All posts by James Pyles

James Pyles is a published Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror author as well as the Technical Writer for a large, diversified business in the Northwest. He currently has over 30 short stories published in various anthologies and periodicals and has just sold his first novella. He won the 2021 Helicon Short Story Award for his science fiction tale "The Three Billion Year Love" which appears in the Tuscany Bay Press Planetary Anthology "Mars."

Torah Portion

Chukat: Walking Into Darkness

June 14, 2013 James Pyles 2 Comments

“I don’t get no respect.”

-Rodney Dangerfield

“Rebbe!” the man cried. “Nobody gives me respect! Everybody steps all over me and my opinions!”

—“And who told you to fill the entire space with yourself, so that wherever anyone steps, they step on you?”

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Smaller”
Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson
Chabad.org

The Torah states:

“And Moshe and Aharon gathered the Assembly (the whole of the Jewish people) before the rock and he (Moshe) said to them, ‘Hear now, you rebels.’ ” (Numbers 20:10).

Was Moshe correct to call them rebels?

Dvar Torah for Chukat
based on Love Your Neighbor by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin
quoted by Rabbi Kalman Packouz
Aish.com

I don’t think most of us could blame Moses for losing his temper every once in a while. After all, for almost forty years, he’s had to put up with millions of grumpy, ungrateful, temperamental, and complaining people. He’s worried about getting them to where God wants them to go. He’s worried that they’ll complain again resulting in a plague that will kill tens of thousands of them. He’s worried that some upstart will challenge his and Aaron’s authority. And as we see in this week’s Torah portion, he’s got to watch his brother and sister die.

It’s not easy being Moses. No wonder he also gets grumpy from time to time. No wonder he called the Israelites “rebels,” whether they deserved it on that occasion or not. He’s not getting a lot of respect, given that he’s the greatest prophet ever to arise out of Israel.

And we know that based on the incident recorded in Numbers 20, he loses the right to enter the Land alongside Israel, his brothers, his children. But what did he do that was so wrong?

The Dvar Torah quoted by Rabbi Packouz continues:

The Midrash tells us that whoever serves as a leader of the Jewish people must be very careful how he addresses them. According to one opinion — because Moshe said, “Hear now, you rebels,” he was told, “Therefore, you shall not bring the assembly into the Land which I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12).

The prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) said to the Almighty, “I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5). For this statement he was severely punished.

The prophet Eliyahu (Elijah) said to the Almighty, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the Children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant” (1 Kings 18:10). He was severely punished for his statement.

Rabbi Avuhu and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish were traveling to a certain town. Rabbi Avuhu asked Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, “Why should we go to a place of blasphemers?” Upon hearing this, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish strongly reprimanded Rabbi Avuhu and told him, “God does not want us to speak evil about the Jewish people.” (Yalkut Shimoni 764)

If you are a Christian, you may be asking yourself what makes the Jewish people so special that they shouldn’t be criticized? After all, God criticized the Israelites on more than one occasion up to and including circumstances that led to the death of thousands. Is this midrash even valid? Why should we pay attention?

Let’s expand the viewpoint a bit. God entrusted Moses with a great responsibility: to lead the Children of Israel to the Promised Land and, failing that, to lead them in the desert for four decades, teaching them God’s commandments and ordinances and preparing the next generation to enter into and conquer the Land.

You can’t do that without respect but more importantly, you can’t do that unless you love and respect those you are leading. This lesson is easily applied to anyone in leadership. It can be applied to a Pastor, a Priest, a boss, a parent, a teacher, a writer, anyone who has an audience that depends on the “leader” for guidance in some fashion. That usually means all of us at one point or another in our lives.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle.

–James 3:1-2 (NRSV)

I don’t know anyone who is perfect in speech, least of all me.

One of the reasons I stopped teaching at my former congregation and subsequently resigned from leadership was because of this verse. I felt that I was not aptly qualified for the position (though no one seemed to complain). I am not formally trained in theology and my conclusions can certainly be wrong. As a blogger exploring my own personal and spiritual “space,” I’m not actually a teacher and all I’m doing really is just chronicling my daily exploration into my relationship with God.

But it’s not as simple as that. If anyone reads what I write and accepts what I write, I have a responsibility to that person. If they can find fault in what I am presenting, I need to look at that comment, take it seriously, and if I see that they are correct, make a correction within me, and then reflect it back out on my blog.

Rabbi Pliskin, as quoted by Rabbi Packouz, shows us several examples of why midrash believes the crime of Moses against the Children of Israel was speaking evil against the Jewish people. He failed to show love and respect to those who God loves and respects. Moses had been called the most humble man in the world (Numbers 12:3) and I believe that is a qualification that great leaders should possess.

It’s kind of hard to find humility on the Internet and particularly in the blogosphere. It’s difficult to always suppress “ego” on the web.

I suppose I could go into specifics about who said what about whom, but what would be the point? Every time I allow myself to enter into one of those conversations, the only one who gets “beaten up” is me, and I did it to myself. No, that’s not quite true. Anyone who is associated with me, even by the thinnest of threads, is also hurt by my behavior. Although it’s not my intent, those who are considered my “friends” or “allies” are dragged down into the mud hole that I created simply because I didn’t ignore temptation. In that way, I continue to provide a disservice to the Messiah and continue to create distance between me and those I care about. My words and opinions are my own. I’m not anyone’s puppet. But I’ll never convince some people of that, so the damage is done anyway.

But who cares about all the mud slinging on the Internet? What does it matter if one person has an opinion and I have another? Sadly, a good many people. Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Churchill also said “The British nation is unique in this respect: they are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst.”

While criticism doesn’t have to be a lie, for some reason lies, criticisms, and gossip seem to travel farther and faster than truths and complements. I disagree with Churchill that only the British people like to hear bad news, I think most people like to hear bad news, at least if it’s about someone else. Just hop on the Internet and go to several of the major news sites. What sort of news dominates the headlines? Bad news. Why not good news? Good news doesn’t sell, but a good scandal, disaster, or crime story will attract readers in droves.

How many people comment on a good, wholesome, inspirational blog post vs. one that is filled with criticism, controversy, and hostility? A “mean-spirited” blog post is like a big car crash. It’s horrible to look at but it draws people in herds.

Is that what I’m supposed to be “selling” on my blog as a disciple of the Jewish Messiah…bad news? Am I supposed to contribute gossip and “tell tales out of school,” even tangentially when I comment on another’s blog?

The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

–Proverbs 26:22 (KJV)

For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

–James 3:7-8 (NRSV)

If you can’t say something nice… don’t say nothing at all.

-Thumper, quoting his father
Bambi (1942)

As believers, we have to be particularly mindful of what we’re saying and why. This is especially true of me since I am acutely aware of my own failures because of participating in areas on the web that have done harm to others. By my participation, I’m part of creating that harm. Why am I doing this? Am I seeking my own gratification at the expense of another human being? That’s not my intent and in fact, that’s exactly what I am trying to speak against.

Among Rabbi Pliskin’s numerous and highly useful quotes, there is this:

If your mind is focused on an insignificant incident, it can destroy your happiness if you allow it to. To feel happy, your mind has to be free of pains and misfortunes.

Learn to differentiate between productive thinking about problems as a means of solving them, and counterproductive dwelling on misfortunes which gains nothing positive and destroys your quality of life.

Very often people who appear very angry, or self-righteous, or abusive are actually very hurt. The problem is, it is very difficult to get past “angry” in order to help “hurt.” The first best way we can help someone like that is to find a way to reach the “hurt” part of them and help them learn to heal. I’d like to do that but my efforts almost always backfire so I guess I should stop.

As writers, we have a teaching function, whether we want it or not. Therefore, if the role is upon us, we should carefully choose our topics and our words so that we can be as encouraging and as uplifting as possible while still getting our point across. We should also question the motivation for making our points and verify that we are not deliberately trying to hurt someone else because we believe they hurt us (whether they actually did or not).

The audience or consumers of blogs should also be mindful of the function of writers and teachers as well as our limitations and faults and keep in mind that just because we put something on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s right. It may not be right in terms of being factual and it may not being right in terms of moral correctness (even if it is factual).

Moses may well have been factual when he called the Children of Israel “rebels,” but at least according to midrash, he was absolutely wrong morally in doing so.

Blowing out someone else’s candle won’t make yours shine any brighter.

-Anonymous

In fact, if you have to blow out someone else’s candle for the sake of your own, chances are you are walking in darkness anyway. The sun is setting and it’s getting harder to see. It would be comforting to see the lights of the Shabbos candles as I walk into darkness, but as a writer, disciple, and just one lone human being, I have miles to go before I have any hope of illumination.

Good Shabbos.

103 days…or 32 days. Still making up my mind.

Uncategorized

Taking the Fork in the Road: Discussing Arminianism and Calvinism, Part 4

June 13, 2013 James Pyles 9 Comments

The Arminian, whether strict, or moderate like Thiessen, will say that man is elect because he believes. The Calvinist asserts that man believes because he is elect. As long as Acts 13:48 and John 10:26 are part of the Bible, the Arminian definition of election which bases that election upon God’s foreknowledge of faith can never be maintained.

-Manfred E. Kober, Th.D.
“Chapter 4: The Demarcation of Modified Calvinism and Historic Baptist Beliefs,” pg 44
Divine Election or Human Effort?

Since they are both short, I blew through the last two chapters of Dr. Kober’s paper just to see how it was going to all get wrapped up. Not only does it come out as “Calvinists are right, Arminians are wrong,” but what’s more, Baptists are at the top of the heap.

OK, I may be exaggerating just a little, but it seems like what we’re really looking at is the continual disagreement between the two Protestant theories on the nature of election and salvation, created four-hundred years ago (sixteen-hundred years or more from the New Testament writers), and tinkered with ever since. Really, are these two perspectives the only way to read and interpret the Bible on this topic? Have we given up actually trying to understand how Paul might have really understood his own letters?

According to Kober and his supporting documentation, both Jesus and Paul were “Calvinists,” but like the doctrine of the rapture, we have to ask ourselves if the original apostolic authors understood the scriptures in an identical manner as latter-day Christian scholars? Remember, many latter-day Christian scholars also support supersessionism and predict that Jewish people have no place in the world to come unless they give up all Jewish practices and convert into Gentile Christians. Somewhere along the line, some Christians have missed a step or two.

I don’t have the theological chops to totally refute Calvinism (really, the whole Calvinism/Arminianism constructed framework), but hopefully, I’ve managed to punch a few holes in it and generated even a little bit of reasonable doubt.

On pages 46 and 47, Kober marries the Calvinist perspective with the “Creeds of the Baptists.” This is one reason why I’ll most likely never join a Christian denomination. I’ll spend the rest of my life trying to study and understand the Bible in all its colors and moods. How could I possibly accept the partitioned cardboard box into which any denomination forces the Bible and God?

So much for Chapter 4.

This paper opened with the duty of the theologian and it closes with an exhortation to the expositor of God’s Word. What is the expositor’s task in light of this awesome doctrine?

-Kober, “Chapter 5: The Demand Upon the Expositor”, pg 49

“Awesome doctrine?” Sure, if you’re a die-hard Calvinist and “winner of the game,” you can say it’s “awesome,” but some of us might call it something else. Take the following quote from Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), p. 345:

In the minds of some people, election is a choice that God makes for which we can see no reason and which we can hardly harmonize with His justice…We are asked to accept the theory…which does (not) commend itself to our sense of justice.

Kober goes on to say that Thiessen self-admittedly creates his doctrine as much out of his emotions as any form of Bible study and scholarship, but he ignores the words of Thiessen he quoted. The argument, as presented in the quote, isn’t Election vs. man’s compassion, but Election vs. Justice.

I said in a prior blog post that man very much does have a stake in holding God to His own standard of justice:

So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

–Genesis 18:22-33 (NRSV)

Abraham may have been “buttering his own bread” by pleading for Sodom since he knew that his nephew Lot and Lot’s family lived there, but on the other hand, he may really have been begging God to exercise His own standard of justice in not executing the good with the bad. God relented (or appeared to) when He said that He would spare Sodom if ten righteous men were to be found in the city. God was willing to be just for the sake of ten human beings.

Continuing to support his position, Kober quotes Romans 11:33:

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

However, taken out of context, this verse could be applied both ways. Can either Arminianist or Calvinist search the inscrutable judgments of God? What, besides a series of short quotes from different bits and pieces of the Bible and then strung together as if on a piece of fishing line, makes the Calvinist so sure that God must agree with their analysis of how election and salvation works in the Bible? Are you really sure?

Did Kober forget that in the same chapter of Romans, Paul also said, “all of Israel will be saved?” This is based on the idea that all Israel is elected by God, but even Paul laments that Jews who are lost for not knowing Christ, so how does that work?

On page 50, Kober says something curious.

It is never right to misrepresent an opposing view in order that a person’s position may be enhanced. The God of the Calvinist is not an arbitrary God but one who in His infinite wisdom plans every detail of the universe. Neither is the God of the Calvinist a hard God. The Calvinist is quite convinced that a merciful God will redeem as many sinners as is possible without violating His justice and righteousness.

Now who is limiting God’s power, sovereignty, mercy, and justice? As many sinners as possible? I thought all things were possible with God (Matthew 19:26). Kober seems to be saying that there are some things that are not possible with God and that, in order to make them possible, He has to violate His own principles. It is that, or is the concern that if God did make it possible (has made it possible), it would violate Calvinist theory?

I don’t say that God is hard (although He is hard to understand sometimes), but I don’t accept that the Calvinist has one God and the Arminianist has another. God is God. If something has gone haywire, we can’t blame God but we can blame human reasoning and understanding (or the lack thereof).

On page 51, Kober quotes from the preface of Perry Fitzwater’s book, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948), p. 7.

There is no mediating position between Calvinism and Arminianism. We shall not vacillate but oscillate between them. Sometimes the viewpoint will be that of a high Calvinist and sometimes that of a low Arminian.

I’ve said before, “Is it too much to ask for both?”

Actually, in my recent blog posts where I look at the Bible from rather different and difficult perspectives, I’m trying to introduce the idea that we can look at the Calvinism-Arminianism debate from a meta point of view, rising above and outside the context of the argument itself so we can observe, not one side or the other as opposing perspectives, but as a unified dynamic that exists as a single entity.

(Speaking of meta, if I attempt to take on Calvinism or Arminianism on their own home grounds, I’d probably “lose” so I choose to meet them outside their usual context. I know that sounds like cheating, but it’s also the only way David beat Goliath. If David and put on armor and carried a sword and shield into battle against the giant, he’d have lost and Israel’s greatest King – this side of Messiah – would never have ascended the throne. David stepped outside the entire context and framework of military battle and, treating Goliath like an invading lion trying to devour his sheep, the young shepherd won the day.)

Within the traditional context which Kober presents, one doesn’t talk of Calvinism without speaking or Arminianism and vice versa. As I’ve also said before, I don’t accept the “either-or-ness” of the argument because both sides are trying to contain God within their own construct rather than letting God be God as sovereign.

I know the Calvinists think they’re letting God be sovereign but only on their own terms. Different Christian denominations do more or less the same thing, defining God in relation to their own theology and doctrine, not imagining that God exists in a way that cannot be “boxed up”.

This last part on page 52 was a real capper for me.

Unfortunately, many pastors shy away from the doctrine of election, so that most Christians have never been clearly instructed in this precious truth.

Precious truth? It may be precious to Kober who no doubt believes he’s among the elect and doesn’t appear to generate a great deal of concern for those who are not. I’ve read all the defenses of Calvinism but here’s what it comes down to if preached from the pulpit (this is just my imagination):

Some of you are saved and others will burn in hell and there’s nothing you can do about it one way or the other.

Kober ends his paper saying there’s no harmful effects to Calvinism but I can tell you that it hasn’t done me a world of good.

There are too many times when Abraham, Moses, or some other prophet or holy person has begged God to uphold justice and mercy and not exterminate people, even when they deserve it. In the majority of cases, God has agreed even though it’s within His rights to wipe everyone out whenever He pleases and start all over again (He did that once by flooding as you may recall). God seems to be OK with humans begging Him to show compassion to other humans and I think it’s something He’s encouraging in us.

Calvinists can come up with many Biblical justifications for their theory and why their opponents are bad Biblical scholars, but I will not let Calvinists and Arminians force me into a choice that flies in the face of thousands of years of God’s interactions with humanity where He has been merciful as well as just, forgiving and relenting as well as sovereign over all.

I’ve talked before about Talmud and Quantum Physics which is a very strange way to approach the Bible, but its one in which people can engage God, talk to God, even struggle with God on difficult moral and ethical issues. God is sovereign. I fully believe that. To believe otherwise is to deny that God is God and that He has the power to be Creator and compassionate savior. But somewhere in the space between the Heavenly Court and the dust of a lowly humanity, God allows us to encounter Him in a place we can’t quite understand and that may not always follow the simple “A, B, C, D” sequencing of a Calvinist. It’s a space where God is absolute and sovereign and where human beings have the opportunity to bring our case before the King and the Judge…and where we know He will listen because He is also a loving Father and supportive Teacher.

In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words…

–Romans 8:26

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

–Hebrews 4:14-16

At the end of my days, God will judge me and He will mete out whatever consequences, for good or for ill, that it is His pleasure to deliver. I pray for a favorable outcome, but as I look at myself, there’s no guarantee. What man knows if His name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life until it is read aloud by the Lamb himself?

If the Calvinists are right about God, then I may have been conceived and born in hopelessness and everything I’ve said or done is in vain. But if God allows His mercy to even slightly outweigh His justice, then it may still be possible for man to relent, to turn from sin, beg forgiveness, and step into the light.

I pray that can be true for me. I pray that can be true for all of us.

Uncategorized

Fish Out Of Water

June 12, 2013 James Pyles 5 Comments

A true master of life never leaves this world—he transcends it, but he is still within it.

He is still there to assist those who are bonded with him with blessing and advice, just as before, and even more so.

Even those who did not know him in his corporeal lifetime can still create with him an essential bond.

The only difference is in us: Now we must work harder to connect.

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Connecting”
Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson
Chabad.org

“The Son of David will not come till a fish is sought for an invalid and cannot be found.”

-Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a

The Son of David is a diminutive reference to the Messiah, who will be a descendent of the royal house of David, King of Israel. The diminutive reference is strange in itself, but even more strange is the contention that the coming of the Messiah is dependent on an invalid in search of an unfound fish. What did Rabbi Menachem Mendel see in this passage that could reflect on his present situation?

-Rabbi Eli Rubin
“Lisbon 1941: The Messiah, the Invalid, and the Fish:
The private journal of the Lubavitcher Rebbe reveals a dual vision for the future of humanity”
Chabad.org

My wife sent me the email version of Rabbi Rubin’s article about the Rebbe, the Messiah, the Invalid, and the Fish and I still can’t figure out why. Maybe she just thought I’d find it intellectually stimulating or maybe she was sending me a message about my faith in Jesus as Messiah.

I do find it stimulating, which is why I’m writing about it, but more than that, I think the Rebbe’s message about Messiah tells us something about ourselves.

But I’ll get to that in a moment. One of the things I found in the article and learned at some previous point in time is that at least within some streams of Judaism, there is no single scenario that is thought to bring the Messiah. As far as what the Rebbe was teaching he said that there were two different generations that could possibly see the Messiah come: one that was entirely worthy or one that was entirely unworthy.

Seems contradictory and unnecessarily complicated from a Christian point of view. We tend to think that the Messiah will come when he comes. It’s up to God, not us. We can’t do anything about it and we certainly can’t be “worthy” of his coming.

…as it is written:

“There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.”

–Romans 3:10-11 (NRSV)

But then, as my wife has told me before, Christians and Jews think in fundamentally different ways. As I previously said, in certain areas of Judaism, it is thought that people have the ability to change the timing of Messiah’s arrival based on our collective behavior. That then lends itself to multiple circumstances by which Messiah could appear (or “return” from the Christian perspective):

Rabbi Menachem Mendel offers two explanations of the earlier passage, corresponding to these alternative scenarios. In the first, the redemption is well deserved due to the lofty station at which society has arrived; in the second, redemption is bestowed because the alternative is utter deterioration.

This brings us back to our invalid: The diminutive designation “Son of David” indicates that the redeemer is worthy of his messianic status only due to his lineage. Likewise, the generation to be redeemed is also deficient, suffering from the spiritual maladies of sin and moral degeneration.

At a time when the world was ailing, and the Holocaust was already underway, Rabbi Menachem Mendel confronted the paradoxical possibility of evil in the presence of G‑d. The cause of such spiritual illness, he wrote, is human forgetfulness. We can do evil only if we forget that we are in the presence of G‑d.

The Rebbe’s commentary didn’t come out of a vacuum. The backdrop for all this was the Holocaust, World War Two, when the Rebbe and his wife were trying to leave Lisbon for the United States to escape Nazis in 1941. The time when the world went mad or as mad as anyone thought we could get up to that point.

“We can do evil only if we forget that we are in the presence of G‑d.”

Well, yes and no.

“Yes,” in the sense that when we believe we are doing “evil” or anything wrong, we cannot simultaneously be acutely conscious of the fact that God is watching over our shoulder, so to speak. It would be like a man cheating on his wife while his wife was in the same room. If we choose to sin, we must temporarily pretend that God isn’t watching in order not to be immediately seized with horrible guilt (of course if we are wired correctly in a moral and spiritual sense, we should experience guilt anyway, even without a direct awareness of the presence of God).

But it is also “no” in the sense that we do “evil” and do not recognize what we are doing is evil. People who operate within the bounds of what you might call “self-righteousness” are quite guilty of this and also quite unaware of their guilt. In fact, they might feel completely justified and even believe that God approves of their evil acts, calling their evil “good.”

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

–Isaiah 5:20

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

–2 Timothy 4:3-4

The Westboro Baptist Church is the most extreme example I can think of within “Christianity,” though I don’t count them as disciples of Christ. They perform heinous acts against grieving families of American military personnel who have died in the service of our country and believe it is somehow all for the glory of Jesus.

Of course, most believers commit such “evil” in far less spectacular ways but they are no more conscious of their wrongdoing than the aforementioned Westboro folks. Confront them if you will, but they’ll turn every argument you make against you (and that’s happened to me more than once) as if you, in attempting to uphold the Biblical principles of forgiveness, kindness, and compassion are making terrible Biblical errors and their own fire-breathing doctrine is the only way to please God.

That makes the following statement all the more ironic.

This is where the Talmudic fish comes in. Fish are a metaphor for the knowledge that we are ever submerged in the presence of G‑d. Just as a fish cannot live out of water, so the spiritual health of humanity can be preserved only if we are consciously aware of G‑d’s all-encompassing presence. It is at a moment that G‑d’s presence is utterly hidden—when no fish can be found for the invalid—that the redemption must arrive.

Ironic and true.

We live in a world where no fish can be found, when it seems as if the presence of God has completely left our world. Good literally is being called evil and evil is literally being called good in terms of the various social priorities and journalistic pronouncements we find daily in the popular media.

I keep expecting Jesus to come around the corner at any second, given what the Rebbe has said.

“Just as a fish cannot live out of water, so the spiritual health of humanity can be preserved only if we are consciously aware of G‑d’s all-encompassing presence.”

We are one sick and dying fish.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s second interpretation lays out the flip side of this vision. So long as the hand of G‑d has not yet been forced, and the redemption has not yet arrived, the burden of responsibility still lies on the shoulders of humanity. We can repair the world, so we must repair the world, ultimately bringing it to an era that is “entirely worthy” and ripe for redemption. In an era of human perfection, man will strive to lose all sense of ego, desiring to become utterly submerged within the divine self.

But maybe not completely dead (though I wouldn’t say we can possibly be “worthy”).

At least from a Jewish point of view, we can do something to help. Maybe we can’t actually summon the Messiah, which is what a Christian believes, but we can still be more “Messiah-like.” Some Christians used to wear those “WWJD” or “What Would Jesus Do” bracelets, but we can go one better and just do what Jesus would do in the world. What did he teach? Is the answer going to come as a big surprise?

Feed the hungry, visit the sick, comfort the grieving, help anyone hurting in whatever way they need help. Change someone’s flat tire. Volunteer to take “meals on wheels” to the elderly and the infirm. Pick a need and fulfill it. I don’t care which one. Just quit being a “sick fish” by going out of your way to hurt other people because that is your special or only way of “serving” God.

According to the Rebbe’s metaphor, the fish is “sick” for the love of God but as immersed as the fish is, the fish and the water aren’t ever going to be the same thing:

Similarly, the worthy invalid is “sick” with love for G‑d, desiring utter submergence but unable to cross the infinite divide separating man from G‑d.

The best we can do, and that’s only by the grace of God, is to imitate our Master in how we do good to others. Maybe that will bring the Messiah back sooner and maybe it won’t but it sure couldn’t hurt. In fact, it probably will do some good, if not in a cosmic sense, then at least in a down-to-earth human sense.

Four decades later, Rabbi Menachem Mendel delivered a public talk in which he explained that at every moment we face two very different visions of the future. On the one hand, we anticipate the imminent revelation of a new era of eternal good; on the other hand, we invest long-term commitment and energy into a more gradual transformational process, changing the world from the bottom up.

I don’t believe the world and the people in it are anywhere near “the imminent revelation of a new era of eternal good.” Looking at the news headlines for five minutes will tell you that humanity is no better now than at any time in the past, and some might argue that we’re getting worse all the time. That leaves the Rebbe’s “Plan B:” investing in a long-term commitment to gradually transform the world from the bottom up, one act of kindness at a time.

Multiple sources have been attributed to the famous quote, “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.” Whoever first said it knew what they were talking about. Sitting on your bottom and doing nothing isn’t actively “evil” but it does nothing to produce “good.”

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

That’s pretty much it. How many “good men” did nothing while six-million Jews died? How many good men have done nothing while countless men, women, and children starved, or died in wars, or died in riots, or died due to political indifference to human rights?

Doing nothing won’t keep you safe and doing evil in the name of good is just as bad or worse.

If we are truly connected to God and truly love Him, then we have no choice but to also love human beings. God loves human beings…all of us, regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, language, and (gasp) religion. Like it or not, God loves the Muslim, the Taoist, the Buddhist, as well as God loves the Christian and the Jew. God loves us even though we screw up pretty much all the time, even the best of us.

If we restrict our love, then we are hardly being “Christ-like” and thus we’ve already tainted our response to God and our ability to do good in the world.

“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

–Matthew 5:46

This isn’t rocket science. This isn’t esoteric and arcane knowledge hidden within the murky depths of some obscure part of the Bible. This is the “easy stuff.” Well, it’s easy in that it’s pretty easy to comprehend. Obviously given the state of certain areas of the religious blogosphere and various believing congregations, home groups, and families scattered across the landscape, it’s not really that easy to do, otherwise there’d be a power surge of constantly doing good in the world.

Take a look at the last time you talked to another person. Was it in kindness, indifference, or anger? If you’re a blogger (or you comment on blogs), what was the last topic you wrote or commented on? Were you encouraging and supportive? Were you insulting and accusatory? Given everything I’ve written so far, you should be able to quickly figure out if you’re doing the will of the Master in the world or the opposite.

Do not bring us into the power of error, nor the power of transgression and sin, nor into the power of challenge, nor into the power of scorn. Let not the Evil Inclination dominate us. Distance us from an evil person and an evil companion. Attach us to the Good Inclination and to good deeds and compel our Evil Inclination to be subservient to You. Grant us today and every day grace, kindness, and mercy in Your eyes and in the eyes of all who see us.

-from the Siddur

You’re either a fish in the water immersed into the reality of God or you’re a fish out of water (Marco Polo). If you’re out, then you’re dying and you don’t even know it. You think you’re in a vast ocean when in fact, your tiny little puddle is evaporating like a raindrop in the Arizona desert sun in August. You don’t have much time.

I don’t believe people will ever be “worthy” enough for the age of Messiah to come. I think our world and the people in it will continue to degrade until he either comes or we destroy ourselves, eating each other alive. But those of us who are disciples of the Master can continue to strive to be a little more like him every day. In that way, maybe he will find at least a few people who have faith when he finally returns, may it be soon and in our day.

Uncategorized

The Bible as a Quantum Cookbook

June 12, 2013 James Pyles 5 Comments

When I was young, my father, a rabbi, would roll up his sleeves in front of an open Talmud and spend four or five hours putting different postulates and corollaries together as though he were building a road in ancient Rome. It wasn’t easy, but he was determined. He would concentrate unrelentingly on the words and sentences until he fashioned a pshat – a line of reasoning – to make things work. Lazy thinking was as far from him as Queens was from the Pacific.

He was the whole world to me, and I yearned to know what he knew, to be like him. But he and I were too different; we still are. My father is thoroughly God-centered and deeply committed to mastery of religious texts. He is a man of principles, scholarship, organization, planning, and goals. I, on the other hand, am both less scholarly and less organized along rational principles. I cannot be like my father, as much as I may have awkwardly, painfully tried.

-Dr. Simon Yisrael Feuerman
“My Father and the Talmud”
Aish.com

While Rabbi Shkop was spending his final years directing a Talmudic academy in Grodno, Belarus, a tight-knit community of theoretical physicists not so far away was discussing a strikingly similar problem. Instead of a married woman, however, the subject was a cat.

It was the summer of 1935, and Erwin Schrödinger’s thoughts were preoccupied with the fate of a small cat that had somehow been trapped in a metal box with a glass bottle of cyanide. A small hammer hung precariously over the bottle, attached to a kind of Geiger counter, on top of which sat a substance containing a single atom of some radioactive material (my guess would be nitrogen-13). The cat was certainly in danger. As soon as the atom would decay, the Geiger device would drop the hammer so as to smash the bottle, releasing the cyanide and killing the cat.

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“Quantum Talmud: How Deep Can Talmud Go?”
Chabad.org

I recently suggested in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of my discussion on Arminianism and Calvinism, as well as in a blog post about the potential for unknown qualities of the Bible, that the Word of God may have more to it than meets the eye.

I know “Talmud” exceeds the definition of “Torah” or “Bible” for most Christians by quite a bit, but I’ve been having a small discussion with someone named “ProclaimLiberty” on Sunday’s and Monday’s “meditations,” and they seem related to how we perceive the Jewish authority relative to the Bible (and Jewish authority as it exists after the Biblical canon closed) as well as the nature of the Bible and the supernatural itself.

While the quote from Dr. Feuerman’s article illustrates a simple desire to gain a traditional Jewish understanding of Talmud and thus Jewish thought (though like Feuerman, it may always be beyond me), Rabbi Freeman’s article (which is exceptionally lengthy) manages to compare the dynamics of Talmud study with Quantum Physics. I never thought of those two processes being related in any way, but Rabbi Freeman makes a compelling if complicated case.

But what does that have to do with anything, especially a Christian’s understanding of the Bible?

Well, the Pentacostal and Charismatic movements re-introduced the notion that revelation did not necessarily cease 19 centuries ago. Of course, that notion also has been abused terribly to justify everything from charlatanism to insanity. Re-introducing the notion of messianic Judaism also was difficult 4 decades ago, and it is still resisted in some quarters. It could be viewed also as having been already abused in some measure.

Thus I understand very well your sense of the difficulty about re-introducing a notion of the continuity (more than merely a restoration) of Jewish authority. It has been hard enough to convey the idea that Jewish believers are entitled to be something more than or different from merely some ethnic expression of Christianity. But this suggestion derived from Matt.23:3a undermines a fundamental viewpoint underlying the Nicene Council and the creeds it developed. It opens a door to a very scary world in which large segments of Christian doctrine could need to be re-invented. Furthermore, it threatens to unleash another wave of Christian guilt over its historical treatment of Jews. On the other hand, theologians love that sort of challenge; and if Christianity hasn’t learned how to request and accept forgiveness, something truly is fundamentally wrong (though there may be some need to learn a bit more about how repentance and atonement work).

-ProclaimLiberty’s comment on my blog
June 10, 2:45 am

I invite you to read the entire exchange of comments to get the full flavor of what was discussed, but PL brings to the table the compelling suggestion that Jews didn’t lose the authority provided by God to issue binding halakhic rulings after the Biblical canon was closed sometime in the early centuries of the Common Era.

Christians are almost universally going to reject that idea, but it’s at the heart of Jewish religious observance and Talmudic study within Messianic Judaism (as well as the other streams of Judaism today) and is based, interestingly enough, on a Biblical principle found in Matthew 23:3 (though I’ve yet to hear a Christian interpret that verse in such a fashion).

(PL isn’t the first Jewish commentator to bring up this interpretation of Matthew 23:3. For more details, please read Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse Their Halakhah? (PDF) by Noel S. Rabbinowitz.)

This may mean that, for the Jewish people in general and for Jewish Messianics in particular, Rabbinic authority to make binding rulings over specific Jewish communities under God’s directives continued in some fashion after the Jewish/Gentile Christian split and continued across time and into the present. Of course, such a suggestion isn’t without problems as PL addresses in the same comment:

Of course, even if the notion of Jewish authority continuity were wholeheartedly adopted, there would still be a lot of analytical work to do examining how it might apply to non-Jews, and in what measure. Along with that analysis is one that would examine how a number of statements in Jewish literature were developed. For example, some statements were polemical responses in defense of Judaism under the pressure of Christian assault. While we don’t throw away such opinions in Judaism, we do at times limit their applicability and effectivity to specific circumstances, even when they were responsible for accepted elements of halakhah.

The “analytical work” involved to “examine how a number of statements in Jewish literature were developed” and the application of some of the more difficult Talmudic statements to Messianic Judaism (let alone non-Jews involved in the Messianic movement) has yet to be done, at least to any significant extent (to the best of my knowledge), but I believe a whole world of study would open up to Christians if we could just see the Bible from the perspective PL seems to represent.

PL was less than impressed by what he calls “esoteric mystical perception” as he commented in our conversation in my other meditation, but then, he’s had some rather unique experiences in that area as well.

However, I still maintain that the Bible is more than the sum of its parts and, as Rabbi Tzvi Freeman has remarked, (and I paraphrase) the Torah is not a book about what God thinks about so much as an illustration about how God thinks.

Reading Rabbi Freeman’s commentary on Talmud study and Quantum Physics, I’m convinced I’d never make a good student of either discipline. I must however, admire a mind that can grasp even the very basics of both.

Today’s “meditation” probably seems a little “over the top,” even for me, but since reading Rabbi Freeman’s article on Talmud and Quantum Physics last week, I’ve been periodically considering the implications if any portion of what he presents can be said to be relevant to non-Jews outside the stream of Jewish thought.

Back when I was an undergraduate for the first time in the early 1970s, I took a few astronomy classes. I might have considered making a career out of it if I could have handled the math. However, among the things I learned in my beginning astronomy class, I learned that we can consider light as both as a wave and a particle. Depending on how we consider light in terms of the math involved and under direct observation, it can behave either as one or the other. Depending on the circumstances of human investigation, we treat light either one way or the other.

In quantum physics, a particle has a potential for a number of locations in space until we observe that particle, then it appears in a single location only, and from that location, we can trace it back to where it must have been.

But why does its location only become fixed when we observe it? What is happening to the particle when we don’t observe it?

As I asked before, what does any of this have to do with the Bible?

The Bible isn’t a particle (or a wave) of light. It exists in the “macro” world and just like Schrödinger’s hypothetical cat (no, he never put a real cat in danger…it was a thought experiment), we can’t actually apply what we know about subatomic particles to objects like cats and Bibles in our world.

Unless you consider the study of the Bible (like Talmud study) to be somewhat “transcendent” of the world we live in.

I admit that his all requires more mental gymnastics than I am capable of, just like a career in astronomy (I probably would have specialized in cosmology or the study of the origins of the universe, but I wouldn’t have ruled out planetary astronomy), but just like astronomy, I find the more esoteric aspects of the Bible to continue to be compelling in my present-day life.

All this complexity of thought (some of you may see this as unnecessarily complex) comes down to something very simple and something I’ve said before. I think it’s possible for the Word of God to contain far more than we imagine. I think that if we treat the Bible as far more than just a book full of ancient writings, it will “behave” in that manner.

Oh sure, I know this could easily lead to people projecting their (our) desires and imaginations onto the text, reading what we want to read in-between the lines, but what if God Himself put something in-between the lines for us to find? What if it takes someone with the mind and imagination of a Talmud scholar or Quantum physicist to find the place in-between the lines (and that someone would not be me)?

What if that “something” holds the answer to questions like the Calvinism-Arminianism debate or at least provides us with a perspective that throws said-debate clear out of the fifth floor window, defenestrating the very idea that human beings can turn the Bible into a “cookbook” containing Calvin’s and Arminius’s separate “recipes” for salvation?

Food for thought.

Uncategorized

Taking the Fork in the Road: Discussing Arminianism and Calvinism, Part 3

June 11, 2013 James Pyles 5 Comments

I’m continuing to read Dr. Manfred E. Kober’s article “Divine Election or Human Effort?”. I’ve just finished “Chapter 3: The Doctrine of Election.” I’m no more convinced of Calvinism now than I was when I read the previous two chapters (see Taking the Fork in the Road: Discussion Arminianism and Calvinism, Part 1 and Part 2 for context before proceeding here).

The simplest way for me to write this is in a linear fashion, which is how I took my notes as I was reading through the chapter. It’s the longest chapter in Kober’s paper, and it inspires a rather lengthy response from me in my blog.

Chapter 3, on pages 18 and 19, presented a list of “elections” and where they can be found in the Bible. One very important election is the election of Israel, point two on the list:

For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me.

–Isaiah 45:4 (NRSV)

Notice the wording in this verse. God chose Israel and has named Israel before Israel ever knew God. That leaves the selection of Israel totally up to God. Israel has nothing to do with it. That’s a key point in Calvinism and one in this blog post as you’ll see in a bit.

Foreknowledge: An active word to indicate a loving relationship, based on the deliberate judgment of God in the eternal plan, which God sustains with certain individuals which results in His choice of them for salvation. Foreknowledge is only used of persons, not events.

-Kober, pg 20

Well, not exactly individual persons.

The Hebrew verb “know” (yadah), has likewise a much deeper meaning than the English word. In Amos 3:2, God speaks to Israel, saying: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord certainly knew about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way. His knowledge is one of a special loving relationship. This is disclosed explicitly to Israel through the prophet Jeremiah. Yahweh speaks: “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. 31:3).

ibid, pg 21

This “foreknowledge” is applied to all of Israel as far as I can tell from this reading, not just from one individual Israelite person to the next. From a Calvinist point of view, it certainly lends legs to the following:

And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written:

“Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”

–Romans 11:26-27

All of Israel will be saved because all of Israel was chosen by God from before the establishment of the foundations of the earth. That seems pretty much a given relative to “foreknowledge” in Calvinism.

According to Kober, “foreknowledge” isn’t just God knowing ahead of time, it’s causative. God Knows Israel and out of that knowledge comes their salvation. According to Kober’s quote of Kenneth S. Wuest, The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1946) pp. 22-24, Acts 2:23 refers to God’s knowledge of the specific purpose for which Jesus would be handed over to be executed. Basically, Jesus was “chosen” before Creation for the purpose of saving at least some of the human race through this execution and resurrection.

He also states that Romans 8:29 refers to God’s foreknowing who would be conformed to the image of His Son. God’s foreknowledge isn’t seeing events happening in the future, but His “will” in loving relationship with certain individuals and (apparently) all of Israel for salvation.

On page 36 of his paper, Kober says:

Even the Apostle Paul expected opposition to such a doctrine from men who were deceived by the impulses of their depraved minds.

No kidding. If I heard Paul say that all Israel was to be saved but only some of the Gentiles from the nations, I might have a few objections as well.

Oh wait!

As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.”

–Romans 9:13

I can imagine how many of Paul’s Gentile disciples, if they interpreted his words the way a Calvinist does, would object quite a bit to all Jews being saved, but only some of the Gentiles who were part of Paul’s listening and letter-reading audience. It’s good news for Israel, but only so-so news for the nations. I’m feeling pretty “Esau” right now.

Kober quotes Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, saying:

Thus knowledge [in the Old Testament] has an element of acknowledgment…Finally, the element of will [yadah] emerges with particular emphasis when it is used of God, whose knowing established the significance of what is known. In this connection, [yadah] can only mean “to elect,” i.e., to make an object of concern and acknowledgement. Gen:18:19; Ex. 33:12; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Jer. 1:5.

Quoting Charles H. Spurgeon, Election (Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications, 1964), pg 13, Kober writes:

In like manner, to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith, which is salvation in the germ, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is a gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift.

It occurred to me as I got to this point in the chapter that Calvinists must feel pretty secure because, to hold such a belief, you would certainly have to believe you’re among the elect of God. No one who had doubts about their election could possibly be a Calvinist because you’d never feel comfortable in your own skin. You’d have to worry about whether or not you’re saved. If God elected you, that’s great. If not, well…too bad.

Also, if you had even the slightest compassion for the rest of humanity, what would it be like to be a Calvinist? Sure, you could comfort yourself saying it’s God’s decision and not yours, but if you have even a minimal moral conscience, you’d still have to stop and wonder about so many people condemned to eternal suffering just because they (we) were born.

In the section of the chapter called “The Defense of Modified Calvinism,” (pg 27) Kober quoted John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London: Camelot Press Ltd., 1961), pg 11:

The point at issue between Calvin and his opponents is thus simple, but it is of course fundamental. Substantially what they do is to wrest the ground of salvation out of God’s own hand where alone, Calvin holds, it rightly belongs, and to deposit it within the contingent realm of human volition and freewill.

Actually, based on my thoughts in the previous two parts of this commentary, both Calvinists and Arminians attempt to wrest the secret of God’s salvation from Him, bringing it down into the realm of men so each theoretical camp can put their stamp of ownership on it.

But if Calvinism is right, then I probably only think I’m saved and I have no real assurance that I am short of dying and finding out what happens next. Yeah, God has the right to put me (and the rest of humanity) in such a precarious position, but is He really that capricious?

And what’s the point of Abraham debating God about the fate of Sodom if its fate was already sealed?

So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

–Genesis 18:22-33

And what was the point of this conversation?

Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

–Matthew 19:16-22

In either case, the transactions were pointless if Calvinism is right. The fate of Sodom and of the rich young man were both sealed before any living creature drew its first breath on earth. Why didn’t Jesus just answer the fellow that either he had eternal life or he didn’t? Certainly Jesus knew if he was among the elect. God already made the decision. The rich young guy had nothing to do with it. However, since he was most likely Jewish, it doesn’t seem to matter if we can take Calvinism’s word for the election of Israel. By definition, all Israel is elected.

But individual Gentiles only have faith and thus are saved because it is God’s gift to those people that they have faith. They don’t really have faith in anything that resembles their own volition. God gave them the gift of faith so they have it. God didn’t give others faith and so they don’t have it thus they aren’t saved.

Kober quotes Spurgeon at length on page 32 to try to explain election and choice in a way we can understand.

But let me give you a better illustration. You see a mother with a babe in arms. You put a knife into her hand, and tell her to stab that babe in the heart. She replies, and very truthfully, “I can not.” Now, as far as her bodily power is concerned, she can, if she pleases; there is the knife, and there is the child. The child can not resist, and she has quite sufficient strength in her hand immediately to stab it into its heart. But she is quite correct when she says she can not do it. As a mere act of the mind, it is quite possible she might think of such a thing as killing the child, and yet she says she can not think of such a thing; and she does not say falsely, for her nature as a mother forbids her doing a thing from which her soul revolts. Simply because she is that child’s parent she feels she can not kill it.

It is even so with a sinner. Coming to Christ is so obnoxious to human nature that, although, so far as physical and mental forces are concerned (and there have but a very narrow sphere in salvation) men could come if the would: it is strictly correct to say that they can not and will not unless the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them.

-Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons on Sovereignty (Ashland, Ky.: Baptist Examiner Book Shop, 1959), pp 123, 124

So what Spurgeon is saying is that if we believe we are saved then we are because no one would even consider accepting the “free gift” of salvation unless they were among the elect. Otherwise, it would seem a totally obnoxious idea to the person.

Nah. Not buying it.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

–Matthew 7:21-23

If Spurgeon is correct, then the people described by the Master couldn’t exist. If they were “evil doers,” they’d never have accepted the gift of faith and salvation because as sinners, it would be too odious a thought to even consider.

On page 33, Kober tries to distinguish free will vs. free agency to explain why even though people have zero control over whether or not they are elected, those who aren’t are still totally responsible for their lack of salvation. It’s their sins that condemn them, not lack of being elected.

So let me get this straight. If we’re saved, it’s totally up to God. We have nothing to do with. But if we’re not saved, it’s totally our fault and God has nothing to do with it.

Uh huh.

I can see why Gandhi rejected Christianity:

“Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?”

Gandhi replied, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

-Jones, E. Stanley, (1925). The Christ of the Indian Road. Abingdon Press, 72-73.

From a Calvinist’s point of view, we are only saved by the will of God. God doesn’t use any particular characteristic of the humans he elects as a method of making His selections. He chooses who He chooses for His own purposes and glory. If that’s all true, what about this?

The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

–2 Peter 3:9

If God doesn’t want any to perish but all to be saved and if it’s entirely up to God who gets saved and who doesn’t, then why doesn’t God save everybody?

We don’t know.

However, near the end of the chapter, Kober does tip his hand about the timing of the Messiah’s return. Haven’t you ever wondered why he hasn’t come yet? According to Kober’s paper on Calvinism, there are a specific number of names written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. When all of the people who have their names in that book are born and “saved,” then Jesus will return. The simple fact is that there are names in that book who haven’t been born yet.

I’m glad Calvinists don’t run the universe and that John Calvin isn’t God. It may not be “Biblical,” but I have to believe that God can’t be put in a box and neither can the mystery of “election” and salvation. One thing I am glad about is that, if Calvin is right, then God really is taking care of His people Israel and since they are elected, they are saved.

But if I am somehow forced to accept Calvin as “the truth” about God, then what hope do I have? Even if by some miracle, God did elect me (I can’t see why, I’m hardly a perfect person…I’m no saint or tzaddik), then what about my wife? What about my children? How am I supposed to feel if I’m saved but they’re not (but since they’re Jewish, who knows)?

But it’s not just Calvin I object to but the whole Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Each side thinks that they can distill the Bible down into some formula of verses that equate an “answer” to salvation. Both groups and the people they contain, think they can reduce God into a system that they can then control.

I am compelled to maintain a steadfast faith in God and not the Calvin/Arminius dynamic surrounding salvation, because if I had to see the Bible only through Calvin/Arminius-colored glasses, like Gandhi, I’d love Jesus and hate Christianity, and I’d drop the church like a hot rock.

Uncategorized

The Undiscovered Continent of God

June 10, 2013 James Pyles 6 Comments

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
–2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NRSV)

Wisdom that can only be accessed by the angels or by enlightened sages is limited wisdom. Torah is said to be G-d’s wisdom and as such must be boundless. Just as G-d is everywhere and in all things, while at the same time entirely transcendent of all things, so His wisdom must be a wisdom that is equally accessible to a five-year-old child as to a great scholar–as long as there is a mind there to receive. Stories about two brothers fighting, rules about splitting an article of disputed ownership–these are simple matters that everyone can relate to. And yet, in the way Torah deals with them, you can find a well of infinite wisdom.

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“G-d in the Talmud”
Chabad.org

This will probably get me in a lot of trouble, but I’ve been thinking about part of the conversation Pastor Randy and I had last Wednesday night. We had gotten together to discuss chapters 6 and 7 of D. Thomas Lancaster’s book The Holy Epistle to the Galatians, but one discussion inspiring comment in this book often sends Pastor Randy and I down unanticipated trails.

We were talking about the “nature” of the Bible. Pastor Randy is a self-proclaimed literalist and rests the core of his understanding of the Bible on being able to read the text in its original languages, factoring in the context, history, and “personhood” of the writing and the writer. On that level, you should be able to understand 100% of the Bible’s content as long as you have a sufficient background in the ancient languages, cultures, histories, and in some cases, biographies involved in the authoring of the various books and chapters.

But we both acknowledge that it doesn’t seem to work out that way. While some parts of the Bible seem to be understood in the same manner by most people, others elicit wild disagreements, sometimes even by people within the same church, let alone between different Christian churches, between different denominations, and certainly between Christianity and Judaism.

The other part that came up, as noted by Rabbi Freeman above, is that the Bible can be accessed on a variety of conceptual levels, from that of a five-year old child, to an aged, wise, and highly educated scholar. Pastor and I agreed that the Bible contains “depths” such that we can continue to explore forever and we will never comprehend all that there is this side of the Messiah.

I tried to introduce the idea that there might be a “mystic” side to all this built into the Bible itself but that statement came into conflict with Pastor Randy’s view of the Bible as an “object” that God deliberately caused to be written in human languages by human beings. In other words, God wants us to understand the Bible as a revelation…

…doesn’t He?

In my opinion, yes and no.

An atheist can look at the Bible and compare it with other religious, mystical, and philosophical texts. The Bible is sometimes studied in universities as literature rather than as a sacred text. If only viewed at the level of an object containing words on paper, it should be ultimately knowable, and if it wasn’t uniquely inspired by God, it should be ultimately known. After almost two-thousand years of intense study, you’d think we’d have the Bible pretty much “mapped” by now.

Except we don’t. We haven’t reached the “limits” of the Bible. In plumbing its depths, we haven’t reached the bottom of its Mariana Trench. Those people who feel there’s nothing left to learn from the Bible either gave up too soon or they are choosing not to take the Bible seriously and meet it at where the Bible “lives.”

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

–Genesis 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

–John 1:1-5

God spoke and the world was, and yet that spoken word is somehow also the living Messiah and if every word in what we call “the Bible” is also God-breathed, then the Bible we hold in our hands, though it is a printed book, is also something much more. So what do we find in the Bible when we actually try to read and understand what God is trying to tell us and how do we find the deeper message?

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

–John 14:26

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

“For who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

–1 Corinthians 2:12-16

We seem to require a unique set of tools beyond the usual hermeneutics, at least if we want to get past a certain level of comprehending the Bible. We actually seems to require some spirit-breathed help, since the Bible is as much a spiritual entity as it is a physical document. Perhaps those depths I’ve been discussing cannot be understood or even discovered without a competent guide, much like Indiana Jones following an ancient map in order to find an even more ancient and elusive treasure.

Or as Rabbi Freeman writes:

Similarly, Torah is not just about “what G-d thinks about” but also about “how to think like G-d.” G-d can choose to think about whatever He wishes to think about. The issue is not the subject but its treatment. That’s why Torah learning, as distinct from typical academic studies, is much more about process than about content. More about “how you got there” and less about “where you got to.”

Certain streams of Judaism have no problem at all understanding the Torah as associated with and even equivalent to God’s own wisdom and thoughts, not just the content of His mind, but the process of God’s thinking. And didn’t Paul say “we have the mind of Christ?”

Almost a month ago, I said that the Bible is water, but from a Chasidic point of view, this is more true than you might think:

When the sages compared the Torah to water, Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains, they had this quality in mind: Just as water descends from the highest place to the lowest without change, so the Torah descends from its place in the highest realms to become invested in mundane, material issues so that every person can grasp it–without any essential change in that wisdom.

It is true that God wants us to know Him from the Bible, but that may be a greater truth than we realize. The Bible is designed to be accessible and knowable to just about anyone, and yet it is not so knowable that it can ever completely be known, even by the greatest sage or scholar in any tradition across the vast span of human history.

The Bible is at once a book that can be read in its simplicity and an amazingly vast and unknown continent that has never been visited by people before. And it is all good, it is all very good.

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

–Psalm 19:7-11 (ESV)

But as accessible as the Bible is supposed to be to anyone and everyone, beyond a certain point, it’s best not to “go it alone.” When exploring unknown or uncertain territory, in addition to a map, it never hurts to have one or more experienced guides.

I’m convinced that it is the viewpoints of men like Paul Philip Levertoff and their uniquely Jewish view of the teachings of Messiah that will help open up the unknown continent to us. It is true that said “lost continent” will never be completely known, but it is completely knowable, and that is the challenge is before us (I’m hardly discounting the Spirit of God as our guide, but scholars and theologians are also men of the Spirit who can teach us).

I heard Daniel Lancaster recently say that we must examine the New Testament within its native environment: Judaism. In the case of most Christians, I don’t think it would hurt to have a guide who is Jewish and who knows the lay of the land.

It’s books like Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age and its accompanying commentary, as well as the soon to be released The Everlasting Jew by Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein that will be our traveling companions.

Ultimately the Spirit of God and the mind of Messiah will be our guides but we are the explorers. We are the men and women putting on our expedition hats or strapping on an Aqualung to our backs, getting ready to stride into the antediluvian forests or dive into the prehistoric oceans in search of secrets that have only been whispered since the Spirit of the Word moved over those waters who knows how long ago.

Looking at the Bible as a book with words and language and history and context makes it approachable by human beings and thus not so intimidating. Looking at the Bible like mystery novel and mysticism helps us realize how far beyond humanity is the wisdom and words of an infinite God.

This is only the beginning of the adventure.

"When you awake in the morning, learn something to inspire you and mediate upon it, then plunge forward full of light with which to illuminate the darkness." -Rabbi Tzvi Freeman