Question Mark, Part 4

Welcome back to the world's slowest Bible study... two years ago I began slowly going through the gospel of Mark and so far I have managed to get to the end of... verse 1 of chapter 1. You can read the first two posts here and here. Hang on, you might be thinking, the title of this post says 'Part 4', what happened to 'Part 3'?

Well, I'm now about to annoyingly jump over ten verses and think about verses 12 and 13 of chapter 1. I'll come back to verses 2 to 11 in 'Part 3', which will follow at a later date. For now let's look at:

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Hmmm. That's not how you remember this story is it? You remember all the details of the temptation from Matthew's expansion of this story. This version is really short in comparison, and seems fairly pointless.

First we need to talk about the word "πειράζω" or "peirazō", translated in the NIV (above) as 'tempted'. As far as I can tell, the word here translated tempted generally means 'tested'. In this context it is clear that Jesus is being tested to show that he is up to the task that lies before him. Here Satan is fulfilling the divinely appointed role that he has in most of the OT, he is acting on behalf of God to test someone to see if they are truly righteous or not. Satan here is not God's adversary, but rather seems sent by God to test Jesus.

There are four characters in the story here: Jesus, the Spirit, Satan and the angels. God the Father, having popped up in verse 11 has again vanished off the stage and plays no active role here.

Jesus was directed by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tested by Satan. We are not told the nature of the tests, we are not even told if Jesus passed the tests! The reader actually has to make up their own mind about what they think happened. I guess this is why Matthew felt the need to be explicit about the nature of the tests and to be explicit in showing that Jesus passed them. Mark feels no such need to explain anything. Once again I am reminded of Robert M. Fowler's book "Let the reader Understand" - Mark doesn't give his audience everything, he expects them to work things out for themselves.

Maybe we should rephrase my comment above about the four characters in the story, there are actually five witnesses to the events - Jesus, the Spirit, the Satan, the angels, and the reader.

But why was the testing necessary? Did God the Father need to do this in order to find out that Jesus was up to the task? Well, that very much depends on your pre-conceptions of the Father. Did Jesus need to know for himself that he could pass the test? I don't think the angels really needed to know. Whether Satan needed to know would depend very much on your pre-conceptions of Satan. But really, I think, the main audience who need to know if Jesus passed the test are Mark's readers themselves. This story is for them. Nobody else in this story needs these events to have happened. That, in itself, should put a very big question mark over the actual historicity of this event, the event itself presupposes an audience, but as presented there was no audience present.

If we take for granted the Trinity, as generally believed in modern Christianity, this story makes no sense. Why would one member of the Trinity need to get another member of the Trinity to direct the third member of the Trinity to the place of testing? In this concept, God the Father must already know that God the Son is up to the task set before him, as they have been in communion together for eternity past. God the Father does not need to test God the Son, and certainly does not need the direction of God the Spirit to assist in this. From a Trinitarian point of view, the only way we can make sense of this passage is if Satan is the devil, and the point of the exercise is to demonstrate to the devil just who Jesus is. This seems to be the way that Matthew understands the story, but it is not at all clear in Mark's version. Various theologies in other parts of the NT rely on the assumption that the devil did not know who Jesus was, so they, at least, are inconsistent with this view of this event.

Put aside the idea of the Trinity for a moment, though, and the story makes a whole lot more sense. If God in heaven had chosen a righteous man, Jesus, to become his Son, and had poured his Spirit into this man (that's something to be discussed in the part of this study that we have temporarily jumped over), then he'd need to be sure that the man he had chosen was up to the task. From a non-Trinitarian (and, indeed, an adoptionist) point of view, this passage makes perfect sense. Here God is simply double checking that he made the right choice. And so from here on in, the reader can be sure that God made the right choice too.

I think this is the lens through which we need to view the rest of the gospel of Mark. Jesus is just a man, chosen and empowered to be the Son of God, but not part of the Trinity and not pre-existent.

Thinking in this way also makes this passage make sense from Jesus's point of view as well. Jesus himself needs to know that he can pass the test. He needs to know the power of the Spirit which is now within him. Having been through this, Jesus himself now knows that he is ready for the rest of the gospel, and so does the reader.

Before we move on, one final comment that, I think, contradicts what Matthew will later do with this passage when he expands it. Nothing in this passage suggests that Jesus is without food. Indeed, the angels 'attending' him would imply that they brought him whatever he needed, including food. For some reason this short passage makes me think of 1 Kings 17 where Elijah is ministered to by ravens, who bring him food. Perhaps it is even closer to 1 Kings 19, where an angel brings Elijah food. Either way, if this inference is correct, then Matthew's story, in which Jesus has no food for 40 days, contradicts this.

So there we have it, I think this short passage is clearly non-historical, and reveals an underlying theology which is at odds with current Christian belief.

Magnificent Obsession by David Robertson (a response, Part 4)

Dear D.,

Following my comments on the first five chapters of your book [here, here and here], I now get to Chapter 6: Meaning. It is a strange beast, touching on a number of different topics, not as focused as the previous ones.

You start with the 'eyewitness testimony' of the disciples and the old claim that people don't die for a lie, again. Furthermore you claim that if Jesus had remained dead in the tomb, then the authorities could have just dug him up and demonstrated that the stories the disciples were preaching were false.

Once again, you are using a story told in one part of the Bible to 'prove' the historical accuracy of a story told in another part of the Bible. We have no secular evidence that the disciples preached anything at all about the death and resurrection of Jesus in the vicinity of the supposedly empty tomb, in the weeks or months following the alleged resurrection event. No, the only evidence that such events ever happened is contained in the book of Acts.

Of course, you believe the book of Acts is accurate reportage. To counter that assumption, may I mention that the "Acts Seminar" - a bunch of proper Bible scholars who spent years studying and debating the book of Acts - gave as the primary conclusion of their study that the book of Acts was a work of fiction, most likely written in the early 2nd century? Conservative evangelicals disagree of course, but I think the impartial observer has to at least consider the possibility that Acts is - or contains - fictional elements.

If the gospel was not preached until years or decades after the supposed event, and perhaps then not by the supposed eyewitnesses, who could dig up a body to prove anything?

From here you go off on a rant about some of the usual 'new atheist' authors and arguments. Fair enough. But you don't really present your own case, you merely attack their weaknesses. Eventually you get to your point, that Jesus is God, and we finally get to the Trinity. You call this the 'cornerstone of Christian thinking' but, of course, can't explain it, because nobody can. It is literally a mystery. Or possibly a nonsense. 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. How can you believe something you can't explain?

You then touch on the 'but who made God?' question and don't really get anywhere. This discussion never gets anywhere because it is obvious to the believer that nobody made God and it is obvious to everyone else that the chain of cause and effect can't go back to something as complicated as an eternal and infinite triune Godhead. You can solve almost every finite problem by invoking an infinite and unseen solution, but you can't solve the problem of an infinite and unseen thing by invoking anything else.

You go a bit preacher for a while, revelling in the claim that Jesus is God, and then come back to some semi-apologetics questions, like why the Trinity isn't in the Old Testament (your answer: it is), and why did God have to become man to become our redeemer. 

Finally you get to the question of where Jesus is now and why could he not stay on earth. You don't actually address the first of those that well, considering that there are some biblical passages that imply that Christ remains in his human (perfected) body even now, i.e. he remains localised, while other passages speak of him 'filling all things' and the like, implying that he is anything but localised. I've heard your answer to the second of those before, and heard it from others than you. Of course Christ had to leave the earth, because if he didn't go, the Spirit could not come. Huh? So the Spirit and the Son are two distinct persons, but they can't both be on earth simultaneously? Why?

Through all of this you imply that the Trinity is the clear teaching of the Bible. It isn't. Sure, you can read the Trinity into the Bible in a good many places, but it is far from clear that all the Bible authors would agree with such a concept if you presented it to them. So at the end of this chapter I remain unconvinced that the Trinity actually makes sense. Oh well.

On we move to Chapter 7: Mission in which you defend the Church, by pointing out that it is made of flawed human beings. Yes it is. I don't really have much to comment on here. 

The only thing I really want to mention here is when you attack the straw man of "The Bible was compiled by the council of Nicea". While I have heard this claimed by Dan Brown and the like, this is a bit of a red herring. I'm far more convinced by David Trobisch's claim that the original NT was compiled and edited by Polycarp, and then widely distributed. But anyway, that's enough for now. I'll move on to Chapter 8 next time.

Cheers,

R.

The atoning death of the 2nd person of the Trinity...

Christianity (or at least most branches of it) claims that God is three persons in one being, the Trinity. And it (or at least most branches of it) also teaches that Jesus Christ, the second person of this Trinity, died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice on our behalf, and was resurrected to life three days later. Christianity (or at least...) also teaches that there is a part of a person which survives death, that is, the soul. Now some (but by no means most) versions of Christianity claim that Jesus went to hell during his three days dead, while some (but...) claim that hell, by definition, is a place where God is not.

So put all that together. The result is incoherent.

Who or what really died on the cross? The one being of the Godhead? No, merely one of the three persons. But if that person is inexplicably and inseparably linked to the other two persons, then how could he die without them also dying? Or did the Trinity get reduced to a Binity for three days? Surely nobody who holds to the idea of the Trinity could accept that? But if the second person of the Trinity didn't separate from the life of the other two, then what was it that died?

And what was actually sacrificed? Jesus was apparently without a physical body for somewhere less than 36 hours, and then got a better body. That doesn't actually seem like a sacrifice, more like an inconvenience. An exceptionally painful inconvenience, I'll give you that, but not actually a sacrifice. The whole point of sacrifice is to give up something that you don't get back again. Ever. So the resurrection completely undoes the sacrifice. Its like me putting a tenner in the offering plate on a Sunday and then coming back on Wednesday to reclaim the tenner, and actually getting fifteen pounds back. No significant sacrifice, certainly not when viewed on the eternal timescale.

And what about the 'harrowing of hell' thing? If God went to hell, then surely hell ceased to be hell. By definition. Maybe Rob Bell is right and

everyone

gets

to

go

to

heaven?

I've got no major point to make here other than that when you scrutinise some of the doctrines of Christianity, they don't actually work. And especially, when you try and harmonise them, they don't always work together.

For what its worth, having wrestled with both issues over the past few years, I no longer find either the doctrine of the atonement or the doctrine of the Trinity actually makes sense. It may be that someone died on a cross two thousand years ago, but I can no longer accept that that person was inseparably part of God or that there could be any transaction in that death which took my place in some death that I should actually have died myself. There would be no justice in such a deal.

Son of God?

This may seem like an odd question to most Christians, but what do we mean when we say 'Son of God'?

In what way is/was Jesus God's son?

I had a look at the dictionary at what 'son' means, and it says this:

1. a male child or person in relation to his parents.
2. a male child or person adopted as a son; a person in the legal position of a son.
3. any male descendant.

Which doesn't help much. If sonship requires parents (plural) then option 1 is discounted. If sonship requires adoption then option 2 is discounted. If sonship requires a line of descent, then option 3 is discounted. So in what way is Jesus the 'son' of God?

Contemporary theology (and this goes back at least 1800 years) views Jesus as co-eternal with God the Father. So in what sense is Jesus the 'Son' of the 'Father'? If there was no 'time' in which God was and Jesus was not, then the Son is not and cannot be the descendent of the Father.

Sometimes sonship refers to inheritance - perhaps Jesus is the heir to the Father in some way? But this only works if the Father is going to die or otherwise pass on the inheritance, and I don't see that in Christian theology.

Or maybe it refers to authority, somehow? Perhaps the Father has authority over the Son? But I thought the Son was given the name above all names? Surely that means he has the ultimate authority?

Basically where I'm at is that I can't see how Jesus can be both part of the Trinity and the Son (in any meaningful way) of God. If he's part of the Trinity, then surely 'brother' would be a better human analogy. If he's the 'Son' in some rational way, then he cannot be part of the Trinity.

It would appear that in the OT times, 'Son of God' was a phrase taken to represent God's human representative on earth - generally the king, although I think it may also have been used of Moses, Elijah and a few others.

Why don't/can't we see Jesus in the same way?

Did the early church turn the human Jesus into a God? (But keep the 'Son of God' terminology and just ignore the contradictions it brought with it?)

How can there be two opposing desires within the Trinity?

Inspired by a recent episode of the Reasonable Doubts podcast.

I'm still wrestling with the whole issue of the Trinity. The concept is not found 'fully formed' in the bible, but there are a smattering of verses that provide a foundation for an embryonic belief in the trinity.

What is not clear to me is how exactly the whole Trinity thing is supposed to work?

Take the situation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14v32-36):

They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."

Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Here we clearly have the situation where the Father and the Son 'will' opposite things. They are not united in the desires of their hearts. One has to set aside his own will to do the will of the other.

Now this is perfectly understandable if they are two discrete persons, but not really understandable if they are two parts of a perfect unity.

How do trinitarians manage to harmonise this? Anyone got any insights here?

The Trinity

OK. Time for a big doubt. The Trinity.

God the Father is God.
God the Son is God.
God the Spirit is God.

But why do we assume that they are three persons?

The language in the bible is quite confusing. I can see where the idea of the Trinity came from, but the idea itself is not to be found in the bible. It is a derived theology - a concept used to explain some of the confusions in the bible. Why do we try to subdivide God in some way?

If someone was to talk about my spirit, we would understand that they weren't talking about some separate person, but rather they would be talking about something that was part of me, something that was integral to my being. Indeed, they would probably mean the essence that makes me me.

So why when we talk about the 'Spirit of God' (e.g. Philippians 3v3) or the 'Spirit of Jesus' (e.g. Philippians 1v9) do we seem to assume that this Spirit is in some way distinct from God or Jesus?

Surely the Spirit of Jesus is actually Jesus!

And what about Jesus himself? He said quite clearly "I and the Father are one" (John 10v30) and never at any point in the bible does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of God" (although his disciples and even accusers do use these words about him). But Jesus prefers to describe himself as the "Son of Man" - emphasising his humanity. But what if Jesus was/is the one true God?

Chapter 1 of John says some astounding things:

• v1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God's message to the world is a person. That person is God himself. Not two people, one.
• v14: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only [Son], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Notice what they did there? ('they' being the translators of the TNIV, in this case) They inserted the word 'son' into the text so that it says what they think it means. But the original just speaks of "the one and only", not "the one and only son". Maybe it means the one and only God? Maybe Jesus is the one and only God?
• v18: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." They've done it again! And they did it a long time ago. Most of the early manuscripts for this passage (from the 3rd and 4th centuries) speak of the "only begotten Son", but the earliest fragments of this passage - from the 2nd century - speak of the "only begotten God".

How could the infinite and eternal one true God become a finite and temporal man? I have no idea. Nobody can grasp it. We have no words to even begin to explain it. But we can understand the idea of parenthood and the relationship between a Father and a Son. Perhaps this is why it is spoken of in this way - its perhaps the closest we can get to grasping the idea. But it is an imperfect picture, not the whole reality. The reality is too big and complex for us to fathom.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to go and baptise people in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit... and his disciples went and baptised people in the name of Jesus. They didn't forget about the Father and the Spirit, the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit (collectively) is Jesus.

What if there is no Trinity, there is only Jesus, the only God?

Backslider?

A long time ago (16 years to be precise) I was on the 'exec' committee of the University of St Andrews Christian Union (CU). In order to be allowed to be a member of that committee I was required to sign a 'declaration of faith' document. This 'declaration of faith' was (and still is) the one used by the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) - an evangelical organisation to which the majority of university CUs in the UK are affiliated.

At the time I had no major issues with any of the beliefs expressed in the document and was happy to sign it (I did have minor issues, see below). If I was presented with such a document today I don't think I'd be able to sign it with a clear conscience. There are some things in there that I do not believe are fundamental to the faith and, furthermore, I simply do not believe them to be true.

Does this make me a 'backslider'?

Here I will list the UCCF declaration of faith and comment on each of the articles in turn:

The doctrinal basis of the Fellowship shall be the fundamental truths of Christianity, as revealed in Holy Scripture, including:

1. The unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
   Yes, I think I can still agree on this one. It doesn't use the phrase 'trinity' which I am beginning to question, but I think 'Unity' is a perfectly acceptable word here.
   
2. The sovereignty of God in creation, revelation, redemption and final judgment.
   More or less, yes. This doesn't actually use any words beginning with 'omni' which might cause me problems. It also doesn't insist on any particular meaning of 'creation' which might also bring me to the point of dissent.
   
3. The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
   No! This was my only minor niggle before - the word 'infallible' - but now I really can't agree with all of this. The divine inspiration of Scripture - yes, OK, I believe that much of the bible is in some way 'inspired'. But I can't go as far as 'infallible'. The Scripture Union basis of faith is very similar to the UCCF one, except it speaks of the bible as being "God-breathed" and "fully trustworthy in all that they affirm, and are our highest authority for faith and life" - this is a much better starting point than claiming the 'infallibility' of a book which asserts that it is possible to get two of every kind of animal on the planet into a reasonably small ship.
   
4. The universal sinfulness and guilt of human nature since the fall, rendering man subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
   I do have a problem with the concept of 'God's wrath' against mankind. I accept that there is a problem of sin and that it needed dealt with, but the whole idea that a blood sacrifice was required to appease an angry God goes against my world view.
   
5. The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God; His virgin birth and His real and sinless humanity; His death on the cross, His bodily resurrection and His present reign in heaven and earth.
   Most of this, yes. Jesus is God, yes. He was a man, yes. He was crucified and rose again, yes. Virgin birth? Is this in any way an essential doctrine? It may have happened, but I remain in doubt over this one. I don't really see the need.
   
6. Redemption from guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once and for all time of our representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
   Most of this, yes. However, I don't think we truly understand what Jesus did by dying on the cross. I certainly don't think his death was simply his dying instead of us - let's face it, we're all going to die anyway - but something else was achieved there which we still can't see or understand. Maybe in eternity...
   
7. Justification as God's act of undeserved mercy, in which the sinner is pardoned all his sins, and accepted as righteous in Gods sight, only because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, this justification being received by faith alone.
   Yes. There is nothing we can do to reconcile us to God. That is why Jesus died (although, as I say, I don't think we understand what exactly his death achieved).
   
8. The need for the Holy Spirit to make the work of Christ effective to the individual sinner, granting him repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.
   Yes.
9. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all those thus regenerated, producing in them an increasing likeness to Christ in character and behaviour, and empowering them for their witness in the world.
   Yes.
   
10. The one holy universal Church, which is the Body of Christ, and to which all true believers belong.
    Yes.
11. The future personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge all men, executing God's just condemnation on the impenitent and receiving the redeemed to eternal glory.
    Mostly, yes. Although there is much about 'heaven' and 'hell' which I think we have completely misunderstood.
    

See, I'm not as heretical as you might think... ;o)

Polygamy, polyamory and the bible

Um, sorry about this one in advance... the correct response to this post is "you really should stop listening to so many of that guy's podcasts..."

I listened to another of the Infidel Guy's podcasts yesterday. This was one of his 'Debate Hour' shows rather than a conventional IG show. The distinction is that the IG show generally takes the form of an interview about religious or atheistic subject matter, whereas the debate hour is generally a fairly formal debate between two parties with opposing views on a topic, which may not be related to religion at all. Generally each party has an opening statement then a chance to comment on the other's opening statement than a period of rebuttal and finally a question and answer session. This format was intended here but, due to the debaters, did not happen.

Anyway, the subject of the show was 'Alternative Relationships' - specifically Polyamory.

For those of you who don't know, the dictionary definition of polyamory is:

"participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships"

(Webster's New Millennium Dictionary)

The two debaters were 'Rayven', an atheist living a polyamorous lifestyle, and 'Deacon Greg Cooper' a Presbyterian with very strict bible-based beliefs. However, Rayven didn't really get the chance to say much as the bible-thumping deacon ate up most of the airtime.

In between Greg's rants, the Infidel Guy, Rayven and folk calling in managed to make some quite valid comments, which the deacon ignored or dismissed without thought. He really was an awful advert for Christianity. Anyway, I want to comment on some of the issues raised.

And just to be clear on this point, just because I am raising the issue and posing the questions here does not mean that I am in support of the alternative lifestyle or the opinions expressed. OK?

Greg made it quite clear that his opinion was entirely based on the bible and it is this: that the only non-sinful sexual relationships are those between one man and one woman within the confines of a marriage. Greg also voiced the opinion that his interpretation of the bible could not possibly be wrong on any issue. He was that kind of guy. In fact, his attitude and manner made me inclined to take the other side in the debate when I really don't agree with it.

The others pointed out to him that many important characters in the old testament: patriarchs, kings and prophets, had multiple wives and were not condemned for it at any point in the bible. Indeed many of them were held up as being 'men of faith' and even 'righteous'. Indeed, the sins that the Kings David & Solomon were taken to task about had nothing to do with their multiple wives. Furthermore, in Exodus 21v10 there is a law which clearly governs the behaviour of a man taking a second wife. This practice is not condemned in the old testament, it is regulated.

This is true, whatever Greg said to dismiss it. If we believe that the old testament law came from God, then we must accept that God allowed and regulated multiple marriages. Also if God does not change his mind then this allowance still is in place... right?

Or is it one of those cultural things that God allows because it neither helps or hinders his agenda? Is it morally neutral?

During one of the moments that she was allowed to speak, Rayven said a few things that really surprised me. These related to the beliefs of 'polyamorous Christians' - I wouldn't have thought that such a group would exist, yet apparently it does. A simple websearch took me to their wesite too... Rayven took their side in the debate, primarily to annoy the fundamentalist, even though she said that she cannot see how you can reconcile the bible to a polyamorous lifestyle. The poly-Chrisitian apparently accepts that when people are united together to become 'one flesh' this needn't necessarily be a union of only two people - they see no biblical reason why three or more people cannot enter into a commited relationship with each other... I'm so gobsmacked there that I actually can't come up with a rebuttal!

But anyway, as I was generally inclined to find fault with the fundamentalist's position, I was quite miffed that nobody pointed out one of the key beliefs of the fundamentalist's belief structure - that of the Trinity. While the concept is not made fully explicit in the bible, the generally held belief amongst Christians is that there are three distinct characters in the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit - and these three are eternally united in a loving, intimate relationship. Now I'm not saying that sex is involved there, but from my understanding of what was said on the show, sex is not an essential of the polyamorous relationship either - it is a loving union of more than two people... sounds like the Trinity to me...

So how can we defend the position that our loving relationships should only involve two people, when our God apparently exists in a three-way relationship?

(and yes, I know what some answers to that question might be, but I thought I'd ask anyway...)