Another principle of understanding the violent sections of the Bible is to understand the incarnation of God.

incarnation of GodWe typically think of the incarnation as something that happened only when Jesus Christ became human, that is, when He was born of a virgin, grew up as a boy under the parentage of Joseph and Mary, became a man, and then lived, taught, ministered, suffered, and died. Strictly speaking, this is probably true. The definition of “incarnate” is “to become flesh.” So prior to the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, it is not exactly accurate to say that God was in the flesh—that God was human. God only became human when He entered the womb of a woman and grew up as a human, just like one of us.

Yet there is something about the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ which teaches us how God has always entered into the world and interacted with human in history.

Just as Jesus took on human flesh with all its weaknesses and limitations, so also God, in the Old Testament “incarnated” Himself into the affairs of humanity with all of our weaknesses and limitations.

Just as the human body of Jesus could get tired, feel pain, hunger, thirst, and even die, and just as the words and intentions of Jesus could be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misapplied, so also, when God entered into human affairs in various times and places in the Old Testament, He did so with all the frailties, weaknesses, and limitations of humanity, and His words also could be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misapplied. God became incarnate in human history through human events by

To say that God became incarnate in human history—and specifically Israelite history—is not to say that God became flesh, but to say that God entering into history and allowed Himself to be limited by the events, ideas, and methods of the world at that time. Jesus certainly knew of better ways of traveling than by walking (and after His resurrection, He shows one of these by appearing and disappearing at will), but as God in human flesh, He limited Himself to walking because this was the available method for most humans at that time.

Based on this principle, it seems possible that there might be some instances in the Old Testament where God chose to allow Israel to act in a certain way because He had also limited Himself to the methods that were available to Him at that time. War is never God’s plan or desire, but if the Israelites wanted to enter the land of Canaan and the only method available to them at the time (that they could think of anyway) was violent warfare, then God was restricted from getting Israel to enter the land in any other way. When the Israelites were facing an enemy that was set on killing them all at the edge of the sword, the Israelites could not fathom any other way out of the situation than by warfare (and frankly, neither can I!), and so God, who had incarnated Himself into human history, allowed them to engage in warfare in His Name, even though war was not God’s will, was not God’s plan, and was not God’s desire.

Continue Reading…

unityChristian unity is one of the highest Christian goals, which is why we are always encouraging one another to grow in unity.

Toward that end, we have all heard (or said) things like this:

“We need to all grow together in unity!”

“We all must come together in unity on this subject!”

“We invite you to join us as we grow in unity with one another!”

But sometimes I wonder…. is it really unity we are after, or just keeping the peace?

Is Unity the Same as Keeping the Peace?

Often times (in my experience anyway), what is called “unity” really just boils down to a mutually agreed upon list of beliefs and behaviors that are considered “safe” by everyone within the group. The controversial activities and hot-button topics are considered “off limits” so that everyone can be “unified.” But again, is this really unity?

I have trouble thinking that “agreeing to not discuss certain topics” is what Jesus meant by “unity” when He prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). It seems that this is not true unity, but is a forced unity… a fake unity. a unity that is based not on love for other people no matter what, but is based instead on a mutual agreement to not discuss certain subjects or do certain things when we are together.

I do, of course, remember what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians about giving up some of his freedoms for the sake of other Christians, and while I understand that this is an essential part of growing in unity, I wonder if this is all that unity is…. you know… a list of rules about what not to talk about around Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, a set of behaviors to not do when in the presence of Pastor Jim, a personal interest to keep hidden from Elder Bob, and my political leanings to stay silent about around Miss Morrell.

Is this real unity? Hiding who we really are from other people just so we can get along?

Is True Unity Possible?

I have a real hard time believe it is, but at the same time, this seems to be the most unified we Christians can get. There are so many differences of opinion on nearly ever subject under the sun and every behavior imaginable, how in the world can we ever be unified? It is impossible to think that we will all become clones of each other, thinking and behaving in exactly the same way, so how can we grow in unity if there will never be unity of thought and unity of behavior this side of heaven? (And maybe not even then???)

I have been thinking on this for a long time, and while I don’t have the answers, I think I am beginning to see a speck of light on how to grow in unity with one another, while still allowing for great disunity on a vast array of theological beliefs and Christian behaviors.

Continue Reading…

Happy Father’s Day!

I want to thank my own dad for being a great father to 10 kids (yes, there were ten of us!), and always being calm, cool, and (for the most part) collected. I always remember my friends saying to me, “Nothing fazes your dad, does it?” I guess you had to be this way with 10 kids in the house….

Since I am now a father, I have tried to practice some of that cool-headedness. Of course, I don’t have ten children… only three. I am the proud father of three girls. And based on how beautiful they are, I know I am headed for trouble.

So I laughed when I saw this picture.

dadd

Continue Reading…

God does not lieOne common objection to the proposal I am making in my series on how to understand the violence of God in the Old Testament (see the link list below) is that this view seems to make God out to be a liar.

The objection is this: If God inspired the biblical authors to record that He is doing and commanding things that He is actually not doing or commanding, doesn’t this mean that God is lying? But Scripture says that God does not lie (Num 23:19). So how can God inspire biblical authors to write that He commanded Israel to do things that He did not actually command them to do? As with the previous objection, there are a few things that can be said in response.

If God Did Commit Violence, Then Jesus is a Liar

First, we can turn the question around. It seems that if God truly is violent, then the real lie is in Jesus claiming to fully reveal God to us, but not showing revealing any of the murderous and bloody violence that so characterized God in the Old Testament. Take for example, John 14:9-11. Philip says to Jesus, “Show us the Father,” and in response Jesus says, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

But if God truly does have a violent and bloody side then Jesus was being deceptive, for nowhere in His life or ministry did He reveal God as someone who goes to war against His enemies or commands the genocide of people who do not love or obey Him.

If there is a dark side to God, it was certainly hidden in Jesus during His ministry, which means that when Jesus tells Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father,” what He really meant was “You haven’t fully seen the Father; only the loving side.” If God really is violent, but Jesus revealed none of this violence, then the real lie is Jesus hiding this side of God from us so that He appeared more loving and gracious than He truly is.

If someone believes that God truly is violent, the burden of proof lies on them to explain how Jesus fully reveals God to us but fails to reveal the violent and bloody side of God’s nature. If Jesus is the exact representation of God and is the image of the invisible God (John 1:14, 18; 14:9-11; 2 Cor 4:4; Php 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3), but during His life and ministry never revealed the aspect of God as a warrior, then there are only two options: either God is not a warrior and Jesus did truly reveal the Father to us, or Jesus was being deceptive.

Continue Reading…

John Piper God Slaughters WomenDid you hear what John Piper said online a few years back? Check out this quote:

It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

That is not the God I know.

Yuri Wijting on Facebook directed me to an article by Peter Enns which talked about this statement by John Piper.

Here are a couple things Peter Enns said in response to John Piper:

1. It is unguarded to make a general principle of God’s character on the basis of the treatment of the Canaanites in the Old Testament. Of course, Piper would likely retort that all of Scripture is God-breathed, does not mislead us, and reveals the character of God. But then he would need to address squarely Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that “death to our enemies” is no longer valid.

The insider-outsider premise that undergirds Canaanite slaughter (and the killing of many of Israel’s enemies in the Old Testament–see #3) is the very thing Jesus squashed: “My kingdom is not of this world.” That alone should give Piper pause from venturing forward with his assessment of God’s character on the basis of how Canaanites are dealt with.

2. Following on #1, “the Bible said it, that settles it” answer to God’s violence in the Old Testament not only runs into problems with respect to the New Testament but the Old Testament as well. There is a fair amount of theological diversity in the Old Testament regarding the nature of God’s judgment on the nations that would need to be taken into account. (For example, compare Jonah and Nahum on the fate of Assyria; the glorious fate of Egypt in Isaiah 19:23-25.) To make one view on such a thorny issue the model for how God acts throughout time runs the danger of privileging certain texts that support one’s theology.

If you get a chance, go read the rest of the article by Peter Enns. It is excellent.

I thought about adding a few choice words of my own directed at John Piper, but then I realized I was not angry. Instead, I was extremely, extremely sad.

Continue Reading…