Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives - Page 27 of 96

Giving Atheists a Hand

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

Christians Must Care Less about Our Cultural Reputation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

Never have I written an article title that sounds less intuitive. Don’t we need to be concerned about our witness to the world? Isn’t that implied in the Great Commission? Shouldn’t people see us and want to follow Jesus because of our reputation?

Stick with me here, because this requires some nuance and it’s really important.

The idea that Christians need to fix a growing reputation problem in our society is becoming increasingly common in conversations on social media and even in articles by well-known Christian leaders. Comments like “The world is watching…” or “We’re damaging our witness by…” often warn believers to modify what we say or do so culture will think differently about us. The assumption is that we’ve collectively gone wrong in recent months (or years), and now we’ve got to quickly do something about it…before the world thinks even worse of us.

I would agree that Christians (and Christianity in general) are increasingly being seen in a negative light by nonbelievers. But I think we need to be extremely careful in how we assess and respond to that fact.

Our cultural reputation is not necessarily a measure of how faithfully we’re living out our calling as Christians.

If we treat it as such, we’re going to end up fixing the wrong problems.

What Makes a Reputation?

By definition, a reputation is “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” This implies that a reputation involves the words and actions of two parties:

What party one says or does
What party two thinks party one says or does, and how they evaluate that

This is where things get tricky. If your reputation is negative in some way with another party, it could:

be deserved (based on what you’ve said or done);
be a mistranslation between what you’ve said or done and what the other party thinks you’ve said or done; or
be a negative evaluation of what you’ve said or done, even when accurately understood.

When we consider the layers involved here, we can better understand why our reputation—what people think of us—is less important than we might assume.

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

I follow a number of atheist authors and organizations on Facebook to see what’s important to them and how they talk about various issues. One thing I’ve noticed over years of doing this is that they focus more on highlighting the worst examples of Christianity than on anything else. One example that quickly comes to mind is Westboro Baptist Church, known for protests featuring signs proclaiming that “God hates fags.”

This is horrendous.

God loves everyone, even if he hates sin. And to use such derogatory language reveals a misplaced motivation for why they do what they do. Such tactics are rooted in contempt, not in love for bringing people into a saving relationship with Jesus.

If someone pointed out this example as something that gives Christians a bad reputation, I would say, “Yes, it absolutely does.” This isn’t consistent with the Bible at all. It would be extremely unfortunate for anyone to judge the truth and/or goodness of Christianity as a whole based on individual examples like this, but the reality is that they do. While we may think this kind of extrapolation is unfair (“Westboro doesn’t represent Christianity!”), we have to recognize that our culture has a very poor understanding of biblical Christianity and will come to faulty conclusions because of it.

It’s not just extreme examples like Westboro that give Christians a bad reputation, of course. There are plenty of Christians engaging in conversations that could hardly be described as bringing glory to God. The tone we use, the approach we take, and the words we share can do even more damage to the Christian “reputation” than the Westboros of the world because firsthand interactions often leave a more lasting impact.

This aspect of reputation is what we should care deeply about because it’s what we have control over—the integrity of our witness. As Paul says in Philippians 1:27, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”

In all we do, we should stay obsessively focused on that question: Is my conduct worthy of the name of the Lord?

When There’s a Mistranslation

In a lengthy Instagram post this week, singer Demi Lovato detailed why gender reveal parties are “transphobic.” Lovato says:

“It’s both insincere and incorrect to pretend that gender reveal parties are not transphobic… Transphobia is not just about prejudice against individual trans people, it’s also a way of thinking that understands non-trans people as more natural/organic and erases everyone else.”

Yes, having a party to announce your baby’s gender now means you’re afraid of people who struggle with gender dysphoria and want to “erase” them.

For Christians, it’s nothing new to be called homophobic or transphobic because of a belief that biblical marriage is between a man and woman or that God created two genders. But to characterize these beliefs as “phobic” (a fear) is a mistranslation; saying that God has a sexual and marital design for humans isn’t to be afraid of anything. It’s to believe that God has revealed his will and purposes for humanity in the Bible and that popular moral consensus on these issues conflicts with that revelation. It simply doesn’t follow that these beliefs imply hatred or fear, yet society continually labels them as such. The result? Christians often have a reputation for being homophobic or transphobic.

No one wants to be known as hateful or fearful, so what do we do with that?

Here’s where the problematic responses come into the picture.

Christians are increasingly on a crusade to save us from this reputation—not by working to correct the misunderstanding that moral disagreement equals hate, but by refusing to speak up or by changing their view to match that of society. I experience this all the time when I post articles about hot cultural topics on my Facebook author page. There are always Christians who comment that it gives others a negative impression of us when we speak out on certain subjects (even when we do so graciously), or who comment that the traditional view is wrong in the first place.

Silence or agreement may improve our cultural reputation with non-believers, but it’s fixing the wrong problem.

In our silence, we fail to be the salt and light we’re called to be.

In our agreement, we fail to be faithful to God’s Word.

In fixing our “reputation,” we break our integrity.

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written often in recent months about his concern for the church’s witness, particularly in the area of politics.

In his widely shared article, “The Gospel in a Democracy Under Assault,” Moore wrote that Christians need to be “people of truth.” What does that entail? He explains:

“It will take decades to rebuild from the wreckage in this country. But, as Christians, we can start now—just by not being afraid to say what is objectively the truth. Joe Biden has been elected president. Millions of babies are being aborted. The pandemic is real. So is racial injustice—both personal and systemic. So is the sexual abuse of women and children. If Christians are people of truth, we ought to be the first to acknowledge reality.”

In a backhanded way, Moore is suggesting that Christians are guilty of damaging our witness because we’ve collectively been denying the “realities” on his truth list. The implication is that we need to be known for agreeing with these statements if we have any hope of salvaging our credibility.

But some of these so-called truths we’re all supposed to acknowledge are grossly oversimplified.

For example, I’ve never seen a single person suggest that the pandemic doesn’t exist. Everyone knows it’s real, but Christians have varied views on its relative risk, issues surrounding freedom to worship, and the tradeoff between health risk and economics. If culture accurately understands that many Christians are concerned about the freedom to worship even in a pandemic but evaluates that negatively (an example of the third type of reputation issue), that’s not necessarily something we can or should fix. The world doesn’t like it, but sometimes we have to be just fine with that.

Similarly, Moore says that we all must acknowledge the reality of systemic racism. But systemic racism is a loaded term that has a very specific meaning today—it’s the idea that racism is baked into the very structure of our society, and any disparity in outcomes between people is due to oppressive social structures. There are many Christians who would not agree with Moore that this is a “truth” we should be lining up behind in order to salvage our cultural credibility. Again, if culture evaluates Christians negatively for not buying into the idea that disparate outcomes are necessarily the product of racist social structures, we can’t necessarily fix that reputation “problem.” The world will simply not always think well of us for what we believe or what we don’t.

Ironically, Moore himself is adding to the very reputation issue he is concerned about by suggesting to the watching world that Christians have thought or done wrong to get the reputation we have. Yet at least a couple of those things have more to do with the negative evaluation people have of legitimate Christian concerns than about actual failure to live faithfully.

It is right to be concerned with our witness to the world. We do want people to be attracted to Jesus through us. But that doesn’t mean we should try to manage our reputation, because there’s much involved we can’t control. Remember, Jesus said the world will hate us (John 15:18). We just want to be sure we’re disliked for the right reasons. If the world hates us because of the truth we share, that’s to be expected. If the world hates us because we’re acting like a bunch of ungodly jerks, may we feel the deepest conviction to repent of the ugliness we’ve brought to the name of the Lord.

The Christian Celebrity And The Psychopath

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

If you were looking for a completely trustworthy Christian apologist to follow, would you pick someone who had risen to the status of global celebrity because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the Gospel? Or would you gravitate toward someone who is a well-documented and self-confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might at first seem. In this case, I’d pick the psychopath. And I say that based on the advice of … the psychopath. But if that sounds strange to you, keep reading.

The Christian Celebrity

This past month we learned that the world-famous Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, led a double life. The ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), has admitted as much. On one hand, Ravi was a gifted communicator of the Gospel. A deep thinker. He defended the faith with clarity and a wealth of experience he drew from an eclectic cultural background. He was the complete package. A man who could handle the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate.

At least on the outside.

Behind closed doors, it turns out that Ravi was a pervert. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem fall from grace is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

The Psychopath

Though not as popular as Ravi Zacharias, David Wood is also a phenomenal communicator. He is best known as the go-to guy on the subject of Islam. But there is way more to David Wood than that. Wood has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion with a concentration on “the problem of evil.” He’s an expert on that subject too — mostly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. That’s not my opinion. It’s a clinical diagnosis. You can listen to his testimony about it here. The thirty-four minutes you spend doing so will blow your mind.

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die or, for that matter, when his friends die. He admits to his struggles at being a husband and a father. In his words, he is a “screwed up individual.” He gives details for why he says that here (starting at the 30:30 time mark).

Wood tried to bludgeon his father to death with a ball-peen hammer. He served time in prison as a result. That’s where he met Randy, a fellow prisoner, and Christian who challenged him to answer questions. To think about the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason his way to the existence of objective morality — and to its Source. His story is a powerful example of why pursuing the truth should be our primary objective. It’s a reminder that Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth … and only in Him.

Reacting To Ravi

The case of Ravi Zacharias has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi sycophants who deny the charges against him. People in that camp have to believe that multiple women around the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously come up with identical descriptions of his methods and tastes. Continuing to believe that is just delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. It’s just the latest iteration of the false argument which claims that hypocritical Christians render Christianity unbelievable. That’s ridiculous. As David Wood put it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me start believing that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi articulated is still the truth, even if it came out of the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

Those are the extremes. The more reasonable and predictable commentary has come from those who have given wise advice about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel should ever have demanded the unchecked liberty Ravi Zacharias did. And no ministry leadership team should ever have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart to which Jeremiah 17:9 refers lives in all of us. Even those who are Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting Characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his own perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as justification for covering them up. After all, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. Thus, the Christian celebrity spiraled deeper and deeper into a sewer of his own creation and never admitted he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

Meanwhile, the unemotional rationality of a psychopath led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the pitfalls of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one to trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Don’t place your trust in any man.

The Unchanging Truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove that point. And he won’t be the last.

Neither does being a sinner negate anyone’s capacity to know and live the truth … even if they’re a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity don’t reside in any human being. They rest only on the objective reality that is their Source — the character of God himself. Men will disappoint you. But the Truth doesn’t change.

And it never will.

Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We began an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When investigating any claim of history, whether recent or of antiquity, historians use historiographical tools to decipher the probability of the event in question. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools used by historians to determine the legitimacy of the claims presented. The logic behind the criterion is that writers will attempt to make their cause look as attractive as possible. If the presented event contains details that are embarrassing to the writer, the earliest leaders, the founder, or the cause; then it could be said that the event is authentic. Craig Evans writes, “This criterion is easily misunderstood. All it means is that material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank” (Evans 2006, 49). When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous embarrassing details are discovered. Ten such embarrassing details will be presented in this article.

1. Women were the first eyewitnesses (John 20:11-18).

Seeing that this topic was the focus of the last article, not much will be said. For those who have not read the article, see the first part of this series. As a recap, the testimony of women did not hold the bearing that the testimony of men in the first century. Thus, if one is inventing a story, women would certainly not be used as the first witnesses. Yet all four Gospels note that it was the women, particularly Mary Magdalene, who first witnessed the risen Jesus. For this reason, the testimony of women serves as an embarrassing detail that speaks to the authenticity of the resurrection event.

2. The cowardice of the first disciples (Mark 15:40-41).

The women watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar. They attended to the needs of Jesus up until the very end. However, the male disciples were nowhere to be found with the sole exception of John of Zebedee who was instructed to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27). Peter and the men ran and hid while it was the women who were brave and remained steadfast to Jesus. In the first century where male bravery was held in high esteem, it is unthinkable that this aspect of the Easter story would have been told unless it were, in fact, true.

3. The inability of the disciples to give Jesus a proper burial (John 19:38-42).

Proper burials were important to ancient Jews. Milton Fisher notes that “a society’s burial customs are a reflection of its spiritual views about death and the afterlife” (Fisher, 386). Failing to give a beloved person a proper burial negatively portrayed the value that the person/people placed on the dearly departed. It was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrin, who gave Jesus a proper burial. A member of the very same Sanhedrin gave Jesus the burial that the disciples could not afford. This is incredibly embarrassing especially in an honor/shame culture found in the Middle East and Asian nations.

4. Doubt of the first eyewitnesses (Matt. 28:16-17).

After Jesus’s resurrection, the Evangelists (the Gospel writers) are honest about the doubts that some disciples hold. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is singled out and identified as one of those who doubted (John 20:24-25). Thomas is often ascribed with the title “Doubting Thomas.” This is unfortunate as Thomas demonstrated his faith by most likely giving his life. Good traditions suggest that Thomas was martyred for his faith by being speared in Mylapore, India on July 2, 72 AD. Even still, the Evangelists would not have reported the first witnesses’ doubt if it had not occurred.

5. The crucifixion is considered a curse (Deut. 21:23).

If a Jewish group was going to invent a movement, the last thing they would do is have their hero die on a cross. The book of Deuteronomy holds that any person who is hung from a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). An invented hero of Judaism crucified on a tree would not have been viewed as an admirable man, much less for one claimed to be the Messiah. For this reason, even the skeptical John Dominic Crossan states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Crossan, 145).

6. Ignorance of the first disciples of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45-49).

If the age of social media has shown anything, it is that people do not like to be wrong. Furthermore, if they are wrong, they will most likely not broadcast that fact. However, the Evangelists often describe their need for Jesus to explain the Scriptures to them to explain why the things occurred as they did. The disciples anticipated a military hero like Judas Maccabeus. What they received was far from what was expected—he was even better!

7. James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry (John 7:5).

Serving as one of Gary Habermas’s six minimal facts, James was radically transformed by the resurrection event. James, Jesus’s half-brother, served as the first pastor of the Jerusalem Church and was a notable figure in Judea. However, this early Christian leader was not originally a disciple of Jesus. John records that none of Jesus’s brothers and sisters believed in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5). Furthermore, his family thought that Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) at one juncture. This is not something that a person would record unless it is grounded in some historical truth.

8. The Jewish leaders invented the story of the disciples stealing the body (Matt. 28:11-15).

The Gospel of Matthew records the fabrication of a story by the Jewish leadership. When the guards reported the events to the Jewish leaders, they told the guards to tell everyone that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is tremendously problematic. The Roman guards would have been executed if they had fallen asleep or permitted the disciples to steal Jesus’s body. Furthermore, there is little chance that the disciples could have overtaken a fully armed Roman guard which may have consisted of as many as sixteen soldiers. The recording of the story itself illustrates an embarrassing detail that finds merit in history.

9. Jesus’s anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42-44).

Jesus was not presented as a hero heading to the cross with no fear or anxiety. Rather, the picture portrayed by the Evangelists is quite different. Jesus was extremely brave going to the cross as he did. Evidence from the geographical layout suggests that Jesus could have easily escaped the Garden of Gethsemane through the shroud of the night. He would have seen the soldiers coming from Jerusalem at a distance. Even still, the Evangelists report that Jesus was so anxious that he sweated great drops of blood (Luke 22:42-44). Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition in which the capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands burst under extreme fear and stress. Luke notes that the angels of the Lord came to minister to him before heading to trial. This would not have been recorded unless true as this story counters the hero legends of the day.

10. Peter’s denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).

All three Synoptic Gospels record the betrayal of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was considered to be the first major leader of the Christian church after Jesus ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, the one and same Peter is shown to have denied that he even knew Jesus three times in the courtyard outside of where Jesus was tried. This is extremely embarrassing and would not have been documented unless it was grounded in historical truth.

Conclusion

The ten embarrassing details presented here only scratches the surface of what could be mentioned. Nonetheless, the Evangelists’ willingness to document stories that cast the earliest disciples, and sometimes even Jesus himself, in a bad light illustrates the value they placed on recording the biographies of Jesus accurately. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus is not based on legendary and mythical data. Rather, it is grounded in historical facts, at least what the early disciples and Evangelists believed to be true.

Sources

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.

Fisher, Milton C. “Burial, Burial Customs.” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

No God, No Justice

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Karsten Friske

The idea of protesting in an attempt to garner support to make a moral change is not new. With each movement, there exists a side that champions a series of issues and a counter-protest that opposes the change. In recent days, some have advocated for racial justice by marching to affirm the value of Black lives. Others are concerned about election integrity and the rule of law in that area. Both of these primary causes are attempting to evoke social reform and call for justice in the midst of perceived injustice. Yet, undergirding both of these cries for justice is an assumption that justice matters, that we as humans matter.

This may seem like I am stating the obvious, but the implications are buried and broad.

The fight for justice assumes that objective moral values (i.e, it is a good thing to be a firefighter) and obligations (i.e., if you see a house burning, you should call the fire department) actually exist. In other words, these moral obligations and values exist independent of subjective human opinion. If moral values and obligations were all subjective (such as your favorite genre of film), one is merely advocating for a personal preference. Yet, it seems absurd to suggest that Black lives only have subjective worth or that election integrity is a matter of preference.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

However, in a world that increasingly follows a cultural philosophy of post-modernism and post-Christian thought, the consequences for such thinking tend to go unopposed. You may ask yourself, “what does it all really matter? People can do good things without a belief in God and can collectively make moral progress by reasoning together!”

Yes, people can do good things without ever affirming God’s existence. People can also join together and make a more just society without ever consulting Scripture. However, they cannot ground why these pursuits matter without an objective starting point.

In a world where subjective (relative) life goals and one’s own “truth” reigns supreme, there exists no room for objective meaning, purpose, truth, value, or even justice. Although this is done in the name of tolerance to prevent a violation of one’s own sovereign will, the implications are far more catastrophic than what it is trying to prevent.

In short, since nobody can be right in a relativistic framework, nobody can be wrong. If nobody can be wrong, there exists no basis to decry injustice or celebrate justice.

If all life is devoid of objective meaning, there is no difference between someone who fights for justice or works to suppress it. In the end, they are simply two groups of humans exerting energy over causes they feel deserve more attention. The signs they carry display words that demand a moral change in a world without the possibility of moral progress or absolutes. The causes that motivated protest are also just as insignificant as the people doing the marching.

The “Noble Lie”

As I hope you can see, the above worldview is incompatible with any activist or anyone who has ever felt wronged. It is for this reason that the proposed solution of a “noble lie” was introduced. In a nutshell, the view proposes that we all know life is meaningless, so we tell ourselves lies that everything we are interested in has some sort of significance, even though it ultimately does not.

The problem with the “noble lie” is that it promotes self-delusion and is self-defeating.

Remember, the problem that the “noble lie” supposedly solves is the incapability of living in a world without absolutes. Yet, it is proposed that we absolutely (or objectively) all create “noble lies” to live in the world. Furthermore, it is viewed by proponents as being “noble” or a benefit to society. How can we know it is noble when we have no ground on which to base what is noble and what is not??

This is the self-defeating web that is woven when one marches without a foundation.

So What’s The Solution?

First and foremost is to notice the great consequences these various views hold. With God, we have an objective basis for meaning, morality, truth, and justice, as these are all rooted in His nature. This is only heightened by looking at this whole problem from a Christian worldview where humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite worth. Moreover, the cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sin is open to all (old, young, rich, poor, and any color or creed).

Lastly, Christianity offers a solution to unpunished evil that occurs on Earth (remember, we have grounding to say something is evil in this worldview). God is the ultimate Judge to whom all are called to give an account. Some may choose to live what appears to be an ethical mantra of trying to “be a good person,” but these attempts are in vain.

Although they appear attainable in relation to other humans (such as comparing your sins to that of a serial killer), these aspirations soon fall short when matched to a Holy and Perfect God who is the standard of good. This is why salvation, offered through Jesus Christ as a result of His death on the cross, is a gift. It comes after surrendering a false hope in a subjective standard of good and humbly asking to receive the pardon of which none of us is worthy.

So to conclude, when calls for justice are given with an impassioned plea of “No justice, no peace!” it is my hope that the points raised here will remind you of the foundations needed to even argue for such justice. Additionally, I hope that the consequences of holding a purely relativistic or subjective worldview are clearer to you now than before your reading of this article.

Does God Treat Women like Second-Class Citizens in the Old Testament?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Perhaps the most scathing statement ever made about the God of the Old Testament came from the pen of Richard Dawkins. He famously snarled:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]

Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists have successfully persuaded the masses into believing that God is a moral monster.

Sadly, Christians have not been immune to these attacks either. Dating back to the second-century heretic Marcion, people within the church have succumbed to the notion that the God of the Old Testament is radically different from Jesus in the New. Commenting on Marcion’s views, Michael Kruger notes that his “theology was shaped by what he regarded as an insurmountable problem with the Old Testament. He viewed the God of the Old Testament as vengeful and wrathful; and viewed the God of Jesus, as described in the writings of Paul, as peaceable, merciful, and loving.”[2]

Among other complaints, one of the more powerful critiques leveled against the God of the Old Testament is that he is anti-women. Some go so far to suggest that God places women on par with chattel. This critique is especially powerful considering the contemporary feminist movement. But is this critique warranted? Does the Old Testament portray God as negatively as some would like us to believe?

In this article, I will argue that a close examination of the Old Testament vindicates God’s morality with respect to women. I will substantiate this claim in two steps. First, I will demonstrate that the skeptic’s objections are largely based on poor hermeneutics. And second, I will examine some of the most popular “problem” texts used to advance the false narrative that God is misogynistic and establish that they do not portray God in a negative light.

Hermeneutical Principles

A surface reading of a few Old Testament texts may lead some to believe that God thinks women are inferior to men. One reason detractors have reached this conclusion is because they fail to use basic hermeneutical principles when interpreting biblical text. Specifically, critics ignore historical context, overlook the distinction between case laws and God’s ideals, and assume a mere description of an event means God’s prescription of it.

Historical Context

“The first stage in serious Bible study,” notes Grant Osborne, “is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found.”[3] He goes on to note, “Since Christianity is a historical religion, the interpreter must recognize that an understanding of the history and culture within which the passage was produced is an indispensable tool for uncovering the meaning of that passage.”[4] Osborne’s advice is especially pertinent considering the wide chasm that exists between the Ancient Near East (ANE) and twenty-first century America.

If we are to understand what Moses meant in the Penteteuch, we must have some understanding of his millieu. Moreoever, we must remember that Israel was birthed out of the ANE where partriarchy, primogeniture, polygamy, and slavery were accepted norms.[5] That is to say, Israel did not exist in a vacuum, isolated from its neighboring nations. This close proximity explains why many of those less than ideal structures existed in ancient Israel.

With this context established, one readily observes that God does not endorse the broken structures of patriarchy, polygamy, slavery and so forth. Rather, we observe that God worked within those already existing structures, seeking to make incremental moral improvements on established practices.[6] This strategy is not too different from a new pastor who aims to take his church in a new direction, but he does so gradually lest he leave others behind.

A good example of this approach comes from Jesus when talking about divorce. He notes in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” In other words, divorce was not God’s ideal. As Jesus mentions, “from the beginning it was not so.” However, Israel existed in a fallen context where people abused their marriages. In an attempt to mitigate against divorcing one’s spouse for any reason or not being able to get a divorce even though the spouse was habitually unfaithful, Moses permitted it under certain circumstances. In this way, God’s aim was to move the needle closer towards his ideals outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Case Laws vs. God’s Ideals

Detractors also make a mistake by confusing case laws with God’s universal ideals. Unlike God’s ideals, case laws were not universal in scope. Rather, they were given in the Mosaic Law to address specific situations where people had disregarded God’s ideals. One can spot a case law because it usually begins with the words “if” or “when” and goes on to describe a certain less than ideal situation with some concluding judgments or provisions.[7]

A clear example of a case law is found in Exodus 22:1. The law states, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” Notice that this case law does not endorse theft. Instead, it recognizes that moral concessions have been made against God’s ideals (Exod 20:15). As a result, this law aimed to make the best out of a bad situation by prescribing the appropriate amount of restitution for stolen property.

With respect to women, consider Exodus 21:7-11. This case law states:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Notice that the text begins with the word “when,” indicating that God is not prescribing slavery or misogamy. Rather, this case law assumes that the described situation is less than ideal. In this particular case, a father attempts to arrange for his daughter to marry a man with means, thus providing long-term security for her. The difficulty with the text revolves around why a man would want to buy a woman who functioned as both a servant and a wife at the same time.

What we can discern from this text is that the master had been previously married, given that he has a son. And since the son is of marriageable age, the master must be older. Therefore, the most likely explanation is that he is a widower, although divorce is a possibility. Therefore, in an attempt to protect the inheritance for his existing children from his first wife, he makes a special agreement with the woman’s family in what amounts to an ancient prenuptial agreement.

With the special considerations aside, the man was still to treat this woman as his legal wife. Biblical scholar Douglas Stuart remarks, “The original Hebrew text brings out that a woman whose service contract is purchased along with her bride price is still a real wife, with all the protections that would accrue to anyone’s daughter given in marriage in Israel under the provisions of the covenant.”[8] Meaning, if the man married the woman, he had to protect her and love her as his own wife.

The text goes on to provide additional provisions for the woman. First, if the master did not follow through with marriage, then the woman could be redeemed. This provision implies that the original agreement assumed marriage, not simply servitude. He cannot, however, sell her to foreigners.

Another viable option was that the woman could marry the master’s son. If this situation were to transpire, then the father must treat her like his own daughter.

But, if the son marries someone else, and no other suitor redeems the woman, then the father is to provide for her as if she had married into the family. Because most women could not provide for themselves in the patriarchal world of the Ancient Near East (ANE), women relied on marriage as a means of survival. Again, this sample case law does not provide a universal norm. It merely seeks to make the best out of a less than ideal situation.

God’s ideals, on the other hand, refer to his heart on the matter and are universal in scope. Meaning, God’s ideals are his desires for all people at all times. And a quick examination of these ideals reveals that God is actually for not against women. Consider Genesis 1:27 which claims, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” As a result of being made in God’s image, both men and women are equally valuable to him.

Also consider Genesis 2:24 which asserts, “a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” According to biblical scholar Gordon Wenham, it is easy for us to miss the significance of this transition in relationships. He remarks, “In modern Western societies where filial duties are often ignored, this may seem a minor point to make, but in traditional societies like Israel where honoring parents is the highest human obligation next to honoring God, this remark about forsaking them is very striking.”[9] In other words, God placed such a high value on the new wife, that he commanded man to make her his highest priority, even higher than his parents.

In these two passages alone, we discover God’s heart for women. He values them just as much as he values men.

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive

A third hermeneutical principle critics ignore is the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive texts. Prescriptive texts are clear commands or prohibitions from Scripture. For example, God forbids murder (Exod 20:13). At the same time, Scripture describes murder (Gen 4:8). What should be plainly obvious is that Scripture’s description of an event does not imply God’s approval of it. Certainly, God did not approve of how the men treated the concubine in Judges 19 despite Scripture’s description of the horrific event.

If someone fails to grasp these hermeneutical principles, they will misinterpret the Old Testament.

“Problem” Texts

In this section, we will consider three types of texts that skeptics claim portray God as misogynistic. Specifically, we will consider texts dealing with polygamy, the bride-price, and women POWs.

Polygamy

The practice of polygamy is well established in the Old Testament. Be that as it may, God never prescribes polygamy. On the contrary, he asserts that a man should “be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Moreover, Leviticus 18:18 forbids polygamy when it declares, “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.” While some argue that this text-only forbids incestuous relationships, a good case can be made that it forbids polygamy altogether. As Paul Copan argues, “This phrase ‘a woman to her sister’ and its counterpart, ‘a man to his brother,’ are used twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and never do they refer to a literal sister or brother.”[10] Finally, God specifically forbade the kings of Israel to take multiple wives (Deut 17:17).

At the same time, the Old Testament describes several polygamous situations. One thinks of David and Solomon who disregarded God’s prescribed ideal (Deut 17:17). When it came to Israel’s rulers, however, taking multiple wives and concubines was typically for political purposes, not sexual advances.[11] But again, a mere description of polygamy in no way suggests that God endorsed it. In fact, where polygamy is described, discord and strife quickly follow.[12]

Consider the case law found in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. It reads:

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

This case law refers to a polygamous situation which is already under way—a clear violation of God’s ideals (Gen 2:24). Now that the deed is done, how should the Israelites make the best out of this messy situation?

Some might be tempted to think that the man should divorce one of his wives. But taking that route would actually do more harm than good. After all, it was extremely difficult for a non-virgin woman to get married in that culture. More than that, women had difficulty fending for themselves and relied heavily on men. For these reasons, the law does not encourage divorce.

Moreover, polygamy is not even the point of the law. As Eugene Merrell notes, “The matter of law that is pertinent here is the proper bestowal of inheritance rights.”[13] In other words, this law ensured that the husband followed the proper customs by giving the firstborn son the inheritance, irrespective of who his mother was. Yes, the case law assumes polygamy occurred; but that is a far cry from God’s endorsement.

Bride-Price

In addition to polygamy, many of the same skeptics suggest that bride-price laws treated women like chattel. A closer examination of the law, however, reveals that it existed to protect woman and express the solemnity of the marriage covenant. As Paul Copan notes, “the bride-price was the way a man showed his serious intentions toward his bride-to-be, and it was a way of bringing two families together to discuss a serious, holy, and lifelong matter.”[14]

The bride-price also provided compensation to the woman’s father for the work she would have otherwise contributed to her family and served as a financial safety net for the women in the case of divorce or the husband’s early death.[15]

Consider Exodus 22:16-17. This case law reads, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

In this particular case, a man seduced a virgin whom he had no intentions of marrying. His act showed complete disregard for the value of the woman, jeopardizing her future prospects of marriage. Therefore, in an attempt to hold him accountable for his sexual advances, the law mandates that he pay the bride-price and marry the woman, provided that her father agrees. Douglas Stuart suggests, “Since it would be much harder to marry her to someone else once she had been sexually compromised, [the father] was still owed the bride price for her, lest no bride price ever be paid in the case that she was never, in fact, married thereafter.”[16]

While the arrangement may not find its way into a Hallmark movie, it presents the best-case scenario for the woman in ancient Israel. It protected her from unwanted sexual advances, and it provided her with long-term financial security. At the same time, though, the father of the woman had the right to refuse the suitor while simultaneously keeping the bride-price. One can assume that the father and the daughter usually made a joint-decision in situations like this one (Gen 24).

In sum, the bride-price protected women against sexual advances, expressed the seriousness of the marriage covenant, strengthened relations between the two families, and offered financial security for the woman. It did not imply that women were mere property.

Women POWs

Finally, critics also claim that Israelite men were allowed to capture and rape foreign woman POWs. Yet, a closer examination of key texts refutes this assertion. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 declares:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Notice how this case law actually offers protection for women. Instead of instantly raping the women—which was normal procedure among other ANE cultures[17]—the law ordered Israelite men to wait at least a month before getting married and engaging sexually with the woman.

This waiting period served multiple purposes. First, it prevented the Israelite soldier from entering into marriage too hastily in uncontrolled lust like one might see in Las Vegas. In fact, we can assume that this allotted time period prevented scores of unhappy marriages since the law assumes that Israelite soldiers often lost desire for the woman after the month’s end. If this change in feeling occurred, the soldier was to let the woman go. In no circumstances was her allowed to treat her as a slave.

A second reason for the waiting period was to allow the woman time to mourn her family and reflect on the prospect of integrating into the Israelite community. As Eugene Merrill argues, “The idea behind all these procedures seems to be that of cutting off all ties to the former life in order to enter fully and unreservedly into the new one. This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.”[18]

In the end, this law forbade rape of any kind by prescribing a one-month waiting period for women POWs. At month’s end, the Israelite soldier could choose to marry the woman (if she acquiesced) and then have sexual relations with her.

Another difficult text related to women POWs is Numbers 31:17-18. When referring to the Midianite women, Moses ordered the Israelite officers to “kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” Admittedly, this text looks damning on the surface. The context, however, provides explanation.

In Numbers 25 we read that the Midianite women seduced the Israelite men and compelled them to worship Baal. Baal worship, it must be noted, was not simply bowing to an idol. Rather, it included temple prostitution, bestiality, and a whole littany of other sexual sins. This pagan worship involving sexual immorality was the motivation behind God’s command to destroy the Midianite women while sparing the virgins.

The virgins, after all, had not seduced the Israelite men. It was the non-virgin women who participated with the Israelite men in pagan sexual immorality.[19] And lest we think God did not hold the men accountable for their action, Numbers 25 tells us that God sent a plague and wiped out twenty-four thousand of them for their sin. After sparing the virgins, then, the Israelite men would have then followed protocal from Deuteronomy 21:10-14, waiting at least one month before marrying the virgin and engaging sexually with her.

Conclusion

As this article indicates, a close examination of the Old Testament vindicates God’s morality with respect to women. I substantiated this claim in two steps. First, I established that most critics reach their negative conclusions using faulty hermeneutics. And second, I examined several “problem” texts and demonstrated that they do not portray a misogynistic attitude on God’s part.

Certainly, the ancient patriarchal society was far from ideal. But Israel’s treatment of women was a vast improvement over their Canaanite neighbors. And while we might wish that the Israelites had progressed, even more, they laid the groundwork for even more female advancement in the New Testament. Eventually, it was the church, following the example of Jesus, who dramatically raised the status of woman worldwide. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to state that modern-day feminists have Christians to thank for the advancement of women in our society.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 51.

[2] Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2018), 117.

[3] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IVP Press, 2006), 37.

[4] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 158.

[5] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of The Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 60.

[6] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 61.

[7] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2004), 292.

[8] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, The New American Commentary (Nashville, B&H Publishing, 2006), 483.

[9] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary (Mexico City: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 71.

[10] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of The Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 113.

[11] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 330.

[12] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 331.

[13] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy: The New American Commentary (Nashville, B&H Publishing, 1994), 292.

[14] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 117.

[15] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 117.

[16] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, 510.

[17] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 120.

[18] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 291.

[19] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 1981), 211.

Wanda, Westview, and Free Will

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

A lot can be said about Marvel’s first Disney+ series, WandaVision (Spoilers ahead!), from its weird, off-putting sitcom beginning to the broader impact the series’ events will have on the MCU. But, being that we’re named FreeThinking Ministries, obviously, we have to talk about what WandaVision confirms to us about free will.

This show isn’t the first MCU story to address free will, determinism, and human responsibility (see my article “Captain America, Bucky, and Moral Responsibility”). Superhero movies all contain moral themes such as the struggle of good vs. evil, the dangers of power, and our obligations to one another. But no discussion of morality seems to make any sense without first assuming that we have some ability to choose between right and wrong. In the case of Bucky Barnes, he has his freedom overridden at times and is compelled to do terrible things. But when he is “himself” and in control of his choices, Bucky chooses to be a hero, which is really what matters most.

WandaVision begins with Wanda and Vision in a weird sitcom reality, and it’s obvious to the viewer that something just isn’t right. The people of Westview start doing and saying odd things and it seems that they are somehow being controlled by someone or something. Eventually, we discover that someone is Wanda. Due to her immense grief, Wanda creates her own bubble around the town of Westview, the Hex, and transforms the town into her perfect world. She creates her own Vision and controls the minds and actions of (almost) every human inhabitant in town. Vision, one of the few “free thinkers” inside the Hex, eventually realizes that something is wrong and temporarily breaks the spell of some of his neighbors. He discovers that they are not only being controlled but that this control causes them great suffering since their “real” selves are locked away inside of them.

It should be obvious to the viewers of WandaVision that what Wanda has done to these people is terrible, that they are just being used to create Wanda’s own perfect world. Even if the residents of Westview were not internally suffering and were completely oblivious that they were being mind-controlled, that would still be truly evil. Freedom is a great good, and controlling or manipulating people is evil.

But let’s move from Wanda’s actions to those of the residents of Westview. She has made them all to be her perfect neighbors. However, are the people actually being good neighbors? Are they doing anything that’s actually praiseworthy? No, they are simply doing whatever Wanda wants them to do. If Wanda had made the people terrible neighbors who hurt each other instead, should they be blamed for their bad behavior? Again, they should not, since Wanda is the one in control of their actions, not the townspeople. When the residents of Westview were under Wanda’s control, they would not be responsible for any of their actions, Wanda would.

There are many philosophers and theologians who deny human freedom, thinking that we are in some way similar to the citizens of Westview. Maybe we are not being directly controlled by a Scarlet Witch, but we simply “dance to our DNA,” follow our animal instincts, or pursue our heart’s greatest desire. Regardless, if we are not free in some meaningful sense, how can we deserve praise or blame for any of our actions? We can’t. Furthermore, we would not even be persons, but merely an extension of whatever controls or programs our thoughts and behaviors. If I’m a nice guy, don’t praise me; thank God or the laws of physics. If I’m a jerk, that’s not my fault—I was born this way.

Sometimes smart people think dumb things regarding human freedom and moral responsibility. But it doesn’t take an advanced degree to realize that the residents of Westview could not possibly be responsible for any of their actions while they were under Wanda’s control. And neither can we if all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are caused and determined by someone or something else. Once again, we see the importance of good stories and how they can illustrate basic truths about reality. In the case of WandaVision, we plainly see the value of freedom and, with further thought, its connection to moral responsibility.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

A popular argument that is wielded by Christian apologists, at both the scholarly and popular level, is based on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, taken by many contemporary scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that goes back to within only a couple of years of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Michael Licona states that “In nearly every historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 weighs heavily and is perhaps the most important and valuable passage for use by historians when discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”[1] The text reads as follows:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In this article, I want to offer a critical appraisal of this argument, with a view towards evaluating the evidence for this text being a creed as well as the data that bears on its dating. I will conclude by offering an appraisal of the evidential value of this text in relation to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

Several lines of evidence are commonly adduced in support of this text being derived from an oral creedal tradition. The first of those is the use of the words “delivered” (Παρέδωκα) and “received” (παρέλαβον). Craig Keener notes that this “is the language of what scholars call ‘traditioning’: Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education.”[2] Richard Bauckham notes that “these Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul’s Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g., m. ‘Avot 1.1).”[3] Indeed, the Mishnaic tractate of Avot says “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and delivered it to Joshua,” (m. ‘Avot 1.1).

This view of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being derivative of pre-Pauline tradition seems to command the consensus opinion of the scholarly guild, and is accepted even by skeptics including German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann[4] and UNC Chapel Hill New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman[5]. In agreement with the scholars cited above, Ehrman notes that “the terms [Paul] uses here of ‘delivering to you’ and ‘having received’ are code language in ancient Jewish circles for traditions that are passed down from a teacher to his students: during his studies the teacher ‘receives’ a tradition and then in his teaching he ‘delivers’ it to his own followers. That’s how traditions get circulated among teachers and students. Paul, good Jew that he is, is simply referring to information that has been given to him by others before he passes it along himself.”[6]

I think this view of the text is most likely the best interpretation of Paul’s introductory formula, Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον. This is all the more plausible given that Paul belonged to the Pharisaical sect of Judaism, which Mark and Josephus both inform us were zealous for tradition (Mk 7:3,5; Jos. Ant 13.10.6; 13.16.2). There are also various Pauline texts that indicate the importance of tradition to Paul (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1, 2, 3; Gal 1:14; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 1 Thes 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6).

The question remains, however, whether the expression should be taken to simply indicate that the information Paul is passing on is derivative from pre-Pauline tradition, or whether the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 itself represents a verbatim transcript of an earlier oral creedal tradition. Advocates of the latter view have tended to emphasize aspects of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that appear to be non-Pauline. Michael Licona observes that “with a lone exception in Galatians 1:4, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (‘for our sins’) is absent elsewhere in Paul (and the rest of the New Testament), who prefers the singular: ‘sin.’ The phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ is absent elsewhere in the Pauline corpus and the New Testament, where we read γέγραπται (‘it is written’). Instead of the typical aorist, the perfect passive ‘he has been raised’ is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:12–14, 16, 20 and in 2 Timothy 2:8, which is also a confessional formula believed to be pre-Pauline. ‘On the third day’ is only here in Paul. In Paul, the term ὤφθη (‘appeared to’ or ‘was seen’) is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 and 1 Timothy 3:16. ‘The Twelve’ is only here in Paul. Elsewhere he uses ‘the apostles.’”[7] This observation, in my opinion, contributes only weak evidence to the case for the pre-Pauline origins of the text itself (as opposed to the facts that the text expresses). Every New Testament author utilizes expressions that he does not customarily use, so caution is warranted before drawing firm conclusions about authorship from word choice, especially when the relevant text is as short as this.

A second argument that this text is of pre-Pauline origin is that “we can see parallelism in the text: the first and third lines are longer, have the same construction (verb, closer modification, proved by the Scriptures) and are followed by a short sentence introduced by ὅτι.”[8] It is possible that Paul constructed the parallelism of this text himself, since it is only here, out of all of Paul’s epistles, that he offers a summary of the key elements of the gospel, presumably with the intent that his readers commit them to memory. Indeed, Paul himself at times constructs his own parallelisms (e.g. Rom 1:26-27; 1 Thes 2:3,5,10). Thus, it is not entirely implausible that he would create this parallelism for ease of memorization, though one may say in response that the parallelism is somewhat less predicted on the hypothesis of Pauline origin than on the hypothesis that this text represents a pre-Pauline creed. The text, with its parallelisms and rhythmic style, does indeed sound like a creed up until verse 8, wherein we read, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” This verse, I would argue constitute some evidence against the text being of creedal origin, though this is not by any means decisive since Paul could plausibly have transitioned from something more formal into the informal addition of himself to the end of the list. Paul also adds in verse 6 concerning the five hundred, “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” This too does not comport well with the claimed creed-like structure of these verses, though it may be Paul’s own editorial insertion into the text of the creed. Thus, the parallelist structure of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may, again, be taken only as weak evidence in favour of the text being of pre-Pauline origin.

The German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann has argued that “within the report of the first appearance of Christ to Cephas in verse 5, the clause ‘he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ can be detached as an independent unit from the tradition handed down by Paul during his founding visit. This is suggested not only by the parallel to Luke 24:34 (‘the Lord was really raised and appeared to Simon’), but by Mark 16:7 (‘tell his disciples and Peter’).”[9] Concerning the parallelism of “he appeared” in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Lüdemann suggests that this “could be explained in two ways: either Paul was modeling his language in verse 7 on verse 5, which employed a tradition about an appearance to James and to al the apostles, or Paul was reproducing two independent traditions. In the latter case either the one formula had already been modeled earlier on the basis of the other or the two formulae have a common origin. In either case, it is clear that verses 5 and 7 both derive from earlier tradition.”[10] Thus, establishing the actual historical origins of this text is more complex than often made out, and more than one plausible scenario exists.

Some scholars have observed a correspondence between 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and Paul’s words in Acts 13-28-31 that may support the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 being derivative of an earlier creedal tradition.[11] Acts 13:28-31 indicates that,

28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

Bart Ehrman even notes that “Possibly this is the tradition that lies behind 1 Corinthian 15:4 as well: ‘and he was buried.’”[12] If this is so, then 1 Corinthians 15:4 may indeed indicate that Jesus buried in a tomb (as opposed to a common grave), a point that is often contested.[13]

Another line of evidence is Paul’s use of κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω to describe the tradition.[14] Paul writes that he is going to remind them of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε (“the gospel I preached to you, which you received”). He also uses, when describing this gospel, the phrase τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν (“the word I preached to you”). When referring back to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul uses οὕτως κηρύσσομεν (“we preach in this way”) (1 Cor 15:11; c.f. 1 Cor 15:12, 14). Licona states that “Κήρυγμα/κηρύσσω is a more formal term than εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω and can refer to an ‘official or public announcement,’ though this need not be the case. It is interesting, therefore, to see that after citing the tradition, Paul changes his description of his message and the activity of imparting it from εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω το κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω.”[15] Licona is correct that the noun Κήρυγμα and its related verb κηρύσσω can refer to an official or public announcement (e.g. LXX 2 Ch 30:5; EsdA 9:3; Pr 9:3; Jon 3:2), though it need not necessarily. However, even if this is the intended meaning in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think this at all implies the verbatim proclamation of a prescribed text, such as a creedal statement. It could simply be that the content of the gospel message (which is summarized by 1 Cor 15:3-7) was publicly proclaimed. In fact, Paul uses both of those words frequently in his letters to refer to the preaching of the gospel (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:21, 23, 2:4, 9:27; 2 Co 1:19, 4:5, 11:4; Gal 2:2, 5:11; Phil 1:15; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Tim 3:16, 4:2; 2 Tim 4:17; Tit 2:3; 1 Pet 3:19; Rev 5:2). Thus, his use the term in 1 Corinthians 15 is not at all surprising, and I do not judge that I can even call this weak evidence supporting 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Probably the weakest argument I have encountered for the pre-Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the use of the Aramaic name Κηφᾶς (transliterated into Greek) for Peter.[16] Since Κηφᾶς is the transliteration of an Aramaic name into Greek, so the argument goes, this is suggestive of an early origin. However, of the ten times in his letters that Paul mentions Peter, five of those he uses the name Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Gal 2:9). In fact, the Nestle-Aland text also uses Κηφᾶς in an additional two of those texts (Gal 1:18, 2:11). Of the four times Peter is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, every single one of them uses the name Κηφᾶς. Thus, this argument too I can not even consider to contribute weak evidence to the case for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Of the arguments summarized above, the strongest in my opinion are the use of “delivered” and “received” (1 Cor 15:3) combined with the rhythmic structure and parallelisms of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Given that these features seem at least somewhat more probable on the hypothesis that this text represents a creedal tradition than on its falsehood (and the absence of stronger disconfirming evidence), these data are, in my opinion sufficient to make the pre-Pauline origins of this text somewhat more probable than not, though this conclusion is by no means as certain as it is often implied. What does seem to be secure, however, is that Paul received information from the Jerusalem apostles, which is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. The only question that is still uncertain is whether Paul is summarizing that information in his own words or whether he is quoting from an earlier formalized creedal tradition that preceded his own writing.

One objection that is sometimes raised is that Paul indicates elsewhere that “I did not receive [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:12).[17] If Paul received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ, so the argument goes, then how can Paul be passing on tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which he had previously received from the other apostles? However, even though Paul received the gospel by the revelation of Christ Jesus, it does not follow that he did not receive a creed tradition containing that gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. Moreover, if Paul had not known from other people that Jesus had been raised from the dead, then he would not have known who spoke to him on the road to Damascus, or for that matter what was meant by “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). The appearances that Paul lists in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (to Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, and all the apostles) were almost certainly learned about from his conversations with other people.

The Date of the Creed

Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem”[18] since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death.[19]

Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19).[20] Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.”[21] Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10).

These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well. The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

With so much lack of certainty about whether 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represents a pre-Pauline creedal tradition and the precise dating of such a tradition, is this text of any evidential value to the case for the resurrection? I would argue that the answer is ‘yes’. Regardless of whether this text is pre-Pauline or Paul’s own literary construction, what is well supported is that those verses summarize information that Paul had received from the Jerusalem church leaders. The text thus gives one a window of insight into what was being proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles, in particular Peter and James, whom we know Paul was personally acquainted with. This is further supported by Paul’s words in verses 8-11:

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Note what Paul says in verse 11: “Whether then it was I or they [i.e. the Jerusalem apostles], so we preach and so you believed.” Paul thus seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians, to whom he was writing, understand his summary of the gospel to be consistent with what had already been preached by the Jerusalem apostles. We also know independently that the Corinthian church were acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12). Thus, it is probable that the message Paul communicates in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is consistent with what was being preached by Peter, James and the Twelve. Michael Licona agrees. He notes, “even if Paul received the tradition embedded in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 from someone outside of the Jerusalem leadership, his constant interaction with these leaders in and outside of Jerusalem coupled with his high regard for tradition virtually guarantees that the details of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 are precisely in line with what the Jerusalem leadership was preaching (1 Cor 15:11). We have what amounts to a certifiably official teaching of the disciples on the resurrection of Jesus.”[22] Thus, irrespective of the question of whether Paul is passing on an oral creedal tradition, and when and from whom he may have received it, this text does provide sufficient reason to conclude that the apostles before Paul were claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. The text is also of evidential value since Paul provides his own eyewitness testimony to have encountered the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

One important caveat I wish to make here is that we ought not be overly-reliant on 1 Corinthians 15 to build our case for the resurrection, since it is difficult to make a robust case, as I have done elsewhere [23], for the rationality of the apostles’ belief to have witnessed the risen Christ unless we are able to determine what the resurrection appearances were like. The report in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent with a floating, non-speaking Jesus, or with a Jesus who appears only once, briefly, and speaks only a few words. The case for the resurrection therefore cannot and should not be divorced from a robust case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospels and Acts and their grounding in credible eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, a popular criticism of using 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in arguments for the resurrection is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both.[24] Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? Again, if we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone, though the Pauline evidence certainly inclines that way, in particular Paul’s statement, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί (“and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me”). This, it may be argued, draws a separation between his experience from that of those who were apostles before him. Kirk MacGregor notes, “This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed. But Paul moves one step further. By placing ὤφθη κἀμοί (‘he was seen also by me’) after ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, Paul explicitly shows ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to be a qualifying phrase which modifies ὤφθη κἀμοί rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples ‘saw’ Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have ‘as to one untimely born seen’ Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion.”[25] This evidence is surely suggestive but it does not seem to me to be conclusive. Paul may simply be indicating that he had an encounter with the risen Lord despite the fact that Paul had not known Jesus during his earthly ministry.

How, then, can this case be made robustly? It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul. Thus, the case from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 should be complemented with a robust case for the author of Luke-Acts being a travelling companion of Paul. I have articulated this argument in detail elsewhere.[26]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the balance of evidence is in favor of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 being derivative from a pre-Pauline credal tradition, though it is not nearly as conclusive as it is often portrayed as being. While it is plausible that Paul received this tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, this is by no means certain, and any attempt to pin down the precise date is traipsing into highly speculative territory. Nonetheless, the text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves. Having thus eliminated the scenario that the claim of encounters with the risen Jesus arose much later and did not originate with the original apostolic eyewitnesses, we can move towards examining whether the claim originated as a result of deliberate deception on the part of the apostles, their being honestly mistaken, or because Jesus really was raised bodily from the dead, a topic that I have discussed in detail elsewhere.[27]

Footnotes

[1] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 223.

[2] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Michigan: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 264-265.

[4] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[5] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[6] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[7] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 224-225.

[8] Ibid., 226.

[9] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[10] Ibid.

[11] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010).

[12] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle.

[13] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 336.

[14] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gary Habermas and Michael L. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004), 221.

[17] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 335.

[18] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[19] Ibid., 229.

[20] Ibid., 230.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 232.

[23] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[24] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[25] Kirk R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006):225-234.

[26] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[27] Ibid.

Resurrection Defense Series: The Testimony of Women

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

The month of March has been designated as Women’s History Month. It has often been erroneously suggested that the Bible is misogynistic in its portrayal of women. While this article cannot combat every claim of misogyny weighed against the Scriptures, it is ironic that it was the early testimony of women, those that skeptics claim the Scripture dismisses, that strongly suggests the high historical probability of the resurrection event. This article will look at four ways that the early testimony of women serves as a defense for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Before doing so, let us first look at what the Gospels state concerning the women’s testimony that Jesus had risen.

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb. ²There was a violent earthquake, because an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and approached the tomb. He rolled back the stone and was sitting on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. ⁴The guards were so shaken by fear of him that they became like dead men. ⁵The angel told the women, “Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. ⁶He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there.’ Listen, I have told you.” ⁸So, departing quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell his disciples the news. ⁹Just then Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came up, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. ¹⁰Then Jesus told them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me there” (Matt. 28:1-10).

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him. ²Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb at sunrise. ³They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance to the tomb for us?” ⁴Looking up, they noticed that the stone—which was very large—had been rolled away. ⁵When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; they were alarmed. ⁶“Don’t be alarmed,” he told them. “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they put him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there just as he told you.’ ” ⁸They went out and ran from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid” (Mark 16:1-8).

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared. ²They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. ³They went in but did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁴While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men stood by them in dazzling clothes. ⁵So the women were terrified and bowed down to the ground. “Why are you looking for the living among the dead?” asked the men. ⁶“He is not here, but he has risen! Remember how he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee, ⁷saying, ‘It is necessary that the Son of Man be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day’⁸And they remembered his words. ⁹Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. ¹⁰Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. ¹¹But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. ¹²Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths.^, So he went away, amazed at what had happened (Luke 24:1-12).

On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. ²So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” ³At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. ⁴The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. ⁵Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. ⁶Then, following him, Simon Peter also came. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. ⁷The wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. ⁸The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then also went in, saw, and believed. ⁹For they did not yet understand the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. ¹⁰Then the disciples returned to the place where they were staying. ¹¹But Mary stood outside the tomb, crying. As she was crying, she stooped to look into the tomb. ¹²She saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus’s body had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. ¹³They said to her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “Because they’ve taken away my Lord,” she told them, “and I don’t know where they’ve put him.” ¹⁴Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus. ¹⁵“Woman,” Jesus said to her, “why are you crying? Who is it that you’re seeking?” Supposing he was the gardener, she replied, “Sir, if you’ve carried him away, tell me where you’ve put him, and I will take him away.” ¹⁶Jesus said to her, “Mary.” Turning around, she said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!”—which means “Teacher.” ¹⁷“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus told her, “since I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” ¹⁸Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her (John 20:1-18).

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

A woman’s testimony did not hold much weight in an ancient court of law. That is not to say that a woman held no importance in court. Nonetheless, if a woman’s testimony contradicted a man’s testimony, the man’s testimony was generally accepted unless two women both testified against the man. Even then, there was no guarantee that the woman’s testimony would be accepted (see m. Ned. 11:10). In rabbinical tradition—not the law of God—a woman could not participate in the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. She was not even permitted to cite the Shema, the greatest commandment found in Deut. 6:5 (Ber. 3:3). Yet it was women who first saw the risen Jesus.

Ironically, the women’s testimony of the resurrection is missing in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Thomas Oden holds that since the women’s testimony was not permitted in the official court of law, the creed was deliberately shortened to provide the best evidence for the Christian faith (Oden, Word of Life, 497-498). If that is the case, then why was their testimony included in the biographies of Jesus? The answer—Because it was true! The women’s testimony is quite bizarre if it were not a genuine event. If one were to invent a story in the first century, the first witnesses would certainly not be women. They would have been the last considered for such a role. Jesus’s great love for his female disciples is found by his choice in disclosing the resurrection event—the greatest miracle in history—first to his female disciples.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

Women serving as the first witnesses of the resurrection provide several embarrassing factors to consider. Historically, embarrassing details verify the truthful nature of a story. A person will not willingly expose things that intentionally embarrass its authors or primary ambassadors. However, when it comes to the resurrection story, the male disciples were embarrassed by the testimony of women on multiple fronts. First, the male disciples were embarrassed by the devotion of the women. None of the male disciples offered Jesus a proper burial. It was the female disciples who took it upon themselves to anoint the body of Jesus. In the hurried events of Good Friday, Jesus’s body was rushed into the tomb and was not given a proper Jewish burial. This was unacceptable in ancient Judaism. Where were the men? The women were concerned as they approached the tomb about how they would get inside since the stone was so large because they had no male counterparts joining them. Were the men still asleep? As anyone who grew up in church knows—if it were not for the women, nothing would get accomplished.

Second, the male disciples were embarrassed by the women being the first ambassadors of the resurrection. The women were essentially the very first evangelists of the resurrection message. Jesus told them to tell the disciples about his appearance (John 20:17).

Third, and here it gets worse, a woman with a checkered past was appointed as the first witness of the resurrection. Some have postulated through the centuries that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In AD 591, Pope Gregory the Great taught, “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.” Contrary to Gregory the Great, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that Mary was a prostitute. However, the Gospels do note that Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven demons until Jesus cast them out (Luke 8:1-3). So, wait! A woman who had been possessed by seven demons—an indication of the severity of her possession—was chosen as the first witness?!? This makes absolutely no sense unless it were in fact true. If a person were going to invent a story, Mary Magdalene would be the LAST person one would choose as the story’s primary witness.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The third point is simple. Historically speaking, the more sources that are found for an event, the higher the probability that the event in question occurred. The early testimony of women is found in all four Gospels. Regardless of how one handles the issue of sharing among the Gospel writers, these stories are independent as noted by the differences in their presentation. All the Gospels serve as four independent sources. This is profound given the absence of women in 1 Cor. 15:3-9. It is unspeakably absurd to invent the women as the first witnesses and then plug them into all four biographies of Jesus unless some historical basis was found in the story. The women’s eyewitness accounts hold a strong historical case for its authenticity, which further verifies the legitimacy of the resurrection event.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

While this article has been focused on the historical validation of the resurrection event, one cannot bypass the high level of importance that Jesus placed on his female disciples. Jesus was revolutionary in his elevation of women. Because of the value he placed on women, his female disciples played a significant role in the early ministry of the church (Eckman, ECH, 14). Women were among his early financial contributors (Luke 8:3). To the shock of everyone in attendance, Jesus permitted Mary to sit at his feet, an honor that most rabbis only gave to men (Luke 10:39). While women were not permitted to read the Torah in the synagogue, they were in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus not only highly valued women, but he also gave some of the women who followed him the highest honor imaginable—they were the first witnesses of the risen Jesus!

Conclusion: Norman Geisler says it best, “It is an unmistakable sign of the authenticity of the record that, in a male-dominated culture, Jesus first appeared to a woman” (Geisler, “Resurrection, Evidence For,” BEOCA, 651). The church has often dropped the ball when giving women the value that Jesus affords them. Nonetheless, the testimony of women stands front and center as evidence that Jesus really did walk out of the tomb alive on the first Easter Sunday. The most unlikely individuals to hold value in the first century found themselves as the ambassadors of the greatest message ever given. Jesus had risen, and the risen Jesus chose to unveil this radical new truth to those who had often been neglected and considered unimportant. Isn’t that just like Jesus? Should we have expected anything else?

Sources

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Geisler, Norman L. “Resurrection, Evidence For.” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Mishnah Berakhot 3:3 (sefaria.org).

Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology. Volume Two. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.

Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2017).

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Fazale Rana

At last. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The ride has been long and dark. And there is still a ways to go before we exit to the other side, but we will arrive there soon.

The emergency approval and first distributions of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines give us all hope that we will soon see an end to the COVID-19 pandemic and return to some semblance of normalcy by the end of 2021.

As a biochemist, I find it a remarkable achievement. Within the span of months, we have gone from experiencing the first cases of COVID-19 in the US (most likely in early 2020) to having two vaccines that appear to be highly effective against the SARS-2 coronaviruses less than a year later. Prior to this accomplishment, the fastest that we have been able to develop a new vaccine is four years.

This success reflects the resolve of governments around the world who have worked collaboratively with public and private research teams. It also reflects the hard work of life scientists and biomedical investigators who have labored tirelessly around the clock to understand the biology of the SARS-2 coronavirus, translating this knowledge into public health policies, treatments for COVID-19, and ultimately, vaccines to prevent infections and halt the transmission of the virus.

As a Christian, I see a divine hand in the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines, reflecting God’s providential care for humanity.

To fully unpack this theological idea, I need to begin by describing the science that undergirds the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and offer a brief history of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines belong to a category called mRNA vaccines. The chief component of these vaccines is a laboratory-made mRNA designed to encode a viral protein, usually one that resides on the virus surface. (Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines contain mRNA that encodes the SARS-2 coronavirus spike protein. This protein coats the virus surface and plays the central role in the binding and entry of the virus into the host cell.)

Vaccines made from mRNA were first proposed by life scientists in the early 1990s. The principle behind mRNA vaccines is straightforward. Once injected into the patient, the mRNA finds its way into immune cells, where the cell’s machinery translates the synthetic viral mRNA into copies of the viral protein. Some of these newly made proteins are broken down inside the cell, with the fragments becoming incorporated into major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I). The MHC-I is transported to the cell surface, becoming embedded in the plasma membrane. Here it presents the viral protein fragment to the immune system, triggering a response that leads to the production of antibodies against the viral protein—and, hence, the virus. Initially, this process provides sterilizing immunity. More importantly, it triggers the production of memory T cells and memory B cells, providing long-term immunity against the viral pathogen.

Once the viral protein is translated, the synthetic mRNA undergoes degradation. Once this breakdown occurs, the mRNA component of the vaccine becomes cleared from the patient’s cells.

“Schema of the RNA Vaccine Mechanism” by Jmarchn is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

While the principles behind mRNA vaccines are straightforward, life scientists have faced significant hurdles developing workable vaccines.¹ These technical challenges include:

Lack of mRNA stability.RNA molecules are inherently unstable, readily hydrolyzing into their constituent components. Once injected in the patient, naked mRNA rarely survives long enough to make its way to the target cells. Even if it does find its way into the cell’s interior, it may undergo breakdown before it can be translated into high enough levels of the viral protein so that an immune response becomes triggered.
Low rates of translation. All mRNA molecules are not equal when it comes to their rate of translation. Those RNA molecules which encode viral proteins often have certain sequence characteristics that make them appear unusual to our cells’ machinery, preventing these molecules from being efficiently translated into proteins.
Difficulty in delivering mRNA into cells. It is a real challenge for the mRNA component of the vaccine, once it has been injected into the patient, to make its way into the interior of target cells, because the mRNA has to penetrate the cell’s plasma membrane. This penetration process (and tendency to traverse the cell membrane barrier) is influenced by the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA (which, in turn, determines the mRNA’s physicochemical properties). Also, some cell types are more amenable to mRNA penetration through their plasma membranes than others. It is rare for sufficient levels of “naked” mRNA to cross the cell membrane so that the immune system can be activated.
Reactogenicity of the mRNA. The mRNA component of the vaccine can trigger an adverse reaction in some patients, causing an unintended immune response that can lead to anaphylactic shock.

Despite these serious challenges, life scientists and biomedical researchers have continued to pursue mRNA vaccines because of the significant advantages they offer compared to both conventional and putative next-generation vaccines.

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Some of the advantages of mRNA vaccines include:

Safety. Vaccines using mRNA are inherently safer than vaccines made up of inactivated or attenuated viruses. These latter types of vaccines can cause infections in the patients if the viral particles are not adequately inactivated or if they are not completely attenuated. Also, because the production of these vaccines involves handling live viruses, the risk to the workers is real, potentially leading to an outbreak of the disease at research and production facilities.

Compared to DNA vaccines (which are being pursued as a potential future generation vaccine type), mRNA vaccines have virtually no risk of modifying the patient’s genome—in part because mRNA will degrade once it has been translated, never making its way to the cell nucleus.

Ease of development and manufacturing. Researchers have long held the view that once these technical challenges are overcome, new mRNA vaccines will be much easier to develop than conventional vaccines. (The rapid development of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines attests to this view.) Vaccines made from mRNA are also much easier to produce than conventional vaccines, which require viruses to be cultured. Culturing viruses takes time and adds complexity to the manufacturing process. In other words, mRNA vaccines are much more amenable to mass production than conventional vaccines.

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

Over the course of the last decade or so, life scientists and biomedical researchers have learned ways to overcome many of the technical issues that are endemic to mRNA vaccines. In fact, by the end of 2018, researchers had successfully developed mRNA vaccine technology to the point that they were on the verge of translating it to widespread therapeutic use.

Through these efforts, researchers have learned that:

The stability of the mRNA can be improved by making modifications to the nucleotide sequences, particularly in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions of the molecule. RNA stability can also be enhanced by manipulating the coding region of the molecule, increasing the guanine and cytosine content. These changes can be affected without changing its coding information. mRNA stability can also be improved by complexing it with positively charged materials. (These types of complexes readily form because RNA molecules are negatively charged.)
The translatability of the vaccine’s mRNA can be enhanced by making changes to the mRNA sequences in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions and through the preferential use of specific codons. These changes lead to the production of high levels of the viral protein, once the mRNA makes its way into the cells.
The reactogenicity of the mRNA can be minimized in a number of different ways. For example, adverse reactions to mRNA can be reduced by incorporating nonnatural nucleotides into the mRNA. Complexing the mRNA with other materials can also minimize adverse reactions to the mRNA. (The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine uses a positively charged, nonnatural lipid to complex with the vaccine’s mRNA, reducing its immunogenicity and stabilizing the mRNA.)
The delivery of mRNA to cells can be dramatically improved through a variety of means. The vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna both make use of lipid nanoparticles to encapsulate the mRNA. The development of lipid nanoparticles to facilitate the delivery of mRNA to cells has been perhaps the biggest breakthrough for mRNA vaccines. Not only do these nanoparticles facilitate the entry of mRNA into cells, but they protect the mRNA from degradation before reaching the cells.

Even though the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines represent the first-ever mRNA vaccines used on humans, they took nearly three decades to develop thanks to the tireless efforts of life scientists and biomedical researchers. This developmental history includes numerous studies in which their safety has been assessed, leading to significant improvements in vaccine design, ensuring that any adverse reaction to mRNA vaccines is negligible.

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

This concerted effort has paid off. And, in large measure, these previous studies have made it possible for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna scientists to rapidly develop their COVID-19 vaccines. At the point when the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic, researchers had already developed mRNA vaccines for a number of viral pathogens and tested them in animal models. They had even progressed some of these vaccines into small-scale human clinical studies that included safety assessments. Bioengineers had already started work on pilot-scale production of mRNA vaccines, along the way developing GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices) for the manufacture of mRNA vaccines.²

In effect, when the pandemic broke, all the researchers at Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna had to do to develop their COVID-19 vaccines was to know the right sequence to use for the vaccine’s mRNA. In other words, the scientific and biomedical communities just happened to be poised and ready to go with mRNA vaccines when the first outbreaks of COVID-19 appeared around the world.

Harvard medical doctor Anthony Komaroff puts it this way:

So, 30 years of painstaking research allowed several groups of scientists—including a group at Pfizer working with a German company called BioNTech, and a young company in Massachusetts called Moderna—to bring mRNA vaccine technology to the threshold of actually working. The companies had built platforms that, theoretically, could be used to create a vaccine for any infectious disease simply by inserting the right mRNA sequence for that disease.

Then along came COVID-19. Within weeks of identifying the responsible virus, scientists in China had determined the structure of all of its genes, including the genes that make the spike protein, and published this information on the Internet.

Within minutes, scientists 10,000 miles away began working on the design of an mRNA vaccine. Within weeks, they had made enough vaccine to test it in animals, and then in people. Just 11 months after the discovery of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regulators in the United Kingdom and the US confirmed that an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is effective and safely tolerated, paving the path to widespread immunization. Previously, no new vaccine had been developed in less than four years.3

We were literally at the point of matriculating mRNA vaccines into large-scale human clinical trials at the precise point in time that the COVID-19 outbreak began. If this outbreak occurred even a few years earlier, I question if we would have been able to develop effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 with the same speed and have the capacity to rapidly produce and distribute large quantities of vaccines once the mRNA vaccine was ready to go. The rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been made possible because of the advances in mRNA vaccines that have occurred over the course of the last few years, yielding the technical knowledge to rapidly develop and manufacture mRNA vaccines. In fact, some biomedical scientists consider mRNA vaccines to be the ideal vaccines for this reason.

As a Christian and a biochemist, I can’t help but see God’s providential hand at work in the timing of the COVID-19 outbreak. It happened precisely at the time that advances in mRNA vaccines would allow for a rapid response. The remarkable confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the advances in mRNA vaccines has one of two possible explanations: It’s either a fortuitous accident or a reflection of God’s providential timing and faithful provision to humanity.

As a Christian, I choose the latter explanation.

You might say that mRNA vaccine were prepared in advance for such a time as this.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What Makes a Reputation?

When a Negative Reputation is Deserved

When There’s a Mistranslation

When There’s Accurate Understanding with Negative Evaluation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Christian Celebrity

The Psychopath

Reacting To Ravi

Contrasting Characters

The Unchanging Truth

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Conclusion

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

The “Noble Lie”

So What’s The Solution?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Hermeneutical Principles

Historical Context

Case Laws vs. God’s Ideals

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive

“Problem” Texts

Polygamy

Bride-Price

Women POWs

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

The Date of the Creed

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Recommended resources related to the topic: