Saturday, February 25, 2012

The Perspicuity and Obscurity of Scripture

The following is from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will.
Now I come to the next head, which is connected with this; where you make a “distinction between the Christian doctrines,” and pretend that some are necessary, and some not necessary.” You say, that “some are abstruse, and some quite clear.”...

But, that there are in the Scriptures some things abstruse, and that all things are not quite plain, is a report spread abroad by the impious Sophists by whose mouth you speak here, Erasmus. But they never have produced, nor ever can produce, one article whereby to prove this their madness. And it is with such scare-crows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings, and has rendered the Holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause his poisons of philosophy to prevail in the church. This indeed I confess, that there are many places in the Scriptures obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the thing, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowledge of all the things in the Scriptures. For what thing of more importance can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulchre, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light, Christ made man: that God is Trinity and Unity: that Christ suffered for us, and will reign to all eternity? Are not these things known and proclaimed even in our streets? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find remaining in them?

WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.) .

Therefore come forward, you and all the Sophists together, and produce any one mystery which is still abstruse in the Scriptures. But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth. As Paul saith concerning the Jews, 2 Cor. iii. 15. “The veil still remains upon their heart.” And again, “If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world hath blinded.” (2 Cor. iv. 3-4.) With the same rashness any one may cover his own eyes, or go from the light into the dark and hide himself, and then blame the day and the sun for being obscure. Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. ...

In like manner, your examples which you subjoin, not without suspicion and bitterness, are nothing at all to the purpose. Such are those concerning the distinction of Persons: the union of the Divine and human natures: the unpardonable sin: the ambiguity attached to which, you say, has never been cleared up. — If you mean the questions of Sophists that have been agitated upon those subjects, well. But what has the all-innocent Scripture done to you, that you impute the abuse of the most wicked of men to its purity? The Scripture simply confesses the Trinity of God, the humanity of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. There is nothing here of obscurity or ambiguity. But how these things are the Scripture does not say, nor is it necessary to be known. The Sophists employ their dreams here; attack and condemn them, and acquit the Scripture. — But, if you mean the reality of the matter, I say again, attack not the Scriptures, but the Arians, and those to whom the Gospel is hid, that, through the working of Satan, they might not see the all-manifest testimonies concerning the Trinity of the Godhead, and the humanity of Christ.

But to be brief. The clearness of the Scripture is twofold; even as the obscurity is twofold also. The one is external, placed in the ministry of the word; the other internal, placed in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures, but he that hath the Spirit of God. All have a darkened heart; so that, even if they know how to speak of, and set forth, all things in the Scripture, yet, they cannot feel them nor know them: nor do they believe that they are the creatures of God, nor any thing else: according to that of Psalm xiv. 1. “The fool hath said in his heart, God is nothing.” For the Spirit is required to understand the whole of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world. [from Sect. III-IV]

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Christians and Cafeteria Morality

I came across this meme a few weeks ago, and - after some interaction with certain people - asked a coworker to find it for me again, as it was quickly inspiring a blog post. The meme is called something like "hypocritical Christian girl" and is popular around some online atheist circles. Despite the source material, God always has a way of making truth come out of error, and I believe there's a lot to be said from this one image.

Throughout my life, I've encountered people who held what one might call "cafeteria morality" - in other words, they would pick and choose that part of God's moral law to follow. In my atheist days, I knew a girl who would lament my unbelief, then a few minutes later talk about the physical relations she had with her boyfriend the night before. I've known people who were on the level when it came to the teachings of God's word regarding homosexuality, abortion, the definition of marriage, etc., and yet would engage in sex with other people and even have premarital sex with their future spouse.

Of course, whenever anyone begins to talk of morality, straw men and emotional arguments fly, and so I must take a moment here to dispel any possible attacks against my person rather than my position. If you are like the people I described in the previous paragraph, then know that I am not saying I am any better than you as an individual. I am also not saying I am any more justified before God because you do x and I don't do x. At the time of this writing I am unmarried and a virgin, and intend to keep my virginity until marriage. However, I have done things in the past for which I am not proud, and still struggle in certain ways that would warrant judgment. I have always agreed with the words of the apostle James that being guilty of any transgression against God's commands made you are guilty of transgressing them all (Jam 2:10). Therefore, I am not writing this post in the spirit of "I'm better than you," but rather as a call for discernment and biblical dialogue about an important matter.

We must, first and foremost, recognize that the biblical teaching regarding sexual relations is that it always exists within the confines of marriage. When Adam and Eve first met, it was written in a kind of "divine commentary" that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This was something Christ later affirmed, saying "they are no longer two but one flesh" (Matt 19:4-6).

The apostle Paul wrote on this explicitly in his first letter to the Corinthians, continually drawing allusion to the concept of "becoming one flesh." Interestingly, he begins with the theology of Christ being the husband of the church, saying we are essentially of one flesh with him (cf. 1 Cor 6:13). He states that our bodies are "members of Christ," and so we should never do anything as bad as go to a prostitute for her services, for we are in essence "becoming one flesh" with her (1 Cor 6:14-15). We are therefore commanded to flee sexual immorality, as it is a sin against our body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (1 Cor 6:18-19). To commit a sin of the flesh is to transgress against God.

With the same flow of thought, Paul moves into a discussion regarding relationships within marriage. As the apostle recognized that sexual immorality would be a greater temptation to some, he encouraged marriage (1 Cor 7:2), adding later that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9). However, this was not a case of the woman being a submissive outlet for the man's lusts - rather, this is a continuation of the "one flesh" mindset. I say this because Paul gives very clear language regarding man and woman completing one another physically: 1) the husband gives his wife her "conjugal rights," as does the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3); 2) the husband has rights over the wife's body, but the wife also has rights over the husband's body (1 Cor 7:4); 3) the husband and wife are not to deny their physical bonds except upon mutual agreement, and for moments of prayer and meditation, but even then they are meant to eventually unite together again (1 Cor 7:5). This is beautiful (and incredibly tasteful) imagery of what "one flesh" means: the wonderful bond between man and woman in marriage, submitting to one another as equals in physical intimacy. Husband and wife fulfill one another, and in this manner they truly become "one flesh." However, we must reiterate that such a beautiful bond is only possible within marriage.

Scripture has less kinder things to say about sexual relations outside of marriage. It is said many times that the sexually immoral have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8, 22:15). The apostle Paul even advised Christians not to associate with so-called "brothers" if they were guilty of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:11). He also said that sexual immorality was one of the works of the flesh, which are opposed to the desires of the spirit (Gal 5:17-21). Let's also not forget that Christ identified looking with lust at someone to whom you were not married made you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28) - if the mere thinking of non-marital relations makes you guilty, how much more does the very act!

Many, of course, will ignore all these relevant passages, as well as the clear teaching of the entirety of scripture. They will then do one of two things:

1) Jump to irrelevant passages. Many will find any way they can to abuse the word of God to justify what they do - some of them outright bizarre. In one Christian forum, I read a post where a man actually used Genesis 9:7 as justification to look at pornography! Some jump to the imperfect lifestyles of men like Samson, forgetting that such men eventually received judgment for their actions. Some jump to the strong physical language of the Song of Solomon, seemingly forgetting that the dialogue is between husband and wife. Some say that prostitutes were allowed to spend time with Christ, not seeming to realize that these were repentant prostitutes who weren't continuing their trade. If a person wishes to argue the morality of sex, they will have to do so by going to the passages that actually speak on the morality of sex.

2) Present philosophical arguments. When the word of God is clearly against you, people turn to the thoughts of man, which are by their very nature corrupt (Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9). They try to calculate and philosophize why sex outside of marriage would be all right, even within a religious context. One girl I was speaking to told me how she thought of buying her boyfriend's favorite yogurt while at the grocery store, and from this one experience she held the firm belief that God was all right with premarital sex. Perhaps my favorite argument used is "Surely God's OK with it if you love each other?" Paul gave us a fitting warning when, right after identifying sexual immorality as evil, he wrote: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph 5:6).

Knowing, then, that the scriptural teaching regarding sexual relations is that it is meant for marriage, and sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral, Christians are compelled to at least acknowledge this reality. To not do so is not only moral hypocrisy, but playing games with the moral law of God - something very severe before the eyes of the Lord. "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments," Christ said, "and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). We cannot pick and choose morality because it is simply not our place. When God says, "Don't do x, y and z," we don't get to say "Well I choose to do x and y while condemning z" because it is simply not our place.

For many, the issue is that they are quick to condemn homosexuality as a sin while they forget that homosexuality is but a part of the larger umbrella of all sexual immorality. Heterosexual sins make one just as guilty before a holy God as homosexuality. I would propose that a true Christian who struggles with homosexual desires is far more righteous before God than a supposed Christian who unrepentantly cheats on his wife in a heterosexual relationship. The former knows his sin is ever before him (Psa 51:3); the latter is blind to his own error, condemning the one brother for the speck in his eye while ignoring the plank in his own (Matt 7:4-5).

It was to such people that Paul wrote the second chapter of the letter to the Roman church. After detailing the depravity of the Gentile world, Paul turned towards the Jews and said "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Rom 2:1). He likewise wrote: "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3) These are words many supposed Christians should be asking themselves, for in condemning homosexuals and abortion doctors while justifying their own personal sexual immorality, they merely heap judgment upon themselves.

Many reading this post may be such people who claim to be Christian and yet engage in premarital sex or sexual immorality. If this is the case, you must now be aware that what you are doing is wrong in the eyes of God, and that if you are to stand against one brand of sexual immorality, you must likewise condemn your own sexual immorality and repent of it. The good news is that while you still have breath and while you still have voice, you still have the ability, by the grace of God, to repent. Know that Christ is a far, far greater Savior than you could ever be a sinner. God bless.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Some Incredibly Misused Passages of Scripture

The following are just a handful of verses that tend to get misused the most in this day and age.
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." [Jeremiah 29:11]
This baby right here is probably the granddaddy of all misused verses. We've all seen this verse on t-shirts, bumper stickers, and those little verse cards they sell at Lifeway. We've probably also heard at least one pastor use this verse in the midst of his sermon. The basic interpretation by most people is that God has plans for you (you, the individual), and that in your future will be welfare and hope.

First, let's ask ourselves something obvious: if this verse is true, why don't we see it more often? If God has "plans for welfare and not for evil," or "a future and a hope" for all believers, then what about those Christians whose end saw anything but welfare or hope? The apostle Paul was sent to Rome in chains and eventually beheaded - was that the "welfare" and "hope" in his future that God had planned for? William Tyndale, the famous Bible translator, was burned at the stake and strangled - was that the "welfare and "hope" that God had planned for him? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great Lutheran theologian, died naked in a concentration camp - was that the "welfare" and "hope" God had planned for him? Let me ask a blunt question: if you sincerely believe with absolute certainty that God has plans for "welfare" and "hope" in your future, then what is it about you that makes God treasure you over the apostle Paul, William Tyndale, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

You see, this is the problem when we treat scripture in such a therapeutic way. Reading this verse might make us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but the only thing fuzzy is the theology we get from it.

Second, what does this verse really mean? Well, a verse before, God says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place" (Jer 29:10). This verse is actually in reference to the exiles in Babylon, and verse 11 is God's promise of restoration for them. Verse 11 is therefore only relevant to you if you were one of the exiles in Babylon.

Some people might still argue, "Yeah, well, why can't you say verse 11 is for us?" Go to verses 15-23, which are about the Jews still in Jerusalem, and read them. God promises "sword, famine,  and pestilence," and becoming like "vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten" (v. 17). Is that part of the plan God has for us? Are those verses applicable to us? Why is verse 11 applicable to us, but verse 17 isn't? In fact, why is it only the good verses are applicable to us, but the bad verses are only relevant to their proper audience? Again, this is the problem with reading scripture in a therapeutic rather than exegetical fashion.
"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." [Matthew 18:20]
A lot of people - and I do mean a lot - take these words to be a definition of the church. In fact, Christ is actually talking about church discipline, not an identity of what the church is. For more information on this, see this post.
But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." [Matthew 19:26]
Those last few words - "with God all things are possible" - are perhaps some of the most misused words in scripture, and are the most abused next to Jeremiah 29:11. Ask yourselves the following questions. Do these words mean that you'll get healed? Do these words mean you'll get a white Christmas in Hawaii? Do these words mean your car is going to miraculously fill up with gas? Do these words mean that space aliens might exist? Does this mean that, between ages 12 and 33, Jesus might have gone to Wisconsin and been a raging Packers fan?

The quick answer to all these questions, courtesy Darth Vader...



These words are speaking of salvation. This takes place right after the encounter with the rich young ruler. Christ says, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven," adding "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (v. 23-24). The disciples, hearing this, are greatly stunned by this, and so they say "Who then can be saved?" (v. 25). It is then that Christ states, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (v. 26). The great impossibility that God can overcome is the very fact that man can be saved at all.
"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'" [Matthew 25:40]
This is another passage that gets seriously misused, almost to the point where I think most people don't even know what it's originally talking about. Most of the time it's used to promote the social gospel, universal health care, or any other program. To see an in depth discussion on how this is referring to Christians in the midst of persecution and not your local homeless shelter, see this post.
[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]
These words are perhaps not necessarily misinterpreted, but are taken to a certain extreme. Most people take this verse to mean that God wants everyone everywhere to be saved. While this in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing to believe, it has led many down the trail of inclusivism and, even more erroneous, universalism. When they go this road, this verse is often used to justify what they believe. Rob Bell, in his book Love Wins, used this verse as a kind of battle cry for universalism, asking the question "Will God get what God wants?"

We must, however, understand the full context of what is being said here. This is being addressed to Paul's disciple Timothy, to whom he is giving instructions. He first says that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people," (v. 1) for "kings and all who are in high positions," so that Christians "may lead a peaceful and quiet life" (v. 2). Paul says this is "pleasing in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), and then says the famous words "who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). He follows up by saying there is "one God, and there is one mediator between God and men," being Jesus Christ (v. 5), who gave himself as a ransom for all (v. 6), and for this reason Paul was appointed a preacher to the Gentiles (v. 7).

From this fuller context, what is being discussed here? Does God desire everyone everywhere at all times to be saved? Actually, what Paul is saying is that God desires all kinds of men to be saved including kings and those who are in high positions, and Jews and Gentiles. He is not a God of the Jews alone, nor is he simply a God for the poor (despite what the "social gospel" may say). He desires all men - commoners and those in authority - to be saved, and gave himself as a ransom for all - both Jews and Gentiles. Verse 4 is therefore a very inclusivist verse, but in regards to classes, rank and ethnicity. It does not mean God desires every single person to be saved, and hence all people will be saved, or some will be saved with a little bit of leeway.
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." [Revelation 3:20]
This is a popular verse to be used by street preachers and people witnessing to others. The words are interpreted as Christ offering salvation to all who will answer the door - however, it is actually a call from Christ for a church to repent. For an explanation on this, please see my post here.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Calvinist Meme

Yeah yeah yeah. I've actually been getting annoyed with these, but then I caved in and decided to make one myself, even though I'm sure there are probably ten others like this floating around the internet. Any who, just something for fun.


UPDATE - JULY 15,2012: This little sucker's gone viral! Reading the various reactions of people to it is the most entertaining part for me.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Was it Samuel?

So a certain someone who shall remain nameless has been continually asking me about 1 Samuel 28, specifically the episode between Saul, the witch of Endor (no relation to Ewoks), and the spirit of Samuel. Many questions come from this episode. Does this mean it's OK to seek the counsel of mediums? Does this mean God permits us to use zodiac readings, spiritualism, and other means to get answers? Even more importantly, what about the spirit that appeared before Saul and the witch? Was it Samuel? Or was it a demon disguised as Samuel? Let's answer this question by going through the story verse by verse.

The beginning of 1 Samuel 28 finds the Philistines preparing for war against the Israelites. Things are not looking good for Israel, and especially for their king Saul: Samuel, their prized prophet, is dead (v. 3); David, who is seen as invincible, had escaped to the Philistines for safety and was now in their army (v. 1-2); Saul, Israel's king, is seen as weak and on the verge of insanity. Now the Philistines (seeing all these wonderful factors working together) have gathered a massive army and are preparing to invade. Saul prepares his own army and camps at Gilboa (v. 4), which, when reviewing the region's geography, gives Saul a wonderful view of the massive army facing him. His reaction upon facing the enemy is distraught (v. 5).

It is then said that Saul "inquired of the LORD," the LORD does not answer, whether it be "by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets" (v. 6). These three words signify how much Saul has fallen at this point:
  • "By dreams," which Saul could use to determine God's will. Saul, however, had continually disobeyed God's will over and over again - why should God grant him direct messages now?
  • "By Urim," which was used by the High Priest to assist the king in making decisions (Num 27:21). Yet Saul had killed the High Priest when the latter had (unknowingly) assisted David and his men in their escape. Saul had shown disrespect to the position of priesthood, and didn't deserve any direction from it.
  • "By prophets," and yet no prophets arose to assist Saul and give him guidance - and why should God have raised prophets up for Saul? He had persecuted or ignored Samuel and David, both of whom were prophets of different ranks. Why should God provide further prophets for Saul to persecute?
Feeling at wits end, Saul seeks a desperate means of an answer: a medium (v. 7). The word often translated as "medium" in the Old Testament actually refers to a kind of ritual pit which spiritualists used to supposedly summon underworld spirits to answer their questions. When it's used in situations such as in verse 7, it refers to the owner of the pit. Many of them had what is called a "familiar spirit," which would assist them by impersonating whoever it was the person desired to see. Spiritual impersonation is not entirely unheard of - those proficient in the Ouija board warn people that the spirit they are conversing with may or may not be who they think it is. Scripture never denies a spiritual world; it simply denies any good in the spiritual world that is not God's domain.

It had earlier been established that Saul had banished the mediums and necromancers (v. 3), yet now he not only seeks one out (showing his great spiritual hypocrisy), but his own staff are able to direct him towards one at Endor (showing the corruption in his command). Saul, along with two men, leaves camp in disguise and asks the woman to conjure up a spirit of his choice (v. 8). The witch fears this is entrapment (v. 9), but Saul swears by the name of the LORD that no harm will come to her (v. 10). Specifically, he desires her to raise Samuel (v. 11).

Let's pause here a moment. By verse 11, Saul is already guilty of numerous crimes:
  1. He turned away from God and went to mediums and necromancers, something specifically forbidden in the Law and labeled an abomination (Deu 18:10-11). This shows us that his attempts to "inquire of the LORD" were not sincere, hence why it is said elsewhere in scripture (1 Chr 10:14) that he never inquired of the LORD at all. This was no doubt the reason why God did not answer Saul in any way, shape or form - be it by dreams, the Urim, or prophets. God often removes Himself from a person as a sign of judgment, just as He had with Samson (Judg 16:20).
  2. He is acting deceitfully, going out in disguise and lying about who he is so that he might sin. The woman reminding him of Saul's persecution of necromancers (v. 9) served two purposes: the witch wanted to avoid being captured herself, and God was no doubt giving Saul a final warning about his sin, as a reminder about the hypocrisy he was showing. As the apostle Paul wrote, God never tempts us in such a way that there's no escape (1 Cor 10:13). For many, however, their temptation is nothing more than a methodology to reveal the depravity of their hearts. Proverbs writes, for example, that "the mouth of a forbidden woman is a deep pit; he with whom the LORD is angry will fall into it" (Prov 22:14).
  3. He blasphemes the name of God in swearing by it that no harm will come to the woman if she performs a great sin he's asked her to commit. This was also against the Law, as it was precisely the kind of "using the Lord's name in vain" that Saul was to avoid (Exo 20:7; Deu 5:11). It is also this kind of rash swearing by God's name that Christ commands people to avoid (Matt 5:34). According to the Law, the medium and necromancer should have been put to death (Lev 20:27), and yet Saul had sworn by the name of God that he would do no such thing, once again violating the Law.
All in all, what Saul is doing here is hardly an example for us to follow. 

The narrative then skips to after the woman has performed her craft, and upon seeing a spirit that appears to be Samuel, it is said she "cried out with a loud voice" (v. 12). Previously, I had presumed she "cried out" because of the sight of Samuel, as if to say, "Holy moly! I actually really did conjure up something!", since she most likely lied about previous incantations. Many commentators have taken to a similar understanding. However, upon a closer review, I believe it has more so to do with Saul's identity. It says in the same verse that, after crying out, she turns and correctly identifies Saul for who he is, probably recognizing who this Samuel was, and realizing that only Saul would seek for this specific Samuel. Saul's first reaction is to say "Do not be afraid" (v. 13), showing that her fear was still that Saul had entrapped her. Her "crying out," then, was owed more to her fear of Saul than of Samuel.

Sauls asks what she sees, and she replies, "I see a god coming up out of the earth" (v. 13). This is heathen language: she refers to spirits, whom her people assumed were gods (in fact, the original Hebrew is the familiar plural of Elohim). She then describes this spirit as an old man wrapped in a robe (as Samuel often wore; 1 Sam 15:27), which Saul then assumes to be Samuel (v. 14), and so prostrates before him.

Let us pause here again: would Samuel have been able to have been resurrected in any way, shape or form? We know that necromancers and mediums have no real power over the dead, therefore the witch could not have raised Samuel of her own power. It is entirely possible that God permitted it to work, as a way to make judgment known to Saul. That is certainly how some people interpret this episode to be, and it probably wouldn't be entirely false to come to that conclusion. At this point, many would probably assume that this entity was the real Samuel.

However, Samuel's first reaction seems peculiar to a prophet of God. Instead of rebuking Saul for consulting a necromancer and so transgressing the Law, he simply says, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" (v. 15) Not only does Samuel fail to rebuke Saul for his grievous sin, but he confesses a belief in the powers necromancers have by affirming (even if indirectly) that he was indeed raised up by the power of a medium. If God had been the force behind it, why would Samuel, a prophet of God, had given the credit to Saul and the medium? One might argue that Saul and the witch were merely the catalyst for Samuel's brief spiritual resurrection, but that does not change the danger in Samuel's words.

An interesting objection brought up by John Calvin regards the description of Samuel wearing a robe. Namely, Calvin asks, "Are we to believe that Samuel took his cloak with him into the grave?" Most often when the dead are discussed, it is said that they are provided clothes by God (for example, the white robes described in Revelation). Lazarus, when he was raised, was still wearing the burial garments he had been wrapped in, not his favorite outfit. Are we supposed to assume that Abraham Lincoln is in heaven with his famous top hat, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer is in heaven with his eyeglasses? The inclusion of Samuel wearing robes suggests an attempt to give a sign it was Samuel, again hinting at the possibility of spiritual impersonation.

Many people have also pointed to the vague language used in the following verses. That is, nothing said is something that could not yet be discerned or conjectured by anyone else. Samuel states that God had turned against Saul and become his enemy (v. 16), something anyone could have guessed from verse 6. Samuel states that God has given Israel from Saul to David (v. 17), something Samuel had already said (1 Sam 15:28). Samuel states that God is punishing Saul for not carrying out His judgment against Amalek (v. 18), which was certainly one of Saul's biggest sins, but was not his only one. In fact, the nail in the coffin for Saul was the very act of going to the witch of Endor, something scripture clarifies elsewhere (1 Chr 10:13), and yet Samuel here makes no mention of, either in rebuke or in judgment.

The final part of Samuel's words to Saul is in regards to the coming battle (v. 19), which many believe to be a detailed, assured prophecy that proves it was really Samuel. However, all Samuel says is that Saul and his sons will die, and the Philistines will defeat Israel (which comes true; 1 Sam 31:6). That the Philistines will defeat Israel anyone could have guessed - the Israelites were greatly outnumbered, led by an inept king, and most of their best men had defected outside the country. It would be no different than predicting that a football team with an inept coach, and whose quarterback now works for the opposite team, is going to lose their upcoming game.

Samuel's vague prediction of "you and your sons will be with me" is also hardly detailed. Compare it to Elijah's prophecies for the deaths of Ahab and Jezebel: he predicted regarding Ahab that "where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood" (1 Ki 21:19), and regarding Jezebel he said "the dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel" (1 Ki 21:23). Both of these are graphic, detailed predictions that indeed come true just as they are described. Predicting, however, that men in high commands or front-line positions are going to die in an upcoming battle you already know is going to go miserably and probably end in high casualties is not overly assured in any way, shape or form.

Even if one were to argue that there was some prophesying in this, it is not uncanny for God to use false prophets or demonic influences for His will. The prophet Micaiah saw the Lord granting permission to a spirit to entice Ahab through his false prophets, so that the king would go up and make war against the Syrians (1 Ki 22:19-23). God has even taken credit for granting deception to false prophets (Eze 14:9). This reality certainly works for either side of the "Is Samuel/Isn't Samuel" debate: it is possible that God, just this once, permitted Samuel to be raised so that he may announce Saul's upcoming judgment; it is also possible that God permitted some knowledge to the familiar spirit for His own purposes.

So in the end, the question of whether or not it was really Samuel seems to still be an interesting point for discussion. I would lean more towards it was not really Samuel, and for all the reasons I outlined before. However, I don't believe this is an issue to divide churches or brotherhood over, and further discussion can be made with a high level of Christian charity. We must also not forget the bigger message with this episode: Saul had sinned against God and was unrepentant, and thus God brought judgment upon him. Let us thank the Lord for His righteousness in forgiving us while we were yet sinners, and pray that those outside of Christ may come to a full knowledge of the truth and thus escape future judgment.

Friday, February 3, 2012

"All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

This post is a little bit of a continuation of a previous post I made, but is the result of some more meditations I've had on the subject as of late.

When an American soldier is sworn in, he states what is called the "oath of enlistment," which begins like this:
"I, [insert name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." [source]
The oath for officers is stated slightly differently than those for enlisted personnel, but both phrases are there: to "support and defend the Constitution," and to do so against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Foreign, of course, refers to those external threats who would seek to invade our country's territory (such as Japan during World War II), or those who would seek to do her harm (such as Al Qaeda). Domestic, however, refers to internal enemies - those who would seek to topple the Constitutional government (such as various militias or hostile political groups) or those who would seek to harm the nation from within (like the Oklahoma City bomber).

Imagine, however, if these words concerning domestic threats meant nothing. Imagine if the military, upon hearing about a home-grown terrorist cell out in the Midwest intending to do harm to government bodies, responded with, "Well, they still love our country right?" What if they heard about a political movement that was seeking to topple the democratic government and replace it with non-Constitutional one, and responded to it with, "They're still Americans, right? Can't we all just get along within our country?" What if they refused to respond to threats and instead lambasted the ones warning of the threats, saying, "Why are you trying to divide our country? They love America don't they! That should be enough!"

It's easy for the Christian church to point out our foreign enemies. It's easy to point to atheists, humanist secularists, and non-Christians and say "Yeah, that's the bad guy!" It's easy to point to atheistic, humanist secularist, or non-Christian worldviews and say "Yeah, that's the enemy, right there!" There's no question that attacks against Christian persons in Nigeria by Muslims or attacks against the Christian worldview by the secular media are foreign enemies.

Yet when it comes to our domestic enemies, it seems like what some churches call the "clergy of the laity" becomes the "clergy of the apathy." We either choose not to do anything, leaving it to our leaders to handle (while not even informing them of the error), or we choose to simply say "no harm no foul." We forgo doctrinal heresies and false teachings for superficial reasons such as "we all love Jesus" or "they aren't hurting anybody." We willingly submit the word of God to the whims of the devil and don't seem to care. We wouldn't let our daughters marry a wicked man we knew was going to hurt her and misuse her - why do we permit the word of God to be misused by wicked men?

As I've pointed out before on this blog, this isn't entirely new to history. The fear of calling out the church's domestic enemies has led to many great men of God finding themselves persecuted by supposed Christians rather than foreign enemies. It was this fear that caused Athanasius to be kicked out of his bishop position five times by the Arian-friendly church. It was this fear that caused the Monothelite-friendly church to maim (and eventually kill) Maximus the Confessor. It was this fear that caused the Roman church to excommunicate and persecute the Reformers. It was this fear that caused the Anglican church to turn on the Puritans and then the Methodists. The fact is, those who support modern day false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Mike Bickle, Todd Bentley, William P. Young, Joel Osteen, and a host of others are simply joining the ranks of a long tradition of people in the church who forsook sound doctrine for the pleasing of their itching ears (cf. 2 Tim 4:3).

The fact is, the church does have domestic enemies, and they are still prevalent. Even during the apostolic era, Paul warned the church against contemporary domestic enemies (Gal 1:6-9) as well as future ones (Acts 20:29-30). Christ warned that on the day of judgment, He would divide the church up between the sheep and the goats - that is, true Christians and false Christians (see my post here). This latter point implies that there exist within the church today goats masquerading as sheep, which means that, even on the day of judgment, there will be false Christians. The writer of Hebrews refers to them as crops which have borne "thorns and thistles," and who will in the end be burned (cf. Heb 6:8).

Scripture makes it clear that domestic enemies do exist, whether some Christians - supposed or true - would like to admit it. The question now is, whom do we desire to protect more: God's word, or our superficial idea of peace and unity?