The Reactionary God of Paradise Lost

I perceive the question of God’s foreknowledge of temporal events to be critical in understanding the ways of a good, perfect and just God as they relate to men in an obviously imperfect world. As I have read, Paradise Lost, I have done so asking, “What does Milton believe and teach concerning how God knows what he knows?” Reading the work has lead me to believe that Milton does not give a full answer to that question. Instead the how of God’s knowledge is lost amid the details and appeal, as explanation for culpability, to a libertarian moral freedom in humanity. This explanation, and defense of the goodness and justice of God, is without merit if Milton does not address how God foreknows the fall, and all other events in human history, because the nature of human freedom and God’s governance in Paradise Lost is dependant upon what Milton believes concerning God’s foreknowledge. Though Milton writes Paradise Lost to justify the ways of God to man, he ultimately cannot do so and maintain a foundational trust in God’s control or ultimate victory because he has a theology of God’s foreknowledge, that creates the problem he purports to dispel by making God a mere reactor to temporal events.

Intermarriage Part III

Part 3

~~~~~~~

Now that we’ve gone through some of the passages and demonstrated that the thing in focus not blood, skin color or race but rather unbelief and wickedness that would have lead the children of God astray, we will briefly look at two New Testament passages that talk directly about this issue.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15

KJV	ESV
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?	14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

Take a look at the Apostle’s statement. It must be demonstrated that he is speaking to believers as is evident by the fact that he is writing to the Corinthian Church and he addresses them directly in verse 11. 

Intermarriage Part II

Part 2

~~~~~~~

Now look with me at a biblically sanctioned and God blessed marriage between a Moabitess and an Israelite.

The Book of Ruth:

The book of Ruth, which is only 4 chapters long and which I would highly encourage you to read entirely in one sitting this very night, is a fantastic love story, and tells about how God sovereignly governs and graciously redeems his people. Chapter 1 introduces us to the story, and tells us about Ruth. Ruth is a Moabitess who marries one of Naomi’s two Jewish sons while Naomi’s family is staying in Moab because of a famine in Bethlehem. Now, at this point, Ruth is still a pagan, and her Jewish husband dies. We can be certain that Ruth’s husband Mahlon was in sin for marrying a Pagan Moabite even though the text doesn’t say this explicitly, we know it to be true from all we’ve said in Part 1. Naomi’s husband died before her two sons were married, and now not only has Mahlon died, but also Chilion her other son (Who also married a Moabitess). Naomi now being a widow with no sons is distraught and alone and must go back to Bethlehem to be with her family. Naomi tells her two widowed daughter-in-laws to return to their people and their gods. Orpah kisses Naomi and leaves to return to her pagan people. Ruth however stays and says,

“But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. 17Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Ruth rejects her pagan people and confesses to follow the LORD, the true God of the Israelites. Later in chapter 2 Ruth meets Boaz, and the romance begins and continues through to chapter 3. In chapter 4 Boaz redeems Ruth and takes her for his wife. After saying in 4:9-10 that he will take Ruth to himself, the people respond in verse 11,

“11 We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel.”

In verses 13-15 Boaz and Ruth are married, and God blesses their marriage by giving them a son.

“13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD have her conception, and she bore a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! 15 He shall be to you a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more than seven sons, has given birth to him”

This woman is by blood a foreigner, by blood a Moabite, one of the tribes of people specifically mentioned in the passages examined earlier that the Israelites were not to marry. Yet here she is and her marriage to Boaz is sanctioned by God and the Israelites, and God even blesses them with a son. This marriage is lovely before God because Ruth is no longer “one of the people of the land.” Her blood has not changed, her skin color has not changed, but her heart has changed. And that is what matters. That has been the point all along.

We learn in the end of chapter 4 that their son’s name is Obed, and Obed has a son named Jesse, and Jesse’s son is King David, the man after God’s own heart. If you read through the genealogy in Matthew chapter 1, you will see that Matthew lists all generations from Abraham to Christ Jesus. In this genealogy Matthew tells us that Boaz’s mother was Rahab the prostitute. Rahab was also a Canaanite, but we read in Joshua chapter 2 that she like Ruth her future daughter-in-law rejected her people and served The LORD. So we’ve seen Rahab the former Canaanite prostitute become a part of the people of God and lawfully marry in, and we’ve seen Ruth a former Moabite become a part of the people of God and lawfully marry in. As we read further on in the genealogy of Matthew 1, we see that Rahab and Ruth are directly related to the family of Christ. A genealogy is also given in Luke chapter 3 and it is commonly held that this genealogy is of Mary while the genealogy in Matthew is of Joseph. The point is to demonstrate that through both his physical mother as well as his adopted father Jesus has a right to the throne of David because he descends from it.

These examples of individuals from other races who renounced their Pagan practices and relationships, turned to serve God and were accepted by God and within the Israelite community and were furthermore biblically married to Israelites, further proves that the prohibition against marrying the people of the land was instituted by God because of the sinfulness of the people of the land. Not because of their skin color or blood. Once the sinful ways were renounced, they were welcomed in and allowed to marry and God blessed the marriages with children.

....Next Week, we'll look at the Unequally Yoked passage, as well as what Galatians 3 says about the children of God.

Intermarriage Part I

Intermarriage

Matthew Benoit

January 2011

Introduction

“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Acts 17:11

“You are required to believe, to preach, and to teach what the Bible says is true, not what you want the Bible to say is true.” –R.C. Sproul

~~~~~~~

           Before beginning, I want to express that my hearts desire is to love and serve God as he desires to be loved and served. I believe the Bible is his Holy, unerring, and infallible word. I want to obey his commands no matter what the cost. That being said, my belief concerning intermarriage is not what it is because it is popular in our culture, or anything of the sort. I believe what I do about intermarriage, because I believe with all my heart that it is what the Bible teaches about the issue. I do not write the following with a spirit of contention, but with a spirit of contrition, longing to see God glorified as he ought to be glorified. It is not my belief that those who teach falsely in this area or who believe that different races ought not marry are not Christians. I believe they certainly may be, but that their vision has been clouded by their tradition. It is my hope to be an instrument of defogging, a biblical windshield wiper, to clear the eyes of those who read what I’ve written so that God will be worshipped according to what his Word says about him and his commandments. If his Word teaches that different races are not to intermarry, than that is what I will believe, but if it teaches otherwise, then I challenge the reader to examine their tradition in light of the Scriptures, and to stop examining the Scripture in light of their tradition. So I continue with the spirit of the Berean Jews, let us examine the Scriptures to see if these things are so.“To the law and to the testimony, what saith the Scriptures?”

I’ll begin in part 1 by looking at some places in the Old Testament where The Israelites are told not to intermarry with the other people around them. Next I’ll explain why they were told not to intermarry. In part 2 I’ll examine some places in the Old Testament where intermarriage occurred and was honorable and acceptable, and we will see how the family of Jesus descends from a mixed-race background. I will conclude in part 3 by briefly examining what two specific passages in the New Testament have to say about intermarriage, 2 Corinthians 16:4 and Galatians 3:26-29. I will demonstrate throughout that when the Bible speaks about intermarriage, it is consistently talking about mixing holiness and unholiness, belief and unbelief, light and darkness, those who are Christ’s, with those who are the Devil’s. Intermarriage is not blacks and whites or Hispanics and Asians or Americans and American Indians.

I entreat the reader to continue through the length of the work, reading the examples, cross-references and footnotes I provide, as they will be aids to understanding, and the paper makes it’s point as a whole, not in parts. I’ve included the selected passages in both the King James Version as well as the English Standard Version. As well as italicizing Scripture quotations, I have also underlined, emboldened and colored all references to Scripture as a visual aide.

May Christ be glorified by my words and thoughts, and may he protect your eyes from reading anything I say that is not in accordance with his Word.

Injustice on God's Part?

A while ago, a fellow named John Moore, in a response he gave to me in a discussion regarding whether or not God is in control of the evil that occurs and whether or not he acts based not on the actions of men but rather out of the supreme council of his will said,

“Your idea of God makes Him the most unholy being in the universe- the cause of all wickedness and misery.... Shame on you.”

Similarly, Jeremy Hiltz, a friend of Mr. Moore, in an article titled “Unconditional Reprobation: A Divine Injustice states that,

Certainly, a person ordained from all eternity to be punished without any reference to their moral choices is far from justice. Surely no one would condone a man being punished for the good pleasure of a totalitarian dictator without any regard to criminal charges. Such behavior would immediately be repudiated by anyone familiar with Biblical justice. (Paragraph 7:Sentances 4-6).(Full Article Found Here)[1]

First of all, it is completely fallacious, to think that if God does something only for his pleasure then he is the same as a human dictator who does something for his own pleasure. God is God and is pleasure is by nature “good,” and since he is God, he has the Divine right to do anything he wants merely for his good pleasure. The mere pleasure of a totalitarian dictator would not be “good pleasure.” Don’t make Equivocations between God’s pleasure and man’s pleasure.

Secondly, Equal Ultimacy, that is, the doctrine that God with equal and, in both cases, positive force saves and damns, is a fallacy and not representative of the Reformed position.

Thirdly, as will be demonstrated, active punishment is entirely conditioned upon the actions of the criminal and the charges placed upon them due to their willful violation of God’s law. This statement by Mr. Hiltz is an example building a giant straw man and trying to blow it down with a bendy straw, the opponent isn’t real, and the attack is ridiculous.