Response to James Smiley Bishop Part 1

Recently, a brother who has done much for apologetics and the kingdom has aired some concerns about the doctrine of inerrancy. Aside from being a "fundamentalist" doctrine, he finds that Christ makes no historically credible affirmation of the Old Testament. Any appeals to Christ are also circular because it assumes Biblical inerrancy. I will argue that there are good, historical reasons to think that our Lord did in fact affirm inerrancy, and that these affirmations are reliable. I will address his objections as well.

"For instance, 2 Tim 3:16-17 describes the Bible has “God-breathed,” and therefore as useful for instruction and rebuke. This would be a key argument for the classical inerrantist’s view of scripture. The problem is, however, that Tim’s author does not provide any indication of what he means by “God-breathed.” For instance, could it be that God breathed out the worlds of scripture? Or is it that God breathes into the text of scripture, in the sense that the Spirit of God brings life into the dead letters. Either is plausible but, as Stark argues, “the latter seems to be much more consistent with the hermeneutics of the period, and with Paul’s use of scripture… On the other hand, even if 2 Tim 3:16 does mean that scripture is breathed out by God, in the sense that it is divinely uttered, that does not necessarily entail that it is without error” (5). To say that scripture is “God-breathed” could very well mean that God breathes new life and new meaning into even obscure texts that are outdated, irrelevant, and perhaps even wrong."James' argument seems to be that the phrase is textually ambiguous, but even that it's more plausible to believe that the author meant that God breathed into Scripture. BB Warfield and Daniel Wallace, however, differ. Wallace did his entire Master's work on a point of Greek grammar that factors into translating this text, and comes away with this translation: As applied to 2 Tim 3:16, this principle indicates that a predicate θεόπνευστος is certainly a valid—and perhaps the only—option. Hence, we translate the passage, “All/every scripture isinspired and profitable. . .”37 In the least, our study suggests that the REB’s rendering “Every inspired scripture has its use” should probably be relegated (in our present state of knowledge) to the margin. 

the text says that every scripture is God-breathed. The Greek is as follows: πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸςἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

The adjectives θεόπνευστος ὠφέλιμος are both modifying "Scripture", as they are both in the nominative case. See Wallace's article for more, which I'll link at the bottom. The text is saying that each Scripture is God-breathed. Bishop's explanation that "even if it means it's breathed out by God" doesn't necessitate non-error doesn't work; he says "it very well could mean that God breathes new life into the text." But note what has just happened. To explain why God breathing out Scripture doesn't necessitate non-error, he has switched out the out with an into. In other words, he's made it look like God breathing out Scripture is the same as God breathing into Scripture. I don't think that's true. The breath of God is that which proceeds from Him, and that which proceeds from Him is truth. This is confirmed, contrary to Stark, by the exegetical context. Paul says that it's profitable for instruction and correction. That couldn't be the case if the Scripture itself needed correcting. 

As for the case of Jesus' robe, authors have pointed out that different Greek words could cover an overlapping series of colors. (See: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=300) The words for "scarlet" and "purple" are different, but depending on the community it could cover the same domain of colors. Additionally, perhaps John was emphasizing a theological theme of kingly majesty, and that was his authorial intent. Both seem plausible to me. 

His treatment of Matthew 5:17-18 strikes me as wildly implausible. For example, he says that "the inerrantist's reasoning is circular because it assumes the reliability of the text and then uses it". Well, no it doesn't. There are good reasons to think that Matthew's source material derives from Matthew's logia, or an aramiac source Matthew left behind. Namely, Papias' testimony to the authorship of the Gospels leads us there: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (Fragments of Papias, ad. 140)

I think Papias was in closer proximity to the events than we are, and would have been in contact with people who had sat under the teaching of the eyewitnesses. Given Richard Bauckham's argument, there's a Petrine inclusio in the text as well. Matthew 5-7 is also written in a style of easy to memorize parables and short, mneumonic phrases. These are key characteristics of rabbinic teaching preserved by disciples of that rabbi--see Kenneth Bailey's work: http://nagasawafamily.org/article-Kenneth-Bailey-Oral-Tradition-&-Synoptic-Gospels.pdf

So contrary to Bishop, the reasoning here isn't circular. There are good reasons to think these teachings are historically preserved snippets from disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. Bishop's other objection is that the theological motivation of Matthew is different than the theological motivation of Luke. Matthew aims to say that the laws of Moses are all valid. This seems to me a confused reading of the text. If Matthew's intent really was to preserve the laws of Moses as valid for all times, why would he say stuff like this:

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32 ESV) "“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."
(Matthew 5:33-37 ESV) "He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9 ESV)

Our Lord is clearly abrogating some of the laws of Moses. Matthew's intent, then, wasn't to say that the Mosiac law was binding for all time everywhere. Rather, it was fulfilled in Jesus. As Doug Moo points out, "fulfillment" language is Matthew is often purpose language. Jesus consummates the purposes for which the law was given. Matthew 5:17 offers a corrective, however. Just because the purpose of the Mosiac law has been fulfilled doesn't mean Jesus as come to abolish it. The Greek verb for abolish expresses opposition. The idea is that Jesus didn't come to oppose its authority. Interestingly, in verse 18, Jesus uses tautos rather than ekeinos; these (near) commandments rather than those. He's making the point that because He didn't oppose God's authority to command our lives then, God still has the authority to command our lives now--now expressed in Jesus. In other words, since Jesus consummates the purpose of the law, it's application changes. The "passing away" essentially means "becomes invalid"--it's another way of saying what Jesus just said about "abolishing" it. He hasn't come to oppose it. Yet since He fulfills it rather than opposing it, He's not opposing God's authority to command our lives (as that was what the Jews believed the Torah expressed). Therefore, we must obey this same authority as it's expressed in Jesus.

Thomas Schriener and Douglas Moo argue similarly in these articles: http://www.balboa-software.com/nt2/Moo_Law%26Gospel_319-376.pdf http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/ETS-Law.pdf Essentially, they argue that since the law is fulfilled in Christ, Jesus is teaching that it ought to be obeyed as expressed in His Person. The law has been fulfilled, and still must be obeyed in the least of its commands in light of its fulfillment by Christ. I personally think it's more plausible to say that the passage is about opposing the authority of God; namely, since Jesus has fulfilled the law, don't anyone think this makes the law invalid or God's authority expressed as the Torah invalid. In any case, it amounts to roughly the same thing: we are to obey God's authority as given to us in Jesus. Now briefly, I will respond to Bishop's comments about Nineveh. When Jesus says "the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and will rise up to condemn this generation", do we really think that Jesus meant "an imaginary people repented at the preaching of an imaginary preacher and this imaginary people will rise up to condemn this historical generation?" It'd be like saying "hey America! The men of Gondor will rise up to condemn this generation." And if we say "Jesus was just accommodating", I have several issues. For one, Jesus was never hesitant to call out false cultural views (Pharisees anyone?). Two, why even use the example and claim that a generation who repented at Jonah's preaching will rise on the final day to condemn the Pharisees...when that would be literally impossible? That seems fantastically improbable.

I will lay out the historical evidence for Jesus' view on the Scriptures in the next couple of days. This is just preliminary stuff.

God and the Possibility of Evil part 2

I wanted to offer a brief alternative way of understanding the question: why did God create people He knew would freely rebel against Him, and thus would end up in hell. This analogy may help.

Analogy
Suppose Little Timmy is a dirty rotten cheater on tests. Well, a teacher catches wind of this and decides to offer a surprise pop quiz. She gives him the pop quiz knowing Timmy will cheat, and likely fail the class. However, she (somehow) knows as a result that a bunch of good will come--other students won't cheat, perhaps Timmy had evil plans, etc--as a result. Wouldn't it be absurd for Timmy to claim, "wait, you gave me this pop quiz knowing I would cheat! It's as though you cheated!! You're a jerk!" No, Timmy wasn't forced to cheat. And even though the teacher gave the thing she knew would enable his evil, she's still justified--because she had a good reason to bring about the evil.

Relevant Similarities 
Now of course, one could reply, "wait a second. You're talking about a teacher giving a pop quiz--I'm talking about God giving something that damns someone to an eternal hell. Not the same." But before one answers this way, I'd ask them to consider the analogy more closely for the similarities that make a difference as to how we consider this question. We want to explain why God isn't sadistic in doing this, and why He may be justified. The teacher isn't a sadist because she's not giving this pop quiz solely for the purpose of kicking Timmy out. She might give the quiz with internal mourning and pain because she deeply cares for Timmy-but she also knows the deeper good it will bring about. In other words, the good that Timmy's potential expulsion/failure brings about (perhaps the protection of fellow students, the prevention of further evils, whatever) so outweighs Timmy's cheating that it justifies the teacher bringing about Timmy's cheating. It justifies the teacher's act of giving Timmy the very thing he'd use to do something immoral. The reason the teacher is exonerated from sadism is because she had a good reason to bring about Timmy's evil--and she's exonerated from the actual cheating itself because Timmy wasn't moved by anyone other than himself to cheat.

Suppose one says "but hell is too horrific to possibly bring about a good that could make it worth it!" To that, we must ask: how do you know? In the infinite wisdom of God, He might see a good that is brought about by the condemnation of those in hell so deep and so valuable that it justifies Him giving them the thing (free will) He knows will condemn them to hell. And just as Timmy could not complain, "you gave me this test knowing that I would use it to cheat! You ought to be held responsible for my cheating too!" those in hell could not complain "you gave me the will knowing I would abuse it--you ought to be held accountable for our abuse!" They are fully accountable for the abuse. They cannot blame God for their misuse of a good, namely the will, even though God foreknew their misuse (just as Timmy cannot blame the teacher for his misuse of a good, although his misuse was foreknown). And just as the consequence of Timmy's expulsion may be justified by the good it brings about, the consequence of hell may be justified by a supreme good that God alone sees right now.

This brings us to our knees and asks for us to trust God's infinite wisdom. This isn't irrational; it's humble.

God and the Possibility of Evil

I had an atheist argue to me recently that God, by virtue of simply enabling evil, is responsible for it. Why? God could have designed the laws of nature such that all the inertia in a knife when plunged into someone would leave the moment it touched skin. He could stop sustaining the causal effects of a bullet when it is fired. Given that He sustains the world, God is effectively causing evil and thus is culpable. Is this a good argument given the reality of evil? I argue no.

Standard of Culpability
First of all, it's important to note that the objection presupposes a standard of culpability. That is to say that the objection-er is judging God by a standard of right and wrong he has set up in his mind. However, where does he get this standard? If it is from his own moral judgments and not an objective standard, then he lapses into moral relativism. Why? If you were to judge my preferences of ice cream simply as "wrong", you'd be a punk butt. And if you weren't joking, I would look at you and say "BYE FELICIA!" You can't dismiss my preference of ice cream as inferior or "wrong" to yours because there is no objective standard of "right" when it comes to ice cream preference. In the absence of an objective standard for ice cream, value judgments for ice cream are no more than preferences. Similarly, in the absence of an objective standard for morality, such judgments are simply preferences; they bear no more weight than your or my preference of ice cream. Note: I'm not saying "atheists cannot know right and wrong without believing in God!" The argument often gets misrepresented like that; that's not what us Christians are saying. We are saying in the absence of God (so if God doesn't exist), moral judgments, such as culpability judgments, are impossible.

Now if this dude is getting his standard from an objective source, we have to ask if such a source could exist on atheism. I argue: no. On atheism, if you take a God's-eye view of the world, you see a bunch of little people with their own ideas of right and wrong, many of which cohere, but many of which directly contradict each other. Does anyone have an "inferior" moral sense? Well, without an objective standard, no--moral senses are just like ice cream preferences.

See, on the Christian view, God is Himself the source and origin of all good. His character is the moral bar; that which conforms to His character is good, and that which doesn't is not. Goodness is simply "God-ness" if that makes sense. So to frame the discussion, we have to remember that God's character, and His will which is an overflow of that character, defines right.

Answering the Objection
So is God creating the possibility of evil akin to a man who leaves a loaded gun in a room, in spite of knowing how it will be used? I don't think so. The loaded gun occurs within an existing framework of physical laws; and suppose these laws themselves serve a moral purpose. That is, suppose God set up the world so as to render the effects of our actions efficacious. Well why would He do a thing like that? Simply put: we're not God's pets. God's design is for us to be responsible moral agents, who make efficacious choices (like Himself) and must live with the consequences. The consequences of evil actions serve to reflect and communicate the evil of the action; they are parables. God does no wrong to create such a world for two reasons:

1.) A standard of culpability doesn't exist outside of God's being. And if exposing evil in all its ugliness is what God does, and the consequences of moral evils do that, then He does no wrong in setting up the world as He has. The loaded gun exists within that moral framework of the created order, so any creature/Creator comparison doesn't work. Since the obligation "don't allow the possibility of evil!" applies in a created order to created things, one cannot take this obligation and apply it to the Creator. It's an obligation that created things have to each other. Moreover, we know that allowing the consequences of moral evils isn't always wrong. Suppose a kid in a math class sees Little Timmy (that obnoxious punk that keeps coming up on this blog...) cheating on a test, but repeatedly doing so. He has confronted him before, but Lil Timmy is as stubborn as Donald Trump's presidential run. So on a certain test day, when he knows the teacher will be especially watchful, he doesn't let Timmy know about the teacher's watchfulness and in fact allows him to be caught. Then, and only then, does Timmy get the gravity of his actions. Has Timmy's friend done anything morally impermissible? I'd say no; the fault is on Timmy, and if Timmy's friend had told Timmy it would have been mercy...or perhaps even immoral, as Timmy would simply go on cheating. It strikes me that it's possible that allowing the consequences of moral evils actually aren't always wrong; and given that God Himself is the standard of right and wrong, who is to say that His desire for us to be responsible moral agents who live with the consequences of our actions is itself evil?

2.) Yet, there's a second reason. The analogy is a false one. God allowing for the possibility of evil, knowing and ordaining it's existence, is much more akin to this: suppose a man sees a starving person on the street, and decides to give him a bowl of soup. He gives him this bowl somehow with the foreknowledge that the starving man will spit in it and chuck it back in his face. He knows that as a result, a string of incomparable goods will be triggered through time. Has he done any wrong? I'd argue no. Why is this more analogous?

First of all, if we think of why any moral action is wrong, I'd say because it fails to respect dignity or value. Spitting on a person devalues that person; it says to that person, "you are worth being spat on and receiving an expression of disdain" whereas they're value as persons demands that they be respected. Sin against the Creator is the same sort of thing. All sin is ultimately a devaluing of His worth. For if we are images of God, and thus we have the responsibility to reflect God into the world, when we sin we are saying "God looks sort of like this ugly thing". We misrepresent Him in our actions, and do not ascribe Him the honor due to Him. In the end, all sin is ultimately and only a devaluing of God's worth. Why?

God gives us free will as a gift, and ordains moral consequences so that we use it responsibly. As mentioned above, I don't think these consequences are wrong, as they are parables. Moreover, we take the gift that God has given us, and we chuck it back in his face. In the analogy, other people are at stake with a loaded gun in the room; multiple people could be hurt. Yet according to the Christian narrative, creation is a communication of the deity. All creation are "beams of the Luminary"; everything exists to make Him known and tell us of Him. Humans, therefore, are designed to communicate God's worth. Humans are (supposed to be) mini communications of God; mini parables of His character. Wrongness then is a matter of distorting to the Creator to one another, and dishonoring the Creator by not ascribing the honor due those that image Him, and the creation that reflects Him. In fact, this is exactly what the Bible teaches. In Psalm 51, after King David murders a man and sleeps with and marries his wife, he repents and claims "against God only have I sinned" in verse 4. But wait! Didn't he sin against Uriah? Didn't he sin against Bathsheba? Well, yes. But this is ultimately only sin against God, for both Uriah and Bathsheba are image bearers. They are communications; so the crime is in devaluing God by distorting what He is like in the action of murder, and trashing Uriah and Bathsheba's rights as those appointed to reflect God. David did sin against Bathsheba and Uriah; yet they do not have some sort of independent value from God. Sin against them is sin against the One who's image they bear. It is sin because to dishonor humans is to dishonor the God in whose image humans are made.

Thus, in the end, if all crime is crime against God only, who are we to say that God has no right to allow His own worth to be disrespected? Isn't that His prerogative? And rather than rail at Him for even allowing us to do evil (when we are the ones who took the "bowl of soup" and chucked it at his face!), ought we take the gift He has given us and point others to the only One who can satisfy their souls?

In Christ,
Sean Luke

What's the Difference Between a pleasure-seeking man and animal?

Pleasure Seekers: What’s the Difference between man and animals?

            Confession: I’m a pleasure seeker. From those of you who know me, I can already see you snickering and saying, “tell me something I don’t know lawlz :))))))” But forealz. Fundamental to my pursuit of God is His all-conquering-beauty. That is, I pursue God because He is lovely. I take up the Lord Jesus Christ on his offer of satisfaction and eternal joy (John 6). I say heartily with Paul that “if the dead are not raised, let us eat drink and be merry…why am I in danger if the dead are not raised?” (1 Corinthians 15). With the apostle, I say “I suffer the loss of all things, that I might gain Christ.” (Philippians 3) In other words, my Christian life is done on the basis of the gain of eternal joy in God (see my previous post); or better yet, the eternal joy of gaining Christ forever. A beloved professor of mine asked me earlier this year in response to my pleasure seeking: if the pursuit of pleasure drives both man and animal, then what’s the significant difference? How does having the image of God actually distinguish us from the animals?
            I have argued earlier that the image of God is the role that God gives us to image Him into the world (I’ll post a link on this at the bottom for those of y’all interested). Then, to answer this question, I want to ask: how does God’s pursuit of His own pleasure look different than the non-image bearing animals’ pursuit of their pleasure?
God’s pursuit of His pleasure
Psalm 135:6 says that the Lord does whatever pleases Him. In Isaiah 46:10, the Lord declares “my counsel shall stand. I will accomplish all my pleasure.” “Our God is in the heavens, and He does whatever He pleases.” (Psalm 115:3) “God works all things in accord with the council of His will.” (Ephesians 1:11-and “thelo”, the Greek verb for “will”, is also translated “want”) God’s pursuit of pleasure can be none other than the pursuit of pleasure in Himself. He preserves Israel for His name’s sake (Isaiah 48:9-10). He works all things to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1). All things are from Him, through Him, and to Him. God rescued Israel that His name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Romans 9:17). Indeed, if God is the kind of God who is the source and origin of all good, and is committed to the highest good, then this is how we would expect Him to be. For if God’s Being is the source and origin of all good, and thus the paradigm of goodness, God Himself would be Perfect Goodness. And if God desires to exalt and display Perfect Goodness in all of His actions, then He must exalt and display Himself.
The Trinitarian Dance
The Son of God, the Logos and Lord of all, is called “the radiance of God’s glory” (Hebrews 1:3). The glory of God shines bright in the face of Jesus Christ-in fact, the glory of Christ is the glory of God (2 Corinthians 4). Hence, the Father’s delight in the Son is His delight in the full luminescence of His glory. His delight in the Spirit is His delight in the outworking of His eternal moral perfections into the hearts of His people and humanity at large. Thus, if God is defined by His passion for His glory, and His delight in all that He is expressed in Father, Spirit, Son, then human beings must image God by exemplifying that same passion. For we are designed to show forth the character of God; and God’s God-centeredness is at the very heart of God’s character. We are called to participate in the Trinitarian dance of God’s delight in Himself by the Spirit, through the Son, offering worship and praise forever to the Father. We are to see the beauty of the Divine glory, shared fully by Father, Spirit, Son, communicated eternally through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So then, we arrive at our first difference: the pleasure seeking of man ought to be a pursuit of passion for the exaltation of God. Animals display God’s character in some measure through their enjoyment of His creation, and through being vessels by which God displays the majesty of His mind and the tenderness of His provision. Animals are not designed to proclaim God’s excellences in the same way we are. We communicate God’s wise stewardship over creation. We are vice regents, as it were, carrying out the faithful love and provision of God. Animals display God’s tender care in some of their traits, and yet also in the way they are cared for by God and man, and by God through man. Whereas animals clearly cannot worship God by vocally declaring how wonderful He is, mankind can and ought to. So there is a difference between the pleasure seeking in terms of orientation. That is to say, the pleasure of man is oriented around communicate God’s care and stewardship, whereas the pleasure of animals is largely instinct based, and are oriented around enjoying creation without explicit praise of God (though they serve as praises to God in other ways).

Setting the Stage
Yet there is another difference I want to touch on. It’s not merely that the orientation of the pleasures in man and animal are different. Even the way in which we delight in things differs significantly. When we use the terms “animalistic”, society tends to think in terms of instinct. Animal pleasure is largely instinct driven-a desire to satisfy some need or momentary physical “itch” as it were. Instinct-driven pleasure often focuses on a psychological state of well-being, and not the object from which that psychological state derives itself. That is, instinct driven-pleasure focuses on a feeling in and of itself. Or put in other terms, it focuses on a feeling that does not drive one out of oneself and into another, but rather is internal and inward focused. This is important to keep in mind as we consider two types of pleasures.

Two kinds of pleasures
There seem to me to be two kinds of pleasures. When someone gives me a shoulder-massage, the pleasure is the kind of feeling I get from it. In other words, it is a feeling that is the proper end of the massage. Thus, the first kind of pleasure is a pursuit of a psychological state of delight in and of itself. Yet, we all know that there is another kind of joy. When I look at Niagara Falls, or the Grand Canyon, or a starry sky, or when I sit out on Blanchard lawn at Wheaton College and absorb the coolness of the wind, feel the heat of the sun’s warmth, cherish the music of the birds’ chorus, there emerges a very different kind of delight. The delight I have in a starry night sky isn’t simply delight I get from the sky; rather, it is delight in the sky. It’s not merely a good feeling in and of itself, like the feeling of scratching an itch. It’s a type of feeling oriented around an object.
            If I were to look at the night sky, feel in my heart a rising joy in the glory hanging over me—and then proceed to contemplate the joy itself, that would kill the joy in me. As CS Lewis once pointed out, this is true of many emotions. Take hope. If I were to find hope in the promise of God’s coming kingdom on earth as in heaven, and then proceed to take my thoughts off the coming of the kingdom and onto the state of consciousness I am in when I hope in God, that kills the hope. The content of the hope is the coming of the kingdom. Hence, my pursuit of hope is my pursuit of right thinking and feeling about God’s kingdom. It’s the difference between merely feeling, and feeling about something. Yet, it cannot be said that I look at the night sky, with joy being a necessary by-product. I do not look at the sky out of some sense of obligation, even if I knew that the obligation would be pleasurable. No, I look at the night sky because it is lovely. I look at it because it is beautiful—joy is the motivation. Yet the pursuit of this kind of pleasure leads me out of myself and into the night sky. It is a delight of fixing all of my thoughts. The essence of this pleasure lies in the beholding of others.
            This latter pleasure, I believe, is a very human kind of pleasure. What we delight in indeed distinguishes us from the animals, but also how we delight in what we delight in distinguishes us from the animals. But don’t dogs display this kind of delight? Some animals try to comfort their owners, right? Yes, but it’s interesting to me how those dogs tend to be domesticated. You won’t find wolves trying to comfort humans, unless those wolves have been around humans for a while. Well, what about certain ape-like species? Even then, it’s interesting to me how we consider those features of the apes to be humanlike. In other words, there seems to be an intuition present in man that human pleasure seeking ought to consist in seeking the pleasure of being outward focused. 

Conclusion
            You will never see an animal taking time to admire the stars, or bask in the glory of the Grand Canyon and proceed to contemplate its own smallness. Humans do this all the time, however. Human pleasure seeking (as in, true human pleasure seeking as embodied in Jesus Christ) is not just a pursuit of a psychological state in and of itself, but rather of a psychological state that is wholly fixed on the beauty of displaying and beholding God. Human pleasure seeking is not simply feeling, but rather feeling about. It is the kind of pleasure seeking we do when we drive to the Grand Canyon to behold its splendor; only, true humanity recognizes that the majesty of beholding the happiness of others is far greater than the majesty of beholding the Grand Canyon. So to be sure, we ought to seek pleasure. We ought to seek right feelings. But the people of God delight by delighting in. Their joy is the joy of beholding the happiness of others in God, and the joy of beholding God displayed, exalted, and communicated. To seek my pleasure in a Christ-like way, and therefore a human way, is to intertwine my joy with the joy of others, such that the essence of my feelings derive its flavor from delighting in others. And since most profound joy is the joy of beholding the beauties of God, a Christian like me who cares for the joy of others seeks to communicate and proclaim God in all I do. In typical Wheaton style, I'll end with a CS Lewis quote:

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

The root of love as happiness in God

A Meditation on the Pursuit of God: The root of faith and love

            Is joy a necessary side effect of love, or is it both the root of love and the fruit of love? I will argue the latter. First, definitions are necessary. I will be using the terms "happiness" and "joy" interchangeably-"happiness", as dictionary.com defines the word "happy", refers to "feeling or showing pleasure or contentment". When one asks "are you happy with your life", they aren't asking "does your life make you giddy?" When one asks "are you happy with your choice of college", they are asking of whether you are satisfied with it. True happiness refers to the deep, lasting satisfaction of the soul. It is a lasting pleasure of the soul in its state of affairs.
            If one were to say, "Go eat an apple so that your hunger will be satisfied", the purpose clause, indicated by the phrase "so that", is the cause or the foundation of the former clause. The pursuit of satisfying hunger causes the eating of the apple. A cause of an action, as it is used here, is the foundation from which the action springs. It is the reason for the action-the telos. It gives rise to the action. Hunger gives rise to the action of eating an apple. No one would ever say "Go eat an apple so that your hunger will be satisfied" if "satisfying your hunger" was not the purpose-and therefore the reason-for which one ate the apple. No one would ever say that the satisfaction of hunger at that point is a side effect of eating the apple.
            A side effect, however, as an effect that happens as a result of a certain action, but isn't the intended effect (but not necessarily a bad effect either). It's not the consummation of the pursuit, but a welcome effect nevertheless. For example, one might "go eat an apple so that their hunger will be satisfied", and yet while on the way to eat the apple they meet a friend and converse. The meeting of the friend was not the consummation of the pursuit-the pursuit's consummation lies in the satisfaction of hunger. It was a side effect-a welcome effect that was peripheral. In fact, this is the common usage of the term "side effect". When one talks about a "side effect" of a certain treatment, they are talking about an effect other than the one that was pursued. I will argue that satisfaction/pleasure in God is not peripheral, but essential to the Christian life. It is not a side effect, but the wellspring of love and the fruit of love to God.
            When Jesus says, in response to the Jewish people who ask Jesus to give them the bread of life always, He says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) In response to their question to "give us this bread", He says "come to me and you won't hunger". The Jewish people, while thinking of physical wants, are still asking the question from a heart of desire. Their pursuit of satisfaction is motivating their question, and Jesus says in response to their pursuit of satisfaction that He will satisfy them. He is encouraging-motivating-their belief by an appeal to desire.
            Or one might note the chain of logic in John 14 and 15. In John 14:21, Jesus states that "whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me." In John 15:10-11, Jesus states, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full." Note the chain of logic:
Loving God (14:21) --> Keeping commandments (modus tolens: If you love God, you will keep the commandments) --> abiding in His love (by keeping the commandments, you abide in the Father's love) that (hina clause-expresses the purpose of the previous clause, which is why it is translated "that") Christ's joy might be in His people, in their joy might be full. If loving God yields obedience, and we obey to abide in God's love, and if Jesus is telling us all this SO THAT our joy might be full, then He is motivating abiding in God's love, and therefore obedience to God, and therefore loving God, by having the fullness of His joy! The pursuit of joy-everlasting pleasure in God per Psalm 16:11-in God is what causes our love-otherwise why would Jesus say that He spoke these things (i.e abiding in God's love via keeping the commandments from loving God) so that our joy would be full? Joy is the consummation of love, not a side effect. The pursuit of joy is what Jesus is using to cause love.
            This is explicit in 1 Peter 2:2: "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation --if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." The tasting of the Lord precedes growing up into salvation (i.e sanctification). We ought to have tasted that He is good before we long for the pure spiritual milk. This is also explicit in Psalm 30:
"Sing praises to the Lord, O you his saints
and give thanks to his holy name
For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime.
Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning." (Psalm 30:4-5)

I note the connecting "for". We sing praises because His anger is but for a moment, but His favor with His saints is for our lives. We may cry, but joy comes with the morning. The "for" indicates that this is the basis of our praise. We sing praise to you-FOR your anger is but for a moment. The second half of verse 5 reiterates the first half: your anger is but for a moment, which leads to weeping. Yet your favor is for a lifetime is parallel to "joy comes with the morning". We sing praises to God and we give you thanks because His anger is temporary, yet His favor is enduring. Our weeping may come with the night, but your joy comes with the morning. In Psalm 27:4, David says, "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire (or meditate) in his temple.". Why doesn't David say, "one thing I have asked of the Lord: to love him?" Why does David say that he only asks one thing of the Lord, when clearly he has made plenty of other requests? It's because all of his other requests boil down to this one request. This is the chief thing David asks. His love for the Lord consists in David's longing to gaze upon His beauty.
            Love for God, then, is this: the overflow of delight in God which yields longing for more of Him, and expresses itself in radical acts of obedience towards God and neighbor. As Jesus argues, joy in God is the consummation of love for God. Paul says that we must "believe in our hearts" that God raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus identifies the heart as the place where our treasure is. That means that our Treasure must be the Lordship of Jesus Christ, implied by the Resurrection and manifest in the confession we make from our lips (Romans 10:9).
            This then, is the test of a true child of God: do we have new affections for Him? God, in Jeremiah 2:13, boils down the multitude of the sins of the nation to two sins: "one, they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and two, they have hewn out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water." God is claiming that the very reason for their sin is the fact that they are pursuing the satisfaction of their thirsts in something other than the fountain of living water. It is no surprise then that Jesus, who urges belief on the basis of the satisfaction of desire, identifies belief as the origin from which living water flows from our hearts (John 3:37).
            In Matthew 13:44, Jesus says that "the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." Jesus says that the kingdom of God is like treasure, and then he talks about a man who in his joy sells all that he has to buy this kingdom. Giving all that we have for the kingdom springs from joy, not from a sense of joyless duty or commitment, with joy sprinkled on top. Joy is the foundation of our commitment to the kingdom.
            In Matthew 15:18, Jesus remarks that from the heart proceeds our speech, and our sinful thoughts and emotions and actions. In Matthew 6:21, He identified the heart as the location of our treasure. If sin proceeds from the heart, and our treasure is where our heart is, then sin proceeds from treasuring the wrong thing. The antidote, as I've argued, is treasuring the right thing-God Himself! In fact, in the same chapter, Jesus quotes Isaiah to rebuke the Pharisees in verse 8: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." External obedience without the heart being wholly God's is worthless to Him. Even Jesus' most oft-quoted command of self denial is motivated by gain: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done." (Matthew 16:24-28)
            But with all this emphasis on joy, might one say that I'm placing the emphasis in the wrong place? Jesus emphasized love, and I'm over here emphasizing joy, right? Wrong. In fact, to even make that accusation distorts what Jesus Himself meant by the term "love", and thus (potentially damningly) misleads God's people as to Jesus' own commands. As a Protestant, I believe in tota Scriptura-the whole witness of Scripture. Hence, isolating Jesus' command and ignoring everything else is a hermeneutic that leads to heresy. Jesus does in fact identify love to God as the most important command. Yet when we ask, "how must we love God", or "what does love for God look like or entail", we must listen to the entire witness of Scripture. As I summarized above, the Biblical evidence tells us that love for God originates in the affections, and is consummated in joy. Love is the overflow of delight in God, yielding desire for more of Him and radical acts of sacrifice. When David says, "one thing I have asked of the Lord-to gaze upon His beauty and inquire in His temple", he is expressing the very essence of what it means to love God. Loving God consists in delighting in God's radiant perfections and expressing that delight-otherwise David's statement that this is the "one thing" he asks of the Lord would be sinful, as love is the greatest command in the Torah as well and ought to be what we ask for. In other words, joy in God and love for God ought never to be pitted against each other as antithetical, nor the former as a mere side effect of the latter. Or when Jesus says that we ought to abide in God's love (aka keep His commandments-which is the overflow of loving God) that our joy may be full, He is saying that the purpose (i.e the reason and therefore cause) of our abiding (and therefore loving) is that the joy of Christ may be in us. Delight in the radiant perfections of God is the wellspring of love, and love for God yields more pleasure in His perfection and expresses itself through joyful obedience and love towards neighbor.
           
            

Joshua 11:20 - God hardens hearts

"[20] For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses."
(Joshua 11:20 ESV)

A friend brought this text up to me as somewhat troubling. At first glance, it is. It seems as though YHWH is hardening hearts in order to destroy them. That is, God is making them worthy of His judgment, and enacting that judgment. In fact, I think this is exactly what God is doing. The challenge then is this: how is this just? How can we affirm that God does this, and yet simultaneously "does not tempt" according to James 1? I will pose a Biblical solution here-yet be aware that this solution does not solve all the mysteries of God's divine determination of all things. Rather, the solution will suffice to show that God can bring about the damnable state of a people in order to judge them without impugning His character. First, we need to take a look at Romans 2 and Romans 1.

Romans 2

[14] For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16 ESV)

Note that verse 15 states that the work of the law (i.e the standards to which God holds humanity) is written on our hearts. For those who don't know the Gospel, they will be condemned when their conscience testifies against them. If we consider that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23), this means that any sustaining activity on God's part after this is pure grace. Grace is unmerited, undeserved favor. God has no obligation to give it to us. Hence, even the law God impresses on our hearts He does so by what theologians call common grace (the grace God gives to all people everywhere). If God impresses His law on us by grace, that means that God is free to revoke that grace at any time; He has no obligation to anyone to act graciously at all times. With this in mind, how does God harden hearts? 

Romans 1

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

(Romans 1:24-27 ESV)

Here, Paul says that God gives people over to sinful corruption since they refused to worship the Creator. God gave them over to sinful desires present in their hearts (i.e the lusts of their hearts). Hence, God hardens hearts by giving us over to our own inherent sinfulness (and to see the truth that we are in fact inherently sinful, completely unable to please God, see Romans 8:1-9). Thus, God doesn't have to create sinful desires in us; He simply has to give us over to our own free will. Since we suck so much, we will not choose anything but sin. God, then, gives people over to their sinfulness at certain moments-and that's how He hardens hearts. He doesn't tempt people or move people to do evil against their will; rather, He simply gives people over to the natural flow of their hearts. God revokes the common grace of conscience and ceases to restrain the evil on our hearts. He isn't unjust to do this since He doesn't owe us grace in the first place. Humans therefore cannot make demands on how God ought to restrain our hearts; He ought to crush us in His holy wrath. Thus, God can give people over to sin at certain times, therein hardening their hearts, and yet still be completely just.

The Emotional Objection

Something in us still doesn't sit right with this, however. Logically, it makes perfect sense. God hasn't actually done anything to contradict His non-tempting character. I am convinced that the reason people abhor this is God's underlying motivation. According to Romans 9, God hardens some so as to display the glory of His justice. He demonstrates the worth of His justice. Against the backdrop of the vessels of wrath He prepares for destruction, His mercy shines that much brighter as God's people realize, "THAT is what we deserved." God's ultimate aim in creation is to glorify Himself. He demonstrates the depths of His holiness by displaying the depths to which He abhors sin, and opposes evil. He gives people over to evil so as to display the worth of His goodness as the One who opposes all evil, and so as to display His mercy and love in that He spares His people of the same wrath, and in fact takes their judgment on Himself. We, as the sinful human beings we are, desire to make God our butler. We dare object, "God! How dare you glorify yourself?! You're supposed to be OUR butler, pampering US! WE are supposed to be the center of your universe, not you!" I think if we honestly analyze the impulse behind our discomfort, we will see it in light of how petty it is. And we will see the glory of God's God-centeredness even more.

To help you along in seeing this, I made a video onwhy God's God-centeredness is actually ridiculously loving years ago, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo

Soli Deo Gloria! 

They Knew God and Did Not Acknowledge Him

This is the first time I've written in over four months. Wow! I've started college, and I'm loving it. I intend to write again because there are a bunch of questions I'm working through (and I love working through them).

I'm going to revisit a question I've often seen in regards to what Paul says in Romans 1. A friend brought up the fact that he couldn't quite agree with what Paul seems to say-my exegesis seemed to sidestep what Paul says. This is actually an objection, as I've looked more into it, I've seen in many Christian and non-Christian circles. Paul seems to say that mankind knows, from looking at creation, "wow there is a God, He is good, He is the sovereign Lord and we ought to bow the knee to Him." This seems outright false though. Cultures throughout the ages, while they might know that God exists, do not know that they ought to repent of their sins or even exalt God above creation. So did Paul get it wrong? Well, let's take a look at the text. 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23 ESV)

What is Paul saying here? "What can be known about God"-right there, Paul mentions a limitation. He acknowledges that God cannot be known exhaustively in creation-there are only certain things that can be known about God. Let's continue"what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." So God has shown what can be known about Himself to mankind in creation. What exactly has He shown? "His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature". The word for "divine nature" is θειότης, which is not the word used to describe the essence of God in Colossians 2:9 (in Him the fullness of deity dwells bodily). In other words, Paul's not saying that people know all that God is in Romans 1:20, whereas in Colossians 2:9 He is saying that all that God is dwells bodily in Jesus Christ. Rather, He's referring to the attributes of God. The antecedent of the "it" is the power of God and the attributes of God manifest in His bringing forth the stars, the sea, the moon, the sunsets, in bringing forth lovers, friends, families, and in all good things. 

"For although they knew God" = "although they knew the power and attributes of God manifest in creation-His eternal power and divine nature (=attributes)", they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him = they did not praise the God or thank the God to whom those attributes pointed. In other words, in seeing the beauty and power of God manifest in creation, they did not seek the God manifest in those things. For that reason they are without excuse. 

So the objection then is this: well, why should anyone have known that they ought to have sought God after seeing His attributes manifest in creation? Why is that something they can be held accountable for? 

An analogy may be instructive. Suppose ever since you were little, you had a single mother who slaved away for you year after year. Suppose she gave you many good gifts-food, laughter, movies-she got you involved in clubs where you made the best friends of your life. And suppose you never thank her for it at all. Now suppose you never thanked her for it or showed an ounce of gratitude. If a friend of yours noticed your attitude towards your mother, and called you out on it, and you responded "well how should I have known that I ought to have thanked her for it? No one ever told me that!" Wouldn't you want to slap your theoretical self in the face? If your friend responded, "no one should have needed to tell you that-it should have been clear. The only thing that prevented you from seeing your moral obligation to thank her is your own hardness of heart", wouldn't we all applaud said friend? 

There's an axiom or a principle we can draw from this. There are certain actions which are connected to a moral obligation necessarily. In other words, certain actions demand certain moral responses by nature of the action, even if one is not informed of that moral response. We ought to know to thank the mother mentioned above even if one does not tell us explicitly that we ought to thank her. In God's case, even if one is not explicitly told "you ought to thank God for seeing His beauty manifest in the sunset", one ought to know that-the only reason we don't know that is the same reason that the boy above doesn't know to thank His mother: we are so self-absorbed and/or so in love with the Creator's gifts and services that we forget the Creator Himself. 

Now the counter to this might be, "well okay, but in your example the mother's existence is really really plain. God's existence isn't." That's the very thing Paul's disputing. If one sat down and thought about creation, I think God's existence would be really evident. In fact, the majority of cultures throughout the ages have looked at creation and inferred the existence of Deity. Secular cultures are a modern phenomena. 

In any case, we could modify the analogy to perhaps make it fit. Suppose the mother cooks for you, cleans for you, gives you many good gifts, puts you into clubs-but you almost completely forget her existence. I mean, the thought crosses your mind every now and then, but you rarely give it a second or third or fourth thought. You are so enamored with what she does for you that you forget her, and you forget that she's the one who gave you all those good gifts.

Now before someone respond "but who would do that?!", let me make the point. This is, at the very very least, a possible situation. If the son of this mother responds, "well no one told me to spend more time with her, or to thank her, or to pursue her and look more deeply into what makes mother...well, mother", wouldn't that reflect poorly on the character of the son? Wouldn't that expose him to be immoral, self-centered-sinful? I think it would. If someone calls the boy out on his self-centeredness, and he responds "well I didn't know I was being so selfish and self-centered. You can't hold me accountable for being selfish when I didn't know I was being selfish!" Wouldn't we say "that's outright absurdity"? 

Yes, we would. I believe the Apostle is making a similar point. He's saying that we see the beauty of a sunset, the wonder of love, and it shows forth a creator. We know God in that we know the eternal power and divine attributes of God manifest in the creation. Paul seems to be saying that in knowing these attributes, it ought to be plain that we have an obligation to thank the One behind it all. No one ought to have to tell us to thank God for His beauty manifest in creation. It ought to be plain to acknowledge the Creator-yet how do we respond to God's revelation of Himself in nature? The rest of Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 answer that. We make idols based off the creation to worship; we refuse to submit to the moral law God writes on our hearts, since we have all done immoral things. Suppose one beholds the glory of the sunset and doesn't give a second thought to the One who makes that sunset happen. Can that man be held accountable? I'd say yes-because he, like the thankless boy above, is so enamored with the gifts that he forgets the Giver. In knowing the beauties of creation, he ought to know to thank God. The only reason he doesn't is because he's enamored with the gifts of the Giver. We are selfish idolaters outside of Christ to the core-moreso than we know. That shows forth our selfishness and thanklessness. That's the basis by which God is just to declare us "guilty" in His courtroom-our depravity exposes itself in our forgetfulness. 

Does Paul make the claim that, in our worship of the gifts from the Giver, we forget the Giver Himself? Yes-read the rest of Romans 1. Hence, Paul isn't making an illogical point. His point actually squares with the moral reality-or perhaps, the Moral Reality-in whom we live and move and have our being.