JUNE 2019

    Pointing to Abraham as an example is strategic. Intertestamental literature (wrongly!) considered Abraham to be sinless: “For Abraham was perfect in all his actions” (Jubilees 23:10). “We find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given” (Mishnah, Kiddushim 4:14). One author claims that, “His reputation was faultless” (Sirach 44:19). Still another: “You therefore, O Lord, God of the righteous ones, did not appoint grace for the righteous ones, such as Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, those who did not sin against you” (Prayer of Manasseh 8).    The NT tempers this overdone praise. Paul declares in this passage that Abraham was indeed not justified before God by his own works and merits. On the other hand, the balance is reflected in the more appropriate praise assigned to Abraham and Sarah by the book of Hebrews, showing them to be Old Testament examples of Christian virtue (11:8-19).

    Paul asks the question in Romans 4:1 regarding what Abraham “found.” That is, what did he discover about the doctrine of salvation and the relationship between faith, grace and law? It is this question that Paul will explore in this passage.

    In verse 2, Paul asserts that if someone could be saved and justified by works then Abraham would be able to boast about his standing spiritually. Again, he was seen as being supremely obedient according to first-century Jews. Therefore, he seems to very worthy to be able to boast in his deeds. The mutually exclusive relationship between boasting and justification by grace is seen elsewhere in Paul (Rom 3:27; 1 Cor 1:29; 5:6; 2 Cor 1:12; Eph 2:9; see also Jas 4:16).

    Paul recognizes that Abraham’s boasting would not have held up “before God.” That is, as he has described previously, there is none who are righteous (3:10) and all have a lack or deficiency in regard to meriting the glory of God (3:23). This includes Abraham, and, since nobody in Paul’s audience would have perceived themselves as holier-than-him, it therefore applies to all Jews and Gentiles, as well.

    Paul begins verse 3 by asking a critical question that often gets left out of theological discussions: For what does Scripture say? Unfortunately, in all of the finessing and parading that takes place in such discussions, the use of and appeal to the authority of Scripture is often obscured or marginalized in deference to logical leaps, rhetorical gymnastics, or appeals to Christian writers of the past. While the use of Christian writers may be beneficial, these should be more to substantiate the point that Scripture makes rather than to supersede Biblical authority. Paul uses similar phrases in the midst of intricate theological arguments in Romans 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, Galatians 4:30, and 1 Timothy 5:18 (see also John 19:37).

    Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6 to prove his point, and he will continue to refer to this verse in vv. 9 and 22. Genesis 15:6 is utilized in the NT elsewhere in Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23. The notion that Abraham was not saved by his works or merit but by grace through faith is significant in these other contexts, as well.

    The verb “to believe” here in Romans 4:3 is aorist active, indicating a specific moment when Abraham fully believed in and affirmed the promises of God. This would be what we would call Abraham’s conversion. We know from the NT that the act of belief is a “gift of God” lest people boast that they were more positively inclined to believe (Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8-9). The verse describes the exchange between faith and the bestowal of a status of “righteousness” upon the believer. The Greek word logizomai means “to count, reckon, calculate, take into account, credit, place to one’s account” as well as “to consider, think.” The word is used forty times in the NT, nineteen of which occur in Romans, and eight of which are in 2 Corinthians. Of those nineteen occurrences in Romans, the word appears eleven times in Romans 4.

    The notion here in Romans 4 is crediting something to someone who didn’t deserve it, or transferring something into someone else’s account. More specifically, it is not because of our deeds or worthiness, but only because of faith that God credits righteousness to a person’s spiritual account. This understanding is critical to NT theology and to Romans in particular; all people despite our fallenness and deservedness of death and hell can be saved through faith. All people can be given the gift of God’s righteousness. The bestowal of this gift of God’s righteousness, or justification, places us in a status of Christ’s perfection and makes us fit to live eternally with Him.

    Paul’s point is a notion often lost on believers today: salvation by grace through faith is not a NT construct; rather, salvation has always been by grace through faith, from Eden, and Abraham’s time, to David’s era, into the New Testament events and even continuing up to the present time.

    The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ are expressions of obedience to God that follow faith; the desire to obey is the product of faith, not the cause of it. Salvation has always worked this way; it has never been by works, deeds, a positive proclivity or any sense of deservedness on our part.

    Even many evangelical churches promote a Gospel of conformity to Christian behavior or of obedience to certain standards and expectations. Evangelicals and evangelical pulpits must return to presenting the Gospel that understands that salvation has always been by grace through faith. It is never by works or law, by merit or some self-concocted sense of deservedness.

    Praise God for His grace to Abraham, to David, to Paul and to us. And may we spread a message of grace and faith and hope in Christ alone.

EVOLUTIONISM VS. CREATIONISM: Fundamental Flaws in Evolution

        by Luke Kasper

    Many Christians, possibly most, don’t really understand how the theory of evolution actually works. We oversimplify it, making it sound even more laughable than it really is. Some people might not see the harm in that, but it is actually a major mistake, especially because evolution is such a prominent belief in our current culture.

    Anyone who goes out and evangelizes will encounter people who believe in evolution. So, how can we effectively explain why our side is the truth and theirs is false, when we don’t even have a basic understanding of their side? That is dangerous, both because it means that you can’t effectively express why their arguments are wrong, and because it can also lead to embarrassing moments in a discussion. With that in mind, I will show a brief, yet surprisingly convincing description of the theory of evolution.

    Evolution is an idea concerning the diversity and origin of life, in which organisms slowly improve, generation by generation, through accidental genetic mutations that are passed down to their offspring. Then, the creatures in which a mutation occurs that is helpful to their current environment will be more likely to survive due to their “advantages,” while creatures that have a harmful mutation, or no mutations at all, will be less likely to survive. The ones that survive reproduce and pass on their beneficial mutations to their offspring. After millions and millions of generations of piling up mutation after mutation, we end up with the wide assortment of animals we have today. (That process in which the strong prevail and the weak die off is called natural selection).

    Now that I have described a relatively persuasive explanation of the theory of evolution, I will proceed to rip it apart.

    Let’s start by tackling the foundational principles of evolution: mutations. Mutations occur whenever something causes permanent changes in the DNA sequences that make up a creature’s genes.

    Here’s what’s wrong with evolution through mutations. First of all, mutations themselves are somewhat infrequent. But if a mutation does happen, most of them are insignificant, and really wouldn’t affect the creature’s performance in any way. But if the mutation does actually affect the creature’s performance, it usually affects it in a harmful way, generally, in a fatal way. Additionally, if that mutation isn’t harmful, it’s typically neutral, and won’t affect the creature positively or negatively.

    But if a mutation happens, and if it isn’t insubstantial, and if it isn’t fatal, and if it isn’t neutral, it can be beneficial. That’s a lot of ifs.    A generous estimate for the ratio of the different outcomes in mutations goes like this: in 100 mutations, 90% are ineffective (because the mutated DNA is non-coding), half (5%) of the actual effective mutations are neutral, and of the last 5%, nine-tenths of them are harmful, (five-ninths of the harmful ones are fatal), and that last one is beneficial. So in a group of 200 mutated animals, 190 of them would be unaffected by their mutation, five of them would be dead, four of them have some sort of harmful mutation, and only one would have some sort of beneficial mutation. That’s the generous estimation.

    In a study done on more than 1,000 mutated fruit flies, all of the mutations were visible (meaning none of them were neutral), but none of them were beneficial, meaning that the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations was more than 1,000 to 1! And considering that more than half of all visible mutations are fatal, the ratio of fatal mutations to beneficial ones was greater than 500 to 1 (http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/rates.html).

    OK, but beneficial mutations do actually occur. Evolution can still work, right? No. There are still fundamental issues with beneficial mutations. I will use giraffes as an example (although keep in mind that you can use pretty much any animal to illustrate this). A giraffe’s long neck is important to its survival. It allows it to reach food that most animals can’t. But the idea that it’s neck got longer through evolution creates two big issues:

    1. If the change that happens to a creature is essential to its survival, then how did it survive before that change? If the giraffe needs a long neck to survive, then how did it survive before it had a long neck?

    2. In order for a change to affect the creature’s physiology enough that it’s odds of survivability increase, numerous other unpredictable parts and systems in the creature must also adjust due to that initial change. The first giraffes to evolve a long neck would have probably died. Their hearts wouldn’t have been strong enough to constantly send blood up their necks to their heads. So, let’s say giraffes evolve stronger hearts. Then one evolves a longer neck again, this time with a heart strong enough to get blood up to the head. But it also would have died; whenever it first bent it’s head down to drink, the pressure of the blood from it’s powerful heart and long neck would have killed it. (Which is why God created a sponge-like structure at the end a giraffe’s neck arteries, so that this wouldn’t happen).

    Let’s talk about another hole in beneficial mutations: the existence of flying creatures. When the first animals “came about,” none of them could fly. Flight is a very complicated ability that has many variables, requiring various finely tuned parts (the shape of the wings, material, bone structure, method of steering, bird weight, bird strength, etc.). But now we have creatures that can fly, and fly amazingly well. Logically, that would mean that there must have been an animal that had arm-like appendages that evolved into wings.

    So, time travel. Introducing this into a franchise raises all sorts of problems, but there was really no other way of reversing what happens at the end of Infinity War. Endgame causally bypasses some fairly complicated issues regarding time travel, and some of the characters even joke about it, citing examples of time travel in popular movies. I’m not completely satisfied by how they handled time travel, especially marginalizing the ramifications that changing the past could have on the present. But if you give them some leeway and don’t overthink it, then it’s probably not too bad. Additionally, the possibility that changes in the past create alternate realities in the present may be a significant part of MCU’s future.    So, what about cons: What were some shortcomings of the film? In a way the three hour run time was commendable; it is amazing that Hollywood got away with it in our increasingly “TL;DR” society. Yet, there were times when the movie seemed to drag a little. One wonders if 15 to 20 minutes could have been cut out of the length just by increasing the pace of a few of the scenes and maybe cutting out some of the dialogue that didn’t seem as relevant or interesting (again, the scenes between Tony and his dad come to mind).

    Some have suggested, too, that Captain Marvel was overpowered, but in a way that was inconsistent. She effortlessly destroyed Thanos’ ship, and yet, when she was handed the infinity gauntlet, she struggled to escape Thanos’ army. Why doesn’t she just take it and fly off to another planet? Or, better, why doesn’t she just put the gauntlet on and destroy Thanos’ forces with a snap? She could probably handle the effects of this better than Tony, for whom these effects were fatal. There is just a distracting inconsistency with how she is used in this climactic battle.

    One more strength of the film: It didn’t emphasize social agendas the way some films and franchises have recently. Americans don’t want to watch sci-fi or action movies that preach social justice; we just want to watch great movies. We want great plots, humor, compelling characters, but we don’t need someone’s social agenda crammed down our throats every other scene.

    Of course, Endgame did insert a little bit of social agenda. There was a subtle reference to a homosexual relationship (by an unnamed non-Avenger character), and, there was the big heroine presentation toward the end of the movie. I personally felt that this was overdone, too blatant, and not realistic (wouldn’t these gals be spread out across the fighting field?). Endgame touched on, but didn’t dwell on a social agenda. The little bit that was sprinkled in didn’t distract from the plot or lead to cringe-worthy scenes (I’m looking at you, The Last Jedi!).

    So how was Endgame relative to Infinity War? Infinity War was a stronger movie for a variety of reasons. It brilliantly integrated all of the previous characters, it had great tension, great fight scenes, and better humor. It was also full of surprises, not the least of which was the stunning ending. On the other hand, Endgame was, by definition, somewhat predictable. Most of us assumed that Endgame would somehow reverse the ending of Infinity War. We suspected that there would probably be some kind of time travel/ quantum realm scheme. We knew we were most likely going to lose one or two of our favorite heroes, or at least that one or two of them would bow out of the franchise in some way. That is, we went into Endgame expecting quite a bit, whereas Infinity War treated us to a whole array of surprises, which helped make Infinity War an overall stronger viewing experience.

    That said, the Russo Brothers still had some surprises up their sleeves. It was a huge shock when Thanos destroys the stones and gets beheaded only about twenty minutes into Endgame! The subsequent appearance of the words “Five . . . Years . . . Later” was shocking and chilling, though, I wish they would have stressed the post-apocalyptic feel a bit more. I also really liked the plot twist of a pre-Infinity War Thanos using Nebula’s memories and then invading a post-snap Earth.

    We know that there will be more MCU movies; they’ll keep milking this cash cow as long as they can. However Endgame was a definitive transition point especially for this incarnation of characters that we have come to love and appreciate over the last decade. The franchise will go on, and yet there’s a sense that it will not quite be the same. Nonetheless Endgame was a thrilling movie, balancing the predictable with the unpredictable, and providing satisfying conclusions for characters who served as the backbone of this franchise.

    Now the franchise shifts toward newer characters, some of whom are even more interesting, as we enter not only a new phase, but a whole era of MCU. Fans have undergone some “franchise disappointment” lately, such as with Star Wars: Episodes VII and VIII, or the in regard to the way DCEU has been handled. In light of those we can say “Bravo!” to MCU, and especially for how the franchise hit an unprecedented climax with the duology of Infinity War and Endgame. We are grateful for MCU’s tremendous cinematic efforts, their careful treatment of cherished characters, and their genuine desire to honor and gratify their fan base.

HISTORY: The Curious Responses to the Peasants’ Revolution of 1525

    This is the third article about one of the biggest revolutions in Europe before the French Revolution in 1789. That huge revolt is the German Peasants’ Revolution or the Peasants’ War of 1525. In the last article, we discussed some of the fascinating and reasonable grievance documents that the peasants created before they decided to take up arms.

    We have discussed how this revolt was encouraged by some of the Protestant Reformers and their language of Biblical equity and apocalypticism. Reformer Thomas Müntzer was a driving force behind the Revolt, and the co-author of “The Eleven Mühlhausen Articles” (1524). His 1521 “Prague Protest” demonstrates his utter distaste for the Catholic clergy and he ends that work by suggesting that soon “Christ will give to his elect the kingdom of this world for all eternity.” In his 1524 “Sermon to the Princes,” Müntzer demonstrated his disdain for secular leadership, as well. Appealing to Daniel chapter 2, he warns them that “God clearly speaks . . . about the transformation of the world. He will bring about this transformation in the Last Days, so that his name will be rightly praised. He will release the elect [i.e., faithful peasants] from their shame.” Müntzer recognized that a revolt could give many people an opportunity to shift authority from tyrannical civil and clerical authorities to the common man.

    Curiously enough, Martin Luther’s response was very different . . . and . . . puzzling. In two works regarding the peasants’ activities, Luther provided bizarre and brutal prescriptions regarding how the peasants should be dealt with.

    And before we proceed, it is worth noting that we are about to deal with a Martin Luther that we are not accustomed to, and explore some places in Luther’s psyche where Reformation scholars often fear to tread. In his book The Great Cat Massacre And Other Episodes in French Cultural History, Robert Darnton, championing the mentalités school of historiography, supplies valuable insight for dealing with odd, and sometimes inexplicable events, thought patterns, and responses that we find throughout historical studies: “When we run into something that seems unthinkable to us, we may have hit upon a valid point of entry into an alien mentality. And once we have puzzled through to the native’s point of view, we should be able to roam about in his symbolic world” (Darnton, 262).

    Another way of thinking about this is that when we encounter puzzling action or responses by people in history, we should recognize that this gives us insight into their thinking, which may be very different from our own mindset today. When we see Luther’s disturbing responses to the peasants, we should recognize a reaction that reflected his internal logic, if not ours. That logic may elude us today, but exploring it may also help us understand how he and some of the other Wittenberg theologians perceived the peasants’ documents and actions.

    Luther was horrified by how his writings and doctrines were being used to justify social protest. That the peasants would take up arms against human authorities was, for Luther, a sure sign that they were in league with Satan. In his characteristically non-ambiguous tract called, Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, he mischaracterizes the Swabian peasants’ second article regarding the tithe and asserts that their suggestion is “nothing but theft and highway robbery” (Luther’s Works, Volume 46, p. 38). He instructed the nobility to “smite, strangle, and stab [the rebelling peasants], secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel” (LW 46:50).

    Luther’s vilification of the peasants is clear from passages like, “The peasants are not content with belonging to the devil themselves; they force and compel many good people to join their devilish league against their wills, and so make them partakers of all their own wickedness and damnation” (LW 46:54). The peasants’ complicity with the Devil allegedly created a national threat; in characteristic overstatement, Luther claims that the peasants’ rebellion “would ultimately result in the permanent destruction of all Germany” (LW 46:18). From Luther’s perspective, the peasants were clearly on Satan’s side, and should thus be eliminated as expediently as possible.

    But just a few months into the Peasants War, the atrocities done by the peasants were surpassed by atrocities done to the peasants, and Luther was criticized for his prior pamphlet. In response he wrote “An Open Letter On the Harsh Book Against the Peasants.” While some may appreciate Luther’s decisions not to retract his statements and beliefs at certain moments in his career – such as at the Diet of Worms in 1521 – this “Open Letter” was one instance where a retraction, or at least a softening, may have been helpful. Instead, Luther doubled-down on his violent verbiage regarding the rebels.

    One can appreciate how people struggled to follow Lutheran principles after the Peasants’ Revolt in light of what Luther said about the peasants during the revolt. He suggested that the rebelling peasants and burghers were not even fit for intelligent discourse: “A rebel is not worth rational arguments, for he does not accept them” (LW 46:65). The following characterization of the rebelling peasants didn’t go over too well, either: “It is plain that they are faithless, perjured, disobedient, rebellious thieves, robbers, murders, and blasphemers, and there is not one of them who has not deserved to be put to death without mercy” (LW 46:74).

    Luther justified his previous opinions about the insurrectionists and prescribed ways to eliminate a rebellious peasant, including: “Everyone who can must run, uncalled and unbidden, and, as a true member, help to rescue his head [i.e., a political ruler] by stabbing, hewing, and killing, and risk his life and goods for the sake of the head” (LW 46:80). He also echoes the apocalyptic perspective that permeated the 1520s. He applied his sense of heightened conflict between God and Satan, and by extension, God’s people and agents of Satan, during the end times: “The devil intended to lay all Germany to utter waste because there was no other way by which he could suppress the gospel” (LW 46:79). While Müntzer saw that the revolt could be an opportunity for God’s people to enjoy peace and equity in society, Luther saw it only as a device of Satan’s for the purpose of thwarting the Reformation and destroying Germany.

    What was the result of the Peasant’s War of 1525? And how did Luther’s curious responses to the peasants’ efforts change the way people thought about him and about the Protestant Reformation? We’ll cover those questions in the next article in this series.

MAGNIFICENT MOZART: A Little Night Music

    Mozart’s melody in the first movement of “Eine kleine Nachtmusik” is one of the most popular tunes in classical music (you can catch a quick listen to it here). There is even a funny little nod to its popularity in an early scene of the 1984 movie Amadeus.

    This enduring and endearing melody is from the first movement of Serenade No. 13 for strings in G Major (K. 525). It was originally composed for a small string ensemble. It was completed in 1787, but not published until 1827, thirty-five years after Mozart’s death.

    We’ll discuss the details of the song in a minute, but first, I want to explore why this is such a popular melody, and why a melody like this helps us understand why Mozart is such a great composer.

    Meghan Trainor famously asserted that it was all about the bass. I would argue that it’s all about the melody. In fact, I have a simple test for determining how enduring a composer is. If I ask you to “hum a Mozart,” there are probably a dozen or so identifiable melodies that you could reproduce. Maybe you remember one of his catchy tunes from a concert that you attended. Perhaps you played one in band or orchestra or maybe it was used as background music in your favorite cartoon. I recently heard his famous tune from the first movement of Symphony 40 used in a commercial for The Detour. But he has dozens of well-known melodies. 

    A composer like Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky stands this test, also. We could hum the fanfare from the 1812 Overture or several selections from The Nutcracker.

    And this test doesn’t just work on older composers. “Hum a John Williams.” You are now contemplating the Superman theme, or something from Raiders of the Lost Ark or anything from Star Wars. These are simple and iconic melodies.

    Now try to hum a Debussy, or a Hayden, or a Schubert, or a Stravinsky. Even if you are a classical music aficionado, or unless you specialize in one of these composers, you probably can’t recall a simple tune of theirs despite their prodigious and diverse output. They may be accomplished, but without great memorable melodies, some of the most famous musicians will gradually descend into obscurity. Their names may still be remembered, but their music won’t be.

    When it comes to melody, its difficult to find one more iconic, memorable and playful than Mozart’s “Eine kleine Nachtmusik.” The opening melody is so simple that it is brilliant. The first few notes merely alternate between G and the D below it until the melody catapults up the G major cord to B and D.    

    Mozart then does something fascinating: now that the melody is up to the D, the top note of the G major cord (the fifth note of the scale or the dominant), he utilizes a D7 cord but drops the melody down one note to the C for the second half of this melody. And where the first half of the melody was traveling upwards, this second half, shifting to the D7 cord is traveling down: C-A-C-A-C-A-F#-A-D. Also, the quarter note/ eighth rest/ eighth note rhythm gives the main melody its bounce and playfulness.

    And after a lively initial tune, the song settles into a more mature melody (measure 5 if you’re looking at the score, or time index 0:08 in the video). This melody features less skips and syncopation and a smoother transition from note to note. The shift from the tonic to the dominant cords in these measures is almost entrancing. This brief section ends abruptly, and gives way to the song’s first sustained notes (half notes, to be specific). The violins sustain a third at B and D for two beats and then shift up to an C and E for two more beats (measure 11, time index 0:18), that then gives way to a sublime and gentle tune descending gracefully back down to the G. It is almost as though measures 11-17 are letting the audience catch our breath before Mozart dives headlong into more playful melodies.

    This piece effervesces with several beautiful independent melodies: the soft tune at time index 0:48, and the more lively one that takes over at 1:01. At 3:13 the main melody occurs again, but it has now shifted from G down to D, and it ends with a tension that catapults the listener seamlessly into the next section. The song just flows from one musical thought to the next without ever losing momentum. The shift from louder and stronger sections to softer and more gentle sections is flawless. It is hard to describe in words how delightful each of these tunes is, and it is amazing that they are all packed into one song. Mozart’s mastery of the melody could hardly be more pronounced than in this little bit of night music.

    So, kids, if you want to be a great musician, you can impress your friends and fellow-artists with musical innovations and grand orchestrations. But you will endure and be remembered if you can produce simple and enjoyable melodies. Trying to emulate the style, pace, and exuberance of Mozart’s “Eine kleine Nachtmusik” is a great place to start.

PROVERBS TO PONDER: Balancing Good Business Practices, Proverbs 16:11

            Proverbs 16:11: Honest scales and balances are from the Lord; 

                                        All the weights in the bag are of his making (NIV).

    There’s only one main reason why we work. Perhaps our vocation is a life calling, maybe there are some who are simply driven and passionate to do what they do. However, we work to make money, and we make money to feed our family, to maintain our lifestyle, and ultimately, to glorify God. In fact, we are made for work; it is a pre-fall mandate.

    But what happens when that interest in making more money tempts us to cut corners and compromise business ethics? Is it really that big of a deal if we fudge the numbers a bit? How much does God really care if we are not always totally above board regarding our business practices or marketing claims?

    Proverbs 16:11 is one of many verses in Proverbs that address ethical business practices. And to try to separate our spirituality out from our business ethics is basically to divest our business of everything that is ethical. Christian spirituality extends to all aspects of our lives, including our relationships, our worship, our recreation, and even our vocation. While the pursuit of wealth is important and not inherently bad, Scripture is clear that we should not compromise our principles just to gain more money.

    The first half of Proverbs 16:11 begins by describing “balances” and “scales” that are “righteous,” “just” or that reflect good, ethical decisions. These two devices for measuring commodities and prices are mentioned frequently. The Hebrew verb palas means “to weigh” or “to make level,” which, in reference to a scale, functionally means the same thing, and a noun form of that verb is used in this verse. The noun mozen elsewhere usually refers to a scale or a balance. Most of the time these words are used in a commercial setting, but they are metonyms for business ethics, or, the lack of them (Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:13-16; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23; Ezek 45:10; Hos 12:8; Amos 8:5; Mic 6:11). In fact, sometimes weights and balances are used of one’s integrity in general (Job 31:6; Ps 62:10). In regard to all of the ways people find to “cut corners” in business, it should not go unnoticed that God is concerned about commercial integrity and honest business practices. Some of these texts even use the word “abomination” regarding false business practices and those who use them (Deut 25:16; Prov 11:1; 22:23).