R.P. Nettelhorst's Blog, page 124

Lord

The New Testament is clear on Jesus being God. Obviously, certain groups, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, will attempt to deny this, but it is a hopeless task. The most obvious problem with the attempt to deny the deity of Jesus comes not from individual “proof” texts, any more than the idea of monotheism is dependent on single, individual proof texts.

Rather, it becomes obvious simply from watching how the New Testament treats and describes Jesus. Though never losing sight of his humanity, he is also treated in ways that no human being would ever be treated in a Jewish context.

The most obvious of these is the use of the word “Lord.” For moderns, we tend to equate the term with the word “boss” or perhaps we will think in terms of the British honorific used for men who have been knighted, or the “ten lords a-leaping” of the song, The Seven Days of Christmas. Likewise, the phrase “lords and ladies” easily comes to mind.

But none of the modern, English concepts for the word “lord” is the equivalent of the Jewish understanding of it at the time the New Testament was written. For Jewish people of that time, the word “Lord” was the same as saying “God.” And in fact, to a large extent, in Judaism, it remains that way.

In the Ten Commandments, God told his people not to take his name in vain. Following the Babylonian captivity of the sixth century BC, the Jewish people understood that they had been taken from their land because of their failure to abide by the Law. Therefore, they wanted to ensure that they would never, ever violate any of God’s commandments. As they thought about it, the decided that if they could make up some added rules that were easy to abide by, more strict even than the rules that God had established, then they would never have to worry about disobeying God. So, they built “hedges” around the Law. So, since God said not to take his name in vain, that is, to never speak it in a way that was dishonoring, how better to ensure that the Law was followed than by simply never speaking his name at all, under any circumstances.

Thus, it became customary to never speak God’s name “Yah-weh,” what in some English translations shows up as “Jehovah.” Whenever they came upon God’s name in the Bible, instead of speak-ing it, they instead would use a Hebrew or Aramaic word which we translate into English with the word “Lord”: Adonai. In fact, this tradition is so strong, that even today, almost all translations of the Old Testament in English use the word “Lord” written all in capital letters, whenever the name of God appears in the text.

Therefore, the word “Lord” in Jewish thinking is equivalent to “God.” In fact, in the Roman Empire, people were expected to affirm on an annual basis that “Caesar was Lord.” Jewish people and Christians both refused to do this and some died as a consequence.

The fact that Jesus is regularly referred to as “Lord” in the New Testament, therefore, makes abundantly clear that in the minds of the New Testament’s authors, Jesus was believed to be God.

On a side note: there is a movement among some Christians known as “Lordship salvation.” It rather obviously is nonsensical, given that it is at least partially derived from a misunderstanding of the word “Lord” in the New Testament–let alone its problems with a severe legalism that borders on salvation by works rather than by grace.

A Waste of Time

Driving my middle daughter home from high school today, she happened to mention the state tests that she—and all her classmates—are required to take. They are called the STAR tests, and they take a total of 12 hours spread over three days. They have been mandated by our benevolent—and incompetent—rulers in Washington DC and Sacramento. The purpose of these tests is to determine how well the teachers are doing in instructing the children. These tests are required a set points in grade school, middle school, and high school. The politicians who instigated these tests, the news media, and the critics of public education all wave these tests about in the air as proof that the schools are bad, that the teachers are bad, and that what we desperately need are more tests and more accountability, and firing a bunch of teachers.

Both my daughter and I are very puzzled by these tests. As is my wife, a third grade public school teacher who every year has to give these tests and is made to feel bad if the students don’t show improvement from the previous year’s crop of test takers.

What’s our puzzle over these tests?

Very simple: the tests do not affect the students taking them in any way whatsoever—and the students know that. They are not graded, they receive no rewards or punishments, not benefit or loss for what their scores might be on these tests. It doesn’t affect whether they graduate, the colleges don’t ask about the scores, and neither do any employers. The tests are utterly without consequence for the ones who are taking the tests. ALL the tests are for the students is 12 hours of doing the thing that they dislike just about the most of anything they are ever forced to do.

Guess what? Many students, particularly at the middle school and high school level, just mark their tests (which are all multiple choice, true false sorts of things) randomly. The tests don’t affect them, and so they treat them as the waste of their time that they are.

So my puzzlement with these tests mandated by the wise bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento and Washington DC is simple: what exactly do they realistically expect to learn from these tests? That children, like adults, don’t much care to dig holes and then fill them up again? That doing something pointless is…pointless? That they are testing nothing and all and cannot possibly learn anything at all meaningful from these tests?

The tests are simply good politics for the politicians, to make them look like they care about education and are doing something. They have good intentions, after all. The fact that they are utterly useless seems to matter not at all to either them, the critics of public education, or the news critters and pundits. No one seems to notice that the emperor has no clothes.

If you want to really know how well the children are learning in school, guess what? Every so often the teachers give out these things called grade cards, which present the average of the grades earned over the course of weeks and months on assignments, quizzes and tests that actually matter and affect the children. These grade cards are what the colleges pay attention to. It is these grade cards that are of interest to employers. And, surprise, surprise, it is the grade cards that the children are concerned with—assuming that they have been taught to care by parents that care.

The only people for whom the grade cards don’t seem to matter are our feckless politicians and bureaucrats—and the journalists and pundits that are supposedly knowledgeable and caring. They think the meaningless tests are somehow meaningful. Perhaps they remind them of themselves.

Where Does Help Come From?

Many years ago an associate pastor at a small church mentioned that there was a petition on the back table for FOCA—the Freedom of Choice Act; he explained that the members might want to check it out “for your information.” He emphasized that the church was taking no position on the issue.

A few weeks later the associate decided to run a little experiment when he saw a young couple at the back table getting ready to sign the petition.

“What’re you doing?” he asked.

“Going to sign the petition,” the young man said.

“Why?”

“It’s against abortion.”

“Is it?”

“That’s what it says.”

“Who says?”

“Right here.” He pointed at the paper, then started to sign it.

“That’s what the National Right to Life Organization wants you to think, but have you read the bill in question?”

“Well, no…”

“Neither have I. I wouldn’t rely just on what they’re saying about it.”

“Well, the church endorses it.” And he got ready to sign it again.

“No it doesn’t.”

“But it’s back here on the table.”

On the other side of the coin, also many years ago, the interactive computer information service Prodigy (this was in the days before many people actually used the internet) once related a story about a ninth grader in Bloomingdale, Michigan. It seems that there was a large picture of Jesus in one of the hallways of his public high school; after learning about the separation of church and state in class, he got to wondering about the painting.

Eventually, a U.S. District Court ordered that the painting be covered, because the picture “amounts to a school endorsement of Christianity and thus violates the First Amendment, which bars government establishment of religion.”

So school officials “covered the picture while about 150 people held a candlelight vigil outside.” The online service also pointed out that in 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that it was improper for schools to display the Ten Commandments, and in 1992, the court ruled that prayers are not appropriate at school graduations.

Prodigy reported that “Since the lawsuit was filed, [the boy] has been screamed at by parents and challenged to fights. Some students staged a sit-in to protest the judge’s order. Some of his own cousins won’t speak to him.”

The temptation for Christians throughout history has been to try to impose their view of reality on those who do not believe. This activity has resulted in rather hideous evils where those who did not believe appropriately, or who did not act properly, were forced to change their ways or die. Of course, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

In the United States, such extreme methods are not possible, but this has not kept the Church from trying to impose its will by less extreme methods. The American Church has a long history of clamoring for various social and political causes; early on, the American churches were divided over whether to support or resist the revolution. Later, the abolitionist movement became a focus in some churches, while others fought for the right to own slaves. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the temperance movement worked to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In the last few decades churches in America have taken a role in the civil rights movement, come out for or against certain wars, and issued statements on nuclear proliferation. There is no shortage of those seeking to impose Christian ideals on American society through legislative action: trying to outlaw homosexuality or ban abortions, institute prayer in public schools, or limit sex and violence on television.

Depending on one’s political leanings, the political activities of churches are viewed as either praiseworthy or frightening. Those on the left are quick to condemn churches for mixing religion and politics if the church is pushing a conservative cause. On the other side, the right will happily criticize those churches on the left who involve themselves in issues in which they have the opposite opinion. Each side seems happy with the separation of church and state—until their own agenda is at stake.

Both sides are right to criticize and wrong to be politically involved.

As well-intentioned as all such political activities inevitably are, biblically they are suspect because these crusades for moral purity in society are confusing the mission of the church and distracting people from the message of the cross.

At the heart of the issue is the question of the church’s mission on planet earth. Is it simply to present the gospel, or is it more than that? Based on statements in the book of James, and more especially based upon the example of Israel and the laws established for the people there, cannot it be reasonably argued that the church has a role to play in improving the human condition, in relieving suffering, in working for justice and in fighting for the rights of the oppressed? Does not the Bible say that the church is to be a beacon, a light on a hill, a candle that cannot be put under a bushel? If that is the case, then surely the church not only has the right, but even the duty to involve itself in political issues. The only question then, is to determine which issues are the right ones.

However, is the above line of reasoning entirely biblical? Let’s look again at what the Bible really has to say about the church’s mission to planet earth.

Biblically, it becomes obvious that the Church’s mission on Earth is to spread the good news that Jesus died on the cross. Notice the words of Jesus:

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

The Holy Spirit is said to empower the Christian to act as a witness of Jesus (John 15:26-27 and 5:6-9). One of the Holy Spirit’s primary roles on the planet is to refer people to Jesus. Jesus is the focus of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus is the focus of the Church (Acts 4:33, 10:42-43, 23:11 and Matthew 28:18-20).

Jesus receives all authority in heaven and earth. But to his disciples, he gives a simple command: make more disciples. Again, the job of the Christian, the mission he has been given, is one of simple evangelism, followed by the training of those who have been evangelized. Notice the order: first, make disciples; second baptize them; third, teach them to obey.

Obedience cannot precede conversion; obedience—that is, doing good, is the result of salvation, not the cause.

Over and over again, the reader of the New Testament sees Paul and others concerned with proclaiming the gospel, with telling everyone they meet about the gospel (Romans 15:20, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 23, Ephesians 6:19-20, and Philippians 1:12-18).

Notice that Paul suffered severe persecution for proclaiming the gospel, even to the point of being in chains, yet he viewed such persecution more as an opportunity than a hindrance. We never see him railing against the authorities, or encouraging the churches to march on his behalf or—for that matter—on behalf of anyone. There are no letter writing campaigns, no petitions, no banners, no lobbying those in authority. Paul just preached the gospel and encouraged others around him to do the same and even to be encouraged by his plight (see 1 Corinthians 9:16, 2 Corinthians 4:5, Galatians 1:6-9, and 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Paul is quite harsh against those who would dare to proclaim a gospel other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. He would argue that such people are eternally condemned (see Ephesians 3:8 and 2 Timothy 4:2).

Repeatedly Paul explains his mission in life, and repeatedly in the book of Acts the reader can see how forcefully he pursued that mission. Paul’s sole concern was with proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He criticizes those who preached a “different” Gospel, a Gospel of works in place of a Gospel of grace. Paul stresses the nature of his message in Romans 1:15- 17 and then writes a summary of the message he’s been proclaiming in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

And what is his Gospel message? It is the good news of Jesus Christ, and his finished work on the cross. It has nothing to do with good deeds. Yet, as simple a thing as the Gospel is, it is remarkable how easily it becomes confused in everyone’s minds.

Involving the church in attempts to pass laws or prevent people from doing things that Christians find reprehensible, confuses the mission of the church and confuses what its message is. Non-believers too easily get the mistaken notion that the message of the church is simply to be good for God.

Being good for God, or encouraging other, non-Christians to be good, is not the gospel. Paul made the comment that those who came preaching a different gospel should be eternally condemned. How do those who push political agendas avoid being charged with doing precisely that: turning the gospel message into a message of works and do-goodism?

The message that comes through from political activism by the church is simply that of good works; worse, it presents the church in the following way: we are good, and you, not of the church, are bad, and if you don’t change and join us, you should be hated. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

The attitude of non-Christians to Christian politicizing is, “Who are they to shove their beliefs down my throat? What gives them the right to decide what’s right and what’s wrong?” The protest that “we’re only teaching what the Bible says” falls on deaf ears. Why? Because they aren’t convinced the Church knows what the Bible says, and they wonder whether the church might not just be interpreting it to fit their own agenda. Beyond that, the appeal to the Bible is a meaningless appeal to authority and in the mind of the non-Christian does not answer the objection he has raised: “Who are you?…”

What some churches do in politics or in speaking against sin stands in sharp contrast to the approaches one sees in the New Testament.

Paul and the other Christians of the first century—what did they preach? What sort of society did they live in? Did they try to change the laws of Rome through protests and political acts—or did they try to change men’s hearts one by one? Recall that in Philippians 1:12-18 Paul speaks of being in chains for Christ, but he does not speak out against the laws of Rome that had put him there. When he stood before the crowd in Acts 21:37-22:21 he spoke the message of the Gospel by beginning to give his own personal testimony.

Notice Paul’s approach in Athens in Acts 17. He did not berate them about the fact they worshipped idols. He did not talk to them about their bisexuality or homosexuality. Instead, he presented the gospel in a way that they could understand it, using an idol and Greek poets to illustrate his sermon.

The relationship between the church and the world according to the Bible is not particularly cordial (notice 1 John 3:13, 4:5-6). In fact, we are informed repeatedly that the church and its members are likely to be hated.

The Christian is not really a part of the world. He or she walks around in it, but he or she is essentially a stranger and is alienated from it; he or she no longer fits (see 1 Peter 1:1, 17, and 2:11).

The writers of the New Testament point out that the world’s methods, the world’s attitudes and even the world’s sin are something Christians should not be a part of (2 Corinthians 10:2-4). Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

Notice the interesting point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 5:12, when he asks the question, “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?” Yet, oddly enough, the church has been doing precisely that off and on for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church has its own agenda, its own citizenship; the world is passing away and so are the things in the world. Therefore, the focus of the church must be on the eternal kingdom, not the temporal issues at hand. The church’s sole agenda is to bring more people into itself. Sin in the world around us is not an issue—after all, Jesus died for the sins of the world.

You want to fix the world? Fix a life, fill an empty belly, bind a wound. There’s a whole world in every life you salvage. Love your neighbor as yourself. When you fix the lives of individuals—it tends to add up, and even multiply in unexpected ways. Within three hundred years of Paul, the Roman Empire—and the world–was radically transformed, and not through petitions or lobbying, but by proclaiming the gospel and helping the helpless one by one. Expecting the government to somehow save you or fix the problems in society that annoy you is putting your trust in a false and failed deity. Why would you expect the government to do the work of the church? That’s not the government’s job.

God Is Not Enough

In the beginning, after God had created the first human being, Adam, he commented, “it is not good for the man to be alone.” (Genesis 2:18)

That is profound. Adam was in paradise; he had direct contact with God—and God said that he was alone and that being in that condition was not good. Until that moment, at each step of the creation narrative, the comment had always been “and it was good.” But after creating a single man, alone in paradise, even though he had God, God said for the first time ever that something was NOT good.

When facing problems and when facing just life, good and bad, being alone really isn’t good. Not having someone, some human being, to be there for us is devastating. Adam had God, but he needed Eve. Moses had God, but he needed Aaron and Hur to hold up his arms.(Numbers 17:12)

We need people around us when we cry, we need people around us when something wonderful happens; we need to share our triumphs and disasters: to tell another person what is troubling us, or what has made us happy. It is not healthy, it is not good, to be alone. It is not good to have only God. God does not think he is enough for us. He thinks we need other humans around us. If other humans aren’t around, he says that we are alone, even when we have him—and he says it isn’t good; it isn’t what he knows we need. God simply is not enough.

Repentance

Repentance is a gift of God, not something that we can work up by ourselves through our own efforts. Of course, the same can be said of anything good that we might accomplish (notice Ephesians 2:8-10 once again; also consider Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25).

Repentance is demonstrated by actions. The word itself has the sense of “to change one’s mind” or to “turn around and go another way.” Repentance is not just feeling sorry for what you’ve done, though that may be a part of it. But sorrow alone will not accomplish anything. As Paul points out:

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. (2 Corinthians 7:10)

In contrast, you have the example of Judas in Matthew 27:3-5 who kills himself in his sorrow, but that is something other than repentance. Likewise, Esau was sorry he’d lost his birthright, but it was something other than true repentance, too (see Hebrews 12:16-17). Repentance produces certain actions; that is, a person who is genuinely repentant will change his behavior. He or she will not continue doing the same sin any longer. For instance, if a husband is guilty of beating his wife, the wife should leave, not just forgive him and continue getting beaten up. If the husband had genuinely repented, he would not continue to beat up his spouse.

Likewise, the difference between genuine repentance and someone just going through the motions is pretty obvious. The one going through the motions will reluctantly do what is requested, but only because he or she wants to avoid being hassled. A genuinely repentant person is appalled by his or her actions and desperately wants to do anything that he or she can to “make everything right again.” If you asked a genuinely repentant person to swim the ocean, they wouldn’t hesitate or even question the request. A genuinely repentant individual seems to be fleeing whatever sin they are guilty of, as if terrified by it:

See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:11)

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for

Abraham. (Luke 3:8)

Also, a genuinely repentant person tends not to try to hide his or her guilt.

Little Drummer Writer: Guest Blog by Sarah A. Hoyt

Sarah A. Hoyt is a prolific and well-regarded science fiction author, having been awarded the Prometheus Award in 2011 for her novel Darkship Thieves. The award has been given annually since 1979 (well, regularly since 1982) by the Libertarian Futurist Society. It was at her urging that I decided to offer several of my books as eBooks for the Kindle. She recently asked for an opportunity to do guest posts on the blogs of anyone who was willing, as a kind of “blog tour” for her forthcoming books. So I offered and to my great surprise she accepted.

Be sure to check out her regular blog at According to Hoyt. She also regularly posts at Mad Genius Club and has been known to appear on Instapundit on occasion.

Little Drummer Writer

by Sarah A. Hoyt

My favorite Christmas song is The Little Drummer Boy. This is actually relevant.

You see, I spent a great portion of my life – since I was about six – fighting very hard against the idea that I was supposed to be a writer.

The signs were there: easy fluency with words, ideas that attacked when you least expected it, a tendency to go off on complex day dreams. More importantly there was the need to write.

But even though people talk of vocations outside religion, of vocations outside the choice of whether to marry or not, most of us, of course, never think about that.

Writing seemed to be too easy (ah!) a thing for me to do, and doing it an indulgence. More than that, it appeared to me, at the height of my teen years, completely useless. I could be an engineer or a doctor. I WANTED to be something that counted.

It turned out for reasons of circumstance or aptitude, that was not, after all, me. No, my aptitude was for this silly thing and mostly for writing fantastic stories that no one could – possibly – be interested in.

But it was all I could do well – all I had to bring to the table (or before the manger if you prefer.)

When I accepted that, and stopped fighting was when I discovered how very challenging and difficult writing was, and, at the same time, how very much out of my hands.

Sometimes, when ideas come – what my son because of some medical blog calls SOCMOB after the way people who come to the emergency room all shut up start their stories, “I was Standing On the Corner, Minding my Own Business when two bad dudes….” – I am SOCMOB, doing something else, minding my own business.

And then, there is the idea, beating me about the face and head and demanding to be written.

Other times, I reach for the idea, and there is nothing there.

It is a gift and the meaning of a gift is that you can’t quite control it. You can’t choose to have it in pink because purple is passé. It was given to you in purple (though few people accuse my writing of being purple) and that’s what you have.

I fight some of my stories a lot – A Few Good Men (coming out in March) – probably most of all, because I’m still not sure to whom it will appeal. But it wouldn’t leave me alone, and I wrote it, and my publisher liked it. Others, like Darkship Renegades, (came out in December) I had to approach four times before I could see it completely. And Noah’s Boy, (coming out in July) was started six (?) years ago, and wouldn’t come out the way I had plotted. No, there must be another story, involving invaders from the stars. Go figure.

I’m not saying I don’t have any control, or that it’s not my duty to learn to do as much as I can, as well as I can. No, that’s part of my duty. I have the drum, and the sticks, but I have to learn to ply them.

… And when I ply them well, the result, though not completely under my control and though always imperfect and perhaps not QUITE worthy to be set before the king, IS a reflection of the Creating Will.

And there’s probably nothing more I can ask.

Faith

Faith can be defined as “accepting the reality of what God has said.” Faith is not simply believing that something good will happen, or that it will “just all work out”; it is not “feeling warm about the possibilities of the future”. One wrong definition of faith is, “belief in something for which there is no proof”. Better, and more accurate to the biblical idea, faith is “fidelity to promises.” Biblically speaking, it is simply accepting God’s words as truth.

One day a man was having lunch with his friend, the skeptic. He said, “I have faith in God.”

The skeptic looked at him and responded: “Prove it!”

“Okay,” said the man, “To show you how great my faith in God is, I’m going to climb in an airplane, fly to 10,000 feet, and jump out—without a parachute! I have faith in God.”

So, the faithful man boarded an airplane; when the altimeter reached ten thousand feet, he walked to the door. Opening it, he cried in a loud voice: “I BE-lieve! Oh God, save me! I believe you will!”

And then he jumped.

At his funeral, the skeptic commented, “He certainly proved to me he had faith.”

Amusing, yes? What was the faithful man’s problem? His faith was not able to save him, because he misunderstood what constitutes true faith. God has never, ever promised to protect some fool who jumps out of an airplane at ten thousand feet. Faith can only be held for something God has promised, not for any and every fool thing imaginable we want. Just as God did not say, “Let there be purple people with green spots”, so God’s promises are limited, too. Do not leap unless God tells you.

Freedom

Paul writes in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” Jesus died to give us freedom from judgment, freedom from the law, freedom from the knowledge even of good and evil.

How free are we? We can do anything we want, but we are limited by our own natures. For instance, however much I may want to, flapping my arms rapidly will not get me airborne. I cannot leap a tall building in a single bound. I cannot run faster than a speeding bullet. I cannot look through walls with x-ray eyes. I cannot pick up a locomotive and carry it on my back.

So I am free, but I am constrained by my own body’s limits.

I cannot live forever; I will die.

I can choose to jump out of an airplane ten thousand feet above the ground without a parachute. But I will probably choose not to do so because I am constrained by my understanding of the force of gravity and the consequences of such a force on my body.

I could choose to become excessively wicked, perhaps rob banks and beat up those who annoy me; but other people, acting freely, will likely constrain my behavior and I’ll be caught and put in prison. Likewise if I choose to murder, whether an individual or serially, I will be constrained in my freedom by the free actions of others. Feelings of guilt or the fear of being caught may constrain my behavior and either keep me from doing such things, or if I do go ahead and exercise my free-dom that way, others exercising their freedom will likely catch me and punish me.

I will be constrained ultimately by my own mortality. Idi Amin was an evil dictator; he is thought to be responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 of his countrymen. But he was never brought before a tribunal, never convicted, never faced punishment in that sense. But at 78 years of age he died nevertheless. His freedom was ultimately constrained by his mortality.

We are all free, but we are constrained by all the freedom around us: the other free sentient beings, the freely swirling universe, the weather, and our physical limitations. We exercise our freedom in a limited way because our freedom does not exist in isolation.

So it is odd, given that, that people can be so fearful of the freedom given by grace, that they imagine such freedom will lead to anarchy, that folks will run amuck. Anarchy is really not possible, because nothing happens in isolation. Freedom constrains freedom. Those who fear grace don’t understand freedom and in their attempts to impose order and law, create many unintended bad consequences and pitch us all toward chaos.

When she was seven years old, the daughter of someone I know commented to her mother that “It’s more important to God that we be free than that we be good.”

Why did she say such a thing? Because of the story of Adam and Eve. If being good were the most important thing, then why did God give Adam and Eve the freedom to disobey?

Freedom is so important to God that he would rather human beings be free than good. He thought freedom was so important, that he would make the Son of God die rather than make people be good. This is the obvious conclusion from Genesis 1-3 and the New Testament. This would mean that we may make a mistake if we place too much emphasis on “being good”. Not that good is not desirable, just that it must be tempered by freedom. Thus, to enforce goodness through legalistic means in the church is counter to the biblical revelation.

Remember that the Spirit of God indwells believers and that this probably has a profound impact on their behavior. Freedom is that you limit yourself. Non-freedom is that you are limited by another. In Christ, we are free, because we are no longer slaves to that other: sin.

Thus, one of the goals of God is the maximization of freedom

Science Fiction Theology

I’m a theologian, science fiction fan, and science fiction writer. It is an interesting combination. With all that being jammed into one human being, the fact I’m so peculiar may almost make sense, and it may explain why both my fiction and my theology tend toward the odd. Consider the thoughts I’ve had on the eternality of God and his relationship to space-time. Genesis 21:33, Deuteronomy 32:40, Psalm 90:2-4, and Psalm 102:24-27 are the classic texts on the eternality of God (see also, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 13:8, and 2 Peter 3:8). By eternality, I mean that God is without beginning or end; he is free from the succession of time. God is not in time: instead, he sees the past, present, and future equally clearly. He sees Adam eating the forbidden fruit, the birth of Christ, the resignation of the Pope, and the last judgment all at once.

An interesting question to consider, both for the eternality of God, as well as for our everlasting state: why doesn’t God get bored?

One could suggest that the indeterminacy of the universe (free-will) has something to do with it.

What are the theological implications of modern physics when we think about time? Augustine (AD 354 – 430), in speaking of the creation of the universe wrote:

The world and time had both one beginning. The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.

His words of more than a thousand years past, express well the basic thrust of relativistic physics. Augustine ridiculed the idea of picturing God waiting an infinite time and then deciding at some propitious moment to create a universe—because without the universe, time doesn’t exist. God is outside time, unbound by it. Psalm 90:4 records:

For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by,

or like a watch in the night. (Notice also 2 Peter 3:8)

Consider the otherwise hard to understand phrase in Revelation 13:8: “…the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”

Given that Jesus was crucified around 30 AD, we perhaps see an indication of how radically different God’s relationship to the universe and time are. From his perspective, the creation of the world and Jesus’ death on the cross were both in God’s sight.

Paul Davies, in the somewhat dated God and the New Physics discusses the implications of the theory of relativity for time. He writes that the revolution in our ideas of time can be summarized by stating that, whereas time was once viewed as “absolute, fixed, and universal—independent of material bodies or observers…” it is now recognized as being dynamic: it can “stretch and shrink, warp and even stop altogether at a singularity.” Today, the movement of clocks are recognized as not absolute; instead, such movements are relative to the state of motion or the gravitational situation of the observer. This has forced physicists to abandon some long held assumptions. For example, there is no longer a universal agreement on the choice of “now”.

An experiment has been proposed. If one were to get a set of twins and then place one in a spaceship moving at very close to the speed of light, and then leave the other on Earth, an interesting phenomenon would occur. If the destination of the twin in the spaceship were a star twenty light years away, upon his return, he would have aged at most a few months. His twin on Earth, however, would be many years older. This is known as the time dilation effect, and has been described fictionally in Time For the Stars by Robert A. Heinlein and The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman—among others. To give a sense of the weirdness this effect entails, let me quote a short passage from The Forever War:

We wound up spending a lot of time in the tanks, just to keep from looking at the same faces all day long in the crowded ship. The added periods of ac-celeration got us back to Stargate in ten months, subjective. Of course, it was 340 years (minus seven months) to the hypothetical objective observer.

Time dilation is not a fictional concept. It has been demonstrated empirically repeatedly and has to be taken into account to ensure the accuracy of GPS.

Now, consider another incident that may be enlightened by the idea that God is viewing the universe in a way rather different than we do: the Transfiguration.

Matthew 16:28-17:9 presents an interesting and unique event (also recorded in Luke 9:28-36 and Mark 9:2-13):

“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus in-structed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

The mountain where this occurred is traditionally identified as Mt. Tabor. It looks like an upside down bowl—perfectly smooth and round. So what happened here? There was obviously a physical change in Jesus of some sort. Based on the context of the episode, it apparently in some way fulfills the statement immediately preceding it that “some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

What does this mean? Is the transfiguration to be understood as the Kingdom of God, revealed early to the disciples? Or are we to suggest that Christ made a mistake and the second coming and the eternal kingdom didn’t arrive as planned—or can we make something of what John wrote?

Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” (John 21:22-23)

It is unlikely that John is still alive, or anyone else from that period. Since Jesus has yet to come back, it seems unlikely to me that the fulfillment of his words refers to the still future Second Coming.

But, it may be an over simplification to suggest that this was merely a “shock and awe,” “lights and magic spectacular.” Since God is not bound by space and time, perhaps we should consider a radical possibility: that what happened on the mountain was not just a change in Jesus, but rather, a change in location for the disciples, both spatially and temporally. The Transfiguration might be best understood as the disciples being moved through time to the end of everything, where they experienced a glimpse of what that yet future day (for us and them) would be like. The appearance of Moses and Elijah might make more sense if we think of them as being in their post-resurrection bodies in the Eternal Kingdom. If we understand the transformation of the Transfiguration in this peculiar way, it makes the fulfillment of Christ’s words in Matthew 16:28 rather more literal than they otherwise would be.

The “two men” were not disembodied spirits. The disciples recognized them, apparently without introduction. This may be remarkable, demonstrating that when we reach the Eternal Kingdom we will recognize each other, and perhaps people we don’t know, too. Or it could be that as Jesus talked to them, he called them by name, or it could be simply that they were introduced and the passage just doesn’t tell us, since that’s a minor thing and we know that the Bible does not tell us everything that happened.

Obviously this is all quite speculative; but speculation and wondering and looking at even the most wild ideas is what keeps theology interesting–and sometimes leads to better understanding.

Interpersonal Relationships and the Ethics of Lying

The theme of the Bible is twofold: to love God and to love people (Matthew 22:36-40). Thus, the issue of interpersonal relations is one of the two most important issues in the Bible. Under this theme of “loving others” would then fall the issue of ethics. In theory, nothing could be simpler. Paul writes that all the laws, whether “do not kill” or “do not commit adultery” are summed up in the law “love thy neighbor as yourself”, since if you love someone, you’re not likely to hurt them (Romans 13:8-10).

Even in practice, this is not so hard as it seems. In ethics classes, we delight in coming up with difficult scenarios, like, you’re living in Germany in 1938 and you’re hiding Jews in your basement. Now, if the Nazis come to your door and demand to know if you’ve seen any Jews around lately, will you lie?

It comes down to having the principle of “loving others” firmly imbedded in your brain, and recognizing that all laws are to be under-stood in light of that principle. That is, ask yourself, WHY does this law exist. Jesus derided the Pharisees when they criticized his behavior on the Sabbath by pointing out that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. That is, the laws are designed to BENEFIT you and others. If you find the application of a law or ethical principle hurtful or burdensome and unpleasant, then perhaps you’re misinterpreting it. Getting back to the Nazis and your hidden Jews. If you tell the Nazis about them, you’ve caused the death of the Jews and turned the Nazis into murderers—clearly violations of the central law: love others. Thus, you lie.

And if you still feel guilty about lying, then confess it to God later and tell him you’re sorry. Jesus died for your sins, anyhow. You can always repent. And which would you rather repent of, murder or lying? Of course, you haven’t actually lied anyhow.

What is Lying, Anyhow?

A college student wanted to skip her next class; she had a lot of pressing work that needed catching up on, not the least of which was an upcoming exam for which she remained unprepared. She didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of simply not showing up, so she told her professor she had a sick friend she needed to check up on.

However, she didn’t “check up on” her friend until that evening, long after the class was done, having spent the preceding hours catching up on her work.

Did that college student lie? Obviously. Although she did have a sick friend, and did check up on her, the friend’s illness was hardly the reason she’d skipped class.

But in the Bible, when God tells Moses to inform Pharaoh that “Yahweh wants his people to take a three day journey to the desert so they can worship and sacrifice”—even though God is really planning to take the people out of Egypt forever—we wouldn’t say God told Moses to lie, would we?

Or when God instructs Samuel to tell Saul that the reason for his trip to Bethlehem is so he can sacrifice—though his real purpose is to anoint David king—we wouldn’t say God told Samuel to lie, would we?

However, what is the substantive difference between Yahweh’s actions in these two instances, and those of that female college student?

In this, the latter quarter of the twentieth century, we define a lie simply as “an untruth”. Webster’s reports that lying is “to make a false or misleading impression” or “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”. A lie is “an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.”

God says that he does not lie (Numbers 23:19), yet by the just given definitions, he has. How do we extricate ourselves from this dilemma? It may not be so hard. Perhaps it is simply that the modern definition of a “lie” and the biblical definition of a “lie” are not identical. The whole difficulty may simply be semantic.

Lies and the Exodus

In Exodus 3:7-8 God’s intentions regarding the Israelites are stat-ed clearly:

Yahweh said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out be-cause of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.”

God clearly told Moses that he planned to rescue the people from the Egyptians; He is going to bring them out to the Promised Land. But, this is not quite the message Moses is supposed to bring to the Pharaoh. Look at Exodus 3:16-18:

Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, “Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abra-ham, Isaac and Jacob, appeared to me and said: ‘I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’”

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God.”

Quite clearly God instructed Moses to deceive Pharaoh regarding their intentions of leaving Egypt for good. By modern definitions, God instructed Moses to lie. Moses obeys, and is very consistent in his story from his first meeting with Pharaoh to the very last. Notice the following selected passages:

Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert.’”

Pharaoh said, “Who is Yahweh, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know Yahweh and I will not let Israel go.”

Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword.” (Ex. 5:1ff)

Then say to him, “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: ‘Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the desert. But until now you have not listened.’” (Ex. 7:16)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will plague your whole country with frogs.”’”…

Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Pray to Yahweh to take away the frogs from me and my people, and I will let your people go to offer sacrifices to Yahweh.” (Ex. 8:1-2, 8)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and confront Pharaoh as he goes to the water and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you do not let my people go, I will send swarms of flies on you and your officials, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians will be full of flies, and even the ground where they are.”’”…

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God here in the land.”

But Moses said, “That would not be right. The sac-rifices we offer Yahweh our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us? We must take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God, as he commands us.”

Pharaoh said, “I will let you go to offer sacrifices to Yahweh your God in the desert, but you must not go very far. Now pray for me.” (Ex. 8:20-21, 25-28)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me.”’” (Ex. 9:1)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me,…’”

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron. “This time I have sinned,” he said to them. “Yahweh is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong. Pray to Yahweh, for we have had enough thunder and hail. I will let you go; you don’t have to stay any longer.” (Ex. 9:13, 27-28)

So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, “This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.’”…

Then Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh.

“Go, worship Yahweh your God,” he said. “But just who will be going?”

Moses answered, “We will go with our young and old, with our sons and daughters, with our flocks and herds, because we are to celebrate a festival to Yahweh.”

Pharaoh said, “Yahweh be with you—if I let you go, along with your women and children! Clearly you are bent on evil. No! Have only the men go; and worship Yahweh, since that’s what you have been asking for.” Then Moses and Aaron were driven out of Pharaoh’s presence. (Ex. 10:3, 8-11)

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and said, “Go, worship Yahweh. Even your women and children may go with you; only leave your flocks and herds behind.”

But Moses said, “You must allow us to have sacri-fice and burnt offerings to present to Yahweh our God. Our livestock too must go with us; not a hoof is to be left behind. We have to use some of them in worshiping Yahweh our God, and until we get there we will not know what we are to use to worship Yahweh.”

But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not wiling to let them go. Pharaoh said to Moses, “Get out of my sight! Make sure you do not appear before me again! The day you see my face you will die.” (Ex. 10:24-28)

During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship Yahweh as you have request-ed. Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me.” (Ex. 12:31-32)

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!” (Ex. 14:5)

God very clearly told Moses to tell the Pharaoh that the Israelites’ intention was to only take a short, three day trip to worship God. Apparently, this is what Pharaoh believed, and this is what he resisted letting the Israelites do–until the death of the first born. Then he relented and allowed them to take their three day journey of worship. It was not until the people were gone, and it became clear that they were making tracks, that Pharaoh realized he had been tricked. Since Numbers 23:19 states explicitly that “God is not a man, that he should lie”, the biblical idea of “lie” must be defined in such a way as to permit the behavior observed here in Exodus.

Lies and Abraham

Abraham is recorded telling less than the truth about Sarah his wife, not once, but twice. Just look at Genesis 12 and 20. The most puzzling thing about both incidents is that Abraham is not condemned by God for what he does (and he does it twice), nor does he get into trouble from God for telling Abimelech or Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister, without revealing the more relevant news that she is his wife.

Notice, in Genesis 20, Abimelech is threatened with death, his wives and concubines become barren, and he is told by God that Abra-ham “…is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live.” (Gen. 20:7) Yet poor Abimelech is the one that had been deceived! And then, rather than being cursed, Abraham is greatly blessed by Abimelech:

Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him. And Abimelech said, “My land is before you; live wherever you like.” (Gen. 20:14-15)

Then, in verse 17, Abraham prays to God and Abimelech and his wife and concubines are healed.

Abraham is fully vindicated for what he had done, and in fact, is marvelously blessed for it. In neither the Old Testament nor the New is there ever any mention of Abraham being a liar. Therefore, it seems to me, that our definition of a lie must not include the behavior displayed by Abraham.

Lies and Rahab

Joshua 2:1-7 records the following incident:

Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim.

“Go, look over the land,” he said, “especially Jericho.”

So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

The king of Jericho was told, “Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land.”

So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab, “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.”

But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come fRomans At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don’t know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.” (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.

Commenting on this event, the writer of Hebrews 11:31 records:

By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

Somehow the definition of a lie must be such as to allow Rahab’s behavior. There are a lot of apparent problems in this passage. Rahab is “lying”—stating things contrary to fact—and she is doing this to the representatives of her government. So not only is she “lying”, she also seems to be violating the spirit of Romans 13:1-7, where Paul tells the Christians in Rome to “submit to the authorities” and not only that, but states that “the authorities are God’s servants” and that “there is no authority except that which God has established.” How could Rahab legitimately fail to turn in the spies? She not only lied, but she rebelled against her government, and became a traitor. This is good?

Lying and Samuel

Similar problems confront us when we look at Samuel’s life. Notice the narrative in 1 Samuel 16:1-3:

Yahweh said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me.”

Yahweh said, “Take a heifer with you and say, “I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh.” Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”

What happens in 1 Samuel is very similar to the pattern described in Exodus. Again, such activity must be allowed under the biblical definition of “lie”.

Other Lies

In Jeremiah 20:7 the prophet complains to God that he has deceived him. Likewise, in Ezekiel 14:9 God explains that when a prophet is deceived into making false prophesies, it is God himself who has deceived him in order to bring about that prophet’s destruction. In the New Testament, Paul writes that God will send a powerful delusion against the wicked so that they will believe lies and be condemned as a consequence (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

And then there is this odd incident described in 1 Kings 22:19-23:

Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of Yahweh: I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And Yahweh said, ‘Who will lure Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. Finally a spirit came forward, stood before Yahweh and said, ‘I will lure him.’

“’By what means?’ Yahweh asked.

“’I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“’You will succeed in luring him,’ said Yahweh. ‘Go and do it.’

“So now Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. Yahweh has decreed disaster for you.”

So God apparently used a demon to confuse the false prophets, encouraging the demon to lie for him. Of course, the text doesn’t tell us this spirit is a demon, it simply tells us that it is a spirit in the throne room of God who volunteered to help God.

So maybe it wasn’t a demon…

But it lied!

And God sanctioned it!

Conclusion and Definition of Lying

What are some possible biblical definitions of the word “lie”? Since the sense of the word must be formed within its context, perhaps we could say that a lie is “failing to be truthful for selfish ends or for the purpose of causing suffering to another.” It seems that deception is acceptable in certain situations. The common thread running through all the examples of deception that I gave above, is that life and death issues were at stake; if there had been no deception, someone would have died. Biblically, what is called a “lie” usually occurs in the context of “bearing false witness” in legal proceedings. Obviously, the modern definition of lie is considerably broader and more comprehensive than the biblical meaning.

In any case, I believe that it is best to conclude that ethics are contextually realized. This is not to say ethics are arbitrary, but rather that they can be fully understood only within societal relationships. Like a word, which is virtually meaningless outside a sentence, so ethics are virtually meaningless without life.

Ethics do not exist in a vacuum. And something else to consider: many games depend on “lying” in order to work, ranging from quarterbacks in football games deceiving the other side into thinking they’re going to pass when they’re going to run, or vice versa. Most card games require some deception, as do games such as chess or checkers. And then consider warfare: making the Nazis think that the D-Day invasion was going to land on different beaches than they did was certainly a lie told to them–but we never think of it that way–nor should we. We don’t consider our spies who infiltrate nasty organizations such as al-Queda to be lying, now do we, when they don’t reveal that they are spies, and actively lie to cover up what they’re actually doing. Likewise, undercover cops infiltrating gangs or taking down drug dealers are not considered to be lying when they do their job, even though they are deceiving the bad guys.

Lying is not just deception or failing to tell the truth. It is, in essence, false testimony that either protects the guilty or condemns the innocent. It is lying if it hurts someone who shouldn’t be hurt. Remember the commandment: love people. It’s a lie if it violates that principle.