Ruminations


Leave a comment

Hebrew text of the Book of Sirach

The book of Sirach was one of several books questioned during the Reformation and by a few early Christians (but was overwhelmingly considered canonical and quoted).  Protestantism in its current forms today, especially among Evangelicals, rejects the book completely as Holy Scripture. The common criticism of the book was not it was not written in Hebrew, but just Greek, Latin and other languages. However, thanks in part of archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls among other discoveries, large parts of Sirach are being recovered in Hebrew text! This certainly had to be the case since Sirach is quoted several times in the Talmuds as Scripture–although it was eventually excluded from the Pharisaic canon (as were almost Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Songs of Solomon).

Here is a site dedicated to ancient manuscripts of Sirach!

A link to the verses found in manuscripts. at present whole chapters are missing still, but several chapters have been found.


Leave a comment

The Origin of Evil

How can God, who is infinitely holy, be the Creator of this impure world? How can He even have any contact, direct or indirect, with it such as in the forms of revelations, miracles, prophecies…love? Can water and oil mix? How can hatred and love both exist in the world? How can sin exist at all if God detests it and is all-powerful?

God doesn’t shy away from the issue at all. Famously in Isaiah 45:7 He says,

I form light and create darkness;
    I make well-being and create calamity;
    I am the Lord, who does all these things.

It was God who ordained the Flood, who allowed Job to suffer (at the behest of Satan no less), and Who ordered the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. The verse may mean naturally bad things (earthquakes, etc), and not morally. But still, sin’s physical expression and technical existence comes from somewhere, right?

The Calvinists connected this with election to mean that God chooses some to be saved and some not to be saved and it’s all fair because it’s God’s world/universe/existence. If you have 10 sheets of old, used up paper, and you pick only 2 of them to not be thrown into a fire, are the other 8 supposed to complain? Aren’t you doing a favor to the two, whereas they all deserved it – this is mercy, not malice. This is Double Predestination (to Heaven and to Hell).

The Lutherans realized this monstrous frame of reference, or never bothered with it at all, and took away Double Predestination so that individuals consigned to the flames deserve it of their own accord, but those who do good were chosen (how? It’s the same thing basically: to intentionally save a ship from sinking and allow the other one to go, is the same as intentionally doing both).

This is related to another, seemingly unconnected question. If God is the origin of everything, how can He judge us for “our” sins? Free will’s origin must’ve come from Him, so how can it be “caused by Him,” yet “caused by us”? James 1:13 agrees that God isn’t the active agent in or of evil. But James 1:14-15 gives us an answer as to the origin of these things that doesn’t fully explain things.

We can’t redefine omnipotence in a more correct way. This is neither a fallacy such as “Can God make a Rock so Heavy, not even He could lift?” nor does saying Free Will’s origin is “unknown” or “other” rescue us, because it means God is punishing us because of some other supernatural law/force, which is also not our fault, which He can’t and shouldn’t judge, because He didn’t make it, so it’s no one’s fault as opposed to a parent who taught his child not to do something and the child disobeyed. This is also brings up the Euthyphro Dilemma in an unsolvable context – His moral code is arbitrary and therefore obsolete and irrelevant with respect to us (this is why the created pot can’t judge and complain the potter – Romans 9//Jeremiah 18 – not because God is God and can do as He pleases with His omnipotence as the Calvinists interpret it). Therefore even non-omnipotence doesn’t save us from this one.

The answer lies in understanding the nature of existence (and similar properties) and causality. Is my action an action in and of itself, or is it an action only because I made it? The Muslims had a serious problem with this. In the High Middle Ages the following question arose: If the Qur’an is God’s Word, then it must’ve existed eternally. But Arabic is a human construct. The one school of thought took the approach that the Qur’an was created when Allah spoke to Muhammad. The others supposed that Arabic must’ve been a divine language: all the words that were borrowed from the local languages (Farsi, Ethiopian, Greek, etc) were actually cases where those languages borrowed from Arabic! Is then human speech which the Qur’an is spoken by also a divine aspect? There’s even proper dialects in which to speak it.

We end the absurdity by pointing out that at some point there is no more “before” or “further” within a given action or within an object’s existence. What I mean by this is perfectly illustrated by Zeno’s Paradoxes. The idea is proven by the Banach-Tarski Theorem, which means something can come out of nothing both naturalistically as well as supernaturally.

If you think about it, the origin of everything has to be ultimately from nothing, whether you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Hindu (even in the case of an infinite regress of causes, the origin of this infinite regress has to be unknown and indeterminate). This is because, contrary to some philosophers, “nothing” is not a thing, nor a convenience of language. For example, natural numbers cannot exist nor be represented by objects if that were the case – zero demands that it is both nothing, not even a number, and is very “real” in the sense that it doesn’t exist (so it is an expression from language, but it represents a real, though intangible and non-predicable, concept).

So if an object or force can exist simply by virtue of its existence, we can suppose that God can do the same without actively being the originator of this force’s elements, yet having actively created them (non-temporal causality). If the object/force can come into existence as the Banach-Tarski Theorem implies, then all God or whichever force pre-existed it has to do is stand back and allow it to exist – so it is created by God either way. This is actually how God allows Satan to inflict evil on Job and reconciles the fact that Isaiah 45:7 says God makes calamity, whereas we see temptation and bad things come from the “evil one”. This means Free Will is both “caused” and “uncaused” – a paradox but only a contradiction if one doesn’t realize the correct point of view (temporal vs atemporal). So it is “us” but “not us” and “God” and “not God” at the same ”time” (but not in the same sense).

From this we can see that the technical existence of sin can easily be created and “upheld” by God’s power. This was never a problem because sin is a relationship of Free Will and God’s (holy) command. So the problem is basically a misunderstanding of active and passive force and how far they extend.


Leave a comment

The Conscience and Its Relationship to Judgment

I want to briefly address the following questions:

  1. Is it fair that a man is to be punished for moral crimes when he wasn’t informed of the law he had to keep, his crime (before and after it was done), having broken a rule, or the invisible Prosecutor?
  2. Is it fair that this man was never told of the penalty, which might have caused him to not make this mistake?
  3. Is it fair that, without knowing this penalty, he is subject to the technically valid with respect to logic, but maybe not him, infinite punishment?

The first question is fairly straightforward. We all have a conscience which tells us what law there is for us morally. This means we know what the crime would be before we make it and afterwards when we do commit it. This means (justifiable) negligence is not punishable. But you don’t need to be informed that you are/have broken a rule, as the crimes against humanity charges at the Nuremberg Trials show, which also means you don’t have to be aware that there will be someone you’d need to account to for it to be a more justified charge against you, or for circumstances to be made easier for you to not make this mistake (or afterwards).

The second question is also simple enough: his true nature is revealed by the lack of knowledge (though in some cases this is necessary for that and fairness). If someone doesn’t know the penalty for an unjustified and unprovoked act of disrespect, that doesn’t make it any less of a wrongdoing, whether morally or socially. The presence of a judge or the threat of retribution or any such addition/variation in no way weighs in on the issue ethically.

The final question, which is closely related to the others and leads up from the second, is a bit more involved, but just as simple to illustrate. The meaning of Question #3 is basically to ask how a person who is physically unaware of the stakes he has put up (his eternal fate), can be justifiably punished for his finite, with respect to him, sins? Even if the solution is technically valid, is it still valid if the person never knew and was therefore unaware at the lot he was casting and the prizes awaiting him for that throw?

This is actually simple to demonstrate. Imagine a driver knowingly and willingly cuts off another car recklessly, causing an accident. It’s his fault whether he knew this would happen or not. He didn’t even intend for that to happen. But a part of him said, “I don’t care if it might” (cf. Rom. 14:22-23). This is why inexcusable negligence is also sinful alongside full-blown malicious intent (1 Cor. 8:9-13, Rom. 14:13-21; Luke 12:47-48). Compare Agrippa’s open blasphemy in Acts 12:20-25 and the parallel in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 19.343-350 versus the idolatry towards which Paul says God was lenient due to the “times of ignorance” (Acts 17:30; in Romans 1 he condemns those who knowingly changed worship of the True God to idolatry in the distant past (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-2). Most of those who followed in ignorance still did not follow their conscience – Rom. 1:27, 29-32).

The Universality of the Conscience

Knowledge itself is neutral, or good (since it isn’t sinful). However, this carries with it a (welcome) burden. If you know you can do some good, barring obstructions, you need to do it. The definition of righteousness is the avoidance and abstinence from sin. This is why in Jesus’ prayer he asks God to not place temptation in our path (Luke 11:4). Interestingly, the 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer supposed that happiness is also achieved this way: through the mere avoidance of suffering, not the pursuit of pleasure (Counsels and Maxims, Chapter 1).

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Ted Honderich) maintains that at times Paul makes no clear distinction between conscience and knowledge. But this is because the two are inseparable in the relationship which Paul presumes his readers to understand, whether out of his writing or out of experience, and as usual like himself and the Semitic way, does not delve too deeply into complex technicalities but prefers nuance (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16).

Amorality in its technical meaning, viz. no morality, is a misunderstood idea. Sociopaths and psychopaths exist, yes. These can be quite moral – they simply don’t have the negative, inner feelings of guilt that most of us, even animals, experience, which themselves are possibly artificial and quite modern (see the works of Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh). But the knowledge, both social and religious, is in no way predicated upon mere feelings, which are only a reflection, like works are of true faith, and not the essence of the actual thing itself. On this note, mentally ill psychopaths, or mentally infirm individuals can be both quite moral and immoral if the circumstances permit them, or are otherwise like children and may be held blameless. The question of infant baptism and salvation doesn’t really concern us and isn’t really an issue, as we point out that physically carrying out a sin’s result isn’t necessary for the sin itself. The old joke that God does things publicly that He privately abhors notwithstanding, one can suppose that all children and those who never heard the Gospel were/will be saved or not (only the righteous).

Yet temptation plays a very integral, truth-revealing role in the life of man. A star can’t shine without darkness, and a man’s character isn’t revealed without a shift in his environment that moves him to action. This isn’t to say that God can’t operate without sin or temptations, both of which He condemns (Luke 17:1, James 1:13-15). But he uses these to create a physical manifestation of an otherwise unexpressed truth that He knows, and the Bible is replete with examples of God’s metaphorically expressive way. This is why Satan fell “as fast as lightning” from Heaven (Luke 10:18), whereas the unrepentant have decades here on Earth. One can always withstand temptation (1 Cor. 10:13), and it’s not something one needs to inflict on one’s self if it can be avoided (1 Cor. 7:8-9; Romans 14:5 – though the opposite, that it must be rejected no matter what even in seemingly trivial matters, is also always true: Romans 14:23).

The conscience itself comprises of the God-given knowledge all mankind possesses (Romans 2:12-16). We see the moral code of the basic, non-culturally related laws (like the ban on eating pork for Jews in Torah), throughout the world. Some of these are necessarily socially forbidden offenses, like theft (economics; fairness). Some are possibly natural in a way that can be argued is merely naturalistic (murder). But some things exist across cultures. The Code of Hammurabi (Mesopotamia, c.1750 BC) is near-identical to the prescriptions of the Law of Moses. Egyptian morality was very similar to that of the whole ancient Near East. The virulent anti-Christian atheist, Joseph McCabe, mentions Arabian pre-Islamic morality as being very similar to that of the Old Testament. In general he supposes morality to be a social construct by using other cultures to the same extent, which by necessity it largely is (“Love thy neighbor” – how else than by his cultural understanding?). The Stoics, whose moral code dominated ancient Greece and Rome, such as Cicero and Marcus Aurelius were virtually held as pre-Christian saints by the ancient and medieval Church. Unlike the oft-erroneous assumptions in Greek theological and logical philosophy, ethics was easily integrated into Christianity:

“He [Cicero] translates and paraphrases Greek philosophy, weaving in illustrations from Roman history and suggestions of Roman mould in a form intended to make it, if not popular, at least comprehensible, to the Roman mind. How well he succeeded is evidenced by the comparative receptivity of Roman soil prepared by Stoic doctrine for the teachings of Christianity. Indeed, Anthony Trollope labels our author the “Pagan Christian.” “You would fancy sometimes,” says Petrarch, “it is not a Pagan philosopher but a Christian apostle who is speaking.” No less an authority than Frederick the Great has called our book [Cicero’s On Moral Duties] “the best work on morals that has been or can be written.” Cicero himself looked upon it as his masterpiece.” (Walter Miller, Cicero Vol. XXI, On Duties (Loeb Classical Library: 1913), p.xii)

The same is easily said about Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. If we look at the Roman philosopher, Musonius Rufus, we find him saying, among other things, that sexual relations outside marriage for the purpose of procreation to be wrong. Not just adultery, but homosexuality, and fornication, even with one’s own maid who is one’s property, whether she is unmarried or not! (Cora Lutz, Musonius Rufus Stoic Fragments (1947), Chapter XII, pp.85-89). In his day, homosexuality was neither naturally nor socially necessary to be abhorred. Animals frequently do this in nature, more out of a socially misplaced instinct of excitement as many dog-owners would know, rather than being “born that way,” and the ancient world never had a problem with it, where there was consent. To the question of how fornication out of wedlock, a “victimless crime” could be a sin, he answers that something vile makes one a wrongdoer regardless of whether it affects those around him or not – in other words he appeals to the conscience (though in Chapter VII, p.57, he refers to the error as “intemperance,” but this only shifts the question as to why this is intemperance, so it’s the same answer). I personally think that temperance with meaning is the right answer: excess in anything, good or bad, is detrimental. If we can feel pride in beautifying a household or workplace during the holidays, we can feel justice in a moral command not to have sex before marriage, or to fast, or any other seemingly impractical (though not irrational) service. One of the more peculiar laws in the Torah is not to breed two different kinds of cattles (e.g. mules), or sow two different types of crops on the same field, nor to make clothes of different types of material (Leviticus 19:19 – goodbye polyester!). As Adam Clarke observes, “And if all these were forbidden, there must have been some moral reason for the prohibitions, because domestic economy required several of these mixtures, especially those which relate to seeds and clothing.” He goes on to suppose that the prohibition on mixed clothing could be due to pride. It is this same type of metaphor that is more or less behind Matt. 6:24.

Other aspects of the universal conscience: the shame of nakedness is reported by Bartolomé de Las Casas amongst the natives Columbus first encountered (The Devastation of the Indies (Herma Briffault (tr.), Johns Hopkins University Press: 1992, p.28). The Spanish priest praises the natives quite highly: “And of all the infinite universe of humanity, these people are the most guileless, the most devoid of wickedness and duplicity, the most obedient…by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable, holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable nor quarrelsome…” (ibid.). His praise is unending. However, when Columbus left back for Spain, upon his return he saw that another nearby tribe had wiped out the few settlers he’d left behind. De Las Casas himself notes that Columbus was on a course to reach Florida and its war-like natives, and had he not seen a flock of birds that led him South-West, reasoning that they were either going towards or away from land and betting on the former, we would’ve never heard of him or his voyages. So we know that there was selfishness, murder, war, and greed amongst the natives – de Las Casas was simply so repulsed by the injustices he witnessed from the soldiers that he tried to contrast them as much as possible. Isolated societies have very similar ethical precepts as this video shows with an expert talking on the British show The Big Questions, saying we don’t need the Bible for moral guidance (the Anglican Bishop typically steals the show and masterfully responds that this objection by pointing out the conscience).

Religion also exists universally. This might be taken as evidence for either what the Bible teaches (Romans 1, Acts 17) or naturalism (the “primitive,” religious man). Yet, it’s possible that even Neanderthals had a religion. They were certainly organized, advanced, and human-like even 150,000 years ago, and the stereotypical name never applied to them at all as this article notes. I remember a story of a 19th century German who wished his son to never even hear of religion and kept him living at his mansion without going outside – private tudors and what not educated him. He found his son worshipping the Sun one day, while in his garden. I don’t find this story very believable, but according to the Journal of Cognitive Psychology, all children, whether to atheistic or religious parents, believe in God until about the age of 12 when the atheistic ones sharply decline in their belief. This is 7th grade and around the time they teach evolution (I can’t for the life of me find the reference to this in the journal, but I’ll keep trying). It’s a bit unlikely to me for religion to have evolved into man, rather than for it to be a social construct if it’s something artificial and not God-given. We don’t see apes displaying any such behavior, humanoid or not, nor any other animal really. If one wants to argue that religious belief is naturally evolved, perhaps our ability to look into the future might relate to this. I personally can’t say. But I can give two very good and obvious examples as to why this is an artificial explanation to replace what, as Musonius Rufus put it, “everybody knows,” is true – the conscience. Would it matter if you cussed out a deaf person behind your back and no one ever found out (and it didn’t affect you negatively nor was it a sign of some kind of misanthropy)? Or imagine you were visiting the grave of a deceased relative only to find out you’d been going to the wrong grave for some time – surely this wouldn’t be irrelevant to you if you cared about that relative, even though the intent and meaning haven’t been compromised. No matter how many times I read the Sermon on the Mount, I always find myself that I’d forgotten its full beauty and depth, and to me it’s the biggest example of the conscience laid out without any human “decoration” as if to beautify the facade to an incomplete thing.

The conscience can be wounded in a way that it becomes numb, but not oblivious to incorrect actions – seared off (1 Tim. 4:2). This might seem like an excuse for those who suppose the conscience to be an artificial, human construction. But one can easily see this isn’t so. Suppose the conscience is a social yardstick: you can often be offensive in a way that you know is offensive (socially), yet be completely numb to it, and not just because of unintentional habit, but by using habit in a very conscious and intentional way. A very good example is Nietzel and Welzer’s, “Soldiers: Diaries Of Fighting, Killing and Dying (Knopf: 2012).” The two authors sifted through 13,000 secretly recorded transcripts of WWII German POWs’ conversations with one another. One bomber during the Polish campaign memorably says that when his bombs missed their targets and hit civilian houses, on the first day it really bothered him, the next day it bothered him less, until finally he didn’t care at all:

“The people didn’t bother me, but I will feel sorry for those poor horses until the end of my days…”

This is a typical example of devaluing, for one reason or another (self-resentment or pure hatred), consciously or not, what you know is more important because of your own inner failure. Sour grapes is a classic example in a social, results-oriented context. It’s a little like the example Ronald Knox uses for why relative morality is no morality: suppose you gauge the density of some kind of mineral in a test tube. If you have different temperatures in your lab, the water could be liquid, or ice, or vapor, giving you completely different readings. Just because the rock you measure falls on top of ice and the measurement is nowhere near the line you expect, doesn’t mean you have the wrong fluid or none at all! It’s the difference between applying the right conditions (lab temperature – knowledge, habits). It’s a little like having an empty and full bucket versus no bucket at all.

Not only this, but all indigenous religions basically have an all-powerful, original Father Creator, typically vilified, who is rejected and replaced by a lesser, but more popular, deity. The Greeks have this with Uranus vs Zeus. The pre-Islamic Arabians of the Hijaz had Allah, who had no idol in the Ka’ba, only to be superseded by the originally Syrian moon god Hubal. An interesting story from a 16th century half-Spanish half-native writer tells us of a pre-Columbian king who built a separate altar with no idols, dedicated to an unknown god. This story is likely a legend, derived from Acts 17, but it illustrates that the idea of a religious pagan who followed his conscience is not anything new. Melchizedek (Gen. 14) is one example. Job and Noah and if we take Ezekiel 14:14 to be the ancient Near Eastern exemplification of a moral man, Dan’el, to not be the Israelite Daniel, there’s another example. Isaiah 44:28 calls Cyrus God’s shepherd – a typical Middle Eastern image of the good and dutiful man (the literal meaning of bishop/presbyter = pastor/overseer). This is why Paul says in Romans 10:17-18: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
    and their words to the ends of the world.”


Leave a comment

Isaiah 53:8 and countermissionaries

Isaiah 53:8 is considered by some Counter Missionary Jews to be the smoking gun evidence that Isaiah 53’s suffering servant is the collective people of Israel rather than a single physical person–certainly not a Messiah, particularly Jesus Christ.

Here is how the RSV translates Isaiah 53:8, I will supply alternate translations including Jewish later.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away;  and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?–Isaiah 53:8

The Hebrew text as found in the Masoretic Text (the Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls differs)

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח, וְאֶת-דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ:  כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ

There are about 3 main reasons I’ve come across that they use for this claim, and they are:

1) The Servant in Isaiah is always Israel, and they consider the servant innocent
2) Lamo לָמוֹ is used in Isaiah 53:8 and “properly translated means to them’ ” and never “to him”
3) The phrase eretz hayim  אֶרֶץ חַיִּים “land of the living” is an expression for the “land of Israel”

Counter Missionary claim #1: The Servant in Isaiah is always Israel, and they consider the servant innocent.

My Response: Most of the time in Isaiah the servant is named as Israel/Jacob, however, David is called God’s servant in Isaiah 37:35, the Prophet Isaiah is called His servant in Isaiah 20:3, Eliakim is called God’s servant in Isaiah 22:20.  Israel is called God’s servant several times too, the closest appearance where Israel is named is Isaiah 49:3 “you are my servant Israel.” Afterwards the servant is not given a name. Calling the servant Israel is not completely incompatible with Christianity since in the 2nd Century the Christian writer St Justin Martyr wrote:

Accordingly the name Israel signifies this, A man who overcomes power; for Isra is a man overcoming, and El is power. And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob’s wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures. For when He became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to Him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting Him, and striving to effect His downfall by asking Him to worship him. But He destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to the Scripture; who is an apostate from the will of God. For He answers him, ‘It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’ [Matthew 4:10] Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time. But since our Christ was to be numbed, i.e., by pain and experience of suffering, He made a previous intimation of this by touching Jacob’s thigh, and causing it to shrink. But Israel was His name from the beginning, to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. –St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 125

Furthermore, the Messiah, as King of Israel, would represent or embody in some way Israel. Jesus in the New Testament is often described in terms and His life is told in such a way that it embodies Israel’s history, like his nativity story with Herod killing innocent children, or going to Egypt recalls the Exodus story.  A number of things concerning Israel are applied to the Christ.  However, concerning the actual people of Israel they are not actually blameless like the Servant mentioned in Isaiah 53.  Jews present Israel as being the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 that is suffering due to the wicked gentiles, unjustly since they have done no wrong.  This is ironic since the Jews will also claim their diaspora and the long period of time they’ve been without their land and government and Messiah is attributed to their sinfulness and lack of faithfulness as a whole–hardly blameless. So, some Jews have to mitigate the innocence of the Suffering Servant as referring to his lack of Idolatry–though no such thing is ever implied in the passage.

Counter Missionary claim #2: Lamo לָמוֹ is used in Isaiah 53:8 and “properly translated means to them’ ” and never “to him”

This claim is largely true, my software shows that לָמוֹ appears 59 times in 57 verses in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew bible, in the vast majority of them its being used in a context of plurality or implied plurality, however, there are a few possible exceptions the most commonly used one is a few chapters earlier in Isaiah:

yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto [לָמוֹ ].–Isaiah 44:15

אַף-יִפְעַל-אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ, עָשָׂהוּ פֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ–Isaiah 44:15 (Masoretic Text)

Or as the 1985 JPS translates it “He also makes a god of it and worships it, Fashions an idol and bows down to it.”  Most English translations agree, however, some other Jewish translations insist it also means “to them” (Stone Tanach)–suggesting the person is bowing to both the image and the ‘god,’ however, the earlier part of the sentence already addresses the person as worshiping the ‘god’ itself. Counter-missionaries appeal to the LXX for a rare instance to try to bolster their claim, however the LXX differs significantly here, since instead of having 2 almost redundant sentences about making a god/image, it says “But the rest they fashioned into gods and they do obeisance to them.” Which makes a idol’s maker plural, and the deities plural, and omits the second part about “making an image and bowing…” So appealing to the LXX does not solve any issue in this instance!

The LXX for Isaiah 53:8 mentions “death” which fits the context perfectly, incidentally the only different between לָמוֹ and the Hebrew word death is a tau after the vav, (also the only difference between the tav and vav is the tav in older scripts of Hebrew has an extra stroke). The LXX reads:

ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον [thanaton, death]–Isaiah 53:8 LXX

“he was led to death [θάνατον, thanaton] on account of the acts of lawlessness of my people”–Isaiah 53:8 (NET translation of the LXX)

Or, if we were to keep to translations within modern Judaism following the Masoretic text, we have the 1985 JPS which reads “For he was cut off from the land of the living, Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.” Showing “he” received what they “deserved.”

Counter Missionary claim #3: “land of the living” is a term for the land of Israel.

This is an assertion they make but cannot prove based on context, the most obvious meaning is that it is an expression of death (which Isaiah 53 is full of)–not deportation from Israel. In fact verse 7 even says “as a lamb that is led to the slaughter,” and verse 9 “grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb.” In fact verse 8 in the LXX explicitly uses the Greek word for death.  Other than being an expression of life/death, its used as a expression for the Temple area.  Let’s look at all the instances “land of the living” is used.

The first example is from Isaiah 38:11–the only other time the expression is used in Isaiah:

I said: I shall not see YAH, even YAH in the land of the living בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, b’eretz hahayyim] ; I shall behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world.–Isaiah 38:11

אָמַרְתִּי לֹא-אֶרְאֶה יָהּ, יָהּ בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים; לֹא-אַבִּיט אָדָם עוֹד, עִם-יוֹשְׁבֵי חָדֶל–Isaiah 38:11 (Masoretic Text)

The context is the King of Judah (Hezekiah) remembering when he was sick and persecuted, fearing for his life, the previous verse even mentions he feared he would wind up in the netherworld (sh’ol). Land of the living here seems to just be another expression for life/death, though POSSIBLY also of the Temple since the poem ends in verse 20 with “this is why we offer up music all the days of our lives at the House of the LORD.” Regardless, its an expression of physical death here.

My second example is from passage similar to Isaiah 53–Jeremiah 11:19 where the Prophet Jeremiah talks about people wanting to kill him. Here is the passage:

But I was like a docile lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me: ‘Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living [ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , méretz hayyim], that his name may be no more remembered.’–Jeremiah 11:19

וַאֲנִי, כְּכֶבֶשׂ אַלּוּף יוּבַל לִטְבוֹחַ; וְלֹא-יָדַעְתִּי כִּי-עָלַי חָשְׁבוּ מַחֲשָׁבוֹת, נַשְׁחִיתָה עֵץ בְּלַחְמוֹ וְנִכְרְתֶנּוּ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים–וּשְׁמוֹ, לֹא-יִזָּכֵר עוֹד–Jeremiah 11:19 (Masoretic text)

This was a plot of the people of Anathoth to kill Jeremiah.  The mention of a lamb led to slaughter, destroying a tree with fruit, cutting from the land of the living, and not letting his name be remember all refer to death, and have nothing to do with being deported from the land of Israel. Interesting, both this passage and Isaiah 53 mention a “lamb led to slaughter,” and being “cut from the land of the living” –מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים méretz hayyim. Verse 15 mentions the “House of God” but it land of the living does not seem to refer to the Temple at all here.  There is no reason why we should not think this is not referring to physical death.

My third example is from the book of Job, it is talking about where Wisdom can be found–the point is no where on earth, or as it says “in the land of the living.” Job 28 was not talking about Israel, the most natural understanding is that it cannot be found among living humans.

 Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים beretz hahayyim] –Job 28:13 (speaking about where wisdom is found, not on earth)

 לֹא-יָדַע אֱנוֹשׁ עֶרְכָּהּ;    וְלֹא תִמָּצֵא, בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים –Job 28:13

The closest I have seen verses come to calling the land of Israel the “land of the living” are in the Psalms, where the TEMPLE, not all of Israel’s land is called the land of the living.

If I had not believed to look upon the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, b’eretz hayyim] !–Psalm 27:13

לוּלֵא–הֶאֱמַנְתִּי, לִרְאוֹת בְּטוּב-יְה*ה:    בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים–Psalm 27:13 (Masoretic text)

We know Psalm 27:13 is referring to the area of the temple because in Psalm 27:4 the Psalmist says “that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life…. to visit early in His temple.” In fact the Jewish Study Bible for this verse notes that land of the living is contrasted with the “land of the dead,” and that it is a “metaphor for the temple.”

The next time the phrase appears is Psalm 52:7

God will likewise break thee for ever, He will take thee up, and pluck thee out of thy tent, and root thee out of the land of the living [ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , méretz hayyim]. Selah–Psalm 52:7

 גַּם-אֵל,    יִתָּצְךָ לָנֶצַח יַחְתְּךָ וְיִסָּחֲךָ מֵאֹהֶל;    וְשֵׁרֶשְׁךָ מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים סֶלָה–Psalm 52:7 (Masoretic text)

Verse 10 of this psalm, the psalmist contrasts the person who is rooted from the land of the living with himself who is ‘like a thriving olive tree in God’s house”…God’s house being a common term in the Hebrew Bible for the Temple. The verse correspond to each other, one is “rooted from the land of the living” v.7 and the other is “thriving…in God’s house” v.10.  The JSB notes that the Olive Tree metaphor is used because olive oil is used in the Temple, and in v 10 that “It is uncertain if the Psalmist is a religious official in the Temple (God’s house), or is a lay Israelite who wants to enjoy God’s proximity at the Temple (see Ps. 23.6 n).” It seems most likely that “land of the living” here is just an expression for living, since its paralleled with “your tent.”

The next occurrence in the Psalms is in Psalm 116:9, where the plural form is used “landS of THE living” (most of the other verses did not use the word “the” and always used singular “land”):

 I shall walk before the LORD in the lands of the living [ בְּאַרְצוֹת, הַחַיִּים , b’aretzot hahayyim].–Psalm 116:9

אֶתְהַלֵּךְ, לִפְנֵי יְה*ה–    בְּאַרְצוֹת, הַחַיִּים–Psalm 116:9 (Masoretic Text)

This is plainly an expression of death as seen by previous verse “For Thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from stumbling.” In verse 8 the Psalmist was at the risk of death and stumbling (not being able to walk) and now he can walk (and not stumble) in the lands of the living! Walking being a likely expression for keeping God’s commandments and serving him. Lands of the livings here may also be associated with the temple since the Psalmist goes on and talks about the idea of giving sacrifices to God in the Jerusalem Temple v19.

The last instance I found “land of the living” in the Psalms is 142:6 which states:

I have cried unto Thee, O LORD; I have said: ‘Thou art my refuge, my portion in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים , b’eretz hahayyim].’–Psalm 142:6

  זָעַקְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ, יְה*ה: אָמַרְתִּי, אַתָּה מַחְסִי; חֶלְקִי, בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים–Psalm 142:6 (Masoretic text)

Psalm 142 is another psalm about persecution at the risk of death, just as many of the previous examples. Verse 5 states “there is no one that cares for my life!” Here it is just an expression for life on earth.

Finally, the phrase “land of the living” is used several times in the book of Ezekiel, more than any other book in the Hebrew bible–and again all as expressions for life/death.

then will I bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, to the people of old time, and will make thee to dwell in the nether parts of the earth, like the places that are desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I will set glory in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים , b’eretz hayyim];-Ezekiel 26:20

וְהוֹרַדְתִּיךְ אֶת-יוֹרְדֵי בוֹר אֶל-עַם עוֹלָם, וְהוֹשַׁבְתִּיךְ בְּאֶרֶץ תַּחְתִּיּוֹת כָּחֳרָבוֹת מֵעוֹלָם אֶת-יוֹרְדֵי בוֹר–לְמַעַן, לֹא תֵשֵׁבִי; וְנָתַתִּי צְבִי, בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים–Ezekiel 26:20 (Masoretic Text)

The above translation (of וְנָתַתִּי צְבִי ) taken from a very old translation of the JPS and is widely debated by English bible translators and Jews. The new JPS translation found in the Jewish Study Bible says “and shall not radiate splendor in the land of the living” then also notes the Hebrew is uncertain. The Jewish commentary RaShI takes the verse as being positive and says its as if God said, “And I shall bestow beauty upon Jerusalem.” This is absurd considering its completely out of place with the tone of the passage which is nothing but threats to Tyre about its demise.  The LXX translates “וְנָתַתִּי צְבִי בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים” as “nor rise upon a land of life.”

The next several instances we find the phrase “land of the living” in Ezekiel is Ezekiel 32, which is unnecessary to comment on since its obviously about simple the destruction of certain pagan nations based on all the talk of the pit/grave, death, sword…:

 Asshur is there and all her company; their graves are round about them; all of them slain, fallen by the sword; whose graves are set in the uttermost parts of the pit, and her company is round about her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who caused terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim]. There is Elam and all her multitude round about her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who are gone down uncircumcised into the nether parts of the earth, who caused their terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim]; yet have they borne their shame with them that go down to the pit. They have set her a bed in the midst of the slain with all her multitude; her graves are round about them; all of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword; because their terror was caused in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim], yet have they borne their shame with them that go down to the pit; they are put in the midst of them that are slain. There is Meshech, Tubal, and all her multitude; her graves are round about them; all of them uncircumcised, slain by the sword; because they caused their terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim]. And they that are inferior to the uncircumcised shall not lie with the mighty that are gone down to the nether-world with their weapons of war, whose swords are laid under their heads, and whose iniquities are upon their bones; because the terror of the mighty was in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim]. But thou, in the midst of the uncircumcised shalt thou be broken and lie, even with them that are slain by the sword. There is Edom, her kings and all her princes, who for all their might are laid with them that are slain by the sword; they shall lie with the uncircumcised, and with them that go down to the pit. There are the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, who are gone down with the slain, ashamed for all the terror which they caused by their might, and they lie uncircumcised with them that are slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit. These shall Pharaoh see, and shall be comforted over all his multitude; even Pharaoh and all his army, slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD. For I have put My terror in the land of the living [בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים ,b’eretz hayyim]; and he shall be laid in the midst of the uncircumcised, with them that are slain by the sword, even Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD.’–Ezekiel 32:22-32

  שָׁם אַשּׁוּר וְכָל-קְהָלָהּ, סְבִיבוֹתָיו קִבְרֹתָיו; כֻּלָּם חֲלָלִים, הַנֹּפְלִים בֶּחָרֶב.  אֲשֶׁר נִתְּנוּ קִבְרֹתֶיהָ, בְּיַרְכְּתֵי-בוֹר, וַיְהִי קְהָלָהּ, סְבִיבוֹת קְבֻרָתָהּ; כֻּלָּם חֲלָלִים נֹפְלִים בַּחֶרֶב, אֲשֶׁר-נָתְנוּ חִתִּית בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים.  שָׁם עֵילָם וְכָל-הֲמוֹנָהּ, סְבִיבוֹת קְבֻרָתָהּ; כֻּלָּם חֲלָלִים הַנֹּפְלִים בַּחֶרֶב אֲשֶׁר-יָרְדוּ עֲרֵלִים אֶל-אֶרֶץ תַּחְתִּיּוֹת, אֲשֶׁר נָתְנוּ חִתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, וַיִּשְׂאוּ כְלִמָּתָם, אֶת-יוֹרְדֵי בוֹר.  בְּתוֹךְ חֲלָלִים נָתְנוּ מִשְׁכָּב לָהּ, בְּכָל-הֲמוֹנָהּ–סְבִיבוֹתָיו, קִבְרֹתֶהָ; כֻּלָּם עֲרֵלִים חַלְלֵי-חֶרֶב כִּי-נִתַּן חִתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, וַיִּשְׂאוּ כְלִמָּתָם אֶת-יוֹרְדֵי בוֹר, בְּתוֹךְ חֲלָלִים, נִתָּן.  שָׁם מֶשֶׁךְ תֻּבַל וְכָל-הֲמוֹנָהּ, סְבִיבוֹתָיו קִבְרוֹתֶיהָ; כֻּלָּם עֲרֵלִים מְחֻלְלֵי חֶרֶב, כִּי-נָתְנוּ חִתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים.  וְלֹא יִשְׁכְּבוּ אֶת-גִּבּוֹרִים, נֹפְלִים מֵעֲרֵלִים:  אֲשֶׁר יָרְדוּ-שְׁאוֹל בִּכְלֵי-מִלְחַמְתָּם וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת-חַרְבוֹתָם תַּחַת רָאשֵׁיהֶם, וַתְּהִי עֲו‍ֹנֹתָם עַל-עַצְמוֹתָם–כִּי-חִתִּית גִּבּוֹרִים, בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים.  וְאַתָּה, בְּתוֹךְ עֲרֵלִים תִּשָּׁבַר וְתִשְׁכַּב–אֶת-חַלְלֵי-חָרֶב.  שָׁמָּה אֱדוֹם, מְלָכֶיהָ וְכָל-נְשִׂיאֶיהָ, אֲשֶׁר-נִתְּנוּ בִגְבוּרָתָם, אֶת-חַלְלֵי-חָרֶב:  הֵמָּה אֶת-עֲרֵלִים יִשְׁכָּבוּ, וְאֶת-יֹרְדֵי בוֹר.  ל שָׁמָּה נְסִיכֵי צָפוֹן כֻּלָּם, וְכָל-צִדֹנִי:  אֲשֶׁר-יָרְדוּ אֶת-חֲלָלִים, בְּחִתִּיתָם מִגְּבוּרָתָם בּוֹשִׁים, וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ עֲרֵלִים אֶת-חַלְלֵי-חֶרֶב, וַיִּשְׂאוּ כְלִמָּתָם אֶת-יוֹרְדֵי בוֹר.  אוֹתָם יִרְאֶה פַרְעֹה, וְנִחַם עַל-כָּל-הֲמוֹנֹה–חַלְלֵי-חֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה וְכָל-חֵילוֹ, נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְה*ה.  כִּי-נָתַתִּי אֶת-חתיתו (חִתִּיתִי), בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים; וְהֻשְׁכַּב בְּתוֹךְ עֲרֵלִים אֶת-חַלְלֵי-חֶרֶב, פַּרְעֹה וְכָל-הֲמוֹנֹה–נְאֻם, אֲדֹנָי יְה*ה–Ezekiel 32:22-32(Masoretic text)

Conclusion: The phrase “the land of the living” never anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible refers to the land of Israel, but is an expression for physical death, or the Temple itself.


2 Comments

How is Infinite, eternal punishment for finite sin fair? (and other questions)

“Why do you write to me, ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” [Albert Einstein – letter to a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915]

“Is it fair that the nice old lady across the street who simply didn’t believe in Jesus goes to Hell for eternity?”

Atheists aren’t necessarily murderers, thieves, or any of those morally and socially wrong things. They’re ordinary people who simply choose not to believe in any deity. Why is it that they should suffer in eternity when maybe, as they often say, they didn’t find any convincing evidence for the existence of a god. So we have two questions: 1) Why does the legalism of such technicalities represent an error?, and 2) How can these penalties be justified even for minor offenses?

Why is man punished for simply disbelieving in an invisible God?

We can quickly answer: it is not the intellectual aspect of a man that condemns or saves him, but his good or bad works (Matt. 7:21-23; 11:25). The atheist isn’t condemned because he didn’t find good enough evidence for or against God’s existence. Someone who has plenty of evidence and intellectually accepts whatever religious doctrine is there, but is unrighteous isn’t helping his case. The demons know of God’s existence (James 2:19), but they’re immoral. If miracle workers who turned unrighteous aren’t spared (Matt. 7:21-23) then it’s not what you say so much as what you do that matters. Doctrine itself is never the key for salvation (James 2:14-26), but only reflects what one has on the inside (Psalm 14:1 – “fool” = immoral man). Doctrine isn’t a complete indicator of faith: that’s the conscience (Romans 2:12-16).

Why are small, finite, “human” errors punished so harshly (Hell)?

Let’s say a man has literally one personal wrongdoing in his entire life: he stole a pen from his job. How is it fair that he goes to an eternity of torture if he doesn’t repent?

A Coptic friend of mine once gave a very clear analogy. Imagine you’re a kindergarten teacher. You wrongfully punish one of your students. How do you make up for your mistake? You apologize, maybe give him some candy, and you’ll probably be forgiven. Now let’s say you disrespect a co-worker. The penalty might be higher: suspension, maybe even termination. Now keep going with this train of thought: if you offend God, what could you possibly do to make up for even the smallest of mistake? One can already see that not only is Hell justice, but it’s pure mercy that any of us even have a moment of quiet, despite everything we’ve done (Matt. 5:45). We’re simply looking at a self-centered point of view when we accuse of injustice in this case.

But isn’t it the highest form of the perversion of justice for the same crime against one man to be less of a crime against another. Is murdering a rich man a bigger crime/murder than taking a poor man’s life away? But this objection ignores a big difference. We’re not talking about judgment based on person, but based on quality and relationship. This is why it’s a bigger crime to assault a police officer, than it is a regular civilian. The crime is infinite against God not simply because “it’s God” but because God is holy and sinless. That is what the idea and definition of “God” naturally associates in our mind, but it is a justified association, not simply bias. An example of favoritism of some sort would be the following. In the Clint Eastwood 1992 Western, Unforgiven, Richard Harris’ character, English Bob, remarks on the recent assassination of James Garfield by saying, “I can assure you…the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed and you would stand… how shall I put it? In awe. Now, a president… well I mean…why not shoot a president.” One minor but certainly important point to make is the question of why anyone has to be punished for offenses that God can presumably “get over.” What I personally think is that these represent the true intentions of those who would do far worse given different circumstances. For example, if someone is willing to frame you for murder, you can be sure he’d have no problem doing it for theft. But if all we see is the second crime, as limited creatures, we can be forgiven for thinking this person’s not completely horrible. This is why in the Parable of the Dishonest Manager, Jesus says:

“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?” (Luke 16:10-12, ESV)

“He who can be trusted with little can be trusted with much” may sound counter-intuitive. If I trust you with $1, there’s absolutely no guarantee I can trust you with $100 – the opposite actually. But the risk of being caught over a dollar is far smaller than for a bigger amount. Think of stealing office supplies like pencils and staples vs the computer. This is Jesus’ point and this was a Roman proverb of the day too.

So when we add the fact that the wicked believe they’ll get away with their sins (2 Thess. 2:10-12), we can understand why the hellbound are even made, aside from the suffering of all (for their sins and for God’s purpose, like Jesus’ death and example).

Yet, isn’t it the case that no one asked to be created and this ‘all or nothing’ [Heaven/Hell] situation with these impossible standards [sinlessness] was imposed upon us without any consent? But aren’t there laws to follow that were never asked for, without disputing man has inalienable rights? It’s the exact same situation, except without the legal loopholes and outdated or imperfect laws.

As far as impossible standards, this is a more subtle situation. We are human and subject to temptation. None of us are tempted beyond what we can handle (1 Cor. 10:13). Would we make the same mistakes without temptation? Clearly not all of them. What about some of them? This was the case with Satan and the other demons (2 Peter 2:4). They weren’t tempted in any ways of the flesh, and their choice was purely one out of contempt of something above them. Why did they do it? It’s not a question of “Why?” but “Did they want to?” True intent can be hidden by motivation – “his theft was motivated by poverty” – “He did not steal the car because he saw a police car nearby.” Actual commitment of an action is not necessary for sin (Matt. 5:28). The opposite is also true: having been spared due to circumstances (to even be inclined to sin) does not mean one is exempt; this is why temptation exists and why God tests people. In this way, our genuine nature, “Whether we would choose evil or good (John 12:46; John 3:19)” is revealed. This is why full knowledge isn’t always disclosed to us (Matt. 13:34-35; 1 Cor. 13:8-12; cf. when God tells Samuel to give an impartial truth [1 Samuel 16:1-3]). Therefore, the standard is not impossible at all because it is out of our abilities, but because it’s a factual “it’s never gonna happen” scenario.

This last answer, however, brings up more questions. First of all, if the elect would be the “good angels” vs the damned being like Satan and his friends (if we were all made angels, instead of humans [cf. Mark 12:25]), why did God make any of the saved into human beings? True, most of the world lives in unrighteousness (Matt. 7:13-14). But why are any of the righteous put on it with its occasional misery? What’s the point of even making anyone human and not just send the wicked to Hell, and the good to Heaven from the very start?

Let us suppose that some of these “good angels” would sin but then would wish to repent, unlike the demons (for whatever reason and through whichever way, just like the unrighteous). In this case, God can easily make us, deserving, with less prestige by giving us mortal bodies, since the elect are the Prodigal Sons and not the elder brother who never fell away (elect angels) – Luke 15:25-32. Perhaps this will result in more sins (compare James 5:20), as opposed to if the elect (and damned perhaps) would’ve been angels that were granted repentance like in Islamic theology minus the physical world, but the existence of varying amounts and degrees of sin in and of itself is not an issue; it being committed is wrong, and from this God is exempt, but not the (unrepentant) sinner. God can articulate the expression of a sin and its meaning, much like sarcasm mimics the genuine words of the object of derision without impugning guilt upon itself. Besides, these sins as we showed don’t need to technically be committed and would exist anyway, just not physically expressed. And how God chooses to express Himself, by making a physical world, is irrelevant – a rabbi was asked by a Gentile, “Why did God make the Sun to rise in the East and set in the West,” and the rabbi answered, “If it rose in the West and set in the East, you’d ask me the same thing.”

Nevertheless, this last point brings up a fundamental question. Let us say that we have the elect and the damned into two separate piles. If we ask, “Why do the damned go to Hell for eternity?”, the typical but erroneous answer that comes to mind is, “Had they lived for eternity, they would have sinned for eternity.” So one doesn’t need to actually carry out his sins to have them as we saw – God would know this. This is, after all, the reason why God allows us to reach the point at which we can commit sins and doesn’t kill us off as babies (how merciful?) – related to the absurdity of suggesting the Christian should want to die to go to Heaven (yet see Philippians 1:23-24). In my opinion, this also explains why God made people He knows would go to Hell and why He doesn’t make us all have no free will (contrary to Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, which follows Augustine) – He knows it’s not really “us.” To make a free will that God makes sure doesn’t sin would be “us” and not “us” at the same time would switch the violation of justice to a mere impossibility given that God wants one to account faithfully to one’s own actions in the true sense of the word, and not by circumstance or a foreign origin.

Two things can be easily explained. A prisoner wants only one thing – his freedom. He envies people who aren’t behind bars. With our freedom, we see the things we’re missing and in turn we might look to others who have them. The point isn’t that we don’t appreciate things, but that the prisoner is focusing on his most important problem, while missing the fact that freedom without meaning is a much worse prison than the one he’s in. This point is made in some movies with happy endings like The Graduate (1967), whose ending seems to show the happy, reunited couple at a loss as to what they’ve actually accomplished and what they’re going to do next. This shows, first, that our bias guides us in ways that we can sometimes barely even notice, let alone believe. Second, that “would be” scenarios are neither to be rejected because they condemn something that never happened, nor are a tyrannical perversion of justice where, for one, a man has no choice but to fall under the sword of fate; they are a valid way of gauging someone without foreign influences one way or another. This could be a way of looking at the fact that God is omniscient, yet we all have a choice.

A more straightforward way of illustrating this is by the following simple scenario: imagine everything with Free Will – angels, demons, humans – had the omnipotence and omniscience of God; what would they do? Would they be fair or not? Loving or cruel? This is the basic question which is answered by God with hellfire or Heaven, as there can be no in-between in such a fundamental matter as our example shows (cf. Matt. 12:30 – “With us or against us”).

But aren’t we all sinners? Would the elect magically stop sinning at all (as is required by this hypothesis), after a certain point in their would-be infinite life? Certainly not.

How do we then explain the fact that repentance has any value if we would all have an infinite amount of sins (as well as “non-sins”)? The question can be better illustrated by the following example. Suppose you turned a light on and off, then on again and off. If you do this for eternity, is the light at the “end” on or off? Neither or both? I think the answer was “neither,” because technically there is no end really. Possibly a way of thinking about this is as follows: you have an interest two subjects in school. However, while in the middle of one of them, you frequently think of the other, and vice versa. Do you like both of them (since you think of both), or neither (since you think of the other quite a bit while in one of them)? This is possibly related to the Trinity and things God “can’t” do.

However, we know that there are different orders of infinity. That means there is something “bigger” than infinity! For example, even though there are an infinite number of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4…), as well as an infinite number of odd and even numbers, whose amount isn’t lesser or greater than their parent set of “natural numbers,” the amount of irrational numbers is actually larger than the amount of rational numbers, even though both are infinite! Cantor proved this with his Diagonal Proof in the 19th century, and it’s very well explained in this Youtube video by Vsauce (2:07-6:03). We don’t need to, but if we removed causality, we could probably simplify this dilemma. At any rate, since God is the absolute cardinality (as Cantor referred to Him), He would be beyond this situation, and would know who would stay repentant till the “end,” which for us is exemplified by a finite, rather short compared to turtles and elephants, lifespan.


1 Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a little, somewhat not well-known question in ethics and theology. The name comes from the question posed by a character named Euthyphro in Plato’s work of the same name.

The basic question is this: “Is morality right because God has declared it so, or did he declare it because it was morally right?” If God wholly decided everything that was right or wrong, then morality is arbitrary. If God only upholds what was always, eternally moral, then morality has an origin independent from Him (and His will).

Socrates sided with the second option: the gods loved what is holy because it was always holy. For him this was not a problem: the ancient Greco-Roman deities were neither omnipotent, nor even morally perfect half the time: they were subjected to the power of Fate more or less.

But the Christian, Jew, and Muslim have a problem. How can God be omnipotent if He didn’t make morality in its entirety? What does it imply if morality has a different origin from Him? From where did it come and what is the significance of this origin: is it another Euthyphro Dilemma? Or is it just an indiscriminate, supernatural law (which must be obeyed?)? Could God deviate from this? Could He make His own morality in addition, or is it identical?

The second option is unacceptable if we suppose an omnipotent, holy deity. So does that make morality arbitrary and how do we escape this conclusion if not? But, if we think about the definition and nature of morality, we will understand why this question is somewhat “illogically” stated and ultimately the objection falls apart because of this.

The Origin of Morality as Non-Arbitrary under Absolutism

As usual, St. Anselm has an opinion in these types of questions. He considers the issue to be resolved similarly to Kant’s idea that attributes (such as existence) are relationships and not predicates (e.g. the act of “sitting” vs a chair upon which this is done). Basically morality is created by God, but this isn’t a meaningful way to describe it because it is a reflection of God and His holiness. Therefore it’s not something relevantly arbitrary because it’s like saying God Himself is arbitrary, which has no meaning, or is irrelevant: it’s like asking why does the Sun rise in the East and not the West – what difference is there if it rose in the West instead? This is similar to my thoughts, though I don’t think this resolves the issue fully, or perhaps clearly (at least to me), because the question of arbitrary morality still seems to loom a bit – moral actions are not God or His actions, and they do exist, even they aren’t objects.

The simple answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma as I see it is that God created morality in that He made it with respect to us and Himself: love. This means that morality is arbitrary, but only its technical existence: not in its relationship, to which this question never applies (nor can it, as it deals with predicates, not relationships).

If a man has brown or blond hair, does God love him? Yes. If we had three legs instead of two, would He loves us all the same? Yes. So the creation of the objects to which morality applies are indeed arbitrary, but this does not in any way apply to the relationship between those objects. Think of it this way: pain is subjective, both by experience and definition. An animal’s pain is relative only to its own self, but it’s a real experience even if it has a different brain. But this is not an objective description when deprived of meaning as the Euthyphro Dilemma does – the purpose is the same as that of an anti-virus program telling you of malware on your computer, even though we don’t recognize the computer to be feeling pain.

And this is exactly the subtlety the Euthyphro Dilemma hides behind. It doesn’t deal with the moral nature of ethics: it only discusses the technical aspect of its existence. This might seem like it’s the same thing, but it’s the difference between a man who sells a car and the person who drives it recklessly. It’s like saying that sarcasm is agreement with the entity it satirizes because it repeats the same words: it’s mere legalism.

In summary, God creates arbitrary objects, and imposes the one and only Law, there since the beginning (1 John 2:7-11), upon them: love. This law is arbitrary in the sense that it could’ve been anything else. In that sense nothing can be “non-arbitrary” since it must have some kind of origin, whether from a deity or not. But one cannot complain about this law, nor can one find a better “arbitrary” command.


Leave a comment

Science vs Religion?

An anti-religious professor, an even more old-fashioned version than Sigmund Freud, stereotypically bearded, with glasses and frazzled hair, dressed in old, traditional clothes, is telling his elementary students why God is evil: “Did He create everything? Then He created evil.” A young boy defends his beliefs by using the same logic to refute his argument: “Does cold exist, professor?” “Of course it does,” answers the teacher. “No, science tells us that there is only heat – cold is the absence of heat. The same way, evil is the absence of love in man’s heart and is not God’s fault.” He stuns both the teacher and the entire class. This is at least the episode, fictionalized or not, between Albert Einstein and one of his teachers depicted in this Macedonian commercial, which ends with the white text on black font: “Religion is Science too.”

In today’s world, we view the religious as completely different from the scientific. One is magical, the other is technological and all the other “-logical”s. The idea of applying anything other than mysticism to religion does not occur to us: it’s like trying to lose weight on the Krispy Kreme diet.

Is science diametrically opposed to the basic layout and fundamental structure of religion? Is rationality inconsistent or contradictory to faith? Certainly not synonymous with it! After all, wasn’t Galileo imprisoned (house arrest, but still arrest), for defying the millenia-old belief of geocentrism, held since the days of Aristotle and the ancient Greeks (and even earlier)? Weren’t there countless witch hunts across Europe and America, despite the ban on the mere belief in witches as superstition since the Middle Ages (Council of Paderborn, 785 AD)? Modern technology has come about only through science, not religion.

Those unacquainted with the history of theology, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, can be forgiven for thinking that the issue is as simple and clear as that. But for millenia every major Christian writer used all the modern methods and knowledge available to him in his day to defend his religious ideas and beliefs. Jesus constantly proved who he was claiming to be to the Jews with miracles, and not the kind a faker or impostor or even demon could make (cf. Matt. Acts 16:16-18; 19:11-20; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 11:14; 2 Thess. 2:9-12. See also Luke 9:49-50). The Apostles, like Jesus, used both reason and proof (Mark 12:35-37; Acts 2:22-23) as well as prophecies from Scripture (Luke 24:27; Acts 3:17-26; 8:30-35). Paul used proof, not blind belief, when he referred to the witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor 15). It’s true that he said that “we walk by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor. 5:7), but his intent was the fact that the meaning of our faith is a hope and not an object to be beheld – we do, after all, worship an invisible God. But this is the blessing of faith, which was sometimes visible and still rejected. This is far different from not being logical about one’s convictions, which is what blind faith usually connotates. It’s like an athlete who competes in a race, to use one of Paul’s examples. He doesn’t have any proof that he’s going to win – the victory isn’t in front of his eyes physically. But he has confidence and hope in the fact that he has trained his body for the challenges he’ll be presented. And he knows what challenges he must face and so on. The countless Christian apologists since then, such as Quadratus (c.125 AD), Tertullian (200 AD), Origen (~230 AD), St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), St. Anselm of Canterbury (†1109), St. Thomas Aquinas (†1274) all use reason in their discussion of belief.

In fact, the biblical word for “faith” is not a set of doctrines to be blindly believed: it is a living dedication to correct behavior – fidelity, faithfulness, not simply “belief” (Hauer and Young, Introduction to the Bible (7th ed.), p.157). Nowhere is blind faith demanded and Paul praises the Jews at Berea for verifying his claims and coming to their own conclusions through reasoning (Acts 17:11).

Which is Greater: Reason or Faith?

But it would be a mistake to relegate faith, trust in the unseen and unknown, to the background in the face of reason and facts. Since Kant in the late 1700’s, it’s been a major philosophical premise that true knowledge is an assumption, albeit a well-working one, but not justifiable as any kind of absolute, immutable proof. One is well-off settling for the golden approach of the probable, like Cicero. Think of it this way: you’ve never had to prove that bread feeds you or water quenches thirst. If we delve deeper and show how the food is converted into energy and the water into plasma and cytoplasm, we’ve gone a step further into our quest for confirmation.

But how do we know that the connection is real and there isn’t another unseen force at work, like gravity was for the pre-Newtonian age when many deemed it ridiculous, especially in ancient times? Occam’s razor can’t help us, not least of all because it’s also a philosophical presumption that can easily be due to assumption (e.g. a magic trick with a complicated sleight of hand). The further we go in proving an original suggestion or seemingly obvious fact, the even more we have to go to prove that next step. This is basically what Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems proved: there are things that can be true, but are unable to be proven. We can know they’re true, but not by our presupposition of “Knowledge only by proof,” or “reason, logic, and facts.”

And this is all assuming that what we’ve presumed to discover is true. Many philosophies and theories have existed which might be self-consistent, and therefore valid, but not sound. Ptolemy’s model for planetary motion is one example. It fit all the data. But in the end it was the Copernican model that was true. Wisdom is certainly a powerful weapon against ignorance and its results: suffering. But in a miscalculated direction it can often end up being the sword upon which one falls. It is because the authorities and scientists of Copernicus’ day were so adamant about their superior understanding of the universe, the printer of the first edition of his De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium felt compelled to include a preface stating that the writing was a work of fiction – a “what if” scenario for amusement purposes. Thankfully Copernicus never saw it when it was presented to him on his deathbed. This is why John 7:14-18 (and Augustine’s commentary on it) says not to place trust in one’s own reasoning over revelation: the result is often erroneous and usually leads to, if not already the product of, one’s own vanity (cf. 3 John 1:9; 2 Cor. 10:10-12; 11:5-6; 12:11). The 12th century philosopher, Peter Abelard, had similar sentiments and saw this as one of the main origins of heresy:

“Those who claim to be dialecticians are usually led more easily to [heresy] the more they hold themselves to be well-equipped with reasons, and, to that extent more secure, they presume to attack or defend any position the more freely. Their arrogance is so great that they think there isn’t anything that can’t be understood and explained by their petty little lines of reasoning. Holding all authorities in contempt, they glory in believing only themselves—for those who accept only what their reason persuades them of, surely answer to themselves alone, as if they had eyes that were unacquainted with darkness.” (Theologia christiana 3.20)

Hence why the Bible both praises (Proverbs 4; 1 Cor. 12:8; 13:11; 2 Cor. 11:6) and mocks wisdom (1 Cor. 1:17-25; 3:19). It’s probably for this reason that the well-known verse in Ecclesiastes 1:18 tells us that, “much wisdom brings much grief,” “and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” (compare Ecclesiastes 1:16-17 and Acts 26:24, 1 Cor. 13:1-3). There must be a balance of the correct point of view so that it could be actual, useful wisdom (Matt. 10:16; 1 Cor. 2).

Famously, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica ends abruptly; unfinished. The story goes that Aquinas saw a vision of amazing things, which compelled him to stop writing. His perception of his work, once a large compendium of analysis, now a tiny and inconsequential product. Perhaps he experienced a glimpse of that which “ear has not heard, and eyes have not seen” (1 Cor. 2:9), like Moses seeing God on the mountain. Or maybe he saw how little he knew compared to the advances of science in the future. Whatever the case, he felt this dwarfed his knowledge and it proved to him how little he or anyone knew. It is exactly with such humility that we must approach anything that originates in ourselves. My sentiments couldn’t be better expressed than by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who said that, “nothing whatsoever in these [philosophical] matters should be made convincing by the authority of Scripture, but whatsoever… the necessity of reason would concisely prove.” However, he summarizes the relationship between reason and revelation much as the original title of one of his works, the Proslogion, as:

‘”faith seeking understanding”, which intended “an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God”. Once the faith is held fast, however, he argued an attempt must be made to demonstrate its truth by means of reason: “To me, it seems to be negligence if, after confirmation in the faith, we do not study to understand that which we believe”. Merely rational proofs are always, however, to be tested by scripture and he employs Biblical passages and “what we believe” (quod credimus) at times to raise problems or to present erroneous understandings, whose inconsistencies are then resolved by reason.’

His position can be summarized as: “The Christian ought to go forth to understanding through faith, not journey to faith through understanding” (Christianus per fidem debet ad intellectum proficere, non per intellectum ad fidem accedere) and “The correct order demands that we believe the depths of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss it with reason” (Rectus ordo exigit, ut profunda Christianae fidei credamus, priusquam ea praesumamus ratione discutere)

Philo of Alexandria wrote, “The pursuit of the truth of God, even if one fails to achieve it, is the most noble cause.” Of what use is knowledge if it has no purpose? No one buys a tool if it’s not going to have a purpose (Matt. 25:14-30). And what could this purpose be? Of what use is education if it doesn’t produce a career? Of what use is knowledge or anything else, if it doesn’t bring happiness? Quite simply, the whole point of Christian apologetics and of revealed religion overall, the same as the Greatest Commandment: to love God and your neighbor (1 Cor. 13:8-13).