Catching Fog

Faith can be defined as “accepting the reality of what God has said.” Faith is not simply believing that something good will happen, or that it will “just all work out”; it is not “feeling warm about the possibilities of the future”. One wrong definition of faith is, “belief in something for which there is no proof”. Better, and more accurate to the biblical idea, faith is “fidelity to promises.” Biblically speaking, it is simply accepting God’s words as truth.

One day a man was having lunch with his friend, the skeptic. He said, “I have faith in God.”

The skeptic looked at him and responded: “Prove it!”

“Okay,” said the man, “To show you how great my faith in God is, I’m going to climb in an airplane, fly to 10,000 feet, and jump out—without a parachute! I have faith in God.”

So, the faithful man boarded an airplane; when the altimeter reached ten thousand feet, he walked to the door. Opening it, he cried in a loud voice: “I BE-lieve! Oh God, save me! I believe you will!”

And then he jumped.

At his funeral, the skeptic commented, “He certainly proved to me he had faith.”

Amusing, yes? What was the faithful man’s problem? His faith was not able to save him, because he misunderstood what constitutes true faith. God has never, ever promised to protect some fool who jumps out of an airplane at ten thousand feet. Faith can only be held for something God has promised, not for any and every fool thing imaginable we want. Just as God did not say, “Let there be purple people with green spots”, so God’s promises are limited, too. Do not leap unless God tells you.

Send to Kindle

Paul writes in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” Jesus died to give us freedom from judgment, freedom from the law, freedom from the knowledge even of good and evil.

How free are we? We can do anything we want, but we are limited by our own natures. For instance, however much I may want to, flapping my arms rapidly will not get me airborne. I cannot leap a tall building in a single bound. I cannot run faster than a speeding bullet. I cannot look through walls with x-ray eyes. I cannot pick up a locomotive and carry it on my back.

So I am free, but I am constrained by my own body’s limits.

I cannot live forever; I will die.

I can choose to jump out of an airplane ten thousand feet above the ground without a parachute. But I will probably choose not to do so because I am constrained by my understanding of the force of gravity and the consequences of such a force on my body.

I could choose to become excessively wicked, perhaps rob banks and beat up those who annoy me; but other people, acting freely, will likely constrain my behavior and I’ll be caught and put in prison. Likewise if I choose to murder, whether an individual or serially, I will be constrained in my freedom by the free actions of others. Feelings of guilt or the fear of being caught may constrain my behavior and either keep me from doing such things, or if I do go ahead and exercise my free-dom that way, others exercising their freedom will likely catch me and punish me.

I will be constrained ultimately by my own mortality. Idi Amin was an evil dictator; he is thought to be responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 of his countrymen. But he was never brought before a tribunal, never convicted, never faced punishment in that sense. But at 78 years of age he died nevertheless. His freedom was ultimately constrained by his mortality.

We are all free, but we are constrained by all the freedom around us: the other free sentient beings, the freely swirling universe, the weather, and our physical limitations. We exercise our freedom in a limited way because our freedom does not exist in isolation.

So it is odd, given that, that people can be so fearful of the freedom given by grace, that they imagine such freedom will lead to anarchy, that folks will run amuck. Anarchy is really not possible, because nothing happens in isolation. Freedom constrains freedom. Those who fear grace don’t understand freedom and in their attempts to impose order and law, create many unintended bad consequences and pitch us all toward chaos.

When she was seven years old, the daughter of someone I know commented to her mother that “It’s more important to God that we be free than that we be good.”

Why did she say such a thing? Because of the story of Adam and Eve. If being good were the most important thing, then why did God give Adam and Eve the freedom to disobey?

Freedom is so important to God that he would rather human beings be free than good. He thought freedom was so important, that he would make the Son of God die rather than make people be good. This is the obvious conclusion from Genesis 1-3 and the New Testament. This would mean that we may make a mistake if we place too much emphasis on “being good”. Not that good is not desirable, just that it must be tempered by freedom. Thus, to enforce goodness through legalistic means in the church is counter to the biblical revelation.

Remember that the Spirit of God indwells believers and that this probably has a profound impact on their behavior. Freedom is that you limit yourself. Non-freedom is that you are limited by another. In Christ, we are free, because we are no longer slaves to that other: sin.

Thus, one of the goals of God is the maximization of freedom

Send to Kindle

The theme of the Bible is twofold: to love God and to love people (Matthew 22:36-40). Thus, the issue of interpersonal relations is one of the two most important issues in the Bible. Under this theme of “loving others” would then fall the issue of ethics. In theory, nothing could be simpler. Paul writes that all the laws, whether “do not kill” or “do not commit adultery” are summed up in the law “love thy neighbor as yourself”, since if you love someone, you’re not likely to hurt them (Romans 13:8-10).

Even in practice, this is not so hard as it seems. In ethics classes, we delight in coming up with difficult scenarios, like, you’re living in Germany in 1938 and you’re hiding Jews in your basement. Now, if the Nazis come to your door and demand to know if you’ve seen any Jews around lately, will you lie?

It comes down to having the principle of “loving others” firmly imbedded in your brain, and recognizing that all laws are to be under-stood in light of that principle. That is, ask yourself, WHY does this law exist. Jesus derided the Pharisees when they criticized his behavior on the Sabbath by pointing out that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. That is, the laws are designed to BENEFIT you and others. If you find the application of a law or ethical principle hurtful or burdensome and unpleasant, then perhaps you’re misinterpreting it. Getting back to the Nazis and your hidden Jews. If you tell the Nazis about them, you’ve caused the death of the Jews and turned the Nazis into murderers—clearly violations of the central law: love others. Thus, you lie.

And if you still feel guilty about lying, then confess it to God later and tell him you’re sorry. Jesus died for your sins, anyhow. You can always repent. And which would you rather repent of, murder or lying? Of course, you haven’t actually lied anyhow.

What is Lying, Anyhow?

A college student wanted to skip her next class; she had a lot of pressing work that needed catching up on, not the least of which was an upcoming exam for which she remained unprepared. She didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of simply not showing up, so she told her professor she had a sick friend she needed to check up on.

However, she didn’t “check up on” her friend until that evening, long after the class was done, having spent the preceding hours catching up on her work.

Did that college student lie? Obviously. Although she did have a sick friend, and did check up on her, the friend’s illness was hardly the reason she’d skipped class.

But in the Bible, when God tells Moses to inform Pharaoh that “Yahweh wants his people to take a three day journey to the desert so they can worship and sacrifice”—even though God is really planning to take the people out of Egypt forever—we wouldn’t say God told Moses to lie, would we?

Or when God instructs Samuel to tell Saul that the reason for his trip to Bethlehem is so he can sacrifice—though his real purpose is to anoint David king—we wouldn’t say God told Samuel to lie, would we?

However, what is the substantive difference between Yahweh’s actions in these two instances, and those of that female college student?

In this, the latter quarter of the twentieth century, we define a lie simply as “an untruth”. Webster’s reports that lying is “to make a false or misleading impression” or “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”. A lie is “an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.”

God says that he does not lie (Numbers 23:19), yet by the just given definitions, he has. How do we extricate ourselves from this dilemma? It may not be so hard. Perhaps it is simply that the modern definition of a “lie” and the biblical definition of a “lie” are not identical. The whole difficulty may simply be semantic.

Lies and the Exodus

In Exodus 3:7-8 God’s intentions regarding the Israelites are stat-ed clearly:

Yahweh said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out be-cause of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.”

God clearly told Moses that he planned to rescue the people from the Egyptians; He is going to bring them out to the Promised Land. But, this is not quite the message Moses is supposed to bring to the Pharaoh. Look at Exodus 3:16-18:

Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, “Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abra-ham, Isaac and Jacob, appeared to me and said: ‘I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’”

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God.”

Quite clearly God instructed Moses to deceive Pharaoh regarding their intentions of leaving Egypt for good. By modern definitions, God instructed Moses to lie. Moses obeys, and is very consistent in his story from his first meeting with Pharaoh to the very last. Notice the following selected passages:

Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert.’”

Pharaoh said, “Who is Yahweh, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know Yahweh and I will not let Israel go.”

Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword.” (Ex. 5:1ff)

Then say to him, “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: ‘Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the desert. But until now you have not listened.’” (Ex. 7:16)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will plague your whole country with frogs.”’”…

Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Pray to Yahweh to take away the frogs from me and my people, and I will let your people go to offer sacrifices to Yahweh.” (Ex. 8:1-2, 8)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and confront Pharaoh as he goes to the water and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you do not let my people go, I will send swarms of flies on you and your officials, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians will be full of flies, and even the ground where they are.”’”…

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God here in the land.”

But Moses said, “That would not be right. The sac-rifices we offer Yahweh our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us? We must take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to Yahweh our God, as he commands us.”

Pharaoh said, “I will let you go to offer sacrifices to Yahweh your God in the desert, but you must not go very far. Now pray for me.” (Ex. 8:20-21, 25-28)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me.”’” (Ex. 9:1)

Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me,…’”

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron. “This time I have sinned,” he said to them. “Yahweh is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong. Pray to Yahweh, for we have had enough thunder and hail. I will let you go; you don’t have to stay any longer.” (Ex. 9:13, 27-28)

So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, “This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me.’”…

Then Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh.

“Go, worship Yahweh your God,” he said. “But just who will be going?”

Moses answered, “We will go with our young and old, with our sons and daughters, with our flocks and herds, because we are to celebrate a festival to Yahweh.”

Pharaoh said, “Yahweh be with you—if I let you go, along with your women and children! Clearly you are bent on evil. No! Have only the men go; and worship Yahweh, since that’s what you have been asking for.” Then Moses and Aaron were driven out of Pharaoh’s presence. (Ex. 10:3, 8-11)

Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and said, “Go, worship Yahweh. Even your women and children may go with you; only leave your flocks and herds behind.”

But Moses said, “You must allow us to have sacri-fice and burnt offerings to present to Yahweh our God. Our livestock too must go with us; not a hoof is to be left behind. We have to use some of them in worshiping Yahweh our God, and until we get there we will not know what we are to use to worship Yahweh.”

But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not wiling to let them go. Pharaoh said to Moses, “Get out of my sight! Make sure you do not appear before me again! The day you see my face you will die.” (Ex. 10:24-28)

During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship Yahweh as you have request-ed. Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go. And also bless me.” (Ex. 12:31-32)

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!” (Ex. 14:5)

God very clearly told Moses to tell the Pharaoh that the Israelites’ intention was to only take a short, three day trip to worship God. Apparently, this is what Pharaoh believed, and this is what he resisted letting the Israelites do–until the death of the first born. Then he relented and allowed them to take their three day journey of worship. It was not until the people were gone, and it became clear that they were making tracks, that Pharaoh realized he had been tricked. Since Numbers 23:19 states explicitly that “God is not a man, that he should lie”, the biblical idea of “lie” must be defined in such a way as to permit the behavior observed here in Exodus.

Lies and Abraham

Abraham is recorded telling less than the truth about Sarah his wife, not once, but twice. Just look at Genesis 12 and 20. The most puzzling thing about both incidents is that Abraham is not condemned by God for what he does (and he does it twice), nor does he get into trouble from God for telling Abimelech or Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister, without revealing the more relevant news that she is his wife.

Notice, in Genesis 20, Abimelech is threatened with death, his wives and concubines become barren, and he is told by God that Abra-ham “…is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live.” (Gen. 20:7) Yet poor Abimelech is the one that had been deceived! And then, rather than being cursed, Abraham is greatly blessed by Abimelech:

Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him. And Abimelech said, “My land is before you; live wherever you like.” (Gen. 20:14-15)

Then, in verse 17, Abraham prays to God and Abimelech and his wife and concubines are healed.

Abraham is fully vindicated for what he had done, and in fact, is marvelously blessed for it. In neither the Old Testament nor the New is there ever any mention of Abraham being a liar. Therefore, it seems to me, that our definition of a lie must not include the behavior displayed by Abraham.

Lies and Rahab

Joshua 2:1-7 records the following incident:

Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim.

“Go, look over the land,” he said, “especially Jericho.”

So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

The king of Jericho was told, “Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land.”

So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab, “Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.”

But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come fRomans At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don’t know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.” (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut.

Commenting on this event, the writer of Hebrews 11:31 records:

By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

Somehow the definition of a lie must be such as to allow Rahab’s behavior. There are a lot of apparent problems in this passage. Rahab is “lying”—stating things contrary to fact—and she is doing this to the representatives of her government. So not only is she “lying”, she also seems to be violating the spirit of Romans 13:1-7, where Paul tells the Christians in Rome to “submit to the authorities” and not only that, but states that “the authorities are God’s servants” and that “there is no authority except that which God has established.” How could Rahab legitimately fail to turn in the spies? She not only lied, but she rebelled against her government, and became a traitor. This is good?

Lying and Samuel

Similar problems confront us when we look at Samuel’s life. Notice the narrative in 1 Samuel 16:1-3:

Yahweh said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

But Samuel said, “How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me.”

Yahweh said, “Take a heifer with you and say, “I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh.” Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”

What happens in 1 Samuel is very similar to the pattern described in Exodus. Again, such activity must be allowed under the biblical definition of “lie”.

Other Lies

In Jeremiah 20:7 the prophet complains to God that he has deceived him. Likewise, in Ezekiel 14:9 God explains that when a prophet is deceived into making false prophesies, it is God himself who has deceived him in order to bring about that prophet’s destruction. In the New Testament, Paul writes that God will send a powerful delusion against the wicked so that they will believe lies and be condemned as a consequence (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

And then there is this odd incident described in 1 Kings 22:19-23:

Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of Yahweh: I saw Yahweh sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And Yahweh said, ‘Who will lure Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. Finally a spirit came forward, stood before Yahweh and said, ‘I will lure him.’

“’By what means?’ Yahweh asked.

“’I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“’You will succeed in luring him,’ said Yahweh. ‘Go and do it.’

“So now Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. Yahweh has decreed disaster for you.”

So God apparently used a demon to confuse the false prophets, encouraging the demon to lie for him. Of course, the text doesn’t tell us this spirit is a demon, it simply tells us that it is a spirit in the throne room of God who volunteered to help God.

So maybe it wasn’t a demon…

But it lied!

And God sanctioned it!

Conclusion and Definition of Lying

What are some possible biblical definitions of the word “lie”? Since the sense of the word must be formed within its context, perhaps we could say that a lie is “failing to be truthful for selfish ends or for the purpose of causing suffering to another.” It seems that deception is acceptable in certain situations. The common thread running through all the examples of deception that I gave above, is that life and death issues were at stake; if there had been no deception, someone would have died. Biblically, what is called a “lie” usually occurs in the context of “bearing false witness” in legal proceedings. Obviously, the modern definition of lie is considerably broader and more comprehensive than the biblical meaning.

In any case, I believe that it is best to conclude that ethics are contextually realized. This is not to say ethics are arbitrary, but rather that they can be fully understood only within societal relationships. Like a word, which is virtually meaningless outside a sentence, so ethics are virtually meaningless without life.

Ethics do not exist in a vacuum. And something else to consider: many games depend on “lying” in order to work, ranging from quarterbacks in football games deceiving the other side into thinking they’re going to pass when they’re going to run, or vice versa. Most card games require some deception, as do games such as chess or checkers. And then consider warfare: making the Nazis think that the D-Day invasion was going to land on different beaches than they did was certainly a lie told to them–but we never think of it that way–nor should we. We don’t consider our spies who infiltrate nasty organizations such as al-Queda to be lying, now do we, when they don’t reveal that they are spies, and actively lie to cover up what they’re actually doing. Likewise, undercover cops infiltrating gangs or taking down drug dealers are not considered to be lying when they do their job, even though they are deceiving the bad guys.

Lying is not just deception or failing to tell the truth. It is, in essence, false testimony that either protects the guilty or condemns the innocent. It is lying if it hurts someone who shouldn’t be hurt. Remember the commandment: love people. It’s a lie if it violates that principle.

Send to Kindle

“Why am I here?” Am I simply a consumer? A channel for various manufactured goods? Something to whom money will be given in exchange for my labor?

In an average lifespan of seventy years, an average American will spend about twenty years sleeping, eleven years working, six years eating, and eight years watching television. He or she will own six cars, one house, and perhaps a hundred pairs of shoes. Is that all my life will mean when it’s over? Is my only purpose in life to contribute to a healthy American economy? When I die, will the most notable thing that can be said about my life be that I watched TV for eight years and saw every episode of Star Trek?

“Ah yes, he got up every morning, went to work, came home, and watched TV. Now he’s dead.”

Is the bumper sticker the best that can be said about life: “Life is rough. Then you die.”? Solomon had depressing things to say about life:

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.
Yet when I surveyed
all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless,
a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.
(Ecclesiastes 2:10-11)

This too is a grievous evil:
As a man comes, so he departs,
and what does he gain,
since he toils for the wind?
All his days he eats in darkness,
with great frustration, affliction, and anger.
(Ecclesiastes 5:16-17)

One of the points of Ecclesiastes is that life apart from God is truly meaningless, with no more value than a beer commercial. However, the account of creation in the book of Genesis tells us something about the why of life. The whole creation of the universe is described as if everything were designed for the use and benefit of humanity. Human beings are the centerpiece of God’s creation, the whole reason for the world existing is as a place for people to live (Genesis 1:28-30). God loves human beings. He expresses his love in the blessings of procreativity, land, and food. Some might question that love is a part of the creation account, but look at Deuteronomy 7:13-15, where the blessings inherent in the creation, as found in the Garden of Eden, are promised to Israel because of God’s love.

He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. Yahweh will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you.

Or look at Isaiah 51:3, where God states that Israel will be like the Garden of Eden. The context of the Genesis account must be kept in mind: it was written by an Israelite to Israelites, who would see in the creation account and the description of the Garden of Eden the echo of the promised blessings of the Mosaic covenant—or rather, they would realize that the blessings of the covenant were faint echoes of an earlier age.

That God loves human beings is something Adam and Eve forgot. Eve was tempted in several ways by the serpent: she was tempted by pride—“to be like God”; but more importantly, Adam and Eve somehow developed a warped view of who God is, a view which persists to this day. In the best selling novel, Job: A Comedy of Justice, Robert A. Heinlein wrote:

“But notice carefully what I did say. I did not say that the world was created twenty-three billion years ago; I said that was its age. It was created old. Created with fossils in the ground and craters on the moon, all speaking of great age. Created that way by Yahweh, because it amused Him to do so. One of those scientists said, ‘God does not roll dice with the universe.’ Unfortunately not true. Yahweh rolls loaded dice with His universe…to deceive his creatures.”

“Why would He do that?”

“Lucifer says that it is because He is a poor Artist, the sort who is always changing his mind and scraping the canvas. And a practical joker. But I’m really not entitled to an opinion; I’m not at that level. And Lucifer is prejudiced where His Brother is concerned…”

Heinlein repeats one of the oldest lies in the universe: “God is not good. He is trying to withhold something pleasant from you.” Like any Big Lie, it finds an audience ready to believe it, and Adam and Eve were just such an audience. They believed the lie that God wasn’t good, and so they chose to disobey him—to acquire this good thing that God was trying to keep from them. They wanted to see what they were missing. How many Christians today are living with this same misconception? Consider a couple of amusing, if sad, stories from the book Humor in Preaching, by John W. Drakford:

The bride wore black!

The attractive girl coming down the aisle was accompanied by her bridesmaids, all in black, and in the front pews of the church, the relatives of the bride and groom all wore dark clothes as well. The dress for the occasion carried a special message.

This black-clad bride and groom were deeply committed people and meant serious business. In that year, 1839, they were about to depart on a six-and-a-half month trip across America to Oregon, where she and her preacher-physician husband, Dr. Marcus Whitman, would begin mission work. Narcissa, by wearing black on her wedding day, was indicating that her Christianity was no laughing matter. She was through with fun and frivolity.

In that day, the proclaimers of the Christian message were expected, above everything else, to be serious.

The committee of three men was waiting at the airport for the guest minister who was to preach in their church on the following day. They scrutinized each arriving passenger, for none of them had ever seen their visitor previously, and they were apprehensive lest they miss him. A tall gentleman dressed in a dark suit came walking up the jetway, and the spokesman of the group approached him.

“Are you our guest minister?”

The new arrival responded, “No, I’m not. It’s my ulcer that makes me look like this.”

Why is it that so many people believe that a close walk with God requires an absence of pleasure and happiness? Because so many Christians believe that and feel guilty if they are enjoying themselves. But do you really think that the God who invented sex wants you to be miserable? Or that Jesus’ first miracle, providing booze for a wedding party that had run out of it (see John 2:1-11), indicates that having a good time violates God’s will for your life? How does the idea that being miserable draws you closer to God ever gain followers? Or that so many people believe that our purpose is to “suffer for Jesus.” Does such an idea even begin to make sense given what the Bible actually says?

So why am I here? The entire Bible, according to Jesus, can be summarized by two commandments: love God, love people. (see Matthew 22:36-40). So that’s why I’m here–why we’re all here. That’s what it’s all about. To love and be loved. Are you fulfilling your reason for being?

Send to Kindle

The common assumption of many Christians that the first human couple, Adam and Eve, were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants is not only silly, but betrays an appalling narrowness and ethnocentrism. They could just as easily have been black and seven feet tall. The student of the Bible should be very careful not to allow his cultural prejudices to get in the way of proper interpretation; speculation is fine, only so long as he or she recognizes it is speculation. The minute interpretation becomes gospel, you’ve gone too far.

So let’s consider a popular interpretation of the boring genealogies in Genesis. Genesis 1:31 records that people were created on “the sixth day” of creation. Beyond that, we can’t be certain. The sixteenth/seventeenth century Bishop Ussher (1581 – 1656), basing his reckoning on the genealogies of Genesis, postulated that the world began in 4004 BC—in October, to be precise. If there are no gaps in the genealogical record of Genesis, then perhaps Ussher’s date is appropriate. But a gapless genealogy? I don’t think so.

When we compare the genealogies Bishop Ussher used in Genesis 5, 10, and 11 with genealogical lists in other parts of the Bible (and other texts from the Ancient Near East), it becomes obvious pretty quickly that we’re dealing with a selective list, whose purpose had nothing to do with creating a chronology for Bishop Ussher to play with. For instance, consider the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1.

We know for certain that Matthew’s Gospel contains a selective genealogy. In verse 17 of chapter one, Matthew outlines that: “thus there were 14 generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to Christ.” From this we know that his genealogical list artificially divides into three groups of fourteen names each. The selective nature of his genealogy is clear when we compare Matthew 1:8 and 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, or 1:12 and 1 Chronicles 3:18-19, or 1:13 and 1 Chronicles 3:19-20. So as to get the pattern described in verse 17–three lists of 14 names each–Matthew purposely left out several names. Why did Matthew want three lists with 14 names? It had nothing to do with chronology. In his case, it was because the name David, in Hebrew, is written with 3 letters–and the numerical value of those letters is 14 (dalet, the first and last letter in David’s name has the numerical value 4–think of how Roman numerals work; Hebrew used their letters in a similar way. And vav, the middle letter in David’s name has the value 6; so 4 + 6 + 4 = 14).

Since, in at least Matthew’s genealogical record, there are demonstrable gaps it is not unreasonable, nor without precedence, to suppose that gaps could exist in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 10-11. It also demonstrates that our cultural expectations might be getting in the way of how we look at the genealogies; obviously, they are doing some things, that at least for us, seem unexpected.

So what other arguments are there for making me reject Genesis 5 and 10-11 as a strict chronology?

Well, if the list of names and ages in Genesis 10-11 has been given to us for the purpose of constructing a pre-Abrahamic chronology, it is strange that the author of Gensis failed to give the total number of years from the Flood to Abraham. The objection raised against this point (by those who disagree with me) is that the author expected the reader to do his or her own totaling, and therefore did not add unnecessary words. But, I then point out that the author of Genesis took nothing for granted in the reader’s ability to add just two numbers in the life of each antediluvian patriarch (take a look at them in Gen. 5) in order to ascertain their total life-spans. And if the time-span of the whole period was one of the reasons for giving the genealogy, how simple it would have been to give the total, as he in fact did in Exodus 12:40 for the time of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.

A very important thing to notice about the genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 is that they are perfectly symmetrical. This alone betrays their selective and artificial nature. You see, in each of the two genealogies, there are 10 patriarchs listed. And then the tenth patriarch has 3 sons. Consider the importance of the number 10 in Jewish thinking, as well as the importance of the number 3 (Trinity, much?) Given that the Hebrew alphabet can be read as both numbers and words, it is unsurprising that the ancient Jewish people played around with numbers as they composed their texts.

If the purpose of the genealogies was to give us a chronology, why all the irrelevant extra details? Information is given concerning each patriarch that don’t help move along a strict chronology if that was what it was all about. Genesis 5:6-8 states that “Seth lived a hundred five years and begat Enosh: and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred seven years and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Seth were 912 years: and he died.” Now if the purpose of this genealogy was to provide us with a chronology, all we would need is that “Seth lived 105 years and begat Enosh”. But the additional facts which are provided concerning each patriarch indicate that the purpose of these genealogies was to show us much more—for instance, how faithfully God guarded the Messianic line (Gen. 3:14; 9:26) even in ages of universal apostasy (Gen. 6:1-12; 11:1-9); or to impress upon us the vigor and grandeur of humanity in those old days of the world’s prime; to demonstrate the fulfillment of the curse of Genesis 2:17 by the melancholy repetition of the phrase “and he died”; to show by the shorter life spans of post-diluvian patriarchs and by the omission of their total years of life the tightening grip of the curse upon the human body; and to make the record end in terms of the command of 9:1, which was so vitally important in view of the flood, by omitting the words “and he died” in the genealogy of Genesis 11. Since, therefore, so many pedagogical purposes are evident in these two genealogies that have nothing to do with the actual length of the overall period, it is unnecessary to press them into a rigid chronological system.

Then there’s another odd thing that shows up if you start adding up the years like Bishop Ussher did. Based on how the story of the patriarchs after the genealogies is told, it seem improbable that Noah or his sons would have been contemporaries of Abraham–yet if the strict chronological interpretation of Genesis 11 is correct, all the post-diluvian patriarchs, including Noah, would still have been living when Abraham was fifty years old! Three of those who were born before the tower of Babel would have actually outlived Abraham. Eber, the father of Peleg, not only would have outlived Abraham, he would have still been living for for the first two of the seven years that Jacob worked for Laban in order to marry Rachael!

On the face of it, this seems very odd. Stranger still, Joshua reported that Abraham’s fathers, including Terah, were idolaters when they dwelt “of old time beyond the River” (Joshua 24:2, 14, 15). If the patriarchs Noah and Shem were still alive (as a strict chronological interpretation requires) then, as “Abraham’s fathers”, they had fallen into idolatry by then! That seems rather improbable.

As if all that weren’t enough, consider what we know of the chronology of the Near East. According to Bishop Ussher’s chronology, the Flood would have occurred about 2500 BC. Given that Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations have an unbroken chronology going back to nearly 4000 BC, it just isn’t possible for a Great Flood to have occurred in 2500 BC–or at any time in recorded history, for that matter. The parallel Near Eastern stories of the Flood that appear in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, as well as the Sumerian King List, place the flood in a very remote past, long before the rise of Sumerian and later civilizations.

The problem that those who insist on a young Earth must face is that while we would like to know how old the world and the universe are, the people of the Ancient Near East, including the authors of the Bible, simply didn’t care. That was not a question they were trying to answer and Genesis does not address the issue at all. Trying to impose such an answer on the biblical text is an example of eisogesis, not exegesis.

Send to Kindle

If we read Romans 8:28 and think that it means a happy outcome tomorrow for the problem of today, we misread the intent and ignore the context. Worse, we miss the perspective that we need to have and the help that the passage can actually offer us. Paul goes on, after the famous verse and writes:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is al-so interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The context of the famous passage about everything working out for good is the full plan and purpose of God. The promise God gives us, the hope that we have, is that in the end, we are redeemed and will live with God in paradise forever. Oddly, this seems not to be what people want. Why is that?

They want their heaven now. And by that, I mean they want an absence of pain and trouble here and now. Who doesn’t?

Yet, the reality is that heaven is now. Luke records in his gospel that “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.’” (Luke 17:20-21)

Peter writes, “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” (2 Peter 1:3).

Could our lack of perspective be a consequence of our failure to believe that God’s plan and eternity-yet-to-be are fully real and a part of our lives today, with actual impact for when we get a dreaded phone call late at night that a loved one has died?

If a famous rich man came to you and told you that a year from Saturday he would deposit a billion dollars into your checking account, how would you feel? Would you be happy? Would you think to yourself, “life is good and everything is going to be fine?” Would the lack of money, the financial hardships of today bug you much after that? Would you think you even had financial hardship any more?

And yet God has promised us far more than a billion dollars. But we let ourselves be miserable. He has told us that the people we love who have died will be raised back to life and that we will live with them, and with God, happily ever after, forever and ever and ever, in paradise. And yet we’re still miserable.

Jesus said something once that we’ve heard so often it becomes a cliché and we are robbed of its power: “If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

It is hard to have an eternal perspective before we are in eternity. After all, we cannot see eternity. But as the author of Ecclesiastes wrote, “God has set eternity in our hearts.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11) God promises us a happy ending, but more than that, he promises us “I am with you to the end of the world.” He is with us now, not just in the by and by. The kingdom of God is today, not just tomorrow. Certainly we do not experience the lack of pain or the lack of death today. But it’s not just a grin and bear it until the end, either. There is relief now. It is based on how you choose to perceive stuff based on the eternal perspective, the eternity that God has given us today, in this moment. Then, when the flat tires come, you will have the strength to fix them.

Send to Kindle