Polytheism Versus Monotheism

Polytheism Versus Monotheism

By Biblical Researcher and Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim

——-

The First Cause

Some Bible critics have argued that there maybe other gods in the universe. However, the Bible itself claims that there’s only one God. Now, you may see that as circular reasoning but there are also valid philosophical arguments which demonstrate that there can only be one cause to the universe, to wit, a “first cause.” Philosophy does not posit a multiplicity of first causes but rather the existence of a single, first cause, just as other theosophical and spiritual traditions have also posited a single incorporeal first cause. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about a genus, a multiplicity of “contingent” beings, but about the source of everything, a “necessary” being that is beyond time and space and beyond being. If there were two such beings, then neither of them would be god. There can only be one maximally great being that can exist in every possible world.

——-

The Cosmological Argument

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), in the Timaeus dialogue, posited a "demiurge" of absolute intelligence as the creator of the universe. Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonist philosopher from Alexandria, claimed that the “One” transcendent absolute caused the cosmos to come into being as a result of its existence (creatio ex deo). Proclus (412–485 CE), his disciple, later clarified that “The One is God.”

Similarly, according to Aristotle, the “unmoved mover” (Gk. ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, lit. “that which moves without being moved”) or “prime mover” is the main cause (or first uncaused cause) of all the motion in the cosmos but is not itself moved or caused by any previous action or causation. Notice that the so-called “first cause” arguments do not entail multiplicity or diversity but rather unity and oneness.

In other words, nothing can come into being from nothing. Think about everything you see around you: your house, your car, your phone, your computer, your clothes, your food, your furniture, your TV, your parents, your friends, even yourself. Everything comes from something else. And the further back you go in time, in trying to unravel what caused what, the more you realize that everything came from something else. Someone or something either designed it, produced it, formed it, or gave it birth. If there were 2 gods, we would have to ask who came first? Who brought the second god into being?

However, the cosmological argument necessarily presupposes a single cause, which itself was never caused, namely, a timeless being, capable of creating everything (i.e. all contingent beings). Otherwise, if there was no first “unmoved mover,” there would be an infinite regress of causal dependency ad infinitum. This “first cause” can therefore be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate not only that there must be a “necessary” being that designed and sustained the universe, but also that there can only be “one” such being!

——-

The One God of the Old Testament

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony. Thus, divine revelation, which was subsequently transcribed or inscripturated, would certainly qualify as “testimony.”

There are multiple passages in both Testaments of the Bible where God declares to be without a counterpart: without an equal. Similar to the “Absolute Being” of philosophy which is logically inferred as a single, first cause, the Old Testament clearly affirms the existence of only one God. So, the uniqueness of a single God can also be attested by Divine Revelation. Scripture is therefore a witness to the reality of God’s existence as being unparalleled and unique. For example, in Isaiah 44.6-7 (NRSV), God declares that there are no other gods in the universe except him. He exclaims:

I am the first and I am the last; besides me

there is no god. Who is like me? Let them

proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth

before me.

In Isaiah 42.8, God states that he doesn’t share his glory with anyone. He alone is God without equal or rival:

I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

Moreover, in Isaiah 43.10-11, God declares categorically and unequivocally that there were no gods formed before him, nor will there be any gods formed after him:

Before me no god was formed, nor shall

there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and

besides me there is no savior.

This truth is reiterated several times in Isaiah 45.18, 21:

For thus says the Lord, who created the

heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth

and made it (he established it; he did not

create it a chaos, he formed it to be

inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no

other.

There is no other god besides me, a

righteous God and a Savior; there is no one

besides me.

This assertion, of course, implies that there are not multiple gods that receive many different forms of religious worship but rather a single Godhead sans equal.

In Isaiah 46.9-10, God sets a unique standard against which all other theories are measured, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. That is to say, no one else can predict the future except God himself:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God,

and there is no one like me, declaring the

end from the beginning and from ancient

times things not yet done.

Similarly, 2 Sam. 7.22 seems to attest to the truth of God’s oneness by way of divine revelation (cf. 2 Pet 1.18):

You are great, O Lord God; for there is no

one like you, and there is no God besides

you, according to all that we have heard

with our ears.

——-

The One God of the New Testament

When we turn to the Christian scriptures, we find the exact same theme concerning one God who reigns supreme above humanity and the heavenly host. At no point in Scripture is there any hint that there are other gods that exist beside the God of the Old and New Testaments. John 17.3, for instance, brings to bear the authority of Scripture on the matter by calling the source of all creation “the only true God.” Critics of the Trinity (who view it as polytheistic) should be rebuffed because in the Johannine gospel Jesus clearly establishes that there’s *one essence* between himself and God. He proclaims, “The Father and I are one” (10.30).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal, consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). Paul the apostle also knows through direct revelations that “God is one” (Rom. 3.30). Paul understands that the Triune God is not equivalent to multiple gods but is rather a *monotheistic supreme deity* (1 Cor. 8.6 emphasis added):

there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom

are all things and for whom we exist, and

one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are

all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1.15-16 explains that no other god or gods created the universe except God the Father (the source) through his Son (who is his image or reflection):

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God,

the firstborn of all creation; for in him all

things in heaven and on earth were created,

things visible and invisible, whether thrones

or dominions or rulers or powers—all things

have been created through him and for him.

1 Tim. 2.5 basically reiterates the exact same concept of the ONE GOD, not as 2 or 3 separate beings, but as ONE BEING (in multiple persons):

For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human.

Similarly, Hebrews 1.2-3 reveals the exact same *truth* regarding a single God and his Son, “through whom he also created the worlds”:

in these last days he [God] has spoken to

us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all

things, through whom he also created the

worlds. He [Christ] is the reflection of God's

glory and the exact imprint of God's very

being, and he sustains all things by his

powerful word.

——-

God is Truth & Does Not Lie

The Bible repeatedly reminds us that God is truth, holiness, and veritable love itself, and therefore he does not lie. The Old Testament verifies his truthfulness by instructing us to imitate his holiness. Exodus 20.16 says,

You shall not bear false witness against

your neighbor.

Proverbs 12.22 reads:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

but those who act faithfully are his delight.

What is more, there are many Bible passages that demonstrate unlimited confidence in God’s honesty, transparency, and accountability. Titus 1.1-2 (emphasis added) is such a passage:

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of

Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of

God's elect and the knowledge of the truth

that is in accordance with godliness, in the

hope of eternal life that God, WHO NEVER

LIES, promised before the ages began—

In John 17.17 (ESV), Jesus himself says to God the Father:

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is

truth.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 65.16 (ESV) which calls the creator, “the God of truth.” He is similarly acknowledged in Deuteronomy 32.4 (NKJV) as “A God of truth and without injustice.”

In Numbers 23.19 (NRSV), God is further attested as a higher-being whose good character precludes deception and lies:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it?

Moreover, the doctrine of the Immutability of God describes an attribute of God which prevents him from changing his will or character. It implies that He will make good on all of his promises. Hebrews 6:18 (ICB) puts it thusly:

These two things cannot change. God

cannot lie when he makes a promise, and

he cannot lie when he makes an oath.

These things encourage us who came to

God for safety. They give us strength to

hold on to the hope we have been given.

Conclusion

This life has no guarantees. So, from an interdisciplinary perspective, when there are multiple lines of evidence concerning one God——coupled with cases abounding in the “religious-experience literature” down through the ages——the *testimony* becomes rather robust and trustworthy! In other words, the religious testimony is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge. And this global testimony——which goes far beyond the Judeo-Christian Bible and includes other world religions——indicates that only one God exists. If we add the philosophical arguments that also assert a first cause regarding everything that has been created in the cosmos, then we can safely say that there can only be one God that is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe!

——-

The Psychology of Atheism & Agnosticism

By Author Eli Kittim

Atheism is the position that there’s no God. According to Bart Ehrman, a renowned Bible scholar, atheism is a *belief system.* It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence or empirical knowledge. It’s as much a belief as Theism.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. According to the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnostic in 1869:

It simply means that a man shall not say he

knows or believes that which he has no

scientific grounds for professing to know or

believe.

In other words, whereas explicit atheism refers to “the absence of theistic belief,” agnosticism refers to an *absence* of knowledge. In the former case, an individual refuses to believe in the existence of God. In the latter, the person doesn’t know whether or not God exists. In either case, the person refuses to acknowledge or accept the existence of God, let alone God’s revelation (aka the Bible).

The common thread among atheists and agnostics is their *continual denial* of any evidence for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological or ontological arguments). I’m particularly interested in the psychological *causes* (rather than the philosophical arguments) of militant atheism, which denote a defiant and persistent rejection of God. To present a valid argument against God’s existence is one thing. But the need to reject God’s existence at all costs is quite another. So, what is the prime motivating factor underlying this psychological repudiation?

Answer: 2 Corinthians 4.4 (NLT):

Satan, who is the god of this world, has

blinded the minds of those who don’t

believe. They are unable to see the glorious

light of the Good News. They don’t

understand this message about the glory of

Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

——-

Why is it that both Jesus and Satan are called the “Morningstar”?

By Author Eli Kittim

In his essay, “Why is Jesus Called the ‘Morning Star’?”, author Randy Alcorn explains:

the name Morning Star is not tainted—it is

Satan who is tainted. Obviously this is the

case, or Morning Star wouldn't be used of

Christ.

Isaiah 14.12 uses the Hebrew term הֵילֵ֣ל (helel), meaning “a shining one,” to describe the great fall from heaven (Lk 10.18) of an angel who is called “ben shachar” (son of dawn or son of the morning), who is said to have weakened the nations (cf. Ezek. 28.13-17). In Christianity, this is considered to be a reference to Satan, the morning star, who at his creation possessed both great virtue and beauty but, due to pride (or ego), subsequently rebelled against God. The Septuagint (aka LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders Isa. 14.12 as follows:

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ

ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων;

The Septuagint renders the Hebrew helel (Morningstar/Venus) as ἑωσφόρος (from ἕως [“dawn”] +‎ φόρος [“bearing” or “carrying”] cf. 1 Sam. 30.17; Job 3.9; Ps. 110.3 LXX). This is obviously a reference to Satan’s original status, prior to his rebellion, as “the anointed cherub” (Ezek. 28.14 KJV). Moreover, Job 38.7 suggests that angels were created before the Big Bang and were actually present to celebrate God’s creation of the universe. In fact, all the angels prior to the creation of the world were called “Morningstars” (Job 38.4-7):

Where wast thou when I laid the

foundations of the earth? . . . When the

morning stars sang together, and

all the sons of God shouted for joy . . .

Quite appropriately, the Septuagint (Job 38.7) calls these angels (ἄγγελοί) stars (ἄστρα). Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ also calls himself ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός ὁ πρωϊνός (the bright and morning star) in Rev. 22.16. And in Rev. 2.28 Jesus promises to give the overcomers τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν (“the morning star”). What is more, Second Peter 1.19 describes regeneration or rebirth in Christ as a process in which “the morning star rises in your hearts” (NKJV). In this verse, the term Morningstar is referring to Jesus as the φωσφόρος (light-bringing; cf. John 1.4; 8.12)!

Therefore, by definition, the term Morningstar refers to a state of purity and holiness. So, it can no longer apply to Satan except insofar as it refers to his original status at the time of creation. Hence why the term Morningstar is used in the Bible as a reference to both Satan and Christ.

But there is a twist in the tale. When the King James Version of 1611 translated the Hebrew term hêylêl (Morningstar) into English, instead of using the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint, it used the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible. However, in Latin, the term Morningstar (Venus) is “Lucifer.” That’s how the word Lucifer entered our Bible and became part of Christian folklore. But because Jesus is also called “the bright Morning Star,” in Revelation 22.16, this Latin translation introduced a semantic confusion. Given that the term “Lucifer” is inextricably linked with Satan, this Latin version of Morningstar corrupted the original meaning of the term. That’s why many modern Bible versions have gone back to using the original Hebrew term “Morningstar” or “daystar” as opposed to the Latin-based “Lucifer.” The reason is obvious. The pejorative term Lucifer can neither technically refer to Jesus nor to Satan, who is no longer a morning star!

Science & God’s Existence

By Author Eli Kittim

Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?

Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.

No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!

If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!

——-

Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?

Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp

google.com

A universe of 10 dimensions

When someone mentions "different dimensions," we tend to think of things like parallel universes – alternate realities that exist parallel t

Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.

Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.

——-

Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?

Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.

——-

Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God

If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.

We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.

It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.

——-

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-