Season XIV Question Answer

Please note that due to software, not everything recorded in this transcript will be accurate.

Media – Andrew Hastie on Undeceptions

John Dickson:

That was Australian federal politician and former Special Forces soldier, the Hon Andrew Hastie MP, speaking on Undeceptions episode 55, ‘Just War’, way back in 2021.
That was a confronting part of the interview – it’s a confronting episode actually – where Andrew opened up about one of the most complex parts of being a soldier: having sometimes to take a human life. Andrew’s actions were in self-defence, and despite that awful aspect of the job, he told me on that episode that he saw his former career as an “act of love towards my neighbour”. We’ve linked the episode in the show notes – make sure you go and check it out! The Bible is pretty clear that murder is wrong – it’s the 6th of the Ten Commandments – and Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies” is one of his most famous anecdotes. However, the Bible is also filled with stories that seem to contradict these teachings. One of the most fascinating – and brutal – ones comes in Judges 4 when Jael, a Kenite woman, murders the enemy Canaanite army captain Sisera in his sleep. The news of Sisera’s death leads to rejoicing – in fact, the whole next chapter is a song of praise, led by Deborah, another biblical heroine who was the Judge of Israel at the time. The scriptures cast the murder of Sisera as a good thing; Jael had defended the nation of Israel (and was possibly defending herself against sexual assault).  So, what do we make of self-defence, Biblically speaking? When is it ok – and how far is too far? It’s a complex question – but you’ve asked it, and I’m going to have a crack at answering it … plus a few others. I’m John Dickson, and this is our Season XIV Undeceptions Q&A.

Undeceptions theme

Question 1:

What does the Bible have to say about self-defence? Particularly taking into account Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek?

John Dickson:

I have never thought of the “turn the other cheek” saying as referring to actual violence. It is most likely a reference to the open handed slap, as a form of interpersonal insult and shaming, rather than as an actual attempt to beat someone up. We are to return insult with blessing as the apostle Peter would later put it. Then there is that weird instruction to purchase 2 swords just before the arrest of Jesus. It does seem like an indication Jesus wanted his disciples to be able to defend themselves. Then again, he told Peter to put his sword away when he cut off the ear of one of the servants. Is that a contradiction? I don’t think so. I take it that this was an act of aggression – not self-defence – on the part of Peter, going for a servant in anger rather than using the sword to protect himself from the armed soldiers. In short, I do believe that defending yourself or someone else with force is permissible. I do not believe the church, acting as the people of God, are permitted to use violence to further the gospel. That seems to be clear in Romans chapter 12, where Paul insists that we leave vengeance to the Lord. But that’s what makes Romans 13, the very next chapter, so interesting it plainly says that state actors are permitted to use the sword against evil, as the earthly embodiment of God’s own vengeance. This might set up what seems like a contradiction, but I think Paul is quite Cohen. It is a warning to the church in chapter 12 that one cannot progress the Kingdom of God through vengeance. But in chapter 13 it is a concession that, in a fallen world, state actors must use force to protect others against evil. The tricky question facing the church in the 4th and 5th centuries was what happens if one of those state actors happens to be a Christian? Should they resign their post if ever called upon to use the sword against evil? Or should they, in that moment, consider themselves not as an actor of the church and the Kingdom of God, but as I secular actor halting evil with permitted force. This was the thinking that someone like Saint Augustine had to wrestle with. His answer was: Christians may use the sword ONLY when acting as a state authority. And he insisted that are truly just state authority will enact violent force with tears, never with rejoicing.

Producer Kaley:
Our next question comes from Dan, and it’s an audio question. If you want to hear your question on the show, head to our website, scroll down and click the big, orange ‘start recording’ button to record your question. Here’s Dan.

QUESTION 2

Is it ok to take your kid to church if they have chronic health issues? What would God want? 

John Dickson:

Well, first up I am really sorry to hear about your kid. Bless you guys. My strong feeling is that you should not risk your child’s health. There is no magic protection. In this fallen world we are all subject to disease, cancer, car crashes, and so on. If you suffered from frequent blackouts or fits, you wouldn’t dare take up driving under the rubric “I’m going to trust God that I won’t have a blackout before I get to my destination”. Wisdom would suggest that in this fallen world you are very likely to injure yourself and others. Something like this seems to apply to our vulnerable children. By the way, this is precisely the teaching given by the great 3rd century Bishop cyprian of Carthage. He wrote during a plague in the 250s AD that Christians should not imagine that they will be spared from the groaning of this corrupted creation. “We, just like the rest of humanity,” he said, “are subject to this fallen flesh.” Our hope should be in the future Kingdom of God, not this earth! Stay at home, my friend. Protect your kid. But, at the same time, make sure you make a big deal of online church and create lots of great opportunities for your kid to experience Christian community and teaching in a safe context. Only you will know how to do that best. 

QUESTION 3

Why does the church meet on a Sunday? What’s the history of that? 

John Dickson:

There is actually very little evidence for why church met on Sundays not Fridays or Saturdays, as the Jewish synagogues did. It just suddenly appears in all of our sources that Sunday is the day. There are some good speculations, however. The 1st and obvious 1 is that Sunday is the day of Jesus resurrection. What better day to celebrate the faith. We find some subtle passing references to church gatherings on the first day of the week acts chapter 20, and 1 Corinthians 16. But even there it isn’t clear that this is the formal church service. The first really clear reference is in the epistle of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, writing to the Magnetians around the year 115. He explicitly says “we no longer keep the ancient practices of the Sabbath, but we live in accordance with the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through him.” But all of this might be post hoc theologizing. The other reason for Sunday gatherings might just be practical. All of the first Christians were Jews. Unless an entire synagogue converted, it just made sense to move the Jewish Christian gathering to a day that did not clash with synagogue. Jewish Christians appear to have continued to go to synagogue and then the next day to church in fact, this was happening right through to the end of the 4th century. We know this because some Christian preachers like John chrysostom begged his listeners to stop doing synagogue the day before church. One interesting tidbit of information we get from a very early Pagan letter, written by the governor of bithynia pliny the younger, is that Christians met for their church services “before dawn”. Why would it be before dawn? Well, perhaps partly out of a kind of secrecy. But it is more likely to be because everyone’s work day started just after dawn. And in this early. Sunday was a work day, the first day of the week. Sunday didn’t become a free day until emperor Constantine mandated Sunday as a day off for every one in the Summer of 321. Yes, you owe your weekend to Constantine. One of our sources suggests that Constantine did this not just to give everyone time off, modeled on the Jewish Sabbath, but partly to make it easier for people to attend church services. Sorry I can’t be more specific on this one.

Break

Media – Braveheart clip

Director Mark:

That was Mel Gibson as the medieval Scottish warlord William Wallace, in the 1995 blockbuster film Braveheart. In that scene, a member of English King Edward I’s court tells the King’s daughter-in-law, who’s negotiating a potential peace deal with the marauding Scots, that Wallace is a lying savage. He says it in Latin, not expecting Wallace to understand. But to everyone’s surprise, Wallace replies to him in Latin:
“I never lie …. but I am a savage”. 

Just to drive the point home, he adds that he can speak in French if that’s what they would all prefer (and as you heard, he says that last bit in French). It’s a fun … but entirely fictional portrayal of a wartime diplomatic summit. It does raise an interesting point, though: throughout history, some of the most consequential meetings ever would have been hindered by language barriers. Only the most privileged members of ancient society would have been afforded an education that allowed them to be bilingual. So what would have happened when, for example, the leader of a new Jewish religious movement came face to face with Roman authorities? How would they have understood each other? That’s the heart of our next question – it comes from Lindsay.

Question 4

When Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate, which language did they speak? Would Jesus have known Greek or Latin? (Obviously, some of his disciples knew Greek.) Would Pilate have been expected to learn the local languages spoken within the province he was ruling? I have heard and read the Easter accounts countless times, but the thought never occurred to me until a more sceptical friend asked the obvious question!

John Dickson:

Thanks for that. I love these tiny, tangential historical questions. I often uncover really significant issues. The simple answer is we don’t know for sure there are multiple possibilities. The first is simply that pilot had a translator absolutely would have had a translator. That just went with any foreign assignment. The gospel writers wouldn’t need to mentioned that they can just portray the trial happening as if the two of them were speaking, simply because in the ancient world the use of a translator was so common ancient readers will have just assumed that’s what’s going on. But there is another possibility. Quite a few people think Jesus had at least some rudimentary Greek. Clearly, 3 or 4 of jesus’s inner circle had Greek. Philip and Andrew, for instance, went by Greek names! And Andrew was the brother of Peter, so I think we can assume Peter had some Greek. Maybe not literary Greek, but arguably spoken Greek. Remember, it is much easier to learn to speak a language than it is to learn to write. The great historical Jesus scholar John Maya surveyed all of the evidence and indications about the language and education of Jesus and he concluded that Jesus likely had enough Greek to conduct business with gentiles in his role as a Carpenter—or, more accurately, a builder. And friend of the pod Peter Williams, has recently made a strong case that Jesus had very good Greek. I’m not entirely convinced by all his arguments, but I think it underlines there is a real possibility Jesus could converse in Greek with Pilate in the simple dialogue recorded in the gospels. Roman governors often had Greek. Let’s just say there’s a 20% chance Jesus could speak some Greek, there’s a 50% chance pontius pilot could speak Greek. Either that, or there was a professional translator!

Producer Kaley

At the start of this season, we did an episode on Mary Magdalene, with friend of the podcast  Jennifer Powell-McNutt. One of the many things discussed in that episode was the nature of Jesus’ relationship with Mary. While John is pretty sure that Jesus and Mary weren’t romantically involved (as some like to claim), he did have this to say:

John speaking about Jesus potentially being married

Producer Kaley

We were all pretty surprised to hear JD say that – and so were lots of you! This next question is a response to John’s thoughts on Jesus’ potential marital status. It comes from Dom.

QUESTION 5 

I was surprised when John said that he didn’t see an issue if Jesus had been married. To me, Jesus’ remaining celibate is an eschatological sign of the New Creation, when marriage will be superseded by the union between Christ and his Bride, the Church. He wasn’t married on earth because he is waiting to be united with us. If Jesus had been married, I think it would’ve undermined the potency of the parables where he was in the role of the bridegroom. Another reason I feel like it would be problematic for Jesus to have had an earthly marriage is that the Son of God, the only truly perfect, holy and sinless human, would’ve had to have married a woman who was tainted by original sin—talk about being unequally yoked! Finally, it’s not just the Catholic priesthood that put a lot of stock in Jesus’ celibacy; plenty of single Christians of all denominations, whether because of circumstance or because they desire to be faithful to God in spite of their same-sex attraction (yours truly included), take great comfort and encouragement in serving a celibate Saviour, who showed by his own life that we can live a life pleasing to him without having marriage or children. In Christ.

John Dickson:

Well, I first want to say God bless you. I don’t know your exact situation, but it sounds like you are striving for faithfulness in your setting. And, of course, thanks for your lovely compliments about the time. But …  I have to disagree with you on every point. Sorry. Given that all those references to the marriage feast and Jesus as the Bridegroom are metaphors, there is just no way this would contradict an actual historical marriage of Jesus. Even if we’re thinking overly literalistically, given that there is no marriage in the Kingdom of God, the so called wedding feast in the Kingdom wouldn’t it involve Jesus having two wives. Your use of the expression “unequally yoked” doesn’t have any relevance here. That comes from a statement of Paul where he is talking about intimacy with unbelievers and evil doers. There’s no way that would rule out Jesus marrying A pious Jewish woman, like Mary Magdalene. A pardoned Sinner is not an unclean person. After all, didn’t you say that the church will be married to Jesus in the Kingdom? Given the history of the church, wouldn’t that be “unequally yoked” on your reasoning. Personally, I think there is very little chance Jesus was married. My point was simply a throwaway line that if he were married it poses no theological difficulty. Given the likelihood that he was celibate all his life, I think it is right for single people today to imagine that one can live a completely fulfilled and godly life without marrying or having a family. And on this point I fully agree with you.  But this doesn’t work backwards as an argument for why Jesus must not have been married. It’s just a simple encouragement we can take from the likelihood of his lifelong singleness. But as I say, thanks for your kinds words, and God bless your faithful life. 

Break 2

Media – Sy Garte talking about evolution

Producer Kaley:

That was biochemist Sy Garte, speaking on our recent episode ‘The Chemists’ about wildly complex chemistry that takes place in evolution. We’ve discussed evolution a bit here on Undeceptions, and we plan to dedicate a whole episode to it at some point in the future. For Sy – and lots of other Christians – evolutionary theory doesn’t pose a problem to their faith. However, evolution involves the theory of natural selection … and that opens up a whole new set of issues. Our next question looks at one of these – it comes from Oscar.

QUESTION 6 

Is a long-earth view reconcilable with faith, and if so, how? Bearing in mind, macroevolution would involve death? 

John Dickson:

Of course, Christians can disagree about this one I have loads of friends who are young earth creationists. They’re faithful, intelligent and understand the issues …. But personally I have no problem with an old earth and with physical death being part of that story. To my mind the best science is in full agreement that the universe cannot be just 6 or 7000 years old. And I can’t believe God put the multiple lines of evidence for an old universe into the creation to test our faith in his word. And, the fact is, I don’t think God’s word, the Bible, commits us to an old or young earth creationism. I’ve said many times on the show that those opening chapters of genesis seemed to be written in a style completely different from the plodding history that develops in genesis from chapter 12 onwards. The literary style is far more “literary” and mythopoetical. I take from this that we can read it in a young earth mode, and equally in an old earth mode. It’s a bit like how I read the parable of the Good Samaritan. It sort of looks like a concrete historical story, but then again, it has the stylistic form of the parable genre. That permits me to read it as history, if I want, so long as I also get the ethical meaning out of it, and it permits me to see it as a made-up story, so long as I see the ethical and theological point in the story. As for the problem of death. You’re right that an old earth view has to contend with the fact that before humans came along there was much death. The scientific evidence for this is clear—many many creatures died long before humans appeared on the earth. If you think genesis chapters one to three are saying that there was no such thing as death before the disobedience of Adam and Eve, then this scientific evidence is a problem. But I just don’t think that’s what those chaters are saying. Two quick thoughts. In the narrative world set up in genesis chapter 2 Adam and Eve were meant to eat from the tree of life—they needed the life giving nourishment that came from God in order to be sustained in existence. This tells me that, by nature, human beings were subject to death from the beginning. They were only protected from death by the power of the tree of life. But this says nothing about what was happening outside the garden with other creatures. Now, to be clear, I don’t even take the story in genesis 2 and 3 as a concrete historical story. I think it is symbolic at a very deep level. But I am willing to accept that there was a first human couple in relationship with God who were promised eternal sustenance, despite the mortality that surrounded them and that was in their very nature. They defied that relationship with God, and were let go into their natural state of mortality and decline. But even here I do not think physical death is the main point. Genesis chapter 2 says “in the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die”. But of course no such thing happens. According to the biblical narrative, they continued to live for hundreds of years. The death they experienced on that very day, as narrated in the rest of that very chapter, chapter 3, is the threefold chaos they experienced: the disruption of their relationship with God, tensions in their relationship with each other, and frustration in their interaction with the physical creation itself. They are the three things that happen in genesis chapter 3. They are death, the unwinding of the threefold blessings of harmony In the spiritual sphere, social sphere, and environmental sphere. Read this way, I see no problem with an old earth and evolution and all the rest. I just think it was all under the sovereign power and artistry of God himself.

Director Mark:

We’ve come to the final question for the regular feed. PLUS subscribers get to hear John answer a few extra questions, so head to the show notes where you can find the link to sign up. This question relates to our Hell episode from last season, and it comes from Penny.

Question 7

I’m sure you’ve been inundated with questions about the most recent episode, “On Hell”. My question is, John seemed to differentiate between the idea of total annihilation and eternal punishment (often referred to as eternal conscious torment) but could there be something in between? While I do agree that hell will involve some sort of punishment and that punishment will be proportional, I get stuck on a lot of the passages that talk about the wages of sin being death, which make me think that there will be a final end to the punishment. I feel like there are more passages to back up this theory than the idea that people who go to hell will be punished forever. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

John Dickson:

Thanks for that. I’m surprised there weren’t more questions about the hell episode. There is one passage that says the “wages of sin is death”. It’s what Paul says in Romans chapter 6. But what does he mean by death? There are those who think he means physical death. Therefore, the fact that we all die is the natural consequence of the fact that we are all sinners even forgiven sinners die, because we are part of this fallen world. But if that’s the case, that doesn’t tell us anything about what happens after physical death. Every human being passes through physical death – unless Jesus returns in the middle of our lives – But then a bunch of us pass to the other side. What’s to say that’s not all of us. The parable Jesus tells in Luke chapter 16 about Lazarus and the rich man certainly implies that the one under judgment has passed through physical death into something else that is unpleasant. Incidentally this parable is one of the reasons I could never accept universalism—the view that everyone, ultimately, will be welcomed into God’s eternal Kingdom. According to that theory, I dominant form of it anyway people who die without Christ will experience a period of punishment or refining and then, with their ill transformed, they will enter into paradise. This raises many many problems for me. For one thing, it implies, despite protests to the contrary, that there are two ways of salvation: one way is by simple faith in the atoning death of Jesus, and the other is personally bearing your sins in a punishing refinement that makes you fit for the Kingdom. That seems very far from the biblical account of salvation. But, more directly, in this parable of Luke 16, Jesus has the rich man in the unpleasant postmortem existence pleading to cross over into the joy of God’s Kingdom. And Jesus makes plain: “besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” (v.26). Now it is true this is a parable, and not every detail can be matched with a corresponding reality that’s not how parables work. But this line is pretty much the central point of the whole parable, that once you physically die there is no possibility of moving from the place of punishment to the place of joy. Having said all that, I’m not sure Paul means physical death in that passage you cited: “the wages of sin is death.” What if he means the same sort of thing that the writer of genesis meant when he said that the Lord told Adam “on the day you eat of the tree, you will surely die”? Adam and Eve certainly didn’t die on that day. What happened was they experienced the diminished existence of a fracture in their relationship with God, with one another, and with the physical earth itself. Death, in this context, seems to me to mean something closer to an existence that is far short of the full life to which humans are properly destined. In this sense, death does not mean an end. It means a falling short of the full life we were made for. And that is pretty much what I think hell is. In the episode I hope I made clear that I don’t believe God will be torturing people for eternity. I choose to imagine that it will be an existence that is “hellish” only inasmuch as it is far short of the sublime existence of the Kingdom. I even dare to imagine, you may remember, that those in hell will feel gratitude to God that, while they are duly, and proportionally, punished for their sins, their enduring existence is much better than they deserved or could have hoped for! That was my thought experiment. The punishments of hell will not be torture, as it is commonly understood, but it will be the proportional loss of the wondrous life God intended for us. 

 Undeceptions theme