Archive for the ‘Miscellaneous’ Category

Who Are The “sons of the gods” in Genesis 6?

July 17, 2018 Leave a comment

One of the questions which cannot be definitively answered by even most well-educated scholars is, who are the “sons of God” (or more accurately in the Hebrew, the “sons of the gods”) in Genesis 6.2? Ultimately, speculating about who these people are is in some ways an exercise in futility, as one can never know for sure. Still, I think an attempt to explain my perspective on which theory is most likely to be accurate will help illuminate some of the Scriptures and show a thematic thread which may not otherwise be as clear, even if ultimately I cannot be conclusive about the referent of the phrase, “sons of the gods.”

The confusing text, Genesis 6.1-4:

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

There are three main theories about who the sons of the gods are, all of which are, in my opinion, based on reasonable interpretations of the Scriptures.

The first is that the sons of God are men from the line of Seth, Adam and Eve’s faithful son. In this case the daughters of men are those who are from the line of Cain (or from a line not of Seth). The evil these sons of God committed was intermarrying with outsiders and polluting the bloodline.

The second theory is that the sons of the gods are angels, or some type of spiritual being, who left their place in heaven to have sex with and marry humans. The evil they committed was perverting the sexual order of creation and also polluting the human bloodline.

The third theory is that the sons of the gods are local rulers. The daughters of men then refers to the everyday women who have little power and thus are vulnerable to the will of these rulers. The evil being committed by these rulers is the use of power to make wives of whichever vulnerable women they desire.baalsacrificealtar

I believe this third theory accords with historical evidence, best accounts for the textual data, and most seamlessly fits within the surrounding narrative. Other authors have done a far better job than I could explaining how this view fits very well with Hebrew language, historical documents outside of scriptures, and ancient understandings of the passage, so my primary focus will be on the narrative context. These are the reasons I believe this view to be the most likely:

  1. Local gods have always been closely associated with local rulers.
  2. The sons of the gods act out one of the explicit consequences of sin entering the world in Genesis 3.
  3. The sons of the gods are an example of evil’s progress since the first sin.
  4. This brief story immediately precedes the flood narrative and forms a part of the explanation of why God sent the flood.
  5. The rulers discussed in the stories of Abraham and Isaac are like the sons of the gods.
  6. The sin of the sons of the gods is committed again by future rulers of Israel.

Historically it is common to apply divine terms to local rulers. Even in recent European history, there was a close connection between God and monarchs. Their power and right to rule was declared divine. This god-ruler association was far more close and common thousands of years ago. Rulers were sometimes even considered gods themselves.

More often it was easier to explain their power and right to rule by claiming descendance from gods. These regional despots are then referenced individually as a “son of [insert name of one of the regional gods here].” It is plausible the author of Genesis used the term “sons of the gods” to refer to this group of rulers more generally. Within the context of this passage, it is a natural interpretation to assume these sons of God are humans who have godlike power.

If this is the case, then the text is contrasting the terms “sons of god” and “daughters of man.” The author is deliberately displaying the power differential between these two groups to highlight the relative powerlessness of the daughters of man. The sons of god are using their superior power over others to take as many wives as they want and whomever they want and no one can stop them. The women then, along with their fathers and husbands, are victims of the the local rulers.

These actions can be viewed as a playing out of the consequences of sin entering the world. One of the consequences for Woman was that “[her] desire will be for [her] husband and he will rule over [her]” (Gen 3.16). In the world of the text, women were often treated as property of their fathers. Marriage was a transference of ownership from the fathers to the husbands. Even in many of the most peaceful cases, marriage was an act of the husband ruling over his wife. In the case of the powerful local rulers who take whichever women they want (implying the women have no choice in the matter), marriages are even less voluntary. If we look at the evil characters in Genesis who precede the sons of God, this textual link becomes more solidified.

God warned Adam and Eve that their sin would bring death and this is tragically fulfilled when one of their sons kills the other. In Genesis 4, Cain kills his brother Abel in a rivalrous, jealous rage. Sin in the world brings death to humanity. After Cain sins and kills his brother, Cain, like his parents, was exiled. In his exile, Cain builds a city. He acquires a small local region to be the domain over which he reigns.

Lamech is one of Cain’s descendants who demonstrates that he shares some of Cain’s personality traits. One notable act of Lamech is that he took two wives. To them he said,

“Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;
24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” (Gen 4.23-24)

In his brief recorded speech, Lamech reveals his likeness to his ancestor Cain. He is not only similar to Cain in that he is violent and has no qualms about murdering even young boys, but describes himself as a far more vengeful version. The person of Lamech is the text’s demonstration that sin, and thus death, is growing and spreading across the earth. The effects of Adam and Eve’s first sin continue to progress. This story shows two characteristics of evil getting worse in the world. People are becoming more violent and are taking more wives.

Many generations after Lamech, the reader discovers this evil has progressed even further. The sons of the gods, like the violent men who came before them, are committing ever more violence and taking ever more women to be their wives. These men are an advanced version of Cain and Lamech. They are the growth of evil over time.

It is this growth of violence which causes God to regret making man and to send the flood. Immediately after the story of the sons of the gods, the author says,
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in his heart (Genesis 6.5-6).

It is highly probable God’s analysis of the greatness of man’s wickedness is directly related to the immediately preceding verses about the sons of the gods, as well as the preceding stories in Genesis about the other evil men (Cain and Lamech). The author isn’t jumping one subject to another, from the sons of the gods to the flood, but telling a related and progressive narrative.

We can be confident that violence is the central wickedness God has in mind because it is the only wickedness mentioned explicitly as the reason behind the flood.

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Gen 6.11)

Things were so violent on the earth, humans were so destructive to one another, God decided to hit the reset button on the world. Reading the text as a cohesive narrative leads one to conclude that the story which precedes the flood is directly related to the flood. The sons of the gods are an example of the type of overwhelming violence God saw on the earth.

Immediately after the flood, sin re-entered the world through Noah and his sons. A couple chapters later, we find many powerful rulers have arisen. When we look at the assumptions of Abraham and his son Isaac, we see that these rulers are quite similar to Lamech and the sons of the gods which came before them. They also are known for taking many women, whomever they choose, to be their wives.

There are three stories which exemplify these assumptions of the main characters of the text: Abraham and Pharaoh in Genesis 12.10-20, Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 20.1-18, and Isaac and Abimelech in Genesis 26.1-12. These stories are all different and have many other narrative purposes, but one thing they have in common are Abraham’s and Isaac’s assumptions that the local people with power will kill them and take their wives as their own.

In every story, the main characters lie to the local people with power, saying that their wives are their sisters in order to protect their own lives. Perhaps Abraham and Isaac are just paranoid individuals, but it is more likely their assumption they will be killed and their wives taken has a basis in reality. It is likely that it is common for the more powerful local rulers to take the beautiful women they want to be their wives and kill anyone who stands in the way. The results of sin progressing in the world before the flood parallel the results of sin progressing in the world after the flood.

When we read the story of the sons of the gods in Genesis 6 as being local rulers using superior force to take women as their wives, they become an archetype for future rulers throughout the Old Testament. The very sins for which God sent the flood are sins God warns about when discussing Israel’s future kings and the sins we find Israel’s kings committing.

In the book of Deuteronomy, God, through Moses, anticipates that Israel will put a king on the throne to be like the other nations. He then provides them some guidelines about what the king should be like and what the king should not be like. One of the things to avoid is found in Deuteronomy 17.17.

He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. 

The way the king’s heart being led astray was most likely to manifest is by worshiping the gods of his wives. This is probably the primary implication the author of Deuteronomy had in mind. However, in at least one notable example, a king’s pursuit of many wives led his heart astray in such a way that the king acted just like the local rulers in Genesis.

David is widely considered to be Israel’s best king. He is the king to whom all the other kings are compared. When they’re good, they walked in the ways of David. When they’re bad, they didn’t. Still, David sins a lot as king. His most infamous sin is sleeping with a woman and killing her husband.

2 Samuel 11.1-5

One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful,and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”

When one reads this passage side by side with Genesis 6, the parallels are striking. David, the local ruler, saw a daughter of man who was beautiful. So what does David do next? Well, the only natural thing for an overwhelmingly powerful ruler to do. He uses his power to sleep with the powerless Bathsheba. What choice does she really have in this situation? In this culture? Say no to the king? That’s barely a choice. He takes whomever he sees and desires.

Soon after this, David does exactly what Abraham feared Pharoah and Abimelech would do. Bathsheba’s husband Uriah was a loyal warrior in David’s army. So David, being crafty and wanting to maintain popularity with his people by hiding his murder, comes up with this plan:

14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die: (2 Samuel 11.14-15)

The plan works. Uriah dies fighting for his king who slept with his wife. David then marries Bathsheba. He is, in this moment, just like the sons of the gods. He commits the very sin of covetous violence for which God sent the flood. The sons of the gods become an archetype not just for future pagan rulers in Genesis, but also for the greatest king Israel ever had.

For these reasons I believe the theory that the sons of the gods were local rulers fits best with the biblical narrative. Combined with articles which analyze historical evidence in the ancient near east,* this theory is far more compelling than any of the others. But it might be wrong.

* One such article: Who were the sons of the gods?



A Personal Reflection On A Creative Project

November 9, 2017 Leave a comment

A little over two years ago, on the day I turned 30 years old, I released the first episode of a podcast entitled, “Christian Anarchy.” It is essentially a podcast devoted to explaining to followers of Jesus that they should not support the violent treatment of peaceful people, alerting Jesus followers to the reality that all Nation-States exist through the violent treatment of peaceful people, and thus followers of Jesus should not support the existence of Nation-States. I was embarrassed to release my first episode.

I’m still a little embarrassed to bring it back up. I do not find the subject matter embarrassing and I’m more confident than ever in the essential message of the podcast. I was embarrassed because at the time, I was a well below average speaker. I knew the podcast would be full of flaws, yet I believed the truth of the ideas themselves would add enough value to listeners that many could overlook my lack of ability. In order to communicate the message in this format, I had to put my weakness in full view of others.

This project resulted in a lot of personal growth. I learned a lot about magic internet stuff and more than I knew existed about audio production. The extent of my previous knowledge of audio recording was: 1. Press record on cassette player. 2. Fart into mic. 3. Rewind. 4. Press play. 5. Giggle. Now I can record, edit, and mix audio and make it sound professional… like a really cheap professional who is bad at his job, but still.

Learning a few new concrete skills in my elderly condition was good for my aging brain. Moreso than this, I became better at things I’ve often thought I could not do. Creating a podcast episode every week was an essential element in working my way up to becoming a mediocre public communicator. I took debate class in high school to avoid speech. I sprinted through every verbal presentation in college. I’ve always avoided monologues. I never thought these forms of public speaking were a skillset I could have. With a lot of practice, and putting myself in vulnerable positions, I’m now a passably decent sermonizer and I crush best man speeches. It turns out you can become better at things you suck when you do it a lot.

Perhaps the most important skill I strengthened is consistent, self-motivated follow through. I have a tendency to be motivated by external factors. Yes, I’ll show up at the event I said I would show up at because others are directly involved. I’ll finish the homework I signed up to finish. I will do the tasks I need to in order to make money. I’ll do what I said I would because others are depending on me. Releasing a podcast every week is different. No one is depending on me, I won’t make money, I have no external obligations. I simply put the work in (sometimes it was a lot) to make it happen consistently because I desired to. My internal motivation was enough.

Despite the near unending list of criticisms I could level at this creative project, it’s by far the best thing I’ve ever produced. I don’t know of any ideas more important and less discussed in our world. Nothing I’ve done has had anywhere near the reach of the podcast. Never have I received so much gratitude and compliments than in email after email people sent me from all over the world in response.

The positive reaction of so many who listened to me talk for 35 hours was disarming. I had to put down the weapons I would normally use against myself because it would have been irrational to use them. Many negative things are true about the show. It suffers from my lack of monologuing ability. It is too dry. It’s too dense for the audio format at many points. The show is redundant in others. It’s boring. My jokes are idiotic. My understanding and knowledge is sometimes very shallow. These things are true, but I cannot use them to shame myself or convince myself I wasted my time. Too many people, too many individuals who are among the most reasonable, open minded, intellectually honest, and compassionate I know, were so happy and grateful I could not take up arms against myself.

One lesson I am in a frequent state of learning is that I should always live disarmed of my own judgment. I do not mean absent of honest self-evaluation, but absent a judgmental mindset which can so easily accompany such self-evaluation. There is little to be gained by self-shame. Nothing to be gained by shaming one’s own creative work. And there is great freedom in being able to create things without fear of what anyone will think about it, including oneself. Shamelessness also creates an inner peace which allows for the kind of honest self-perspective out of which self-improvement can flourish.

In case you are reading this and happen to be interested in glancing at the podcast I’ve been discussing, here: Christianarchy


John’s Birth Narrative

April 10, 2017 Leave a comment

I’ve taught about this topic based on this section of text at church before, but for no reason in particular, this passage has been running through my head again and I thought I would try to clarify and solidify my thoughts through writing.

Unlike the gospels of Luke and Matthew, the gospel of John does not tell us about the birth story of Jesus at the beginning of the book. Instead, John chooses to explain Jesus’ entrance into the world as the Creator God taking on human flesh to bear His image perfectly and put on display humanity as humanity was intended to be. However, it is my contention that John’s gospel does contain a birth narrative, but the birth of Jesus does not occur until the end of the book.

So as not to get bogged down, we will be flying through these texts, only pointing out what is pertinent to my argument, and deliberately ignoring some of the most important elements of the story. We’ll start with Jesus on the cross nearing death.

John 19.25a-27
But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

For our purposes, there’s only one thing I want you to pay attention to in this passage, which we probably normally wouldn’t give a second thought. Who are the women here? Well, we have Jesus’ mother, whose name every reader or hearer (hereon, we’ll use only the term reader, even though most of John’s original audience heard this text read to them) knows. Mary of course. Then we have Mary and Mary. So, Mary, Mary, and Mary.

The text goes on to tell us about the death of Jesus. He’s given sour wine, then He parallels Elohim in Genesis, with, “It is finished.” At this moment, Jesus gives up His Spirit.

Everyone is in a hurry to bring him down from the cross before the Sabbath or they would have to leave the bodies on the cross for a whole day cuz silly reasons. To double check to make sure Jesus was dead, they pierce his side, and out of him flows blood and water. He was quite dead.

Then we come to the story of Jesus’ burial.

John 19.38-42
After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body.
39 Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

We’re reading through John and we hear Mary, Mary, Mary, there is a ten verse depiction of Jesus’ death, and after we come immediately to Joseph. Mary, Mary, Mary… Joseph. “Mary” is fresh in reader’s minds, and then “Joseph.” What is commonly associated with these two names in close proximity to one another? Jesus’ birth. I think John wants us to have the story of His birth in mind right now. Given that both of these names are common, it is perfectly plausible their usage is purely coincidental. I would tend toward calling it a coincidence, except for other elements of the text.

Because of what we see in the rest of this gospel, we know John is a well thought out writer who is very deliberate about what he says. Rarely, if ever, does he provide specific details without reason. He tells us Jesus is going to be laid in a tomb, a new tomb. No one had ever been laid in it. Just like the Virgin Mary when she gave birth to Jesus (Pun not intended in the Greek). It’s a virgin tomb.

Here’s the kicker of the passage, and perhaps the most important reason for seeing this part of John as a sort of birth narrative. John tells us Nicodemus is there. Nicodemus is here to both foreshadow what is about to happen and to provide a theological explanation of what does happen. No other gospel tells us about him. Not only that, John also happens to specifically point us to the first meeting Nicodemus had with Jesus. The importance of referencing Nicodemus is found in this conversation.

Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night to get some questions answered. We pick up this iconic conversation in John 3.2

this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus continues on in the conversation to frame this new birth as a “heavenly thing” and as what brings the “life of the age (of the kingdom of God)” to the reborn. He also talks about himself being raised up as the means by which the people of God will receive the salvation from death to receive the life he speaks about in this passage.

With this background in mind we come to the resurrection in John 20, the climactic moment of the author’s birth narrative. In this chapter, Mary goes to Jesus’ virgin tomb and finds it empty. Later she is the first to see the risen Jesus whom she mistakenly believes to be the gardener.

John’s reference to the story of Nicodemus provides one lens through which we are to view Jesus’ resurrection. It is the new spiritual birth which allows the reborn to see the kingdom of God. What was confusing in John 3 has now become quite clear. No, it’s not about climbing back into the mother’s womb. Other than being impossible, that would simply result in another birth of the flesh. This is a birth of a different sort.

The gestation process of the new birth takes place in a tomb. The precursor to a birth of the spirit is a death to the old fleshly ways of law, sin, division, centralized religious control, and the like. Jesus’ death to sin on the cross was his conception and the resurrection with a new, imperishable body is his birth. Jesus was born again with a body fit to see and experience the kingdom of God.

The resurrected Jesus in the garden is the new Adam, the first of humanity to experience both a birth of water and one of spirit. Jesus lovers are to follow him into the tomb that they might also be born, “not of [blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1.13). As revealed in the conversation with Nicodemus, it is the raising up of Jesus like the serpent which enables us to share with Jesus in this spiritual rebirth through death and resurrection – experiencing the life of the age in the present as we await the fullness of this life in the future.

*As a pertinent post-script, Jesus frames his death and resurrection as a birth story in John 16.20-22 as well.

Man, Woman, and Authority

February 3, 2017 Leave a comment

From another writing project in which I deal with a handful of arguments for male authority over women from this text:

Genesis 2.18-23

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
   And flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
  because she was taken out of Man.”

Sometimes interpreters will use Genesis 2 to argue for men’s position over women in the hierarchy of Creation. The attempt to demonstrate this comes from a flawed understanding of the purpose of this chapter and an ignorance of Genesis 1. God has already outlined the hierarchy of Creation in Genesis 1. This chapter is not designed to speak to the issue.

Still, there are some who use chapter 2 to posit male authority over females. These arguments which place men over women are common enough it is worth the time to address some of them directly.

In Genesis 1, it looks like male and female were created at the same time. However, in chapter 2 Adam was created before Eve. As one who has been alive in the world for longer, it would make sense for Adam, with his more expansive knowledge of the world, to have a position of authority over her. God deliberately created man first because He wanted men to always have a position of leadership over women.

The main problem with this conclusion is its presumptiveness. There’s no reason in the text to assume being made first put one in a position over others. In fact, were one going to use the order of creation as a way to figure out God’s original design for hierarchy, the exact opposite would have to be concluded. We already know humans are over the rest of creation and humans were created last. The creatures with the highest authority are those created later. If woman was created last of all, then God must want her to have dominion over everything which came before, including man.

Eve is called Adam’s “helper.”  When the ESV (and many other translations) use the word “helper” to describe Eve’s relationship to Adam, they are not intending to communicate the idea of some sort of hierarchy. When modern readers perceive Eve to be Adam’s subordinate because of the use of the term helper, they are reading their experiences into the text.

The assumption of some readers that to call someone a “helper” is to subordinate them is not without reason in our modern context. It is common in the work environment to refer to less skilled people as a “helper.” Children who aid in cleanup or who are being kind to younger children are also called “helpers.” A helper is  someone who is there to be of assistance to the person who is in charge. We often use “helper” to refer to someone who is in a position of subordination.

The word for helper in the Hebrew text carries no such connotations. The Hebrew word for helper is Ezer. This word is most often applied to God. God helps humanity out sometimes, this certainly doesn’t make him a subordinate. Using similarly shallow arguments to those seeking to prove patriarchy, it would be very easy to conclude Eve must be Adam’s superior, since the same term applied to her is also applied to God. The text is not trying to say anything about a hierarchy at all.

The process of Eve’s creation is another event some use to conclude that God designed men to be in a position over women. Adam slept and then God used his rib to create Eve. She is a part of Adam’s body. Adam is the originator of Eve.

Only a small logical step is required to propose that Adam has rightful authority of Eve. She owes her very existence to him. He owned the rib from which woman was made, so he should have some continuing rights of ownership. Adam obviously has authority over his own body and Eve is simply a separated extension of his body. As one created from someone else, it is reasonable to conclude Adam is above Eve in the hierarchy of creation.

Yet, we find ourselves only able to use these verses to justify a hierarchy between man and woman if we ignore the preceding text. Adam wasn’t created out of thin air either. He originated from another substance – dirt. Is dirt over man in the hierarchy? Quite the opposite, the earth is the very thing over which man is to rule. In the interest of a consistent application of the hierarchal hermenuetic, if man was created from the substance over which he had dominion, then it must be that woman is supposed to have dominion over man.
Or perhaps interpreting Genesis 2 as if it is trying to tell us something about an authority difference between men and women is the wrong way of reading it altogether.

Categories: Miscellaneous

Jeremiah 30: The God Who Sees

January 19, 2017 1 comment

Jeremiah 30.5-9

“For thus says the Lord,
‘I have heard a sound of terror,

Of dread, and there is no peace.
‘Ask now, and see
If a male can give birth.
Why do I see every man
With his hands on his loins, as a woman in childbirth?
And why have all faces turned pale?
‘Alas! for that day is great,
There is none like it;
And it is the time of Jacob’s distress,
But he will be saved from it.
‘It shall come about on that day,’ declares the Lord of hosts, ‘that I will break his yoke from off their neck and will tear off their bonds; and strangers will no longer make them their slaves. But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.

When I read this over quickly, my first thought was, “God’s talking about judging Israel again.” I don’t know if other readers are like me, but I’m inclined to simply throw passages into this equation: Old Testament Prophet + talking to Israel + talking about human suffering = judgment language. I ran the numbers on my first skim through, and I totally misread the passage.

YHWH’s begins his speech by informing Israel He has heard a sound of terror. This isn’t God acting or proclaiming, He is listening. He is paying attention to His people. YHWH does not hide his face from them, He sees them. He understands their pain.

YHWH is not pronouncing judgment here. God is using empathetic language to let Israel know He understands what they are going through right now. Using the visceral and universal metaphor of labor pains, YHWH reflects their suffering back to them. He demonstrates an intimate knowledge of their circumstances. God sees as if He were in their shoes, looking through their eyes, taking on their perspective. Their pain feels like the most tremendous and debilitating pain they can imagine.

This God knows their pain. While is true the sin of the people has caused their desperate and painful condition, He is loving and forgiving. The merciful God who sees will not allow the pain to endure forever. He’s going to do something about it. He’s going to set things right.

His solution points us obviously to Jesus. I’ve pointed out many times in writings, lectures, and in conversation that choosing a king was a rejection of God. God also promised a descendant of David would be on the throne forever. Jesus is the unique and unexpected solution to this (and many other) problems. Jesus is both God enfleshed and a descendant of David. Jesus both fulfills the promises of God to David and rectifies Israel’s rejection of YHWH as the only rightful king.

Categories: Miscellaneous

A Personal Apology to the Victims of War

May 30, 2016 4 comments

Today is Memorial Day 2016. It’s a day to remember the millions upon millions who have been killed in war. It’s a day we all feel a semblance of the sorrow millions feel everyday thinking about the child, the friend, the brother, the uncle, the wife they will never see again. Today is when we recollect the multitude of tragedies felt by so many.


As this day approached, I’ve been thinking of the mistakes I made in my life as it pertains to the nation, the military, and soldiers themselves. I’ve done, thought, believed, and said many things in my life that were harmful to the well-being of American soldiers. I spent most of my life participating in and encouraging a culture which has resulted in and continues to result in the death of millions. For these things, I would like to apologize.


I’m sorry for participating in the propagandistic religious rituals of the State. I’m sorry for standing with the crowd, staring at the flag, putting my hand over my heart, and reciting the pledge of allegiance. I’m sorry for taking off my hat, putting my hand over my heart again, and looking on at the piece of colored cloth with pride while someone sang the national anthem. I now realize these things are designed to create emotional and spiritual devotion in children, turning them into mindless followers of their nation’s rulers.


I’m sorry for believing and spreading war propaganda. I’m sorry for believing 9/11 was an isolated incident, unrelated to the hundreds of thousands of innocent middle easterners dead as the result of US foreign policy.  I’m sorry for thinking starting a war in Afghanistan was a reasonable way to hold Al Qaeda accountable. I’m sorry for believing the ridiculous notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction other than the ones the US gave them that they subsequently destroyed, and for thinking the presence of such weapons justifies an invasion. More than buying into these absurd notions, I’m remorseful for repeating them, arguing for them, and spreading these rationalizations of violent aggression. I now realize these ideas were deceptive and manipulative, designed to convince the populace to go along with sending their young men and women to kill and to die pointlessly.


I’m sorry for engaging in the type of soldier glorifying behaviors which encourage people to join the military. I’m sorry for all the times I thanked troops for their service. I’m sorry for thinking and acting as if troops were heroes. I’m sorry for believing and propagating the idea that the US Military fights for the freedom of US Citizens. This perception, despite being widespread, can be proven false in a moment by any thinking person. The invention that troops fight for freedom is a façade to hide the truth: troops fight to satisfy the lust for wealth and power of politicians and their brothers in arms.


Today I feel these tragedies on many levels. Every time someone dies it is tragic. It’s even more tragic when they fight, kill, and die for a cause they believe in, but which doesn’t exist. They fight and die to serve their government overlords, to fill the coffers of defense contractors, to keep politicians in power, and to satisfy the bloodlust of the tribalistic masses who won’t stop beating the war drum. For the many ways I encouraged these lives to be wasted, for men and women to become empty sacrifices of the State, I’m sorry.


I promise I will not dishonor the memory of the many victims of war by being a pawn of the State any longer.

Categories: Miscellaneous

Can I Talk About Race if I Have a Barely Noticeable Tan?

January 28, 2016 Leave a comment

Hey ladies and gentlemen. Neither you nor I knew if I would ever revisit this blog. Here I am. The occasion? I wanted to take a break from my regular discussion of controversial issues to talk about race. I’ve talked a little about the topic in the past. I don’t talk about it much.

Why now? Cuz my stupid friend who’s not stupid at all but actually pretty smart, genuine, kind, open-minded, open-hearted, generous with consuming the creative projects of others, and a good writer wrote this.* You should read this blog post even though I’m going to spend some time disagreeing with it. John humbly and honestly deals with his thoughts on race and privilege and he is just generally a person worth reading. The post is based on a Macklemore song entitled: “White Privilege II.” Can you guess what the song is about?

I didn’t actually listen to the song. I read the lyrics. I don’t enjoy Macklemore’s music. It’s just not my style. I’m becoming an old curmudgeon with musical tastes which remain largely unchanged.

White Privilege

Up front: I generally don’t like talk about white privilege. I don’t think it’s a helpful concept. Do you know what the concept does? What it does is group a massive chunk of the population together by race, and then invites people to make assumptions about their lives, thoughts, worldview, and experiences based upon the color of their skin. As someone who is very interested in the unique lives and stories of individuals, I’m not really into making assumptions about others based upon the color of their skin.

That being said, I readily admit I am privileged. Looking back at my life, there are many privileges I can easily recognize. I grew up in an upper middle class household. I grew up in a safe neighborhood. I had two parents in my life well into adulthood. I was cared for. I was homeschooled for a few years of my life. I’m of average attractiveness, at least average enough I didn’t suffer much mocking by my peers. I was naturally able to do well in school. I was more athletic than most. I have had many good friends.

These were major aspects of my life which privileged me in relative to many people. They were easily noticeable. Do you know what I never noticed? Privilege due to my race. Should we blame my white blinders? Maybe. I wonder though, if I can’t see due to my white blinders, why don’t I also have my wealthy family, two parent household, or athlete blinders on? Why would I readily see and acknowledge one privilege and not another?

While surely there are cases where people with skin colors of various shades have certain privileges others do not, this doesn’t mean I think white privilege is a helpful idea with which we should permeate culture. It can lead to a lot of insanity. The concept, from my perspective, misidentifies those white people who were not as privileged as I am (not to mention ignores the black people who were more privileged than I).

White privilege assumes members of a particular race have had similar experiences. What about the white people who grew up with only a drug addicted mother at home? What about those who spent a lot of their childhood hungry? Who were abused and molested by dangerous men their mother brought into their house? Who lived in fear? Who were embarrassed to even show up at school? Who were in some danger of getting killed or robbed because of the neighborhood they lived in? A liberal application of the word “privilege” certainly fits my life, but is it fair to apply such words to the millions of others who share my skin color but not my experiences?

Are These Wrongs Racist?

When describing the song, John says,

The newest song, “White Privilege II,” exposes Macklemore’s own struggle with privilege and his desire to advocate for what’s right and standing in solidarity with people who’ve been wronged—by things like disproportionate police brutality, systemic injustice in schools, cultural appropriation, and more.

I want to talk about some of these wrongs which have been brought up.

Disproportionate Police Brutality

The first one is “disproportionate police brutality.” This is absolutely a real thing. If you look at the numbers of deaths of blacks compared to deaths of whites at the hands of police officers (as well as other numbers related to police brutality), there is a significantly higher percentage of blacks who suffer police brutality. But this begs the question: why?

I’m no defender of the government monopoly on security services, but I have serious questions about whether racism is the reason behind a disproportionate number of blacks experiencing police brutality. I’ve never see numbers related to police brutality comparing races which also accounted for things like: single parent household, household income level, corporal punishment in the home, and education level of the individual and of their parents. Maybe these factors, and factors like them, explain the disparity without even needing to factor race?

I strongly suspect if these factors and others were taken into account, it would be very difficult to find a racial difference. If anyone has numbers relating to race which are normalized for many of these other contributing factors, I would really like to see them because I’ve never been able to find something like that.

Sometimes people assume things like African Americans having things like lower incomes, less education, higher levels of single parent households, etc, than Caucasians is the result of racism of the present or an indicator of the continuing impact of slavery. There is no reason to assume this. In this brief interview Thomas Sowell explains briefly why such disparities still exist and are often very noticeable without needing to reference an event from 150 years ago to explain the data. If you’re interested, Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell do some really good work in this area.

I understand there are many stories about black people who were pulled over or stopped by police for doing nothing wrong at all. Many of us have heard them from people who believe they were racially profiled. I do not doubt the veracity of these stories. I make no claims about whether they were racially motivated stops or not. They may have been, they may not have been.

In case you don’t know me, I’m whitey mcwhitester and could not be mistaken for a person of color unless I was interacting with someone who was blind. Despite this, I have also had run-ins with the police for doing nothing wrong.

In highschool, when I was 16-18 years old, I would go jogging at night. During these nighttime runs, I was stopped by police frequently. So frequently that even though I didn’t bring a wallet with me, I made sure to always bring an ID. Many times I would think about where I was going to jog, and would deliberately avoid places where I thought it was more likely I would run into the police, because getting stopped was so annoying.

My highschool friends and I were also pulled over on occasion while driving for being suspicious. Nothing wrong with the car to justify a stopping. No crazy driving. No laws broken. No drugs (except sugar and caffeine from the Mountain Dew). Just a buncha dudes in a car acting suspiciously by driving around.

I’ve also been pulled over for no reason while I was by myself. One one occasion I was told to get out of my car. When I did, the officer told me to get into the squad car. Then he grabbed my wrist, twisted it and my arm behind my back without warning. I’m lucky I had been drinking at bar bible study that night, or I might have not have been in such a good mood and may have instinctively responded to the wrist twist with self-defense. With my arm twisted behind my back he led me to his vehicle with his partner, put me in the back of the squad car, and locked the doors. Then they ran the license plates and registration on my car. They thought I had stolen my own vehicle and said as much.

In my interpretations of these events, I never assumed these stops were racially motivated. I assumed they were related to my age and sex, but not my race. However, I think if I was black growing up in this world, I would have concluded these stops without reason were an act of racial profiling, but I would have been mistaken. What people would have taught me about myself and the world around me would have caused me to make false conclusions about how I was treated and why I was treated in such a way.

Perhaps this is my white privilege in action: Because I was never taught people would be mistreating me because of my race, I never assume they are (unless they make racial comments). I would hate to grow up in a world where people taught me I was being suspected of a crime, ignored, held back, and mistreated by the system and people within it simply because of my skin color. An education like this would cause me to walk around misinterpreting many of my interactions with others. Maybe we are teaching people to misinterpret some of their life experiences.

Systemic Injustice in Schools

I don’t have much to say about the second point: systemic injustice in schools for blacks, because I know nothing about it. If it is related to school funding, I would be interested to know whether whiter schools in a similar area with a similar per capita income level receive more funding simply because of the skin color. Or is perhaps the funding level related to factors other than race?

Cultural Appropriation

My understanding of this term is that it refers to someone experiencing an aspect of someone else’s culture, enjoying it, then imitating and integrating the piece of culture into their lives. This was classified as a “wrong.” I’m not sure what’s wrong about it. This is something people do all the time with other people. They like music they hear others listening to, movies others watched, clothing styles others wear, language others use, and they integrate these things into their lives. Cultural appropriation is one of the primary ways we discover our likes and are shaped by the world around us.

What could possibly be wrong about this? The idea seems to be that white people appropriating black culture is a way of wronging the black community. If this is what is meant, I am disturbed. To say whites appropriating black culture is wrong is to discriminate because of someone’s race. You have the wrong skin color and therefore you aren’t fit to dress or talk or act or eat a certain way. That’s only for people whose skin is a different color than yours. Does anyone else find this to be kind of a distorted way of viewing people and groups?

Not Caring About Race Is Not the Same as Not Caring About Someone’s Story

As a general rule, I don’t really care about your race. It’s a physical characteristic. We should both recognize the loaded history behind the characteristic and that, it’s not all that objectively different than eye color or hair color. While I don’t care about your race, this doesn’t mean I’m not sensitive to your experiences or that I don’t care what you have gone through as a result of your race.

I care about your story. Your life. Your experiences. How others have treated you. If you’ve experienced racism, that’s a big deal and I’d like to hear about it. I also want to hear about it if you were mocked for your eye color, hairstyle, or other superficial qualities like skin color. These experiences are a part of your story and shape who you are.

I will not, however, make assumptions about you based on your race. I won’t assume you’ve experienced racism because of your skin color nor will I assume you’ve experienced privilege. I do not believe relying on presumption is a fair way to treat another human being. Everyone is an individual with unique experiences and deserves to be thought of as such.

John goes on to say,

Racism and partiality are problems we can’t ignore or run away from.

Certainly not. But can we please be absolutely confident someone or thing is racist before we use the descriptor? Calling someone a racist is one of the worst terms you can apply to them. I’d rather have every racial epithet in the book thrown at me than accused of racism. We better be very confident with very strong evidence to back it up in order to call someone a racist.

It is scary to me when people notice differences between groups and start throwing around terms like “systemic racism.” Sometimes there is systemic racism. There are many systems which explicitly favor one race over another. However, it is unfair to look at the results of systems (rather than how they are setup) and say something like, “Asians do better than whites in school and their average income level is higher, therefore there is systemic racism favoring Asians and suppressing whites.” We need different evidence to substantiate such claims than differences in results.

I know racism still exists in the world. I’m not trying to pretend it doesn’t. I am afraid of people assuming it’s ubiquitous and in their confirmation bias, seeing it in places where it is not. When we do see racism in practice, many of us should assertively speak out against it. Everyone should avoid participating it. It is much easier to spot and maintain focus on racist acts when we are more careful to make sure what we are pointing out is indeed racism.

I think conversations about race are important as racism has been such a given in the world since the earliest recorded history. I am concerned sometimes these conversations lead to more division and more group delineation, not less. I am concerned about the identifications of people as oppressed or privileged based on skin color which seem to happen so freely. I am concerned about people losing their individuality in the minds of others and just being identified as a member of a group. I’m concerned that some of the calls for people to talk about race or acknowledging of white privilege or bringing up of things like systemic racism, are sometimes self-centered posturing by the person to make themselves look better, more liked, or feel better about themselves.

Walter Williams, an economist, says something I believe to be insightful in one of the articles I linked to above. He says he thinks a lot of this white privilege conversation is actually based around white guilt over what other white people did to black people decades ago.** Don’t worry, Walter is black so his opinion counts. For anyone who feels guilt about their white skin color, Dr. Williams has a pardon for you. You’ve been absolved of guilt by association so now without guilt you are “thus obliged not to act like a damn fool in your relationships with Americans of African ancestry.”

* John is so likeable, I hate writing something which disagrees with what he says, even though I think he will be happy to have inspired me to write something in response to his words.
** It should be noted that to feel guilty about what people of your same skin color have done is to prioritize your association with people of your skin color above people of other skin colors. While this may not be racist, it is certainly the type of collectivist mindset which creates division between groups that can lead to racism and often does. Ideally, the level of solidarity and association we feel with others should have very little to do with race.

Categories: Miscellaneous
%d bloggers like this: