Nehamiah’s Wall, Revisited
When I wrote my first post regarding Nehemiah’s Wall, I lacked a few interesting details. From Daniel 9:24-26 (NAS):
“Seventy ’sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. ”Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ’sevens,’ and sixty-two ’sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ’sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
Taking the “sevens” to be seven years, Daniel says that there will be 483 years from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the time when the Messiah is killed. Since the Jewish calender consisted of 12, 30-day months, this is equivalent to 476 of our years.
Nehemiah 2 records the decree of Artaxerxes, issued in that king’s twentieth year:
And I said to the king, “If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go ” And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me.
Atrazerxes’ reign began in 464 B.C. (according to the Harper Atlas of the Bible, 1987), which puts the decree at 444 B.C. This decree is not to be confused with that of Cyrus, who decreed the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem at an earlier date (586 B.C.?).
The 444 B.C. date for the decree puts the date of the Messiah’s death at 32 AD, or right about the time of Christ’s crucification.
The book of Daniel was found among the famous Dead Sea scrolls, and cannot be dated after 125 B.C., even by critical scholars (Price, Randall. 1996. Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Of course, conservative Biblical scholars claim it is from the sixth century BC, which is what the book itself seems to claim. Liberal scholars cannot accept such an early date because they cannot accept the existance to true prophecy. Daniel contains detailed prophecies about the empires of Persia, Greece, and Rome. In any case, it predates the coming of Christ by more than 150 years.
Lust, the problem with theistic evolution
Sin. That’s the problem with theistic evolution and progressive creationism. For simplicity, let’s focus on sexual lust. Sexual lust, defined in the Ten Commandments as coveting your neighbors wife, is clearly a “natural” phenomena. Just look at the rut of the whitetail deer, some bucks don’t even take time to eat when the does are in heat! They battle other males and chase does in a frenzy of lust. Of course, this scenario is repeated throughout the animal kingdom. Interestingly, the Bible also refers to sin as “natural”:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic (James 3:14-15, NAS).
I am aware that there are ways that this can be reconciled with old earth creationism or theistic evolution. Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve refers to the time when god made man aware of himself and his will, and that is when lust became sin.
If lust occured before the fall, even in pre-humans, then we lust, not because of the fall, but because of our physiology, and because of millions of years of evolutionary genetic conditioning. We sin, not because of the fall, but because it has been part of us forever. We sin, not because we have inherited a “sin” nature, but because we were made that way. Sin entering the world then refers only to the commandment entering the world. This hardly seems the Biblical picture. Did God come to man and proclaim that what he had always done ammorally was now to be considered immoral? Did God come to already lustful creatures, so conditioned by millions of years of habit, and condemn them because they could not overcome the conditioning, conditioning that he oversaw? Or did he suddenly reveal to man the immorality of their nature, and proclaim that if he could not overcome it, he would be condemned?
This is the quagmire into which we plunge with theistic evolution and progressive creationsim. Only young earth creationism, Biblical literalism, can save us from this fate. God made Adam innocent, with the true ability to choose, without lust, and yet he turned to it. And lust, which had theretofore existed only in satan and the demons, entered the world, and spread to the animals.
Faith, Evidence and Subjectivity
For a long time now I have been wrestling with the nature of faith (see previous entries). Is it based on evidence? Can it be 100% certainty? How does one come to faith? What is the role of miracles in faith?
From the book of John it can be seen that evidence can at least play a role in faith. Perhaps it is not necessary, but Jesus does appeal to evidence (John 10:38, 14:11, and more), and so does John (20:30-31).
Belief is subjective, as I have noted before. We can never prove the things we believe with 100% certainty. Instead, we believe when we are subjectively persuaded (and we can then experience a paradigm shift). This is the case with all belief, whether it be in Christianity or gravity or evolution.
So, it is easy to see then Holy Spirit could produce belief, and how someone’s heart could be hardened against it.
The problem then becomes, if I don’t believe, but want to, how can I get there from here?
Questions About Faith and Evidence
What is the basis for faith, and what is the role of evidence?
The scientific view supposes that everything in the universe functions according to fixed natural laws. If this is true, then the theist is left with the IPO problem: there is no unique evidence for God or his activity. His activity cannot be discerned from natural processes and histories.
Alternative scientific views propose that evrything in the universe is determined by random events interacting with natural laws. In addition to the problems that the previous view leaves for the theist, this view leaves no place at all for God, except perhaps the God of the deists.
Therefore, if there is a “theistic” God, one who ineteracts with his creation, then both of the above views of the universe must be false. It must not be true that all things function according to laws, though some randomness may be permissible.
This may not seem revelatory to most readers, but it is to me. For years now I have been moving closer to the view that God may act only through natural processes. I expressed such views in previous entries. I suppose I have been sneaking in this direction as a defensive move, trying to protect myself from the encroachment of science upon my faith, but now I realize that it is no defense.
I guess I had been moving away from this view earlier this month, as evidenced by my “Evidence” post. But after writing that post, I was still hanging like the character in the story. I had seen the need for evidence, but was wondering if it could ever really suffice.
Last Sunday, as I looked across the spines of the books in my church’s library one title lept at me from the shelf: The Silence of God. In the book, Sir Robert Anderson asserts that miracles were never the basis for faith. He says that they were always meant to confirm Jesus messiahship to the Jews, who were familiar with the messianic prophesies attributing such signs to that chosen one. He argues that people are never really convinced by miracles alone. For example, the same Jews that crucified Jesus also saw his miracles. Miracles can always be attributed to other sources and or factors, a point I made also in that post.
So what is it? How does one believe? Is it true that it is a subjective inclination? Is faith a mysterious ability or confidence imparted to some people?
I remembered today that that is what William Lane Craig seems to suggest when he says that we must distinguish between how we can know Christianity to be true from how we can show it to be true. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, claims Craig, that makes us believe.
OK. That makes sense, and I suppose it is little different from the conclusion I came to in my “evidence” post, but then how do I get this “faith”?
Craig also believes that Christianity must be consistent with experience and with logic. What I said at the beginning of this post must be true, that is, science cannot truly explain everything. The problem is, of course we will never know for sure if it does or not.
According to Craig, it would seem, one has faith due to the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit, but one finds that his faith is consistent with experience and logic. I cannot prove Christianty with a syllogism, but it is rational.
So what is teh role of evidence? I am not prepared to say that evidence plays no role at all, because what if it was true that science explained everything? Could I still believe? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that faith can exist in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, but how much is necessary?
If evidence is not the basis for faith, then why is evidence necessary? Is it because though faith isn’t based on evidence, it must be consistent with experience and logic?
This makes sense: I believe because of the work of God within me, but my beliefs are rational.
Maybe that’s it. I don’t know.
At Heaven’s Gate: But You Didn’t Give Me Enough Evidence.
“But God,” I said “You didn’t give me enough evidence.”
“No?,” asked that solemn deity, “What do you mean by ‘evidence’?”
“You know, like proof, data, observations. I need hard evidence… things I can see, feel, smell.”
“I see,” said God, thoughtfully, “you needed to see me?”
“Not necessarily,” I replied, “I believe in atoms, though I cannot see them. There is evidence for gravity: every time I drop something it falls. There is evidence for the existence of black holes, at least I suppose there is. And of course I believe in evolution. After all, there are all of those fossils in the rocks, with teh simpler ones below the more complicated ones. But I need evidence that I can see. Like with evolution, I can see the fossils, and the explanation makes sense.”
“OK, so it can be indirect evidence?”
“I guess so.”
“And you are saying that there is no indirect evidence for Me? What about the Bible?”
“Yes, but that could all just be made up, contrivances of ancient deluded men or something.”
“Could scientists be wrong about evolution?”, He asked.
“I suppose so, though I can’t imagine it,” I answered.
God said, “So you don’t need absolute proof. There is evidence for Me, it is just not good enough for you.”
“I guess you could say that, or else there is just not enough.”
“OK so what would be good enough?”
“Well, If you appeared to me, or had spoken to me, that would have been helpful.”
“Oh, and you are sure you wouldn’t have questioned your sanity, or blamed it on some fluke of brain chemistry?”
“Maybe I would have. I don’t know, just make it obvious. For example, get rid of all of those fossils, they obscure you, and why couldn’t you have made it clear that the earth was only 5,000 years old. How about fossils tracing back to Adam and Eve in Mesopotamia, or a fossil Noah’s Ark? Or maybe … Egyptian records of the Exodus and the destruction of the army at the Red Sea, or maybe, oh, I don’t know…”, I faltered.
“It’s rather difficult, isn’t it?”
“What?”
“Coming up with evidences that you couldn’t explain away. Thinking of arguments that would not be ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ arguments, for instance.”
“I suppose so, I guess that is impossible, but I guess I didn’t need absolute proof. I just needed more.”
“How much more?” He asked.
“I don’t know,” I winced, “I can’t say.”
“Well then how can you say I didn’t give you enough? What is the standard for ‘enough’? It seems that the only standard is you and your own mind, or judgement, or perhaps your preconceptions, inclinations, whims, desires, or whatever it is that controls what you believe and don’t believe. In other words, the belief we are speaking of is subjective.”
“I guess you’re right.”
“So, what you mean to say is that I should’ve given you enough evidence to convince you, however much that was, but you cannot say if this would be possible.”
“I suppose so.”
“Who made you the standard, the judge of fairness and evidence?” inquired God.
“No one, but is it fair to require something of me that I cannot provide, or that I have not been equipped to produce?” I argued.
“No,” replied the Almighty, “but what if the fault is in you? What if you have hardened your own heart against Me, and against My Evidence? What if you are not convinced because your heart and mind have been distorted by your own rebellion against Me? What if, seeing that belief is subjective and based on intuitive judgement calls, your own decisions have so affected your mind and heart that you are unable to subjectively arrive at the appropriate conclusion, given the evidence.”
“I don’t know,” I sighed.
Two Options
We have two options. I can see no more.
One option is that there is no God, or no personal God, in which case Nietzsche’s madman was right:
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?
But much like our culture, the people of Nietzsche’s parable did not recognize their dire circumstance:
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.
Our culture does not recognize it, but I think the consequences of “the deed” are even are upon us. “Has it not become colder?” Yes, like Sartre’s nausea. “Are we not plunging…?” Yes, into blackness and darkness and nothingness.
But we have a second option: There is a pesonal God, and life has purpose and meaning.
(Source of the Nietzsche quotes: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.; quoted in the Internet Modern History Sourcebook)
Moral Midnight
In 1947, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago started the so-called “Doomsday Clock“. The idea is that they move it closer to midnight when world developments seem to be moving closer to the destruction of the world by nuclear war or other destructive technologies or environmental degradation.
I think we need a moral/spiritual version of the Doomsday Clock, one that indicates how close we are to the destruction of civilization that results from moral and spiritual decay. I guess first we must define midnight. I thought one good definition could be found in Genesis 6:5, just before God destroyed the earth in Noak’s day: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually(Gen 6:5 NASB).” Another good definition would be in Romans 1:28-32:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (NASB).
Based on these definitions of midnight, I think I’ll put the clock at 11:55.
Meant to Live
“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only
logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”
— C.S. Lewis
I found this quote this evening. I had to post it with this song by Switchfoot.
If blind chance and physics made us thus, then life is absurd. Reality doesn’t fit with appearance. Man is an illusion. It would be a cruel joke were it not a meaningless impersonal event. It would be a mockery if the universe were a person.
But if God made us thus, then we are meant for something greater than the universe.
See “Intelligently Designed” for previous, similar thoughts.
Everything
This video sums it up. Life, that is. It’s well worth watching.
Right, Wrong, and the Check Valve of Society
Everyone has a right to not be offended. Everyone has a duty to make sure they do not make someone else uncomfortable. The only moral wrong in our society is to call something morally wrong, and the greatest evil is discomfort. You can’t say something is wrong, because that might make someone who does it uncomfortable. Of course, you can say that same thing is right. So, there is a one-way flow in these pipes of morality. Things can be right, but they can’t be wrong, so down we go, swirling down the drain.
