Beliefs Don't Change Facts. Facts, if You're Reasonable, Should Change Your Beliefs.

The statement is true.  But the problem is that Mr. Gervais holds that religion is belief, not fact.  That "belief" doesn't indicate something someone actually perceives, but rather that someone who "believes" has some misty notion that X is so.  For example, one might believe that Norway is a country and one might also believe that Santa Clause is real. 

That's not how Christians use "believe."  I believe it's raining when I go outside and rain falls, or when I'm inside but I hear the rain.  That is, I have some amount of evidence for my beliefs, or I do not believe them. 

Children believe that Santa Clause is real because there are presents under the tree in the morning and the cookies have been eaten, but those beliefs are based on provable deceptions.  We often hear the story of the child who stayed awake all night, hiding at the top of the stairs, only to find mommy and daddy placing the presents, eating the cookies, and having a smooch.  Such a child, when presented with the facts, ceases to hold "belief" in Santa Clause.  According to what Mr. Gervais is saying in this meme, however, Christians who are presented with the same level of evidence as the hiding child refuse to change their beliefs.

This is disingenuous.  If, somehow, the body of Jesus could be produced, I would cease to be a Christian.  But that is the level of evidence the child has who sees his parents kissing under the mistletoe at midnight. 

The problem for Mr. Gervais is that Christianity has ALWAYS been an evidential faith.  The day Jesus rose from the dead, He spent some amount of time convincing His followers that He was not a ghost or an illusion.  He invited them to touch Him, to handle Him and see for themselves, and then He ate with them as further proof.  Later, He makes Thomas put his hand in His side, and his fingers into His hands, as evidence.  He did not berate them for not having blind faith, He provided them with evidence. 

Christians have done very well maintaining this level of evidentiary exploration all across the ages, making logical, philosophical, historical, and archaeological arguments to support their faith.  Indeed, when these tests of reason and science are applied to the Bible, it continually passes them. In over 2400 archaeological excavations, for example, the Bible has been shown to be accurate. 

Some examples are: (click the titles for links)

Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World 
by Josh and Sean McDowell

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Mere Christianity
by C.S. Lewis

What's So Great about Christianity
by Dinesh D'Souza

Cold Case Christianity
by J. Warner Wallace

Reasonable Faith
by Dr. William Lane Craig

(NOTE: All of these links will open in a new window, so you can finish reading this blog even if you click on them.)

Ironically, then, it is Mr. Gervais himself who, when presented with the mountain of evidence for the Christian faith, refuses to "believe."  For him, no amount of evidence is sufficient, but any amount of rebuttal is quite adequate indeed.  It is the atheist, not the Christian, who believes in what he cannot see or know or prove.  And that is not belief at all, that is delusion.

Science vs. The Bible

In 1860, archaeological expeditions in the ancient city of Babylon proved, conclusively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Belshazzar was not the king of Babylon at the time of the Babylonian exile, but that his brother was.  This shook the biblical world to the core, because here, science had finally, conclusively proven, that there was an error in the Bible.  There could be no disputing it, there could be no arguing, the Bible was in error and science had proven it so. 

This idea stood for 90 years, until, in 1950, further digging in the same area discovered that, while Belshazzar's brother was indeed king, he spent his whole reign out of the kingdom.  He was elsewhere, and his brother, Belshazzar, acted as king in his stead. 

When this was discovered, we suddenly, for the first time ever, understood the phrase at Daniel 5:29 which reads:

"Then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put around his neck, and a proclamation was made about him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom."

Why did Belshazzar only make Daniel the third highest in the kingdom? Because he himself was only the second highest, and he couldn't make Daniel any higher than third. The Bible was right all along.  Our understanding of what the text said simply came more in line with the reality of what it was telling us through science done well.  But science done poorly had convinced people the Bible was wrong. 

The moral of the story is this:  Science changes.  What is scientific "fact" today may be overthrown tomorrow.  If you went to college to study science, and you found out your textbooks were two hundred years old, how much confidence would you have in the quality of that education?  Now, imagine a student two hundred years from now studying science using today's textbooks. 

The Bible, though, was written by a perfect being.  God, who is never wrong, wrote once, for all time.  Our failures to understand what is there may prevent us from seeing the truth, but the truth was there all along. 

A Christian Response to a Jews for Judaism article.

Responding to the article found here:

http://jewsforjudaism.ca/why-jesus-is-not-the-jewish-messiah/



1. "There is no evidence that Jesus really had this pedigree, and the Christian Bible actually claims that he did not have a “birth-father” from the tribe of Judah descending from King David and King Solomon (Matt. 1:18-20)."

This is not the case. The father's inheritance CAN be passed through daughters as well, according to Moses in Numbers 27, if they marry within the tribe. Point 1 refuted.

2. "When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland (Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24).
This has clearly not yet happened and we still await its fulfillment."

This is the case, but it misses something essential. Even the Jews believe in two messiahs... one they call "Messiah son of Joseph," and the other they call "Messiah son of David." (To see this on a Jewish website, see Menorah.com HERE.  It will open in a new window.) The Son of Joseph will come and suffer and die, fulfilling some of the prophecies of Messiah. The Son of David will come and rule from His father's throne.
Yeshua fulfills both of these roles. Why did the Jews imagine it would be two men, instead of one? Because they did not count on Messiah rising from the dead. Point 2 refuted.

3. "The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).

The Temple was still standing in Jesus’ day. It was destroyed 38 years after Jesus’ crucifixion and it has not yet been rebuilt."

Again, while this is true, it is yet to be fulfilled. But even the Christians believe that the Temple will be rebuilt. Jesus prophesies it in the New Testament. This goes back to the two roles of Messiah... one (son of Joseph) the suffering servant, the other (son of David) the coming king. Point 3 was refuted in the response to point 2.

4."There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).

Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the start of Christianity."

Again, absolutely true. Again, refuted in the responses to points 2 and 3. Messiah does not reign on earth yet. He will at some point yet future, but He does not now. Point 4 refuted in points 2 and 3.

5. "The Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).

Jesus never ruled as King, nor have all Jews embraced the commandments of G-d’s Torah."

See points 2-4

6. "The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true G-d (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).

This, as well, has not yet taken place and we await its fulfillment."

The Christian bible absolutely agrees with this. "for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”" (Romans 14:11) Again, this prophecy is wrapped up in the dual roles of Messiah. Yeshua came first as the suffering servant. When He comes again, He will come as conquering King.

7. "Anyone can claim to be the Messiah or a group of people can claim that someone is the Messiah. However, if that person fails to fulfill all the criteria found in the Jewish Bible, he cannot be the Messiah.

According to the Christian scriptures, Jesus seems to have understood this. As he was being crucified by the Romans, he cried out “My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)."

Once again, the article is only looking at prophecies which have not yet been fulfilled. Dual nature of Messiah. The second coming of Christ. etc.

I do, however, want to address the last claim here made, regarding Matthew 27:46. If you know the Psalms, you'll realize that Jesus wasn't crying out as being forsaken by God, but rather pointing everyone there to a prophecy of the very event they were witnessing. Even without the controversial translation of "pierced my hands and my feet" I can find five fulfilled prophecies of the crucifixion in Psalm 22, which begins "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Response to "The Christian Rebuttal"

"It’s important to understand that this second coming doctrine is an admission that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Messianic criteria. This rationalization for his failure certainly provides no reason to accept him as the Messiah today.

Furthermore, the Jewish Bible does not have a Messianic “installment plan” where Messiah comes, fails in his mission, and then returns thousands of years later to finally succeed."

Why refuse to acknowledge the dual roles of Messiah when arguing with Christians?  Does that seem forthright?  Especially when the actual Jewish belief on this topic supports the Christian response?

Did Jesus Pray like a Muslim?

This image is making the rounds, and this argument has been made to me repeatedly by my Muslim friends.  They cite a portion of Matthew 26:39 to show that Jesus prayed in the posture of modern day Muslims.  The saddest part of this argument is that they think it validates Islam.

What happens when we look at Matthew 26:39 for ourselves?  What does the whole verse say?

Here is the ESV translation:
39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” 

Here is the NIV translation:
39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 

Here is the KJV translation:
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 

and here is the Greek:
καὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ προσευχόμενος καὶ λέγων Πάτερ μου, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο· πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλ’ ὡς σύ.

What do we notice about this verse which should cause Muslims to stop using it?

the first thing Jesus says, in all of the English translations, is "My Father," or "O my Father," in the KJV.  What does the Greek say?  It says "Πάτερ μου," which translates as "Father of me."

here's a question for my Muslim friends:  Does Allah have a son?  Can anyone call Allah father?

Let me help you answer that.

Muhammad was asked what is the most important Sura in the entire Qur'an.  Sahih Muslim reports that Abu Al Darda narrated: "Say, He is Allah, The One, (Surah 112) equals a third of the Qur'an." reported by Al-Thirmidhi, and Al- Albani classified it as an authentic Hadith.

Let us, then, look at the entirety of Surah 112:

   1.      Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
   2.      Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
   3.      He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
   4.      And there is none like unto Him.

and in the Arabic:



For more information on this Surah, you can read here to validate what I'm saying:
https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2812/chapter-112/

So the question then becomes:  Where is the conflict between Matthew 26:39 and Surah 112?

Let us look again:
Matthew 26:39: And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father,
Surah 112:3: He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

How can Jesus call Allah his father, if Allah neither begets nor is begotten?  And since verse 3 is arguably the most important verse of the most important surah of the whole Qur'an, doesn't it make sense that it should say clearly what it means? 

If Matthew 26:39 is a reliable verse, then Jesus, the only sinless prophet of Islam (yes, according to the Qur'an, Jesus was sinless) commits Shirk, the worst possible sin. 

If Matthew 26:39 is not a reliable verse, why are Muslims citing portions of it as if it were evidence?

Why the Qur'an affirms the Bible, and the problem that poses for Islam

Surah 6:115
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

Notice that it does not say "No one can change the Qur'an," but "None can change His words." That is, if Alllah has revealed words which are not the Qur'an, those are still the words of Allah.

Surah 18:27 backs this up perfectly:
And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.

Again, "None can change His Words," not "None can change the Qur'an." This is talking about all of the words of Allah, not just the Qur'an.

So when we look at Surah 3:3
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

We are assured that since Allah revealed the Torah and the Gospel, they are Allah's incorruptible words.

Since the Torah and the Gospel are the words of Allah, they cannot be corrupted. Since the Gospel says that Jesus died, and the Qur'an says that Jesus didn't die, then Allah is wrong. Since Allah is wrong, Islam is false.

Feel free to look these references up yourself.

Now, why do I believe that the Bible I have today is the Gospel Muhammad was talking about?

Very, very easily. We have copies of the New Testament which predate Muhammad by 300 years. We know exactly what the Gospel was in Muhammad's day. It was exactly what is recorded in our Bibles today.

The Gospel that was around in Muhammad's time is exactly the same Gospel we have today. If Muhammad wanted to say that it was corrupted, he did a very, very poor job of it. In fact, Muhammad told the people to judge by the books they had between their hands... that is, Muhammad affirms the Torah and the Gospel as they existed in his day.

So if Muhammad is right, Allah is wrong. And if Allah is right, Muhammad is wrong. And either way, Islam is false.

Did God hate Esau?

Romans 9:13
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 

Look at what happens to the two boys; Esau sells his birthright for a bowl of soup. Yes, Jacob tricked him (sort of), but the great blessing of God belonged to Esau, and he traded it away for a bit of comfort.

The Greek word Paul uses in Romans 9:13 is:

μισέω

which is

miseó.

Found on www.bible.cc, we read this:

3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

That does, indeed, translate as hate, but perhaps it should more properly be "esteemed less than."

So it's not actual hatred, but a comparative thing. The Hebrew text that Paul is quoting is Malachi 1:3, where the Hebrew word has the same meaning... to detest.

שָׂנֵא

which is "sane"

What do we Celebrate at Christmas?

Christmas is not a celebration of the Birth of Christ, but rather the coming of Christ.  They are different things.

Why don't we know when Jesus was born?  Because Jews didn't celebrate birthdays... that was a pagan thing, commonly done by those who worshipped fertility gods like Ashtoreth.  So for the first 300 years, nobody cared when Jesus was born. 

But the Bible gives us some clues as to when He was born, and if we understand our Old Testament, we can narrow it down to a single week.    You see, John 1:14 says "The word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us."  The Greek word here translated as "made his dwelling" is also used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament as "Tabernacled," and is related to the "Feast of Tabernacles."  That is, the feast prefigures the coming of the Messiah.  Paul makes reference to this in Colossians 2:16-17 when He says

"16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

That is, the feasts and the festivals, the Jewish holidays, are prophetic about the ministry of Jesus. 

So Jesus was likely born during the Feast of Tabernacles, which is roughly in late September or early October. 

This conforms very well to what the Bible says regarding Jesus birth.  "There were shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night," it says, which is something that does happen in the late fall but absolutely does not happen in late December when it's too cold.  Further, the Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph were traveling as a response to a census.  This makes sense in the late fall, but by early winter, most of the roads of ancient Judea would be completely impassable, and no governor worth his office would demand everyone in his nation travel at a time when the roads were impassible. 

When was Jesus born?  given this and other clues, we can track it to about September 29th of 4 BC. 

Christmas, then, isn't about the Birth of Christ.  That's a confusion.  Christmas is about the coming of the Messiah... that is, Christmas is about the idea that God was willing to come and die for us.  It's easy, then, to see why we get it confused with His birth, but the facts point elsewhere.  Further, most educated Christians know that Jesus was not born on December 25th.  It's possible, though, that Jesus was CONCEIVED in late December, since that is roughly 9 months before September 29th.  The Catholic Church will disagree with this, and that's OK.  It's not an important issue. 

My Understanding of Hebrews 6:4-8

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. (ESV)

First off, I found this in a commentary:
**************************************************
The “heavenly gift” is a euphemism for salvation, which the readers have “tasted.” The Greek word for “tasted” is the same here and in v. 5 and is used metaphorically indicating “to eat or drink,” thus experiencing something fully, not merely a superficial participation in something. There is no connotation in the word itself of tasting but not swallowing. This can be seen from the usage in Heb 2:9 [same Greek word in 2:9 as here] where Jesus “tasted” death for everyone, meaning he experienced the full force of physical death. This metaphorical rather than literal usage also precludes a reference here to the Lord’s Supper, although Ellingworth thinks the meaning cannot be entirely excluded. The third participial phrase describes those “who have shared in the Holy Spirit.” The NIV translation renders the noun metochous, “partakers, sharers” with the verbal idea “shared.” The author used this word previously in 3:1 and 3:14 to describe the close relationship that his readers share in the heavenly calling and in Christ. To become a “partaker” of the Holy Spirit indicates primarily “participation in” and denotes a close association with the Holy Spirit, implying reception of the Holy Spirit into one’s life. It is very unlikely the phrase refers to the reception of spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit, as Hughes suggested.

Allen, David L. Hebrews. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010. Print. The New American Commentary.
*************************************************************

This means that this passage ONLY applies to someone who has FULLY EXPERIENCED the salvation that comes through Christ.  That this experience is complete and total, someone who does not lack in any way any bit of understanding.  Someone who has "tasted" the Goodness of God in the same way that Christ "tasted" death... not a passing association with it, but a complete understanding.  And who among us has such an understanding?

Secondly, there is the Holy Spirit.  That is, it is the job of the Holy Spirit to call you to repentance, to bring you back into relationship with the Father through the Son.  If you feel, in any way, a desire to be restored to the Father through the Son... that is, if ANYTHING at all inside you makes you desire to pray, or desire to repent, or desire to be in relationship with Christ, then it is the Holy Spirit which is fueling that desire.  Since the Holy Spirit does not act in vain... that is.... if it were impossible for you to come to repentance, the Holy Spirit would not waste His time with you... if you have ANY desire at all within you to be in relationship with Christ, then this verse does not apply to you.    Again, if it were impossible for you to be restored to salvation, the Holy Spirit would not be calling you to repentance. 

What is the mission of the Holy Spirit?  The Spirit's job is to comfort, to console, and to woo.  The Spirit brings us into relationship with Christ, and sustains us in that relationship.  That's why the only unforgivable sin is not blasphemy against the SON or the FATHER, but against the SPIRIT.  What is Blasphemy against the Spirit?  It is to go your entire life and reject the calling of the Spirit.  To go your whole life without responding to the Spirit's call is the highest form of blasphemy.  Thus, if the Spirit is calling you, you have NOT committed the unforgivable sin, and you CAN be restored to The Father through The Son. 

I hope that helps.

The First Syllable of The NAME of God

The Divine NAME is pronounced "Yehovah."  It comes from three Hebrew words, "hayah," "hoveh," and "ye-hee-yeh," meaning "was," "is," and "will be."  This is even made clear in the New Testament, written in Greek, when God, speaking to John in Revelation 1:8 says “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

People who insist that it's "Yahuwah" or "Yahovah" all make the same mistake...they know the word "HalleluYAH," and they assume that the Hebrews shortened names like the English speakers do.

When English speakers

shorten a name, we take "Michael" and we make it "Mike." We take "Donald" and we make it "Don." We take "William" and we make it "Will." That is, almost always, we take the initial syllable of the name and drop the rest.

The Hebrews didn't do that. They would drop letters from the middle of the word. Jesus' name is an example of this. In the pre-2nd temple period, the name was "Yehoshua" (Joshua). That's the name of the sixth book of the Bible. But by the 2nd temple period, the second syllable had dropped out of the word and it simply became "Yeshua," losing that "ho" sound. Similarly, "Yehovah" becomes "Y----ah."

The "Yeho" is actually preserved in several places, however. Hebrew names are often short sentences... Daniel, for example, comes from "Dan" meaning "Judge," and "El," meaning "God." Daniel means "God is my Judge." Where do we find the "Yeho" preserved? In the name "Yehoshua..." Joshua. Jesus' name, "Yehoshua," is a contraction of The NAME of God, "Yehovah," and the word for Salvation, "Yeshuat." Thus, Jesus, or "Yehoshua," means "The Salvation of the LORD," or "Yehovah's Salvation," or possibly "Yehovah saves."


For more information on this topic, see the amazing work of my friend Nehemia Gordon at

www.nehemiaswall.com

Yes, Virginia, There Really Was a Santa Clause.

Up on the house top reindeer pause
Out jumps good old Santa Claus!

Down through the chimney with lots of toys
All part of a little ones with Christmas joys
oh, who wouldn't go?

(Ho-ho-ho) who wouldn't go?
Up on the housetop, click-click-click
Down to the chimney with the good St. Nick!


In our cultural memory, we know that Santa Clause and St. Nicholaus are the same person.  We remember through our songs and poems.  "Santa Clause" is an Anglicized version of the Norwegian "Scinter Klaus," Klaus being the shortened form of "Nicholaus" in the Norse tongue, and "Scinter" simply meaning "Saint."

So the next question is this:  Who was Saint Nicholaus?

Nicholaus was born to wealthy parents in the city of Myra, in Turkey, late in the 2nd Century.  After becoming a Christian, Nicholaus gave away many of his possessions to the poor and needy.  There's even a particular story of him tossing a bag of gold coins through an open window, which landed in a stocking which had been hung by the fireplace to dry.... the origin of our Christmas stocking tradition. The gold was to provide dowery money for a young woman who could not, otherwise, have gotten married.

Because of his passion for the faith and his generosity to the poor, Nicholaus was advanced to the station of Bishop of Myra while still a fairly young man.  Under the Christian persecutions ordered by Roman Emperor Diocletian, Bishop Nicholaus was beaten and imprisoned, yet he remained faithful to the Cross of Christ.

After his release, Bishop Nicholaus attended the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD.  One of the major issues settled at the Council of Nicea was the church's understanding of the Deity of Christ... that is, that Christ is God Incarnate.  One of those present, a man named Arias, presented his arguments as to why Christ was NOT God Incarnate, and during his presentation, Bishop Nicholaus rushed the stage and punched Arias in the mouth.  Arias is the father of the Arian Heresy, which holds that Christ was only a good man, but not God Incarnate, a belief held to this day by certain heretical sects.

Bishop Nicholaus wore the red robe and white mitre's cap, seen in this image, as part of his priestly vestments.  This was what the clergy of the region wore, and this is the origin of the red "suit."

Bishop Nicholas died on December 6th, and the day of his death was recognized as his "Feast day." Every Saint recognized by the Church has a "feast day," the most well known of which is February 14th, the feast day of St. Valentine. 

As with many great men, the story grows throughout history.  "Santa Clause" was re-imagined in the 1950s by a marketing executive for Coca-Cola, and much of the modern imagery around the character has little or nothing to do with the historical figure, but please remember that he was a real man, a devout Christian who loved Jesus as much as you or I.  Let's teach our children the truth, because that's what God requires of us. 

Peace of Christ to you.  Shalom b'Yeshua.  Merry Christmas.

The Secret of the Golden Calf

The ESV translation of Exodus 32:1 reads:

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2 So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” 6 And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. 

In Exodus chapter 19, Moses goes up onto the Mountain of God, and God begins giving Moses the Torah.  From Exodus 20 all the way to Exodus 31, God is giving Moses laws.  In the end of Exodus 31, God writes the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone and gives them to Moses to carry down to the people. 

But something interesting also goes on below. 

The people get upset because Moses has been gone so long, and they come to Aaron and demand that he "make... gods who shall go before us."  They demand something they can see, rather than this invisible God who conceals Himself in smoke and fire. 

And poor Aaron is caught between THE ROCK and a hard-nosed people.  So what does he do?   He commands them to bring to him all the gold jewelry they have.  He takes the gold and fashions a "golden calf."  And then the interesting thing happens:  Aaron says "Tomorow shall be a feast to Yehovah!"

Aaron uses God's Holy NAME, which our English Bibles translate as "LORD" in all capital letters.  There's no ambiguity: the calf he has just fashioned out of gold is supposed to represent the God on the Mountain. 

Why does Aaron make a calf? 

Because the symbol of their deliverance was the lamb at the Passover.  Aaron does the best he can to make an image of the Living God, as best he can imagine Him.  Aaron was not trying to make an idol of an Egyptian god, but rather to make an image of the One True God.

Aaron was trying to stay true to the God who had delivered them.

This is not to let Aaron off the hook.... God expressed a perfect willingness to execute every single Hebrew at the base of the mountain and start over again with Moses alone (Exodus 32:10).  What Aaron did was deserving of death and damnation.  He made an idol out of metal and proposed that the Hebrews worship it. 

But he was sincere.  He was so sincere.  He thought he was doing the right thing.  He thought that in his honesty, in his sincerity, The God on the Mountain would bless him. 

Sincerity is not enough.  Honesty is not enough.  We must worship the God Who Is in the way He desires to be worshiped.  We must worship Him as He is, not as we would make Him to be.

Don't Arabic speaking Christians use the word "Allah" too?

I've been seeing this argument somewhat frequently, and I wanted to address it here:


While this is absolutely true, it is somewhat misleading.  The word "Allah" in the Arabic shares a linguistic origin with the Hebrew word "אֱל֫וֹהַּ" (eloah) That is the base word, "אֱלֹהִ֣ים" (elohim) is the plural of that.

Eloah, and Elohim, are not names. They are the generic terms for "god" or "gods." For example, in Deuteronomy 6:14-15, we read

14 You shall not go after other gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים), the gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) of the peoples who are around you— 15 for the LORD your God (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) in your midst is a jealous God (אֵ֥ל) —lest the anger of the LORD your God (אֱלֹהִ֣ים) be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. 

The word "gods" in this passage is the Hebrew word "אֱלֹהִ֣ים" (Elohim), except in one instance where it is shortened to simply "אֵ֥ל". It's the generic term for "god."

So yes, while Arabic-speaking Christians use the word "Allah" to mean "God," so do Arabic speaking Hindus and Arabic speaking pagans who worship Zeus or Thor or Loki.

If the argument, then, is that since both Muslims and Christians use the word "allah" to mean "god," that must mean they worship the same god, then the Muslims also need to accept the Hindus and Pagans as serving the same god they do.

This is the logical conclusion of this argument. If you're fine declaring the Muslim god to be the same god as the Hindu gods and also the Pagan gods, feel free to continue making it.

CLARIFYING EDIT:
The argument is usually that since Christians also use the word, then Allah is also the God of the Christians.

The problem with that argument is that Arabic speaking Hindus or Pagans would also use the word Allah. So if the linguistic similarity is the criterion by which we determine which god is which, we must also conclude that Hindus and Pagans worship the gods of both Muhammad and Abraham.

Since no Muslim is willing to carry the argument that far, it falls flat.

What does it mean to say "Our God is a Jealous God?"

Think of it this way:  Your friend owes you $50.  He keeps telling you he will pay you, but every time you see him, he's got some new toy, some non-essential thing, that he's bought.  He could have paid you the money he owes you instead of buying this new thing, but he didn't.  

This is what it means when it says that God is jealous. We owe God absolutely everything... our money, our time, our very breath.  But we don't give it to Him.  We could, and we absolutely should, but we don't. 

This jealousy is not a failing on God's part, it's a recognition of what is right.  By failing to give to Him what we owe Him, we are the ones in the wrong.