While the faithful remnant of the Old Testament worshiped YHWH[1], a great number of Israelites were compelled to serve Baal and other Ancient Near Eastern gods. As seen throughout the narrative of the Old Testament, idolatry (i.e. substitute worship) was the fundamental problem from the beginning of not only Israel, but of mankind in general.[2]

The reality of idolatry even within ancient Israel should lead us to conclude that not every member of the nation worshipped YHWH.[3] Not all Jews feared and revered the God of Abraham. This recognition becomes critical in a conversation on modern Judaism.

The New Testament unambiguously states that those who truly worshiped YHWH would have seen and responded to the gospel of Christ. This is why Jesus does not condemn His fellow Jews for believing in the God of Abraham and Moses, but rather for rejecting the very One to Whom Abraham and Moses pointed.

A couple of references make this point clear:

John 5:37-47 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 8:39-59 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

48The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

According to these texts, true belief in the God of Abraham and Moses responds to the Christ of Whom they spoke and in Whom they hoped. The fundamental problem with Judaism then and now is not the reverence of the God of the Old Testament, but instead the failure to faithfully fear the God revealed in the Old Testament.

YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David, has eternally existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The God of the Scriptures, Old and New, is triune. Whereas in the Old Testament, the trinity was implied in shadowed form, the New Testament revelation of Christ shines forth with greater brilliance and clarity. Simply put, one who worships a non-triune god is not worshipping the one God Who is triune. This is the point developed further in the blog, What if I Believe in ‘God,’ but not in Jesus?. To deny the Son is to deny the Father Who sent Him, which is to deny the God of the Scriptures, Old and New.

Christianity considers modern Judaism to be errant not because they worship the God of the Old Testament, but precisely because they do not do so. This realization is no justification for the evil of historic anti-Semitism, but rather is a compelling call for mission. Like Christ and His apostles, we should have a heart to see Jews reconciled – not to a new God, but to the God of their fathers.

Romans 10:1-3 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

_____________

[1] The theme of a faithful remnant is common throughout the Old Testament narrative (1 Kings 19:18; Jeremiah 23:3-4; Joel 2:32; Micah 2:12; Zephaniah 3:11-13; et al) and relates to the concept of the elect as used in the New (Mark 13:20, 27; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33; 1 Peter 1:1, 2:9; et al).

[2] This is not to imply that mankind was created to be idolaters, but rather that idolatry entered into our nature in the very first generation through Adam and Eve’s disobedience. How long after their creation this occurred is not revealed in the Scriptures.

[3] The combination of these 4 letters (typically pronounced Yahweh) is referred to as the tetragrammaton (four letters) by scholars and is the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses particularly in Exodus 3:15. It appears in English texts as “the LORD” where LORD is in all capital letters to distinguish it from adonai (Hebrew for “lord”) and kyrios (Greek for “lord”).

Christ, Culture

What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

Jesus and Homosexuality

For those having more questions about the issue of homosexuality, you are encouraged to join us this Friday, May 21^st, as The Village Church will host a Culture and Theology event on this subject.

CULTURE + THEOLOGY: HOMOSEXUALITY

When and Where

Friday, May 21, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Doors open at 6:30 p.m.) | Flower Mound campus Worship Center

Registration is not required for general attendance.

Kid Keepers (childcare) is now full for this event. Please make other arrangements for childcare.

Culture, Sexuality

Born of a virgin
Hailed as God and man
Surrounded by 12 Disciples
Performed miraculous deeds
Baptized
Sacrificed
Resurrected

Internet sites abound with alleged similarities between the events of the New Testament narrative,[1] in particular the person and work of Jesus Christ, and ancient mythological accounts of gods. Horus, Osiris, Dionysius, Mithra: all allegedly share in characteristics which Christians uniquely attribute to Christ. What are we to make of these parallels?

Superficial Claims
First and foremost, it is necessary to recognize the superficiality of such comparisons. Alleged similarities are typically a mile wide and an inch deep, intended to confuse and mislead in an area in which very few are personally informed. Internet claims are simply recited without actually being researched. Here are a couple of examples of such distortions of the actual evidence:

Virgin birth
It is certainly true that a few myths and religions spoke of something which has been described as a “virgin birth,” but examination of the source texts reveal that such terminology is misleading and irresponsible. Those accounts are decidedly sexual in nature with a male deity procreating with a female (virgin or not in some cases) in order to produce a son. In other words, a male god is engaging in physical sex with a female woman. If a man (deity or not) has sex with a female, then it is not a virgin birth because she is no longer a virgin. To call this a “virgin birth” is simply irresponsible and misunderstands the nature of Christ’s virgin birth.

For the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, read in particular Luke 1:34-35. God did not sexually interact with Mary. The pagan pictures of “virgin birth” are extremely dissimilar to the biblical account of the conception of Christ in which the power of the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary.

The parallel is very weak and unconvincing at best.

Resurrection
What of the many other mythical accounts of dying and rising gods? Analysis reveals that this too is hardly analogous to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Those “gods” rose again each year as part of the agricultural cycle not as a watershed moment in history. It is the historical account of resurrection that sets the Christian claim apart and it is the central question which must be answered. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false (1 Corinthians 15) and should be discarded as such. But if He did rise, this reality has profound implications for us and our lives.

The reality of the resurrection best accounts for the objective data that we have. We know for a fact that the early church professed the resurrection (i.e. it was not invented some years later). We know for a fact that the disciples were willing to lay down their lives for that message (i.e. this makes it extremely unlikely that they stole the body). No body of Christ ever surfaced. Why not? Did the Romans or Jews steal it? That is extremely illogical since it would have only intensified the claims of Christianity. Was it a random grave robber? We have absolutely no evidence for that. Though it might grate against man’s rational desire for natural explanations, the resurrection simply best explains what we know to be historically true. Denial of the resurrection demands great faith in speculative answers to the questions which are raised by the data of the 1st century.

[For an in-depth analysis of the absolute uniqueness of the biblical account of resurrection, set aside a large portion of time to begin to work through N.T. Wright’s mammoth “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” Wright looks at pagan accounts in particular and analyzes the claim that Christianity merely borrowed the concept of resurrection from surrounding cultures. Wright evidences that the Christian conception of resurrection was totally dissimilar to the expectations of the Ancient Near Eastern culture of that time or previous. There is a marked contrast between the hope of Christian resurrection and the pagan desire for life after death.]

The following summarizes the resurrection “parallels” quite nicely, “It is superficial and unfounded to say that the study of the history of religions has shown the dependence of the resurrection of Jesus on mythology. On the contrary, it is precisely the comparison with the history of religion that gives rise to the strongest objections to any kind of mythifying of the resurrection of Jesus.”[2]

When one examines the claims of pagan parallels, one finds the such comparisons are incredibly shallow. Ultimately, it is not the similarities that are incredible, it is the depth of dissimilarity. The uniqueness of the biblical portrait of Jesus is astounding.

The Existence of Parallels
Though many parallels are weak, the fact that there are some similarities still needs to be considered. We will limit our consideration to similarities pointed out within the text of the Old Testament for the sake of time as I have posted a few resources which deal more specifically with claims of parallels in the New.

First, I think it is important to consider that many parallels are intentional devices on the part of the authors of Scripture to show YHWH’s superiority over, not similarity to, pagan gods. Biblical studies have shown indeed that the language of the Scriptures often alludes to surrounding myths in taking a polemical posture against those religions and their idols. The Scriptures were not given from within a vacuum devoid of context. In speaking against Baalism in early Israel, it is only fitting that the authors of the Scriptures use language that parallels and supersedes that which was used by proponents of Canaanite paganism. The Bible is full of such intentional engagement with false teachings. For example, many believe that Psalm 29 is intentionally aimed at displaying the superiority of YHWH to Baal. YHWH’s voice is highlighted (7 times in the 11 verses) and is described as a thunderstorm to evidence His great power. This is particularly enlightening when one considers that Baal was considered the “storm-god” whose “voice” was heard in storms. In using the same language and imagery of the pagan god, David is here elevating the voice (7 being a number of completion or perfection in Hebrew culture) and power of YHWH over that of Baal. Rather than simply borrowing from ANE (Ancient Near Eastern) myths, the Scriptures are using similarities as inroads to consider the superiority of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the “gods” of the culture.

Second, I think that in many cases parallels actually strengthen the case for the biblical account. For instance, the vast distribution of pagan flood accounts in the ANE should not lead us to conclude that there was no flood, but rather that something actually happened. If one were investigating a murder and witness A claimed to hear an explosion late at night, witness B testified to fireworks sometime after 11:30, witness C argued for a backfiring car about 12:05, and witness D described a gunshot at 11:58, you would not conclude that they were all colluding or lying. Only a foolish detective would consider the contrasting accounts to be necessarily contradictory. They instead carry the common theme of a loud bang sometime around midnight. Even more foolish would be to assume that nothing actually happened. Further investigation of the evidence would highlight whether indeed there was a gunshot wound and approximate time of death.

What are we ultimately to make of the existence of some parallels? If the biblical account is true, then man and demons are rebellious resisters of the revelation of God. If so, is it not extremely likely that both would seek to corrupt the account by reinterpreting actual events? Pagan parallels do not disprove Christianity any more than a witness who swears that he heard a car backfire disproves a murder.

Recommended Resources for Further Study
Reinventing Jesus – Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace (in particular, read chapters 16-18 which deal with issues of alleged parallels)

Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology – Niehaus

Dethroning Jesus – Bock and Wallace

---

[1] In particular, I have received a number of e-mails about a video called Zeitgeist. For a brief overview of the many problems in this particular video, consider this interview.

[2] Walter Kunneth, as quoted in “Reinventing Jesus.”

Christ, Culture, History

Why don’t we kiss each other when we enter through the church doors? Doesn’t the Bible say, “greet one another with a holy kiss?” Not just once, but five times we are given the command. And it wasn’t just by one author, but rather by both Paul and Peter. Consider: Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; and 1 Peter 5:14.

Are we engaging in a selective reading of the text, applying those commands we like and dismissing those which we do not? Are we simply being disobedient to the Scriptures? Are we allowing cultural insecurities or fears to lead us to ignore clear Scriptural exhortation?

Or consider head coverings? Why aren’t the women who attend our weekly services asked to cover themselves before participating in the worship service? Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 11:4-16 clearly spell out the necessity of head coverings in the corporate setting?

There are two erroneous approaches we can take when considering these and similar texts which are saturated with cultural convention:

1. We can apply a really strict and literal hermeneutic that absolutely applies the text as is without much or any consideration of the context and principle embedded in the cultural convention. This is typical of some forms of historic fundamentalism.
2. We can interpret the cultural convention as to effectively negate the principle which it is intended to express. This mistake is typical of many forms of liberal theology.

How can we wisely avoid either extreme in pursuing informed obedience to what God has commanded?

1. Here is a helpful article by D.A. Carson dealing with this question.
2. In addition, you may be interested in watching a quick video with some of Piper’s thoughts on which Scriptural commands have universal mandate.

(Thanks to Justin Taylor for alerting me to the Carson article.)

Bible Texts, Culture

Last week Sony Pictures released Angels and Demons, which is a follow-up to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code. I have yet to see it, but am certainly interested in doing so sometime in the near future.

Though the buzz surrounding this film is nothing like that of DaVinci, I am sure there will be ample opportunities to engage in healthy dialogue with friends and families. Here are a few links that might help you to be better informed as you interact:

• Web site created by Westminster Theological Seminary to answer some common questions.

• New York Times article on Brown’s influence.

• I have also previously mentioned Darrel Bock’s, Breaking the DaVinci Code which will help to expose some of the historical and theological inaccuracies of Brown’s work.

Culture

Occasionally in evangelicalism there appears a book which somehow sweeps the American church off of its feet in a flutter of word of mouth and praise. Think “Prayer of Jabez” or “The Purpose Driven Life.” Sometimes such books are good, more often than not they leave something to be desired. This is undoubtedly a result of a dilution of the importance of God’s revelation in the life of the modern American church. As God’s word concerning Himself is devalued, man’s thoughts become elevated to the detriment of the body. Man therefore begins to reconfigure and reconceive God according to his own whims.

“The Shack” is a relatively new work which is becoming quite popular in the world of American evangelicalism. It has recently moved to the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback trade fiction. In addition, at least one church has taken to pass out the book to all of her members. I have heard a number of reports about the book with very contrasting analyses.

• Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, says it “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim Progress did for his.”
• Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, “This book includes undiluted heresy.”
• Singer and songwriter Michael W. Smith says “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.”
• Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, says, “Regarding the Trinity, it’s actually heretical.”

As we have had a few inquiries about the work, I spent the last week reading it. I found the story to be quite engaging, but the theological content was very concerning. While the work does not claim to be a theological treatise, the subject matter is inherently theological in that it deals specifically with those grandest of Christian doctrines (the nature of God, the nature of revelation, the nature of salvation, the relationship of suffering to God’s sovereignty, etc.).

Due to the numerous theological inaccuracies which the book contains, I urge readers to be very cautious and critical (in the sense of active interaction) if they choose to read it.

Below is an in-depth review of the book with which I would generally agree:

http://www.challies.com/media/The_Shack.pdf

Blogs:

• Tim Keller, “The Shack—Impressions
• Albert Mohler, “The Shack—The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment “
• Fred Sanders, “Making the Most of The Shack “

Reviews:

• Timothy Beal, “Theology for Everyone ,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 15, 2010), pp. B16-17. [subscription required]
• Katherine Jeffrey, “‘I Am Not Who You Think I Am’—Situating The Shack in a Christian Literary Landscape ” Books & Culture (January/February 2010), pp. 33-34.
• James B. DeYoung, “Book Review: The Shack by William Paul Young ” (PDF)

Book Reviews, Culture

I received the following questions from an e-mailer regarding the origin of Scripture and thought that an overview might be helpful to anyone who may occasionally read my blog.  This is a very concise summary of these issues and should only serve as a primer for the study of bibliology.  I am painting with very broad strokes here.

Here is a helpful site for further study of technical issues regarding the Scripture:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/theology/bibliology/

1. Why are the books that are in the Bible in it?
2. Why are some books not included?
3. Who decided all of this?
4. Why does the Catholic Bible have extra books?
5. Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into everything, did we find anything NEW with them?

Why are the books that are in the Bible in it?
The theological answer to this involves some degree of circular reasoning.  Why are the particular books which are found in the Bible included in the Scriptures?  Because they are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, correction, etc. (2 Timothy 3:16).  How do we know that these particular books are inspired by God?  Because they are in the Bible.

The historical answer (which is subject to the theological) is based upon the initial criteria for the canon (the word “canon” is derived from the Greek word meaning “measure” or “rule”) which were as follows (taken from a final exam that I wrote for a class on the history of doctrine):

“The criteria for inclusion of books within the canon were primarily four.  First, books must have had some manner of apostolic heritage.  In order to be considered, only those books which were attributed directly to an apostle, or a person closely associated with or mentored by an apostle were included.  Matthew was a disciple/apostle and thus his writings were included; Paul was an apostle and thus his writings were included; Luke was a close associate of Paul; James was the brother of Jesus and a bishop in the Jerusalem church; etc.   Second, working from the included base of the Old Testament since Christianity arose from the seedbed of Judaism, only those books which complemented and expounded upon the Old Testament shadows were considered.  If a book contradicted the Old Testament it was excluded from consideration.  Third, books must be universally recognized, not merely being useful in certain demographical or geographical contexts.  Finally, the gospels in particular must be centered upon the bloody and gory crucifixion of Christ Jesus.  Books which did not meet each of these criteria were therefore not included in the conversation, which really was a series of monologues during most of the early church period.

Why are some books not included?
Again, first reason is circular.  Theologically, some books were not included because they were not inspired.

Historically they were not included because they do not meet listed criteria above.  This was no conspiracy like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code would have us believe.  Rather, all of the “Gnostic gospels” (the “gospel” of Thomas, the “gospel” of Judas, etc.) clearly contradicted the very gospel which was proclaimed by all the apostles (and Galatians 1:6-9 speaks very candidly about the danger of promoting that which was/is contrary to that which was proclaimed by the apostles).  BTW, “gnosticism” was a sect which perverted the picture of Christ by introducing a number of dualisms.  They taught that the material world was evil while the immaterial or spiritual world was good.  Such a disdain for the physical world led to a denial of the incarnation and subsequent denial of the atonement.

Furthermore, these Gnostic texts were all written in the 2nd century whereas our Scriptures (New Testament) were all written in the 1st century.  The Gnostic gospels were therefore written a generation or two after the death of the last apostle (John) and thus we can confidently say that they were not authored by the supposed authors (Thomas and Judas were both dead well before either supposed “gospel” was written).  In addition, these text do not center on the cross of Christ (remember that the atonement is neglected because it was foolishness to the gnostic mind to conceive of a God incarnate suffering in the flesh) as most of them present Jesus as a spirit being who merely possessed a human body, but was not truly human and did not truly die for our sins.  Obviously, since this is an attack on the heart of the gospel, church fathers easily recognized that these books were not the product of men inspired by God.  (By the way, you can see John writing against early forms of Gnosticism in 1 John – showing that the apostles were clearly opposed to what was themes which were developing in parts of the church as perversions of Orthodoxy).

Who decided all of this?
There was rather general consensus throughout the early Church on most books of the Bible.  There was some debate as far as the authorship of Hebrews and a couple of other issues like that, but we have fairly consistent consensus.  No ecumenical council met specifically in order to decide the canon (until the Reformation – though various councils which were called for other purposes did comment on the issue of canonicity).  Rather, as the individual letters moved throughout the empire, more people accepted them as authentic.  We have to remember that each letter was written individually and therefore it is highly unlikely that anyone would have possessed each and every book of the Bible until well into the 2nd century.  Once again, this is no conspiracy, just the nature of writing in those days.  They didn’t have printing presses so the task was laborious, not to mention quite expensive.  Plus, the average person could not write and maybe had some elementary ability to read, but certainly not much.  It was very much an oral culture.  BTW, we have quotations and allusions to most if not all of the books of the Bible by church fathers by the early 3rd century.

Why does the Catholic Bible have extra books?
They have the exact same New Testament.  Nothing is different there.  The issue is the apocryphal books of the Old Testament.  The Roman Catholic Church includes those books which were written during the intertestamental period.  Early church fathers recognized that these books were “helpful” but not “inspired” and always included this distinction when listing them.  However, some Catholic doctrines (like purgatory) receive some level of support within the apocryphal books and therefore the Reformation-age Catholic church in particular officially declared the books to be in the canon in order to protect certain doctrines.

Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into everything, did we find anything NEW with them?
The Dead Sea Scrolls were a very important find for critical analysis of the text, but didn’t really offer anything novel.  Rather, before the discovery of the scrolls, our earliest authentic copies of the Old Testament were from the 9th century.  Some of the scrolls found at Qumran were from the 2nd century B.C.  Given that the text was almost exactly the same as our later copies, we can have great confidence in the scribal copying process of the past.  Therefore, the Dead Sea Scrolls are very important for biblical studies as a witness to our previously held beliefs regarding the validity of the extant texts.

Culture, History, Scripture