Belief and Resurrection in Romans 10:9

Preamble:

Romans 10:9 is an interesting verse with regard to "belief" and "resurrection".  We evangelical tend to encapsulate the gospel by saying that it primarily involves Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.  That is, salvation just is forgiveness of sins, and this salvation is appropriated simply by believing this fact.  However, in Romans 10:9 Paul does not encapsulate the gospel in this way.  That he does not, is a telling strike against how we evangelicals view such matters as the atonement and salvation.

Romans 10:9 in Context

Romans 10:9 (NRSV):

because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The "if" in this verse may simply correlate the confessing/believing with Jesus' Lordship and resurrection.  Nevertheless, what is interesting here is the Paul highlights two moments in the "Christ event", namely the exaltation and resurrection, that do not involve Jesus' death for the forgiveness of sins.  The two moments are chosen because they correlate nicely with Deuteronomy 30:12-14:

• Deuteronomy 30:12 Who will go up for us into heaven
• Romans 10:6 Who will ascend into heaven
• Deuteronomy 30:13 Who will go across to the other side of the sea for us
• Romans 10:7 Who will descend into the abyss

Of course, it could be argued that Paul quotes Deuteronomy precisely because it made reference to two moments in the Christ event.  But still, Paul highlights Jesus exaltation and resurrection and will relate them to righteousness and salvation (see 10:10).

In Romans 10:8, Paul talks of "the word":

This is the word of [Jesus'] faith[fulness] which we preach."

Note, I have translated the pisteos in this verse as Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief.  This is where the cross comes in because it was Jesus' faithful obedience to die on the cross that led to the reward of resurrected life.  [This is why I think Leviticus 18:5 is used by Paul in 10:5 in a positive, Christological, way.
The righteousness of the law, of which Jesus is the goal (10:4!), states that the one having done these things (Jesus) will live by them (be resurrected).]  But note that here the cross represents obedience and not animal-like sacrifice.

The Resurrection

When we come to Romans 10:9 we are told that those who believe in the resurrection (and confess Jesus' Lordship) are saved.  In verse 10 we have the following correlations:

• With the heart one believes resulting in righteousness
• With the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation

The "righteousness" here is no doubt equated with salvation.  God's righteousness leads to salvation (see Romans 1:16-17 where righteousness and salvation are paired).  Belief in the resurrection leads to salvation.  I think this is so because the resurrection is for Paul just what "salvation" means.  Resurrection means new life/creation and power over death.  That is salvation!  Sure, forgiveness of sins in included, but there is no overt mention of Jesus' death as an animal-like sacrifice which constitutes forgiveness of sins=salvation.  This is crucial for our self-understanding as Christians.  Paul uses "resurrection" language to refer to the renewed creation that Jesus' resurrection adumbrates.  This means actual transformation and not imputed righteousness.  For Paul, salvation is a victory "believers" share with Jesus because they are "in" Jesus.  They have died to sin's power to live for God, not in a fictitious sense but in a real sense.

Theological Upshot

We evangelicals need to broaden our concept of salvation and that by doing so we will not show our faith to be futile (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17)!

Phinehas, Violence and Jesus

Preamble

When is it kosher to kill in God's name?  That even a loving God can kill is perhaps best grounded in God's self-love, which perhaps lies behind the concept of holiness.  Room for God's anger and wrath is made when God is not given his due, that is, when God is not loved appropriately.  That God is justified in using violence does not mean that humans are justified using violence in God's name.   I have pondered this question when trying to come up with a gambit in arguing with Taliban, Al Qaeda and other jihadist-types who kill in God's name rather liberally.  No one likes to be guilty of logical fallacies and as a Christian I am aware of aspects of my own religious tradition that have similarities with Islamic terrorism.  I intend here to discuss the incident recorded in Numbers 25 involving the character Phinehas and how it relates to terrorism and violence.

The Problem Posed by Phinehas

Numbers 25:1-5 recounts how Israel, while staying at Shittim on the east bank of the Jordan, began having sexual relations with Moabite women.  This leads to idolatry and God's anger is kindled against Israel.  God orders Moses to impale all the chiefs of the people.  Moses orders the judges to kill any who yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor (note that Moses seems to change God's original command).  So far so good.  God is justified in ordering the killing not because he is not loving but because he loves himself.

Numbers 25:6-15 recounts the audacity of a certain Israelite male (Zimri) and a Midianite female (Cozbi).  This couple flaunts itself before Moses and the whole Israelite congregation and enters a tent presumably to engage in sexual activity.  This is when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest enters the picture.  He takes a spear, enters the couples' tent and kills both of them with one thrust of the spear.

The problem with this is that on the surface, Phinehas' act is best described as downright murder, a heinous act of terrorism.  However, God seems to approve of Phinehas' act.  God stops the plague which presumably resulted from the type of sin of which the Zimri/Cozbi act was a token.  He then tells Moses that Phinehas "has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites."  God then rewards Phinehas with a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood "because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites."

How can God approve of this act of vigilante justice?  Are we on the same footing with the 911 terrorists who thought they were serving God?

Some Reflections

Many of the story's incidentals do not seem to help much with our puzzle.  It's true that Moses seems to be passive and that perhaps is to be faulted in not taking "official" steps needed to bring Zimri and Cozbi to justice.  However, the text does not state this and there is little to recommend this.  It would not help much because we can still fault Phinehas for acting outside the official channels.  There is no indication in the text that Phinehas had any divine prompting.

I would argue, rather, that this story represents a rather singular moment in Israel's history and that Phinehas' so impressed God because Phinehas was acting as a representative for Israel.  It should be noted that both Zimri and Cozbi represented a larger group.  Zimri was the son of Salu, the head of an ancestral house of the Simeonites and Cozbi was the daughter of Zur, the head of an ancestral house in Midian.  Phinehas' act was singular and cannot be made a template for other nefarious acts.

My Solution

My "solution" is to argue that God did not approve of Phinehas' act, but approved of Phinehas' zeal (Compare what Paul says in Romans 10:2).  Perhaps God will hold Phinehas responsible for the act even if God approved of the zeal in which it was carried out.  There is no contradiction in holding this line.  In this regard, it is interesting to point out that in one of the main allusions to this story elsewhere in the Bible, namely, Psalms 106:28-31, we are not even told of the act Phinehas' committed.  Perhaps this is so because it was not the act but Phinehas' obedience that was atoning.

The Jesus' Connection

It was been pointed out by many that Phinehas has many similarities with Jesus.  Both atoned by obedience (or so I would argue).  Though it could be said that Zimri and Cozbi were sort of human sacrifices, that aspect is not highlighted one bit (no mention of blood for example).  Likewise, Jesus' death atoned more by obedience and not as an animal-like sacrifice.  Just as Phinehas used a spear, Jesus was himself speared (John 19:34).  There could be no better contrast than between the way of Jesus and the way of Phinehas.  Jesus was obedient to God by not retaliating against evil, whereas Phinehas was obedient despite retaliating against evil.

Upshot

I started this discussion by my worries about arguing with Islamic terrorists who kill in God's name at will.  My Christian faith is that the way of Jesus is the Way.  We honor God best by loving people.  Even the argument with Islamic terrorists is affected.  One of my philosophy professors, Hilary Putnam, said it well when he claimed that we will not really win in an argument with the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  The best we can do is to change the conditions that breeds this fanaticism.  And wanting to change those conditions could very well require loving Muslims and wanting their lives to be as good as possible.  That is the Way of Jesus.
 

Dominion over Animals

Preamble

In Genesis 1:26-28, we are told that humankind is to have dominion over animals.  I intend to investigate the meaning of this dominion and what is might mean for how we are to treat animals.

Meaning of "Dominion"

The Hebrew verb radah (dominion) occurs twice in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind [adam] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion [irdu] over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion [rdu] over the fish of the sea and over the the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

The meaning of radah in the rest of the Old Testament for the most part has to do with one entity ruling another.  1 Kings 5:24 is typical:

For he [Solomon] had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides.

It is interesting to note here that the seeming result of Solomon's dominion was peace!  Psalm 72 is also about Solomon and his dominion.  It begins by asking God to give the king justice and righteousness so that he may defend the cause of the poor, deliver the needy and crush the oppressor.  Then it asks that the king be granted dominion (72:8).  It is noteworthy that even though Solomon's rule was over foreign peoples (72:9-11), the king himself was benevolent.  Psalm 110:1-2 is also interesting, especially from a Christian perspective:

The Lord says to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."  The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter.  Rule [rde] in the midst of your foes.

For Christians, this passage has Jesus in mind (see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3, 13) and Jesus' dominion is perfectly benevolent.  In this connection, dominion is applied to the "shepherds of Israel" in Ezekiel 34:4.  Since dominion is said in connection with shepherding, and since Jesus is the Good Shepherd, it goes without saying that dominion can be applied to a benevolent shepherd.

Leviticus 25 thrice mentions dominion in connection with a master not ruling a hired servant with harshness (vs. 43, 46, 53).  Again, this rule is benevolent.

In God's Image

Some scholars think that the meaning of the "image of God" in Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with the mandate for humanity to be the representative of God on earth.  This accords with the concept of the king as the icon of his god found in Mesopotamia.  Compare this with Psalm 8 where the human is a little lower than elohim crowned with glory and honor.  The human is given dominion (different word than radah but same word for 'rule' used in Genesis 1:16) over the animals (!) in vs. 7-8.  Psalm 8 and Genesis 1:26-28 are very similar.  The upshot of this is that there does seem to be a connection between the "image of God' and dominion.  The proximity of the two ideas in Genesis screams that this is the case.

Upshot for Treatment of Animals

If humanity is to be God's representatives on earth, it goes without saying that their treatment of animals ought to be as God would treat them.  First of all, Genesis 1:29 proves that human dominion excludes killing animals for food.  It was not God's plan that animals be killed for food, that only come after the fall.  A certain symmetry is set up between animals and humans because God blesses both and tells both to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:22, 28).  There is no doubt that God loves animals.  He saved them from the flood and included them in his covenant thereafter.  In Jonah, God has regard for the animals too (4:11).  In this regard, humans ought to love animals with the same care.  Also, as Christians, we are told to make future realities present realities.  A big theme in Paul is to make the the future resurrection a present reality.  We Christian could also make the future reality where animals are in peace and where carnivores are vegetarians (Isaiah 11:6-7 and 65:25) a present reality by treating animals likewise.

Conclusion

Both in Hebrew (nephesh) and in Greek (psyche) animals are refered to as "living souls".  It's high time for us Christians to start treating them thus!

 

 

John 3:36 Revisited

The Issue

The main issue is how the word “apeithon” is to be translated.  My claim is that its use points beyond mere “unbelief” defined as simple mental assent.  I claim that translations that define apeithon as “disbelieves” or “rejects” are basically trying to stay within the orbit of mere mental assent.  Anything more than mere mental assent is legalistic “works salvation” the claim would go.  I want to further my argument by passing over the use of apeithon here because it is only used once and its meaning cannot thereby be proven without further textual ramping-up.  But it ought to be pointed out that if John wanted to mean mere mental assent, he could have just used “not believing” as in 3:18.  Also, John uses a word for “rejects” (atheton) elsewhere (see 12:48, which I discuss below), a word that occurs in the gospel of Luke 5 times, but that word is not used in 3:36.  Why not?  

“Believing” in John

I want to argue that “belief” and “believing” are not defined by John in terms of mere mental assent.  I briefly mention two facts that are often overlooked.  First, John does not use the noun “faith” (pistis).  The noun “faith” occurs in the rest of the New Testament 243 times but never in John.  Rather, he uses the verb.  This is highly significant, for it is strong evidence that for John “believe” and “believing” are not internal mental states, but involve actions.  Second, John uses the preposition (eis = in[to]) after the verb pisteuein (believe) and that the object is a person (the Father, Jesus or the name of Jesus).  This is evidence that something more is going on when John has believing in[to] someone rather than just believing.  Proof of this claim can be seen in the parallel set up between “coming to” Jesus and “believing”.  Certainly, one does not come to Jesus (itself an action) to merely mentally assent to something.  The parallels are as follows:

·         6:35:  the one coming to me never hungers and the one believing in me will never thirst again.

·         7:37-38:  if anyone thirsts let him come to me and let the one who believes in me drink.

This highlights what is said in John 3:21 (from the chapter under discussion):  “But the one doing the truth comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”  This provides a nice segue to the discussion of 3:16-21, where “belief” figures so importantly.

John 3:16-21

This section states that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life and those who do not believe are judged.  The judgment is then described as the result of meeting the light who came into the world.  It is stated that some preferred darkness.  The reason given for the preference of the darkness is that their “works were evil” (v. 19b).  The person who “practices evil things” does not come to the light (v.20).  The positive result is stated in verse 21 quoted above.  This is clear evidence that “believing” and works are highly associated in the thought of John.  This should be fuel for our fire in interpreting 3:36.

Instructive also is the comparison with 12:46-48:

·         12:46 I a light into the world have come   -----  3:19  the light has come into the world

·         12:46 cont. everyone believing in me may not remain in darkness ----- 3:15, 16 that everyone believing in him may have life eternal… that everyone believing in him may not perish.

·         12:47 I did not come that I may judge the world, but that I may save the world ---- 3:17 God did not send the Son into the world that he might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

·         12:48 the one who rejects me and does not receive my words already has his judge ----- 3:18 the one not believing already has been judged.

What is interesting about this correlation in what is also stated in 12:47: “if anyone who hears my words and does not keep them…”  This clearly describes those not believing.  That “keep” has to do with actions is brought out clearly by a passage in Matthew 7:26:  “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them…”  Clearly “keep” and “do” are synonymous.  In Mark 10:20 the same word for “keep” is used in the context of doing the Ten commandments.  Also, the “words” of Jesus are synonymous with “commands”.  This is brought out by comparing John 14:15, 21 with John 14:23, 24.

Back to 3:36

Now, when we come to 3:36, we notice the similarities with the discourses at 3:16-21 and 12:46-48.  Regardless of how apeithon is interpreted, it and “believing” are in the present tense.  This is significant, because it signifies on ongoing state of affairs.  If those verbs referred to mere mental ascent as that which saves or that which rejects we would have expected past tenses: those who believed in the Son have eternal life and those who rejected the Son will not see life.  The similarities between 12:50 (“his commandment is eternal life”) also jibe with 3:36 (“believing in Jesus” = eternal life).  This proves that believing for John is on par with obeying commandments.  All this evidence is piling up and points to the translation of apeithon as “disobeys” and not merely “rejects”.  

The Power of Negative Thinking

Preamble

Thinking changes things.  There is no doubt about it.  For Christians, prayer can be viewed as a type of thinking that changes things drastically.  An example from the book of Daniel chapter 10 is instructive.  Daniel begins to fast and pray for three weeks.  He is later told that as soon as he began his ascetical practices an angel was dispatched to help him gain understanding.  The angel of Persia interferes with this angel's mission to come to Daniel for three weeks, exactly the time Daniel fasted and prayed.  Now, given the assumption that as portrayed in Daniel the angels (Michael of Israel, angel of Persia, angel of Greece) affect events on earth, then is goes without saying that the prophet Daniel set in motion events in the angelic realm that had consequences on earth.  Daniel changed things.

Hypothesis

I want to suggest, that perhaps there is a counterpart to prayer that effects things for the worse.  I'll call it "the power of negative thinking".  Perhaps when we engage in negative thinking towards someone, we unleash demonic powers that negatively influence events on earth.  For example, let's say we are angry at someone who does us wrong and we pine for vengeance and are glad when evil befalls this particular person.  Could it be that we really do make this person vulnerable to the influences of evil that we have set in motion?  This "anti-prayer" could cause real damage in the world and it comes about because of our negative thoughts.

Food for Thought

It is well known that Jesus emphasized the inner thought world of the individual.  There are a string of passages in Matthew 5 that are famous in this regard.  For example, he associates anger with murder (5:21-22) and he associates lusting with actual adultery (5:27-28).  It is also well known that Jesus had a robust sense of the demonic.  Tying up the strong man through exorcisms was a staple of his ministry.  Could it be that Jesus had a keen sense of the union of these two themes?  Could it be that Jesus knew that our inner thoughts affect the demonic realm and are not just the starting point for 'actual' sins?

We Control our Thoughts

We are the policemen of our thoughts.  Even if a bitter, evil thought comes into our consciousness, that doesn't mean we can't subdue it and control it.  For example, if we harbor resentment and bitterness towards someone and an evil thought passes our minds we could choose to cover that person in prayer and bless them.  Even if we don't "feel" the sentiment, we can at least refrain from unleashing demonic powers that cause havoc.  True love is not just a sentiment.  It is an intentional stance to be taken.

Loving Our Enemies

What better way to begin to love our enemies than by practicing our thought control or renewing mind (Romans 12:2) on those who we do have love for in a sentimental way yet still get angry and bitter at.  Practice on the easy targets and the harder ones will be less hard.

Theological Upshot

Our thoughts matter.  We are co-actors in a large drama that includes angelic free agents who can affect events on earth.  It behooves us to start taking control of our thoughts.  Much depends upon it, regardless of the truth of the above hypothesis.

Conquering and Resurrection in book of Revelation

Preamble

Conquering or overcoming is a prominent concept in Revelation.  I will argue here that its use in Revelation includes the idea of resurrection.

Jesus as Conqueror

The bedrock of the use of "conquer" in Revelation is that Jesus conquered.  In 5:5 we are told that Jesus is worthy to open the seals because he conquered.  There Jesus is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9) and the root of David (Isaiah 11:1,10).  The OT passages from which these descriptions derive have to do with literal military violence.  However, the way Revelation depicts Jesus' conquering is through his death, the very opposite of violence!  Note the slain Lamb in 5:6 who has seven horns (symbols of conquering).  The key here, though, for my purposes is that the slain lamb is standing, which represents his resurrection.  Jesus' career is summarized in 1:5 with three descriptions which all seem to pertain to conquering:

1. the faithful witness (primarily his faithfulness unto death)
2. the firstborn of the dead (resurrection)
3. ruler of the kings of the earth (exaltation)

Jesus conquers sin and death by raising from the dead and ruling.

Further proof of the importance of the resurrection comes in chapter 12.  The great red dragon wanted to devour Jesus but he was "snatched up" to heaven to rule the nations with a rod of iron (12:5).  Some scholars have even argued on the strength of the idea of "firstborn from the dead" that the mention of the woman giving birth refers to Jesus resurrection.  Either way, Jesus' death per se is not mentioned.  Next, we are told that Michael defeated the dragon which many take to be the heavenly counterpart of Jesus' victory (death and resurrection).

Jesus as Template of Conquering

3:21 is the last of seven promises uttered to those who conquer.  This is significant because it ties together Jesus' career with his followers.  Just as Jesus overcame and sits with the Father, so his disciples will sit with Jesus on his throne if they overcome.  12:11 goes so far as to say that the disciples conquer by the blood of the Lamb, that is they conquer in the same way Jesus did.  I think resurrection is in the background here but I think John highlights Jesus' death because he want to prime his readers for their possible if not likely fate.

Disciples Conquering

However, talk of the disciples resurrection and exaltation is also rife in Revelation, but importantly tied to death.  The question in 6:12 (who is able to stand) seems to be answered in 7:9 (a great multitude standing before the throne).  The "standing" here most likely refers to resurrection.  In 11:11 the two witnesses are resurrected with the description that they "stood" on their feet.  Richard Bauckham's discussion of this passage is illuminating:

The symbolic narrative of 11:11-12 means not that the nations have to see the literal resurrection of the Christian martyrs before they are convinced of the truth of their witness, but that they have to perceive the martyrs' participation in Christ's triumph over death.  In fact, the way that Christian martyrdom, in the early centuries of the church, impressed and won people to faith in the Christian God, was precisely thus.  The martyrs were effective witnesses to the truth of the Gospel because their faith in Christ's victory over death was so convincingly evident in the way they faced death and died.

I should note that this passage inspired this blog.

Theological Upshot

In ways very similar to Paul, John can highlight Jesus "death" and "blood" when we want to impress upon the reader the absolute requirement suffering and death (at least in some cases) and that to follow Jesus means that we have to "put on our grave clothes".  However, this does not mean that the resurrection is not lurking behind the scenes.  It clearly does in both Paul and in Revelation.  The resurrection gives the conqueror hope.  This is why all the promises to the conqueror in the letters involve some eschatological reward.

 

Why do Evangelicals downgrade the Resurrection?

Preamble

I suggest that one of the many reasons why Evangelicals downgrade Jesus' resurrection, especially in relation to his crucifixion, is the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world.  Like it or not, the scholarly world influences even Evangelical thought.  Church leaders study at seminaries and most seminaries are in touch with the scholarly world and are influenced by it.  In the end, the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world boils down to a lack of faith in resurrection, either Jesus' or in general.  This lack of faith trickles down to the Evangelical in the pew, or so I suggest.

Examples

Two of my favorite Catholic scholars, Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, are cases in point.  Brown has written a 752 page tome on The Birth of the Messiah and a 2-volume 1608 page tome on The Death of the Messiah.  Nothing like this is devoted to the resurrection.  His The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus devotes pp. 69-129 to the topic.  His other book on the resurrection, A Risen Christ in Eastertime, is just as slim, with only about a hundred pages devoted to the topic.  Even he admits that neither of these books are truly a commentary.

Meier's epic A Marginal Jew (4 volumes to date and going strong) is not to touch the Resurrection.  The reason Meier gives is the Jesus' resurrection is not "in principle open to the observation of any and every observer", is "affirmed only by faith", and is not "in principle perceivable by all interested and fair-minded observers."

Meier's conception of the resurrection I think is already flawed and that he seems to lack the faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.  It is against this typical scholarly position that N. T. Wright basically wrote his The Resurrection of the Son of God. Wright argues the the concept of "resurrection" is this period involved bodily resurrection and is therefore open to the type of verification that Meier seems to think is lacking.  (See also Stephen T. Davis 'Seeing ' the Risen Jesus.)

Theological Upshot

I think the lesson for Christians is to be sensitive to all the factors that shape our thought and how we read the Word.  Sometimes pernicious ways of reading the text are so underground that we don't even realize they are operative.  I think this is the case with the resurrection.  This is one the the foundations of Christianity and perhaps we need to read with an intentional view to highlight what the Bible as a whole says about resurrection and its importance.  I claim that if we do this we will read Paul, for example, differently than we do now.  The time has come.

Does God Love himself?

The Problem: is God a Narcissist?

One of the most common reason atheists will give for not believing in God is that they think it is selfish for God to want people to worship him and give him glory.  This picture of God can even block theists from worshiping God.  So, is God a narcissist?

John Piper's Solution

John Piper has offered a very compelling explanation as to why God pursues his own glory.  Since God ought to be our greatest joy and since praise completes or is a natural overflow of joy, then when God loves himself he is really also loving us because he is promoting what is best in himself and this is what is best for us.  God wanting our praise is really for our own benefit. In his own words:

God is the one Being in the entire universe for whom self-centeredness, or the pursuit of his own glory, is the ultimately loving act. For him, self-exaltation is the highest virtue. When he does all things "for the praise of his glory," he preserves for us and offers to us, the only thing in the entire world, which can satisfy our longings. God is for us, and therefore has been, is now and always will be, first, for himself. I urge you not to resent the centrality of God in his own affections, but to experience it as the fountain of your everlasting joy.

Perhaps the reason we may still balk at this is that God is not really our greatest joy and that we liken God to all the other beings whose self-centeredness is generally a sign that they are not other-loving.

Trinitarian Solution

Another way of explaining God's self-love is to again claim that it is really other-oriented love, because God is trinitarian.  God wants glory because he loves the Son and the Spirit.  The Son wants glory because he loves the Father and the Spirit etc.  Interestingly enough, many models of the human is tripartite: Plato's soul (appetitive, rational, spirited), Freud's psychology (Id, Ego, Superego) etc.  Even the Bible often times uses a tripartite anthropology.  In Deuteronomy 6:4, we are told to love the Lord our God with heart (lebab), soul (nepes), and might (me'od) [LXX: kardia, psyche, dynamis].  Matthew 22:37 echoes Deuteronomy when Jesus expounds the greatest commandments (heart, soul, mind) [kardia, psyche, dianoia].  Mark has four (12:30): (heart [kardia], soul [psyche], mind [dianoia] and strength [ischys]).  Some scholars believe that Mark interpreted Jesus' one word using two Greek words 'soul' and 'mind'; evidence for this is that a few verses later (12:33) Jesus' interlocutor uses only three(!): heart (kardias), understanding (synesis) and strength (ischyos). Paul had spirit (pnuema), soul (psyche) and body (soma) [1 Thess. 5:23].  Be that as it may, probably not too much should be read into this tripart language because it may have been only for literary purposes and anyway the components are not necessarily persons. But this does provide an excellent segue for more than one reason.

The Human Nature Solution

The heart of this solution is to claim that self-love is a part of human nature, human beings are in God's image, therefore it is expected that God's nature also comprises self-love.

The Bible seems to take self-love for granted.  One of the most famous verses in the entire Bible shows this:  (Leviticus 19:18: you shall love our neighbor as yourself).  This verse is repeated many times in the New Testament: Mark 12:31, 33; Matthew 19:19; 22:39; Luke 10:27; Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:9; James 2:8.  Matthew 5:43 probably alludes to this verse but "as yourself" is omitted for a balance.  The last solution quoted the first great commandment and this solution quotes the second!  The Golden rule (Mt. 7:12//Lk. 6:31) also seems to take self-love for granted: do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Other verses in the New Testament also seem to evidence self love: Ephesians 5:28-29, 33 is a prime text.

Self-love is not commanded because I think it was taken for granted AND THAT self-love can be a detriment to other-oriented love (see Phil. 2:3, 2 Tim. 3:1-2 etc.).  But the point here is that self-love is a part of human nature.  If this is one aspect of human nature that is part of the image of God, then God is also self-loving.  If we love ourselves then we can understand that God would love himself.  There does seem to be a human tendency to want glory ("fame" or "good reputation" may be secular equivalents).  We all seem to want to be significant and appreciated.  God does too.  Also, it can't be denied that we all praise and give glory to things and persons other than God, which are far inferior to God.  

Conclusion

I've tried to argue that God wanting our praise is not selfish (in the bad sense).  Therefore, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him".  WOW, I just quoted John Piper (for the second time...in approval)!!!    

The (new) 4 Spiritual Laws

The Four Spiritual Laws

Law 1

God loves his creation and loves himself.  God desires a mutually beneficial give-and-take relationship with humanity.

God’s love

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them (1 John 4:16).  Since God loves himself, he expects to be given his due.  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might (Deuteronomy 6:5).

God’s desire

[God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4)

To be ‘saved’ here is tantamount to the blessing of having life (John 10:10).

Why do we not experience this abundant life?

Because…

Law 2

Humanity has not loved God as they ought; therefore, they incur God’s wrath which includes the curse of death.

 Death as consequence of disobedience

The wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23).  Sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12).

Adam’s disobedience compromised his God-given purpose to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28).  This is why all creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God (Romans 8:19).

This situation is desperate, but…

Law 3

God is continually working to set things right.  God chose Abraham and through him Israel to bless the world, that is, to undo Adam’s curse.

Abraham’s blessing (the Promise)

In Abraham, all the families of the earth shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3).  Abraham trusted the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).  The ‘righteousness’ here is God’s righteousness, that is, his promise to set things right.

Israel and the Law (Old Covenant)

Israel’s obedience to the law was meant to give life (Leviticus 18:5).  However, Israel did not obey the law and came under the law’s curse of death (Romans 9:31).  Both Jews and Gentiles are under the power of sin (Romans 3:9).  However, this was not the end of the story.

Jesus as true Israel (New Covenant)

Jesus fulfilled Israel’s function to bless the world.  As the new Adam, Jesus reverses the curse of death because he was obedient.  The righteous [Jesus] by their faithfulness [obedience] will live [resurrect] (Habakkuk 2:4). Jesus rose from the dead conquering sin and death for all (1 Corinthians 15:22).  With Jesus, the Holy Spirit-infused new creation makes its appearance.  We can partake of this resurrected new creation.

What Jesus accomplished is available to all, but…

Law 4

To be saved, that is, to gain abundant life, humanity must enter into a mutually beneficial give-and-take relationship with the triune God and with all of God’s creation.   

Love is the key

Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Obedience is a part of love

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love (John 15:10).

Self-sacrificial love is the highest love

Jesus gave of himself and we must take up our cross and give.  We are never more Christ-like then when we love self-sacrificially—it proves our love (John 15:13).

Our destiny

When we are like Jesus, then we will fulfill our God-given purpose of a Godly-dominion over a new earth forever (Isaiah 65:17).  AMEN!

God Repents

Introduction

Are there some aspects of the future that are not settled until free agents choose?  I intend to look at some cluster of passages in the Old Testament in which we are told that God repents. If humans are free, we would expect God's interaction with humans to show traces of this freedom.  I claim that the passages I will examine show just such a trace.  Of course, the rejoinder is that this language is only anthropomorphic and that God does not repent.  I will address this rejoinder and the verses usually employed to support it (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4).

Strategy

If human beings are free creatures, then we would expect that if the claim is made that God repents, then that divine repentance would be conditional upon human choice.  My strategy is to ague that most of the verses in the Old Testament that employ the word "repent" (nhm) in relation to God do so precisely in connection with human freedom.  This is powerful evidence that the future is not exhaustively settled.

The Texts

Genesis 6:6-7

And the Lord was sorry he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.  So the Lord said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created--people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Now, the cause of God's grief here is clearly humankind's wickedness: "every inclination of the thoughts of their heats was only evil continually" (6:5).  My gloss: human freedom and the evil that resulted caused God to repent.  If humankind would not have chosen evil, then the implication is that God would not have repented in creating them.  The text goes on to say that Noah, who is described as "righteous", "blameless" and "walked with God"(6:9) is saved.  Again the implication is that Noah chose rightly and is therefore in the clear. Many evangelicals dislike this implication and interpret 6:8 to mean that Noah found "grace" with God (6:8) as though the descriptions in verse 9 are the result of that grace.  But in his notes E. A. Speiser states of the verse in question: "Literally "won favor (not 'grace') in the eyes of".

Exodus 32:14

And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
 

The context of this verse is the Golden Calf incident.  God is intent on consuming the Israelites and even asks Moses to let him alone to do it (32:10).  Moses intercedes using some gambits.  My gloss: in this case it is Moses' intercession that causes God to repent.  One would think that God is privy to the gambits that Moses uses to convince God to repent.  Therefore, my take is that it is somehow Moses himself and his willingness to chose to set things right that convinces God.  Right after the intercession, Moses chooses to destroy the calf (32:20) and to commissions the Levites to purge the people (32:25-29).  It was Moses, I claim, that persuaded God to repent.  If Moses would not have chosen to intercede because he cared about the relationship with God, then the Israelites would have been consumed there and then.

Amos 7:3, 6

The Lord relented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the Lord.
The Lord relented concerning this; "This also shall not be," said the Lord.
 

Amos reacts to God reslove to punish in two cases by saying forgive/cease and saying "How can Jacob stand?  He is so small."  My gloss:  as with Moses, I take God's reaction to Amos to be of utmost importance.  It is Amos' choice to be concerned for his people that changes God's mind.  However, the reprive failed and in a second pair of visions God punishes and Amos does not intercede (7:7-9; 8:1-3).  A case could be made that God accepted Amos' resolve and gave Israel more time to repent but Israel chose not to and God reverted back to his resolve to destroy. 

1 Samuel 15:11, 35

"I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands."
And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.
 

The reason for God's repentance is stated right in the verse.  Saul did not obey God and allowed King Agag of Amalek.  My gloss: Saul chose not to obey God and therefore God repented that he had made him King over Israel.  The implication is that Saul had the freedom to obey God and that if he had then God would not repented.

2 Samuel 24:16/1 Chronicles 21:15

But when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the evil, and said to the angel who was bringing destruction among the people, "It is enough; now stay your hand."
 

This is one passage that God's repentance seems spontaneous.  We are not told what triggered God's anger in 24:1 nor how it seems to be resolved in 24:16.  David's confession only caused a choice of punishment.

Jeremiah 18:8, 10

but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on it.
but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I intend to do to it.
 

My gloss: Here is a statement of God's freedom to change his mind in relation to the choices of humankind.  The results are dependant upon the choices made.  We are not told that God knows which choice is to be made.  The sentences are conditional and not declarative.

Jeremiah 26:3, 13, 19

It may be that they will listen, all of them, and I will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.

Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he pronounced against you.
Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death?  Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them?
 

In this Temple sermon, Jeremiah is clear to tie together God's repentance to human choice in verses 3 and 13.  There is no indication that God knows which option that will transpire.  Again, the logic is conditional and not declarative, God is not declaring what is to happen regardless of human choice.  Verse 19 is about a prophecy of Micah about the destruction of Jerusalem.  He was not responded to by death threats but by repentance in which God also repents.  Again, God's action is conditioned upon human choice.

Joel 2:12-14

Yet even now, says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts and not your clothing.  Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.  Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him...
 

God is described in terms used in Exodus 34:6-7 but with the addition that God repents.  The point is clear: God's repentance is related to human choice.  The human choice for good is perhaps a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for God to repent.  God still is sovereign but his decisions are tied to human response.

Jonah 3:9-10; cf. 4:1-2

Who knows?  God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish.  When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
 

The king of Nineveh urges his subjects to repent from their evil ways (3:8) which is clearly related to human choice.  God sees this human choice and repents.

Zechariah 8:14

For thus says the Lord of hosts: Just as I purposed to bring disaster upon you, when your ancestors provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the Lord of hosts.
 

Here, God's decision not to relent is due to the disobedient choices of the Israelites.

Ezekiel 24:14

I the Lord have spoken; the time is coming, I will act.  I will not refrain, I will not spare, I will not relent.  According to your ways and your doings I will judge you, says the Lord God.

This negative statement is in accord with Ezekiel's belief that Jerusalem is to be blamed for its disaster (see 24:1-13).

Judges 2:18

for the Lord would be moved to pity by their groaning because of those who persecuted and oppressed them.
 

Here, God's repentance is in response to the people's groaning.  It may be that this groaning is a sign of repentance but it is not stated and the reason given is the oppressors and persecutors.

Contrary Verses

There are verses which state that God does not repent.  One case, 1 Samuel 15:29, is interesting in that it is sandwiched between two verses which claim that God does repent (!) (11 and 35; cf. Numbers 23:19 and Psalm 110:4).  I think the best way to interpret the claim that God does not repent is that he does not repent exactly like a human repents, either in the sense that he does not need to morally repent or in the sense that his repentance is not capricious or frivalous.  But this is not to deny that God is not effected by human choice.

Rock Bottom

Is the language of God repenting only anthropomorphic?  What I think can be said is this:  the authors of our passages used the language they used because they wanted to say something about how God interects with humankind.  If God did not really "change his mind", then we are owed an explanation as to why the authors wrote as they wrote.  Perhaps it is true that the authors could not get closer to the truth about what was going on--even if all interaction between God and humankind is metaphor--than by using the metaphor that God repented.  If so, that is saying a lot.

Conclusion

There is ample evidence in Scripture that God repents.  This repentance is almost always related to human behavior, good or bad.  An explanation of this is that human choices matter.  Human choices bring about realities that change God's stance.  This has huge implication for theology and ethics.  What we do matters.  We are not puppets destined to live a life predetermined for the ages.  God calls us to live in such a world by trusting him and relying on his guidance.  We can do no better.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Gollum and his 'Precious'

Introduction


The sad and pitiful figure of Gollum of Tolkien fame provides an excellent example of a life lived under the power of sin.  I will try to draw out some lessons from the life of Gollum.

From Smeagol to Gollum

"What do you mean?" said Frodo.  "Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for?  But if he hated it, why didn't he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?"
"You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard," said Gandalf.  He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself.  He could not get rid of it.  He had no will left in the matter."
 

 The 'precious' that consumed Gollum is that idolatry that seeks to get life in ways contrary to God's will.  To borrow from a completely different movie reference, Gollum got caught in the Matrix.  As with Israel's sin, Gollum was cursed and "driven away" because of his transgressions.  Jesus puts the  matter starkly in Mark 8:34-37 (Mt. 16:24-26//Lk. 9:23-25):

If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.  For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?  Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
 

When we don't follow God's will we become deformed and ugly, a sad caricature of what we ought to be.  We all at times cling to our own 'precious'.  Our 'precious' can be anything that we get life from other than from God.  We all have caused untold damage to those around us and to ourselves by ruthlessly guarding and protecting our 'precious'.    When we don't trust God we die, just like Gollum.

Romans 7

In chapter 7 of Romans, Paul describes a person much like Gollum.  I think this chapter has often been used by Christians to justify the sin in their life (Gollum too blames: "the precious made us do it").  But Paul is, I think (and see my commentary on Romans on my website), referring not to Christians but a typical Jew before Jesus.  The Christian now has the power to be free from sin: Jesus has rescued us from the power of sin, not just forgiven us our sins--"but thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25). 

Conclusion

We don't have to be like Gollum.  Let us give up our 'precious' so we can have that which is truly precious! 

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding on pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.  ---Mt. 13:45-46