2019 - CrossExamined

The Christmas Story – Beyond Apologetics

Experiencing the Christmas Story

Every December, I see a couple of approaches to Jesus’ birth on Christian blogs: Articles that approach the Christmas story from the perspective of “How Jesus came to Earth,” looking at it in light of what the Gospels tell about who Jesus turns out to be. Or, you get an apologetics approach that engages naturalistic objections to miracles like the virgin birth.

If you’re like me, you’ve often talked about the possibility of miracles or the historicity of the Bible around Christmas time. But what we don’t often realize, is that we can get so distracted by historical or philosophical questions in our 21st-century context, that we can miss out on what the Gospel authors are saying through the infancy narratives.

Beyond Apologetics

This year, I want to do something different and go beyond apologetics. What’s the message of the infancy materials? In this post, I’ll share one key thing everyone should know about Christmas—something that’s often overlooked: The Christmas story communicates that God keeps his promises. [1]

First, I’ll highlight Elizabeth’s story in the Gospel, according to Luke. Then, I’ll focus in on Mary’s story in the same Gospel. Finally, I want to give you two video resources that will help you dive deeper and better experience the Christmas story afresh this year.

But try something with me before we move on: Set any skepticism about miracles (or even ideas about Jesus’ deity) to the side for a moment and imagine what it would be like for two unsuspecting people to see the Christmas story unfolding around them. What would they be thinking?

God Keeps His Promises

An old woman gets pregnant–even though she never had kids before (Luke 1:5-25)

Most first-century Jews believed God created everything and interacted with people. So, to them, an old woman getting pregnant or a virgin conceiving a child apart from modern medical techniques were just minor miracles compared to the creation of the universe out of nothing. In other words: If God’s real, miracles are possible.

And that’s how the Christmas story begins; with miracles. An angel tells a priest named Zachariah that his wife, Elizabeth, would have a kid–even though she was way too old to have kids naturally. I recently had a conversation with my mentor, Darrell Bock, who explained what you’re supposed to get from the story of Zachariah’s skepticism. He put it like this:

Basically the angel says, “Well, you’re going to be quiet until you see God pull off his word. It’s designed to be a lesson to say, “If God promised this if God says this is gonna happen, this is gonna happen…You’re gonna watch it happen. You’re not gonna be able to speak or hear. You can have a little time to reflect on the fact that when God says it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen.

Don’t miss Elizabeth’s faith in contrast to her husband. She was marginalized in society because she couldn’t have kids, but then she says with confidence: “This is what the Lord has done for me at the time when he has been gracious to me, to take away my disgrace among people” (Luke 1:25).

After the baby’s born, they name him “John” (that was culturally weird since no one else in the family was named John), and Zachariah can finally talk again. He sings a song about John the Baptist’s role, pointing people to Jesus—the central figure of God’s plan to redeem and restore his people (Luke 1:67–79). But a bigger miracle’s about to happen.

A young teen gets pregnant–even though she never had sex before (Luke 1:26-36)

Mary was probably way younger than most nativity scenes make her seem. First-century Jewish girls were usually betrothed between the ages of 12 and 14! Guys were betrothed between the ages of 18 and 25 but the girls got married pretty young.

And Jesus’ conception was pretty unusual, too. The angel tells Mary her baby will reign forever; he’ll be called the Son of God. Most Christians immediately go, “I get it. Jesus is divine.” But what about people who don’t know the end of the story? What did Mary think when she heard what her baby was gonna be called?

She probably thought, “My baby’s the promised Messiah who’ll deliver God’s people.” In the Jewish Scriptures, “Son of God” often referred to kings (2 Samuel 7:14). Mary’s going, “Somehow, my son’s gonna be a king.” Her big takeaway was, “God’s keeping his promise to Israel through me!” But she still had a lot to learn about who Jesus would turn out to be.

Luke 1 is kind of like a musical in some ways because then, Mary sings her own song—a song that’s got Old Testament language all over it (Luke 1:46–56). And the lyrics are all about how God’s gonna restore Israel and defeat the people who are oppressing them. Don’t miss Mary’s example of faith. She probably didn’t think her baby was “Little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes” (Not sure what Mary would think about that Christmas song)! Yet, she willingly took up the challenge of bearing a very unique child in very unusual circumstances.

So an angel predicted Elizabeth, an old woman who wasn’t able to have kids her whole life, would get pregnant–and she does. Then the angel told Mary, a young girl who’s never had sex, that she’ll conceive a child supernaturally–and she does. Strange stuff is afoot. Strange stuff pointing to a pretty unique baby–a pretty unique way for God to fulfill his promises to Israel and bless the world.

A key message of the Christmas story that’s often overlooked is God keeps his promises. This is one reason Christianity isn’t about blind faith. It’s reasonable to put your trust in someone who is trustworthy.

Here’s the Point

The Christmas story is meant to show God keeps his promises–even if he ends up doing it in unexpected and unusual ways. Weird stuff happening told ancient readers God was up to something special. Experiencing this unfolding drama in the Gospels is part of the wonder of the season. You look at Mary and Elizabeth, and you see their faith. They trust God and recognize his grace to them. May we do the same. Merry Christmas!

[1] THESE INSIGHTS CAME FROM A SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS WITH MY MENTOR, DARRELL BOCK, AND A COUPLE OF OTHER NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARS AT DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. SEE THE VIDEOS BELOW.

[hr]

Videos on Experiencing the Christmas Story

Here are two video resources that can help you go deeper and experience the Christmas story afresh. The first is a chapel discussion I facilitated, and the second is a podcast I hosted. A transcript is available for the podcast here. Both videos are brought to you by Dallas Theological Seminary.

Experiencing the Christmas Story – Chapel

Top Ten Ways to Advance the Gospel

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Are you dreading those awkward family dinners this Christmas season? Unsure about how to tactfully bring up the real reason for Christmas? Join Frank as he reveals the Top Ten Ways to Advance the Gospel, not only at Holiday dinners but at any event. These are some very practical ideas and can be used at any time during the year.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

December 24, 2019/by Guest

Why Do Christians Tend to Align With “Conservative” Economics?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A while back, I saw an intriguing question on social media from a person who is in the middle of a worldview transition. This person is concerned about why so many Christians follow conservative economic theories and not more liberal ones. As I have thought about the question more and more, I have noticed not just a viable answer but also an apologetic opportunity in addressing this concern. Here is the question in the questioner’s own words and how I would respond:

The Question:

“I am going through a transition… From an atheist to someone who may not be Christian but does believe in a higher power.

My background is economics, and I am struggling with the fact that Christianity has aligned its self so heavily with the conservative party. I totally understand your aversion to abortion, but not the economic theory behind their chosen party.

Are there people here that don’t agree with the conservative economic theory, or is the abortion issue the main reason why you align with them?”

My Response:

Limited Government

I believe that the reason that most Christians align with conservative parties is because conservative parties tend to believe in a government that has limited power to legislate. All laws (including regulations that guide economics of a country) legislate morality. The more a government legislates morality, the further from a pluralistic society it promotes and starts to infringe upon differing moral views. Conservatives generally (*generally*) believe that the government should only legislate the basic morality that is “written on the hearts of all men” and should stay out of other matters. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek go into the details of this position in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.”

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

When a government is limited in this manner, it has less control (some is definitely necessary) over

economics and leaves that control with the people.

Today’s popular view of economics for liberals is based on the intrinsic value of humans (see my post “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“) and pushes for all to have a comfortable and healthy life. Neither of those desires are wrong or evil. In fact, both are very good. The goodness of the foundation and intentions of the liberals’ view should not be overlooked, nor should they be ignored. They need to be honored for the objective value that they ascribe to humanity and the objective good that they wish to achieve.

However, no one should forcibly take something from one person to give to another. Forcibly removing funds (such as for economic redistribution or universal anything) would violate not taking what is not yours (stealing). So, that method to achieve the goals cannot be used.

No view of economics should achieve its moral goal through immoral means; this includes both liberal and conservative economic views.

Free Will and Economics

The conservatives hold that people should freely give to those in need (which many do either directly or through charities). I know a lot of liberals see that many also do not, and they believe that this is not right (especially when we see the suffering in the world), but one person (or group of people) simply cannot do something evil to force another person or group of people to do what is right. It is neither logical nor moral to attempt to achieve a good end by intentionally doing evil acts.

Both sides have the free choice of their behavior and actions, and they also have to live with the consequences of their chosen behavior and actions. Those who do evil, both conservative and liberal, will be judged by the ultimate Judge. There will be justice ultimately- whether one side or both; both are held responsible. Most conservatives and Christians believe it is best that only those who refuse to be generous (and refuse to care for widows and orphans- James 1:27) be the ones suffering consequences, not those people and the ones who forcibly take (steals) what is not theirs (the funds of the selfish people) to “right the wrong.” We cannot repay evil with evil. We can encourage them to choose good behavior and actions instead of evil ones, but we cannot force their actions. It is their free choice and their consequences to be reaped.

Sin In Conservative Economics

Having said that, I must also point out that the failures of conservative economic policies (such as capitalism) are primarily due to the fact that people have chosen to practice those policies outside the correct moral framework. The Christian worldview provides a powerful explanation for this common behavior and skewed moral framework: sin. Such an exercise has resulted in much evil, but the answer is not another economic system (such as socialism) that will be practiced outside the correct moral framework too. The economic system (capitalism) is not necessarily the problem; the problem is the moral framework. That is what needs to be different.

And that leads me to my main point: we cannot merely set idly by in judgment of another’s evil decisions in the capitalist society, rather our recognition of the suffering of others due to evil choices not of their own is a call to self-assessment, self-judgment, and change. The Christian does not just watch the poor suffer at the hands of evil people because logic and morality forbid them to interfere in the affairs of the evil people. Instead, we must assess our own situation to make changes so that we can be the solution, so that “what (one) meant for evil, God meant for good” (Genesis 50:20).

“Give Like No One Else”

This does not require a change from capitalism and does not require us to use evil means to “right the wrong.” The foundational philosophy that drives the business of financial guru Dave Ramsey is this: “Live like no one else, so you can live and give like no one else.” The poor do not have to suffer because “in a moral capitalist society logic and morality do not permit us to force the rich to share their money”, rather the poor do not have to suffer because we have the free will to make the decision to make financial changes and sacrifices in our own lives so that we have excess to give to others.

Ramsey, though, explains in his book “Total Money Makeover” an important aspect of this kind of a change:

“To properly view behavior and to understand how to change behavior intelligently, we must consider several things. Behavior intelligently viewed takes into account the emotional, the relational, the family history, the socioeconomic impacts, and the spiritual. To ignore any of these while discussing behavior change about money is incomplete and a very naive.” (emphasis added)

I emphasized “spiritual” and the naivety of ignoring it because Ramsey goes on to say that the person must have a “heart-level makeover”. Without a change in our heart and worldview to accepting Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, we cannot have a heart-level makeover, and we are likely to fall into the same sin trap of the evil people who refuse to give to the poor. It is only through Christ that we can overcome this sin that we despise so much in others (Matt 7:1-5).

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Earlier in the post, I pointed out that the intrinsic human value that grounds our moral outrage can only be found in the Christian worldview (via the doctrine of the Image of God). I also explained that only Christianity (through the recognition of man’s natural sinful state) can explain the evil behavior and actions (and will cause them to continue regardless of the economic system). Those who find the alignment of Christians with the conservative economic system of capitalism concerning must borrow from the Christian worldview in at least two areas to justify their concern (a third borrowing is also necessary for objective morality, which I didn’t expand on). Now, we see that the only logical and moral solution is through the affirmation of the truth of the Christian worldview (acceptance of Christ so that we can be the solution- the Body of Christ- again James 1:27). In the discussion of economics and the evil that has been seen, the skeptic of Christianity (who brings up these concerns) has four reasons on his or her economic concerns alone to accept the truth of the Christian worldview.

Conclusion

If our concern for the poor is authentic, and we truly want to see this issue solved, Christianity is the only option. Without Christ, there are only two equally despicable alternatives:

We either must resort to illogical and immoral means and “repay evil with evil.”

Or we must abandon our concern for the poor and just let them suffer at the hands of evil.

For the questioner who is in transition in their worldview, if this discussion is not enough to at least get them considering the truth of Christianity (perhaps they are tempted to accept one of the alternatives above), then I implore them to consider the evidence for the single historical claim that if it happened, Christianity is true and they have your answer to their economic concern, but if it did not happen, Christianity is false, and they are free to pick from the two options above. For the objective, historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I recommend these posts and books:

Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Book Review: Has Christianity Failed You?

Book Review: The Historical Jesus

Book Review: The Risen Jesus and Future Hope

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity

NOTE: Along with the books I recommended above, I would also recommend another by Norman Geisler called “Christian Ethics: Issues and Options.” It goes into more detail about Christian morality and how it applies consistently across many different moral debates.

The Genuine Saint Nicholas

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

It may surprise you to discover that there really is a Santa Claus! The Santa Claus figure was taken from a genuine person of history. His name was Saint Nicholas of Myra. Earlier on BellatorChristi.com, I posted an article on this issue. However, I thought it necessary to update the article, especially now that my studies are focused on the Patristic Fathers which would include Nicholas of Myra.

Nicholas is one of the more popular saints in the Greek and Roman churches. However, not much is known about him historically. All evidence of him is scant at best. Nicholas is believed to have been born in the ancient Lycian seaport of Patara in Asia Minor around 280. As a young man, Nicholas journeyed to Israel and Egypt to study alongside the Desert Fathers, who may have included Saint Anthony the Great (c. 251–356) and Saint Abba Pachomius the Great (c. 292–348). Upon his return some years later, Nicholas was ordained as the Bishop of Myra, which is now known as Demre, a coastal town in modern-day Turkey. It is said that Emperor Diocletian imprisoned Nicholas before Constantine rose to power, legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire, and releasing Nicholas and other Christians who had been imprisoned for their faith. During Nicholas’s time in prison, he was beaten numerous times but maintained his strong Christian convictions despite the torture he suffered.

Two acts of Nicholas made him legendary. First, Nicholas is noted for his great generosity. Nicholas came from a wealthy family and maintained a position of financial influence throughout his life. However, it is said that Nicholas walked by the home of a father who fell on hard times. The father and his family were so impoverished that his three daughters would be forced into slavery or prostitution to earn money to keep the family alive. While everyone was asleep, Nicholas reached through their window and tossed a bag of gold into the man’s shoes which were drying by the fireplace. The money would pay the dowry for the first daughter. No one in the household knew how the money was placed into the shoe. On the second night, Nicholas did the same to pay the dowry for the second daughter. On the third night, as Nicholas tossed the third bag of gold to pay for the third daughter’s dowry, a member of the household noticed that Nicholas was the benefactor and thanked him for his great generosity. Saint Nicholas was known to have secretly given gifts to the children of his community. It is said that Nicholas wore red robes and donned a long white beard (CatholicNewsAgency.com) and that children of the area would place shoes or stockings beside the fireplace in hopes that Nicholas would provide a gift to them.

Second, Nicholas is known for this theological faithfulness. While his name does not appear on the earliest lists, later lists include Nicholas of Myra as being one of the attendants of the Nicaean Council of 325. Like many of the aspects of Nicholas’s life, the following story is difficult to prove with any degree of certainty. The main area of focus for the Council of Nicaea was to decide whether Christ was eternally God, as argued by Athanasius of Alexandria, or if he was the first created being, as contended by Arius of Alexandria. During the heat of the discussion, Nicholas is said to have knocked out Arius of Alexandria. Nicholas did not approve of the heretical claims of Arius, so he took Arius into his own hands. Remember, it was Christ who helped Nicholas through the tortures he endured in prison. Someone saying something objectional about his Jesus transformed the otherwise generous, mild-mannered saint into a heavy-handed pugilist.

Nicholas died on December 6, 343 in Myra. The anniversary of his death became a day of remembrance and celebration for a man who held great orthodoxy (right beliefs) and orthopraxy (right actions). His feast day was later integrated into Christmas celebrations. Rather than claiming that Santa Claus is some pagan entity, the real Saint Nicholas is a reminder of what the Christian life should be as Nicholas lived out his faith (with the exception of knocking out heretics). While it is easy for us to live self-absorbed lives and to become bitter over things that may not have gone our way, it is much better to show the love of Christ by giving generously to others in need. The real Santa Claus, derived from Saint Nicholas, was a man of great faith and generosity. This Christmas season, let us also become people who focus on the meaning of the season while showing the love of Christ to others wherever we can.

Sources

Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 1155.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11063b.htm

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-nicholas-of-myra-75

https://www.history.com/topics/christmas/santa-claus

https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas

Pecado y razón ¿Cómo sabemos de Dios si nuestra razón ha sido afectada por el pecado?

Español

Por Xavier González

Debo de admitir que esta pregunta me ha dado mucha vuelta en mi mente, porque si consideramos las consecuencias del pecado en su espectro más amplio y cómo afectó nuestra naturaleza humana, quedaría preguntar ¿Dios puede ser cognoscible a la razón humana? Ya esta pregunta es tanto un Sí y No; y vamos a dar razones del porqué y a la vez que contextualizar así como sintetizar dos versos que aparentemente son contradictorios.

Ahora les dejo este planteamiento: Si bien Dios nos dio raciocinio para tener un grado de conocimiento hacia él y el pecado afectó también nuestro raciocinio ¿Se consideraría que realmente no se puede conocer a Dios en lo absoluto, o Dios sí nos permitiría tener un grado de conocimiento hacia él? Si nuestra primera opción es sí, entonces su consecuencia sería quedarnos en un agnosticismo ateo. Pero si nuestra opción es la segunda tenemos que resolver el dilema que tenemos entre Pecado y Razón. Ahora bien, algunos teólogos han aseverado que Dios no puede ser conocido por la razón y otros que sí. Citaré algunos:

De los que nos dan un rotundo No:

“El Hombre no puede conocer a Dios mediante la Razón”[1]
—A.W. Tozer

“Tan imposible es la comprensión [del conocimiento de Dios] por medio de la razón como es imposible llegar a tocarlo con la mano”
—Martín Lutero

De los que dicen que Sí:

“Si un Dios racional nos ha creado como seres racionales con la intención amorosa de tener comunión con él, entonces debemos esperar con confianza poder llegar a conocer algo de su existencia y naturaleza.”
—Thomas V. Morris

“Respecto a lo verdad de lo que confesamos acerca de Dios, este modo es doble: hay ciertas verdades divinas que totalmente exceden toda capacidad de la razón humana, como el hecho de que Dios es uno y trino. Otras que también puede captar la razón natural, como la existencia de Dios, y ciertos atributos, como su unidad, y que los filósofos han probado usando la luz de la razón natural”[2]
—Santo Tomás de Aquino

En adición, e independientemente de lo que ciertos teólogos nos pueden decir sobre este tema y su postura, tenemos unos textos de la misma Biblia que nos indicará el mismo problema también. ¡Y en su lectura fueran irreconciliables! A saber son Romanos 1:20 y 1 Corintios 1:21. No obstante veremos que en última instancia no es así y demostrare la síntesis de estos versos.

Según la Epístola paulina a los Romanos 1:20 dice lo siguiente:

“Porque las cosas invisibles de él, su eterno poder y deidad, se hacen claramente visibles desde la creación del mundo, siendo entendidas por medio de las cosas hechas, de modo que no tienen excusas”[3]

Y según la Epístola paulina a 1 corintios 1:21 dice lo siguiente:

“Pues ya que en la sabiduría de Dios, el mundo no conoció a Dios mediante la sabiduría, agrado a Dios salvar a los creyentes por la locura de la predicación”[4]

A simple lectura, estos versos se contradicen uno al otro. O bien Dios creó al mundo para que conociéramos de él o Dios creó el mundo para que no conociéramos de él. Esta disyuntiva presentada intentaría estrecharnos e incomodarnos según los versos citados. ¡Pero esperen! hay una tercera opción y será la solución al problema. Todavía no vamos a exponer la solución al dilema que estamos tratando, por ahora nuestra ocupación será contextualizar los versos y al terminar expondremos la solución.

• Romanos 1:20

Según San Pablo afirma en esta perícopa (V. 19-20) no sólo la posibilidad del conocimiento de Dios a través de las criaturas, sino también al hecho; concretando incluso el aspecto de la esencia divina que es término de la operación mental del hombre: “su eterno poder y su divinidad” (V. 20). Y es que no todos los atributos de Dios se revelan igualmente en las obras de la creación. Los Atributos que se presentan al contemplarlas maravillas de este mundo visible (que está pidiendo una causa) son su omnipotencia creadora por encima de la contingencias del tiempo y su divinidad o soberanía trascendente por encima de cualquier de otro ser. Es esta capacidad del hombre para llegar al conocimiento de Dios por la creación, que aquí deja entender Pablo.[5]

Pablo continúa insistiendo en que el hombre no puede alegar ignorancia de Dios. Se puede ver como es por Su obra, así como se puede conocer bastante a una persona por lo que ha hecho, igualmente a Dios por su creación. El A.T. ya lo afirma en Job 38-41 donde se nos presenta esta misma idea. Pablo lo sabía cuando habla de Dios a los paganos de Listra. El empieza por su obra en la naturaleza (Hch 14:17). Tertuliano, el gran teólogo de la iglesia primitiva, tiene mucho que decir acerca de la convicción de que a Dios se le puede conocer en la creación: “No fue la pluma de Moisés la que inició el conocimiento del Creador… la inmensa mayoría de la humanidad, aunque no han oído nada de Moisés, y no digamos de sus libros, conocen al Dios de Moisés.” “La naturaleza es el maestro, y el alma, el discípulo.” “Una florecilla junto a la valla, y no digo del jardín; una concha del mar, y no digo de una perla; una pluma de alguna avecilla, no tiene que ser la de un pavo real, ¿os dirán acaso que el Creador es mezquino?” “Si te ofrezco una rosa, no te burlarás de su Creador.”

En la creación podemos conocer al Creador. El argumento de Pablo es totalmente válido: si observamos el mundo vemos que el sufrimiento sigue al pecado. Si quebrantas las leyes de la agricultura, la cosecha no grana; si las de la arquitectura, el edificio se derrumba; si las de la salud, se presenta la enfermedad. Pablo estaba diciendo: “¡Observa el mundo, y veréis cómo está construido! Fijándonos en cómo es el mundo, podemos aprender mucho de cómo es Dios”. El pecador no tiene excusa”[6]

Inclusive el comentarista William McDonald, pone en claro que lo que Pablo emplea en el verso es la “Condición Divina” lo que sugiere tanto su esencia y atributos. Hasta la Iglesia Católica dice lo siguiente: “Dios, principio y fin de todas las cosas, puede ser conocido con certeza por la luz natural de la razón humana partiendo de las cosas creadas.” (Conc. Vaticano I, Dei Filius, cap. 2)

Ahora bien por un lado tanto el verso como el contexto del mismo nos aclara más diciendo que sí, podemos llegar o tener un grado de conocimiento de la existencia y atributos divinos. Pero el verso de 1 Cor. 1:21 nos dice otra cosa diferente y el comentarista Partain-Reeves dice algo que nos puede ayudar a comprender el verso, dice lo siguiente:

“Aunque la sabiduría del ser humano es capaz de observar y descubrir muchas cosas, no puede conocer a Dios sin la ayuda de revelación de parte de Dios. Por eso en Atenas, ciudad de filósofos griegos, Pablo halló un altar con la inscripción, “Al Dios no conocido” (Hch 17:23). Un poeta griego reconoció que todos somos linaje de Dios (Ver. 28), pero los sabios se quedaban en ignorancia (imaginación supersticiosa) en cuanto a la voluntad de Dios, haciendo que la deidad sea semejante a animales y a seres humanos (la idolatría) (Ver.29,30).

La sabiduría de Dios cuidó que fuera así; a saber, que sin revelación sobrenatural de parte de Dios el hombre solo no pudiera conocer a Dios. El hombre depende de su Creador.

De la misma naturaleza el hombre solo sí puede saber que Dios existe, y que debe ser adorado, y se queda sin excusa por no creerlo (Rom 1:20), pero solo no puede saber cuál es la voluntad de Dios para el hombre. Los corintios, antes de su conversión a Cristo, y dependiendo de sus filósofos, no habían podido conocer a Dios, pero ahora que el evangelio se les predicó, sí podían conocerle”[7]

Y otro comentario dice lo siguiente:

“En el v.21 se encuentra una doble antítesis. La primera está en la sabiduría de Dios y la del mundo. La segunda esta entre la sabiduría y la necedad. Esta doble antítesis se profundiza al declarar el apóstol que la sabiduría de Dios (revelada en la cruz) impide que él sea conocido por medio de la sabiduría humana. Esto significa que únicamente por la obediencia a la revelación divina en la cruz pueden los hombres llegar al conocimiento de Dios, o sea, la salvación. Los hombres jamás pueden conocer a Dios por la sabiduría del hombre pecador. Toda la sabiduría humana está distorsionada por el pecado. Los hombres en su sabiduría sólo crean un dios propio; jamás llegan a conocer al Dios de la revelación por su propio conocimiento. El plan de Dios es muy diferente al plan de los hombres. Sólo el acatamiento de la revelación divina en la “locura” de la predicación del evangelio resulta en la salvación”[8]

Así que, en contraste, lo podemos decir tanto de Romanos y 1 Corintios, es que por un lado el hombre ciertamente puede conocer a Dios y no tener excusa alguna de ello. Pero a pesar de que fuera así, distorsionan a Dios según la imagen de hombres y animales, lo cual impediría tener una certeza de “Cómo es Dios”. Y es ahí donde incluso vemos hasta filósofos modernos que nos dan una idea de cómo sería dios (ya sea desde la perspectiva de Locke, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hume, Kant y entre otros) y de ahí incluso las citas posteriores de los versos de Romanos 1:20 y 1 Corintios 1:21. La solución al dilema presentado es, podemos tener razón/certeza de la existencia y atributos divinos según lo que podemos ver alrededor de la creación, pero como el pecado afectó nuestra naturaleza, tener una idea o imagen de Dios aún sería distorsionada, ahora si esto es así, solamente la encarnación de Cristo nos iluminaría plenamente para saber cómo es Dios y cómo podemos alcanzar conocimiento a través de él, es decir, de Jesucristo o cómo diría el apóstol Juan en su evangelio:

“Y aquel verbo fue hecho carne, y habitó entre nosotros (y vimos su gloria, gloria como el unigénito del Padre), lleno de gracia y de verdad”[9]

Referencias:

[1] Suma contra los gentiles, libro uno capítulo III

[2] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol.22, Sermons on the Gospel of St.John, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia House, St. Louis, MO, 1957, p.8.

[3] Biblia RV60, Romanos 1:20.

[4] Biblia RV60, 1 Corintios 1:21

[5] Comentario al NT, Nueva Edición Española Actualizada.

[6] BCS Biblia Comentada.

[7] Comentario al NT por Partain-Reeves.

[8] Comentario Bíblico Mundo Hispano.

[9] Biblia RV60, Juan 1:14

Xavier González es de Venezuela, se dedica al estudio de la filosofía, cristianismo primitivo y teología. Se convirtió al cristianismo a los 15 años. Administró la página de Me Lo Contó Un Ateo y es el encargado de la sección de apologética de la página de la Iglesia cristiana la gracia (http://www.iglesialagracia.org).

December 23, 2019/by Guest

7 Legit Reasons Why So Many Kids are Bored by Church

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

Last Sunday, our church did its annual multilingual service, with three congregations—Mandarin-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and English-speaking—all coming together for worship. We had readings in multiple languages, and a sermon was given in Spanish with an English translator. There was no Sunday school this week, so kids joined their parents in adult church.

When we informed our kids Sunday morning of what would be happening, there was a collective and passionate, “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!” (Honestly, I should have typed more o’s to reflect the true level of protest.)

“PLEASE, let us stay home! We can do home church! Please, not THAT service! It’s SO BORING!”

Apparently, they remembered it well from the prior year. We dragged them into the car in spite of the whining and endured their pleas all the way there.

I’d be lying if I said this was a rare occurrence of my kids not wanting to go to church. The nature of this service perhaps made them complain more loudly than normal, but there are plenty of typical Sundays when our kids ask, “Do we have to go?” I’d bet a lot of money that you’ve been asked the same.

The question of what to do when kids don’t want to go to church has been one of the most frequent ones I’ve received over the years from readers, and it’s one of the most commonly discussed questions in various Christian parenting forums (you can join my own Christian parenting group on Facebook by clicking here).

The running theme of kids’ complaints is usually that church is boring, and they don’t want to go because of it. Parents tend to assume it’s their job to convince their kids that church isn’t boring and are looking for ways to do so.

But that’s a really bad assumption.

I think there are actually quite a few legitimate reasons why so many kids are bored by the church and/or Sunday school. In other words, kids aren’t always just making up random excuses to not go; a lot of times, their avoidance reflects a genuine problem.

Here are several “legit” reasons for boredom at church that parents should consider.

There’s too much emphasis on fun at Sunday school.

This probably sounds counterintuitive. After all, if Sunday school is a lot of fun, then kids should want to go, right? No, no, and no. Now, if Sunday school truly was some kind of incredible amusement park-like experience, that could be the case (and kids would choose to go for the wrong reasons). But Sunday school “fun” usually consists of relatively mild amusement like crafts, foosbal, or maybe an indoor relay race using spoons and M&Ms.

This kind of “fun” can never compete with your child’s idea of fun at home, where they can do anything they want.

Of course, they will want to stay home; church fun is boring compared to home fun. When a Sunday school program focuses on entertainment, this is the natural apples-to-apples comparison a kid’s going to make. Who can blame them?

If most of what your kid takes away from church is that there’s a little lesson with a lot of social time, you’re going to have a hard time convincing them that “church” isn’t boring (when “church” is Sunday school entertainment in their mind).

“Adult” church is beyond their current grasp.

Parents sometimes try to get around the lack of substance found in many Sunday school programs by keeping their kids with them in “adult” church each week. This can work really well for some kids. My 11-year-old daughter has recently been opting out of Sunday school to come with us to adult church because she’s able to follow along and says she learns much more than in class. When my 9-year-old daughter saw that her sister was doing this, she wanted to come too. But when she did, she spent most of the service with her head on my shoulder trying to sleep—she just doesn’t have the interest or attention span yet that my older daughter does. When she told me after church that day that it was boring, I told her, “Of course it was! You chose to sleep!”

For kids like my older daughter, who want to attend adult church in lieu of Sunday school, this can be a great choice. But for those like my younger one who aren’t ready to track with what’s being taught and instead spend the time doodling in a bulletin or daydreaming, boredom will be the inevitable outcome. That doesn’t necessarily mean that kids’ Sunday school will be seen as less boring, but rather that adult church isn’t always the answer.

Their family attends church sporadically.

Every pastor I know laments the fact that families are attending church with less regularity than they used to, for all kinds of reasons (Sunday morning sports being a big one). A “regular” attender is now someone attending once per month.

I know this is going to rub some people the wrong way, but it’s important to say: A church could have the best Sunday school program in the world, but if a family only attends sporadically, it’s natural that a child will find it boring—they’re not really connected to what’s going on or what’s being taught. You can’t blame a kid for mentally checking out at that point.

Faith in their family is mostly about going to church on Sundays.

Even if your family attends church every week, if you’re not regularly praying together, studying the Bible together, and having conversations about faith at home, your kids will rightly wonder why they should bother going to church. Church will come to be seen as just one more thing they have to do each week, without any meaningful connection to their daily lives. In other words, it will become an unnecessary time burden in their minds because it’s irrelevant for the rest of the week.

They regularly engage in deep faith conversations at home.

Here’s another counterintuitive point, but I’ve seen it happen in a lot of families that are very committed to their faith. If your family consistently has deep faith conversations (the kinds I write about in my books, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side and Talking with Your Kids about God), in all likelihood your kids are gaining a far more intellectually robust faith than they’ll get from the average Sunday school—and Sunday school will seem extremely boring in comparison. A telltale sign that this is the problem is when your kids complain they aren’t “learning anything” or say that it’s the “same stories over and over.”

Though parents often assume there’s some kind of problem with their kids’ spiritual development when they don’t want to attend Sunday school, it can mean the opposite in this case; kids may simply have much higher expectations for what should be discussed in a Sunday school environment and be bored by the 600^th telling of Noah’s ark followed by popcorn.

They have doubts about God or the truth of Christianity.

It should be obvious, but I’m surprised how many parents never consider this possibility: If kids have stopped believing in God or in the truth of Christianity, they’re going to find church boring.

Imagine for a moment that you had to attend a church (or other group) you didn’t agree with every single week, and someone expected you to take interest. They study a book you think is fiction but apply it as truth in their lives and think you should too. Chances are, you’d find that boring because you don’t believe what they do. Why study a fictional book so deeply each week?

In the same way, kids who no longer hold a faith in Jesus are going to get tired of hearing about Him every Sunday. It’s outside the scope of this post to weigh the pros and cons of making such kids attend church, but there are two points for our current purpose to take away here:

If your kids find church boring and/or fight you on going, have a conversation with them about what they currently believe regarding God, Jesus, and the Bible. You may be surprised by what you learn.
If you discover that their boredom with the church is rooted in unbelief, your greater concern (by far) should be to discuss their doubts and to have conversations about the evidence for the truth of Christianity.

They’re human.

On the drive to the church service I described at the beginning of this post, I turned to the kids in the back of the car and said, “Hey guys. I have something surprising to tell you.” They got quiet, and I continued.

“I don’t feel like going to church today either. I don’t really enjoy this particular service. I would rather be at home this morning.”

They looked at me with wide eyes, anticipating we might go home.

“But I’m going anyway. You see, as humans, it’s often easiest and very tempting to stay home from church on Sunday mornings. That’s a totally normal feeling, and adults have it too sometimes. But we make it a priority to go in spite of those occasional feelings for several reasons: 1) It’s one way of putting God first in our lives (by committing to church each Sunday morning); 2) Church isn’t only about learning—it’s also about worship, and worship transforms our relationship with God; and 3) It’s important to develop relationships with other believers and be in community (Hebrews 10:25). I’m not going to church this morning because I can’t think of anything else I’d like to be doing, but rather because I love the Lord, and this is one way I put him first.”

In other words, I explained to them why their boredom shouldn’t be the deciding factor in attending church.

I didn’t try to convince them that they shouldn’t ever think the church is boring.

This is a critical distinction for kids to understand because as I’ve hopefully shown in this post, there are many legitimate reasons why kids may find church boring at times. When they understand why church matters even when they find it boring, it can lead to far more productive conversations than just ramming heads every Sunday morning.

Stay tuned for next week’s blog post, when I’ll do a cover reveal with the table of contents for my new book coming in March! I’m so excited to share it with you! Also, I’m running a giveaway of four of my books on my blog’s Facebook page through December 5. If you don’t follow me there already or haven’t seen it, click over!

Was the Deity of Christ A Legendary Development?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Skeptics of all stripes vehemently deny the deity of Christ. Besides their a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism, a major argument they put forth is that the earliest Christians didn’t believe Jesus was divine. Rather, this belief in his deity was a legendary development, as evidenced by the four Gospels.

It’s the skeptics’ contention that the earliest Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) don’t teach a divine Jesus at all. Instead, they portray a very human Jesus. It’s not until the Gospel of John, written some sixty years after Jesus’ death, that we find a clear reference to Jesus’ divinity.

The argument goes; these Gospels reflect what the earliest communities believed about Jesus. Thus, the earlier Gospels, which don’t portray the deity of Christ, suggest that the earliest communities didn’t believe in the deity of Christ. Once we get to John, however, legends of Jesus’ divine nature have had time to spread throughout the Christian community, hence the high Christology in John.

Bart Erhman, Of Course, Agrees

Bart Ehrman sums up this view in this article:

The problem is that the only Gospel of the New Testament, where Jesus makes divine claims about himself is the Gospel of John. In the three earlier Gospels, you do not find Jesus saying things like “I and the Father are One,” or “Before Abraham was, I am,” or “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” These sayings are found only in the Fourth Gospel, as are all the other “I am” sayings, in which Jesus identifies himself as the one who has come from heaven to earth for the salvation of all who believe in him.

He goes on to say:

The most common way that scholars have explained this almost inexplicable omission in the Synoptic Gospels is simply that their authors did not think of Jesus as a divine being who was equal with God and pre-existed his birth, who became incarnate as the God-Man…

And the ultimate payoff is that this view of the Fourth Gospel is not the view of the historical Jesus himself. It is a later view put on his lips by the author of John or his sources.

Is Ehrman right? Was the deity of Christ a legendary development as he suggests? I don’t think so for at least two reasons.

Paul Writes Earlier Than the Gospels

First, hardly anyone disputes the fact that Paul wrote his letters before the Synoptic Gospels. And interestingly enough, Paul has an incredibly high Christology. Consider these two texts:

Romans 9:5

To them (the Jews) belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Writing sometime in the mid-fifties, here’s a clear reference to the deity of Christ. The legendary hypothesis doesn’t seem to work here. Nor does it with the next text.

Philippians 2:5-11

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There’s little doubt this text proclaims Jesus as the pre-existent God of the universe. Paul gives us at least two reasons for reaching this conclusion.

First, he states that Jesus was “in the form of God.” The word for “form” in the Greek is morphe, which denotes the exact substance or nature of something.

Second, Paul suggests that Jesus was equal with God when he wrote that Jesus “did not count equality with God something to be grasped.”

What is especially interesting is that even though Paul penned these words, scholars agree that this portion of Philippians was an early Christian hymn dating much earlier than Paul’s letter itself.

In other words, the pre-Pauline Christian community sang these words in their corporate gatherings and collectively worshipped Jesus as God.

Larry Hurtado highlights this truth:

The singing/chanting of such odes is one of several phenomena that demonstrate the remarkable and innovative nature of early Christian worship, in which Jesus was programmatically included in the “devotional pattern” of early Christian circles along with God, and in ways otherwise reserved for God.1

While Ehrman and other skeptics try to persuade the masses that nobody believed in the deity of Christ until the end of the first century, Paul’s writings seem to indicate otherwise.

The Synoptic Gospels Highlight the Deity Of Christ Too

The second reason we should reject the legendary hypothesis is that the Synoptics, though not as explicit as John, still portray a divine Jesus. Let me give you a few examples:

Matthew 1:23

Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. And they shall call his name Immanuel, which means God with us.

From the very beginning, Matthew seems to indicate that this baby Jesus would be pretty special. Divine actually. His very name would mean “God with us” — a clear expression of the incarnation.

Mark 2:5-7

After the men had lowered the paralytic man down through the roof, Mark reports:

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

The scribes ask a crucial question. Who can forgive sins but God alone? Of course, the answer is no one. Yet, we have Jesus pronouncing forgiveness upon this paralytic man, and backing up his pronouncement with a healing miracle.

Luke 1:16-17

As the forerunner of Jesus, Luke speaks of John the Baptist:

And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.

John’s prophetic role was to prepare the people of Israel for the coming Lord. And we know, based on the rest of the text, that coming Lord was Jesus himself.

Matthew 28:18-19

Jesus proclaims in the famous Great Commission:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Here at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus lumps himself in with the Trinity — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Notice he uses the singular for “name” not plural “names.” In other words, Jesus understood himself as one with the Father and Spirit.

Mark 14:62

As Jesus stood on trial, the Jewish leaders asked if he was the Son of God. He unashamedly affirmed:

“I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One coming on the clouds of heaven”

It’s a common misconception to think that Jesus’ favorite title for himself — Son of Man — refers to his humanness. The exact opposite, however, is the case.

Jesus’ self-claim is actually a reference to a prophesy about a divine figure found in Daniel 7:13-14. That text reads:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

It’s not hard to see the parallels between Jesus’ statement in Mark 14 and the prophesy in Daniel 7. Jesus claimed to be this apocalyptic figure who would come down from the clouds of heaven to judge the earth. He had all authority, glory, and power. All the nations would worship him, and his dominion would last forever. How could anyone think these qualities belonged to anyone other than God?

I could give several other examples, but this should suffice for now.

A Final Verdict

Skeptics have gotten a lot of mileage out of the claim that the deity of Christ was a legendary development. Yet, the data seems to suggest otherwise.

Despite not being as explicit as John, the synoptic Gospels still present a divine Jesus. They present him as the second person of the Trinity, the apocalyptic Son of Man from Daniel 7, and the one who has the authority to forgive sins.

Additionally, Paul — who wrote before any of the Gospels — presents an even higher Christology. Not only does he say things like Christ is God (Rom. 9:5), he quotes from pre-Pauline hymns that exalt the divinity of Jesus, demonstrating that the early Church believed in the deity of Christ from the very beginning.

It’s time we dispel the myth that the early Christians didn’t believe in the deity of Christ. As Richard Bauckham succinctly puts it, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”2 And who could argue based on the evidence?

Un caso contra el teísmo (Parte 4)

Español

In this post I will address one last argument in this series of objections from Randy. You can find part 1 here, part 2 here and part 3 here.

Randy presents an atheological argument which he calls “the full version of the Argument from Evil” and says:

1. God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

2. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence imply the nonexistence of evil.

3. Evil exists (via internal criticism, taken from the moral framework of omnibenevolence, I do not believe it really exists).

4. Either God is not omnipotent or he is not omnibenevolent.

5. God, not having one of those two properties and both being necessary for his existence, God does not exist.

This argument does not include the possibility of defending free will (which I do not believe exists since it is completely irrelevant). Let me explain: the defense of free will is that God, by giving us free will, we choose to do good or evil. My answer would be that God can make us omnibenevolent and we would not do evil, just as he himself is omnibenevolent and only does good, and if “free will” prevents that from being true, then does God not have free will? And if not, why is it so important that we have it? In other words, God could have made us omnibenevolent, but he could not, in that case he would not be omnipotent, or he did not want to, and in that case he would not be omnibenevolent, because then we would choose to do evil. In any case, it is logically impossible to escape from this dichotomy.

Once again, greetings from Cuba.

Randy, I agree with (1) and (3) of your argument, so there is nothing to argue about here.

The main problem with your argument is (2), since there are countless responses to this premise, I will just direct you to those resources that show that this premise is false. You can read a complete response here . So, in short, I can say that (2) is false because there is no explicit contradiction between the propositions:

a. God (who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent) exists

AND

b. Evil exists.

If the atheist believes that both propositions are mutually exclusive, then he must show some hidden or implicit premises that make this contradiction appear, but he does not bother to present them. Therefore, the logical problem of evil does not prove that there is any inconsistency between God and evil. [1]

Since there is no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible, we can say that (4) is false, so (5) no longer follows from the premises.

Now let’s go to your objections to the defense of free will:

This argument does not allow for the defense of free will (which I do not believe exists since it is completely irrelevant).

I think it’s pretty clear that from the premise that something is irrelevant it doesn’t follow that it doesn’t exist.

My answer would be that God can make us omnibenevolent and we would do no wrong, just as he himself is omnibenevolent and only does good…

Oh, Randy, but the problem is that omnibenevolence (or perfect goodness) is an artifact unique to God. As Dr. Craig explains:

A morally perfect being would completely approach the divine nature. He would be worthy of worship. Therefore, he would be God. But God is, necessarily, uncreable. He necessarily exists in and of himself . So God could not create another God, a replica, so to speak, of himself. [2]

Given this response, someone may be tempted to mention Adam, but in Christian theology, Adam is not morally perfect, but morally innocent before the Fall.

…and if “free will” prevents that from being true, then doesn’t God have free will? And if not, why is it so important for us to have it?

I think God does have free will, but there are different versions of free will. The kind of free will I subscribe to is libertarian, which says that to have free will is to be free from causal determinism outside of yourself, the choice is up to you, it is not determined by causal factors outside of you. In the case of God, he is free in that sense because there are no causal factors outside of him.

Conclusion

In the end, Randy, your argument against the existence of God based on the problem of evil is not strong enough to deal with the objections I have presented: there is no logical contradiction between omnibenevolence/omnipotence and the existence of evil, just as your objections to the defense of freedom are not so good. [3]

Grades

[1] For a case against these supposed hidden premises see: https://youtu.be/4Q5zQC2BEVY?t=976 (accessed November 10, 2019).

[2] https://reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-of-the-week/could-god-create-a-morally-perfect-being-with-free-will (accessed November 7, 2019).

[3] For an extensive defense of free will, see Alvin Plantinga’s God, Freedom, and Evil .

Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.

December 16, 2019/by Jairo Izquierdo

Was Jesus Married?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Every Christmas and Easter, I tend to get into conversations about Jesus with people who see Christianity differently. But I’ve also found that even Christians can ask questions raised by skeptics in the public square like, “Was Jesus married?” Often times, Christians find challenges to the Bible’s portrayal of Jesus in a popular book, movie, YouTube video, or somewhere online and wonder how to respond.

Recently, the question of whether or not Jesus had a wife has come up again. So, was Jesus married?

There is no ancient evidence that explicitly tells us that Jesus was married. But raising the question makes a good conspiracy theory. For example, think about popular conversations surrounding Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, and the alleged “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Still, it’s not the kind of thing that historians who study Jesus professionally spent a lot of time debating. In fact, there is a virtual consensus among professional Historical Jesus scholars that Jesus was single.

In this post, I share four challenges to this virtual consensus and show how historical data can help us understand cultural concerns. (1) Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene? (2) Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him? (3) Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi? (4) Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?

Why might some people think that Jesus was married? Here are four culturally-based questions that tend to come up in conversations about Jesus’ marital status.

First, it wasn’t common for Jewish women to travel or live alongside men in Jesus’ culture. So, some people wonder if this was socially acceptable only because Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife. But Luke says that there were three women who travelled with Jesus: Susanna, Joanna, and Mary Magdalene (8:1-3) And he doesn’t say anything that links Mary to Jesus as a wife at all. Beyond this, Jesus was known to challenge cultural views of how men and women should relate to one another, so operating outside the norm by letting women minister alongside him wasn’t a departure from his modus operandi. Later, as Jesus was dying on the cross, he didn’t show any special attention to Mary Magdalene, but instead gave special attention to his mother and John.

Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him?

Second, some people wonder if the sinful woman who anointed Jesus was actually his wife (Luke 7:36-50). They reason that the whole situation wouldn’t have been as offensive to a Jewish audience if the woman was married to Jesus. But Luke reports that the whole situation was in fact offensive, which is why the Pharisee said “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). That objection wouldn’t make a lot of sense if the woman was Jesus’ wife.

Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi?

Third, some people argue that since Jesus was a rabbi, he would have gotten married because that was the tradition of the rabbis. But this starts from a faulty premise. Even though people called Jesus, “teacher” and “rabbi,” he actually wasn’t a rabbi in any official Jewish capacity. This is one reason why the Jewish leaders were often challenging his authority to interpret the law. Beyond this, his teaching about becoming a (metaphorical) eunuch for the sake of the kingdom seems to relate to his own example of singleness and devotion to God (Matthew 19:10-12).

Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Fourth, some say that Jesus had to be married because he was Jewish—as if all Jewish men in the first century felt compelled to marry by their culture. But this just isn’t true. Again, it’s based on a false premise. We know there were first-century Jews who chose to remain single. And their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of in their culture. Some people even looked up to them for it.

A Hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria, wrote that not all Jews thought they had to be married. In fact, some very pious Jews tried to avoid being married as part of their religious devotion (Hypothetical 11.14-17).

The Essenes were a Jewish sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves. They were very concerned about being faithful Jews. These Jews didn’t think they had to be married and chose to be celibate for religious reasons. For them, it helped them keep God as their top priority. Still, archeologists have discovered evidence that there were a minority of women who lived alongside the men at Qumran. This goes to show that Jewish women did live alongside some pious Jewish men who chose to stay single.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, for the Essenes, celibacy was not required, but it was strongly encouraged. He said that they admired abstinence, even to the point where they “neglect wedlock” (Jewish War 2.8.2.121-22).

Josephus also said that many Jews admired the Essenes because of their religious commitment (Antiquities 18.1.5.20). So, not all Jewish men felt compelled to get married, and their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of because it was part of their religious devotion. Paul actually mentions a similar idea in a Christian context (1 Corinthians 7). Which brings me to an extra observation.

Paul on Marriage and Singleness

Here’s a little bonus: It’s interesting to see how Paul does not refer to Jesus in a couple of discussions about marriage and singleness. On the one hand, he didn’t appeal to Jesus while telling the Corinthians about how a pastor had the right to be married (1 Cor 9:4-7). If Jesus was married, this would be the perfect place to say, “Since Jesus was married, all pastors can be married, too.”

On the other hand, when Paul gives his own personal advice about staying single, he doesn’t mention Jesus either. This is because he wasn’t telling Christians that they had to stay single in order to be fully devoted to God. So, he didn’t want to say, “Since Jesus was single, all Christians should be single, too.” Jesus never taught that, and putting an end to families would spell the end of the Christian movement! Still, my point is that Paul’s silence about Jesus’ marital status in these discussions makes good sense if Jesus was single.

Jesus was Single

So, was Jesus married? No. All the data supports the virtual scholarly consensus that Jesus was single. Contrary to what some might say about first-century Jewish culture, a pious Jewish man could remain single and have no problem fitting in with Jewish society. Jewish culture did understand and appreciate singleness, especially when connected to a lifestyle of religious devotion.

Money, Greed and God with Dr. Jay Richards

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Many people seem confused about what socialism is and whether or not it would be better than America’s capitalistic system. If there’s one book you should read on this—in fact, it’s one of the best books on economics you’ll read anywhere—is the new edition of Money, Greed and God: The Christian Case for Free Enterprise by Dr. Jay Richards. On this show, Frank interviews Jay and gets clear answers to these questions:

What are Socialism, Marxism, and communism and how do they differ?
Shouldn’t Christians be communists based on the early believers communing their resources in the book of Acts?
We hear that socialism works in Sweden. Is that true?
Why doesn’t socialism work?
Why do you think so many young people are attracted to a failed system?
Isn’t capitalism based on greed? How can Christians be for it?
We hear a lot about income inequality. Is that a bad thing, and, if so, what can be done about it?
When politicians use the phrase “paying your fair share”, what standard are they using to determine what is fair?
Our welfare system actually pays women to have kids out of wedlock. How do we improve the safety net to prevent that from happening?
Why does religious and economic liberty fall together?
The two industries in which the government controls significantly are education and health care. Why are prices high and quality low in those industries?
You say that no one person at Apple, including CEO Tim Cook, knows how to make an iPhone. What does this say about the difference between socialism and free-market capitalism?

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

December 14, 2019/by Guest

Experiencing the Christmas Story

Beyond Apologetics

God Keeps His Promises

Here’s the Point

Videos on Experiencing the Christmas Story

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Question:

My Response:

Limited Government

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

Free Will and Economics

Sin In Conservative Economics

“Give Like No One Else”

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Referencias:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Bart Erhman, Of Course, Agrees

Paul Writes Earlier Than the Gospels

Romans 9:5

Philippians 2:5-11

The Synoptic Gospels Highlight the Deity Of Christ Too

Matthew 1:23

Mark 2:5-7

Luke 1:16-17

Matthew 28:18-19

Mark 14:62

A Final Verdict

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Grades

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?

Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him?

Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi?

Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Paul on Marriage and Singleness

Jesus was Single

Recommended resources related to the topic: