Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

, ,

By Aaron Brake

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”

—Antony Flew—

INTRODUCTION

The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul himself said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”[1] Here the Apostle provides an objective criterion by which to judge the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Show that Christ has not been raised from the dead and you will have successfully proven Christianity false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then His life and teachings are vindicated. The Christian faith, as it turns out, is falsifiable. It is the only religion which bases its faith on an empirically verifiable event.[2]

Christ Himself testified that His resurrection is the sign given to the world as evidence for His extraordinary claims: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”[3] Furthermore, the resurrection was the central message proclaimed by the early church as most clearly demonstrated in the book of Acts.[4] Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that an objective examination of Christianity focus on the most pivotal historical event of the faith: the Resurrection.

THE MINIMAL FACTS APPROACH

The approach I will take in this paper is commonly referred to as the “minimal facts approach.” This method “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.”[5] It should be noted this approach does not assume the inerrancy or divine inspiration of any New Testament document. Rather it merely holds these writings to be historical documents penned during the first century AD.[6]

Though as many as 12 minimal facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ may be examined,[7] the brevity of this paper limits our examination to four: the death of Jesus by crucifixion, the empty tomb,[8] the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. I contend that the best explanation for these minimal facts is that Jesus was raised bodily from the grave.

Finally, if these facts “can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them as well as the resurrection hypothesis, then one is justified in inferring Jesus’ resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.”[9]

A MATTER OF HISTORY

Before looking at the facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is important to identify a set of objective criteria by which the validity of historical events may be judged. In other words, what criteria may be used to establish the occurrence of an event with reasonable historical certainty? New Testament scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona list the following five criteria noting that “a historian who is able to apply one or more of the following principles to a text can conclude with much greater confidence whether a certain event occurred.”[10]

  1. Historical claims are strong when supported by multiple, independent sources.
  2. Historical claims which are also attested to by enemies are more likely to be authentic since enemies are unsympathetic, and often hostile, witnesses.
  3. Historical claims which include embarrassing admissions reflect honest reporting rather than creative storytelling.
  4. Historical claims are strong when supported by eyewitness testimony.
  5. Historical claims which are supported by early testimony are more reliable and less likely to be the result of legendary development.[11]

Therefore, when inquiring into a historical event “the historian combs through the data, considers all the possibilities, and seeks to determine which scenario best explains the data.”[12]

Some skeptics argue that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be investigated historically. But this is mistaken. The facts surrounding the resurrection are of a historical nature and available for anyone to examine. Consequently, “the meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter.”[13] Thus either the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually occurred in history, or it did not. Either the resurrection is the best explanation for the known historical data, or it is not. Regardless, what we cannot do is simply dismiss it as “supernatural” or “miraculous” in an attempt to remove it from the pool of live options a priori. Moreover, we need to be careful not to confuse “the evidence for the resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is a miraculous explanation of the evidence. But the evidence itself is not miraculous. None of these four facts is any way supernatural or inaccessible to the historian.”[14] So although the resurrection may be classified as a “miraculous event,” it is a historical event nonetheless and should be investigated as such. John Warwick Montgomery provides helpful insight:

The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether, in fact, it has occurred. The problem of “miracles,” then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation. And note that a historian, in facing an alleged “miracle,” is really facing nothing new. All historical events are unique, and the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has the right to a closed system of natural causation….”[15]

Therefore, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is really quite straightforward: “If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive again at point B, then resurrection has occurred: res ipsa loquitur.”[16]

FACT #1—THE DEATH OF JESUS BY CRUCIFIXION

Perhaps no other fact surrounding the life of the historical Jesus is better attested to than His death by crucifixion. Not only is the crucifixion account included in every gospel narrative[17] but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. These include the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, as well as the Jewish Talmud.[18] Josephus tells us that “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us…condemned him to the cross…”[19] From a perspective of historiography, Jesus’ crucifixion meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources including enemy attestation. John Dominic Crossan, non-Christian critical scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[20]

Objection #1: Jesus Didn’t Really Die (The Swoon Theory)

Some skeptics argue that Jesus may have been crucified, but He did not actually die. Instead, He lost consciousness (swooned) and merely appeared to be dead only to later be revived in the cool, damp tomb in which He was laid. After reviving He made His way out of the tomb and presented Himself to His disciples as the “resurrected” Messiah. Thus the Christian religion begins. This theory is problematic for several reasons.

First, the Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the horrendous scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. As an expert team from the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes, “Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[21]

Second, Jesus faking His own resurrection goes against everything we know about His ethical ministry.

Third, a half-dead, half-resurrected “messiah” could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. German theologian David Friedrich Strauss explains:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror of death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.[22]

Fourth, this theory is anachronistic in postulating that the disciples, upon seeing Jesus in his half-comatose state, would be led to conclude that He had been raised from the dead within history, in opposition to the Jewish belief in one final resurrection at the end of time. On the contrary, seeing Him again would lead them to conclude He didn’t die![23]

Fifth, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and everything we know about the torture and crucifixion of Jesus confirms His death, making this theory physically impossible.

Sixth, no early evidence or testimony exists claiming Jesus was merely wounded.

Finally, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

FACT #2—THE EMPTY TOMB

Something happened to the body of Jesus. Of this, we can be sure. Not only was Jesus publicly executed in Jerusalem but “His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed there.”[24] This would have been impossible with a decaying corpse still in the tomb. “It would have been wholly un-Jewish,” notes William Lane Craig, “not to say foolish, to believe that a man was raised from the dead when his body was still in the grave.”[25] The Jewish authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body and silence these men who “turned the world upside down,”[26] effectively ending the Christian religion for good. But no one could. The only early opposing theory recorded by the enemies of Christianity is that the disciples stole the body.[27] Ironically, this presupposes the empty tomb.

In addition, all four gospel narratives attest to the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and place women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.[28] Both of these are highly unlikely to be Christian inventions.

First, with regard to Joseph of Arimathea, Biblical scholar James G. D. Dunn explains that he

is a very plausible historical character: he is attested in all four Gospels… and in the Gospel of Peter…; when the tendency of the tradition was to shift blame to the Jewish council, the creation ex nihilo of a sympathizer from among their number would be surprising; and ‘Arimathea, ‘a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible.’[29]

Atheist Jeffery Lowder agrees that “the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability.”[30]

Second, just as unlikely to be invented is the report of women followers discovering the empty tomb, especially when considering the low social status of women in both Jewish and Roman cultures and their inability to testify as for legal witnesses.[31] If the empty tomb account were a fabricated story intended to persuade skeptics it would have been better served by including male disciples as the primary witnesses. In other words, both the burial and empty tomb accounts demonstrate a ring of authenticity which lends credibility to the gospel narratives.

As with the crucifixion, the account of the empty tomb meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources,[32] including implicit enemy attestation as well as the principle of embarrassment. In addition, the reports of the burial and empty tomb are simple and lack theological or legendary development.

Finally, there is no competing burial story in existence. Historian and skeptic Michael Grant concede that “the historian… cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” since applied historical criteria show “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”[33]

Objection #2: The Disciples Stole the Body (The Fraud or Conspiracy Theory)

As mentioned above, the earliest recorded polemic against the empty tomb is the charge by Jewish authorities that the disciples stole the body. This is commonly referred to as the Fraud or Conspiracy Theory. This scenario posits that Jesus’ followers stole the body away unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances, pulling off what has thus far been the greatest hoax in human history. There are several problems with this view.

First, this theory does not explain well the simplicity of the resurrection narratives nor why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.[34] This is hardly the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain why the disciples would perpetuate a story that they stole the body (Matt. 28:11-15) if, in fact, they stole the body! Propagating an explanation which incriminates oneself is again at odds with a conspiracy theory.

Third, as will be discussed below, this theory does not account for the fact that the disciples of Jesus had genuine experiences in which they believed they saw the risen Christ. So convinced were these men that their lives were transformed into committed followers willing to suffer and die for their belief. Liars make poor martyrs.

Fourth, this theory runs opposite to everything we know about the disciples. As J. N. D. Anderson states, “This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.”[35]

Fifth, this theory is completely anachronistic. There was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.”[36]

Finally, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

FACT #3—THE POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul recounts what biblical scholars recognize as an early Christian creed dating to within a few years of the crucifixion. Notice the creedal nature and repetitive structure of this passage when broken down in the following form:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, in which also you stand,

that Christ died for our sins

according to the Scriptures,

and

that He was buried,

and

that He was raised on the third day

                        according to the Scriptures,

and

that He appeared to Cephas,

then to the twelve.

After

that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,

most of whom remain until now,

but some have fallen asleep;

then He appeared to James,

then to all the apostles;

and last of all, as to one untimely born,

He appeared to me also.[37]

Included in this creed are three of our minimal facts: the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection appearances. Furthermore, our fourth minimal fact (the origin of Christianity) is easily explained given the first thee facts. Paul not only mentions the multiple post-resurrection appearances but includes himself as having seen the risen Lord. Several indicators in the text confirm this to be an early Christian creed.

First, as shown above, the passage uses stylized wording and parallel structure common to creedal formulas.

Second, the words “delivered” and “received” are technical terms indicating a rabbinic heritage is in view.

Third, the phrases “He was raised,” “third day,” and “the twelve” are unusual Pauline terms making this unlikely to have originated with Paul himself.

Fourth, the Aramaic term “Cephas” is used for Peter indicating an extremely early origin.[38] New Testament scholar and skeptic Gerd Lüdemann assigns this passage a very early date stating, “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 C.E.”[39]

The early date of this creed rules out the possibility of myth or legendary development as a plausible explanation and demonstrates that the disciples began proclaiming Jesus’ death, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances very early. Christian philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland elaborates:

There was simply not enough time for a great deal of myth and legend to accrue and distort the historical facts in any significant way. In this regard, A. N. Sherwin-White, a scholar of ancient Roman and Greek history at Oxford, has studied the rate at which legend accumulated in the ancient world, using the writings of Herodotus as a test case. He argues that even a span of two generations is not sufficient for a legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts. The picture of Jesus in the New Testament was established well within that length of time.[40]

Again Lüdemann acknowledges, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”[41] There is no dispute among scholars that the disciples experienced something.

But there’s more. The disciples not only proclaimed that Jesus was raised, but they sincerely believed the resurrection occurred as demonstrated by their transformed lives. Eleven early sources testify to the willingness of the apostles to suffer and die for their belief in the resurrection.[42] For example, we know extra-Biblically that Jesus’ brother James was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin and that the apostle Paul was beheaded in Rome under Nero.[43] Many people will die for what they believe to be true but no one willingly suffers and dies for what they know to be false. Again, liars make poor martyrs. This important point should not be confused by an appeal to modern-day martyrs who willingly die for their religious beliefs. Making this comparison is a false analogy: “Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be either true or false.”[44]

As with the crucifixion and empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances meet the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources, as well as the testimony of a former enemy of Christianity: Saul of Tarsus. Nine early and independent sources testify to the disciples’ proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.[45] To list just one example of this, the appearance “to the twelve” mentioned by Paul above is also attested to in Luke 24:36-42 and John 20:19-20. “The evidence,” says William Lane Craig, “makes it certain that on separate occasions different individuals and groups had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead. This conclusion is virtually indisputable—and therefore undisputed.[46]

Objection #3: The Disciples Experienced Hallucinations (The Hallucination Theory)

The most popular theory offered by skeptics to explain away the post-resurrection appearances is that the disciples experienced hallucinations. This is the position taken by Gerd Lüdemann (quoted above) among others. However, appealing to hallucinations as an explanation simply won’t work for the following reasons.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances.[47] In fact, this is the unanimous consent of the Gospel narratives. This is an important point because if “none of the appearances was originally a physical, bodily appearance, then it is very strange that we have a completely unanimous testimony in the Gospels that all of them were physical, with no trace of the supposed original, non-physical appearances.”[48]

Second, hallucinations are private experiences (as opposed to group experiences). A group of people “may be in the frame of mind to hallucinate, but each experiences hallucinations on an individual basis. Nor will they experience the same hallucination. Hallucinations are like dreams in this way.”[49] Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.[50]

Third, ironically, the Hallucination Theory cannot explain the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection! Just like in today’s modern world, “for someone in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidencing that the person is alive, but evidence that he is dead!”[51] This is a crucial argument to grasp:

Hallucinations, as projections of the mind, can contain nothing new. Therefore, given the current Jewish beliefs about life after death, the disciples, were they to project hallucinations of Jesus, would have seen Jesus in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom, where the souls of the righteous dead were believed to abide until the resurrection. And such visions would not have caused belief in Jesus’ resurrection.[52]

In other words, a hallucination of the resurrected Jesus presupposes the proper frame of mind which the disciples simply did not possess.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, the conversions of skeptics like Paul, nor the multiple and varied resurrection appearances which defy a purely psychological, naturalistic explanation.[53] “To be perfectly candid,” concludes Craig, “the only grounds for denying the physical, corporeal nature of the postmortem appearances of Jesus is philosophical, not historical.”[54]

FACT #4—THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

No scholar denies the fact that the Christian religion exploded out of the first century Israel. Within one generation of the death of Christ, this movement is known as “the Way” had spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia. Christianity is an effect that needs an adequate cause and explanation. Where exactly did the Christian faith come from and what best explains its origin?

The most obvious answer to this question is that the disciples truly saw the resurrected Christ. Only an event of this magnitude could turn scared, scattered, and skeptical disciples, with no prior concept and expectation of a crucified and risen Messiah, into courageous proclaimers of the gospel willing to suffer and die for their belief that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. This is what Peter boldly declared: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses… Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”[55] The origin of the Christian faith is best explained by the disciples’ sincere belief that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Anyone who denies the resurrection itself as the explanation for the origin of Christianity must posit some other explanation. Only three possibilities seem to exist. If the resurrection did not occur, then Christianity was either the result of Christian, Jewish, or pagan influences.[56] Obviously, the disciples could not succumb to Christian influences since Christianity was not yet in existence. But just as unlikely is the idea that the disciples’ belief in the resurrection originated from Jewish influences. The Jewish conception of the resurrection was one final, general resurrection of all mankind (or all the righteous) occurring after the end of the world. Nowhere in Jewish thought do we find the idea of a single individual resurrecting within history never to die again.[57]

Objection #4: Christianity Borrowed From Pagan Religions (The Copycat Theory)

Perhaps then Christianity finds its origin in paganism. Popular internet movies such as Zeitgeist have made ubiquitous the belief that there really is nothing unique about the Christian Savior. Jesus is simply a conglomeration of past dying and rising “messiahs” repackaged for a first-century audience whose zealousness eventually grew into the Christian religion we know today. Despite the pervasiveness of this belief, it suffers from numerous problems.

First, pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context considering that “Jesus and his disciples were first-century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”[58]

Second, the Jews were familiar with seasonal deities (Ezek. 37:1-14) and found them detestable, making it extremely improbable that they would borrow mythology from them. This is why no trace of pagan cults celebrating dying and rising gods can be found in first-century Palestine.[59]

Third, the earliest account of a dying and rising god that somewhat parallels Jesus’ resurrection appears at least 100 years later. The historical evidence for these myths is non-existent, and the accounts are easily explained by naturalistic theories.[60]

Fourth, the Copycat Theory begs the question. It assumes the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false (the very thing it intends to prove) and then attempts to explain how these accounts originated by appealing to supposed parallels within pagan mythology. But first, it must be shown that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are false! In other words, even if it could be shown that parallels exist, it does not follow that the resurrection of Jesus is not a historical event. The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection must be judged on its own merit because “the claims of resurrections in other religions do not explain the evidence that exists for Jesus’ resurrection.”[61]

Finally, to put to rest this outdated and unsubstantiated theory, the late Dr. Ronald Nash summarizes seven important points that completely undermine the idea that Christianity derived its doctrine from the pagan mystery religions:

  1. Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrates the logical fallacy of false cause… Coincidence does not prove the causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
  2. Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in a language they borrow from Christianity…
  3. The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it, therefore, had the same belief or practice in the first century.
  4. Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions…
  5. Early Christianity was an exclusivist faith…
  6. Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history…
  7. What few parallels may still remain to reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems…[62]

Nash offers this final word regarding the copycat theory: “Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous.”[63] Therefore, it is safe to conclude that “the birth and the rapid rise of the Christian Church…remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”[64]

CONCLUSION

If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive at point B, we have a resurrection. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best explanation for the known historical data: His death by crucifixion, the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. Furthermore, Jesus’ resurrection fits the context of his life, vindicating His teachings and radical claim to be the unique, divine Son of God. Paul says that Christ “was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.”[65] Naturalistic explanations (swoon theory, legendary development, fraud, hallucinations) fail to account for all the relevant data and in some cases (copycat theories) are outright false and ahistorical. Conversely, the Resurrection Hypothesis accounts for all of the known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.[66] Only if one is guided by a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism will the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead”seems unjustified.

Notas

[1] 1 Cor. 15:14, NIV.

[2] Clay Jones, Lecture Notes: In Defense of the Resurrection (Biola University: School of Professional Studies), Spring 2010).

[3] Matt. 12:39-40.

[4] Acts 1:21-22; 2:22, 24, 32; 10:39-41, 43a; 13:30-31, 34a, 37; 17:2-3, 30-31; 24:21; 26:22-23.

[5] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 44.

[6] For more information on the historical reliability of the New Testament see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), and F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

[7] See Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Rev. ed. (Joplin: College Press, 1996), 158-167.

[8] Habermas and Licona note that “roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70).

[9] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 361.

[10] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 36.

[11] Ibid., 36-40.

[12] Ibid., 32.

[13] Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1945), 386, as quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 211.

[14] William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman (Worcester: College of the Holy Cross, March 28, 2006), http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/DocServer/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf?docID=621 (accessed May 2, 2010).

[15] John Warwick Montgomery, History, Law and Christianity (Edmonton: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology, and Public Policy Inc., 2002), 61.

[16] John Warwick Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Probe Books, 1991), http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm (accessed May 1, 2010).

[17] See Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18.

[18] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3; Tacitus Annals 15:44; Lucian of Samosata The Death of Peregrine 11-13; Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.

[19] Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Rev. ed., trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 590.

[20] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 163.

[21] William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255, no. 11 (March 21, 1986): 1463.

[22] David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:412, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 91.

[23] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 373.

[24] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70. See also Acts 2 and Tacitus Annals 15:44.

[25] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 361.

[26] Acts 17:6, NKJV.

[27] See Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr Trypho 108; Tertullian De Spectaculis 30.

[28] See Matt. 27:57-61, 28:1-8; Mark 15:43-16:7; Luke 23:50-24:12; John 19:38- 20:18.

[29] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 782.

[30] Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst: Prometheus, 2005), 266.

[31] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 367.

[32] For example, 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Acts 13:28-31, and Mark 15:37-16:7

[33] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribners, 1976), 176.

[34] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 371.

[35] J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale Press, 1969), 92, as quoted in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 92.

[36] Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, 372.

[37] 1 Cor. 15:3-8, NASB.

[38] Jones, In Defense of the Resurrection, Spring 2010.

[39] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.

[40] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 156.

[41] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80. Lüdemann appeals to hallucinations as an explanation.

[42] Luke, Paul, Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and Hegesippus. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 56-62.

[43] Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1; Tertullian Scorpiace 15.

[44] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 59.

[45] Paul, Creeds (1 Cor. 15:3-8), Sermon Summaries (Acts 2), Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Clement of Rome, Polycarp. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 51-56.

[46] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 381.

[47] 1 Cor. 15:42-44; Matt. 28:5-6, 9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5-6, 22-24, 30, 39-43; John 20:1-20, 27, 21:13.

[48] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 383.

[49] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 106.

[50] Matt. 28:9, 16-20; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:33-36; John 20:19-30; 21:1-22; Acts 1:3-9.

[51] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 385.

[52] Ibid., 394.

[53] See The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 104-119, and Reasonable Faith, 384-387, for more on the hallucination theory.

[54] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 384.

[55] Acts 2:32, 36, NASB.

[56] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 390.

[57] Ibid., 392.

[58] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 391.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 90.

[61] Ibid., 91.

[62] Ronald Nash, “Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?” Christian Research Journal (Winter 1994), http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0169a.html(accessed May 2, 2010).

[63] Ibid.

[64] C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 2/1 (London: SCM, 1967), 13, as quoted in Craig, Reasonable Faith, 394.

[65] Rom. 1:4.

[66] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 397-399.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2t4i2c9

/by
The Divine Council

Reflecting On “The Divine Council”

By Evan Minton

Recently, I read Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm: Recovering The Supernatural Worldview Of The Bible.  I mentally wrestled with his prospect of “the divine council”. Heiser talks about this in this lecture as well btw.

Sometimes I do a soliloquy or write out my thought process when there is subject matter or information that I need to digest, especially if I find that subject matter new or troubling. That is what this blog post is all about.

In the first chapter, Heiser introduces us to “The Divine Council” worldview of The Bible, which is what he based his doctoral dissertation on. The key passage examined is Psalm 82. Heiser’s proposal seems to be that the Jews viewed angels and demons as lesser “gods” (lowercase g) which were subservient to the supreme God; Yahweh. Heiser rightly points out that Psalm 82 must be referring to angelic beings because all other interpretations have fatal flaws. To interpret the second usage of elohim (the Hebrew translated as God and gods) as referring to other persons of the Trinity entails that God The Father is judging the Son and The Holy Spirit for corruption. This is blasphemy. To interpret them as being Jewish leaders doesn’t work either as there is no biblical or extra-biblical evidence that the Jews ever ruled nations outside of Israel (which is what Psalm 82 says the “gods/elohim” did, and did so in a corrupt manner). The only alternative candidates are other supernatural entities.

First of all, I really have no issue with the word “god(s)” being referred to super powerful, supernatural entities. After all, it has traditionally been understood that 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referring to Satan (“The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers”). Elohim, according to Heiser simply refers to some supernatural spirits. Yahweh is an Elohim, but not all Elohim are YWWH. There’s only one Maximally Great Being. For the ancient Israelite, Elohim was like our modern term “Spirit”. We would say God is a “Spirit”, but not all “spirits” are God. There’s The HOLY Spirit, and then there are evil spirits. But certainly, Satan is not on the same level as God. He’s not as powerful as God, not as knowledgeable, and he’s not everywhere present.

To refer to angels and demons as elohim (i.e supernatural, immaterial entities) isn’t theologically objectionable. Just as I wouldn’t object to saying “God is a spirit” and “Satan is a spirit”. If the Hebrew term “elohim” simply carried the same connotations as “spirit”, then to say that there are many gods wouldn’t violate traditional monotheism anymore than saying there are many spirits. There’s only one God (capital G) even though there are many gods (lower case g). There are many spirits, even though there’s only one Great Spirit.

Should “god” Be Taken As A Metaphor?

On the other hand, Heiser’s position seems to open the door for Mormonism. As he himself pointed out, Elohim was applied to Samuel in 1 Samuel 28 when Saul had the medium call upon Samuel’s spirit. If Elohim even applies to the souls of deceased humans, doesn’t that mean that humans become divine upon death? Perhaps angels and demons could be considered “gods” with a lowercase g, but only in a metaphorical sense and divinity proper should not be ascribed to them. Doesn’t it open the door to the Mormon contention that we become gods after we die, that we become divine if the lesser elohim literally posess the property of divinity. There’s only one supernatural entity that literally possesses the attribute of divinity, and that’s YHWH: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There can be many elohim (gods), but there can only be one divine Elohim (God). There are many spirits, but there is only one Great Spirit (YHWH).

Perhaps, then, Psalm 82:1 should be properly translated as “God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the spirits.” or we can take the text at its face value meaning and ascribe the term “gods” as a metaphor. This could possibly be the reason why the NIV places the second rendering of elohim in quotation marks.

What About The Mockery Of Idols?

In the book of Isaiah, Yahweh mocks the idols that people bow to. In the book of Isaiah is where we find the most repeated assertions from God that He is the only God that there is.

“This is what the LORD says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God beside me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isaiah 44:6–8, NIV)

After proclaiming the glory, and majesty and power of the Lord Almighty, the prophet turns his attention toward the idols that Israel is so prone to worship. He reminds them of the shame of idol worship.

“All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame. Who shapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit nothing? People who do that will be put to shame; such craftsmen are only human beings. Let them all come together and take their stand; they will be brought down to terror and shame. The blacksmith takes a tool and works with it in the coals; he shapes an idol with hammers, he forges it with the might of his arm. He gets hungry and loses his strength; he drinks no water and grows faint. The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in human form, human form in all its glory, that it may dwell in a shrine. He cut down cedars or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. It is used as fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, ‘Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.’ From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, ‘Save me! You are my god!’ They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, ‘Half of it I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left? Shall I bow down to a block of wood?” Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, ‘Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?'” – Isaiah 44:9-20

The implication of Yahweh’s mockery is that the reason it is supremely stupid to make idols and worship them is that they are nothing but man-made objects. God essentially says “Look, you chop down a tree, use part of the wood to warm yourself and cook food, and you use what’s left to make yourself a deity? How stupid could you possibly be?” In Isaiah 46, God says of the idols “They [humans) lift it to their shoulders and carry it;  they set it [the idol] up in its place, and there it stands. From that spot, it cannot move. Even though someone cries out to it, it cannot answer;  it cannot save them from their troubles.” (verse 7). Now, I could perhaps understand it if we say that behind every idol, there is a demon, or perhaps that every idol of wood and stone is inhabited by some demonic spirit. But here, God seems to be denying the idols of any real existence or power at all! He says they cannot move. He says they cannot speak. He says they cannot answer when spoken to, or save people from their troubles. If demon spirits were really behind the idols, Yahweh’s mockery here makes no sense. Certainly, a demon could answer back when spoken to. Demons can certainly move. After all, the book of Job says that when Satan stood before God and God asked him where he had been, he responded “From roaming about the Earth. From going back and forth on it” (see Job 1:6-7).

I don’t know how to reconcile Michael Heiser’s divine council view with the text of Isaiah. It’s one thing to say that demons are, in some sense “gods” and that they are lesser gods than Yahweh, and that they are the ones worshipped by idolaters, but how do we account for the fact that in Isaiah 44-46, Yahweh treats the idols like they don’t even exist? As though they are simply man-made objects and figments of man’s imagination?

The apostle Paul seemed to have been divided on this issue himself, for in 1 Corinthians 8:4 he says that an idol is really nothing at all, using a proclamation of monotheism to justify his claim “For we know that there is no God but one”, so the Corinthians shouldn’t worry about eating meat sacrificed to one. But elsewhere, he seems to say that behind every idol is a demonic spirit, which obviously wouldn’t be “nothing”, (see 1 Corinthians 10:20).

So is an idol a non-existent entity or a demonic one? Either would be consistent with monotheism (there is only one Maximally Great Being). Deuteronomy 32:16-17 also seems to imply that demonic spirits are behind idols. Deuteronomy 32:16–17 states, “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations, they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded” (ESV).

Perhaps Paul meant that they are “nothing at all” in a hyperbolic term, to denote the powerlessness demons have in comparison with the power Yahweh has. It would be like saying to someone who lost a position of great influence or fame “You are nothing now”. It’s possible that this is what Yahweh was doing in Isaiah 44-46. Not that they are literally nothing or powerless, but that they are in comparison to Yawheh. You can’t even begin to compare finite power with infinite power.

It could also be the case that some idols are inhabited by demonic spirits while others aren’t inhabited at all, and it’s these latter that Isaiah 44-46 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 refer to.

CONCLUSION 

This blog post was written immediately after I read the first two chapters of Heiser’s book.

This concluding section, however, was written a week after the fact.

After wrestling with this concept in my mind for a week, I’ve come to this conclusion. I think Heiser’s proposal is a powerful one, and it explains much. It doesn’t threaten monotheism as I first thought. It might entail Henotheism at worst. However, although Heiser never explains it like this (these are my own words), it appears that for the ancients “elohim” carried the same meaning as what we might call “a spirit” to be an “elohim” simply meant to be a powerful, immaterial, supernatural entity. Certainly, Yahweh, angels, demons, and even deceased humans would fall under this definition. We would consider all four categories “spirits”. The ancients would consider all four “elohim”. There is only one Ultimate Supreme Elohim. There is only one Maximally Great Spirit. That is Yahweh (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). All others are lesser elohim/gods/spirits.

Michael Heiser’s proposal explains much of The Bible’s teaching on the unseen realm.
I think the idea of the pagan gods being demons is very credible. Not only does 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, and Deuteronomy 32 say that (and the nearly universal agreement that 2 Corinthians 4:4 is referring to Satan), but when you think about why the angels rebelled against God in the first place, it makes sense. Satan wanted to be God, and part of being God is receiving worship. When tempting Jesus in the wilderness in Matthew 4, Satan said he would give him all the kingdoms of the Earth if only He would worship him. It’s plausible to think that demons would desire worship, and ergo, plant it in the minds of human beings to build statues dedicated to them and then bow. It is part of the demonic mindset to get what properly belongs to God alone.

Isaiah 44 and 1 Corinthians 8:4 appear to be denying that the “gods” have any real existence at all at face value, but when you interpret these passages in light of the rest of scripture, this interpretation fails. The Bible is quite clear that false gods/idols are demonic entities. So what do we make of the denial passages? I think the most plausible interpretation is that of hyperbolic language. Even today, when we want to belittle someone to the most severe extent possible, we would say “You are nothing! NOTHING! You’re nobody!” Of course, the one who says this doesn’t think he’s talking to an imaginary person. Rather, he’s speaking as though he’s making an ontological denial in order to demote that person’s status or worth. If someone is a nobody, they are of no significance. It makes sense to call the gods/demons/idols “nothing at all” since all of their great-making properties are pitiful when compared to the Maximally Great Being (i.e Yahweh). God and Paul are simply belittling the demons. Compared to Him, they are nothing.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EIhcU2

/by
Image of God

The Image Of God, Mental Faculties, And The Sanctity Of Life

By Evan Minton

Genesis 1 teaches that human beings are created in God’s image, in His likeness. Much debate and speculation over the years have occurred over what exactly that means. It obviously cannot mean that we look like God if for no other reason than that everyone looks different. In my blog post “What Does It Mean To Be Made In God’s Image?” I argued that to be made in God’s image entailed a number of attributes which we have that animals don’t have: rationality, a moral compass, and free will.

Some theologians, however, object to this list. They argue that if this is what it means to be made in God’s image, then that must mean that fetuses, infants, and the severely mentally incapacitated cannot be made in God’s image. The argument goes that if they’re not made in God’s image, then they have no intrinsic value. If they have no intrinsic value, then it would not be evil to kill them, any more than it would be evil to shoot a deer or stomp on a cockroach. Consequently, this position on the imago Dei falls on the horns of a dilemma: either abortion and infanticide are justified, or else this cannot be what constitutes the divine image.

Dr. Michael Heiser made this objection in his book The Unseen Realm. Heiser wrote: “Identifying the nature of the divine image has preoccupied students and pastors for a long time. Chances are you’ve heard a sermon or two on the topic. I’m willing to bet that what you’ve heard is that the image of God is similar to something on this list: •Intelligence •Reasoning ability •Emotions •The ability to commune with God •Self-awareness (sentience) •Language/ communication ability •The presence of a soul or spirit (or both) •The conscience •Free will All those things sound like possibilities, but they’re not. The image of God means none of those things. If it did, then Bible-believers ought to abandon the idea of the sanctity of human life in the womb.”[1]

It’s understandable why some would raise this objection. After all, fetuses cannot reason and neither can infants. Infants don’t know the difference between right and wrong (this is, after all, my primary argument against the reformed doctrine of infant damnation). So if rationality and moral knowledge are what makes the divine image, and fetuses and infants don’t have these, then obviously this must mean they’re not made in God’s image. Since this is absurd, we must reject this view of the imago Dei.

What do we say to this?

First: I Now Believe That These Are Necessary Conditions Of The Divine Image, But Not Sufficient Conditions

Doing some study of John Walton’s “Lost World” books has shown me some surprising insights into how the ancient Israelites would have read Genesis. In The Lost World Of Adam and Eve, Professor Walton explains that to be made “In God’s Image” meant to be God’s representative. Humans represent God on Earth in a similar way in which statues of deities represented those deities in the temples in which those deities were worshipped. Humans are God’s “statues” so to speak, in His “Cosmic Temple” (i.e. the universe, which took 7 days to inaugurate, as was customary of the inauguration of any temple in the ancient near east).[2]

This would explain why angels and demons are never considered by scripture to be divine image bearers. They have rationality, free will, and the moral law written on their hearts, but they are not God’s representatives on Earth. Indeed, angels rarely appear visibly to people, and even when they do, people are often unaware of it (see Hebrews 13:2).

  1. Richard Middleton (Roberts Wesleyan College) agrees with Walton. In, The Liberating Image, Middleton says that the image of God describes“the royal office or calling of human beings as God’s representatives and agents in the world.”Image of God means that humans have been given “power to share in God’s rule or administration of the earth’s resources and creatures.”[3]
    But notice this: in order to be a representative of God, you need to be rational, know the difference between good and evil, and have free will.  If you aren’t an a-rational, a-moral, causally determined creature, you won’t be a very good representative of God on Earth. Having rationality, free will, and moral knowledge are prerequisites to being God’s representative on Earth. So, I don’t recant what I said in “What Does It Mean To Be Made In God’s Image,” I merely admit that my list of essential attributes was incomplete.

For a creature to be created in God’s image, one must
1: Be God’s representative on Earth. 

This means that the creature must be

2: Capable of rational thought.

3: Capable of knowing morally right actions from morally wrong ones.

4: Have free will of the libertarian variety. 

If scholars like Walton, Middleton, and others are right; that being made in God’s image is to be his representative and co-regent in the world, then the mental qualities described simply follow by logical extension.

This, by the way, also answers Heiser’s other reductio ad absurdum; that “If one animal anywhere, at any time, learned anything contrary to instinct, or communicated intelligently (to us or within species), or displayed an emotional response (again to us or other creatures), those items must be ruled out as image bearing.”[4]  Lower animals weren’t cosigned by God to be his representatives on Earth, so even if apes became as smart as the apes in the Planet Of The Apes movie series, it wouldn’t mean that they suddenly gained the image of God. To bear the divine image means to be God’s representative on Earth which requires rationality, free will, and the moral law. But possessing the latter 3 doesn’t entail that you are the former. The latter are simply needed for the former to exist.

Secondly, Babies Don’t Have The Aforementioned Faculties, But They Will In Time.

While babies and fetuses aren’t yet capable of exercising these capacities, they will be eventually, if allowed to grow. They are the sort of creature that has the capacity to gain these abilities. They have the inherent potentiality to be rational, moral agents. A kitten or a baby chimp lacks this potentiality altogether. Even if the cat lives 20 years, it will never be capable of learning the 9 rules of logical inference or knowing that stealing is wrong. A fetus, on the other hand, will.

An imago Dei creature either has these abilities already or at the very least will have them and can have them.

Heiser anticipates this response and says that if you argue that those things are there potentially, then that means that you have only a potential person. The problem with Heiser’s objection is that it acts as a boomerang, coming back to hit him in the face. Heiser understands the image of God in the exact same way as Walton and Middleton do: i.e. as God’s representatives on Earth. As I said above, I don’t disagree with this, but the essential properties of a representative are rationality, morality, and free will. Not only does an unborn child only have the mere potential to have these mental qualities, but even the “status” (Heiser’s own words) to which the mental qualities are prerequisites is but a mere potential. I can’t imagine that an unconscious fetus 3 days after conception can represent God in any meaningful sense. If Heiser is correct that the mere potential to possess abilities entails that fetuses are only potential persons, then is it not the case that the potential to be God’s representative entail the same? How is Heiser’s view of the imago Dei immune to the objection he brings against the mental faculty position? He doesn’t explain.

It will not do though simply point out that Heiser’s proposal (which I don’t disagree with) falls under the same objection.

Conclusion
I don’t think theologians are wrong to say that our unique mental faculties are necessary conditions to the imago Dei, but I think it is wrong to say that they are sufficient conditions. If they were sufficient conditions, then even Satan would bear God’s image. Rather, we need to see the imago Dei as being God’s representatives on Earth. This, of course, presupposes the mental faculties of rationality and so on. This last quality is what humans have that angels and demons do not (or aliens if there are any out there).

Notes

[1] Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 40). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] See Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Kindle Location 1331-1356). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

[3] The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis, March 1, 2005, by J. Richard Middleton, Brazos Press.

[4] Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 41). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2onLAvF

/by
God Omnipotence

The Omnipotence of God

By Tim Stratton

One of my primary goals is to help others comprehend God accurately. I have previously written about the attribute of God’s perfect love for all people (See The Omnibenevolence of God). I spend much time on this specific attribute because so many people (Christians and non-Christians) have a faulty and low view of God. While understanding God’s perfect love is vital, it is also of importance to grasp other truths about the Maximally Great Being! The next attribute of God that is vital to comprehend is called omnipotence. This is referring to the power of God. If you do not like the word “omnipotence,” you can simply say, God is “all powerful!”

What do we mean when we say that God is “all powerful”? Does this mean that God can do anything and everything?

Many people in the church today think that is the case, but they are wrong! In fact, it was not until just a few years ago that I realized that although God is omnipotent, this does not mean that God can do ALL things!

Allow me to clarify by offering some questions for you to consider: Can God create a married bachelor? Can God create a triangle with four corners? Can God create a stone that is so big that even He cannot lift it? Can God create something that is not contingent upon Him? Can God sin?

In Titus 1:2 the Bible indicates that God cannot lie.

What about this: Can God force someone to freely choose to love Him? Of course not — that is logically impossible!

So, if there are clearly things that God cannot do, then why do we say He is all-powerful or omnipotent? Let me give you a good definition of omnipotence:

God can do all things that are logically possible.

So, if a being can do all things that are logically possible, that would include many things that are scientifically impossible (these are different categories) – like creating a universe from nothing and raising a man from the dead. These are called miracles (See Are Miracles Metaphysically Impossible?)!

The Bible teaches that God is All-Mighty. It says,

“Oh, Lord God, it is you who made the heavens and the Earth by Your great power! Nothing is too hard for You” (Jeremiah 32:17).

The Bible is clear that “nothing is too hard for God.” But when you contemplate and study “triangles with four corners” and “married bachelors,” they are not really things at all. As William Lane Craig states, “they are nothing but an inconsistent combination of words.”

So, when thinking about it *that way*, then, God can do ALL things, but if it helps, just remember that God can do all things that are logically possible.

Do you know what is exciting about God’s omnipotence? If you have a personal love relationship with God then the omnipotence of God lives within you too! Think about that — this means you practically have super-powers! As my parents used to teach me:

“The same power that created the universe and raised Jesus from the dead is the same power that lives in you through the Holy Spirit! That is the ultimate Force.”

With God’s power working in you and through you, you can do “all things” that are logically possible too (Philippians 4:13)!

This passage of Philippians is often taken out of context (for a short and humorous example click here). However, the truth of my prior statement remains: If an omnipotent God chooses to use you — and you do not choose to resist His will — then God can use you to do all things that are logically possible.

It is important to realize that this is only in regards to the things that God wants you to accomplish. For example, you cannot choose to use God’s power to rob the bank, but if God desired you to walk on water or to simply love an unlovable neighbor then God’s power is available for you, and He wants you to choose to use it!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BqLdsJ

/by
Symbolism of colors

Reference Guide to the Biblical Symbolism of Colors

By Brian G. Chilton

Understanding portions of Scripture, particularly prophecy and apocalyptic literature, requires the reader to understand the symbolic meaning of the devices used by the prophet or apostle. Last week, I posted a reference guide describing the symbolic meaning of various numbers. In Revelation, John describes Jesus’s appearance as having hair as “white as wool—white as snow—and his eyes like a fiery flame. His feet were like fine bronze as it is fired in a furnace, and his voice like the sound of cascading waters” (Rev. 1:14-15).[1] Did John mean that Jesus literally had ultra-white hair, had fireballs for eyes, and metallic legs? If so, then John presented Jesus in such a way that would remind us of James Cameron’s Terminator. While Jesus did tell the disciples, “I’ll be back” (using my best Arnold Schwarzenegger voice), John used symbolism to describe the presence of Jesus. How do we understand the biblical use of colors? Let’s take a look. Afterwards, we’ll come back to John’s description of Jesus to show how this information is helpful in interpreting prophecy and apocalyptic literature (e.g., Daniel, Revelation).

Primary Colors

Red: Red is the color of blood. In the New Testament, Jesus’s sacrifice, often employing the imagery of blood (e.g., John 6:55). In the Old Testament, oudem is translated “red clay.” Oudem is the root word indicating mankind. Thus, red represents humanity. But, on a larger scale, red represents the love of God represented in and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. *Red is an official church color representing the Church itself. Red cloths are used during special festivals celebrating saints, Holy Week, and Pentecost.

Yellow/Gold:  Yellow is represented by two Hebrew words: charuts, referring to gold alloyed with silver or of sick skin (Ps. 68:13); and tsahob, referring to the color of hair or a patch of skin indicating leprosy (Lev. 13:30). Gold was a precious metal valued for its beauty and workability.[2] The temple was arrayed in gold, so it is no surprise that the New Jerusalem is described as being made of gold (Rev. 21:18, 21). Yellow and gold are also the color of fire. Fire represents the presence of God (Dt. 4:24; Heb. 12:29) and God’s refining process. Therefore, yellow represents the joy, the presence of God, and God’s anointing, whereas gold represents God’s holiness, divine nature, and his majesty. *Gold/yellow cloth is sometimes used in the place of white to celebrate the holiest days of the year (i.e., Easter and Christmas).

Blue: Blue is obviously the color of the sky, so the color holds some connection with the heavens. The Hebrew term for “blue” is tekelet which is sometimes translated as “purple” (Eze. 23:6) or “violet” (Jer. 10:9). Blue dyes were inferior to royal purple, but still a very popular dye and quite expensive. Blue was used on the clothing of the priests and aligned the hem of the priests’ garments (Ex. 28:5-6, 8, 15).[3] Blue was used in the tabernacle (Ex. 25:4; 26:1, 4) and in the temple (2 Chr. 2:7, 14). Blue indicates heaven, the Holy Spirit, and truth. Lighter shades of blue are sometimes used to represent the Virgin Mary. *Blue cloths are often used to represent the season of Advent, although purple is the official color.

White: White is used often to depict purity, holiness, and the redemption of sin. For the forgiven, sin is said to be washed as white as snow (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18). White also represents the absolute purity of God (Dan. 7:9), of Christ (Rev. 2:17), of God’s judgment (Rev. 20:11), as well as God complete victory over the powers of evil (Zech. 6:3, 6; Rev. 6:2; 19:11). *White is an official color of the church. White clothes are used for holy days on and surrounding the Easter season, Christmas season, and other special occasions.

Black: Black symbolizes evil, gloom, judgment, and death (Lam. 4:8; Mic. 3:6; Zech. 6:2, 6; Rev. 6:5, 12). Hell is described as a place of “the blackest of darkness” (Jude 13; 2 Pet. 2:17).

Green: The color green is usually associated with vegetation. As such, green represents life. Cedars were popular especially in Lebanon and were valued as building material.[4] Cedars played some role in the purification rites of Israel (Lev. 14:4; Num. 19:6). Cedars represented power and wealth (1 Kgs. 10:27), growth and strength (Ps. 92:12; Eze. 17). Green is associated with the evergreen that does not lose its foliage. Thus, green represents life, eternal life, restoration, and a new beginning. *Green is an official color of the church, used during times where there is no official time of celebration. The church calls this period ordinary time.

https://i1.wp.com/bellatorchristi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/

Cedar of Lebanon

Purple: Purple dyes were the most expensive and most highly treasured in ancient times. The Phoenicians developed purple dye which came from several predatory snails living in the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., murex brandaris, murex trunculus, and purpura haemostoma).[5] Purple became an official color of the tabernacle and of Aaron’s priestly garments (Ex. 26:1; 28:15-33). As such, purple represents royalty, priesthood, and wealth. *Purple is an official color of the church and used to symbolize the Advent (sometimes replaced with blue) and Lent seasons.

Bronze: Bronze is a hard metallic alloy composed of copper and arsenic, antimony, lead, and silver alloys. Bronze is extremely hard and durable. Bronze was often used for objects in the temple and tabernacle (1 Chr. 15:19). Jesus is described as having feet as bronze (Rev. 1:14-15). Bronze represents strength and durability.

Other Colors

Silver: Used to describe the word of God, divinity, purity, salvation, and truth (e.g., Jer. 6:30).

Amber: Like yellow, amber is a color of fire which represents God’s glory, judgment, and endurance.

Orange: Like amber and yellow, orange is a color of fire which represents the power and presence of God.

Pink/Fuchsia: Indicates a person’s right relationship with God. Pink is sometimes used by the church for the third Sunday of Advent and the third Sunday of Lent.

Scarlet: Sometimes indicates sin. But, scarlet can indicate royalty.

Sapphire: Indicates the law, commandments, grace, revelation, and the Holy Spirit.

Turquoise: Indicates the river of God, sanctification, the New Jerusalem, and God’s healing.

So, using the tools we have in this reference guide, we can denote that in Revelation 1, Jesus’s white hair represents his purity and holiness. His eyes of flaming fires symbolize his divine judgment. Finally, Jesus’s feet of bronze represent his great strength. An understanding of the symbolic meaning of colors can greatly help one interpret the imagery used in prophecy.

Notes 

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

[2] Daniel C. Browning Jr., “Minerals and Metals,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1131.

[3] The hem of Jesus’s garment could have been blue. Thus, when the woman touched the hem of Jesus’s garment, it could have been blue if Jesus was able to afford a strip of blue cloth.

[4] Chad Brand et al., eds., “Cedar,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 274.

[5] Mary Petrina Boyd, “Purple,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck,Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1100.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nrZbSg

/by
God Behaving Badly

God Behaving Badly? – Destruction of the Canaanites

By Timothy Fox

This is the second article in my series God Behaving Badly? where I address passages of the Bible where God seems to do some immoral things. In the introductory article, I discussed what it means for an action to be immoral, that it goes against some moral code. However, I argued that God is the best explanation of an objective moral code, so to call something really wrong is actually to provide evidence for God’s existence.

But still, this does not resolve some of the more troubling passages of the Old Testament. God commits and commands some actions that seem to contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. So we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites.

Destruction of the Canaanites

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out the Canaanites living in a certain region (Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18): “you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (7:2), “do not leave alive anything that breathes” (20:16). And Israel obeyed. How could a good and loving God possibly command something like this?

King of the Universe

We first must understand who God is. God is not just another ruler of some earthly kingdom. God is Creator of all things and King of the Universe. He gives life and he can take life whenever he wants, however he wants.

Furthermore, there are times that we think it is justified for humans to take another’s life, like in self-defense, to protect others, or in a just war. A general can order his troops to attack and kill enemy combatants. So was God morally justified in destroying the Canaanites?

Judgment, Not Genocide

The Bible is clear that God did not arbitrarily order Israel to kill the Canaanites. They were evil. God told the Israelites “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations” (Deut. 9:5, emphasis mine). And while the Canaanites committed many wicked acts, I think only one example would suffice: child sacrifice. They would burn their children alive in a fiery furnace as a sacrifice to the god Molech. Just that one act alone would be justification for their complete annihilation.

The irony is that many skeptics question why God doesn’t prevent great evils in the world. But here we have an example of God eradicating a wicked culture, and yet skeptics complain about it!

God did not act impulsively or arbitrarily when he commanded the destruction of the Canaanites. He was judging the wicked. And He even imposed harsh judgment upon his own people, Israel, when they partook of the same wicked actions of the nations surrounding them. After all, one of the reasons God gave for destroying the Canaanites was so Israel would not adopt their evil practices (Deut. 7:3-4; 20:18).

But surely they weren’t all bad, right? Recall the account of Abraham bargaining with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). God played along, knowing that Abraham could not find ten righteous in the cities, and God also knew that the Canaanites were completely and utterly evil. So he commanded them to be destroyed.

Occupy Promised Land

God did not command the Israelites to destroy every Canaanite on earth, only the ones living in the land he was giving to Israel (Deut. 7:1; 20:16). It is definitely possible that many Canaanites fled their cities once they saw the Israelites coming and only the defiant who remained to fight were killed.

What About the Children?

This is extremely hard to comprehend and I admit that it does trouble me. How could a loving God command the Israelites to kill innocent children? Now, it is possible that every child was evacuated from the land. But still, God gave the command to kill them. How do we make sense of this?

As stated above, God gives life, and he can take it however and whenever he wishes. No one is guaranteed a long, peaceful life and to die of old age in one’s sleep. And a child’s quick death by the edge of a sword would be much more merciful than being burned alive as a sacrifice to Molech, wouldn’t it? Plus, what if God knew that if these children were to grow up, they would be just as wicked and depraved as their parents? I strongly believe that young children who die are saved by God’s grace and will inherit eternal life, which is infinitely greater than being raised in the wicked culture of the Canaanites. Thus, God was actually showing these children mercy and calling them home to himself.[1]

God Is Patient and Merciful

God does not enjoy the death of the wicked but patiently waits for us to repent of our sins (Ezek. 18:23, 2 Peter 3:9). Yet, he will only permit evil for so long until he finally passes judgment. God gave the Canaanites 400 years to cease their wickedness. But when their evil reached its peak, then God had the Israelites destroy them (Gen. 15:16).

Conclusion

God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites is a difficult passage to comprehend. But as creator and king of the universe, God has the right to give and take life as he pleases. This was not an act of genocide but divine judgment, as the Canaanites were a thoroughly wicked people. God is patient and merciful, always willing to show mercy and forgive our sins.

Now, if you are not convinced by any of these arguments and believe the destruction of the Canaanites was an immoral act, what moral standard are you judging God by? You cannot call any action truly evil unless an objective moral standard exists, and the best explanation for objective morals and duties is God. But if you choose to reject objective morality instead, then there was nothing wrong with God commanding the destruction of the Canaanites.

As for me, I choose to trust that an all-knowing, all-loving, morally perfect God always does what is best for mankind, even if I cannot always understand it.

For a further discussion of the destruction of the Canaanites, see:

Tim Stratton: TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

Clay Jones: http://www.clayjones.net/category/canaanites/

William Lane Craig:

Paul Copan has a different take on the Canaanite destruction. He argues that the passages are hyperbolic, which some disagree with, such as Clay Jones. But his books on the topic are still worth exploring:

[1] In case you’re wondering, this in NO WAY justifies infanticide. This was a unique incident in history in which Israel was a theocracy and directly commanded by God to carry out these actions.

This blog was originally published by FreeThinkingMinistries.com here: http://freethinkingministries.com/god-behaving-badly-destruction-of-the-canaanites/

/by
Disagreement Moral Objective

Should Christians Stay Silent? No!

Should Christians Stay Silent? No!

Rarely a day goes by (and sometimes an hour) that I don’t receive personal criticism through Twitter, email, Facebook, or some other medium. I have chosen to speak publicly on controversial topics like religion and sexuality, and so I have come to expect it. But to be honest, it still wears on me.

As a result, there’s a temptation to stop speaking out. These kinds of questions sometimes go through my mind: Why not let someone else do it? Do you really have the time? Will it negatively affect my relationships?  Staying silent would be much easier.

And yet there are a few reasons I simply cannot stay silent:

1. The Apostles Spoke with Boldness: Even though they were threatened, beaten, and thrown in prison, the apostles refused to stop speaking about the name of Jesus. In Acts 5, the apostles were freed from prison and strictly told to stop teaching in the name of Jesus. But Peter replies, “We must obey God rather than men” (v. 29). In other words, Peter feared God more than he feared the disapproval of people.

2. Truth Sets People Free: Even though many people reject it, the Christian worldview is what brings spiritual freedom. And this is not merely a spiritual freedom divorced from the material realm. Following the Christian worldview in all areas of life—work, relationships, finances, etc.—is what brings real freedom in this life in spite of the individualistic and feelings-based mantra our culture proclaims. This is why, in his excellent book We Cannot Be Silent, Albert Mohler argues that speaking truth is often the compassionate thing to do.

3. Speaking Out Helps Us Discover Truth: I do my homework before speaking out publicly. But nevertheless, I have discovered helpful pushback from friends and critics alike that has caused me to change my mind on a number of issues. If I hadn’t spoken out publicly, I may would not have gained a greater understanding of the truth. It’s tempting to avoid speaking out for fear of public correction. But shouldn’t we have a greater desire to discover truth than to preserve our ignorance? Do your homework and make your case. If you discover that you were wrong, then change!

4. Truth Helps Drown Out Lies: There is so much nonsense today being discussed on social media and being passed off as true and important. There is endless “fake news.” Part of the reason I post is to try and help drown out the “noise” with discussion about what matters. I don’t claim to have a corner on truth. As I said above, I am happy to change my mind if I am mistaken. But drowning out unimportant stories (often motivated for clicks) is part of what motives me to speak out.

5. You Can Make a Difference: It is easy to get discouraged today and to stop speaking up. After all, so many things are outside our control. Along with the critical comments, I also receive many comments from people who appreciate my speaking and writing ministry. My point is not to bring attention to myself, but simply to emphasize that it’s possible to make a positive contribution today. Don’t believe the lie: You can make a difference in someone’s life. But it won’t happen unless you speak up.

It is easy to fall prey to the “voices” encouraging Christians to stay silent. After all, speaking up is a risk, and it takes time to do it well. Nevertheless, if you are willing to do your homework, if you are genuinely motivated by love, and if you are willing to follow truth wherever it leads, then please speak up. If you won’t, who will?

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

/by
Reference Guide Biblical Numerology

Reference Guide to Biblical Numerology

By Brian G. Chilton

Early Apostolic Church Fathers (100-451 AD) recognized that Scripture had four layers of interpretation. They used a method called quadriga which held the following layers: 1) Literal (sensus historicus), 2) Allegorical (sensus allegoricus—texts hold symbolic meaning), 3) Tropical/moral (sensus tropologicus or sensus moralis—broader moral lessons), and 4) Anagogical (sensus anagogicus—mystical, metaphorical sense). Often numbers are used symbolically to indicate certain truths. This article will provide an extensive glimpse at the most common symbolic numbers used in Scripture. A gauge will be used to indicate the certainty that I hold with the meaning given to the number. The word symbolize is used of numbers for which there is great confidence in its symbolic meaning. The word represents is used for numbers of which there is good confidence in its symbolic reference. Implies represents numbers that have fair representation for the meaning attributed to it. The phrase may imply is used for numbers that could hold symbolic meaning but doesn’t hold a good deal of evidence to support the meaning given to it.

1) Symbolizes the unity of God (there is one God) (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4: Gal. 3:20). The number also represents the unity between the Father and the Son (Jn. 10:30), the singular sacrifice of Christ, and Christ’s being the one Mediator and Shepherd (1 Tim. 2:5; Jn. 10:16).

2) Symbolizes the duality of man, consistent of both spirit and flesh (Gal. 5:16-18). The number two also represents the union of two parties, the verification of two witnesses (Mk. 6:7-13; 1 Tim. 5:19), the union between Christ and the church (1 Cor. 12), and the Old and New Testaments. The number two can also represent comparison and contrast between two things.

3) Symbolizes the triune nature of God. By no surprise, three can also represent completeness. Three may also represent God’s perfect design as there are three heavens (2 Cor. 12:2), three time frames (past, present, future), three points of measurement (beginning, middle, end), three kinds of sacrifice (sin, peace, and praise), three kinds of laws (moral, ceremonial, and civil), three things that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Ten Commandments, Aaron’s staff, and a jar of manna), three gifts of grace (faith, hope, and love), and three parts to salvation (justification, sanctification, and glorification).

4) Symbolizes the creative work of God and universal truth: 4 corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1); 4 rivers of Paradise (Gen. 2:10); 4 winds of heaven (Jer. 49:36); 4 acts of judgment (Eze. 14:21—sword, famine, evil beasts, and pestilence); 4 horsemen (Rev. 6); and 4 winds (Matt. 24:31); and four guardians of God’s throne.

5) Represents God’s goodness and grace upon humanity and teaching. There are two divisions of five in the Ten Commandments; five offerings given to God (Burnt—Lev. 4; Sin—Lev. 4; Trespass—Lev. 5:14-19; Grain—Lev. 2; and Peace—Lev. 3); the five divisions of Psalms; and the five books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).

6) Represents the fallen nature of humanity. God created human beings on the 6th day. Six days were given to work. 666 is the number of Satan.

7) 7 is one of the most important numbers in the Bible. It symbolizes completion, perfection, and rest. God finished creation in 7 days. There are 7 great land masses. 7 colors of the rainbow. 7 notes make a perfect scale. 7 days in the feast of Passover. 7 weeks between Passover and Pentecost. 7 days for the Feast of Tabernacles. God had 7 covenants with humanity (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Levitic, Davidic, and Messianic). In Revelation, one finds 7 churches, 7 letters, 7 candlesticks, 7 stars, 7 angels, 7 Spirits of God, 7 Seal Judgments, 7 horns, 7 eyes on the Lamb, 7 trumpets, 7 thunders, 7 mountains, 7 bowls, 7 kings, and so on.

8) The number eight is also of great importance as it symbolizes new life, resurrection, a new covenant, and new beginnings. God spoke 8 words to bring forth creation (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). Jesus rose on the 8th day—the first day of the week (Sun. Apr. 5, 33 AD). Eight people were resurrected besides Jesus’s own resurrection. If you take the numerical value of Jesus’s name, it comes to 888.

9) Nine, a multiple of three, symbolizes the finality of faith or divine completeness. Christ died in the ninth hour (3 pm). Yom Kippur occurs on the 9th day of the 7th month (Lev. 23:32). The fruit of the Spirit consists of nine qualities (love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control—Gal. 5:22-23).

10) Like 7, 10 symbolizes completion. For instance, there were Ten Commandments. In the end times, 10 kingdoms will exist. 10 spies were sent out (Num. 13:32). 10 men were needed to form a quorum in the Sanhedrin.

11) Represents chaos, disorder, and judgment. The number 11 is used twenty-four times in Scripture and “11th” can be found 19 times, all denoting chaos. John saw 11 things connected to the final judgment (Rev. 20:12-14).

12) Another major number in Scripture, 12 symbolizes God’s government. God brought about 12 tribes from Jacob’s 12 sons. There are 12 lunar cycles corresponding to 12 months of one year. Jesus called 12 apostles (Matt. 10:2-4). 12 is seen quite frequently in Revelation.

13) Implies rebellion and lawlessness as indicated by Nimrod who tried to take the place of God (Gen. 10:9), a man who was the 13th of Ham’s descendants.

14) Implies a double measure of spiritual perfection due to the fact that it is seven doubled and that there are three sets of 14 generations in Jesus’s lineage.

15) Implies rest after deliverance (14). The 15th day of Nisan is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Also, the 15th day of the 7th month of Tishrei begins the Feast of Tabernacles.

16) Implies love and loving. 16 is 8 doubled (8×8=16). Some have suggested that the OT gives 16 names and titles for God’s constant love. Zilpah and her descendants survived a brutal drought (Gen. 45:11). Zilpah and her descendant who survived numbered 16 people (Gen. 46:18).

17) Implies victory. The prophetic beasts of Daniel and Revelation (representing world powers) will have 7 heads and 10 horns, totaling 17. They will be overcome by the power of God.

18) Implies bondage as identified by 18 people who served as judges during a time of great sin in the nation (Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Barak, Eli, Gideon, Abimelech, Tola, Jephthah, Samson, Samuel, Ibzan, Jair, Elon, Abdon, Joel, and Abiah).

19) Implies God’s perfect order as 19 is the sum of both 10 and 9, both holding tremendous biblical value. Israel had 19 kings before the Northern Kingdom was overtaken.

20) May imply a time of waiting. Jacob had to wait 20 years to marry his wives and be freed from Laban’s control.

21) May imply great wickedness and sin. Advocates hold that Satan is released on the 21stday of the seventh Hebrew month ending Christ’s millennial reign at the end of time. Satan will rise and will finally be defeated once and for all.

22) May imply disorder, chaos, and disorganization since 22 is 11 doubled.

23) May imply evil. Jezebel, an evil woman, is mentioned 23 times compared to Eve who is referenced 19 times.

24) Implies priesthood and the worship of God. 24 is a multiple of 12. David divided into 24 divisions (1 Chron. 24).

25) Implies grace doubled. In Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple, which was seen in the 25thyear of captivity (Eze. 40:1), he gives 5 measurements of the temple which are 25 cubits long (Eze. 40:13, 21, 25, 29-30).

30) Represents a person’s calling. Aaronic priests were dedicated at 30 years of age. Jesus was around the age of 30 when he began his 3 ½ year ministry (Lk. 3:23).

33) May imply the promises of God. Often, 33 may be linked with divine judgment. 33 is the numeric equivalent of the term amen. Other links are found with 33 in the 33rd use of a particular name in Scripture (e.g., 33rd time Abraham is mentioned, he had Isaac).

40) Symbolizes testing and trials. Genesis notes that it rained 40 days and 40 nights upon the earth during the time of Noah’s testing. Moses was in Egypt 40 years, in Midian 40 years, and served God 40 years. Moses was on Mt. Sinai 40 days as God gave him the law. Saul, David, Solomon, and Josiah ruled for 40 years. Israel was in the wilderness 40 years. Jesus fasted in the wilderness 40 days. Jesus taught his disciples for 40 days following his resurrection.

42) Symbolizes the antichrist. The antichrist will be allowed to have authority for 42 months (Rev. 13:4-5).

50) Symbolizes power, celebration, and joy. The Year of Jubilees came on the 50th year (Lev. 25:10). Pentecost occurred 50 days after Jesus’s resurrection, was on the 50th day after the first harvest of grain, and was the time that the Holy Spirit filled believers with his presence. David has a connection with 50 in 2 Samuel 24.

70/72) Symbolizes human leadership and judgment. Moses appointed 70 elders (Ex. 24:1). The Sanhedrin consisted of 70 men. Jesus chose 70 or 72 disciples (Lk. 10:1). Jesus told Peter to forgive 70 times 7.

120) Implies a divine time of waiting. 120 disciples were gathered when Matthias was chosen as Judas’s replacement (Acts 1:14-26). God gave a 120 year period to allow humanity to repent of their evil before engaging in judgment against them (Gen. 6:1-3).

153) May imply God’s overflow of blessing as it is linked with the 153 fish that were caught at one of Jesus’s resurrection appearances (Jn. 21:11).

200) May imply insufficiency. Achan sinfully takes 200 shekels of silver in Jericho (Josh. 7). The Romans escort Paul from Jerusalem to Caesarea with 200 soldiers (Acts 21-23).

390) Represents separation. Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his side for 390 days to represent Israel’s sins and separation (Eze. 4:1-5).

400) May imply a divine time period.

666) Symbolizes the antichrist and the kingdoms of humanity opposing God. 666 is oddly a triangular number, thus representing a counterfeit trinity. The number is identified as the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18.

1000) Symbolizes the conclusion of a time. Jesus will return to establish a millennial kingdom on earth. He will reign for 1,000 years after which Satan will launch one last effort against Christ that will prove fatal for Lucifer (Rev. 19:16; 20:4, 6).

144,000) Symbolizes totality and the church. David’s army consisted of 12 sets of 144,000 in 1 Chronicles 27. More indicative of the numerical meaning is the reference of 144,000 end-time believers whom God saves from the tribes of Israel (Rev. 7:4-9).

More numbers could be given. However, the numbers mentioned in this article represent the most impressive numbers symbolized in the Bible. The intricate detail of Scripture and the numerical connections add to the impressive revelation that is found in God’s word.

Were there some numbers that were missed? Do you agree or disagree with the symbolic meanings attributed to the numbers? If so, leave a comment and let us know what you think.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mxKkWX

/by
Evolution True Happen Adam Eve

If Evolution Were True, What Would Happen To Adam And Eve?

,

By Evan Minton

If evolution were true, what would we Christians do about the Bible’s teachings on Adam and Eve, their relationship with sin’s entrance into the world, and the doctrine of original sin? As I’ve argued in several blog posts on this website, I believe Christianity and Evolution are compatible, and many of the objections lodged at Theistic Evolution simply don’t work. For example, when scientists talk about “random” mutations, they don’t mean the mutations are purposeless or chance events. They just mean that they’re unpredictable from a scientific point of view[1], and in any case even if they did mean they occurred by chance, this would at most, only be from a human perspective. Proverbs 16:33 says “The lot is cast, but it’s every decision is from the Lord.” So the argument that evolutionary creationism is incoherent because “it posts that God had a purpose in a random process” commits the fallacy of equivocation. God is sovereign even over what appears to be a chance event from our human point of view. Also, just because an event can be explained naturally by no means entails that God wasn’t involved. We believe (and The Bible teaches) that God orchestrated the crucifixion of Jesus, but He clearly worked through natural processes (i.e human free choices) to bring that about. Moreover, as Kirk MacGregor has argued, Molinism would provide a plausible mechanism for how God could guide evolution without intervening all the time.[2]

All that said, I think the trickiest area that Theistic Evolution a.k.a Evolutionary Creationism has to deal with is the biblical teachings on Adam and Eve. For those who reject macroevolution entirely, such as young earth and old earth creationists, Adam isn’t a problem. But what about those convinced of Evolutionary Creationism? What if you become convinced that the scientific evidence firmly establishes macro evolution? Some say that evolution doesn’t allow for a historical Adam at all, and therefore, would adopt an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and say that biblical history starts in Genesis 12 (e.g Peter Enns). As I’ve written elsewhere, I think an allegorical view of Genesis is exegetically untenable. If nothing else, it makes Romans 5 unintelligible, and it renders the Genealogies in Luke and 1 Chronicles errant.[3]

While it’s true that an evolutionary process wouldn’t result in the genesis of one man and one woman, it doesn’t follow that Genesis 2-11 need to be entirely jettisoned as historical narrative. I’m convinced that there are least two biblically faithful options we could adopt if we thought the theory of Darwinian macro evolution were true. These would harmonize evolutionary biology with the biblical text. There are more than Christian evolutionists have proposed, but in this blog post, I’ll only survey the ones I think are the most tenable and have the least amount of problems.

1: The Strattonian Model 
In his blog post “Should Christians Oppose Evolution?” apologist and blogger Tim Stratton offers the following evolutionary creation model.

“1. God exists and possesses omniscient middle knowledge.

2. Big Bang (God chooses and actualizes this world and all that will happen in it)!

3.The universe unfolds…

4. Our solar system and earth come into existence.

5. Life evolves exactly the way God knew it would via his design in the finely-tuned initial conditions of the Big Bang.

6. Homo sapiens evolve as planned (not by accident).

7. God “breathes his image” (soul) into the Homo sapien making the first human in another act of special creation.

8. God does the same thing with a female Homo sapien and then “breathes his image” into her making the first female human.

9. God separates Adam and Eve from the other “soul-less” Homo sapiens (who are physically identical, but not spiritually), and places them in the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life (as long as they eat of this tree they will never experience a physical death).

10- After the fall, Adam and Eve are expelled from the paradise of the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life (now they will eventually die).

11. After Adam and Eve’s son, Cain, kills their other son, Abel, Cain is expelled from the world’s only “human tribe.” Cain is scared of other soul-less Homo sapiens who may kill him (Genesis 4:13-14).

12. Cain finds a physically identical but soul-less Homo sapien female as a wife (Genesis 4:17). The human soul is always passed on to offspring (avoids “bottle-necking” problems).

13. The human soul is a trait preferred via natural selection (as it allows for rationality).

14. Soon, all Homo sapiens have souls created in the “image of God.” Therefore, now all Homo sapiens are human (All humans are Homo sapiens, but not all Homo sapiens have been human).

15. This is exactly the way God planned and designed life to unfold. It all started with the Big Bang!” [4]

The most controversial and most important part of the model is 8-14. This is because it deals with the origin of humanity and the historicity of Adam and Eve. Stratton proposes that a few thousand homo sapiens evolved in the “March Of Progress” (step 6), and God elected to supernaturally intervene to endow one specific homo sapien with a spirit (i.e His image, entailing rationality, free will, and the knowledge of objective morality) (step 7). This homo sapien, He named Adam. Then God did the same thing with a female Homosapien (step 8), whom Adam named Eve when he first met her. Step 9 of Stratton’s model posits that the other homo sapiens were not supernaturally endowed with His image, and therefore remained spiritless like all of the other animals in the world. If you’re having a hard time imagining this, think of the unintelligent, mute humans in the movie “The Planet Of The Apes” (the original one with Charlton Heston). While George Taylor was an intelligent, rational being endowed with free will and a knowledge of right and wrong, the other homo sapiens he encountered had devolved into unintelligent animals, and the apes in the movie (who had now gained intelligence and rationality) treated them as such.

Steps 10-12 of Stratton’s model posits that once exiled from the Garden of Eden because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve had other children, and once Cain fled the scene of the crime, the wife he found was one of these spiritless homo sapiens, whom he was able to reproduce with since they were physically identical. Over time, the divine image bearing homo sapiens replaced the non-divine-image bearing once because natural selection preferred the former because greater intelligence provided for better survival.

Step 12 of Tim Stratton’s model is helpful since it posits that Adam’s offspring reproduced with spiritless homo sapiens. This would provide enough genetic diversity by the time of the Genesis flood (chapters 6-9) so that, although all people are inherited from Noah and his sons (who, in turn, were descended from Adam and Eve), we don’t run into the “But much population genetics!” objection. All people are descended from two humans, Adam and Eve, despite evolution bringing about a large number of homo sapiens.

When I first read about this model many months ago, I really liked it. One thing that bothered me about it is that it posits that Adam’s descendants mated with non-human (i.e non-imageo dei) homo sapiens. This seems to get dangerously close to saying beastiality occurred, because although they were biologically identical to the image bearing homo sapiens (Adam, Eve, Cain, Able,) they were animals on a spiritual level. But as I reflected on it, I became more comfortable with it. First, even if this was technically beastiality, is that really any worse than the traditional explanation that Adam’s children all had sex with each other? Also, many Christians are trichotomous in their view of the human soul. So, to say that God could have created a human body with a soul but not a spirit (i.e the divine image) shouldn’t bother them. Since the spirit is a separate faculty altogether, I don’t see why God couldn’t withhold this faculty from all except Adam and Eve and the children they bore. And even on dichotomism (the view I gravitate towards), the Spirit is a faculty of the soul even though it isn’t a separate faculty altogether. To be a truly human person, one is biologically homo sapiens and is endowed with a spirit-soul. Why couldn’t there homo sapiens endowed with souls that lacked the property? Creatures, that are human in biology only?

Tim Stratton, after presenting this model, went on to stress that he isn’t saying this model of creation is true. In fact, he wasn’t even arguing that evolution is true. Rather, he’s presenting this model as a possibility to show that macro evolution and Genesis 1-11 being historical accounts are not mutually exclusive affirmations. There is a logically possible way that both can be true. Therefore, if one is convinced of The Bible, one does not have to throw out evolution. If one is convinced of evolution, that is no cause to throw out The Bible. This model shows it’s logically possible for both Darwinian macro evolution to be true and for the historical accounts in Genesis to be true.

Evolution does nothing to undermine the inerrancy of The Bible and Christians have nothing to fear if they start thinking that Darwin’s theory has something to it.

In order to show evolution refutes Genesis (or vice versa), one would have to show that Tim Stratton’s model cannot even be possibly true.

2: The Evolutionary Ancestral Pair Model 
Some have argued that even presupposing the truth of Darwinian Macro Evolution, it is defensible to suppose that by the time homo sapiens evolved, something happened to render us a bottleneck of only two individuals. Individuals who evolved but are nevertheless the only remaining members of their kind. They would rebut geneticists who say that genetic evidence forces us to say that the bottleneck of ancient homo sapiens was no larger than 10,000, citing studies showing genetic diversity coming from one male animal and one female animal that exceeded the expectation of the scientists who put the two animals together.

Biochemist Fasale Rana writes of one study involving two sheep that were left together on a deserted island. He wrote:

“In 2007 a research team reported on the genetic diversity of wild mouflon sheep on one of the islands that are part of the Kerguelen sub-Antarctic archipelago. This group of sheep provided researchers with an unprecedented opportunity to study the effects of population dynamics on genetic diversity in small populations.

In 1957 a male and female yearling were placed on Haute Island (an island in the Kerguelen Archipelago). . . . By the beginning of the 1970s, the number had grown to 100 individuals and peaked at 700 sheep in 1977. Since that time the population has fluctuated in a cyclical manner between 250 and 700 members.

Given that the population began with only two individuals, . . .has experienced cyclical changes in the population size, and was isolated on an island, the researchers expected very low genetic diversity (measured as heterozygosity).” [5]

However, when the scientists measured this quantity directly for the sheep on Haute Island, they discovered that it exceeded the predictions made by the models by up to a factor of 4. The genetic diversity exceeded the expectations of the model four times over! They greatly underestimated what the genetic diversity of the actual population was going to be.

It’s important to point out that Fasale Rana accepts De Novo Creation rather than Evolutionary Creation. It’s also important to point out that these findings don’t disprove macroevolution nor do they prove all humanity actually came from one man and one woman. The findings do, however, make defensible the doctrine that all humanity descended from one man and one woman.

Perhaps we all descended from Adam because he was the only homo sapiens left by the time of homo sapiens’ evolution. Perhaps some catastrophe wiped out the other homo sapiens by this time. That would make it necessary for God to miraculously fashion another human from Adam’s side. Upon seeing Eve, Adam was relieved to find that there was another human being, whom he could mate with to restore the species (Genesis 2:20-23).

Or, perhaps Adam and Eve were one pair among several thousand at the dawn of humanity, and the reason why we’re all descendants of him is that we’re all descendants of Noah, and only Adam’s lineage survived the flood through Noah. If the population genetics argument is as faulty as Rana says, no objection could be raised at a bottlenecking during the time of Noah’s Ark.

However, if population genetics are reliable after all, there still wouldn’t be a problem. We could merely adopt Tim Stratton’s model, which, as I said, would entail that Noah and his sons had much genetic diversity within them, given that Adam’s children mated with spiritless homo sapiens. The flood could very well explain why these spiritless homo sapiens vanished from the Earth and only the imageo dei baring ones lived on.

Objection: But Genesis 2 says Adam was made from Dirt, and Eve from his side!

Some special creationists would object that although these models would keep Adam and Eve as historical individuals within an evolutionary framework, nevertheless, the biblical description of their creation precludes them being evolved from lower hominids. Genesis 2:7 says that God made Adam from the dust of the ground and Genesis 2:21-22 says Eve was fashioned from Adam’s side. If that doesn’t sound like de novo creation, I don’t know what does. Doesn’t this rule out human evolution entirely?

I don’t think so. First, while I’m open to these descriptions being literal, I’m also just as open-minded toward a non-literal reading of these passages. Just because a text is a historical narrative doesn’t mean every word within the narrative has to be taken literally. If that were the case, then when Jesus said “I am the gate” (John 10:9), we’d have to conclude he’s literally a gate with hinges. The gospels are clearly Greco-Roman biographies (a specific kind of the historical genre), yet Jesus frequently spoke in metaphorical language.

Old Testament Scholar John Walton proposes a metaphorical reading of the “dust from the ground” and “from Adam’s side” language in his book The Lost World Of Adam and Eve.

John Walton makes a strong case that the reference to dust is implying Adam’s mortality, given other places in Scripture where it speaks of humans being dust, with the context making it clear that the “dust” language is speaking of our mortality. Psalm 103:13-16 says “As a father has compassion for his children, so the Lord has compassion for those who fear him. For he knows how we were made; he remembers that we are dust. As for mortals, their days are like grass; they flourish like a flower of the field; For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.” 

We are dust. We are mortal. Just like the grass and flowers.

The “teacher” of Ecclesiastes asserts the same thing, comparing us to animals:

“The fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.” – Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

It’s very plausible that the Genesis text is just saying God created Adam mortal, rather than literally scooping up a handful of dirt and miraculously transforming it into a person. It’s also possible that the language of Eve being created from His side is to convey the fact that women are ontologically equal to men.

“But wait!” you’ll object. “Doesn’t The Bible make it clear that Adam was created immortal? Romans 5 says death came into the world through his sin.” — For one thing, I think it’s plausible that Romans 5 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical (see my blog post “Why Pre-Fall Death Isn’t A Problem For Old Earth Creationism” to see why). But besides that, if Adam was created mortal, then the tree of life becomes superfluous. For if Adam was an inherently immortal being until he sinned, then why does there need to be a tree of life for him to eat from? And why did God feel the need to bar access from the tree of life? In Genesis 3:22, God told us the reason for barring access to the tree of life. “And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”God barred access to the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever. But if they were inherently immortal, such a tree wouldn’t be needed. It’s implied that unless Adam and Eve could have regular access to the tree of life, they would die, which entails they didn’t have immortality in and of themselves.

Moreover, we should also keep the principle of accommodation in mind. As I’ve argued in Part 3 of my series on biblical hermeneutics and in “Why Did God Write A Book?”, I don’t believe it was God’s intention to teach the original recipients of scripture scientific truths. God used the faulty science of their day to convey spiritual and theological truths. If that’s the case, then Genesis 2-3 shouldn’t even be treated as a text on anthropological origins even in principle.

Objection: Genesis Doesn’t Say Anything About Other Humans Coming Into Existence Simultaneously with Adam and Eve.
Some may object that any evolutionary creationist view that takes Genesis 1-11 as historical is untenable because Genesis 2-3 is silent on the creation of other humans. Since The Bible doesn’t say anything about these other thousands of humans at the dawn of our species, it is eisegesis to say that Adam and Eve were only one couple among thousands.

The problem with this objection is that it commits the Argument From Silence fallacy. True, The Bible doesn’t mention any other humans at the dawn of our species except for Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t there. It’s possible that The Bible simply omits any omission of them because they aren’t important in the narrative. This is especially the case if Tim Stratton’s model is true. On Stratton’s model, these would be homo sapiens of an animalistic nature. They would be human in biology only, not baring the imago dei, which is the direct focus of Genesis 2; this image-bearing creature getting to know his Creator and getting the privilege to name all the animals (a privilege we still enjoy today when scientists discover a new species or star). Hugh Ross, who does not affirm evolutionary creationism, agrees that Genesis 2 is concerned with the spiritual origins of humanity whereas Genesis 1 is concerned about the physical origins.

It would also make sense of scripture to zero in on Adam if he is truly the man whom all humanity is descended from. On Stratton’s model, natural selection got rid of the non-spiritual humans since the intelligence associated with the imago dei contributed to survival value. Also, it could be the case that even if all homo sapiens had the imago dei, we could all still share Adam as our first parent since only his lineage survived the flood (i.e through Noah and his sons). This would also make Adam and Eve of special significance, and therefore it would make sence why the Genesis narrative focuses on them and ignores everyone else.

Moreover, if one affirms a “Federal Headship” view of Adam, it makes, even more, sense why Genesis would be silent about these other humans. Adam is their tribe leader and Eve is his wife. He’s the one responsible, on this view, for getting humanity into this sin situation, to begin with. Just as nations were held responsible for the sins of their kings, the rest of the human race were held accountable for what their chief leader (Adam) did. This is not a view I’ve examined in this post, partly because of length concerns, but also because I find problems with the inherited accountability brand of original sin, but this view is talked about in Loren Haarsma’s article linked below. I only bring it up because this model would also make sense of why Genesis only mentions one couple.

My philosophy has always been that when The Bible is silent on the matter, we’re free to speculate and/or look to other sources of knowledge to come to a conclusion. Genesis doesn’t really say that Adam and Eve were the only people God created at that time. This conclusion was inferred from (A) the lack of mention of other persons in the account and (B) the fact that Paul says every nation was built from one man (Acts 17:26), and (C) it has typically been held that the sinful nature was inherited from Adam a la Romans 5. But as we’ve seen, B is accounted for if only Adam’s lineage survived; either through natural selection or the Noah’s Ark flood. Thus Paul’s statement in Acts 17 would be true. As for C, it’s never explicitly stated that the sinful nature is inherited. This was an inference made by St. Augustine.

It could be that Adam spread sin to the entire human race in two ways; one through inheritance, and the other through bad influence. The latter would only apply to Adam’s contemporaries.

I would also like to point out that positing other humans created alongside Adam and Eve is not without historical or exegetical precedent. I remember reading a BioLogos post which mentioned that even before Darwin’s theory was even published, some theologians has speculated that perhaps God created other people alongside Adam and Eve. Their reason? To explain how human civilization sprung up so rapidly in Genesis 4 and to explain how Cain got his wife without having to invoke the incestuous explanation. I think this is significant, as these theologians weren’t trying to reconcile The Bible’s account of human origins with the evolutionary account (there wasn’t even an evolutionary account yet). They were trying to explain some anomalies that immediately followed the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Conclusion 
There are many more models of evolutionary creationism that preserve a historical Adam that I could have surveyed, but I find these two to be the most faithful to the biblical text and have the least amount of exegetical and scientific difficulties. For other EC views on the historical Adam, check out this blog post written by Loren Haarsma.

In conclusion: Evolution is not a threat to Christianity. It is not only is compatible with theism, it’s compatible with The Bible. True, evolution would alter the way we read the accounts of Adam and Eve’s formation, but it wouldn’t force us to deny their existence altogether. Therefore, even if evolution is true, we’re not forced to deny the historicity of The Bible’s opening chapters. If we are convinced the biblical authors intended for us to take Adam and Eve’s story as history and if we’re also convinced of macro evolution, these models are welcome alternatives to the allegorical approach.

Also, keep in mind that these two models are only put forth as possibilities, to try to show compatibility between the biblical account and evolution. As Tim Stratton recently said in a Facebook comment, it’s good to “have a model of Theistic Evolution in your ‘back pocket'” so you can immediately stop Darwin from being a roadblock to people coming to the cross, whether you personally think TE is true or not.

One thing is certain: God inspired two books: the book of The Bible and the book of nature. Since He is the author of both, neither can contradict one another. If there appears to be conflict, it’s because we human interpreters got it wrong somewhere. We either misread The Bible, or we misread the universe. Either the theologian got it wrong, or the scientists did. We must be careful to consider which.

Notes 
[1] Scientists and Christians Deborah and Loren Haarsma explain in their book Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. They write:

 “When scientists say that something is random, they mean that the outcome is unpredictable. Consider the roll of a pair of dice. Scientists can calculate the probability that the roll will yield a five or an eleven, but they can’t predict what any particular roll will turn out to be. It’s not that some mysterious force is at work making the dice roll differently each time. Rather, each time the dice are rolled they follow exactly the same well-understood natural laws of gravity and motion. The dice land differently each time because of how they bounce and spin. If the dice are tossed even slightly differently from one time to the next, that slight difference is magnified by each bounce, and after several bounces the final outcome is completely changed. The system is scientifically random because the outcome is unpredictable.” 

[2] See Kirk MacGregor’s paper “The Impossibility Of Evolution Apart From A God With Middle Knowledge”. I also talk about this in my own words in my blog post “Could God Not Use Evolution Because It’s A Random Process” and “5 Reasons Why I’m Open To Theistic Evolution”. 

[3] See my blog post “Why I Don’t Accept The Allegorical View Of Genesis”. 

[4] Tim Stratton, “Should Christians Oppose Evolution?”, Free Thinking Ministries, October 18th, 2016, http://freethinkingministries.com/should-christians-oppose-evolution/

[5] Fazale Rana, “Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve,” Reasons To Believe, October 1, 2010. See http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve  

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EEZArA

/by
Soul

What Happens to Our Souls When We Die?

,

There are many good reasons to believe we, as humans, are more than simply physical bodies. Humans are “soulish” creatures; we are living souls united to physical bodies. Even without the guidance of Scripture, there are good reasons to believe our lives will not end at the point of our physical death. The existence of an afterlife is reasonable, particularly given our dual nature as immaterial souls possessing physical bodies. But what precisely happens to each of us, as living souls, when our physical bodies cease to exist? What will we experience the moment we close our eyes for the last time in this temporal life? The Christian worldview offers an answer to this question, and it can be found by surveying the teaching of the New Testament:

Those Who Accept God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be United with Him Immediately
There is good reason to believe our afterlife experience begins the minute we close our eyes for the last time here on earth. For those of us who are believers, the instant our earthly bodies die our souls will be united with Jesus in the afterlife:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Luke 23:39-43
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Those who have accepted God’s offer of Salvation will be with Jesus in what we commonly refer to as “Heaven”. But our experience in Heaven prior to the earthly return of Jesus (and the resurrection of our bodies), while much better than our life here on earth, will not be complete. It will only be part of the experience we will one day have when Jesus returns to earth and resurrects the bodies of those who are already with Him in spirit. While He’s at it, He’ll bring those of us who are still alive home as well:

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18
According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Only then, after the resurrection, will our joy and satisfaction be made complete; only then will we be able to experience the full physical, the spiritual and emotional joy we were originally designed for.

Those Who Reject God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be Separated from Him
Unfortunately, our experience of the afterlife is instantaneous upon death even for those of us who have rejected God. While believers will be united with God, unbelievers will not. The New Testament describes two different places where the unrighteous go after death. One such place is called “Hades”. This is described as the place where the unrighteous go immediately upon death to await their final destination. Take a look at this story Jesus told in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 16:19-24
“Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

While Lazarus, a God fearing and righteous man died and immediately went to be with God, the unbelieving and unrighteous rich man went immediately to Hades. But the Bible also mentions another place for those who have rejected God; it is called “Gehenna”. This was actually a real location (just south of Jerusalem) where, at one low point in the history of the Jews, disobedient Israelites offered their children as human sacrifices to the pagan God, Molech. Later, this infamous valley became a place where waste from the city was dumped and burned in fires stoked day and night. Jesus chose this place as a metaphor to describe another real place, the eternal resting place of those in Hades who finally receive their resurrection bodies and are judged forever. While believers receive their resurrection bodies and stay in heaven with God, unbelievers receive their resurrection bodies and are moved from Hades to Gehenna.

Matthew 5:29
“And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish than for your whole body to be thrown into hell (the word used for ‘hell’ here is ‘Gehenna’).”

Gehenna is the final resting place of all those who have rejected God in this life and in their unrighteousness have been judged at the return of Jesus.

I’ve written a lot about the reality of Hell and the nature of Heaven here at ColdCaseChristianity.com, and while that’s not the purpose of this particular post, this is a good pace to trace the path each of us will take after we die:

At the Point of Death
Each of us will leave our earthly bodies in the grave and our disembodied souls will go immediately into the presence of God or into Hades. Our destination is determined purely by our acceptance or rejection of God through our faith in Jesus Christ.

Prior to Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
We will remain in Heaven or Hades until Jesus returns to earth and gives us all our resurrection Bodies. While our experience after death will be tangible, it will not be complete. A complete afterlife can only be experienced with both our body and our soul.

After Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
If we are saved believers, we will experience the fullness of the afterlife in our resurrected bodies. If we have rejected Jesus, we will move from Hades to Gehenna and experience the fullness of judgment.

The afterlife is the focus of much popular media. Books and movies describing Heaven or Hell are plentiful, but few of them are consistent with the teaching of the Bible. As Christians, it’s important for us to understand and defend the nature of the afterlife so people will understand the importance of the Gospel message. If we can articulate the existence and character of the afterlife accurately, God’s offer of Salvation will be all the more relevant and meaningful.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

 

/by