A few weeks back, I posted that Flood Legends was #1 on Amazon's "Histriography" list. Now,three weeks later, it's STILL in the top 100 (#93, to be precise)! That's insane! This is the longest run it has ever had in the top 100 in this category. Thank you for being so interested in the Scriptures!
Monday, November 13, 2017
Monday, October 23, 2017
Flood Legends on Kindle
Hey, everyone! I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for rocketing Flood Legends to #1 in Amazon's "Histriography" sales for Kindle! Even now, three days later, it's still #3 in that category! I, frankly, don't understand it, but I'm grateful for the fact that so many of you resonate with this book.
Now go and give your copy to someone who needs to read it!
Now go and give your copy to someone who needs to read it!
Monday, October 2, 2017
No-Nonsense Movie Review: The Dark Tower
This is quite a sidestep this is for me. In a blog about Jesus, the Bible, mythology, and - on rare occasions - cooking, writing a post about a movie (a movie based on a series of sci-fi-western books written by a totally pagan author, no less) is a little out of the ordinary. It's odd; I totally get it, and if you are uninterested (maybe even confused) by it, don't feel bad. Really. But I wanted to write this review because I see a grave disservice being done to this film for one reason in particular, and this is a reason that is indicative of most of our lives in this country, especially within the Church: forming opinions, while not having any clue what we're talking about. So let's get to this review, and then take a step back and see the broader issue here.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
First of all, I actually liked The Dark Tower movie. Not that it was perfect, mind you, or that it didn't deserve criticism, I just think people are criticizing the wrong things. Now going forward, I'm going to refer to several popular reviews out there, but out of fairness for the authors, I won't actually reference the reviews. However, if you feel so inclined, you can easily search reviews on The Dark Tower film and see exactly what I'm discussing. If you feel so inclined. So what are all the critics missing here?
Well, one of the key things they seem to be missing is that this film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire eight-book series. It was, instead, supposed to be the first of three movies, with two television mini-series thrown in for a little extra storytelling room. Get that? A movie trilogy, with two television mini-series. This film was not supposed to be an adaptation of the entire series. So when I read reviews that state (I'm paraphrasing), "I was skeptical going in, because I didn't see how they could possibly adapt this in only one movie, and it turns out I was right - this sucked!" I have to shake my head. Why? Because this person had no idea what he was talking about, and he allowed his ignorance to fuel his opinion. He went in thinking this movie was going to poorly adapt eight books, and he left the movie feeling vindicated, because it didn't. But it wasn't supposed to - that was never the plan.
One young woman went so far as to write (again, paraphrasing), "I can't help but think this would be better if they had planned other movies." Well, she's right about that, but that's because they did plan other movies. Her verdict? It didn't answer any of the questions it raised.
That's because it's not finished. That's sort of like hating The Empire Strikes Back because they didn't rescue Han at the end. No, they didn't, because there was another movie on the way. Just like the first guy, she allowed her ignorance to fuel her opinion.
Then there are the complaints that this was a very poor adaptation, because it was nothing like the books. That's because it wasn't an adaptation - it was a sequel. Okay, if you plan on reading these books and haven't, you should stop here, because I'm going to give away the ending. Okay? So if you are reading this sentence, right now, know that this is your last chance to stop.
In the end of the books, Roland begins his journey again, because the room at the top of the Tower is the Mohaine Desert. But there's a key difference: this time Roland has the Horn of the Eld. It even says at the end of the book that, with the horn, things will be different this time. Interestingly, King tweeted the following picture back in May of 2016:
Get it? The movies are sequels to the books. So when things are different, that's why. It's also cool that, during the movie, you can see the horn sticking out of Roland's satchel on more than one occasion. Why? Because this time, he has the horn, and things are different. Once more, when people complain that the movie doesn't follow the books at all, they don't know what they are talking about, chiefly because the movie is only supposed to follow the first book up to a certain point. And that brings up the last point, which is that the movie did actually follow the basic structure of the first book.
Let's break down The Gunslinger: Roland, a hardened, stoic man pursues the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, he kills the boy by letting him fall into a ravine, catches up to the Man in Black, and, at the end, believes the Man in Black to be dead.
In the movie, Roland is a hardened, stoic man in pursuit of the Man in Black. The Man in Black is a powerful sorcerer who leaves bodies in his wake. Roland meets a young boy who has been transported into Mid-World, he thinks the boy is a trap, and he holds him over a ravine (but doesn't drop him this time). Roland catches up to the Man in Black and, at the end, it appears as if the Man in Black is dead.
So, overall, the basic structure is the same, with one major story change: not killing Jake. However, the possession of the horn is supposed to help Roland erase some of his mistakes from the previous iterations, one of which was allowing Jake to fall. So . . . . yeah. Now, the details are vastly different, of course, and I don't want to give the wrong impression, but the overall structure remains the same as the first book. Roland is a man of few words, the story is short and concise (the book is only 200 or so pages long), and Roland is pretty single-minded: catch the Man in Black.
I said that there are things to criticize, and there are, but all of these negative reviews are based, pretty much, on ignorance. They accuse the filmmakers of creating a character who is emotionless. He was supposed to be. They accuse the filmmakers of failing to adequately adapt eight books into one film. They weren't trying to. They accuse the filmmakers of not telling enough of the story. They weren't trying to tell the whole story. They accuse the filmmakers of not following the book enough. They weren't trying to follow the book word for word, but they did successfully tell the story. People formed their opinions about this movie without having any idea what they were talking about.
And that is the point of my (not-so-reviewy) No-Nonsense Movie Review: our culture has a bad habit of reacting to things about which we are ignorant. All of this stuff with Confederate Monuments is one example. On one hand, we have people who wish to keep them up for various reasons - some of them good, legitimate reasons - but how are these people viewed? As racist Nazis. Now for some, this is no doubt true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes these monuments should remain.
On the other hand, there are those who wish to bring them down, and have good, legitimate reasons for doing so. But how is everyone who feels that way portrayed? Depending on where you get your news, they are typically portrayed as moronic hippies who only want to erase the past. And, for some of them, that may be true, but it isn't true for everyone who believes the monuments should come down.
And then there's Christianity. How many people dismiss the Bible - and, therefore, Christianity - because they think the Bible is full of contradictions? How many of them are convinced of this, even though they've never read it? How many people reject Christ because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
How many Christians treat sinners that way, because they believe that God hates everyone who sins?
See, the problem with the reviews of The Dark Tower isn't that they criticized, it's that they criticized without having any idea what they were talking about, judging the film based solely on their own fabricated standards. And this is merely a symptom of a much larger issue in our world: making incorrect judgments, falling into the assumption trap that you know everything, and your word is Law.
Jesus dealt with this quite a bit. In His time, the Pharisees excelled at making up rules for people to follow, and then judging their value as people when they failed to meet those standards. Check out what Jesus has to say:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the Kingdom of Heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and the One Who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the One Who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the later, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!" (Matthew 23: 13-32).
Yikes. I'm not sure it's a comfortable thing, being called a "son of hell" by Jesus. Oh, wait - it isn't. See, I can talk about how easily people "out there" can be called hypocrites and liars, but I'm not innocent of those charges. I can talk about Christians who look down on "sinners," but I've been both the sinner, and the self-righteous Pharisee. My point in all of this is that incorrect judgments have been happening a very long time, and they haven't gone anywhere.
Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with Me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:21-24).
Did you catch that? "Make a right judgment." The reviews of The Dark Tower are silly, frivolous things, but they stand for something much more important: what we judge, and how we judge it. Maybe instead of assuming "the other guy" (whoever that may be, and whatever assumption that might entail on your part) is evil, or ignorant, or . . . whatever . . . see him as a person, first. Get to know that person, understand why she believes the way she does, hear his story, and then, instead of judging by mere appearances, make a right judgment. Even if that means changing your own mind.
Don't perpetuate this fallacy of judging without having any idea what you're talking about. For those of us who wanted to see more of The Dark Tower on the screen, we may not get the chance because of all of the horrible reviews. That person you refuse to talk to and listen to, because he thinks the monuments to Robert E. Lee should stay up? That may very well be your loss, because you are missing out on the opportunity to know a human being who has likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, loves. . . . The person who voted for Hillary, who you think is a complete moron? Talk to her, find out why. Maybe she has a valid point.
Oh, and that Christian who you believe is a brain-washed, militantly-evangelistic buffoon? Maybe, if you actually took the time to talk to him, you'd find out he actually has a pretty incredible reason for the hope he has in Jesus. Don't like his politics? Doesn't matter. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Freewill vs. God's Sovereignty, Pt. 1
This is a massively loaded topic, and I realize that. However, there has been a growing trend in our churches these days to dismiss free will, claiming that free will denies God's Sovereignty. The argument is that if man is in control of his own thoughts and actions, then God can't be, because in believing in free will, we are placing our will above God's.
What denying free will actually does, however, is make God out to be a liar and a hypocrite. So what we're going to do is take a look at just a few of the passages in Scripture that undermine this idea that we don't have free will, and help us understand the character of God more clearly as He has revealed it, not as man has reasoned it.
Free Will in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 30:11-20:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
"But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the LORD is your life, and He will give you many years in the land He swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Moses, at the command of God, called the Israelites together and, after renewing the covenant originally give on Mount Sinai, gave them this speech. Notice the elements of the speech:
1) Obedience to the Law is not too difficult or beyond their reach (11-14). We saw this in a previous post, but this presents to us a choice: whenever we are faced with the temptation to disobey God, we have the ability to choose obedience. This presents us good news, in that obedience is possible, but it also presents bad news: when we don't obey, it's because we choose not to; that is the plain, simple truth of it. Your sin, therefore, is not because God decreed that you should sin, but your sin exists because you decreed it and He allowed it.
2) A choice is set before the Israelites (15). Moses, without any complicated theology and seminarian logic, is giving them two options. Now, if God has decreed that the Israelites are going to follow the disobedience route, then this choice is a false one. Why? Because God is pretending to give them options, when, in reality, He has already chosen their path for them, thus meaning they do not have a real choice. Do you understand this? If God is pretending to give a choice, then He is lying. Since we know that God does not lie, this must be a legitimate choice.
3) God gives them two potential futures, based on their choices (16-18). Again, if God has already predetermined which choices He wants them to make, then these two verses are dishonest, because they don't have two, potential outcomes, only the single outcome that God has chosen for them to have.
4) God lays out the option of choosing (19). Just in case you still don't believe that Israel had the free will to choose whether or not to obey God, God literally says through Moses, "Choose life." Since they didn't, we know they had the ability to choose contrary to what God wanted. This is free will: choosing, on your own, whether or not you will obey God.
II Kings 13:14-19:
Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died. Jehoash king of Israel went down to see him and wept over him. "My father! My father!" he cried. "The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"
Elisha said, "Get a bow and some arrows," and he did so. "Take the bow in your hands," he said to the king of Israel. When he had taken it, Elisha put his hands on the king's hands.
"Open the east window," he said, and he opened it. "Shoot!" Elisha said, and he shot. "The LORD's arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram" Elisha declared. "You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek."
Then he said, "Take the arrows," and the king took them. Elisha told him, "Strike the ground." he struck it three times and stopped. The man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times."
Obviously, I started this in the middle of the story. The background is that Jehoash was the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the king of Aram came to attack him at the city of Aphek. Jehoash, aware that he would only be successful if God blessed the venture, went to see Elisha. What did Elisha assure the king? That he would win the fight, and Aram would be destroyed (17). But notice something. . . .
Jehoash's lackluster response in striking the arrows on the ground cost them something. Instead of completely destroying them, as Elisha assured him would happen, the king would defeat Aram in three battles, but they wouldn't be destroyed completely. Aram would, after the losses, slink back to its kingdom with its tail tucked between its legs, but God's pronouncement of judgment against Aram would be delayed until Jehoash's son, Jeroboam II (14:25, 28).
Notice that we are given both the potential future, as well as the actual events that happened, and the difference between those two hinged solely on King Jehoash's actions. This isn't hypothetical speculation, it's what is stated in the Scripture. Notice:
1)We're told that Jehoash would have the victory over Aram, completely destroying them (17).
2) We're told that Jehoash made the wrong choice (18-19).
3) We're told that that choice would produce a different outcome than what was originally announced (19; 14:25,28).
In any other scenario - outside of theology, that is - this would be called free will and the consequences that result from free will; Jehoash's decision and actions changed the outcome. I am not guessing that the outcome changed, Elisha told us the outcome changed, and that it changed based solely on the king's actions.
Ezra 2:68:
When they arrived at the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.
This is one of only a handful of times (ten or so) the word "freewill" is actually used, but when it is used, it is used to denote a very special offering: an offering that the worshiper gave simply because he or she wanted to do so . . . of his or her own free will. There were other offerings that were voluntary, but done for specific purposes (burnt offerings and thanksgiving offerings, for example), but the free will offering was simply a person who wanted to give an extra offering for no other reason than that he or she wanted to do so. Now, why was it called the freewill offering? Because the writers of the Bible - under the direction of the Holy Spirit - recognized it as an act of free will. If the writers of the Scriptures acknowledged the existence of free will, then denying it is to go against the Word of God.
Ezekiel 33:1;7-9:
The word of the LORD came to me . . . "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself."
This passage comes up often when people try to persuade others that free will exists, but it's almost always from the perspective of the wicked man being saved (or, in this case, not being saved). I want to look at it from the perspective of what God is telling Ezekiel, though.
God is giving Ezekiel a choice, and telling him that the better choice is to obey and preach. Now, listen, did God predetermine which choice He wanted Ezekiel to make, and then decree and predetermine that to happen? There is nothing whatsoever in this passage to suggest that. What we have is very straightforward: "Ezekiel, if you don't warn him, you'll be accountable for his blood. If you do, you'll have saved yourself." Once more, in any other situation, we would call this a free choice. Why? Because God gave Ezekiel the possible consequences that he would face, in order to persuade him to make the choice God wanted him to make. If this is untrue, if God had already ordained and selected the choice for Ezekiel, then God's entire speech here is a posturing lie.
Free Will in the New Testament
II Corinthians 9:7:
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Paul, who was the best theologian who ever lived, had a perfect opportunity to impress upon us that God directs every thought and action, and that we do not decide anything in our own hearts. But Paul says the exact opposite here, doesn't he? He specifically tells us that each man decides in his own heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver.
Now, let's think this through, for a moment. My daughter spent a great deal of time making a bookmark for me on Father's Day. It was my Father's Day gift. She took a narrow strip of paper, and she colored it, wrote her name, covered it in all kinds of stickers - really went all-out, four-year-old-style. And, listen, I cherish it. Why? Because she, of her own compulsion and love for me, made this bookmark. It is admittedly tacky, but I don't care - it's my daughter's gift to me.
Let's say, instead, that I forced my daughter to give me a gift. I took her to the store, told her she had to spend her allowance on me, handed her the gift I wanted, and then made her pay for it and hand it back to me. That's not a gift, is it? Under no circumstances would that be considered a gift.
Now let's take it a step further and say I have the ability to mentally influence her to choose to give me a gift (which is how the lack of freewill is often defended). Is that the same? Is it now a gift? No, it's not. It's me pretending she chose to give me a gift, in order for me to feel better about her. By removing free will, our offerings become God pretending that we love Him of our own volition, God pretending that we are cheerful givers, God pretending that we are His people.
Ephesians 6:19-20:
Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Does Paul have the option of declaring the Gospel fearlessly, if he has no free will? If God has decreed that certain people won't hear the Gospel - because He doesn't want to save them, as Calvinism teaches - then is it necessary or possible for Paul to preach to them fearlessly? Or even at all? Contrarily, if Paul is preaching to a group of people whom God has already declared and decreed will be saved, then is it necessary for Paul to preach fearlessly? If it is truly God Who regenerates a person in order for them to first believe, and if it is God Who does the calling, and if God's will can never be thwarted by our actions or thoughts, then why ask God for the fearless spirit of preaching? More so, why pray at all? Paul is wasting valuable time and energy worrying about making a mistake or being a coward, when he very well could say, "Well, if I'm not preaching fearlessly in this moment, then it's because God, in his Sovereignty, hasn't chosen these people to be saved." Furthermore, if it truly is not hinging on our actions, then Paul is worrying, for no reason, that he may fail. So, either Paul is wrong in his theology, or the theology that many people hold - that free will doesn't exist - is wrong.
I Thessalonians 4:3-5:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God.
The argument, again, that if we have free will, then God's will is not being done, is completely demolished here. Why? "It is God's will . . . that you should avoid sexual immorality." What is God's will? That we avoid sexual immorality. Do we always avoid it? Not according to all of the studies. A large number of Christian men (and a growing number of Christian women) are involved in pornography. Some have affairs. And most of us - if we take Jesus' definition of adultery seriously - are adulterous. Or have been, at least. Is God's will being done in those instances?
Clearly not. Whose will is being done? Ours. Is it being enacted because God wills us to enact it? If that's the case, then He's being contradictory. Why? Because if His stated will is that we avoid sexual immorality, but He also wills us to commit immorality when we do, then He is, quite literally, desiring that we do what He desires us not to do. This is dishonest . . . at best.
* * *
Okay, so I have much more to say on this, with many more passages of Scripture. For now I will close this out, but in the next part, I will be examining the passages that people often use to defend the non-existence of free will. We'll also look more in-depth at the difference between Biblical Sovereignty of God, and false Sovereignty of God.
And if you're interested in other passages that describe our ability to use the free will that God gave us, check out some of these:
II Chronicles 36:15-17
Psalm 95:7-11
Isaiah 5:1-7
Isaiah 10:5-12
Isaiah 42:23-25
Jeremiah 38:19-23
Ezekiel 16:16
Matthew 21:33-46
Mark 6:5-6
Luke 1:45
Luke 7:30
John 1:10-13
Acts 14:1-2
Acts 14:14-21
I Thess. 3:5
Jude 5-7
As always, if you have questions or comments, leave them in the space below!
What denying free will actually does, however, is make God out to be a liar and a hypocrite. So what we're going to do is take a look at just a few of the passages in Scripture that undermine this idea that we don't have free will, and help us understand the character of God more clearly as He has revealed it, not as man has reasoned it.
Free Will in the Old Testament
Deuteronomy 30:11-20:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
"But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the LORD is your life, and He will give you many years in the land He swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
Moses, at the command of God, called the Israelites together and, after renewing the covenant originally give on Mount Sinai, gave them this speech. Notice the elements of the speech:
1) Obedience to the Law is not too difficult or beyond their reach (11-14). We saw this in a previous post, but this presents to us a choice: whenever we are faced with the temptation to disobey God, we have the ability to choose obedience. This presents us good news, in that obedience is possible, but it also presents bad news: when we don't obey, it's because we choose not to; that is the plain, simple truth of it. Your sin, therefore, is not because God decreed that you should sin, but your sin exists because you decreed it and He allowed it.
2) A choice is set before the Israelites (15). Moses, without any complicated theology and seminarian logic, is giving them two options. Now, if God has decreed that the Israelites are going to follow the disobedience route, then this choice is a false one. Why? Because God is pretending to give them options, when, in reality, He has already chosen their path for them, thus meaning they do not have a real choice. Do you understand this? If God is pretending to give a choice, then He is lying. Since we know that God does not lie, this must be a legitimate choice.
3) God gives them two potential futures, based on their choices (16-18). Again, if God has already predetermined which choices He wants them to make, then these two verses are dishonest, because they don't have two, potential outcomes, only the single outcome that God has chosen for them to have.
4) God lays out the option of choosing (19). Just in case you still don't believe that Israel had the free will to choose whether or not to obey God, God literally says through Moses, "Choose life." Since they didn't, we know they had the ability to choose contrary to what God wanted. This is free will: choosing, on your own, whether or not you will obey God.
II Kings 13:14-19:
Now Elisha was suffering from the illness from which he died. Jehoash king of Israel went down to see him and wept over him. "My father! My father!" he cried. "The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"
Elisha said, "Get a bow and some arrows," and he did so. "Take the bow in your hands," he said to the king of Israel. When he had taken it, Elisha put his hands on the king's hands.
"Open the east window," he said, and he opened it. "Shoot!" Elisha said, and he shot. "The LORD's arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram" Elisha declared. "You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek."
Then he said, "Take the arrows," and the king took them. Elisha told him, "Strike the ground." he struck it three times and stopped. The man of God was angry with him and said, "You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times."
Obviously, I started this in the middle of the story. The background is that Jehoash was the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the king of Aram came to attack him at the city of Aphek. Jehoash, aware that he would only be successful if God blessed the venture, went to see Elisha. What did Elisha assure the king? That he would win the fight, and Aram would be destroyed (17). But notice something. . . .
Jehoash's lackluster response in striking the arrows on the ground cost them something. Instead of completely destroying them, as Elisha assured him would happen, the king would defeat Aram in three battles, but they wouldn't be destroyed completely. Aram would, after the losses, slink back to its kingdom with its tail tucked between its legs, but God's pronouncement of judgment against Aram would be delayed until Jehoash's son, Jeroboam II (14:25, 28).
Notice that we are given both the potential future, as well as the actual events that happened, and the difference between those two hinged solely on King Jehoash's actions. This isn't hypothetical speculation, it's what is stated in the Scripture. Notice:
1)We're told that Jehoash would have the victory over Aram, completely destroying them (17).
2) We're told that Jehoash made the wrong choice (18-19).
3) We're told that that choice would produce a different outcome than what was originally announced (19; 14:25,28).
In any other scenario - outside of theology, that is - this would be called free will and the consequences that result from free will; Jehoash's decision and actions changed the outcome. I am not guessing that the outcome changed, Elisha told us the outcome changed, and that it changed based solely on the king's actions.
Ezra 2:68:
When they arrived at the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.
This is one of only a handful of times (ten or so) the word "freewill" is actually used, but when it is used, it is used to denote a very special offering: an offering that the worshiper gave simply because he or she wanted to do so . . . of his or her own free will. There were other offerings that were voluntary, but done for specific purposes (burnt offerings and thanksgiving offerings, for example), but the free will offering was simply a person who wanted to give an extra offering for no other reason than that he or she wanted to do so. Now, why was it called the freewill offering? Because the writers of the Bible - under the direction of the Holy Spirit - recognized it as an act of free will. If the writers of the Scriptures acknowledged the existence of free will, then denying it is to go against the Word of God.
Ezekiel 33:1;7-9:
The word of the LORD came to me . . . "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself."
This passage comes up often when people try to persuade others that free will exists, but it's almost always from the perspective of the wicked man being saved (or, in this case, not being saved). I want to look at it from the perspective of what God is telling Ezekiel, though.
God is giving Ezekiel a choice, and telling him that the better choice is to obey and preach. Now, listen, did God predetermine which choice He wanted Ezekiel to make, and then decree and predetermine that to happen? There is nothing whatsoever in this passage to suggest that. What we have is very straightforward: "Ezekiel, if you don't warn him, you'll be accountable for his blood. If you do, you'll have saved yourself." Once more, in any other situation, we would call this a free choice. Why? Because God gave Ezekiel the possible consequences that he would face, in order to persuade him to make the choice God wanted him to make. If this is untrue, if God had already ordained and selected the choice for Ezekiel, then God's entire speech here is a posturing lie.
Free Will in the New Testament
II Corinthians 9:7:
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Paul, who was the best theologian who ever lived, had a perfect opportunity to impress upon us that God directs every thought and action, and that we do not decide anything in our own hearts. But Paul says the exact opposite here, doesn't he? He specifically tells us that each man decides in his own heart. Why? Because God loves a cheerful giver.
Now, let's think this through, for a moment. My daughter spent a great deal of time making a bookmark for me on Father's Day. It was my Father's Day gift. She took a narrow strip of paper, and she colored it, wrote her name, covered it in all kinds of stickers - really went all-out, four-year-old-style. And, listen, I cherish it. Why? Because she, of her own compulsion and love for me, made this bookmark. It is admittedly tacky, but I don't care - it's my daughter's gift to me.
Let's say, instead, that I forced my daughter to give me a gift. I took her to the store, told her she had to spend her allowance on me, handed her the gift I wanted, and then made her pay for it and hand it back to me. That's not a gift, is it? Under no circumstances would that be considered a gift.
Now let's take it a step further and say I have the ability to mentally influence her to choose to give me a gift (which is how the lack of freewill is often defended). Is that the same? Is it now a gift? No, it's not. It's me pretending she chose to give me a gift, in order for me to feel better about her. By removing free will, our offerings become God pretending that we love Him of our own volition, God pretending that we are cheerful givers, God pretending that we are His people.
Ephesians 6:19-20:
Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.
Does Paul have the option of declaring the Gospel fearlessly, if he has no free will? If God has decreed that certain people won't hear the Gospel - because He doesn't want to save them, as Calvinism teaches - then is it necessary or possible for Paul to preach to them fearlessly? Or even at all? Contrarily, if Paul is preaching to a group of people whom God has already declared and decreed will be saved, then is it necessary for Paul to preach fearlessly? If it is truly God Who regenerates a person in order for them to first believe, and if it is God Who does the calling, and if God's will can never be thwarted by our actions or thoughts, then why ask God for the fearless spirit of preaching? More so, why pray at all? Paul is wasting valuable time and energy worrying about making a mistake or being a coward, when he very well could say, "Well, if I'm not preaching fearlessly in this moment, then it's because God, in his Sovereignty, hasn't chosen these people to be saved." Furthermore, if it truly is not hinging on our actions, then Paul is worrying, for no reason, that he may fail. So, either Paul is wrong in his theology, or the theology that many people hold - that free will doesn't exist - is wrong.
I Thessalonians 4:3-5:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God.
The argument, again, that if we have free will, then God's will is not being done, is completely demolished here. Why? "It is God's will . . . that you should avoid sexual immorality." What is God's will? That we avoid sexual immorality. Do we always avoid it? Not according to all of the studies. A large number of Christian men (and a growing number of Christian women) are involved in pornography. Some have affairs. And most of us - if we take Jesus' definition of adultery seriously - are adulterous. Or have been, at least. Is God's will being done in those instances?
Clearly not. Whose will is being done? Ours. Is it being enacted because God wills us to enact it? If that's the case, then He's being contradictory. Why? Because if His stated will is that we avoid sexual immorality, but He also wills us to commit immorality when we do, then He is, quite literally, desiring that we do what He desires us not to do. This is dishonest . . . at best.
* * *
Okay, so I have much more to say on this, with many more passages of Scripture. For now I will close this out, but in the next part, I will be examining the passages that people often use to defend the non-existence of free will. We'll also look more in-depth at the difference between Biblical Sovereignty of God, and false Sovereignty of God.
And if you're interested in other passages that describe our ability to use the free will that God gave us, check out some of these:
II Chronicles 36:15-17
Psalm 95:7-11
Isaiah 5:1-7
Isaiah 10:5-12
Isaiah 42:23-25
Jeremiah 38:19-23
Ezekiel 16:16
Matthew 21:33-46
Mark 6:5-6
Luke 1:45
Luke 7:30
John 1:10-13
Acts 14:1-2
Acts 14:14-21
I Thess. 3:5
Jude 5-7
As always, if you have questions or comments, leave them in the space below!
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Pancake Poll
Hey! Haven't put up a food-related post in over a year, so I figured I'd add a quick poll (to the right) about pancake preferences! So pick your answer and let everybody know how you like your pancakes!
Monday, July 31, 2017
Ra and Sekhmet
Before there was land in Egypt, there was only Nun, the great ocean. Out of this ocean rose The Egg, and The Egg was Ra.
The omnipotent Ra took many forms, and spoke many names, and his power was such that whatever he spoke came into existence. "At dawn, I am Khepera. At noon, I am Ra. In the evening, I am Atum." The sun rose, passed through the sky, and set. It was the first day.
Then Ra created the winds, and named them Shu. Then Tefnut, the spitter, came, and it rained. Next he named Geb, and there was land; Nut, the goddess of the sky, stood on one side of the horizon, and placed her hands on the other. Then Ra named Hapi, and he watered all of Egypt with the Great Nile. After this, Ra named all living things on the earth, and, last of all, man.
Ra took the form of man and became the first Pharoah. He ruled over the land of Egypt for thousands of years. During his reign, the harvests were plentiful, so much so that people still use the phrase "which happened in the time of Ra" to describe good things.
Ra discovered, however, that as a man, he would grow old. As he aged, he discovered that men no longer feared him. They would laugh and say, "His bones are like silver, his flesh like gold, and his hair looks like lapis luzi!"
Though this angered Ra, people continued to do evil deeds. So Ra met with Shu, Tefnut, Nut, and Geb - all the gods he had made. Nun was also there, and Ra spoke to him. "Ancient One, creator of Ra, look on mankind. They plot against me, they are disobedient to my laws, and they mock my ancient wisdom, I who created the other gods. I wish to destroy them, but I will heed your advice first."
Nun replied, "Ra, destroy them with your daughter, Sekhmet."
The gods all answered, "Send Sekhmet against them!"
They all bowed their heads to the ground, and Ra said, "Even now, fear is seizing them as they hide in the desert."
So from the Eye of Ra, Sekhmet came, and her chief delight was in bloodshed. She laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt, pursuing them into the mountains, rushing along the Nile, and slaughtering them in the desert. When Ra looked out and saw what she had down, he was pleased, and asked, "Tell me what you did."
"By your will, I have avenged you. I am glad."
The Nile ran red with blood for many nights, and her feet were red, as one who presses grapes for wine, and Ra began to pity the men. Sekhmet, however, would not stop, and Ra himself had to resort to clever cunning in order to cease her slaughter.
Ra called for his messengers, and told them to go to Elephantine Island, in the First Cataract, and bring him red ochre. The messengers did so, bringing the ochre to the City of the Sun, where Ra lived. The women in city had spent all day brewing beer, according to the will of Ra, and when the messengers returned at night, Ra bade them to put the ochre into the beer. There were seven thousand jars.
"Take it to the place where Sekhmet plans her next slaughter." So they did, and they poured it out upon the fields. The liquid, which looked like blood, was thick upon the ground. As Sakhmet approached the next day, she saw the beer and thought it to be the blood of her victims. She laughed, roaring like a lioness, and stooped to drink. Over and over she drank, and soon she became drunk, unable to kill.
Reeling left and right, she came upon Ra, who named her Hathor. She was no longer violent, but peaceful and sweet, overcoming men and women with love, instead of death. Mankind was saved, and Ra continued to rule for a little while longer.
-Egypt
This week's myth offers us up the typical creation story of the great cosmic ocean, out of which comes a god/the gods. We find similar ideas in Mesopotamia, certain Native American tribes, the Hindu scriptures, and so on. But what is striking about this story is its similarity to a far-less compared story found in the Book of Exodus: the ten plagues.
We read in the story of Ra that Sekhmet "laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt," that "the Nile ran with blood," and that the whole of Egypt was perishing under Sekhmet's fury. In the Book of Exodus, we read: 'Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he goes out to the river. Confront him on the bank of the Nile, and take in your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.’”
As we continue to read, we find that plagues of frogs, gnats, boils, and other plagues strike the Egyptians, causing an economic nightmare. The final plague involves the death of all of the firstborn sons of Egypt. While the Bible is unclear how long all ten of these plagues lasted, it does make one thing clear: the land of Egypt was full of blood and death.
At this point, we may begin to see that the Egyptian belief in Sekhmet and the incidents of the Exodus may very well be parallel accounts. Both describe incidents which, at their cores, are very similar. While the causes certainly vary, the results do not. Now, I am not attempting to say that the story of Sekhmet is the Egyptian version of the Exodus plagues - not at all. However, from a logical standpoint, how likely is it that the Egyptians would tell a story of their own destruction at the hands of the Hebrew God? What seems far more likely is that they would invent a story that would refer to the real events, but through the interpretive lens of their own pagan beliefs. In other words, what I am suggesting is that, rather than disregard the Bible as so many do, we should be willing to take a fresh look at it and see how other literature parallels - and even supports - the Biblical account.
The omnipotent Ra took many forms, and spoke many names, and his power was such that whatever he spoke came into existence. "At dawn, I am Khepera. At noon, I am Ra. In the evening, I am Atum." The sun rose, passed through the sky, and set. It was the first day.
Then Ra created the winds, and named them Shu. Then Tefnut, the spitter, came, and it rained. Next he named Geb, and there was land; Nut, the goddess of the sky, stood on one side of the horizon, and placed her hands on the other. Then Ra named Hapi, and he watered all of Egypt with the Great Nile. After this, Ra named all living things on the earth, and, last of all, man.
Ra took the form of man and became the first Pharoah. He ruled over the land of Egypt for thousands of years. During his reign, the harvests were plentiful, so much so that people still use the phrase "which happened in the time of Ra" to describe good things.
Ra discovered, however, that as a man, he would grow old. As he aged, he discovered that men no longer feared him. They would laugh and say, "His bones are like silver, his flesh like gold, and his hair looks like lapis luzi!"
Though this angered Ra, people continued to do evil deeds. So Ra met with Shu, Tefnut, Nut, and Geb - all the gods he had made. Nun was also there, and Ra spoke to him. "Ancient One, creator of Ra, look on mankind. They plot against me, they are disobedient to my laws, and they mock my ancient wisdom, I who created the other gods. I wish to destroy them, but I will heed your advice first."
Nun replied, "Ra, destroy them with your daughter, Sekhmet."
The gods all answered, "Send Sekhmet against them!"
They all bowed their heads to the ground, and Ra said, "Even now, fear is seizing them as they hide in the desert."
So from the Eye of Ra, Sekhmet came, and her chief delight was in bloodshed. She laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt, pursuing them into the mountains, rushing along the Nile, and slaughtering them in the desert. When Ra looked out and saw what she had down, he was pleased, and asked, "Tell me what you did."
"By your will, I have avenged you. I am glad."
The Nile ran red with blood for many nights, and her feet were red, as one who presses grapes for wine, and Ra began to pity the men. Sekhmet, however, would not stop, and Ra himself had to resort to clever cunning in order to cease her slaughter.
Ra called for his messengers, and told them to go to Elephantine Island, in the First Cataract, and bring him red ochre. The messengers did so, bringing the ochre to the City of the Sun, where Ra lived. The women in city had spent all day brewing beer, according to the will of Ra, and when the messengers returned at night, Ra bade them to put the ochre into the beer. There were seven thousand jars.
"Take it to the place where Sekhmet plans her next slaughter." So they did, and they poured it out upon the fields. The liquid, which looked like blood, was thick upon the ground. As Sakhmet approached the next day, she saw the beer and thought it to be the blood of her victims. She laughed, roaring like a lioness, and stooped to drink. Over and over she drank, and soon she became drunk, unable to kill.
Reeling left and right, she came upon Ra, who named her Hathor. She was no longer violent, but peaceful and sweet, overcoming men and women with love, instead of death. Mankind was saved, and Ra continued to rule for a little while longer.
-Egypt
This week's myth offers us up the typical creation story of the great cosmic ocean, out of which comes a god/the gods. We find similar ideas in Mesopotamia, certain Native American tribes, the Hindu scriptures, and so on. But what is striking about this story is its similarity to a far-less compared story found in the Book of Exodus: the ten plagues.
We read in the story of Ra that Sekhmet "laid waste the people of Upper and Lower Egypt," that "the Nile ran with blood," and that the whole of Egypt was perishing under Sekhmet's fury. In the Book of Exodus, we read: 'Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he goes out to the river. Confront him on the bank of the Nile, and take in your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.’”
As we continue to read, we find that plagues of frogs, gnats, boils, and other plagues strike the Egyptians, causing an economic nightmare. The final plague involves the death of all of the firstborn sons of Egypt. While the Bible is unclear how long all ten of these plagues lasted, it does make one thing clear: the land of Egypt was full of blood and death.
At this point, we may begin to see that the Egyptian belief in Sekhmet and the incidents of the Exodus may very well be parallel accounts. Both describe incidents which, at their cores, are very similar. While the causes certainly vary, the results do not. Now, I am not attempting to say that the story of Sekhmet is the Egyptian version of the Exodus plagues - not at all. However, from a logical standpoint, how likely is it that the Egyptians would tell a story of their own destruction at the hands of the Hebrew God? What seems far more likely is that they would invent a story that would refer to the real events, but through the interpretive lens of their own pagan beliefs. In other words, what I am suggesting is that, rather than disregard the Bible as so many do, we should be willing to take a fresh look at it and see how other literature parallels - and even supports - the Biblical account.
Friday, July 7, 2017
Water Into Wine
On the third
day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was
there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the
wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have
no more wine.”
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
-John 2:1-12, NIV Translation
When we look at this story of the Wedding at Cana, we have to ask ourselves the inevitable question: did this really happen? Now, obviously since none of us were there, we cannot say with certainty one way or the other. We may believe it happened or believe it couldn't have happened, but we cannot say for sure. We can, though, examine the evidence and decide if it's likely.
The first thing that is most striking about this story is that there are several witnesses to the event, and the town was actually named. Weddings were a remarkably large event in first-century Israel, often lasting a week and with hundreds of guests. Though it does not appear as if everyone there was aware of what happened, we do know that many of the servants "who had drawn the water knew [where the wine came from]." John, writing in the late first-century, was opening up his tale to much criticism, because witnesses can always be located, particularly if their location is outright named. Anyone doubting the validity of John's account could easily have gone to Cana (a real town) for him or herself and questioned the people. If the story were untrue, it is quite likely that it would have faded into oblivion, because no one would have been able to verify it. On the other hand, the story endured through the first century and on into the second century, with no evidence of contradiction. While this does not prove the event, it should make us pause and consider the implications.
One argument that is made quite often is the fact that the Gospel of John was written sometime in the second century by a Gentile, and not the Jewish Apostle John. This is highly unlikely, as we find that the author appears to be quite familiar with first-century Jewish customs. The practice of ceremonial washing (the purpose of the water in the story) was not observed by the Christian Church once it became predominantly Gentile (end of the first-century). A Gentile, then, writing a century (or two) after the fact would not be likely to have mentioned the jars at all. His or her water source would have been something more common to second century Roman culture. While it is possible that this detail was "added" for realism, it is highly unlikely, leading us to a relatively safe assumption that the author was, at the very least, Jewish. So we cannot conclude from this that it had to be John who penned the Gospel, but internal evidence does not rule him out as the author, either.
Lastly, we note a reluctance on the part of Jesus to even reveal His power. If Jesus were faking this, if He were merely a clever magician or a sleight-of-hand artist, then what we would find is, most likely, a deep and unyielding sense of showmanship. Think about modern entertainers today: David Copperfield, David Blaine, Criss Angel, even those of the last few decades (e.g., Doug Henning, Blackstone). They actively seek out individuals, they actively arrange for Las Vegas shows, television spots, and they actively promote their magic. They sell themselves as entertainers or supernatural beings, but they rarely, if ever, seem to hide from their talents. We find a startling humility in a man who claimed to be God. Does this prove His claim? No, but it should strike us as odd that a faker would be reluctant to fake.
What do we have? We have reasonable cause to believe that what we read in this portion of John may have actually occurred. We have reasonable assumptions that:
1) It was written during the time period in which it occurred by a witness
2) It occurred, not in a vacuum, but in front of many people in a real place
3) It was performed by someone who was not an entertainer looking to wow a crowd, but someone who was reluctant and reserved - in other words, a real person who performed a real miracle.
These are not concrete, nor are they airtight in their arguments. But, as with much ancient literature, we must approach with an examination of its pprobability, not with a denial of its possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)