“Sons of God” and “Daughters of Men” – An Exegetical Approach to Genesis 6 January 8, 2010

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,  that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.  And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.  So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”  But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

- Genesis 6:1-8

Why Not Exegesis?

There can be little doubt that Genesis 6:1-4 has raised much speculation regarding the identity of the “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” and “Nephilim.” What is bothersome is that for many who are attempting to answer these questions of identity, even Christians, a thorough examination of the text itself is rarely, if ever, used in the formulation of their proposed answers. Instead, what we encounter are interpretations that look outside of the text of the Flood Narrative, disregard the immediate context practically altogether, and typically reference the non-canonical Book of Enoch. The “sons of God” are, on this basis, interpreted to mean “angels,” the “daughters of men” are human women with whom these sons of God mated, and the Nephilim (or, “giants” as the New King James Version translates it) are, therefore, nothing else but the product of this unholy union between fallen angels and women.

Because the Old Testament refers to angels as ben elohim, or sons of God, in a variety of places in the Old Testament, there is some exegetical basis to raising the possibility that ben elohim is to be understood as being synonymous with angels. However, a closer examination of  the literary structure of the book of Genesis in general, and Gen. 6:1-8 in particular show us that such an interpretation is not allowable.

Moses and Parallelism

From the beginning, we can note that Moses’ writing evidences a rather frequent use of parallel structures. For instance, consider the six days of creation in Genesis 1 run parallel to one another.

Day 1 – Light –> Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and Stars

Day 2 – Firmament/Waters –> Day 5 – Birds/Fish

Day 3 - Land/Vegetation –> Day 6 – Land animals/Humans

Moses’ parallel structure isn’t limited to this chapter, however. Another example can be found in two parallel characters named in the genealogies of Cain and Adam in Genesis 4 & 5. The first parallel of these  character names is, somewhat ironically, “Enoch.”

Enoch [4:17-18]	Enoch [5:18-24]
i. Son of unrighteous Cain ii. City named after him iii. Earthly (ungodly) iv. Great-great grandfather of Lamech the murderer [4:18-24] v. Descendants destroyed by God in flood (impl.)	i. Son of righteous Seth ii. No city mentioned iii. Spiritual (godly) iv. Grandfather of Lamech, the father of Noah [5:21-25] v. Descendants saved by God from flood

While I have no doubt that these men were historical personages, I don’t Moses haphazardly placed these two men in diametrically opposed lineages for no good reason. Rather, Moses is contrasting the lineage of Cain with that of Seth by the use of these opposite parallels. Another parallel occurs in the two Lamechs of each genealogy.

Lamech [4:18-24]	Lamech [5:28-31]
i. Descendant of ungodly Enoch ii. Murderer iii. Polygamist iv. Earthly (ungodly) v. Sons associated with bronze and iron work vi. Poetically speaks of avenging himself through violence	i. Descendant of godly Enoch ii. Not a murderer iii. Monogamous iv. Spiritual (godly) v. Son was a carpenter vi. Prophetically speaks of Noah bringing rest from the toil and curse posterior to the fall

This is another clear example of how Moses used parallels to further emphasize certain themes in the beginning chapters of Genesis. Therefore, it’s no surprise to see that he follows this same pattern in Genesis 6:1-12. Let’s look at the parallels that appear in this passage.

Earthly	Spiritual
i. “daughters of men”[v. 2] ii. Man’s flesh -“he is but flesh” [v. 3] iii. Man’s heart – “was only evil continually”[v. 5] iv. All flesh “corrupted” [vv. 11-12]	i. “sons of God” [v. 2]ii. God’s Spirit – “my Spirit shall not strive with man” [v.3] iii. God’s heart – “…was grieved”[v. 6] iv. Noah was “pure” in his generations [v. 10]

Beginning with chapter 4, although one could possibly argue that the entire Pentateuch follows suit, and ending, for our purposes, in chapter 6, we see that Moses is fond of parallels. He is comparing the earthly/sinful to the spiritual/righteous; he is comparing the ungodly lineage of Cain to the godly lineage of Adam/Seth.

Then What About Sex?

To further bring this point out, we need  only look to (i.) the sins that were explicitly committed by the Cainites, and (ii.) the sins because of which God is bringing about judgment upon the earth.

Cainite Sin	Sins Being Judged by God
i. Murder – cf. Cain and Lamechii. Polygamy/Sexual Immorality – cf. Lamech	i. Violenceii. Sexual Indiscriminateness/Sexual Immorality (Corruption)

What is present in the Cainite lineage of chapter 4 has now reached full fruition in chapter 6, infecting even the “sons of God,” i.e. the godly lineage of Adam/Seth. This is an interpretation that requires that we do only one thing: Treat the text with humility and respect. Referencing external books which came much later (see here), without first consulting the Pentateuch as a whole, the book of Genesis as a whole, and Genesis 6 as it stands in relationship to the entire narrative, which all scholars recognize begins in chapter 1 and ends in chapter 11 – well, it’s just poor analysis.

Further, consider the emphasis in chapter 7 not only on clean and unclean animals being separate unto themselves, but also this curious phrase:

You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female…

- Gen. 7:2a

Is the word “his” just occupying space? Not at all. In light of the “sons of God” intermingling with “the daughters of men” – that is to say, the clean humans intermingling with the unclean humans – God’s specification of the clean males having their own clean female mate, and applying the same rule to the unclean animals makes complete sense. God isn’t giving Noah unneccessary details, He is underscoring that the clean and the unclean are not to intermix (this is also a consistent theme throughout the entire Pentateuch).

These animals point us back to Gen. 4, 5 & 6: God’s people are to remain pure; they are not to corrupt themselves with that which is unclean. The more extreme claims that would like to call these “Nephilim” half-alien/half-human hybrids are, therefore, seriously unfounded.

The “sons of God” are, according to the text, godly men who corrupted themselves with the “daughters of men” (or Cainite women).

Then What About 2 Peter 2:4 and the Jude 1:6?

Those who attempt to make the sons of God = angels, without referencing the Book of Enoch, point to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 in order to establish their case. However, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 are not direct references to the Book of Enoch, nor do they claim to be, and may in fact be referring to the fall of Satan, as relayed by Ezekiel 28:11-19.

Here are the verses.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment…

- 2 Peter 2:4

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day

- Jude 1:6

Concerning these matters, John H. Sailhamer writes:

“Drawing on lessons from the O[ld] T[estament], Peter argues that, though it may delay, God’s judgment always falls on the ungodly. The pages of the OT that he turns to concern the fallen angels in the Garden of Eden (v.4; cf. Eze. 28:11-19), the flood of Noah (v.5; cf. Gen. 6-9)…

It should be noted that Peter follows the sequence of divine judgments as they are presented in the OT. He begins with the fall of Satan and his angels in Eden. The primary biblical source for Peter is the prophecy against the king of Tyre in Eze. 28. Ezekiel, threatening the swift destruction of the king of Tyre, much like Peter, drew on a close reading of the Garden of Eden narratives in Gen. 2-3 to show that the fate of the king of Tyre would be the same as that of the fallen angels. According to Peter, when the angels ’sinned’ (v. 4a; Ezze. 28:16a), they were expelled from the Garden of God (v. 4b; cf. Eze. 28:16b) and cast into a consuming fire (v. 4b; cf. Eze. 28:18).”

NIV Compact Bible Commentary, pp. 580-581

Conclusion

The story isn’t about angels having sex with women and producing some hybrid race of alien/giant/demon-people. It’s about godly men corrupting themselves and their lineage with ungodly women.

-h.

Christianity, Astrology & William Barclay (the Unwitting Apologist) January 4, 2010

²⁷Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

²⁸They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

²⁹“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.^[b]“

³⁰Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Mark 8:27-30

This may sound like a cliche topic, but in consideration of the ongoing interest in Christ, I felt I needed to post this. The question for humanity was, is, and will continue to be, so long as the Lord tarries: Who is Jesus Christ?

For Peter and the ten, Jesus was the Christ, the eternal Son of God become flesh – Messiah of God, Redeemer of men. However, for others, He was merely a resuscitated prophet. Some thought of Him as being greater or lesser in degree of prophet-hood (hence the references to Elijah, John the Baptist, and one of the prophets), but still a prophet.

And the debate continues today. I think I’ve heard just about every wild speculation regarding the identity of Jesus Christ from the acceptance of His historical existence and simultaneous denial of His divine nature (obviously denying that He performed miracles, etc), to the outright denial of His historical existence. Not at all denials of the historicity of Christ are the same, it should be noted. There are some which reduce the content of the four gospels to mere communal myth, while there are others which make more radical claims.

Many would like to see in Jesus and the twelve disciples, for instance, a narrative equivalent of the Zodiac. Apart from the textual impossibility of establishing such a claim (see here for more info on the problematic position espoused by the film Zeitgeist, and others made by Acharya S.), there are historico-textual facts that undermine these erroneous claims.

For example: The Epistle to the Colossians.

The Epistle to the Colossians, written early on in the history of the Christian faith (c. AD 58-62), is in some senses an extended apolgetic against an unnamed heresy that had begun to creep into the church at Colosse. Theologian William Barclay breaks this heresy down into its 11 constituent elements. For lack of space, however, I will only touch upon four of these, seeing as they  directly address the issues of (i.) Jesus’ historical existence, (ii.) His divine nature, (iii.) His uniqueness among the false gods and goddesses of Paul’s time, and (iv.) the incompatibility of astrology and Christ.

i. Denial of the Adequacy of Christ -  Paul counters this by writing some of the loftiest statements about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ found in Scripture (particularly, Col. 1:15-20 & 2:8-9).

ii. Denial of Christ as Creator  – Paul counters this by explicitly proclaiming the Divinity of Jesus Christ as God-become-man (ibid).

iii. Denial of the Humanity of Christ - Paul addresses explicitly by addressing the physical reality of Jesus Christ, as does John in his gospel and epistles.

iv. Astrological Elements - Paul addresses an area of the “Colossian heresy” that attempted to bring in astrology as a complement to the teaching of Christ, given through the apostle, to the church at Colosse.

(Summarized from The Letters to The Philipians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (Revised Edition), pp. 94-97)

Barclay expounds upon a phrase found in Colossians 2:8-10 (“elements of this world” is the phrase) and its astrological implications. However, because Barclay’s analysis is a few pages long, I have chosen a small selection of text from p. 96 explaining point  iv.

“Stoicheia [translated as elements of this world'] can [also] mean the elemental spirits of the world, and especially the spirits of the stars and planets. The ancient world was dominated by thought of the influence of the stars; and even the wisest men would not act without consulting them. It believed that all things were in the grip of an iron fatalism settled by the stars; and the science of astrology professed to provide men with the secret knowledge which would rid them of their slavery to the elemental spirits. It is most likely that the Colossian false teachers were teaching that it needed something more than Jesus Christ to rid men of their subjection to these elemental spirits.”

Now, I think it is pertinent to mention here that I don’t agree with Barclay’s theology, seeing as he was a Universalist who denied the miraculous as recorded in the New Testament. In fact, I don’t think I’d be alone in calling the man a heretic.

And this is what makes this case so much stronger, for Barclay’s aim was not to provide an apologetic for the New Testament’s miracles or defend the truth of its claims, but to provide a historically situated exegesis of the New Testament’s writings. In such analyses, he provides us with a detailed portrait of the early church and its beliefs (even beliefs that he doesn’t accept as true, e.g. the Deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, it is on this basis that although I think he was a  heretic who contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture, I can appreciate him as a historian.

I have scanned a selection from Barclay’s book and provided a download link here, if you are curious as to the broader context of his elaboration upon the Colossian Heresy.

Peace

(in Christ alone)

-h.

Stephen’s Speech and the Book of Hebrews December 29, 2009

³⁷ “This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’
³⁸ “This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, ³⁹ whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, ⁴⁰ saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ ⁴¹ And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. ⁴² Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets:

‘ Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness,
O house of Israel?
⁴³ You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch,
And the star of your god Remphan,
Images which you made to worship;

And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.’⁴⁴ “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen, ⁴⁵ which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, ⁴⁶ who found favor before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. ⁴⁷ But Solomon built Him a house.

⁴⁸ “However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:

⁴⁹ ‘ Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the LORD,
Or what is the place of My rest?
⁵⁰ Has My hand not made all these things?

⁵¹ “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. ⁵² Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, ⁵³ who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.”

Acts 7 is an amazing chapter of the New Testament that does much more than introduce us to the first martyr (Stephen) and Saul, who would later become known as Paul the apostle. It introduces us to New Testament theology, as expressed perhaps most explicitly by the author of the book of Hebrews. While the text is too long for me to fully delve into here, the above quotation from Acts 7:37-50 immediately brings to mind the book of Hebrews which follows a very similar pattern of argument in three very specific ways: (i.) Stephen’s emphasis upon the Prophet like unto Moses (and, correspondingly, the parallel behavior of the unbelieving Jews of his (i.e. Stephen’s) day and Moses’), (ii.) Stephen’s emphasis on the Tabernacle as given “according to the pattern he had seen”(a phrase which shows up repeatedly in the book of Hebrews, particularly in Hebrews 8:1-6, where the author is emphasizing the greater High Priest and greater Tabernacle, etc), and (iii.) the crucifixion of our Lord by the hands of those who received the law by the direction of angels and yet have not kept it (similar again in structure to the author of the book of Hebrews’ argument in 2:1-4).

What this shows, therefore, is that the theology that Paul later expounds upon is not some invention of his own, nor is the theology given by the author of the book of Hebrews. Why? Because they both follow Stephen’s manner of argumentation by pointing to the Old Testament shadows and its corresponding historical reality in Christ and murderous, rebellious Israel. They also, as Stephen did, compare the lesser with the greater (again, typology is used here by Stephen, Paul, and the author of Hebrews). This clearly points to the fact that New Testament theology didn’t develop in the manner in which liberal critical scholars would like to imagine it did. Rather, Stephen’s speech shows clearly that he was familiar with a manner of understanding the Old Testament that had, in fact, been passed down to him from the apostles who, no doubt, received it from the very mouth of Christ.

Beautifully, the Holy Spirit allows us to see one more critical factor: Paul was witness to the speech and stoning of Stephen. The siginificance of this is unfortunately not much elaborated upon, but should be. For it shows, to a greater or lesser extent, that “Paul’s theology” was not his own at all. In fact, “his theology” was first introduced to him by the first martyr for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Would not such an event, coupled with the fact of Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord, and his dependence upon the apostles show that “his” theology was not his own but Christ’s? That he didn’t “develop” a complex systematic theology, but received it at the hands of those whom he formerly persecuted? That New Testament theology is given by the mouth of God the Son and merely transcribed by the apostle and the author of the book of Hebrews?

Let me know your thoughts.

- h.

Thanks, Giving & Two Hours of Apologetics December 2, 2009

Once I had thoroughly engorged myself on turkey, ham, mashed potatoes, pie, pie, and, well, some more pie, I spent some time talking with my brother in law about a slew of topics. We started in politics, moved into history, touched briefly on economics, sociology and, before I had even noticed, we landed in theology/apologetics. And the question of whether or not I believe in the literal-historical truth of the book of Jonah came up, as it usually does in these kinds of conversations.

It went something like this:

T: “So do you think the Bible is, like, allegorical or literal? I mean, do you believe that a man was really swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it?”

H:“Yeah. I believe it to be literally-historically true.”

T: “Why? How?”

H: “Well, I believe in God. If God exists, the miraculous is neither impossible nor philosophically problematic.”

T: “Go on…”

H: “Okay. Well, you see…”

And what followed was a (roughly) two and a half hour discussion about the Bible, God, and the reason why Christ’s death was an absolutely necessary historical event.

But it began with the question of the miraculous. So I’ll pose it you:

On what grounds can we justifiably believe in the miraculous (specifically, the miraculous events of the Bible)?

My answer was twofold:

1. The existence of God

&

2. The self-revelation of God to Israel/in Christ

The Existence of God

Before fully engaging in discussion concerning the plausibility and/or possibility of the miraculous, I think it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that while we are at a loss to explain how the miraculous events of the Bible may have taken place, this doesn’t ipso facto negate the plausibility/possibility of the miraculous. Seeing as our scientific knowledge is severely limited – being at best a “working knowledge” of a fraction of the known universe, and being the product of inductive reasoning (i.e. being subject to constant revision, alteration, etc) – could it be that that the miraculous events of the Bible perhaps did not “break”, “defy”, or “bend” any known physical laws, but acted in accordance with such laws as they (i.e. those physical laws) operated under historically unique conditions?

Maybe. Maybe not. We aren’t in a position to make an absolute judgment on the matter – either affirmatively or negatively.

My point, to put it succinctly, is simply this: Because our knowledge of the universe is not exhaustive, whether or not the miraculous events of the Bible took place cannot be conclusively decided upon the basis of our knowledge of how the universe works. Our inability to conceive of a “natural” explanation of how these events happened doesn’t invalidate them. And although this fact may not be enough to fully establish that the miraculous events did occur, it does reveal the shaky foundation upon which naturalistic criticisms of the miraculous lay. The implausibility and/or impossibility of the miraculous occurring cannot be decided upon absolutely by reference to our limited knowledge of how things work.

Again: We aren’t in a position to make an absolute judgment on the matter – either affirmatively or negatively.

Although it does raise a question that begs for an answer from the skeptic:

If a “natural” explanation is, therefore, at the least plausible/possible, then denying the supernatural doesn’t ipso facto negate the possible historical reality (albeit under unique conditions that are irrepeatable in nature) of the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. And if this is so, which it is, then upon what grounds are the miraculous events described in the Bible denied?

See, how one responds to the question of the miraculous is not entirely dependent upon one’s knowledge of how things work, but also upon one’s metaphysical posture.

Does God exist?

If one concludes that God does exist, then the miraculous events recorded in the Bible are infinitely more plausible/possible.

If one concludes that God doesn’t exist, the plausibility/possibility of the reality of the miraculous still remains.

The Self Revelation of God to Israel/The Self Revelation of God in Christ

In Deuteronomy 4:32-39, Moses has something interesting to tell the nation of Israel just before he dies and they enter the promised land. We read:

³² “For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether any great thing like this has happened, or anything like it has been heard. ³³ Did any people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and live? ³⁴ Or did God ever try to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another³⁵ To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? is God; there is none other besides Him. ³⁶ Out of heaven He let you hear His voice, that He might instruct you; on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire. ³⁷ And because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them; and He brought you out of Egypt with His Presence, with His mighty power, ³⁸ driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land as an inheritance, as it is this day. ³⁹ Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Moses is reminding the people that their history is intentionally unique. These miraculous events weren’t everyday occurrences, but were given for the purpose of God’s revelation of Himself to Israel, which is important because we often lose sight of why the miraculous is recorded in the Bible. It isn’t simply for the sake of making us “Ooh” and “Ahh.” Instead, the miraculous events recorded in the Bible point to God’s special/irrepeatable action in the salvation of the Israelites, and to His general/constant interaction with His creation as Creator- i.e. His identity as the only true and living Savior/Creator God.

Following the Biblical narrative, we learn that Israel’s purpose is bring forth the Messiah, who would fully reveal God to man.

And how would He do this?

By special/irrepeatable miraculous events, the greatest of which would be His resurrection from the dead.

So how does this strengthen the case for the historical reality of the miraculous?

By underscoring the purpose-specific nature of the miraculous events recorded in the Bible. If the miraculous occurred for the sake of God’s self-revelation to/through Israel and in Christ to the all of humanity, then where is the problem one finds with the irrepeatability of the recorded events?

Now, I’m not affirming or denying that miracles presently occur, but I do think that the Bible gives us reason to believe that such miracles, seeing as the canon of Scripture is closed/finished, are no longer necessary. This is especially so when we consider that the author of Hebrews tells us that God has finally spoken to us/revealed Himself in the Person of His Son – the Lord Jesus Christ. He writes:

¹ God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son[...]

Heb. 1:1-2a

If God exists and desires to express His identity as Creator and Savior, then where is the problem?

Wouldn’t the very limited, irrepeatable nature of the miraculous events recorded in Scripture give an even stronger basis for taking the given record (i.e. the Bible) seriously?

-h

Universals or Particulars? Pt. 2 November 26, 2009

(Continued from Universals or Particulars? Pt. 1)

The problem that I found with this author ’s article was not that he was attempting to engage Hinduism in a non-aggressive manner, but that he did so at the expense of drawing a sharp dividing line between Christian truth and Hindu beliefs. In an increasingly apostate universalist-syncretist-antinomian post-postmodern American “Christianity,” should we be blurring such foundational distinctions? Are we not, thereby, adding to the self-refuting, unconsciously ironic “dialgoue” that would seek to eliminate Christ as we know Him (i.e. as the Word of God presents Him) – the absolutely unique, unmatched, Creator become flesh to save  man from the wrath of God Almighty – in order to be more accepting, inclusive, and “mature”?

This is a serious consideration that I don’t see being made much in many of today’s churches. We’ve tried to appeal to shared particulars instead of making our appeal to universals.

Paul’s speech to the Athenian men is an appeal to universals that then leads into particulars about the Christian faith. Why have we inverted the movement? Have we uncritically accepted calls to “find common ground” with others who really share no common ground with us when it comes to matters of doctrine?

I think we have.

A great example of this can be found in how the author of this article chooses to end his section on Hiduism. He briefly touches upon Hinduism’s idolatry, urging Christians to not be too harsh in criticizing their behavior. Why? Because Israel, like the Hindus, practiced idolatry throughout its history and we don’t go ballistic on them, do we? No, he claims, but we actually appreciate this fact about them. Quoting from a pastor who shall remain nameless, he writes:

“…On a question of this nature the light, which is shed by modern historical and literary criticism of the Bible, is very helpful. Thanks to the patient research and industry of modern scholars, we have come to realize that growth of the Old Testament religion was continually impeded by lapses into idolatry…Gradually they were weaned away from idolatry…In course of time the children of Israel became entirely free from the temptations to idol worship and full aware of the nature of God as Spirit.

We do not dismiss the Old Testament because the story of Israel is tainted with idol worship. On the other hand, we find much value in the slow and toilsome growth of Israel towards clearer light about the nature of God and about the method of worshiping Him. The bhakti religion of India may be considered to belong to the spiritual level that is represented in the Old Testament. The faith and devotion and love which have been lavished on idols must be directed towards the one true God…” (p. 88)

Really? A “pastor” is claiming that Israel came to faith progressively, via a cognitive evolutionary process that really involves the acquisition of new information and the repeated practices that relate individuals/nations to said acquired information (i.e. new rituals)? A “pastor” made these egregious errors regarding the Biblical distinction between those who truly had faith and those who didn’t? A “pastor” disregarded the basic teaching of the New Testament regarding unregenerate man’s antagonistic posture toward “the one true God” (see, Romans 1 & 3)?

Really?

Yes, really.

In an attempt to evangelize, some have sought “common ground” that just doesn’t exist, subordinating the New Testament’s own theological analysis of the Old Testament (that is to say, God’s commentary upon/lucid explication of God’s record of God’s people) to postmodern concepts in the process, and boldly contradicting some very plain teachings.

And this is something that is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace. So now is a good time to state the following facts:

1. All human beings are not children of God. According to the Bible, only those who have been born-again/born-from-above can legitimately be called the children of God(cf. John 3:1-8 & 1 John 3:1-3).

2. One either has saving faith, or does not. This is not a concoction bequeathed to us present day believers by Calvin and Luther, it’s purely Biblical (cf. Romans 4 & Galatians 4, et al). “Coming to faith” is not a cognitive evolutionary process, it is a gift from God posterior to regeneration. As R.C. Sproul wonderfully articulates, Regeneration Precedes Faith.

3. A denial of points (1.) and (2.), which are foundational tenets of Biblical Christianity, is intolerable heresy akin to the universalist-syncretist-antinomian (i.e. heretical) nonsense spewed by those of the Emerging Church movement.

Now, I’m not advocating that you burn your favorite Ravi Zacharias book, or call the author of this article a heretic. In fact, on the basis of the other articles in the book I would actually recommend this book to those who are looking to familiarize themselves with the contemporary challenges that Christians will face on the mission field.

What I am doing is asking you to be discerning, and to not compromise truth for the sake of winning converts to a Christ-less Christianity, perpetuating a religious money machine, or pleasing the world.

Why not follow Paul who presented the validity of his case on the basis of universals and then proceeded to explain and defend the distinct, pure, and absolutely unique truth of the gospel?

Why not follow in our Lord’s steps and divide truth from error, and the children of God from those who have no place in His family?

h.