I recently heard a Messianic rabbi, rabbi Baruch, teaching about the trial of Jesus. He pointed out something that I had not heard before, based on the Greek text of Matthew 27:17. In that text the Bible refers to Barabbas as 'Jesus the son of Abbas' when Pilate asks the crowd whom he should release to them, Jesus the son of Abbas or Jesus the one called Christ? In transliterated form, it reads as 'Iesoun ton Barabban e Iesoun ton legomenon Christon?' 'Iesoun' is the Greek for 'Jesus'. The rabbi went on to explain that this is in many manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, not all, but enough to seem to be authentic, at least in his view. Here is a link to a site that shows the Greek and English side by side:
http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/27-17.htm
It is quite interesting to me that this man was also named Jesus. The rabbi had a hypothesis on how this may have come about. Pilate's wife had warned him not to do anything bad to Christ because of a dream she had about Him; Pilate knew of the tradition of releasing to the Israelites a prisoner at Passover in honor of the redemption that is celebrated by Passover. Could he have intentionally chosen one with the same name so that if they called out just his name then Pilate could release either one? An interesting hypothesis!
We cannot know what Pilate's thinking may have been, though he declared that he found no fault in Christ. He certainly could have been looking for a way to release Him without appearing weak. But the response from the crowd made it clear which Jesus they wanted: the son of Abbas (Barabbas). Pilate lacked the strength of character to release the innocent one, bowing to the crowd pressure.
The passage raises another question in my mind, though. The crowd chose the Jesus that served their desires rather than the Jesus who is to be served by us. Which Jesus do we choose? The one we can use for our own purposes, or the One who created us to serve Him? As Easter approaches that is the question this passage raises to me about us and our culture.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
Biblical Marriage
Marriage is in the news again. France is preparing to vote on whether to legalize homosexual marriage, and so the chief rabbi of France has an article in the March 2013 issue of First Things to defend traditional marriage. I was interested to find that his chief Biblical argument has much in common with the arguments made by Pope John Paul II in his book Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Both of them rest much of their case on the complementarity of the 2 sexes. The chief rabbi writes that 'the complementarity between man and woman is a fundamental principle in Judaism' as well as in many non-religious traditions and culture in general. The pope agrees, but goes on to ground that understanding in the creation story of Genesis 1 and the way that the Bible makes it clear that it takes both man and woman to fully demonstrate the image of God carried by mankind. The rabbi also goes on to ground his argument in Genesis 1 and to say that 'this suggests that the definition of a human being is perceptible only in the conjunction of the two sexes'. This sounds rather like the pope when he said 'the definitive creation of man consists in the creation of the unity of 2 beings'. Both make a strong case for the divine intention of marriage being a matter of completeness for carrying God's image and passing on that image in procreation. In that regard, 'homosexual marriage' is an oxymoron.
The pope goes on to make connections to marriage as an image of the relationship within the Trinity, which of course the rabbi does not do, but then both refer to the way in both the Old Testament (ie, the Jewish scripture) and the New Testament marriage is considered a reflection also of the relationship between God and mankind. The rabbi does a nice job in the article of showing how the opposite sex is always something of a mystery to us, as also is God, and yet the Bible urges us to find human completeness via union in marriage and spiritual completeness in union with God who is also something of mystery to us. Both require faith and a commitment to seeking intimacy with that which is not fully known or knowable to us.
This is one of the articles posted online for free this month, so here is a link:
http://www.firstthings.com/
Our culture, in its insistence on individual happiness as the highest good, is losing its understanding of what it means to be fully human. To be fully human requires male and female, not just a collection of individuals. Our pursuit of individuality is rapidly coming to its illogical extreme. I think we who seek to follow Christ become part of the problem when we seek to make romantic love the heart of marriage as that is what the homosexual lobby is also promoting, albeit a dysfunctional version of romantic love. Nonetheless, the romance culture places our individual happiness above our created purpose; while our created purpose builds real love (the selfless kind) as well, it makes much more clear how marriage is for more than just personal happiness. I was encouraged to see such common ground on this issue between both the former pope and the chief rabbi of France.
The pope goes on to make connections to marriage as an image of the relationship within the Trinity, which of course the rabbi does not do, but then both refer to the way in both the Old Testament (ie, the Jewish scripture) and the New Testament marriage is considered a reflection also of the relationship between God and mankind. The rabbi does a nice job in the article of showing how the opposite sex is always something of a mystery to us, as also is God, and yet the Bible urges us to find human completeness via union in marriage and spiritual completeness in union with God who is also something of mystery to us. Both require faith and a commitment to seeking intimacy with that which is not fully known or knowable to us.
This is one of the articles posted online for free this month, so here is a link:
http://www.firstthings.com/
Our culture, in its insistence on individual happiness as the highest good, is losing its understanding of what it means to be fully human. To be fully human requires male and female, not just a collection of individuals. Our pursuit of individuality is rapidly coming to its illogical extreme. I think we who seek to follow Christ become part of the problem when we seek to make romantic love the heart of marriage as that is what the homosexual lobby is also promoting, albeit a dysfunctional version of romantic love. Nonetheless, the romance culture places our individual happiness above our created purpose; while our created purpose builds real love (the selfless kind) as well, it makes much more clear how marriage is for more than just personal happiness. I was encouraged to see such common ground on this issue between both the former pope and the chief rabbi of France.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Clash of Economists and Cultures
I am currently reading Keynes Hayek:The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. The descriptions of the personalities involved adds some color to the sometimes dry ideas of macroeconomics that were debated by these two giants and that are still much in debate today. What seems missing to me in our current debate is an understanding of the limits of these ideas when they are followed in the extreme.
The default of Greece comes to mind here. While Keynes' arguments about raising demand in the economy during a downturn by injecting government spending has some merit, it seems to be oversimplified. For instance, it seems to imply that the government itself is somehow outside the economy rather than a part of it and subject to many of the same issues that industry faces; things like overhead costs, efficiency and waste, and so on. Government spending is less efficient in promoting demand than if the government were actually outside the economy since only a portion of each intended dollar actually reaches its targeted use due to these costs. This tends to offset the 'multiplier' effect of government spending that Keynesians like to promote. Also, deficit spending raises the cost of government. Government competes for consumer dollars just like business,and bigger government raises that cost. If that cost is born by borrowed money, then the interest must be paid for additional overhead and raises the cost of government still more. The Keynesians act as if it need never be repaid but Greece has demonstrated that there is a limit beyond which the government cannot borrow without setting off huge inflation. What is that limit? There is no clear definition of that but we have examples from many defaulting nations in the last 25 years (Greece is the latest, but there was Russia, Argentina, Brazil and others). The cost of government can only get so high before it, like a business, becomes too expensive and collapses. No one seems to have good handle on when that happens, but it clearly does happen.
Some have offered the idea that we need to return to a manufacturing economy, as if that were a matter of mere choice rather than a result of market forces. Many seem to think that the post World War 2 prosperity of America was due to manufacturing prowess when in fact the main impetus was the fact that the war had destroyed manufacturing for the entire developed world everywhere else. America could not avoid prospering in that environment, and we cannot return to that situation by a simple choice. We now have to compete, and many parts of the world are simply willing to work for less money, at least for now. Some who are more in Hayek's camp in favor of letting the market do its work during a recession have offered ideas of stimulating manufacturing without recognizing this reality.
Meanwhile the economists are in no position to talk about how policy changes behavior in other ways than just consumer demand for goods and services. How does it change the motivation to work? Or morality? We have seen the emergence of a seemingly permanent underclass that lacks the skills for employment even in a strong economy, and much of this seems supported by (if not caused by) a welfare society. Once that mindset is established, how does government reduce its 'stimulus' after a strong economy returns? In Europe they have shown that they cannot reduce it until crisis ensues. Our persistent deficits even in good times seem to show that government spending for welfare as well as the exploding Medicare and Social Security costs lead not just to continued deficits but to exploding,unsustainable deficits. When do we define a 'drop dead' point beyond which we cannot go in spending?
It seems to me that the Keynesians refuse to accept that their prescriptions have limits than cannot be exceeded without severe repercussions and refuse to estimate what those limits are; the free market advocates seem to ignore that we lived in a 'rigged' market after World War 2 and are now enduring the pain of adjusting down to a level that more reflects a competitive world market instead of a rigged market in which we had no meaningful competition outside America for a generation or more. Neither want to talk about the social consequences. The Keynesians don't want to talk about the welfare mentality; the free marketers don't want to talk about the pain inflicted on people who cannot compete in a world market. Neither want to talk about the pain that lies ahead to rein in Medicare and retirement costs.
There are no easy answers. Some pain is inevitable. Historically, war has intervened in circumstances like this when the level of pain rises. War has become increasingly apocalyptic as time goes on. Let us pray it does not come to that.
The default of Greece comes to mind here. While Keynes' arguments about raising demand in the economy during a downturn by injecting government spending has some merit, it seems to be oversimplified. For instance, it seems to imply that the government itself is somehow outside the economy rather than a part of it and subject to many of the same issues that industry faces; things like overhead costs, efficiency and waste, and so on. Government spending is less efficient in promoting demand than if the government were actually outside the economy since only a portion of each intended dollar actually reaches its targeted use due to these costs. This tends to offset the 'multiplier' effect of government spending that Keynesians like to promote. Also, deficit spending raises the cost of government. Government competes for consumer dollars just like business,and bigger government raises that cost. If that cost is born by borrowed money, then the interest must be paid for additional overhead and raises the cost of government still more. The Keynesians act as if it need never be repaid but Greece has demonstrated that there is a limit beyond which the government cannot borrow without setting off huge inflation. What is that limit? There is no clear definition of that but we have examples from many defaulting nations in the last 25 years (Greece is the latest, but there was Russia, Argentina, Brazil and others). The cost of government can only get so high before it, like a business, becomes too expensive and collapses. No one seems to have good handle on when that happens, but it clearly does happen.
Some have offered the idea that we need to return to a manufacturing economy, as if that were a matter of mere choice rather than a result of market forces. Many seem to think that the post World War 2 prosperity of America was due to manufacturing prowess when in fact the main impetus was the fact that the war had destroyed manufacturing for the entire developed world everywhere else. America could not avoid prospering in that environment, and we cannot return to that situation by a simple choice. We now have to compete, and many parts of the world are simply willing to work for less money, at least for now. Some who are more in Hayek's camp in favor of letting the market do its work during a recession have offered ideas of stimulating manufacturing without recognizing this reality.
Meanwhile the economists are in no position to talk about how policy changes behavior in other ways than just consumer demand for goods and services. How does it change the motivation to work? Or morality? We have seen the emergence of a seemingly permanent underclass that lacks the skills for employment even in a strong economy, and much of this seems supported by (if not caused by) a welfare society. Once that mindset is established, how does government reduce its 'stimulus' after a strong economy returns? In Europe they have shown that they cannot reduce it until crisis ensues. Our persistent deficits even in good times seem to show that government spending for welfare as well as the exploding Medicare and Social Security costs lead not just to continued deficits but to exploding,unsustainable deficits. When do we define a 'drop dead' point beyond which we cannot go in spending?
It seems to me that the Keynesians refuse to accept that their prescriptions have limits than cannot be exceeded without severe repercussions and refuse to estimate what those limits are; the free market advocates seem to ignore that we lived in a 'rigged' market after World War 2 and are now enduring the pain of adjusting down to a level that more reflects a competitive world market instead of a rigged market in which we had no meaningful competition outside America for a generation or more. Neither want to talk about the social consequences. The Keynesians don't want to talk about the welfare mentality; the free marketers don't want to talk about the pain inflicted on people who cannot compete in a world market. Neither want to talk about the pain that lies ahead to rein in Medicare and retirement costs.
There are no easy answers. Some pain is inevitable. Historically, war has intervened in circumstances like this when the level of pain rises. War has become increasingly apocalyptic as time goes on. Let us pray it does not come to that.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Pro Athlete Freak Show
Lance Armstrong has finally admitted what seemed to be the inevitable: that he won his cycling championships by means of illicit drugs and that it was kept quiet by intimidation and the willingness of many in the sports establishment to look the other way as long as they could. This has become the sad state of nearly all professional sports and is indicative of the true values of professional sports.
Professional sports has for many years now had little or nothing to do with 'sportsmanship'; it is not about demonstrating self-control to develop life-long fitness and excellence, it is not about playing in an honorable way to build a life of virtue and honor, it is not about learning the virtues of teamwork and joining together with a team to develop virtue and excellence. It is about winning and nothing else. In the process of subsuming all other potential values in sports to the one goal of winning, it has become a freak show.
With Armstrong, the freakishness was not as visibly obvious as with Barry Bonds, Al McGuire, and Sammy Sosa. Bonds and Sosa especially ballooned from wiry athletes to muscle-bound giants in a very visible way, a way that made it clear that something was amiss. With Armstrong it was less visible but the feats he accomplished were just not believable for normal athletes. Meanwhile in football we have moved from a time in my growing up when a very large pro player was 225 pounds to now where 300 pounds is not all that unusual for high school and quite common in college.
Does anyone think that this kind of athlete is an example of good health and fitness? Does anyone think these men should be set as examples for what excellence in physical fitness looks like? Does anyone think these men set the example for life-long athletics and fitness? In their lust for winning at any cost, the athletes and coaches have created demanding profiles for what they must have for a particular position in each sport, and the results are players who will have health penalties for the rest of their lives just based on their body before injuries come into play. Many of them will rely on drugs to meet that profile. Nearly all of them will abandon the positive values that used to be trumpeted as the real purpose of sports, the values mentioned above. When the inevitable injuries are added to the story it becomes much closer to the Roman gladiators in the arena than we want to admit, as witnessed by the rash of suicides among retired NFL players.
I have pretty much stopped watching pro sports as a result. Sadly, college sports are not too far away from these same problems and have been getting worse every year. Sports has always had players and coaches who lacked the judgement necessary to know when winning should be made secondary to higher values, but it has been getting steadily worse in my judgement. And it will not get better until the fans start to walk away.
Professional sports has for many years now had little or nothing to do with 'sportsmanship'; it is not about demonstrating self-control to develop life-long fitness and excellence, it is not about playing in an honorable way to build a life of virtue and honor, it is not about learning the virtues of teamwork and joining together with a team to develop virtue and excellence. It is about winning and nothing else. In the process of subsuming all other potential values in sports to the one goal of winning, it has become a freak show.
With Armstrong, the freakishness was not as visibly obvious as with Barry Bonds, Al McGuire, and Sammy Sosa. Bonds and Sosa especially ballooned from wiry athletes to muscle-bound giants in a very visible way, a way that made it clear that something was amiss. With Armstrong it was less visible but the feats he accomplished were just not believable for normal athletes. Meanwhile in football we have moved from a time in my growing up when a very large pro player was 225 pounds to now where 300 pounds is not all that unusual for high school and quite common in college.
Does anyone think that this kind of athlete is an example of good health and fitness? Does anyone think these men should be set as examples for what excellence in physical fitness looks like? Does anyone think these men set the example for life-long athletics and fitness? In their lust for winning at any cost, the athletes and coaches have created demanding profiles for what they must have for a particular position in each sport, and the results are players who will have health penalties for the rest of their lives just based on their body before injuries come into play. Many of them will rely on drugs to meet that profile. Nearly all of them will abandon the positive values that used to be trumpeted as the real purpose of sports, the values mentioned above. When the inevitable injuries are added to the story it becomes much closer to the Roman gladiators in the arena than we want to admit, as witnessed by the rash of suicides among retired NFL players.
I have pretty much stopped watching pro sports as a result. Sadly, college sports are not too far away from these same problems and have been getting worse every year. Sports has always had players and coaches who lacked the judgement necessary to know when winning should be made secondary to higher values, but it has been getting steadily worse in my judgement. And it will not get better until the fans start to walk away.
Monday, December 24, 2012
The Grand Miracle
It is December 24 as I write this and I find myself unavoidably contemplating the Christmas holiday and what it means. Christmas falls on Tuesday this year, so yesterday was Sunday. The sermon was in regard to the virgin birth of Christ and how many folks in our world have difficulty with the very idea of miracles of any kind, let alone something like the virgin birth of Christ. Newsweek, in their usual anti-faith fashion, had as their cover story last week an article by a skeptic that was focused on how there are other non-Biblical stories about Jesus' childhood that are commonly rejected and so the virgin birth would also be rejected if it hadn't been repeated so many times. The article concludes that holidays and religion are fine for those who want them, but don't take them too seriously. To that I would say, to borrow from Scrooge: Humbug!
This is not to say that the virgin birth is not an issue. It is part of the Christian faith, and the faith most definitely involves miracles. As C. S. Lewis has said, it is indeed one Grand Miracle. Christmas,to me, gives us a glimpse of that thing that Lewis calls the Grand Miracle: the Incarnation of Christ. However, it is not the Virgin Birth that is the heart of that Grand Miracle. The Virgin Birth strikes me as primarily the pathway or mechanism. The miracle itself is much bigger than that, and those who gag at the idea of the Virgin Birth seem to me to have missed the point. For the God of the universe, who is outside of nature and beyond nature to take on flesh and enter into His own creation to make Himself known, and not just to make Himself known but to experience death in order to conquer death, that is a far greater miracle than for a virgin to conceive. Lewis calls this taking on of flesh, the Incarnation, the Grand Miracle because all the other miracles of the Bible either point to this, demonstrate it, or result from it. It is the heart of the issue. God became man to rescue man and to make God known. That is the specifically Christian miracle. Other religions have the occasional healing or other miracle here and there, but nothing like this. And the resurrection of Christ, which is rightly a matter of great focus in Christianity, depends on this Grand Miracle.
The virgin birth is, of course, consistent with this matter of the Incarnation of Christ. That God would come into this world through a pure vessel and would be different from all other men is required. But that is not the main issue. The issue is whether there is in fact someone much greater than nature, someone who is outside of the natural world and yet enormously concerned about this world and its people. And the issue then is whether that Someone did in history step into this world to save us from ourselves.
This is much greater than simply a virgin birth. Coming by means of a virgin birth is a small matter in this context. To reject Christianity based on a virgin birth seems to me rather like rejecting the idea of freedom and democracy because you don't like the foreign policy of America. It misses the point. If you are to reject something it should at least be on the basis of its central teaching.
That entire story of the Incarnation is what Christmas celebrates. It is indeed a Grand Miracle. In the midst of the tragedies of the world around us it reminds me that Christ also experienced tragedy and overcame it as a foretaste of putting tragedy behind us for good. And so I get a small glimpse of the Grand Miracle each year at Christmas. I hope you do as well. Merry Christmas!
This is not to say that the virgin birth is not an issue. It is part of the Christian faith, and the faith most definitely involves miracles. As C. S. Lewis has said, it is indeed one Grand Miracle. Christmas,to me, gives us a glimpse of that thing that Lewis calls the Grand Miracle: the Incarnation of Christ. However, it is not the Virgin Birth that is the heart of that Grand Miracle. The Virgin Birth strikes me as primarily the pathway or mechanism. The miracle itself is much bigger than that, and those who gag at the idea of the Virgin Birth seem to me to have missed the point. For the God of the universe, who is outside of nature and beyond nature to take on flesh and enter into His own creation to make Himself known, and not just to make Himself known but to experience death in order to conquer death, that is a far greater miracle than for a virgin to conceive. Lewis calls this taking on of flesh, the Incarnation, the Grand Miracle because all the other miracles of the Bible either point to this, demonstrate it, or result from it. It is the heart of the issue. God became man to rescue man and to make God known. That is the specifically Christian miracle. Other religions have the occasional healing or other miracle here and there, but nothing like this. And the resurrection of Christ, which is rightly a matter of great focus in Christianity, depends on this Grand Miracle.
The virgin birth is, of course, consistent with this matter of the Incarnation of Christ. That God would come into this world through a pure vessel and would be different from all other men is required. But that is not the main issue. The issue is whether there is in fact someone much greater than nature, someone who is outside of the natural world and yet enormously concerned about this world and its people. And the issue then is whether that Someone did in history step into this world to save us from ourselves.
This is much greater than simply a virgin birth. Coming by means of a virgin birth is a small matter in this context. To reject Christianity based on a virgin birth seems to me rather like rejecting the idea of freedom and democracy because you don't like the foreign policy of America. It misses the point. If you are to reject something it should at least be on the basis of its central teaching.
That entire story of the Incarnation is what Christmas celebrates. It is indeed a Grand Miracle. In the midst of the tragedies of the world around us it reminds me that Christ also experienced tragedy and overcame it as a foretaste of putting tragedy behind us for good. And so I get a small glimpse of the Grand Miracle each year at Christmas. I hope you do as well. Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Inflatable Christmas
They are all around us: Frosty the Snowman, Snoopy, Christmas trees, and a great many things that don't seem like they are about Christmas at all like rabbits and other animals. They spring up from the ground as darkness falls, as timers turn on fans that inflate them with air and turn on spotlights. Inflatable Christmas has arrived. The rabbi down the street now has an inflatable Hanukiah lamp in his yard, too, having been drawn in by it all.
I enjoy Christmas greatly. I enjoy Christmas trees and especially Christmas music. We generally attend at least 2 choir events for Christmas music and sometimes do more. I listen to the music in my car and with headphones in the gym. I enjoy many of the traditions of the season, including indoor decorations, but I do not like the 'inflatable Christmas'.
It was during my childhood that outdoor decorating with lights first became really popular. Businesses had done some of that prior to those years but private homes really did not get into that in a big way until the 1960's. Prior to then there would be doors with wreaths and light poles wrapped with greenery or ribbon and some mailboxes that were decorated but not much beyond that. Then the electric lights took hold! I at first found them novel and sometimes nice, but it began to get overdone and gaudy over time. Nowadays I refuse to put up outdoor lights as I find most of it neither attractive nor in the true spirit of the season. The inflatable things strike me as even less desirable.
I don't write this to complain about the neighbors, though. I am not offended or angry about their decorations. Perhaps it adds some joy to the season for them. I find it more sad than offensive; it just seems to miss the point for the most part. Very little of it draws your thoughts to the way the entire world was changed by the birth of a baby in a remote corner of the ancient world, and that is the only reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place.
Perhaps the enchantment with the inflatable Christmas yard decorations will pass as a fad. I hope so. It is not a huge issue but it does make me think that we have our focus in the wrong place.
I enjoy Christmas greatly. I enjoy Christmas trees and especially Christmas music. We generally attend at least 2 choir events for Christmas music and sometimes do more. I listen to the music in my car and with headphones in the gym. I enjoy many of the traditions of the season, including indoor decorations, but I do not like the 'inflatable Christmas'.
It was during my childhood that outdoor decorating with lights first became really popular. Businesses had done some of that prior to those years but private homes really did not get into that in a big way until the 1960's. Prior to then there would be doors with wreaths and light poles wrapped with greenery or ribbon and some mailboxes that were decorated but not much beyond that. Then the electric lights took hold! I at first found them novel and sometimes nice, but it began to get overdone and gaudy over time. Nowadays I refuse to put up outdoor lights as I find most of it neither attractive nor in the true spirit of the season. The inflatable things strike me as even less desirable.
I don't write this to complain about the neighbors, though. I am not offended or angry about their decorations. Perhaps it adds some joy to the season for them. I find it more sad than offensive; it just seems to miss the point for the most part. Very little of it draws your thoughts to the way the entire world was changed by the birth of a baby in a remote corner of the ancient world, and that is the only reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place.
Perhaps the enchantment with the inflatable Christmas yard decorations will pass as a fad. I hope so. It is not a huge issue but it does make me think that we have our focus in the wrong place.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Advent and Miracles
The December 2012 issue of First Things magazine includes an article by Stephen Barr about randomness and whether the existence of randomness is somehow an argument against creation of the universe by God. He makes a good argument that it is not an evidence against a creator God, and along the way there are some brief comments about miracles as events that 'contravene' the normal laws of nature. His article is a very good one in regard to the meaning of 'randomness', but I agree more with C.S. Lewis on the matter of miracles.
To 'contravene' a law of nature would mean to violate it or contradict it or oppose it. Lewis argues, though, that the miracles of the Bible do not so much violate nature as they add to it. For instance, there are 2 Old Testament instances of things that involve the sun, one where the shadow moves backwards as a sign to Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:8) and one where the day was extended for battle for Joshua (Joshua 10:13). Now to do this in contradiction to nature would involve something like reversing the earth's rotation (for the shadow) or slowing it down dramatically if not stopping it (for the extended day). Both of those would cause very severe consequences besides what is mentioned in the Bible, things like enormous tidal waves wreaking enormous destruction around the world. To prevent all of those effects would require a great many other miracles as well, miracles arguably greater than the one getting talked about in the text. There does not seem to be archaeological evidence of those 'side effects', though, and it would seem rather ham-handed of God to cause that kind of destruction in order to create a local event in Israel. But what if God added to nature instead of contradicting natural laws? What if He added light from another source to extend the day for Joshua? What if he added light from a different source and different geometry to change the shadow? Neither would involve global side effects and neither would contradict the natural course of the earth. The Bible says quite a bit about 'uncreated light' (as it is referred to in 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring' by J.S. Bach) emanating from God after all.
I don't know what mechanism God used for those miracles, but it does seem to me that there could be mechanisms available to God that do not necessarily go against His own laws in nature, the laws of nature that He created. One can make similar arguments for the miracles of turning water to wine, healing the sick, and so on. It could well be that our current world includes only some of the possible 'laws of nature', more of which could be normal in the world the come, the world we call 'heaven'. Miracles could be simply a glimpse of what will one day be 'normal'.
As we enter the Advent season I am reminded of the great miracle of Christ's birth, God taking on flesh to be born of a woman. God did not contradict the course of a normal pregnancy and normal birth; He did not create His Son out of the ocean waves like the pagan myths whose so-called miracles clearly contradict nature. He did not eliminate the need for a family for this Child to grow up in, a mom and a dad for guidance, a childhood to 'grow in favor with both God and man'. Instead He added a miraculous conception that did not contradict nature but added something new to it. He also added angels to announce it to those who had 'eyes to see and ears to hear', and magi to bring special provision for an otherwise poor family. 'Blessed are the poor'. That poor family, the family of Joseph and Mary, was blessed indeed! And blessed are we when we pause to contemplate these things in this miraculous season!
To 'contravene' a law of nature would mean to violate it or contradict it or oppose it. Lewis argues, though, that the miracles of the Bible do not so much violate nature as they add to it. For instance, there are 2 Old Testament instances of things that involve the sun, one where the shadow moves backwards as a sign to Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:8) and one where the day was extended for battle for Joshua (Joshua 10:13). Now to do this in contradiction to nature would involve something like reversing the earth's rotation (for the shadow) or slowing it down dramatically if not stopping it (for the extended day). Both of those would cause very severe consequences besides what is mentioned in the Bible, things like enormous tidal waves wreaking enormous destruction around the world. To prevent all of those effects would require a great many other miracles as well, miracles arguably greater than the one getting talked about in the text. There does not seem to be archaeological evidence of those 'side effects', though, and it would seem rather ham-handed of God to cause that kind of destruction in order to create a local event in Israel. But what if God added to nature instead of contradicting natural laws? What if He added light from another source to extend the day for Joshua? What if he added light from a different source and different geometry to change the shadow? Neither would involve global side effects and neither would contradict the natural course of the earth. The Bible says quite a bit about 'uncreated light' (as it is referred to in 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring' by J.S. Bach) emanating from God after all.
I don't know what mechanism God used for those miracles, but it does seem to me that there could be mechanisms available to God that do not necessarily go against His own laws in nature, the laws of nature that He created. One can make similar arguments for the miracles of turning water to wine, healing the sick, and so on. It could well be that our current world includes only some of the possible 'laws of nature', more of which could be normal in the world the come, the world we call 'heaven'. Miracles could be simply a glimpse of what will one day be 'normal'.
As we enter the Advent season I am reminded of the great miracle of Christ's birth, God taking on flesh to be born of a woman. God did not contradict the course of a normal pregnancy and normal birth; He did not create His Son out of the ocean waves like the pagan myths whose so-called miracles clearly contradict nature. He did not eliminate the need for a family for this Child to grow up in, a mom and a dad for guidance, a childhood to 'grow in favor with both God and man'. Instead He added a miraculous conception that did not contradict nature but added something new to it. He also added angels to announce it to those who had 'eyes to see and ears to hear', and magi to bring special provision for an otherwise poor family. 'Blessed are the poor'. That poor family, the family of Joseph and Mary, was blessed indeed! And blessed are we when we pause to contemplate these things in this miraculous season!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)