Transcription
Cliff and Stuart. Connectly, thanks for coming on the show.
Thank you.
How did I do? Was it was Did I get it right?
Awesome. Nailed it. First time.
Okay, good, good, good. Um, we're going to dive right into the deep end here. What is, if you had to summarize the ultimate two-sentence blurb summary of what Christianity is all about? What's its main message?
That God created us to love him with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. At times we've done it. At times we haven't. When we don't, that's called sin. And it leads to a consequence. Separation from God, death and hell. But God loves us so much that he sent his only son, Jesus, to bleed and die on a cross to forgive us, to offer us a free gift, grace, forgiveness, and eternal life. And now, as we put our faith in him, he gives us that gift, and we begin life with him now and for eternity.
Jesus says that every sin will be forgiven or can be forgiven except one.
Mhm.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is the sin which will never be forgiven. Now Jesus says this. I mean, our earliest source will be Mark chapter 3, speaking to the Pharisees.
Mhm.
And the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being demonic. They say that the reason he's able to cast out demons of people is because he is a demon himself. He is Satan. Whatever it is. And Jesus says, "How can this be the case? A house divided cannot stand. You know, if if I'm a demon, I can't be casting out demons." But then then he goes on to say that all sins can be forgiven, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not and cannot be forgiven.
Mhm.
I provide the context there because I'm told that it's quite important. This is enough to send a shiver down your spine. Jesus saying, "If you do this thing, you will not be forgiven." I've heard stories of Christians who sort of are up at night in cold sweat thinking, "Have I blasphemed the Holy Spirit? When I made that joke at Christmas about bringing in the Holy Spirit, was that oh my god, you know?"
Mhm.
What is blaspheming the Holy Spirit? And why is it unforgivable?
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means I have played so many games with God that I've reached the point where my heart is so hard. I never hear the voice of God. I am not sorry for the wrong that I've done. Therefore, the only people who've blasphemed the Holy Spirit are those who could give a rip. They're totally unconcerned because they're totally dead towards God in their spirit. Pharaoh six times hardened his heart. Then we read, "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart." Well, you take the first six times out and you're think, "What? The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart? What does that mean?" No, Pharaoh hardened his heart. And I can do that. We all can do that. But if a person has any desire at all to say, "Lord, forgive me." Of course, the Lord forgives them. It's only those who have no desire to ask for forgiveness who have possibly committed that sin.
So, so why does God then harden the bearer's heart, right? His heart, he's already hardening his heart. Why is it that God does this extra thing? I'm now going to harden your heart as if like the imagery I'm getting there, if this is indeed what something like blaspheming the Holy Spirit is and becomes the unforgivable sin. It's almost like God himself is like locking that in. It's like, well, Pharaoh has been hardening his heart. He's been, you know, rejecting God's advances. And so God says, "Okay, I'm going to grab you by a hold of the heart and I'm going to sort of switch off this possibility for you."
Is as if God is like doing that to Pharaoh?
Right? Well, no, he's not doing that to Pharaoh. It's it's more a statement that Pharaoh, you have hardened your heart so much that you are now shutting yourself off from me. M no, the the offer of Christ, the offer of God for forgiveness is always open to every single human being. And there are countless illustrations of the grace of God working with some of the biggest wretches on earth. So we don't have to worry about that.
But is it impossible in principle for somebody to have once blasphemed the Holy Spirit and then regret it?
Yeah, that's that's not going to happen because when you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you don't have the ability to repent. You don't have the ability to be sensitive towards God because you are so hardened, so separated from God. There's no hope for you.
That that that sort of seems to make it worse to me. It's like, oh, whatever I may have done. Because this is the thing is that that you might say, well, well, look, you're you hardened your heart. You did this. You turned yourself away from God. And so so now you're in a state where you can't even possibly come to repentance. And I would say, but that seems a little unfair. You know, it's like, well, it's your fault you did it. But the whole point of Christianity is that like, well, yeah, you did this. Yeah, you did that. You did that for years, but I'm still going to forgive you as long as you regret it. But you're telling me that there's something a person can do that makes it such that it is literally impossible for them even to want to repent, you know, let alone being forgiven for it. That that seems like really difficult to square with the with the sort of eternally forgiving God, you know, like we're talking about something that's unforgivable. When you say, well, if somebody dies in a state where their where their heart is hardened to God, that's true of any sin. If you die in in sin without repentance, you know, you're not going to be entered into the you're not going to enter into the kingdom of heaven. To say that this is unforgivable. And you're you're telling me now something like, well, they've done something to the extent that now it does not matter what they do, they will never be able to repent. Kinds of you could be in a in an adulterous affair for 10 years. It's something you do over 10 years and then on, you know, the very next day you could suddenly realize it was wrong, suddenly repent of it. And if as long as you're genuine, you're forgiven.
Mhm.
Right. But you're telling me that there's something people can do.
Not asking for forgiveness.
But like that's I mean,
you don't if if I steal your wallet and you say, "Cliff, I offer to forgive you." And I say, "Forgive me for what? I haven't done anything wrong." Oh, no, Cliff, you stole my wallet. Well, so what?
Yeah. So, so then I say that what you're doing there is unforgivable, right? I I'm not going to forgive you for what you're doing right now. And so then tomorrow when you come to me and say, you know, yesterday when I was sort of like refusing to even acknowledge I I I was wrong. I'm sorry about that. And say, hey, man, I already told you I'm not forgiving you for that.
Christ will always forgive the person who is repentant.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unrepentant hardened heart.
There's no need there. There's no understanding of my need for forgiveness. Yes.
And once you get into that state, there's no possibility for redemption.
Correct.
So like I mean what are you imagining like how old is a person in this state? Like how long does it take? What do they have to do? You know,
we don't have the faintest idea
because
who those people are or what they've done? We don't know. That's between them and God.
I find that so so difficult. Like it it's
sure it's difficult.
Unforgivable
cuz they're not asking for forgiveness. Correct.
You cannot be forgiven unless you ask for forgiveness. You humble yourself. Like it's unforgivable to not ask for forgiveness.
But the the problem is there's sort of two levels here, right? There's like there's not asking for forgiveness, which of course you can't be forgiven if you don't ask for forgiveness. But we're saying here now it's not you can't be forgiven if you don't ask for forgiveness. It's you can't be forgiven for the state of not asking for forgiveness. If not asking if blaspheming the Holy Spirit is something like not asking for forgiveness. To say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable is not to say that when you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you know, you like you you're not going like, okay, you're not being forgiven right now because you're not apologizing. It's one thing to say you're not being forgiven for not apologizing. It's another thing to say that you will not be forgiven like full stop ever for the fact that right now you're unforgiven. You see what I'm saying? The only person who's committed that sin could care less.
God is irrelevant. God is not part of the equation. My sin is not part of the equation. I'm totally shut off.
The women stuff crops up in the New Testament, too. So, I was wondering if perhaps we could go through some of the most problematic verses as pertains to gender relations in the New Testament and see what you have to think about them.
You're running it. Go for it. Let's do it. Oh, yeah. I guess this is my show.
This is my show, but it's but it's your bar. It all gets a bit complicated.
And it's an honor to be here.
Yes, it is with you.
It's a it's a it's a it's a privilege and I'm very grateful for your time and for for hosting us here as well. It's um it's a pleasure. Um I think we should start perhaps with what I think is maybe the most problematic because it's problematic on on various levels, which is 1 Corinthians chapter 14, 34-35. If you're following along at home, women should be silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Thoughts? Context? Worship services have denigrated into shouting matches into total chaos. Why? Women are abusing the new freedom that they have and Paul says stop it. Also, women are trying to teach and they've not gotten an education, which is tragic because they weren't allowed to go to school. But women who have an education are to teach. That's why Priscilla taught the great teacher preacher Apollos. So, it's fascinating that Paul also writes there right there in 1 Corinthians, when women pray and prophesy, they're to have their heads covered. What would the matter with you, Paul? Are you schizophrenic? Don't do you remember what you just said? Are you contradicting yourself? No, he's not. He's addressing two different situations. I believe there
chaos in worship and as a pastor I have to be careful that our worship services don't deteriorate into chaos because we have some very emotionally charged people who uh can just rip the shreds out of a worship service with chaos and disorder.
And so no, you're not going to speak at this time because of order.
But then women were allowed to pray and prophesy.
What troubles you the most? It's like what keeps you up at night the most when a student comes up to the microphone and says I want to ask about this and you go oh boy right here we go. I don't I don't know about this. For me, it's some of the issues you've already raised, um, slavery and some of the wars in the Old Testament. Those are very difficult issues for me. I don't understand them. Secondly, the problem of suffering. When I sit with parents who've lost a child due to a horrible car accident, you know, why didn't God allow the babysitters to see the stop sign? Why did they go right through the stop sign and then hit by a pickup truck coming down at 55 mph? So the problem of suffering, why does God intervene in certain situations and not in others? That's a very difficult issue. So there are there are a number of very difficult issues for me and um I am convinced to the root of my being that Jesus Christ is the truth. But I can't prove that. I struggle with doubt. I struggle with uncertainty. So, I don't mean to communicate to you, Alex, that I've got it all nailed down because I don't. There's tremendous uncertainty. There's tremendous doubt that I experience on a regular basis. But the overwhelming evidence in my experience of life, in what Christ has done in my life, when I was 10 years old, I was separated from my family and really got lonely in upstate New York. And for the first time in my life, I cried out from the depth of my veins. Jesus, if you're really there, I want to know you because I'm lonely right now and I hate it. And Christ gave me an overwhelming sense of his presence, his withness with me. So in spite of the doubts, in spite of the uncertainties, um the reality of Christ in my life, as I observe others, as I experience life convinces me that he is by far the best option. Let me give you one closing illustration. I was doing open air Colombia and a professor invited me to come into his class. He was a post-doc student from the UK and the class was a discussion on the difference between Zwingli and Calvin's view of war and the guy was brilliant and the discussion was off the charts amazing. So I'm walking out of the classroom with a guy and I turn to him and say, professor, that was amazing, thank you so much. Now let me ask you, what are you living for and what's the evidence that whatever it is you're living for is true? And this brilliant post-doc student from the UK looks me in the face and says, I'm not a good person to ask that question of. That's scary. And yet, it's been my experience too often that too many people have to answer the same way. Don't ask me that question. What am I living for and what's the evidence that what I am living for is true? Because they have not thought through what am I really living for? What motivates me? Why do I get up in the morning? Why do I do what I do? Why do I work the way I work? Why do I treat people the way I treat people? What's going to happen after death? They just haven't thought about it. And yet, they're living for something. And the question is, what's the evidence of what you are living for is true? So, in spite of my uncertainty, in spite of the fact I can't prove God exists or prove that Christ rose from the dead, the evidence is God does exist. The evidence is he really does love me. And the evidence is the resurrection took place. And therefore I will follow the evidence to Christ. Not that it's perfect. It's not. Not they're not not that they're not problems in the Bible. There are. But gosh, when you look at the way he loves you and me, when you look at the experiences of life that you get and the experiences of others, it's real clear to me. Trust in him.
Here's an analogy that helps me.
Mhm.
Airplane goes down. M five people swimming in the water, life raft that can only fit four.
How do you make the decision?
Mhm.
Which one you're going to allow to drown and which four you're going to put in the life raft? And so a professor stands in front of his class and says, "Come on, guys. Give me an answer."
Yeah.
All right. And everybody squirms. Well, are we going to let the cheerleader go in cuz she's really pretty? We're going to let this very intelligent one, number one in the class, go in because he's very intelligent. We're going to let the superstar athlete go in there. And and then I guess the little nobody just drowns. And so see the professor says, "See, it's it's it's all just relative." No, it's not all just relative, professor. The reason that we're having a real problem right now, the reason we're confronted by an ethical dilemma right now, professor, is because we really understand human value.
If humans were not valuable, it really wouldn't matter which four you put in the rife raft and which one you let drown. It's all just chance and they're all we're all just glorified apes.
So, how would you make that decision? Or suppose it's the other way around. Suppose that there five people are in the boat and it's sinking.
Yeah.
All five are going to die. Someone's got to get thrown out because no one's volunteering. You know, in a way, you might say, "Well, I just wouldn't be willing to do that, so I'll just let the boat sink." But then you're self-sacrificing, so you may as well just jump out the boat yourself. Oh, maybe maybe that would be. Maybe it would be like, "Well, I'll jump out of the boat then." But, you know, how would you go about trying to make that decision? Suppose you're not in the decision. You got to dictate the terms of the decision-making. I mean, would you have like anything to say for a situation like that?
I sure would. Not saying that I would do it,
right?
But I hope that I would sacrifice my life and jump out and let the other four live. That's what Christ calls me to do.
Okay. Suppose you're
But no guarantees. Obviously, I'm not claiming to be some super sacrificial guy.
Suppose you're like super glued to the boat, right? You you can't jump out. It's not possible, right? But you you know, you're
you're Cliff. You're the you're the you're you're the intellectual guy with the YouTube channel. Like people listen to you. You you get to make the decision and it's going down and no one's volunteering. I mean, you're going to die anyway. You're super glued to the thing, right? So, but you don't you don't want to save yourself. You just you just know that everyone's going to die if you don't throw this one out. Or do you say, "All right, everybody. I think we should all take one for the team here,"
right?
Is that what you say?
I I would try and exercise leadership. But but remember now the whole reason we're facing an ethical dilemma is because we believe that there is a God who created people in his image who loves them. People are valuable. Therefore, we just can't discard a person. But if there is no God, it's all a cosmic crap. So would that mean then in that situation you would be forced into one of those sort of counterintuitive but but ultimately maybe sensible scenarios where you say look if no one's volunteering then the boat goes down and all five of us die because we're not utilitarians here. We're not like oh there are many situations where you'd let use reason.
Yeah. Is that how you would approach a situation like that? You would say that because it's wrong to force someone over the side of the boat
all five of us are going to die now.
Would that be probably your response to that?
Might be. I can promise you, Alex, in that situation, I really don't know what I would do.
Yeah, sure. I'm fascinated by these kinds of cases. I mean, we test our intuitions. It's like, you know, the ticking time bomb case for torture. People who think that torture is totally immoral. Say, "Well, what if a bomb was about to go off in Manhattan?" I like to I like to um adapt this for my Catholic friends when it comes to the institution of confession. This is this is really interesting idea because because the the Catholic confessional is sacred. It's not like when you go to therapy and they say, "This is confidential." Unless, of course, you say anything that's going to put someone in danger. It's like, "No, this is confidential." Like, there's no I'm not allowed to say anything. And so, someone comes in and says, "Father, um, I've just I've just poisoned the chalice with which, you know, Father David out there is about to serve mass."
Mhm.
Do you say something? And I think for the Catholic, they they are committed to the view of saying actually no, the priest would have to let that happen
because otherwise it would require breaking the seal of the confessional.
Mhm.
I mean, even if you sort of burst out of the room and you run over there and you knock over everyone, say no one drink it, right? You've given away information that you've obviously just learned in confessional, which is also not allowed. I mean, maybe there'd be a way of doing it. And I I've talked to my Catholic friends about this, especially priests and people who are training to be priests. You know, what would you do here? And and they're like, "Well, maybe I would find a way to sort of go and take the wine and swap it out and make it look like I'm doing something else." And well, what if they asked you? They said, "Why are you doing that? Are you going to lie? You're not allowed to lie either. Like, what are you what are you going to do?" You know, but there's a similar circumstance there of like, you know, what if the what if the person says, "Father, I've I've just planted a bomb in Manhattan and it's about to go off." And of course, the Catholic priests will probably say, "Well, as part of your penance, um, 10 Hail Marys, two Our Fathers, and a call to the NYPD with the exact location and and how to how to disarm the bomb." But suppose the person halfway through the confession sort of goes, "And I regret this. I regret this." And they sort of run away. You know, I think a Catholic is committed to this counterintuitive position of saying, "As weird as it seems, the right thing to do here, because we have our principle, and a principle is only a principle when it's tested, is that, yeah, we let that bomb go off." Now, we can take umbrage with that because we could say that maybe that the Catholic confessional is is is wrong for that reason. Um, and but in this case, maybe that's a more reasonable example. Maybe maybe that is just what you do. You let them sink. Um, but I don't know what a 100 people, a thousand people. What 100? What if it's five people in a boat and there are two children or two babies in the boat, you know, and someone's got to go overboard otherwise everyone drowns, including the babies? Is it is it still just like well okay you know we'll just we'll just let it sink or is it like actually you know eeny meeny miny off your pop you know and I'm not necessarily asking what you would do here because of course moral strength is different everything but what should you do here's not a scenario where you would say look you know someone's got to go overboard here let's just do a raffle let's make it as fair as possibly can be but whatever comes up you're off the boat
okay maybe a raffle but if you start choosing
that is that is such a slippery slope. It's scary.
Yeah, but that's the problem, right? Is that But then but then the the other scary alternative is that you let those five babies in the boat just drown,
right? But yet again, you know, this is this type of worldview that you're espousing and the indignation you have here was not set by the Greeks, was not set by the Romans,
was not set by AC Graing. It was not set by any of these guys. This this came directly out of the Christian worldview where all of a sudden you're having such a you're such you're so focused in such a razor sharp kind of way on the value of each and every individual in there when so clearly the Greeks would have said, "Oh, get the women out first." Oh, obviously get the babies out first. Let them all drown and the men will stay in here. Totally normal.
As the Christian would have said, just uh well, God's obviously judging us somehow putting us in this first place. Why don't we just exterminate them all including
Oh, what about your pet dog at home? Well, somebody better stay alive. We better save somebody so they can go back and kill everyone else who's left who's left at home. I don't know. Um I don't know. But look, I I think I I I almost want to sort of end here cuz this is very full circle. I think we've covered a lot of grounds. This grace, this omnipotence, this love and charity of the Old Testament God is expressed in the instances where he commands the complete obliteration of entire nations of people including the women and the children and even the animals. uh in multiple at multiple points throughout the history of the uh Israelites trying to conquer their holy land which is promised to them by God such that if anybody is already living there, they're driven out and if they refuse to leave, they're chased out and they're killed and then they come back and they kill the women and the children. Um, do you think that this is the same graceful, loving God that's issuing these commands?
No. Instead, I think we've got to read very carefully. First point, do I allow God to judge? In my culture, that's unacceptable. And yet, the Bible insists God does have the right to judge. Second point, is exaggeration being used? Is hyperbole being used in a lot of those passages? Yes, it is because clearly obviously many of those people who were supposedly all wiped out appear in the next book. So, you know that they weren't all wiped out.
Thirdly, you look at the archaeological evidence for Jericho and I and you begin to realize those were probably smaller fortresses. Yes, Rahab was in there as a prostitute, but those were not just families and and women and children. Those were fortresses that were protecting the families that lived out in the countryside around them. Next point is I think that there is not the emphasis on individualism in the Old Testament that we have in our culture. Yeah.
And yet the more we struggle with through children of alcoholics and realize that there are real consequences that stretch down through the generations. And I think the Old Testament does present a picture that we are more interconnected than we as American individualists would like to admit. And when God judges a people group, yes, some innocent people are swept along in the judgment. And that bugs me. I don't like that. And yet, that is part of, I think, what the Bible is talking about when it says we're created in the image of God. Meaning that we do have free will, which means there are consequences to my decisions that affect my children, that affect my grandchildren. We're more interconnected than we would like to admit. So, no, those children are not being punished for anything they did wrong. But yes, they're born into a cursed, messed up world, and there are consequences to that. I mean, I benefited from going to Davidson College and a lot of people sacrificed to put Davidson together. You benefited from going to Oxford University and there were a lot of people who have over many years given sacrificially to build that. So, there are real consequences that stretch down through the generations of our decisions. And also, the Bible never says that those children and all those people go to eternity separate from God. I'm convinced that we will see those children in heaven if they were killed before an age of accountability. So the justice of God will ultimately triumph.
Yeah.
But do I have problems with the text? Yes, of course I have problems with the text. I don't understand it exactly. I don't understand what God is doing exactly there, why he says that kind of thing. But I'm also convinced that hyperbole is being used. And I think that's a very important thing. For instance, when I was in high school, we used to say, "We're going to kill the opposing team that we're going to play that weekend." Not meaning we're literally going to kill them. And and the whole idea of in in the Hebrew herum hm of clearing out these people from the promised land. The whole idea that God had given them 400 over 400 years to repent and they had chosen not to and now God clears them out.
You know I I think it's a complex issue more complex than the person would allow it to be who just says I just can't believe that God would do something like that.
Do do you believe that to be clear? Do do you believe that innocent children were killed by Israelites on the command of God? It's a historical fact. I believe that innocent children were killed by Israeli bombs and they happen to be Palestinians, part of Hamas maybe or Hezbollah. I believe that there are consequences to human decisions that stretch down through the generations and that impact a lot of innocent people. M
and I think we're a little naive if we think that we can go into Iraq or fight a desert storm and no innocent people are going to be killed. Um it's it's one of the tragedies of war which is the result of the sinful human heart.
But but suppose you know the Israeli government said leave alive nothing that breathes. Kill kill the soldiers but then once you've done that turn around, go back, kill the women, kill the children, kill their animals because this land is yours.
Mhm. I think that people would would would wouldn't
be satisfied y
on falling back on the defense of hey this is the consequence of war. This is what happens. I think people would say okay but the fundamental rule of of just war which I'm told is sort of stems out of the Christian tradition is you know proportionate response and and
yes and I agree with you.
Okay but here but here's another problem. Mhm. God told Abraham to take Isaac up on Mount Mariah and sacrifice his son.
Now, if someone interprets that as being God's laying down wise principles for good parenting, they're an idiot.
Sure. Yeah.
That is not what Genesis chapter 2 is communicating. God gave Abraham a very specific command, and it was not to give an example of wise parenting. It was Abraham. Who's number one in your heart? Is it going to be God or is it going to be your son?
Who are you going to build your future on? Your son or me? Similarly, what Israel does there in the Old Testament is not examples of just war theory. No, it is unique example of God using a theocracy. And we don't live in a theocracy. We don't have a theocracy in Israel now. We're definitely not a theocracy in the United States or in UK. God using a theocracy to carve out a land that he brings then Messiah into. That's a one-time deed. Because you're absolutely right. It is not an example of just war. No way.
Mhm.
I recoil at that as you do, I'm sure.
Yeah. Because of course the difference in this case is that you have the orders from the top the top man. It's sort of if there is some extraordinary circumstance in which this kind of otherwise morally condemnable behavior can be justified, you better have the authority to know that you're making the right decision. And in this case, you know, the Christian will be able to say that they did have that authority. But I mean, it's it's a struggle. You know, it we're talking about
the intentional killing of non-combatant children here. we're talk and and I read this text as a land dispute. I read in Deuteronomy where God gives instructions when you march uh up onto a city to attack it. Like in in the in the broad sense um when you march up to attack a city, make its people on offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you some peace. If they refuse to make peace and engage you in battle, which you know isn't entirely unreasonable given what the terms of peace are, lay waste, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, and the livestock, and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, and you may use the plunder the Lord gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. women and children being described as plunder. Plunder that can be used because God has given them to you as plunder. But of course, those are the people who you're attacking not because they're in the promised land. And it's just, well, it's but look, we gave them a chance to leave. What are we supposed to do? This is God's chosen. No, these are these are other cities because it goes on. However, in the cities of the nations, the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them. the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, but and lists, you know, the Jeubites as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all detestable things that they do in worshiping their gods and you will sin against the Lord your God. So clearly what you're saying about them being these detestable characters and God is issuing his judgment must be true here because it's saying otherwise if you don't destroy them completely, you know, they will they will teach you their ways, you will fall into sin. But this idea of, you know, marching up to a city and even if they accept you, they're going to become, you know, your your indentured servants. And if they don't, then you may take the women and children as plunder. And you may use the plunder the Lord gives you. But of course, if you're marching into a city of one of the nations that you've been promised by God, oh, then don't leave anything that breathes. Kill all of the children. Kill all of the women. I mean, I it's the difference there. In other words, about like the the people in the inherited lands and the people outside of it tells me that the the explanation for why these people need to be completely and utterly destroyed is because this is our land. You know, we want this land seems to be. And when I when I read about somebody intentionally driving out or killing nations of people so that they can sort of essentially ethnically cleanse a land, I don't know what else to call that other than a genocide. Before I just I'll ask you a question that I asked to William Lane Craig. I'm interested in your response which is suppose you woke up tomorrow and you were a Canaanite. You just sort of had woke up in someone else's body. You traveled back in time. You're a Canaanite now. You live in that community. You're surrounded by temptations and you're a sinful man. You give in to some of them. Then the Israelites come marching in and start attacking you. They start trying to kill you and your family. Would you fight back?
Yes, I'd probably fight back. I would try to defend myself and defend my family.
Would you be wrong to do that?
Cuz suppose
probably not.
Suppose that you go back now and you retain the knowledge you have. You think it's very strange that I just woken up in the body of a canite. But I remember I remember where I was. I remember doing that podcast with Alex and no one believes you. They don't even know what a podcast is. What a glorious time to be alive. Um and and you know where you are. You recognize it. You're like, I've been put here. This is a test. God is testing me somehow. I don't know what's what's going on, but I'm I'm a Canaanite now. And the the armies of of Moses are coming towards you and you know that they're the Israelites. You know that they've got God on their side. Do you still fight back? Well, I think the problem with your use of the word genocide or ethnic cleansing is that a few hundred years later, the God used first the Assyrians and then the Babylonians to punish the Jews for their immorality. So, this is not just a land squabble that we're reading about in the Old Testament. We're reading about a God who is a judge, judges the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and then a few hundred years later, he judges the Jews, and they're swept into captivity. And that was the judgment of God according to the Hebrew prophets. That was the judgment of God. So, would you accept that judgment? I mean, and especially if you were transported back with your family and you know, you know for a fact that, okay, I'm now Canaanite. I'm a sinful man. You know, maybe maybe I have the strength to say, "Okay, God is issuing his judgment on me. I'll repent in my last moments. I'll let that soldier put me to the sword as God has commanded, and hopefully I'll be shown the grace of God." But would you be willing to say, "Oh, yeah, my my my child, my 2-year-old child." Yeah, sure. Yeah. No, this is what God wants. This is what's going to happen. You know, like, it seems to me an absurd request to make of somebody. Of course, they couldn't do that. And yet we're painting these these Canaanites as these terrible immoral people. And maybe they were. But like I I struggle to think that even if that were the case that the right thing to do is to just sort of accept the judgment of God and say, "Okay, yeah,
that's my child."
Mhm.
There's my In fact, I'll I'll point them out to you. You know, they're hiding in the room upstairs because I know that it's the will of God that for some reason, you know, they all be killed. I know that for some reason even the children even the instant children of God for some reason that I'll never understand wants them to be put to the sword. And so I tell you what, Mr. Mr. Kai, don't kill me yet because I'm first going to betray my family and tell you where they all are cuz I know that's the will of God. You know, I think it would it would be an insane prospect to even
that would be insane. It's also kind of difficult to think about Jesus Christ bleeding and dying on a cross to make atonement for human sin. That's kind of repugnant in one sense.
Mhm.
So there are a lot of things when it comes to dealing with the problem of sin and the judgment of God that are very difficult. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? I mean, is that really necessary? Why can't just God wave a wand and say, "You're all forgiven?" Why is the cross so necessary? Is that not morally repugnant in some ways? Well, in some ways, I think it is morally repugnant. And yet that is how God brings justice and mercy together there at the cross. And so yes, God is a God who judges. And I have a problem with his judgment often. I don't like it. And I struggle with the Old Testament wars. I struggle with the cross in terms of Jesus absorbing the hit from my sin. And at times I'm like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Father, if it's possible, take this cup from me. And why shouldn't it be possible? M
so there, you know, there there are a lot of deep questions that I don't have easy answers for.
But I think that Job who we started off with is quite an example. Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. I don't understand why he judges the way he does, why he allows certain things to happen exactly the way they happen. I don't understand exactly why Christ had to sacrifice his life on a cross. That was an incredibly painful experience obviously. And yet I am committed to justice being a real value that flows from the character of God. And the way God dispenses justice is really often outside my understanding at this point.
Mhm.
Um and why when it comes to valuing these children and these women, if you were back in that day and age, you wouldn't be asking that question. You wouldn't be struggling with that. You would say, "Oh, women and children have no no value." That's fine. If they get put to the sword or if they get plundered in any kind of way, you if there is no God and if if thank heaven during the Roman Empire being created in the image of God like Luke F the atheist talked about swept across the known world and changed the value of every single human being which was totally foreign to every other civilization. But if you look at those children, if you look at those women at that time period, of course, put them to the sword. They have no ultimate value.
It's I mean I'm not a historian. My my understanding is that, you know, the traditional idea of men going to war and women staying at home, it's like men go to protect their homeland, to protect their wives, to protect their children. That's that that's what it is that they're protecting. It's the men who are the, you know, expendable ones because they're the ones that the state says, "Okay, we must protect our nation. So, we're going to take all of our men and we're going to send them out and they they they could all die, but we're going to do that to implying that the thing that needs protecting, the thing that's valuable are the women and the children that stay at home and, you know, the buildings and the culture, whatever. And it's the men who are expendable. Yeah. Send send them out, you know, cannon fodder and and they'll get killed. And so, you know, I struggle to believe that even as an ancient person, I I think in other words, even even Christians today will speak as if the God of the Old Testament is like a different character. There's the God of the Old Testament and there's Jesus. And they're kind of the same, but the God of the Old Testament is Yahweh and Jesus is Yahweh. But like they talk about them differently. And I suppose the first question is, can you understand why at least people are doing that? If you read the Old Testament and you you see a much more military, jealous, apparently vindictive, um, one who regrets things, one who seems to physically sort of walk amongst sort of the Garden of Eden, but is also sort of really far away, but is also kind of localized in a temple. And then you have this Jesus figure, the meek and mild, the endlessly loving, impossible to picture as anything other than just like love and softness and beautiful. Can you understand why people see these as
as incompatible?
Sure. But I hope God is jealous.
I hope you're jealous.
Sure.
If you have children and they're starting to entertain the friendship of a drug dealer,
I hope that you're going to be jealous for your child's attention and loyalty. And when you see a drug dealer begin to weasle his way into their lives and suck them into drug addiction, I hope that you will have a selfless jealousy where you will seek to win your child back. I hope you'll be angry at times with a righteous indignation. I mean, if I beat you up and steal your wallet, the police come in cuz these guys call the police. Stuart calls the police. And the police say, "Cliff, you beat up Alex. You stole his wallet. Now, let's go to Starbucks." Hm. Well, that's ridiculous. Moral outrage is appropriate. Why? Because injustice is horrendous. Well, the same people who object to that will say, "Oh, well, God's just loving and forgiving." Oh, no, no, no. God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is angry about evil. Good gracious. Jesus took a whip of cords and drove the religious hypocrites out of the temple. And the bloodiest book in the Bible is not in the Old Testament. It's in the New Testament. The last book of the New Testament, Book of Revelation. The blood flows like no other place in the Bible. So the Bible's very consistent. God has a righteous jealousy, a righteous anger, but he he's a God of mercy and grace. And yes, he will judge. And Jesus said, "I'm going to be the one to judge you."
Let's talk about that righteous anger because I think righteous is the operative word there.
Um, you know, if you were to
if you
Were to beat me up, >> Mhm. >> you would start attacking me. And yes, >> these fine people called the police and the police showed up. >> Yep. >> And said, "What are you doing?" Uh, but then it actually transpired that I was your slave. And the book of Exodus clearly states that if you beat up your slave, as long as they get up after a few days, you're not to be punished. And they say, "Oh, well, sorry to disturb you, gentlemen." And they go to Starbucks. >> Mhm. >> Right. You see what I'm saying?
>> The righteous part is important here, right? That the commands that God is giving, the things that he's angry about, the things that he demands. Mhm. >> of the nation of Israel seem to run contrary to a lot of our moral intuitions. Now, perhaps we can start by talking about the slavery thing, right? >> Yes. >> I understand that the word slavery is a promiscuous term that can mean lots of different things. When you say slavery, >> people immediately think of antibellum, American South slavery, right? The kind of slavery that appears in the Hebrew Bible is going to be very different >> and it's going to vary depending on what kind of slaves you're talking about. There will be indentured servants. There will be and also it's a different kind of society right where where people literally cannot survive except in Safaris and being a servant of a house and there are rules about what you can do and what you can't do but it does seem at the very least that the Hebrew Bible we can perhaps begin with this as a premise uh does not condemn in principle the ownership of other human beings as private property. Would you disagree with that? >> Yes. So where the Hebrew Bible says things like, you know, if he gets up after a day or two, he you're not to be the the slave owner is not to be punished because the slave is his property. >> Mhm. >> And where he says um your male and female slaves may come from the nations around you. From them you may buy and sell slaves. You may also purchase some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clan, >> but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Clearly here we're dealing with the ownership of other human beings, private property. Clearly, God is legislating in such a way, sometimes seeming as not to condemn it there and then, and sometimes saying, "You may do this." And I wonder if he's not at least implicitly condoning that. What is he doing in those verses?
>> Mhm. He's giving instruction, not approval. He's giving regulation, not affirmation of it. And the key to this is what Jesus says in Matthew chapter 19 when he's asked, "What about divorce?" >> Right? And Jesus points out, "Yeah, divorce is wrong." Well, then why did Moses say, "Give your wife a certificate of divorce and send her on her way." And Jesus says something fascinating. He says, "Moses permitted this because your hearts were hard." Gets right back to the book of Job. We live in an unfair, cursed, messed up world. And unfortunately, if there's been adultery, divorce is permissible before God. But that is not the way it was from the beginning. From Genesis 2:24, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So remember those laws in the Old Testament are instructions, not approval, regulations, not endorsement.
M I I have heard this response before, right? The idea is that there there are two ways to look at this. One is to say, well, actually, God was perfectly okay with it, but it just wasn't as bad as you think. And one way is to say, actually, it is pretty bad, but God's not okay with it. Right? >> For example, in the book of Exodus where the the law of God says if you have a Hebrew slave, he has to go free after seven years. Um if he has a wife when he comes to you then the wife goes free too. But if while he's your slave he takes a wife he and has children the wife and children stay with you. They don't get to go with him. If however, it says the man decides that he loves his wife and he loves his children and he loves his master. Yeah. As if as if those three have to come together. Maybe maybe he just loves his wife and kids. Well, he can stay with them. But in doing so, he's taken somewhere. He has his ear pierced like cattle. >> Mhm. >> And then he remains a slave for life in order that he can be with his wife and children. Now I understand the idea that maybe God for some reason couldn't abolish slavery. Maybe the society just couldn't do without it. Whatever the reason may be, it seems to me that it wouldn't have been too much to ask for God to say if he has a wife and children, then when he goes free, his wife and kids should go with him. Because I'm a God who believes in the family. I believe in marriage. I believe in sort of the proper uprising of children and so if you're going to let that man go, it's a real priority that the wife and kids go with him, but no instead for some reason that's that's not allowed. So, so in other words, if it were just the case that we had a list of commands where God said, "Listen, if you're going to beat your slave, then this is going to happen. If the then then fine, maybe he's trying to sort of ready us for an abolitionist world." But there are a lot of cases where he seems not to do that. Mhm. So, once again, must read in context.
>> All right. So you've got Genesis 1, God creates us in his image, male and female, we all have equal dignity. >> Mhm. Second greatest miracle in the Old Testament, God frees the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. Luke 4, first par, first sermon of Jesus, he almost loses his life because he communicates to Jews, God loves Gentiles just as much as he does you Jews. Best known parable, Luke chapter 10, the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus makes a direct frontal attack on racism as he tells how a Samaritan gets down on his hands and knees and cleans out the cuts and bandages the wounds of a Jew. Galatians 3:28 in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. Very clearly the first century church of Jesus Christ was committed to slavery is unacceptable.
>> Ah, well, that's interesting because, well, uh Cliff, I wonder if you know what you've just committed yourself to. I didn't know that you were also a a woke gender abolitionist. Because I I often hear people quote this this particular verse. They say, "Look, I know that that God seemed to suggest that he was sort of maybe pro-slavery, but look, we have it in the scripture. There is neither slave nor free, for we're all one in Christ." Well, it also says there's no male or female. There's no male, no female, no slave, no free, no Jew, no Gentile. For we're all one in Jesus. If we're supposed to interpret that as God condemning the earthly practice of of slavery because there is no slave and there is no master. Well, he also says there is no male and there is no female. So, is God also a gender abolitionist? >> I would I would say I mean I don't want to guess your position. I don't think you'd believe that. >> If that's the case, then the fact that God is saying that >> there's no male and although there's male and female on earth, of course, in Christ we're all one. Even though there's male and female on earth, in Christ we're all one. And so if we're going to interpret that that way, I think we also have to say even though of course on earth is, you know, slave and master of course, but we're all one in Christ. In other words, I think this might be a reaffirmation of the earthly practice of slavery.
>> Well, I would take it totally differently. I would take it that uh Steven Carter, who teaches at Yale Law School, a black intellectual, is absolutely correct when he points out the demographic that has the highest percentage of followers of Christ in the world is women of color. Mhm. And the demographic in the United States that has the highest percentage of followers of Christ is black women. Yeah. Women get it. There is nobody who has elevated the position of women as much as Jesus Christ has. And then when you keep on reading Paul, you get to the letter of Phileiman and he's asking a slaveholder Phileiman to accept his runaway slave Onesimus back no longer as a slave but as a brother in Christ. So I think it's abundantly clear that God is totally against slavery and it's abundantly clear that God is against chauvinism and sexism and women being degraded by men.
>> Ah, and over 60% of atheists worldwide are white male and just about every single humanist conference year round is all represented >> now that >> by white western I've seen I've seen this before. There was a great debate with uh with Tom Holland and AC Graing where they're talking about whether you know Western values are ultimately Christian and and there's this kind of slightly mic drop moment where I think Tom Holland points out that all of these humanist conferences all crop up in like western Christian nations. But then in fairness, there is something to be said for the fact that that is where like this response to Christianity is. Of course, the response to Christianity that is humanism is going to crop up where Christianity is dominant, right? >> And the fumes in so far, sorry >> because the fumes, right? The fumes of Christianity, Tom Holland would say. >> Sure. So, so Tom Holland would say that, but there's also a thesis that, okay, sure, you know, humanism crops up in Christian culture. Is that because humanism is ultimately Christian in nature, secretly? Or is it just because it is a response to Christianity and so of course that's where it's going to crop up? You know, um, but like in particular, that verse, right? >> Where people say that this is God condemning slavery. This is God condemning slavery. There is neither male uh there is neither you slave >> nor free. Mhm. >> When he then says there's neither male nor female >> Mhm. >> how can we not interpret that in the same way that he's sort of like, you know, somehow condemning gender categories. If that's what he's doing to slavery in that verse, why is that not what he's doing to to gender in the in the same verse?
>> Well, just study the first century church and the first century society. Just watch the movie Yentle. Barbara Stryisan plays a young lady who has to disguise herself as a man in order to get an education. >> I I completely agree, which is that that's obviously not what God's doing. But if that's not what God's doing in the gender case, then I don't think it's what God's doing in the slavery case either. >> So I if it is the case that, well, look at the early church. Obviously God is not, you know, condemning gender categories here. Well, if he's saying there's neither male nor female and yet in doing so not actually condemning this earthly distinction, then when he says there's neither slave nor free, then he's not condemning that either. I don't think Christ is I don't think Paul is writing there that there's no literal distinction between a male and a female in terms of gender. >> I think he's attacking the sexism, the chauvinism, the minimalizing of women that was so rampant in that culture. I mean, women were not allowed to get an education. They weren't allowed to testify in court. I mean, they were viewed as scum of the earth, and it was tragic. Well, I I I really appreciate the way you to conduct your outreach and your your I don't know what you'd call it, apologetics, proitizing, evangelizing, whatever you want to call it. Uh I I think, you know, the videos have been getting really popular over the past year or two, and I think for good reason. You guys do have a way of reaching people. But I I hope this has been a a fairly penetrating discussion. I hope that you definitely >> has been. Thank you so much have uh who are listening have too. >> Cliff Stewart, thanks so much for coming on. Thanks for your time.