Bart Ehrman Is At It Again! Are There Forgeries in the New Testament?

October 22, 2011

Chris Baker Answering the Critics Leave a comment

I recently picked up a “Collector’s Edition” of U.S. News & World Report titled “The Real Jesus”. The articles cover a number of interesting subjects, including Christmas, Jesus’ trial, archaeological discoveries, and Mary and Martha. Towards the end of the magazine is an excerpt from Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them). I haven’t read the whole book, but the excerpt is about forgeries in the New Testament world. Ehrman gives some background on forgeries and some reasons why they happened. Then on page 80 of the magazine, he makes this statement:

“From a historical perspective, there is no reason to doubt that some forgeries very well could have made it into the canon. We have numerous forgeries outside the New Testament. Why not inside? I don’t think one can argue that the church fathers, starting at the end of the second century, would have known which books really were written by apostles and which ones were not. How would they know? Or perhaps more to the point, how can we ourselves know? This might sound a little strange, but it is easier for us today to detect ancient forgeries than it was for people in the ancient world.”

Wait…what?

It’s easier for us who are farther removed in time from the writings to tell which writings are forgeries than it would have been for people who lived closest to the time they were written? Huh? The church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries couldn’t have known which books were written by the apostles? Really?

Ok, the 2nd and 3rd centuries span 100-299 AD. So, let’s explore Ehrman’s statements a bit. Jesus died in the 30s. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in the mid-60s during Nero’s reign. Mark probably lived until a similar time. It’s likely that the Apostle John himself lived until 100-110 AD. So we have one of the Apostles himself living until the beginning of the 2nd century, which means his children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, etc. could have lived well into the 3rd century. So, Ehrman’s claim that nobody during that time could have known which books were written by the Apostles is a bit hard to swallow simply because relatively close family members of the Apostles would still be alive at that point.

We have more evidence than this, though. Ehrman’s claims center on the church fathers not knowing which books were written by the Apostles. There’s one major problem with this. The church fathers were students of the apostles. Ignatius of Antioch who lived until 110, was a student of John. Polycarp of Smyrna, who lived until 155 AD, was also a student of John. So we have students of the apostles living until the middle of the 2nd century. Clement of Rome even mentions some of Paul’s writings in his letter to the Corinthians, which is dated around 96 AD, a mere 30 years after Paul died.

Could the church fathers have known which books were actually written by the Apostles? Yes, they could have. Relatives and students would still have been around in the time period Ehrman is speaking of. Not to mention the fact that the non-canonical forgeries Ehrman speaks of (and uses as implicit evidence that New Testament books could have been forged) were not even written until into the 2nd century.

Ehrman does get one thing right, though. “This might sound a little strange…” It does, Dr. Ehrman. A little strange, indeed.

The Lord’s Prayer Through the Eyes of the Promise (Part 2)

October 17, 2011

Chris Baker Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible , Leave a comment

Read Part 1 of our discussion of the Lord’s Prayer here.

 

Forgive Us Our Debts As We Forgive Our Debtors-What stands out about this request is the reciprocal nature of it.  “Forgive us…as we forgive others…”  It is reminiscent of scenes from the Old Testament where God gives the people a command, for instance, to be kind to strangers, because they once were strangers in Egypt.  “Have mercy on slaves, remembering that you were once slaves in Egypt”.  This happens numerous times in the Old Testament.  We ought to be kind to those in chains because we were once in chains.  We ought to be kind to strangers because we have been strangers.  And we ought to forgive others because we ourselves stand in need of forgiveness.

Lead Us Not Into Temptation, But Deliver Us From Evil-Once again, one cannot help but think of the people of Israel in the Wilderness.  “Have you led us out here to die???” the people asked Moses.  Being seemingly trapped by the Red Sea, mountains and Pharoah’s army, the people complain that God & Moses led them out in the wilderness to die.  We understand mentally that God doesn’t tempt us.  And yet, doesn’t it seem like he leads us into evil sometimes?  Of course, he never does, but it feels that way sometimes.  And so in this line of the prayer, we learn to pray our feelings.  We can be honest in prayer, and pray for God to not lead us into temptation, even if we know he never will, because sometimes it feels like he does.

For Yours is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory Forever, Amen-We are reminded of the only way any of this prayer can come to pass.  God is the Creator.  His kingdom, power and glory are eternal.  That is the context of our prayer, and that is the force behind it.  Our only hop eis the Kingdom, Power and Glory of God reigning in our world and lives.

The Lord’s Prayer Through the Eyes of the Promise (Part 1)

October 14, 2011

Chris Baker Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible , Leave a comment

What would it look like to read the Lord’s Prayer in light of the whole Story of Scripture?  In this post and the next, we will look at the Lord’s Prayer phrase by phrase with this goal.

Our Father in Heaven–In this phrase we see that God is our Father.  God created us all.  What an amazing privilege that we can have an intimate relationship with God–that he calls himself our Father.  At the same time, though, he is “in Heaven.”  This is also emphasized in the fact that God is Creator.  God created us, so he is Father and we can have a relationship with him.  God’s being Creator also means he is over and above us, though.  Nearness and farness, immanence and transcendence, all there in the Creation story, reflected in this first phrase of the Lord’s Prayer.

Hallowed Be Your Name–What does “Hallowed” mean, anyway? It means “holy”, which itself means “to be set apart”.  In what way is God’s Name “set apart”?  When we think of God’s Name, our minds should immediately go back to the story of Moses at the burning bush.  It is in this story that God reveals his Name to be “I am that I am”.  God is the God who is. God lives and moves and exists.  We think of the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, where Baal never answers his prophets, and God does.  We think of course of Jesus’ resurrection.  God’s Name is hallowed because God is the only God who actually is, who actually lives and moves and acts in the world and in our lives.

Your Kingdom Come, Your Will Be Done On Earth As In Heaven–God’s Kingdom was something that Jews of the Old Testament looked forward to.  It wasn’t here yet.  Living after the Messiah, though, we are to follow his example to expect the Kingdom of God to start effecting this world.  Why?  Because Jesus is already king, and his kingdom has already been inaugurated.  If we actually live in God’s kingdom, our world cannot help but be effected by that.

Give Us Today Our Daily Bread–When we think of God giving us our daily bread, again, our minds should be reminded of Israel wandering in the desert.  God sent manna to the people, but they could only take what they needed for that day–their daily bread.  This is a prayer for God to give us what we need to sustain us each day.  Parts of the early church linked this phrase with Communion with the understanding that what we actually need every day to sustain us is Jesus himself.

We will continue our study in the next post…

Question #5: “What Is The Gospel?” (McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”)

July 27, 2010

Chris Baker Book Reviews , , , , , Leave a comment

In this series of posts we are taking the questions Brian McLaren addresses in “A New Kind of Christianity” one by one.  The method will be to ask the question, look at how McLaren believes Western Christianity answers the question, how McLaren answers the question himself and lastly how I would answer the question.  In this post, we will address the 5th question McLaren mentions in the book.

The Question:  What is the Gospel?

Western Christianity’s Answer:  Western Christianity’s answer, McLaren believes, would come mostly if not solely from the Book of Romans.  The Gospel according to Western Christianity is justification by grace through faith.  The Gospel according to Western Christianity is about how to escape earth and get to Heaven.  The Gospel is about avoiding Hell.  Ultimately, the Gospel is about me, me, me.

Brian McLaren’s Answer:  Brian McLaren wants to say that the Gospel is about the Kingdom of God coming to earth.  He emphasizes that what Jesus preached and talked about in the Gospels was the Kingdom of God being at hand.  McLaren then goes through the Book of Romans, which has so often been used to propound the “Gospel is about me” mindset, and he shows how he sees the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in it.  McLaren’s interpretation is as follows:

  1. Jews and Gentiles both have the same level of need.  (Romans 1:18-3:20) 
  2. A new way forward for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, is available: the way of faith.  (3:21-4:25)
  3. Jews and Gentiles are united in a common story.   Paul uses 4 illustrations to show this: Adam, baptism, slavery and remarriage.  (5:1-7:6)
  4. Jews and Gentiles are united in a common struggle and a common victory, illustrated by Paul through the Story of Me and the Story of We.  (7:7-8:39)
  5. Jewish and Gentile problems are addressed, showing that God is God over everything and everyone.  (9:1-11:36)
  6. Jews and Gentiles are engaged in a common life and mission.  (12:1-13:14)
  7. Jews and Gentiles are called to unity in the Kingdom of God.  (14:1-16:27)

For McLaren, then, the Gospel goes from being about “how I get out of Hell” or even “how I get to Heaven” to about “how we can be united in the Kingdom of God”.

Chris’ Answer:  I appreciate very much that Brian McLaren’s interpretation of the Gospel does not leave us on earth, simply biding our time until the Real Thing gets here.  I think he is right to include the idea that we as Jesus-Followers need to be living as though the Kingdom of God were here, because if it was “at hand” and “near” 2000 years ago, how much closer is it now?

Having said that, I think I would want to say that the Gospel is both/and.  I would essentially combine Western Christianity’s answer with McLaren’s to arrive at what I think the Gospel is.  Yes, the Gospel is about living as Kingdom people.  No, the Gospel is not just about me getting to Heaven, or just about me getting out of Hell.  Jesus’ death and resurrection is not simply a “Get Out Of Hell Free” card.  But, unless my relationship with Jesus is restored to what it should be, I can never live as a Kingdom person.  This is, after all, what justification by grace through faith is really about. 

The Gospel doesn’t end with justification by grace through faith.  But it does begin there.  So we can’t define the Gospel solely in terms of the Kingdom of God, but we can’t define it solely in terms of justification by faith.  We need both, if the Good News is going to be as good as it should be.

The Role of the Priest (Telling the “Big Picture” Story of the Bible #5)

July 23, 2010

Chris Baker Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible , Leave a comment

In the previous post in this series, we talked about the role of the prophet.  This time, we will explore the Biblical role of the priest. 

When we think of a priest, what kinds of things do we picture him doing?  In our current time we may think of a Catholic priest, as that may be our most common understanding.  But the Jewish priest was somewhat different.  A Jewish priest had a few main roles.  First, the priest gave offerings and sacrifices to God for the people.  The people would bring their offerings and sacrifices to the priest and the priest would offer them to God himself, performing different rituals or ceremonies depending on the offering or sacrifice. 

A second role of the priest was to represent the people before God.  Many times the priest would pray for and even plead for the people who were the responsibility of that given priest.

The third role we want to highlight is the simple fact that the priest taught the people.  It was the priest’s job to teach and explain to the people all thing things God wanted of the people–in the way of sacrifices and rituals, in the way of commandments, and in the way of beliefs.

Just as we saw with the role of the prophet, Jesus comes in the New Testament and fulfills the role of the priest.  Let’s look at the roles of the priest again, this time in reverse order, and see how Jesus becomes the ultimate example of each.  Obviously, Jesus teaches and explains to us the things God wants us to know.  Jesus did not simply come to die on the cross.  He lived for 30 years first, and had a ministry for 1-3 years before he died and was resurrected.  Part of the reason for that was so Jesus could teach us by his words as well as his life and actions.  There are many examples of Jesus fulfilling this teaching role of the priest, but one example would be the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus also fulfilled the role of representing the people before God.  Jesus, being God himself, was the perfect mediator for the people.  Again, we see this role coming through in many of the things Jesus did–indeed, arguably everything Jesus did was to bridge the gap between God and man.  One obvious example is one we used for the last post as well.  Jesus’ pastoral prayer in John 17.  Here, Jesus is clearly speaking to the Father on our behalf.

That second role flows right into the third role, as well.  Jesus is our priest in that he offered the necessary sacrifice.  Not only does Jesus offer the sacrifice, though–he becomes the sacrifice himself.  The priest–the only perfect, clean, spotless priest–becomes the sacrifice.  (Interestingly, he doesn’t get rid of all the rituals–he implements a new one–the Last Supper/Communion).

Jesus the prophet is also Jesus the priest.  The Old Testament meets the New Testament, and rather than the Old dying to make way for the New, the Old is fulfilled in the New.  Jesus doesn’t get rid of the Old Testament–he lives in its roles and makes it come alive.

Question #4: “Who Is Jesus And Why Is He Important?” (McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”)

July 20, 2010

Chris Baker Book Reviews , , , , 1 Comment

In this series of posts we are taking the questions Brian McLaren addresses in “A New Kind of Christianity” one by one.  The method will be to ask the question, look at how McLaren believes Western Christianity answers the question, how McLaren answers the question himself and lastly how I would answer the question.  In this post, we will address the 4th question McLaren mentions in the book.

The Question:  Who is Jesus and why is he important?

Western Christianity’s Answer:  Instead of giving us a summary of who western Christians think Jesus is, McLaren takes this time to address two of his critics and their views of Jesus.  The first critic McLaren addresses is Mark Driscoll.  (McLaren never names his critics, but the quotes are widely available online, such that their identity is no secret).  Apparently, Driscoll has made the claim that McLaren wants to “recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes…In Revelation, Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed.  That is the guy I can worship.  I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I cannot beat up.”  Wow.

The second critic McLaren addresses is John MacArthur.  Here’s the quote from MacArthur: “The only reason Jesus came was to save people from hell…Jesus had no social agenda…[He didn't come to eliminate poverty or slavery or]…fix something in somebody’s life for the little moment they live on this earth.”

Brian McLaren’s Answer:  McLaren spends a chapter answering each critic.  For someone raised in church, it should be pretty easy to tear apart Driscoll’s view.  It comes from a terrible misreading of Revelation 19:11-16.  Of course there are some notable differences.  The sword is not in Jesus’ hand, it is coming from Jesus’ mouth.  That changes the symbolism a bit.  And it also seems the blood on his robe isn’t the blood of his enemies–it’s his own blood.  The blood doesn’t come from Jesus tearing his enemies limb from limb, like we would expect any earthly king to do.  The author of Revelation has already said previously that Jesus appears as a lamb that has been slaughtered.  Jesus triumphs not because he has the most strength and can draw the blood of his enemies, but because he allows his own blood to be drawn.  Jesus triumphs not through the blood of his enemies, but through his own blood.  McLaren points all of this and more out very well.

John MacArthur’s criticism can be a much more tricky one in some ways.  I think it is much more accepted in the evangelical western world.  This world is evil.  Flesh is evil.  Creation is evil.  We are simply waiting out our time here on earth until we can get to Heaven.  This is the context in which MacArthur is able to say “The only reason Jesus came was to save people from hell…Jesus had no social agenda…[He didn't come to eliminate poverty or slavery or]…fix something in somebody’s life for the little moment they live on this earth.”  There’s only one problem.  Jesus says the exact opposite.  Then Jesus does the exact opposite. 

Remember when Jesus is in the Temple and he quotes from Isaiah 61 in his first public sermon?  Remember what he says?  Quoting Isaiah, Jesus says “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor….Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”  (Luke 4:18-19, 21)

Wait.  It seems Jesus says he came to do the exact things that MacArthur says he didn’t come to do.  Who is right, MacArthur or Jesus?  Then of course, Jesus goes on to do many, many miracles that improve people’s lives, both while they are on earth, and eternally.  It is a both/and, not an either/or, like MacArthur makes it.

McLaren goes on to explore the Gospel of John and to see who Jesus is in this Gospel.  He explains that if we follow Jesus through John, we see that Jesus came to begin a New Creation, echoing Genesis.  There are also many mirror images and descriptions between Jesus and Moses, which show that Jesus is bring a new liberation and forming his people, which mirrors Exodus.  Lastly, we see Jesus preaching about the Kingdom of God, which mirrors the peaceable kingdom of Isaiah.

Chris’ Answer:  I agree, in general, with McLaren, especially when it comes to answering his critics.  I am, well, sad for Mark Driscoll, if indeed he cannot believe in a savior who can be beaten up.  Because Jesus was beaten up.  And killed. 

I also wonder how MacArthur can ignore Jesus’ own words when he is quoting Isaiah, and then ignore Jesus’ own actions when he does so much to make the lives of the people better.  Not only this, all throughout history God told his people, first Israel and then followers of Christ, to treat others well.  The two greatest commandments are to love God and love people.  What is the outcome of all of this?  That people’s lives (both here and there, both now and in the future, both temporal and eternal) will be made better.  I’m sad that MacArthur ignores the words and actions of Jesus.

I also really appreciate that McLaren returns to the full narrative in answering the question of who Jesus is.  Having said that, in my answer, I would do the same.  Remember that in a previous post, I told you that I believe the overarching storyline of the Bible is best understood in covenantal terms, represented by various individuals.  As a result, if I were to give you a full definition of how Jesus fulfills these other covenants.  (We are getting too long for me to do that here, but I may do that in a later post.  I will touch on some of the same issues in this post, and in later posts in this series.)

Long story short, I would say that all that happened in the Bible before Jesus’ time on earth was leading to him, and everything that happens afterwards flows from him.  Jesus is he who everything is about.   Jesus is the One who creates, the One who redeems, the One who lives and dies and lives again.  Jesus is the One who calls us to Him, brings us to Him, and enables us to live like Him.  Jesus is the One who has come and the One who will come again.

Jesus is All.  It’s all about Jesus.  Amen.

The Role of the Prophet (Telling the “Big Picture” Story of the Bible #4)

July 15, 2010

Chris Baker Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible , 1 Comment

What do you think of when I say “prophet”?  Maybe you think of a fortune-teller–someone who can predict the future or a palm-reader or some lady dressed funny with a crystal ball.  Maybe you think of someone who can do miracles–or at least someone who makes it look that way.

What is a prophet in the Bible?  A prophet has many “jobs”, but the major job of a prophet is to be a spokesperson for God.  A prophet hears from God, then speaks to the people the words that God told him to speak.  There are numerous examples of this in the Bible.  Think of all the times someone writes “The word of the LORD came to…” (In most translations, if the word LORD is in all caps it refers specifically to the name God gave Moses at the burning bush).  All of those individual speakers are prophets–Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.  So one role of a prophet is to be God’s spokesperson.

Sometimes a prophet does tell the future, although that is not true in many cases.  Other times, a prophet tells what God might do if something doesn’t change.  We think of Jonah preaching to the Ninevites what will happen if they don’t repent.  Still other times, prophets are told specifically to act out certain things, almost as a dramatic parable, as a symbol to the people.  One example of this is Jeremiah 13, where God commands Jeremiah to bury a linen belt, so that it will get ruined.  This was to represent the way God would ruin Judah’s pride.

So the role of the prophet is to be God’s spokesperson.  Sometimes this involves speaking of the future, although this isn’t necessarily the case.  This speaking for God can be literally, in that the prophet speaks the words of the Lord, or this can be symbolically, in the “dramas” the prophet is called to act out.

This role of prophet is ultimately taken up in the New Testament by none other than Jesus Christ.  Jesus in the New Testament becomes what the prophets were in the Old Testament.

Jesus of course becomes a spokesperson for God (not to imply he isn’t God himself).  It is made pretty clear that the local Jews understood Jesus to be a prophet.  In the story of the men on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, the men understand Jesus to have been a prophet.

Jesus also speaks the words of the LORD.  There are many examples of this, but if we look to Jesus’ prayer for his people at the end of His life, it is made pretty clear.  In John 17:7 & 8 Jesus prays, ”Now they (Jesus’ followers) know that everything you have given me comes from you.  For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them.  They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.”  Jesus says that God gave him words, and that he spoke the words to the people.  What were the words?  All of the sermons Jesus preached.  All of the parables Jesus told.  There were times, too, when Jesus spoke of the future–see Matthew 24.  These were the words of God that Jesus gave to the people.

Not only this, though.  Jesus also performed prophetic signs.  There weren’t a lot of them, mind you, but they were there.  Maybe the most obvious example is when the woman is caught in adultery.  The leaders bring the woman to Jesus to ask if they should stone her, and what does Jesus do?  He bends over and draws in the sand.  Strange!  We don’t know what he drew.  But the leaders did.  And as a result they dropped their stones and walked away.

Another example of a prophetic sign could very well be the way he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.  In some ways, of course, this would be reminiscent of a king riding in to the praises of his people.  In other ways, though, it was symbolic, because Jesus wasn’t a king (at least not a king like the people expected–more on that in a future post).

It could very well be that Jesus’ clearing the Temple could be a third prophetic sign.

So while the role of the prophet is most often associated with the Old Testament, it exists throughout the whole Biblical story.  And like many other things, the role of the prophet is ultimately filled in the person of Jesus Christ.

Question #3: “Is God Violent?” (McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”)

July 12, 2010

Chris Baker Book Reviews , , Leave a comment

In this series of posts we are taking the questions Brian McLaren addresses in “A New Kind of Christianity” one by one.  The method will be to ask the question, look at how McLaren believes Western Christianity answers the question, how McLaren answers the question himself and lastly how I would answer the question.  In this post, we will address the 3rd question McLaren mentions in the book.

The Question:  Is God Violent?

Western Christianity’s Answer:  McLaren doesn’t really have much to say about how Western Christianity has answered this question in the past.  He talks about how certain groups of many different religions have read their holy books in a constitutional way and have used their respective holy books to justify violence, but McLaren in no way indicates that he thinks this is normative of Western Christianity.  (For more on what it means to read the Bible in a constitutional way, read the post on Question 2: How Should The Bible Be Understood?)

Brian McLaren’s Answer:  In short, Brian McLaren’s answer to the question “Is God Violent?” is “No.” 

The obvious next question, then, is “What about all those stories in the Old Testament where God seems to command and/or approve war?”  McLaren’s answer is, essentially that we need to remember to read the Bible in light of the overall storyline.  The overall storyline is that everything in salvation history is working towards Jesus.  Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.  What we have in the Biblical authors’ writings throughout the Old Testament, then, is an evolution of their understanding of God.  As the storyline gets closer and closer to Jesus, God’s self-revelation gets more and more clear until finally, we meet Jesus, who is the ultimate revelation of God.

This might throw some red flags.  Does this mean we can’t trust those earlier revelations of God?  Were the writers of those earlier books lying?

Let’s look at a metaphor that McLaren uses, because I think it is very helpful.  Think of a series of Math textbooks ranging from 1st grade to 6th grade.  In the 1st grade textbook, we learn that you cannot subtract a larger number from  a smaller number.  Ok.  That makes sense.  You progress through the textbooks, though, and you later learn that indeed, you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number, and when you do, you end up with a negative number.  Were the authors of those first textbooks lying?  Should you throw away everything else that is in those early textbooks?  No.  Of course not.  It’s just that you needed to be taught more basic principles before you move on to more complex principles.

The same is true in God’s revelation of Himself.  He needed to reveal to us basic principles first, before we could understand what it means to “love our neighbor” or “love our enemy” or that the greatest love one can have is to lay one’s life down for someone else.  Because of humanity’s lack of understanding, God had to reveal more basic principles before He could reveal more complex ones.

Chris’ Answer:  Again, with this question I agree essentially with McLaren’s understanding.  I do think there is merit to a sort of progressive understanding of revelation.

Having said that, once again, I think McLaren is at risk of taking it too far.  McLaren goes on to say that because revelation is progressive, we must not assume we have already arrived.  In my reading, McLaren is somewhat vague in what he means by this.  I agree if McLaren simply means that in our personal lives, we are not perfect in lining up our lives with the revelation of Jesus.

I strongly disagree, though, if McLaren means that we ought to be expecting even more revelation before Heaven.  Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.  Scripture is clear on this.  Scripture is also clear that when Jesus returns, we will see things more clearly.  But until then, we have all the revelation we are going to get in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, in short, I agree that a helpful way to understand violence in the Bible (or slavery or women’s rights, for that matter) is to understand revelation in a progressive way.  We just have to keep in mind that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God, and our lives and understanding need to line up with Him.

This emphasis on Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God leads perfectly to Question #4–”Who Is Jesus and Why Is He Important?”  Stay tuned!

Good Without God?

July 6, 2010

Chris Baker Uncategorized , , 2 Comments

One of the major contentions of modern atheism/agnosticism is that it is possible to be good without needing to believe in God.  There are plenty of people, atheists will say, who belive in God who are not good.  And of course I agree.  Simply believing in God does not suddenly change a person into a good person.  But is the opposite true?  Is it possible to be good without believing in God?

If we are simply talking about a person’s actions, then the answer is “yes”.  There certainly are atheists who do good things.  There are all kinds of people all over the range of “religiosity” that donate time and money to good, worthy causes.  Of course agnostics and atheists do good things.

But it is with the next question that everyone tends to get nervous:  Does it make sense for atheists to do good things?

I would have to answer “no”. 

So, am I saying that we need some Big Guy in the sky cracking a whip over us in order to get us to do what is good?  Nope.  That’s not what I am saying.  I don’t think people need to see God as a Task-Master beating us into submission before they will do good.  I have already acknowledged that atheists do good things.  They presumably aren’t doing good things because they are afraid of the Angry Task-Master, or else they aren’t really atheists.

The reason it doesn’t make sense for atheists to do good things is because it is impossible to define what is good without talking about God.  Without some type of god, it is impossible to talk about good and bad.  There is no way to define “good” or “bad” without appealing to something outside of oneself to for a definition.

A common argument against what I am saying is put forth by Richard Dawkins, and many others.  In his The God Delusion, Dawkins proposes the idea that morality is determined by “the selfish gene”.  Basically the idea is that what is beneficial for survival is moral.  What extends our life is good and those things that benefit the evolutionary process are good, and the opposites are bad.

But why should this be the case?  For the Christian, we believe life is good because the Creator created us and loves us and is Life Himself.  But for someone who doesn’t believe in God, why should life be any “better” than death?  Why is life any more moral than death?  The problem with atheism is, if I was holding a gun to an atheist’s head (which I would never do), there is no logical argument that atheist could give me to not shoot him.

Without a standard of morality, “good” and “bad” lose their meaning.  Without a standard of morality, why is democracy any better than tyranny?  Love better than hate?  Freedom better than slavery?  Without a standard of morality, we are left with only moral relativism, which is to say, no morality at all.

And yet I said at the beginning that I believe that atheists do good things.  Why is that?  It’s not because it makes sense in their worldview.  It is because deep down, even atheists believe there is right and wrong, there is good and bad.  Deep down, even atheists can’t get away from the need for morality.  And this need for morality must ultimately point to a standard of good and bad outside of themselves.  Perhaps a moral atheist is closer to believing in God than he or she might think.

The Commandments (Telling the “Big Picture” Story of the Bible #3)

June 30, 2010

Chris Baker Telling the Big Picture Story of the Bible , Leave a comment

Quick-what are the Ten Commandments?  Can you name them?  If you are having trouble, you might want to glance over at Exodus 20 to refresh your memory.

When I say the word “commandment”, your mind probably automatically goes to the Ten Commandments.  But to understand the Ten Commandments we need to go back a little further into Israel’s history.  The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt.  Pharoah was abusing them and forcing them to construct buildings with very few building materials.  This had been going on for years when Moses comes on the scene.  God, through Moses, uses the plagues to set the Hebrews free. 

It is after the Hebrews are set free that they receive the Ten Commandments.  The Ten Commandments are the right response for the People of God after they have been made free.  It’s not that by doing these things they will be made free.  It’s not that the Hebrews have to do these things first, then they will be made free.  The idea is that the Hebrews have already been made free and the Ten Commandments (and by extension the rest of the Law) are the proper way to respond to the freedom they have already been given.

That is the story of the Ten Commandments in a nutshell.  So along comes this teacher named Jesus in New Testament times.  One of the things Jesus has been accused of is overthrowing the Scriptures, including the Law, the Ten Commandments, and overthrowing previous religious history while attempting to start a cult.  The religious leaders see their power being taken away from them right before their eyes. 

So the religious leaders decide to try to trap Jesus.  They set him up with a question they think he cannot answer safely.  They ask him “Which commandment is the greatest?”  After Jesus picks one commandment, they can ask why he didn’t pick this other one–doesn’t this other one matter too?  Or is he to trying to ignore some of what Moses taught?

So how does Jesus answer?  He gives two more commandments–two commandments which reflect some in the Old Testament.  The Greatest Commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.  The Second Greatest Commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.  According to Jesus, all of the Law can be summed up in these two commandments.

These two commandments should serve for us Christians as the Ten Commandments did for Jews.  It is not by these two commandments that we are saved.  It is not because we follow these commandments that we make it into heaven.  It is not because we follow these commandments that we are saved or made free.  It is only by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus that we are made free.

But, after we have been saved, after we have been made free, our right response is to follow these commandments.  If we want to have a right relationship with our Savior, the only proper response is to follow these commandments.

Older Entries Newer Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers