All posts by waynespencer

Bible Related

Jesus and the Sword

1 Comment

Nonchristians often bring up the idea of “turning the other cheek” in the context of criticizing military action or criticizing self defense. They may think of it as inconsistent for Christians to say they believe in “turning the other cheek” as Jesus taught but also believe in supporting the military. Nonchristians in a similar manner often tend to criticize Christians for accepting the Old Testament because it has the legal principle in the Law of Moses to “take an eye for an eye” or a “hand for a hand.” But nonchristians criticize such things without knowing the context. The context matters a lot. Also, Jesus wasn’t so easily categorized as nonchristians make him out to be. There were some interesting incidents in the gospels recorded in the New Testament that have to do with Jesus, his disciples, the sword, and self defense. You won’t find unanimity from all Christians on the meaning of these passages. But these passages certainly don’t present the simplistic view that nonchristians tend to have of the Bible on these topics.

I first dealt with this issue from growing up in the Church of the Brethren, which takes a position of pacifism regarding war. I picked up a pamphlet from the Church of the Brethren once that made the statement, “all war is sin.” Because it accepted that all war was sin, regardless of the reason for the war, it was wrong for Christians to take part in killing in a war. Thus there have been conscientious objectors that in the past were drafted but they were allowed to serve in roles that did not put them on the front lines where they could be involved in fighting. I decided to look into this in the Bible and I concluded the pacifist position was not really supportable by Scripture. Most conservative Christians in America believe killing can be necessary in self defense and that there are at least some circumstances where going to war is necessary for a nation. What those circumstances are is a challenging question.

I found that when you study the kings of ancient Israel there were some instances where the Bible commends kings for preparing for the defense of cities. (The issues surrounding the Israelites conquering Canaanite peoples is I think a separate discussion.) There were situations where Israel went to battle not because they wanted to but because they had to, unrelated to the people groups in Canaan they were conquering. So the Old Testament does have support for the idea of a national defense, totally apart from the conquest of Canaan.

The “eye for an eye” principle in the Old Testament (see Exodus 21, Leviticus 24, Deut. 19) was something for the national level. It was never intended to justify revenge. It was harder on sinful violent acts than we are today. The Bible generally treats sin as more serious than we think of it today. But this was a law for ancient Israel and I think it was because they were a true theocratic state. I don’t think the Bible implies all nations should do the same necessarily. The Jewish legal system included a sort of trial where evidence was presented. If someone was found guilty of some act of violence then the principle could apply. I’m not sure how often it was carried out.

Jesus taught something different because he was telling people they could not use this command in the Law of Moses as an excuse to be violent toward someone, even if they were wronged. Responding to violence with more violence can escalate the violence rather than ending it. Jesus also I think emphasized how we tend to react in a selfish way, such as when possessions are taken from us. In the United States we often talk about our rights. But there are situations when it is better to give up on what may be your rights, as an example and a witness to others, and to avoid escalating a tense situation and making everything worse. This is the context of the “turn the other cheek” idea from Jesus (see Matthew 5:38-39). It was what Jesus said about how an individual should react if some other individual mistreated them in some way. It was not in a legal context about the consequences of a crime.

When I was looking into the pacifist point of view, I was surprised to find that in Luke 22:36 Jesus tells his disciples to take a sword with them after he was arrested or no longer in the world. He was about to be arrested and he implied that the disciples would face some opposition and possibly some hatred from some. He even said that if they didn’t have a sword to sell their cloak and buy one if they had to. At this statement someone spoke up and said “See, Lord, here are two swords.” Jesus then said “That’s enough!” ( Luke 22:38, NIV). This passage has been interpreted different ways. But it seems that some of the disciples took it the wrong way because in Matthew 26:51-52 Peter later attacks the servant of the High Priest and cuts off his ear! This was not what Jesus meant they should do. But Jesus did tell them to have a sword. I think the sword statement was meant to be for later after Jesus was no longer on Earth, for self defense.

Another interesting statement from Jesus was when he was speaking to Pilate in John 18:36. Pilate asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews. Jesus’ reply was “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36, NIV) Jesus disciples sometimes thought Jesus was indeed intending to become the new King over Israel and somehow defeat the Romans. But that was not God’s purpose. He deserved to be King, but he came to die in our place to be the Savior of the world. But this statement is not against the principle of fighting against an injustice or against an unjust government necessarily. The arrest of Jesus was the ultimate injustice. But it wasn’t God’s will at the time to start a rebellion against the Romans, or even against the hypocritical Jewish leaders. This statement of Jesus is very puzzling to Christians of the pacifist perspective. We should never want violence, but in an evil world, violence can come to us and it takes wisdom and courage to deal with it.

Science Related

Tyson’s Cosmos

Leave a comment

This year the National Geographic TV channel has released the new Cosmos series.  The series is hosted by well known astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson.  I would like to comment on this new Cosmos series and on the views of Dr. Tyson.  I will not go into a lot of detail on particular episodes of the series.  I would rather just give my overall impression of the entire series.  The Answers in Genesis website and Creation.com have had various articles answering specific problems with origins concepts in the Cosmos series.  In general I think the main point is that though the new Cosmos series is beautifully done in terms of the graphics and video effects, and Dr. Tyson is very talented in explaining scientific concepts, that does not make the series right about our origins.

There are aspects of the new Cosmos series that are very good and which I think Christians would benefit from watching.  Some of the series deals more with explaining scientific concepts, such as about the atom, and how the application of a scientific idea makes a difference in how people live.  Another aspect I really enjoyed are the historical parts dealing with how certain scientific discoveries were made and how it made a difference to people in history.  There is lot of this in the series and this is very worthwhile.  One of the best examples on this is where it tells how it was discovered that lead in gasoline polluted the environment and caused health problems for people.  This is why gasoline was changed to be “unleaded,” though the oil industry resisted the change.  The story of this and the scientist behind it is something I was not aware of and it is something people should be aware of.  There are ways our scientific knowledge have a practical relevance to our daily lives and today people don’t realize this enough.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, who hosts the Cosmos series, is a very accomplished spokesman for science.  He attended Harvard as an undergraduate, and did graduate study at the University of Texas at Austin, and Columbia University.  He also had personal contact with Carl Sagan, who was host of the original Cosmos series.  Dr. Tyson has referred to Dr. Sagan as a mentor, or as an inspiration to him.  Carl Sagan made a famous statement in the original Cosmos series, to the effect of “the universe is all there is, was, or ever will be.”  This has always been a very offensive statement to people of faith.  Thus Sagan was very overt and fairly hard-lined in his atheistic views.  Dr. Tyson says agnosticism is the term closest to his worldview.  I feel a little affinity to Dr. Tyson in that I was once also an agnostic and surprisingly Dr. Tyson and I were born in the same month, in October 1958.  But I grew up on a farm in Kansas and he grew up in Manhattan, New York.  The new Cosmos series, rather than making an overt statement like “there is no God” instead presents more the idea that “science provides better answers than religion.”

I would say there is an emphasis on the Big Bang and the age of the Earth and universe in the Cosmos series.  It also deals with some evolutionary biology and how carbon is important to life.  It presents some on the complexity of the cell and transcription (copying) of our DNA but does it without the concept of intelligent design.  It mentions that there are some who believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old, and it shows a picture of Bishop James Ussher, who is well known for his estimate of the Earth’s age from many years ago.  It mentions the starlight-time problem for the creationist view on the universe also.  It deals with radioactivity and how it is used to date materials as well.  But it always makes a very simplistic presentation and never presents any complications in the arguments or any challenges that have been brought up by other scientists.  Creationists have published many articles and books that show the problems with the simplistic arguments presented in the Cosmos series.  Presented so nicely in the program it can seem like it makes sense, but there is important information left out that shoots down the whole idea.  Creationist science has become more sophisticated than Tyson appears to imagine it being.  The answers from creationist research is a lot of information to wade through and the scientific community merely dismiss it, they do not reject it with real knowledge of what it says.

At the beginning of the program related to comets, it shows a baby in a basket.  Tyson then says it’s like humanity awoke all alone with no instructions and no guidance, like a baby being left on a doorstep.  Thus humanity has had to grow up figuring out everything by our own wits.  This concept is wrong.  God did not abandon humanity, like leaving a baby on a doorstep.  God was there with humanity in the beginning.  It’s actually humanity that abandoned God and not the other way around.  But in spite of this, God has a plan of redemption in Christ and he is still there for those who sincerely seek Him.  Furthermore, He did not leave us without instruction either.  The 66 books in the Bible are His instructions to us.  These instructions in the Bible are not really in conflict with science.  But if you insist on giving science authority it does not deserve, then that puts science in conflict with the Bible.  There are mysteries we haven’t fully explained, so we still have work to do.  We still have discoveries yet to be made.  But science should have room for more than one worldview, so that people of faith who are in science are not mistreated and discriminated against.  If you watch the Cosmos series, be aware there is more to the story and there is always another way to look at the same facts.

One more thing. The universe is not all there ever was because the self-existent Creator existed first. The universe is not all there ever will be either, because it will be recreated by God at the subatomic level. It will be a universe unspoiled by human sin.