Baptismal Cognizance: What You Knew When You Were Baptized

The assembly of Christians with which I meet, and have been a part of for the last 16 years, is discussing the concept of "baptismal cognizance." In other words, what does a person need to know and/or believe at the moment of his/her baptism. To those groups who teach and practice adult baptism, this is a vital topic.

Jesus commissioned his apostles, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt 28:19–20). On the day of Pentecost after Jesus' death and resurrection, Peter is reported to have said, "Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him" (Acts 2:36, 38–9).

One of the first questions I would ask is this: What did the 3000, who were baptized on the day of Pentecost in response to Peter's urging, know and/or believe when they submitted to baptism? I ran across an article online in which the author, in my opinion, assumes way too much. This author confidently states...

"The answer is quite simple. 1st century Jews, proselytes (Gentiles who had become Jews), and God-fearers (Gentiles who had not become Jews, but worshiped God) were knowledgable about God, sin, atonement, the coming Messiah, and His coming kingdom. In fact, the Jews gathered on Pentecost (Acts 2) were probably far more knowledgable about the God of the Bible than most mature Christians are today.

When Peter explained that they were speaking in tongues because, “This is what was uttered through the prophet Joel,” the people understood what he meant. They understood that judgement was about to come upon them because they had “crucified and killed” the Lord Jesus Christ. They understood they needed to save themselves from that crooked generation (Acts 2:40). Which is why they asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) and why 3,000 of them responded when Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38)."

From my studies over the last 15 years, especially in regard to Second Temple Judaism (i.e., the beliefs and practices of Jews from the restoration of the temple in 5th century BCE to its destruction in 70 CE), I am convinced we cannot generalize what everyone knew and believed. First of all, there wasn't just one practice of Judaism, but in fact, there was a plurality of Jewish beliefs and practices. Even a casual reading of the gospels reveals the very real differences between the leaders of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Zealots. But there were other groups as well who co-existed, debated and disagreed with one another in the 1st century CE. And then there were the Jews who didn't believe or practice any form of Judaism.

To assume that all 3000 had exactly the same knowledge about "God, sin atonement, the coming Messiah, and his coming kingdom" and "were far more knowledgeable about the God of the Bible than most mature Christians are today" is a statement based on wishful thinking rather than on historical accuracy. The "Bible" as we know it didn't exist as a singular, uniform book at this time. Some books that didn't make the canon of scripture for the Hebrew Bible, were considered by some groups to be sacred and some that did make the canon were not considered sacred by some groups. Much like Christianity today, there was a variety of beliefs and practices among first century Jews. So we can rule out knowing uniformly what each of the 3000 Jews who accepted that Jesus was the Christ knew and/or believed at the moment of his/her baptism.

It is impossible to say with sincere confidence exactly what any individual who is reported to have submitted to baptism in the book of Acts knew and/or believed at the moment each of them was baptized. In some cases we know what they were told/taught, but that doesn't guarantee that they understood, when they heard those words, what you understand when you read those words. The only way to know for sure would be if it was accurately recorded, in their own words, what each person said that he/she understood, believed and/or knew at that moment.

It is so easy for us to read into these biblical accounts what we know and/or believe, right now, about baptism. However, most of us, if we were baptized years ago (in my case, decades), cannot, with absolute certainty, say what we knew or believed at the exact moment we were each baptized.

So where do we go from here? All we can know is what these believers were taught prior to submitting to baptism, as recorded in the biblical accounts. It has always been a disciple's responsibility to teach the gospel and baptize those who, to the best of their knowledge, believe the good news. But to discern exactly what each person knows, understands and/or believes at the moment he/she is baptized is beyond our human ability. Only Jesus knew what was in the heart of a person (John 2:24–25). And so, in this we can have confidence: God knows the very thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12-13). To him, and to him alone, we must all give an account.

Evangelical Idolatry: A Special Post for My Bible-Believing Readers.

Does God need us to defend him? This is where I think many of us, who say we believe in God as revealed in the Bible, get into trouble with our faith, as there are things about this God that are hard to understand and, if we are honest, that even offend us. So we strive to make God in our image, rationalizing and justifying (or just flat out ignoring) those things we don't like about how this God is often portrayed, especially in the part of the Bible Christians call the Old Testament.

But really, when we do this, how is that any different than carving our god(s) out of wood and then bowing down to a material image created by human ingenuity and skill? Aren't we simply creating a mental image (i.e., idol) of who we think God should be? Then we are forced to defend what, to us, are God's seemingly indefensible actions as revealed in the Bible. How is this not the same thing as idolatry? The only difference is that we create a mental image of who we think God should be. True, it is not a wooden, stone or metal one, but it is a human-created image just the same. When the revealed God, as found in the pages of the Bible, doesn't fit our image of who we think and have created our God to be, then we manipulate the scriptures via our interpreting, rationalizing, and/or justifying in order to defend the image we have created. And so we continue to believe in, bow down to and worship that image.

Isaiah rebuked the Israelites for creating material images of God and then mocked them for having to physically defend their image. Would he now rebuke us for creating our own mental images of who we want God to be, and then mock us for having to intellectually defend that image? Read Isaiah 40:18-31 (below, NRSV) and see if God really needs, or wants, us to defend him. (Please read it slowly and really think about what the prophet is saying.)

To whom can you compare God? To what image can you liken him? A craftsman casts an idol; a metalsmith overlays it with gold and forges silver chains for it. To make a contribution one selects wood that will not rot; he then seeks a skilled craftsman to make an idol that will not fall over. Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told to you since the very beginning? Have you not understood from the time the earthʼs foundations were made? He is the one who sits on the earthʼs horizon; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers before him. He is the one who stretches out the sky like a thin curtain, and spreads it out like a pitched tent. He is the one who reduces rulers to nothing; he makes the earthʼs leaders insignificant. Indeed, they are barely planted; yes, they are barely sown; yes, they barely take root in the earth, and then he blows on them, causing them to dry up, and the wind carries them away like straw. “To whom can you compare me? Whom do I resemble?” says the Holy One. Look up at the sky! Who created all these heavenly lights? He is the one who leads out their ranks; he calls them all by name. Because of his absolute power and awesome strength, not one of them is missing. Why do you say, Jacob, Why do you say, Israel, “The Lord is not aware of what is happening to me, My God is not concerned with my vindication”? Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is an eternal God, the creator of the whole earth. He does not get tired or weary; there is no limit to his wisdom. He gives strength to those who are tired; to the ones who lack power, he gives renewed energy. Even youths get tired and weary; even strong young men clumsily stumble. But those who wait for the Lordʼs help find renewed strength; they rise up as if they had eaglesʼ wings, they run without growing weary, they walk without getting tired.

Seriously, does the God who created and sustains the universe really need us to defend him? And when we do, are we defending our idolatrous version of who we think God is or should be, or are we defending God as he is revealed in the Bible? To my Bible-believing readers, even if what I'm saying strikes you as wrong (heretical even), I would urge you to think about it for awhile - as honestly as you are able. I've personally come to the place where I know that I spent years, preached many messages and taught many classes, where I defended my own version of who I thought God should be, in order to explain away (or deem as irrelevant), those passages in the Hebrew Bible where God's actions, words and laws, if taken as they are presented, seemed indefensible to me.

The goal I have for the rest of my life is to have an authentic and honest faith. I won't have all the answers. There are some (maybe even many) things about God that I won't understand and may even bother my twenty-first century western sensibilities and that I'll have to live with. But I'm done defending God. He doesn't need me to do that. He doesn't want me to do that. He doesn't have to fit my image of who I think God should be. He doesn't have to do or say what I think he should do or say. He is not accountable to me. And his ways, at least some of them, are beyond my comprehension. I'll end, once again, with what the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans about God's incomprehensible nature, wisdom and character (Romans 11:33-36):

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.

Does God Need a Defence Attorney? Part 2

More than anything I want to have an authentic and honest faith.  This is too important for me to play religious games, wasting my time defending that which seems indefensible or justify that which seems unjustifiable - at least in my own mind. I want to focus on that which rings true for me, which generally are those things that can be investigated and have some measure of concrete support. That's my primary goal. My secondary goal is to be able to communicate to others, who also are earnestly seeking to have an authentic and honest faith, the rationale of my faith so that they can work on theirs. I'm really not interested in defending, justifying or even explaining my faith to those who are not seeking. I really don't care anymore whether or not people think I'm a fool, a religious nut-job or faith fanatic.

When I was an atheist, I reasoned that if a deity (or deities) existed, then by the very definition, that god could do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted and with whomever it wanted. That god would not have to justify himself to those he created. She would be under no obligation to explain her actions to those whose lives she sustained or chose not to sustain. And I reasoned that there was no way I would ever fully understand that deity, because it would be so far beyond me in terms of power, ability, knowledge, etc., with nothing among its creation to which to compare it. So, when it came to the Bible, if there was a god, he could chose to create the entire, virtually infinite universe in six microseconds, six hours, six days or six millennia -- any way he chose, any time he chose. It could then chose to destroy what it created and start all over again, and not have to justify or even explain. And if it chose to come into this world as a human being and prove its divine nature by performing miracles, why not?

I think when those of us who believe in the divine being as revealed in the Bible get ourselves into trouble, is when we think we have to explain, defend and justify the things he is reported to have said and/or done throughout history. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't accountable to us. And maybe we don't like that and refuse to believe in and/or put our trust in a god that we can't fully understand and therefore explain. But isn't that us wanting to make god in our own image? Isn't that us wanting the god we chose to believe in, the god that we want. We want our god to be accountable to us. We think his thoughts and actions should be what we think they should be. We want him to explain himself so that we get it, agree with him and can justify him to others. But maybe, just maybe, we can't expand our thinking enough to understand all that he is and is able to do. Because he is god and we are not, then maybe, just maybe, he's not accountable to us in any ways other than how he chooses to be.  And he doesn't need me to be his defence attorney to the world.

I am challenged by passages in the Bible that utilize the analogy of the potter and the clay, because the clay does not say to the potter, "Why did you create me like this?" (See Isaiah 29:15-16; 45:9-12;  64:8; Jeremiah 18:1-11; Romans 9:19-24.) God is God. I am not. Though I seek to understand, my understanding will always be limited. Either I accept my limitations or I will put those limitations on the god I claim to believe in.

God doesn't need me to defend him. He is not accountable to me, but rather I am accountable to him. Instead, I will choose to stand back in awe and say along with the apostle Paul, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen." (Romans 11:33-36).

Does God Need a Defence Attorney? (Part 1)

One of the things I teach my students, in the Religious Studies classes for which I am their TA, is that, before they can read any text with as objective a perspective as possible, they must take everything they think they know about that text and "put it on a shelf." Then they can try to read the text with fresh eyes, unencumbered by preconceived ideas and personal agendas.  Is that easy to do? No, in fact, it is quite challenging and even when consciously striving to do so, we are unsuccessful.

I am part of a group of men who have committed to reading through the entire Bible (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) in 2018. We come together (online) to discuss what we are learning from our readings. Everyone of these men have been followers of Jesus for at least 10 years, and most for more than 25 years. I, for one, am trying to read, what I do by faith consider Scripture, from as objective a perspective as I possibly can. As a result in our discussions I think I might be developing a reputation of being the proverbial "devil's advocate." I can only hope that these men understand that I'm not trying to undermine or tear down anyone's faith. Rather, I am personally striving for a more authentic and honest faith--a faith that recognizes the historical, ethical and moral challenges that reading the Hebrew Bible objectively (i.e., from an academic rather than confessional perspective) raises.

A good example this past week came from reading the early part of the book of Exodus with a special focus on the plagues that Yahweh brought upon the people of Egypt and the resulting horrors they experienced. Most scholars do not believe this describes any events that actually happened, but even if that's the perspective one has, this is how the author of Exodus wanted its readers to see how God works. The reason that the Egyptians experienced ten absolutely horrible plagues is because of Pharoah's hardness of heart. He refused to let Moses take the Hebrews away for a time of worship and sacrifice to Yahweh. Under the pressure of a certain plague he would agree and then he would renege, withdrawing his approval, because "his heart was hardened."

At least 19 times from Exodus 4 through 14, the text talks about Pharaoh's heart being hardened. What people often miss seeing, however, is that it is the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, who credits himself as the one who hardens Pharoah's heart. Even before Moses meets with Pharaoh, he says, "And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders that I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go" (4:21. See also 7:3; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17). Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he would not let the Hebrews go. This was, according to the author of Exodus, Yahweh's plan all along. It's not just that God foreknew that Pharoah's heart would be hard, but that God, himself, would harden his heart.

The result of Pharaoh's heart being hardened was that not only he, but all the Egyptians had to suffer terrific and, at times, personally devastating, disasters. Imagine, as I do as a father of two sons and a grandfather with two (of my six grandchildren) grandsons, waking up one morning and find my firstborn son and my firstborn grandson had died in the night. But then when I share my grief with my family, friends and neighbours, I find that each of them has suffered the death of their firstborn sons. In fact, this unspeakable loss was experienced by every family in my country!  Then, imagine again, that your fathers, husbands, brothers and sons who serve in the army follower their commander and chief on a mission that fails terribly. How terribly you ask. So terrible was the defeat that not a single man survived! Not one father, husband, brother or son returned. The reason this reputedly happened in Egypt as that Yahweh, the God of Hebrews, hardened Pharaoh's heart.

When I read story of the Egyptian plagues from an objective perspective, this is what I "hear." But then I want to jump to God's defence. I know people are going to put the God of the Bible on trial for this action and I try to create a strategy with which to justify God's actions. But is that really what I need to do? Will that result in my having an authentic and honest faith?

More to come...

Who was Moses' father-in-law and why does it matter? Part 1

According to Exodus 2:18, Moses' father-in-law was רְעוּאֵל (Reuel). He was Zipporah's father, whom he gave in marriage to Moses (2:21). Reuel was "the priest of Midian" (2:16). Then according to Exodus 3:1, his father-in-law, "the priest of Midian" was יִתְרוֹ (Jethro) and in Exodus 4:18, his father-in-law's name is יֶתֶר (Jether). In Exodus 18, Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro throughout. So who was Moses' father-in-law and why does it matter?

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts that we possess today are dated between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. They were discovered among, what are commonly called, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in the caves near Qumran between 1947 and 1956. Over 1000 manuscript fragments have been identified of which about 25% are manuscripts of what would later (1st-2nd centuries CE) be canonized as books of the Hebrew Bible (HB). Prior to their discovery, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts were dated to the 9th or 10th centuries CE and represent the Masoretic text (MT), which until recently was the textus receptus for the HB and the Christian OT.  So, it is impossible to overstate the significance of these DSS. They do confirm that there was a significant preservation of the Hebrew texts throughout the centuries. However, at the same time, the DSS demonstrate not a tiny number of differences, called "variants," when compared to the MT. In addition, there are multiple manuscripts of several books of the HB among the DSS that differ from one another.

In the centuries prior the canonization of both the HB, and later, the canonization of the Christian New and Old Testaments, there did not exist one standardized, authoritative text of all biblical books, but multiple manuscripts of key HB texts, that contain numerous variants when compared to one another. Please read the following quote carefully and as objectively as possible:

• "But the real blow to the Masoretic Text...was their contention...that biblical texts were highly fluid in the last centuries before the Common Era. Scribes could add to older texts and rearrange their elements without impairing the status of those texts as Holy Scripture. this means that very different literary editions of the same biblical books were used alongside each other. Take the book of Jeremiah as a particularly illustrative example...The translators of the Septuagint had before them a very different and much shorter book of Jeremiah than the Masoretic version. yet, both editions were clearly seen as authoritative. Even the Torah existed in different, equally authoritative versions." (Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 63).

• "In the case of the Hebrew Bible it is difficult to define what the ‘original’ means, since each book is the product of a complicated and often unrecoverable history of composition and redactions. The ‘original text’ that lies somewhere behind the archetype is usually not the product of a single author, but a collective production, sometimes constructed over centuries, perhaps comparable to the construction of a medieval cathedral or the composite walls of an old city.” (The Oxford Hebrew Bible: prologue to a New Critical Edition [2008], p. 322)

What does all this do to the understanding of "all scripture is God-breathed?" While some of the variants can certainly be explained as scribal errors, resulting in obvious deletions of text, or as scribal updates, as the Hebrew language changed over time (re: spelling and grammar), other differences cannot be so easily explained. Were the "original autographs" (which we don't and won't ever have) God breathed (word for word) but then scribal errors and innovations introduced these variants? If so, how are we to think of the biblical texts that we do possess?  Is there another way to think about "God-breathed scripture" that would allow for and help explain these multiple texts and their variants? More to come...

What does "every scripture is God-breathed" (θεόπνευστος) mean?

In my reading, I came across this quote a couple of days ago, from the pen of C.S. Lewis in his book, Reflections on the Psalms (p. 47 Kindle ebook).

"The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not 'the Word of God' in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.

To a human mind this working-up (in a sense imperfectly), this sublimation (incomplete) of human material, seems, no doubt, an untidy and leaking vehicle. We might have expected, we may think we should have preferred, an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form--something we could have tabulated and memorized and relied on like the multiplication table. One can respect, and at moments envy, both the Fundamentalist's view of the Bible and the Roman Catholic's view of the Church. But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either proposition: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do knot know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done--especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it."

In his book, The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It, Peter Enns states, "Many Christians have been taught that the bible is Truth downloaded from heaven, God's rulebook, a heavenly instructional manual--follow the directions and out pops a true believer; deviate from the script and God will come crashing down on you with full force...What I discovered, and what I want to pass along to you in this book, is that this view of the Bible does not come from the Bible but from an anxiety over protecting the Bible and so regulating the faith for those who read it...When you read the Bible on its own terms, you discover that it doesn't behave itself like a holy rulebook should. It is definitely inspiring and uplifting...But just as often it's a challenging book that leaves you with more questions than answers."

Rereading Genesis and Exodus has been a challenging read for me. I feel like I need to defend some of its stories, whether they are accounts of what actually happened, historical fiction or stories that are more parabolic in nature. There are inconsistencies in details. There are moral choices that are at best questionable and at times downright evil of which the main characters, the ancestors of the Israelites, are guilty and seemingly unrepentant. But as both Lewis and Enns note, that doesn't mean I am going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Over the last few years, my understanding of inspiration has changed and thus the way I view the Bible has changed. I still love it, I still read it, I still strive to put its principles into practice in my life and I still teach it to others, because (again to quote Enns), "...I meet God in its pages...[and] I want to help others meet God, too."

What is the Bible's Achilles Heel?

I read this on a recent Facebook post: "The achilles heel of the Bible is Exodus." What did this person mean by that statement? The following is a Wikipedia post on Achilles and his heel:

"Achilles' most notable feat during the Trojan War was the slaying of the Trojan hero Hector outside the gates of Troy. Although the death of Achilles is not presented in the Iliad, other sources concur that he was killed near the end of the Trojan War by Paris, who shot him in the heel with an arrow. Later legends (beginning with a poem by Statius in the 1st century AD) state that Achilles was invulnerable in all of his body except for his heel because, when his mother Thetis dipped him in the river Styx as an infant, she held him by one of his heels. Alluding to these legends, the term "Achilles heel" has come to mean a point of weakness, especially in someone or something with an otherwise strong constitution."

So, obviously, the Facebook comment was meant to say that you can bring down the Bible, just as Paris brought down Achilles, by attacking it through the book of Exodus. I replied that, in my opinion, the Bible has no Achilles Heel if Christians are willing to stop trying to defend it for what it never has professed to be. Exodus could certainly be the Achilles Heel to certain perspectives on the Bible because these perspectives claim absolute and totally accurate historicity of everything contained within the pages of the Bible.  Many religious groups and individual believers have backed themselves into a corner and have had to create "proofs" and provide "explanations" for claims that are indefensible. The Bible is not modern historiography nor a scientific textbook. To represent it as such is to misrepresent it. 

The Bible is a collection of writings, of various genres, which originated in the ancient Near East. These writings, collectively, were written over a vast period of time and were, individually, copied, edited, revised, recopied, transmitted, translated, etc., until they were brought together in "one" book as we now have it - though various religious groups have some different books in their canonized version than the one you probably possess. Even by the second century CE (i.e., AD), the Bible, as we have it today (in one of various collections/canons) as one volume, did not exist - all the individual writings existed (some of which existed in more than one version). Only by sometime in the second century CE did the Jews formalize the books that make up the Hebrew Bible - though the sect of the Samaritans would disagree with their canon. It was not until the fourth century CE that Christians brought the books together that make up our various modern Bibles.

The Achilles Heel of the Bible is not the Bible itself, but can be found among the dogmatic assertions that at least some religious groups and individuals make about the Bible, because it is often misrepresented as something it is not, could never have been, and never will be. But also, those who oppose the dogmatic assertions of the religious groups or individuals have their own Achilles Heel(s) because they often counter with dogmatic assertions of their own that are just as indefensible. We will touch on a number of these dogmatic assertions that misrepresent the biblical books individually, and the Bible collectively, as we continue our journey through the texts in 2018.

Recommendations for further reading: 
1. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999. 
2. Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001.