Connecting laypeople to Biblical scholarship
Armed with an alternative to a fatalistic reading of Scripture, let us now apply it to some biblical passages that determinists often cite to support their theological doctrine and system. Minimally, my goal is to show that these passages do not commit us to determinism. Most times, determinism contradicts the points of the passages.
1. Did God know that Adam and Eve would fail? Why did he put the tree there then?
What is the Problem?
The biggest problem with theistic determinism is that it undermines morality as we know it. It appears to dissolve all grounds for holding anyone responsible for an action, good or bad. For example, let us suppose that God knows that Ade will assault the president tomorrow. Well, when tomorrow comes, Ade cannot avoid attacking the president. Why so? Well, if Ade could avoid assaulting the president, it would mean that God did not know correctly, putting his omniscience in question; this is not a logical possibility.
In Chosen But Free, Norman Geisler writes: “A God who is before all things, beyond all things, creates all things, upholds all things, knows all things, and can do all things is also in control of all things. This complete control of all things is called the sovereignty of God” (14–15). “Divine sovereignty” is thus a convenient summary of all the attributes of God. This is unproblematic until one probes further: what exactly does God’s “complete control of all things” mean? Is this analogous to a cosmic chessboard, with God as the only real player and where God uses other beings as mere pawns? What would be the goal of the game? This àgbàyà view of God and divine sovereignty is what I deny.
In common talks, we often say something like “God can do anything” because the being we have in mind has superlative qualities. This statement needs to be appropriately qualified for it to be always true. For instance, we may want to add that he can only do what is logically possible. We would not ask if God can make himself non-existent, for example. In our conception of God, we also believe that he knows all things, including the very next word I will type before I type it. Indeed, he knew me before I was born. The relevant issue that we will pursue in this essay is the problem that arises when we ask, “Could I have not been born given that God knew me (including my being born) before my mother conceived me?” Expressed differently, did my parents have a real role to play in my birth process? The Christian answer to those questions above varies depending on who one asks. Much denominationalism exists in the church precisely because of how people have answered those questions. In European Church history, the debates have continued to rage unabated for centuries. Thankfully, that history will have minimal effects on my purposes because my focus is not on Europe but Africa. Hence, I shall refrain from using registers often associated with this discourse so that no one may charge me with any misrepresentation.
There is a common understanding of a crucial passage of the Bible in John 10 that many—perhaps the majority—of Christians grossly misunderstand. It is the error that results when we ignore textual and cultural contexts. To properly situate the passage, we must address some fundamentals that may be lost on us today.
In my discussions with preachers and individuals who believe in tithing, at this point in such conversations, some would say something like, “But I know tithing works; I have seen God’s blessings in my life as a tither!” As harmless as this statement is, it is no good for doctrine. It is a rather emotional response to the issue. First, how does one know a priori that God’s providence in one’s life is tied to one’s tithes if one is not already committed to such a view of God? The fact that something works or is perceived to work does not make it true. The main issue is whether a robust defence can be made for tithing—whether our beliefs are founded on truth. We want to faithfully understand what is expected of us.
Parsing the Argument
For years, I truly believed the defence of tithing in all its potent forms that I was aware of. I was prepared to follow God’s directives. Helping the matter was the fact that all the preachers that I served under all faithfully gave their tithes as well. Recently, I had reasons to doubt this defence; I believe that it falls quite short in explaining why Christians ought to tithe. One of the strengths of the argument is its grounding of tithing’s provenance in Abraham as opposed to Moses or Aaron. However, it should be noted that Israel did not tithe because Abraham did; instead, the descendants of Israel gave tithes specifically because God commanded them to do so. They were so commanded because one of their brothers, Levi, had been set apart by God to only focus on ministering. Whereas other tribes of Israel had material possessions upon entering the promised land, Levites did not. God himself was their possession, and God provided for their daily needs by giving to Levites the tithes—of grains, animals, spices, flour, olive oil, among other things—that the other tribes bring to God:
Background
I was a faithful tither. Why would anyone not be? I was taught that nobody can out-give God, a teaching that I found rather easy to understand: if the God of the universe, who gives liberally without faults-finding, invites me into a covenant of giving and receiving, I think I would rather oblige. I took it so seriously that on the 22nd day of February 2009, I increased my “tithe” to 20 percent of my income besides offering and other needs the church might have. For me, it was a simple matter of following through with truth wherever it led. Tithing, I was convinced, was an obligation every Christian must despatch. It was obvious that the church needs financial support to thrive and do all the good works. Besides, the Bible was quite clear on this subject; at least, so I thought. I was a member of a great church—one that is a very good ground for training young believers, I should add—which taught based on Luke 6:38 that if one does not give, one would not receive. (Never mind that the context of that verse makes it doubtful that Jesus was talking about giving money or anything material.) The church often would even remind members that it was impossible to love without giving for even God demonstrated his love for humanity by giving Jesus (John 3:16). All of this appeared to be sound doctrine, and I believed it wholeheartedly.
When people say something is or isn’t “biblical,” several things may be in view. The simplest use of the word is understandably literal. By “biblical,” the speaker would be inquiring whether a debated idea, subject, imperative or even a word appears anywhere on the pages of the bible. Typically, the implicit notion is that if the debated thing is found in the bible—usually with little regards for context – the speaker is prepared to give in. For example, a parent may observe that baby Jesus was named on the eighth day and then conclude that such an act is “biblical.”(Naming the child on the eighth day is probably after a Roman cultural practice, not Jewish.) A literal use isn’t always correct and can often be dangerous.
Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain similar positions on the subject at hand. Both of them push a one-person-in-the-Godhead theologies. Jehovah’s Witnesses go as far as producing a version of the Bible representing their views. In fairness, this passage is often a head-scratcher for many a Christian who defends Jesus’ divinity as well. And, I should add, the problem is not new either, and it predates both Islam and Jehovah’s Witnesses as organizations. The issue formed the nucleus of the Arian Controversy that resulted in the convening of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
I want to focus on the first chapter of Colossians, where Paul describes Jesus as a firstborn. What did Paul mean?
There is no question whatsoever that Paul identifies Jesus as Yahweh. Before the Second Century AD, Judaism recognized two Yahweh figures. Jews, having carefully studied their scriptures, believed that there were two good, eternal, and divine persons in heaven. Paul identifies Jesus as the Second Yahweh figure. Of course, other New Testament writers also teach that Jesus is a Yahweh figure. Hence, we read that Jesus did things only appropriate for Yahweh, such as receiving worship and prayers, forgiving sins, claiming the holy name for himself, proclaiming himself as the Lord of the Sabbath, etc.
Given this portrayal of Jesus as God, readers are often confused to read some passages that seem to question Jesus’ divine status. One of the most problematic passages is found in Colossians 1:15 – 18,
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
This passage appears to have incompatible propositions, and I have been asked numerous times, “What’s up with ‘the firstborn over creation’ deal? If Jesus is the firstborn or first-created being, how in the world can he also be God? Is not one of the necessary attributes of God that he be, to use an Aristotelian lingo, uncaused? Surely, it is nonsense to say a created being is also uncreated.” I fully agree. The chief source of confusion is the term “firstborn.” If this word, as used here, implies chronology, then there is no escaping the contradiction. But what if the term has other meanings in the bible days? As it turns out, it does – and it is this other legitimate use of the term that Paul employed in the passage.
A quick topical search of the word in the entire bible would generate several instances of the intuitive, denotative use where a person is someone else’s firstborn child—usually a son. However, there are instances where strict chronology cannot possibly be the word’s intended meaning. Here are a few occurrences:
“Calamity is hungry for him; disaster is ready for him when he falls. It eats away parts of his skin; death’s firstborn devours his limbs.” Job 18:13.
Then, there are passages where we know that chronology is not intended. Consider Exodus 4:22,
“Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son.”
Surely, “firstborn” here cannot have a chronological meaning. Even if we set aside Adam, Jacob (Israel) is nowhere close to being the firstborn. There is Abraham, the guy who started the whole race. Besides, “Israel” in this passage does not even refer to an individual; it refers to a people group—the descendants of the man Israel. So, “firstborn” here seems to signify importance or value rather than chronology.
The prophet Jeremiah writes:
“They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel’s father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son.” (Jeremiah 31:9.)
A literal reading would suggest that God’s firstborn son is now Ephraim but not Israel, even though the same passage affirms that Israel is also God’s son – and we know that Israel is chronologically before Ephraim. Once again, we see that something other than chronology is intended here.
Then, there is Psalms 89:27. Referring to David (or a Davidic figure), it reads:
“And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.”
This passage is even more apparent than Exodus 4:22. First of all, chronological firstborn children are never “appointed;” they are born. God’s appointment of David as his firstborn indicates eminence: David would be “the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” Reading the entire chapter makes it hard to miss the messianic tone. This psalm may have informed Paul’s choice of words in the Colossians passage. Here is the passage again:
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
With the meaning of “firstborn” already taken care of, this passage affirms the eternality of Jesus. It says that “all things” – nature or the cosmos as well as other spiritual (immaterial) beings—were created in him, through him, and for him. Jesus is before all things—that means ALL things; put another way, chronologically and logically, before Jesus, there was not a thing. Jesus is the beginning.
Interestingly, the second occurrence of “firstborn” sheds light on the non-chronological meaning. Jesus isn’t the first to die and come back to life. The Old Testament has examples of dead people coming back to life. Even Jesus reportedly raised some people from the dead. Unless “firstborn from among the dead” refers explicitly to resurrection – rising to an indestructible life – there is no chronological sense in which Jesus is the “firstborn” from among the dead. Paul seems to intend a non-chronological meaning when he writes that Jesus is the “firstborn… so that in everything he might have the SUPREMACY.” “Supremacy” suggests high-status importance owing to marked superiority; it’s not about chronology. And Jesus is an eternal Son, not a created firstborn son of God.