This Week in Review - 3/24/2017

Here's another list of interesting links and resources I discovered this week. Quite a few to share here, from a variety of topics!

Creation Accounts and Ancient Near Eastern Religions from Christian Research Institute - It's common for people to say the Genesis narrative is just a rehash of Near Eastern religions, or at the very least that the ancient Jews may have been influenced by them. As this study from CRI shows, a lot of those connections are at best weak or superficial. It's a lot like many of those supposed connections between Christ's death and resurrection and other "dying and rising" myths.

Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi? from GotQuestions.org - A common claim is that the Law of Moses didn't really present anything new that Hammurabi didn't already try. This article provides some comparisons, and shows that all similarities are due to the fact that Hammurabi, and countless other cultures, recognize that things like theft, adultery, etc., are serious crimes that deserve punishment (y'know, that whole Romans 1 thing). The key differences are that, while Hammurabi's code dealt with criminal and civil law, the Law of Moses expands things into the spiritual and personal realm.

The Human Kind from Answers in Genesis - A little known fact among many people today is that, in the early stages of the theory of evolution, racism, and the concept of different levels of racial development, was wildly popular and accepted. Nowadays evolutionists and atheists like to distance themselves from that truth, but, rationally speaking (and looking at the issue of human biodiversity), that is evolution's logical step.

Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? from Answers in Genesis - Good read that answers the question on if scripture itself interprets Genesis as a literal, or figurative account. A lot of these arguments are similar to ones I've made in the past, so it's good to see other, more learned men coming to the same conclusions.

Jesus Created The Universe: The Deity Of Christ from Reasons for Jesus - Christ is divine not only from His own claims to being divine, but also the fact that scripture attests to His role as a "causal agent" for the act of creation.

How Early Was Jesus Being Worshiped As God? from Jonathan Morrow - A short read that provides both a quote from scripture and a quote from Pliny on the issue of the historicity of the worship of Christ. Some additional links are provided.

Is the Original Text of the New Testament Lost? Rethinking Our Access to the Autographs from Canon Fodder - A common argument from many today is that, since we don't have access to the original copies of the books in the Bible, we can't really know what they say. Is that true? A few scholarly thoughts on the subject are found here.

Two Moral Atrocities God supposedly committed from DyerThoughts - William Dyer addresses two supposed moral dilemmas that God commits in scripture: creating people with disabilities, and the infamous she-bear incident with Elisha and the youths. Do these prove God isn't worthy of worship? Dyer addresses each, especially by clarifying what's going on in the Elisha narrative.

Did Daniel Accurately Predict a Succession of Nations? from Christian Research Institute - Nice read on the historical narrative found within Daniel, from the fall of Babylon to the rise of the Seleucid Empire. In some respects it could have gone into even deeper detail, or handled the troubling passages from Daniel 11:40-onward, but it's good for what it is.

God, The Shack, and the Christian Mind from Southern Evangelical Seminary - There are a lot of responses out there to The Shack, many of them strictly doctrinal. This article gets to the heart of the matter, by addressing the "experiential emotionalism" so rampant in modern western Christianity. It's a gracious and fine read.

The Most Dangerous Man in Christendom? from First Things - Carl Trueman addresses the charge made that he's "the most dangerous man in Christendom" due to a charge of "high sacramentalism." Trueman goes on to discuss the problem within modern Evangelicalism of loving conversion/witnessing tactics, while at the same time glorifying the men of the Reformation-era, many of whom would be deemed "high sacramentalists" by those same Evangelicals.

Leaving the NAR Church: Derrick's story from Pirate Christian - Derrick, from the UK, shares the experiences of how his family was sucked into the New Apostolic Reformation. He talks about how it left some family members homeless and without jobs due to the advice of a false prophet, while others became involved under false teachers like Mike Bickle. As it grew more stranger and destructive, Derrick eventually left the movement, seeing it for the demonic deception that it was.

The Mailbag: I “feel led” in a different direction from my husband from Michelle Lesley - As the title implies, what does a wife do when she "feels led" differently than her husband? How is she able to still "submit"? Ms. Lesley covers that question from a biblical viewpoint.

Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond from BeliefNet - Excellent article by Alister McGrath on the supposed disconnect science gives faith. He speaks a little on his own journey into faith, and how he eventually came to realize how philosophically shallow Richard Dawkins' arguments were. As he writes, "Dawkins and his circle" present a rationale which, "far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone."

Secularism isn't a Neutral Position from Come Reason Ministries - Is secular thought really a "neutral" point compared to religion? On the contrary, it basically becomes a religion all its own.

What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? from Answers in Genesis - Because it's a topic that comes up every now and then...

Ten quick responses to atheist claims from Christian Today - As the title suggests, these are some quick responses to common atheist objections like "I just believe one less God than you," "There are so many denominations," etc.

44 Quotes from Former Atheists from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - What the title implies. Includes some well known former atheists like C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel, as well as some lesser known ones.

3 Apologetics Strategies From the Book of Acts from Alisa Childers - Three quick points about the way the apostles handled apologetics against Jews and Gentiles in the book of Acts.

Does Genesis 18 Teach the Trinity?

The beautiful image to the right is based on a well known icon by Andrei Rublev, considered one of the greatest iconographers to ever live, and who is a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church. This icon was originally painted around the early 15th century for the Trinity-St. Sergius monastery. It has been recreated many times, and is sometimes known as "the Rublev icon," "The Trinity" or even "The Hospitality of Abraham." It is based off the idea by many that evidence for the Trinity can be proven from the Old Testament in the account of the Lord's visit to Abraham and Sarah. In the icon, the Persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are depicted as the individual angels.

At times this argument is made far too plainly. I recall once watching a YouTube video where a young man boldly stated nothing more than, "See, there's three here. That's the Trinity!" A more careful and educated approach comes from an examination of the following verses:

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant." [Genesis 18:1-3]

The idea is this: three men appear before Abraham (v. 2), yet he addresses them in the singular ("Lord," v. 3), and it is said that "the Lord," in a singular sense, appeared to Abraham (v. 1). This does, at surface level, seem to be a fine example of the Trinity, which is three Persons unified within the one Being of God. To give an example of such a mindset in regards to Genesis 18:

...these three men have never been viewed by the Church as a "pre-Incarnation" of the Holy Trinity but rather as an appearance of the Holy Trinity in the guise of three Angels, a temporary appearance manifested in order that God might speak with the holy patriarch. [Timothy Copple and Patrick Barnes, Presumptuous Propositions; source]

And again:

The first verse of this chapter says that ‘the Lord appeared’ unto Abraham, and then proceeds to tell that ‘three men stood over against him,’ thus indicating that these were, collectively, the manifestation of Jehovah. [Alexander McClaren, from his commentaries; source]

And again:

...the three Persons in the Trinity, in the shape of three men, appear to Abraham and dine with him, and eat the first flesh mentioned eaten in all the Scripture. [John Lightfoot, quoted from John Gill; source]

The problem with this interpretation, however, is what happens after the conversation between Abraham, Sarah and the Lord:

So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [Genesis 18:22]

It is said that "the men" turned from there and go towards Sodom, but the Lord stayed before Abraham, and enters into dialogue with him following this verse (the Lord doesn't leave until verse 33). In the very next chapter, the men arrive at Sodom, and are not only numbered at two, but are identified as angels (Gen 19:1). The first man, whom Abraham had addressed at the start of chapter eighteen, is referred to later explicitly as the Lord, but is never referred to as an angel like the other two were. Reading scripture plainly, we have to come to a different conclusion than those who stop at the first few verses of Genesis 18: the three men were not the three Persons in the Trinity, but the Lord accompanied by two angels.

Genesis 18, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity. The only connection between this appearance of three men and the Trinity is the fact that both involve the number three. What can be argued, perhaps, is that this is an example of the pre-incarnate Son in the Trinity appearing to believers. It might be interesting to note here (as discussed in the book The Rublev Trinity by Gabriel Bunge) that, before Rublev, many iconographic depictions of the Genesis account depict three angels, with one bearing the cross on his halo and sometimes the familiar markings of "IC/XC" (Jesus Christ in Greek abbreviation). This would be a far closer depiction of what is actually unfolding in the Genesis account.

Keep in mind I'm not declaring anyone who argues Genesis 18 teaches the Trinity is a heretic. However, I would humbly ask them to review this section of scripture and come to a conclusion that is loyal to what it says regarding these three men.

Meditations on Genesis 1:3-4

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [Gen 1:3-4]

After hearing about the fun times had by two friends, I decided to pick up Bible journaling. One friend was going through the Gospel of John, but I decided to start at the very beginning - namely, Genesis. I've been trying to do it Matthew Henry style: not only going verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, and writing down not how the verse relates to me personally, but rather how it fits into the larger context of scripture. As I went into the beginning of creation, there were two things I noticed: 1) light is created in verse 3 on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not made until verse 16, on the fourth day; 2) God only identifies the light as being good (verse 4), yet the darkness is not included.

The question, of course, is where did that light come from, and what was it?

One can't help but conclude, if the sun is not created until verses 14 to 18, then this cannot be a natural light. If so, then what is it? It can only be the Divine Light of God, the same Light which Paul describes in an epistle:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:6]

Remember that previous to this, the world was described as "without form and void," and "darkness was over the face of the deep" (v. 2). Yet even in the midst of this darkness, God was present, for we are told in the same verse that God the Holy Spirit was "hovering over the face of the waters." If God was present, why then was there darkness? Is God not light, in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5)? It is hard to imagine the Person of the Holy Spirit hovering over the dark void and yet no light to be seen at all. How can divinity exist in darkness without light of any kind?

The answer is simple, at least in the sense that we may return to the previous quotation of Paul: the Light, which is revealed in verse 3, is God making His presence known. God was letting it be known, not only for the formless creation, but for the benefit of those who would be reading Genesis for years to come, that in the midst of the darkness He was present. That He had not made Himself known is irrelevant - He was still there. Darkness must never be seen as the weakness of God, but merely the absence of God. Not absence in the sense that He is not present, for it is clear here that God is present even the darkness - rather, it is the absence of the knowledge of His presence. There are many times in our lives when we find ourselves in great darkness, and it feels like God is not present - yet it is clear, from the very beginning, that God is still present even in the greatest of darkness.

What follows next is plain in the text: God commands for there to be light, light is revealed, and it is said that God saw the light as being good. He then separates the light from the darkness. Many things can be seen from this:

1) The light is good because it comes directly from God, and as God is a perfect Creator it stands to reason that all He creates would be perfect.

2) The darkness is not said to be good because darkness, by its very nature, acts contrary to light. God will later call the sun and moon, natural night and day, equally good because natural night serves good purposes - it is at night that bats and various insects are able to function and find food. Yet spiritual darkness has no good purpose, and the absence of God is the greatest evil that can be devised.

3) God separates the light from the darkness for two-fold reasons:

a) God is in control of good and evil. Not that God is Himself the author of sin, but that sin and evil cannot usurp or thwart God's will. That an evil man may believe himself to be in complete control of his destiny is only an example of his own total foolishness. To his brothers Joseph said, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). To King Sennacherib the Lord says, "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2 Kings 19:25), and likewise to the king of Assyria, "Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?" (Isa 10:15). God is able to separate light from darkness because it is He who is truly in command, and the darkness has neither ability nor power over Him. Hence the words of the apostle John: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).

b) Light and darkness are opposed to each other, and cannot coexist. The apostle Paul rightfully asks "what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). Where there is light, there is no darkness; where there is no light, there is only darkness. God's separation of light and darkness signifies that, in His eyes, there is no middle ground. He would make this abundantly clear through the prophet Isaiah with the words: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20).

There is one final aspect to these passages: they are an early Messianic shadow. The prophet Isaiah foretold "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Isa 9:2), which was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 4:16). The apostle John wrote that Christ, that Light, is He through Whom we have seen "glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14), and it is He who has made God known (John 1:18). Christ came to a world shrouded in spiritual darkness, revealing the presence of God and bringing in the Light once again. Yet with light comes conflict with darkness, which hates that light which extinguishes it. "This is the judgment," Christ said, "the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil" (John 3:19). To His brothers, the Lord said, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). The world is by nature darkness, and is by nature working in darkness, and thus hates that light which exposes its evil works for what they really are (John 3:20).

There will, however, come a time when light will truly triumph over darkness. It is said that the celestial city, the bride of Christ, will have "no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23). It is likewise said "there will be no night there" (Rev 21:25), for the light of God will never be extinguished. For now, however, "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1 John 2:8), and until Christ returns we who "were darkness" must "walk as children of light" (Eph 5:8), and preach the Gospel so that those still living in darkness may turn "to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me" (Acts 26:18). Amen.