Who is Abraham?

The Bible cites Abraham as the father of the faith who was chosen by God and responded in a faith which Christians, Jews, and Muslims strive to emulate.  But, who is this man?  Is he mere legend, a patchwork of exaggeration and mythological projection across the Jahwehists, Elohimists, Priests, and Deuteronomists?  Or, is there tangible historical evidence in favor of his existence?

On historical method, there is much to be said.  Roland Deines lists three different standards which Christians choose among when doing historical study.(Deines 9–20)  They are:

1. Ontological Naturalistic History – Founded by Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923)
2. Methodological Naturalistic History – Founded by Martin Hengel (1926-2009)
3. Critical Theistic History – Founded by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (1927 – present)

The first assumes an atheist/non-supernatural universe, defined by secular naturalism.  It would take every miracle claim as historically false or misinterpreted.  Here, faith and history are divorced. As this method is frequently taught in universities, some Christians might choose this approach. The second uses secular methodology, recognizing the theoretical possibility of miracles, allowing it only in cases where there is no better historical explanation available. As for the third, it is both critical and theistic.  For Ratzinger, history is not divorced from faith, but is the foundation upon which faith rests.  He distinguishes between the merely hypothetical certainty that the secular method can provide and the faith-based certainty that faith in the Bible can provide.  Rather than merely being inductively open to the possibility of the transempirical like Hengel, Ratzinger includes faith-based certainty as a kind of historical knowledge. He starts with the assumption that God exists and is acting in history.

There is the debate over the documentary-hypothesis.  That is, did Moses really write the first five books of the Bible? Or were there four separate sources (JEPD) which were only assembled together around 400 B.C.? John Sailhamer rejects the documentary-hypothesis (Sailhamer 22–25). As well, Bruce Waltke considers that Moses skillfully used multiple sources.(Waltke and Fredricks 24–27).  Walter Kaiser rejects the documentary-hypothesis.(Ankerberg 1). As does the Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen who writes:

Where do J, E, D, P now belong, if the old order is only a chimera? Or, in fact, do they belong at all?

Here we will be concise, open, and fairly staccato. First, the basic fact is that there is no objective, independent evidence for any of these four compositions (or for any variant of them) anywhere outside the pages of our existing Hebrew Bible. If the criterion of “no outside evidence” damns the existence of such as Abraham, Moses, or Solomon and company, then it equally damns the existence of these (so far) imaginary works.(Kitchen 492)

Also, there is discussion about biblical-maximalism vs. biblical-minimalism.  The position of maximalism is that the Bible is to be taken as a historical source unless proven otherwise, and furthermore that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In minimalism, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities.(“Historicity of the Bible” 1)

Though external evidence for Abraham has not yet been discovered, there is internal evidence for Abraham.

From the viewpoint of modern historiography, internal evidence within the Pentateuch supports the narrator’s inferred claim to represent what really happened. The religious practices of the patriarchs both remarkably agree and at the same time considerably disagree with the religious practices Moses commands. For example, … contrary to the Mosaic law and without the narrator’s censure, Jacob erects a stone pillar (maṣṣēḇâ, Gen. 28:18–22), Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and Jacob simultaneously marries sisters (Gen. 29:15–30; cf. Deut. 16:21–22; Lev. 18:9, 18, respectively). Were the stories faked, one would expect the author of the Pentateuch to ground his law in the created order or in ancient traditions and, at the least, not cite data that could possibly undermine his teaching. These religious traditions are ancient, having been neither tampered with nor contrived.(Waltke and Fredricks 29–30)

Combining known external societal practices with the internal Bible data, Kitchen considers Abraham to have lived sometime between 1900 B.C. and 1600 B.C.(Kitchen 359).  Kaiser considers Abraham to be living around 2000 B.C. (Kaiser, Jr 96).   Provan, Long, and Longman aptly write:

“The claim to be a critical thinker is easy to make; the reality that lurks beneath it has all too often proved to be only a mixture of blind faith in relation to the writer’s own intellectual tradition and arbitrary, selective skepticism in relation to everything else.”(Provan, Long, and Longman III 50)

 WORKS CITED

Ankerberg, John. “Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis.” John Ankerberg Show. N.p., 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Deines, Roland. Acts of God in History - Studies Towards Recovering a Theological Historiography. Ed. Christoph Ochs and Peter Watts. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Print.

“Historicity of the Bible.” Wikipedia 1 Mar. 2017. Wikipedia. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Kaiser, Jr, Walter C. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? 2001st ed. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2001. Print.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. annotated edition edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. Print.

Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.

Sailhamer, John H. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009. Print.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. 1st edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Print.

On the Souls of Animals and Man

Do all dogs go to heaven? This is a common question that I come across in my interaction with others. In particular, this can bear serious discussion when one's favorite family pet comes near to death.

With mankind, the Bible's answer is clear. Though our current body is temporary, our soul will survive the body's destruction. (2 Cor. 4:16-18; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) All mankind fairly deserves punishment and, as fair punishment, is to suffer this punishment eternally. However, out of God's love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to suffer the punishment we deserve. If we believe Him, turn from our evil ways, and follow Him, our sins are no longer counted against us and we are forgiven, to live an eternity with God. (John 3:16; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; 5:8)

On this understanding, the best explanation for the nature of the human soul seems to be one of substance dualism. It need not be a Cartesian substance dualism. However, it seems most likely an interaction dualism. This means that the soul exists separate from the body and influences the body. As well, the body exists separate from the soul and influences the soul.

I used to hold to a Lockean, stream-of-consciousness, view of the human soul. However, with discoveries of the existence of subconsciousness and further reflection of the state of our soul during dreaming, coma, and other cases, I now lean more toward a view similar to Boethius. Boethius believed that the soul was a substance that existed. With current levels of research, it seems most likely that the interaction between the body and soul is occurring somewhere at the point of firing and inhibition of each neuron in the human brain. Because I think the soul is a substance, it seems to me that it most likely is composed of particles that we have not yet discovered.

Now, with animals, the story is a bit different. Mankind is distinct from animals because we were created in God's image, have moral responsibilities before God, and since the first sin, have continually violated God's command. (Genesis 2:15-17) I am not convinced that the current level of scientific discovery necessitates an evolutionary understanding of mankind. However, even if someone were to hold to the theory of evolution, there are those, like Alvin Plantiga, who can affirm the above theology while still affirming a God-guided evolution.

What is noticeable here is that God does not count animals guilty of sin. Animals are not created in God's image. So, there is no reason why an animal would suffer an eternal punishment. At the same time, there is no evidence in the Bible that animals will have an eternity of relationship with God in heaven. Rather, it seems most likely that animals do not have an eternal soul.

This is not to say that animals do not have an experience of morality. Mankind clearly has an experience of morality, and it transcends culture. The particular morality that a person experiences begins at youth and seems a combination of projection of self upon family, community, nation, all humans, and all creation (as a divine design built into mankind, as well as through God's active interaction with the person's soul both as Uniform Divine Action and Objectively Special Divine Action). As well, it is clear that humans form morals also upon their upbringing. Parents, peers, and society teach morals to children who internalize and adopt them. Here, it is most clear the role of tradition in human moral formation (regardless whether the tradition is Christian, Muslim, or an Enlightenment tradition). For animals, there seems to be a similar moral formation through projection (perhaps also as a divine design into animals). While the social Darwinistic law of the survival of the fittest is clearly demonstrable in animal behavior, we also see examples of animal moral experiences. For example, when a mother cub carefully guards her young. This would seem to be a kind of animal moral experience of the suggestion that harming one's cubs is wrong. So, though God does not count animals guilty of sin, animals do seem to have experiences of morality.

But, what is the animal soul? One aspect of it would be that it is the very substance of life, the breath of life given by God. A clear example of animal soul would be the existence of consciousness. So, non-human conscious creatures would seem to have a soul that is not eternal. If the animal's soul is not eternal, is it the same substance as a human soul? Does the animal's soul have the same relation to its body as the human soul has to its body? It seems to me that, with animal souls, substance dualism is definitely an option. However, non-reductive physicalism and an emergent physicalism both seems to be possible options for the animal soul. Demonstrated behavioral similarities between animal consciousness and human consciousness would argue for both having souls of the same type. On the other hand, the theological difference would argue for both having souls of a different type.

For a human soul, conscious experience begins at a particular point (whether at conception or at some later moment before physical birth). Does the substance of our soul exist before conception? I know of no guaranteed answer for this. Only that God acts to bring life in the world at the moment of conception, through an act of Uniform Divine Action (and perhaps sometimes through an act of Objectively Special Divine Action). The Bible's description of God's work in the bringing of life seems to preclude the possibility that humans have experience prior to conception which is later forgotten. Such a possibility would also go against the teaching of Hebrews 9:27 which teaches that a soul only has one life before eternity.

An interesting situation concerns the souls of identical twins. For identical twins begin with a single zygote, but becomes two embryos. So, prior to the formation of the two embryos, is the zygote considered one soul or two? In discussion with Dr. Kilner at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he suggests that it depends upon whether you believe that the soul is passed on from the father, or whether it comes from the mother. This response would be consistent with the view called Traducianism. Traducianism emphasizes that the soul comes from the parents rather than explicitly created by God. There is some biblical support for this (Gen. 2:2-3; 2:7; 5:3). However, there is also biblical support for the idea that God is the one that creates the soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). However, it seems to me that these two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some combination of the two could be in play. It seems unlikely to me, given the absence of biblical support, that there is a pre-created warehouse of souls that God attaches at the moment of conception to each created person.

For an animal soul, the question of the origin of the animal's soul is equally as confusing as human souls. But, as argued above, it seems most likely that animal souls cease to have consciousness at the destruction of the animal's body. What happens to the substance of the animal's soul at that point? It depends on which theory of animal soul we hold. The non-reductive physicalism and emergent physicalism would have the most clear explanation for this, while substance dualism leaves open the question of what happens to the animal's soul. Is it destroyed or disassembled? It would seem so.

In any case, we can conclude that all dogs do not go to heaven (in fact, no dogs go to heaven), but we can still be kind to animals while they are alive. The Bible condemns torture of animals. (Proverbs 12:10; Leviticus 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is good to care for our pets like a shepherd would for his sheep (2 Sam. 12:1-6). At the same time, we can celebrate our uniqueness as humans, being created in the image of God, and destined to spend an eternity with God in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.

What Makes a Healthy Fellowship?

To answer the question about what makes a healthy fellowship, we have to look at what a fellowship is and what it should be.

An initial approach at this can draw from the etymology of the word.  There is the organization of a fellowship and there is the relational experience of fellowship.  Within the organization of fellowship, there should be a relational experience of fellowship.  When this is not the case, one could say that the fellowship organization is not healthy.

On the other hand, some would say that the reason fellowship organizations do not experience fellowship amongst themselves is due to either “the sin of lovelessness or by the intrusion of heresy into the church.”[1]  Among these, Masaki emphasizes that it is actually harmful to maintain relational fellowship with those who are doctrinally in serious error.[2] Ziegler especially emphasizes that it is important to have the correct understanding of the Gospel.[3]  Nevertheless, Schultz does recognize “a broader fellowship, based upon the existence of salvific faith in the triune God.”[4]

However, these considerations are really looking at the Church, both universal and local, rather than a specific organizational fellowship.  Therefore, the question then becomes, “What is the relationship between a particular fellowship and the Church, either universal or local?”  An organizational fellowship could be a local church, especially as a house church.  An organizational fellowship could be a subgroup within a local church, such as age-based or life-stage-based groups, which have their own goals but also work toward the goals of the local church of which they are a part.  As well, an organizational fellowship could be a para-church organization, such as a student organization at a university.     

There is no clear biblical prohibition or commandment clearly stating whether these fellowship groups must or must not be age-based or life-stage-based, sociologically targeted or multi-cultural.  Moreover, in this sense, there is a lot of freedom on what one can do.  And, in these areas of freedom, we cannot say that one group is unhealthy because it is age-based rather than life-stage-based.  There are usually good arguments for going one way or another.  For example, Johnson emphasizes the value of building friendships across generational barriers in the church.[5]  Sometimes one way of doing things is not the most effective.  However, sometimes very little effectiveness is the best that can be done.  A lot of ideas can be helpful to increase attendance or giving or create a more pleasant atmosphere, but we should recognize their value as the extent to which they contribute to the purpose of the Church.

Richard Foster argues that unhealthy traits affect a church when the church becomes formal, focused on legality, in the larger Church setting.  He sees these negative traits as occurring at the larger denominational level, where there is little or no personal relationship with those who hold the opposing viewpoint.  He refers to this as the Church as an organization.  His suggestion is to emphasize the local church, small enough where everyone has personal relationship with each other.  In such a context, disagreements are informal and consist of loving conversation with personal friends and family.  He refers to this as the Church as an organism.[6]  While I think that Foster overstates the values of the local church, I must agree that he has a point about the kindness that comes with personal relationship that is often clearly seen at the local-church level and not as easily seen at the denominational level. This does not necessarily mean that a small church equals a unified one.  There is the saying that one Dutchman is a theologian, two Dutchmen make a church, and three Dutchmen make a schism.  Nevertheless, the kindness of personal relationship, which avoids formal legality, reminds me of the truth of Proverbs 25:8, which says:

“Don't take a matter to court hastily. Otherwise, what will you do afterward if your opponent humiliates you?”  (HCSB)

---

[1] Naomichi Masaki, “Cultural Differences and Church Fellowship: The Japan Lutheran Church as Case Study,” Concordia Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 96.

[2] Ibid., 113.

[3] Roland F Ziegler, “Doctrinal Unity and Church Fellowship,” Concordia Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 73.

[4] Klaus Detlev Schulz, “Fellowship Issues and Missions,” Concordia Theol. Q. 70, no. 2 (2006): 185.

[5] Raymond Johnson, “Cross-Generational Fellowship and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” J. Disciplesh. Fam. Minist. 3, no. 2 (2013): 87.

[6] Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth Special 20th Anniversary Edition, 2000 Hardcover (Harper SanFrancisco, 2000), 175–89.

No Room for Dancing to Ba'al

The Chicago Tribune writes:

Dancing bans were once common throughout the rural United States, particularly in Protestant-dominated areas.

Historians date dance bans back to the Calvinists, with the first written treatise against dancing coming from Increase Mather, the Boston clergyman who was president of Harvard College from 1685 to 1701.

Strict Protestant denominations like Mennonites and the Amish have frowned upon dancing, as have the Baptists. While Scripture does not refers to dancing as an evil, opponents quote the Apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians, in which he warns that the flesh is at war with the spirit and admonishes followers to shun sexual immorality, debauchery and drunkenness.

However, BBC supplements this:

PRE - 1556 A.D.

Classical and early Christian writings report dancing as dangerous and sinful, particularly if it allowed close physical contact between men and women from the lower orders. In the medieval period, circle dances were common with partner dances later becoming more popular.

And, so it seems, what makes certain kinds of dancing immoral, often times, is because it is conducive of lewd and lascivious behavior.  This is important because it is not always apparent what counts as dancing, what counts as lewd or “dirty” dancing, or even what lewdness itself is.

2 Peter 2:7 describes those who are “lewd” or “unrestrained” or “sensual” or “depraved.”  The Greek word is ἀσέλγεια and EDNT (p. 169) defines it as:

In the NT ἀσέλγεια normally has a sensual meaning and refers esp. to sexual debauchery: In addition, the word describes behavior in which sexual debauchery is only one element among many. Ἀσέλγεια is thus a comprehensive expression for evil and perversion.

Nevertheless, what about concrete examples?  Perhaps, it might be better to give clear examples of that which is not lewd. A concrete example of modest attire can be seen in the Moody Bible Institute “Classroom Dress” standards from Moody’s “Student Life Guide 2009”:

Men

Collared, knit or ribbed shirts (not plain or printed athletic t-shirts), sweaters, hoodies and sweatshirts, track jackets, dress slacks, khakis, and jeans in good repair. [Good repair: no holes, patches, rips, tears, or excessive fraying. Overalls are not permitted.]

Women

Dresses, skirts, blouses, hoodies and sweatshirts, sweaters, shirts with two-inch or wider shoulder straps, dress slacks, khakis, and jeans in good repair. [Good repair: no holes, patches, rips, tears, or excessive fraying. Overalls are not permitted.] The hemlines of dresses and skirts are to reach the top of the kneecap, and slits may be two inches above the kneecap.

Not permitted:

§  Stretch pants, leggings, or knit gauchos.

§  Garments that are tight-fitting, shoulder-less, low-cut or fail to cover the midriff and back area at all times.

§  Plain or printed athletic t-shirts.

As with attire, so also with dancing.  There are clear examples of modesty and clear examples of lewdness as well as a spectrum of vagueness in-between.  Different societies have different standards, and yet the Bible holds an absolute timeless standard.  The desire is to be above reproach as in 1 Timothy 3:2 and overly conservative in a positive way as seen by the example of Job in Job 1:5.  Err on the cautious side, but try not to err at all.  However, the caution is to avoid the mistake of the Pharisees in Mark 3:1-6, who both incorrectly interpreted the meaning of working on the Sabbath as well as misunderstood the purpose and priority of this commandment in relation to God’s command to love our neighbor.

With this, it seems that perhaps the best concrete advice would be summed up in something that some friends and I put together for Church a number of years ago:

Clubbing/Dancing:

1.     Flee from sin. Many of the dance styles are highly sexualized. Dancing of this type is “revelry” and “out of control” as similar to Israel in Exodus 32:6,19-25.   But dancing that is done as worship to God is not sinful.  2 Sam 6:12-16.  Ask yourself, Are you dancing to bring attention to either yourself or your body?  Is this dancing stirring up sinful desires?  Or, perhaps, Why am I going clubbing?  What activities will I be doing there that Scripture would address as needing to “flee from sin”?

2.     Maximum Edification. Don't go clubbing/dancing if you know it'll stumble someone.  Consider the effect and example your actions and decisions have on others.

3.     Love Limiting Freedom. If it distresses your brother, you should, out of love for him, abstain from going to a dance club.

Read the New Testament

Read the New Testament

WEEK 1   

Luke-Acts 

[March 28th - April 1st]

Day 1: Luke 1:1 - 4:13
Day 2: Luke 4:14 - 9:50
Day 3: Luke 9:51 - 13:21
Day 4: Luke 13:22 - 19:27
Day 5: Luke 19:28 - 23:56



WEEK 2   

Luke-Acts, 1-2 Thessalonians 

[April 4th - April 8th]

Day 1: Acts 1:1 - 6:7
Day 2: Acts 6:8 - 12:24 
Day 3: Acts 12:25 - 19:20
Day 4: Acts 19:21 - 28:31 
Day 5: 1st Thessalonians 1:1 - 5:28; 2nd Thessalonians 1:1 - 3:18



WEEK 3   

1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans 

[April 11th - April 15th]

Day 1: 1st Corinthians 1:1 - 7:40
Day 2: 1st Corinthians 7:41 - 16:24
Day 3: 2nd Corinthians 1:1 - 13:14
Day 4: Galatians 1:1 - 6:18
Day 5: Romans 1:1 - 8:39



WEEK 4   

Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy 

[April 18th - April 22nd]

Day 1: Romans 9:1 - 16:27
Day 2: Colossians 1:1 - 4:18
Day 3: Ephesians 1:1 - 6:24; Philemon 1:1 - 1:25
Day 4: 1st Timothy 1:1 - 6:21
Day 5: Titus 1:1 - 3:15; 2nd Timothy 1:1 - 4:22 



WEEK 5   

Matthew 

[April 25th - April 29th]

Day 1: Matthew 1:1 - 7:29 
Day 2: Matthew 8:1 - 13:52
Day 3: Matthew 13:53 - 18:35 
Day 4: Matthew 19:1 - 25:46
Day 5: Matthew 26:1 - 28:20



WEEK 6   

Hebrews, James, Mark 

[May 2nd - May 6th]

Day 1: Hebrews 1:1 - 4:13
Day 2: Hebrews 4:14 - 13:25 
Day 3: James 1:1 - 5:20
Day 4: Mark 1:1 - 8:30
Day 5: Mark 8:31 - 16:20



WEEK 7   

1-2 Peter, Jude, John 

[May 9th - May 13th]

Day 1: 1st Peter 1:1 - 5:14
Day 2: 2nd Peter 1:1 - 3:18; Jude 1:1 - 1:25
Day 3: John 1:1 - 6:71
Day 4: John 7:1 - 12:50
Day 5: John 13:1 - 21:25



WEEK 8   

1-3 John, Revelation 

[May 16th - May 20th]

Day 1: 1st John 1:1 - 5:21; 2nd John 1:1 - 1:13; 3rd John 1:1 - 1:14
Day 2: Revelation 1:1 - 3:22
Day 3: Revelation 4:1 - 16:21
Day 4: Revelation 17:1 - 22:21
Day 5: catch-up day