Joy to the World (Unedited)

Unless you are pulling out a traditional hymn book in church you are unlikely to sing the richest part of the Christmas song: Joy to the World.  Most of the versions on the radio, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, even Veggie Tales omit this incredible verse of this song.  It reads: "No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns invest the ground, He comes to make his blessings flow, far as the curse is found..."

And strangely this verse stands at the very center of the biblical reason why this baby is actually bringing joy to the world.  It gets me every time I sing it.

Owen on Godly Affections

The 17th century Puritan John Owen had a few things to say that weren't very Puritan-ish, or at least the stereotypes often placed on them.  Tim Keller gives a very interesting summary of his Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ.  Of course like every puritan Owen believed in the centrality of biblical doctrine and the light (as he often called it) of the word of God.  But beyond this, he never hesitated to emphasize the indispensability of the affections, the feelings of the heart, religious passions.

“Where light [right doctrine] leaves the affections behind, it ends in formality and or atheism; where affections outrun light they sink into the bog of superstition, doting images and pictures or the like.”

This gives a picture of an interesting balance that Owen says is required for healthy spiritual life.  But if you had to error on one side of the spectrum or the other, which would it be?  Feelings or doctrine?  Love or Truth?  Genuine affections or true beliefs?  What do you think Owen would say?

“In your thoughts of Christ, be very careful that they are conceived and directed according to the rule of the word, lest you deceive your own souls, and give up the conduct of your affections unto vain imaginations... Yet I must say that I had rather be among them who, in the actings of their love and affection unto Christ, do fall into some irregularities and excesses in the manner of expressing it... than among those who disavow their having any thoughts of or affection unto the person of Christ... It is better that our affections exceed our light [right doctrine] from the defect of our understanding, than that our light exceed our affections from the corruption of our wills.”

For someone who cared more about doctrine than probably any of our modern churches, this a remarkable thing to say.

An Alternative Nativity Scene

Ken Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes asks some interesting questions regarding the traditional nativity story which we're accustomed to seeing every year in displays, figurines, and Christmas pageants...

1. Why was there no one in Bethlehem (their own hometown) that could provide Joseph and Mary lodging for the birth of Jesus?  Hospitality isn't a nice gesture in the middle east.  A family's honor, not to mention the honor of an entire village, is often at stake.  Surely being Joseph's hometown it seems to hard to believe he and his wife would have been left out in a barn/stable/cave to stay, says Bailey.

2. Bailey continues, “simple rural communities the world over always assist one of their own women in childbirth regardless of the circumstances.  Are we to imagine that Bethlehem was an exception?  Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem?... [It would have been] an unspeakable shame on the entire village.”

3. According to the traditional story, why would the shepherds, after visiting the baby Jesus in a animal stable or cave, have not invited them into one of their homes?  Are we to believe that they rejoiced and praised God that they had seen the birth of the new king and then left this family in an animal pin?

4. Bailey also points out interestingly, “Joseph had time to make adequate arrangements.  Luke 2:4 says that Joseph and Mary ‘went up from Galilee to Judea,’ and verse 6 states, ‘while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.’  The average Christian thinks that Jesus was born the same night the holy family arrived –hence Joseph's haste and willingness to accept any shelter, even the shelter of a stable.”

These problems get resolved, says Bailey, by getting a better answer to two questions:  Where was the manger?  And what was the “inn”?  He uses a background study to make the case that mangers were traditionally held in the homes of the average villager and uses a word study to make the case that “inn” is better translated “guestroom.” –not a commercial inn.  It is the same word translated  “upper room” in Luke 22:10-12.  In sum, he argues it is far more likely Jesus was born in an average villager's home, not outdoors in a stable or cave.  Very interesting.  Worth reading even just the first chapter.

It reminds me of how much I still read the scriptures through my own interpretive lens.

What Made Pharaoh Change His Mind?

“At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon...” – Exodus 12:29

In one plague after another God devastated Egyptian homes, crops, livestock, and water supply...  even a pandemic of physical disease spread across the land by the finger of God.  But regardless of the devastation none of them were compelling enough for Pharaoh to truly change his mind.  That is, until plague number ten arrived.

But why did this turn out to be the deal-breaker for Pharaoh?  The general interpretation, which includes the numerous films made of the exodus, seem to have an implicit understanding along the lines that this was the one plague that actually  ‘hit home,’ so to speak.  The tragic death of Pharaoh's very own son.  Some of the films in particular attempt to show a deep love for his child, and a supposed emotional brokenness over this situation.  And in this emotional brokenness everything has shifted his mind to now release the people of Israel.  Pharaoh is strangely even presented as somewhat of a victim of this family tragedy and presented in a markedly sympathetic light...

This unfortunately seems to be a common but unlikely interpretation that doesn't follow well the historical or biblical picture.  Historically, unlike our modern age with modern medicine, the death of a child in the ancient world was quite pervasive and regular.  In ancient Rome for example the child mortality rate was around 50% who would not make it to ten years old.  Of course this is not to say that Pharaoh would not have had an emotional reaction to his death, but looking closer there is more going on than just the loss of a son.  Notice first, it is the death of his firstborn son.  This son was of course the heir to the throne.  And thus God was effectively cutting off Pharoah's ruling dynasty and the designated line of succession in one night.  This is implicit not only in the fact of the son being his firstborn, but the text mentions this reality explicitly: “the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne.”  The fact that his son was “on the throne” in some sense, might also imply that he was already an adult who had some measure of rulership already.  Regardless, at the very least it means that this final plague would have been primarily a statement to Pharaoh about the impotence of his supremacy and his rulership, not primarily about family tragedy.

There is also some indication that all the plagues were not just intended to devastate Pharaoh's country, people, and land, but were in fact a theological statement.ˡ  They were a demonstration of the supremacy of Israel's God over and above the gods of Egypt, starting with the god of the Nile.  There are hints of this divine dual as the Egyptian magicians under the authority of their gods attempt to replicate Moses' signs and wonders from the hand of Israel's God (Exodus 7:11,22, 8:7,18).  Second, we also know that the Pharaohs of Egypt often thought of themselves as divine or the son of the gods –particularly the sun god Ra (who was shown to be embarrassingly weak with plague number nine, Exodus 10:21-23).  So working with this background, it would seem that God was marching through the pantheon and the last ‘god’ lined up for subjugation was Pharaoh himself and his ruling dynasty.

So what motivated Pharaoh to finally release Israel?  I agree that it was something that ‘hit home.’  But it is less about Pharaoh being a heart-broken father with a deep love for his son, and more about Pharaoh's rulership being dramatically subdued in a most humiliating way.  He is no god, his successor is struck down, and now he finds himself coming before the God of slaves to ask for a blessing (Exodus 12:32).  There is a bit more to that one night that finally changed Pharaoh's mind.

ˡ There is a brief summary of this idea in Kenneth Laing Harris, ESV Bible Commentary, 156.

Robinson Cano vs. NY'ers

Robinson Cano returns to New York with a lot people ready to ridicule him publicly.  That is, until they have to look at him face to face.  Hilarious.

Is There Free Will in Heaven?

The answer to this question is not as obvious as one might think.  On one side, free will is the basic requirement for any action to be worthy of moral praise or moral blame.  And if heaven is where all good things come together and are lived out, than yes, you might think of course there must be genuine free will in heaven.  But if that's true, do we have the real possibility to choose to sin in heaven?  That is equally strange, because sin is the one reality that heaven must never allow in!  And so the deeper you dig into what anyone actually means by free will (or heaven for that matter), the more difficult this question becomes.

However a little background work will help us find where we should probably land on this.  Traditionally, there are two ways to understand free will.  In their definitions both views try to give the most intuitive answer to the following question:  What are the conditions necessary that will make someone morally accountable and responsible for their actions?  The first group will say something like this:  Free will is the ability to act unencumbered according to your own desires.  It is the ability to act according to what you really want to do.  Pretty basic.  This they say is the necessary condition that makes someone truly responsible for their actions.  For example, if a journalist cannot publish a story he wrote because of threats from the local mafia, he is not able to act according to his true desires.  He choices are being forced on him from the outside against what he really wants to do.  And thus, on this understanding, he is not able to act freely.  They would say his will is being encumbered.  This is the view of free will taken by Compatibilists.  More on Compatibilism later.

The second group want to say something stronger: Free will is the ability to genuinely choose among various alternatives.  Free will is not just being free from outside forces that might manipulate you to act contrary to your desires (like the mafia), but also being free from inside forces and necessitating compulsions from within you.  Conditions like your own physical brain chemistry or  your own internal nature that might determine your action.  They would grant there are certainly forces inside you that might influence you, but if the will is truly free it must be able to genuinely choose among multiple alternatives despite those influences without anything inside them or outside them that would determine their decision.  The key word here is determine.  So a journalist's decision to denounce government corruption is free not only because its what he really wanted to do, but also because within his own psychology (or even from God) he was not necessarily compelled one way or the other.  He could have genuinely chosen among the various options to write what he wrote.  This is called libertarian free will.

You see if what the journalist publishes is what he actually desired to write, then Compatibilists have enough information to say he certainly has free will.  But the Libertarian needs to know more.  Are the molecules and chemicals in his brain part of a deterministic system such that he could not have chosen anything other than what he in fact did choose?  If such a deterministic system exists, Libertarians will say no he cannot be genuinely free.  Compatibilists say these additional facts have no bearing on whether someone has free will or is morally responsible.  The journalist is accountable only in so far as he is able to act in accordance with his desires, regardless of whether their desires are physically or metaphysically determined or not.  Do you see how this works?

I'll let the cat out of the bag.  In my view a Compatibilist account of free will seems to make better sense of the assumptions the biblical writers, and in my view better sense of moral accountability altogether.  I only came to this view a few years ago.  Of course, more than a blog post would be necessary to outline the various reasons I find myself in this camp.  But one argument has proven to be very compelling for me, which is related to the question at the beginning.

Can we genuinely sin in heaven?  Notice a Compatibilist understanding of free will allows him to say “no” to this question, but also allows him to believe on his understanding that genuine free will can still truly exist in heaven.  Since free will is the ability to act according to your true desires, and being that we will only genuinely desire good things in heaven, then there is room within this view for heaven to be both always sin-free and also contain wills that are free.  It is simple, straightforward, and intuitive –at least on this question.  But notice also that a Libertarian understanding of free will requires them to say “yes” to this question in order for heaven to be a place where genuine free will can exist.  That seems a hard bullet to bite.  Because we should probably say about heaven –at the very least– that there will not be sin there.  And more than that, we seem to be compelled to say we should never be capable of sin in heaven.  But perhaps they can bite a different bullet and just say well in heaven we just won't have free will like we do now.  That's a hard sell as well, because free will is always the necessary precondition for any act to be morally good.  And the one thing we should probably say about heaven is that it is the one place where all good things live, exist and thrive.

I know some of you are thinking: what does it matter?  These hypothetical questions are just philosophical games.  You are right that many can treat it that way.  Nevertheless, I have never had such a revolution in my thinking about sanctification and how I might grow in my spiritual walk than the moment I solidified my thoughts on the free-will question.  How do I choose good and not sin today?  These two views have very different answers to this very practical question.  And unfortunately a person's unreflective default understanding of these sorts of ideas will almost always be the reigning cultural understanding of them.  And we know that pattern usually doesn't bode well for those seeking “not to be conformed to the world.”

Blasphemy Laws for the Modern World

Blasphemy is verbal defamation against that which is held with the highest regard.  I know it sounds really strange but a long time ago it used to be God that was held with the highest regard in society.  And in such societies it was unbearable to hear God spoken of with such disdain.  Many of them made laws against it because they believed it could quickly incite people to hatred and violence.

Of course in our society verbally defaming God is way down on the list of the worst things that can come out of people's mouths.  And besides that we as western societies are too enlightened to limit people's free speech in the modern era...  or are we?

The answer is we are not.  We still believe in blasphemy laws.  We still believe in laws that limit free speech against what people take to be of supreme value.  But we just believe something else has replaced God as that which is supremely valuable.  Instead of blasphemy, we call it hate speech.ˡ   Speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.  You see, in a democracy the “demos” rules.  It is the people themselves who are given the right to rule.  And our values have been shaped around this in such a way that those held with the highest esteem are unequivocally “the people.”  And in such a world, verbal defamation against the people themselves cannot be tolerated -especially minorities whose voices must not be suppressed when you strive for a healthy democracy.  Thus, the active limitation of free speech and free expression as in every society continues on, just under a new name.  But make no mistake.  It is blasphemy; it is outlawing speech that defames that which is supreme.  We're not more enlightened or tolerant than those wacky medieval folk.  We just have a different supreme value.

This is interesting in its own right.  But here's another little wrinkle that might be prophetic for the direction of western culture.  What happens when God commits blasphemy?  That is, what happens when God's purported speech offends “the demos?”  The answer for now is the only space appropriate for such speech is the non-public arena.  The answer for the future might be just the space between your ears.

( ˡ This connection was drawn from a lecture by Doug Wilson)