Tag Archives: Glenn Miller

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages, Top Ten Posts of 2015

#9 Post of 2015 – Why Did Moses Separate the Virgins and Non-Virgins of Midian?

2 Comments

In Numbers 31:18, Moses commands the officers of the army to kill all the women who have had sex and only keep alive the girls who are virgins. What is going here? Why would Moses give this command?

In order to understand this verse, we first have to understand the background. The Midianites, under the counsel of Balaam, devised a plan to cause Yahweh, the God of Israel, to turn against his people. The plan, which was executed in chapter 25 of Numbers, was to seduce Israelite men into fornication (single men) and adultery (married men), and then formal worship of the Midianite gods, especially Baal of Peor.

According to Glenn Miller (Christian Thinktank website), the number of Midianite women involved in this conspiracy would have been 6 to 12,000. Yes, you read that correctly. It would also appear that the Midianite kings and husbands of these women were complicit in the conspiracy. They were willing to send their women into the Israelite camp as prostitutes, essentially, to cause the downfall of Israel.

God does indeed turn against his people, given the sexual and religious crimes they have committed. A plague kills some 24,000 children of Israel. The only reason the plague ends is Phinehas’s quick action to put an end to the sordid affair.

With this background in place, God orders the Israelites to subjugate the Midianites, taking vengeance for their moral atrocities. The Israelites easily win the battle and the army returns with thousands of women captives. At this point, Moses commands the officers to “kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

It should be clear now that the females who the army has brought back are a mix of women who participated in the conspiracy and young girls who did not. Moses understandably considers the non-virgin women to be directly culpable for the deaths of thousands of Israelites. Setting this aside, they have shown already that they will turn the men of Israel away from Yahweh and toward Baal, causing further death and suffering in the future. These women simply cannot be allowed to survive.

Given Moses’ command, how could the Israelites tell the women apart? Glenn Miller explains that there were simple visual tests that could be applied:

“1) Was the female pre-pubescent? 2) Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with virginity for that culture? 3) Was the female wearing any attire, jewelry, or adornments required for/associated with non-virginity for that culture (e.g., veil indicating married status)?”

He continues:

Because virginity was generally associated with legal proof for blood-inheritance issues in ancient cultures (e.g., land, property, kinship, relationships), virginity itself was often marked by some type of clothing (e.g., the robe of Tamar in 2 Sam 13) or by cosmetic means (cf. the Hindu ‘pre-marriage dot’); as was more typically non-virginal married status (e.g., veils, headwear, jewelry, or certain hairstyles).  Of course, non-virginal unmarried status (e.g., temple prostitutes and secular prostitutes) were also indicated by special markings or adornments (e.g. jewelry, dress—cf. Proverbs 7.10; Hos 2.4-5).

The young girls who were virgins would be taken in and cared for by Israelite families, partially to help replace the population of 24,000 who had died by the plague. The young girls would, like all other Israelite women, be married when they matured.

Salvation, Top Ten Posts of 2014

#10 Post of 2014 – Is Christian Salvation Unjust or Unfair?

7 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Many non-Christians have accused the Christian God of being unjust or unfair because he asks that they recognize their sinfulness before the Creator-God, recognize their need for forgiveness, and then place their trust in Jesus Christ and his atoning death. They argue that this is just too narrow, too exclusive. God, the argument goes, is simply unjust and unfair.

But if we look at the biblical data, we see that regardless of how exactly God determines who will spend eternity with him, his selection is eminently just and fair.

First, we know God is loving and merciful. See this blog post on God’s love in the Old Testament and this post on God’s mercy in the Old Testament. There are several more passages that can be highlighted:

“The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Ps. 145:8-9).

“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:44-48).

“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:4).

“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

Second, we know that God is just and morally perfect. See this post on God’s moral perfection in the Old Testament. But also consider these passages:

“Shall not the God of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25)

“He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity” (Ps 98:9).

“The Lord within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail” (Zeph. 3:5).

 “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed” (Acts 17:31).

“God will give to each person according to what he has done” (Rom. 2:6).

Time and again the Bible reassures us that God will deal lovingly, mercifully, and justly with all of humanity. As Glenn Miller notes in his excellent article, “Notice, that there will be NO excuse of ‘not fair’ with God’s judgment…no one will argue that their situation is Unfair!” When we all stand before God, not one of us will dare to accuse God of unfairness or injustice.

Salvation

Is Salvation Temporally and Geographically Limited?

11 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

A common and unfortunate misconception about Christianity is that only a temporally and geographically limited group of people will be saved. The gospel message started out in ancient Palestine, spread throughout the Roman empire over the next several hundred years, continued to spread throughout what is now modern Europe and north Africa, spread to the Americas in the 15th century, and then was brought to the rest of Africa and Asia in subsequent centuries.

Here is the problem. What about all the people who never heard the gospel over the last 2000 years solely because it took centuries for the message to be carried throughout the world (there are still many places today that have not been reached). For example, the gospel wasn’t brought to the Americas until after the 15th century, so what happened to all the native Americans who lived before the 15th century?

The Bible speaks to this issue pretty directly, but many people miss it.

First, take a look at Rev 5:9:

And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

Notice what this is saying. At least some people from every people group will be saved! This statement seems to be inclusive of all times and geographies.  

Second, take a look at Rev 7:9:

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

So it’s not just a few people from each tribe and nation, but a “great multitude that no one could count.” Again, it seems clear that a very large number of people composed of every people group that has ever lived will be saved.

Third, Jesus (a Jew) indicates that many non-Jews will be in heaven. Look at Matt 8:10-11 and Matt 24:31:

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 8:10-11).

And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Matt 24.31)

Biblical scholar Glenn Miller comments: “Notice that Jesus uses the phrases ‘many'(!) and ‘east and the west’ (a general idiom for ‘from all over the world’).”

What are we to make of these verses? Well, it seems that the idea that salvation is temporally and geographically limited is wrong. God has reached and will continue to reach people from every nation, tribe and language.

Historical Christ, Miracles, Resurrection

Are the Healing Miracles of Vespasian Believable?

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Let’s briefly cover some historical background.  The Roman emperor Vespasian ruled from A.D. 69 -79; his reign ended with his death.  Writing about Vespasian some 25 years later, the Roman historian Tacitus reported a famous incident where Vespasian is said to have miraculously healed two men – one blind and one lame.

This miracle account is important because it has been frequently compared to the miracles of Jesus, and in particular, to his miraculous resurrection from the dead.  The argument that skeptics make goes something like this: “The accounts of Vespasian’s healing miracles are as well evidenced as the resurrection of Jesus.  People of the ancient world were credulous enough to believe both Vespasian’s miracles and Jesus’s miracles.  However, sophisticated modern people do not believe that Vespasian actually healed the two men.  Therefore, since the evidence for his miracles is at least as good as the evidence for Jesus’s reported resurrection, a sophisticated modern person should also not believe Jesus’s miraculous resurrection.”

The most famous skeptic to put forward the miracles of Vespasian as a defeater to the resurrection of Jesus was the 18th century philosopher David Hume.  In his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume claims, “One of the best attested miracles in all profane history, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; . . .” 

Hume goes on to report that Tacitus is known for his “candour and veracity” and that his sources for the miracle report were also of “established character for judgement and veracity.”  Hume concludes with the following: “If we add the public nature of the facts, as related, it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed stronger for so gross and so palpable a falsehood.”

In other words, as far as ancient reports of miracles go, the miracles of Vespasian are as well evidenced as you can get, yet we know today that the whole affair was a fraud.

But has Hume accurately reported the circumstances around this miracle account?  Has he properly understood Tacitus’s account?  It seems the answer is a resounding “no.”

Timothy and Lydia McGrew, in their essay “The Argument from Miracles” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, respond to Hume:

Hume’s presentation here is so careless that it struck his opponents as disingenuous. The “candour and veracity” of the historian are beside the point, since the manner in which Tacitus introduces the story indicates plainly that he disbelieved it. Hume’s characterization of the persons on whose authority Tacitus relied in relating the miracle as “of established character for judgement and veracity, as we may presume” drew special scorn from Campbell, for Tacitus says nothing of the sort.

Scholars who study Tacitus’s works consider his account of Vespasian’s miracles to contain numerous “ironical and sarcastic” elements, a point that Hume seems to have completely missed.  According to Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank, “This  account [of Tacitus’s] has so many tongue-in-cheek elements in it — even for a court historian — it is hard to be ‘impressed’ by Vespasian’s performance.”  Miller also explains, “Tacitus uses this miracle story to paint a VERY unflattering portrait of Vespasian, all couched in conventional forms.”  

The McGrew’s continue:

The entire affair bears on its face the marks of obvious imposture. It was conducted in Alexandria, the first major city to declare in favor of Vespasian’s imperial aspirations, and it was done in honor both of the emperor, for whom a divine sign would be most convenient, and of the local deity.  At Vespasian’s request, physicians examined the two men who claimed to have received visions in the night telling them to appeal to Vespasian to be cured; the physicians reported that the blind man was not totally blind, nor the lame man totally lame, and added that any glory for a successful cure would redound to Vespasian himself, while any blame for a failure would fall back upon the two supplicants for having fraudulently represented the oracle of Serapis.

Vespasian, when presented with these two men, wanted a physician to confirm that the men could be healed before he would attempt it.  In case the healing didn’t work, according to Tacitus, the “the onus of failure would belong to the poor beseechers.”  This was a win-win for Vespasian, because if he succeeded, he would get the credit, and if he failed the men would be blamed! 

W. Adams, a contemporary of Hume, notes, “Where then is the wonder that two men should be instructed to act the part of lame and blind, when they were sure of succeeding in the fraud, and of being well rewarded (as we may well suppose) for their pains?”

The McGrew’s add:

As for Tacitus’s reference to living witnesses, there is no mystery here. If the fraud was perpetrated publicly as described, there were doubtless many people who saw the two men leap up and claim to have been healed. There is no need to suggest that the witnesses were liars; it suffices that they were at most somewhat credulous. There was no need for them to inquire too closely since – unlike the apostles – they had absolutely nothing to lose in maintaining their account of what they had seen. “No evidence,” Douglas concludes drily, inverting Hume’s claim, “can well be supposed weaker.”

The McGrew’s conclude by assessing the Vespasian miracle story in comparison to the resurrection of Jesus.

At every point, the case of Vespasian differs critically from that of the resurrection. Indeed, from a Bayesian point of view, the wonder would be if, under the circumstances, some story of a miraculous demonstration in favor of Vespasian were not forthcoming. Given our background knowledge, the Bayes factor for the testimony is so close to 1 as to give us virtually no epistemic traction: the report was almost as strongly to be expected if the two men had been parties to the deceit as if they had genuinely been healed. It is absurd to suggest that the evidence for these miracles bears comparison with the evidence for the resurrection.

A newly appointed emperor in a city taking sides in an imperial political contest needs a miracle as a stamp of divine approval.  Two men willingly come forward to provide the “miracle” needed.  They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Even the ancient Roman historian who reports this miracle doesn’t believe it, his account dripping with sarcasm and irony.  Are we to seriously believe that Vespasian’s “miracles” rival the resurrection of Jesus?  No truly objective person could possibly think so.

Salvation

What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I have written on this, one of the most popular questions posed to Christians, in a few different posts and in comments.  Having said that, I have never answered the question in a systematic and thorough manner.  Recently I ran across the best, the most thorough answer to this question I’ve ever seen.  The author is Glenn Miller, the creator of a website called A Christian Thinktank.

You may not agree with each and every thing Glenn says, but I found his answer to this question to take into account a wide range of biblical data and treat that data with great care.  In order to whet your appetite for his entire article, here is his conclusion (he backs all of these statements up with Scripture):

Heaven will be heavily populated, with people from all nations, tribes, and languages–with many from outside historical Israel.

God’s judgment is completely fair and His kindness is communicated (and operative) to all. God reveals Himself to humanity through several non-linguistic forms (nature, anthropology, morality, patterns, emotions), and even linguistic data (in the form of tradition) has been preserved for all the descendants of the original pair of humans.

God deals with people according to the information they have–with specific focus on how they welcome or resist that truth. God’s moral judgment is based on actual deeds and actual motives–a very fair standard for everyone.

With those that respond to God’s revelation in nature and extra-biblical tradition, seeking grace and His activity on their behalf, God initiates a relationship with them, that typically eventuates in additional disclosures of God’s special, special love–His Son.

All of God’s overtures to man, and the acceptance of imperfect people into a living relationship with the morally pure God, is based on the penalty-removing sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross–sometimes unbeknownst to the recipients of that grace (e.g. OT saints).

Throughout the stretch of history, God has given additional detail, precision, instruction in the record of His disclosures and actions in history (i.e. the Bible). This in no way compromises or diminishes the ‘power-to-save’ of the ‘least-precise’ statement of God’s gracious nature and God’s saving actions in history.

The elements of original truth are mixed with historical distortions in all world religions, but there are sects within EACH of these major religious traditions that ‘look very much like’ aspects of OT religion, and there are often adherents of those religions that misunderstand their traditions ‘in the correct direction’!

The small, selected slice of history reported in the Bible indicates considerable action on God’s part in ‘getting the message out’ to individuals–often involving providence and ‘odd chanced’ events. A sufficiently competent God (!) could obviously orchestrate events, dreams, visions, rumors, conscience, mis-understood traditions, in such a way as to reach those who seek Him earnestly.

The response to truth in natural/universal revelation always witnesses to Christ–and never against Him. That is, a person who truly rejects the Biblical Christ (not some cardboard cutout or “engineered re-construction” of Him!), does NOT have a relationship with the Eternal God of heaven. (They may LATER come to accept Him, since many of us resisted His kindness for long periods of time before ‘softening before the warmth of His Love’.)

God’s concern for humanity and His interest in our welfare transcends both our petty attempts to criticize His plan, and our well-meaning attempts to ‘justify’ His plan! A love that sent a volunteering Son to earth, to die miserably and scandalously at the hands of “reluctant wrath” and “justly outraged holiness”, is a love that invites all to “come, drink of the Fountain of life”.

His instructions to Judeo-Christians to present/offer this message to the whole world is to be obeyed on His authority only, regardless of outcomes in any given setting. But we delight in the fact that His love drives us on, and that His Word can give life and freedom to those often un-interested or even openly hostile.

God is so perfectly good and so perfectly fair in ALL His dealings with us. His patience in delaying judgment (2 Pet 3) and His provision for forgiveness through the death of His Son (2 Cor 5), although often cast in His teeth in derision, is ample witness of His heart. His dealings with us incorporate ALL of the issues of our hearts, our background, and our basic attitudes toward truth/life.

“Shall not the God of all the earth do right?!” (Gen 18.25)