Tolle Lege

It is commonly thought that Christianity subordinates women to men and thus is outdated in the modern world. On the contrary, women appear not only in the passages of the New Testament but also in the teachings of the Old Testament, particularly the Proverbs.

Proverbs 31 portrays a woman of “noble character” who defies today’s popular belief that the women of the Bible were backward in their roles.^[1] Although it is easy to picture women in the ancient world playing a minor role in society, this “noble” woman of Proverbs 31 is compared to “merchant ships” that travel far to bring goods because “her trading is profitable.”^[2] She is not confined to the parameters of her home but runs a thriving business as she serves as the breadwinner: “she provides food for her family.”^[3] At the same time, she does not neglect her domestic duties as she “watches over the affairs of her household,” nor does she overlook her community’s needs but instead “opens her arms to the poor.”^[4] In addition to success in her career, dedication to her family, and charity for her neighbors, the noble woman is characterized by her resourcefulness in managing her finance (“She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard), her industrious work ethic (“her lamp does not go out at night”), and the loving acknowledgment she receives from her family (“Her children arise and call her blessed”).^[5] Her wealth does not hide her inner beauty; she is not only “clothed in fine linen and purple” but also “clothed with strength and dignity.”^[6] Furthermore, her intellect and counsel shine through the passage, as she “speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.”^[7] What may particularly strike the modern reader is her husband’s deference in praising her: “you surpass them all.”^[8] This deference and loving respect stands in stark contrast to the norms of the Greco-Roman world where female infants could at times be left to die from exposure due to their low status.^[9] Indeed, the noble woman of Proverbs 31 seems as sophisticated, successful, and smart as any modern woman, if not more so.

Ruth in Boaz's Field

Furthermore, this passage in Proverbs 31 alludes to other great women depicted in the Bible. For example, Boaz’s commendation of Ruth echoes the husband’s acclaim from Proverbs 31: “All my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of noble character.”^[10] With Esther, we see an empowered woman who risks her own life before King Xerxes to save the Jewish people from genocide. As her cousin Mordecai remarks, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”^[11] Moreover, the New Testament reveals that women played an indispensable role in affirming the resurrection of Christ. All four gospels state that women were the first eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection, when, in fact, their low social status did not even allow their testimony as admissible evidence in court.^[12] That Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom Jesus appeared only accentuates the fact that the Bible does not set aside women as subsidiary. It is therefore an ignorant misunderstanding to believe that the Bible presents a regressive view of women.

Last week, a professor confessed during lecture that he was “turned off” to religion at a young age because he never understood what it meant to “love God, as my Sunday School teachers constantly urged me to do.” In a way, this professor has articulated one of the most troubling questions of Christianity: what does a “relationship” with God really look like? Today, God does not appear to us as a physical presence. We cannot meet God for a casual coffee date or take Him on a stroll through the New Hampshire woods. We cannot send God a facebook message, but instead must direct our silent prayers to heaven, making even daily communication with Him seems vague and ethereal. We can hardly love God in the same way that we love our parents, our friends, or our spouses; He is an omnipotent deity who permanently resides in an unknown spiritual dimension, and we are lowly humans, often more concerned with basic survival and the fulfillment of unexamined personal desires.

My professor proceeded to explain that when religious people speak of “loving God” they are actually using a sort of spiritual slang equitable to “obeying God.” Their expression of loyalty is motivated by fear and mindless slavery, not love. “Love, in the religious sense, is not a feeling,” he told us.

Yet in Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus declares, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” By loving God with our mind, we love Him practically: serving Him and remaining faithful to his commandments. By loving Him with our soul, we love Him spiritually: worshipping Him as our Savior and Lord. By loving Him with our heart, we love Him personally: seeking to understand Him better through prayer and reading the Bible.

Allow me to present a helpful metaphor. Advertisements for online dating sites such as eHarmony and Match.com present us with the harsh truth that the internet is slowly destroying all opportunities for meaningful, personal relationships unencumbered by technology. Most of us who have avoided these sites, which proclaim fabulously efficient ways to meet compatible singles, wonder how many permanent relationships can be formed based on a profile page and a photoshopped picture. If statistics are to be believed, however, 17 percent of married couples from 2007-2010 met their spouse through online dating [1]. Some of these people may fall in love before even speaking face to face.

Online dating sites do not provide a physical presence any more than God does. The love felt by a woman on Match.com is based in the belief that the person she is chatting with is real. Though we cannot see Him, we believe that God is real, and we can hold a conversation with Him by reading and responding to His Word. The online-dating couple sustains their relationship in the hope that they can one day meet in Chicago or NYC and go on a date to a restaurant that serves mints with the check. We sustain our relationship with God in the hope that we can one day meet with him in heaven, where Jesus Christ is “at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1 Peter 3:22). We do indeed obey God as a demonstration of love, but we also love Him as a Person who cared for us enough to sacrifice his own Son that we might set aside secondhand communication and spend eternity with Him.

[1] “The Evolution of Dating: Match.com and Chadwick Martin Bailey Behavioral Studies Uncover a Fundamental Shift.” Chadwick Martin Bailey. April 2010. http://blog.cmbinfo.com/press-center-content/bid/46915/The-Evolution-of-Dating-Match-com-and-Chadwick-Martin-Bailey-Behavioral-Studies-Uncover-a-Fundamental-Shift

In classical antiquity, the Greeks developed a complex religious system filled with gods, goddesses, demigods, and mythological creatures. The Greeks often recounted the stories of their gods in songs, poems, and dramas, as we see in works such as Sappho’s poetry, Homer’s Odyssey, and Euripides’ Hippolytus. Because of these, the stories of Greek mythology have passed down through the centuries and have largely remained intact. In this blog post, I would like to use Greek mythology as a point of comparison with Christianity. For the sake of simplicity and given the constraints of this blog post, I will draw my examples from the Odyssey as emblematic of the general tradition of Greek mythology. Through this comparison between Greek mythology and the Bible, it will be shown that the themes of Greek mythology are part of a broader system that sees God as a being that has flaws and vices. In contrast to this, Christianity presents a God who is perfect in all ways and who is greater than human beings.

Observation #1: The multitude of Greek gods.

One of the most striking aspects of Greek mythology is the number of gods. The most important of all the gods are the twelve Olympians (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, Hermes, and Dionysus), who came to power after overthrowing the Titans. In addition to these twelve are a host of other minor gods and goddesses—such as Helios and the Muses—as well as many mythological creatures—such as Cerberus and the Minotaur. The Greeks had a divine creature for every aspect of life. These range from Athena, who is the goddess of wisdom, to Ares, who is the god of war, and from Eos, who is the goddess of the dawn, to Atlas, who carries the heavens on his shoulders. The Greek religious system was unabashedly polytheistic.

Whereas the Greeks believed in a multitude of gods, the Bible teaches that there is only one God, who exists in three persons. We cannot fully comprehend this doctrine of the Trinity, but we can affirm certain truths about it. The Bible teaches that God is one—that Christianity is monotheistic rather than polytheistic. It also teaches, however, that God exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the persons of the Godhead is fully divine and all have equal glory and power, but each has specific attributes and characteristics. God does not change his form, at one time appearing as one member of the Trinity and at another time appearing as a different one. Rather, but he is all three persons at the same time. To say that God is any one of these persons alone without the presence of the other two, or to say that there are three Gods, is to speak falsely about God.[i]

Observation #2: The flawed natures of the Greek gods.

To a large degree, the Greek gods share the same vices as humans, proving themselves to be as fallible as mortals are. For example, the gods often argue with each other.  In the Odyssey, Zeus and Poseidon argue over Odysseus’ fate.  Zeus wants to bring Odysseus safely home to Ithaca, but Poseidon, angered that Odysseus had blinded Polyphemus, wants to kill him. While Odysseus travels, Poseidon sends storms to try to kill him, and each time Zeus must intervene. In the end, this conflict among the gods delays Odysseus’ return home for ten years.

At the heart of these conflicts and the drama of Greek mythology is the principle that the Greek gods are not and indeed are not expected to be just: they are strikingly similar to super-powered human beings, filled with the same imperfections of will.  Indeed, they frequently cause the noble to suffer or die for petty, all too human reasons. If we return to the example of the Odyssey, we see that although Zeus and Poseidon fight over Odysseus’ fate, their argument bears unfortunate consequences for many other people. During the course of the story, Poseidon’s wrath leads to the death of all of Odysseus’ men, even though those men had not offended him. Likewise, because of Odysseus’ delayed return home, his wife and son must live for ten years while the suitors mock them and feast on the stores of their house. The gods’ treatment of Odysseus indirectly leads to the anguish of his family and the death of his companions. Here, as in many other Greek stories, the gods treat mortals unjustly, for they act according to their personal wills.

In contrast, the Bible teaches that God is perfect and does not share the same flaws that humans do. For example, whereas the Greek gods argued, within the Trinity there is no conflict. The will of the Father is the same as the will of the Son, is the same as the will of the Holy Spirit. They always work in unison. In John 6, Jesus tells a crowd of people at Capernaum that he came to earth to do the will of the Father.[ii] Even though he knows that this will lead to a painful death by crucifixion, he tells the people that he does not strive to usurp the Father’s will, but that his will is the same as the Father’s. Thus the Godhead always remains united in purpose.

Likewise, the Bible teaches that, unlike the unjust Greek gods, the Godhead always acts with perfect fairness and justice. One of the titles that the Bible gives to God is that of Judge,[iii] and it teaches that his judgment is always made rightly.[iv] Ultimately, God will judge all people end times. To those who are sinners (and the Bible teaches that all are sinners by nature),[v] God will sentence to punishment in hell, and to those upon whom he looks favorably, God will grant eternal life. In this aspect, as in every other aspect of his nature, God is perfect and without flaw.

If God is a perfect judge and brings judgment on sinners, however, how does one stand in his good graces? How does one avoid eternal punishment in hell? To answer these questions, let us consider the Greek treatment of the afterlife and compare it with what the Bible teaches.

Observation #3: The Greek concept of salvation by works.

In Greek mythology, the only hope for long life and happiness on earth is to live a heroic life and to offer many sacrifices and libations to all of the gods, in the hope of appeasing them all and offending none. If through their actions, people are fortunate enough to stand in the good favor of the gods at the time of their death, they will live for eternity in Elysium, but if they have offended the gods, they face worse fates in the depths of the underworld. Thus in the Greek tradition, all hope of salvation lies in one’s works.[vi]

The Bible, however, does not teach that salvation is by works in this manner. Rather, to stand in God’s good graces on judgment day, one must do so by faith, for as Ephesians 2:8 says, it is “by grace you have been saved through faith.” One Christian tradition holds that when Jesus died on the cross, he did so as a propitiation for sin—that is, he was a satisfactory substitute. God, as we have seen, is a just God who brings punishment for sin. Under ordinary circumstances, that punishment would fall on us, but thanks to the death of Jesus, Jesus becomes the object of God’s wrath in our place.[vii] According to the Bible, eternal life in heaven is thus by faith in the work of Jesus, rather than by personal works and glory as it is in Greek mythology.

By comparing Greek mythology with the doctrine of the Bible, we find two contrasting understandings of the divine. Greek mythology, although unique in terms of its specific deities, rituals, and customs, shares fundamental aspects with many other philosophical positions. Namely, this position sees God as merely an exalted human being, sharing the same vices that are common to all mankind. With the case of Greek mythology, although the gods are powerful and eternal, they often argue, fight, act unjustly, and treat people according to merit, and because of these characteristics, they are not all that much greater than ordinary people.

Christianity presents an understanding of God that is radically different from this worldview. The Bible teaches that the Trinity is never divided in interest, is never unjust, and grants eternal life through faith. God does not share the same vices as humans but remains perfect and holy. Because of this radical distinction between God and man, Christianity differs from not just Greek mythology but from many other religions and worldviews.

The unparalleled dominance of Christianity in Western society since the fourth century and the paucity of extra-Biblical textual records from the ancient Near East has meant that for many centuries the Jewish-Christian Scriptures held a monopoly on what academia knew about the history of Israel and Palestine. From early on, the field of archaeology played a background role in reconstructing these histories and was often employed to corroborate and enliven the Biblical narrative[1]. To the chagrin of modern archaeologists, the field was thought to be “of peripheral concern to early Christian studies,”[2] providing only a backdrop for Scripture.

Since the 20^th century, however, archaeology has risen in importance, with several key discoveries shedding light on the value the discipline can add to our understanding of the political, cultural and religious aspects of life in antiquity. Some scholars have taken this shift as an opportunity to challenge the Bible’s version of the past, relying heavily on archaeological findings to achieve their aim – “to undermine and destroy”[3] the historical Biblical record. These scholars deliberately and systematically ignore the textual records of life in antiquity found in the Jewish-Christian Scriptures and only selectively allow these records to inform their interpretations of their archaeological findings.

But this so-called ‘dependence’ on archaeological evidence in reconstructing history merely points us to the fundamental problem of the archaeological method: the fact that ruins, statuettes, and shards of an item of unknown function do not speak. They do not come labeled with the captions we read in museums, and their significance is comprised of meanings attributed to them by their interpreters. Any attempt by anti-Bible scholars like N.A. Silberman to reconstruct Palestinian society by depending solely on archaeological artifacts is doomed to multiple, conflicting interpretations. Thus, categorically excluding contemporaneous textual evidence claiming to explain these findings, such as the testimony of Jewish and Christian writings, these scholars thereby exclude the possibility of ever mediating between these hypotheses, leaving behind only value judgment that masquerades as scholarship.

Even within Silberman’s own compilation, The Jerusalem Report, the authors illustrate this irresolvable tension. According to Silberman, most archaeological evidence suggests that Israelite settlements began on the desert fringe and underwent a sweeping population movement into the richer valleys southward and westward. But in their desire to rule out the Biblical explanation for this movement (divine revelation to the Abraham of history), multiple scholars have offered several contradicting theories. Some suggest that ‘Israel’ was really a class group and the ‘conquest’ recorded in Joshua was really a mass peasant revolt of Canaanite peasants internal to the land of Canaan. Others argue that the movement was an economic (i.e. production-motivated) migration consistent with that of nomadic tribal migration. A minority, like Adam Zertal, continue to insist that the Israelite settlements (like the one at Menasseh), indicate that the Israelites were indeed an arriving group with a distinct culture[4], in line with what is suggested by the Bible.

The difference between these hypotheses is not the evidence – they all point to similar (limited) remains left over from 3200 years ago to make their case.  It is simply the assumptions used in making their judgments. Anti-Bible scholars like Israel Finkelstein choose to merely employ sociological assumptions to limited evidence. Observing, as sociology does, that class tensions often provided the propulsion for major shifts in history, The Jerusalem Report scholars suppose that similar forces would have shaped early Israel. Other scholars, who view the same evidence as in favor of the Biblical narrative, choose to adopt a set of assumptions in which a divine command is a possibility. Both explanations are possible – so long as one holds the ‘right’ set of assumptions. And this is the issue: whereas textual records like the Bible do literally ‘speak,’ making a claim from a situated point of view, archaeological records do not, and the conclusions drawn from the same evidence vary widely because they reflect the archaeologist’s set of assumptions more than they do the so-called historical truth.

Scholars who refuse to consider the possibility of a divine command on the grounds that the acts of God are unfalsifiable and who thus turn instead to employing sociological assumptions are making equally unfalsifiable claims. The responses that shape human behavior are complex and varied, and to draw conclusions about Bronze Age social behavior from sociological observations made centuries later is to reduce human behavior to social forces observed in much more recent experience. To retro-apply modern economic migration and a revolution-age understanding of class tensions to a radically different time period is simply to float a possibility: it is no more provable or falsifiable than the claim that God intervened in history. In both cases, the archaeologist’s own assumptions and worldview inform and transform the documentation of archaeological remains. Ultimately, scholars who try to draw up entire civilizations while referring only to the ruins they find are creating entire worlds in their own image. Archaeology has value, but it can only contribute this value only within an integrated pursuit of knowledge that involves and dialogues with the textual and historical records of the period.

The problem of pain and suffering is one of the oldest questions of humanity. How can a Christian answer the charge that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God is irreconcilable with the terrible evils of this world? It must be admitted that this truly is a difficult question, and one that cannot be treated lightly; in a way, it’s one of the greatest mysteries of God’s plan, beyond the total comprehension of the human intellect. However, in this short blog post, I’d like to offer a small beginning, a simple foundation, upon which the Christian can begin to build his response. At the heart of this foundation is the claim that a redemptive, conversional power – a real good – can be found in the depths of the worst suffering.

If God is good, why do bad things happen? Why Hurricane Katrina, why the earthquake in Haiti, and why the Japanese tsunami? Why do people die of cancer? Why is there suffering at all? These are questions often asked, for people want to know how a God who is good can allow suffering in the world. Although it may appear that a good God is incompatible with the evil in the world, that is not the case. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over this world and has a good purpose for every event. Although in the midst of suffering this purpose is often difficult – sometimes nearly impossible – to see, the Bible teaches that one of the purposes of pain and suffering is to highlight God’s mercy and lead sinners to repentance.

The Bible is clear that God controls all events, even those which might appear evil to us. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty teaches that all things are under God’s rule and control and teaches that nothing happens without his permission or direction. God determines all things that will happen, and he works them according to the purpose of his will.[i] Therefore, nothing can prohibit or inhibit what God desires to be done. Psalm 115:3 says that “[o]ur God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases,” and Daniel 4:35 asserts that God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand.” Conversely, nothing happens that God does not will, for he sovereignly controls all events. Therefore, natural disasters and suffering are both permitted by God and under his control.

The Bible not only teaches that God is sovereign, but also explains that he is not indifferent to what happens on earth. That is, God does not act arbitrarily, creating or destroying in a reckless manner. Rather, he has a vested interest in creation and works purposefully according to his “good, pleasing and perfect will.”[ii] Since God is sovereign, and since all things that happen on earth are a part of his will, all things must therefore be good, pleasing and perfect. Hence, God both controls natural disasters and suffering and has a divine, good purpose for them.

Yet these things certainly appear neither purposeful nor good. How, then, can we reconcile them with the knowledge that God always acts in a good way? To do so, we must first have an understanding of God as a judge who is slow to anger. Ever since the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden, sin has pervaded all aspects of life. All people are sinners by nature. As Paul says in Romans, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”[iii] Since people have sinned, they have not matched the standard of perfection that God demands. Thus, all justly deserve God’s wrath and punishment. Ultimately, sinners will receive that wrath and punishment at the end times, when Christ will return to judge all of the living and the dead. He will sentence sinners to eternal punishment in hell, and he will give eternal life in heaven to those whom he has chosen to save.  Christianity teaches that this will be the complete and final judgment of sin.

In his mercy, however, God has not yet come to judge sin. The Bible teaches that God is patient and “slow to anger.”[iv] Although he could pour out his wrath on humanity at any time, because of his patience he has not. All of history is thus a testament to God’s patience, kindness, and goodness in allowing sinners to live until the day of his Second Coming.

Nevertheless, the Bible teaches that God still reveals his wrath. Paul writes in Romans that “the wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of people.”[v] As the story of Noah illustrates, sometimes that revelation of his wrath happens in dramatic ways. God looked down from heaven and saw the great wickedness of mankind.[vi] Because of this wickedness, God chose to cause a great flood to destroy all people, with the exception of Noah and his family. This is just one case where God reveals his wrath, a wrath which is a foreshadowing of what will happen at the Second Coming.

So given the context of God’s sovereignty, his good will, and his punishment of sin, what purpose can a Christian see in hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and the like and how do they manifest God’s goodness? The purpose of these things is to lead people to repentance. [vii] They are a foretaste of the judgment that is to come, and they show that God will execute justice on all wicked, unrepentant sinners. Thus they ought to humble us by showing us our sin and the need to repent. They ought to then drive us to repent of our sins and trust in Christ for salvation. Herein lies one way in which these disasters display God’s good character. They show his patience with sinners and his mercy as he calls them to repent and to find salvation in the work of Jesus Christ.

This understanding that natural disasters can display God’s goodness is not to say that the Christian ought to rejoice at them; the death of a single person, let alone the death of tens of thousands in a natural disaster, is certainly a cause to mourn, for pain and death are both results of sin in the world. Neither is this to say that every Christian can or does fully understand God’s good nature. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any Christian who always rejoices in God’s goodness while he or she is suffering. Rather, the doctrines of God’s sovereignty, goodness, justice, and mercy provide a rational explanation for suffering, for they show that God can use painful events in life to humble people and lead them to repentance. It is through this understanding of the salvific purpose of suffering that the Christian can begin to reconcile the pain in this world with God’s goodness and mercy.