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)!!!