Does a new Christian have to understand the OT to be a Christian?

Sometimes I hear skeptics/non-Christians/atheists poke fun at new Christians for not knowing the Old Testament or completely understanding the New Testament. I think it's fair to say that the insults or questions are getting at this: your belief is on this very minimal god that doesn't lineup with the god explained in the Old Testament or even in all of the New Testament; your belief is a fraud, it is fake, simply not justified. What I want to ask is: does a person have to understand the entire bible before he can justifiably claim to trust in the life, work, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I don't think a person has to understand the entire bible before she can trust in the gospel. Why? Because the person is responding to the gospel that's why. What is the gospel? The Apostles describe the gospel, as I understand it, as the good news of Jesus Christ. What is the good news of Jesus Christ? One, that people by default are in rebellion against God. Two, that people cannot by themselves be good enough to stand before God in a not-guilty position (or put another way they cannot by themselves not be in rebellion against God). Three, that Jesus Christ paid the debt to God on account of his rebellious people. Fourth, now because of Jesus Christ his people can access God, i.e. worship him in spirit and truth. That is the gospel. Put another way that gospel is that God saves sinners. A person can hear the gospel and justifiably believe it without ever opening a bible. Why? Because that is what is required to be a Christian: hear the gospel, then repent, and then trust in Christ to do what he said he will do. That's it. A person doesn't have to respond to an entire reading of the bible in order to be a Christian. Think about this. The Apostles gave the gospel to people for salvation. That is what their audience had to respond to. The Apostles didn't approach a group of people or even one person, get out their old testament scrolls then start reading word for word the entire old testament then ask their audience (if the audience was still awake or even present) what they thought about that reading. Instead, they delivered the gospel. They didn't even deliver the gospel in the same way every time, e.g. Paul's address in Acts 17 is different from his other gospel messages (in style - the basic theme is the same). Well then, why have a bible? Hey, that's a good question.

Why do we have the bible? The bible is a collection of copied manuscripts from the ancient world. People of that time wanted a written record of the oral tradition. I understand that. Let's write it down to have a copy of this oral religion. I think that is why we have a bible. "Stuff" was going on at that time and it was worthy of being written down. Let's remember: back then, things to write on weren't easy to come by. If it was written down, then it was super important to the person or group of persons who wanted a written copy. The Israelites wanted a written history of their people, their theocratic society, to pass on to their children. Even the prophetic books are historical accounts of what was going on in that time of Israelite history. There are very few, if any, straight-up doctrinal books like in the new testament. This same kind of thinking can carry on into the new testament as well although the genre of written record is different in that the new testament is made up mostly of letters written to churches in doctrinal style. The bible is a copy of what was going on orally at that time and place. The bible is an excellent resource for the new and old Christian alike to learn, read, and hopefully apply the instructions written by the Prophets and Apostles. Do we blindly apply them? Not at all. The Christian is called upon by the Apostles to know why you believe what you believe. So, while the new Christian is justified in his belief in the gospel, he needs to go further. He won't find that the bible and the gospel contradict each other. Will he find some things in the bible that aren't tidy? Sure, for example, what does it mean to "live by the Spirit?" What did Paul mean by that? Obviously there are some different answers to that all through history. It's not tidy. However, just because it's not tidy doesn't mean there isn't stronger evidence for some positions over others. What is tidy is the broad them of Christianity. The essentials are super tidy. The non-essentials aren't and I wouldn't expect them to be tidy because they're non-essentials (like what kind of music do Christians play for worship?).

Wrapping this post up, I want to say that the new Christian is justified in his basic belief in the gospel. The gospel has nothing to do with ancient Israel's form of government. The gospel has nothing to do with ancient Israel's dress code, dietary laws, arranged marriages, polygamy, or other recorded historical acts of an ancient people that wasn't necessarily condoned by God. The gospel is that God saves sinners. If the person who responds positively to the gospel then that person is justified in that belief. It is wise for that person to read about the problems and solutions the new testament has in its collection as well as in the old testament just as it is very important for him to read about the author of the gospel: Jesus Christ. The new Christian should read John's historical account of Jesus Christ to further his knowledge of the Hero described in the entire bible that he heard about in the gospel. The new Christian begins on a road she has never been on before. The road is bumpy, but it has a beautiful destination.

Related posts
Theism as a properly basic belief - highly recommend
What about the OT? It's unethical
OT laws on relations between adults
Can we trust the bible?

What about that Old Testament stuff? It's unethical!

Often, the main offense people take to the Bible is the old testament. They see the actions of God in the old testament as cruel, unjust, unloving and that's just some of the nice things said; I've heard worse about the old testament and of God. At first read, sure, there are cruel and unjust things (according to us) done in the old testament, there's no doubt about that. After a second read, a second thought, and looking at another viewpoint the old testament is understood clearly.

I've read a good essay about the old testament and its ethics, so I thought I would share it here. This essay is from the Apologetics Study Bible and it's written by Christopher Wright.

1) Prejudice against scripture

• OT portrays a violent God
• OT portrays a violent people
• OT is filled with narratives recounting horrendous events
• Disreputable people playing major roles

2) Reasons the Old Testament is Ethical

• It was ethical for Jesus

1. He accepted the truth and ethical validity of the OT in His life, mission, and teaching.
2. Mt 6-7 sayings don't contradict, but deepen/correct popular inferences.
3. Jesus reminded His hearers that Leviticus 19 also says, "Love the alien as yourself," extending this to include "love your enemy."
4. Jesus affirmed and strengthened the OT ethic.

• Narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved.

1. We assume wrongly that if a story is in scripture, it must be "what God wanted."
2. Biblical narrators dealt with the real world, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity.
3. Shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval.
4. OT stories challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and to patience in continually working out His purposes through such morally compromised people.
5. OT stories challenge us to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides.

• The Conquest of Canaan

1. Must be understood for what it was.
2. It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel's long history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy Kings or military rivals.

3) An eye for an eye is remarkably humane

• Metaphorical, not literal
• Not a license for unlimited vengeance, but the opposite; it established the fundamental legal principle of proportionality.
• Punishment mustn't exceed the gravity of the offense.

More OT ethics resources:
Peter S. Williams on the ethics of the Old Testament here
Questions about the Bible
Questions about God
Moral and ethics resources at Apologetics315

Ligonier Coram Deo: The Sureness of Christ's Payment

Today, Ligonier's "coram deo" from their devotional post is rooted in the following verse:

“Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other.”(Psalm 85:10) 

What is the coram deo?

Today’s passage contains the beautiful imagery of justice and peace (or mercy, as other translations put it) kissing each other. Our Father graciously restores peace between Himself and us in Christ Jesus. This peace is permanent, for it is not based on ignoring our sins and faults but on God’s sure willingness to accept the perfect payment of Jesus in our behalf. And since the Lord has accepted this payment, this peace must be eternal, for otherwise He would have let His Son die in vain. 

 God is the God who rescues. His rescuing is different from fictional heroes like Superman who after rescuing the person(s) leaves after the rescue is over. God is different. He rescues then protects the person like a shepherd watches over his sheep. 

John 6:37 - 40
³⁷  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 10:27-30 
²⁷  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me,^[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. ³⁰  I and the Father are one.”
Romans 8:31 - 39
³¹ What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be^[i] against us? ³²  He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? ³³ Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. ³⁴  Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.^{[j] 35} Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ³⁶ As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

³⁷ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸ For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹ nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

These are three of my favorite biblical passages. These passages give us the concept of "the God who rescues." God rescues sinners from ultimate suffering. He truly rescues. He doesn't pull you out of danger then wish that you don't fall into danger again. His rescue is concrete. His rescue is without fail. His rescue is so true that "no one is able to snatch them out" of His hand. When you put your trust in Christ alone for salvation then you are rescued from ultimate suffering. You aren't just rescued from a current unfavorable predicament. You are rescued from an eternity of separation from God.

This doesn't mean the rest of your days on earth will be perfect. However, it does mean that the Helper will preserve you until your final salvation, which will be at the end of your earthly life. The doctrine "the perseverance of the saints" is a doctrine full of hope, security, and a realization that the God who rescues you, not only rescues you, but loves you and nothing can separate you from the love He lavishes on those who trust in Him alone for salvation.

Friday Mentionables: Mind and Cosmos, Psalms and Theology

Another week, another "Mentionables" post. I don't have many links this week due to lack of reading. Hate on haters. :\

J.P. Moreland's philosophical note on Nagel's Mind and Cosmos

C.S. Lewis' reflections on the psalms
John Calvin on the Wonder of the Psalms 

Tony-Allen continues his Therapeutic Theology series with Therapeutic Theology IV: A New "D'Oh"! 

Quote of the Week - Augustine on Natural Revelation

“Some people, in order to discover God, read books. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above you! Look below you! Read it. God, whom you want to discover, never wrote that book with ink. Instead, He set before your eyes the things that He had made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?”

― Augustine of Hippo

Friday Mentionables: Post-Birth Abortion, Openness, and Nephilim

Check'em out.
Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion
Openness and the closing of the american mind 

Could the Nephilim have been Neanderthals?
Ask RC: What does the Bible mean when it says that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were attractive and they took them as wives, bringing for the Nephilim, the mighty men of old, in the lead-up to the story of Noah and the flood?

Therapeutic theology II: The Revenge  

Friday Mentionables: Resurrection (again!), Inerrancy, and moar

Posts on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Biblical inerrancy, Euphemisms and moar.

Biblical Inerrancy and the Resurrection    
New Rasmussen poll: 13% drop in belief in the resurrection since last Easter 
What do Christians mean when they say "resurrection?" 

Euphemisms: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly 

Virtue and Romance: Allan Bloom on Jane Austen and Aristotelian Ethics

Isaiah 14:27 and Therapeutic Theology

Paul on the resurrection of Jesus Christ

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵ We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ²³ But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ²⁴ Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ²⁵ For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷ For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. ²⁸ When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

- Paul of Tarsus, first letter to the Corinthian church

Friday Mentionables

Yeah so I decided to start a weekly, Friday Mentionables post which is a collection of blog posts I found interesting. Maybe you will to.

Why do atheists like Dan Barker abandon their faith?
Why do leftists prefer to cut essential services instead of trimming waste?

Socrates and the Good Death

Does God give new revelation?
Is Everything Sad Going to Come True?

The Reasonableness of Historic Christian Faith

Enjoy! Comment and follow the blog for more stuff like this.   

Do I sustain myself for salvation? Or Does God sustain me?

Is my salvation dependent on me? Or does God sustain my salvation? Is God the one who has saved me from wrath? Is God the good shepherd who guards his sheep? Do the sheep guard themselves from thieves and carnivores?

The Apostle John records Jesus as saying "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” (Read John 10 in its entirety)

Paul, the master theologian, wrote in his letter to the Romans: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. 

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The Apostle Peter wrote in his letter to the Christians in Asia Minor: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These are but a few verses from the Bible that speak of God guarding the Christian's salvation. From what I understand salvation is completed for the Christian. If this is correct the Christian can find rest in this knowledge. He should let it seep into his heart. She should be thankful. If the Christian is clothed in the righteousness of Christ and that is what God sees when he looks at the Christian then I would assume a habit of gratefulness for God's gift would be built in the Christian. I wouldn't think a life of moral carelessness would be adopted by the Christian if this knowledge has seeped into her soul.

What can we gather from this data? That God loves his children warts and all (to borrow a phrase from Sproul); that God guards his children's salvation and his children can rest in this knowledge knowing they will get their inheritance promised to them by their God.

Quote of the Week - B.B. Warfield on Biblical Inspiration

"Representations are sometimes made as if, when God wished to produce sacred books which would incorporate His will – a series of letters like those of Paul, for example – He was reduced to the necessity of going down to earth and painfully scrutinizing the men He found there, seeking anxiously for the one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and then violently forcing the material He wished expressed through him, against his natural bent, and with as little loss from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, nothing of the sort took place. If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul’s He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters."

- Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Idea of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig with an Intro. by Cornelius Van Til (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1970), pp. 155

William Lane Craig on "the Bible becomes God's Word for me"

This is from Craig's Defenders class during a Q and A.

Question: [makes a comment about how the Bible inspires and reveals itself to a person]

Answer: I want to say that we shouldn’t ever lapse into this kind of language of “the Bible’s becoming God’s Word for me,” or “When I read it, it becomes God’s Word for me because God speaks to me through it.” I think that’s quite incorrect. God could speak to you through the telephone book or through The Shack, but that wouldn’t make it God’s Word. The Bible is God’s Word. The whole idea is that the Bible is a propositional revelation. If it were lost, forgotten in some vault, and nobody ever read it, it would still be the God-breathed, propositional revelation of God. So let’s not lapse into this language of the Bible’s becoming God’s Word to me or anything of that sort. That is to diminish the degree to which this is a verbal, propositional revelation from God.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s2-3#ixzz2KJfNIbtc

Requirements for Salvation

This is a very good post from the Calvinist Gadfly (I'm pasting the entire thing)

Were I to do a little righteous thing (and I have), it would not be significant. It would not earn the favour or invitation of God. (Titus 3:4-5)

Were I a morally untested foetus like Esau (and I was), it would not keep me from being hated. It would not attract the favour or invitation of God. (Romans 9:10-13)

Were I a whore and rebel against God (and I am), it would not keep me from being loved. It would not negate the favour or invitation of God. (Deuteronomy 9:5)

Were I dead in sin (and I most certainly was), it would not keep me from living with Christ through the ages to come. It would not have any impact whatsoever on the great love, rich mercy, and kindness of God towards me through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-5, 7-9)

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Romans 9:16). You can't achieve it, you can't earn it, you can't deserve it, you can't default into it, and you can do nothing to disqualify yourself from receiving it. For by grace are you saved. How should you then live?

Check out the blog Calvinist Gadfly

Quote of the Week- Rousseau on the Gospels

"Shall we say that the gospel story is the work of the imagination? My friend, such things are not imagined; and the doings of Socrates, which no one doubts, are less well attested than those of Jesus Christ. At best, you only put the difficulty from you; it would be still more incredible that several persons should have agreed together to invent such a book, than that there was one man who supplied its subject matter. The tone and morality of this story are not those of any Jewish authors, and the gospel indeed contains characters so great, so striking, so entirely inimitable, that their invention would be more astonishing than their hero. With all this the same gospel is full of incredible things, things repugnant to reason, things which no natural man can understand or accept. What can you do among so many contradictions? You can be modest and wary, my child; respect in silence what you can neither reject nor understand, and humble yourself in the sight of the Divine Being who alone knows the truth."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile: Or, On Education, 1762

What about those Old Testament laws on physical relations between adults?

I saw a meme the other day about the bible and marriage referencing OT passages on physical relations between men and women. The meme gave the message that the bible promotes traditional marriage (nuclear family), marriage via death of your brother (husband dies and has a brother then the wife marries the bro-in-law), polygamy, slave marriage, stoning a woman who wasn't truly a virgin, etc. First off, I would argue that everything that is in the OT wasn't condoned by God. Second, we also have to, have to, have to, (did I mention "have to") have to remember Israel was under a theocracy and not a democracy. Israel wasn't a constitutional republic, pure democratic government, or any man-centered government; they were under God's government. This point is a good point to remember even if God didn't/doesn't exist and Israel was mistaken about their God because they were operating a totally different society than what many of us live in today regardless of whether God exists or not. I'm not a professional theologian or bible scholar, but the previous two points seem like good points to keep in mind when we come across these OT passages that hit us pretty hard in the gut.

What about the following for traditional marriage between a man and a woman? According to the meme the bible has the following regulations for the nuclear family: interfaith marriages forbidden, wives subordinate to husbands, arranged marriages, and this is added just for fun I'm sure: a bride who couldn't prove her virginity was stoned to death.

Interfaith marriages forbidden 

Interfaith marriages were forbidden for Israel because they were under a theocracy so what obviously follows from that is those under the theocratic rule were not allowed to marry those who didn't worship Jehovah God. I understand that God's purpose with Israel was to set them apart from surrounding societies of the time to show their external difference from the surrounding societies. Such a structure required a lot of external challenges for the Israeli of that time. It required sacrifice like not marrying those outside of the religion. If Israel had established a democratic society then yes they would have been able to legally marry those who weren't of the same religion. Theocracies don't give you the options democracies do.

Wives subordinate to husbands

Israel isn't the only religion or society guilty of this one. People take this to the extreme like the husband drags the wife around by her hair (maybe a husband has done that - it's possible). I think Paul explained this the best by saying the husband is to love his wife selflessly and the woman is to submit to the husband. The husband is the representative of the marriage before God. If the husband loves his wife selflessly then the woman will gladly submit because the husband is loving his wife in a selfless way, i.e. protecting her, cherishing her and taking care of her better than he takes care of himself. This doesn't mean the husband is to be a pushover, but I think this is another way of establishing the husband and wife as a team and promotes healthy selfless love.

Arranged marriages

This wasn't uncommon back then or even today. An arranged marriage, arguably, wasn't a unique idea that Israel originated, nor is this surprising given that Israel was a theocracy and not a democracy. In a democracy the individual is free to choose his own life whereas in a theocracy the individual is part of a collective under the rule of their god(s) who charts their life for them. Some theocracies, maybe Israel, probably extend the authority of arranging marriages to the parent(s) and/or elders of the society.

 A bride who couldn't prove her virginity was stoned to death

This is a passage that I, as a classical liberal, am not at all comfortable with accepting or promoting this law. Please don't think I will try to explain this verse away (Deut. 22:21). When we come across verses like this one (there are a few like it in Deuteronomy) we have to remember that Israel was treated differently than NT Christians. OT Israel was under a theocracy, more specifically, they were ruled by a perfectly righteous God who wanted his people to be different from the surrounding societies who practiced free sex. Israelites were only to have sex within heterosexual marriages. Fornication, multiple sex partners, and the like were not tolerated by God as actions for his people to make. The consequence of breaking his law was not just a slap on the wrist. He wanted his people to be different from other societies.

The meme mentions polygamy, which as I understand wasn't specifically endorsed by God as something he wanted Israel to practice. There are five (6) things to consider when reading the OT (this is an excerpt from the Apologetics Study Bible.)

Narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved.

1. We assume wrongly that if a story is in scripture, it must be "what God wanted."
2. Biblical narrators dealt with the real world, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity.
3. Shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval.
4. OT stories challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and to patience in continually working out His purposes through such morally compromised people.
5.  OT stories challenge us to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides
 

These are excellent points to remember when reading the OT narratives. Every verse in the OT is not a divine command from God, most are describing an account of an event that happened. My continual use of the theocratic government reason for these shocking laws in the OT is not in any way an attempt at approving these laws or an attempt to act like atrocities didn't happen under that government; what I want to do is to treat the OT like any historical document understanding the dating, historical context and what the society was like, i.e., put my self in the time and setting of the author of the historical documents instead of trying to read and understand the documents through the lenses of my society and time. If we keep the above points in mind and also the form of government that Israel was under when reading the OT, it will be a huge benefit for our understanding of the OT. 

Related posts

Taking Verses Out of Context 

Is God a Moral Monster? This audio deals with OT stuff.

Commentary on Paul's Areopagus Address Part 2

Obese Disclaimer: This is a commentary by a roughly 2 1/2 year old Christian. Keep that in mind. I think of this blog as my online container of thoughts. I am open for correction as my "About" page explains. I'm not a professional theologian or philosopher, I'm a student. Having said that, please enjoy this post

²³ For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you

²⁴  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

In verse 23 we get the idea that Paul actually took his time to walk around the place, become familiar with it showing an actual interest in the Greeks and their culture. He didn't simply barge in the place and have an intellectual throwdown with them. It seems, from a reading of the text, that Paul took his time and observed things because he was interested, not to try and show intellectual authority. 

In verse 24 Paul began with natural theology. What is natural theology? Natural theology is a theology built from reason and ordinary experience or what I've heard others call "minimalist Christianity;" it's theology that is crafted from reason and ordinary experience instead of theology crafted from God's special revelation, i.e., the Bible. Paul began with God. The God who made the world and everything in it is Paul's starting point. Who created man? Who created the world? Who created the universe? Paul gave this title of "creator" to God. Paul is implying everything that begins to exist has a cause and said that cause is God. From this statement we learn that God is the Creator. 

Did Paul say that God is an aloof creator who created then left the universe to run its course built on the mechanisms he instituted? No not at all. Let's read on. Being Lord of heaven and earth implies, to me, that this creator is personal. He rules over His creation. He is the Sovereign of His creation. He didn't create it, build in laws for it to run by then leave it to go on to bigger and better things or whatever else interested Him. No. He is Lord of heaven and earth. He is involved with His creation. He is personal. If God was not personal He would not be the Lord of His creation.

Where does this God stay? Where is His throne if He is indeed Lord of heaven and earth? Paul said that God does not live in temples made by man. Paul is getting at what theologians and philosophers call the "incorporeality of God" which is to say that God is not a material being or object. Some say, which I agree, that God is of the order of mind, but I don't mean a brain which is a physical object; what I mean by mind is a self-conscious mental entity, not physical. I think that is what Paul was getting at also. God is omnipresent. If God was a physical being sitting on a physical throne then He could not be omnipresent. I don't think God's omnipresence is like what some theologians have described as a ether spreading through the universe, instead I think God's omnipresence is parallel to his omniscience or his "all-knowing" things. He knows precisely what is going on at all times in all of His creation.

So far, in Paul's address we have learned that God is the creator of all things, sovereign over all things and that He is omnipresent. 

Part 1 of the commentary here

What are some problems with the futurist view of eschatology?

From Keith A. Mathison on the futurist approach to the book of Revelation.

"Proponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history. This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies. The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come. The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies." 

Read the rest of his post covering the other views on interpreting Revelation here.

Commentary on Paul's Areopagus Address part 1

Obese Disclaimer: This is a commentary by a roughly 2 1/2 year old Christian. Keep that in mind. I think of this blog as my online container of thoughts. I am open for correction as my "About" page explains. I'm not a professional theologian or philosopher, I'm a student. Having said that, please enjoy this post. 

Acts 17

²² So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 

What? Paul doesn't begin his address with wit? He doesn't begin his address with a snarky comment or joke? He doesn't even begin by offering them pizza so they have something to do while he talks? Wow. Paul is different. Paul starts with a compliment, "...I perceive...you are very religious." Now, it's not like he's saying, "Dudes, you're awesome." I don't think it's a compliment like that or even an accepting compliment like, "Your way is just another way to God." Paul clearly didn't teach here or in his letters universalism or inclusivism. However, it is a compliment. Maybe implying "you're almost there. Let me clear the fog for you."

Paul was truly in step with the Spirit I think. It would have been very easy for him to approach the men in arrogance, right? Paul, if anyone, was very religious. He had the credentials for sure of a very religious man. He could have swaggered in the Areopagus (I bet Paul had excellent swagger), adjusted his black rimmed glasses, threw one end of his scarf behind his neck and then tore the Areopagus apart with his wisdom and rhetoric. He didn't do that though. I imagine, exercising the virtues of the Spirit, Paul approached them in a neutral, yet engaging manner; full of patience, kindness, and confidence. Not being a floor-mat, yet not being a steam-roller. Paul is the kind of man every apologist should set his benchmark at. Paul is not an impossible man to be because he also had weaknesses and struggled just like every Christian does, but what set him apart was his life of repentance and faithfulness to Christ.

When you address a person, group, or crowd with the gospel it is wise to begin like Paul did with the men at the Areopagus: begin like, to borrow from STR, an ambassador of Christ would begin. Be gracious. Be confident. Be reasonable. Be attractive. Most importantly, be honest and correctable. You might make a mistake to the person or group you're talking with. Own up to it, if it is indeed a mistake, then take it from there. Don't let pride and/or anger get the best of you. You're sharing the truth of Christianity and if it's delivered in pride, anger, or rude snarkiness it won't hit the bullseye regardless of the truth content because of the delivery. Delivery matters. Truth must be delivered with gentleness and respect. That's how Paul rolled and I want to roll like Paul. Let's pray every Christian shares the same desire.

Part 2 of the commentary here

Natural Theology in 11 Verses

Paul at the Areopagus

²² So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. ²³ For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. ²⁴  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, ²⁵ nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ²⁶ And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, ²⁷  that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, ²⁸ for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

²⁹  Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. ³⁰  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, ³¹ because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

What about all of the unethical actions in the Old Testament?

This is an excerpt from the Apologetics Study Bible. 

• Narratives describe what happened, not what was necessarily approved.

1. We assume wrongly that if a story is in scripture, it must be "what God wanted."
2. Biblical narrators dealt with the real world, with all its corrupt and fallen ambiguity.
3. Shouldn't mistake realism for ethical approval.
4. OT stories challenge us to wonder at God's amazing grace and to patience in continually working out His purposes through such morally compromised people.
5. OT stories challenge us to be discerning in evaluating their conduct according to standards the OT itself provides.

• The Conquest of Canaan

1. Must be understood for what it was.
2. It was a limited event. The conquest narratives describe one particular period of Israel's long history. Many of the other wars that occur in the OT narrative had no divine sanction, and some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud, greedy Kings or military rivals.

3) An eye for an eye is remarkably humane

• Metaphorical, not literal
• Not a license for unlimited vengeance, but the opposite; it established the fundamental legal principle of proportionality.
• Punishment mustn't exceed the gravity of the offense.

More OT ethics resources:

Peter Williams on the ethics of the Old Testament here.