Illustration And Confirmation Of Biblical History From The Assyrian Monuments

 As the narrative proceeds on the supposition of close relations between Israel and Syria — not otherwise mentioned in the Bible — and involves, at least indirectly, certain points of general interest, this seems a fitting opportunity for a brief summary of what recent discoveries of ancient monuments has taught us, not only confirmatory, but illustrative and explanatory of this period of Biblical history. But in so doing we must keep some considerations in view by way of caution. For first, our knowledge of what may be called monumental history is as yet initial and fragmentary. Secondly, in any seeming discrepancy or slight divergence in details between the inscriptions on the monuments and the records of Jewish history, it seems neither reasonable nor safe to give absolute preference to the former. Jewish writers must have known their own history best, while, in their slight differences from the records on the monuments, we fail to discover any adequate motives on the part of the Jewish historians that could account for their falsifying facts. And, we need scarcely add, the same facts will assume different aspects when viewed from opposite sides. Again, it is admitted on all hands that there are manifest errors on the Assyrian monuments, and this on points where error is difficult, to account for. Thus, to mention one instance — on the Assyrian monuments, Jehu is designated as “the son of Omri,” and that by the very monarch to whom he is both represented and described as bringing tribute. Further, we have to bear in mind that our knowledge of Jewish history is also fragmentary. The Old Testament does not profess to be a handbook of Jewish history. It furnishes prophetic or sacred history, which does not recount all events as they happened, nor yet always in their exact succession of time, but presents them in their bearing on the kingdom of God, of which it tells the history. Hence it records or emphasizes only that which is of importance in connection with it. Lastly, we must remember that the chronology of the Bible is in some parts involved in considerable diffculties, partly for the reasons just stated, partly from the different modes of calculating time, and partly also from errors of transcription which would easily creep into the copying of Hebrew numerals, which are marked by letters. Keeping in view these cautions, the neglect of which has led to many false inferences, we have no hesitation in saying, that hitherto all modern historical discoveries have only tended to confirm the Scripture narrative. 

Turning to these extraneous sources for information on the earlier history of Judah and Israel under the Kings, we have here, first, the Egyptian monuments, especially those on the walls of the Temple of Karnak, which record the invasion of Judah and Jerusalem by Shishak, described in 1 Kings 14:25, 26, and 2 Chronicles 12. Pictorial representations of this campaign are accompanied by mention of the very names of the conquered Jewish cities. But with the death of Shishak, the power of Egypt for a time decayed. In its stead that of Assyria reasserted itself. From that time onwards its monuments more or less continuously cast light on the history of Israel. Just as in the Biblical narrative, so in the Assyrian records of that time, Syria occupies a most important place. It will be remembered that that country had recovered its independence in the reign of Solomon, having been wrested by Rezon from the sovereignty of Judah (1 Kings 11:23-25). Thus far we perceive a general parallelism in the outlines of this history. But the Assyrian record leaves a strange impression on the mind, as we recall the importance of Omri, as having been the second if not the real founder of the Israelitish kingdom, the builder of its capital, and the monarch who gave its permanent direction alike to the political and the religious history of Israel. For the common designation for the land of Israel is “the land of Omri,” “the land Omri,” or “the land of the house of Omri.” We regard it as a further indication of the political importance attached to that king when Jehu is designated as “the son of Omri.” This could not have been from ignorance of the actual history, since the name of Ahab occurs on the monuments of Assyria, although (if correctly read) in a connection which does not quite agree with our ordinary chronology. Further illustration comes to us from the Assyrian monuments, both of certain phases in the Biblical history of Ahab, and of the explanatory words with which the account of Naaman’s healing is introduced: 

“Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honorable, because by him Jehovah had given deliverance unto Syria” (2 Kings 5:1). 

Each of these statements requires some further explanation. As regards the history of Ahab, we note incidentally that the name Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31) as that of a Sidonian king, occurs also on the Assyrian monuments, just as does Sarepta (1 Kings 17:9, 10), as being a Phoenician town, situate between Tyre and Sidon. But of greatest interest is it to learn from these monuments the political motives which prompted the strange and sudden alliance proposed by Ahab to Ben-hadad (a name amply confirmed by the monuments), after the battle of Aphek (1 Kings 20:26-34). In passing we may notice that in a fragmentary inscription of Asarhaddon, this Aphek, situated east of the lake of Galilee, and a little aside from the great road between Damascus and Samaria, is named as the border-city of Samaria. Similarly, the mention of thirty-two kings allied with Benhadad in his campaign against Israel (1 Kings 20:1), is so far borne out by the Assyrian monuments, that in the campaigns of Assyria against Syria Benhadad is always described as fighting in conjunction with a number of allied Syrian princes. From these inscriptions we also learn that the growing power of Assyria threatened to overwhelm — as it afterwards did — both Syria and the smaller principalities connected with it. A politician like Ahab must have felt the danger threatening his kingdom of Samaria from the advancing power of Assyria. If Ben-hadad had endeavored to strengthen himself by the subjugation of Samaria, Ahab, in the hour of his triumph, desired, by an alliance with the now humbled Benhadad, to place Syria as a kind of bulwark between himself and the king of Assyria. This explains the motive of Ahab, who had no real trust in the might and deliverance of Jehovah, but looked to political combinations for safety, in allowing to go out of his hand the man whom Jehovah “appointed to utter destruction” (1 Kings 20:42). 

Another circumstance connected with the treaty of Aphek, not recorded in the Bible, and only known from the Assyrian monuments, casts light on this prophetic announcement of judgment to Ahab: “Therefore thy life shall be for his life, and thy people for his people.” From the monuments we learn, in illustration of the alliance between Ben-hadad and Ahab, and of the punishment threatened upon it, that in the battle of Karkar, or Aroer, in which the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser II. so completely defeated Syria, the forces of Ahab, to the number of not fewer than 2000 chariots and 10,000 men, had fought on the side of Ben-hadad. As we read of 14,000 or, in another inscription, of 20,500 of the allies as having been slain in this battle, we perceive the fulfillment of the Divine threatening upon that alliance (1 Kings 20:42). At the same time we may also learn that many things mentioned in Scripture which, with our present means of knowledge, seem strange and inexplicable, may become plain, and be fully confirmed, by further information derived from independent sources. 

The battle of Karkar was not the only engagement in which the forces of Syria met, and were defeated by, those of Assyria. It was fought in the sixth year of the reign of Shalmaneser. Another successful campaign is chronicled as having been undertaken in the eleventh year of the same reign, when Shalmaneser records that for the ninth time he crossed the Euphrates; and yet another, in the fourteenth year of his reign, when at the head of 120,000 men he crossed the river at its high food. Two inferences may, for our present purpose, be made from these notices. The defeat of Ahab’s forces, when fghting in conjunction with Ben-hadad, will account for the cessation of the alliance entered into after the battle of Aphek. Again, the repeated defeat of Ben-hadad by Assyria will explain how Ahab took heart of grace, and in company with Jehoshaphat undertook that fatal expedition against Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22), in which literally the “life” of Ahab went for that of him whom, from short-sighted political motives, he had spared (1 Kings 20:42). Lastly, these repeated wars between Assyria and Syria, of which the Assyrian monarch would naturally only record the successful engagements, help us to understand the phrase by which Naaman, captain of the host of Syria, is introduced as he “by whom the LORD had given deliverance [perhaps “victory”] unto Syria” (2 Kings 5:1). 

The expression just quoted seems to forbid the application of the words to the victory of Ben-hadad over Ahab, although the Rabbis imagine that the fatal arrow by which Ahab was smitten came from the bow of Naaman. Accordingly we cannot (as most commentators do) mark this antithesis: that the conqueror of Israel had to come to Israel for healing. But the fact is in itself sufficiently remarkable, especially when we think of it in connection with his disease, which would have placed even an Israelite, so to speak, outside the pale of Israel. In striking contrast to the mention of the strength and bravery of Naaman, and of his exalted position, Scripture abruptly, without pause or copula of conjunction, records the fact: “a leper.” We need not pause to consider the moral of this contrast, with all of teaching which it should convey to us. Quite another lesson comes to us from an opposite direction. For we also learn from this history how, when our need is greatest, help may be nearest, and that, in proportion as we feel the hopelessness of our case, God may prepare a way for our deliverance. It was certainly so in this instance. Once more we mark the wonder-working Providence of God, Who, without any abrupt or even visibly direct interference, brings about results which, if viewed by themselves, must seem absolutely miraculous. And this, by means which at the time may have appeared most unpromising.

Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament, Vol. VI, Chap. XI

Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter As A Sacrifice To God?

 We are now approaching what to many will appear the most difficult part in the history of Jephthah — perhaps among the most difficult narratives in the Bible. It appears that, before actually going to war, Jephthah solemnly registered this vow: “If thou indeed givest the children of Ammon into mine hand — and it shall be, the outcoming (one), that shall come out from the door of my house to meet me on my returning in peace from the children of Ammon, shall be to Jehovah, and I will offer that a burnt offering.” We know that the vow was paid. The defeat of the Ammonites was thorough and crushing. But on Jephthah’s return to his house the first to welcome him was his only daughter — his only child — who at the head of the maidens came to greet the victor. There is a terrible irony about those “timbrels and dances,” with which Jephthah’s daughter went, as it were, to celebrate her own funeral obsequies, while the fond father’s heart was well-nigh breaking. But the noble maiden was the first to urge his observance of the vow unto Jehovah. Only two months did she ask to bewail her maidenhood with her companions upon the mountains. But ever after was it a custom for the maidens in Israel to go out every year for four days, “to praise of the daughter of Jephthah.” 

Such is the story; but what is its meaning? What did Jephthah really intend by the language of his vow; and did he feel himself bound by it in the literal sense to offer up his daughter as a burnt sacrifice? Assuredly, we shall make no attempt either to explain away the facts of the case, or to disguise the importance of the questions at issue. At the outset we are here met by these two facts: that up to that period Jephthah had both acted and spoken as a true worshiper of Jehovah, and that his name stands emblazoned in that roll of the heroes of the faith which is handed down to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:32). But it is well-nigh impossible to believe that a true worshiper of Jehovah could have either vowed or actually offered a human sacrificed — not to speak of the sacrifice being that of his own and only child. Such sacrifices were the most abhorrent and opposed to the whole spirit and letter of the Law of God (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10), nor do we find any mention of them till the reigns of the wicked Ahaz and Manasseh. Not even Jezebel had ventured to introduce them; and we know what thrill of horror ran through the onlookers, when the heathen king of Moab offered his son an expiatory sacrifice on the walls of his capital (2 Kings 3:26, etc.). But the difficulty becomes well-nigh insuperable, when we find the name of Jephthah recorded in the New Testament among the heroes of the faith. Surely, no one guilty of such a crime could have found a place there! Still, these are considerations which, though most important, are outside the narrative itself, and in any truthful investigation the latter should, in the first place, be studied by itself. 

In so doing we must dismiss, as irrelevant and untruthful, such pleas as the roughness of those times, the imperfectness of religious development, or that of religious ignorance on the part of the outlaw Jephthah, who had spent most of his life far from Israel. The Scripture sketch of Jephthah leaves, indeed, on the mind the impression of a genuine, wild, and daring Gilead mountaineer — a sort of warrior-Elijah. But, on the other hand, he acts and speaks throughout as a true worshiper of Jehovah. And his vow, which in the Old Testament always expresses the highest religious feeling (Genesis 28:20; 1 Samuel 1:11; Psalm 116:14; Isaiah 19:21), is so sacred because it is made to Jehovah. Again, in his embassy to the king of Ammon, Jephthah displays the most intimate acquaintance with the Pentateuch, his language being repeatedly almost a literal quotation from Numbers 20. He who knew so well the details of Scripture history could not have been ignorant of its fundamental principles. Having thus cleared the way, we observe: 

1. That the language of Jephthah’s vow implied, from the first, at least the possibility of some human being coming out from the door of his house, to meet him on his return. The original conveys this, and the evident probabilities of the case were strongly in favor of such an eventuality. Indeed, Jephthah’s language seems to have been designedly chosen in such general terms as to cover all cases. But it is impossible to suppose that Jephthah would have deliberately made a vow in which he contemplated human sacrifice; still more so, that Jehovah would have connected victory and deliverance with such a horrible crime. 

2. In another particular, also, the language of Jephthah’s vow is remarkable. It is, that “the outcoming (whether man or beast) shall be to Jehovah, and I will offer that a burnt-offering.” The great Jewish commentators of the Middle Ages have, in opposition to the Talmud, pointed out that these two last clauses are not identical. It is never said of an animal burnt-offering, that it “shall be to Jehovah” — for the simple reason that, as a burnt-offering, it is such. But where human beings are offered to Jehovah, there the expression is used, as in the case of the firstborn among Israel and of Levi (Numbers 3:12, 13). But in these cases it has never been suggested that there was actual human sacrifice. 

3. It was a principle of the Mosaic law, that burnt sacrifices were to be exclusively males (Leviticus 1:3). 

4. If the loving daughter had devoted herself to death, it is next to incredible that she should have wished to spend the two months of life conceded to her, not with her broken-hearted father, but in the mountains with her companions. 

5. She bewails not her “maiden age,” but her “maidenhood” — not that she dies so young, but that she is to die unmarried. The Hebrew expression for the former would have been quite different from that used in Scripture, which only signifies the latter. But for an only child to die unmarried, and so to leave a light and name extinguished in Israel, was indeed a bitter and heavy judgment, viewed in the light of pre-Messianic times. Compare in this respect especially such passages as Leviticus 20:20 and Psalm 78:63. The trial appears all the more withering when we realize, how it must have come upon Jephthah and his only child in the hour of their highest glory, when all earthly prosperity seemed at their command. The greatest and happiest man in Israel becomes in a moment the poorest and the most stricken. Surely, in this vow and sacrifice was the lesson of vows and sacrifices taught to victorious Israel in a manner the most solemn. 

6. It is very significant that in 11:39 it is only said, that Jephthah “did with her according to his vow” — not that he actually offered her in sacrifice, while in the latter case the added clause, “and she knew no man,” would be utterly needless and unmeaning. Lastly, we may ask, Who would have been the priest by whom, and where the altar on which, such a sacrifice could have been offered unto Jehovah? 

On all these grounds — its utter contrariety to the whole Old Testament, the known piety of Jephthah, the blessing following upon his vow, his mention in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but especially the language of the narrative itself — we feel bound to reject the idea of any human sacrifice. In what special manner, besides remaining unmarried, the vow of her dedication to God was carried out, we do not feel bound to suggest. Here the principle, long ago expressed by Clericus, holds true: “We are not to imagine that, in so small a volume as the Old Testament, all the customs of the Hebrews are recorded, or the full history of all that had taken place among them. Hence there are necessarily allusions to many things which cannot be fully followed out, because there is no mention of them elsewhere."

Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament, Vol. III, Chap. XVIII

Does The Book Of Hebrews Contradict The Roman Catholic Eucharist?

Introduction:

Roman Catholic theology teaches that in the mass the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ and are offered to God as a true sacrifice. This sacrifice is said to be the same sacrifice as Calvary, made present in an “unbloody manner,” and continually offered throughout the world by ordained priests. Catholics insist this is not a new sacrifice but a “re‑presentation” of the one sacrifice of the cross.

However, the Book of Hebrews presents a theological framework fundamentally incompatible with this concept. Hebrews emphasizes the finality, completeness, and non‑repeatability of Christ’s sacrifice, grounding this argument in the superiority of His priesthood and the once‑for‑all nature of His offering.

When Hebrews is allowed to speak on its own terms, the Catholic doctrine of the mass cannot be reconciled with its teaching. The following analysis examines Hebrews 7, 9, and 10 to show how each passage excludes the possibility of any ongoing sacrificial action for sin after Christ’s once‑for‑all offering.

Hebrews 7:26–27, A Priest Who Offers Once for All:

Hebrews 7:26–27 contrasts Christ’s priesthood with the Levitical priesthood by emphasizing that Christ “does not need to offer sacrifices day after day” because “He offered Himself once for all.” The contrast is not merely quantitative but qualitative.

The Levitical priests offered sacrifices repeatedly because their sacrifices were inherently insufficient, while Christ offered Himself once because His sacrifice is inherently sufficient. The perfection of His priesthood is tied to the non‑repeatability of His sacrifice.

Catholic theology attempts to avoid this problem by claiming that the mass is not a new sacrifice but a “re‑presentation” of the one sacrifice of Christ. Yet Hebrews gives no conceptual category for a sacrifice that is both “once for all” and also continually offered in any form. The author’s argument depends on the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is finished, not ongoingly enacted.

Catholic theologians sometimes appeal to an “eternal offering” of Christ in heaven, but Hebrews does not present Christ’s priestly ministry as a continual sacrificial offering of Himself. His priesthood is effective because His sacrifice was offered once and does not need to be repeated, not even in a different form. The mass, however, requires a continual sacrificial action, and Hebrews explicitly rejects this.

Hebrews 9:24–28, No Repeated Offering in Heaven or on Earth:

Hebrews 9:24–28 reinforces the same point with even greater clarity. Christ entered “heaven itself” to appear before God, not into an earthly sanctuary, and the author explicitly contrasts Christ’s work with the repeated offerings of the old covenant.

Christ does not offer Himself repeatedly, and if He did, He would have had to suffer repeatedly. Instead, He appeared once at the end of the ages, and His return will be apart from sin, not to offer Himself again.

This leaves no conceptual room for a recurring sacrificial action on earth. The author’s logic is simple: If Christ is offered again, He must suffer again. Since He does not suffer again, He is not offered again. Hebrews denies that Christ’s sacrifice is ongoing or repeatable in any form.

Hebrews 10:10–18, No Offering for Sin Remains:

Hebrews 10:10–18 is the climax of the argument. Believers are sanctified “once for all” through the offering of Christ’s body. The author contrasts priests who stand and offer repeatedly with Christ who sat down, symbolizing completed work.

Jesus Christ has perfected believers for all time. His single offering has ended the need for all others. Hebrews concludes with the decisive statement: “Where there is forgiveness… there is no longer any offering for sin.”

This directly contradicts the Roman Catholic dogma of the mass.

Catholic theology claims that the mass does not add to Christ’s sacrifice, but applies it. Yet Hebrews does not say that there is no longer any new offering for sin, or any independent offering for sin, or any animal offering for sin. It says there is no longer any offering for sin.

The mass is defined by Catholic theology as a true sacrifice offered for sins, propitiatory in nature, and presented to God by priests. Hebrews explicitly denies the existence of any such offering after Christ’s once‑for‑all sacrifice.

Catholic theology claims that Christ continues to offer Himself sacrificially in the mass. Hebrews claims that Christ’s sacrificial offering is finished, complete, and never repeated. Catholic theology claims that priests offer Christ sacrificially. Hebrews claims that no sacrificial offerings remain.

Should Abortion Be Considered A Civil Right?

          "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices." (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993 confirmation hearing)

          The debate on the morality of abortion boils down to this question: Is an embryo a human being? If so, then that gives grounds to the argument that abortion is murdering innocent people. Further, moral considerations can be used to override objections of personal liberty.

          If "pro-choice" people want to talk about personal responsibility, then there are birth control measures available. Abstinence is also an option. A unique aspect of human beings is the ability to reflect on their impulses.

          There is also the issue of men themselves needing to act more responsibly. They should know how to act in a way more proper than that resembling a brute. Many men need to learn self-control, which is also financially advantageous.

          Why should abortion be an issue of personal choice, but not also the reception of vaccines? How do vaccine mandates not undermine the idea of us being "fully adult humans" who are "responsible for our own choices?"

          What is so special about being able to surgically remove a baby from the womb of a woman? Would women truly be happier if they remained childless for their whole lives?

           Women are not wrong if they want a job career. However, there needs to be enough reproduction of people or a civilization will implode due to the inevitable processes of aging and death. Further, it is because of childbearing, that women of future generations can even get jobs outside of the home.

Did Jesus Christ Accept The Book Of Genesis As Historically Accurate?

• Introduction:

          -There is ample evidence in the four gospels that Jesus believed the history of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, to be literally true. He expressed His beliefs as one who had no doubts as to whether the narrative was historical. He treated the written text as though it had actually happened, not simply allegories or stories illustrating moral truths. Christ used real people and events from the Old Testament to support what He was teaching to the people. His views on the historicity of Genesis were commonly shared by Jewish contemporaries.

• Jesus Affirmed Adam And Eve As Being Historical:

          -"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’" (Mark 10:6)

            *The phrase "from the beginning of creation" is used in the writings of other Jewish teachers. For example, Rabbi Yannai said: "From the beginning of his creation of the universe the Holy One, blessed be He, scrutinized the deeds of the righteous and the deeds of the wicked." (Bereishit Rabbah 3)

            *Christ appealed to Adam and Eve as historical figures in upholding God's purpose for marriage. He merely tolerated the act of divorce because of man's fallenness.

            *This reasoning applies to the creation account of Genesis. Christ looks to the beginning of history in teaching about marriage.

• Jesus Affirmed Cain's Murder Of Abel As Being Historical:

          -"so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)

            *Jesus Christ spans the course of Old Testament history from beginning to end in expressing condemnation of the Jewish leaders for rejecting God's prophets. Abel was murdered in the Book of Genesis and Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20, which is the last book of the Jewish canon. Christ believed such portions of the Old Testament to not be parables or allegorical but historical.

• Jesus Affirmed Abraham (John 8:56-58) And Lot (Luke 17:28) To Be Historical Figures:

          -In the first text, Jesus Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, saw it, and was glad. It would be nonsensical of Him to say this of a mythological character. His speech presupposes the existence of Abraham as a historical character.

          -In the second text, Christ spans the course of human history from beginning to end in making the point that man will be sinful as long as this world goes on. Unconverted man will live on without any regard for the ways of God until He finally judges him. "In the days of..." refers to actual history.

• Jesus Affirmed The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah As Actually Having Happened (Luke 17:29) And Lot's Wife Being Turned Into Salt (Luke 17:32):

          -For many centuries, there existed a unique structure of delicate, crumbling rock. It was traditionally linked to the story of Lot's wife. Historian Josephus noted in his writings that he had seen this formation, and it remained in existence during his time. Other early figures such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and Benjamin of Tudela also mentioned this unusual rock formation as being visible in their era. However, later accounts claimed that it no longer existed. The presence of this structure might have served as a symbolic lesson for Jesus' followers.

• Is The Genesis Creation Account Is Based On Mesopotamian Myths?:

          -The borrowing of Mesopotamian ideas for the purpose of describing transcendent truths is different than having been derived from Mesopotamian stories themselves (i.e. The Ennuma Elish, Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, etc.). Nonetheless, the text of Genesis is a stand alone in that it presents itself as authentic history. Adam and Eve are presented as historical figures. The biblical account does not flow in the manner of myth, legend, or poetry. 

          -Genesis is unique in that it is monotheistic. God is distinguished from His creation. He formed everything from nothing. Genesis is unique in that He who created all things is loving, peaceful, and righteous. These divine and timeless truths are so elegantly communicated by the text. The Genesis creation account is more intricate in that it encompasses every sphere of the natural and spiritual realms. 

          -Metaphysical naturalists reject the text of Genesis as being supernatural revelation. They do not view the miraculous as being a part of the record of history. If we are to view this creation account as anything, then we are to view it as Moses correcting the pagan narratives. He was interacting with pagan accounts because the Israelites would be exposed to different worldviews as they moved into Canaan.

• Are Genesis Chapter One And Chapter Two Contradictory Creation Stories?:

          -It is not that the two accounts are contradictory in nature but are harmonious and interdependent. Genesis chapter one specifically speaks to the creation of the universe, with man being last in order. Genesis chapter two centers on what earth was like. It makes no mention of the stars, moon, or other features of the solar system. Genesis chapters two and three focuses more on man. Genesis chapter two does not outline the events of creation. There is no discrepancy between the first two chapters of Genesis, as both, while related, are different contexts.

Purity And Passions

Our whole life is startlingly moral. There is never an instant’s truce between virtue and vice. Goodness is the only investment that never fails. In the music of the harp which trembles round the world it is the insisting on this which thrills us. The harp is the travelling patterer for the Universe’s Insurance Company, recommending its laws, and our little goodness is all the assessment that we pay. Though the youth at last grows indifferent, the laws of the universe are not indifferent, but are forever on the side of the most sensitive. Listen to every zephyr for some reproof, for it is surely there, and he is unfortunate who does not hear it. We cannot touch a string or move a stop but the charming moral transfixes us. Many an irksome noise, go a long way off, is heard as music, a proud sweet satire on the meanness of our live.

We are conscious of an animal in us, which awakens in proportion as our higher nature slumbers. It is reptile and sensual, and perhaps cannot be wholly expelled; like the worms which, even in life and health, occupy our bodies. Possibly we may withdraw from it, but never change its nature. I fear that it may enjoy a certain health of its own; that we may be well, yet not pure. The other day I picked up the lower jaw of a hog, with white and sound teeth and tusks, which suggested that there was an animal health and vigor distinct from the spiritual. This creature succeeded by other means than temperance and purity. “That in which men differ from brute beasts,” says Mencius, “is a thing very inconsiderable; the common herd lose it very soon; superior men preserve it carefully.” Who knows what sort of life would result if we had attained to purity? If I knew so wise a man as could teach me purity I would go to seek him forthwith. “A command over our passions, and over the external senses of the body, and good acts, are declared by the Ved to be indispensable in the mind’s approximation to God.” Yet the spirit can for the time pervade and control every member and function of the body, and transmute what in form is the grossest sensuality into purity and devotion. The generative energy, which, when we are loose, dissipates and makes us unclean, when we are continent invigorates and inspires us. Chastity is the flowering of man; and what are called Genius, Heroism, Holiness, and the like, are but various fruits which succeed it. Man flows at once to God when the channel of purity is open. By turns our purity inspires and our impurity casts us down. He is blessed who is assured that the animal is dying out in him day by day, and the divine being established. Perhaps there is none but has cause for shame on account of the inferior and brutish nature to which he is allied. I fear that we are such gods or demigods only as fauns and satyrs, the divine allied to beasts, the creatures of appetite, and that, to some extent, our very life is our disgrace.—

“How happy’s he who hath due place assigned
To his beasts and disafforested his mind!
* * * * *
Can use this horse, goat, wolf, and ev’ry beast,
And is not ass himself to all the rest!
Else man not only is the herd of swine,
But he’s those devils too which did incline
Them to a headlong rage, and made them worse.”

All sensuality is one, though it takes many forms; all purity is one. It is the same whether a man eat, or drink, or cohabit, or sleep sensually. They are but one appetite, and we only need to see a person do any one of these things to know how great a sensualist he is. The impure can neither stand nor sit with purity. When the reptile is attacked at one mouth of his burrow, he shows himself at another. If you would be chaste, you must be temperate. What is chastity? How shall a man know if he is chaste? He shall not know it. We have heard of this virtue, but we know not what it is. We speak conformably to the rumor which we have heard. From exertion come wisdom and purity; from sloth ignorance and sensuality. In the student sensuality is a sluggish habit of mind. An unclean person is universally a slothful one, one who sits by a stove, whom the sun shines on prostrate, who reposes without being fatigued. If you would avoid uncleanness, and all the sins, work earnestly, though it be at cleaning a stable. Nature is hard to be overcome, but she must be overcome. What avails it that you are Christian, if you are not purer than the heathen, if you deny yourself no more, if you are not more religious? I know of many systems of religion esteemed heathenish whose precepts fill the reader with shame, and provoke him to new endeavors, though it be to the performance of rites merely.

I hesitate to say these things, but it is not because of the subject,—I care not how obscene my words are,—but because I cannot speak of them without betraying my impurity. We discourse freely without shame of one form of sensuality, and are silent about another. We are so degraded that we cannot speak simply of the necessary functions of human nature. In earlier ages, in some countries, every function was reverently spoken of and regulated by law. Nothing was too trivial for the Hindoo lawgiver, however offensive it may be to modern taste. He teaches how to eat, drink, cohabit, void excrement and urine, and the like, elevating what is mean, and does not falsely excuse himself by calling these things trifles.

Every man is the builder of a temple, called his body, to the god he worships, after a style purely his own, nor can he get off by hammering marble instead. We are all sculptors and painters, and our material is our own flesh and blood and bones. Any nobleness begins at once to refine a man’s features, any meanness or sensuality to imbrute them.

Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Higher Laws (Chap. XI)

Be Sure Your Philanthropy Is Not Misplaced

"Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste, and not merely his misfortune. If you give him money, he will perhaps buy more rags with it. I was wont to pity the clumsy Irish laborers who cut ice on the pond, in such mean and ragged clothes, while I shivered in my more tidy and somewhat more fashionable garments, till, one bitter cold day, one who had slipped into the water came to my house to warm him, and I saw him strip off three pairs of pants and two pairs of stockings ere he got down to the skin, though they were dirty and ragged enough, it is true, and that he could afford to refuse the extra garments which I offered him, he had so many intra ones. This ducking was the very thing he needed. Then I began to pity myself, and I saw that it would be a greater charity to bestow on me a flannel shirt than a whole slop-shop on him. There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday's liberty for the rest. Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there? You boast of spending a tenth part of your income in charity; maybe you should spend the nine tenths so, and done with it. Society recovers only a tenth part of the property then. Is this owing to the generosity of him in whose possession it is found, or to the remissness of the officers of justice?

Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it. A robust poor man, one sunny day here in Concord, praised a fellow-townsman to me, because, as he said, he was kind to the poor; meaning himself. The kind uncles and aunts of the race are more esteemed than its true spiritual fathers and mothers. I once heard a reverend lecturer on England, a man of learning and intelligence, after enumerating her scientific, literary, and political worthies, Shakespeare, Bacon, Cromwell, Milton, Newton, and others, speak next of her Christian heroes, whom, as if his profession required it of him, he elevated to a place far above all the rest, as the greatest of the great. They were Penn, Howard, and Mrs. Fry. Every one must feel the falsehood and cant of this. The last were not England's best men and women; only, perhaps, her best philanthropists.

I would not subtract anything from the praise that is due to philanthropy, but merely demand justice for all who by their lives and works are a blessing to mankind. I do not value chiefly a man's uprightness and benevolence, which are, as it were, his stem and leaves. Those plants of whose greenness withered we make herb tea for the sick serve but a humble use, and are most employed by quacks. I want the flower and fruit of a man; that some fragrance be wafted over from him to me, and some ripeness flavor our intercourse. His goodness must not be a partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious. This is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. We should impart our courage, and not our despair, our health and ease, and not our disease, and take care that this does not spread by contagion. From what southern plains comes up the voice of wailing? Under what latitudes reside the heathen to whom we would send light? Who is that intemperate and brutal man whom we would redeem? If anything ail a man, so that he does not perform his functions, if he have a pain in his bowels even- for that is the seat of sympathy- he forthwith sets about reforming- the world. Being a microcosm himself, he discovers- and it is a true discovery, and he is the man to make it- that the world has been eating green apples; to his eyes, in fact, the globe itself is a great green apple, which there is danger awful to think of that the children of men will nibble before it is ripe; and straightway his drastic philanthropy seeks out the Esquimau and the Patagonian, and embraces the populous Indian and Chinese villages; and thus, by a few years of philanthropic activity, the powers in the meanwhile using him for their own ends, no doubt, he cures himself of his dyspepsia, the globe acquires a faint blush on one or both of its cheeks, as if it were beginning to be ripe, and life loses its crudity and is once more sweet and wholesome to live. I never dreamed of any enormity greater than I have committed. I never knew, and never shall know, a worse man than myself.

I believe that what so saddens the reformer is not his sympathy with his fellows in distress, but, though he be the holiest son of God, is his private ail. Let this be righted, let the spring come to him, the morning rise over his couch, and he will forsake his generous companions without apology. My excuse for not lecturing against the use of tobacco is, that I never chewed it, that is a penalty which reformed tobacco-chewers have to pay; though there are things enough I have chewed which I could lecture against. If you should ever be betrayed into any of these philanthropies, do not let your left hand know what your right hand does, for it is not worth knowing. Rescue the drowning and tie your shoestrings. Take your time, and set about some free labor."

Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Economy (Chap. I)

Does Matthew 1:25 Refute The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

• Discussion:

          -It is an official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary never had any children after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is believed that she was a virgin before the birth of Christ and remained so afterward for the rest of her earthly life. Various theories have been made in an effort to explain the references to His brothers and sisters in the gospels. The Roman Catholic Catechism makes reference to Augustine in supporting this teaching: 

          "Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38)." (# 510)

          The term "knew" was a modest way of describing sexual relations. That is how it is used in various places throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 4:1; 17; 25; Judges 11:39). To know carries with it connotations of people being intimate with each other. This idea of "knowing" is also expressed in the context of the covenant relationship between God and Israel (Amos 3:2; Hosea 2:14-23). Therefore, "knowing her not" in Matthew 1:25 means "keeping her a virgin" until marriage.

          Children in Jewish culture were viewed as blessings from God (Psalm 127:3-5). The wife was likened to a vine and children to olive shoots (Psalm 128:3). The "barren womb" was said to "never be satisfied" (Proverbs 30:16). Children were viewed as a sign of divine favor (Genesis 21:6; 1 Samuel 1-2) . In fact, women who were unable to bear children felt humiliation and attributed their condition to some underlying sin or wrongdoing. For example, Rachel preferred death over childlessness (Genesis 30:1). This backdrop seriously weakens the Roman Catholic view of Matthew 1:25.

          If we understand the clause "until" in Matthew 1:25 to indicate a change in the virginity status of Mary, then that reading would lend support to the virgin birth. It would further emphasize the fact that Jesus was not born as a result of sexual relations. This interpretation aligns with the natural use of language and reinforces the miraculous nature of His conception. Moreover, if Joseph had children from an earlier marriage, then Jesus would not have been recognized as the rightful heir to the Davidic throne. He would not have been Joseph's eldest son, and thus would not have held the legal primacy required for messianic fulfillment. The integrity of Jesus’ lineage rests on His position as Joseph’s firstborn, conceived uniquely, and born into a household where no prior offspring existed to obscure His legal standing.

          The Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity ignores the positive portrayal of childbearing by the Old Testament. It requires a highly unusual reading of Matthew 1:25, which centers around the marriage of Mary and Joseph. Matthew does not give us any indication of Mary being a perpetual virgin. Further, why would a man abstain from sexual relations with his wife? It would not have been common for a Jewish woman who is married to have no children. In fact, it would have been considered shameful, and hence, the same would be true of Mary remaining so permanently after marriage. God created the sex act. He pronounced His creative work to be good upon finishing it (Genesis 1:31). Sex within the confines of marriage does not spiritually defile a person, undermining any notion that Mary’s unique role in salvation history warranted a unique life of consecration.

The Ancients Did Not Believe In A Flat Earth

"The world, being made spherical, is confined within the circles of heaven….Without a doubt, the world is beautiful. It excels as well in its magnitude as in the oblique circle and those about the north, and also in its spherical form. Yet we must not worship the world, but other its Artificer."

Athenagoras (ca.175), 2.132,136. Cited in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot, p. 222

On The Historicity And Morality Of The Canaanite Conquests (Part 2 Of 2)

• Discussion:

          -James Bishop created a series of posts explaining what he thinks is problematic with traditional defenses of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The second installment of this series continues on the work of the first by answering other objections to this narrative. Excerpts from the author are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "...If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children. If we swapped “Canaanites” with “Jews” in the Old Testament, and Joshua with Hitler, we would have Archer defending Hitler on the basis that the Jews cancerous, including their infants and children."

          This is a false analogy. Israel was a theocracy, not a dictatorship. Classes of people were not being eliminated at whim. The context of these battles in the Old Testament relates to purity of worship, not racial hatred. Note that the Old Testament does not paint these battles in a positive light, and rightfully so. It only records the details of these events, no matter how gruesome. The biblical texts present a complex picture, including both military conflict and peaceful coexistence. Further, no military, no matter how lofty its moral principles, ever acts consistently all the time.

          No other nation in history besides Israel had been led directly by God. He commanded His people to wage this war. Consequently, this cannot simply be applied to justify any genocide committed throughout history. A man actually commanded by God to do something should be distinguished from one who is delusional in the belief that He is calling upon him. It is not our duty as Christians to kill others so that they do not sin later. The incident was a specific judgment by God against a particular group of people. The Jews were not predisposed with racial hatred as were the Germans during the Nazi era, further distinguishing both contexts.

          This truly is a paradoxical situation. How can God be one essence in three persons? How can His sovereignty be reconciled with our free will? How can God remain just while making just the unjust? These types of questions are raised here to illustrate the point that there are many aspects of God's nature that confound human rationality and sensibilities, especially that of nonbelievers. Gleason Archer's description of the Canaanites as a cancer is an analogy, and analogies by their very nature ought not be pressed beyond their original point. The end result of doing so only results in caricatures of positions that one aims to critique, and is on all counts sophomoric.

          "God’s plan, however, is to not only kill all the Canaanite parents but their children and infants too. In other words, God is judging the Canaanites for practicing child sacrifice by killing their children."

          The potential for future conflict between the Israelites and the Canaanite children they were raised by cannot be ignored. If left alive, these children would likely have grown up to resent their conquerors, potentially leading to insurrections or a desire for revenge. Given the historical context, the Israelites were in a precarious position as they entered a new land. Unlike empires such as Rome, which had sophisticated methods of governance and control, the Israelites were a relatively nascent nation with limited resources and military capacity to manage hostility from surrounding populations. This makes it reasonable to consider that the eradication of the Canaanite children could be seen as a pragmatic step by God to prevent future rebellion that could endanger the Israelite community.

          From another perspective, God's actions in removing the Canaanite children could be viewed as an act of mercy rather than cruelty. By terminating their lives, God could be seen as preserving their innocence and ensuring they would not suffer the same fate as their parents. In many theological frameworks, children, particularly infants, are considered innocent and incapable of moral culpability. Therefore, it is possible that removing them from a morally compromised society might prevent their eventual condemnation for the sins of their forefathers.

          "Going on what the biblical authors tell us, God wanted to eradicate the Canaanite religion and identity because they were a major threat to Israel. But here God, given his want to eradicate the Canaanites, we learn that they were not fully wiped out (Judg. 3:1–4)."

          The narrative remains consistent with Israel’s incomplete conquest of the Canaanites, which is attributed to their disobedience and failure to follow God's commands completely. In Judges 2:1-3, God rebukes Israel for not breaking covenants with the Canaanites and for not tearing down their altars. This illustrates human frailty and the consequences of disobedience, rather than a contradiction in the biblical account. Another interpretive possibility is that God’s commands regarding the Canaanites were intended to be fulfilled gradually. In Exodus 23:29-30, God says He will drive out the inhabitants little by little to prevent the land from becoming desolate and to allow Israel to grow in strength. This gradual approach aligns with the overall biblical narrative and demonstrates God’s wisdom in managing both immediate and long-term consequences.

          God extended mercy to nations that repented during the Old Testament (Jeremiah 18:7-8; Jonah 3:10). He is merciful enough to spare even the smallest remnant of righteous people in the midst of a wicked city (Genesis 18:24). The Canaanites had enough time and understanding of what God required of them in order to be spared from divine judgment, but they persisted in their ways. Further, He has the authority to use anything in His created order as an instrument to punish the unrighteous. He is sovereign over life (Deuteronomy 32:39). He gave it to us. Life belongs to Him. God can also take it back from us. He is not a moral agent acting on the same moral field as human beings. Why is it wrong for God to take a life? Who does He owe life to?