The moral right to bear arms

https://www.academia.edu/8570334/The_Moral_Right_to_Keep_and_Bear_Firearms

HT: Paul Manata

Who am I in Rom 7?

i) Rom 7 is a well-known crux. What is Paul talking about? Is this autobiographical? If so, is Paul referring to his pre-Christian situation or his Christian situation? If the former, is he considering that from his pre-Christian viewpoint or his Christian viewpoint? 

Some think it's about Paul coming-of-age. Conversely, some scholars think it's not about Paul. Some think it's about Gen 3. Before and after the Fall. Some think it's about Israel. Before and after she received the law. Some think it's about humanity in general. Some combine two or more perspectives, viz. Israel recapitulates Adam. 

ii) One consideration is the question of how this section functions in Paul's overall argument. In Romans, Paul discusses the law in relation to Jews and Gentiles alike. So which group does he have in view here? Jews, gentiles, or both? And that can be broken down further. Christian gentiles or pagan gentiles? Jewish Christians or non-Jewish Christians? 

iii) This is further complicated by how we think Paul understands the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant. Is there still a sense in which Christian are "under the law," or is that defunct? 

iv) Apropos (iii), there's the additional question of how sinfulness relates to lawlessness. Even if you say Christians are no longer under the law, Christians remain sinful. Even if we don't define sinners as lawbreakers, there's still a tension between sin and sanctification. Paul makes that abundantly clear in his letters. 

Keep in mind, too, that some things which were unlawful in the Mosaic code would still be sinful for Christians. They aren't sinful because they're unlawful; rather, they're unlawful because they're sinful. It's still sinful for Christians to commit theft, adultery, or murder (to name a few). Swapping categories doesn't affect the underlying issue, for the inability to keep the law goes back to our fallen condition.

v) We also have "confessional" literature in the OT, viz. Ezra 9, Neh 9, Dan 9, Ps 32, Ps 51. The tension or struggle we see in Rom 7 has OT counterparts. That's not confined to the Mosaic law. That's due to our fallen condition. That's something the regenerate experience, whether Christians or OT saints. 

vi) There are some problems with the Adamic interpretation:

a) If Paul is referring to the Fall, why doesn't he just say so–like did in Rom 5? Why be so oblique? Likewise, why does he quote from the Decalogue rather than Gen 2:17 if the latter is really in view? 

b) Gen 3 isn't about the temptation and deception of Adam, but Eve. By contrast, Rom 5 is about Adam rather than Eve. Moreover, Paul elsewhere denies that Adam was deceived (1 Tim 2:14). 

That doesn't necessarily rule out an allusion to Gen 3. But it can't be the exclusive or primary referent.

I don't think the coming-of-age interpretation has much going for it. To begin with, we have no evidence that bar Mitzvah was a 1C rite of passage. More to the point, kids hit the age of reason (or discretion) well before they hit adolescence. And Jewish kids were always obliged to honor their parents. 

Casting the issue in terms of law, which–in context–has reference to the Mosaic law, renders it unlikely that Paul is talking about humanity in general. 

vii) My own best guess is that Paul is using the rhetorical "I" to personify different ways of experiencing the law. I don't think he singles out a particular experience. Rather, he's using that literary device to generalized about different groups in relation to the law.

I also think there's probably an autobiographical element to his personification. He's a representative of Judaism and Christianity alike. He's been on both sides of the law–as a Pharisee, and then a Christian. I expect his personal experience had a suggestive influence in how he cast Rom 7. But I don't think it's reducible to his personal experience. The comparison is more generic. A mirror. How it looks reflects the looker. But there are commonalities. 

Prophetic events

One of the issues in the current debate over "Christotelism" is whether grammatico-historical exegesis rules out typology. Many scholars claim that apostolic exegesis violates grammatico-historical exegesis inasmuch as NT authors don't understand OT texts or events in the same way OT authors understood them. They are superimposing a different meaning onto the original. Supplanting the original sense. 

There is, however, considerable evidence that OT writers understood some OT persons, places, and events typologically. This isn't just a matter of how NT authors understand the OT, but how OT authors understand the OT. A typological interpretation of the OT is not unique to NT writers. In the OT itself, we already have typological motifs, viz. new Eden, new Exile, new Exodus, new David. This views certain events as paradigmatic events with subsequent counterparts. 

Far from violating grammatico-historical exegesis, it is consistent with the grammatico-historical method to make allowance for how OT authors understood OT history. Indeed, it would contradict the grammatico-historical method if NT commentators failed to take their cue from how OT authors understood OT history. 

Of course, one reason many scholars reject typology is because they operate with a secular outlook. They don't believe in a God who prearranges history so that OT persons, places, and events have this symbolic, forward-leaning significance. That's why they regard typological interpretation as fanciful. Their underlying objection is metaphysical rather than hermeneutical. They deny the teleological nature of OT history. They don't think persons, places, or events can be prophetic. 

Messianic psalms

i) The current kerfuffle regarding the reorganization of the OT dept. at WTS has reignited debate over the sense in which the OT "points" to Jesus. Take the so-called messianic psalms. Ps 22 is traditionally classified as a messianic psalm, but Ps 23 is not. Is just a subset of the 150 psalms messianic. If so, what criterion distinguishes messianic psalms from non-messianic psalms? Or is there a sense in which the whole Psalter is messianic? 

And, of course, this question extends to the OT generally. Does the OT contain messianic types and prophecies? Or is the entire OT messianic? If so, how so?

ii) From a Christian standpoint, we can mount a pretty simple and direct argument that Ps 23 is about Jesus. If Jesus is God, and God is a shepherd, then Jesus is David's divine shepherd. 

iii) The sense in which the whole OT is messianic is not that every sentence, person, place, or event is a cipher for Jesus. Rather, it turns on the overall function or purpose of the OT. If the primary purpose of the OT is to document man's hopeless condition, and his desperate need for salvation, then that necessity points to a Savior. In that functional or teleological sense, the whole OT is messianic. That's how the OT is fulfilled. 

iv) You also have scholars like Alec Motyer, Desi Alexander, and John Sailhamer who mount the argument from prophecy, not based so much on individual oracles, but messianic motifs. An evolving expectation. Or certain categories, viz. the new Adam, new David, divine warrior, promised seed, suffering servant. 

v) Now let's revisit (i). I suspect the reason that only some of the psalms are traditionally classified as messianic presumes the relation between the messianic prophecy and the argument from prophecy. The argument from prophecy is predicated on the premise that "the prophets foretold events whose occurrence could not have been humanly foreseen" (C. S. Evans).

Therein lies its evidential value. A prediction whose fulfillment could not be humanly foreseen or humanly arranged. This supplies independent evidence for the claim. Separable from prior belief in Jesus. 

Ps 22 is traditionally classified as messianic because it seems to be predictive. It's hard to read without seeing how uncannily it corresponds to the Crucifixion. The specificity is arresting. Of course, some people challenge that, but my immediate point is not to defend it but to state the rationale.

By contrast, Ps 23 doesn't seem to be predictive or evidential. If you already believe that Jesus is Yahweh, then you can infer that this is about Jesus. But by itself, the Ps 23 doesn't give you any independent reason to believe it points to Jesus. It's not a messianic in that sense. It might be messianic, but not predictive–as defined by the argument from prophecy. 

Should we classify messianic psalms as messianic prophecies? If so, then it's harder to classify the entire Psalter as messianic. Perhaps, though, that classification system is unduly influenced by the argument from prophecy–where the fulfillment has autonomous evidentiary value. Something you can appreciate apart from what you already believe about Jesus. 

The argument from prophecy is biblical, and important to Christian apologetics. But should it control how we classify OT messianism? 

An OT and NT bibliography

Check out Steve's OT and NT bibliography.

Is Christotelism code language for secularism?

Peter Enns has a new book out. Here's a review that's all the more damning because it's a sympathetic review from a fellow liberal:

However, critics will likely remain dissatisfied with the radical nature of Enns’ proposal. And in key respects it is radical. While Enns is certainly committed to the historical nature of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, he sets aside the question of history for vast tracts of Israel’s story, including the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), Moses, the Exodus, the giving of the Law, the occupation of Canaan, and so on. 

What is more, while Enns spends more than two hundred pages discussing scripture, one is hard pressed to find a clear statement of Enns’ own doctrine of inspiration. Instead, one finds statements that will strike many critics as vague and understated. For example, he observes that the Bible is “the main way for Christians today to learn about God, the go-to sourcebook for spiritual comfort, guidance, and insight.” (3) This certainly is true. The question is why. What is it about this text that makes it unique? Later in the book Enns states: “The Bible carries the thoughts and meditations of ancient pilgrims and, I believe, according to God’s purpose, has guided, comforted, and informed Christians for as long as there have been Christians.” (234, emphasis added) This is a good statement and it is surely correct. But it is also inadequate for a doctrine of inspiration since Augustine’s Confessions would fit this description equally well. Once again we’re left wondering, what is it about the Bible that makes it unique? Just how does this incarnation metaphor function vis-à-vis scriptural inspiration and authority? 

I also see Enns being vulnerable to the consistency charge. Enns lays out his operative principle when discussing the extraordinary nature of the stories of Genesis and Exodus:

“If we read these sorts of episodes outside of the Bible, from another ancient culture, we wouldn’t blink an eye. We’d know right away we were dealing with the kinds of stories people wrote long ago and far away, not things that happened, and certainly nothing to invest too much of ourselves in.” (4)

Based on that observation, Enns thinks we ought to be consistent and conclude that these biblical stories of deep history are best understood as a type of myth that helped form an ancient culture. Fair enough, but then one might reply that the ancient world also has many miracle claims, healers, teachers and messianic pretenders. So why accept the Jesus claims whilst discounting all the others? 

The third and final concern comes not from the conservatives who fear Enns is on a slippery slope to heresy, but rather from those who might wonder why he hasn’t gone further yet. This brings me back to his claim that the tribal warrior conception of God was an “adequate understanding of God for [the Israelites] in their time, but not for all time”. As I noted above, one might legitimately wonder in what sense it could ever be adequate to understand God as a bloody and capricious “Megatron”. And if it can’t, then why not just toss the texts rather than attempt to retain them with a vague incarnational metaphor? 

http://randalrauser.com/2014/09/the-bible-tells-me-so-a-review/

Harmonizing Gen 1-2

To some extent it seems to me that Currid's explanation is an answer to a pseudoproblem:

http://michaeljkruger.com/does-the-bible-ever-get-it-wrong-facing-scriptures-difficult-passages-5-john-currid/

I appreciate Currid outflanking Halton on Hebrew grammar. That said, I think Currid should challenge Halton's tacit assumptions. 

i) To begin with, Gen 1-2 could only be dischronologous assuming they both cover the same ground. Yet near the end of his reply, Currid notes, in one fleeting sentence, that

It is true that the two chapters of Genesis view the creation event from two different angles or perspectives. Genesis 1 paints the creation of the cosmos in a sequential, broad stroke, whereas Genesis 2:4-25 presents an elaboration of the sixth day and focuses primarily on the creation of mankind. 

But if, unlike Gen 1, Gen 2 isn't narrating the creation of fauna and flora in general, but only fauna and flora specific to the garden, then I fail to see how there's even a prima facie dischronology between the two accounts. Only if they cover the same ground would a different sequence generate a chronological discrepancy.

ii) Moreover, suppose, for the sake of argument, that they are dischronologous? So what? How does that falsify inerrancy? It would only falsify inerrancy on the assumption that the narrator meant to report events in chronological sequence or else that he was supposed to report events in chronological sequence. 

Take the Synoptic Gospels. Inerrantists grant that the Gospel writers sometimes rearrange the original order of events. They may group some sayings or events logically rather than chronologically. But that isn't false. Rather, they can be true in different respects. A sequence can be true with respect to time or true with respect to topic. A thematic arrangement relates material thematically rather than chronologically. But that's true, too, as long as they do, indeed, share a common theme.

So we need to distinguish between chronological time and narrative time. Inerrancy allows for both. 

Halton operates with a simplistic criterion of inerrancy. The way he frames the issue is flawed from the outset. 

Is this a warning signal to inerrantists?

The fundamental problem with books like this is that they fly in the face of what seems obvious to everyone else who doesn’t already hold the a priori belief that everything the Bible says must be true, just because the Bible says it. To paraphrase something Nick Trakakis wrote in another context, “Defenses of genocidal behavior by the OT god turn a blind eye to what seem clear and obvious to everyone else — that such behavior makes a mockery out of what any person would consider morally justifiable behavior.”[1] 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/09/26/books-like-this-should-be-a-warning-signal-to-inerrantists/

i) I'm happy to concede that we defend things we think are true which we wouldn't defend if we didn't think they were true. I don't regard that as a damning admission.

ii) Since Bible writers clearly viewed this behavior as morally justifiable, to say it "makes a mockery out of what any person would consider morally justifiable behavior" preemptively excludes anyone who disagrees with Jeff. Nice circular logic. "Obvious to everyone else" is code language for "anyone who happens to share Jeff's sentiments." 

iii) As I've explained elsewhere, the commands aren't "genocidal." Jeff is simply parroting what others say rather than thinking for himself.

iv) Then there's the standing irony of atheists who ride around on their moral high horse. But Jeff doesn't attempt to show how atheism can justify moral realism. 

And even if atheism could justify moral realism, that falls went short of showing how ephemeral, fortuitous organizations of matter (i.e. humans) have rights. 

The fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature

"The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil" by Camille Paglia.

There be giants in them thar hills

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-3/JETS_50-3_509-516_Hays.pdf

Lex Rex

This spring, Peter Enns labored to use Rom 13 as a wedge tactic in the inerrancy debate:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/04/the-apostle-pauls-clear-inerrant-teaching-on-government-and-why-we-dont-need-to-follow-it/

I'd like to make a few brief observations:

i) Inerrancy makes allowance for the fact that Paul is describing an ideal. This is the proper role of gov't. This is how gov't ought to function. 

It would, however, be naive to assume that Paul was describing reality, without further ado. After all, Caligula desecrated the temple in Jerusalem. So did Pompey, before him. And a Roman magistrate authorized the execution of the Messiah.

Likewise, Paul was a student of the OT. He believed the OT. Yet the OT views some gov't officials as so corrupt that they must be deposed. You even have a pious high priest engineer a coup d'etat (2 Kgs 11). 

ii) As Samuel Rutherford pointed out, in Lex Rex:

2. The powers (Rom. xiii. 1) that be, are ordained of God, as their author and efficient; but kings commanding unjust things, and killing the innocent, in these acts, are but men, and sinful men; and the power by which they do these acts, a sinful and an usurped power, and so far they are not powers ordained of God, according to his revealed will, which must rule us. Now the authority and official power, in abstracto, is ordained of God, as the text saith, and other Scriptures do evidence. And this politicians do clear, while they distinguish betwixt jus personæ, and jus coronæ, the power of the person, and the power of the crown and royal office. They must then be two different things. 

http://www.constitution.org/sr/q29.htm

iii) Surely it's not a coincidence that Paul is writing to Christians who live in the capital of the Roman Empire. They must be model citizens. They must set an example. For Roman officials are watching them. Roman authorities will judge the Christian movement in general by the conduct of Roman Christians. 

iv) Even if there was another side to Paul's view of the Roman state, we'd hardly expect him to disclose that in a letter to Christians in Rome. What if the letter was intercepted? What if Roman officials got their hands on a copy of the letter? If it contained seditious material, consider the political repercussions, both for Paul and his recipients?

This doesn't mean Paul is dissembling in Rom 13. There is, however, a difference between saying what you don't believe and saying less than you believe. A difference between saying what you don't believe and not saying what you do believe. Rom 13 is true as far as it goes. An ideal. But this is not the occasion for Paul to spell out caveats which Roman authorities might view as treasonous or revolutionary.  

v) Finally, it's not as if mid-1C Christians were in a position to overthrow the Roman state even if that was desirable. So you learn to adapt. God, in his providential wisdom, had put Christians in that situation for the time being. 

The restrainer

I'm this post I'm going to discuss the identity of the restrainer in 2 Thes 2:6-7. At the bottom of the post I will handicap a number of interpretations I reject. But I don't want to wade through all the competing interpretations before discussing my own proposal

1) There are two extremes we need to avoid when considering endtime prophecy. One is to become too confident and committed to a very specific identification. Endtime prophecy is a snare for cocksure Christians. Don't quit your job or sell your house. Don't pour your life savings into an underground, survivalist bunker in the backwoods to hunker down for the reign of the Antichrist. 

But the opposite danger, which is sometimes an overreaction to millenarian speculation, is to avoid speculation altogether. Many amils accept a degree of futurism. They aren't preterists. Yet their futurism tends to be vague and hypothetical.

For instance, I think Beale wrote a magnificent commentary on Revelation, and I also like his commentary on Thessalonians. Beale is masterful at tracing literary allusions. Documenting subtextual allusions. Sleuthing background material.

But when it comes to the follow-up question–what is this future oracle about? What type of future scenario does it correspond to?–he doesn't take the next step. 

Even though he believes some of these prophecies await a future fulfillment, he confines himself to the text. He has an exclusively textual focus. He never gets outside of the text to ask what the future referent will resemble. 

Obviously we should begin with the text. But if the text refers to something outside itself, then we should make a conscientious effort to correlate endtime prophecies with real-world referents.

I'm not suggesting we can pinpoint the fulfillment. But it's good to explore what kinds of ways it might play out. Complement intertextuality with extratextual events. 

Otherwise, it's an awful lot like treating future prophecy as if it was self-referential fiction, viz. Perelandra. It begins and ends within the world of the text. That self-enclosed story. 

2) The identity of the restrainer in 2 Thes isn't something we can construe in isolation. How we answer that question is bound up with how we construe the identity of the Antichrist, or the time and place of fulfillment. These are interlocking answers, for the restrainer and the Antichrist are roughly synchronized. Likewise, their respective careers must be coordinated with a particular place and period. So we must have consistent interpretations of the players and the stage. 

This isn't necessarily an attempt to pinpoint their identity. Indeed, I think that can be a fool's errand. Instead, I'm considering plausible profiles for the restrainer and the Antichrist. Not singling out a particular individual or timeframe, but the kind of individual who fits the profile. 

Likewise, if this prophecy lies in the future, then we should take into account what the future might look like. Had the Antichrist come in the 5C AD, or the 13C AD, the background details would be different. But that's no longer a live option.

3) One of the best interpretations views the restrainer as the Archangel Michael (e.g. Beale, Marshall, Nicholl, Shogren).  This identification has a number of things in its favor. Paul's depiction of the Antichrist alludes to Daniel (as well as Ezekiel). Given that Danielic background, it makes sense if the restrainer has a Danielic counterpart as well (Dan 10:13,20-21). 

This identification has other advantages. An angel can restrain another angel. An angel can be God's agent. By the same token, God can remove the angel after he's served his purpose. Since both heavenly and fallen angels are immortal, this would explain the longevity of the restraint, reaching back to Paul's time, but still in force 2000 years later and counting. 

So the angelic interpretation may well be right. At the same time it has some limitations:

i) Dan 11:36 is prophetic in a way that Dan 10 is not. At best, Dan 10 would set a precedent. 

We need to guard against reducing prophecy to a literary construct. That runs the risk of making prophecy a fiction, modeled on literary allusions. Truth turns on whether the background material is prophetic (or typological) in its own right. 

ii) Dan 10 has a different dynamic. In Dan 10, Michael sidelines a fallen angel. But if the restrainer is Michael, then Michael is sidelined to make way for the Antichrist, who's the agent of a fallen angel. So the relation is nearly the opposite of Dan 10.

4) I'd like to consider one other interpretation. This is useful in part because it's good to be on the alert for different possibilities. If you expect the enemy to come in one direction, he may come from behind to catch you offguard. So look around. It's prudent to prepare for different eventualities.  

i) What are different ways in which evil men are temporarily restrained? At one level, there can be external impediments. But there can also be psychological impediments.

For instance, some professing Christians commit apostasy, yet they keep that to themselves, or lead a double life, because they have a devout wife or mother, and they wish to spare their loved one's feelings. Or because they don't wish to disappoint their pious loved one. They value their esteem. 

If, however, the wife or mother dies, then they are free to express themselves. They no longer feel the need to conceal their true identity. Their pious wife or mother was a restraining influence on them.

For that matter, some professing Christians become apostates because they lost a loved one. They blame God for failing to protect their loved one. So long as their pious loved one was alive, that restrained them from committing apostasy or coming out of the closet. 

ii) Let's take one or two illustrations, which don't necessarily involve apostasy, but do involve restraint. Henri de Navarre assumed the French throne. His mother (Jeanne d'Albret) was a pious Protestant, but as a condition of his ascension to the throne, he had to renounce the Protestant faith and convert to Catholicism. That was a crippling blow to the Protestant movement in France. Yet Henri had a very lenient policy towards French Protestants. He promulgated the Edict of Nantes. That was probably in deference to his mother. Had his mother been someone like Catherine de Medici, I doubt he'd show the same restraint.

Mikhail Gorbachev had a pious Russian Orthodox mother. Although he himself is an atheist, perhaps his mother had a moderating influence which made him less ruthless than Lenin, Stalin, Putin, or Brezhnev. 

iii) Apostates are some of the most virulent opponents of the Christian faith. They take Christianity very personally. Having lost their faith, they attack their former faith to rationalize their loss of faith. So it wouldn't be surprising if the Antichrist will be an apostate.

iv) In an earlier post I speculated that the Antichrist might be a sorcerer. In that connection, I'd note that some professing Christians lose their faith in connection with the occult. That can be a catalyst or hardening factor. Michael Sudduth seems to be one example. 

And Aleister Crowley is another. Crowley was raised in the Plymouth Brethren. At the time a very conservative Protestant denomination. But for whatever reason, he lost his faith. Homosexual inclination may have been a precipitating factor. He became steeped in the occult. And he actually viewed himself as the Antichrist. He saw himself as the Beast of Revelation. Ironically, his upbringing in a Millenarian denomination exposed him to endtime prophecy and seized his imagination. 

But he didn't make the cut. He wasn't Satan's anointed. Must have been a terribly letdown! 

iv) I'm just considering profiles for the restrainer and the Antichrist. These are correlative. 

Commentators typically assume that the restrainer is identifiable. After all, there's a sense in which you can't identify the restrainer with someone you've never heard of. So you sift through a list of the usual suspects. Pick a candidate from someone or something in the public domain.

But what if the restrainer is somebody few people have ever heard of in advance of the fact? Some individuals only become well-known in association with another well-known figures. If Bess Truman or Mamie Eisenhower hadn't married to famous men, no one would remember them. It's possible that the restrainer is a private individual who only becomes identifiable after the Antichrist rises to power. 

5) Finally, let's run through some alternative identifications:

i) Some scholars think the verb (katecho) doesn't mean "restrain" or "hold back," but "possess" or "hold sway." Up to a point, that's an appealing interpretation, although it's been challenged on linguistic grounds. That the Antichrist is a demoniac certainly fits the profile. That's the source of his power. 

But over and above the linguistic objections, even if that works for v6, it's hard to square that with v7. Why is the demotion of Satan a prerequisite for the promotion of the Antichrist? Why would Satan initially restrain his agent? Why must Satan be restrained for his agent to take power? Don't they rise and fall together? 

Likewise, vv6-7 involve a contrast, which makes more sense if the distinction is between the presence and absence of restraint, rather than the presence or absence of possession. If the Antichrist is only free to come into his own after the katecho is removed, then that suggests the katecho was holding him back. 

ii) Some scholars think it refers to the Roman state and Roman emperor. One advantage of that interpretation is that it accounts for Paul's distinction between neuter and masculine participles. But there are problems with that interpretation:

a) Perhaps Paul's grammatical distinction is merely a stylistic variation. Moreover, grammatical genre is an arbitrary convention, not to be confused with the actual gender (if any) of the referents. The neuter form may emphasize a particular quality of the restrainer. 

b) How can Rome be both the agent of restraint and the agent that removes the restraint? How does Rome remove itself? The emperor wasn't independent of the state or vice versa. 

c) Likewise, the Antichrist is an opponent of God, not an opponent of Rome. A religious rebel, not a political rebel. 

d) Given Caligula's abortive plot to desecrate the temple in Jerusalem, thereby reprising the role of Antiochus, it's hard to believe Paul would view the Roman state as an obstacle to the Antichrist. Likewise, Pompey actually desecrated the temple. 

e) Finally, the fall of the Roman Empire didn't usher in the reign of the Antichrist. 

iii) Warfield thought it referred to the Jewish regime. As long as Judaism was a religio licita, Christianity could shield itself from official persecution by sheltering under Judaism, as just one more Jewish sect. Yet there are basic problems with that identification:

a) Jews instigated Roman authorities to persecute Christians.   

b) After the First Jewish Revolt (67-70), Christian association with Judaism would be politically hazardous to Christians. 

c) The Antichrist didn't rise to power after the destruction of the Jewish regime–whether we date that to the First Jewish Revolt or the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. 

iv) Some interpreters think it refers to God. 

a) But it's quite incongruous to suggest that God is sidelined. By whom? 

b) Moreover, as Paul goes onto to discuss, God continues to be very active in this situation (vv9-11).

John 20:29 And Michael Shermer

There's a small handful of Biblical passages that are often cited by those who want to portray Christianity as anti-intellectual. Even some professing Christians will cite a passage like John 20:29 as an apologetic against apologetics. I've often commented on how badly such passages have to be taken out of context in order to abuse them for anti-intellectual purposes.

What I want to do here is note how the recent Michael Shermer story illustrates what John 20:29 actually seems to be referring to. If somebody like Michael Shermer were to believe in the paranormal after having a paranormal experience, what would be wrong with that? Would I fault him for wanting evidence for the paranormal? For not taking a blind leap in the dark? For citing his experience as a justification for changing his view? For trying to persuade other people by citing reason and evidence in support of his position? No. It's good when somebody like Shermer wants evidence, doesn't just take a blind leap in the dark, tries to persuade other people by citing the evidence of his own experience with the paranormal, etc. I don't fault him for those things. I fault him for not accepting the existence of paranormal phenomena on the basis of the evidence he had access to prior to his own experience. The evidence he had previously was well beyond what was needed to justify a belief in paranormal phenomena. He didn't need to wait for a personal experience.

Similarly, it doesn't make sense to take John 20:29 as a rebuke of Thomas for being too intellectual, for wanting reason, evidence, and such. Rather, as far as Thomas is being rebuked on intellectual grounds in that passage, he's being rebuked for not following the evidence he already had to its logical conclusion. He already had Jesus' prophecy fulfillments, other pre-resurrection miracles performed by Jesus, his predictions of his resurrection, the empty tomb, and the testimony of other people who saw the risen Jesus, for example. Thomas was asking for more when he didn't need it, much like Shermer.

Cotton Mather's Bible

A while back I dipped into Cotton Mather's sprawling, meandering commentary on Genesis. I was curious to see how an educated man of his period (1662/3-1727/8) understood Genesis. Men of Mather's generation and earlier have, at best, only the sketchiest inkling of ANE chronology, geography, and fauna. They are at a total loss to understand some passages. Biblical archeology has greatly aided our understanding of some Bible passages. 

And not just archeology, but the ability to hop on a plane and go see the area in question. F. F. Bruce wrote a classic, landmark commentary on the Greek text of Acts during W.W.II. He revised it towards the end of his life. Among other things, he says:

At a more amateur level, I have myself in more recent years visited that area [Asian and Galatic Phrygia] and most of the other places which figure in Acts. This has supplied a further perspective which was not available when the first edition was being prepared…" (xvii).   

In some respects we understand parts of Scripture far better than our forebears. However, modernity creates its own blinders. I was reminded of this when reading Iain Provan's interpretation of Gen 2. 

To begin with, Provan–like many Bible scholars–doesn't think that matches reality. They come to Genesis with the prior assumption that at least some what of Genesis describes can't be true. We "know" that's not how it happened. 

Therefore, they don't even attempt to explore the meaning of the passages in case that's realistic. They just assume it must be metaphorical. It has to stand for something else. So they talk about that instead. 

On a related note, their own lifestyle is so far removed from the lifestyle of Bible times that they really can't imagine what it would be like. Provan can't even visualize Gen 2. He can't see that scene in his mind's eye. For him, the river and the garden must be purely symbolic. A bucolic allegory of the temple or tabernacle. 

It reminds me of Samuel Johnson reviewing of Paradise Lost. Although it's set in the garden of Eden, Johnson remarked that Milton's description of the garden read like a man who never set foot in a real garden. It was just a literary construct, pieced together from Classical sources like the garden of the Hesperides.

And that's not surprising. Milton was a very bookish man. And he was flaunting his literary erudition. Moreover, people in Milton's time didn't necessarily share our romantic love of nature in the wild. 

Knowing Hebrew, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and cuneiform languages doesn't automatically equipt you to understand the OT. There are some passages in Scripture which a rancher, farmer, hunter, trapper, or fisherman would instantly understand that eludes the average Bible scholar.  

This extends to the supernatural dimension of Scripture. For instance, in parts of the world where ancient witchcraft lingers, some of the "unbelievable" scenes in the Bible are suddenly familiar and true to life. But because the average Bible scholar never has occasion to experience anything out of the ordinary, that's incredible.  

Vermigli on the Natural Knowledge of God

From Muller’s discussion of “Natural Theology” in the Reformers: Vermigli on the Natural Knowledge of God:

In sum, Vermigli stands in agreement with Calvin on the uselessness of natural knowledge of God in salvation, but he appears also to take more cognizance of the relative validity of philosophical argumentation based on natural revelation. On this point, Vermigli’s nuanced views may offer a clearer antecedent than Calvin for the later Reformed orthodox position.

Michael Shermer's Paranormal Experience

Greg Taylor recently posted about a paranormal experience Michael Shermer reported having, an experience that "rocked [Shermer] back on [his] heels and shook [his] skepticism to its core". Taylor links to Shermer's article, so you can read it for yourself. It's short. But I recommend also reading Taylor's analysis. I agree with his doubts. Shermer has a lot of credibility problems. Still, Shermer's claims about his paranormal experience have some significance in light of his background and where the report of his experience was published.

Klaatu loses Gort

Eric Holding is resigning, although that's pending confirmation of a successor, so that might drag on into next year. Holder's departure will be quite a loss to Obama. Holder is to Obama what Gort is to Klaatu. He's both Obama's spear and shield. Obama's already weakened presidency will be further and gravely weakened by losing Holder. It will leave Obama very exposed. No towering robot to hide behind. No towering robot to attack on cue. 

From Eden to new Jerusalem

I'm going to quote and comment on Iain Provan's analysis of Gen 1-2 in Seriously Dangerous Religion (Baylor 2014):

The sacred nature of the world is first intimated in Gen 1 through the metaphor of the temple. Temples in the ANE were designed primarily as residences for the gods, rather than as places of worship.
It is this close connection between cosmos construction and temple construction that we see also in Gen 1:1-2:4, where the cosmos is presented as God's temple. First, temple-dedication ceremonies in the ANE often lasted seven days…second, we are told of God's gathering of the waters into one place so that they could serve a useful purpose as seas (Gen 1:9). This reflects the reality of the later temple in Israel's capital city of Jerusalem, within whose precincts was to be found an impressive "sea of cast metal, circular in shape" (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Third, we also read in Gen about the creation of the sun and the moon (Gen 1:14-16)…the Hebrew word used here for "light" (ma'or) is most frequently used elsewhere in the OT for the sanctuary light in the tabernacle (the Israelites' portable temple prior to Solomon's time). Fourth, the end of the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:4 also reminds us of the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 40:33…Finally before God finishes this creative work, we read in Genesis that he places in "image" in creation (1:26-28). In the ANE more generally, the deity's presence in his temple was also marked by an image, in which the reality of the deity was thought to be embodied (32-33).

i) The cosmic temple interpretation of Gen 1 is already becoming old hat in Bible scholarship. Provan isn't breaking new ground here.

ii) I agree with Provan and like-minded scholars who find temple motifs in Gen 1. I think Gen 1 foreshadows the tabernacle–as well as Noah's ark. In fact, I think we could augment the evidence. The "firmament" (1:6ff.) is arguably an architectural metaphor for a roof or ceiling, such as a temple would have. So, up to a point, I think this analysis is valid.

iii) That said, Provan overplays the temple interpretation. There's a big difference between saying Gen 1 contains a few suggestive descriptions which cue the reader to anticipate the tabernacle–quite something else to make that the dominant interpretive paradigm. Most of the content of Gen 1 bears no resemblance to a temple, even at a figurative level. 

And that's what we'd expect from a global creation account. It's not a residence for God, but a residence for creatures. It contains lots of stuff you don't find in temples. At best, Provan might try to argue that it's God's residence in the vicarious sense that man functions as a priest of God. 

For the most part, Gen 1 is describing a physical world with the furnishings necessary for physical existence. To make the temple metaphor the controlling interpretive lens is very disproportionate to the actual content and emphasis, which is more mundane. 

iv) The comparison between the oceans in 1:9 and the "sea of brass" in Solomon's temple is rather desperate:

a) To begin with, the sea of brass has a completely different function. It's for ceremonial ablutions, whereas the ocean in Gen 1 is the habitat for marine creatures (1:20ff). 

b) It's exegetically dubious to use a text outside the Pentateuch to interpret the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is literary and conceptual unit. To some extent, the books of the Pentateuch mirror each other. They are mutually interpreting. Genesis lays down some markers which will be picked up in subsequent books of the Pentateuch. That's the primary frame of reference.

c) By the same token, even granting the presence of temple motifs in Gen 1, the counterpart to the "cosmic temple" in Gen 1 is the wilderness tabernacle, not the Solomonic temple. 

v) If Gen 1 is a realistic creation account, then we'd expect it to describe the origin of water and bodies of water–like oceans. 

Put succinctly, the creation narrative in Gen 1 is retold in Gen 1, this time through the metaphor of the garden rather than the temple (34).
What we are likely dealing with in Gen 2, then, is exactly what we are certainly dealing with in Gen 1. It is the idea that the whole world is sacred space. In Gen 2, however, this idea is developed using garden imagery (36).

A fundamental problem with this analysis is that if, according to Provan, the temple account (Gen 1) includes garden imagery while the garden account (Gen 2) includes temple imagery, then it's hard to claim these are two different ways of saying the same thing. According to his own analysis, Gen 1 contains garden motifs as well as temple motifs while Gen 1 contains temple motifs as well as garden motifs. So these aren't two different metaphors to express the same idea. The distinction between the two is blurred by shared motifs. His analysis works at cross-purposes with his conclusion. 

The Impossible Garden
The sacred nature of the world is also strongly suggested by the metaphor of the garden that is used for it in Gen 2. This is often missed, however because of a long reading tradition that understands this garden ("in the east, in Eden"; 2:8) as a place within the world rather than as a picture of the world…The authors of Genesis almost certainly did not have a particular location in mind when writing about the garden. Three features of their description strongly suggest this. First, the region to the "east" of ancient Israel was Mesopotamia…However, as we read the first eleven chapters of the Genesis story, we discover that human beings only end up in Mesopotamia as the result of an eastward migration from their starting point in the garden…They first leave the garden via the entrance/exit on its east side…Cain's failures lead him further eastward into the land of Nod (4:16); further eastward migration ultimately leads to Babylon (11:2). Eden, it seems, must actually be in the west… (33-34).

i) That fails to distinguish between east as a direction and east as a location. If, say, I sail north from Antarctica, I can travel for hundreds of miles in a northerly direction, but still be in the southern hemisphere. 

ii) The migration to Babylon in 11:2 doesn't represent a continuous, linear migration from Eden. Provan fails to take into account the disruption of the deluge. We're not dealing with the geographical origin of the human race, but where the ark bottomed out. That becomes the new epicenter for humanity–via the survivors. The postlapsarian migration represents a new beginning. A new starting-point. 

Second, we must remember that Gen 2 follows Gen 1…It has already described the creation of trees in that global context (1:11-12,29), as well as the creation of beasts, birds, and humans (female as well as male; Gen 1:20-27). Chapter 2 repeats all of this in the context of the garden. The natural implication is that the garden is not located somewhere on the earth, but represents the whole earth (34).

i) An obvious problem with this conclusion is that Gen 2 doesn't repeat all the items in Gen 1. It's more restricted. It has a river, not an ocean. No marine creatures. It doesn't describe the origin of the sky, sun, stars, dry land, &c. 

ii) According to the traditional interpretation, Gen 1 and Gen 2 do overlap. There's some carryover. Gen 2 is a more detailed description of man's creation and his original habitat. 

iii) The tacit assumption of Provan's interpretation is that Gen 2 simply uses a garden metaphor. But if, in fact, this is a real garden, then we'd expect it to contain trees and wildlife. Those are realistic features. 

If God did make a first human couple, by special creation, where would they live? A riverine location is a practical location. That's why you have the great river valley civilizations of Egypt, India, China, South America, and–yes–Mesopotamia.

River valleys have lush vegetation (e.g. fruit trees, shade trees) on both sides of the river bank. They supply water for cooking, washing, bathing, and irrigation. Drinking water for humans, livestock, hunting dogs, and game animals. Fishing and transportation. Solid waste disposal. When rivers overflow their banks, they leave a layer of silt which replenishes the topsoil. What biologists call a riparian zone. 

Indeed, if the garden is not the whole earth, it is unclear how the whole earth is supposed to be populated and governed by human begins in line with Gen 1:28, for there is no hint in Gen 1-3 that human beings were ever supposed to leave the garden (34-35).

i) Actually, I'd draw the opposite inference. The cultural mandate (1:28) assumes that after man outgrew the confines of the garden, he'd expand outward, colonizing and domesticating other parts of the earth. Since Gen 2 says the human race began from just one breeding pair, most of the earth was initially unpopulated by humans. 

ii) Moreover, the terms of the curse on Adam imply that conditions outside the garden were fairly inhospitable compared to conditions inside the garden. Provan's interpretation erases that invidious contrast. 

Third, there is the puzzling matter of the geography of Genesis 2:10-14 (35).

That's an old chestnut. 

i) Given the lapse of time, it's unsurprising that some of the geographical markers may be hard to identify this far down the pike. Rivers change course. Rivers dry up. Place-names change.

ii) Provan is ignoring scientific and archeological evidence that locates Eden in Mesopotamia. Cf. K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003), 428-30; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html

Like other temples in the ancient world, this (cosmic) garden-temple incorporates within it a spring, from which the primeval waters flow out to water the four corners of the earth (2:6)… (36).

Which assumes the riverine imagery is figurative. But, of course, real people do settle alongside real rivers. That's true the world over. 

We see this in 1 Kings 6, where its interior is said to be "carved with gourds and open flowers…palm trees and open flowers (1 Kgs 6:18,29) (37).

i) Although that may be Edenic imagery, it may just be decorative.

ii) Even if it is meant to evoke the Garden of Eden, Provan's analysis is backwards: the garden doesn't imitate a temple; rather, a temple imitates the garden.

iii) There's also the problem of literary anachronisms, where later texts are used to gloss earlier texts. Perhaps, though, Provan thinks the Pentateuch was written after the construction and destruction of Solomon's temple.

We see it also in Ezk 47:1-12… (37).

No doubt that deliberately fuses temple motifs with Edenic motifs. But that's visionary and surreal. That's a different genre than historical narrative (e.g. Gen 1-2).

The particular "tree" that is the tree of life in the garden of Eden (Gen 2:9) is represented in the tabernacle by the branched lampstand with its floral motifs (Exod 25:31-40; 37:17-24) (37).

That may well be, but once again, Provan has the cart before the horse. The garden prefigures the tabernacle, not vice versa. 

Provan continues in this vein. But that misses the point. Yes, biblical descriptions of the temple and tabernacle allude to Eden. But the garden is not a figurative temple; rather, the temple (or tabernacle) is a figurative garden. Although the garden can function as sacred space, it's still a garden. 

This brings us back around to the Hebrew word miqqedem in Gen 2:8 which has so often been translated as "in the east"…[but] it is not so much an expression of physical direction…The sun rises in the east (miqqedem), and light is a common OT metaphor for the divine presence (39).

i) To begin with, identifying "the east" with "light" would be better suited to the temple interpretation of Gen 1, where the celestial luminaries presage the Menorah. That's a temple metaphor, not a garden metaphor.

ii) The sun really does rise in the east–to an earthbound observer. That's not a metaphor, but a reality. Of course, sunrise and sunlight can function as metaphors, but there's no presumption that an allusion to sunrise or sunlight is figurative. 

iii) Moreover, the narrator may not intend the reader to associate "the east" with sunrise or sunlight. Oftentimes "east" is just a location or direction, rather than a synonym for sunrise or sunset. 

Of course, if you're traveling by foot, then sunrise gives you a rough compass point. But at that juncture we've strayed far from the prosaic reference in Gen 2:8. 

Richard Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics”, Volume 2: Scripture

This is the beginning of Volume 2 of Richard Muller’s “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology”. Elsewhere, I’ve been working through Volumes One (“Prolegomena”) and Three (“Doctrine of God”) of the four-volume series.

A rule no one needs or obeys

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html