Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah—Are they all the same?

Recently I listened to a friendly exchange (definitely not a debate) between two atheists, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and two theists, Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson[1]. The reader may go online and check the credentials and peer respect that all four of these men have earned.

During the informal discussion an objection was voiced that often comes up. If Zeus and Jupiter were gods and were mythological, then why isn’t Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, also mythological? If all gods have been gotten rid of one, then take the next logical step and get rid of the last one.

Though there is a natural flow to that argument, there are problems with it. In summary, there are such differences between the literature of Zeus and other gods versus Jehovah that any generalization of them into the same pot of meaning simply makes no sense whatsoever.

As mentioned in other essays, I had no real religious upbringing or environment. Christianity was not scoffed at; it simply was not mentioned. I knew it existed, but little else. The few times I had gone to church (well, Sunday school) I had heard about God, the usual children’s story; but I cannot recall a single one in particular. Yet, I am sure I heard the typical statements about God (Jehovah).

In comical contrast are the mythological gods of the Greek. I recall reading The Iliad and The Odyssey as a preteen, and the gods were an absolute joke. What I mean is that I laughed as a young kid. These gods seemed to be very big humans with super powers who were sexual perverts, bullies, adulterers, and unbelievably messed up.[2] I grew up in the days of The Lone Ranger (who never shot anyone), Ozzie and Harriet (a superb family), and Father Knows Best (just good decisions by Dad instead of the nincompoop of today’s shows). Compared to them, the Greek gods were monsters. This was not because I had the indoctrination of “the right God.” If I had been asked, “Is Christianity the only true religion,” I would not have had the slightest idea what that might have meant. The neighbor’s son was more real to me than God’s son.

Later after becoming a Christian (age 21 in the US Navy) I faintly recall the first time I heard the criticism that the gods of the ancient world were as real (or fake) as the God of the Bible. My initial reaction was, “Are you serious? Have you read anything about these drunken, in-bred, adulterous sots of Olympus?”

Besides the absurd social behavior of the gods of the ancient world, there are several other problems that markedly and unalterably distinguish the gods from God. The first and foremost is Ultimate Being, First Cause, Supreme Authority. Though Zeus and other “head” gods were the strongest, they answered to a higher power. Staying with Zeus, he was subject to the Fates[3]. In other words there was a higher power (or powers if the trio is considered). I have never understood why the God of the Bible is compared to the lesser gods of mythological pantheons. The ancient world understood the ultimate power of the Fates.

But then, the Fates, though having control over the gods, were born themselves. So the Fates had ultimate power, but they were not eternal. The breakdown in the nature of God when compared with the mythological gods reveal the same distinction over and over: God is clearly superior in intelligence, power, control, moral distinction.

Anselm also illustrated this difference quite well in his key comment in his Proslogion: God is a “being than which no greater can be conceived.” Very little imaginary effort is needed to consider how the gods of mythology could be greater that what they were … in a number of areas. Candidly it does seem impossible that anything could be greater than a self-existent, eternal being which created all physical matter and energy[4]. The gods of mythology are far, far less than self-existent and certainly not eternal.

Another difficulty was the lack of urgency for the gods. For instance, the philosophers did not hesitate to argue their position on truth, justice, good, beauty, etc. Philosophers would name peers and disagree with them, explain what was wrong in their arguments, dismiss their position for cause, etc. In other words, they were intensely apologetic about philosophy and would argue forcefully for what they believed was the truth … as we do today for what we believe. Yet, there is no urgency or interest in defending the gods, contrasting them with false gods (which was the originally meaning of the word “atheist”), defending them, promoting them, attacking false ones, etc.

For men who believed deeply in knowledge, logic, and truth, they were pathetically indifferent to the gods, either in praising them or criticizing them. Except for an occasional comment now and then, the philosophers ignored the gods. The question is why? Of course it is understandable why a writer would not criticize the gods in his own culture, but why the silence on others? Why not a vigorous, hearty philosophical attack or defense? No, essentially … silence.

The reader may decide for himself, but the only credible answer for me to the silence is that the mythological gods were simply not important to the philosophers. There was no meaning worth discussing. If these god were believed to truly exist, this belief did not create any urgency in thought.

Along with this philosophical silence is the lack of military silence. That is, there was little if any “spreading the faith” by conquest. Judaism established Jehovah in the Promised Land by conquest. Christianity was spread by military conquest (certainly the defense of Christianity during the Crusades), and Islam was definitely a religion of the sword after the death of Mohammad. The use of the military to spread the faith has been leaped upon by atheists. Though I do disagree with evangelism by conquest, what it illustrates is belief in an ultimate God and the urgency to spread the truth.

Alexander the Great was not concerned about which gods were worshipped. Rome allowed any gods to be worshipped as long as allegiance was given to Rome and eventually the emperor. The only exception were the Jews, “the second race,” who were allowed to only worship Jehovah. Again, no urgency. If the gods were true, why weren’t there philosophical evangelism, military evangelism, and personal evangelism? There was no truth element to the gods.

A hallmark of monotheism is the urgency that the one God is true; it is not so with polytheism. Why? I fail to see any compelling reason aside from the simple observation that the ancients saw the gods for exactly how we see them … mythological.

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dennett+dawkins+collins&aq=f

[2] No, I didn’t use those words back then. But as a young boy I could tell they were petty, sex maniacs, and comically dysfunctional.

[3] In Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology the Fates were comprised of three female immortals who had ultimate control over gods and humans. No god could break the decrees from the Fates.

[4] I am not suggesting the reader has to believe that God exists because of Anselm’s a priori argument. I’m merely suggesting that it is not possible to conceive of anything greater that a self-existent, eternal entity that created all physical matter and energy. Certainly, confirmed evolutionist will simply reply that matter/energy itself is eternal and self-existent. And that merely confirms the statement that nothing greater can be conceived. Whatever is eternal and self-existent from which all else is derived is the greatest entity that can be conceived. Whether the entity has to have mind (God) or not have mind (matter/energy) is a different argument altogether and is not addressed in this essay.

Mystery and Reason

This article is about mystery and to what degree reason or reasonable is related to mystery.

Most of us have heard or said, in giving Christian counsel or encouragement to another, “God works in mysterious ways.” Atheists, as you might imagine, leap on this phrase and respond, “That only means you don’t have the slightest idea.” Yet, there are mysteries, not merely in Christianity but just in life.

Before we go any further, we need to define mystery; for the word is used in a range of meanings: something unknowable and inexplicable, something that has raised curiosity, secret rites, a sense of wonder that cannot be expressed.

Since the word mystery is an abstract word (i.e., it cannot be perceived as matter or energy by our senses), then my first interest is always in the original meaning of the word as a concrete object. The word mystery is a transliteration from the Greek word, μυςτήριον. It meant secret religious rites that were only revealed to members. These rites and the teaching behind them enabled the initiate to understand the times and the seasons. The rites provided the why behind the what of life. Essentially a mystery was something unknowable except by those who were on the inside.

Because of books, TV, and movies the verbs we usually associate with a mystery is “solved” or “unsolved.” Behind this solving is figuring out what happened, who did it, when, and why. This is quite different from the mysteries of ancient Greek religions in which a mystery was known, but only by a few who would pass on the secrets (the mysteries) after due commitment and process.

Between these two extremes, do we arbitrarily pick which one we wish to use for the Bible? One way to answer this question is to consider the verbs that are used in the Bible with mystery: know, do not be ignorant, revealed, was kept secret, did not speak in mystery, may understand, may see.

The primary meaning in the New Testament for mystery is something that was unknown but is now known. In what way are the mysteries known? Typically when we say we “know” something, our three primary sources are experience, reason, and faith (we believe what we read or are told, hopefully by competent authorities). Are these the tools that help us to understand the mysteries of God?

Faith would be the means by which we understand. In the same way that an author will reveal “who-dun-it” in a mystery by his characters and plot, so God reveals to us in the Bible His mysteries. Once revealed they are no longer a mystery.

Let’s return to the mystery writer. A means of interacting and having fun with a mystery is trying to figure it out with the clues that the writer leaves. The best mysteries are the ones in which all the clues were given, but the user interprets them incorrectly. After the story is over, we can see how we let ourselves be misled. Though reason may not figure out the mystery, after the mystery is revealed, then it needs to be reasonable. Once the writer has revealed that the murderer was Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick, then it is not reasonable if Colonel Mustard was somewhere else on the night of the murder or if he had died the day before. This principle is important. Though reason may not be able to determine a mystery, a revealed mystery should still make sense, it should still be reasonable AFTER the fact.

I can use all the reason I wish with the Old Testament, even as the Jews have for centuries, and I cannot come up with a replacement for the mission of the Jews called the church. The church was a mystery as stated in the New Testament … UNTIL God revealed it. After that it is no longer a mystery. Yet, after it is revealed, it still needs to be reasonable, to make sense. Once the church has been revealed, there are passages in the Old Testament that I read differently. The connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament make sense in a new way.

There is another use of mystery and a misuse that I wish to discuss yet. Let’s consider the misuse first.

Mystery is often used as unquestionable. “There are issues we cannot explain in the Bible; they are mysteries and simply must be accepted.” The implication is that reasons and questions are to cease.

My response to that is, “It depends.” I agree that I cannot use reason to discover new spiritual truths like I can use reason to discover new laws of physics, but I can use reason to find new perspective and new application for revealed spiritual truth.

When people ask the question, “Why would God send people to hell who have never heard the gospel,” the reply, “We do not understand God’s justice,” is not an answer or even helpful. The question is being asked because there are hundreds of examples in Scripture of what God calls just; beyond this justice is God’s mercy, again with hundreds of examples. It is precisely because of all this revelation of justice and mercy that the hell question arises. Sending people to hell because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time is not reasonable in comparison to all the other examples of justice and mercy. There has to be an explanation. Justice is a revealed truth; it is not a mystery.

Another proper use of mystery is the idea of wonder or awe. Wonder is always something we can’t fully comprehend … but we comprehend it some. It is the shortfall in comprehension that creates the wonder. The impression is usually given that a mystery means we understand nothing, whereas I maintain that we can understand something. Frankly, what do we comprehend fully in nature? Comprehension is not either-or in color; it is a gradation of color.

In summary, what we do understand, regardless how little, needs to be reasonable. That doesn’t meant that reason had to be used to discover it. Revelation is God’s granting of discovery to us, in the same way that the secret ceremonies of the ancient mysteries reveal new thoughts to the initiates. The issue is this: whatever God does reveal, whatever He does give to us has to be reasonable.

A final illustration: I do not understand the mystery of suffering. Yet, God has revealed SOME truths about suffering. Those truths, as we reflect on them, are reasonable when we compare them with other revealed truths. What He reveals to us has to make sense with other truths He has revealed. If not, then there is nothing to discuss. All there is, is nonsense (i.e., non-sense).

How Does Nothing Become Something

The current best-selling atheist writers have something in common. They seem angry or frustrated that Christians DARE PRESUME that mankind is the center of the universe. They retort vigorously how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things, how indifference reigns in the universe, how unimaginable are the distances of space with billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

“My goodness,” the atheists will exclaim, “don’t these dimwits of pompous believers know there is no center within an infinite number of stars? How stupid can they be? We are less than dust of dust of dust in the cosmic unendingness. We are nothing but temporary passengers in time. On the scale of 3000 miles that reaches from California to New York, the total existence of mankind is less than 20 yards. What is the significance of driving from coast-to-coast, and when all that mankind has ever done is back out of the driveway?

“Consider the insignificance of our lives. We do not control where or when we are born. Our existence is on a fragile balance with bacteria and viruses that could wipe us out with the most minor change in the environment. When we die, our atoms will scatter throughout the universe. And someday the universe will continue to expand until everything freezes, or the universe collapse into an apocalyptic conflagration. We are NOTHING. To pretend we are is unqualified arrogance.”

There are two implied features of the above evangelium of the Prophets of Insignificance that are ironical. One is size, and the other is meaning. Let’s briefly consider these.

How big does something have to be to be truly important; or, conversely, how small does something have to be to be truly insignificant? Is an elephant more important (significant) than a fly; they must be because they live longer, have much greater mass, and eat more. An adult must certainly be more significant than a baby.

“No, no, no,” responds the atheist. “You are missing the point. Your arguments are absurd because the examples given are biological units which we can readily perceive. What is being discussed is beyond our imagination … spaces so vast that we have to make up illustrations to get a feel for them … galaxies and black holes so large that our entire solar system could be swallowed thousands of times over. Even our Milky Way could be swallowed up and not particularly be noticed. We are talking BIG.”

Atheists and many scientists are talking as if “Big” has just been discovered! C’mon, guys, you know the history of science better than I do. “Big” has been around for centuries. Ptolemy stated in his Almagest that the size of the earth was a mathematical point in comparison to the distance of the stars. (A mathematical point is a concept and is infinitely small.) Boethius wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy in Book VII, “The whole of this earth's globe, as thou hast learnt from the demonstration of astronomy, compared with the expanse of heaven, is found no bigger than a point; that is to say, if measured by the vastness of heaven's sphere, it is held to occupy absolutely no space at all.” That sure sounds like they understood what big and little were. The concept of infinity was around for centuries before either one of these two men. Surely we are not pretending that our understanding of infinity is better or more expansive than those in centuries before, are we?

Big is a relative term that simply means larger than something else. Without question there was an enormous amount that the scientists in previous centuries were ignorant of. Current atheist writers enjoy pointing out that the theologians of the Middle Ages would be simple ignoramuses today. Let’s be fair. If Galileo were suddenly transported to our current age, he too would be an ignoramus. Newton would be lost (for a bit) with relativity, particles, and black holes.

It seems that when “Big” escapes quantification and becomes a concept, then that is when it is really, really big. Again, the concept of really, really big (infinity) has been around for centuries. Our telescopes and Hubble’s only give us better pictures of big; that’s all. Infinity is no more beyond imagination and wonder than it was in 400 B.C. I too marvel at the pictures of Hubble, but I also marvel at an orchid. There are wonders that I’ve seen in my travels that take my breath away as much as “the Pillars of Creation” (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html).

In conclusion on my first reply to the Prophets of Insignificance is that “Big” does not cause people to be unbelievers. There is nothing inherent in “Big” that causes belief or disbelief in God. Infinity has not been rediscovered. It is as unfathomable now as it was 2,500 years ago.

My second argument begins with a question. If it is true that the universe is as Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” then why do we care (or seem to care) that meaning or good is important?

Why do we try to find out what things mean? Why do we seek to do good? Here is the difficulty. We are products of the universe if there is no God. If the universe has no meaning, purpose, or notion of good or evil … then why do we? The brief interlude that we experience called either the human race or our individual lives are a part-and-parcel of this meaninglessness, purposelessness, and amorality.

This is a colossal problem. If we, as humans, truly have meaning, then the universe has meaning … because we are part of the universe. I’m puzzled why telescopes and microscopes are used, and the conclusion from observation is, “There is no meaning”; yet, we look at each other and conclude, “We need to seek new meaning from science, and we need to do good.”

If, on the other hand, there is no real meaning, purpose, or good, then what we are experiencing is an illusion. There is no more right or wrong for a group of atoms that form a meteor to smash into the group of atoms called Jupiter than it is for the group of atoms called my hands to strangle and “kill” the group of atoms called a baby. There is no “killing” or “death.” There is only a rearrangement of atoms and transference of energy.

I’ve always puzzled why all atheists demand good ethics; yet, why should we care in a meaningless universe. Why should I care if that set of energy called Katrina rearranged billions of atoms in that insignificant piece of cosmic dust entitled New Orleans? Nothing “good” or “bad” happened, for there is, ultimately, not good or evil, only “pitiless indifference.”

One of the main criticisms of the Bible is the “cruelty” of God. But cruelty only exists if good and bad are real; otherwise, it is no more than an inconvenience for one set of atoms compared to another set of atoms. If there is no good or bad in the universe, then all that ever occurs is an action and reaction of matter and energy … nothing else. Why pretend there is more?

Any “meaning” that we ascribe to events is illusion if there is no meaning in the universe, that is, real, true, genuine meaning. If humans experience true meaning, then the conclusion is that meaning exists in the universe, not merely among humans. Christians are constantly criticized for being inconsistent. What is fair for one is fair for all.

So, does meaning exist in the universe? Either it does or it does not. Humans are part of the universe, regardless how small they may be. We believe and act as if there is meaning and good. Either it is illusion, or it is real. Which is it? If the statement by Dawkins is true, then meaning and good are illusions. A mother is no more “good” for raising a child than another parent is “evil” for eating her child. (Aren’t there a lot of animals that eat their young? Are we not a product or result of those animals? What’s the problem if we eat our young? Swift thought it could solve Ireland’s hunger problem. Surely there isn’t a meaningful difference between the group of atoms called humans and the group of animals called non-humans … is there?)

The irony of all this baffles me. The Prophets of Insignificance have made their own arguments insignificant. Atheists will readily admit that the arguments for morality are “problematic.” That is a nice way of saying there is no good argument, no real reason for being good boys and girls. Regardless how these Prophets will give arguments for the good of all, working together, being pragmatic, whatever, they leave out something critical every time.

What they leave out is this: if there is no meaning or purpose or good in the universe, then that includes all of us boys and girls, no exceptions. All that is really happening is a rearrangement of atoms and transference of matter to energy and energy to matter. Ahh, the wonders of the conservation of matter. A person “savagely” murdering a family is no more significant than a black hole swallowing a galaxy. (Actually, the person’s act is insignificant because it is so small. If there is a “bad guy,” it’s that big, Big, BIG black hole.)

My guess is there may be a lot of repulsion for this second argument. There shouldn’t be any. Christians believe in ultimate consequences. There is good and bad. What we do now affects the souls of others. The second argument should have no affect on them. Atheists should not be repulsed either. A person who is indifferent to good and bad is only reflecting the universe of which he is a part. There is no “savagery” anywhere in the universe. There is only action and reaction.

Either there really are meaning and good, or we are deluding ourselves. If the door is cracked open … even an inch … then there is an immaterial reality. Furthermore, if humans are the only ones who have this reality, then how do we avoid the conclusion that humans are the center of the universe … not in space, but in meaning?

Without question atheists have excellent arguments that marshal our skills and abilities to respond, but one of those arguments is not the massive size of the universe. That argument is not the “pitiless indifference” of the universe. Actually, size and indifference can be excellent arguments if the atheists believe in the same consistency that they demand of Christians. The arguments for ethics are not “problematic,” but they are impossible if there is no true meaning. If there is meaning, then there is something that transcends matter and energy. Something does not come out of nothing; that includes meaning and good as well as matter and energy.

Was God a Misogynist?

There is a question that many Christian women have which is seldom asked. The question is this: “Why did God discriminate against women in the law of Moses?” Let’s consider one point in particular, which may be found in Numbers 5:11-31, the Law of Jealousy.

In summary, if a husband had a suspicion that his wife had committed adultery, then he was allowed to take her to the priest. The priest would question her, give her a potion of water mixed with the dirt of the tabernacle area, have her repeat an oath, and have her drink this potion. The oath stated that if she had committed adultery and was now denying it, then she would incur a sickness that would result in her miscarriage of any children from that point.

The point of contention is that no such law was for men. In contrast, men could have multiple wives; there was also a sexual laxity that was accorded to men and not to women. In terms of equity and fairness it seems that the law should allow the same rights and privileges. Why did God allow and codify such a double standard?

There is no explanation in Scripture. Either we have to assume that God is a misogynist (the typical response, particularly from unbelievers), or there is another reason which simply is not given in Scripture. The purpose of this short essay is to explore two of those possible reasons. Without question this is a risky step. The Scriptures state that God has revealed to us what we need to know, and the secret things He has kept to Himself (Deuteronomy 29:29). Needless to say, I am a bit nervous with the idea of imputing to God what His motives are or should be. I do want to emphasize these are possible reasons, and there is no dogmatic attitude on my part concerning these. I trust the reader will grant me leniency in this.

As any parent or child care worker will admit, it is not possible to treat every child exactly the same. Certainly principles and guidelines will be in place for all children, but how all those are enforced and any exceptions allowed will vary per child. There are some children in which firmness must be exercised from the very start; otherwise, he will take over. The expression I remember is “Give him an inch, and he will think he is a ruler.” In contrast there are other children that if you look at them in a cross manner, the child will collapse as if beaten. Also the group dynamics will vary with children. For some groups different rules will work more efficiently. As mentors for children our goal is to help them to reach their potential. As the saying goes, “That means different strokes for different folks.”

Furthermore, there are times in which discipline is public and other times, private. As well as discipline, motivation may work better for some in public and for others in private. It is common that private discipline or private motivation is not known by others; otherwise, it would not be private.

In Numbers 5 the procedure for the woman was a public event. Others could guess rather easily what was going on. Since men did not have to go through this public embarrassment, it is assumed (and reasonably so) that women were being discriminated against. Yet, there is another assumption that is also reasonable. God is disciplining the man privately.

An immediate objection to the last comment could easily be, “But the woman was humiliated simply for a suspicion. Since God would know if a man committed adultery and not simply suspect it, then the husband would not have to face that humiliation. Isn’t that unfair and discriminating? Even if God disciplined the man privately for his adultery, he gets off totally free on any suspicion of adultery.”

I agree with that, which leads me to my second reason. Prior to stating the reason, an observation of mine needs to be stated first. Not only in Scripture but also in practice, women as a class are more serious about their commitment to the Lord then men. It was women who supported Jesus financially. The women who loved Jesus outnumbered the male disciples at the crucifixion. The women were the first ones who went to the tomb and witnessed the resurrected Jesus. The reader may continue with his own illustrations of women in Scripture.

Beyond the Bible, women far outnumber men in the church. Furthermore the single spouse who attends church is probably a woman by a ratio of 9 to 1, if not higher. When volunteers are requested, women are usually the first. Christian mothers are usually the one who prays with the child, reads Bible stories, and displays a godly life for the child.

In addition, my observation of women with more than 40 years of being a practicing Christian is that they have an allegiance, devotion, and commitment to the Lord which excel men’s. Statements from other church leaders have confirmed this observation. The Barna Group provides formal statistical validation. See http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/400-who-is-active-in-group-expressions-of-faith-barna-study-examines-small-groups-sunday-school-and-house-churches for an example.

The question which I wish to suggest an answer to is this, “Why do women seemed to have a more acute spiritual commitment and possible awareness? The suggested answer to this question coincides with the second reason why God is not discriminating against women. Please note that I am not saying God does not discriminate. He is discriminating; however, He is discriminating for women as opposed to against women.

Discrimination has very unpleasant connotations with it so that it is difficult to understand discriminating for someone; yet, we do it and allow it. Let’s assume you have two children, a boy and the girl. The boy is very good in mathematics whereas his sister is a musical prodigy. Will you as a parent make a decision that favors the boy in mathematics and one that favors the girl in music? For instance, will the educational gifts differ for the two? If the school offers a special class that favors the giftedness of either child, will that upset you? If you hired a special tutor or teacher, would you hire a mathematical teacher for the son and a music teacher for the daughter? All of those are acts of discrimination.

To discriminate, at its root, means to distinguish. Obviously we can discriminate based on social prejudice, or we can discriminate on the means and methods that will help others. To discriminate for someone is to distinguish a means or method that will help the other person.

I have suggested that God discriminated for women in Numbers 5 in regard to the Law of Jealousy. How did He do that? First, let’s consider an analogy.

You are the coach of a track team. You will have higher expectations for some of the members rather than other members. These higher expectations are based upon the abilities and giftedness of the members. As a coach you do your best to have all the members do their best. Those who are particularly gifted can be pushed harder. The ones you are pushing have the talent to win scholarships in college. To help them you also give them special exercises to do at home. For example’s sake, let’s assume you have them do fingertip pushups.

When the team gets together for practice you query the special group, asking, “Have you been doing the extra exercises at home?” Of course, everyone says “Yes.” As you watch them in practice, you begin to suspect that one is not telling the truth. As a good coach, your motive has been to help this child excel in the sport; and in the future, you put the child to a test. You do this publicly because you want the other gifted athletes to see this. In our example you have the child do fingertip pushups. If the child has been doing them, then he will have no problem. If he has not been doing them, he could pull or strain a muscle trying to prove he had done what he had said. If the track member messes up, then the other members who have been given the special exercises will probably be motivated to continue them so that they won’t be called out. A member who messed up will probably not do it again.

Let’s apply the analogy to the Law of Jealousy. Women are the special group of athletes, but they are spiritual athletes. They have a natural ability for pleasing God. Because they have this extra ability, which seems to be inborn, then God has a higher standard for them. This standard is not beyond their ability and will bring more honor to them.

The Lord discriminated for women because He knew they had the wherewithal to respond to the higher calling. In stark contrast the Lord did not give this standard to men because He knew they would terribly fail. When strength is the key element, then men, as a class, dominate. When beauty, kindness, gentleness, and a hunger for God are the key elements, then women, as a class, dominate.

Is God a misogynist? No. Does He discriminate? Yes ... but He discriminates for.

The Princess and the Pea

The Princess and the Pea is a delightful fairy tale collected by Hans Christian Andersen. A prince wanted to marry a true princess. When one would claim to be a true princess, she would spend the night in the guest room on top of 20 mattresses and then 20 feather beds. If she woke up and said she had a great night, the prince knew she was false. One morning after a visit, an alleged princess, when asked about her night, moaned and groaned how uncomfortable she was. The bed had a lump in it, and her back was now black-and-blue. Oh, joy, joy, joy, the princess had been found. For a pea had been placed under the 40 mattresses, and only a true princess would notice such discomfort!

Why do I use this fairy tale? The absurdity of little things that are supposed to be “oh-so-important.” Of course, I have something particular in mind. What is it? The manner in which unbelievably inconsequential, unimportant, and totally trivial criticisms are directed toward the Bible as proof that it is not the word of God.

There are skeptics who will go out of their way to attack the Bible, seemingly creating every conceivable problem possible simply to build the case. I’m not impressed when a skeptic moans about the horrible mental night he had with that terrible pea under his mattresses. My thought is always the same, “You’ve got to be kidding, right?”

Let me give an illustration. This is a serious argument against the Bible being the word of God. Ready for this? The details in 1 Kings 7:23 read, literally teach that π is equal to 3.0! This is stated to be a scientific error that proves that the Bible cannot be the word of God. I have read this online and heard it in debates.

Honestly, I cannot conceive of anyone but a novice using this argument. It is such a pea compared to the boulders that could be used. Well, a hammer isn’t needed against this argument. A puff of wind will take care of this.

Ask anyone what the value of π is? If the reply is, “3.14,” say, “Wrong!”

“3.1415?”

“Wrong!”

“3.14159265?”

“Wrong!”

What is the value of π? It can only be known by approximatization. First, the number is infinite and non-repeating. That is, the decimal never comes to a point that it then begins to repeat itself. The number has been calculated by computer to more than one trillion places. Regardless of the number given, it is never correct.

Certainly, from a practical perspective, what are the differences between 3 inches or 3.1 inches or 3.14 or 3.1415 inches? A laser would be needed to detect the difference. For years when calculating circumference as a quick number … guess what I used? That’s right—3! It simply depends on the accuracy needed.

What is ludicrous about this argument is that the person who says the Bible is scientifically wrong is scientifically wrong himself! WHATEVER value is used, it is wrong because it is only approximate. If the ancient writers were able to write decimals (I’ve never checked this out), whatever they would have written could still be criticized.

Any demand that π should be this value and not this one is no more than a practical preference. The π argument against the Bible being the world of God is merely a new version of “The πrincess and the πea.”

Kill the Messenger

Should a Christian be involved in politics, either as an officeholder or a participant in the process? This question has never been a particularly troublesome question for me. Politics is an organized social process in the same manner that business and charitable processes are. I fail to see any more of virtue or vice in serving in politics as opposed to business or charity (including religious work).

There are inherent temptations within any enterprise, but, if we will be honest, there are temptations in anything that we do. I’ve had temptations during prayer time, reading the Bible, and doing Christian works. There is no place that I can go that I can escape from my desires, from the influence of the world, or from the whisperings of Satan. So I fail to see why politics should be any more of an issue than the other two.

The temptations to control and to ignore the law seem to be higher in politics. In the business world the temptation to make a profit and justify behavior that can put other people out of business and out of their livelihood with the excuse of “It’s only business” is very high. In the charitable world pride is lurking behind every compliment. Excuses for ungodly behavior are rife in all three areas.

Let me seemingly switch the topic. Do you recall the military scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2004? Iraqi prisoners were subjected to torture, rape, and humiliation. Photos were published worldwide and created a terrible outrage. I remind the reader of this incident because of the decisions that the military made to ensure this would never happen again. Essentially, the solution was to provide more training. Some training is better than no training, but the fundamental and foundational problem here is the lack of common morals. A person can be taught whatever over and over, but none of it will have the same effect as the deeply ingrained belief has, which is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That principle can be taught and demanded, but unless it is believed and internalize then Abu Ghraib will occur again and again. Only the place and the people involved will change. Doesn’t it sound odd that elaborate training needs to be created when a child’s course in Morals 101 will take care of the problem?

The world of politics is not a unique problem. The reason there is so much infighting and hostility is traceable to what happened at Abu Ghraib—the lack of resolve and commitment to ultimate values. Even an unbeliever can do unto others as he would like to be done unto himself. The problem is our inward desires and insatiable lust to fulfill them. The real problem is inside of me, not outside of me. When circumstances change and we begin to have serious temptation problems, all that has probably happened is the means to fulfill our desires without being caught have increased.

A problem in politics as well as in the business world is the compromise that Christians have to face on a daily basis. It seems easier to stay true to the Lord if working at a Christian business or a Christian ministry. Perhaps it can be easier though I am not convinced. I have worked in both arenas and have found difficult problems and intense temptations in both; they were only different. Let’s consider the compromise issue.

The main reason for compromise is stated a number of times in the New Testament. It is worded different way, but “We seek to please men” is the heart of it. Whether we simply want attention, praise, control, money, position, whatever … we believe people can give it to us; and we compromise. Instead of trusting and pleasing the Lord, we trust people and try to please them. Our beliefs change, not necessarily our behavior. That is true compromise, the compromise of beliefs.

In contrast, behavior can seem like compromise, but it really isn’t.

Consider the passage 2 Kings 5, the healing of Naaman’s leprosy by Elisha. Typically when we think of the Old Testament we believe the laws are stricter and more stringently enforced. After Naaman had been healed, he requested to take back home two mule loads of dirt from Israel. The purpose for this was that he only intended to offer sacrifice and worship the God of Israel. The next two verses, vs. 18-19, are exceptionally insightful to the topic of compromise. Naaman tells Elisha that he will be obligated to go into the temple of Rimmon with his king. Furthermore, Naaman makes the comment that he will have to bow down in the temple and then makes the remarkable request, “May the LORD pardon your servant in this thing.”

This request is flabbergasting and totally irreconcilable compared to the typical understanding of compromise. Naaman is requesting forgiveness ahead of time for feigning worship to a false god because of his position. How does Elisha answer this in v. 19? “Go in peace.” ASTOUNDING!

Is this carte blanche approval to fake behavior as we please? No, I don’t believe so; it appears to be circumstantial. We don’t find this command being given to others or similar circumstances in the Bible. Whenever unusual circumstances are illustrated in Scripture and not repeated elsewhere, then the believer must be very careful before extrapolating the circumstance into a pattern of behavior for other believers. What can safely be learned here is that circumstances can occur in which compromise appears to be taking place but is not.

I think the key to application for this incident is finding the principle, not copying the details of behavior. Naaman was highly influential in Syria, a country that was at continual enmity or warfare with Israel. If he had stated his conversion and opposition to the religion of Syria, he would have lost his position, possibly his property and life. By maintaining his silence but keeping his heart pure in worship, then he could influence policy that would bring glory to the Lord. A similar illustration would be a high-ranking official in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan (or any Muslim country) converting to Christianity. If he would speak up, he could lose all he owned and probably his life. The hostility against Christianity is so strong that his witness would end before it begins. By remaining silent, in order to please the Lord and do more, then he could possibly do unbounded good for the Lord, much like the secretive Esther did for the Jews in captivity. If he has to kneel in prayer to Allah and go through all the motions, but worship the Lord while doing so … has he really compromised?

In contrast to that, what if a believer hides his faith in the U.S. Congress or in local political halls? He will not be persecuted for his views; so, why the silence? (He may be criticized, but how often do believers bring that onto themselves because of the way they take their stand and express their beliefs?) How does that honor the Lord?

HOW we present our beliefs around unbelievers (whether politics or business or wherever) is as important as WHAT we present. Why is that? It is easier for the messenger to turn off others from the message than it is for the message to turn people off from the messenger.

If a person is obnoxious and overbearing or generally unpleasant (whether a Christian, a car salesman, a doctor, a neighbor, whatever), we don’t care what he has to say. In contrast, if a person is likeable and pleasant and just a welcoming personality or is sincerely interested in us, he can talk almost total nonsense; but we still listen. We might laugh and ignore it, but we will still listen.

The messenger is so pivotal to the reception of a message. Of course, a person or group of people may be so hostile to a message (such as Muslims are to Christianity), that the messenger is no more than a dead man walking. The same is true for many unbelievers in the political, business, and religious world. Since we live in a country in which messengers are protected by the law, then we share the message and let the unbelievers boohoo, gripe, complain, and criticize as they please. Let’s make sure their criticisms are of the message, but never the messenger.

If we resolve and do our best through the Spirit to be uncompromising messengers (we do not alter our beliefs), then we can go to the mission field or to the political field.

Pedal to the Metal and Speed, Speed, Speed (Part 2 of 2)

Part 1 discussed and illustrated the difficulties we can get into when we attempt to interpret man’s rules as if they were God’s rules. Let’s use the simple illustration of speeding (even as little as 5mph over) and Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-2:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Proper authority is from God and should be patterned after His authority: particularly justice, fairness, and equity tempered with mercy. We must not forget that authority is enforcement of commands. Authority is not a person or committee or bureau that is consumed with making suggestions for others. Authority has the right to imposed penalty and punishment.

Prior to the gospel and the later revelations to Peter about freedom in dietary restrictions (Acts 10:9-19), the mere changing of the diet and the principle behind it expanded the gospel itself! Often I hear that Jesus replaced the law with grace. “The only laws that are applicable in the Old Testament are those that are repeated in the New Testament.” That guideline is easy to remember, and that is precisely what makes me suspicious of it.

It is incumbent upon us that we understand the principles of what changed from the Old Testament to Paul’s near disregard of Old Testament laws in the New Testament. The dietary laws are an excellent example to show this.

Leviticus 11 (Deuteronomy 14 to a lesser degree) is the primary chapter. Leviticus 11 has 47 verses. Depending on the Bible version, “unclean” is used 32 times and “abomination,” 8 times. As I proposed in Part 1, “unclean” was a health issue. Centuries later we have learned about trinchinosis, which is particularly carried by swine and wild game. Proper cooking is essential in killing this harmful parasite. This parasite can cause problems from muscle soreness to death. Even today there is no cure, but there is treatment for the symptoms.

In the ancient world education was informal, sporadic, and mixed with folklore and insight. Medicine and treatment was worse. If a disease was incurred, endurance was the ultimate fix in most cases. The dietary laws protected the Jews from disease. In fact, the phrase “unclean to you” [my emphasis] is used 12 times in Leviticus 11. God was not sitting in heaven outraged because His people ate pork chops. Given the circumstances required for proper cooking (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis#Food_preparation), it was far easier, safer, and pedagogically sound to simply tell his people not to eat pork than it was to give Moses a divine cookbook.

When the Lord revealed to Peter the vision of eating unclean animals (which opened the eating of these animals as well as spreading the gospel to “unclean” people), the Lord also revealed there was nothing inherently sinful about eating pork. Dietary laws are relative. In contrast, sins against God are always wrong.

Absolutely no effort is needed to define and categorize outward behavior as sinful. It is easy to see someone eat a pork chop. It is easy to measure someone driving over the speed limit. In your own memory and imagination let the images flow of all the outward behavior that have been decried as “sinful.” I can remember when playing cards and listening to Elvis Presley was sinful.

Rule after rule after rule can be devised, under the guise of authority which has the right to enforce them, that will make life miserable and create endless debates and footnotes to what is “right and wrong.”

As my Greek teacher told me years ago, “That’s bologna no matter how you slice it.”

The gospel removed the law, but not all law. The heart of the law which is still sin before God was kept: murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc. The arbitrary laws were removed. There are laws that change with the times, the culture, the circumstances. Those were removed precisely because they are arbitrary and not absolute!

In college I remember a young man who wanted to please God in all that he did; yet, he was constantly fretting as if he had overlooked something in pleasing God. He attended to his behavior as if it were a black sweater that could have not the least speck of dust or lint upon it. Frankly, he was so busy inspecting his sweater that he missed life around him.

If you choose to look at the Lord as a judge, then you do need to attend to your sweater. If the Lord is your Father, then you are free to learn, play, explore, and socialize as long as you do not harm others. (The world is correct when it says “you may do as you please as long as you don’t harm others.” The key difference between that view and Christianity is that we do everything, even eating or drinking, in order to bring glory to God.)

There is no willy-nilly here for my being allowed to do as I please. Even though I may not be sinning against God, I may be offending the standards of others. Why do I care about that? So I can witness to them. If we offend others, we weaken our witness to them.

I do not intend to resist the ordinances of man. Is this because I’m concerned about sinning before God? Do I need to fret that I have nailed Jesus to the cross because I went over the speed limit by 5mph? Is my life driven by such arbitrary and endless commands? No, I conform to them for the same reason that Paul conformed in 1 Corinthians 9 … so he could win others.

Let us never forget why we are left on earth. It is to bear witness. When we consider the purpose of the church, we typically list four or five goals: worship, fellowship, evangelize, teach, encourage. Look at that list carefully. Only one item in that list will not be in heaven. Which is it? Evangelize! Everything else we will do in heaven, but we won’t evangelize. That ends when we die.

Everything we do or conform ourselves to should be for the purpose that the Lord has called all Christians to … bear witness for Him by our lives and words. When we set our behavior on the purpose of helping others to love Jesus more, that is much, much different than checking for lint on our sweaters.

If you wish to push the pedal to the metal and speed, speed, speed, then you will most likely receive a ticket and pay a fine. Hopefully, you will not cause a wreck and hurt someone. I’d rather simply obey and not have either. If someone asks me, “Do you speed,” then I can answer, “No.” If I am asked why, then I have a chance to witness, “I do not speed because I wish to bring glory to the Lord and help others.”

The Lord has given us freedom from the trammels of the law. Let’s use that freedom to bring glory to Him.

Pedal to the Metal and Speed, Speed, Speed (Part 1 of 2)

More than a few times have I had someone say to me, “Do you speed? Do you go over the speed limit even by 1 mph? Then you’re sinning just like I am and are just as guilty before God. When you take care of your sins, then you may talk to me about mine.”

I asked a Sunday school class recently, “How many of you believe you are sinning and caused Jesus to be crucified because you exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph or you jaywalked?” Hands were raised, but the vote was not unanimous. Also, there was a lot of smiling, even laughing when hands were raised. (If speeding were a sin, it does seem odd to laugh about a sin that crucified the Son of God.)

After some initial feedback, I made the statement, “I do not believe exceeding the speed limit is a sin.” Obviously, there was disagreement with what I said, essentially because of Romans 13:1-2. The second verse is the key one, “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” The verse is so obvious; how can I possibly say speeding is not a sin. Let’s discuss this. (Well, I’ll discuss it, and you’ll listen. That is the chief advantage and disadvantage of a blog.)

“Resisting the ordinance of God” is not the same thing as sinning. How can I suggest such blasphemy? Let’s begin with our own children for a moment. Let’s consider three common commands that are given to children: 1) Do not lie, 2) Do not interrupt people when they are talking, and 3) Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. I dare make the bold statement that nearly every parent reading this has tried to instill those three commands into their children.

Consider how you would categorize the commands? Christian parents will certainly consider “Do not lie” as a very serious command, that is a sin against God as well as a terrible transgression against people. What about #2? Is that a transgression against God? Do our children greatly transgress against others when they interrupt us? The Bible commands children to obey their parents. So, if a parent tells a child not to interrupt and that child does interrupt, do you believe your child has sinned and sent Jesus to the cross? Perhaps some of you will, but I suspect most parents will think that is absurd. “Bad manners” are not the same as a sin. Yet, the Bible does command children to obey their parents. There’s still a loose end here. How about #3? Parents are teaching their children cleanliness and good health. So, a child refuses to wash his hands. Has the child sinned? “There you go, Junior. You just put another nail into Jesus because you refused to obey me and wash your hands!”

I am well aware that the typical definition is that if God has given a command, then it is a sin if it is disobeyed. The same three categories that I gave for parental commands are found in the commands of the Old Testament (OT). Of course we are not under the laws of the OT, but we do learn principles from the OT. If every command of God’s in the OT was not a sin, then it is certainly reasonable to say that every command in the New Testament (NT) is not a sin. I am using sin as it is normally used: an affront against God’s holiness and righteousness in which death had to occur to pay the price of the sin.

In order to save a bit of time, here are my premises for the commands of God. They fall into at least three categories: 1) An offense against God’s holiness and righteousness for which death only can atone. 2) Commands which will prevent an offense against man’s standards of behavior which will damage relationships and affect the believer’s witness. 3) Commands for cleanliness and health which will allow a person to do more for the Lord and not spread sickness.

For most Christians any disobedience of God’s commands is a sin. I purposely use the word sin because it is associated with God. Jesus died for our sins. In the OT animals were sacrificed for sins. The position I am taking is that every disobedience of God’s command is not a sin. Consider the various rules of uncleanness: touching a dead body, leprosy, the disposal of human waste, the menstrual cycle, and more. Even as we look at this short list we see the health pattern immediately.

To even accidently touch a dead body made a person unclean. It was a command from God not to touch a dead body. When a person touched a dead body, did that person sin? No, they put themselves at a health risk as well as others. We can easily understand that we have sinned against God when we murder someone because we have destroyed His creation. But if someone touched a dead body, how would that have offended God? How did it offend the dead body??? When we tell our children to wash their hands after using the bathroom, we are concerned for the child’s health. It is to help the child do better; it is not to keep the child from doing worse.

Let’s consider obeying government authorities (or husbands, parents, or slave masters as listed in the New Testament). What is the purpose of obeying earthly authorities? Besides protection of person and property (murder, stealing, et al.), it is also for the general welfare and to create a social structure so people can get along together. Consider jaywalking. In many towns it is a misdemeanor. The law is on the books for safety, public safety. If a person jaywalks, who has been offended, transgressed against, personally harmed? No one. But a risk is taking place that could cause an accident.

The willy-nilly disobedience of public law is dangerous because it will offend people, even confuse them. If I simply choose to disobey public law per my convenience, what happens to my witness? Most people are law abiding. If I disobey as I choose, then the message I am sending is that “obedience to authority” is not important to me. My witness is undermined as soon as I’d say, “When we obey God, He blesses us.” The listeners will no doubt think, “Obey God. Who are you kidding? If you can’t obey our laws and since you pick and choose as you please, surely you’d do the same with God’s laws. You’re just a hypocrite.”

When Jesus told Peter to pay the temple tax in Matthew 17, the issue was not to avoid sin; it was to avoid offending the expectations of the Jewish culture and Jewish law. People will say all they want about “obeying those who have authority over you,” but even they will allow exceptions. For example, the disciples told the Jewish leaders, when commanded to stop preaching, that they would obey God rather than men. Horribly unjust and oppressive laws have been enacted. In some countries it is against the law for Christians to meet and worship. Do we obey the unjust ones but disobey the ones about worship? Why don’t we disobey all unjust laws or protest against them?

The point is that human law is always relative. What is illegal one day is legal the next. What is legal one day is illegal the next. If I break human law, then I am punished by human standards. That is the punishment, not Jesus being nailed to the cross. I give unto the Lord what is His, and I give unto Caesar what is his. They are two different domains. The higher domain is the Lord’s, and the lower domain is man’s and should be patterned upon the heavenly domain. God created authority. Authority should be patterned after God. When it isn’t (laws that dishonor God, that legalize humiliation and stealing, such as the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany) do we disobey those? We have to interpret, we have to make judgment. The moment we are allowed to do that or believe we have the right to do that in regard to man’s law, then the law is not absolute … and neither is its punishment.

When I resist the ordinances of man, I bring man’s judgment upon me. I invite the reader to return to Romans 13:1-8. All punishment mentioned is human punishment, not divine. When I disobey the speed limit or fail to pay my taxes, then God will not punish me or send Jesus to the cross, the authorities will punish me. If I fail to put enough money into the parking meter and am fined, that is the punishment, not Jesus dying on the cross.

As a side note here, I am amused beyond the reaches of my imagination when Christians will insist that we must obey our authorities, disobeying them is disobeying God himself, but they do not give it a moment’s reflection to ridicule the President of the United States. In that same Romans passage is “Render … honor to whom honor [is due].” I have seen cartoons tearing President Obama into shreds, harsh, harsh, even cruel ridicule. (For the reader, I have been a political conservative for 40+ years. You can probably guess how I voted.) I give honor to President Obama because it is due. I have the freedom to disagree with his policy for cause. I do not have the right to mock, ridicule, or defame the President. Frankly, when I hear people ridicule the President and crack the usual jokes … I don’t buy their seriousness for one second about Romans 13. It’s all talk. All they are doing is picking and choosing, no more.

In conclusion, here is the problem if you believe that disobeying any command from God is a sin. Then those who hold such a view need to get serious about it. I return to my Sunday school class where I asked about going over the speed limit by 5mph. Was that a sin? The majority raised their hand and was smiling about it. The common reply was, “There are bigger things to worry about. There are big sins and little sins.” Ahh, now it’s so clear. I may laugh at the little sins and joke about them. Literally, a person could say, “Oh yeah, I sinned and put Jesus on the cross when I sped in my car, but that was nothing. That was just a splinter on his back. Peanuts. When I [fill in a “big” sin], … that one made Him really scream.”

The absurdity of the last illustration precisely proves my point. If we believed, really believed it was sin, then we would not deliberately do it and laugh about it. Frankly, the attitude is, “Yes, it’s a sin; but it doesn’t really count.”

What is absurd is calling the disobedience of every command a sin. We are painting ourselves into a corner. As parents we recognize a different reason for commands. Some are very serious and will hurt others. Some will offend others and hurt our testimony. Some can put us at a health risk. The Lord recognizes that too. The unclean laws are an excellent example. If the Jews failed to do them, they didn’t offend God’s holiness and righteousness. They ended up punishing themselves by bad health.

Of course, this whole essay can simply be tossed out as heresy. The position may be taken that ANY disobedience to God’s commands (just use New Testament passages) is a SIN. I guess I’ll believe that when I see it. If you speed, then I expect remorse and repentance of that sin … as any sin. If you tell your child not to interrupt and the child interrupts, then it is necessary for the proper teaching to occur for you to say to that child, “You must not interrupt. I have told you not to interrupt. The Bible commands you to obey me. Because you have disobeyed me, you have sinned against God.” I already know that is not going to happen.

My question to those who insist than any disobedience of a command from God is sin is this: Why don’t you have remorse and guilt for unrepented sin? Why aren’t you serious about this sin? Is the real reason because you know deep down it’s peanuts and trivia and minutia of total unimportance … and not a sin, or because your heart has become so hardened to sin that only the big sins bother you?

"Ahh, c'mon on. Who cares about speeding? Let's get to the important stuff." I most certainly agree. The purpose of Part 1 was to illustrate the mess that one can quickly and easily get into by taking the position that disobeying the government is sin against God. Soon there will be so many exceptions that they might have to be indexed like that state code.

Let's open up a window and let some fresh air in. Serving Christ is so much easier than wondering from second to second if some penny-ante, inconsequential law has been broken.

Part 2 will be posted in a day or two.