Melchizedek: What Are the Facts?

I hope to wrap up and put the final nail in the coffin regarding Melchizedek practicing Canaanite worship. In desire of doing this in the most efficient way, I contacted Dr. Richard Hess of Denver Seminary. He shared with me some helpful information, and he confirmed a general conclusion I had:

There's no way to prove that Melchizedek practiced Canaanite religion.

His reasons at certain points were a bit different than I had expected. For example, I had read that there was some disputation about whether Salem in Genesis 14 was Jerusalem, but Dr. Hess seemed to lean toward them being different places.

Dr. Hess is an authority when it comes to the field of studying Semitic rituals and practices...he's written many books and lectures on this field regularly. If anyone will have a depth of knowledge, it would be him.

Keep in mind that I don't know Dr. Hess's theology at all. I highly doubt we're on the same theological continuum, seeing that he's a prof at Denver Seminary. Here is what he wrote:

OK Craig:

Briefly, Ugarit was not technically within the territory that both Egypt and the Bible designate as Canaan.  However, it was West Semitic in its dominant language and culture, and that is true of Canaan.  So Ugarit and Canaan share much of the same culture.  While Ugaritic myth texts could not be considered identical to what was found further south in Canaan, they are representative of what could have been a diverse collection of myths and religious beliefs about Baal, Asherah, and others. 

Salem is a town only mentioned in the Bible, mainly in Genesis 14.  It is not known outside of the Bible.   Many associate it with Jerusalem but no ancient name of Jerusalem matches Salem.  If Melchizedek was a priest in Jerusalem he could have practiced Canaanite religion but that is difficult to know.  The more we learn the more we are aware of a great diversity of religious practices under general rubrics like Canaan.  That he could have worshiped El Elyon as the one true deity is not impossible but not attested outside the Bible.  El can be both a common noun for deity and the name of the chief god of the pantheon.  It is not possible to say more from the evidence of Genesis 14.[the following Dr. Hess Is responding to a question I proposed re: Jerusalem's relative independence, seeking freedom from Canaan and allying with Egypt] Abdi-Heba was leader of Jerusalem c. 1350 B.C.  I would date the time of Abraham at least 300 or 400 years earlier.  Egypt controlled most of Canaan during Abdi-Heba’s time.  It formed part of their New Kingdom Empire.  It was called Canaan by the Egyptian pharaohs but under their general military control.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Rick Hess

Dr. Hess graciously responded to a follow-up message for clarification. It is interesting to note that he confirmed my research which showed El Elyon doesn't appear outside of the Bible. The closest is a description of Baal, and Baal didn't assume as prominent role on Canaan's cult until after Abraham's time...you can fact-check me on this, that's fine:

El Elyon only appears in the Bible.  Elyon comes from a root meaning “high, exalted.” A form of this appears at Ugarit as an epithet of Baal (Aliyn Baal = Exalted Baal), but not as a clearly separate deity.  In Gen 14 the sense is “exalted El” or “exalted God.”  It isn’t possible to tell which by the name itself.  However, in the context it suggests that Melchizedek worshiped the true God under this name.  Some scholars believe that Genesis 14 implies a tradition of a god at Jerusalem, a manifestation of El, known as El Elyon.  This cannot be proven from either the biblical or extra-biblical evidence, however.

[I had asked Dr. Hess if there is evidence of Canaanite leaders acting as priests]

We don’t know a lot about the kings of Canaan.  It is certainly possible that they functioned in priestly capacities.  We don’t know for sure from the extra-biblical texts. 

You can learn a good deal more on the subject of early West Semitic religion by reading my Israelite Religions (Baker, 2007). 

Best wishes,
Rick Hess

I think it's pretty clear that Rob's claims are overstatements, to say the least. We see that there was a greater diversity of religious practice in Canaan...which agrees with what I was finding in scholarly articles and books. He's up to date on this stuff, certainly more-so than a guy who got his PhD from a Christianized diploma mill. Further, Salem may not be Jerusalem...which is to say, we don't even know if Melchizedek dwelt in Canaan! Finally, El Elyon is unique to the Bible.

Melchizedek is far from a "slam dunk" for Inclusivists. The extra-biblical evidence just ain't there. The Biblical evidence says clearly: El Elyon (who wasn't a Canaanite deity) is Yahweh.

Sourcing...

Not all sources are created equal. There is a scientific way I use to measure citations provided by interlocutors. It's simple, and leaves little room for error.

Rob R. has cited the Biblical Heritage Center to bolster his arguments...this is his only source. It failed my 99.99999% scientific accuracy test.

That's right, the Biblical Heritage Center, in existence since 1999, has very few followers. In fact, one of the least savory things I can think of has more than double the followers:

Compare:

And now:

Even with "I like the taste of human feces" having competing pages for the same thing, individually, each page has more members/likes than the Biblical Heritage Center. When you combine both pages, it more triples the "likes" that the Biblical Heritage Center has.

You can't argue with the facts.

Melchizedek, Ugarit...is there a connection?

I tried posting this in the comment section, but Blogger thought there was html in it for some reason, and kept rejecting it...so I'll just post it as a blog entry:

Rob said: "But that he was not a priest of the Canaanite religion is just a denial of the nature of the times and places."

It's not that simple, Rob. I've been digging into this because of your (unsubstantiated) claims.


I found a scholarly article (a liberal one, not evangelical) and it pointed out (with citations) that Ugarit had a self-conscious identity distinguished from Canaan. If that is true, it is completely unwarranted to assume Salem, at the time of Abram, shared the practices of Ugarit.


Further, the peoples scholars refer to as "Canaanites" is more of a convention than anything. In fact, there was a diversity of religious practices based on geography. When combined with the fact Ugarit had a unique identity from Canaan, it becomes that much more obvious that your claims are unfounded and can't be taken for granted. Harumpfings to the contrary won't make it so.


Complicating your claims is the fact that Salem seemed to have a unique identity, or at the very least had some measure of independence. One of its kings seemed to be allied (or sought an alliance) with Egypt within a couple hundred years of Abram. Does that mean anything? It might...it might not. It at least leaves open the idea that Salem, at the time of Abram, may not have been under influence of Canaan...or, it may have been under influence of Canaan, but remained fairly independent...even desiring to break fee during the time of Abram.


That is not unique, btw. There were varying levels of control where Canaan had power.


All of this to say, you want to take for granted something that is hotly debated. Those that see El Elyon from Gen 14 as a Canaanite god are typically those who view religion through an evolutionary frame of mind...so for them, "of course it's El Elyon of Canaan. The Hebrews were Canaanites who adopted, then altered Canaanite religion". They don't question their assumptions because that isn't "scholarly". El and Elyon appear in the Ugarit texts (and elsewhere), so it must be that Melchizedek was a priest following Canaanite rituals and Yahwehism is just an evolutionary change in practices...that's what they suppose, because, "Darn it! Evolution is true!"


Another complication you probably aren't aware of: Different sources online will say El Elyon was a Canaanite god...these are the sites that come up with a simple google search that regurgitate the same info without citation. But was "El Elyon" an individual god in Canaan?


I went to scholarly sources available on google books, I read conflicting things. One, as an example, agreed that "El Elyon" in Gen 14 was a Canaanite god...however, the source said the name was a combination of two different gods. The question of the day: Why assume El Elyon was a Canaanite god?


For Ugarit (and possibly Canaan), El and Elyon were different.


These names, El, and Elyon, are titles. One is generic, the other isn't. The combination of El Elyon exists almost exclusively in the Bible. So again: why assume a title almost exclusive to the Bible "must" be reference to the Canaanite's/Ugarite's false religion? If the Ugarit texts present uniformity of religious practices, then Melchizedek is evidence of a divergence. He worshiped one God, not El and Elyon...but El Elyon.


Rob, it’s dangerous to interpret Scripture through a lens exterior to Scripture. Melchizedek was a priest of God, Most High. This same God who Abram said in v22 was “Yahweh”. It’s not complicated. This is what Scripture says. Scholars say conflicting things, and when you evaluate the evidence, it really doesn’t shed any light on Genesis 14.

Rob said: “Interestingly, there were no priests in the chosen line until Moses.”

True. Yet believing husbands and fathers acted as priests offering sacrifices. Job did, even making sacrifices for his children. Abram offered sacrifices. Noah offered sacrifices. Cain and Abel did as well…and there was an expectation of what should be offered, which is why Cain killed Abel, as we all know. Likewise, Melchizedek, this priest of Yahweh, served as a king and a priest…in all this he acted as a father, not as a Canaanite cult leader. This actually shows a certain uniformity between Melchizedek and the practice of the patriarchs.


One question I would like to see answered is this: Was it typical among tribal leaders in Canaan to be kings and priests at the time of Abram?


It doesn't seem to be the case.


That not only distinguished Melchizedek in a way which prefigures Christ, but also distinguishes him from the Canaanites...again...evidence of disunity. Melchizedek may have been the last vestige of faith in Salem before it was overrun by Canaanite practices.

Rob said: “What it demonstrates is that what I am saying is line with orthodoxy, it is quite thinkable.”

Again: This doesn’t shed light on the meaning of Genesis 14. At most, it just says that your interpretation is in agreement with another idea, not that the idea is actually provided in the text. What you’ve also done is provided a circular argument. You wanted to cite Melchizedek as an example of a pagan worshiping God ignorantly…worshiping Canaanite gods as if they were Yahweh. Having not been able to demonstrate the claim, retreating to what some Church fathers say in general doesn’t support your case. Why? You were supposed to be showing that idol worship can be authentic worship of Yahweh…but retreating to the fathers on this and then projecting it onto Gen 14 simply assumes the very thing you’re supposed to be proving. It’s circular, and it offers no insight on the chapter at hand.

Rob said: “It certainly highlights that what I am suggesting is not purely novel as you have critisized.”

You need to be specific here, Rob. You may not be trying to be slippery, but that is the end result. Here’s what I mean:

• I have never said that your belief in general re: pagans was a novelty.
• I have said your interpretation of Gen 14 is a novelty.

Why is this important? You’re supposed to be arguing for the veracity of the first claim.


To bolster the first, you appealed to Melchizedek. While I don’t rest on the fathers, it does say something when someone deviates from a historical understanding. Doesn’t mean the new is wrong, but the claim needs to be examined. I’ve examined it. At the biblical level, Genesis 14 doesn’t offer reason to think El Elyon was a Canaanite god. In fact, Abram says El Elyon is Yahweh. That’s the information we have, and that should be enough.


At the scholarly level (you and I are not scholars on the subject of Ugarit or Canaan), it is hotly debated. In fact, evidence regarding Canaanite practices shows diversity…and regarding Salem, during the time of Abram, it appears it was relatively independent. There’s no scholarly reason to think El Elyon would be anyone other than Yahweh. If he were, it would apparently be a break from the Ugarit texts which have “El” as one god, and “Elyon” as another. So on the one hand, you appeal to the uniformity of Canaanite religious practice (which is already dubious), but on the other, you have to rely on diversity since these were two separate gods being meshed into one. On what grounds do you do this?


The solution is simple, Rob. We don’t know much about Melchizedek. What we do know is what Scripture says: He was a priest of God Most High, the same God of Abram: Yahweh.

Rob said: "I don't mean to insult, and yeah, there is a degree of dismissiveness here."

Well, your judgment at this point is questionable. You've offered no careful arguments, and I'm pretty much sure you've done no further research beyond google hits on Ugarit, Melchizedek, and El Elyon.


I happen to think it is very relevant that Paul was grieved by the sight of idols. As Paul confirms in Romans 1, idol worship is evidence men are being turned over to their wickedness and futile minds. This is consant with Paul's sermon at Athens where he says the Athenian philosophers were ignorant. Luke's comment on the Athenians' character offers further light. It comports with the fact idol worship is not reaching toward God, it is actually the birth pangs of judgment where men are turned over to futile thinking.
 
Feel free to give up on Melchizedek. I think that would be the manly thing to do.

Acts 17:27 Redux

Rob R (f.k.a. geebob) responded with a series of comments...so if my one other reader is interested, please see the previous entry.

Was the altar to an unknown god ignorant worship of Yahweh?
Well, for Rob, it depends...and it can depend within the same comment.

Rob said: "So the alter isn’t an example of where the Greek religion authentically grasped God. Their philosophers and poets still got something right that is authentically true and basic about God."

but Rob also says...

"It’s more natural and it fits the context better that the alter to the unknown God is a contact point with the real God. Maybe not for everyone".

Sounds nice...but flies in the face of what he had said mere sentences previously...not to mention it rests on pure conjecture. Where does he find context-clues that lead him to these conclusions? There aren't any.

In fact, Rob appealed to C.S. Lewis' work of fiction, the Last Battle to bolster the idea the Athenians were grasping God in an "authentic" way. That might prove convincing for some, but not myself. Neither should it lend any weight to his point of view given the Last Battle was not an exegesis of Paul's sermon. In fact, this is simply adjusting Acts 17 to Lewis' own thoughts about the faith in general. As I said in the comments, this is an example where Rob's comment was irrelevant.

Rob also appealed to the poem Paul quoted from...a poem to Zeus ("for in him we live and move and have our being"). For Rob, this is evidence of a theology for an unknown god (or not, depends on the moment)...you know, that little known godfather of Greek gods: Zeus. That god to which the Athenians erected a temple to in 6 B.C. Apparently whoever made the altar to an unknown god hadn't traveled less than a mile south of where Paul preached his sermon at Mars Hill to learn that the unknown god was well known, and had a theology. In fact, Zeus was the god of Stoicism...a prominent demographic within Athens, and in Paul's immediate audience. Paul also quoted from a poem entitled Phaenomena, by Aratus...a Stoic. A man also writing of Zeus when he said "we are his offspring".

Rob has served to present evidence that goes against his own take this altar. Why appeal to the mythology of Zeus, the king of the Greek god pantheon and the altar to an unknown god? Zeus is neither unknown, nor was that altar dedicated to him. It should be obvious. Paul is telling the Athenians they don't know God...they have perverted partial truths that point to man's innate knowledge, but it was not a validation of the altar to an unknown god. It is noteworthy that Paul turned the Stoic notion of the logos (in him we live and move and have our being) on its head. Whereas the Stoics had an impersonal notion, Paul, with the Apostle John, had a Christological logos. Zeus may be the godfather of gods an man in mythology, but God is Father of His Logos and of every man. Paul is proclaiming the Fatherhood of God and the eternality of His Son! Paul isn't validating the Athenians, he's turning their philosophy and theology on its head. He's supplanting it with the Trinity. He proclaims all idols are false in a city littered with idols. While you couldn't walk through Athens without bumping into a god, you cannot avoid the True God wherever you step...but He is not made of gold or silver.

In fact, it is doubly strange that the same Paul, apostle to the Greeks, would write in Romans 1 that worshiping idols is evidence of...what? Evidence of a relationship with God? No...evidence a man is being turned over to the futility of his mind and God's wrath hangs over him. Elsewhere, idols worship was said to be demonic. Further, that even the food was for demons.

1 Corinthians 10:20
I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

Besides this, the general truths every man can apprehend about God is not particularly meaningful, according to James...demons know and shudder.

It is obviously more accurate to say Paul made a systematic refutation of all that the Athenians were proud of...so Rob's point that poems to Zeus prove they worshiped God ignorantly...is wrong, and is irrelevant. Zeus was not unknown. The altar was not to an unknown god if it were made for Zeus. Paul took the occasion to use these things as points of contact for preaching the truth where darkness masquerades as light.

What of the altars in Israel?
Rob said: Disparaging the service of hands to the the unknown alter is strange since God requires the Jews to him at the alter.

I'm just taking my cue from Paul, who preached by the Holy Spirit: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; ²⁵ nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything...

Where Paul saw a connection to the error of the temple and altar worship of Athens and human hands serving there, Rob sees something else. Appealing to God-ordained temple worship in Israel is superficial at best and fails to take into account the fact Paul disparaged the worship the Athenians offered with their hands.

If Rob is correct, one is left wondering why Paul even said those words. You get that sense a lot if you follow Rob's arguments.

The points I made above refutes the idea that this altar was to the true God. I've also explained that Paul was using points of contact for preaching, not proclaiming that the Athenians actually worshiped God, rather, that they were ignorant of Him. As stated previously, that Paul would declare his audience ignorant was a slap in the face. These were the philosophers of the age. Paul was brought before them to be examined and he examined them and said they were ignorant.

LFW is "implied"?
Rob said: "the passage most certainly does imply that ALL men can find God as surely as Paul held that all men were descended from Adam. And to find God IS to accept him."

That's just an assertion...and it fails by Rob's own standard. If the Athenians found God, if the Stoic's theology of Zeus was an ignorant finding of God...then why did nearly everyone reject Paul's God? I thought to find Him was to accept Him? I guess they didn't find Him...but if they didn't find Him, then Rob's wrong. He falls on his own two-edged sword. Also, Paul proclaimed we all descended from one man...something that flew in the face of Greek mythology.

Does having a theology of an unknown god serve to prove Rob's point?
Rob said: "Did you not complain that an unknown God has no theology? Yes, you did, and I pointed out the nature of Paul's citation, not just of that alter but greek thought in philosophy and poetry as a counterexample. (Rob said this during a moment he thought the altar was a point of contact with God and the Athenians)"

And I've already shown above that Zeus was not an unknown god, but the godfather of the pantheon of Greek gods...and he had his own place of worship...not an altar to an unknown god. That Paul would use Zeus as a point of contact along with the altar only serves to demonstrate he wasn't validating false worship but introducing truth to darkness masquerading as light.

Further, if Rob wouldn't selectively read Paul in a wooden way, he would realize that Paul saying what the Athenians worship "in ignorance" would not be ignorance if they had a developed theology. Paul turned the Athenian's theology on it's head and placed it on the altar of ignorance to be burned up so he could present to them God the Father and His resurrected Son who raises men to life.

So was Athenian worship authentic or not?
The best argument one could have for Rob's position is the altar to an unknown god. Rob falters by playing both sides. The religion of the Greeks was wicked, and included beastiality, sodomy, orgies, and more. The gods were prone to sin, vindictive, and unlike God altogether. Besides all this, Rob has already said that to find God is to accept Him, so since most rejected Paul's message we know they didn't actually grasp God in an authentic way.

Perhaps Paul has MPD...and so does Luke.
Rob said: "The other point I missed was the deal you made about Paul being provoked. This, Craig, I don’t take it seriously at all. Of course he was provoked by Idols. I have no clue by what convention of English or normal communication standards you insist that therefore, everything Paul says after this has to be negative about the religion just because Luke doesn’t immeadiately say that there’s going to be some positive comments."

Rob doesn't take it seriously at all? This is another instance where one wonders why the Holy Spirit included such facts...apparently God doesn't get to set up the story. It's just a random disconnected detail for Rob. Paul was provoked and Luke gives us a glimpse of the character of the Athenians (lazy motor-mouths)...but don't let that inform your take of the sermon. In fact, don't let the other facts intrude upon what Rob knows Paul meant! Turning the Athenian thinking on its head and sending it up in flames and calling philosophers ignorant all say positive things.

In short, Rob provided comments that were irrelevant, conjectural, and ignored basic facts. He has yet to make a positive case. He just knows Paul was saying we can all grasp God...in a state of darkness, as Paul put it. All men do grasp God...but they don't all grasp Him "authentically"...that is to say, they don't actually believe in the true God. Rob assumes grasping in the dark is a positive thing...yet it shows man's moral state by being blind. When you grab something in the dark, you can't see what it is that you have.

Is Acts 17:27 a "Proof-Text" for Libertarian Free Will?

I was reading my facebook feed during lunch, and noticed some comments made by an old friend. Not knowing if he'd like his name shared or not, I'll be cautious and simply refer to him as geebob ("gb").

The exchange included an assertion from a Calvinist saying that no man can seek God before regeneration, to which gb retorted by proof-texting Libertarian Free Will (LFW):

GB: Okay, then Acts 17:27 is wrong.

Rather than rehash a series of fb comments, I want to bullet gb's main points and zero-in on the weaknesses.  My intention is NOT: to make Mars Hill into a Calvinist "slam-dunk". It will certainly be consistent with Calvinism, but it was not designed by the Holy Spirit to prove Total Depravity or to refute prevenient grace, or whatever Arminians/Open Theists describe man's LFW. These are categories absent from the time of Paul's sermon, to read those specifically into the text would be anachronistic. That is one big weakness to gb's take...it requires explaining why a modern philosophical categories must be assumed when there was a complete absence of such a category at that time (an explanation he has, as of yet, not bothered to provide). At most, gb might attempt to show how Mars Hill could jive with LFW, but prove it? No.

His main points based on his understanding of the account of Paul at Mars Hill can be boiled down to two:

• Paul is not advocating a god foreign to the Athenians, rather, the Athenians are worshiping Him in an incomplete way.
• God has endowed all men with the ability to find him.

Was Paul advocating that the altar to an unknown god was, in fact, the Christian God?

Acts 17:22b-23

“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. ²³ For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 

For gb, this altar to an unknown god indicated a genuine relationship between the LORD and the Athenians, albeit, one which lacked completeness. It would be interesting to see gb explain the "genuineness" of a "relationship" between a man and a god he claims to be agnostic about. In what sense does such a man "know" God?

1. The entire exchange between Paul and the Athenians seems strange if he was saying they truly worshiped God. What is an altar for? Isn't it for presenting gifts, maybe even sacrifices, to a deity? It's where men render to a god service by their hands...yet Paul proclaims God is not served by human hands (v25). Why use a physical object which supposedly bespeaks of the Athenians knowledge to proclaim the opposite of the very little that could be surmised from the existence of that altar?

2. Stranger still, this altar is in the midst of all kinds of different idols...the Athenians really believed deity could be contained by material objects, or explained by the product of man's imagination...so it seems unnatural that Paul, using an man-made altar in the midst of other man-made idols proclaimed that this unknown god (which the Athenians "know") doesn't dwell in a temple (v24) nor is His nature like anything formed by the hands and imagination of men (v29). So far, the only content one might reasonably conclude from the altar is actually wrong.

3. Stranger than even the above is the fact that an "unknown god" is, well...an unknown god. There is no theology for an unknown god. There is no revelation of an unknown god...if there were that god would suddenly be known. There would be revelation. Paul is juxtaposing ignorance and vain reasoning with the true God, the One Who speaks...the One Who reveals.

4. Beyond the strangeness of gb's assertion are the facts contained in Acts 17 which contradict his reading.
a. Acts 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. 

i. the word "provoked' is a decidedly "negative" term. One would think the Holy Spirit would have offset this negative with a positive to set up the Mars Hill sermon. You know, by saying "Paul's spirit was provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols, provoked that is until a swell of relief washed over him as he came across a true altar of God, albeit, an ignorant one."
ii. The Holy Spirit didn't offset this provocation of Paul's spirit. Should we assume this mention of Paul's provocation is immaterial to the set-up? Just a random bit of knowledge? I don't think so...here's why:

• v18-20 The Stoics and Epicureans didn't recognize this god they apparently knew given they rejected the message Paul gave and found it so foreign that they took him for a confab at the Areopagus. If Paul was not preaching a different god, the Athenians sure got the wrong message.
• Luke, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the Athenians were idle motor-mouths: v21 "Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new."

This altar to an unknown god was the epitome of the Athenians' futile reasoning. They were "religious", all right...superstitiously ignorant motor-mouths. That was what they did day in and day out, and all they had to show for it was an altar to an unknown god! Paul was provoked by the idols, now he was provoking the Athenians through a bit of sarcasm.


Has God endowed all men with LFW?


As noted already, reading LFW into Acts 17 would be anachronistic. In fact, given what is laid out above, there's really little reason to go further. But a few comments might be worthwhile.


v26-27 says: He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, ²⁷ that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

It doesn't say all men "can" find God and place their faith in Him based on LFW. It does say God has revealed Himself to every man. Each man's providence is God revealing...uncovering something, to set it before another's eyes does not mean the other is able to accept it. At most, it may provoke curiosity. When God provides revelation, we should seek Him.  It think it's obvious God provides revelation to all men so that they would seek Him. All men are at once attracted and repulsed by the truth. Whenever a Christian debates an atheist at a university, the auditorium is filled with atheists...groping, intrigued...yet repulsed. They grope "in the dark". They have something from God, but what they don't have is light. They are either blind, or lack a source for comprehending.

Obviously, what I've laid out jives with a Calvinistic understanding...I wouldn't "proof-text" Total Depravity with it, but it does "fit". Does it disprove LFW? I don't know. It wouldn't be my starting ground for "disproving" it...but neither does it prove LFW. In fact, the notion of LFW gets stickier.

R2k Welcomes Jerry Springer into the Fold

It's really sad when a blog post written by an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church raised this question in my mind:

Can a son be in a very caring, faithful, and committed sexual relationship with his mother?
Complicated…but very caring, faithful, and committed?

Based on the blog post, and comments that follow...the question is legitimate. I know how I would answer the question, but somehow I don't think Darryl Hart could answer the same way.

Salt...

I have been reading through Mark in preparation for Easter. While reading chapter 9, the end was striking to me. Almost everyone has heard about the notion of saltiness. It's in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Colossians. Being "salty" can sound like a pleasant way of being seasoned...and it is used that way in Colossians 4:6. It seems that is what Jesus had in mind primarily in Matt 5:13 and Luke 14:34 as well...but not in Mark 9:49-50.

In Mark 9, Jesus adds an unusual teaching to saltiness. It really sticks out from the others. Whereas in other passages, saltiness is tied to flavor, it does not appear to be the meaning in Mark. The union of salt and fire metaphors wouldn't seem to gel if that were the case. Further, the word for salt becoming "unsalty" in v50 is not related to flavor...it is the salt losing what makes it what it is. What is salt? Well, it does something...namely, it preserves. Shifting the metaphor from flavor to preservation, it appears Jesus is adding a paradoxical twist:

Mark 9:49-50
49"For everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

Keep in mind, this statement follows Jesus' teaching that if your hand, foot, or eye makes you sin...get rid of them because it's better to enter life missing body parts than to enter hell fire with all your body parts in tact. So on the one hand, you don't want to get burned....but on the other, you're gonna get burned. Everyone will...and being salted with fire is a good thing...so good, we are to have it within ourselves.

• Everyone will be salted with fire.
• Have salt in yourselves.

Salt preserves what is already there. Fire eliminates what is there.

You will be salted with fire.