Interpretation - Unvarnished

Viewing entries tagged Interpretation Subscribe to feed

Message from God

by Donald E. Hester on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 Christianity 0 Comments

alt

If you were God and you want to ensure an error free transmission of your message what would you do to remove or limit errors? Also, you want everyone to understand the message. How could this be accomplished?

I think Bible translation into the native language of people is so important. The Bible, Word of God, acts as a correction mechanism against heresy, error and falsehood. The Holy Spirit acts as the agent who will enlighten readers as to the truth. When Christians did not allow people to read the Bible in their own language the error crept in and the people could not refute the error. In any system, from DNA, to computer systems, to communications it is important to have error free transmission. There needs to be a correction mechanism to remove error form the message.

The more people who can read and discern for themselves the less likely error will be persistent. You can tell cults because they don’t want people to read the Bible for themselves. They want you to read their books of interpretation and not the actual message. Don’t rely on others, read it for yourself.

There are other things that can be used to ensure error free transmission. I will cover those in future posts.

Hits: 973 Continue reading →

Is God Mean?

by Donald E. Hester on Friday, 27 February 2009 Theology 0 Comments

cloud sun rays

Since the early days of Christianity, people have made a distinction between how God acts in the Old Testament verses how He acts in the New Testament. Marcion wrote his Antitheses (= contradictory statements) contrasted the Old Testament God of wrath with Jesus’ God of love and mercy. He says that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament are antithetical, that is They are in direct and unequivocal opposition.

Some people today see it as an irreconcilable difference and thus use it to question the existence of God.

How we reconcile this is important. I have a few responses as this may require a deep discussion because it does warrant more than superficial answers. I have a number of possible answers, and I would love to read others opinions.

Future Context Answer

The story of God commanding Israel to destroy all of the Canaanites is often cited as an example of a wrathful God, however, we have to remember the context. First, God knows the beginning from the end and knew they would not carry out his command to completely destroy them. Second, they didn’t completely destroy them. Third, because they did not completely destroy them, the Canaanites influence in their lives lead Israel to worship other gods and all sorts of other trouble. Which eventually lead to their deportment from the land.

The fact that God deported Israel is often cited as an example of God’s wrath and not of His love. However, the context again clarifies the situation. We need to remember that God made an agreement with Israel that had clear stipulations. Israel agreed to the covenant with God. God was longsuffering to implement punishment that was agreed to in the covenant. He had every right by the terms of the agreement to leave them forever. However, He never left them fully and He restored them after a period of time. He has restored them yet again even after they rejected the Messiah. I see loving kindness in the Old Testament as well.

Cultural and Political Context

The restrictive and seemingly extreme laws and punishments given to Israel are often cited as an example of a wrathful God. First, we need to remember this was a theocracy and not a democracy or monarchy. Second, the culture in the area allowed for slavery and death for adultery and death for a number of other offenses. The world then was patriarchal and the laws reflect that period of time. God was establishing a government in that society. His laws slaves do not mean that He would not prefer the absence of slavery. In addition, the laws were extreme in other ways as well. God’s laws favored justice not the elite. They were far more egalitarian than surrounding peoples of that time.

Paul even understood that culture limits our ability to be fully egalitarian. Paul says that we are all one in Christ that slaves should obey their masters, and the masters should be good to their slaves. In one statement, he is very egalitarian and in the next, he deals with the reality of the culture. He is not saying that he condones slavery, he just accepts the culture as it is, with hopes that one day God will correct it all.

The death penalty for breaking many of the laws is also seen as the wrath of God and not His justice or as a reflection of the society. If you live in a village in the Holy Land 4000 years ago what do you do with criminals? Most of these places did not have the means of enforcement, such as a police force, nor did they have correctional facilities. How could they afford to house criminals and how could they afford to allow them to remain in the society?

Illustration Answer

I have heard some people make the claim that this is illustrative of the Christian life. That if we leave a remnant of sin in our lives and fail to expel it. It will haunt us from them on. Of course, we have to be careful with such speculations however, it seems probable that God could use it as an illustration for our lives. This is similar symbolism yeast has with sin in the Old Testament.

God’s Justice Answer

From a different point of view, I think it could be argued that the Creator had a morally sufficient reason to request their destruction. One thing that I always found interesting was that when Abraham came to Canaan he found people who worshiped the true God, specifically Melchizedek. Then Israel was in Egypt and when they returned the land was devoid of anyone who worshiped God. I wonder what happened to Melchizedek and followers of the true God. Pure speculation on my part but, I think the Canaanites had something to do with it.

I know many people have problems with some Old Testament commands that seem to be counter to a loving God. However, we must remember that He is also a just God. Justice requires payment for wrong doing. Just requires victims to be indemnified. The Canaanites where know for sacrificing children to idols and demons. Perhaps their destruction was justice for the innocent victims of these cruel people.

Perspective Answer

Only God knows people’s hearts and sometimes the good and innocent are taken away in death for His purpose. There is a reference in 1 Kings 14 where God took the life of a, Abijah, son of Jeroboam because he was the only good one in the family. This is an interesting twist.

“All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave, because in him something good was found toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam." 1 Kings 14:13 NASB

Even with the case of Job’s children being taken, it was for God purpose. It does not matter if they were good, bad or indifferent. It was for God’s purpose they died, not even for Job’s sake. When Job asked God why, God’s answer was, who the heck are you, are you the creator? (Paraphrased a bit). Yet, the unseen purpose was for us. We are the recipients of the story and for many who have lost loved ones find comfort in the book of Job. God’s glory is show in the midst of our trails. God can see things that Job could not and Job had to trust him.

Nephilim Answer

Another position put forward as to the reason God wants all of the Canaanites killed is because of a genetic problem. Now this is complete speculation are the part of those who propose it, however, it is a fascinating possibility. The position is that the devil is trying to pollute the gene pool so that the savior could not be born of a man. The idea is that when the fallen angels came down and took woman and had offspring from them a hybrid was produced called the Nephilim (Gen 6). It got so bad that God had to destroy the whole world and the only pure human being Noah and family. This is what is meant by Noah being perfect in generations or lineage. (דֹּור (dôr): lineage, generation, family line). His line had not been corrupted by the fallen angels inbreeding.

The report Israel’s spies gave when they first went into the land is that they saw Nephilim there.

“There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” – NASB Num. 13:33

Goliath was Anakim a descendant of Anak.

Satan knows that the savor is to come from a linage of people that would live in that land, does it not make sense to sabotage the gene pool before Israel gets there? Satan thinks he could thwart God plan of redemption. Could God’s command to destroy the inhabitants be to cleanse the land of any hybrids be in response to Satan’s plan? Definitely, this is one of the more intriguing possibilities.

Personal Answer

I don’t always know why God allows bad things to happen or even how His glory will be shown by it. Recently my father-in-law passed away and I don’t know his eternal disposition. All I know is that God is loving and just and that his disposition is the right one. I can’t see it here and know, but I trust that I will some day.

Combined Answer

Anyone of these answers could stand own, however maybe there is multiple answers. In ancient times and even today people believe that there are multiple levels of meaning in the Bible for everything. Maybe this is true here. After all, an all-powerful God could orchestrate it as such. It could be like apples of gold in settings of silver.

I will admit that there is a fair about of speculation here. However, these are rational explanations, none of which diminished my theology or that of true Christianity. I can be a pacifist and still except these answers.

I am not saying these are the right answers. Just that they are possibilities.

Hits: 2716 Continue reading →

Apples of Gold

by Donald E. Hester on Monday, 26 January 2009 Religion 0 Comments

Torah Scroll

I recently watched a show on the History Channel about Kabbalah. One thing that I found interesting was their belief that there are multiple layers of meaning in the text of the Torah. This concept is not unique to Kabbalah they just take it to the extreme. That there is alternative meaning behind the literal read of the text is the subject of Proverbs 25:11.

"A word spoken in right circumstances is like apples of gold in settings (bowls) of silver ."

The idea is that the literal meaning of the text is the silver settings but that there remains apples of gold within the text. For a Christian we see this throughout the Old Testament, where we see that what was happening in the text was a shadow of things to come.

"Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come" "Shadow of the heavenly things"

I like a comment I heard once from Chuck Missler "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and The Old Testament is in the New Testament reviled." The more I read the more I see it. If you look on the Jews for Jesus website (http://www.jewsforjesus.org) they have a section on how the feasts of Israel are a foreshadowing of Y'shua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ). The parallels are so amazing as to defy explanation or coincidence. An old Rabbi saying is that "coincidence isn't a Kosher word". Meaning everything happens for a reason and ordained by God.

For Kabbalah I think they take it too far. Maybe there is further deeper meaning. I guess if they missed the Messiah they may feel the need to continue digging. Maybe they will dig until they find the truth and find that we have been there all along.

But does it really matter? What have we gained if we study and unlock other secrets and neglect our neighbor or forget to show love.

Hits: 1160 Continue reading →

Jesus the poached egg?

by Donald E. Hester on Sunday, 04 January 2009 Apologetics 0 Comments

alt

I was talking with a friend of mine concerning Jehovah's Witness and Muslim view on the divinity of Jesus. Having discussed this with Jehovah's Witness (JW) friends of mine in the past, this one area is the central division between JW doctrine and that of other Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). You see you really can't say that Jesus of Nazareth was just a prophet or a great moral teacher if he claimed to be God. He either is or is not God. If He is not God and He claims to be, He is a lair and not to be trusted as a prophet or great moral teacher. In fact a prophet who lies should be put to death (Deu 18: 20-22).

My JW and Muslim friends say that Jesus of Nazareth never claimed to be God. I believe that He did. In the Torah (Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament) God said his name was 'I am who I am', and 'I am has sent you' (Ex 3:14)[other examples in Duet 32:39, Ezekiel 33:29]. Jesus claims to be God in John 8:58 when Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” In addition, when being questioned by the high priest at His trial in Mark 14:62; when asked if he was the Messiah (Christos), Jesus answered, ego eimi or "I am". The ego eimi 'I am' phrase was understood by those around him as a claim of divinity. In John 8:59 they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy and Caiaphas the high priest in Mark 14 tore off his clothes (a sign of indignation and outrage) and his statements indicates that he considered Jesus statement to clearly be blasphemy and asked for His execution (Lev 24:15-16).

Eipen autois ho Iesous Amen amen lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi

Greek test for John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 8:58 (NASB)

One interesting note is that in Jewish custom there is no expectation that the Messiah be God. Had Jesus said 'yes' instead of 'I am' it would not have been blasphemy. Not only did Jesus say 'I am' but then he goes further to say He will be seated on the right hand of the God. By going further, with the right-hand stuff, made it crystal clear what He was saying.

Jewish (Septuagint) and Christian writers of the time used eimi, especially in the participial form 'on', as an attribute of God. Outside of the Bible, this term is used by Philo and Josephus for God. In context of the culture at the time, His statements were a clear claim to divinity.

I understand why my Muslim friends come to this conclusion as they rely on the later Koran as their inspired book. I didn't understand why my JW friends, who use the same Bible, come to a different conclusion. This is a level of cognitive dissonance that I don't understand. In the New World Translation of the Bible (JW translation) John 8:58 is translated "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." When you talk to a JW they will point out that it is not 'I am' and that everyone else mistranslates it. Stop the bus! No matter which translation you use Jesus claims to have existed be for Abraham! I am not going to argue this point, it seems fairly obvious, but it also leaves the meaning open to interpretation. What I want to do is look at their own books. In 'The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures' put out by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1969 the Greek for John 8:58 is "Eipen autois ho Iesous Amen amen lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" and under 'ego eimi' is written 'I am' not 'I have been'. Why did the New World Bible Translation Committee have 'I am' under the Greek words ego eimi and in the English only column 'I have been'?

In conclusion, we know that these few cited examples Jesus is claiming divinity. Because 1). The phrase he used was used in the Septuagint for God calling Himself 'I am' 2.) Those who heard Him say the words understood the context and wanted to kill Him for it 3.) Ancillary statements along with the 'I am' statements claim He existed before Abraham and would sit on the right-hand of God, further clarify the meaning.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C. S. Lewis

The picture is of the The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures on John 8:58.

Hits: 4280 Continue reading →

Is God a kitten killer?

by Donald E. Hester on Sunday, 21 December 2008 Ethics 0 Comments

alt

[Advisory: This is a topic that most religious folks might find too risqué. If you think this is to risqué, you might find that parts of the Bible might not be suited for Sunday morning as well.]

Where in the bible does it say masturbation is wrong?

Pasted from <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060614200926AAwDBYb>

There is a saying that every time you masturbate God kills a kitten. Is this really how people view Christian's view of masturbation? I am concerned that non-Christians and Christians have bought the idea that this is an important issue. I am not one to simple accept something as true just because an authority, even a church leader, says it is so. I believe God gave me reason and that I should use it. My head is not a hat rack.

To look at this issue the first question one must ask is does the Bible even speaks to the subject? Once that is done you can have meaningful dialogue concerning whether it is right or wrong. The most sited verse as a prohibition of masturbation is Genesis 38:6-10.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the Lord's sight; so the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also.

Genesis - Chapter 38:6-10

New International Version (NIV)

What was Onan's sin?

Judah son Er was next in line for inheritance. After he died without an heir of his own, the inheritance would have gone to the next in line. Next in line was Judah's second son was Onan. As custom, if a man died without an heir another male family member would give him an heir. If Onan would have impregnated Tamar and gave his brother an heir; he would not get his father's inheritance. In his self-interest, he tried to make sure his sister-in-law would not have an heir.

Onan's sin was disobedience and selfishness. The application of disobedience and selfishness was to spill his seed on the ground. The motive was selfishness and greed the action was spilling the seed.

Does the phrase 'spilled his semen on the ground' indicate masturbation?

Note the context of the phrase, 'whenever he lay with his brother's wife.' This indicates that he did have intercourse with his sister-in-law. The question here is does masturbation best fit the meaning in context. I have never heard of anyone using masturbation as a means of birth control. It is a real stretch to say that masturbation is the means of birth control being described. However, the withdrawal (pull out) method of birth control has been around for ages and fits the description given by scripture.

Using Occam's razor what is the most probable scenario with the least assumptions? Clearly the pull out or withdrawal method is what is meant.

What is the context of the verse?

The context of this passage is that it is a narrative account. Meaning that it is simplify telling a story as what happened. Like a news story, the story recounts what happened and does not state what anyone was thinking or what their motives were. To apply prescription to a narrative account is taking the scriptures out of context. Hermeneutics, the study of scriptural interpretation, requires that we apply the context of the passage when we interpret meaning.

What should be the Christian response to this question?

For Christians this is not a primary or core issue of doctrine or faith. Therefore, Christians have the liberty to disagree on this point. Christians should not be compelling other Christians to accept their conclusions as gospel. “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” St. Augustine.

By creating a prohibition out of this non-essential issue, Christians are placing a stumbling block in the way of those who might otherwise seek to the Love of Christ. Once a Christian, the Holy Spirit will help them work out their own faith in the process of sanctification.

Hits: 2152 Continue reading →

Connect

Recommended Reading

Message from God

Is God Mean?

Apples of Gold

Jesus the poached egg?

Is God a kitten killer?