Marriage and the Bible - Part 22 - Solomon - Polygamist Unleashed

Now I don't know if at any one time Solomon could look at the house of women on his palace grounds and say: 'Holy crap, there are 1000 women in there and I am married to each one of them' but over the course of his whole life Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I say: HOLY CRAP! It is really good to be king! Or really taxing -- remember it is Solomon who wrote Proverbs 25:24 - 'It is better to live in the corner of the roof, than in a house shared with a contentious woman.' Given that each woman in his harem (gives a whole new definition of this word doesn't it) could have been contentious at any time, I wonder how much time he spent on the roof?

The logistics alone are staggering. To provide for such a group of women and their children meant Solomon made Bill Gates look like a pauper. You had to have money to prove you could take care of a girl before a dad would give his consent and the fact is, kings of other countries were handing over their daughters to Solomon with eager hands. His palace was HUGE. Everyone of them had their own room. This is RICH on a scale very few would understand.

Then there is sex. Talk about a guy who, as he is preparing for bed, could dial up what he wanted for the evening. Blond, redhead, brunette, tall short, athletic build, busty, light skin, dark skin, etc. etc. Talking about the choices might have taken a few minutes. Solomon comments of this in Ecclesiastes 2:8 - "... I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men - MANY Concubines." No kidding. The point is when it came to sex, Solomon had experienced it all by the end of his life. All of it legal too because he had a marriage contract with each and every one of these ladies. But there was no sexual activity with a woman he probably did not experience. In the end he calls it vanity and useless. Probably because all it ever was was sex.

The million dollar question (chump change for Solomon) is: "Did Solomon ever have a close, one-flesh, covenant relationship with any of these women?". I would say maybe one. The Shunamite maiden in the Song of Solomon is a possibility, but even there the language is one of erotic desire but there does seem to be a spiritual longing as well. However, with this maiden it is possible that even she was not Solomon's first wife, just maybe the only one he really had more feelings for than physical and emotional pleasure.

That said, the motivation for marriages for Solomon was multifaceted but few of them involved covenant. He married some for political alliance, some for financial gain and some because it seemed to be a good idea for whatever reason. Because of his already having many sons, his concubines really only have one use - sexual pleasure. In short, Solomon for all his wisdom and advice on letting the wife of your youth please you at all times, probably never really had a covenant one flesh relationship with any of his wives or concubines, at least not that we know of.

Polygamy my offer the man heightened chances at children and sexual pleasure, but it seems to deny a man the possibility of a close relationship with a woman. The more wives a man has, the more pronounced this is as Solomon, polygamist unleashed, demonstrates.

Next: Solomon's Marriage Wisdom

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 7 -- Tough Question #1 -- Torment or Annihilation?

Back to Hell. Sorry couldn't resist. Above is an old illustration of the Rich Man in Hades.

The big question here is does the Bible present a picture of eternal torment or annihilation? I have always been one who believed in eternal torment until I began to truly analyze the Scriptures and what the annihilation theory was saying. They too have Biblical support and the question has one debated in the church since the very beginning. The only problem i ever had and why I dismissed it is that they need the story of the rich man to be a parable and thus not to be taken literally. They NEED this; or so I thought.

On the torment side I felt the weakness was more philosophical. Like my old professor at Asbury Dr. Jerry Walls, who wrote Hell: The Logic of Damnation, I have felt that it is inconsistent with the love of God to torment someone for all eternity for something they did in a temporal or closed existence.

One of my readers and a good writer herself, Paula Titus, has theorized that perhaps eternal torment is necessary because our sinful actions have eternal consequences to others they require eternal punishment. I admit this is strong theory but one which I have some concerns. One is that after doing a detailed study of Ecclesiastes, I can readily declare that not one single temporal action will last. Everything we are and do will be lost to death and the passage of time. No consequence of anything including things done in sin will last. They will be swallowed up in the victory of God's grace and justice. I simply do not see the idea that our actions have eternal consequences simply because God is the Omega -- not us.

Secondly because of that grace and justice and the promise of god's final victory through reconciliation, I would say a place of eternal punishment would stand against that idea of reconciliation. Everyone could look and point to Hell and ask:"If you have final victory God and have reconciled all things to yourself, why do they still live in torment? They are not reconciled are they?" It is a legitimate question.

Not as easy as you think being a theologian -- all this thinking gives one a headache but occasionally there are moments. Both side have in my mind a fatal flaw, unless we have all missed something I really can't buy wither one at the present time. But I think we have missed something in the simple fact that Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different places and may actually have two different purposes. I think that this new view I have cobbled together may have some merit and it also fulfils some of my concerns about the justice of God in relationship to hell.

Next: The Justice of God and Damnation.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 8 -- Job and Isaiah Naked

Job says several things about being naked but one is the most classic line about coming fro the womb naked and in nakedness we return to the dust. (Job 1:21). In using nakedness this way Job shows symbolically that we come into the world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Solomon does the same thing in Ecclesiastes 5:15 -- it is almost a quote of Job. In any case nakedness is sue to make a point and a good one.

The Bible does use nakedness to symbolize things that sometimes involves shame, sometimes vulnerability.

Isaiah 20 is an example of this: Isaiah is TOLD by god to strip naked and walk around naked for three YEARS. It is symbolic of how God is going to shame Egypt and Cush through the Assyrians and in this way God uses the prophet's actions to pronounce judgment on Egypt and Cush. Much the same thing happens in Isaiah 47 about Babylon as far as judgment although there is no record of Isaiah walked around naked. In short God is saying -- I am going to expose you for what you really are -- powerless against me. Other verses about nakedness in Isaiah demonstrate need and the neediness of people that are oppressed. There is also one verse about the comfort of a mother's breasts in 66:11 (see previous post)

I wonder what the modern proponents that all nakedness is sinful do with this passage: Here is someone who walks around naked for three years AT GOD"S DIRECTION! I don't know I am beginning to wonder if the same of nakedness is so much about physical nakedness or a state of spirit. Isaiah is naked but I doubt he himself has any shame about it -- He is being obedient to God so why would he be ashamed of his nakedness? Creates a problem doesn't it when God asks you to be naked before him?

Next: Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

The Prosperity Gospel Considered by Solomon

I haven't really be giving a pulpit report from my preaching because I have been writing a book on the subject of Ecclesiastes but one thought that struck me about today's sermon on chapter 5:10-20 was how it stood in stark contrast to the prosperity gospel. It was actually a thought that came to me after I had finished speaking but there are several points I think Solomon would make to the prosperity preachers that would make their view look foolish:

1. That those who love abundance and the increase of wealth are engaged in vanity
2. When goods increase, those who consume them increase
3. That a good night's sleep is better than riches.
4. Riches can be horded to a person's hurt.
5. In the end we come into this world naked and we will return the same so the accumulation of anything is chasing after the wind.
6. The good and fitting thing is to be joyful over what God has given you regardless of economic status and to enjoy it in peace.

I guess I would believe the prosperity gospel more, if there were not so many warnings about becoming rich and setting your heart on riches IN SCRIPTURE. In this case Solomon warns that setting one's heart of riches robs you of the ultimate prosperity -- love, joy and peace. You can be rich and have these things but if riches steal them, then better not to be rich.

As a minister I find the prosperity gospel to be more the product of the current materialism of the Western World than an honest consideration of Scripture. The prosperity gospel gives Christians a justification to acquire and hoard goods in the name of Christ. Some of the fruit I have seen is old ladies giving up their social security checks to these preachers (the majority of funding for these guys and gals comes from this source), people buying things on credit believing God will supply the funds to pay for them and stinginess to the local church because the minister wouldn't preach this false gospel (no lie, I had one couple tell me that if I didn't start preaching it they would stop tithing). These false teaches seem to be doing well these days but I think many of their followers put themselves in a position of real poverty to support them. I find the whole lot of these preachers a little distasteful.

Solomon at least recognized, despite his great riches (think Bill Gates on steroids), that that was not what gave life meaning or significance. It was the ability to enjoy God's gifts in peace of heart and mind. That is something you can take with you through death to Christ's side.

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Seven

Bart Ehrman's God's Problem considers the 'end of the world' answer to the problem of evil. I have a few disagreements with Bart about this although the chapter does have some problems:

1. He plugs some social issues again -- malaria and water issues around the world. Both could be dealt with by humans but were going to blame God.

2. I disagree with Bart's assessment of origin of the apocalyptic view in Scripture. The fact is that it occurs in the writings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as well as David's psalms and the idea of judgment occurs in Job as well.

3. When people assess that the Jewish people failed to keep the covenant and thus received punishment for not keeping the covenant it is not anti-Semitic. Did not the prophets and Jesus (all Jews) say the same. If Christians simple say the sames things Jews say about themselves how are they anti-Semitic. Jesus pointed this out further in his own when he called the religious leaders self-righteous -Is Jesus anti-Semitic

4. He has some interesting theories about the date of Daniel -- that Daniel is written in Aramaic is proof of a later date for Daniel after the fact of all the predictions of course. The fact is if Daniel is educated by the Babylonians his language would a have been changed into Aramaic along with the rest of the Jews seeing Aramaic is the result of Babylonian influence.

5. Because he does all this his version of apocalyptic views is assume that God has relinquished control for now and will bring things back to right in the end -- The apocalyptic view does not have god out of control at anytime.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Eight

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Six

I have a lot of disagreements with chapter 6 of Bart Ehrman's Book God's Problem. Some of them trivial but others are major. Here they are:

1. One thing in this chapter that becomes clear is that Bart wants to pin on God what we have unleashed.

2. He talks of sexually transmitted disease as if it is an act of God -- last I looked sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted by sex -- a controllable behavior.

3. He states their are two authors of Job -- one for the narrative and the other for the dialogue. Is there any textual evidence for this? No. I think the problem with Job then would be that the narrative would not make much sense - -the whole book of Job hinges on the whole thing -- Job loses everything, the debate between him and his friends, God intervenes and then Job receives everything back. Without the debate, the narrative makes no sense and the debate would not make any sense without the why of 'why are they talking" Why is it that liberal scholars are so chronologically arrogant to think a single ancient author cannot use multiple styles in a book?

4. The two author theory leads to some very poor interpretation of the Bible in Job. P. 167 is particularly idiotic. The friends of Job think they are defending God but the text of Job says -- through God's mouth no less -- that Job was right and the friends were wrong. This makes no sense in the narrative part of book unless we know what they said in the poetic part. I have never have heard a more ridiculous theory.

5. Disease has its origins in death and ultimately the reason disease exists is because of us -- we didn't listen as a race to God in the garden.

6. Bart doesn't seem to address the fact that part of the answer to the problem of evil is life after death. Job's children die but where did they go? If they go to paradise they went from one party to another. If hell they went their because of their own evil. In short, Bart rarely factors in both personal responsibility and the afterlife into his discussion. They are both part of the answer the Bible has to evil but he does not put that into his factoring of what the Bible says about evil. There is also no honest consideration of Satan's involvement in being the origin of Evil. Maybe he thinks it is superstitious, but the Bible treats Satan as real and it should be considered in the discussion of what the BIBLE says about the problem of evil.

7. Job is not saying that he in outgunned he is simply saying from the Almighty's perspective he knows he cannot argue against God's justice. When Elihu speaks he never says Job sinned in doing this as Bart claims on p. 183 but that Job is not in position to question God's justice.

8. Bart accuses God of not giving Job a chance to get a word in. That is not the way the story reads -- if anything God says -- 'you got you audience, now what?" Job's response is to repent on his own -- we do not know what time God gave Job to respond and it is pure speculation to say God did not give Job a chance. The time is not recorded between God's answer and Job's response.

9. On to Ecclesiastes, Ehrman's makes the claim that is Solomon wrote the book then he would contradict himself compared to Proverbs -- I disagree -- there is a lot of agreement in Solomon's wisdom even with this book. What Ecclesiastes does is place all the other wisdom in its proper place. It is on this basis that Bart claims the book of Ecclesiastes is written in the 3rd Century BCE. How do we know? Do we have a text from that era that says so?

10. One thing that disappoints me is that Bart treats the last three chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes as if they don't exist. The book ends with a simple conclusion but it has end of the world, final judgment connotations -- fear God, obey him because He is going to bring every act to judgment. I agree that Ecclesiastes says some suffering makes no sense, but he does not draw the same conclusion -- reject the God of the Bible but to fear Him instead. Odd Huh?

Next: Agreements with Chapter Seven

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter Six

This is going to be short. Even though Bart Ehrman's God's Problem is going into an area of the Bible that is my favorite the ideas of Chapter 6 -- Does Suffering Make Sense? The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, I have very little agreement with with Bart' conclusions or observations here.

1. I agree that even the Bible presents that sometimes suffering just is and we have to deal with it. Those of a more fatalistic/deterministic tradition might disagree, but i don't as an open theist.

2. Ecclesiastes is both Bart and my favorite book of the Bible.

3. That part of the Meaning of life is to enjoy it. Eccl. 5:18-19; 8:15 Cherish life and enjoy it.

You can tell with that the Disagreement post tomorrow is going to be long.

Next: Disagreements with Chapter Six

God's Problem -- Initial Thoughts

I recently picked up a copy of a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. Bart is an agnostic who 'converted' from Christianity and I must say Bart is very good as far laying out the problem and dealing with the 'biblical' issue of suffering and the reasons he does not believe in the God of the Bible.

On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:

1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.

2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.

3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.

One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.

I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.

For the Glory of God -- The Force of Christian Idolatry - Part 2

I have already written on the subject of Christian Idolatry in a pervious post called ‘God Is…’ In it I exposed humanisms effect to create idolatry in the church by basing all things on the idea that everything is about man’s happiness. In that same article I also presented that there must be some other reason or purpose that we must embrace to avoid idolatry.

Before we begin to explore this we need to ask a question. In fact everyone needs to ask this question: Is God a means or an ends to you? If everything is about man’s happiness then that is the end and God and relationship with God is merely a means to that end. I must point out then that even the worship of God could be idolatrous if it is about your happiness. Essentially, you are worshiping your own interests and using God as a means to gain those interests.

But what does it take for God to be an end himself? It takes complete self-sacrifice and there is only one example of this in all of history – Jesus Christ. Jesus himself stated that he did this for the glory of the Father. The only way for God to be an end for your life and not a means is to follow the example of Christ and do all for the glory of God.

Now I hear you skeptics. God is not concerned about his glory you would say. Firstly, I think there are many Scriptures that indeed say this is the purpose of man – most clearly is 1 Corinthians 10:31 – “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do ALL to the glory of God.” There are many verses and passages that say much the same thing.

The second thing I would say in response is that you definition of glory is not the same as God’s. When we think of glory; we think of accolades and honors being poured on us. But God’s definition of Glory is ‘holy and righteous’. It is more simply put but Solomon: “The conclusion, when all has been heard is: fear God and keep His commandments…” In addition, Jesus added motive when he tells us to love God and our neighbor. Loving God is reverence and obedience becomes the act of giving glory to God. It is about honoring his name and our relationship with Him through our attitude and actions for His name’s sake. To really do this requires identification with the only one who ever succeeded in doing this perfectly – Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself told us what is required to identify with Him: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” I used to believe that this was for more mature believers that had reached some level of maturity that they wanted to be special disciples of Jesus, but then I realized that is not what it says. If anyone wants to follow Christ AT ALL they must do this. In other words if a person does not do this they are not Christ’s disciple. Jesus is laying out the minimum requirements for being his disciple and they are stiff.

1) Self-denial: To give up ones life for the sake of Christ. In effect to give up all rights and privileges in this world for the sake of Christ is the meaning here. Commitment is all or nothing right out the gate.
2) Take up one’s cross everyday: To identify with the death of Christ. When a man took up a cross he wasn’t coming back to his old life. He was a walking dead man.
3) Follow Christ: To walk in identification with Jesus’ path to death for the glory of the Father. Glory that is not about accolades or pride but is about lifting up the name of God for a dying world to see.

How this changes everything, because the force of idolatry can have no place in a people with such an attitude. Nothing is about their happiness; everything is about the glory of God. Everything is about identification with Christ in attitude and action.

This is what it means to worship God in Spirit and in truth. This is what prevents any force of idolatry from entering a Christians’ relationship with God. It is also the only way to do it.