Fragments of Truth (Re)Released!

Ultimately, the Christian faith stands or falls based upon the reliability of Bible. If the message of the Scripture is not true then we have no basis for Christianity. The truth claims of the faith are inseparably linked to the text of the Bible. This is why the enemy of men’s souls exerts so much energy attacking it. From the very beginning Satan has aimed to cast doubt on the Word of God thus cutting at the very root of faith. The very first words of the enemy that are recorded are “did God actually say...” (Genesis 3:1 ESV)

His tactics have not changed. The enemies of the Gospel do not always need to directly attack the message, sometimes they can be very effective simply by casting doubt upon whether we actually even possess the message. Nearly every believer has or will eventually run into several common attacks upon the reliability of the New Testament.

We hear nonsense about how we can’t trust what it says because translation is like some sort of giant game of “telephone”. People who know virtually nothing about Church history will confidently repeat the gross untruth that the Emperor Constantine chose books that only supported his view to be included in the Bible at the Council of Nicaea. We hear that the early Christians transformed the stories about Jesus the rabbi into stories about Jesus claiming to be God. Some will simply claim that the early copyists were uneducated and sloppy so our copies are unreliable.

Most of the popular distortions are so lazy and riddled with obvious mischaracterizations that they have little impact other than to reinforce the misconceptions of people who already agree with them. There are, however, more well thought out and sophisticated questions about the integrity of the biblical text. There are scholarly and better-argued positions from which these popular tropes devolve. So then, how strong are the skeptical arguments? Did God really say what our modern Bibles record?

For those who want to learn more about the texts from which our current Bibles are translated I highly recommend this faithlifeTV video. It was a single showing release several months ago and I missed it. I was happy to see that it was re-released this week. You can buy it to stream on FaithlifeTV or you can buy it as a DVD. If you are curious about what is behind the text of your Bible or want to know more about the manuscripts used in textual criticism and analysis you will find this worth the time. The video covers several aspects of important New Testament manuscripts including how they were produced, how they are dated, the extent to which they agree with one another, etc.

The video does a good job of showing the remarkable story of the transmission of God’s Word. As a Christian, it was a great reminder of how absolutely unique this Book is in every way. Not only its contents, but its history as well. No other ancient book can come close to the stability the New Testament text. God has spoken... and quite clearly.

Book Review: The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark by Douglas Douma

Gordon H. Clark was one of the most important and influential Evangelical thinkers of the 20th century. His influence was particularly strong in the areas of Christian philosophy and apologetics but his contributions, even in those fields, are frequently neglected. I wrote about this nearly 7 years ago in a post titled “The Invisible Giant”. At that time, I remarked to a friend that someone ought to write a biography of Clark since he was not only an influential Christian scholar but was also directly involved in several critical developments in the history of 20th century Evangelicalism. Finally, someone has done just that. Douglas J. Douma’s book The Presbyterian Philosopher fills a significant gap in scholarship related to 20th century Christian history and will hopefully call additional attention to Clark’s work.

 The book is well researched and well written. As is often the case with authorized biographies, it is written with a somewhat sympathetic tone, however, it is not uncritically venerative. Douma does not hesitate to point out areas where even many of Clark’s admirers are hesitant to follow him. Douma writes with skillful clarity, walking the reader through both the convoluted intrigues of Presbyterian politics as well as the complexities of various theological controversies in which Clark was engaged.

Clark became an important influence for me when I was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan trying to develop an intellectually coherent understanding of Christianity in light of the critical and postmodern arguments I was encountering. I have read many of Clark’s books and have listened to hours of his recorded lectures and never got the impression of him as the emotionless, humorless, rationalist that his critics often claimed he was. In this book, Douma has brought to life the Gordon H. Clark that seemed most familiar to me; a brilliant, if sometimes difficult, champion for the truth of the Bible as he understood it. I appreciated learning more about the circumstances that made him who he was. The additional background particularly helped me to better understand the polemical elements in Clark’s work.

 The book is broken down into the following 13 chapters and 3 appendices.

1. The Presbyterian Heritage of Gordon Clark
2. Gordon Clark’s Intellectual Influences
3. Gordon Clark and the Formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
4. Gordon Clark at Wheaton College
5. The Origins of Presuppositionalism
6. Origins of the Ordination Controversy
7. The Arguments of the Ordination Controversy
8. The Continued Controversy and Its Results
9. The Butler University Years
10. Four Theological Contributions of Gordon H. Clark
11. “Clark’s Boys”
12. Persons, the Trinity, and the Incarnation
13. Gordon Clark’s Later Years

Appendix A Life Timeline of Gordon H. Clark
Appendix B Notes (mostly chronological information)
Appendix C Studies of the Doctrine of the Complaint

As unique as he was, Clark did not appear out of a vacuum and Douma begins by describing the background to Clark’s intellectual development. This is helpful in understanding the trajectory of some of the later controversies. For example, the conservative “Old Princeton” Presbyterianism in which Clark was immersed not only contributed to his alignment with Machen in the formation of the OPC but Douma convincingly argues it was also a factor in the later controversy with Van Til that has perhaps been underappreciated.

Frequently, discussions on presuppositionalism tend to focus on Clark, Van Til, or subsequent thinkers. I was encouraged to see Douma’s chapter on the development of presuppositionalism acknowledged the basic concepts did not originate with either of them. He points out that James Orr and Abraham Kuyper had already laid much of the foundation of a presuppositional and worldview approach a generation earlier. Douma acknowledges the influence of these earlier thinkers on Clark but suggests that Clark essentially developed his apologetic method independent of that of Cornelius Van Til.

I wish Douma had developed this relationship a bit more. Although he cites elements of Clark’s unique method as being discernable by the early 1930’s, he confirms that Clark was using some of Van Til’s works for a course he was teaching while at Wheaton in 1937. I am unsure why Douma did not explore this as a potential indication that Van Til’s work may have been further along and taken into consideration by Clark as he refined his own.

Throughout the book, Douma carefully explains the events or issues that help the reader to better understand Clark’s writing and/or positions at particular points of his life. He does an excellent job of helping the reader to see Gordon Clark the man in addition to Clark the combatant. The reader can begin to understand that in addition to his attempts at modeling a comprehensive Christian worldview in his scholarship, he also had a vision of a broader cooperation among conservative Christians. Through each controversy, Douma helps us to understand Clark’s motivations as well as the personal challenges each presented.

I was frequently saddened by the many political and ecclesiastical intrigues that Clark was caught up with. To be sure, he did not always respond in a way that helped the situation but on many occasions the treatment of him was shameful. One is left to wonder what was lost to the Evangelical movement as a result of Clark being run out of Wheaton, or to what degree the witness of conservative Presbyterianism was weakened by the fall-out between the Clark and Van Til camps. I was, however, encouraged to learn that apparently, Clark and Van Til seemed to have no personal animosity toward one another later in life. Perhaps that might be an encouragement to those who to this day are still passionately fighting this battle that serious and important theological disagreements among Christians need not degenerate into personal attacks.

Regardless of their personal feelings toward each other, the controversy between the Clark and Van Til camps related to Clark’s ordination is the most well-known controversy in Clark’s career. Douma does a good job of unpacking the various motivations that led to the complaint and the subsequent controversy. Douma clarifies a number of common misunderstandings related to the process itself as well as providing clarification of the positions of Clark and the complainants. Douma is clearly sympathetic to Clark and some will no doubt not appreciate what they will see as Douma’s bias. Nearly 75 years later, this remains a contentious issue in some circles. While clearly in agreement with Clark, I think Douma’s treatment is fair. Several years ago, I read through all the relevant documentation I could get and came to essentially the same conclusion as he did. Perhaps this section of the book could have been improved had Douma more fully developed the concerns of the Van Til contingent but even so, it is an excellent overview of the controversy and the issues involved. 

Overall, The Presbyterian Philosopher is a thoroughly researched and well written survey of the life of one of the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Clark was there from the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920’s through the battle of the Bible and the fracturing of Neo-Evangelicalism in the 1970’s. I recommend this book to anyone interested either in Gordon Clark in particular or Evangelical history in general.

How Tall Were the Giants in the Bible?

(Photo from The Seattle Times story found HERE)

It is interesting how from time to time certain subjects pop up with unusual frequency. Over the past couple weeks I have talked to multiple people who were curious about the height of the giants in the Bible.

There is a great deal of information circulating on the internet about these giants along with various theories connecting them to demons, aliens, and various types of governmental and/or scientific conspiracies. I am not going to take the time to deal with all of that, but given all the misinformation I did think it might be helpful to answer the basic question about their height.

Internet references vary widely in their claims but many of them are in the 20 to 30 foot range, and several have heights up to 450 feet tall! Since the Bible is often used to provide support for the idea that these giants existed, I would like to look at what the Bible actually says about the height of the ancient giants.

The Bible does record that giants existed in the ancient world and mentions them in several places. Most of these references do not provide exact height dimensions but describe people of great size and power. A typical example is the report of the spies who were sent to scout the land in Numbers 13 who said,

“…all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  (Numbers 13:32-33 ESV)

or the record in Amos chapter 2 where the Lord says…

“Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks..." (Amos 2:9 ESV)

While clearly references to very large and powerful people, it is not necessary for us to assume that these are literal proportions. It is far more likely that this is figurative language. The point is that they were very large and not that they were actually as tall as trees or could squash normal men under their feet. We can be confident that this is figurative language because there are a few places in the Bible where we are given size dimensions for those who are called giants. Although still remarkably large, they are nowhere as large as some of the internet sources claim.

For example, in 1 Chronicles 11:23 we learn that one of David’s mighty men struck down an Egyptian who was a "man of great stature" who was 7 foot 6 inches tall. The Bible does not refer to this man specifically as a giant, however, he is given special attention as a result of his uncommon height. If there were 450 foot tall men around, I am not sure 7’6” would have been that impressive.

Of course, the most famous giant is Goliath of Gath (2 Samuel 15:21-22). In 1 Samuel 17:4-7 we are told exactly how tall he is. Most translations follow the Hebrew Masoretic text for this verse which reads, "And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span." That is 9 feet, 9 inches tall.

Interestingly, even this height is challenged because there are variant readings of this verse. Many of the oldest versions say Goliath was 4 cubits and a span (6’9”), which is why some English versions, such as the NET, record his height as "close to 7 feet tall".[1] Some argue that the size and weight of Goliath’s armor indicate the 9’ number is more likely. In any case, Goliath is between 7 and 10 feet tall. This is a big man, but nowhere near 20 or 30, let alone 450 feet!

Perhaps even more remarkable than Goliath, however, is the giant named Og who was king of Bashan and likely the tallest man mentioned in the Bible. The Book of Deuteronomy records the following:

"For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit." (Deuteronomy 3:11 ESV)

The Rephaim were considered giants and although the Bible does not give us Og’s specific height, his bed is 13 feet 6 inches long and 6 feet wide. If we assume that the king had a bed that fit him comfortably, it seems reasonable that he was likely between 10 and 12 feet tall.

Again, this is extreme size but nothing close to 20, 30, or 450 feet. Based on the various references given in the Bible it appears the giants of the ancient world were generally between 7 ½ and 10 feet tall. Nowhere in the Bible are there any people who are said to be anywhere close to 20 feet tall.

Where do people get these extreme figures? The exaggerated figures result partially from a blending of biblical texts with ancient mythological texts. Most ancient cultures had stories about giants. Pagan mythological references, as well as non-biblical Jewish literature such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher are frequently referenced.[2]

In an effort to boost the credibility of these books it is sometimes pointed out that although they are not biblical books, the Books of Jasher and Enoch are referenced in the Bible. We need to keep a couple things in mind regarding this. First, the Books of Jasher we now have (there are as many as 5) are not the same Book of Jasher the Bible references (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18). They are much later texts that have been given the ancient name. Second, simply because the Bible references a book does not mean that everything in that book or by that writer is true, good, or even helpful.

We do have copies of the Book of Enoch referenced in the Bible (Jude 1:14). Enoch is a Jewish religious book written during the time between the Old and New Testaments but although well known to both Jews and Christians it is not part of either the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. Intertestamental books like Enoch are important and helpful because they provide insight into the language and culture at the time the New Testament was written, but they are not inspired and therefore not reliable as foundations for doctrine and teaching. In fact, much of what they contain fall into the category of myths and fables that we are warned to avoid (1 Tim. 4:7).

In any case, the 7^th chapter of the Book of Enoch specifically references the height of the giants. The translation I have says, “And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.”[3]  An ancient ell is roughly a cubit or 18 inches. Therefore, the text actually says that these giants were 4,500 feet tall. Many supporters of the extreme figures argue this is a textual error and the verse should read 300 ells, or 450 feet.

Just to put this in perspective, the Statue of Liberty is 151 feet tall. Even if you include the base, she is only 305 feet tall. To give you an idea of the size we are talking about, if the faces on Mount Rushmore had bodies, they would be 465 feet tall.

Compared with these numbers, the 20 and 30 foot references coming from ancient mythological literature do not seem quite as incredible. The bottom line, however, is that none of these extreme figures, including 20 and 30 feet, come from the Bible. The giants whose heights are recorded in the Bible are between 7 and 10 feet tall and one had a bed that was a little over 13 feet long.

---

[1] Examples listing Goliath as around 7 feet include the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel. The ancient Jewish writer Josephus also follows this reading.

[2] Often there are also various problematic archaeological and journalistic references as well.

[3] R. H. Charles and W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Enoch (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), Enoch 7:2–4.

Ezekiel's Daniel

The book of Ezekiel mentions the name Daniel three times. I was recently asked if I could clarify the chronology to explain how those to whom Ezekiel was prophesying would know about Daniel since Daniel is younger than Ezekiel. I commend the brother for paying such close attention to his biblical timelines! In this article, I will attempt to briefly examine the major issues around Ezekiel’s reference and explain why I think this is a reference to the prophet Daniel.

The question has long been debated by critical scholars. The traditional view is that Ezekiel’s Daniel is the same person as the prophet Daniel who was his younger contemporary. Critical scholars, however, often raise several arguments against the traditional view.[1] First, they doubt the younger Daniel could have gained a sufficient reputation to be named by the older prophet, especially along with Job and Noah.

They also point out that the spelling of the name in Ezekiel דנאל (dn'l or Danel) is different from the spelling used elsewhere to refer to the prophet Daniel דניאל (dny'l or Daniel). Historically, those who rejected the traditional view often argued that the reference was to a mythic figure of the same name.[2] In the 1930’s, however, scholars began translating ancient Canaanite texts and the argument that Danel was a mythic figure became strengthened because one of the ancient tales from Ugarit, known as the Tale of Aqhat features a wise man named Danel. This discovery of an ancient Canaanite “hero” using the same name led to a general consensus among critical scholars that this was the probable background for Ezekiel’s reference.

First, let us take a look at the actual references. The first two occur in the 14^th chapter of Ezekiel, both within the context of the coming judgment of God:

“…even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 14:14 ESV)

“…even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.” (Ezekiel 14:20 ESV)

In both of these cases, Daniel is pointed out for his righteousness alongside Noah and Job. The point is that even the intercession of these righteous men would not be enough to restrain God’s judgment. In this context Daniel is an example of the highest standard of righteousness.

The next reference to Daniel comes in chapter 28 within the context of God’s oracle of coming judgment against the King of Tyre:

“…you are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you;” (Ezekiel 28:3 ESV)

The reference here is God mockingly judging the king for his pride and arrogance with Daniel as an example of a very wise man.

The first question we will address is the spelling difference. Spelling variations are common in the Old Testament and are not by themselves significant. In this case, the un-pointed Hebrew names are exactly the same and even most critical scholars accept that the names may have both been pronounced Daniel. The spelling variation is therefore interesting, but inconclusive. What makes this argument interesting is the reference to the Canaanite figure of the same name, to which we will return shortly.

Second, we must answer is how likely is it that Ezekiel and his audience would have known about Daniel as an example of righteousness and wisdom? This is further complicated by the third reference because in order for those who received Ezekiel’s prophesy to understand the reference, the fame of Daniel had to have spread beyond the Jewish community. Would Daniel be famous enough to be mentioned in the same category as Job and Noah, and to be considered an example of wisdom at such a young age to both Jews and non-Jews? While admittedly remarkable, it is not impossible.

Daniel would have likely been no older than his early 30’s when Ezekiel was called but was already in Babylon for over a decade. Daniel was taken captive in the 3^rd year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Dan. 1:1-6). Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years, then his son, Jehoiachin replaced him and reigned for 3 months before being exiled (2 Kings 24:8[3]). Ezekiel begins his prophetic ministry in the 5^th year of Jehoiachin’s exile. Therefore, Daniel would have been in Babylon for 12 or 13 years when Ezekiel was called. It is possible that another 10 to 20 years may have passed before this specific prophesy was given.

Therefore, although Daniel is younger than Ezekiel it is reasonable that his reputation may have spread by the time Ezekiel is active. The first two chapters of the book of Daniel indicate that Daniel became an important advisor in the court of Nebuchadnezzar very soon after arriving in Babylon and may very well have been famous after only being there a couple of years. The early events of his life, if well known, would have made him famous for precisely the attributes mentioned by Ezekiel, namely his piety and his wisdom, specifically the wisdom to see secret or hidden things (Dan. 2:27-28).

Those arguing for a non-biblical Daniel sometimes point out that neither Noah nor Job are Jewish and argue the inclusion of a famously wise Canaanite would better fit with the other examples. They also submit that a Canaanite reference makes more sense in an oracle to Tyre than does a Jewish prophet. These arguments, however, are not very strong. Although Daniel is Jewish, he is an example of faithfulness lived out in a pagan context and thus complements the others because all three are examples of righteous men who did not live in the Promised Land. It is also not clear that Ezekiel intends any particular significance to the selection of his examples beyond their usefulness as examples of righteousness.

The most persuasive argument to my mind, however, is the overall context of the Ezekiel references. While the Tale of Aqhat depicts the Canaanite Danel as wise, he is not presented as an outstanding example of righteousness. Noah and Job are not Jewish but both worship Yahweh. The Canaanite hero Danel is a polytheist and an idol worshiper. H. H. P. Dressler makes the point clear that it simply makes no sense for Ezekiel to appeal to an idolater who worships false Gods as an example to encourage his people to forsake idolatry. Rather, Daniel is a perfect example of godly wisdom in contrast to the idolatry and false wisdom of Ezekiel’s audience.

Ezekiel’s references to Daniel are not without some difficulty but they involve no logical inconsistency. The most natural reading and the best interpretation, in my opinion, is that by the time Ezekiel is writing the prophet Daniel is already well known for his righteousness and wisdom. When we consider the things the Lord did through him, it is not all that surprising that his reputation would have spread quickly. I suspect the strongest underlying motive of many critical scholars in rejecting the prophet Daniel as the reference is because if Ezekiel’s is talking about Daniel he helps establish the early date of the book of Daniel. That would involve recognizing the supernatural element in Daniel’s prophecies, something that most critical scholars are not eager to accept.

---

[1] The actual critical arguments (and the responses to them) are rather sophisticated. My goal here is to give the general idea. For those who are interested in a more thorough review of the issue I recommend the Bible.org article by Dan Wallace as a good place to start: https://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

[2] Part of the reason why many were reluctant to accept this as a reference to biblical Daniel is because they insisted the book of Daniel was actually written much later.

[3] 2 Kings recounts that Jehoiachin is 18 years old at the time he becomes king but 2 Chronicles records him as being 8 but both confirm that he reigned around 3 months. The discrepancy is possibly a copyist error, the 18 year figure seems more likely given the events in the text although some have argued that both are correct based on possible regency years, etc.

When was Jesus Born?

Christians did not celebrate Christmas as a regular festival at the end of December until the middle of the 4^th century. The date of December 25^th was likely chosen because it was already the date of a major celebration in the Roman Empire. Even most Christians recognize it is almost certain that Jesus was not born on December 25^th 2,014 years ago. If not on December 25th year zero, when was He born?

The Gospel writers provide very little in terms of specific dates and the precise timing of Christ’s birth remains a matter of debate among scholars. There is, however, some information that we can piece together that gives us some clues.

Unfortunately, the most specific reference in the Gospels turns out to be of little help. Luke specifically records that Jesus was born during a Roman census ordered by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was a governor in Syria (Lk. 2:1-2). Unfortunately, historians have found no records of any such census, order by Augustus, or evidence of Quirinius in Syria at that time. Despite Luke’s detailed reference for establishing the timing, it does not help us today.

There are, however, other clues. We know from the Bible that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great (Mt. 2:19). Josephus records an eclipse just prior to Herod’s death and that eclipse occurred March 12^th in the year 4 B.C. We also know that Herod died prior to Passover and the Passover in 4 B.C. began on April 11^th.  Therefore, Jesus could not have been born any later than March or April of 4 B.C.

Matthew’s gospel indicates that Jesus may have been as much as 2 years old when Herod ordered the massacre of the male children (Mt. 2:16). If Jesus was 2 years old, he may have been born as early as 7 B.C. This means Jesus must have been born between 7 and 4 B.C.  

Another way to try to determine the timing is to work backward. It seems likely based upon the dating of John’s ministry (Lk. 3:1) that Jesus was probably baptized and began His ministry in the summer of 29 A.D. It is likely that Herod expanded the age range of the children to be killed to be sure that Jesus did not escape. If so, Jesus would have been slightly younger than 2 years old during the massacre and was probably around 32 years old in A.D. 29. This matches up with Luke’s comment that he was “around” 30 years old at the time (Lk. 3:23).

There is potentially another clue in John 2:20 that supports this date although it is not easy to see in many English translations. Most translations of John 2:20 make it sound like the conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders takes place 46 years after the construction of the Temple began. A number of scholars, however, argue that the meaning of the Greek text is not that “it took 46 years to build”, but rather that “it was built 46 years ago”.

According to ancient records, Herod began the construction in 19 B.C., the 18^th year of his reign. Although the entire complex was not completed until AD 64, Josephus records that the priests completed the inner sanctuary in less than 2 years. The Passover that would have occurred 46 years after the completion of the sanctuary would have been in spring of AD 30. This aligns with Jesus beginning His ministry in summer or fall of AD 29.

John’s Gospel records three Passover celebrations during the course of the ministry of Jesus. It is likely there is an additional year of ministry between the first (Jn. 2:13) and second (Jn. 6:4) where Jesus ministered in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. This would suggest a crucifixion in A.D. 33. We know Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday (Mk. 15:42; 16:1,6). We also know that it was the time of the Passover and that the night before He was crucified, Jesus shared a Passover meal with His followers (1 Cor. 11:23). Since the Passover meal was eaten on the 14^th of Nissan the year of Christ’s death had to be a year when Nissan 14 fell on a Thursday. The two possibilities are AD 30 and AD 33. As we have already shown, a date in A.D. 33 works well.

Therefore, working backward also supports a range of 6 to 4 B.C., but was it December 25th?

The earliest tradition of the Church places the birth of Christ in winter and nothing in the New Testament contradicts this (yes shepherds may have been in the field at this time). Various arguments have been offered for a winter birth and although they are not conclusive, they do show the traditional winter birth is plausible. It is therefore possible that Jesus was born in December. It is, however, unlikely that He was born on the 25^th. Around A.D. 194, Clement of Alexandria provided the first precise date given by a Christian teacher. He argued that Christ was born on November 18^th. A date in mid-November fits nicely with the chronology discussed above. In fact, a date much later than this requires a birth in 4 B.C. near the latest possible time and compresses the early events of Christ’s life.

It cannot be proven with certainty, but it is likely Jesus was born between mid-November and the first week of December in 5 B.C.

This article closely follows Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarrels, treatment in The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown, and Paul L. Maier The Date of the Nativity and The Chronology of Jesus’ Life which is available online here: http://inchristus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/maier-date-of-the-nativity.pdf

Why Did Esther Not Have Mercy on Haman?

One of the most heroic figures in the Old Testament is the Hebrew maiden Hadassah who becomes the Persian queen Esther. Esther demonstrates great courage and intercedes to save her people from a high-ranking official named Haman who was determined to kill all of the Jews. Near the end of the story, the tables are turned and Haman is sentenced to death by hanging (likely impaled) on a pole he had prepared for Esther’s cousin Mordecai. While we celebrate her courage in stopping a potential genocide, many commentators are bothered that Esther did not intercede to save Haman. They argue she would have been a more admirable figure had she demonstrated mercy to her enemy. Why does Esther not try to save Haman’s life?

Like all of the Old Testament characters, Esther is imperfect, just like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Peter, Paul and every other character other than Jesus Christ. In the case of Haman, however, it is possible that that author actually intends her lack of mercy to highlight her covenant faithfulness. There is a dynamic in the narrative that many people do not pay much attention to that might explain her actions and the way the author intends us to think about her.

Early in the story we learn that Haman is an Agagite (Esther 3:1). This is a fact that the author mentions 5 times at key points throughout the book. This means that Haman is a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. The Amalekites were a historical enemy of the Jews having opposed them as they came out of Egypt. From that time forward, the two nations were in constant opposition to one another. This is probably why Esther’s cousin Mordecai refuses to bow down to him. It may also be why Mordecai’s refusal leads Haman to plan to kill all the Jews rather than just Mordecai. The history between the two people was one of constant strife and Haman’s desire to have people essentially worship him would have been particularly repulsive to Mordecai and all other faithful Jews.

Haman, however, is not just an Amalekite; he is an Agagite, a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag. This is a very significant detail and helps explain how we should understand Esther not interceding to save him. Back in 1 Samuel chapter 15, the Jews were preparing to battle the Amalekites and God commanded that they not spare any of the Amalekites or their animals (1 Sam. 15:3). The armies of Israel were victorious but Saul failed to obey God and spared the life of king Agag and some of the animals. When the prophet Samuel confronted Saul, he tried to justify his actions rather than repenting of his sinful disobedience. Samuel killed Agag himself and informed Saul that because of his unfaithfulness, God would strip the kingdom from him and give it to another.

The name Agag is therefore associated with failure to keep the covenant and disobedience. Saul was a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin who ignored the command of God by showing mercy to Agag. As a result, he failed to keep the covenant, failed to protect his people the way God intended, and lost the monarchy from the tribe of Benjamin. What is interesting in the book of Esther is that we have a second encounter between a monarch from the tribe of Benjamin and an Amalekite from the family of Agag (Esther 2:5, 2:7).

The Bible does not include random details and it seems almost certain that the pairing of royalty from Benjamin with the name Agag is intended to recall the story from 1 Samuel. Saul relied on his own strength rather than obeying God. By contrast, Esther throws herself upon the providence of God regardless of the outcome for her (Esther 4:16).

Although Esther only becomes queen because she married a pagan king she ends up fulfilling the monarchial covenant requirement that King Saul failed to keep. Esther displays sacrificial leadership, protects her people, and destroys their enemies. Although in exile, Esther is doing what we would expect from any faithful Jewish monarch. Some may assume that Esther should have tried to save Haman but it is likely that the author intends us to recognize the parallels to Saul in a way that is favorable to Esther. Ultimately, God is the hero of the story and Esther is an instrument of God’s providence. 

Is God a Bloodthirsty Killer?

As long ago as the year 177, the philosopher Celsus attacked Christianity using the argument that the Old Testament describes a murdering, bloodthirsty God who is very different from the loving, merciful God Christians like to talk about. The argument has remained in the arsenal of critics ever since. Steve Wells, the author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, has been particularly influential in popularizing this argument on his blog Dwindling in Unbelief and in his book Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. Wells seems to take pleasure in the apparent shock value of comparing the number of people that God has killed or ordered killed vs. the number that Satan has. In his book Drunk With Blood, Wells explains his purpose in making these comparisons. On the first page he writes, “It is my hope that as God’s killings become better known, people will know better than to believe in the Bible.” According to Well’s calculations; God is responsible for 2,476,636 deaths in the Bible while Satan is responsible for 60. Wells argues that if the prophesies of Revelation are included, the Bible presents 24,634,205 scriptural deaths at the hand of God verses 60 at the hand of Satan.

Is Wells correct about these numbers? If so, is it a good argument against believing in the God of the Bible?

Wells uses estimates to develop the numbers, as the Bible often does not record exact figures in these cases. I have not bothered to evaluate the estimates but it is clear even from a cursory reading that the Bible attributes far more loss of human life to the agency or command of God than to anyone else. If this is shocking, it is only because of a deficiency in the popular understanding of God’s character and holiness. In fact, the actual number of deaths attributable to God is far higher than Wells estimates. Death is the result of God’s judgment of sin (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 5:12, Jas. 1:15). Every funeral home, every cemetery, and every mausoleum is a testimony to the sinfulness of humankind and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is therefore wise to live tempered by the knowledge that we too will die and face judgment (Eccl. 7:2, 11:9). The sovereign God determines when our earthly lives will end (1 Sam. 2:6, Job 14:5). Therefore, in an ultimate sense, God has taken the life of every person who has ever died.

Since Wells seems to be correct that God takes human life and even sometimes uses other humans to do so, is it true that God is immoral? Is his argument against Christianity persuasive?

Although it may have emotional appeal, it is not a very strong argument. As Dr. William Lane Craig observed, “it [is] ironic that atheists should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so [there is] no basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong. As Doug Wilson has aptly said of the Canaanite slaughter from a naturalistic point of view, “The universe doesn’t care.” So at most, the non-theist can be alleging that biblical theists have a sort of inconsistency in affirming both the goodness of God and the historicity of the conquest of Canaan. It’s an internal problem for biblical theists, which is hardly grounds for moral outrage on the part of non-theists.”

The argument must assume some standard of morality by which to judge God. Atheistic materialism can support no such standard. Ironically, the standard often assumed is the moral standard derived from the Bible. If the argument is intended to charge God with moral inconsistency then it is necessary that each of the events be considered within the broader context of the biblical teaching.

First, the Bible teaches that God is the creator and His character is the source of truth, love, and justice. As a result, it is not possible to appeal to any moral standard outside of God without first denying the biblical understanding of who He is. It is impossible within a Christian worldview to define any moral standard apart from God Himself. God, Himself, is the ultimate basis upon which any judgment of truth or morals can be made. We simply have no standard by which we could judge what He Himself does. Whatsoever He does is assuredly just on the basis that He does it. On this basis, the argument ultimately degenerates into more basic questions of apologetics, namely, is the Bible true and does God exist.

Second, the most violent Old Testament events that these critics call attention to occur within a particular context within the broader story of God’s plan to redeem a people for His own glory. None of those whose life God takes was “innocent” or undeserving. Rather than be shocked by their judgment, we should be amazed at His patience with us. The transgression of men and women brought about curse and only the guilty fall under its power.

Furthermore, God in His gracious love has saved from this curse those who by faith are united to Christ who paid the penalty of death we deserved while we were still His enemies (Gal. 3:13, Rom. 5:8). Keep in mind that God repeatedly warns people that He will judge sin. The coming judgment is usually not immediate, giving people an opportunity to repent. Eventually, the judgment comes, but in each case, God spared a remnant of faithful people. These historical events are a foreshadowing of God’s final judgment and salvation. We do well to recognize that we are currently living in a period of restraint whereby we have an opportunity to join to the faithful remnant. It is because of God’s grace that He records His terrible judgments for our instruction.

God is not bloodthirsty but He is holy. Well's argument is only persuasive if we, who are sinners, are bold enough to put ourselves in a position to judge God rather than accepting His judgment and appealing to His loving mercy with faith and repentance.

Crosses Along the Highway

I am one of those strange people who enjoy hours of uninterrupted driving (as long as traffic is moving) because it usually gives me a long stretch of time where I can think. Obviously, while driving I have to stay focused on the road and what is going on around me. The result is a unique interplay between a series of immediate observations, related to the world that is quickly moving past me outside the vehicle, and whatever idea I am trying to focus on. It makes for some interesting connections! Last week, I spent a lot of time driving and I was particularly encouraged by the repeated site of three crosses along the road at irregular intervals. I have seen these kinds of crosses before but I became particularly aware of them on this trip because of the frequency with which I encountered them. I was encouraged because it was a repeated incentive for me to connect whatever I was thinking about at the moment to the most important truth I know, namely that Jesus Christ died for my sins.

Each cluster was comprised of a larger gold cross, flanked by two slightly smaller blue crosses, always placed so that they are easily seen from the road. A little bit of internet research revealed, the crosses were the work of Pastor Bernard Coffindaffer of Craigsville West Virginia. Bernard Coffindaffer was a WWII veteran of the U.S. Marines who served in the Pacific at Iwo Jima and Nagasaki. After the military, he earned a business degree and went on to become a successful businessman.

When he was 42 years old, Coffindaffer converted to Christianity and eventually became a Methodist minister. While still running his business he served several small churches in West Virginia. After encountering health issues pastor Coffindaffer decided to sell his company and focus his remaining energy on ministry work. A couple of years later he had a vision that convinced him that God wanted him to plant crosses. He had earned a good deal of money from his business and in 1984 he used his own funds to start the Crosses Across America project.

He set up an office in his home, hired a secretary, and employed seven work crews to travel across the country erecting the crosses on land donated for the displays. From 1984 until his death in 1993, pastor Coffindaffer spent over $3,000,000 of his own money and erected 1,864 clusters of crosses in 29 states, the District of Columbia, and the countries of Zambia and the Philippines. Dedication services were held at each site that included scripture reading and prayers. Pastor Coffindaffer explained the meaning behind the crosses saying, “They're up for only one sole reason, and that's this- to remind people that Jesus was crucified on a cross at Calvary for our sins, and that He Is soon coming again.” If there is a single message we all need to be reminded of constantly, it is that one.

I do not know much about pastor Coffindaffer or his theology but I appreciate the simple yet profound reminder that the crosses he planted have offered me in my travels.

The Robes of Caiaphas: Matthew 26:65

The Word of God is like a masterful painting where every brush stroke is intentional and perfectly placed. Nothing is misplaced or there by accident. By carefully reflecting upon details that seem a bit out of place, we can often gain a deeper understanding of the broader teaching of the passage or book. Often, these insights also point to even broader salvation history themes that run through the entire Bible. In many cases, these themes jump out of the text if we are paying attention. They may be obvious because they are difficult to understand, seem to not flow well from the argument or context, or are repetitions. Other times, however, they are more subtle. A good example of this is found in the record of the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas the high priest.

The council had finally found two witnesses who testified that Jesus had claimed to be able to destroy the temple and raise it up again in three days. Jesus then refused to answer and Matthew records the following:

“…the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” (Matthew 26:63-66 ESV)

Notice that in response to the claim of Jesus the high priest tore his robe. Mark’s gospel also records that the high priest tore his garments (Mark 14:63). Most teachers will point out that in the culture of the time to tear ones garments was an expression of severe distress. Usually, this was done at a time of mourning, sorrow, or offense. By tearing his robe, Caiaphas is expressing deep offense at the claim of Jesus. Certainly he was offended but there is something more significant involved than simply the reaction of a priest offended at what he perceives as blasphemy.

In fact, this action of the high priest tearing his clothes is a direct violation of one of the requirements of his office. The priests were to follow a particular holiness code that God had established through Moses in the Law. There were specific requirements for priests (and the high priest in particular) as representatives of God. One of those requirements was that,

“The priest who is chief among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor tear his clothes.” (Leviticus 21:10 ESV)

The interesting thing about this requirement is that it had also been given earlier as part of the instructions to the priests after God had killed Nadab and Abihu while they offered strange fire on the altar. After God judges them, Moses reminds the others that God will be glorified and those near Him must be set apart. The idea is that God must be worshiped specifically as He prescribes. Moses then instructs Aaron and his sons with the following words:

“…Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the congregation; …” (Leviticus 10:6 ESV)

Aaron and his other sons were not to engage in the customary acts of mourning for their brothers who had offended God or else the wrath of God might come upon them and the people. The priest was foremost a representative of God and set apart for His service. The robes, which were made according to the design directly given by God, have a symbolic function. They are not just personal garments. In fact, the very design of these garments takes into consideration a concern that they not tear. When God gives Moses the initial instruction about how the robes should be made He says the following:

“You shall make the robe of the ephod all of blue. It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, so that it may not tear. (Exodus 28:31-32 ESV)

This would appear to be a precaution against inadvertent tearing but clearly, God has a concern that this garment not be tattered or torn because the priest and his garments are a symbol of God’s holiness and glory.

What is the significance then of Matthew and Mark, recording that Caiaphas tore the robe in reaction to the claim of Jesus? There is no doubt that the high priest was offended but it also seems that this detail is included for another reason. Many have pointed out that the trial of Jesus was illegitimate and was itself a violation of the Jewish Law on a number of points. Jesus was tried at night and during Passover, which are both violations of the Law. The testimony of the witnesses does not meet the normal criteria and the sentence itself is not in accordance with the Law of Moses. Perhaps the detail about the tearing of the robe is another indication of the hypocrisy and illegitimacy of the whole event.

Or perhaps it is a subtle indication by Matthew and Mark that the priesthood itself was no longer legitimate because the perfect High Priest was now making the perfect sacrifice. The culmination of the temple cult and its priests in Christ is certainly a major theme of the author to the Hebrews and all of the synoptic writers record another similar symbol along these lines in the tearing of the temple curtain from top to bottom (Mt. 27:51, Mk. 15:38, Lk. 23:45)

In either case, it is interesting that the robe of Jesus, the true high priest, is not torn. As John records regarding the soldiers who crucified Jesus, “...they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” (John 19:24 ESV)

The allusions to the psalm here is certainly intended to indicate that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic promise but interestingly, this detail also confirms Christ’s perfection with regard to this aspect of the priestly holiness code. In contrast, Caiaphas violates the requirements of his office by rejecting the revelation of God in His Law as well as in rejecting the claims of the Messiah Himself. We therefore see his arrogance as he presumes to be in a position to pass judgment on behalf of God and stand in evaluation over the very Messiah to which his office was to point.

Book Review: Steven J. Lawson- Pillars of Grace A.D. 100-1564

 

Pillars of Grace

By Steven J. Lawson / Reformation Trust Publishing

In this second volume of the series, “A Long Line of Godly Men” Steven J. Lawson walks the reader through almost 1500 years of history calling attention to the development and defense of what later became known as the doctrines of grace. If the reader is looking for sophisticated historical and theological analysis, they will not find it here. What they will find, however, is something that is greatly needed in the evangelical world today, namely a framework for understanding their theology in the broader context of Church history. In addition to his introductory and concluding material, Lawson examines the doctrines of grace in the works of 23 influential Christian teachers between the years of 100 and 1564, including:

Clement of Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

Justin Martyr

Irenaeus of Lyon

Tertullian of Carthage

Cyprian of Carthage

Athanasius of Alexandria

Basil of Caesarea

Gregory of Nazianzus

Ambrose of Milan

Augustine of Hippo

Isidore of Seville

Gottschalk of Orbais

Anselm of Canterbury

Bernard of Clairvaux

Thomas Bradwardine

John Wycliffe

John Hus

Martin Luther

Ulrich Zwingli

William Tyndale

Heinrich Bullinger

John Calvin

Lawson is able to demonstrate that although the emphasis and systemization of the doctrines of grace during the Reformation was dramatic it did not simply appear out of nowhere. He capably shows, with brief biological and historical sketches, that the trajectories of Reformed thought were familiar to Christian teachers in every age. The Reformers saw themselves as defenders of classic Christian teaching but sadly, many who identify as Reformed today have little or no familiarity with any pre-Reformation writers other than Augustine. Lawson does this generation a service in providing an accessible account of this history.

The historical and theological segmentation of the book make the book a bit redundant but the advantage is that each of the segments can stand on their own making it useful as a quick reference or to those who are only interested in particular eras or teachers. The repetition gives it an almost devotional quality as the same themes are introduced and reinforced in segment after segment. The biggest drawback is that at times, Lawson seems to stretch a bit in his analysis. Often quotations are given and applied to themes that were unlikely to have been intended given the context of the original quote. In places, Lawson admits this and does a fair job of pointing out that although the original writer may not have always fully appreciated the consequences of their own ideas and observations that the seeds of those conclusions were nevertheless present.

I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in early Church history and especially the doctrines of grace. It should be required reading for anyone who considers themselves “Reformed” and is unfamiliar with the development of these doctrines prior to the Reformation outside of Augustine.  While being an apology for Reformed history it avoids the polemics of earlier works on the topic (Toplady, Gill, etc.). I believe that many will find it interesting and informative.

*A copy of this book was provided to me by the publisher at no cost in exchange for a review. The review is not required to be positive and all opinions expressed are my own.

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin

One of the things that amaze me about the Bible is how tight the composition is. There are no unnecessary words or phrases and the imagery, structure, and vocabulary all work together to support the message in a way that far surpasses the greatest human literary achievements. I admit that when I was younger I used to think that the Bible, while true, was not very elegant in its presentation. I thought that at times it was needlessly repetitive, somewhat clunky, and often belabored details that seemed unrelated to the main point. This opinion, however, was more of a reflection on my callow understanding of literature and my lack of patient hours with the text than on the scriptures themselves. In fact, as I have grown I have found that it is often precisely these eccentric details and how they support the message that most strongly highlight the glory of God in His divine authorship of the Bible.

I was reminded of this truth again a couple of days ago as I was reading the fifth chapter of Daniel. The chapter begins as follows:

“King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought in the golden vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.           Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king's palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. Then the king's color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king called loudly to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king declared to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” Then all the king's wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.” (Daniel 5:1-9 ESV)

Belshazzar is stopped in the middle of his idolatrous use of the vessels of the temple by a disembodied hand that is writing upon the wall. Apparently, what the hand had written was not clear, nevertheless, Belshazzar was terrified by the experience. He then called for all his “wise” men to read the writing and explain it, but they were not able to do so. At this point, the queen mother hears about the predicament and informs Belshazzar that there is a man (Daniel) who had previously interpreted visions and solved riddles and who had the spirit of god.

Daniel is called for and Belshazzar explains to him that he will receive gifts and prestige if he can read and interpret the writing. Daniel rebukes him and tells him to keep his gifts. He reminds him of God’s humbling of his famous ancestor Nebuchadnezzar (which Belshazzar knew about) and rebukes his idolatry. In Daniel’s rebuke he repeats the phrase “you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone” that was mentioned in the introduction to the chapter. Then, Daniel reads and interprets the writing.

And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:25-28 ESV)

I had always found it interesting that the wise men could not read the writing. Obviously, God intended this so that Daniel would be called for. I thought that perhaps there was something obscuring the writing or that it was in some strange script (a rare Hebrew script perhaps) that the “wise” men would not recognize but that Daniel could. I always assumed there must have been some obscurity to the words for them to be indecipherable to these learned advisors. I had never bothered to study these words before but this time I decided to look them up.

To my surprise, these are not Hebrew words at all, but are Aramaic, which was a language that was quite familiar to the Babylonians. The words written on the wall are closely related to other words with which many Bible readers would be familiar. They are actually words for weights and measures associated with money. The word Mene is related to the more familiar word Mina, which is a little over 1lbs and was used as a measure for gold and silver. 1 mina of gold today would be worth around $35,500. The term Tekel is related to shekel, which is 1/60^th of a mina. The final word in the message, Parsin, means to divide. After realizing that they are Aramaic words I think it is likely that the advisors could read the words but that they could not make sense of it. It would seem to be simply be a random list of words for measurements.

Daniel, however, reads the words as verbs and gives the interpretation. As verbs, Mene means to number or measure, Tekel means to weigh, and Peres (the singular form of Parsin) means to divide. The term Peres seems also to be play on words because of its similarity to the word for Persian. Daniel is given the ability to explain the meaning of the words and how they apply to Belshazzar. Belshazzar’s days are numbered because he has been measured, weighed, and found lacking. As a result, his kingdom will be divided.

Having taken the time to look up these words helped to reveal an irony in the message that I never appreciated before. The emphasis of the narrative is on the idolatry of Belshazzar. He was acting as though he was not under the rule of a sovereign God. He treated the things of God as though they were mere objects. He calls for these items as a conqueror who calls for the spoils of the vanquished. Even when he calls for Daniel to seek his help he addresses him not as the great advisor to kings but instead says, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah.” (vs. 13). 

When Belshazzar calls for the vessels, they are specifically mentioned as vessels of gold and silver. Twice the text mentions that they were praising gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. There is a repeated association of Belshazzar with material things and with division (conquest). It is therefore ironic that the very words of judgment pronounced against him are consistent with those same themes. The words of condemnation are essentially a description of the ambitions of Belshazzar’s heart. God, however, measures by a radically different standard and the wealth and power of the king are quickly shown to be given and taken at the mere pleasure of a sovereign God.