The name of God

Some men worship the sun god. Some worship the moon god. Others worship the god of the harvest, the gods of the weather, the god of fertility; gods of love and gods of power, gods of life and gods of death, gods of justice and gods of war.

I worship the Creator God: the Most High God. He made the sun, the moon, the plants. He made all the gods.

Who is this God?

The Creator God? Yes. But he existed before the sun shone, or the moon ruled the night. Before there was lightning and thunder, and water to make the plants grow. Before the earth and sky were made. Even before there was light and darkness.

The Most High God? Yes. Though he made all the gods. Before there were any angels he was God. He existed before the principalities and powers; before the cherubim and seraphim; before any creature to whom men bow.

He is Creator God but he was God before he made creation. He is the Most High God but he was God before he made the gods. Before anything was he was God. Who is this God? What do we call this God? What is his name?

Before anything God existed. He has always existed; he exists now; he will always exist. His name is

I AM

Christianity and homosexuality. Part 4

So far I have discussed the issue of anatomy and physiology, the commands of Scripture, and the lack of children as it relates to homosexuality. Our biological design makes it clear that heterosexuality is our purpose and that homosexuality thwarts this. The Bible clearly prohibits sodomy and catamy (1Co 6:9-11). And raising godly children is a reason for marriage.

This information grants us enough for obedience. It is clear how God designed sexuality and God has forbidden us from misuse. Though this does not directly address the question why, which was my friend's question,

I can’t see why God would have a problem with homosexuality, assuming that is was ‘good’ homosexuality. We have many, many examples of ‘bad’ heterosexuality. If we take all of what we say a monogamous, loving, ‘Godly’, heterosexual marriage should be and call that a ‘good’ relationship then I can’t see any difference if you just slotted in the word homosexual instead of heterosexual.

What I wish to do here is consider why this might be the case. A knife may not be as effective as a screwdriver but is is not immoral to use it as one.

We need to remember that we are created and God is eternal; our perspective is often anthrocentric but the universe is actually Christocentric. The Godhead is eternal and everything derives from him. As such material things are often reflections of eternal things. Jesus is the son of God but this is not a biological relationship. He did not become the son of God because he was born of Mary via the Holy Spirit, he is the son of God by virtue of his relationship to the Father, of which human sonship is a reflection. Humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26).

I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family [fatherhood] in heaven and on earth is named. (Ephesians 3:15)

This may mean that God names, that is defines, family/ fatherhood; or possibly that family/ fatherhood derives its name from who the Father is. Regardless of which is intended here it is clear that earthly fathers are representative of the Father (cf. Mat 7:11; Heb 12:7).

Reproduction does not require 2 genders, some species reproduce asexually and some plants have both male and female components within a single organism. Humans are in the image of God and have 2 distinct genders so it is worth considering if there is a reason for this. Are the sexes representative in some way? Paul addresses this question.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31-32)

When God decided to create man it was his intention to create relationship. Humans were to know and be in relationship with God. This relationship between people as a group and God is the primary reason for creation.

Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-38)

The most important command for all mankind is to love God. Our relationship to God is also primary over our other relationships between each other and this includes marriage. The vertical precedes the horizontal.

So we are created from the beginning to love God. This relationship between those who love God (the church) and God is primary, and of which marriage is a reflection. Marriage between men and women is an image of the relationship between God and man. In the same way that fathers are an image of the true Father, whom they are to imitate; so marriages are an image of the true Marriage between Christ and the church. God created the 2 sexes (at least in part) so we would have an image of our relationship with Jesus. This explains the use of the term bridegroom as applied to Jesus and bride to his followers (Joh 3:29); and this is not just an analogy (Rev 19:7; 21:2; 22:17).

We live in a fallen world, one where we have many marred reflections of Christ and his bride. God even allowed divorce in situations where continuing a marriage is worse than it ending; though that is not what God intended (Mat 19:8). As my friend has noted there are many examples of bad heterosexuality including both bad marriages and refusal to marry. Nevertheless, such bad heterosexuality is a poor reflection of Christ and the church whereas homosexuality, whether so-called "good" or "bad," is not a reflection of Christ and the church at all. Homosexual relationships at their core misrepresent our relationship with God. Created beings cannot define the world from their perspective, they must accept the intents of their creator. If the creation of the 2 sexes (male and female) and marriage between them was invented by God in order to reflect the relationship between mankind and God then we must accept his design and submit to it. Refusal to do so is an affront to God and rebellion against his plans.

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

The deity of Christ in John

The Bible begins

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

John introduces his gospel in a similar manner

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

The Greek in John uses the same initial two words as the Septuagint.

• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν (Gen 1:1)
• ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1)

This allusion testifies to the divinity of Jesus. Beyond the connection of the "Word" with "God" in John, John links God as creator in Genesis with the Word as creator in his gospel. Genesis states that God is creator of the heavens and the earth, a merism for everything,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

John tells us that the all things were made through the Word, and he emphasises this with the negative: there was nothing made without the Word,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The first thing created within the new cosmos was light,

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5)

Still alluding to Genesis John informs us that just as light came into the world, the Word is light to mankind.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

John's use of Genesis makes it clear that the God who created the world is the Word.

What we do not deserve

It is always good to be reminded of the basics.

During communion today part of the prayer mentioned that we do not deserve for Jesus to have even died for us. So often we remember that we do not deserve God's grace, we do not deserve to have him take us into his kingdom. Yet beyond not deserving him to forgive us, we do not even deserve for him to have been incarnated in order to die for us.

No matter how much we desire to join God's kingdom—and that desire itself arises in response to God drawing us to himself—we could not be in his kingdom unless he choose to die for this unworthy race.

Oh the kindness and the goodness of God.

What Jesus would not do

I have come across this cartoon. Though the cartoon does not mention it, the sites I have seen it on seem to view it as an apologetic against right-leaning Christianity. Though I do not wish to address the moral and political spectrum here—perhaps at some stage as I find it important, and increasingly so recently—I think such a cartoon reveals biblical illiteracy and would like to de-construct it here.

Enumerating these for reference we have:

1. Harass single moms
2. Beat homosexuals
3. Picket their funerals
4. Shoot doctors
5. Shoot anyone
6. Join a militia
7. Run a network
8. Own a weapon
9. Run for president
10. Burn a cross
11. Hate his enemies
12. Attack the poor
13. Side with the rich
14. Put his name on merchandise

Before commenting on individual statements a couple of general statements are in order.

Firstly, it is false to appeal to what Jesus did not do or was unwilling to do as an absolute condemnation of such activity. There are many things that Jesus did not do and refused to do for reasons related to circumstance and not immorality. Jesus had a ministry and would not be sidetracked from such ministry. He therefore refused to do some things that are perfectly legitimate for his followers.

Secondly, Jesus is Yahweh. Though the trinity is more opaque in the Old Testament, Jesus is God, and Paul says Christ was the Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert (1 Corinthians 10:4). So if God does something it means that not only that Jesus would do such a thing, he did do it.

On to the list.

1. Depends what is meant by harass. When Mary (possibly single by then) wished to see Jesus his response was that those who hear the word of God and do it were his mother and brother (Luke 8). At another time Jesus challenged a woman married 5 times and living with a man whom she was not married to (John 4). Jesus does not shy from confronting her with his knowledge of the fact in an effort for her to realise who he is.  Is it wrong to harass a mother solely because she is single? Yes. But that does not mean one is not allowed to address any of her issues that may have contributed to her singleness.

2. It is unclear whether "beat" is meant literally or metaphorically here. People shouldn't physically beat up anyone for his beliefs; fighting should be confined to defending others from assault.

3. In general picketing funerals is inappropriate, though potentially there could be some reason? I would not put it past an Old Testament prophet speaking against a nation at a political leader's funeral. I am only aware of a single church in the US run by a questionable character and that is hardly representative of Christendom.

4. Possibly not in the capacity as a citizen, but such activity is hardly common by Christians around the world is it?

5. Really? A God who ordered a destroying angel to raise his sword over Israel (1 Chronicles 21) would be averse to using modern weaponry? The confusion here lies in seeing Jesus' mission solely during the incarnation and not also when he returns to judge the living and the dead. Jesus became a man in order to carry out a mission of reconciliation between man and God. Killing all the wicked men living in the first century was not exactly the agenda.

6. Yet all men in Israel were instructed by God to take up arms to conquer the promised land. They were punished for refusing to do so (Numbers 13-14).

7. I presume this is a dig at Amway?

8. Jesus commended a centurion who probably carried a weapon. Jesus' disciples had weapons. Jesus rebuked them when they used them in an inappropriate situation, but no condemnation that they were in their possession. The problem is not owning a weapon for protection, the problem is trying to advance the kingdom thru the power of the sword. As to Jesus owning a weapon: in John's vision of Jesus a sword comes from his mouth (Revelation 1:16); probably not for cutting the wedding cake at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

9. This is probably because Jesus is going to become supreme monarch by force (Revelation 19:15).

10. Allusion to racism? True, Jesus desires men from all nations to join his kingdom (Revelation 7:9).

11. It is true that Jesus loves his enemies, something all Christians should strive to emulate. Note we are to hate our family in comparison to our devotion to Jesus (Luke 14:26). This teaches us that we need to consider how the word "hate" is used.

12. A situation arose with someone asking Jesus to judge on behalf or him and his brother over an inheritance (Luke 12:10). Interestingly Jesus does not side with the poorer (probably younger) brother, rather he cautions him against love of money. Another poor man Jesus heals then subsequently warns to leave sin to escape a worse fate (John 5).

13. Jesus allowed a woman to use very expensive perfume on him (Mark 14:3); he was friends with some rich disciples such as Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57); and his ministry was supported by some rich women (Luke 8:3). Jesus does not side with people because they are rich or poor. Jesus sides with the poor when they are oppressed. He warns the rich against the love of money. And he shows mercy to repentant sinners.

14. Probably not material merchandise. Though definitely people, those he has purchased with his blood (Revelation 3:12).

What people often fail to see is how Jesus interacts with people based on where they are at. Telling the rich man to give his money to the poor addresses his covetousness, incidentally the commandment Jesus did not mention to him initially. He rebuked Pharisees for self-righteousness and unrighteousness. People also sometimes fail to see the reason behind a commandment or action of Jesus.

We need a fuller knowledge of our Lord. The judgmental need to learn mercy, the wicked need to learn righteousness, the foolish need to learn wisdom, the antinomians need to learn holiness, and we all need to know that while God takes us where we are, this is not our destination. Who we are is not who we will be.

We Christians serve a king

Though his kingship does not look like others who would rule this world. I find it interesting that we bow before a man who went thru an unjust trial, was beaten by men who hate him, was nailed to a patibulum and left hanging naked to die in front of a crowd, many who mocked him. A long way from the the rulers who conquer kingdoms or are born into royalty, and demand obeisance.

Yet I gladly bow at the foot of a cross to a man whose only item symbolic of royalty is a crown, and that of thorns. Still, how appropriate that the result of the curse should grace the forehead of him who took the curse upon himself.

"Are you the Christ," they ask. "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." We will see Jesus as a conquering king, but for now,

Behold the Man upon a cross
My guilt upon His shoulders
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished.

---

How Deep the Father’s Love for Us, Stuart Townend

Response to the resurrection

Those who claim there was no resurrection of Jesus often do so from the perspective that such an event is impossible. An argument could be along the lines of

1. The laws of nature cannot be circumvented except by the supernatural
2. There is no such thing as the supernatural
3. God is supernatural
4. Thus miracles are impossible
5. Resurrection of dead people is a miracle
6. Thus the resurrection of Jesus did not happen

This argument is not airtight, one could quibble about the relationship of God to the supernatural, and one could be more precise about circumventing laws of nature, but it suffices for our purposes.

The premises in the argument are disputable. Presuppositions are fine. We all have them and use them to filter our experience and construct a worldview. However, once we encounter evidence that challenges our conclusions we do well to examine our presuppositions. If we have good evidence that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then this means that at least one of the premises is incorrect. This should lead us to change our mind. In this case one would then think either that the laws of nature can be circumvented or, if we have reason to think they cannot, that the supernatural does in fact exist.

The problem we face is that men will accept all sorts of alternative explanations, even completely unreasonable ones, just so that they can keep their presuppositions. Their denial of God means that no evidence for God is good enough because for some God cannot exist axiomatically. Any explanation, however preposterous, is always to be preferred over challenging one's belief about the existence of God. This is not following the evidence wherever it leads, it is restricting evidences to those that conform to the unchallengeable worldview.

A resurrection denier could raise the same objection about those who affirm a resurrection. There is truth to the fact that the theistic presuppositions can be challenged by contrary evidence as atheistic ones can. However it is not the resurrection where this challenge is strong as the explanation of the resurrection is consistent and, one could argue, parsimonious with the data.

Which raises a question, are those who deny the resurrection biased? The answer is yes. We all are biased. Deniers are are likely to be negatively biased to various degrees. This is because the resurrection is not a neutral fact, thus more prone to be affected by underlying bias. I can prefer the birth year of Aquinas to be 1224 AD over 1225 AD with little effect on my obligations. But affirming the resurrection impels me to address Jesus' question, "Who do you say I am?" And if I have already affirmed Jesus' resurrection I am likely to think he has given credence to his claims of who he is.

Therefore the request for historical and modern examples of non-Christians who affirm the resurrection is disingenuous. Sure, such people, if they exist, are powerful hostile witnesses; but the lack of examples is not surprising, and the request for such examples is similar to only accepting evidence for oxygen from ardent phlogistonists.

Interpreting Isaiah 53 christologically

Gerd Lüdemann is a Professor of History and Literature of Early Christianity. In an article titled, "Liberated from the Christological Madhouse," he argues that interpretations of the Old Testament that see fulfilment in Jesus are illegitimate. His article proposes that:

1. Early Christians looked to the Old Testament for prophecies concerning Jesus coming up with ingenious derivations;
2. Luther confirmed this and moved away from an allegorical approach to a literal approach; and
3. Christological interpretations by the New Testament authors and Luther are invalid because their false worldview.

Regarding item 3 Lüdemann explains,

The simple reason for this is that all of their exegeses and formulations presuppose an obsolete and mythological worldview that injects an ineradicable virus of outdated belief systems into the texts.

He then goes on to give an example based on Isaiah 7 and 52–53.

To be sure, the uncritical reader might take Isaiah 52 and 53 to be a prediction that as the Servant of the Lord Jesus would suffer and die on behalf of mankind (“Surely he has borne our infirmities and suffered our ills…” – Isaiah 53:4). Yet, because of the context and the content of the passage at hand, this thesis cannot be substantiated. The passage concludes a cycle of four songs of the Servant of the Lord, which within the second part of the book of Isaiah (chapters 40–55) constitute a separate unit. According to these songs, the task of this “Suffering Servant” was to lead the Jews from the Babylonian exile back to Palestine and to establish a cult. Obviously these songs could not have had Jesus in mind, but rather some probably mythic and surely pre-Christian figure.

The evangelist Matthew would have us believe that Isaiah 7:14 foretold the virgin birth of Jesus; but since the announcement of this forthcoming birth refers to an event during the reign of king Ahaz (741-725 BCE), Jesus cannot have the child referred to. Besides, the Hebrew original of the text reads almah (young woman), not bethulah (virgin). The inaccurate rendering resulted from Matthew’s use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, which in Isaiah 7:14 uses a word that could be translated as “virgin.”

This is the total of his argument which is somewhat brief and has its own unjustified assumptions.

His argument against the Jesus being the Suffering Servant is that

1. Christological interpretations of the Suffering Servant are out of context
2. The context of the Suffering Servant is that of an exiled Jew leading the return to Judea
3. The Suffering Servant was to set up a cult
4. The Suffering Servant was pre-Christian and mythic

The argument against Isaiah 7 referring to Jesus is

1. The prophecy of Isaiah 7 was to be understood only to be contemporary, i.e. the time of Ahaz
2. The Hebrew word almah cannot mean "virgin"
3. The Greek word can mean "virgin" and Matthew inappropriately used this meaning

The second argument is long standing as has resulted in substantial discussion. Lüdemann has merely stated which side of the argument he sides with. Many scholars dispute his claims about the meanings of almah and bethulah. All he has done is highlight the issue, not resolve it. I do not intend to discuss this debate further in this post.

Lüdemann's first argument ignores his disputable underlying premises and betrays his own chronological arrogance. I refer to chronological arrogance because some moderns seem to believe they are more enlightened than the ignorant ancients. Sure, there is much in the modern world that was not previously known. But the ancients understood many things well, often better than us. And they are probably better interpreters of their culture and worldview than us. Paul was an educated Jew in the first century well read in the Hebrew Scriptures. He interpreted Isaiah 52 christologically (Rom 4:25; 15:21) as did others such as Peter and Philip. To dismiss others who lived much closer to the time, speaking the same language, and belonging to the same culture, in a disdainful manner is unnecessary. This does not make contemporaries correct, just worthy of detailed consideration.

The 4 Suffering Servant (Songs) are Isaiah 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12. The surrounding context of the 4th song is not clearly that of returning from Babylon. Isaiah 51 and 52 are God speaking thru the prophet Isaiah to the people, frequently referring to Zion which implies the land of Israel, not just the people. There is mention of Jerusalem frequently. And it is not so much the return of the people to Jerusalem, rather the return of God to the people

The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice;/
together they sing for joy;/
for eye to eye they see/
the return of the Lord to Zion./
Break forth together into singing,/
you waste places of Jerusalem,/
for the Lord has comforted his people;/
he has redeemed Jerusalem. (Isaiah 52)

There is mention of previous exile under Egypt and Assyria—the latter being Ephraim's exile by Assyria or Judah's future exile to Babylon—but this is not the focus of the passage, rather the Lord's deliverance of the people from these kind of events. It is this divine deliverance that is mentioned in these chapters that sets the scene for a servant in a messianic vein. It is the very presence of God himself that brings deliverance. And while aspects can be interpreted narrowly around the return from Babylon, the judgment of the nations (Isa 51:5–6), the previous judgment of Egypt (Isa 51:9), knowledge of God to the world (Isa 51:4), salvation for all people (Isa 52:10), all point to a context far greater than Babylon.

The 4th Suffering Servant song itself has further contextual clues that the person was not a leader of the returning exiles, nor mythic; rather someone who brings God's presence to the world.

This servant is referred to by singular pronouns thru-out this passage. He is also contrasted with Israel precluding an identification of the Suffering Servant as the nation of Israel.

who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53)

Also he suffered as an innocent (Isa 53:9, 11), vicariously (Isa 53:4–6, 8, 10, 12), and without complaint (Isa 53:7) to the point of death (Isa 53:8–9).

The Suffering Servant is not leading a return, he is suffering and dying. And not for himself but others. This passage very much carries a messianic theme, which Christians view as being fulfilled in Jesus whose suffering and death parallel what is already in the text of Isaiah 53.

I am not certain what to make of the pre-Christian and cult establishing claims of Lüdemann. The passage is about a future event from the time of Isaiah. How much in the future is not specified here.

Early Christianity was viewed as a new sect at the time (Acts 24). Isaiah 53 does not obviously suggest a new cult. Lüdemann may have verses 10–12 in mind, but that these postdate the death of the servant yet he sees the outcome is a stronger hint for a resurrection. And the suffering of the servant for all speaks against a limited group that a cult would involve. Further, Christianity does not see itself as a new religion as much as a response to increased revelation from God.

Contrary to Lüdeman's claim that the songs, "could not have had Jesus in mind," the immediate and surrounding context of Isaiah 53 points to God redeeming a people to himself by his use of a servant who would suffer and die for the transgressions of others. Not only is a Christological interpretation possible, is it doubtful any other person has laid a valid claim to this passage.