IS JESUS BEING CRUEL WHEN HE CALLS A WOMAN A 'DOG' IN Mark 7:24?

So the obvious problem in this passage is how dismissive (even cruel!) Jesus seems to be of this poor woman and her plea for help.  Two points can be made to help us understand what Jesus was saying to her.

1.  There is at root in Jesus response a consistent New Testament principle about the flow of salvation from Jew first, to Gentile second.  Because of God’s promises to Abraham, salvation is “from” the Jews (as Jesus himself said, John 4:22) and so it must always start with the Jews before it goes anywhere else.  

Jesus ministry reflects this.  Given that the Christian church took on such an international flavor so early, we are surprised that Jesus doesn't have much interaction with Gentiles. Yes, he famously talked with a Samaritan woman, and praised a Roman centurion, but if God wants to enfold all people, why not go all out and travel to Rome?  Instead, Jesus has a calling to Israel, and it's very intentional.  

Now, when he does work with Gentiles, he is amazingly gracious, foreshadowing that the gospel will go to them – eventually - but that’s NOT his focus.  So when he says in Mark 7:27 that the "children" must eat all they want first he is meaning the children of Israel.  And “eating” here must refer to their chance to get in on God’s healing grace that’s being revealed in Messiah.  In Matthew 15 the parallel account shows Jesus saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - he has missional specificity and he doesn't apologize for it. Again, going 'first' to Jews does not mean that salvation will not ever be offered to Gentiles – it will be!  Intentionally, specifically and prolifically!  This was anticipated and even commanded by Jesus himself – just not “first”.

Well, even if we can see a divinely ordered sequence to Christ's mission, we still have to deal with his calling a Gentile a “Dog”.  It's a horrible slur to us, and frankly it was also in their context.  Gentiles were called 'dogs' by Jews because they were considered unclean, and without God's law, sort of bestial.

Despite that common usage, I think Jesus may be using the term more as illustration here than slur.  We can infer this because the image he presents is of a feast on the table, and dogs around tables looking for scraps to come their way (a common occurrence in my household!).  This is a metaphor for the sequence of gospel mission.  

But given that, the woman's retort is remarkably insightful and full of faith. Without missing a beat, she accepts Jesus illustration and turns into an affirmation of her belief that God loves so lavishly, his gifts are so vast that they spill over far beyond his chosen people.  Jesus loves this response, and grants her request.  

So why does he hesitate?  Not because he doesn’t want to, but because his FIRST mission field is not the Gentiles, which he makes clear many times (in the parallel passage, Matt 15:24, and in his instructions to his disciples in Matthew 10:5,6).  Paul also notes a divine order in dispensing the goods:  Jew first, Gentile second (Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”.) 

Now, why this order?  Probably because of promises to Abraham, the blessing flows from him to his children, which become a great nation and finally to ALL nations of the earth.  Paul will say the Jewish rejection of this blessing will lead directly to the overflow of “crumbs” to the Gentiles.

Jesus alluded to this many times.

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd”

Matt 22:8-10 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'  

In the 2nd example, in Matt 22, the point of the parable is that the Kingdom invitation goes to those you EXPECT it should go to, first.  When they reject it, THEN and only then does it go to the ones you DON’T expect, the "outsiders", the "wild branches" (Romans 11:24), the hobos living in "street corners", the "dogs" – these are all names for us Gentiles in Scripture!  Are you offended by that?  Well, this beautiful woman, apparently, was not.  In fact, her lack of offense probably relates directly to her humble acknowledgement that she is in fact helpless and broken, and such humility is always a key component to saving faith.

Paul tells us that in God’s foreknowledge, he saw his chosen people rejecting free grace, and then in his upside down way, he will take his offer to unsuspecting pagans who weren’t even seeking him, and give them the gift his own children rejected (Romans 9:30).  And all this underscores just how awesome God is, how great in mercy, and how the first shall be last, and the last first.

But to prove that, God has to START with the FIRST – that is, the Jews, which is exactly what Jesus does.  The fact that this woman anticipates all this, and sees God's heart to make the last first and graft in the wild branches, before Paul ever wrote explicitly about such ideas, speaks highly of her faith and insight.  No wonder Jesus embraces her!

2.  Secondly these hard comments may not even have been directed at the woman but his disciples.  Taking in the extra detail from the account in Matt 15, when the woman first asked Jesus to help her here's what happened:

Matt 15:23:  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

One scholar I read takes Jesus initial silence as a clue to understand his seeming harshness with the woman  It’s a test, not really for her, but for his followers.  See, his disciples are right there the whole time – and they’re clearly indignant about her and the intensity of her request (and her gender, ethnicity?).  Why doesn't Jesus say anything to her?  Perhaps to see what THEY, the 12, will say.

What they do say is disappointing – “send her away!”  It reveals what's in their hearts.  So Jesus may be responding to their implicit assumptions, when he then reminds them of his mission, first to Jew, then to Gentile.  That comment looks directed at them, not her, since they and their indignation are the subject of the preceding sentence.  Could this be a test to see if they’re getting how big God’s grace is, to see if they can imagine a day or a way that it might be bigger than Israel?  How many people does Jesus have to heal before they see that the heart of God is to bless the whole world!?  They say nothing, perhaps nodding in approval - "yes, the mission is the Jews!".  The one to speak next is not them but the woman, who pleads again, "Lord help me!" (Matt 15:25).

Now, with the disciples right there, silent, one commentator I read imagined Jesus saying what he says to the woman, while looking at the disciples, who we know had been trying to shoo her away.  He imagines Jesus saying it like this:  “Well, lady, as you’ve already gathered from my associates, it’s not right to take God’s gifts and give them just ANYone – right boys?  Isn’t that what you’ve just told her?”

Before they can chime in to agree, or detect the sarcasm and change their tune, the Gentile woman pipes up (for a third time) with amazing faith.  She says in effect, “yes, Lord, but surely God’s gifts are so lavish, so undeserved, so large, that they spill over to everyone, regardless of status - even to someone like me!”

This is what Jesus was hoping his disciples would say.

But Jesus is nevertheless thrilled with this response!  "Good answer!"  "Your Faith is great!"  I mean, we must hear this, because that is not a begrudging or miserly response.  No, Jesus is delightfully surprised by her!  Not just because he longs to help her, but because she has just become the teacher of his own disciples who weren’t getting what they were supposed to be learning by now.

He’s thrilled because this poor woman shows us all what God is looking for in a person - a heart of childlike trust in the extravagant goodness of God for unworthy people - and she shows up the disciples own small mindedness about the size of God’s grace.  His gracious response confirms all this.

Did Jesus Think He Was Coming Back While His Disciples Were Still Alive?

QUESTION:  Mathew 16:28 seems to say that some of the people around Jesus would not die until he comes again. Can you explain this to me?

ANSWER:  Thanks, this is an oft asked question, and it is also asked about another time that Jesus seems to say to his hearers that they will live to see his second coming – in his Olivet Discourse, in Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.”

In both places it’s fairly easy to reconcile these statements with what actually happened, rather than assume that Jesus made a terrible error in promising his second coming within the lifetime of his disciples, when that clearly did not happen.

Let’s start with Matt 16:28: “I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  This does seem to indicate his second coming on first pass, and all the more so because the preceding verse directly references his second coming.

But in the parallel passage in Mark 9:1, we get an additional detail that gives us reason to believe Jesus is not referring to his second coming when he says:  ‘I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come in power.’

Note here it’s phrased, Kingdom of God coming, in Power.  So the event is here in Mark described as a more general revealing of kingdom power, and less specifically the coming of Jesus at the end of time.  But Matthew did refer to the coming of the Son of Man, so this powerful revealing must be about Jesus in some way, even if it’s not THE coming, at the end of time.

We can find a way to fuse the two accounts when we consider the context.  Remember, in both gospels what precedes this promise is Peter’s stubborn refusal to accept Jesus prediction of his demotion and execution (Mark 8:32).  This doesn’t jive with Peter’s view of an exalted and conquering Messiah.  How can Jesus be the true Messiah of Jewish prophesy, if he surrenders to humiliation and death?

So, Jesus is giving assurance that Peter, while wrong about the immediate fate of Messiah, is in fact right about him as exalted and powerful Son of Man (as expected in Daniel’s vision).  To reassure him, he says, “make no mistake, I am that exalted and powerful Messiah of Prophesy and in fact I will reveal that power to some in this circle before they die.”  You won’t have to wait for some ethereal heaven to see me clothed in power, Jesus says, you’ll see it in this life.

Seen this way, it is not a promise relating to his second coming, but simply a promise to see the power of his Kingly, Divine nature, coming to them before they die.  In fact, one might say he is expressly promising to “come in power” BEFORE his second coming.  You won’t have to wait till the end or till after death, he’s saying, you’ll see it soon.

Transfiguration of Christ

The fulfillment of that promise then, comes immediately within a week of hearing it, for Jesus takes “some” of them up on a mountain and he is transfigured before them (Mark 9:2 & Matt 17:2) in power and light.  If they wondered if the humble Jesus, who predicted he was going to die a criminal’s death, could still be the long awaited, powerful and worshiped “Son of Man” of Daniel’s vision, the experience on the mount would have cleared it up!  The Son of Man did indeed come ‘in power’ and they saw it – not his second coming, but a coming in power all the same.  Jesus was who they expected after all, but also so much more.

Regarding Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place”, we realize his promise is for his current hearers when we realize that “all these things” doesn't refer solely or even primarily to the end times and his 2^nd coming but rather to the Temple destruction.

We know this because the entire discourse was started with the disciples admiring the beautiful 2nd Temple.  Jesus responded by saying it would be destroyed and they immediately want to know when that would happen.  They further ask about the sign of the end and his 2nd coming. They tied the two together not doubt assuming that an apocalyptic event such as the Temple’s destruction must presage the very end and Messiah’s restoration.

So the discussion covers the Temple’s destruction and ranges into the signs of the end, but it BEGINS as an answer to that first question, “when will the destruction of the Temple happen?”  If that is true, then the statement in vs 34 about “this generation” is not only accurate but powerfully prophetic!  In fact, the Temple was destroyed before “that generation had passed away” for it happened in 70 AD, within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to Jesus.

As for Jesus including “ALL these things,” the two events (Temple destruction and 2nd Coming) are likely conflated in the minds of the disciples and Jesus doesn't counter this association.  Why not if the events are separated by 2000 years and counting?  Well, the terrors leading up to the coming of the Son of Man were in some sense inaugurated by the destruction of the Temple.  That event marked the beginning of the “last days”.  One might assume Jesus was saying, “This generation will still be alive when all these signs begin to come to pass.”

There is however another way to explain this passage and the NIVR translation resolves the conflict by rendering the Greek as follows:  “What I'm about to tell you is true. The people living at that time will certainly not pass away until all those things have happened. (Matthew 24:34 NIRV)

So the resolution may simply be that “this generation” does not refer to the people listening to Jesus speak at all, but rather to the generation living “at that time” when these terrible events take place.

Either way, I think there’s no reason to think Jesus was thinking only about his actual 2^nd coming in either case.

Is God Arrogant for Wanting Glory?

Maybe you've heard this one before:  God wanting honor and Glory makes him arrogant and I'd never worship a being that desired honor and glory for himself. 

What is the proper response to this?  This is a common objection and I think it’s built on the skeptic's inability to imagine a truly perfect being. The atheist builds this objection on a limited platform of what it means to be human – any person we know of, no matter how great, would be considered an egotistical megalomaniac if he demanded others to tell him how great he is. But God is not a human, not fallen, not in any way imperfect. God is the greatest conceivable Being. Therefore the atheist is here guilty of a failure of the imagination to consider the motivations and actions of a being of truly infinite power, wisdom and love.

So if we do start with such a Being, what should we make of a repeated desire that he be worshiped and that glory be ascribed to him? Well, if we reach in our minds for a PERFECT being, we reject out of hand a motivation as base as arrogance or insecurity. An all-sufficient being has no need to prop up a sagging ego. The atheist has in mind the flighty, petty deities that inhabited Mount Olympus when he sees the God of the Bible being worshiped. He thinks of a schoolyard bully who demands homage and we know why: he fears his own weakness.

But the God of the Bible never comes across like this. Instead, his glory (literally, his “weight”) is simply said to be a fact of his all loving, all holy, all powerful nature (Ex 24:16). His glory is not first a thing he seeks from us, it is first an unalterable fact of his very being. God IS glorious, whether you or I acknowledge it or not. So in that sense, his seeking to be worshiped by us, is not arrogance but a desire to teach a primary lesson in the nature of reality. If God is aback all things, this God is glorious, and when we align ourselves with this fact, we come into truth, and then it goes better for us. Far from being selfish then, God’s desire for glory is a gift to us.

Example: A person can live their life without ever knowing fully electricity really is. They see it, but maybe ascribe it to unknowable forces. But the more they find out what electricity is, the more they develop a healthy fear of its power, while at the same time developing more awe of the benefits of that power if channeled correctly. You can live OK without a really accurate view of electricity, but when you bring your life in line with reality, life takes off. If electricity had a “will” to bless us, it might instruct us to “glorify” the lightning bolt – for our own sake!

Just like that, it is God’s gift to us to show us (in Creation and Redemption) that behind the Universe is a First Cause, who necessarily must be all powerful, self-existent, eternal and spiritual. In a word, Glorious. When we get in line with this reality, we find the Source of our being, the Source of meaning, the Fountainhead from which we sprang, the Source of eternal comfort.

Moses, after being faced with the awesome power of God in the Egyptian plagues, had only one request, to see more of the glory of God (Ex 33). This request was not born out of a man being an obsequious runt, playing to Yahweh’s pathetic need to be feel “great”! Far from it.  Read the text, the OPPOSITE is true. His desire to see the glory of God was born out of God bringing him along in relationship and intimacy – in short, his desire to see more of God’s weighty splendor came as a result of God deciding to share that splendor with him.

How is this arrogant? This is the opposite of petty arrogance or insecurity. This is generosity! God wants to share who he is (his glory) with his creation. And only people who hunger for that glory, will get in on it – again a natural consequence of living in line with reality. Paul says that the people who will not so hunger (IE who did not glorify God) received in themselves all manner of troubles (Romans 1:21-25). Their chief error is that they believed a lie – and certainly if there is a God responsible for this grand universe, to ignore his existence and nature is a terrible oversight and will naturally lead to life not working right – and that's just how Paul's describes those who diminish or deny God’s “glory” (Romans 1:29-31).

As for people being somehow bullied by God into giving God this glory, two misunderstandings are probably happening.

Number one, the skeptic is probably incorrectly interpreting a specific Calvinistic branch of Christianity. They perhaps have a vague idea that Calvinists talk about God’s glory being the sole purpose of all his activity. And when one hears (as some Calvinists believe) that this God has pre-selected people for an eternity in hell, all for the “sake of his glory”, it’s not hard to imagine they have a problem with such a God. I won’t chime in here in on the debate within the church about predestination to hell, but suffice to say that most Calvinists struggle with “double predestination” (election to hell) and so the whole objection to God seeking Glory by sending people to hell, is probably a gross misunderstanding of A) how election works and B) God’s motives within election. We should rightly look at predestination as a separate problem to work out aside from the problem of God’s glory.

Number two, they probably are imagining this God saying time after time, “give me glory!” Perhaps some psalm or proverb in the Bible puts this sentiment in God’s mouth just like that… but I can’t think of even one time myself.  I’m ready to stand corrected on that point.  But the larger point is the repeated examples in Scripture of those human agents who have experienced the glory of God, who willingly and energetically “give God glory” and encourage others to do the same (Ps 29:1,2). Again, most of the time God’s glory is simply described as a simple fact of his perfect, splendorous and weighty nature – and how is that arrogant?

When the call is made to glorify the Lord, it’s usually not (if ever) God’s demand, but the fellow traveler’s plea to us: "I've seen the glory of the King, bring him worship, he’s worthy of it." This is therefore the furthest thing from an arbitrary, self centered demand from a petulant Deity. In Scripture we never find this formula from God’s mouth: “I'm great, say it, say it!"  Rather, the formula is something closer to, “I have greatness within my very Being, and if you will align with it, you will share in it.” (Romans 8:17)

So God's glory turns out to be awesome good news and speaks to God’s awesome liberality, not conceit.

What Should I make of disturbing Bible verses about Children?

Question:

So i was on FB this morning and someone posted (after the shooting tragedy) something about bibles in school - and someone quoted all these Bible verses in response to shut them down. What should i make of them? Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15 He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles. The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17 Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. -- Genesis 22:2,10 God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country. The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30 Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving. And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24 Someday God will force parents eat their own children. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9 And then there`s this statement, which could only be found in the Bible: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

Answer:

The person is obviously trying to tell you that the Bible isn't a good book for children - and frankly no thinking Christian believes that the Bible is kid friendly on every page. It was not written as a children's story. It can and should be taught to children at age appropriate levels (I make no case here regarding public school curriculums), but like with all human history, the details need to be spared depending on your audience.

However, I think the person is not merely saying these verses prove the Bible isn't fit for children. What they're really saying is that the Bible has a barbaric attitude toward children, and further, that you could derive an attitude from the Bible about children that would justify the horrible events in Sandy Hook Elementary. That's the real objection that must be faced in explaining these verses.

The person has nicely organized the verses into categories for me, so I'll keep their heading, but note that the heading itself is misleading in places which I'll make clear:

1. "Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed."

These are the most difficult passages to explain, since they are prescribing (as opposed to mere DESCRIBING) the execution of disobedient children. We wince at the harshness of these laws, but three things help us dampen our outrage.

First, our attitude in the West about the preciousness of children and childhood is owed almost exclusively to Jesus who validated children, women and old age in a way never before seen. So whatever moral superiority this person feels over the Bible's attitude toward children must be viewed through the fact that if it weren't for the Bible, we wouldn't have a high view of children. So we have to read these Mosaic prescriptions through the teaching of Jesus, not the reverse.

Second, it takes only a very cursory reading to realize that none of these laws applies to what we would today consider "children". Notice, the children here are clearly grown. They are "gluttons and drunkards" (know any 5 years olds that fit that description??), and harshly violent, they strike their parents! We call that 1st degree assault in our world - a very serious crime that nets years in prison. It just so happens that today, we have this artificial cut off of "childhood" at 18 where we think parents are no longer responsible for their children (and visa versa). But in the agrarian culture of the Ancient Near East, you were attached to your children for a lifetime, since you even chose their spouses! Parents also, were your responsibility when you were grown. So the importance of maintaining honor into adulthood was far greater, since the contact between parents and children remained intact, underlining just how important it was for grown children to "honor their father and mother". Thus, these laws are speaking about grown children, who fail in their duty to honor their parents in the worst: turning violent and abusive in their disobedience. The community justly saw the need to intervene, to consider such breakdowns in the social order to be devastating and to justify the harshest of punishments.

Third, while we have in the Bible capital punishment prescribed for disobedient children, we have no instance in the entire bible of it ever being enacted. Which suggests that, like today, some laws are mostly symbolic. These express the common moral standard of the community, but the community realizes that the laws themselves are rarely enforced. Sodomy laws were like that in the early States and today where they still exist. These were mostly unenforceable, and so we have only rare cases of them being broken or people being charged, yet they stayed on the books as a statement of the moral consensus of the community about sex. It may be that the lack of descriptions of disobedient children being brought to court by Hebrew parents may reflect the fact that the law itself was largely symbolic of the importance they put on parental honor - a reflection of the community ideal - but rarely if ever followed through on. Remember, in the Mosaic legal system, the burden of proof in all legal matters was very high. You needed two or three witnesses for conviction. So when you read a law, like Exodus 21:15 you might not realize the due process that had to be gone through before you could get to an actual execution. We might assume a parent could have their kid killed willy-nilly! But it was never like that. It is likely you rarely ever had two parents who would prosecute their own children, regardless of how disobedient. We are told Eli, for example, had very awful sons, but even as a priest in Israel, he never prosecuted his own sons, even though we know for a fact that they met the burden of proof as disobedient children under the Mosaic law. But again, even if they HAD been executed as "disobedient children", keep in mind: they were probably grown men in their 20's and 30's, guilty of sexual predation and extortion etc. (1 Sam 1:3ff)

2. "Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens."

This is a Proverb - a pithy, wise saying, but it contains no prescription for what parents should do with their young children. It's a poetical, hyperbolic description of the evil that befalls people who mock their elders. Notice, again the age of the children is not given. It's not meant to bring to mind a young child of 6 being torn apart by a wild bird! It's meant to bring to mind the seriousness of parental dishonor and the judgment that will ensue.

That judgment is a vivid play on the word "eye". The eye, just as easily as the mouth, can mock. We have a saying about that too: "rolling our eyes" at someone. Well, the Bible is saying in colorful language that even this kind of disrespectful heart mocking that comes out the eyes and not the lips, is deplorable. And it's saying, such persons will reap what they sow in a one for one kind of way, IE. The eye mocks, the eye will be destroyed. Scavengers did not kill, they ate already dead carcasses. So this is suggesting people who dishonor their parents will end up dead in some lonely place. It's not a prescription for how we should treat sarcastic kids.

3. "Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God."

This heading for the story of Isaac is a completely wrong headed interpretation of the impact of the text. Many scholars have poured over this story and most agree that the lesson of the story is not, "child sacrifice is a good thing." The lesson is, "God says, no more child sacrifice!" The context of Abraham's world was that every culture and religion practiced infant sacrifice. It was considered the HEIGHT of devotion - what higher act of piety to one's gods could there be? So while we might be horrified that God called Abraham to offer his own son, Abraham apparently was not. It's not unreasonable then, to believe that to get Abraham to understand the heart of God, and that God takes no delight in such sacrifice, and that he forever wants his people to reject it (See Jeremiah 7:31 for God's thought on child sacrifice), he has to play to Abraham's cultural expectations for what a tribal deity would demand. And then, when the moment came, God provides a ram, and in a miraculous confrontation with an Angel, God calls Abraham off. Thus He calls all humanity away from such hideous acts. The lesson then is not "children are worth nothing and you should kill them for God." The lesson is, no more child sacrifice! This is not what I want! True religion with the one True God will never require this, as do the religions of the gods of this earth.

When it comes to Abraham we also have the New Testament writer of Hebrews insight into his mind. He is not thinking that Isaac can truly be killed, for "he must have surmised that God would raise him from the dead." (Heb 11:19) Which mitigates our horror at potential infanticide in this unique case, because Abraham may be thinking something like: "in this special case, my God, who loves life and hates murder, has tested my loyalty to him and my confidence in the certainty of his promises, by asking me to kill the very vehicle of those promises. So my God, who loves life and who is faithful to his promises, will make my sacrifice null and void somehow, someway. I trust him, so I will do this, as an act of obedience, believing that God doesn't need or want Isaac dead, he wants my heart of devotion, and thus he'll reverse this hideous thing.”

4. "God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country."

When someone dies because of an "act of God" this really can't go on the pile of "the disturbing way the Bible talks about kids." The judgment on the firstborn was directly an act of God and as our Creator, this is his right to do. He gives life, he has the right to take it. Especially because from God's perspective, he knows our earthly lives and bodies are temporal.

In this way, God doesn't actually KILL anyone, because the human spirit cannot be killed. God knows this. SO when he “kills” the firstborn children of the Egyptians, what he’s really doing is taking them. Or should we say, transporting them, from one dimension of existence to another. From our temporal perspective, murder is wrong because we END the lives we kill. And we didn’t give that life so it’s not ours to take. God on the other hand cannot murder anyone, since his perspective is eternal, and he doesn't end our existence when he chooses to end our earthly lives.

The fact that he took the lives of these children as children is a tragedy for the parents (it was MEANT to be!) certainly, but again, from God's perspective this might have been a grace to the children. How so? If they grew up in that hideous culture of evil, they would surely grow up outside his grace and would therefore come under his judgment and then wind up suffering eternally, instead of momentarily.

5. "God kills children for misbehaving."

There is some unfortunate translation work in this passage in the KJV. The Hebrew should more accurately be rendered "young men" rather than "little children" Same phrase is used of Joseph when was 17 and of others up to the age of 30! Also, the reason for the curse is not the "baldhead" comment. Baldness was extremely rare in the ancient near east and it was used as a term of utter contempt. Like we might call someone a "Retard" regardless of their mental state. In this case, as they disagreed with Elisha's message, the name calling would be really more about the God who gave the message than the Prophet. But it's the other part of their repeated taunt: "go on up" that's the key to understanding this. That was a reference to Elijah (Elisha's mentor) who had just been taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire. Evidently that event had become well known and the mob of youths was basically jeering at the man of God saying, "Blast off! Blast off! You go too, get out of here, we're tired of both of you and your messages from God." These are not a couple innocent children condemned for good-natured teasing. This is closer to a mob of youths who are indicative of a sick culture in rebellion against God. (see Lev 26:21-22) And so it is God who takes them, (not Elisha) so again the problem does not go back to "the bible's barbaric attitude toward children" but rather "does God have a right to take life" (especially non-innocent, condemned lives) that he himself grants? Answer: Yes.

6. Someday God will force parents eat their own children.

These verses are a powerful prediction of what would happen if God’s people rebelled against him. And amazingly, this exact thing did happen about 700 years after these word were given, at the siege of Samaria. The writer totally misrepresents these predictions as God forcing parents to “eat their children.” As if the parents are tied to a post and God is cutting their children up and force feeding them to a screaming mom and dad. Uh, no.

What happened in direct fulfillment to these prophetic statements is that when God's people rebelled so far from him that there was no return, he sent the Assyrians to conquer the land (2 Kings 18:9). When they laid siege to the Israeli capital, the food became so scarce that these wicked parents turned on their own children, cooked them and ate them to survive. God forced no one to do this. They did it, in fulfillment of what God said would happen IF his people turned from him.

7. And then there's this statement, which could only be found in the Bible:

As if to say, the Bible is the only place to find harsh sentiment about children. This person hasn't read very broadly. See my point above about the actual impact of the Bible on cultural attitudes about childhood.

Of course, these "imprecatory psalms" are very difficult, but as hard as this sentiment is to read, it does not carry the weight of God's endorsement of infanticide. It's a heart cry for God's vengeance on the wicked. Many of these are in the blustery, expansive, hyperbolic language of the Middle East. But this has nothing to say about childhood, nor does it carry some implicit endorsement of infanticide with it.

One further note: CS Lewis saw this passage through the lens of all Scripture's context of spiritual battle of good versus evil. So the subtext behind all Scripture is that the evil of our world is backed by demonic powers of evil. Taking this passage in that context of spiritual warfare then, he saw metaphorically the wicked angels have "little ones" - their ideas, their temptations, their whispered lies, which are so innocent looking and sweet. But, the Bible warns, when temptation has "given birth" to sin it leads to death. So happy is the man who sees this deception, sees those little, lovely cherubs - and the only right thing to do is to smash the little buggers for they are from the pit of hell!

Why the longer purification period for girls than boys in Lev 12?

Question:

In Leviticus 12 a women must be purified for 8 days then 33 more days for the birth of a boy and then double those numbers if she gives birth to a girl............why the difference?

Answer:

This one has scholars a bit stumped. The first assumption of some scholars was that because the period of time was about purification for uncleanness, the longer waiting period indicated a greater uncleanness in the thing that defiled you. Thus this longer purification period meant that girls made you twice as "dirty" as boys. They assumed this was about women’s inferior status in Hebrew society.

However, this view has mostly been rejected today because of it`s inconsistencies with everything else in Mosaic law. For example, touching a dead human defiles you for 7 days more than touching a dead pig! (Lev 11:31 vs Num 19:11). So clearly, the length of purification had nothing to do with the inherent "worth" or lack of worth of what defiles you. And the fact that both women and men get to offer sacrifices, and were subject to exactly the same penalties for uncleanness as men (chp 15) shows a remarkable equality of worth and value in ancient Israel for men and women – far more than the surrounding nations, for sure.

So what is the answer? Some possibilities:

1. It`s a refection of Eve`s role in the fall. This view ties itself to 1 Tim 2:15-17 for support, but there`s no connection made to Eve in Leviticus at all. A similar view refers to apocryphal Jewish writings that had Adam entering in the Garden of Eden on week one and Eve after two weeks - and thus girls had to be quarantined longer... But both these views suffer from being too speculative and reading later material back into an older work...

2. It`s a reflection of medical views current at the time... For example, it might have been assumed that the birth of a girl was commonly believed to be accompanied by more complications than a boy, and/or that the vaginal discharge was greater or lasted longer for girls than boys. That would fit with the fact that usually uncleanness is related to the touching of blood (Lev 15:25). It`s not birth that makes you unclean, after all, it`s the blood involved in the birthing process.

3. It`s a refection of the anticipation of the baby girl`s future role as a mother. Meaning? Well, motherhood was so critical and valuable in those days that they would look at the birth of a daughter as involving TWO mothers - the one giving birth, and the one being born. Thus because two women (who are generators of uncleanness by their menstrual cycles AND their birthing role) are involved in the birth of a girl, the period of purification had to be twice as long.

4. Another view is that male children`s purification is shorter because of circumcision. They bleed only once in their life, on day eight, and are thus more formally included in the covenant community and come under God`s grace more explicitly, therefore, their purification is half as long as that of girls who are not circumcised.

No one knows for sure why the double waiting period for girls... but I think the 3rd view is the strongest or perhaps some combination with the 2nd and 4th. Without a reason stated in the text we are left to speculate. However, behind all of these purification laws, despite their confusing details, is something amazing: Here is God commanding fastidious washing for his people 3500 years before we found out how much disease is spread through micro organisms found in blood and unclean conditions... that’s pretty cool!

Does 1 Corinthians 7:36 justify premarital sex for Christians?

Question:

I have a Christian friend who’s rendition of 1 Cor 7:36 roughly comes to "if a man is sleeping with his committed girlfriend/fiancé, they are of age, and need to, let him do the things he wants to with her (have sex), it isn`t sinful: let them be considered married." Does that interpretation have any merit?

Answer:

Thanks for the note. Glad you’re interacting with your friend on this, but I do think he’s very wrong about Paul in 1 Cor 7.

First problem in using 1 Corinthians 7:36 to justify anything, especially a very contentious idea (essentially he’s saying premarital sex equals marriage) is that this verse is notoriously difficult for Christians to understand/translate/interpret for just the 2000 years. It might not be expected of the average Christian to know this about this particular verse, but taking up just 4 or 5 different translations will show that the language here is far from clear. So making a bold statement about Christian sexual practise based on this one verse is ill advised out of the gate. The broad scope of possible meanings is shown in this sampling of translations:

NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

ASV: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Darby: But if anyone think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.

God’s Word: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

NLT: But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.

The key to understanding this is understanding three Greek phrases, translated “his virgin” and “past the bloom/flower” along with “needs require”. As you could see from the above translations, “his virgin” could have THREE possible meanings.

- It could refer to a man's daughter.

- It could refer to a man’s fiancé or

- It could refer to man’s own virginity. (Side note: when translations say “she” is “past bloom”, the gender is inferred from “virgin”, there is no gender assigned in the Greek. So it could be “his” virginity.)

Let’s look at the strength of each these interpretations: Darby sees this verse as a natural follow up to Paul’s whole conversation in chapter 7 about virginity where he promotes celibacy. This verse then, would be the “application portion” of that whole argument. So, if a man finds he is violating his own virginity (IE. experiencing the ‘burning with passion” Paul mentions 7:9) and he’s getting along in years, the man is free to marry.

This is probably weakest of the three because the possessive of virgin is almost never attached to one’s own virginity but to a person, usually (but not always) a woman whom you, in some sense, possess.

So the second idea is that “his virgin” is his fiancé. This is how most modern translations see it and your friend would agree. This is probably stronger than the first view, weaker than the last view. But even in this view, your Christian buddy has inserted two ideas that aren’t in the text and have never been inferred by any translators or commentators that I’ve read, ever. His assumptions are

- that behaving improperly means “having sex with” and

- that “let them marry” means “let them be considered married.”


Three things militate against this view. One is the question of why Paul would call premarital sex "behaving improperly" and then turn around and tell those engaging in it, "let them do as they please." This is very perplexing.

Two, is that the "behaving improperly" is connected to the “past bloom” in some way. The way early Christians did engagement” was through arranged marriages. Moderns assume that cohabitation was an option back then, but it was almost unheard of. Why? Because a man sleeping with a woman was always sleeping with someone else’s property. So no one willy nilly “shacked up” – a father wouldn’t allow it. It wasn’t just dishonorable, it was economically disastrous – unless he was paying for those services through prostitution. Yes, it was not unheard of (see John 4) but very rare, usually with widows (which precludes 'virgins' obviously).

So most men would be engaged to a woman, selected by their parents, sometimes for years ahead of matrimony. This implies that the “past bloom” comment is connected to not treating her marriage rights correctly, rather than “having sex” with her. The man in question is delaying marriage (because of Paul’s encouragement of celibacy) but he finds that his fiancé is getting older and “needs require” he do something. Again, why? Because she (or he) is not fit or suited for single life.

Therefore it needs to be said by Paul to such a man – you can go ahead and take her freely as your wife. Get married, it’s not a sin. The verb tense in Greek will not allow, “let them be considered married”. The context makes this obvious. He’s considering what a man WILL do, not renaming what someone has already done.

Third, your Friend has not understood other Scripture. There is no state of cohabitation that Paul ever endorsed as lawful sex. Widows were perhaps cohabitating with renegade elders in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy) and there he doesn’t say, “let them be considered married” if they want to make it right. He considers them fornicators, and calls them to repent, “settle down and get married” (1 Tim 5:14). The only other cohabitating we know of was the one that came under discipline when a man simply took his father’s wife (I Cor 5). If the marriage arrangement was so slippery to Paul that we could wave our wands over any two fornicators at will and say, voila, “married!”, then why not say that about the man who took his father’s wife and avoid the scandal? (We incorrectly assume that the scandal was that the father was still alive, in all likelihood he was not.)

After all is said and done, there's a strong case to be made that this isn't even about a man and his fiancé. It’s might be about a parent and “his virgin” which would be a daughter still under a father's authority. There's much to commend this view, since it takes historical context and all the language here into account. If a reference to a parent, the “behaving improperly” makes clear sense attached to “past bloom”. This would mean a Christian father has heard Paul extoll the benefits of celibacy, but the father knows this isn’t “proper” for his daughter. And seeing that she is moving past marrying age, this requires him to make a decision. And Paul then grants such a parent the freedom to do as he sees fit: Give her in marriage, let her be married to her affianced, despite the benefits of the single life.

Most early commentators saw this as the obvious meaning (Paul had talked to singles, marrieds and divorced, it makes sense that he apply his message to one final group: Parents!) As one example, this is John Calvin on this passage:

But if any one thinketh that it were unseemly for his virgin. He now directs his discourse to parents, who had children under their authority. For having heard the praises of celibacy, and having heard also of the inconveniences of matrimony, they might be in doubt, whether it were at all a kind thing to involve their children in so many miseries, lest it should seem as if they were to blame for the troubles that might befall them. For the greater their attachment to their children, so much the more anxiously do they exercise fear and caution on their account. [439] Paul, then, with the view of relieving them from this difficulty, teaches that it is their duty to consult their advantage, exactly as one would do for himself when at his own disposal. [440] Now he still keeps up the distinction, which he has made use of all along, so as to commend celibacy, but, at the same time, to leave marriage as a matter of choice; and not simply a matter of choice, but a needful remedy for incontinency, which ought not to be denied to anyone. In the first part of the statement he speaks as to the giving of daughters in marriage, and he declares that those do not sin in giving away their daughters in marriage, who are of opinion that an unmarried life is not suitable for them.

In all likelihood then, this isn’t even about engaged couples at all, but about fathers and daughters and reflects the authority in 1st century culture that father’s had over “their virgin daughters” until marriage and the responsibility they took in seeing them well wed in that culture – in conjunction with Paul’s encouragement of singleness. In any event “do has he please” cannot be referring to two unwed people continuing to sleep together and have it ‘considered’ marriage. This is a pretty blatant example of reading into the text what you want it to say, instead of letting it speak for itself.

How Did Jesus become aware of his Divinity?

Question:

At what point was Jesus “aware” of his divinity? Now I mean that as, was he always aware of himself and from the time he was born was he just waiting for his body to catch up with his mind? Or was his divinity something that someone would have had to tell him early in his life, prior to the accounts of him when he is 12 at Passover.

Answer:

You ask an interesting question and one that has set Christian pens ablaze in speculation over the years. As you state, there's almost nothing we know of Jesus early life before he started his ministry, and so into that gap in our knowledge, people have inserted some amazing mythology and speculation. Some early Christian works (2nd Century), have stories of the boy Jesus making birds out of clay, striking other children dead and raising them again. Clearly these writers thought Jesus was aware of his divinity right away, and not afraid to use his powers like we might imagine a kid would act if given superman's abilities.

But what do we actually know from the more sober, earliest sources? The account in Luke says the boy Jesus, "grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him." (Luke 2:20). Later, after the incident in the Temple you mention, Luke again says, "as he grew up, he increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and people." (2:52). Clearly, if Jesus is growing in wisdom, his upbringing is much like a normal child in the growing awareness of people, things, limits, language, and knowledge. He did not come out of the womb with the Scripture (which he had, in one sense, inspired) all memorized, for example. He had to learn to walk and talk and read.

The most startling thing about him would not have been his supernatural powers (which no reliable source says he ever used until he was 30), it would have been his moral perfection. Anyone who has raised a 2 year old knows how astounding it would be to have a sinless child! Imagine a child perfectly compliant once a rule or moral limit had been absorbed. We know that some teaching would have been needed - for the baby Jesus was fully human. He did not come out of the womb knowing not to use sharp knives, or stand on tables. He likely scraped his knee and felt all the pain of learning. But it must have startled everyone to have a boy who was curious, but had no innate rebellious streak, was a survivor, but had no desire to impose his will was self assured without an inherent violent urge or anger.

When he is twelve, he stays behind at the Temple, and his parents, worried, lose him for 3 days. Luke alludes to the fact that by this time, he knows that he is the Son of God, when he responds to his parents, “did you not know I had to be in my Father’s House?”. In fact, his response baffles his parents (2:50). Surely, his “father's” house (Joseph) was in Nazareth! But Jesus said it was really in Jerusalem - showing a self understanding of his intimate tie to God. While his parents likely told him about angels and prophesy surrounding his birth, and infused a belief in his specialness early on, they could not fathom that their son was indeed FULLY God

So I think the evidence shows that Jesus awareness of his full Sonship grew as he grew. it may not even have been complete until his baptism and it required the voice from heaven in that moment (3:22) to fully convince/remind Jesus of his true identity and preexistence. We know that he went from this stirring moment directly to temptation which surprisingly focused on questioning this one thing: are you REALLY God's Son? Perhaps it was because Satan knew that having been made fully aware of his true Self, Jesus only now was the preeminent threat to his hold on the earth, and not before. All we can be sure of is that from that moment of baptism and temptation, Jesus walked forward with an unshakable conviction that he was “one with the Father” - a belief he carried through the horror of abandonment in Gethsemane and the cross until he was vindicated resurrection Sunday.

I recommend you read Anne Rice's book (yes the former erotic horror writer, turned committed Christian recently), Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt - which is some very fine historical fiction. She writes about that tantalizing gap in our knowledge, Jesus early years, using Scripture and extra biblical sources, and she focuses on this very question of when he knew his Identity. This is of course, speculative, and a bit audacious as she writes in the first person from inside Jesus' mind – but I think it's the most sober and reasonable guess out there as to the inner journey of Jesus as he discovers he is in fact, the Christ.