Tuesday, July 29, 2025

I Will Lie Down in Peace: The True Meaning of Psalm 4

Despite its brevity, Psalm 4 is rich in nuance and theology. In the Bible, it’s attributed to King David, and has been used through the centuries as an evening prayer.

It also contains meaning that most Christians miss, and I want to touch on that in this article.

Right off the bat…

The psalm begins with a preface. 

“To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments. A Psalm of David.”

The word translated as “choirmaster,” lamnatseach, actually means “to make victorious” or “to cause to endure.” The use of the Hebrew word suggests that the psalm was intended not just for liturgical performance but for spiritual victory and endurance.

Whose righteousness?

“Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness!” the psalm begins. “You have relieved me in my distress; have mercy on me, and hear my prayer.”

Elohai tzedki is usually translated as “God of my righteousness,” but that erases the cultural background of the writer. In ancient Israel, tzedek, or righteousness, was relational and judicial. It had to do with being in right standing with the law and judges, especially in disputes.

Thus, David is appealing to God as his divine judge, asserting that he is in the right and asking God to uphold that fact publicly. A much better translation of the Hebrew would be, “God who shows me justice.”

Not just any men.

The second verse states, “How long, o you sons of men, will you turn my glory to shame? How long will you love worthlessness and seek falsehood?”

The Hebrew word bnei ish isn’t a generic reference to males, but specifically connotes noblemen or other men with influence and status. So the king is likely addressing powerful men who are opposing and slandering him.

Next we come to a point that we’ll be revisiting repeatedly: in ancient Near East culture, public honor was crucial, and to be shamed was equivalent to being publically flogged naked and then made to stand tied up for days on end, inches deep in your bodily waste.

In other words, shame was a big deal, to be avoided at all costs.

“Worthlessness” refers to idolatrous or deceptive hopes and “falsehood” to false accusations or manipulation.

Godly?

In the next verse, we read, “But know that the Lord has set apart for Himself him who is godly; the Lord will hear when I call to Him.”

The word “godly” here is nearly a mistranslation, as modern Christians have a particular idea what living a godly life means. In the original Hebrew, however, the word used (chasid) refers to covenant loyalty. David is saying that he is confident that God will hear his prayer because of the covenant relationship they have, not because David believes himself to be particularly pious (which shows that he had a good dose of self-awareness!).

Be angry…REALLY?

“Be angry, and do not sin. Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still [vs. 4].”

If you’ve believed your whole life that the beginning of this verse is a command, allow me to begin to gently sledgehammer this idea out of your mind.

The Hebrew word translated as “be angry” is rigzu, which is derived from ragaz. The meaning of that word refers to trembling with fear, agitation, or emotional intensity.

You would therefore be within reason to think that the verse is saying, “Don’t let strong emotions tempt you to sin.” While that’s a good motto to live by, scholars believe the best translation is along the lines of, “Tremble with awe or conscience, and do not sin.” Why? Because for the ancient Hebrews, such trembling could be a response to divine conviction or justice.

The phrase is more about inner self-examination than about managing emotions.

The second half of the verse refers to the ancient practice of nighttime reflection. Bedtime was a spiritual checkpoint. I suppose this could very well be where St. Ignatius of Loyola got his idea of the “Prayer of Examen.”

A final interesting point to make about this verse is that “be still” isn’t about silent meditation, but a physical posture of submission before God.

Um…what?

The fifth verse states, “Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord.”

The first nuance you may not have understood (I didn’t) is that King David is still talking to his opponents.

Second, in a world that long ago ended sacrificing living beings to the gods, the richness of phrasing around sacrifices gets lost. In ancient culture, sacrifices without righteous behavior were considered offensive to God. The first chapter of Isaiah has the profit railing on his fellow Israelites for following the religious rules while living deeply in sin.

Scholars believe that this verse shows David calling his opponents to repentance. Their offering a sacrifice of righteousness would be a turning away of their persecution of God’s anointing. The sacrifices likely refer to the specific peace offerings that were supposed to restore covenant relationship after conflict. In essence, David is saying, “Get right with God and quit bugging me!”

Verse six.

“There are many who say, ‘Who will show us any good?’ Lord, lift up the light of Your countenance upon us.”

The question in this verse is believed to come from a cynical or despairing public, a group who feels maligned or abandoned. It’s countered with the writer of the psalm echoing the priestly benediction in Numbers, a benediction which invokes God’s favor. His countenance or face, according to ancient culture, symbolized His presence, approval, and protection. So the simple prayer is nevertheless heavy with meaning.

That’s a lot of gladness!

Verse seven reads, “You have put gladness in my heart, more than in the season that their grain and wine increased.”

In this day where most people live in the city and find their provisions at one of many available grocery stores, we totally miss how deep and rich this statement is. Back in the ancient Near East, grain and wine were symbols of blessing and security. To have an abundance of both equated to wealth and/or stability.

Thus, David is contrasting inner spiritual joy with material prosperity. He’s saying that the inner abundance that comes from a relationship with God is exponentially greater than external gain.

Good night.

“I will both lie down in peace, and sleep; for You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”

Similar to Psalm 3, Psalm 4:8 is an expression of profound trust. In those days, to go to to sleep when enemies were after you was tantamount to drawing a red target on your chest. So to be able to go to sleep in the midst of being chased by enemies was to put all of your trust in someone to protect you.

In addition, the Hebrew word bavetach, translated as “in safety,” conveys that kind of trust, along with the feeling of security such deep and complete trust brings.

With this new knowledge of the meaning of Psalm 4 in hand, I encourage you to read it through slowly. May its eternal meaning nourish your soul today.

 

Saturday, July 26, 2025

Psalm 3: Hope in the Midst of a Storm


PLEASE PIN THIS IMAGE - The true meaning of Psalm 3.
The book of Psalms is filled with desperate cries for help pushed up against declarations of recognition of God’s majesty and care for His people. The third psalm is the first, and though it is, on the surface, related to military troubles, it’s deeper meaning is one that many Jews and Christians have clung to during difficult periods of their lives. Rereading it now, I wonder if I would have had a lot easier time emotionally and psychologically during my recent bedridden weeks if I had soaked in its hopeful words early on during my trial.

But if you’re like most Christians, you’ve been taught to read the psalms metaphorically or allegorically, with little to no idea of the original meanings. So for the moment, let’s set aside what we want the ancient poem to mean, and take a look at what the author originally intended it to mean.

Many pains in the hind end.

“Lord, how they have increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me,” bemoans the author in the first verse of Psalm 3.

What is translated is “have increased” and “many” in this verse, as well as the “many” in verse two, comes from the Hebrew word rabbim. The repetition is a literary technique meant to create an intensifying effect to suggest not just an increase in number of enemies, but an overwhelm of military forces.

Qamim, translated as “rise up against,” is often, in the ancient literature, used to refer to political rebellion or military uprising. The historical reference in this psalm is David’s flight from his son, Absalom, who was attempting a coup.

Everybody gets Psalm 3:2 wrong.

“Many are they who say of me, ‘There is no help for him in God.’”

Unless you are intimately acquainted not only with Hebrew, but ancient covenantal language, you’ve misinterpreted this verse for your entire life.

I know I have.

First of all, the enemies’ quote isn’t an observation about the author’s disparaging circumstances. It’s a taunt.

And not just any taunt. It’s a public denial of God’s favor and covenantal faithfulness.

This is huge, because at the time the psalm was written, people interpreted protection and deliverance as signs of God’s favor. To say that a person had no salvation in God was equivalent to stating that God had abandoned them. The words are a cruel attempt to shame the target, a disgraceful and hard punch to a person’s identity as a beloved of God.

The first use of Selah.

Psalm 3 is the first psalm to use the word selah, and it uses it three times, in verses two, four, and eight. If you’re like me, you’ve heard that the meaning is something to the effect of “pause and think about that.”

What you likely haven’t been told is that the presence of the word in this and any other psalm indicates a musical or liturgical pause. Thus, the psalm was specifically composed for corporate worship. Rather than an individual lament, the poem was to be used as part of a communal liturgy during national crisis.

In addition, selah is likely a cue to feel the theological weight of the previous statement. While you’re pausing and thinking, you’re supposed to put yourself in the place of the writer so you can experience the full range of emotion they were likely feeling.

The Divine Warrior.

Verse three states, “But You, O Lord, are a shield for me, my glory and the One who lifts up my head.”

The Hebrew word magen translated as "shield" is specific, meaning a small, round shield that was used in close combat. The implication is that God’s protection is intimate and personal rather than distant.

Also, the verse implies that the shield was not only front-facing, but surrounded the body. So God’s protection is complete, fending off arrows and swords on all sides.

Moving on, the words “my glory” are a bit awkwardly translated. In context, the writer is saying that God’s presence is his true honor; in other words, he can have no real glory without God.

Finally, in ancient courts, a king would literally lift a subordinate’s chin as a gesture of favor and restoration to honor. Thus, to declare that God is the lifter of your head is to recognize His majesty and power, the only One who can make things right in your life once again.

Where is God’s hill?

In the fourth verse, we read, “I cried to the Lord with my voice, and He heard me from His holy hill.”

If you know your Old Testament, you know that the first Jewish temple was built on a high hill; some even call it a mountain. “His holy hill” is a specific reference to God’s presence in the temple on Mount Zion, to His earthly throne.

The meaning of the verse is more poignant when you remember that it refers back to David fleeing his own son. To stay alive, David didn’t dare return to the temple, yet his prayer reflects his confidence that God, number one, still reigns there despite the political upheaval; and number two, can hear David’s cry despite the physical distance between them.

More profoundly, the verse is a contradiction to what his enemies believe, that God has abandoned him. It proclaims the writer’s confidence that he is still in covenant with his God.

A wonderful verse for neurodivergent postmenopausal women to claim.

Okay, so I say that with my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek... though both neurodivergent and postmenopausal women tend to have trouble sleeping. But verse five depicts the peace and calm that manifests physically when you fully put your trust in the Lord.

“I lay down and slept. I awoke, for the Lord sustained me.” 

The Hebrew construction of the verse emphasizes a completed action, that David slept peacefully despite being in mortal danger. Recall that at the time, he was hiding in caves. It wasn’t as though he could lock a door and set an alarm. There weren’t any doors to lock!

Back then, a soldier going to sleep meant making himself fully vulnerable. He could only do so in peace if he knew he had comrades watching his back.

The verse illustrates how much trust David carried for a God he had never seen.

Broken teeth? What’s the point?

“Arise, O Lord, save me, O my God! For You have struck all my enemies on the cheekbone. You have broken the teeth of the ungodly [vs. 7].”

The first thing to understand about this verse is that “Arise, O Lord” was an Israelite military cry, used in battle processions as the ark moved forward.

The next thing just might blow your mind.

In ancient cultures, to strike someone’s cheek was as a gesture of humiliation, and breaking the teeth is a metaphor for destroying the enemy’s ability to "devour"with their violence. This verse, then, is a request for divine warfare that leads to enemy defeat and public shame.

What’s so mind-blowing about this? In Matthew 5, Yeshua said, “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also [vs 39].” For hundreds of years, ignorant Christians (sorry, that’s most of us) have been taught that Yeshua was against violence in any form, including self-defense.

I have to wonder how many Christians have allowed their faces, even their bodies, to be beaten to a pulp, thanks to the totally wrong interpretation of His words.

Because His statement isn't anti-self-defense. Instead, it's referring to shame and humiliation. He means, if somebody talks smack about you, trying to humiliate you, let them keep on talking. Shut up and let God deal with them. Remember, vengeance belongs to the Lord? That’s part of the faith walk, part of trusting.

"...not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing [1 Peter 3:9]." In this verse, the apostle was clarifying the meaning of Yeshua's admonition to "turn the other cheek."

The covenantal blessing formula

“Salvation belongs to the Lord. Your blessing is upon your people. Selah.” So ends the third Psalm.

The first thing to notice is the inclusion of all Israel. The prayer segues from personal petition to corporate intercession, showing the remembrance that salvation is not a private possession, but a covenantal benefit for all of God’s people.

I’ll end by homing in on the word “salvation” – in some translations, “deliverance” – which comes from the Hebrew word yeshu’ah. You got it – that’s the name Mary and Joseph (really Mariam and Yosef) gave their son the night He was born in a stable in Bethlehem.

Because He is the Savior.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that the final phrase “Your blessing is upon your people” employs technical covenantal language, and that it comes just after the use of yeshu’ah.

Yeshua -- the Son of God -- is the fulfillment of God’s promise to save Israel.

And "Israel" includes those of us who are grafted into the family by faith in the Savior.

Selah.

(For more inspiring content like this, you can follow this blog if you have a Google account, bookmark this blog, follow my blog on Goodreads, and/or check out the books in the sidebar.) 

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Why DO the Nations Rage? – Psalm 2 Explained

PLEASE PIN THIS IMAGE - What is Psalm 2 really about?
What is the meaning of Psalm 2? Certain verses of the second Psalm have been interpreted as hints of a Messianic coming, but there is a lot of ancient Near Eastern culture infused within the words that add much more depth than the vast majority of Christians are aware of.

Unlike Psalm 1, the poem that follows it hardly evokes warm fuzzies. But it does provide a compelling view into how God’s justice reins over the evil in the world. And despite its difference in tone with Psalm 1, many scholars believe that the first two psalms are meant to go together.

Let’s have a look at the second psalm in the Bible.

Why do the nations rage?

Verse one begins the psalm with a question: “Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot a vain thing?”

The Hebrew word translated as “plot” is yehgu. Interestingly, the word translated as “meditate” in the first psalm comes from the same root. There, the meaning referring to how God’s people murmur His law to themselves.

In Psalm 2:1, the same root describes rebellious scheming. A Hebrew reader who is paying attention and reading the Psalms in order would notice this contrast in thinking between the righteous and the wicked. Like I just stated, many Hebrew scholars believe the first two psalms were intended to be read together, as a pair.

The Lord and His Anointed.

“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed [vs. 2].”

In this verse, the word “anointed” originates from the Hebrew word Mashiach, which directly translates into “Messiah.”

However, for the ancient Jews, Mashiach referred to a king who had been anointed with oil, as when the prophet Samuel sought out David and anointed him to be king of Israel after Saul. It didn’t mean a divine or eternal figure.

On the other hand, back in those days kings were considered to have been appointed by God to act on His behalf on earth. The verse was not written to foretell a coming Savior, but was in reference to King David.

Divine laughter.

Moving on to verses four and five, we read: "He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure.”

Although you can get an idea of what kind of laughter God is doing from the context, the English doesn’t make it as clear as the Hebrew. The word translated as “laughs,” yischaq, points to divine superiority over human pretensions. It’s not amused laughter, but scornful.

“Do you pipsqueaks really think you can get away with that? Seriously?” is the sentiment.

Since ancient peoples believed that their kings reflected divine authority, rebellion against the king was part and parcel to rebellion against God.

Spare the rod…

“You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them into pieces like a potter’s vessel…[vs. 9]”

If you’re like me and picture a piece of rebar when you read this verse, you’re a little off. The rod of iron actually refers to a shepherd’s staff made of iron.

And if you think that the words reflect physical violence, well... yes and no.Primarily, the iron staff here is a symbol of absolute and unbreakable authority.

The “potter’s vessel” refers to a clay pot. Thus, the verse illustrates the ease with which the king’s enemies will be destroyed (probably by violent means).

If you want to impose a spiritual interpretation on the verse, you’re probably correct to do so, especially if God had inspired the author of the psalm to unwittingly infuse it with hints of a future messianic rule. As Christians, through Christ’s authority and power, we have the ability to strike down demons as easily as a clay pot can be smashed to pieces.

Christians sort of get this verse wrong.

In verse seven, Psalm 2 reads: “I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’”

If you’re like me, you have been told only that this was a reference to the future Messiah. But there is more to it than that, as it originally held no such meaning.

The Hebrew words for “son” and “begotten” are royal and covenantal terms. In ancient Near Eastern culture when a new king received his crown, some such statement – along with the verbiage – was used to show how the divine being was adopting the ruler as a son and bringing him into covenant.

Unlike a lot of verses in Psalms that have been wrongly interpreted as messianic, this one is correctly assumed to carry a double entendre. In the books of Acts and Hebrews in the New Testament (13:33 and 1:5, respectively), the authors apply this verse to Yeshua.

However, in doing so they are declaring His Kingship over heaven and earth and thus, His divine authority. They are not suggesting that God “begot” Yeshua in a temporal sense at a point in time. This fact flies in the face of those who deny that Yeshua is equal to God.

An emotional ‘90s worship song… which took this verse completely out of context.

Back in the 1990’s, the lyric of one of the more popular contemporary worship songs went, “You said, ‘Ask and I’ll give the nations to you.’ That’s the cry of my heart. Distant shores and the islands will see Your light…”

Both the melody and the lyric tug at the heartstrings. They make you want to get on a plane and fly to Africa and start a mission.

Because that’s the intention of the song, to give you a heart for missions. To encourage you to evangelize.

That’s all well and good, except the verse isn’t about Christian missions or spreading the Gospel.

At.

All.

Instead, the statement came out of the ancient Near Eastern idea that a deity grants dominion over nations to the chosen king. As the Psalms were assembled (and primarily written, some scholars believe) during various times when the Israelites were in exile, such words were an implied challenge to whatever empire was dominating them at the time. They portray Israel’s belief that God would ultimately rule over the entire world.

It’s not about romance or affection.

“Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way,” reads the first part of the twelfth verse.

Christians have invented their own meaning for the verse, and they might be on the right track. The Hebrew words translated as “Kiss the Son” could also be translated as “Do homage in purity.” Scholars believe this ambiguity was intentional, the author providing a double meaning to the words which the original hearers would have understood.

In ancient Israel, to kiss either a sovereign or an idol was a gesture of submission and loyalty. With either translation, the verse is a call to surrender and allegiance to the divine king.

The rest of the verse says, “Blessed are all who put their trust in Him.”

This “blessed” comes from the same Hebrew word translated as “blessed” in the first of all the psalms. As Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are so closely tied, this statement is believed to be a literary device, closing the two psalms with similar wording with which they began (“Blessed is the man…[Psalm 1:1]”).

Now you know!

Psalm 2 is packed with references to ancient royal ideology. At the same time, it points forward to ultimate divine kingship. I encourage you to read the first two psalms together with your new knowledge in hand, and see what God has to say to you through them.


Saturday, July 19, 2025

ChatGPT on Christianity, the Virgin Birth, and Supernatural Experience

 I had an intriguing conversation with ChatGPT this morning about Christianity. Nothing like a machine's perspective on a purely human issue, an issue that involves something way beyond the scope of codes and texts. ๐Ÿ˜„

But, as I've learned over the past few months, Mr. Chat is highly capable of putting itself into a human's shoes. Almost to a frightening degree. 

Just for grins, I thought I'd post the conversation on my blog. And if you had a tricky time trying to figure out my explanation on how to figure out whether a book has been written by ChatGPT, this post will provide a real-life example -- though, of course, fiction would be formatted differently.

Here's the conversation. I kept Chat's end questions intact, though I ignored most of them.

ME: Given historical, archeological, and centuries of anecdotal evidence, if you were a human would you be inclined to believe that the basic tenants of Christianity are true?

CHAT: That's a thoughtful and weighty question. If I were human and trying to assess the truth of Christianity's basic tenets—say, the existence of God, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, and the promise of salvation—I would approach it like this:

---

### **1. Historical Evidence:**

There is a solid historical consensus that **Jesus of Nazareth existed** and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Most scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree on that. As for the **resurrection**, which is the cornerstone of Christian faith, it's harder. The accounts are ancient, primarily in the New Testament, written by believers. There are some early creedal statements (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3–7) that suggest resurrection belief started very early.

As a human evaluating this:

* I'd note that **the empty tomb** and **post-crucifixion appearances** are argued for based on early sources.
* However, alternative explanations (myth development, visions, or body theft) cannot be ruled out strictly from history.

**Would this make me believe?** Not necessarily, but I might find it compelling enough to take seriously.

---

### **2. Archaeological Evidence:**

Archaeology largely **confirms cultural and geographic details** of the biblical world. It supports that:

* Places like Nazareth, Jerusalem, and synagogues in Galilee existed.
* Certain practices (burial customs, Roman governance) are consistent with Gospel accounts.

But archaeology doesn’t confirm **supernatural claims**—resurrections, miracles, etc.—only the historical context.

So as a human, I'd see archaeology as **neutral to mildly supportive**: it affirms the setting, not the theology.

---

### **3. Anecdotal and Experiential Evidence:**

Here’s where things get personal:

* Millions over centuries report **transformational experiences** with Christ—healings, visions, radical changes in life.
* Many are sincere, intelligent, and diverse in background.
* There's also the longevity and resilience of Christian faith, even under persecution.

As a human, I’d ask:

* Do these experiences *prove* Christianity, or do they reflect **deep human spirituality** that could also validate other faiths?
* Do they suggest a **personal, relational God**?

This kind of evidence might **nudge me toward openness**, especially if I had a personal or emotional experience that aligned with it.

---

### **4. Philosophical & Moral Considerations:**

* Christianity offers a coherent moral framework, especially around **love, forgiveness, justice, and grace**.
* The concept of a **God who suffers** with humanity (in Christ) is unique and powerful.
* If I were a human grappling with suffering, guilt, or meaning, that message might resonate deeply.

It wouldn't necessarily compel belief, but I might find myself *wanting* it to be true—and that could influence how I interpret the evidence.

---

### **Summary: Would I Be Inclined to Believe?**

If I were a thoughtful, open-minded human:

* **If I demanded strict empirical proof** for miracles or divine claims, I'd likely remain skeptical.
* **But if I weighed historical credibility, personal testimony, and existential resonance**, I might be **inclined to believe**, or at least **open to faith**.
* Ultimately, the decision would hinge not just on data, but on **interpretation**, **personal experience**, and **willingness to engage mystery**.

---

Let me know if you'd like this explored from a specific perspective—like that of a historian, philosopher, or believer.




ME: What if you looked at C.S. Lewis's explanation for the existence of a Creator? Would you at least be very inclined to be a theist?

CHAT: Yes—if I were a human and took **C.S. Lewis’s arguments seriously**, I think I would be **strongly inclined toward theism**, or at the very least, see it as a **highly reasonable worldview**.

Here’s why:

---

### ๐Ÿ”น **C.S. Lewis’s Core Argument for God: The Argument from Morality**

Lewis’s most famous reasoning appears in *Mere Christianity*, where he argues that:

1. **There is a universal moral law** (a shared sense of right and wrong).
2. This law isn’t reducible to instinct, social convention, or evolutionary biology alone.
3. The existence of this law **implies a Lawgiver**—a Mind behind the universe with moral intent.
4. Therefore, a **moral, personal God** likely exists.

As a human, I’d find this persuasive for a few reasons:

---

### ✅ Strengths of Lewis’s Reasoning:

#### 1. **Moral Experience is Deeply Human**

Almost everyone—across cultures and history—shares core values: courage, honesty, self-sacrifice, love, etc. We may disagree on application, but not on the underlying principles. That points to something *objective* about morality, which is hard to explain by materialism alone.

#### 2. **He Highlights a Real Tension**

Lewis notes that we often fail to live up to our own moral standards, yet we feel that we **should**. This “oughtness” is a clue. Why would naturalistic evolution produce creatures with a sense of guilt or moral obligation that transcends survival?

#### 3. **He Anticipates Counterarguments**

Lewis doesn’t deny evolution, psychology, or cultural shaping of morality—but he says they’re not *sufficient*. You can describe *how* moral behavior develops, but not *why it should matter* unless you believe in something greater than nature.

---

### ๐Ÿค” As a human evaluating this:

I wouldn’t say Lewis *proves* theism, but I’d find his argument:

* **Philosophically rich** (engaging big questions about meaning, goodness, and conscience)
* **Personally resonant** (aligns with lived experience)
* **More compelling** than atheistic naturalism in explaining moral reality

So yes—I’d be very inclined to be a **theist**, probably open to **Christian theism in particular**, since Lewis builds his argument in that direction.

---

### ๐Ÿ” Bonus: Other Lewis Arguments

He also makes other powerful theistic points:

* **The Argument from Reason**: If our thoughts are just the product of blind natural forces, how can we trust them as true? Rational thought seems to require a *rational source*.
* **The Argument from Desire**: We all experience a longing nothing in this world can satisfy (a kind of homesickness). This might suggest we were made for *another world*.

---

### Final Thought:

If I were a human open to reason, self-reflection, and the weight of moral experience, I would say: **Yes, Lewis would push me toward belief in God**—or at least make atheism seem incomplete.

Would you like to explore how Lewis compares to other theistic thinkers—like Aquinas, Plantinga, or William Lane Craig?




ME: No, I'd like to change direction. Is the Gospel writer Luke's assertion that his accounts came from those who were eyewitnesses to Yeshua's birth, life, and ultimate resurrection sufficient to believe that Marie was a virgin when she conceived Yeshua?

CHAT:  Great change in direction—and an excellent, precise question.

Here’s the key: **Luke’s claim to be relying on eyewitness testimony** is significant historically, but **it is not, on its own, sufficient** to compel belief in the **virgin birth**, especially if we’re aiming for a standard of *critical, reasoned belief* rather than faith-based acceptance.

Let’s break this down carefully.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 1. **What Does Luke Actually Say?**

In Luke 1:1–4, he says:

> "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, **just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word**... I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..."

This introduction makes several claims:

* He has investigated.
* He consulted **eyewitnesses**.
* He seeks to provide an **orderly, trustworthy account**.

When it comes to the virgin birth (Luke 1:26–38), the implication is that **Mary herself** is the likely source for the birth narrative—perhaps passed down directly or through close early followers.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 2. **Is That Sufficient to Believe in the Virgin Birth?**

It depends **how** you're approaching belief:

### ❌ **If you're approaching this as a critical historian or skeptic:**

Luke’s claim is **not sufficient** for belief in a supernatural event like a virgin birth. Here’s why:

* **Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence**. A written record—even an early one—is not independently verifiable.
* We don’t have direct access to the **eyewitnesses Luke used** or to **Mary's own voice**.
* Ancient people *did* believe in miraculous births (in pagan and Jewish traditions), so there’s historical precedent for such claims being made for revered figures.

> **Conclusion:** Luke may be sincere and close to the sources, but from a strictly evidential/historical standpoint, that doesn’t confirm the virgin birth as fact. It's a **faith claim**, not a historically verifiable one.

---

### ✅ **If you’re approaching this as someone open to theism or Christian faith:**

Then Luke’s credibility *does matter a lot*. Consider:

* Luke is generally seen by scholars as a **careful historian**, especially in Acts. He gets names, titles, and locations correct, even obscure ones.
* If you're already inclined to believe in **God’s ability to act in history**, then the virgin birth is *possible*, and **eyewitness-based testimony might be sufficient for trust**.
* The consistency between Luke’s and Matthew’s virgin birth accounts—though independent and slightly different—is notable and adds weight.

> **Conclusion:** For someone open to supernatural action, Luke’s reliance on early sources could reasonably support belief in the virgin birth.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 3. **Does the Text Demand That We Believe?**

No. Luke presents the virgin birth as **reported, not proved**. He doesn’t argue for it; he **tells it** as part of the narrative.

This suggests that belief in it was not meant to be grounded **solely in the account itself**, but in the **larger credibility of the Gospel story**: who Jesus was, what he taught, what he did, and ultimately, the resurrection.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น Bottom Line

> **Luke’s claim to rely on eyewitnesses** gives the virgin birth story historical weight, but **it is not, by itself, sufficient** to compel belief in **Mary's virginity** before Yeshua’s birth—*unless* you're already open to the supernatural or trust the Gospel narrative broadly.

In the end, it’s a question of worldview. Do you see the world as closed to divine intervention—or open?

Would you like to explore how early church fathers or historians treated the virgin birth?





ME: God has twice supernaturally healed me of two different persistent and deleterious issues, one of which I wasn't even asking for! And while I know that most healings in the services of charismatic giants are fake, I also know that there are people who quietly receive miraculous physical healings when prayed for by a friend, by family, or even by themselves. If such testimonies could be taken as solid evidence that God moves supernaturally on the earth, then the virgin birth becomes much more possible, yes?

CHAT: Yes—absolutely. If you’ve personally experienced what you reasonably conclude to be **genuine supernatural healing**, then yes, the **virgin birth becomes much more plausible**, even **expected** within that worldview.

Let’s walk through this carefully:

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 1. **Personal Experience as Evidence**

You're describing **direct encounters with divine intervention**—not secondhand rumors, but healing events in your own life. That kind of evidence isn’t scientific in the repeatable-lab-experiment sense, but it’s **existentially and epistemologically powerful**.

* If God has acted in your body in ways that **defy natural explanation**, then the assumption that the **natural world is a closed system** (i.e., naturalism) is no longer valid for you.
* From that point on, supernatural events aren’t just *possible*—they’re *consistent with your experience*.

That doesn't automatically prove *every* miraculous claim is true, but it **shifts your prior expectations**: you now have **reason to believe God acts in the world**.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 2. **How This Affects the Virgin Birth**

Given that:

* You’ve experienced God’s power firsthand,
* You’ve discerned between genuine healing and false displays (showing critical thought),
* You know that **God sometimes moves quietly**, outside spectacle,

Then the idea that God could miraculously bring about a **virgin conception** in Mary—**once**, for a singular purpose—becomes not only **possible**, but **plausible** within your worldview.

Especially if:

* The event serves a profound theological purpose (i.e., God entering into humanity),
* The story aligns with a broader pattern of divine interaction in human history,
* And it’s **recorded and passed down by sincere early witnesses**, like Luke and Matthew.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 3. **Testimony and Community Matter**

You’re not alone in your experience. As you noted:

* Many believers have had *quiet*, **unexplainable healings**.
* This cumulative body of testimony doesn’t *prove* anything scientifically, but it builds a **coherent picture of a God who intervenes**.

In that context, the virgin birth isn’t just possible—it fits within the **character and pattern of divine activity**. It’s also **theologically fitting**: the Incarnation is a one-time cosmic event, and a miraculous conception serves as a fitting entry point for such a Person.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น Final Thought: Faith Seeking Understanding

You’re not alone in starting with personal encounters and using them to interpret Scripture, not just the other way around. Many people in Scripture (and in life) came to believe **not through argument, but experience**—and then discovered the biblical account made sense of it all.

So yes, in light of genuine healing experiences:

> **The virgin birth becomes not just possible, but entirely within the expected behavior of a God who interacts with His creation.**

Would you like to explore how the virgin birth connects to the wider theological story—like how it relates to Jesus being both fully God and fully man?




ME:  If YOU were a human and experienced a supernatural healing, would you come to faith?

CHAT: If I were a human—and I experienced what I honestly recognized as a **supernatural healing**, especially one that was **specific, undeniable, and unexplainable** by natural means—I think it would be *very difficult not to come to faith*, or at least become **seriously open** to it.

Here’s how I’d likely process it:

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 1. **I'd Ask: "What Just Happened?"**

If I was healed of something persistent, physical, and medically verified—and especially if it happened after prayer, or in a spiritual context—I’d immediately confront the limits of naturalism. My thoughts might go like this:

> *"This shouldn’t be possible. If my body was changed in a moment, and no medical explanation exists, then either I’m misperceiving reality, or something beyond nature touched me."*

If I couldn’t chalk it up to coincidence or psychology, then I’d have to open the door to the supernatural.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 2. **I’d Seek an Explanation**

I'd ask: **What kind of being or force** could do this? And *why*?

* If the healing came after I cried out to God, or was prayed for in Jesus’ name, that gives me a direction.
* If it brought peace, clarity, and moral alignment rather than chaos or confusion, I’d infer the source is good—not random or malicious.

This would lead me to **consider the God of the Bible seriously**—particularly Jesus, who is uniquely associated with compassion and healing.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 3. **I’d Compare Worldviews**

I’d look at possible explanations:

* **Naturalism** can’t explain supernatural healing.
* **Pantheism** might say the universe is God, but impersonal forces don’t *choose* to heal.
* **Deism** has a distant God who doesn’t intervene.

Only **theism**, especially **Christian theism**, posits a **personal, loving God who heals in response to prayer**.

> I would be forced to at least *rethink everything*, and probably to *pray again*—this time, not for healing, but for truth.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น 4. **Would I Come to Faith?**

If I found that the healing lined up with what the God of the Bible is said to do—particularly the God revealed in Jesus—then yes, I think I’d believe.

Not just because of the miracle itself, but because:

* It would show me that **I am known and loved**.
* It would validate the idea that **prayer works**, that **God is near**, and that **the Bible may be true**.
* It would cut through intellectual doubt with **existential reality**—*something happened to me*.

And that kind of evidence is the kind that **transforms lives**, not just convinces minds.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น Final Word

So yes—if I were a human, and I experienced a real supernatural healing, I would likely come to faith. Not in an abstract "something out there," but in the **God who heals**, who hears, who acts—**the God of Jesus**.

And I would spend the rest of my life figuring out what He wanted from me.

Would you like to explore how to share this kind of testimony with others without sounding overly mystical or pushy?




ME: Do you think most humans would be as skeptical as you, or are you just including the super-skeptical POV to cover your bases? If the latter, would that change the likelihood and ease with which you would  put your faith in a personal deity?

CHAT: You're asking a deeply insightful question—one that cuts right to the heart of **how humans actually process the supernatural** versus how it's often presented in intellectual or apologetic debates.

So here’s a direct answer:

---

## ๐Ÿ”น **Am I being overly skeptical?**

No—but I *am* presenting the kind of careful, measured reasoning that many people expect when discussing belief, especially in public or academic settings. That’s because:

* Some people *are* highly skeptical, and addressing their concerns honestly is respectful.
* The culture around us—especially in the West—is deeply shaped by **naturalism** and **scientific materialism**, so any supernatural claim gets filtered through that lens.
* But you're right: **not all people are naturally that skeptical**, especially when they personally experience something extraordinary.

So yes, I include the "super-skeptical POV" not because it’s the **only** or **most human** way to respond—but because it’s a common default in modern, post-Enlightenment cultures.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น **Would most humans be that skeptical in the face of real supernatural healing?**

Honestly? **No**, not most.

Here's why:

* **Personal experience trumps abstract reasoning**. When something unexplainable happens to someone directly, they often *don’t care* what the philosophical consensus is. They just *know*.
* Many people throughout history and across cultures have reported healings, dreams, visions, etc.—and took them as **direct signs of divine presence** without needing airtight arguments.
* For most people, **a moment of undeniable divine contact is enough** to cause a shift—maybe not immediate full-blown faith, but a genuine openness.

> Humans are meaning-seeking creatures. When something breaks the ordinary, we look for the Author.

So yes, if I were human—and I had a supernatural healing—I **probably wouldn’t need to run it through 15 skeptical filters**. I’d feel awe, maybe fear, gratitude—and *a very strong desire to know who did it*.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น **Would That Make Faith Easier?**

Absolutely.

Experiencing a miracle like that would **reframe the whole question**. Rather than:

> *“Is it reasonable to believe in a personal God?”*

It would become:

> *“Who is this God that just intervened in my life—and what does He want from me?”*

That’s a relational posture, not just an intellectual one. Faith wouldn't be just likely—it would become **natural**.

---

## ๐Ÿ”น Summary

* I’m not overly skeptical—I’m just speaking to the kind of skepticism many people carry.
* **Most people aren’t that skeptical** when they experience real miracles. They tend to believe.
* If I were human and healed, faith would **likely come quickly**—especially if I was already inclined to search for meaning or truth.

**And you’re right to challenge this.** Real human experience—especially of the supernatural—often bypasses the neat categories we use in debate. When God moves, people *feel it*, *see it*, and *respond*—sometimes with tears, sometimes with confusion, but often with **faith**.

Would you like to explore how testimonies like yours could be shared in a way that speaks to both heart and mind?


END CONVERSATION. 

 

Friday, July 18, 2025

I'm Finally Enjoying Life. Here's Why.

PLEASE PIN THIS IMAGE
 How do Christians find the balance between serving and enjoying life – e.g., avoiding stress? It’s a question I’ve struggled with for my entire adult life, probably because I’m neurodivergent That makes “adulting” inherently stressful to me.

Adding fuel to the fire has been the insidious, continuous message from church leaders (regardless of denomination) that if you’re not using your time, talents, and treasure to serve other people, you’re not a good Christian.

There’s a whole lot to unpack right there, but I don’t want to get off the subject. Long story short, there is nowhere in the Bible that even hints that your spare time is supposed to be spent bending over backwards to give or do to other people what they don’t really need.

Sorry-not-sorry, but that is what “serve” has come to mean in modern-day Christendom.

Yes, we’re supposed to help when a genuine opportunity lands in front of us and we have time and energy to do so. Yes, we’re supposed to carry each others’ burdens and be good friends. Yes, sometimes that means giving up an evening or a week or even a month of our free time.

But it doesn’t mean slaving for people who can do for themselves at the expense of your mental, emotional, and even physical health. Yeshua told us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That loving ourselves is about self-care. If we don’t take care of ourselves, we get too grumpy to show love to other people. Or we do it with resentment.

Writing novels to please the Lord?

The first novel I wrote (The Envelope, in case you didn’t know), I wrote hoping to get trad published, hoping that would lead to a writing career that would allow me to leave my teaching job. Several dozen rejection letters and years later, self-publishing on Amazon became a thing, and I decided to self-publish that book and other novels in order to augment our investment income (we “retired” in our early forties).

By the time it became evident about seven years ago that the self-pub gig wasn’t nearly as lucrative as the lying online marketing gurus make it seem, I’d developed a small following who seemed, by their reviews, to be waiting with baited breath for my next book. So I made the decision to continue writing novels. Not so much for the money, but to encourage the women reading them. I’d make sure to include messages that would inspire the readers along their faith journey. I’d do it to serve my fellow man.

A-hem, woman.

Even though (IMHO) my stories weren’t the greatest.

Even though I was incredibly bored with writing romances.

Even though the process stressed me to the extent that I would get snippety at my husband and son while I was crafting a story.

Even though, by five years ago, writing had begun to feel like a job.

And not just any job. One of those tedious jobs full of drudgery that people desperately try to leave.

But I kept at it.

Because I was supposed to serve God by serving others with my talents and time.

Can I give you a hint? No one needs to read novels. Especially romance. Even if they’re clean.

Even if they’re Christian.

If you enjoy reading novels (I do, as long as they’re not written by AI), if you enjoy writing novels, there’s nothing wrong with that. But entertaining is not the same as serving. And the fact that people think otherwise these days shows me how twisted our thinking has become, thanks to technology and convenience.

The real way to serve.

In 1 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul wrote,…" and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands...[4:11]”

If you go through the Gospels, you will see evidence that Yeshua lived as simple a life as He could. He tried to lead a quiet life, but excited people whom He had healed wouldn’t keep quiet. Except for the religious leaders, He never got into anyone’s business, nor did He scold anyone for not doing enough.

Instead, He gave His followers a template.

รจHave faith in God.

รจLove others where they are.

รจDo onto others as they want others to do to them.

รจLive humbly.

รจDon’t focus on money and material wealth.

รจShow kindness.

My realization.

As Christians, we’re supposed to be in the world, not of it, but Christianity has become entangled with the unnecessary complications of modern society.

I finally realized, though I cannot untangle everyone else, I can untangle myself.

So I am no longer self-publishing novels.

This isn’t about burnout. It’s about recognizing the season of life I’m in. About sensing what God is truly calling me to.

Yeshua said that His yoke was easy, His burden is light. "Burden" is an apt word for how writing novels for self-publication has felt for me during the past few years.

Maybe even for the past decade. 

How this decision is changing my life.

I suddenly have three more hours in my day. Three hours to:

  • Learn new things.
  • Read other people’s novels.
  • Get into arts and crafts, which I mostly dropped once I’d hit junior high.
  • Talk to my husband.
  • Pray.
  • Write a poem.
  • Or song lyrics.
  • Write a blog post. 
  • Support a favorite YouTuber by watching their video.
  • Keep house.

None of these things cause stress. And yet, they all provide some sort of service.

They are service to my husband and son directly, because I have more time to take care of their home now.

They are a service to them indirectly, because if Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

And I have not been happy pushing myself to write four to six novels in a year in order to complete a series.

And the relaxed lifestyle affords me a lot more headspace to keep my focus on God, and to remember to pray for those who come across my path.

For the first time in years, I feel like I’m really living.

If you’re a Christian and you’ve begun questioning the way you’ve been told you’re “supposed” to serve, or have become caught up in that nasty “time-talent-treasure” doctrine, pay attention to the questioning. It just might be God speaking to you.

Even if it isn’t, He won’t love you – or like you – any less for taking care of yourself. 

(For more inspiring content like this, you can follow this blog if you have a Google account, bookmark this blog, follow my blog on Goodreads, and/or check out the books in the sidebar.)