Monday quote

Nor when we detect intelligence in more ordinary situations do we worry about making arguments from ignorance, or generating infinite regresses, or running  afoul of Hume's critique of analogical reasoning. Neither would we deny that something as interesting as specified digitally encoded information requires explanation.

Instead, in hypothetical and real-world cases, the inference to intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of specified information is straightforward and unproblematic—except, for some, when considering the origin of life.

Stephen C. Meyer

Jesus curses a fig tree

James Tissot (French, 1836-1902).
The Accursed Fig Tree (Le figuier maudit), 1886-1894.

A passage recorded in Matthew and Mark seems somewhat enigmatic.

In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. (Matthew 21)

I have heard the complaint that it was unreasonable for Jesus to curse a fig tree for not having figs on it. I suppose one could add that it is especially unreasonable as it was not fig season (Mark 11:13), though there did not appear to be even buds, just leaves. Interestingly the disciples were not particularly concerned about this. They were impressed with Jesus control over nature. When the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” (Matthew 21)

Before addressing the curse I will take a brief diversion into a discrepancy claim. Some assert that the biblical authors disagree over whether the tree withered immediately or the next day. Matthew states,

And the fig tree withered at once.

Whereas Mark says

And [Jesus] said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it....

And when evening came they went out of the city.

As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. (Mark 11)

3 comments are in order. Firstly, we must be careful how much we read into the word "immediately." It appears to be used frequently to keep the narrative running. It is common in Mark (though not used here). Within a time focused culture such as ours "immediate" implies right now, this second, no delay. While I guess this sense may be used by 1st century Jews, I am less certain it is required.

Secondly, while I have no doubt the tree died at the moment Jesus cursed it, the question is when was this noticed? An animal's death is obvious to people at the very point of death. For plants the process is different and the outward changes are delayed. To be withered to the roots within one day is "at once" for a tree.

Thirdly, and most importantly, if the precise sequence in Mark is correct, which I suspect it is, then Matthew is conflating two episodes. Matthew wishes to discuss the fig tree episode in a single passage. The cursing of the fig tree occurs on the morning Jesus casts out the money changers. Matthew holds back on mentioning the speaking of the curse until the latter discussion about the disciples marvelling at the effect of the curse. He is following a more topical arrangement in this section.

But why the curse, especially if it was not the season for figs?

I do not know much about horticulture or the life cycle of fig trees. There is some information on figs over at Plant Encyclopedia. Fig trees are apparently deciduous and sprout fruit in spring and autumn, though related species can be evergreen or sprout fruit year around. The cursing of the fig tree occurred after the triumphal entry and before Passover, that is ~Nisan 10 and early spring.

The passage indicates Jesus uses the episode to teach his disciples about faith. It is likely that this was Jesus pronouncing a judgment on Israel for failing to recognise him. The episode occurred at the time of judgment concerning the temple, and fig trees are used as a symbol for Israel (Hosea 9:10). Interestingly Jesus tells a parable a year earlier.

A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ (Luke 13:6-9)

Here Jesus is alluding to his ministry. He has ministered to Israel for 3 years. Israel have failed to produce fruit in keeping with the coming of the Messiah. The owner wishes to remove the tree but is convinced to leave it a further year. Jesus will minister for a further year but if Israel still fails to produce fruit then they will come under a curse. The parable is a warning. A year later when Jesus ministry was at an end Israel had still failed as a nation to appropriately recognise the nature of Jesus. The real curse of a real fig tree was symbolic of judgment on the nation of Israel for failing to be fruitful by responding to Jesus.

Accusing the righteous

Job is an fundamental book if one is going to discuss suffering. It is important both for understanding the issue of suffering in our world, but also to encourage those who are suffering. I have found Job difficult to understand and I do not think think is unique to myself. The early chapters being narrative seem relatively straight forward, though there is a wealth of information encased there. But the poetical exchanges between Job and his friends seem more complicated theologically.

I have read Job several times and have recently come to a conclusion that helped me make sense of the dialogues.

Job makes several claims, many of which seem true, though he still complains to God. God confronts and rebukes Job, yet later tells Job's friends that Job has spoken right of him and they have not.

The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.(Job 42:7)

Yet some what the friends stated seems true. Paul even quotes Eliphaz positively,

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” (1 Corinthians 3:19)

compare

He frustrates the devices of the crafty,
so that their hands achieve no success.
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end. (Job 5:12-13)

So at least some of what Eliphaz said was correct.

The conclusion I have come to is that Job what a type of Christ. Much as Joseph and Elisha are types of Christ in various ways so Job is also, in the sense that he is a righteous man suffering unrighteously. The fault of his friends is not always in what they state if one considers it from a proverbial perspective, rather in their misapplication to a righteous man. The introduction to Job serves as a framework with which we can interpret the dialogues.

In the first 2 chapters of Job we are given an insight into a divine dialogue that Job what ignorant of. Satan brings an accusation against Job. Tellingly he is given the name Satan which means "accuser" or "adversary." Job's friends make statements that may be correct in some situations but are not in this situation, or they apply proverbs that are generally true but not specifically true. Because Job is a righteous man his friends are accusing him wrongly and are judged by God for this. If we consider Job a type of Christ then consider how Job's friends would sound if they made the same accusations against Jesus. It is not that what they are saying is always incorrect, but they are certainly incorrect in applying these ideas to Jesus.

I suggest reading thru Job and reading the comments by Job's friends as being directed to Jesus and considering how that affects your perception of them and your reading of Job.

Now Job is a type of Christ and not the antitype, who is Jesus. Job is a sinner as are all men. He is righteous in God's eyes as he is a man of faith and he does what is right, nevertheless, he is a son of Adam who sins and is in need of a redeemer; something he willingly confesses,

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God, (Job 19:25-26)

Because of this God rebukes Job for what he does not understand. God corrects Job where he sins, but Job's friends accuse him of sin when he is acting in righteousness.

Evidence for God more accessible than evidence from science

One atheist complaint about God is why is the evidence for him not clearer? Why do we have to search so hard for it? Should it not be obvious?

I actually think the evidence for God is clearer than what is claimed. However Keith Ward raises an interesting point, especially given the atheist penchant for science.

As to the question of evidence, I think that is rather like asking why we have to try so hard to discover scientific truth. Why did God not just tell us about quantum physics, and make it all obvious? There is a truth about the physical world, but it is extremely hard to discover. Part of being human is having to learn for ourselves, after taking many false paths and blind alleys, what the world is like. (Chapter 8, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God)

The irony Ward identifies is remarkable. Scientific evidence is not obvious prior to the fact. But even more damning is that the scientific method was not particularly obvious. It was late on the scene and only originated in a single culture. And even now when we understand how the scientific method operates, unravelling the workings of the world takes considerable effort.

What's more, evidences for God—the design argument and the moral argument—were known about centuries before science. Many cultures understood this evidence for God for millennia; yet the scientific method, which so enamours the materialists, took a long time to be identified. Further, the development of the philosophy of God (theology) proceeded significantly while men struggled to progress in natural philosophy (science) due to their unwarranted devotion to Aristotle.

It seems that the evidence for God is indeed much more accessible to man than science.

Monday quote

[Eternity] is a real duration, a real persistence of a sort that is imitated in time.

Eleonore Stump

Income inequality

Joe Carter has written a useful article about income equality that I think Christians from both sides of the political spectrum it should read.

Carter's points

1. Incomes are measured in money—and money is not wealth.
2. The existence of income inequality is generally a sign of a fair distribution of incomes.
3. Both low and high rates of income inequality can be signs of unfairness.
4. Income inequality is not the same as economic inequality
5. Measures of income inequality are meaningless because incomes are not zero-sum
6. Income inequality and poverty are separate issues.
7. No one in America is really concerned about absolute income inequality.
8. Discussions of income inequality are almost always about redistribution of income.
9. The only real threat caused by income inequality are problems caused by envy
10. The focus on income inequality is at best, useless, and, at worst, immoral.

A few thoughts from myself

1. Note that the essay is about income inequality and not poverty.
2. One can be concerned about poverty but not income inequality.
3. It makes a difference if your money is a result of creating wealth or just taking it, especially if you take it directly from the poor. This may include aspects of the finance industry.

---

What Every Christian Should Know About Income Inequality

Here are ten points about income inequality that every Christian should understand:

1. Incomes are measured in money — and money is not wealth.

Income inequality is not in itself an economic problem. The simplest way to illustrate this point is to provide a simple “solution”, for there is a simple method that would lead to perfect income equality.

The first step is to calculate the number of earners and rank their incomes from lowest to highest. For example, let’s say a country has 100 million workers, with the lowest workers paid $10,000 a year and the highest earning an annual salary of $1 million a year.

The second step would be for the government to print enough money to equalize all the incomes. For instance, a worker who was making $10,000 a year would get a check from the government for $990,000 while the person making $1 million would get no check at all. Everyone else would get a check for the difference between their income and $1 million dollars.

The result is that all 100 million workers would then have an income of $1 million – the problem of income inequality would be solved!

If that seems a bit too easy, it’s because (a) income inequality is not in itself an economic problem, and (b) incomes are measured in money, and money is not wealth. A country’s primary economic goal is not to make sure everyone has an equal amount of money, but to improve people’s standards of living.

“The money itself is not wealth,” says Don Boudreaux, “Otherwise the government could make us all rich just by printing more of it. From the standpoint of a society as a whole, money is just an artificial device to give us incentives to produce real things — goods and services.”

The rest here.

Monday quote

Later revelation has a fuller understanding of the truth given in earlier stages, but the later unfolding cannot undo any previous presentation of the truth.

Adolph Saphir and Arno C. Gaebelein

The poverty curve

In Bill Gates' annual newsletter, 2014 edition he addresses 3 myths about global poverty.

1. Poor countries are doomed to stay poor
2. Foreign aid is a big waste
3. Saving lives leads to overpopulation

All 3 sections are interesting; I have mixed thoughts about number 3, though noticed after I had read it that is was authored by Melinda Gates.

In the first section Gates has a graph on the change in individual wealth of the world over the last 50 years. Note that the x-axis is logarithmic.

This comes about through productivity and trade. Wealth is created. Some of the big drivers of productivity include rule of law, private property, and low tax which suggests that had we seen optimum conditions in the last few decades we may have seen even better improvements. Still, this is encouraging. Gates mentions several other drivers such as health and education. Not mentioned (as a cause of productivity) is energy which allows significantly more output per person. The climate change paragraph can be ignored, developing nations need cheap and reliable energy, not low carbon energy.

Luke in the New Testament

There is little doubt in my mind that Luke wrote the gospel attributed to him and there is strong early church evidence for this. The Acts of the Apostles was the sequel, so to speak.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-5)

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, (Acts 1:1-2)

We have little direct mention of Luke in the Bible. Paul mentions him in the salutations of 3 letters,

• Luke the beloved physician greets you, (Colossians 4:14 )
• Luke alone is with me. (2 Timothy 4:11)
• Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. (Philemon 1:23-24)

We can be confident that Luke wrote Luke and Acts, that he was a physician, and that he was a companion of Paul. Information about Luke beyond that is more speculative, though still possibly true. Below are some further possible claims about Luke based on close reading of Scripture, style of writing and reasonable assumptions.

Authorship
Many have made the claim that (one of) the anonymous author(s) of Hebrews is Luke, notably Allen in recent years in Lukan authorship of Hebrews. Allen makes the case reasonably well and also argues that Luke was Jewish, and that he was the amanuensis for the letters to Timothy and Titus.

Personhood
Luke is frequently thought to be a Gentile for several reasons including his excellent Greek and the exclusion of him from the men of the circumcision listed in Colossians—Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus. This is possible and would make him the only non-Jewish author of the New Testament (and the Bible, save possibly the book of Job). Others have made a good case for him being a Jew.

Allusions in Scripture
Paul mentions the disciple who is well known for the gospel in his letter to the Corinthians.

And we have sent with him [Titus] the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; (2 Corinthians 8:18 KJV)

It is uncertain how "his praise is in the gospel" is to be understood so the NASB adds clarifying words and the ESV interprets this as preaching.

We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches; (NASB)

With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel. (ESV)

Many have noted that Mark calls his work the gospel (whether intentionally as a title or not) and this could easily apply to Luke which (probably) postdates Matthew and Mark. So the reference to the praise/ fame of the gospel could refer to Luke's gospel as opposed to, say, Apollos' preaching. This would have ramifications in the dating of Luke (and Matthew and Mark).

In Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Wenham notes that Luke seems very familiar with much of the later detail of the Jesus' life and he follows Mark less in the latter aspect of the gospel. Further, Luke is the only writer to mention the sending out of the 70 and devotes more space to this than the sending out of the 12. From this Wenham speculates Luke may have been one of the 70 and much of the latter material of his gospel is first-hand knowledge.

This possibility that Luke may have met Jesus in person could be strengthened by a further interesting point. Luke only identifies Cleopas (Luke 24:18) of the 2 men on the road to Emmaus. This may be because Cleopas asked a question. Wenham speculates that the other man was in fact Luke.

It seems less likely that all these suggestions are simultaneously true. The author of Hebrews mentions that he was a second generation believer.

It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, (Hebrews 2:3)

Nevertheless, these possible identities are worth pondering.

Monday quote

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

C. S. Lewis

Monday quote

My parents taught us that ingenuity was never to be expended on the text, making it tell you things you would rather hear. But rather, once you had let the Scriptures speak to you, straight up, ingenuity was fine in looking for creative and effective places to obey. Use your wits to apply the text, not to evade the text.

Douglas Wilson.

One Spirit

The theme of spiritual gifts is frequently noted in 1 Corinthians 12. The types of gifts and their hierarchy are noted. Yet Paul refutes any idea that those with prominent gifts are more valuable in God's sight. It can be seen that God gives gifts as he sees fit.

However what struck me some time back was the apologetic against polytheism.

Now concerning spiritual gifts [things], brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans [Gentiles] you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12)

Here Paul addresses a question from the Corinthians. They had probably asked about spiritual issues and Paul states, "Concerning [the] spiritual" and then he reminds them of their previous life as idolaters. Paul is contrasting the Spirit they received with the spiritual realm they previously were a part of. While within paganism their are many demons (1 Corinthians 10) there is one Holy Spirit. And it is the fact there is one Spirit and not several which shapes he subsequent response.

• The Spirit cannot say Jesus is accursed
• The lordship of Jesus is affirmed by the same Spirit

Note the repeating theme during the listing of the gifts,

• There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit
• There are varieties of service, but the same Lord
• There are varieties of activities, but it is the same God
• To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
• For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom
• To another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit
• To another faith by the same Spirit
• To another gifts of healing by the one Spirit
• To another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit.

Note also the Trinitarian allusion in verses 4–6: same Spirit, same Lord, same God.

Then Paul goes on to discuss the unity of the church by analogy to the body because,

in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Sure, we can learn about the types of gifts but this seems secondary to the emphasis on the Spirit being one. Paganism may acknowledge and worship many spirits but for Christians there is only one and the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit may manifest in a variety of ways, but he always testifies to Jesus and can never deny him.

Monday quote

A rational assent to the truth of the Bible is one ingredient in the Christian faith.

John Wesley (1703–1791), Reason for the Hope Within.

From French atheist to Christian theologian

Christian theologian Guillaume Bignon writes of his conversion, "How God turns a French atheist into a Christian theologian."

A number of people lately have been intrigued to meet a French theologian, and have asked me to tell them the story of how I, a French atheist, became a Christian scholar. Even the theologians and apologists I met recently at the ETS Conference in Baltimore (where by God’s grace I was delivering my first scholarly paper) seemed to care (understandably) more about my conversion from atheism than my immediate theology paper! Therefore, it seemed fitting to type it up properly, to have a clean telling of that story of God breaking into my life, ready to be shared with people who ask. So here it is

He tells of how he became an atheist at a young age then his honest investigation into Christianity several years later. Encouraging testimony, enjoyable read.

Geisler on inerrancy

Norman L. Geisler reviews Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. The review is very long, but worth a read if you have interest in the debates around inerrancy. He covers several different issues: textual concerns, choice of authors, (lack of) positions of writers, trajectory of errancy advocacy, historical view of inerrancy, and removing people from societies. While broad, these issues apparently appear in the book in various parts.

He helpfully distinguishes between adaptation and accommodation,

Adaptation view	Accommodation view
God adapts to finitude	God accommodates to error
Bible uses analogous language	It uses equivocal language
Bible stories are factual	Some stories are not factual

He also rightly insists of distinguishing accuracy from precision, something I think is not emphasised enough. Inaccuracy is error, imprecision is not.

The doctrine of inerrancy is sometimes criticized for holding that the Bible always speaks with scientific precision and historical exactness. But since the biblical phenomena do not support this, the doctrine of inerrancy is rejected. However, this is a “straw man” argument. For the CSBI states clearly: “We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision…, including ‘round numbers’ and ‘free citations’” (CSBI. Art. 13). Vanhoozer notes that Warfield and Hodge (in Inspiration, 42) helpfully distinguished “accuracy” (which the Bible has) from “exactness of statement” (which the Bible does not always have) (Vanhoozer, 221).