The Bible and Heaven – Part 5 – Eternity and the Minor Prophets.

I would like to say the minor prophets add anything to our discussion of the nature of heaven and eternity but they do not.  The same concepts keep coming around and around.

Sheol is the grave the place people go when they die.  It strongly stated by God himself in Hosea that he is the only one that con lift people out of Sheol.  Sheol is described much as it has been before as a place where the dead wait.

Heaven is the dwelling place of God and it is considered the place where God and his angels live some people might be brought up from Sheol and enter the heavenly realm but for the most part this is the dwelling, throne and place of God.

Looking at it is understandable why in the times of Christ the idea of an after life was very much questioned because there is very little in the Old Testament about an after life other than a few basic concepts.

Next: The Old Testament and Eternity

The Bible and the Sex Industry – Part 10 – Contrasting Virginity and Harlotry in the Minor Prophets

Some of the Minor Prophets do much of the same contrasts between virginity and harlotry when describing gods people and in fact one of them (Hosea) makes a central issue of it when dealing with God’s people.

Hosea’s wife (Gomer) is a harlot who herself is the product of prostitution.  To make his point God asks Hosea to take her as his wife as a symbol of his love for Israel.  Like Israel, Gomer is a prostitute spiritually speaking and is loved by her husband.  She joins his house and bears his children but then returns to harlotry.  God uses this marriage and Gomer’s harlotry as an example of what Israel has done to him.

What throws a monkey wrench into the machine is that God, despite this level of unfaithfulness, decides not to divorce his people but attempts one more time at calling them home.  His unfaithful wife does not stop his love for her.  Harlotry is then viewed by God as something that is not completely unredeemable as far as marriage and while the passages in Hosea are not flattering to prostitution, they don’t seem to indicate that  prostitution is so evil to stop love.

Next: The Sex Industry and the Old Testament

Life of Christ – Part 9 – Second Galilee Ministry(1) – Harvesting Wheat on the Sabbath

Text: Matthew 12:1-8

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Text: Mark 2:23-28

And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Text: Luke 6:1-5

Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him,how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?”And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Jesus heads back Galilee.  We also need to understand that the religious leaders in Jerusalem have decided to tail Jesus with probably delegations from the Pharisees, Sadducees and possibly the Herodians.  There is a simple plan here, follow Jesus and try to get something against him in something he does or says so they can accuse him to either discredit him or kill him.  With the crowds following Jesus you can bet they also might have secret people to do the same posing as normal folks.  One of the things they have decided is that every time Jesus even gets close to violating Sabbath laws they are going to accuse him of being a law-breaker.

The one textual note is the reference Jesus makes to David. Mark says it was the time of Abiathar the priest but the text of 1st Samuel 21:1 says Ahimelech was the priest involved in the story.  A lot of people make much of this as proof the Bible has errors in it.  Ahimelech is High priest at the time of the story starts.  Saul kills him in chapter 22 along with 85 other priests and Abiathar, one of Ahimelech’s sons escapes and tells David.  Here is the thing, once Ahimelech dies Abiathar is the high priest as his next son in line.  Technically both men are high priest that year.  In tell the story then one could say that either one was high priest and be right and in fact that is what Mark does when he writes “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”. Mark never actually says that it was Abiathar that gave David the showbread but only that it was during the time he was high priest which was true because there were two high priests that year and so either one could be referenced.

But lets play devil’s advocate for a moment and say the Mark has made a mistake.  What exactly does that do?  Critics say it undercuts the Bible as the inspired Word of God and makes a challenge that the Bible is not historically accurate.  The critics have gone too far here.  While this may be a blow to the verbal inspiration of Scripture doctrine, it is not a major one and there are other doctrines of inspiration other than verbal which even with this discrepancy still make the Bible inspired in some other way.

As for historical accuracy, the critics need to be reminded that all three witnesses of this even agree at every point except this.  While this may cause questions about Mark’s remembrance of what Jesus said and his memory about who was priest at the time of David, the fact that Jesus walked through a grain field, his disciples were eating it, the religious leaders accused him and his disciples of breaking the law and Jesus in response tells the story of David are all facts of the story that all the witness agree on.  In short this story is highly likely given the witnesses to be an accurate account of the main things that happened and some of the details.  The only detail that is a problem is the high priest discrepancy but everything else in all three texts agrees.

Another note, Matthew adds two other details.  1) That Jesus also pointed out that priests make sacrifice every Sabbath and are technically working at that time so would they not also be violating the sabbath laws in the temple.  2) He also adds that Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 at this point as well.  Once again Matthew is showing that he is trying to convince a Jewish audience by actually giving a three-fold argument based on the witness of Scripture.  This would have meant a lot to Jews who valued their Scriptures and the ‘two or three witness’ rule.

Next: The Man with the Withered Hand

Life of Christ – Part 4 – Christ’s Childhood(2) – The Escape into Egypt

Text: Matthew 2:13-18

Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.”

So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:

“A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more.”

As much as the visit of the Magi may have been one of those great up moments for Jesus’ family, that night doom sets in.  Joseph is given a dream by God where he is told to get up and flee to Egypt.  Herod is going to try to kill Jesus.  This is where Joseph being a spiritual and devote man helps.  He gets up and obeys God.  Egypt at the time would be a journey of several days.  The gift of gold from the Magi meant though the family had the means to make the trip.  Egypt is a puppet of Rome much like Israel is.  We need to remember that the whole Marc Antony and Cleopatra thing was still fairly recent history.  Rome needed Egypt’s grain and Egypt needed the stability of the Roman Empire.  The peace of Rome was on the place so the journey may have been rather uneventful other than the fear Herod might find them.

Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15 as prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus going to Egypt and returning and the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem.  The first is odd because the prophecy of Hosea is dealing with the history of Israel and how they have been unfaithful to God and the second is basically a one verse prophecy that just kind of shows up in Jeremiah.  Something could be said that Matthew does do a lot of quoting of Scriptures that Jesus fulfilled, but some of these fulfilments can seem both odd and creative.

Herod has an ego problem and the fact the Magi tricked him sets him into a rage.  In order to hedge his bets and kill the supposed Christ child he has to move to a more shotgun approach and kill all the baby boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who are two years or younger.  This does not correspond so much to the birth of Christ but the time the Magi said they first saw the star.

A lot of critics point of God being a kind of mean SOB to warn his Son’s family but not all the others.  I have already dealt with this issue in this post so I will not belabor my points again here.  I will add this though, Herod is about to meet God and face His justice.  No matter what evil men may do in their freewill, God has ways of balancing the scales.  It may have simply been important for Herod to think he got his man as it were.  In any case, it is more of a reflection on the evil of Herod than God being a jerk besides it is probably the last time Herod will do this kind of thing – ever.

Next: Return to Nazareth

Re-Thinking God: God is Just

Originally posted in Rabyd Theologian 2.0 on March 23rd, 2011.

Justice – the quality of being just, impartial and fair.

God’s justice comes into play because of the other two qualities of God’s character – love and holiness.  Justice balances the two factors of both – mercy (a product on his love) and righteousness (a product of his holiness).

When God looks at a person through love He stretches his hand of mercy, but His holiness demands righteous action and violation of the Law of God (sin) means that He must punish the sinner.  God’s justice is what balances the two and allows him to act in both simultaneously.

Probably the greatest thing I learned from my chronological journey through Scripture is that God wrestles with justice.  That He too, struggles with how to act so that action is both holy and loving.  This is greatly seen the best in Hosea where God, in conversation with himself, wrestles with what to do with his unfaithful wife Israel.  He on the one hand feels that he has every right to divorce her and throw her to the wolves (Holiness), but on the other hand He loves her and wants to extend his hand of mercy (Love).  It is this wrestling that God must do to achieve a just decision — he will punish her but then extend his hand of restoration to her afterwards.

What troubles most people is by God wrestling with these decisions, it makes him seem all to human.  I say it has nothing to do with with humanity or divinity, but is simply a matter of person hood and relationships.  It is simply necessary in the relationship God has with his creatures that he has created with the power of choice.  Because of this the God to Mankind relationship is a messy affair that means God must balance his holiness and love in the context of what is right for both.  It is not easy for anyone, even God to do this.  Even God struggles with what is ‘fair’.

Next: How God’s Will Relates to Man.

Marriage and the Bible – Part 29 – Hosea’s Marriages

Originally posted in Rabyd Theologian 2.0 on March 22nd, 2011

Now here is where marriage and God’s message to his people really get intertwined. I want you to put yourself in Hosea’s shoes for a minute. In today’s terms God is asking Hosea to go down to the red light district and find a prostitute who is herself a product of prostitution and then marry her. Why? So God can use Hosea’s marriage as an illustration of what God’s relationship is to his people. Hosea playing the role of God and Gomer playing the part of Israel. Hosea is further instructed to have children with this woman and each of them is given interesting names to illustrate the situation completely.

In chapter three, the situation gets even more interesting when Hosea is asked to enter into a second marriage with a woman who is loved by her husband and yet an adulteress herself.

Both marriages are symbolic of how a covenant relationship can go completely wrong. How faithfulness in marriage and the relationship God people have with Him is so very important. God loves his people but they play the harlot and commit adultery with other gods.

What follows is God yearning for Israel’s return much like Hosea will for his wife. Love that is unconditional is illustrated here because both God and Hosea have every reason to divorce their wives, but both refuse to do so. There is a powerful image of sadness, longing and love that refuses to look at the situation but transcends it.  Perhaps God is showing the longing a spouse should have for a ‘one-flesh’ relationship in their marriage.

Next: Malachi and Marriage Treachery

The Bible and Nakedness – Part 10 – Nakedness and the Rest of the Prophets

Originally posted in Rabyd Theologian 2.0 on November 21st, 2009

The next of the prophets to talk of nakedness is Hosea. Poor Hosea, God uses his life and marriage to illustrate the nature of God’s relationship to Israel — God tells him to marry a harlot who herself is the product of harlotry. Telling isn’t it.

The early part of chapter 2 also speaks of both nakedness and breasts in a sexual connotation — Israel need to stop playing the harlot after other gods. God uses the image of breasts to convey sex — remove her adulteries from between her breasts. Sorry I get the image of a foreign god laying on top of her. Not completely off the wall as most of pagan worship is filled with sexual rites. Because of this God says he will strip Israel naked and expose her to shame. Hosea 9:14 is a threat by God to dry up women’s breasts — in short remove their power to nurture their infants in response to Israel’s sin.

Amos 2 — God promises doom to Moab and as a part of that pronouncement he promises ultimate shame by saying that their warriors will be turned away naked — exposed to both ultimate disgrace and vulnerability.

Micah 1 — Micah talks about lamenting over Jerusalem and Samaria by walking naked and barefoot in chapter 1 (much like Isaiah), symbolic of how both countries have been made naked and vulnerable.

Nahum 3 — God promises to disgrace to Nineveh and uses nakedness as a way of illustrating how much He is going to expose them.

Habakkuk 2:15-16 — Avery telling story of lust for other people’s nakedness by God pronouncing judgement to those who willfully expose others to nakedness through debauchery. God promises that those that do such thing will themselves be exposed to nakedness.

Next: The Gospels and Acts

Changing God’s Mind.

Originally posted in Open Theism on March 29th, 2006.  The original comment that I am responding to was lost along with the name of the writer.  It however does still represent a standard objection to open theism.

I was going to post on this subject anyway but a comment I received sets it up nicely. One of the hallmarks of open theism is their belief that the passages about God changing his mind are indeed literal, so lets look at it here.  The comment was as follows and I quote:

Me. Well, I’ve been doing a little homework. If I understand the Open Theist position correctly, God appears to change His mind (or His plans–plan A, plan B, etc. to use your terms) based on the actions of people. Of course, I also believe that God will change (though it’s not really a change) His actions as a result of prayers of His people. I say this is not a change because God has revealed Himself to be a Prayer-Answerer and so would be acting in agreement with His nature. But, to get to the gist of it, Numbers 23:19 and I Sam. 15:29 both say that God does not lie or change His mind (ie. relent). And in Hebrews 6 it says it is impossible for God to lie, and by extension (based on the other two verses mentioned) it would seem to be impossible for God to change His mind, ie. moving on to plan B or whatever. Besides, God’s ways are not our ways.

Lets break it down.

Of course, I also believe that God will change (though it’s not really a change).

OK, which is it, does he actually change or not. Either he does or he doesn’t. No having it both ways.

His actions as a result of prayers of His people. I say this is not a change because God has revealed Himself to be a Prayer-Answerer and so would be acting in agreement with His nature.

But in order to answer prayer he must make decisions about those prayers – if he sees a situation and God has a plan but the prayer either changes his intention or hears the prayer and acts because of the prayer when he hadn’t intended to do so. In either case with this comment you are assuming that God interacts with prayer that implies change of mind. Prayer will be the subject of another post so I will leave it there for now. I want to get to the next part.

But, to get to the gist of it, Numbers 23:19 and I Sam. 15:29 both say that God does not lie or change His mind (ie. relent). And in Hebrews 6 it says it is impossible for God to lie, and by extension (based on the other two verses mentioned) it would seem to be impossible for God to change His mind

But the Scripture says he does change his mind. Your argument does not hold water because you are not considering all the Word on the matter. How about these:

· 2 Samuel 24:16

When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, “It is enough! Now relax your hand!” And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

· Psalm 106:45

And He remembered His covenant for their sake,And relented according to the greatness of His lovingkindness.

· Jonah 3:10

When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

· Exodus 32:14

So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

· Jeremiah 26:19

“Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves.”

· Amos 7:3

The LORD changed His mind about this. “It shall not be,” said the LORD.

· Amos 7:6

The LORD changed His mind about this. “This too shall not be,” said the Lord GOD.

OK. I would like to observe that there are seven verses that openly say God changed his mind. The conclusion – ‘God doesn’t change his mind’ is shown false. Either we have the Bible contradicting itself or there is another explanation. In either case it points out something – it is very rare to see God stating he does not change his mind but it is quite common to see him state he does. So the question is why does the classical theist side with the minority? This is not the best case against this argument — I am coming to that — but it is puzzling that classical theists cling to Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 (which I am going to show are not properly interpreted in a moment) but ignore many instances of God be declared or declaring himself that he has changed his mind. They explain them away but hold the two verses as if they are life preservers to their position — but they are not.

Numbers 23:19 – In context this is in a prophecy of Balaam (firstly a dubious source — hmm). If one reads on God points out that there is no reason to curse Jacob (Israel) because they have kept his covenant and in this verse God is saying he will keep his promise to Jacob, because they have kept their promise to him. He is not a man who will break his promise and be a liar nor will he change his mind because someone casts a curse on them, because when God makes a promise he keeps it. It is a specific in its context that Balaam cannot curse Israel because the Lord will not break his promise. It is not a universal statement about whether or not a God changes his mind at all but a clear statement that in this case he will not curse Israel. He is not like a man who would break his promise or change his mind about blessing his people, he is God and he will keep his promise to them.

1 Samuel 15:29 – in context this is also specific to the situation. King Saul disobeys God. God has enough and says that he is going to take the kingdom away from him. Here is what follows:

“I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice. 25″Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.” 26But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27As Samuel turned to go, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. 29″Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

Saul is trying to persuade God to give him back the kingdom. He asks for pardon, but he has already shown by his action that his heart’s only real desire is to get the kingdom back. He has already shown that he is willing to do anything to get what he wants. He acts desperately in an attempt to get what he wants – like he was dealing with a man trying to do the same thing. He is trusting to the persuasiveness of his words. God sees through this because he says he would give the kingdom to a neighbor who is better than he is. A king after his own heart is what God wants and Saul doesn’t fit anymore. Saul’s lack of a heart after God is apparent to God and no amount of manlike persuasion is going to get him to change his mind on this decision because he is not a man who can be persuaded this way. He is not going to change his mind just to stop Saul’s whining. Once again the statement is made not to make a universal statement about God in all situations but a specific one for this decision he has made in response to Saul’s attempts to get the anointing from God to be king back from God.

This points out the peril of taking things said to specific situations and making them into universal principles about God without looking at other Scriptures. It also shows that there is a peril to not considering the context of a verse and making universal statements about God as well.

‘God is not a man that he should change his mind’ but Hosea says the opposite in chapter 11; he states that because he is God and not a man he will show his people mercy. In Hosea, God announces very plainly through 10 chapters that he intends to destroy Israel for the fact she has played the harlot. He makes it very plain that he will do it an Israel will reap the whirlwind for their sin. In Hosea 11 though God reconsiders his decision and says this in verse: I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. Effectively, God is saying that because he is God and not a man he will change his mind. I find it very interesting that on the one hand the classical theist clings to one verse and ignores the other. They are trying to get universals out of statements made to specific situations. In one case (Saul) it is not in God’s character to respond to ungodly persuasion in the other it is in his character to be merciful to the one he loves.

God’s ways are indeed not our ways – we would change our mind and give Saul another chance because we can’t see his heart and given the kind of treachery Israel pulled we would bring vengeance and not mercy. His character is definitely not like ours and it affects his action. He ways not being like ours also does not imply we cannot understand them, it simply means they are different. He can and does explain them in terms we do understand, but his ways are bigger and holier than we would act but understandable because God makes them plain to us. Including the simple statement — ‘God changed his mind’.