There are many aspects about the so-called philosophical Problem of Evil which confront the Christian and a whole book would have to be written in order to answer the objections posed by the argument against the validity of Christianity. One philosophical argument suggests, partially due to and concluded by inferences upon Christian apologetics, God, if He exists must have traits of evil since evil exists. Though rejected outright by Christian theology, in an extra-biblical sense we ask how such an idea may be defeated. It can be countered on the grounds of the destructive power of sin and evil. God, and even the idea of God, necessarily brings being, while evil destroys being. Therefore, God cannot be evil since He is pure Being.
When examining evil and sin it cannot help but be observed they have corrosive properties on everything they touch, and because God, again brought being, and is greater than destruction in the world, and even decay, and because nobody will argue creative properties are lesser than destructive ones, it cannot be a part of God, if His nature is the great-est, which God must be by definition. Of course, God in His prominence does destroy things, or commands them to be destroyed, but though destruction be a thing God is capable of, it doesn’t necessarily indicate a destructive nature. God doesn’t destroy merely for the sake of destroying, but concepts like justice, and we understand justice is good, has a destructive or limiting property imposed on the thing which has done wrong. Justice somewhat implies this attribute. Something can evoke justice and remain good. God certainly cannot be innately destructive for we exist.
Since sin, evil, goodness, and holiness exist, and sin and evil are the lesser of these things, then what do we suppose happens when evil and goodness encounter each other? What occurs is not a democratic process. Ultimately, one must succumb to the other, or be destroyed, and this, in short, is how and why a Holy God can exist and not be in conflict with the presence of evil and destruction in our world. In another sense it refutes the infamous meme suggesting God exhibits or brings people unto His wrath because He arbitrarily demands obedience under punishment in this life or beyond. This meme fails in characterizing God accurately, and He does not demand as much as plead with us to come to Him.
This air of pleading is found prominently in the words of the Apostle Paul:
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:20
We need to point out this flaw whenever possible. It is through Christ we are reconciled and saved from the fate which will result from our uncleanliness being confronted with the utmost holiness. One will win out. Like two forms of matter, they cannot occupy the same space, and democracy will not be a factor. In order for our sinful nature to be washed away so we may dwell with a Holy God in the hereafter requires a cleansing of ourselves as provided by the blood of the Lamb.
One of the hidden benefits to debate or conversation with atheists and those who have shifted from more “traditional” doctrines, is within the research it prompts, many overlooked gems can be found. Even among the more “New Atheism” school, if one can transcend the inclination to be offended and be able to reduce the rhetorical arguments to their logical elements, they can be of great value to both doctrinal and historical understanding. One of these regards the oft-cited Old Testament command against the blending of fabrics in garments. This command is generally utilized by critics to imply the absurdity of the Bible, God’s law and the following of His moral or ethical decrees. Before the Christian gets too tripped up by this though, it may be worth keeping in mind the difference between the moral law of God and what is commonly referred to as the ceremonial law of God. One part of the law remains, while another has been done away with through Jesus Christ, but the discussion of this, I am afraid, would extend past the scope of our goal here. This is a fact conveniently ignored by the critics as some of the following images attest.
For example…
And example…
And example…and example….and example…
The command against garments with mixed fabrics comes from two places, both within the Old Testament.
Leviticus 19:19, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two kinds of materials.”
Deuteronomy 22:9-11, “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.”
It seems there are four main categories which pertain to answering the question of why this was included in the Scripture or why God decreed to not wearing a garment made of two kinds of material and, perhaps by extension, the commands regarding animals and crops. If one would kindly allow, these are:
Symbolism
Practicality
Reservation
Figurative
I will explain these briefly before we attempt to examine the theories more in depth. Symbolism infers God decreed these things to send a message to the Israelites about greater issues. A nomadic culture focused on agriculture, where any written word was unlikely to be able to be read by all, such messages were important to send through metaphor, analogy, and simile so the common man could understand and find application. Through these means the Hebrew or Israelite was encouraged to not blend things like their God with other false gods, their culture with other cultures, and intermarry with other nations, which would have the result of them falling away from God. Practicality suggests God decreed such things, particularly those which were ceremonial and pronounced a person clean or unclean from reasons stemming from things like health concerns, social integration, efficiency in duty, and responsibility. Third, and most interestingly, is reservation, which I use to refer to the idea God commanded these things to the people because it was reserved, in this case, for say, the high priests, or those who would minister before the Lord. The last, figurative, is the idea these commands were not to be taken literally, and their true meaning would have been understood at the particular place and time, to indicate the command to keep the Hebrews pure from those they were about to encounter in their travels.
The latter is related to the first (inasmuch as I apply the word to the principle), but takes it to the extreme and near supposes the application the Hebrews would have employed and their understanding is somewhat obscured by history. Another point of interest in this brief overview is the observation we can draw seeing the possible validity of all of these, or elements of them, being attributable to an answer. Each of these could have its place in the ultimate explanation, but we should extrapolate the issues which arise when supposing each answer.
Symbolism
We can safely say this one holds a lot of weight among those who seek to explain the ceremonial decrees of God found in the Old Testament. While in a certain context it seems to make sense and be an adequate answer, on the other hand it has a couple pitfalls which can present some difficulty. The New Testament is said to promote this answer through the words of the apostle Paul and the author of the book of Hebrews.
Romans 15:4, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
1 Corinthians 9:8-10, “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for the oxen that God is concerned? Does He not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in the hope and the thresher thresh in the hope of sharing the crop.”
1 Corinthians 10:6, “Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.”
1 Corinthians 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”
We briefly note the repetition of this point as emphasis.
Hebrews 8:5-7, “They serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.’ But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.”
What these verses show is the decrees of the past were meant and written down to foreshadow what was to come and were very symbolic in nature. The aforementioned pitfall we run into is the question of whether God would command something, judge someone, or encourage judgment among leaders within the social fabric (pardon the expression) of the Israelites, just for the sake of symbolism? While what was being foreshadowed was unquestionably of great importance, the idea this reason was the sole one might leave the theologian feeling this answer isn’t complete. Some may very well conclude the symbolism is an attribute of these decrees and not the lone reason for them. Let us then move on to the next possible answer.
Practicality
While there are many commands made by God in the Old Testament and New Testament where God explains Himself, it must be admitted there are too those passages where the reason isn’t always ironed out to our satisfaction. It might sometimes seem “unfair” God doesn’t explain Himself to our satisfaction, or in particular explain why we ought or ought not do something before we are expected to follow, but if we allow for God’s existence, then any explanation could be seen as an act of graciousness. By virtue of its office, authority doesn’t always need to explain itself (Please note: I am not saying authority has a blank check to do whatever it wants without criticism). I once had an authority figure tell me, “When I tell you to do something, you do it. You can ask why later.” I bring this up because God won’t always tell us why He is doing something, or give us the reason, nor does it mean we cannot know or won’t discover it. Sometimes the reason becomes apparent by following or not following, or if you prefer, consequence often reveals reason.
Therefore, many have embarked to look upon consequence of not following these commands to discern the reason why it may be commanded and it has led to some proposed practical ones. Indeed, the ceremonial unclean foods, at this era in history, presented some great health concerns, such as shellfish (which ironically we will get to in another context) and eating pork. When these were consumed in ancient times, they lead to much more illness and disease than is evident today because of a contemporary increase in safe food handling and preparation practices. The unequal yoking of two different beasts of burden is practical as well as symbolic. You certainly wouldn’t want to put a different or missized tire on your car while going through a nice drive over a mountain pass. Such would be impractical and dangerous. I can’t speak to the danger of two different species being yoked, but I can conceive of it being quite impractical based on size, power, speed, and the inequity of all these.
There has been some extensive work done on the practicality of many commands found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus pertaining to ceremonial law which has practical use and symbolic representation. Yet, how does this pertain to garments made of differing materials? Again, we can see it as symbolic, but does it have a practical reason? As to be expected, there are a number of theories on this, including the garment’s inability to keep a person cool in the climate, to static electricity (linen and wool are both are frequent culprits), to promotion of disease, to difficulty in cleaning and being unsanitary.
The Jamieson—Fausset—Brown Commentary does much to address the practical reasons for why such things may have been commanded and borrows from the classic treatise from Charles Whitlaw, The Scriptural Code of Health: With Observations on The Mosaic Prohibitions, and On The Principles and Benefits of The Medicated Vapor Bath published in 1838. The Commentary reads:
“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and wollen come upon thee——Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition [Note: Some materials in those days were assigned to pagan spirits in a form of animism and this belief was found throughout the Ancient Near East], it seems to have had a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kind of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that ‘wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister’ [Whitlaw].”
This inability to keep cool, bring about weakness and possibly illness isn’t beyond the realm of possibility, and indeed, the need to keep cool, and the inability of such a garment to do so, is referenced in the book of Ezekiel and provides a good transition into our next possibility. It says:
Ezekiel 44:17-19, “When they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes; they must not wear any woolen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple. They are to wear linen turbans on their heads and linen undergarments around their waists. They must not wear anything that makes them perspire. When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments.“
Reservation
This theory suggests when God gave this command, He was referring only to the common man, and was allowing for an exception which was the High Priest. There is supposedly a bit of evidence for this which we should examine.
Exodus 28:2-8, “And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory and beauty. You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aron’s garments to consecrate him for My priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a shash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve Me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple scarlet yarns, and fine twisted linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and of fine twisted linen, skillfully worked. It shall have two shoulder pieces attached to its two edges, so that it may be joined together. And the skillfully woven band on it shall be made like it and be of one piece with it, of gold, blue, and scarlet yearns and fine twisted linen.”
Cited here is the ESV translation which refers to yarn, which is traditionally made of wool, and linen in the ephod for Aaron or the priests. Given this translation, some have proposed the argument the command was made because such a blend of material was reserved for priests. This isn’t unheard of and it is purported such a law was found among the Hittite people which made certain materials exclusive to their pagan priests. My gut tells me though this may not be the answer. It seems odd for God to command something for a group of people without decreeing the exception. It would certainly lead to charges among the commoner of spiritual impropriety among the priesthood, which would naturally result in a distrust which they struggled with already. In addition, in case you thought there would be no translation confusion, rest assured there is! There is a disagreement between gold, blue, purple, scarlet referring to the “fine twisted linen” or if it regards another material. Further, if it does regard another material, does it mean “yarn” as “wool”? If it doesn’t refer to wool, then what could it possibly refer to? Does it even mean “yarn” at all?
Some Hebrew lexicons, render it as bysuss along with linen and not wool with linen. Bysuss makes a bit of sense, and it is a lost ancient art which supposedly the last person to know how to weave in it has recently past. It is regarded as the rarest textile on earth and is also referred to as “sea silk.” It is of a golden color and highly valuable, and given God’s statement these garments are to be made for “glory and beauty” and sea silk being gold in color, it would certainly fit the context. Sea silk is made of the filaments produced by a species of Mediterranean muscle (pinna nobilis) which in ancient times was woven into gold garments. If Exodus 28 does refer to two substances, it is unlikely it refers to wool yarn, and something else.
Fan mussel-grande nacre (Pinna nobilis)
Yet, looking at the Hebrew interlinear Bible, the passage seems to suggest, or present the possibility, it could refer to one material dyed into different colors, and not a blend (this would defeat any charge of contradiction. Certainly, not wool given what Ezekiel tells us.
Exodus 28:3-8, “And you shall speak to all the wise-hearted whom I have filled with a spirit of wisdom; and they shall make the garments of Aaron to sanctify him for his serving as a priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breast pocket, and an ephod, and a robe, and a tunic of woven stuff, a miter, and a girdle. And they shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons, even for him to serve as a priest to Me. And they shall take the gold, and the blue, and the purple, and the crimson, and the bleached linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, blue, purple, crimson and bleached, twined linen, skilled work. It shall have two shoulder pieces at its two ends; and it shall be joined together. And the band of the ephod which is on it, like its work, shall be of it, gold, blue, and purple, and crimson, and bleached, twisted linen.”
LITV
In all likelihood, “yarn” is a bit of an oversight in the translation. Thus, I don’t find the reservation argument to be sound, but I don’t necessarily find it to be impossible either.
Figurative
Honestly, I try to avoid figurative answers wherever possible, because it seems like such a generic excuse to say, “The Bible meant it figuratively.” Yes, both figurative and literal passages exist in the Scripture, but such a answer seems quite cliche and I would encourage anyone interested in the realm of apologetics to forgo this as an explanation whenever possible and stretch their minds and efforts beyond it. A lot of times, as may be in this case, the figurative explanation is akin to saying, “The Bible doesn’t mean what the Bible said.” Therefore, we should use such a explanation sparingly and I think context of book content plays a large part in whether something is truly figurative. For instance, a cited parable, or selection from a poetic or prophetic book is much more apt to have figurative language than a historical account. That being said, lest we follow this tangent to far, let us continue.
The main problem I see with this kind of argument is when we suppose it to be prominent in the Bible, we start to appealing to a form of acognosticism and presses upon us the idea our current generation can’t understand the real meanings within the Scriptures. To adhere to the literary form of Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism when it comes to biblical exegesis is quite dangerous. All this argues is the Bible was written for those present at the time and we can really have no firm idea what has really been lost in translation and transition between languages and the ages. Of what kind of foundation is this where upon we can have and build faith? A flimsy one. As said, there is a relationship between the symbolic explanation and the figurative explanation. So, as much as it is foolhardy to rely fully on the figurative it is so too with the symbolic. As said before, I cannot conclude God commanded it simply for sake of symbolism, but I can conclude symbolism is reflected in the practicality.
Jacques Derrida
Conclusion
This is really where I think we are left. There are practical reasons why these ceremonial decrees were made, and within these decrees exists a symbolism and teaching which may or may not have been more apparent to the Israelites, but regardless it doesn’t mean it has no worth to us today, or that we cannot grasp it. These lessons, the symbolism behind the decrees, and also their relative uselessness under the blood of Christ is something the Early Church fathers like Paul stressed and extrapolated. Reason, cause, or meaning are not always the same thing. I propose God had very practical reasons to give these commands to the Hebrews, but in them also imbibed great lessons and symbolism which would extend throughout the generations long after the ceremonial law had passed. Even unto eternity.
“You are all sons of God through Jesus Christ, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. 28There is neither Jew or Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” -Galatians 3:26-29
A few years ago I took a class in philosophy at a local community college. This class touched on such philosophical classifications as theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics, or how man organizes themselves in relation to one another. It was a fascinating class and I used the class somewhat to challenge my faith, and indeed I found it steadfast, though I will admit, somewhat shamefully, that obedience in this faith was not a direct result of my studies.
My professor was somewhat of a feminist and instead of a 4.0, I got a 3.9 due to one thing, that I referred to God as a “he.” This somehow offended her, and rather than make an issue out of it, I decided to, “choose my battles,” so to speak, and accepted the grade. I give this personal example as testimony to the fact that some believe the Christian God to display favoritism or be chauvinistic in some fashion. Yet, this is not only disproved in a philosophical context, but more importantly by the Scriptures.
There is no shortage of amazing women in the Bible and two books in the Bible are dedicated to such amazing women, the Books of Esther and Ruth. In addition, it’s worth mentioning that the last creation of God was woman, almost as if God were stamping His seal of approval onto His creation. As a man I have no issues with saying this and by me at least it is easily understood, and I say so without sin. Furthermore, in the life of Christ, or rather prior to, we are given the account of Jesus’s mother Mary who was beloved by God to such a degree she was chosen to bear the Messiah, which is no small blessing. Throughout Christ’s life, He both revered women and, in the case of Mary Magdalene, forgave her of her grievous sins. In fact, it was to her and a group of women that Christ first appeared after the resurrection.
In addition to women, the Bible is full of accounts of different nationalities, not only the Jews, but Gentiles from all regions, including all over the Middle East, Rome, Greece, Spain, Asia Minor, Africa, including specifically mentioned, Libya, mentioned in the table of nations, and Ethiopia, which represented the race or nationality of Africa. Even eunuchs are mentioned in Daniel and Paul is instrumental in the conversion of one such eunuch in the Book of Acts.
God is frequently cited for favoritism by the secular community, and to be honest, it is a little understandable when one approaches some of the verses located within the letters of Paul, where he warns against women being spiritual leaders. Yet, we tend to forget that these letters were written to a specific place at a specific time. When Paul’s ministry began, paganism was rampant throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. According to many of these false religions, fertility was one of the cornerstones of such paganism and was worshipped accordingly, in the bacchanalian fashion one might expect. It is no coincidence that the letters of Paul containing such verses are directed to churches in areas where such perverse temples of worship were located. This was nothing new, for the Old Testament speaks of ceremonies around so called Ashera poles which depicted an explicit phallic symbol. Its not confined to the days of old either, for such worship and even Ashera poles still exist in some countries.
These religious practices were in some locations presided over by an oracle, who was generally female. Due to the ancients worship of fertility, women were frequently the priestesses of such paganism. The worship of an earth mother still has its representation today in the public lexicon with the term, “mother nature.” In addition to their perverse acts of worship, they also made hand crafted idols, or so called, “Venus Figures,” like the famous Venus of Willendorf, which they worshipped. One of the most infamous examples of these female priestesses is the Oracle of Delphi, also referred to as the Pythoness, Pythia, or Sibyl, and who supposedly delivered messages and spoke from the god Apollo, son of Zeus, and, according to Greek mythology, god of knowledge, light, music, plague, poetry, and the sun. The Oracle of Delphi would seemingly speak from him after chewing many a laurel leaves, and being surrounded by “noxious fumes,” as writes one contemporary witness. The prophetess would then slip into a trance and begin speaking from the false deity.
Venus of Willendorf
Thus, because of women’s role as leaders in the paganism of the day, and the bacchanalian festivals, Ashera poles, or detestable acts of pagan worship, as well as the struggles of the male gender, the emerging Christian church was to be set apart from such practices and protected against such pagan influence, by having no semblance to the paganism of the day. As in the Old Testament, the bloodline through which Christ was to come needed be protected, so too did the new church need to come under this same protection. Paul’s commands to the churches were means of this protection and not condemnation of women. It has to deal with location, history, and the acts or beliefs of man, rather than the acts of God.
Oracle of Delphi
Yet, why do we refer to God as, “he?” Isn’t this rather chauvinistic of God? The truth is that God doesn’t have a gender, for God is beyond such physical classifications. If God had a gender, then, due to His perfect nature, it would have to serve some sort of purpose, for if there were any arbitrary, unaccountable, and erroneous details about God, then it would speak to imperfection, which cannot be, or else we would not be. The main purpose of gender is for procreation, and why would God need to procreate? Since He is a self-existent being and speaks everything into creation it serves no purpose. Rather, the personification of, “He,” is necessary and representational of our close relationship with the Lord, for this is what, above all, God desires. If we were to refer to God as, “it,” would this not diminish and disrespect that relationship? Certainly it would, for the term alone suggests distance and indifference.
When one examines the proper family structure that God put into place, we see God more fully than if we were to just apply the Lord to the male gender. The next couple paragraphs are going to concern this and I implore the reader to stick with me. In the political structure of man, that is how man organizes culturally, males are usually the authoritative figure. Yet, this is far from being absolute. This cultural trait is merely a consequence of Eve’s original sin, and doesn’t at all reflect how God relates, or reveres the female gender.
In the family, the Lord tells us that the wife is to be submissive to the husband and this is popularly refuted by feminists and those who consider God to be chauvinistic. Yet, what they fail to acknowledge is the other side of the coin, those commandments to the husband. The husband is to love the wife as himself and have great reverence for his significant other. Thus, this argument begins to fall apart, for the degree of the submissive role that is supposed on the woman by the feminist ideal, begins to lessen when one takes this extreme love and reverence into account. It is supposed that the wife need submit to ANY request from the husband, even if it belittles her or is against her wishes. Yet, this would not be the case in an obedient marriage as God has designed. For, a husband, out of his love and reverence, should not request, or desire, anything that belittles his wife, or that makes her do anything outside her being and nature, which drew him to her in the first place. This immediately negates and violates the Scriptures command. As Christ reveres those who come to Him, and we are, in fact, referred to as the bride of Christ, likewise we shall revere each other in a proper godly relationship. Thus, we find that the chauvinistic idea of God is not due to God, but due to a lack of understanding in the very Word of the Lord.
In today’s society, the rearing and motherly role of the wife has been greatly disrespected and diminished. In fact, many feminists regard “housewives” as an outdated and disrespectful position within the family. The “traditional” family, and anyone who belongs to it, are thus subject to ridicule from feminists. Despite their supposed declaration of equal rights and choice on the side of mothers, they mock and have a deep contempt for any woman who chooses to raise a family other than work, or be the, “primary bread winner.” Let it be known, that I by saying this, am not saying that women shouldn’t have an equal position along with men in the work place. Each should get equal reward for their efforts, as men and women get the equal reward of eternal life by their faith and relationship with the Lord.
The fact is that man likes to categorize their efforts or deeds, and assign levels of importance on them. The Scripture refutes this and says our roles are all equally important in the body and eyes of Christ. Feminists presuppose that to be a wife and mother is a less important role than that of the male, but in reality they are equal, as it is said, in marriage the two become one. Thus, feminism is more about insecurity rather than truth. These levels suggested by feminists, are of their own accord, and don’t reflect at all what the Scriptures tell us. The role of the mother in a family structure is highly blessed by God. In fact, it makes more sense to say that the man provides the means upon which the woman can rear the children, rather than anything else. Yet, the man has a vital role in child rearing as well. In addition, I feel another clarification is in order, I don’t feel that women shouldn’t work, so please do not conclude that. I am only addressing the emerging absolute in our culture against the traditional family structure. However, child rearing is a blessed institution and necessary as we see what happens to children when the antithesis is represented, though again, this is not an absolute.
Given all this we come to a clearer understanding of those gender attributed pronouns which refer to our Lord. God is our Father, not because He is disrespecting women, but that He provides for us. In addition, God is referred to as such, because the male was the role He was to take upon and in Jesus Christ. Yet, He has the characteristics of women too. His rearing of us in the faith, His compassion, and nurturing character all testify to this. So is it wrong to refer to God as a, “she?” Yes. Not because God has a gender per say, but rather because this is how He chose to reveal Himself to us, when both speaking through the prophets and in Christ Himself. So to refer to our Lord as, “she,” is an example of a needless, silly, willful rebellion, and thus disrespectful to God.
In Galatians 3:26-29, we find that Paul refers to all of us as sons. Why? Is this cultural or chauvinistic? Again, the answer is no. In fact, Paul is emphasizing the equality in and of righteousness we find when we put our faith upon Christ. We, by this faith, clothe ourselves in the Son of God, and thereby in the sight of the Father we share in His righteousness. Thus, as Jesus is the Son of God, we too become so under His blood. Thereby, in the Father’s eyes, our sin isn’t seen, only the righteousness of His Son, and because of this, those worldly distinctions of gender, race, social standing, or anything else become irrelevant.
The Jews are the chosen people of God, not because of favoritism or because they were the only ones offered salvation, but rather because it was through the Jews that God was to first reveal Himself and into which the Messiah was born. The salvation by and through Christ is offered to everyone and at any time. Thus, we find God not to have any favoritism, but rather are all equal in The Son, and this surpasses the equality of the world, where there are seemingly always distinctions and classifications, both just or not. As Christ and the Father are one, we become one with Christ by our faith and in this no favoritism exists, other than the favor bestowed upon The Son. In addition, in our faith, we are granted this same favor, and become sons of God, thanks to our Lord and Savior, who came not to condemn the world, but rather save the world by and through His blood. Amen.
Galatians 3:23-25, “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.”
Paul declares that the law, which revealed our inability to be in complete compliance with the law and/or God’s nature, was added so that mankind may see their need for Christ. The law was the birth pains, through which the wonderful promise made known to Abraham became manifest and fulfilled in Christ Jesus, through whom we, in faith, become righteous before God. There is a paradoxical nature within the law concerning both it’s goodness, it being from God and representing holiness, and while at the same time being a burden unto man, for the law condemns and in the law itself, there is no hope, for all have violated the law.
Furthermore, the strict obedience to the law, can in fact break the law. Again, this is rather paradoxical, but we can reconcile these seemingly contradicting aspects, not by the law, or through man, but rather in Christ. Some, like the Pharisees, held the law to such a strict standard, that they idolized the law above faith in God, thus breaking the law, of which they claimed obedience. It is possible to worship the law itself and forgetting about the conditions of faith that are proclaimed all throughout the scripture. This is not to say that obedience to the law is bad, for this same law is now upon our hearts, but rather by faith, the law becomes represented through our relationship with Jesus. We do not develop obedience in the law and then acquire faith, it has been designed and purposed by God that it be the other way around. This is implicit in the law, but man lost focus as he put his faith in the commands rather than the author.
Realize we still run the same danger today. When we approach the word of God, we need to approach it in and through our relationship with the Spirit, otherwise the Living Word, loses that necessary condition of faith. This is a lesson I need to consistently keep in the forefront of my mind when approaching the Word of God. I study the word, but I have come to understand that the Bible itself can’t save you anymore than the law provided salvation. There are numerous atheists and deists who know the Bible better than some Christians do. Thus, we find that what is contained in the word is a path to Christ, but if we look at the words alone, we are missing the point.
I myself love studying the word, but I also love extrapolating the philosophical points behind the Scriptures. As I have stated before, the enemy and the self, can take even the best intentions and askew them. Thereby, there was a time when I saw that my study of the Scripture wasn’t as God has intended. We are to not seek the philosophical points behind the Scriptures, but rather seek God and we should direct our hearts to developing a deeper relationship with Hm. We shall not forget this, for to do so, we are the same as those who study the law, and forego God. We should let the Spirit speak to us through the word, for our study is not study alone, but rather communion with our Lord, and we need to pray and be open unto this while we approach the Word of God.
Likewise, man forgot this aspect when they approached the law. They strove to be in compliance with the law, and forgot about the faith represented in the law. All the great men and women within the Old Testament understood this point, that the law reflected our noncompliance, and thus they were brought to faith and reliance on God and His promises, rather than just to the law itself, which again trespasses against the law, for it can idolize the law in a sinful manner.
So in Christ, we have a new revelation of faith that we can rest our reliance on. This was purposed from the beginning that the reconciliation between the law and faith, along with justification, would rest on Jesus Christ. Since man mistook the law and did not come to God in faith, He has now revealed a more present object upon which our foundations of faith are built, His Son. In addition, the law showed our great need of the deliverance that God had promised prior to Abraham, and this was purposed to draw men unto the promise by faith. Now, by the new covenant, the promise has been fulfilled and we eagerly await those promises from God that are still yet to come.
Galatians 3:19-20, “What then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise had referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.”
When we read or review the old and new covenants, we find that each covenant is represented by a figurehead or authority. In the case of the Old Testament, we find this figure to be Moses, while in the new, it is Christ. An remarkable aspect of compairison between Christ and Moses, is that when we look at the life of Moses, we find his life contained many things which are represented and corollary to the life our Lord and savior led, when He became subservient to physicality. Thus, we can conclude that the life of Moses, was a representational prophecy concerning the promise God had made prior to Abraham. It is fitting that the old and new covenants would have such striking parallels among the lives of both their authoritative figures. Here is a brief list of just some of the parallels between Jesus and Moses:
Moses: The Pharaoh decreed all male Hebrew babies be killed.
Jesus: Herod decreed all male Hebrew babies be killed.
Both were hidden in Egypt so that their lives would be spared. In addition, both Jesus and Moses, were in exile until the death of those rulers that had ordered the death of Hebrew male children.
Moses: Born when the Egyptians, a Gentile culture, ruled over the Israelites.
Jesus: Born when the Romans, a Gentile culture, ruled over the Israelites.
Moses: Raised by a man who was not his real father.
Jesus: Raised by a man who was not his real father, for His real father was God.
Moses: Freed his people from slavery.
Jesus: Freed us of the slavery of sin.
Christ and Moses were both mediators between man and God the Father. Moses became, more or less, the mouthpiece for God to make known the Law unto man. Why was the law brought to man through Moses in the first place, given that the gospel had already been revealed to Abraham? Paul tells us that it was due to the vileness of man and our disobedience. Our perverse nature and tendency to revolt and rebel against God, brought Him much grief. God’s grief, sadness, and anger are frequent messages of the prophets, like, notably, the minor prophet Hosea, whose life became representational of how God views our relationship with Him. The law was made to show man what he is, and what he should be. By the law, man saw that the pride they had in themselves was undeserved, for the law represented a precipice that man was and is unable to scale.
The law was not made to cancel out any hope, for the hope we have in Christ wouldn’t exist hadn’t it been for the law. Hope, within the confines of the human mind, rests in a future tense, that those things that are the desires of our heart may come to pass eventually as time slips further and further behind us. We see by the law, that because all have sinned, we can only direct our hope to one place, as Abraham did, and that is in God’s promises. It was a promise to Abraham that through his bloodline, a savior would come and be the object of hope for all nations. We can’t hope on the law, for though it is good, no hope is revealed in it, only condemnation. God, by his grace, gave us something to hope in, something that far exceeds the hope directed at physical things. This hope is eternal and true, rather than the antithesis of the world, where it is momentary and may, or may not, occur.
So, though the law provided no hope, it prepared the way for the hope and faith we have in Jesus Christ our Lord and salvation. We understand our need for salvation due to the law, and if there was no law, we wouldn’t understand to the degree we do, that we need to be saved. The laws intention was to refocus man on God, and illuminate the promises He made to and through Abraham as well as the prophets. Thus, we now place our hope on Christ who, reveals and offers this hope to us, and as God’s promises to Abraham proved true, likewise will Christ’s promises to us.
The mediators Jesus Christ, and Moses, showed the world where it is and where it can be in the eyes of God. As Moses was a mediator between God and the Israelites, he was also of the Israelites. In the same way, Christ was a mediator between man and God, but was of God. Christ, the mediator, presents us to the Father and it is by our faith in Him that all are saved. He is the embodiment of the law, hope, faith, obedience, and God Himself.
Galatians 3:16-17, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”
In a previous entry I discussed the righteousness of Abraham, which he was granted by God because of His faith. This was not only due to his belief in God, but his faith that God’s promises were steadfast. In addition, I discussed the “offspring,” promised and made known to Abraham. This offspring was to be a singular person, and through Him the world would be offered the reconciliation unto God. Here, in Galatians, Paul presents the argument of the singular seed that was to come by and through Abraham’s bloodline. As profound as this is, Paul goes further, dipping a bit into history to reveal the true nature of the covenants.
Within the philosophical and theological boundaries of the Christian “religion,” we tend to separate the covenants of Moses and Jesus, and break the Bible down, in a general sense, into both the Old and New Testaments. Man loves to put things and ideas into categories or groups, that by their division, they may be easily sorted and understood. Concerning the division of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the old and new covenant, I conclude there is nothing specifically wrong with this. However, one stumbling block does arise that I have witnessed, but this is the fault of man. It usually concerns those new in the faith or exploring it. It doesn’t seem too uncommon for those whom Christ is calling to be curious about the differentiation between the God of the Old Testament and the New, rather than looking at it as a complete revelation from and of God.
We need to remind our brothers and sisters in Christ, and in fact everyone, that the Scriptures represent a singular narrative that explicitly shows God and reveals He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Why the wrath shown in the Old Testament? Paul gives us a clear answer:
“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .” -1 Corinthians 10:11
So am I saying its wrong to refer to old and new? Not at all! In fact, the Lord Himself declared prior to Christ that a new thing was being done, and a new covenant will be established with Israel. The Book of Jeremiah says in Chapter 31, Verse 31:
“‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.'”
Yet, if it was shared with Abraham, what is it that makes it new? Simply, it is new in human, temporal terms. It is not as if man, who is subservient to God, caught God unaware and He had to hatch a new plan to save man. Rather, God’s plan was destined from the beginning. God, let it be known that it is a new covenant, because this is truly what it is in the context of time. Time has no bearing on God, for God controls time, and since time is under God’s belt, to God it is already finished. If anyone believes differently, then one cannot believe in the omniscience of God, for God would be subservient to time. Furthermore, if He is subservient to time, He could not be God, and our faith would be meaningless, for by and out of God came Christ. Yet, to God, it is time that has no meaning. The breadth of its meaninglessness is shown by eternity. We usually think of eternity as it corresponds to time, that time will stretch forever, but in actuality, eternity is a place where time doesn’t exist. The extent of the meaninglessness of time to God is made clear in 2 Peter 3:8:
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
Therefore, according to time, which we all are subservient, the law came before, and Christ after, and in temporal terms it is new, or more recent. Yet, that’s not all, by this new covenant it gave the law unto the hearts of man, and revealed God unto the world, so that no man or woman is without excuse. Yet, God did promise the new covenant unto Jeremiah and Abraham, and because He refers to it as “new” to Jeremiah, we see that though the promise was made known, and though the revelation of Christ to come preexisted some 430 years prior to the Law, it doesn’t negate the temporal relativity of the coming of Christ and the Spirit. In addition, as Paul says, the two don’t cancel each other out, but instead, they compliment each other to such perfection, they become united and fulfilled in Christ.
It is not necessarily disrespectful or wrong to conclude that the two covenants, outside time, represent one great covenant, where man can be saved through faith, as Abraham was. This, I would argue, when approaching this issue in human linguistics, that the covenants represent old and new revelations, through which God’s attributes and power were proclaimed to man. First, His nature, commandments, and wrath. Secondly, His grace, love, and peace.
The plan of God was singular, but we can differentiate between the covenants, because of what they revealed to man and by the manifestations of God. Under the old covenant, God spoke through the prophets, yet in the new, God came to earth, became man, taught to a multitude, was crucified, and rose again. By this, man does not need to turn to a prophet to know God, but now, His Son and Sprit dwell within our hearts, upon which the law is now written.
“All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” -Galatians 3:10
The verse Paul cites is within the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 27:36 and Jeremiah 11:3. God’s purpose by the Law was not to condemn or curse man eternally, but rather use the curse, an inevitable consequence of disobedience, to beckon us to Him, draw us closer, and prepare the way for Christ, who became the way. The word, “continue,” emphasizes that if observing the Law alone, one need to follow it exactly throughout their whole life, and any momentary slip, would negate any righteousness by the Law, which it represents.
Thus, the Law showed us the nature of God, and the great need for a savior who would reconcile us unto the Law, and thereby unto God. Many, in their hearts, cried out because of the Law for the Lord to save them from the curse it exemplified in man. Christ was the answer, and by the shame evident at the cross, the curse was placed upon Christ, and by His resurrection He was victorious in alleviating the curse from man. Thus, we come to another aspect of the Law, that by the Law, man looks to and relies more on God. This reliance becomes a necessary facet of our relationship with our Lord and savior.
“Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ 7Understand then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.” -Galatians 3:6-7
The apostle Paul was masterful at taking the Old Testament and applying it to the truth of Jesus Christ, of whom he became witness. Both Jesus and Paul, by their words, show the incredible truth behind the Old Testament, that though by the new covenant, we are granted righteousness by faith in Christ, it doesn’t necessarily negate the old covenant, or visa versa. In fact, the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old.
A frequent question among believers and the secular community is, if one is saved in Christ, what about all those who came before Christ? Were they not given the opportunity to be saved? I used to struggle with this question myself, but after reading this verse and others like it, and with my own personal discoveries and revelations concerning the nature of faith, I have come to the conclusion that even prior to Christ, man was capable of coming under grace.
As Paul says, let us consider Abraham. Abraham was a man of great faith, so much so that when the Lord asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham complied with the command. Yet, at the last minute, the Lord sent an angel to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac, but provided a ram to take Abraham’s sons place. Not only does this speak of great faith, but also obedience, which springs forth from that faith.
Now Abraham was faulty just as any other man, but even prior to the new covenant, his faith was credited to him as righteousness by God. This is due to the nature of faith, which we should all take a lesson from, that by understanding this lesson, one may overcome doubt and worry. Briefly, I will mention as I write this, that it is a lesson that is speaking to me as well.
It’s not as simple as having faith in the existence of Christ and our Lord, rather faith runs deeper than this, and it is important to meditate on it that our roots may grow deeper. Abraham not only believed in God, but believed in what He said. This might seem like a small difference, but in reality it is quite large, for to believe in what God says, is to believe in His promises. Therefore, when God told Abraham that his offspring would be the savior of the world, Abraham completely believed and it, again, was credited to him.
Within Paul’s letters, Paul elaborates on Abraham’s offspring. Paul tells us in the context, “offspring,” is presented, it is not plural, but rather singular. Thus, a multitude of Abraham’s descendants wouldn’t save the world, but rather one singular man of a divine nature, that is Christ. In Jesus’s time, the prophecy of a savior was no secret, in fact many were looking for the savior, but in their pride, the Jews misunderstood the heavenly nature of the savior. Many expected a mere king and not the King of Kings.
Abraham understood this and had faith in God that the savior would come and thereby, put his faith not only in God, but the savior that was to come. This is why we are children of Abraham. Abraham was of a previous generation, before the new covenant and Abraham believed this covenant was to come. Thus, with Abraham coming before, he is our father of those who would be credited righteousness through faith.
Abraham was not considered righteous for obedience to any Law (although the Law hadn’t been given unto Moses yet) or by any of his works, but was considered and credited righteousness because of faith and belief. It is akin to this same faith in the Lord and His promises that we become the descendants of Abraham. In Galatians 3:8-9, Paul states:
“The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ 7So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”
Therefore, let us not only believe in God the Father, and the Son, but let us believe in what they make known unto us by the Word and through the Spirit, who counsels us in all things. Anyone who did this under the old covenant was granted a like righteousness, but being under the new, we are witnesses to Christ’s death, by which we are justified, and His resurrection, through which righteousness and eternal life comes. Christ gained the firstfruits of the glorified body, due to His righteousness, but Abraham was the father of righteousness by faith.
What the Lord tells us is true and should not be doubted. It is correct to say some promises won’t come to pass until the appointed time, but let us not grow weary of our waiting upon the Lord, nor let it produce doubt within us. The Lord cannot break a covenant, for to do so would make Him imperfect, and we would cease to exist altogether. Thus, all the Lord has said will come to pass, in this age or the next, and this shall not hinder our faith. For even Abraham wasn’t hindered in his faith, but knew the promises of God would be fulfilled even when our father of righteousness by faith had passed from the world.
“Because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me.” -1 Corinthians 16:9
The next several verses, because of a vision I had, are going to concern doors. Why this is I cover in my previous entry. The term, “open door,” in the contemporary lexicon, tends to equate to an opportunity. However, after some study of the Scripture, we come to find this metaphor is nothing new, and has been in the popular lexicon since many generations past. In this verse, Paul uses the analogy, in the popular fashion.
Paul tells us about a door that was opened for him that he may accomplish the “effective work,” the Lord had purposed. Furthermore, Paul tells us that this door is large in scale and thereby, not only was Paul’s purpose great, but in addition, it seems that it took a mighty power to budge the door, due to its enormous size. The Lord is the only one capable of opening these great doors of opportunity. If attempted by our own accord, we find the way either blocked by our inability to open such doors, or we find them completely inaccessible.
If we do somehow open a door of Godly opportunity of our own accord, we often may find that the door wasn’t as large as we supposed, and our work may be less effective. It’s important to mention that I am not talking about mere worldly doors, as in opportunities in business or human pleasure. Rather, these are Godly opportunities, that culminate in the great works that change lives, instruct, and leads others to the Lord. The greatest commandments as mentioned by Christ say nothing about worldly success or the fulfillment of pride or carnal desires. Instead, we find the two greatest commandments to be the necessary conditions for adding to the population of heaven. To love the Lord with all your being and love others are the main ingredients when embarking on the blessed mission of the great commission.
The great door of opportunity which was opened unto Paul, was one that truly was great in scope, for He almost single handedly brought the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Lord is willing and able to open great doors for us concerning this purpose. It may take profound discernment in identifying these doors, but they are there. Pray that the Lord may open these doors for you in order that you might effectively do His work, for if you, again, embark on this because of your your own accord, be warned that the enemy can take even the best intentions and pervert them to do harm.
Let the Lord lead you to where you have the opportunity to make the biggest impact in the ministry. In addition, pray that the Lord may open up avenues of conversation that you may effectively share the gospel to another, imploring them to see the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that they might be saved from eternal damnation.
Finally, despite our Lord opening these doors, this doesn’t mean that our mission is easy by any means. In fact, as Paul states, many will oppose us, just for our faith alone. Do not lose heart because of challenges or suppose that you made a wrong turn due to them. You may still be exactly where the Lord wants you to be despite the opposition and challenges that arise. The great door of opportunity does not negate hardships, in fact, it may profoundly increase them. Yet, do not despair, for the Lord has His time and season planned out for you, that He won’t spring the door open until you are ready. Pray that the Lord would make you ready and that the great door may be opened for you to take your special place in accomplishing His will.
“You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” -Romans 6:18
Who or what is your master? Like it or not, we all chase after or focus on something, and it is this same something which dictates or determines our actions, thoughts, goals or desires. Man tends to think he is the master over his own life, but this isn’t the case. Man can choose what has dominion over him, this much is true, but once it is decided, it is sealed, and that individual becomes a slave to that very thing.
Relative recent history gives the term, “slave,” a certain infamy and therefore power, in a very negative sense. Does Paul mean “slave” with the same sort of negative connotation that it has today? I argue not, but let us first understand that slavery in the Scripture, is very different from those, “recent,” examples that blot our history, particularly that of the western tradition. Indeed, much slavery included in the Bible concerns the repayment of debts. Yet, now, Christ has paid our debt in full, that by our faith in Him, it may be credited to us as righteousness. Furthermore, Christ doesn’t refer to us as slaves, but rather, sons, daughters, and even, friends.
Paul indicates repeatedly in his letters, that we are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Yet, if we are slaves to righteousness, aren’t we then slaves to God? Furthermore, if this is the case, then can’t it be said that God has no more morality than any of those southern plantation owners, who “employed,” slaves in early American history?
In actuality, the answer is a resounding no! For although Paul uses the word, he does so to put it in, “human terms.” When we examine the slavery mentioned by Paul and juxtapose it with the slavery of history, we find a key difference, and, in fact, it is Christ Himself who is the key that unlocks the shackles that bind our hands and feet, setting us free!
When we look at the contemporary conception of the institution of slavery, we find it not only terrible, but completely self-serving. Though slavery is for the benefit of one, the land owner, Christ came for the benefit of many. In Christ we do serve God, but we too are rewarded in and by our efforts, We find that we benefit in being slaves to righteousness, which negates slavery altogether. In addition, we find others benefit in our being “slaves” to this righteousness, and we are given eternal life and glorify God with our very lives.
Sin is the true slavery, and more in tune with the current view of slavery then the antithesis. For though man’s carnal desires may be satisfied in short term, there is no true benefit, only pacification. What is true is what is eternal. Live for righteousness that you may be a slave no longer, live for Christ. Through sin came pain, death, and misery, but through Christ, we gain contentment, life, and joy. Glory be to God who through His Son broke us out of the bonds and freed us from sin and the wage that comes from it, death.
Brandon Devotional 