Letters That Make You Go Hmmmm

RE: You are the Man, and You Are Responsible This is a very helpful post. It moves me another notch or two toward understanding this topic. I also understand the principle in financial terms; my wife may spend too much or crash the car and be guilty, but I still have to be responsible and pay the bills from my labor.

Where I’m continuing to fog over is in the relationship itself. My wife struggles against me and wields any and all of my failures to justify her rebellion. I take responsibility for my failures (and of course when I confess that guilt it becomes another weapon in her hand) and I plead with Christ to forgive this state of things and show me what to do, but how do I take responsibility for her rebellion?

C

“You are the man.”

Pastor Wilson, I understand the covenantal responsibility aspect of this essay, but I”m not sure I get the garden-Adam-Eve example? Like a parent allowing a child to run across a busy street, was Adam not responsible for Eve eating? In that case, Adam should have said “Eve, I stood before the Lord when created, not that serpent. I gave names to all the animals, and then the Lord fashioned you from my side, and brought you to me. That serpent is not the creator, don’t do that, get over here.” And Adam should have grabbed her hand if necessary. Was not Adams first responsibility to protect, and therefore he directly partook of the guilt? Or is your example a fictitious one? Meaning, Adam was not present when eve partook, and she did so on her own accord with the serpent. She then went to Adam telling him, try this, but he said no and went to the Lord saying take me?

Steve

Re: You are the Man, and You Are Responsible

This article was cogent, inspiring, and challenging. The example of Job stirs my soul. Thank you for writing.

Ken

Uncle Doug, I am currently reading your book “Being Dad” and I have a question:

If I have been blessed with a present father who demonstrates such grace and love, is it disrespectful to God’s blessing to move away from him?

I live in a different state than my parents. Partially because I wanted to see what I could do on my own since my dad equipped me with the necessary skills to survive. The other part because I didn’t want to live in the state my parents are living in. I had lived there my whole life. I wanted something new. I can’t help but think that I am the prodigal son who moves away from his caring father. Or is this just adulthood?

As I read your book, a feeling of what I think is sorrow or sadness from all the missed experiences I could be having with my dad overcomes me.

Can you offer your guidance?

Thank you.

Derien

I do not find it narcissistic for a prolific author to re-read his own works. People are out there interacting with them, and they might want to interact with you about them, so you don’t want to forget what you said. The *real* question is, Why are you wasting time re-reading your own books, when instead you could experience the pure delight of reading*mine* for the first time?

Jennifer

I’m sure you have written on this before, I just can’t find it. I’ve heard you say many times, “disciple the nations” as opposed to “make disciples of all nations.” It has been widely agreed upon by scholars that “ta ethne” was not a noun for geo-political nations, but people groups. It seems that the phrase “disciple the nations” lends itself towards implying geo-political nations, rather than people groups. Can you help me understand why you choose to translate it this way? This specific translation of the verse seems like it is a key text for the postmillennial camp.

In Christ,

Noah

Re: Jew Envy

Some of your interlocutors have long, detailed lists of all the ways that the Jews have allegedly dealt with others in ways that were net beneficial to themselves and net detrimental to the others. Your interlocutors think this ends the matter: “See? I don’t have envy! I have real grievances! Why won’t you acknowledge my grievances?” But the fact that they have such lists, and the fact that they obsessively add to such lists, does not tend to disprove envy.

Daniel

A couple of comments about this article. You refer to Jews, but, in the spirit of, “God owns the dictionary,” would it not be more accurate to refer to the people you are describing as Israelis? The true Jew is one inwardly who has accepted the gracious offer of redemption in Christ. Just as Israel, as it turns out, is Christ. Secondly, you mentioned that Allah is not God. But having served on the mission field in West Africa I can testify that every Christian there believes that Allah is God (Just as John might argue that the Greek God Theos and Logos is the one true God). Their (the West African Christian’s) contention would be, not that Allah is not God—but that Allah has a Son.

Do you think that these definitions would be an important place to start when discussing any conflict between these warring parties?

David

I noticed something strange in your post regarding the Hamas massacre in Israel last weekend. And that is, you did not address the most important element of Hamas and its objective. You did not mention anything about Islam, as far as I remember.

You did not mention how the Qassam Brigades logo uses a verse from Surah Al-Anfal, “You did not kill them, but Allah killed them.” That means that they believe they are bringing the wrath of Allah upon the Jews. In Surat Al-Fatiha, which Muslims pray every day, Jews are referred to as “those who incur wrath.”

Mr. Wilson, why do you not talk about the Ahadith or the Sharia which is the most vital component of Hamas, PIJ, Hezbollah, all the them? It seems that you’ve taken a Western-oriented, geopolitical stance on something that is purely religious.

Hamas is an Islamic, Jihadi group. Their stated goal is to “obliterate Israel” and kill every Jew in the world, and raise the banner of Allah over Jerusalem. So I feel I must ask: how familiar are you with the Arabic Quran, the Tafsirs, Ahadith, and (most importantly) the Sharia? Your post on this issue seemed (forgive me please, brother) naive of the nature of Islam and what is really happening in groups like these. They are not fighting for land. They are fighting to hasten the day of judgment, when they believe Muslims will be killing Jews all over the world as Allah’s judgment upon them.

It seems, dear brother, that you’ve missed the point. I’m not sure what they could’ve done to make their motivation and objective more clear. They are not “extremists,” they simply and sincerely believe the teachings of their demonic false prophet Muhammad (May his name be erased).

Blessings my elder brother,

Yaqoub

In my estimation the most useful thing you’ve said about antisemitism was basically ‘knock it off.’ It was much more helpful than the deep dive into why antisemitism amounts to envy. (The envy theory may be correct in a deep philosophical/theological sense, but can’t be used to make any practical judgments since it is based on “reading between the lines.”) The thing that makes the simpler statement most effective is that it appeals to the reader himself, not to mainstream norms or popular judgement which are melting away like ice cream dropped on a hot sidewalk. I’m sure most of your readers have no desire to engage in Jew-hate for its own sake, and probably most of us realize that scapegoating is a temptation for the carnal mind when dealing with unresolved stress. On the other hand, the concept of antisemitism as it exists today is largely a product of liberal and secular culture. When one becomes convinced that liberal-secular culture must be set aside in favor of following Christ, the question of differentiating legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Jews becomes a real issue and not quickly resolved.

In this situation, we need patience, both with our own unresolved questions and with other Christians wrestling with similar issues. The shortcut is, of course, to resort to liberal-secular concepts and methods of political control. This would be a disaster since it won’t lead to following Christ. It is also bound to be rejected by basically everyone on the Christian right.

In broad strokes, my view is that ethnicity is significant in the world God made, and Jewish ethnicity is the most significant of all these ethnicities. Furthermore, the tragic character of Jewishness is that while being of the stock of Abraham, the Jews’ own self-understanding has been centered on rejecting Christ for nearly two thousand years. Rejection of Christ unites most all secular and religious Jews, excepting of course Christians of Jewish background. Since the Jews reject Christ, they are not and cannot be true allies in building a Christian culture or nation.

Christians can’t put ethnicity first, because Christ and only Christ is first. We also can’t treat ethnicity as insignificant because that is a lie. The central problem of antisemitism, from a Christian perspective, is that it is an invitation to reject human depravity. The problem with Western civilization is not the presence or influence of Jews, although, as I said, the Jews considered as a group aren’t allies. The problem is the sin in the heart of every son of Adam.

Here’s hoping that the Christian right will be clear that sin is the problem and the solution is Christ, while not also running around accusing each other of antisemitism, as if trying to preserve the godless liberal order.

Nathan

I am a Christian from Tasmania, Australia who teaches English, Humanities and Bible at a secondary school. This is my first time reaching out to you, but have felt a compulsion of late to offer some thoughts on your approach and content that I would greatly appreciate you taking the time to consider and respond to.

To avoid prolixity (and thus decrease the likelihood of a response from you!) I will simplify what is a more nuanced set of thoughts into two areas of agreement and two areas of concern:

Firstly, I appreciate that you engage in the marketplace of Western society and wrestle with a range of topics, some directly theological, some cultural, rather than adopting a more comfortable, cloister-esque version of Christianity.

Secondly, there is much of what you say and write with which I agree. I particularly appreciate your unwavering devotion to the supremacy and inerrancy of Scripture in a world where it is increasingly being deconstructed and doubted.

My two points of concern are:

Firstly, that much of the style and manner of your engagement with socio-cultural topics and indeed specific individuals is often characterised by cynicism and superciliousness. As Christians, surely we must adopt not just the message of the gospel, but also the manner of the gospel. Christ’s ministry so clearly sets a pattern of humility and genuine care for the lost; the way in which he engaged with the crowds demonstrates this repeatedly. Yes, he was, on occasion, vociferous in his rebukes, but these were aimed at specific Jewish leaders who were leading Israel astray. One can also look through the great Church and theological leaders of the past to admire how patient and sympathetic many of these leaders were, even under direct and unjustifiable attack. Now as a teacher of English literature and avid reader of the classics, I have an admiration for the gifted use of a range of rhetoric devices, including well-timed witticism or a measured use of a sardonic turn of phrase, which you have demonstrated a capacity to employ over the years! I am currently reading Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson and am thoroughly enjoying the examples of Johnson’s acerbic responses to various unsuspecting victims which Boswell relays in the biography. But even Johnson was aware that he had crossed the line on numerous occasions and sought God’s pardon as evinced in numerous of his personal diary entries. I believe if you forgo your ‘right’ to respond to individuals or particular ‘hot-button’ topics in a demeaning, sarcastic or bombastic manner, you will be even more greatly used by God to share the truth of the gospel to a world in need. To give just one brief example: I realise this is a couple of years ago now, but having just rewatched a couple of your reactions to John Piper’s son Abraham’s videos, it seems to me that these reaction videos (and indeed most reaction videos in general) are unhelpful and aim to ridicule as much as they aim to correct false teaching. It must be difficult for John Piper to see a fellow-Christian deciding to engage with his son’s videos when there are many more constructive avenues for you to pursue. Poking fun at secular culture seems to me to be too easy game for a hunter of your calibre and ultimately lacking in the satisfaction and nourishment of a well-earned catch.

Secondly, I have concerns about the way in which you will at times shoe-horn Biblical passages or theological doctrines in over-simplistic or specious ways. It is beyond the scope of this message to delve into this in detail, but I believe you are likely aware when you are engaging in this over-simplification of a topic. I appreciate that this is in part an almost unavoidable consequence of the type of medium you predominately work within; and indeed, many of your videos and writings are lengthier than what most people are producing online. And yet . . .

My concern remains: much of what you vlog and write is flavoured in a way that seems to be more about ridiculing unbelievers or those with differing theological positions whilst garnering a chuckle from those who are in agreement with you, rather than carefully wrestling with a topic and taking a nuanced position where warranted.

Softening hearts through a more compassionate approach is a greater reward than winning an argument or outwitting a real or imagined rival.

May I finish with a quote from the aforementioned dear Dr Johnson: “The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”

I would greatly appreciate it if you might find the time to honour me with a response.

Blessings to you from an antipodean brother-in-Christ,

Kim

Internet is without sin

Doug,

I must say this is a very strange blog. It smacks of a deranged rant.

How is anyone supposed to know what you are so worked up about with zero context? They have clearly managed to push your buttons. You might want to consider how insecure and childish this post actually sounds.

CP

This is in regards to the internet casting the first stone post. You write:

“Jesus dispersed the crowd of these accusers, and they trickled away starting with the eldest, by saying that the first stone should be cast by the one without sin. And He was not requiring sinless perfection, obviously, otherwise no justice could ever be done by any human courts, but rather He was saying that the one without this sin, the sin under discussion, should cast the first stone.”

How are you arriving at this conclusion? The translations I am looking at do not have the word “this” (that includes the KJV). The plain reading of the text is about sin in general, not adultery specifically.

Joel

This week the city in which I live, Columbia, SC, will host its large annual pride parade and festival. It’s a two-day event celebrating gay sex, transgenderism, and the usual expected sins. It takes place a block away from the state capitol. As far as I know, the leaders within my PCA church nor any other leaders within our presbytery have written letters to city leaders or spoken out against it in any way. Is this a problem? What should faithful churchmen expect from their pastors and elders concerning how they address events like this one in the community? Should we expect our pastors to engage city leaders (at least an email) and call them to repentance, especially in matters of permitted public paganism?

Mitch

Upon seeing your favorable review of ‘Darwin’s Sandcastle’ I got a copy. Good book, 2 questions: 1. How would you square the ‘genetic entropy’ chapter with postmillennialism? If we have at least 1000 generations (40k years?) to go then that is a lot more genetic degradation than already exists now after only a much smaller number of generations have passed since Adam.

2. Are you aware of the burgeoning support given to the LXX geneologies amongst YECs rather than those in the MT? Here is one of several key papers on the question that gives a good overview of the evidence:

As outlined in the paper (and reinforced by subsequent rejoinders & responses) the case in favor of the LXX genealogies has serious weight. The internal evidence heavily favors the LXX. E.g. Gen 25:8 Abraham dies ‘a good old age, an old man, and full of years’ which is fine on the LXX genealogies but the MT still has many of his forefathers (and presumably their whole generations) still alive and literally hundreds of years older than him, which would make Abraham dying very young, not old. Nahor’s 29/79 years clearly points to MT deflation rather than LXX inflation. And Luke’s inspired double Canaan is a NT pointer to the authenticity of the LXX, rather than the MT. And as even some pro-MT YECs have conceded, Methuselah dying after the flood is no longer a good argument against the LXX (the LXX actually has a mixed tradition on that point).

The external evidence does also—older Jewish historians who quote Hebrew OT texts of their day (e.g. Demetrius 220 BC) consistently cite numbers that match the LXX, not the MT. MT numbers are unheard of prior the the destruction of the Temple in AD70, except in one source known to engage in fabrication. Josephus’ Hebrew texts were also LXX numbers, and he had access to the best Hebrew manuscripts. Christian chronologists have historically often deemed LXX to be original.

I would add 3 (less important and non-text critical) arguments not mentioned in the paper: a few of the the world’s oldest tree have >~5000 rings, which fits very well with the LXX flood date of 3300BC but is >500yrs before the MTs 2500 BC flood date. Also, relatively recent geological work at the Dead Sea has produced remarkable verification of major biblical earthquakes such as AD30-33ish (one noted in connection with resurrection) and Amos’ earthquake ~800 BC if the mud layers are taken as annual. But if annual, the layers extend back before the MT flood date, but fit within the LXX flood date, it seems. And apparently, as even accepted by many YEC archaeologists, the first Egyptian Dynasty is pretty well-established to around ~2920-2670BC, which is plenty of time after the flood on the LXX, but again before the flood on the MT.

Henry

I read “The Neglected Qualification,” and think you make some excellent points about the Bible’s requirement that an elder have believing children and how this requirement is often neglected or ignored. In light of the views you express in this book, do you believe John Piper is disqualified from ministry as a result of his son Abraham? My understanding is that Abraham was excommunicated from Piper’s church and that he is a very public atheist on social media (I believe you have even interacted with some of his material). In the book, you put forward the standard that an elder should resign if his child is excommunicated from the church. Since Abraham was excommunicated, would you then conclude that Piper should have resigned from the pastorate? Would you advise against listening to Piper’s sermons and podcasts and reading his books since he is not Biblically qualified to be an elder? I have found Piper to be a faithful pastor whose work has been really helpful to me and who I enjoy listening to, but when I consider the arguments you put forward in the book, it’s hard for me to deny that he is Biblically disqualified from ministry, even though I don’t want to come to that conclusion. Am I missing something?

William

Is it against God’s law for civilians (e.g. unenlisted women and children) to engage in acts of war (espionage, sabotage, outright killing etc)? And if they do, is it against God’s law for the enemy to treat them as combatants?

One of the biggest arguments for the moral superiority of the Israeli military compared to Hamas is that the former follows the Geneva convention on fighting with uniforms, clearly demarcating combatants, not having military bases in residential areas etc, while Hamas is told to launch rockets from residential areas and threaten citizens to not flee from airstrikes.

But at the same time the Old Testaments praises examples of non-combatants taking such roles, such as Rahab hiding the Hebrew spies (which is different from hiding civilian Jews from the Nazis, the spies were engaging in acts of war), or Jael using her non-combatant status to deceive Sisera, killing an enemy general.

The same strategy played out everywhere when one side of the conflict was clearly weaker than the other, from Latin American guerilla fighters operating from civilian villages to the Viet Cong strapping bombs to crying babies.

Such strategies of blurring the lines between civilians and combatants are effective precisely because they take advantage of the moral unwillingness of soldier to target civilians, but once employed they encourage the enemy soldiers to actually start targeting civilians for the sake of their own safety.

Finally, in practical terms, how should Israeli soldiers treat the civilians that refuse to move from military targets?

Rafael

I’m reading your old posts where you provided commentary on each paragraph of the Westminster Confession. (E.g., see post “Westminster One: Of the Holy Scripture”). The comments are helpful and interesting. I noticed you occasionally refer to “Classical Protestantism.” I’m not familiar with that term. Could you elaborate on what you mean by it?

Sincerely,

Michael

On the topic of nudity in art that has come up lately (ignoring, for the moment, the question of “taste”, and focusing only on static art forms like painting, drawing, and sculpture), in deciding what is lawful to look at, I get stuck on how nudity in art can lawfully be produced in the first place. I take it for granted that an artist wishing to produce the naked form will need to work from live models for a significant portion of his or her career—maybe always—which brings up the question, when is it lawful to pose (nude) for an artist? I think a male artist could pose for a classroom of fellow male artists, possibly a female for a classroom of fellow female artists, and a wife for a husband or vice versa. But in these cases, the very conditions which made it is lawful to produce a painting from a live model in the first place seem to make it *unlawful* for the work to be exhibited later.

There are more layers of complexity to address, of course, but I remain stuck on this fundamental question.

Douglas

Are you familiar with the growing number of Positive Premillenials?

I recently read a book called “Kingdom Horizon: Eight Reasons Why Earth’s Greatest Days Are Unfolding” by Robert Fraser. What was interesting to me about the book was that while he rejects Dispensationalism, Fraser remains firmly convinced of future fulfillment and is thus pretty firmly in the Premillenial camp. However the book is very much a clarion call for hope, and contains some excellent chapters on how the data shows that the world as whole is actually getting better.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this, most importantly does this mean qualify as an “optimistic eschatology” that you would accept in a church leader or an in-law (to the extent that those are two different standards).

Gregory

I recently read your post on the attacks in Israel last weekend, and I was wondering if maybe you would consider reconsidering a particular point you made. Toward the end of the piece you wrote that Israel, while being in the Middle East, is in effect a Western country. You then wrote about how it is, as any secular country, able to identify war crimes but not justify such an identification.

May I offer a counter-point? I will include myself because I have a significant stock of Jewish blood on my father’s side of the family (Rabbinical Halacha debates notwithstanding). Please take these questions in full confidence of my sincere love for you and your work. I have been nothing but blessed by them. These are not “gotchas.”

Please give me your thoughts on the following points/questions if you may.

1. Many Jews, myself included, do not consider Israel to be a Western country in the way the term is used to apply to France, Italy, or the United States. Aharon Amir and Yeshuron Keshet for instance refer to Israel as the Middle East of the West, and the West of East, and as the land that faces and gives birth to West, while herself remaining Asiatic. The Europeans called the Jews “an asiatic horde” and “Arab outsiders” (oh, the irony). It seems we are more aptly termed “other” or “Miscellaneous.” But calling Israel “Western” has very limited (though not inconsequential) application.

2. Many Jews in Israel are secular, but many are religious. Israeli Defense officials include the Rabbinate in security meetings, and IDF soldiers were recently photoed as taking large Torah scrolls with them on deployment. Of course, this does not mean that those soldiers have read and understood the Torah. But I think we should refrain from underestimate the degree to which religious and (obviously) Messianic Jews refer to the decalogue, the Noahic covenant, and any number of Rabbinic writings which make use of these as justification for their moral positions. Surely, you are not suggesting that referencing the Torah, the Wisdom writings, and the prophets (whether they are misunderstood has to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis) to ground one’s ethics is “secular”?

3. To compliment #2, many Rabbinic Jews and Messianic Jews alike refer to Joel 3:20-21 to illustrate the Biblical precedent for Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. It says “Judah will be inhabited forever and Jerusalem through all generations. Shall I leave their innocent blood unavenged? No, I will not.” The LORD dwells in Zion!”

Again, this is not a “gotcha.” But can you please clue me in to how you are thinking about this? It seems to me to indicate that the Jews will (whether small or great) always have a presence in the region. And looking through history, from the small presence of Jews which remained after the Bar Kokhba revolt, to Yannai the Poet, the Chida, the Old Yishuv, and the early Zionists: the Jews have indeed always dwelt in the Land of Israel.

4. Hamas is qualitatively more morally heinous than the State of Israel, as anyone with eyes and consciousness has seen. Can we consider the chaos in Gaza to be at least something like the land vomiting out its inhabitants? Why or why not?

Thank you for any words you can offer.

Our Lord and Savior bless and keep you, and make the work of your hands prosper.

Your brother,

Jacob

Thank you for your writing and speaking, both are a blessing and used as means for sanctification in my life.

Though I am in agreement with Zach Garris on the topic of women in the military/positions of force, I have a few scatter shot questions:

1. Do you think that women could be used by police departments to interview female victims of crimes and possibly females accused of prostitution? No use of force, but using women’s God-given nurturing nature to care for these female victims.

2. What about security guards at female-only prisons (this is assuming there is no transgender men there)? Force could be required, but also it has the possibility of reducing guard-to-prisoner assault.

3. This one will seem quite out of left-field, but here we go. In light of Scripture’s clarity of on this topic, what do you think Tolkien was trying communicate by having Eowyn kill the Witch-King?

TW

Regarding “A Moral Compass and the Ball Peen Hammer”; can you recommend a good book which succinctly and clearly lays out what “just war” is, its scriptural basis, and what the resulting rules of engagement are in concrete terms?

John

I’d like your opinion on something I’ve been thinking about lately. Should a Christian wife see a counselor? Let’s say it’s a marriage in which the husband and the wife understand their God-given roles and live according to God’s word. The wife is stressed because she has numerous health issues, is having trouble getting pregnant, and is just stressed from general life. Is it okay for her to see a Christian counselor, or is that the husband’s job? Let’s say in this imaginary situation that the husband would love to help but isn’t great at “counseling.” Thanks,

Joe