equal roles.
There is one further dispute Genesis has with evolution. Skip ahead a few chapters to chapter 7, when the flood occurs. Inside the ark are 2 of unclean and 7 of clean animals, Noah and his family. Outside the ark is complete, utter destruction. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."
Polystrate fossils, inverted strata, the results of the Mt. St. Helens eruption, and other evidences certainly point to the probability that a catastrophic event of a worldwide nature took place.
Those of us who accept the Scripture, where it speaks to history, to be accurate, thus believe those evidences most likely stem from the flood related in these passages.
Since there are genealogies from Adam and Eve and then, other genealogies begun stemming from Noah and his sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, it rapidly becomes quite clear that evolution and the Bible are quite incompatible.
If one is true then the other is false. And vice versa.
It is an important debate. If the Biblical account is true then the rules God set forth apply whether we like them or not.
Conversely, if the Biblical account is false then we are free from the moral strictures found therein and able to generate morality based on our own thoughts and wishes.
Suddenly Hitler is evil only to people who disagree with him. Manson should be considered a hero.
The person who declares any other person wrong or evil without adding the phrase "in my opinion" has indicted them self with the deepest shrouds of hypocrisy since right and wrong have no foundation, being merely the result of personal opinion, perhaps influenced by the prevailing wisdom of the day.
Clearly I find it of utmost import to research the truth or falsehood both of Creationism and evolution.
I have spent several weeks doing that once again...it is a practice of mine to research the most recent developments.
Oddly, in Creationism, the most recent developments are repeatedly two-fold:
1) people giving up their faith and trying to harmonize their compromised religious views with the latest bright lights of evolutions
2) people realizing the incompatibility of Scripture with monkeys turning into humans and returning to the Scriptural view.
In proponents of evolution, it is a constant moving target as new research proves the last "next great idea" was fatally flawed.
So they replace it with the theme "there are so many proofs of evolution that we do not need to show any, but we will show why the evidence for the opposing side does not mean what it says."
Ultimately, belief in Creation or belief in evolution puts a person clearly, irrefutably on one side or the other; belief in Scripture or lack thereof.
Those who believe in Scripture would be well served to spend more time following it.
Those who don't...well, it already does not affect them, so they should be really, really sure. The cost if wrong is high.
* The books considered part of Holy Scripture is a fascinating and deep study far too involved for the scope of this piece. For clarity, I consider only Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation to comprise completely and entirely the true Scriptural canon; 66 books gathered into one.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
A Quick Comment on the nature of reading
A couple months ago I started sporadically riding the MAX to work. This provided me a solid hour plus of straight reading.
This has allowed me to rapidly progress through the Bible from Genesis to (as of today) Luke.
It is interesting to note there are several ways to read the Bible.
One of the more popular and, arguably, useful, ways of course is slowly and contemplatively. Take some time to mull over a verse, follow the train of thought, and see connections that way.
But there proves to be some merit, also, to a more cursory pass through. Reading at a rather frenetic pace of 50 - 60 pages per hour with no time allowed for pursuing tangents allows for an overview that draws together a lot of thoughts perhaps more difficult to pull together when it is months between reading say...Exodus and Micah.
This is not to say it is superior. Clearly, the more time you spend considering what you have read, the more depth it will add to your Spiritual comprehension.
At the same time, much like a class in Western Civilization typically bypasses deep looks into cause and effect in favor of a broad overview, a rapid read-through beginning to end gives a different view than more typical reading patterns.
Just something to think about.
This has allowed me to rapidly progress through the Bible from Genesis to (as of today) Luke.
It is interesting to note there are several ways to read the Bible.
One of the more popular and, arguably, useful, ways of course is slowly and contemplatively. Take some time to mull over a verse, follow the train of thought, and see connections that way.
But there proves to be some merit, also, to a more cursory pass through. Reading at a rather frenetic pace of 50 - 60 pages per hour with no time allowed for pursuing tangents allows for an overview that draws together a lot of thoughts perhaps more difficult to pull together when it is months between reading say...Exodus and Micah.
This is not to say it is superior. Clearly, the more time you spend considering what you have read, the more depth it will add to your Spiritual comprehension.
At the same time, much like a class in Western Civilization typically bypasses deep looks into cause and effect in favor of a broad overview, a rapid read-through beginning to end gives a different view than more typical reading patterns.
Just something to think about.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
David: A reason for Hope
I like to get to work 20 - 30 minutes early, sit in my car and read the Bible from beginning to end, as a separate thing from my more steady, focused devotional reading. It presents a very different look and from time to time, certain things catch my attention, usually because it somehow eluded me or I just missed in prior readings.
One would be some rather surprising actions by David, the "Man after God's own heart".
Now. do not get me wrong..I think he was exactly as the Bible says, a great man of God who tried to walk in God's ways. It is a foundational belief that must be true for the Bible to be that which it purports to be, God's Word. But that does not mean he was perfect.
For example, he is rightly praised for not once but twice having the opportunity to lift his hand against God's anointed, but he refused to do so.
Why, then, was he working with the Philistines? The Philistines were the deadly enemies of the Israelites in the time of Saul, and for a year and four months David not just lived in the land of the Philistines (I Samuel 27:7), but he engaged in genocidal raids (I Samuel 27:8-11...And David saved neither man nor woman alive..."). It is intriguing to note the area he raided was "the south of Judah" (p.10)
This was a benefit to the Philistines in that it allowed them to devote their troops to the war with Israel instead of with the Geshurites, Gezrites, and Amalekites. This is evidenced by the statement that Israel abhorred David.
It got to the point where David and his men were marching against Saul (chapter 29)in the battle that saw Saul die, only to be sent back because the Philistines did not trust him. If David was loyal to God's anointed, as the Scripture is often interpreted due to his sparing of the life of Saul, why would he be willing to march against his own people?
It is also interesting to note the vast number of not just wives but concubines* David had...of course we know of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail (formerly Nabal's wife), Michal, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, and then in II Samuel 5:13 he takes yet more.
It is also interesting to note the viciousness often demonstrated in his victories. Take, for example, how he measured the Moabites with the line.
I have read several descriptions of what this means, and the one that makes the most sense has to do with height...anyone over a certain height was executed.
Generally, people either pass over that passage or, as I recently read, say "God certainly didn't condone the butchery".
Really? Where, exactly, does He condemn it? It was a matter of record that nations of evil were to be slain, every living thing...including the animals. So why would this be different? It was done ion the context of God establishing David's kingdom.
David also seemed to be lacking in his parenting attentions. He said nothing to Amnon after Amnon raped his sister. He later allowed his son Adonijah to act in ways that soon led to the death of Adonijah.
He allowed Ziba to profit by half of Meshibosheth's household through deceit and treachery.
He gave seven men guilty only (as far as we know) of being sons of Saul to be executed by the Gibeonites for the actions of Saul.
He issued a census that led to pestilence in the land.
So we have a picture of a man of violence who slew massive populations, who married many women and had others to whom he was not married*, who was questionable in his parenting...and this is the man who was after God's own heart.
It is illuminating that a person whom, in the eyes of the world today would be considered a "warlord", an international criminal for his genocidal attacks, and evil man for his polygamy and relations with women to whom he was not married...is capable not only of salvation but of greatness before God.
It gives hope to those of us of lesser abilities for both good and evil.
*Concubines may have been considered women to whom he was married or may not...there is some debate on the matter. Abishag the Shunamite leaves little to debate, however, though the claim is explicit that they did not have relations, yet lay together.
One would be some rather surprising actions by David, the "Man after God's own heart".
Now. do not get me wrong..I think he was exactly as the Bible says, a great man of God who tried to walk in God's ways. It is a foundational belief that must be true for the Bible to be that which it purports to be, God's Word. But that does not mean he was perfect.
For example, he is rightly praised for not once but twice having the opportunity to lift his hand against God's anointed, but he refused to do so.
Why, then, was he working with the Philistines? The Philistines were the deadly enemies of the Israelites in the time of Saul, and for a year and four months David not just lived in the land of the Philistines (I Samuel 27:7), but he engaged in genocidal raids (I Samuel 27:8-11...And David saved neither man nor woman alive..."). It is intriguing to note the area he raided was "the south of Judah" (p.10)
This was a benefit to the Philistines in that it allowed them to devote their troops to the war with Israel instead of with the Geshurites, Gezrites, and Amalekites. This is evidenced by the statement that Israel abhorred David.
It got to the point where David and his men were marching against Saul (chapter 29)in the battle that saw Saul die, only to be sent back because the Philistines did not trust him. If David was loyal to God's anointed, as the Scripture is often interpreted due to his sparing of the life of Saul, why would he be willing to march against his own people?
It is also interesting to note the vast number of not just wives but concubines* David had...of course we know of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail (formerly Nabal's wife), Michal, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, and then in II Samuel 5:13 he takes yet more.
It is also interesting to note the viciousness often demonstrated in his victories. Take, for example, how he measured the Moabites with the line.
I have read several descriptions of what this means, and the one that makes the most sense has to do with height...anyone over a certain height was executed.
Generally, people either pass over that passage or, as I recently read, say "God certainly didn't condone the butchery".
Really? Where, exactly, does He condemn it? It was a matter of record that nations of evil were to be slain, every living thing...including the animals. So why would this be different? It was done ion the context of God establishing David's kingdom.
David also seemed to be lacking in his parenting attentions. He said nothing to Amnon after Amnon raped his sister. He later allowed his son Adonijah to act in ways that soon led to the death of Adonijah.
He allowed Ziba to profit by half of Meshibosheth's household through deceit and treachery.
He gave seven men guilty only (as far as we know) of being sons of Saul to be executed by the Gibeonites for the actions of Saul.
He issued a census that led to pestilence in the land.
So we have a picture of a man of violence who slew massive populations, who married many women and had others to whom he was not married*, who was questionable in his parenting...and this is the man who was after God's own heart.
It is illuminating that a person whom, in the eyes of the world today would be considered a "warlord", an international criminal for his genocidal attacks, and evil man for his polygamy and relations with women to whom he was not married...is capable not only of salvation but of greatness before God.
It gives hope to those of us of lesser abilities for both good and evil.
*Concubines may have been considered women to whom he was married or may not...there is some debate on the matter. Abishag the Shunamite leaves little to debate, however, though the claim is explicit that they did not have relations, yet lay together.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Do we Underestimate the Violent Capacity of God?
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way,...
Genesis 6: 13 And God said unto Noah, ... vs. 17 ...and, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die...
There are several things to consider from these accounts of the first beginning of life on earth...for of course, Noah and his family would repopulate the earth, along with the animals they saved in the ark, after that destruction God foretold was accomplished.
First off, we are created in the image of God. When that is told to us, have you ever stopped to consider whether it meant physically, mentally, emotionally, or are our echoes of the nature of God a combination of two or even all three of those attributes?
Mankind has developed a well-earned and oft-demonstrated capacity for violence, warfare, and bloodshed. Many would say that is the antithesis of God, yet I find it illuminating that before man ever demonstrated violence...yes, even before Cain slew Abel...God put in place a cherubim carrying a sword.
It seems not unreasonable then to extrapolate that swords were the creation not of man's desire to kill each other but pre-existed his awareness of and capacity for violence.
An interesting thought that bears a great deal of research and consideration. Of course, the research portion is considerably hampered by the fact that all we have to go on is the Bible, and it has little to say about the subject. We must beware of drawing too many conclusions from a matter mentioned in passing.
Yet when the earth grew corrupt, God demonstrated other attributes. First, regret. Second, revulsion for the ways of man. Third, a tremendous capacity for near-total elimination of life.
It was not just man but plants, animals, fish, birds...all would be eliminated in a wave of violence. Indeed, chapters seven and eight of Genesis deal with the devastation of the earth and the few who were saved from it.
We are falsely taught that "God is love" with the implicit understanding that the actual, complete and total comment is "God is love ONLY" when in truth God shows a tremendous capacity to hate that which is evil.
We are told in the New Testament that the Law and, one might suppose, the Old Testament, is a tutor to lead us to Christ.
This is relevant because it would behoove society today to realize that God is, by His own admission, a jealous God. The terror implicit in Hebrews 10:26-31 for those who would reject God has been tempered by a society trained to picture God as meek, simpering, loving without remorse, regret, or reservations when in truth, He is a God who, when disobeyed, stores up mighty vengeance the like of which the world has not seen and can scarce comprehend.
Yes, there is a loving side of God. John 3:16 explicitly states the depth of His love. But it is a love that requires response, not willful and proud disobedience.
It is sad that people would simplify God below the complexity of human beings. Man is capable of hating and loving, of many complex interactions in between. We would do well to realize we are a reflection of God, and take into account that He may carry those emotions with far greater impact.
Genesis 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way,...
Genesis 6: 13 And God said unto Noah, ... vs. 17 ...and, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die...
There are several things to consider from these accounts of the first beginning of life on earth...for of course, Noah and his family would repopulate the earth, along with the animals they saved in the ark, after that destruction God foretold was accomplished.
First off, we are created in the image of God. When that is told to us, have you ever stopped to consider whether it meant physically, mentally, emotionally, or are our echoes of the nature of God a combination of two or even all three of those attributes?
Mankind has developed a well-earned and oft-demonstrated capacity for violence, warfare, and bloodshed. Many would say that is the antithesis of God, yet I find it illuminating that before man ever demonstrated violence...yes, even before Cain slew Abel...God put in place a cherubim carrying a sword.
It seems not unreasonable then to extrapolate that swords were the creation not of man's desire to kill each other but pre-existed his awareness of and capacity for violence.
An interesting thought that bears a great deal of research and consideration. Of course, the research portion is considerably hampered by the fact that all we have to go on is the Bible, and it has little to say about the subject. We must beware of drawing too many conclusions from a matter mentioned in passing.
Yet when the earth grew corrupt, God demonstrated other attributes. First, regret. Second, revulsion for the ways of man. Third, a tremendous capacity for near-total elimination of life.
It was not just man but plants, animals, fish, birds...all would be eliminated in a wave of violence. Indeed, chapters seven and eight of Genesis deal with the devastation of the earth and the few who were saved from it.
We are falsely taught that "God is love" with the implicit understanding that the actual, complete and total comment is "God is love ONLY" when in truth God shows a tremendous capacity to hate that which is evil.
We are told in the New Testament that the Law and, one might suppose, the Old Testament, is a tutor to lead us to Christ.
This is relevant because it would behoove society today to realize that God is, by His own admission, a jealous God. The terror implicit in Hebrews 10:26-31 for those who would reject God has been tempered by a society trained to picture God as meek, simpering, loving without remorse, regret, or reservations when in truth, He is a God who, when disobeyed, stores up mighty vengeance the like of which the world has not seen and can scarce comprehend.
Yes, there is a loving side of God. John 3:16 explicitly states the depth of His love. But it is a love that requires response, not willful and proud disobedience.
It is sad that people would simplify God below the complexity of human beings. Man is capable of hating and loving, of many complex interactions in between. We would do well to realize we are a reflection of God, and take into account that He may carry those emotions with far greater impact.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
It is not good for man to be alone
Companionship is a hot topic in today's world where so much personal interaction is quite impersonal, often done over the Internet or via cell phone, with little to no personal contact.
People complain about this on many levels, believing mankind has lost many social skills due to this.
Interestingly enough, there is Biblical precedent for this mindset.
Genesis 2:18 And then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.
It is, at least in this passage, the companionship aspect of life for which woman was created for man. Despite the social concentration on sexual relations, it was the idea of being alone that was problematic for man, and that is the aspect that was addressed.
Nor, despite an oft-repeated false teaching on the matter, are Christians to refuse friendship with people of the world. I Corinthians 5 explains this clearly.
While Christians are, in fact, ordered not to associate with "Christians" who are immoral, covetous, swindlers, and so forth, they are simultaneously told that not associating with such people who are not believers is specifically not what was intended.
This thought accords well with the actions of Jesus, in fact. He was oft criticized for associating with the sinners of His time, with the tax-gatherers in preference to the "religious leaders' of the day, namely the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Yet over and over the religious world will take passages like II Corinthians 6:14, take them out of context and teach false doctrines that Christians should have no form of contact with the unbelievers.
It was foolishness such as this that led to the ridiculous extremes expressed by many hermit monks in the middle ages.
It is insistence on looking only at what is on the persons mind at the moment instead of putting a passage in context with the rest of the Holy Writings that leads preachers and teachers of the Scripture to speak falsehood in the name of God.
Now, this is not to advocate that Christians should go forth and spend all or most of their time with the liars, cheats, drunks, profane, idolaters, or whatever the sins of the people might be to the exclusion of all else.
Quite the opposite. The reasons Jesus had for His associations were to bring the truth to them and give them an opportunity for repentance.
We who would be like Christ should therefore do likewise.
Do not seek solitude to the exclusion of contact with others, nor yet refuse to use your time as Christ would have you use it.
Have friendship first with God and His people, and make room also for those to whom you might bring the light.
People complain about this on many levels, believing mankind has lost many social skills due to this.
Interestingly enough, there is Biblical precedent for this mindset.
Genesis 2:18 And then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.
It is, at least in this passage, the companionship aspect of life for which woman was created for man. Despite the social concentration on sexual relations, it was the idea of being alone that was problematic for man, and that is the aspect that was addressed.
Nor, despite an oft-repeated false teaching on the matter, are Christians to refuse friendship with people of the world. I Corinthians 5 explains this clearly.
While Christians are, in fact, ordered not to associate with "Christians" who are immoral, covetous, swindlers, and so forth, they are simultaneously told that not associating with such people who are not believers is specifically not what was intended.
This thought accords well with the actions of Jesus, in fact. He was oft criticized for associating with the sinners of His time, with the tax-gatherers in preference to the "religious leaders' of the day, namely the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Yet over and over the religious world will take passages like II Corinthians 6:14, take them out of context and teach false doctrines that Christians should have no form of contact with the unbelievers.
It was foolishness such as this that led to the ridiculous extremes expressed by many hermit monks in the middle ages.
It is insistence on looking only at what is on the persons mind at the moment instead of putting a passage in context with the rest of the Holy Writings that leads preachers and teachers of the Scripture to speak falsehood in the name of God.
Now, this is not to advocate that Christians should go forth and spend all or most of their time with the liars, cheats, drunks, profane, idolaters, or whatever the sins of the people might be to the exclusion of all else.
Quite the opposite. The reasons Jesus had for His associations were to bring the truth to them and give them an opportunity for repentance.
We who would be like Christ should therefore do likewise.
Do not seek solitude to the exclusion of contact with others, nor yet refuse to use your time as Christ would have you use it.
Have friendship first with God and His people, and make room also for those to whom you might bring the light.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Who speaks?
God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature
Hebrews, first chapter, verses 1- first part of verse 3
There was a time when God's truth may have been variable for various people. If so, that time was long past long before the final writers of the Holy Scriptures departed this vale of tears. In the final age, often referred to as the Christian Age as opposed to the Mosaic Age or the Patriarchal Age, there is but one way God speaks to us; through His Son.
Jesus left behind a record of the attitudes and teachings He dispensed while on earth, most of which was passed on to us through the writings that compose the New Testament. To the best of our knowledge, Jesus left no written record of His own, but rather entrusted His message to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, James, Jude and Peter.
There are many people, then and since, who believe they are wiser than Jesus. Oh, they will not say as much and, in fact, would find such an accusation ridiculous at best and highly offensive at worst.
Yet when we try to bind on others teachings which are not to be found in the Word which Jesus left, that is exactly what we are doing. If people would simply read the Word for what it is instead of trying to prove their great wisdom by finding in Scripture things which other Christians have overlooked for lo, these two millenniums, there would be much less confusion and problems within the Christian world.
The phrase, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent", attributed to Alexander Campbell, bears a great deal of truth. Consider the thought given oin the closing verses of Revelation 22, particularly verse 18.
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Even the most cursory examination reveals that he is speaking specifically of the book of Revelation, yet the concept is one that runs throughout the whole of the Bible.
Think on what happened when Balaam made a 'slight modification" to the message he had received.
Consider how Saul had his entire line wiped out when he took upon himself the authority and offices he was not qualified to take.
Consider how Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all was accomplished (Matthew 5:18).
Galatians 1 is quite clear about the outcome for any who teaches a different Gospel. And one with things added to the teachings of Jesus is equally guilty of this charge as a teaching that takes away.
There is a reason things such as the "Boston Movement" are considered heretical by those who actually read the Scripture. Just as those who take away things such as the need for immersion (I Peter 3:21), those who add responsibilities not found in Scripture stand condemned before God, yet were you to ask anyone in the Boston movement, I suspect they would not think they were acting as if they were wiser than Jesus.
However, adding on to the Word of God is still doing just that. No man has the right or authority to do so. It is Jesus of whom God said He is the exact representation of the nature of God.
It would therefore behoove us to take that wisdom under advisement and seek only the purity of following the teachings of the representation of the nature of God, not the interpretations of fallible man, speaking where the Scripture is silent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)