Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Obligatory Happy Birthday Earth Post

Today is, according to the chronology worked out by Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), and not adjusted for the shift from Julian to Gregorian calendars, the sixth thousand thirteenth anniversary of Earth's creation.  Strictly speaking, according to Genesis, at the end of the day the Earth was still a chaotic, muddled, lifeless mess because all God had got around to doing was creating light, but frankly, haven't we all had days when it just seemed that we'd worked hard all day and got very little done (but at least we could see what we'd done)?

Tomorrow will mark the 6013th birthday of the creation of the sky, a fine accomplishment for all of you who enjoy breathing.  Monday, of course, will mark the birthday of the creation of dry land, Tuesday, of grass, trees, moss, algae, herbs, and presumably fungi of all types (for those of you who enjoy breathing oxygen, specifically).  On Wednesday, please remember to commemorate the creation of approximately 100 billion galaxies and all their myriads of myriads of stars, along with innumerable planets and moons (possibly but not necessarily including Gliese 581g).

Thursday will be the 6013th anniversary of the creation of fish, whales, sea urchins, marine molluscs, marine arthropods, marine everything else, birds, bats, and pterosaurs.  Presumably manatees and feathered dinosaurs rounded out the day.  And Friday, of course, is according to Ussher the 6013th anniversary of our own beloved species, along with Tyrannosaurus rex, Smilodon fatalis, and Dimetrodon macrospondylus.  According to Answers in Genesis (which is not celebrating this day, for some reason), all of these were vegetarians; I don't think the good bishop insisted on that.

21 comments:

  1. Steven,

    This is not related to your blog post, but to the question about the Ten Commandments and the moral law that you have been asking Ray about and discussing with Dale Jackson. I have not replied to you on AC because I get the impression that you want Ray’s explanation, but I figured that it couldn’t hurt to give you my interpretation of what the Bible teaches.

    You are right that the Bible does not explicitly divide the Law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and civil. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. I understand this to mean that He fulfilled all the typology and prophecy in the OT as well as the transcendent moral law, of which the entire Law of Moses is only a shadow.

    The reason why I think He’s talking about the transcendent moral law is because He goes on to explain in 5:18 how important it is that the commandments are upheld, implying an objective standard. And in 5:21-48, He overrules the old standard and replaces it with a higher one. “You have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you . . .” So it is clear from the context that in Matthew 5:18 He is not talking about the old Law of Moses. Also, in John 8 He refuses to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery, implying that He is not bound by the Law of Moses.

    In Matthew 22:37-40 He further clarifies what He means by the law: “’You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets.”

    If we obey those two commandments, we also obey the Ten Commandments (except the fourth), but we go beyond that. For example, the fifth commandment tells us to honor our father and our mother, but Ephesians 6:4 says: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” And Colossians 3:21 says: “Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.”

    So Christianity replaces the old authoritarian parenting style with one that is consistent with the love commandment of Christ—we are to respect children, invest in them, and not discourage them. This completes the fifth commandment, which is only concerned with how children treat their parents. But of course the fifth commandment still stands. All relationships are to be transformed by the love commandment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for the final judgment, Jesus said: "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (John 12:47-48). This implies an objective judgment.

    So the teachings of Jesus are going to judge us on the last day. They are also very consistent with what most people consider the ideal moral standard. Christianity revolutionized the parts of the world that largely accepted its message—they have the best record of human rights.

    And even those who do not accept Christianity often admire the teachings of Christ. Gandhi was deeply influenced by Jesus. He called Him “a beautiful example of the perfect Man,” and one of the few items in Gandhi’s possession when he died was a copy of the Gospel of John. Even Richard Dawkins and many other atheists consider Jesus to be pretty cool. So you don’t have to be a Christian to recognize the standard—all you need to be is human.

    But of course Christianity goes beyond just setting the standard. The central message is that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sins of those who receive Him. And by His Spirit He helps us live the way He wants us to when we surrender the will. This is how it is logically possible for us to have free will in heaven and yet not sin. Christ in us makes victory over sin possible, but He will not force our surrender (Revelation 3:20). The door opens from the inside.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Christianity- All the convenience and none of the work of being a Jew.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What "work" do you think we should be doing? As I said, Jesus did not abolish the law--He fulfilled it and raised the standard.

    And how many Jews do you know who follow the Law of Moses by stoning sinners and sacrificing burt offerings to Yahweh?

    The Gospel was preached to the Jews first, and most of the early followers of Jesus were Jews. But whereas the Law of Moses was appropriate for their culture, the teachings of Jesus are timeless and transcend culture. And that was appropriate since the Gospel is preached to all people, not just the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I meant "burnt" offerings, not "burt" offerings. The Jews did not sacrifice Burt to Yahweh. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anette,

    If it is not a sin to disobey the fourth commandment, why is it one of the Ten Commandments?

    Did God once see it as sin, but now He doesn't?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our Puritan forefathers kept the sabbath and I'm sure plenty of Christians still do today. When it became optional, I don't know. They all have the same bible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wolfgang,

    Although the Bible does not divide the Law of Moses into moral/ceremonial/civic, it is helpful to think of it that way in order to explain why some laws no longer apply.

    Some things are not inherently wrong; they are simply wrong because they are prohibited. Murder and theft are inherently wrong, but driving faster than the speed limit is only wrong because it is illegal. The civic laws govern all these things.

    The ceremonial law consists of "types"--foreshadowing or symbolism of Christ and salvation. And Sabbath observance on the seventh day is an important "type."

    This symbolism starts in Genesis 1, which says that God completed His work of creation on the sixth day and rests on the seventh. The Jews were told to follow this model (Exodus 20:8-11). And again Holy Week follows this pattern, where Jesus said, "It is finished!" on the sixth day, rested in the grave on the seventh day and rose again on the first day of the week.

    The number six is often used to symbolize our work in this world, and the number seven symbolizes completeness and eternal rest.

    So the Sabbath was in part symbolic, but in part it was God's command to the Jews that they set aside a day where everybody, including the servants and the animals, had a chance to rest. God even wanted them to let the land rest. And it was also a day for them to focus on worshiping God.

    However, we are no longer "under the law." That is to say, our religion doesn't require us to observe strict laws. Although Jesus raised the standard, it is not the kind of rigid standard that existed in the OT. Romans 14:5 says: "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." So on the one hand, it is not a sin to work on the Sabbath (or Sunday), but it is a sin to do something that we know hurts someone else, even if we have the right to do it. James 4:17 says: "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."

    And we establish the law through faith (Romans 3:31). Faith in Christ helps us become increasingly what He wants us to be and do what He wants us to do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. God works in convenient, I mean mysterious ways. Just when the gentile wasn't eager to convert to Judaism to become a Christian, it became optional! But somehow the Jews weren't impressed. The laws of Moses weren't appropriate for the culture, they were written by the culture. Cultures change even if the bible doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Milo,

    Yes, the Puritans did have the same Bible and they chose to observe the Sabbath. However, Sabbath observance has been optional at least since Paul wrote the book of Romans. "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5).

    If I looked down on you for not observing the Sabbath, I would be guilty of legalism. The book of Galatians is a stern warning against legalism, calling it a "yoke of slavery," and telling the Galatians that they had been "severed from Christ" and had "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:5). Legalism is the most soul-destroying of heresies, because it makes people judgmental and self-righteous. So Paul explains that we are to instead remain connect to Christ and bear "the fruit of the Spirit": love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Puritans didn't consider it optional. They threw your ass in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cultures change even if the bible doesn't.

    Yes, but the moral teachings of Jesus are timeless. Just ask Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anette,

    I cannot reconcile how on one hand you claim that God had to take into account the culture when He created a theocracy, but on the other you claim Jesus' teachings are "timeless and transcend culture."

    Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God be able to create a timeless theocracy that transcends culture?

    But focusing specifically on observing the Sabbath, I don't understand why it is one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are supposedly our Creator's instructions to His people directly written by Him.

    You may have to divide the Law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and civic laws, but the Ten Commandments are already set apart from the other laws. If God didn't think keeping the Sabbath holy was as important as not committing murder or not committing adultery, He could have put it with the other laws, but He chose to make it one of the Ten.

    I understand that Christians are no longer under the law, but would you say that disobeying any of the other nine commandments would be a sin? Why then would disobeying the fourth commandment not also be a sin?

    You mentioned the warning against legalism. But according to the Bible, God commanded Moses to have a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. This isn't God taking into account the culture, this is God dictating the culture. And He did this all because of a type?

    If God is all-knowing and commanded the stoning of a Sabbath-breaker, then He would have known His actions would lead to the legalism that Paul would later disdain.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wolfgang,

    I cannot reconcile how on one hand you claim that God had to take into account the culture when He created a theocracy, but on the other you claim Jesus' teachings are "timeless and transcend culture."

    Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient God be able to create a timeless theocracy that transcends culture?


    We're not talking about any old omnipotent, omniscient Creator of any possible universe. We're talking about the Creator of this universe--the Creator who "breathed fire into the equations." That is, nature and all its laws are His idea.

    Maybe He could have created a theocracy that transcended culture, but it would have been at the expense of free will. As long as the Israelites had free will, they would be influenced by the surrounding cultures, so the Law of Moses couldn't be so much higher than the laws of other cultures that they would have been doomed to failure.

    If God is all-knowing and commanded the stoning of a Sabbath-breaker, then He would have known His actions would lead to the legalism that Paul would later disdain.

    It would lead some people to legalism, but it would lead other people to the grace of God through Christ. That means that His Spirit would change us from the inside out.

    The letter of Paul to the Galatians is all about legalism, and in it he explains that the purpose of the law was to be like a "tutor" or a "custodian," until the "fullness of time" when God sent His Son. He referred to all those laws as "the elemental things," and compared the early Israelites to children.

    So what Paul is essentially saying here is that God waited until the development of humanity had reached a certain point before He sent His Son. And that before that, their laws were primitive. Again in Colossians 2:20, Paul talks about the "elemental principles of the world," that consist of decrees like, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" Those were the kind of rules all primitive peoples lived under.

    So God was the one who originally had the idea that humanity should develop. And He sent His Son at just the right time (Galatians 4:4).

    But focusing specifically on observing the Sabbath, I don't understand why it is one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are supposedly our Creator's instructions to His people directly written by Him.

    It is an important part of the Ten Commandments because it told them to set aside the Sabbath to keep it holy. It was a day to seek God.

    Psalm 119:10-11 says: "With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me wander from Your commandments. Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You."

    Here we see that seeking God and being able to obey Him are very closely connected. Jesus illustrates this in John 15 with the Vine and the branches. Only if we abide in Him can we bear much fruit.

    So the fact that we're not under the law doesn't mean that we don't have to set aside time to worship God. It may simply mean, like Paul said, that we consider every day equally sacred. There is no rigid rule that says it has to be the Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I understand that Christians are no longer under the law, but would you say that disobeying any of the other nine commandments would be a sin? Why then would disobeying the fourth commandment not also be a sin?

    Yes, I do think disobeying the other nine commandments is a sin. Of those, the first four pertain to our relationship to God and the last six to our relationships with other people. But they can all be summed up by the commandments to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. And that is what we have to do as Christians.

    You mentioned the warning against legalism. But according to the Bible, God commanded Moses to have a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. This isn't God taking into account the culture, this is God dictating the culture. And He did this all because of a type?

    This was a culture where the people had to constantly be ready for war, and God was the Commander in Chief. In the army, soldiers cannot be blatantly disobeying orders, even in little things.

    I think the idea here was to teach the Israelites that they had to take obedience to God seriously. There is a story like that in the book of Acts as well, where Ananias and Sapphira were killed for lying to the Holy Spirit.

    The lesson is that God takes obedience very seriously because the New Earth will be a place where sin (and therefore the problem of evil) is a thing of the past. So if we want to inherit eternal life we have to obey God in every part of our lives. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a great book called The Cost of Discipleship where he talks about "cheap grace," which has always been a problem in the church.

    These incidents are to teach us to "fear," or respect, God, because Matthew 7:23 says that "evildoers" will be kept out of the kingdom of God. Although that seems harsh, it makes sense since the kingdom of God will be the solution to the problem of evil.

    I apologize that this was a very cursory answer to complex questions. Hopefully it didn't raise more questions than it answered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anette,

    I apologize that this was a very cursory answer to complex questions. Hopefully it didn't raise more questions than it answered.

    No need to apologize. I appreciate the time you take to answer the questions of so many people.

    Your answer did not raise more questions. (Well, maybe one.) Though I do not agree with you, I understand better where you are coming from. And I can see how you reconcile things that give me trouble.

    It is an important part of the Ten Commandments because it told them to set aside the Sabbath to keep it holy. It was a day to seek God.

    The Ten Commandments, as written by God, says nothing about seeking God. The words God chose to clarify His commandment describe that people are to work for six days and not do any work on the seventh. He then goes on to give a pretty thorough description of the different people and animals that are to rest.

    Maybe something is lost in translation to English, but the more I read the words "you shall not do any work" the more I empathize with the Pharisees who were only trying to do as God had commanded.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wolfgang,

    I don't mind you having follow-up questions, but my response to you this time seemed particularly disjointed. A lot of times when I start to write a comment, the kids need something, so I'm away from it a long time, and then I come back. That happened a lot yesterday, so there were a lot of things that I meant to write down but forgot to.

    As far as sympathizing with the Pharisees, I think this is something that gives many Christians trouble as well, because that exact issue has come up several times in Bible study groups I've been in over the years. The Pharisees were following the rules passed down by God, so why should anyone blame them?

    However, many of the Pharisees at the time were corrupt and proud. The apostle Paul (a successful Pharisee before his conversion) described himself as a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man.

    There's a particular kind of evil that requires religion, and that is to forget about people and focus on rules, and then to feel morally superior afterwards. Religion can quash one's moral compass (I agree with Steven Weinberg about that). The Pharisees criticized Jesus for healing someone on the Sabbath, which is a very morally backwards way to looking at it. They were forgetting the "more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23). You don't have to believe in God to make moral judgments, and I think most agree that those are the more important aspects of morality, and that rigid rules about what you can and cannot eat are less important.

    In Mark 2:27, Jesus says to the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around. And if you look at Exodus 20:10, the Sabbath is a way to safeguard the rights of everyone in the household (including the animals) so they get their rest. So it is true what Jesus said that the Sabbath was a gift to us.

    However, Exodus 20:10 also says that the seventh day was a Sabbath to the Lord (some translations say a day of worship), so it was a day dedicated to God.

    In other words, the fourth commandment incorporates both love to God, to others, and to ourselves. So the Sabbath commandment still exists, but for Christians it is not the kind of rigid rule that Moses gave to the Israelites.

    As for the guy who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, I'm guessing that was an act of defiance and that was what was punished. I'm not really sure. However, I think that these instances are similar to the Ananias and Sapphira episode in Acts, where God is teaching His people to fear Him. (And I am certain that there was a good reason why He chose those particular people, and it wasn't just that incident.)

    There have been times in my life when it was good for me to focus on the "harsh" parts of the Bible, because I needed to take my faith more seriously. But the result was that I also experienced more of God's blessings. So God always does things for our good.

    I'm not sure if I was clear about what it means for a Christian to be under grace and not under the law. This is something that a lot of people don't understand, hence the problem of "cheap grace," or people thinking that we will be saved in spite of our sins, when if fact we will be saved from our sins. 2 Corinthians 3:6 says that the "letter kills but the Spirit gives life." So legalism is a burden that can discourage us or make us self-righteous, but the Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. So faith means remaining connected to Christ, and not being severed from Him like the Galatians were, who had fallen into legalism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anette,
    However, many of the Pharisees at the time were corrupt and proud.

    Were they corrupt and proud, or is that how it appeared to an outsider? I have always seen the Pharisees much like religious people today. They were absolutely certain that they knew the truth and what God required of them.

    They were forgetting the "more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23). You don't have to believe in God to make moral judgments, and I think most agree that those are the more important aspects of morality, and that rigid rules about what you can and cannot eat are less important.

    I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but it is clear that there was a time when God seemed to be strict about all the rules.

    Matthew 23:23 states, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

    Yes, justice, mercy, and faithfulness are more important, and they should not be neglected, but neither should the others be neglected.

    If God is real, He knew what would be the result of using the words "you shall not do any work," and still He chose to word it in that way. So either they are the words of a mere mortal living in an ancient culture, or they are the words of God who meant what He said and knew what would happen.

    As for the guy who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, I'm guessing that was an act of defiance and that was what was punished. I'm not really sure.

    Honestly, I don't think there is a need to guess. The people didn't know what to do about the Sabbathbreaker "because it had not been made clear," so the Lord made it clear for them.

    However, I think that these instances are similar to the Ananias and Sapphira episode in Acts, where God is teaching His people to fear Him. (And I am certain that there was a good reason why He chose those particular people, and it wasn't just that incident.)

    I am surprised to hear you say that you think there is more to the story. I would think all the relevant information is given in the story.

    I'm not sure if I was clear about what it means for a Christian to be under grace and not under the law.

    I think I understand "under grace and not under the law." And I understand that the New Testament tells you to reject anything that smells of legalism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wolfgang,

    Were they corrupt and proud, or is that how it appeared to an outsider? I have always seen the Pharisees much like religious people today. They were absolutely certain that they knew the truth and what God required of them.

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. If you mean that religious people today can be legalistic in their attitudes and rigid in their thinking, then I fully agree with you. Can Christians today care more about rules than about people? Absolutely! In fact, wherever there is religion, you'll find legalism.

    But going back to the Pharisees, they could have recognized the Messiah if they wanted to by searching their Scriptures for types and prophecies (many Jews at the time did--like the Bereans). But their political and religious agenda was more important to them than the truth, and they were willing to kill a man over that. (See John 11:49-50.)

    They saw Jesus doing miracles and they heard His good teachings. And their response to that was to twist the truth and say that He was driving out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

    Matthew 23:23 states, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

    Yes, justice, mercy, and faithfulness are more important, and they should not be neglected, but neither should the others be neglected.


    What Jesus is saying here is that you should also tithe. There is nothing wrong with leading a disciplined life and being faithful in the little things (that is what we should do), but being so rigid that these little rules matter more than people is wrong. The Pharisees "strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel."

    If God is real, He knew what would be the result of using the words "you shall not do any work," and still He chose to word it in that way. So either they are the words of a mere mortal living in an ancient culture, or they are the words of God who meant what He said and knew what would happen.

    As I said before, He was a God who was the Commander in Chief of an ancient theocracy, and the people had to know exactly what they were supposed to do. The rules had to be clearly laid out for them. But there is a lot in the Law of Moses that is about mercy and compassion. The Sabbath itself was concerned about the need for the people to rest and let their workers (and animals) rest.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "As for the guy who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, I'm guessing that was an act of defiance and that was what was punished. I'm not really sure."

    Honestly, I don't think there is a need to guess. The people didn't know what to do about the Sabbathbreaker "because it had not been made clear," so the Lord made it clear for them.


    You're right. There is no need to guess. Numbers 15:30, which precedes the Sabbath-breaking incident, talks about a person who does something defiantly. So this man would have acted in defiance of God's command.

    Just like Ananias and Sapphira, this man and others would have been very aware of the miracles God did on their behalf. He would have known that God exists, and yet he acted in defiance. If this had been a matter of necessity, then the law would have excused it.

    I am surprised to hear you say that you think there is more to the story. I would think all the relevant information is given in the story.

    I think the "more to the story" was the state of the man's mind. That is, he was defiant for some reason and held God in contempt. When God decides to make an example of someone, there is probably a good reason.

    I think I understand "under grace and not under the law." And I understand that the New Testament tells you to reject anything that smells of legalism.

    Most people hate legalism. It doesn't just mean being scrupulous about doing the right thing; it is a judgmental, rigid attitude. Legalism can also take the form of an intellectual straitjacket that is impervious to reason. Legalists appear to be exceptionally pious, but in reality they are the extreme opposite of what the Bible teaches, because they are unreasonable and loveless.

    James 3:17 says, "But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy." Legalists are the exact opposite of this.

    ReplyDelete