Book Plunge: Improbable Issues With The God Hypothesis Part 1

So does Brucker have a case? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I get lists of discount Kindle books and when I saw one about improbable issues with the God Hypothesis, I definitely decided to buy that one. I started it just recently and while he seems to target monotheism more than just Christianity, too often, it’s the exact same issues still. How does the first chapter go?

Pretty much anything you want to know about evolution. So what is there in the chapter to comment on?

The metaphysical explanations described by those religious institutions directly conflict with what has been discovered regarding our past, also promoting the idea that we are special; a species set apart from the rest of the living creatures by an all loving and giving God.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis . Kindle Edition.

For the first, I am not told what metaphysical explanations these are nor how they conflict with our past. This also cannot be answered by science since science deals with the physical and not the metaphysical. It can provide data for metaphysics, but it is not itself metaphysics. For the second, even if true, so what? How does that show it false?

Apologists and modern theologians have explained that Genesis may be more of an allegorical story, telling the tale of how selfish ways have the potential to disrupt the fabric of faith.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis . Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, I am not told who these apologists and modern theologians are. Brucker has the problem many atheists have of not naming who they are interacting with.

It is said that God loves all humans and wishes nothing more than for us to worship him, leaving one suitable counter: “If God does, in fact, want all of this, why would he mislead many by allowing the intelligent to identify all that conflicts with his very existence?”

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis . Kindle Edition.

It’s nice to know that “the intelligent” all speak with one voice on this. None of those “intelligent” could obviously include theists. Unfortunately for the atheist community, from what I see online, a lot of the dumb also fall into their numbers. Sadly, that’s true of Christians as well. The conclusion then? How you view the God question is not a measure of your intelligence.

As those of yesteryear, a simple answer is believed by theists who blindly accept the teachings of their most beloved priests, pastors, rabbis, or imams. The highly-regarded books of myth and fiction give them all the information they need to conclude simplicity is to blame for complexity. A much different explanation with a more definitive answer can be found within the very cells, of which one’s body is composed.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (p. 6). Kindle Edition.

And again, blind belief rests on both sides. For instance, I saw today when reading that later on, Brucker will use the 41,000 denominations myth. The number always varies and no one goes and checks the source to see what is meant. It’s just shared blindly. I will answer it when I get there, but ultimately, there are blind followers on both sides. How many atheists immediately shared things like Zeitgeist or jumped on board of the idea that Jesus had a wife?

Those who propagate the idea of intelligent design do so without a smidgen of reason-based inquiry. If they had done so efficiently, they would not have failed to recognize the physical – modern and pre-modern – evidence that would suggest that if a God had actually brought about all living creatures, his doing so would portray a plethora of care, direction, and kindness; whereas on the contrary it portrays an ignorant, callous, and careless creator.

Brucker, J. D.. Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis (pp. 12-14). Kindle Edition.

I am not here to defend the ID community. I really don’t care. That being said, if someone thinks they don’t have a smidgen of reason-based inquiry, they are wrong. You can disagree with them. You can say they are wrong. You can do all of that, but they are attempting at least to answer questions and use reason.

Now if someone like Brucker came along he could say “But in all of this, you didn’t say a thing about evolution.”

That’s because I don’t care.

Evolution is a non-issue to me and I have regularly said that Christians and atheists who think it’s a death knell for Christianity don’t understand evolution, Christianity, or both. As a Thomist, it doesn’t affect my arguments for God. As someone who holds to Walton’s interpretation, it doesn’t affect my reading of Genesis. From a historical perspective, it doesn’t affect my trust in the resurrection of Jesus. If anyone has more to lose here, it’s the atheist since they often base their atheism on evolution.

So hopefully the next chapter will give us something more to work with.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Christianity and Modern Gods

What are the gods we deal with today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am reading through the church fathers, among other things, and something I am noticing with Tertullian who I am on now is that he has a vast array of knowledge about the gods of the Roman society he lives in. I grew up reading Greek mythology which was claimed by the Romans, but there is still a lot I don’t know about it. Tertullian is familiar with the ins and the outs of the great stories in addition to being familiar with the biblical topics he knows about and the history of Christianity and the Roman Empire.

Nowadays, most people do not believe in those gods. Many people would consider themselves secularists and even many Christians are largely secular in their thinking. That does not mean we are not without gods. Not by a long shot. We have several gods today and these are gods Christians need to know about as well to interact with worshippers of these gods, as there are plenty of such worshippers.

So what are they?

Let’s start with sex. Yes. We all know about sex. A goes into B and sometimes a baby can result. We all know how it works, but what about what it is. We have plenty of debates on this topic. What is the ultimate purpose of sex? Is it something reserved for marriage? Is it to be between a man and a woman?

Then this gets into our personal identity. What is orientation? Is there such a thing? Is there a difference between sex and gender? Is this something that is assigned at birth or is it something immutable that cannot be changed? On one level, we can say the question “What is a woman?” is simple, but on the other, it is something quite deep that we need to get more to an answer on.

Christians definitely need to have a message here. After all, if we aren’t sharing our views on this with our children, the world is and the world will speak loudly. If we do believe sex is reserved for a man and a woman in marriage, how can we tell children this is a great gift while at the same time saying it needs to be reserved for that state? (Something even difficult for we adults who are single again.)

Another god is money. For this, Christians need to study economics. Many of the debates we have in this country are because people are ignorant of economics. We think with our hearts alone and think “If our intentions are good, the results will follow.” Not at all. I am not saying to avoid compassion, but I am saying that to see if a policy works, you don’t ask “How compassionate is it?” but rather “How effective is it?”

Capitalism is often seen as encouraging greed. Is it? Marxism is seen as caring for the poor. Is it? Why did we go to war with Marxism so much in our history? Is Marxism necessarily linked with atheism? Were the early Christians socialist?

As for caring for the poor, what is the best way to help people who are poor? What method has the best results? How should individual Christians care for the poor? Is it wrong for you to buy something really nice for yourself when there are poor people in the world?

Power is another one and this gets into politics. This is definitely here when an election year is going on. Christians need to learn how their government works. Can we tell the three branches of the American government? What is the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of Independence?

How much power should the government have? Should the citizenry be able to have guns and if so, are there any limitations to that? What should we prohibit? What should we permit? What should we promote? What role do passages like Romans 13 play?

What about science? This seems to be the reigning authority today. What is science? Is science necessarily materialistic? Can it answer the God question? Can it answer questions of good and evil? Is it the only way to know anything?

What should we accept in science and what should we not? Is evolution true? If it is, what does this say about our beliefs on Scripture, inerrancy, the existing of God, and the resurrection of Jesus? Can you be a faithful Christian and accept evolution? Can you be a good scientist and reject evolution?

What about modern issues as well like climate change? Is the earth’s climate changing? If so, is that something that would happen anyway or is man responsible? Is there anything that can be done about it either way? What about our response to Covid? What did we get right? What did we get wrong? Can we trust the science or are we even more skeptical?

Christians interacting in our culture need some knowledge on all of this. In addition definitely understand other gods if you are interacting with other systems. We need Christians who understand cults, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism and any other belief system out there.

In all of this, yes, we need to know our Bibles and our history and what we believe and why, but we are interacting with people who speak of other gods. Like good missionaries, we need to know what those other gods are and how to address them. Christians throughout history have had something to say about more than just Christianity. We need to do the same to be effective witnesses in our culture.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

What Christians Can Learn from the Woke

Can we learn anything from them? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I posted on Facebook recently about watching a WhatCultureGaming video recently about video games ruined at the last minute. It was about the damage done to a game called Mask of Eternity and how some Christians had taken charge of the material of King’s Quest and have everything thoroughly sanitized. The end result was intense damage to the series.

What’s really sad as I said is that we as Christians tend to do this often. We make media that for the most part is just awful. No one wants to do anything with it. I’m not at all saying we should never make material that is for us, but if we are making material that is meant to be evangelistic, we are failing at it.

I am not at all saying to forego biblical orthodoxy to make sales, but I am saying that it doesn’t matter how orthodox or accurate your material is if no one wants to engage with it. You could have the best material in the world, but it requires for it to be effective for someone to interact with it. If they’re not doing it, then you are not reaching anyone then.

One of my friends commented saying that this reminded them of what we see from Woke material nowadays. Disney has recently experienced a large number of bombs in their material. Why? Well, they want to say it’s because the audience is bigoted and any number of reasons, but the real reason is people don’t want Woke.

The reason is the audience knows that they are being preached to. They know that that character that is same-sex attracted is being included just for service to the ideology. The fans know that Aragorn in the novels is not black, but what does Rings of Power care about that? (Never mind how Netflix goes with that.) Having a Latino family was not a major seller for Blue Beetle.

Why? Because these people are bigots? No. It’s because the message is being forced to us. We don’t care about how diverse the cast is if we don’t care about the content and when you focus on the diversity instead of producing good content, people don’t want to see it.

We are doing the exact same thing. We are making content that people do not want to see because we are so focused on getting that Christian message out there and it has to be spelled out explicitly. There has to be a moment with a cross and a message on how Jesus died for you. The Christians have to be wonderful holy saints who never struggle. The non-Christians have to be bent on evil at every single step.

Nothing will reach that Chrisitan audience like telling them they are lower in every way to their Christian counterparts, even though many of them don’t experience that in real life.

Look instead at franchises that do it right. How many non-Christians do you know of who have read the Narnia books and enjoyed them? I’m going through Young Sheldon now and I recently saw an episode where Sheldon, who is an atheist, gets introduced to the Lord of the Rings series. Did Sheldon realize he was getting a Christian worldview secretly taught to him? Doubtful. There are plenty of fandoms still built up around Tolkien’s work and without him, those of us like myself who enjoy RPGs might have never had the chance.

Some of you might not think Harry Potter is a Christian series, but even if you don’t, look at the way she did it. She got her message out by producing content children wanted to read. Children wanted to read books that had hundreds of pages.

Star Wars is built largely on the concept of Eastern Religions. Star Trek is built on humanism. You have devout Christians who enjoy both. I’m not at all saying they shouldn’t, but I am saying that the content was a cover to get the message out there. Many Christians are wise enough to enjoy the story without agreeing with the content, but we can still learn from them.

I commented on the original video and got told that Christian music could be an exception as it can be good. Sometimes, but consider this. Too many of our songs today are really more therapy than anything else. I don’t say this to knock therapy, but the songs are meant to help us more than to teach about God. Another point is how many non-Christians do you know who regularly turn on Christian music and listen to it? Meanwhile, how many Christians do you know who enjoy listening to non-Christian music?

Another video that got me thinking about this approach to media more was this one. If you don’t want to go to the video, which is about a history of Christian video games, let me show you some of the comments. (Names excluded)

I’m not Religious but if they actually made a bible game that was like Bayonetta, God of war or hell even something like skyrim or Breath of the wild, I’d play it

I mean, although the binding of isaac does contain Cristian aspects I find it hard to classify it as a Cristian game, since it is essentially more critical of religion rather than promoting the belief. Even if it’s not necessary outright stated that religion is bad or anything. Gotta say though, I did learn quite a bit about christianity through playing the game, both through its references and by the fact that it made me interested and there by had me look up what these characters and references was all about.

OK bur a Christian bayonetta would be ok with me. I might actually play it

And looking through, one problem said in the comments is Christians behind much of this material don’t care about the art. They only care about the message.

There you go.

I personally would like to see something like an Assassin’s Creed counterpart that is Christian. Do you know how many people have started learning about historical events because of an Assassin’s Creed game? There are plenty of ways to make Chrisitan games. Just don’t treat your audience like idiots. Trust them to figure it out. (Keep in mind, Jesus didn’t spell out His parables to the audience either.)

Then do this with movies. Do this with literature. Do this with music. Do this with TV shows.

The best content in the world won’t matter if it doesn’t reach the audience.

Learn from the Woke. Learn what not to do.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Problem With Evolutionary Debates

Do both sides make a mistake in the debate? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In a Facebook group I’m a part of, someone who is an atheist posted something about evolution with an idea of evolution vs. Christianity. I replied saying that I am an evolutionary agnostic. I don’t know and I don’t care. It doesn’t affect my reading of Genesis, my view of inerrancy, my arguments for God, or my case for the resurrection.

This is not to say I don’t have some questions. I definitely do. The biggest one I have is how it is that men and women raised independently sexual reproductive systems that work together interdependently. The thing is, I don’t present this as a defeater because I am sure research has been done and I have not taken the time to look into it because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter to me.

So in reply to this post that was made, I state I am an agnostic and someone who I suspect is a Christian comes and asks me questions about how to explain XYZ if evolution is true. These could have been basic questions. I said I’m not arguing for it, but I did ask the question that I normally ask. What was the last book you read defending evolution? The answer was none, just watching debates.

Friends. I try to be consistent. Reading contrary thought is important to argue a position.

All this does it leave me thinking about similar mistakes internet atheists and a lot of Christians make when arguing this topic.

First, a reality, both sides tend to accept basic ideas in each belief system. Your average Christian has no problem going to a doctor, flying on a plane, driving a car, using electricity, etc. Insofar as these are not controversial, this is not an issue.

Meanwhile, your average atheist will accept some things about Christianity. Many will accept that there was a historical Jesus. (Although there are far too many who are mythicists.) Many will see a lot of good in a lot of the ethical teachings of Christians. They will tend to disagree on sexual matters, but they are likely to accept things like giving to the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, not stealing or lying or murdering, etc.

The problem is when you make it either-or. You have to accept everything or you accept nothing. You have to choose which side you are on. Are you on the side of Christianity or of science.

Which buys into the idea that these are automatically irreconcilable. There are a number of devout Christians who are scientists. Historically, there has been no split between the two.

But now let’s look at your average Christian in the pew. For them, Christianity is a great blessing in their lives. They have experiences of wonder and love that rightly or wrongly, they think come from God. They have a strong ethical system, a hope of heaven someday, and a loving community. They think Christianity just explains the world. At the same time, they have no problem with the basic science activities I mentioned above.

Now the atheist comes to them and says “You are not rational if you accept all of that and you have to accept this viewpoint that you don’t understand and reject everything that is dear to you.” Add in also that in the grand scheme of things, this belief that man evolved will not really make much difference to this person likely in their day-to-day life. Do you really think a Christian will go for that? The atheist really needs to listen to the Christian on why their Christianity matters. Keep in mind, for the sake of argument, the Christian could be totally wrong in what they think, but it is still what they think.

Richard Dawkins and the rest of the new atheists often make this mistake. When Richard Dawkins writes on science as science, it is spellbinding. Even if you disagree with him, you can see the wonder he has in what he’s describing. Yet when he talks about something related to Christianity, he is speaking largely from ignorance and anyone who has a clue on Christianity rejects it. It gives a Christian a pass to say “Well, if he’s this ignorant on Christianity and speaking like he’s an authority, why should I trust him on science?” Again, Dawkins could be totally right on science, but he’s damaging his reputation when he posts on things he doesn’t understand.

Honestly, if Dawkins wanted to promote science, the best thing he could do would be to just write about science. When he makes it science vs. Christianity, he’s less likely to reach people. If someone comes in who is a Christian to the world of science and does good scientific work, why should Dawkins care if they’re a Christian or not as long as they’re producing good material?

If an atheist wants to argue against Christianity, what they really need to do is read Christians who are informed talking about what they believe and why. Read multiple views on Genesis. Read about cases for theism and the resurrection of Jesus.

Now it sounds like I’ve been hard on the atheist, but the Christian isn’t entirely innocent in this. If a Christian goes to the scientist and says “You must reject XYZ in order to be a Christian” and the scientist is convinced that XYZ is a well-established fact about the world, then we have a problem. If the Christian says, “You must accept that Scripture says this about the world” and the atheist doesn’t think that claim about the world is true, he is likely to tie that in to theism and the resurrection of Jesus. Saint Augustine said this centuries ago and yet it sounds like it could have been written today:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7].” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)

If a Christian then argues this way, he’s not going to present a case that the atheist will accept. It’s the same problem again. If you make it the Bible vs science to an atheist, he will choose science every time, and who can blame him?

Am I forbidding a Christian from arguing against evolution? Not at all. It’s not what I do, but if you want to do it, it must not be the Bible vs. science as that just feeds the idea that there is a war between the two. If evolution is to fall, let it fall because it is somehow shown to be bad science. (It is not my call if it is or not or will be or not.) I suspect most atheists would agree with this. If evolution can be demonstrated to be bad science, then it is to be rejected.

If you want to make a case for Christianity, then go with a claim for theism and then the resurrection of Jesus and get in everything else after that. If you think a person has a less robust form of Christianity, such as rejecting inerrancy or what you think is a false view of Genesis, but they hold to essential Christian doctrine like the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. then rejoice. They believe the essential matters.

So then, if you want to argue against evolution, then you need to read the best evolutionary scientists you can and learn their position and do the work to show why you think it is scientifically flawed. If you are not willing to do this, then don’t argue it. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but treating them like defeaters is a problem.

Again, atheists and Christians both make this mistake and it sadly ends with ignorance of both science and Christianity. Let’s do better.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 8

Is Jesus God’s Wisdom? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In these replies, I have been contending that Jesus is God’s Wisdom. Today, we’re going to look into that a little bit more.

The most common interpretation of ‘all things’ in 1 Cor 8:6 is that this embraces the Genesis creation and
that the Son is being placed as the one through whom that creation came into being – “through/by
whom are all things”.
But to us there is one God, the Father, out of whom are85 all things, and we to/for him; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through/by whom are all things, and we through/by him. 1 Cor 8:6
(KJV revised)

Yes. This is the most common interpretation and that’s for good reason. It makes sense of the passage. This is especially clear when you get to chapter 10 still about meat offered to idols and are told that the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. (1 Cor. 10:25-26)

But Perry says:

J. Murphy-O’Conner discusses cosmological readings of 1 Cor 8:6, showing how they are often based
on extra-Biblical comparisons with parallel texts that have ‘all things’ being of one God but through an
agent such as Wisdom or the Logos. He notes example philosophical texts from the Stoics and Philo, but
several Second Temple religious texts can be adduced for Wisdom having a role in creation. One
argument for a cosmological reading is that all things come from God, and so food comes from God, and
is acceptable. The problem with the argument is that vv. 1-7 is directed to those who already have this
knowledge; it is not directed to those who need persuasion. Another argument is a comparison with 1
Cor 11:12 where Paul states “but all things are of God”. However, it is not certain that Paul is making a
point here about creation; he could be making a contrast with the new creation as with 2 Cor 5:18 (“But
all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”). If we exclude creation as the
topic of v. 6, then the parallel between Christ and Wisdom vis-à-vis creative agency is diminished.

Naturally, Perry is not interacting with Second Temple thought, but he says that if Paul is saying this, then it seems that it would be something that they didn’t know. Well, by this standard, let’s point out some other things they didn’t know in the letter.

1 Cor. 11:23-26:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1 Cor. 15:3-7:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles

So by Perry’s argument then, this material that Paul says he passed on to them, they would not have known about. Why present something they already knew?

Or maybe, just maybe, Paul is using what they already know to make a point….

We can certainly say if we exclude creation, then the Wisdom argument is diminished, but what difference does new creation make to Paul’s argument? Paul is talking about how to interact in this creation, not the new one. Does Perry think there will be meat for sale from pagan markets in the new creation?

The competing interpretation is soteriological. Within 1 Corinthians, Paul uses ‘all things’ to embrace
different concepts. First, he says that the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor 2:10-16). Such a person is
the recipient of the Spirit from God who works ‘all things in all’ (1 Cor 12:6; Eph 1:23) – all these things
are distributed throughout the body in terms of the spiritual gifts (‘spiritual things’, 1 Cor 12:1ff). All
things are for the believers so that the abundance of grace might be spread to all (Rom 8:28, 31-32; 2 Cor
4:14-15). This is why all things are ‘new’ in the new creation (2 Cor 5:17-18). Secondly, and politically, the
day will come when God will put all things under the feet of Christ, and after fulfilling his work, Christ
will deliver all things to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10-11). Of these two uses of ‘all things’, 1 Cor
8:6 would fall into the first category of ‘spiritual things’ because Paul is talking about knowledge in 1
Corinthians 8.88 Christians judge, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

But this faces the same problem. Paul throughout the section is talking about this creation. Why think the context has switched so spiritual matters when the question is about meat in the marketplace?

The underlying point here is that ‘all things’ is a common enough way to talk generally. Elsewhere, Paul
will refer to thrones, rulers, lordships and authorities as ‘all things’ (Col 1:16); he will comment that he has
suffered the loss of all things (Phil 3:8); and in his Mars Hill speech, Paul declares that God gives all
things to all. The ‘all things’ of 1 Cor 8:6 are the gifts of the Spirit which are ‘of’ the Father but ‘through’
Jesus Christ (e.g. Eph 2:18; Tit 3:5-6).

Perry has thrown this out without a reason why I should accept it. At this point, Hitchens’s Razor applies. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Perry has given me no reason to take his claim seriously and I see plenty to the contrary.

There is a further point of contrast with the cosmological reading. Paul states that believers are
‘through/by’ Jesus Christ – this is a reference to the new creation of men and women in Christ (Rom 6:11,
23; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 1:20; Gal 3:14; 6:15), who in turn receive the spiritual gifts. Paul’s point is based in the
present and not the past of the Genesis creation.

And when did those present things come about? Oh yes. In the Genesis creation. Paul is pointing to the beginning and the order God established. How else could He have done this?

Thus I conclude this paper thoroughly unpersuaded, at least of Perry’s point. If anything, I am more persuaded that the more traditional reading is the correct one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 7

Are those verses really about Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Perry asks if some passages are really about Jesus. Let’s go through them.

The use of Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, ‘Lord Jesus’, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…For there is no difference between the Jew
and the Greek: for the same lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Whosoever shall call
upon the name kyrios shall be saved. Rom 10:9-13 (KJV revised)
On the basis of the mention of the Lord Jesus in v. 9, it is assumed that ‘same lord over all’ and ‘call upon
the name kyrios’ equally refer to Jesus. Hence, Capes avers, “Since ku,rioj refers to Jesus in 10:9, he
probably had Jesus in mind here also.”

And this seems quite accurate to me, but what does Perry say?

An allusion or echo of Joel 2:32 exists in, “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ
our Lord” (1 Cor 1:2). This places Jesus into the position of the saviour that Yahweh occupies in the
‘calling’ of Joel 2:32. It could be used to support the claim of Capes about Rom 10:13 but, equally, we
should observe that the name ‘Yhwh’ is not referenced in 1 Cor 1:2. Since salvation is a matter of God working through Jesus, the appeal for salvation can be described directly in terms of Joel 2:32 and
Yahweh or in allusive terms referring to Christ.

An allusion? It’s an outright quote. Paul doesn’t speak of Jesus as a representative. He speaks of Him as the Lord. The name YHWH is not referenced in 1 Cor. 1:2? What of it? We have Romans 10:9 right there and right next to it 10:13. Wouldn’t that be a better go-to?

The expression ‘lord of all’ evokes God’s rule over the nations (Jew and Greek). In 1 Chron 29:11-12,
Yahweh is ‘head above all’ (LXX has, differently, ‘lord of all’) and ‘riches’ are also said to come from him
in this text. These two points of contact suggest that Paul is quoting from this prayer, but it is also
common enough to address Yahweh in these terms (e.g. 2 Chron 20:6).
This in turn suggests that the use of Joel 2:32 is also a reference to Yahweh – ‘calling upon the name of
the Lord’. This is a specific refrain74 in the Jewish Scriptures for invoking God to act as a saviour, see the
table below for examples.

Yet if we turned to Romans 9:5, we get that Jesus is God over all. The problem Perry has ultimately is “Well, if we take this and read it this way and look at it this way, it could possibly refer to this.” Maybe, but why should I pick that over the traditional interpretation that countless exegetes have said instead?

Another example of commentators mistaking identity is the quotation of Jer 9:23-24 in 1 Cor 1:31,
That, according as it is written, ‘He that glorieth, let him glory in kyrios’. 1 Cor 1:31 (KJV); cf. 2 Cor
10:17
Thus saith Yhwh, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his
might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me, that I am Yhwh which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and
righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight’, saith Yhwh Jer 9:23-24 (KJV revised)
The principal actor in Paul’s treatise in 1 Cor 1:19-31 is God: God destroys (v. 19); he brings to nothing
(v. 19); he has made (v. 20); he saves (v. 21); he chooses (vv. 27-28); and he makes (v. 30). Christ is the
‘object’ in the discourse – the ‘Wisdom of God’. It follows that v. 31 is a simple use of kyrios for ‘Yhwh’
and that the believer is to boast in God’s acts. Accordingly, Capes is simply wrong to conclude, “As indicated by his description of Christ’s work in 1:30, Paul quoted this Yahweh text (ku,riojin LXX,hwhy
in the Hebrew text) and applied it to Christ.”On the contrary, in v. 30 Christ is God’s work! The
boasting is related to the acts of God.

Yet again, what is the problem here? If we say Jesus is the Wisdom of God, then this fits with it. You can either glory in the Father at the work of Jesus or glory in Jesus that He is the one through whom the Father acts and either one works with a Trinitarian mindset.

So getting back to 1 Cor. 8:6, Perry says:

1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ with its prepositional
statements. If we compare these to 1 Cor 10:26, they disambiguate Paul’s quotation: the earth is ‘of the
Lord’ (tou/ kuri,ou) and it is God the Father ‘from whom’ or ‘out of whom’ are all things (evx ou–).

And again, reading this from a Wisdom approach, what is the problem? This is exactly what I would expect.

While Perry goes in, I really don’t see anything interacting with this Wisdom approach.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 6

How did Paul view Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are however literary identities. One kind is a typological identity.
Nevertheless, when it [the heart, v. 16] shall turn to kyrios, the veil shall be taken away. Now the
Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17 (KJV revised)
And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and
they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of
the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them…And till Moses had done
speaking with them, he put a veil on his face…But when Moses went in before Yhwh to speak
with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. Exod 34:30-34 (KJV revised)
The comparison here is with Moses ‘going in’ before Yhwh without a veil. The use of the verb ‘to turn’
picks up the children of Israel ‘outside’ who ‘turned away’ from Moses (Exod 34:31 – they turn back,
same verb in the LXX). Paul is saying that when the heart of the Jews turns to Yhwh, the veil will be taken
away, i.e. they will then be like Moses.
Paul’s first exegetical comment upon the incident is that ‘The Lord is the Spirit’. The identity here is
typological; Yahweh in Moses’ day stands for ‘the Spirit’ in Paul’s day. That Paul is thinking in terms of
typological comparison is shown by his earlier remarks. The Corinthians were not a letter written in
‘tablets’ of stone but one that was written in the ‘tablets’ of the heart with the Spirit of the living God (2
Cor 3:3). In order for the Jews to be such a letter, they would have to ‘turn’ to the Spirit. Paul is stating
this imperative by his assertion that ‘the Lord’ (Yahweh) is ‘the Spirit’.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Paul does mean the Lord is the Spirit.  Could this interpretation be possible? Sure, but why should I think it is likely? It is true that Perry goes on from here, but I find nothing that I think really clinches this argument. It’s as if he gets to make an assertion and then moves on. Responding to David Capes, he says:

Capes says that “the most convincing evidence that ku,rioj in [2 Cor] 3:16 refers to Jesus comes from [2
Cor] 4:5”,
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
2 Cor 4:5 (KJV revised)

Well, yes. That does seem convincing. Paul speaks of the Lord in one chapter and then a scant few verses later, he says Jesus is Lord, a common saying of his.

This illustrates the problem confronting exegetes; ku,rioj is used to refer to Yahweh and Jesus Christ and
commentators can get confused over usage. Paul’s point here in v. 5 is about the content of preaching,
whereas in the previous chapter, his concern has been with understanding the driving force of preaching
– the Spirit. Paul’s teaching about the Spirit takes the form of a typological comparison with Yahweh.
Capes is therefore simply mistaken. With typological identity, the type may have the same role, status or
function as the anti-type. In the comparison between Yahweh and the Spirit, both are the source of
instruction.

I look over this and I wonder how this is a response to what was said. The content of the preaching would be Jesus is Lord which would mean…..Jesus is Lord? And then when we see a reference to the Lord in 2 Cor. 3, perhaps that same Lord is Jesus? There doesn’t seem to be anything odd about this reading.

For Perry who seems to suspect theological motives under every interpretation he disagrees with, it looks like he is the one who is letting his theology guide his interpretation.

Next time, we will discuss alleged cases of mistaken identity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 4

Is Jesus YHWH? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What dose it mean to say Jesus is included in the divine identity?

If we consider relative identity (‘a is the same F as b’),45 it doesn’t seem that this framework will give us
an understanding for inclusive identity. Logically, two are one (the same) relative to their satisfying a
categorical predicate (‘the same F’; Fido and Pooch are the same breed’). Does Paul think that Jesus is the
same God as Yahweh? One doubt would be that he distinguishes them in terms of ‘God the Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ’. However, putting this doubt aside, if Paul believed that they were the same God,
this doesn’t necessarily imply that he is ‘including’ Jesus in the divine identity of Yahweh/God of Israel

Yet Perry never seems to define what is meant by this. Do we mean they are the same God? If you mean they are the same person, then no. I am not surprised that Jesus is differentiated from the Father. If anything, this convinces me. They needed two different ways to speak of them to avoid confusion.

The language of the divine nature deals with this. There are two persons at least that share the divine nature. Again, what that is needs to be fleshed out for us, but for the ancient audience in a high-context society familiar with Jewish thought, that would have been much better understood.

If we think of shared identity or group identity, these are examples of ‘inclusive’ identity. We might say
‘a is a member of the same class as b’. There are many gods and many lords and these would be classes in
which we might place the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ. Putting it in this way, doesn’t
obviously include Jesus in the class of many gods, but rather the class of many lords. In fact, 1 Cor 8:6
doesn’t lend itself to an inclusivity thesis, since Paul would seem to affirm that the “to–us” class of gods
has only one member and likewise the “to–us” class of lords. He assigns deity to the Father and lordship
to Jesus

IF Perry goes with this, then he would have to deny that the Father is Lord since the Father is not in the class of Lords but Jesus is. If Jesus not being in the category of gods means He cannot have the divine nature, then the Father not being included in the category of lords means He cannot have the nature of Lord. Is there any Jew that would remotely think that possible?

It is one thing to claim that Paul includes Jesus within the divine identity of the God of Israel; it is another
thing to show this worked out in his writing. We have noted the declarative quality of Christological
Monotheism. For example, we might ask whether (for Paul) it was God the Father that included Jesus
within his identity. If this were the case, and suppose that he did so through the bestowal of his Spirit
upon Jesus, does this have any implication as regards intrinsic deity in respect of Jesus? If Jesus is
included within the divine identity of the God of Israel, is the identity nevertheless still retained by the
God of Israel as his identity in such an inclusion?

Perry is responding more to adoptionism in this case than to Trinitarianism. First off, there is nothing that says Paul has to work this all out in his writing. In his society, his listeners would be expected to work that out and know the background knowledge to do that. Perry wants an ancient writing to read like a modern one.

Next time, we will look at some verses that seem to identify Jesus with YHWH in the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 3

What about the Shema? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Perry begins this section with this:

J. W. Adey comments, “The ‘one God’ of Biblical revelation is a single ‘person’ God, the Father only,
unambiguously unitarian or monotheistic…” The Shema would seem to be a clear expression of that
monotheism. The singleness of God is not about his (compound) unity, but about there being a sole
God.

We all agree that the Shema refers to one God, but thus far, that does not equal one person in the one God. I have long said that the biggest mistake Arians make is the assumption of unipersonalism. Every Trinitarian agrees that there is one God.

Christological Monotheism holds that Jesus is included within the divine identity of the God of Israel. As
a second move it affirms a continual adherence on the part of Paul to Jewish Monotheism. The two
propositions introduce a confusion into the definition of monotheism between what is one and unity.
Jewish (as well as scriptural) Monotheism is not about unity but about there being a single God. The
compound unity of the Father and the Son is not informative for Paul’s use of the Shema

Perry can say all he wants that this introduces a confusion, but what is meant? If he means hard to understand, that applies to most everything about God. God is omniscient and people have free-will. God is eternal and acts in time. Now if he could show something was a contradiction, that would be a problem, but thus far, he hasn’t. If his point is that there is a sole God, then he is not arguing against Christological monothiesm. We hold to that.

This observation introduces a requirement for Christological Monotheism: it needs to show that
‘inclusion within the divine identity’ is actually relevant to a characterization of ‘monotheism’. The contrary
challenge is that we can characterize Jewish Monotheism, Scriptural Monotheism and Pauline
Monotheism, referring to the singleness of God, as well as showing that Jesus is included within the
divine identity of the God of Israel – but without this being a matter of monotheism and instead being a
matter of cosmology. The drive to have ‘inclusive identity’ part of a definition of monotheism seems
anachronistic and based in the needs of Christian theology rather than an accurate description of NT
history.

Even if Perry was right about motives, so what? The data is what matters. Besides that, the assumption is that the later Fathers got a Christology in mind and then went back and plugged that into the New Testament. Maybe, just maybe, they read it out of the New Testament?

If we want to be faithful to the etymology ‘mono/theism’ (mo,noj/qeo,j), then we should include the
following Pauline ‘mono’ texts ‘only God’ (1 Tim 1:17; cf. Jude v. 25) and ‘only Sovereign…who only has
immortality’ (1 Tim 6:15-16). These texts, coupled with the distinction between the Son and the invisible
God in Colossians, gives us a consistent monotheistic pattern in Paul’s thought that doesn’t include the
Son.

Yet a Christological monotheist can say the Son is included in the divine identity and so when we speak of the only God, then that is what is going on. Does Perry do the same though when we get to Jude 4 and Jesus is our only Lord? Based on what is said here, if Perry interprets that the same way, then the Father cannot be our Lord.

We should ask whether it is possible for the Shema to be rewritten or rearranged so as to include Jesus Christ
within the divine identity of the God of Israel. The question here is whether the semantics of ‘one’ (dxa,
́eHäd) in the Shema allow this possibility. Our argument is that they do not, because ‘one’ is about
singleness and not unity whereas ‘inclusion within the divine identity’ is about unity, i.e. requires a sense
corresponding to ‘unity’ in the Shema.

Okay. Let’s see then.

A quotation of the Shema in Zech 14:9 assists this analysis.
And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be Yahweh one, and his name
one. Zech 14:9 (KJV revised)
Adey comments on this text, “the way
́HD qualifies Yahweh and ‘Yahweh’ in Zech 14:9, classifying but not
(it is said) identifying, connects and complies syntactically and semantically with reading
́HD as a numeral
‘one’ in the Shema.”35 And a further quotation,
Have we not all one father? Hath not one God ( ́ē
l) created us? (Mal 2:10 KJV)
Adey’s comment on this text is, “The singularity of ‘God’ is further emphasized by the grammatically
singular form ́ēl”.36 The singleness of Yahweh is also seen in the complementary statements that God is
alone God or that Yahweh is alone Yahweh (2 Kgs 19:15, 19; Neh 9:6; Ps 83:18).

And the problem is? I don’t see it. We all affirm that there is one God. What is the problem?

Where ́eHäd might be used for ‘oneness’ or ‘unity’, then there is a two that remains two, as for example in
the case of “the two shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Adey observes,
“…whilst ‘one’ in the appropriate context may be transposed into a metaphoric sense as ‘unity’
(‘oneness’), dismantling ‘one’ as ‘unity’ does not end up with ‘one’ (thing). ‘Unity’ requires at least two (parts or persons) for its meaning. In Deut 6:4 the only theistic party is Yahweh. The text has
none other that is God but He, and this justifies asserting that the given four semantic units in the
Shemastatement are insufficient to provide for or even evoke the concept of (some pluraloneness
as) unity.

And again, I don’t see the problem here. Unity requires at least two. That’s what we have. At least two persons. Thus, God can be a unified one since He has three persons.

That’s all to say about the Shema for now. Let’s see what comes up next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Andrew Perry on 1 Cor. 8:6 Part 2

Is Jesus in the divine identity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So let’s just jump right back into it.

Wright asserts that Paul has taken kurios from Deut 6:4, but offers no argumentation for this proposal.
He then concludes, “There can be no mistake: just as in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1, Paul has placed
Jesus within an explicit statement, drawn from the Old Testament’s quarry of emphatically monotheistic
texts…producing what we can only call a sort of christological monotheism.” We have criticized
Wright’s exegesis of Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 in previous articles, but only Philippians 2 uses a
characteristic monotheistic OT text (Isa 45:23). We might agree that Phil 2:10 places Jesus within the same
eschatological situation as Yahweh in Isa 45:23, but placement within a situation is not the same as
inclusion within the divine identity and so Wright’s comparison is false.

This seems to be too easy a dismissal of Wright. YHWH is the one who won’t share His name with another and for all the talk that Perry made last time about there being no parallel to the Shema for Jesus, can he find a parallel where everyone else bows at another name besides that of God? If it works one way, it ought to work the other way too.

The case for the christological monotheist is based around the claim that kyrios is picking up ‘Yhwh’ from
Deut 6:4 and using this name for Christ, thus identifying Jesus with Yhwh in some sense. The first
counter-argument to this claim is that, even if Paul is picking up ‘Yhwh’ from Deuteronomy, bearing the
name ‘Yhwh’ doesn’t imply an identification of Jesus with Yhwh. This is shown in two ways: first, the
name that is above every name was given22 to Christ by God (Phil 2:9); and secondly, the name was also
given to the Angel of the Lord who led Israel through the wilderness (“My name is in him”, Exod 23:21).

For the first objection, this is an assumption of unipersonalism whereby if a name is given, then that person cannot be in the identity, but this is not explained why. Jesus is given this name as a public vindication of what He had done publicly. Had He not done a public act, He would not have been known in this way.

For the second, I have regularly pointed to the Angel of the Lord as a Trinitarian precursor. He acts in ways that only God can act. He is the one speaking in Exodus 3. He appears to Hagar in Genesis 16 and she refers to Him as the God who sees me. Rather than demonstrating the point is incorrect, Perry is actually with this demonstrating the point is highly accurate!

The Angel of the Lord is a type of Christ leading his people through the wilderness. In the same way that
he bore the name, so too Christ bears the name. Hence, any basis there might be in the possession of this
name for identifying Jesus with Yhwh would also apply to the Angel of the Lord. Yet the Angel of the
Lord is distinguished from Yhwh in the same way that Paul distinguishes ‘one…and one’ in 1 Cor 8:6.

Obviously, great scholars like Bauckham and Wright never noticed that there was a distinguishing here. The Angel of the Lord is often treated as YHWH, but yet somehow is seen as a servant of YHWH. Consider how in Genesis 19:24 we read that YHWH on Earth rained down fire and brimstone from YHWH out of Heaven. If you come in with the assumption that God must be unipersonal, you have to read the texts in a way to avoid any plurality in the Godhead. If you dismiss that, you must remain open to the idea that perhaps God is a unique being in a sense that He is multipersonal while we are unipersonal.

However, before we reach this conclusion, we should ask, as a second counter-argument, whether
kyrios in 1 Cor 8:6 is actually picking up ‘Yhwh’ from Deut 6:4 in the first place. ‘Yhwh’ is a proper name,
but kyrios in 1 Cor 8:6 is not being used here as a proxy for this proper name precisely because it is
modified by ‘one’. The ‘one’ is in a semantic contract with the ‘many’ of v. 5, which in turn has the
plural of kyrios. This in turn brings that plural into a semantic contract with the singular of v. 6. Thus,
because the plural is functioning as a descriptive title, so too kyrios in v. 6 is functioning as a title and not
as a proxy for the name ‘Yhwh’. Accordingly, we can observe a symmetry between the two clauses: just as
‘God’ is not a proper name in ‘one God’ so too ‘Lord’ is not serving as a proxy for a proper name in ‘one
Lord’.

I am unclear as to what difference this makes. It is as if Perry is treating YHWH as a personal name. (By the way, aren’t all names given to someone?) Paul is making a contrasting statement indeed saying that the pagans have many gods and many lords, but we only have one. If he submits two different beings here, then he has a sort of ditheism going on. If he has one God with at least two persons here as both are in the divine nature somehow, then he does not.

Even if we went to the Shema, saying Lord as a proper name wouldn’t make sense. Did the Jews need to know there was only one YHWH? Even when they were  living in idolatry, they could say there was one YHWH, but there was also one Asherah, one Molech, etc. Yet if they say there is one God and one Lord and those are combined, then they have monotheism.

If the first clause, ‘there is one God, the Father’, is monotheistic, what type of clause is ‘there is one Lord,
Jesus Christ’? Is it possible to have a god and a lord within a scriptural faith? Is this conjoining of the Father and the Son so innovative that it redefines Scriptural Monotheism and Jewish Monotheism? Is the
associative partnership implicit in ‘of whom are all things’ (the Father) and ‘by whom are all things’ (the
Son) actually (or still) monotheistic?

But this is just begging the question. It is saying that if we go with the understanding of Bauckham and Wright and Capes and others, then we are redefining monotheism. It’s kind of hard to redefine a term that means “There is only one God.” The Trinity necessarily has it that there is only one God. Perry also since he is refusing to look at intertestamental literature is ignoring any data that Jews had to the contrary in pre-Christian thinking. Once again, if anything is redefining it, it is somehow having Jesus being a being that is separate and yet somehow Lord. By framing the Shema in this way, Paul is saying that you can’t have one without the other. If the Son is exclusively Lord, then the Father is not, but if the Father is exclusively God, the Son is not. Putting them both in the same identity avoids the problem.

Our two clause reading of 1 Cor 8:6 is immune to Bauckham’s reasoning for Christological Monotheism.
He says, “there can be no doubt that the addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the Shema‘
would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter…The only possible way to understand Paul as
maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God
affirmed in the Shema‘.” All we have to observe here is that the second clause is not ‘adding to’ the ‘one’
of the monotheism in the first clause and that ‘one…and one’ does add up to two! We do not have to
maintain Paul’s monotheism by deploying a late-20c. theological construct like ‘included in the divine
identity’. We can maintain his monotheism by confining his avowal of monotheism to the first clause.

The language is 20th century, but is the idea? That is the question. We could just as well ask if anyone in the time of Paul was going around talking about Christological monotheism like Perry is. Would that invalidate his case? Absolutely not.

One and one does indeed add to two. So you either have two persons in the divine identity, or you have two beings, one distinctively God, but then the other must be distinctively Lord. If this is the Shema then, it is Perry that is dividing it and not Bauckham.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)