Many people struggle to understand some of God’s commands and actions, especially in the Old Testament. Copan takes an in-depth look at laws concerning slavery, punishment, and warfare, examining them from the full scope of both Scripture and ancient history. Copan does not try to easily explain away or dismiss these issues, but rather seeks to give them proper context and definition. The result is thoughtful and helpful in understanding God’s work in the Old Testament.

Unlike national Israel, God’s people—the new and true Israel—are an interethnic church with a heavenly citizenship. This heavenly citizenship must be of earthly good, however. Christ’s disciples are to live out God’s kingdom values, being salt and light and doers of good. The Christian faith has this-worldly implications. If it doesn’t, it’s not Christian; rather, it’s a detached Gnosticism that ignores culture and ultimately denies reality. [12]

Today, many American Christians seem to mix up church and state. They believe the community of genuine believers in America is the people of God—both in heaven and on earth. But the nation of America isn’t the people of God; we don’t live in a theocracy. The sooner Christians realize this, the sooner the church can make a deeper impact as salt and light in society. [73]

Is doesn’t mean ought in the Old Testament; just because something is described doesn’t mean that it’s prescribed as a standard to follow. Certain behaviors are just bad examples that we shouldn’t follow. [97]

By nature humans are worshippers; they’re slaves to what they worship, whether false gods or the true one. To worship the true God with full devotion is actually a picture of genuine freedom and abundant living rather than oppression; false worship actually oppresses. [156]

Does religious cause violence? Is religion dangerous? To say yes to these questions would be a crass generalization. For one thing, this view fails to account for many variations within all the world’s traditional religions, some of which are fairly tame and nonthreatening. Second, those who support this notion fail to ask whether militant texts in certain holy books are normative and permanent or unique and nonrepeatable. Third, this assumption doesn’t distinguish between the essence of a religion and tragic abuses by its practitioners. Fourth, it doesn’t consider truth in religion—that some religious viewpoint may actually be true and therefore its competitors would be in error where they disagree with the truth. Finally, the view that religion is dangerous because it excludes other views is itself incoherent. It leaves us wondering, “Doesn’t this mushy pluralism exclude or marginalize the very ‘narrow’ religious views of, say, monotheism?” To make any truth claim is to assert that its opposite is false. [206] 

TOP