By Greg Koukl
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it really because of the sin of inhospitality and not because of homosexuality, the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation?
People find what they want in the Bible. But if you look hard enough, you can find “biblical” support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every sect of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims, as do some who practice the occult.
It is not surprising, then, that a recent trend among biblical scholars holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context provides no solid basis for concluding that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with homosexuality.
This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the average Christian who finds in the Genesis account a direct condemnation of homosexual behavior.
My goal is to provide an answer to that challenge. I have no interest in defaming, insulting, offending, attacking, lashing out, denigrating, much less belittling a group of people. I just want to determine one thing: why did God destroy those two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? Simply put, what was the sin (or sins) of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Genesis 18:16-19:29
Although the context of the story in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God’s conversation with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter in Sodom are found in Genesis 19:4-13:
They had not yet gone to bed, when the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people without exception. And they called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we may know them.” Then Lot went out to them at the entrance and shut the door behind him, and said, “My brothers, I beg you not to do wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you and do with them as seems good to you; but do not do anything to these men, for they have come under my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside!” And they said, “This man came as a stranger, and is already acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” And they rushed at Lot and were about to break down the door, but the two men put out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the entrance of the house with blindness, from the smallest to the greatest, so that they were wearied trying to find the entrance.
Then the two men said to Lot, “Who else do you have here? Your sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whoever you have in the city—get them out of this place, for we are going to destroy this place, for its outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the primary offense (“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly.”).
Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom:
(1) The Sodomites were destroyed because of the general wickedness that prompted the Lord to send angels into the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had attempted to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had attempted to engage in homosexual relations with the angels…; (4) the city was destroyed because of the inhospitable treatment of the visitors sent by the Lord. [1]
John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) “is the most obvious of the four,” although it has been “widely ignored by biblical scholars” [2] . Boswell expands on explanation (4), which he seems to favor as the most consistent with “modern scholarship” since 1955:
Lot was violating the custom of Sodom… by welcoming unknown guests into the city walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered together to demand that the strangers be brought out before them “so that they might know them,” it only meant that they wanted to “know” who they were, and consequently, the city was destroyed not because of sexual immorality, but because of the sin of inhospitality to strangers [3] .
The Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also makes this argument in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom only wanted to question Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot’s guests.
Apparently it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seemed to be in conflict. If “meeting” the angels basically means questioning them, then there is not an attempt at rape, but an attempt at interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men intended to have sexual relations with the visitors (according to the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (as the interpretation of Boswell’s above summary with respect to the views of modern scholarship is somewhat incoherent).
Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been influenced differently. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) may have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4).
My primary interest here is to determine whether the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality was a significant factor.
Text clues
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not only in the Genesis account, but also in the books of the prophets and in 2 Peter and Jude in the New Testament. These give us insight into the way ancient Jewish thinkers, steeped in Jewish culture, understood these texts.
First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for a serious sin. Genesis 18:20 says, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceedingly grievous.” In fact, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.
Second, it seems that the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we see that God condemned and destroyed the cities as an “example to those who would live ungodly afterward.”
Third, Jude and Peter describe the unique qualities of sin. Jude 7 portrays the activity as “they became corrupt” and went after “strange flesh” [4] . Peter wrote that Lot was “overwhelmed by the sensual conduct of unchaste men,” and “from what he saw and heard as he lived among them, he was daily tormented in his righteous soul by their unrighteous deeds.” They are “those who walk after the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:7-10).
Fourth, there are 27 references outside Genesis to the city of Sodom. It is the emblem of gross immorality, the deepest depravity, and great judgment.
Gathering the biblical evidence gives us a picture of the offense of Sodom. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a grievous, continual, debauched, sensual act that Lot saw, heard, and was tormented by as he witnessed it day after day. It was an act in which the inhabitants gave themselves over to their corrupt desires, going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon themselves the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.
What do we know about the behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?
Just a couple of questions
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself, since His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Furthermore, Peter makes it clear that the evil acts were ongoing (“day after day”), not a one-time incident. The cry had already gone up before God for some time [5] .
Was it merely an interrogation? Although the Hebrew word “yada” (“to know”) [6] has a variety of nuances, the New Living Translation appropriately translates it as “to have sex” [7] . Although the word does not always have sexual connotations, it often does, and this translation is more consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that a harmless interview was what the men of the city had in mind. Lot’s response—“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly”—makes it clear that they had other intentions.
Furthermore, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe daughters who have not “known” a man and who were offered to the crowd instead of the visitors. Are we to understand Lot here as saying, “Please do not question my guests, but rather speak to my daughters who have never been interviewed”?
Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah because of inhospitality? Is it true that God’s judgment was not because of homosexuality per se, but because the men of the town were not courteous to the visitors, violating sacred customs by attempting to outrage them? Serious questions arise if we make a couple of observations.
First, the implication itself is strange. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is like saying that a husband who has beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. That may be true, but it is hardly an important observation given the seriousness of the crime.
Second—and this has more to do with textual evidence—it does not fit the collective biblical description of the behavior that provoked God’s wrath: perverted, lawless, sensual behavior that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which men went after strange flesh.
Third, are we to believe that God wiped out two entire cities just because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were more important then than now? There is no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital offense. Yet homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Did God overlook the capital offense, and yet wipe out two entire cities for an evil that is nowhere listed as a serious offense?
The only reason that fits
The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors violated the high code of Middle Eastern hospitality (19:9). However, this inhospitality is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.
Moreover, the charge of inhospitality depends on—and is overshadowed by—the grave crime of rape, though neither of these could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God had decided to judge the cities long before they were committed. What choice is left? Only one.
We know that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals, “both young and old, all the people without exception” (19:4), to the point of despising available women (19:5-8). They even persisted after being struck with blindness (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate despite being supernaturally blinded by angels.
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that represented the flagrant wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the “gross,” “ungodly,” “wicked,” “sensual conduct of the profligate men” that tormented Lot as he “saw and heard” it “day after day,” the “perverse desire” of those who followed “strange flesh.”
In their defense, some might cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: Arrogance, plenty of bread, and complete idleness were her and her daughters; yet they did not help the poor and needy, but they were haughty and committed abominations before me [8] . And when I saw it, I put them to death.” There is no mention of homosexuality here.
Clearly, the overall wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That is not in question. Our interest here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis reveals that homosexuality was the primary behavior in question in that passage. Ezekiel simply lists additional sins. The prophet does not contradict Moses, but rather gives more details.
Pettiness and arrogance alone did not attract God’s wrath. Ezekiel headed the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word brings us back to homosexuality. The behavior that Moses refers to in Genesis 18 and later describes in Leviticus as “abomination” in the eyes of God.
Levitical
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations regarding homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination” [9] . It is an abomination [toebah] [10] . Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [toebah]; they shall surely be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.”
John Boswell offers the most common rebuttal to what appears to be the obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:
The Hebrew word “toebah,” here translated as “abomination,” typically does not mean something intrinsically evil, such as rape or theft… but rather something that is ritually unclean for Jews, such as eating pork or engaging in sexual relations during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. [11]
As implied, Leviticus is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections cited deal with the worship service: sacrifices, priesthood, ceremonial washings, etc. These instructions have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. A Jew who observed these laws could not worship after ceremonial defilement until he had cleansed himself to perform the ritual.
Others have pointed out that many details of the Mosaic law are archaic. Who cares about mixing wool with linen (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself does not mark homosexuality as particularly abhorrent. Disobedience to parents was also a capital offense, as was gathering firewood on the Sabbath, and yet no one considers these things punishable offenses today. [12]
This answer is riddled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition were restricted only to ceremonial purity and worship, then it would apply only to Jewish clerics. However, many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and defend such “diversity” as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah’s prohibitions no longer apply at all, then the difference between the ceremonial and moral aspects of Mosaic law is moot; none of it applies anyway.
Second, it is a grave mistake to conclude that if something in the Torah no longer applies, then nothing is applicable. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed: “It is one thing not to carry out a Torah punishment, and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin.” [13] [emphasis in original]
Third, it is true that much of the law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. However, this observation alone is not sufficient to dismiss the Torah as a source of obligatory moral instruction altogether. Ceremonial and moral purity are not always distinct from one another.
Here, context is king. Note where the verses fit in. The “toebah” of homosexuality is found between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21), and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his son on the altar to Molech, he must make sure to wash before coming to the temple?
More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the “children of Israel” (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions regarding adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality already mentioned, Moses also prohibited spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).
The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:
Speak to [the “children of Israel” (v. 2)], but as for you, you shall keep my statutes and my laws and you shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native nor the stranger residing among you; for the men of this land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)
Moses spoke just as clearly as in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but chief among them was the sin of homosexuality.
In this section of Leviticus, God gives instructions not only regarding ceremonial purity, but also commandments that were to be observed by every Jew and even by every visitor.
Homosexuality was a sin for Jews. It was also a sin for Gentiles who visited Jews (“strangers”). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when pagan inhabitants in Canaan practiced it long before the Jews arrived.
Homosexuality is a defiling sin, no matter who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, neither before nor now.
Grades
[1] John Boswell, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Some have suggested that the sin was seeking sexual union with angels (“strange flesh”). While this may be a possible interpretation, there is no indication that the men knew that Lot’s visitors were angels. Jude’s point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, “did not retain their original dominion, but abandoned their rightful dwelling” (v. 6). The “strange flesh”—the improper dominion—was not angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.
[5] The answer that homosexual rape could still qualify as ongoing activity is unconvincing. Who would be the ongoing victims? They were not the men of the city.
Because of their sexual orientation, they were unlikely to be able to resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be targeted. But if those who did come were harassed “day after day,” I am sure that would put an end to the tourist business. The continuous supply of sexual candidates would quickly diminish once word got out, and many would avoid the area.
[6] Strong’s #3045.
[7] “To know” a person carnally, to have sexual relations… suj. and obj. Male (of sodomy) Gen. 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.
[8] Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.
[9] “Lie down” is the Hebrew word “shakab” and means “to lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to sexual intercourse as in Genesis 19:32: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).
[10] Strong’s #8441.
[11] Boswell, 100.
[12] It is curious that some choose to conclude that homosexuality was a lesser crime since it was no more offensive to God than gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Both were considered capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt about this, look at the punishment He exacts.
[13] Dennis Prager, “Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis,” The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.
Greg Koukl is a Christian apologist, radio host, author, speaker, and founder of the Christian apologetics organization Stand To Reason. Greg received his M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Talbot School of Theology, graduating with high honors, and his M.A. in Christian Apologetics with honors from Simon Greenleaf University. He is an adjunct professor of Christian apologetics at Biola University.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2IplYdi
Translated by Natalia Armando
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Are the Gospels “hopelessly contradictory”?
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
Critics of Christianity love to compile long lists of alleged contradictions in the gospels to shake the faith of unsuspecting church-goers. One of the more famous of these critics is Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman studied at Princeton under Dr. Bruce Metzger, a respected intellectual heavyweight, and a devout Christian. Sadly, Bart later lost his faith and has since written five best-selling books that are critical of Christianity. Bart’s a force to be reckoned with and is viewed by the media as an authority on the NT and the historical Jesus.
According to Ehrman, the gospels don’t just have minor variations but are “hopelessly contradictory.” But is Bart’s verdict on the gospels warranted?
First of all, how do we define a contradiction?
A real contradiction would occur when two claims contradict each other when one of them must be false, and the other true. For example, the Quran says that Jesus was not really crucified. The four gospels say otherwise, and both can’t be right. The Quran and the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory.
But we know that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. We have cases in history where two events have appeared to be contradictory, but those contradictions were only apparent.
For example, who made the public proclamation of the Declaration of Independence in the old State House in Boston on the morning of July 18, 1776? Many accounts said that this proclamation was made by William Greenleaf, while others said that it was by Col. Thomas Crafts. But history now tells us that Mr. Greenleaf suffered from a weak voice. He first read the Declaration while Col. Crafts repeated it in a loud voice for all the crowd to hear. The seeming conflict disappears.
The more historical approach is that you can often resolve apparent contradictions through unstrained harmonization. That’s not a hopelessly unresolvable contradiction. Moreover, what if there is a contradiction that’s inconsequential to the main details of the story related?
Historical examples of this sort can be multiplied. To give one example: There was an embassy of the Jews sent to oppose the execution of Claudian’s order to place his statue in their temple. Philo says this happened in the fall. Josephus says it happened during spring. Both were contemporaries, yet no serious historian doubts that an embassy was sent or that the order was given.
It would take an entire series of posts to address all of Bart’s complaints of contradictions, but let’s pick on a few and see if they are as damning as Ehrman makes them out to be.
Jairus Daughter – Dead Already or Very Sick?
When asked on his blog if there was a “slam-dunk” contradiction that would be impossible to defend, Bart’s reply was this: “I don’t have one that is a slam-dunk. But there are dozens that are pretty good. Here’s one: Jairus came to Jesus to ask him to help his daughter: was the girl dead already and he wanted Jesus to do something about it? Or was she very sick and he wanted him to heal her before she died? (See Mark 5:21-43 and Matthew 9:18-26) I don’t see how it could be both!”
If you read those passages side-by-side, Bart looks like he has a point. But if we look deeper at Matthew’s account compared to Mark’s, we notice that it’s a lot shorter. Matthew tells us the story in just 8 verses, Mark takes 22. Here’s a list of omissions in Matthew’s version:
That’s a lot of details left out, but Matthew does include the most important parts of the story: Jairus’ daughter died, Jesus said she was sleeping, people laughed Jesus to scorn, and Jesus raised her.
Reducing a piece of literature in terms of time or length to include only its necessary elements is a literary device called compression. Ancient writers used it all the time. As do many modern authors. Matthew has to intimate somewhere that the daughter is dead and not just sick. He shows this in the short summary of Jairus’s interaction with Jesus’ intentions, rather using his exact words.
Furthermore, according to Bible commentator G.A. Chadwick, Matthew’s phrase “has died even now” (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν) is very close in meaning to Mark’s “at the point of death” (ἐσχάτως ἔχει).
A worried dad of a sick daughter might say “she’s dead by now” and mean what we’d convey by saying, “she’s at the point of death.” Jairus knew that his daughter was at death’s door when he went looking for Jesus. He may have used words to express that his worst fears already came to pass. Both explanations are plausible.
So after taking a deeper look, this isn’t a hopeless contradiction at all. This was supposed to be Bart’s go-to, and it’s pretty weak sauce.
Was Mary alone at the empty tomb, or were other women with her?
Let’s give Bart another shot. Here’s a quote from his debate on the resurrection with William Lane Craig:
“Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone, or was it Mary with other women?”
Here’s the text in John that Bart is referring to: “On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)
The other three gospels all include other women (Mt. 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1,10).
John said that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, but he doesn’t say others were not present. All we need to do is read the next verse, and we see that she had company. “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” (John 20:2)
Wait for a second! Where did “we” come from? Mary Magdalene’s words say that there were others present. John reporting this implies that he’s well aware that there were other women at the tomb. As Greg Koukl says, “never read a Bible verse.” This feels like some hoodwinkery is going on here. But let’s give Bart another shot.
Did John contradict himself about the order of Jesus’ miracles?
Quoting Ehrman: “In John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his 1st miracle in ch 2. When he turns water into wine, (a favorite miracle on college campuses) and we’re told that ‘this was the first sign Jesus did’ (John 2:11) Later in the chapter we’re told that Jesus did ‘many signs in Jerusalem.’ (John 2:23) And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of the centurion, and the author says, “This was the second sign that Jesus did. (John 4:54) Huh? One sign, many signs, and then a second sign?” (Jesus, Interrupted pp. 8-9).
Bart apparently thinks John can’t count. But Dr. Ehrman selectively cut off the last part of the passage in John 2. Let’s quote it in more detail: “this, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee…” Now let’s read John 4:54 for ourselves: “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.“
Jesus did one sign in Galilee, then many signs in Jerusalem and then the second sign in Galilee. This is not a contradiction at all. It feels like Bart is trying to fleece an unsuspecting audience.
Reading with charity or suspicion?
If you’re a historian, you ought to not adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion, but rather use the principle of charity. According to literary theorist Rita Felski, a hermeneutic of suspicion is “a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths.”
That’s a nice way of saying you’re looking for trouble in the text. As a writer of 5 best-sellers, you’d expect Ehrman to understand what compression is. As a former seminarian who has studied at Princeton under Metzger, you’d think that he’d know better than to quote verses out of context seemingly order to score rhetorical points. But that’s what these contradiction lists are often mostly made up of.
They sound impressive, but when you actually read the text for yourself and use a little charity towards the text, they’re not all that hard to resolve by using a little common sense. There’s nothing hopelessly contradictory happening here.
Alleged contradictions in the gospels don’t have to be the boogeyman that Christians go out of their way to avoid. If anything, studying them out for yourself should increase your confidence in the gospels. You’ll often find that the critics have to resort to apparent dishonesty and glossing over obvious explanations in order to make their case.
Now that doesn’t mean that there are not some apparent contradictions that might be more challenging. This is why I purposely went after Bart’s favorite one first. If you’re willing to do your homework and tap into some resources out there, you’ll find that there are some very good explanations available if there is one that’s been troubling you.
Let me point you to a great resource: I’m indebted to Dr. Tim McGrew for much of the examples and explanations shared here. Tim has a 2-part series on YouTube where he addresses many more alleged contradictions in the gospels. He goes over many more in great detail. Just consider this post an opening act and Tim’s videos the main attraction. These examples, when examined in detail, show that the gospels are not even close to being hopelessly contradictory.
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels by Dr. Timothy McGrew
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (part 2) by Dr. Timothy McGrew
Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.
¿Cuál fue el pecado de Sodoma y Gomorra?
EspañolBy Greg Koukl
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it really because of the sin of inhospitality and not because of homosexuality, the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation?
People find what they want in the Bible. But if you look hard enough, you can find “biblical” support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every sect of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims, as do some who practice the occult.
It is not surprising, then, that a recent trend among biblical scholars holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context provides no solid basis for concluding that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with homosexuality.
This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the average Christian who finds in the Genesis account a direct condemnation of homosexual behavior.
My goal is to provide an answer to that challenge. I have no interest in defaming, insulting, offending, attacking, lashing out, denigrating, much less belittling a group of people. I just want to determine one thing: why did God destroy those two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? Simply put, what was the sin (or sins) of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Genesis 18:16-19:29
Although the context of the story in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God’s conversation with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter in Sodom are found in Genesis 19:4-13:
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the primary offense (“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly.”).
Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom:
John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) “is the most obvious of the four,” although it has been “widely ignored by biblical scholars” [2] . Boswell expands on explanation (4), which he seems to favor as the most consistent with “modern scholarship” since 1955:
The Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also makes this argument in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom only wanted to question Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot’s guests.
Apparently it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seemed to be in conflict. If “meeting” the angels basically means questioning them, then there is not an attempt at rape, but an attempt at interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men intended to have sexual relations with the visitors (according to the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (as the interpretation of Boswell’s above summary with respect to the views of modern scholarship is somewhat incoherent).
Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been influenced differently. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) may have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4).
My primary interest here is to determine whether the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality was a significant factor.
Text clues
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not only in the Genesis account, but also in the books of the prophets and in 2 Peter and Jude in the New Testament. These give us insight into the way ancient Jewish thinkers, steeped in Jewish culture, understood these texts.
First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for a serious sin. Genesis 18:20 says, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceedingly grievous.” In fact, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.
Second, it seems that the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we see that God condemned and destroyed the cities as an “example to those who would live ungodly afterward.”
Third, Jude and Peter describe the unique qualities of sin. Jude 7 portrays the activity as “they became corrupt” and went after “strange flesh” [4] . Peter wrote that Lot was “overwhelmed by the sensual conduct of unchaste men,” and “from what he saw and heard as he lived among them, he was daily tormented in his righteous soul by their unrighteous deeds.” They are “those who walk after the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:7-10).
Fourth, there are 27 references outside Genesis to the city of Sodom. It is the emblem of gross immorality, the deepest depravity, and great judgment.
Gathering the biblical evidence gives us a picture of the offense of Sodom. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a grievous, continual, debauched, sensual act that Lot saw, heard, and was tormented by as he witnessed it day after day. It was an act in which the inhabitants gave themselves over to their corrupt desires, going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon themselves the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.
What do we know about the behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?
Just a couple of questions
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself, since His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Furthermore, Peter makes it clear that the evil acts were ongoing (“day after day”), not a one-time incident. The cry had already gone up before God for some time [5] .
Was it merely an interrogation? Although the Hebrew word “yada” (“to know”) [6] has a variety of nuances, the New Living Translation appropriately translates it as “to have sex” [7] . Although the word does not always have sexual connotations, it often does, and this translation is more consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that a harmless interview was what the men of the city had in mind. Lot’s response—“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly”—makes it clear that they had other intentions.
Furthermore, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe daughters who have not “known” a man and who were offered to the crowd instead of the visitors. Are we to understand Lot here as saying, “Please do not question my guests, but rather speak to my daughters who have never been interviewed”?
Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah because of inhospitality? Is it true that God’s judgment was not because of homosexuality per se, but because the men of the town were not courteous to the visitors, violating sacred customs by attempting to outrage them? Serious questions arise if we make a couple of observations.
First, the implication itself is strange. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is like saying that a husband who has beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. That may be true, but it is hardly an important observation given the seriousness of the crime.
Second—and this has more to do with textual evidence—it does not fit the collective biblical description of the behavior that provoked God’s wrath: perverted, lawless, sensual behavior that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which men went after strange flesh.
Third, are we to believe that God wiped out two entire cities just because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were more important then than now? There is no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital offense. Yet homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Did God overlook the capital offense, and yet wipe out two entire cities for an evil that is nowhere listed as a serious offense?
The only reason that fits
The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors violated the high code of Middle Eastern hospitality (19:9). However, this inhospitality is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.
Moreover, the charge of inhospitality depends on—and is overshadowed by—the grave crime of rape, though neither of these could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God had decided to judge the cities long before they were committed. What choice is left? Only one.
We know that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals, “both young and old, all the people without exception” (19:4), to the point of despising available women (19:5-8). They even persisted after being struck with blindness (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate despite being supernaturally blinded by angels.
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that represented the flagrant wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the “gross,” “ungodly,” “wicked,” “sensual conduct of the profligate men” that tormented Lot as he “saw and heard” it “day after day,” the “perverse desire” of those who followed “strange flesh.”
In their defense, some might cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: Arrogance, plenty of bread, and complete idleness were her and her daughters; yet they did not help the poor and needy, but they were haughty and committed abominations before me [8] . And when I saw it, I put them to death.” There is no mention of homosexuality here.
Clearly, the overall wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That is not in question. Our interest here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis reveals that homosexuality was the primary behavior in question in that passage. Ezekiel simply lists additional sins. The prophet does not contradict Moses, but rather gives more details.
Pettiness and arrogance alone did not attract God’s wrath. Ezekiel headed the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word brings us back to homosexuality. The behavior that Moses refers to in Genesis 18 and later describes in Leviticus as “abomination” in the eyes of God.
Levitical
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations regarding homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination” [9] . It is an abomination [toebah] [10] . Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [toebah]; they shall surely be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.”
John Boswell offers the most common rebuttal to what appears to be the obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:
As implied, Leviticus is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections cited deal with the worship service: sacrifices, priesthood, ceremonial washings, etc. These instructions have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. A Jew who observed these laws could not worship after ceremonial defilement until he had cleansed himself to perform the ritual.
Others have pointed out that many details of the Mosaic law are archaic. Who cares about mixing wool with linen (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself does not mark homosexuality as particularly abhorrent. Disobedience to parents was also a capital offense, as was gathering firewood on the Sabbath, and yet no one considers these things punishable offenses today. [12]
This answer is riddled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition were restricted only to ceremonial purity and worship, then it would apply only to Jewish clerics. However, many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and defend such “diversity” as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah’s prohibitions no longer apply at all, then the difference between the ceremonial and moral aspects of Mosaic law is moot; none of it applies anyway.
Second, it is a grave mistake to conclude that if something in the Torah no longer applies, then nothing is applicable. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed: “It is one thing not to carry out a Torah punishment, and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin.” [13] [emphasis in original]
Third, it is true that much of the law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. However, this observation alone is not sufficient to dismiss the Torah as a source of obligatory moral instruction altogether. Ceremonial and moral purity are not always distinct from one another.
Here, context is king. Note where the verses fit in. The “toebah” of homosexuality is found between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21), and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his son on the altar to Molech, he must make sure to wash before coming to the temple?
More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the “children of Israel” (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions regarding adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality already mentioned, Moses also prohibited spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).
The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:
Moses spoke just as clearly as in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but chief among them was the sin of homosexuality.
In this section of Leviticus, God gives instructions not only regarding ceremonial purity, but also commandments that were to be observed by every Jew and even by every visitor.
Homosexuality was a sin for Jews. It was also a sin for Gentiles who visited Jews (“strangers”). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when pagan inhabitants in Canaan practiced it long before the Jews arrived.
Homosexuality is a defiling sin, no matter who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, neither before nor now.
Grades
[1] John Boswell, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Some have suggested that the sin was seeking sexual union with angels (“strange flesh”). While this may be a possible interpretation, there is no indication that the men knew that Lot’s visitors were angels. Jude’s point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, “did not retain their original dominion, but abandoned their rightful dwelling” (v. 6). The “strange flesh”—the improper dominion—was not angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.
[5] The answer that homosexual rape could still qualify as ongoing activity is unconvincing. Who would be the ongoing victims? They were not the men of the city.
Because of their sexual orientation, they were unlikely to be able to resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be targeted. But if those who did come were harassed “day after day,” I am sure that would put an end to the tourist business. The continuous supply of sexual candidates would quickly diminish once word got out, and many would avoid the area.
[6] Strong’s #3045.
[7] “To know” a person carnally, to have sexual relations… suj. and obj. Male (of sodomy) Gen. 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.
[8] Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.
[9] “Lie down” is the Hebrew word “shakab” and means “to lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to sexual intercourse as in Genesis 19:32: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).
[10] Strong’s #8441.
[11] Boswell, 100.
[12] It is curious that some choose to conclude that homosexuality was a lesser crime since it was no more offensive to God than gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Both were considered capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt about this, look at the punishment He exacts.
[13] Dennis Prager, “Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis,” The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.
Greg Koukl is a Christian apologist, radio host, author, speaker, and founder of the Christian apologetics organization Stand To Reason. Greg received his M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Talbot School of Theology, graduating with high honors, and his M.A. in Christian Apologetics with honors from Simon Greenleaf University. He is an adjunct professor of Christian apologetics at Biola University.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2IplYdi
Translated by Natalia Armando
Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada
Is morality bad for business?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
According to 180 CEOs, it is… at least the morality based on God’s Good nature. They claim that abortion bans go “against our values and [are] bad for business.” They claim abortion bans are a ban on “equality.”
What do they mean by equality?
What do they mean by bad?
What standard are they using to make such assertions?
Was banning slavery bad for business?
Are we supposed to base moral decisions on economic results?
Join Frank and as he unpacks this hot issue and shows why you shouldn’t be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He also addresses a difficult question from a listener about believing in a God who allows so much evil.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
“The Ring of Truth”
Islam, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Tim Stratton
What religion or worldview possesses the “Ring of Truth?” It is definitely not Islam or atheism!
To be sure, this is not a deductive argument like the Kalam, Freethinking, or Ontological Arguments. I am simply encouraging readers to pay attention to their intuition. Although we cannot always trust our intuition, I contend that it is a great place to start when searching for the truth. Moreover, when one’s intuition is supported by a cumulative case of data, there is a good reason to continue trusting intuition.
With this in mind, consider the “Ring of Truth” to be frosting on top of a metaphysical cake already baked to perfection by a cumulative case supported by logic, science, and historical data:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Teleological Argument
The Ontological Argument
The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)
With the cumulative case of evidence in mind, now consider three of the most popular worldviews on the planet: Islam, atheism, and Christianity. Next, consider what logically follows from each of these worldviews and examine them through your intuitive lens:
— If Islam is true, it is objectively good to kill infidels (non-Muslims).
— If atheism is true, it is neither objectively good or objectively bad to kill anyone.
— If Christianity is true, then it is objectively wrong, bad, and evil not to love everyone from your neighbor to your enemies.
What seems most likely or probably true? Which worldview has the “Ring of Truth?”
If you are not sure, consider the Muslim man who murdered 49 people of the LGBT+ community at The Pulse nightclub the summer of 2016 in Orlando, Florida. According to the teachings of Muhammad (Islam), this mass murder of homosexuals was good and the right thing to do.
In fact, according to the final commands of Muhammad, Muslims ought to kill all infidels and non-Muslims (Quran 2:191; 9:5; 9:73; 9:123)! Nabeel Qureshi, a former devout Muslim, explains why Islam is not a peaceful religion in a short video (click here).
Is atheism any better? Not really. According to logically consistent atheism, since God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose — we are nothing but a “happy accident” — nothing more than dust in the wind. If this is true, then it follows that there is no objective purpose in which humans ought to approximate. Thus, if atheism is true, there is nothing really wrong with anything!
Does that “ring” true?
According to logically consistent atheism, there was nothing really good or bad with the mass murder of homosexuals at the Pulse nightclub. Nor was there anything objectively wrong with the recent mass murder of fifty Muslims in New Zealand while worshipping at their mosque.
Moreover, if naturalism is true (a view held by many atheists), then humans do nothing but deterministically “dance to the music of their DNA” as the famous atheist Richard Dawkins contends. Thus, the Muslim who shot up the gay nightclub and the man who shot up the New Zealand mosque each had no moral choice in the matter. Do not blame guns or the shooter — blame physics and chemistry (imagine a ban on physics and chemistry)! If naturalistic atheism is true, then nature determined the slaughter of those in the Pulse nightclub and the New Zealand mosque.
The Christian worldview, as opposed to Islam and atheism, “rings” true.
According to the Law of Christ (Christianity), as opposed to naturalistic atheism, we have a categorical ability to make real moral choices (Deuteronomy 30:10-20; 1 Corinthians 10:13). We possess the libertarian freedom to make objectively good choices… or objectively evil choices. Moreover, according to the teachings of Jesus, it is objectively wrong to murder or persecute homosexuals, Muslims, or anyone else!
The apostle Paul echoes the commands of Jesus in Romans 12:18:
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Paul was the first one to preach “COEXIST.” However, Muhammad disagrees, and consistent atheism/naturalism is not only neutral on the matter, but also implies that we have no choice in the matter (since all that exists is matter).
Pay attention to intuition. As Gandalf would say, what worldview has the “ring of truth?”
I assume that the vast majority of those who are willing to answer honestly admit that Christianity at least seems to ring true (even if they do not want it to be true for some reason)! However, for those who continue to reject their intuition, Christians still have a cumulative case of logically deductive arguments that cannot be ignored (see the above list to get you started).
Christians stand on solid ground. We do not have to ignore logic or what is intuitively obvious. We ought to wear the “Ring of TRUTH” for all to see!
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton
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/2X2YuCZ
Young People are Leaving the Church… Is Apologetics the Answer?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jeremy Linn
Over the past few months, I’ve been promoting an Apologetics conference which will equip young people to understand and defend the Christian worldview.
As I’ve talked to local church leaders about the conference, questions have come up about its effectiveness. Do young people really need to attend an Apologetics conference at this stage in their lives? Will Apologetics actually help them stay grounded in their faith as they enter into college?
In order to determine if there is a need for young people to be trained in Apologetics, three questions related to young people leaving the church need to be addressed. Before getting to these questions, I should clarify that leaving the church is not a sure-fire indicator of someone leaving Christianity, but consistent church attendance is an indicator of a growing Christian.
With that said, let’s start going down the list.
1. Are young people actually leaving the church upon entering college?
Yes, many are
Recent studies done on this topic indicate that a majority of young people who grew up in the church leave it for at least a year upon entering college.
For example, a 2017 study by Lifeway Research indicated that 68 percent of Protestants ages 18 to 22 who went to church regularly in high school stop attending church on a regular basis for at least a year after they enter college. Some percentage of those people do eventually come back to attend church. But the 68% figure still indicates many do leave permanently.
2. Why are young people leaving the church?
Multiple reasons, including life transition and intellectual barriers
There are multiple reasons why young people are leaving the church, which makes this question a less obvious one to answer. The same Lifeway research study from above indicates that a change in life situations and priorities is the main reason young people leave the church, at least for a time. In fact, the study indicated almost all young people who stopped attending church did so for this reason.
This study doesn’t give the full picture, though. The young people polled could only pick from a preselected list of reasons to explain why they left the church. Other studies give young people a chance to provide their own reasons for leaving, giving us a deeper look into what is causing them to leave.
An extensive study done by Barna gave young people an opportunity to list their “barriers” to the Christian faith. A few of the top answers they gave were intellectually focused. From the young people polled:
So while the transition to college and changes in life priority play a large role in young people dropping out of church, specific intellectual difficulties can also play a role. These findings bring me to the final question.
3. Is Apologetics the answer to the problem of young people leaving the church?
Not exactly… let me explain
If there is one “answer” to the problem of young people leaving the church, it’s the Holy Spirit. As Christians, we can’t ignore the Spirit’s power in leading young people them into a dynamic relationship with Christ. The Spirit is an important answer, but there are several other answers that can help young people continue in their Christian faith once they enter college.
One of these answers is an emphasis on a strong Christian community. Of course, youth groups are set up to promote a strong community among young people. But churches can also help young people grow in community with other generations through opportunities like mentorship or church-wide events. When young people see the benefit of a strong Christian community, they will be more likely to seek out a similar community when entering college.
Another answer comes through the role of parents to lead and teach their children. By teaching their children what Christians believe and why they believe it, along with modeling the character of Christ through moral actions, parents can help their children build up a strong foundation for their faith that will last.
Okay… But what about Apologetics?
To move to Apologetics, let’s look back at the intellectual barriers to Christianity that many young people listed in the Barna study mentioned above. These barriers involve topics like:
These topics have been thoroughly addressed by numerous people and ministries engaged in Apologetics. The Problem of Evil is perhaps the most difficult topic to address since there is a strong emotional side to it, but people like C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias approach the topic in a way that touches on both the intellectual and emotional sides. The Science and Faith topic has been extensively covered by organizations like Reasons to Believe for many years. And Historical Investigation of the Bible is covered in depth by authors like NT Wright and Richard Bauckham, and covered in a more accessible way by Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace.
These people and ministries provide only a taste of the library of Apologetics resources available to young people. Resources that will:
When we have an abundance of Apologetics resources that do these things for young people, why wouldn’t we connect them to those resources? At the very least, Apologetics provides some benefit to young people. And more optimistically, it can play a primary role in keeping their faith grounded as they move into college and beyond.
Apologetics is not the all-encompassing answer to the problem of young people leaving the church. But it certainly is one of several key answers. And that is reason enough to support a conference that connects young people to some of the best Apologetics resources out there.
Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F2VyM7
John the Baptist in Josephus
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
Several reasons exist for why we should trust the Gospels. Their eye-witness testimony, familiarity with the Palestinian world, embarrassing nature, early dating, and undesigned coincidences, all suggest that the Gospels are reliable documents. Beyond that, the plethora of Greek manuscripts and strong evidence that the text hasn’t changed give us even more confidence to trust these works.
Yet there’s another angle that makes the case even stronger — corroborating evidence. That is to say, non-biblical sources also testify to individuals or events contained in the Gospels, and thus corroborate what the Gospel writers report. Perhaps the most popular corroborating source is the first-century Jewish historian Josephus.
Not only does Josephus tell us about Jesus and his brother James, but he also writes about several other characters in the Gospels. One such character is John the Baptist.
John the Baptist the Forerunner
John the Baptist is familiar to readers of the Gospels. Though he prepared the way for Jesus’ public ministry, he’s known primarily for baptizing the people as a sign of their repentance. Mark 1:4-5 states:
And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
John the Baptist the Preacher of Justice
Like most prophets, John warned the people of God’s judgment if they didn’t change their ways. We read further in Luke 3:10-14:
“What should we do then?” the crowd asked. John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely — be content with your pay.”
John’s message was straight-forward. Repent of your sins. And this repentance will manifest itself in how you love your fellow neighbor. Be generous, compassionate, and fair with everyone. In other words, love your neighbor as yourself.
Despite John’s popularity, Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee (4 B.C.-A.D. 39), arrested, and subsequently, beheaded him. We read in Mark 6:16-18:
But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” For Herod, himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”
Notice why Herod arrested John the Baptist and then later had him beheaded. John was publicly critical of Herod’s divorce and remarriage to his brother’s ex-wife Herodias — an action that violated Israel’s law.
John the Baptist in Josephus
What the Gospels don’t tell us is that Herod Antipas’ decision to divorce his first wife led to increased tensions between Galilee and the region Nabatea to the east. You see, Herod divorced the king of Nabatea’s daughter in order to marry Herodias.
When the king of Nabatea, Aretus IV, attacked and defeated Herod’s army, the people of Galilee believed it was God’s judgment on Herod for how he treated John. Read Josephus’ account:
Now it seemed to some of the Jews that the destruction of Herod’s army was by God, and was certainly well deserved, on account of what he did to John, called the Baptist. For Herod had executed him, though he was a good man and had urged the Jews — if inclined to exercise virtue, to practice justice toward one another and piety toward God — to join in baptism. For baptizing was acceptable to him, not for a pardon of whatever sins they may have committed, but in purifying the body, as though the soul had beforehand been cleansed in righteousness. And when others gathered (for they were greatly moved by his words), Herod, fearing that John’s great influence over the people might result in some form of insurrection (for it seemed that they did everything by his counsel), thought it much better to put him to death before his work led to an uprising than to await a disturbance, become involved in a problem, and have second thoughts. So the prisoner, because of Herod’s suspicion, was sent to Machaerus, the stronghold previously mentioned, and there was executed. But to the Jews, it seemed a vindication of John that God willed to do Herod an evil, in the destruction of the army.1
Josephus on the Herodias Marriage
Josephus also tells us of Herod’s marriage to Herodias:
But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod (Philip), the son of Herod the Great, a child of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, the high priest; and to them was born Salome. After her birth, Herodias, thinking to violate the ways of the fathers, abandoned a living husband and married Herod (Antipas) — who was tetrarch of Galilee — her husband’s brother by the same father.2
Corroborating Evidence
Notice how much Josephus corroborates what the Gospels say about John the Baptist:
* Josephus says John “inclined the Jews to exercise virtue and to practice justice toward one another.”
* The Gospels say John exhorted the Jews to share their clothing and money with one another, not to extort money from others, and not to accuse others falsely (Lk. 3:10-14).
* Josephus says John baptized many Jews as a sign of repentance.
* The Gospels also report that John baptized many Jews as a sign of repentance (Mk. 1:4-5).
* Josephus states that Herod arrested John the Baptist.
* The Gospels likewise report that Herod arrested John the Baptist (Mk. 6:16-18).
* Josephus declares that Herodias left Philip and married his brother Herod Antipas.
* The Gospels report that Herod divorced his wife and married his brother Philip’s wife Herodias (Mk. 6:16-18).
* Josephus reports that Herod had John the Baptist executed.
* The Gospels state that Herod had John the Baptist beheaded (Mk. 6:16-18).
We Can Trust the Gospels
Josephus’ emphasis on John’s death is purely political. He insinuates that Herod had him executed because he feared a rebellion. And during this critical time, when his people were at war, he needed everyone unified.
Yet Josephus doesn’t tell us why he wanted John dead in the first place. After all, Josephus only tells us that John exhorted the people of Israel to act justly toward their fellow neighbors. Why would the king want to stop that message from spreading?
The Gospel accounts give us further clarification. They tell us that John publicly rebuked the king for his unlawful divorce and remarriage, and thus, Herod dealt harshly with him.
The corroboration between Josephus and the Gospels with respect to John the Baptist and the marriage fiasco between Herod and Herodias should give us greater confidence to trust the Gospels. For if the Gospel writers were careful to get John’s story right, how much more would they be careful to get Jesus’ story, right?
Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2WG5upY
¿Qué es Dios? ¿Cómo podemos definirlo?
EspañolBy Carlos E. Rodriguez
In their arguments for the existence of a being that transcends the universe, Christian theists often identify this being with the name of God. What we are going to do is to provide a clear and simple meaning of this concept.
How do we define God?
This word can be used as a common noun or a proper noun. In my case, and in the case of many, I use it as a proper noun. It contains the concept of a being that possesses characteristic properties. There are two ways to know what properties this concept possesses: one comes through the theology revealed in the Bible, and another comes through Anselm’s theology of the perfect being . These two are not mutually exclusive, but rather use different paths to reach the same point.
We say that God is a proper name that is attributed to a being that possesses properties. From the theology of perfect being, we say that these properties are maximally great. In this way, when we speak of God, in Anselm’s terms, we speak of the maximally great being that can be conceived. If you can conceive of a being greater than him, you are conceiving of God. From this point of view, a maximally great being possesses maximal properties, such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc.
With all this in mind, we say that God is a personal being, worthy of worship, immaterial, timeless without the universe, a-spatial, perfectly free, eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, the locus of goodness, creator of all things, etc. Instead of mentioning each property that the being that receives this name possesses, we summarize it (preferably) with the Anselmian statement: “the greatest being that exists.” Such a being possesses all the maximum properties and qualities that can be conceived.
In this way, we have a concept of what is meant by God.
Jehovah, the God mentioned in the Bible, is God
Why is Jehovah treated as God? Because the attributes or properties that he possesses are the same as those of a supremely great being. If we go to the Bible, and use a method that uses revealed theology as a source, we find that Jehovah is:
If Jehovah possesses the properties of a supremely great being, and this being is called God, then Jehovah is God. It is the attributes and properties, referred to in the Bible but also deducible through natural theology, that give Jehovah the right to be called God.
Carlos Enrique Rodríguez Alcántara is from the Dominican Republic, a blogger, preacher, teacher, speaker, and apologist. Husband of Carolina. Member of the Central Rock of Salvation Church, where he has been director of education and deputy director of education for the council. He has an associate degree in theology from ESFOTEBIC. He holds a certificate in philosophy, philosophy and science (with honors) and critical thinking from the University of Edinburgh, as well as philosophy, science, and religion from the same university.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2R8qdfS
The New Absolutes
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
What is happening to our culture’s moral values? Is it really radical relativism: everyone gets to decide what is right in his own eyes? Join Frank to find out that there’s actually a new set of absolutes that our culture is adopting. And these new absolutes are often polar opposites of those grounded in God’s Good nature.
For example:
The old absolute is purity; the new absolute is promiscuity
The old absolute is humility; the new absolute is pride
The old absolute is truth; the new absolute is power
The old absolute is love; the new absolute is tolerance
The old absolute is religious freedom; the new absolute is sexual supremacy
And many others.
Frank blows the lid off the claim that only Christians or conservatives are trying to impose a moral position. Everyone is! The problem for the proponents of the new absolutes is that they have no objective standard to support their positions.
In the last segment, Frank answers questions about the universe coming from nothing, and how to reach apathetic people. Don’t be apathetic about this one. Please listen and share!
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
Richard Dawkins’ famous quote just about sums up how skeptics view the God of the Old Testament. He retorts:
Whew. Other than his obvious thesaurus skills, we notice that Dawkins takes great offense at God’s behavior in the Old Testament. He scorns Scripture’s portrayal of slavery and the poor treatment of women, but it’s the Canaanite invasion that attracts most of his contempt. For example, he uses words such as bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, racist, infanticidal, and genocidal to make his point loud and clear.
But this raises an obvious question. Did God really command genocide? Did he really order Israel to wipe the Canaanites from the face of the earth? Some texts seem to suggest this:
It certainly looks like genocide. But as I’ll argue in a minute, I’m persuaded something other than genocide is going on here.
Joshua’s Claims vs. Reality
I’m persuaded something else is going on because several times Joshua makes claims that they “utterly destroyed” the Canaanites and “left none alive,” yet we read shortly thereafter that several survivors remain. Let me give you a few examples:
Joshua’s Claim: In Joshua 10, he says they left “no survivors” and “destroyed everything that breathed” in “the entire land” and “put all the inhabitants to the sword.”
Reality: Judges 1 states several times that Israel had failed to conquer the entire land of Canaan and couldn’t drive out all the inhabitants.
On the one hand, Joshua tells us that they left “no survivors.” On the other hand, Judges 1 tells us multiple times that Israel failed to drive out all the Canaanites.
Joshua’s Claim: Josh 10:39 says “every person” in Debir was “utterly destroyed.”
Reality: Josh 11:21 states that later, Joshua “utterly destroyed” Anakites in Debir.
Again, Joshua says they “utterly destroyed every person” in Debir. But the very next chapter, we read of survivors in Debir who Joshua “utterly destroyed” again.
Joshua’s Claims: In Joshua 11:21, he tells us the Anakites were “cut off” and “utterly destroyed” in Hebron.
Reality: A few chapters later in Joshua 15:13-14, we read that “Caleb “drove out” the Anakites from Hebron.
Once again, Joshua claims utter destruction while a few chapters later, he tells us that Caleb drove out the same people group he just “utterly destroyed.”
Just as the LORD had commanded
Certainly, Joshua’s claims and reality appear to contradict one another. Yet we read on multiple occasions that Joshua did just as God had commanded. Consider these two examples:
I’ve listed several examples where God commanded Joshua to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites. We’ve also seen that Joshua was faithful to do just as the LORD had commanded. Yet, we read several instances where survivors remain.
What is going on here?
God didn’t Mean Literal Genocide
As a quick caveat, I’m a biblical inerrantist. I’m not someone to play “fast and loose” with the text. Yet I’m persuaded that Joshua didn’t intend for us to interpret the “utterly destroy” language literally.
How could he if in Joshua 11 he tells us that they “utterly destroyed” the Anakites in Hebron, and then just a few chapters later in Joshua 15, he tells us that Caleb “drove out” those same Anakites in the same Hebron?
Would Joshua really be that irresponsible with his reporting? It’s doubtful. After all, God made it clear elsewhere that “utterly destroy” didn’t mean complete annihilation.
Consider Deuteronomy 7:2-4:
Now, wait a second. God ordered them to devote the Canaanites to complete destruction, but then he forbids them from intermarrying with them. How could they intermarry with people they had completely obliterated?
It seems obvious that whatever “utterly destroy” means, it doesn’t mean genocide.
“Utterly Destroy” was Common Hyperbolic Rhetoric
Just recently, the Golden State Warriors defeated the Portland Trail Blazers by 22 points. As I read various ESPN articles and listened to different radio shows, I heard commentators say things like the Warriors “annihilated” or “killed” the Trail Blazers. And shockingly, nobody called them out for lying. You see, this is how people talk nowadays with respect to athletic competitions. We speak in hyperbolic terms.
In the same way, military leaders during Joshua’s day used to speak in exaggerated terms. They would regularly make claims that they “utterly destroyed” their enemies and left “no survivors.” In reality, they defeated their enemies but didn’t commit them to genocide. Yet nobody was calling them liars because this was how military leaders communicated back then. Consider these examples:2
King Mesha of Moab (840 BC) reported that the Northern Kingdom of Israel “has utterly perished for always.” — In truth, Israel was around long enough to be taken into exile one hundred years later.
Tuthmosis III of Egypt (1500 BC) declared that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those now not existent.” — Actually, Mitanni continued to fight for another two hundred years.
Merneptah of Egypt (1230 BC) bragged “Israel is wasted, his seed is not.” — Guess who is still around today?
When Moses or Joshua spoke in exaggerated ways, they were simply adopting the common hyperbolic rhetoric that all ancient Near Eastern military leaders used. Everyone reading the accounts would have understood it that way, just like we understand hyperbolic sports language.
Drive them Out, Not Genocide
It seems that God’s desire was for Israel to drive out — or dispossess — the Canaanites from the land, not to commit them to genocide. Truth is, “driving out” language is used far more frequently with respect to the Canaanites than “utterly destroy” language.3
We saw earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 that God ordered Israel to commit the Canaanites to “complete destruction,” and then he ordered them not to intermarry with the Canaanites afterwards. These dual commands only make sense if the “complete destruction” means to drive them out, rather than annihilating them altogether.
On another occasion, God threatens to “destroy” Israel for their disobedience, but this destruction did not mean genocide. It meant driving them away from the promised land. Consider Deuteronomy 28:63-64
And the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in destroying you. You shall be plucked off the land… And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other.
Here is a clear example where “destroying” really meant driving them out of the land. With this in mind, we can be confident that this was God’s purpose in issuing the “utterly destroy” commands.
Did they Really Commit Women and Children to Genocide?
As I’ve argued above, the stock language of “kill everything that’s alive” was hyperbolic language and really meant “driving out” the Canaanites. This means, the Israelites never slaughtered women or children in their conquests. They simply defeated the various Canaanite armies as they infiltrated the promised land.
After all, God had instructed Israel to always offer peace before attacking anyone (Deut. 20:10) which would have given women and children time to flee before any battle ensued. Unfortunately, almost nobody took them up on the offer (Josh. 11:19).
Furthermore, it appears that most of their battles occurred at military strongholds — like Jericho and AI — away from the populated civilian countrysides. Archeology digs suggest that Jericho housed roughly one hundred soldiers with no civilians,4 which explains how Israel could march around it seven times in one day. Rahab and maybe another female or two worked in the tavern to take care of travelers passing through.
Rahab, who turned from paganism, also serves as a great example that ethnic cleansing is not the goal of these conquests. The goal was to rid the area of the pagan influence that could easily lead Israel astray from worshipping Yahweh.
Why Drive Out the Canaanites?
In Genesis 15:16, God told Abraham that he would give the land to the Israelites after four hundred years of slavery in Egypt because the “sins of the Amorites (Canaanites) was not yet complete. That is, God wouldn’t drive them out yet, because it wouldn’t be justified. But after hundreds of years of wickedness, the Canaanites would be ripe for judgment.
What did they do that prompted this judgment exactly? While they were notorious for temple prostitution, incest, and bestiality, perhaps their worst crime was their practice of child sacrifice. It was their ritual practice to burn their children alive on the god Molech.
Skeptics often ask why God doesn’t stop evil. Well, here is a clear example where he does, but they still find fault nonetheless.
Ultimately, God wanted to establish the nation of Israel in the land free of pagan influence to provide a context for the coming Messiah. Yes, Israel defeated these Canaanite armies, but the ultimate goal was to be a blessing to all the nations (Gen. 12:3). And that blessing would come through the person of Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the law and die as the once for all sacrifice for the sins of the world.
*For more on this topic, check out Paul Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster?
Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wFn2mK
Bible study: Esther as an example of bravery and God’s providence
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
I’ve been listening to this FREE two-volume series on the book of Esther featuring pastor Alistair Begg. A whole bunch of interesting things stuck out to me, so I’ll write about one of them today.
First, Esther is a Jewish woman whose father or mother died when she was young. She was adopted by Mordecai, another Jew. She was very beautiful, so she was picked to be part of the Persian King’s harem. In fact, she is so beautiful that the King chooses her to be the Queen.
Now there is an enemy of the Jews in the King’s court named Haman, and he manages to get the King to create an edict that says that all the Jews will be killed. Mordecai calls Esther to tell her that she has to stop the King from ordering this edict.
But Esther is out of favor with the King and hasn’t been asked to come in to visit him for some time. To go in and see the King without being summoned is a capital offense. Unless the King gives permission, she would be killed for intruding on the King. But in the end, she agrees to speak up and say something.
It all gets resolved in Esther, chapter 4.
Esther 4:1-17:
What Mordecai is saying here is that God is sovereign over the events that are taking place, and that even if Esther makes a free decision to not intercede to save her people, then God will do something else. Somehow, telling her that makes her agree to take the risk and go in to see the King. Even though it is illegal to go in to see the King, she is going to risk her life and do it. And the message there is that God made her beautiful, and placed her in the palace, for exactly this purpose. Her beauty has a purpose.
Before then, she may not have been the most morally pure Jew, nor the most faithful Jew, nor some great authority on theology or apologetics. She was probably keeping her faith pretty hidden. But in that one moment, she rises above being an orphan, above being a harem girl, and above being just a pretty face. God can use anyone – even a silly girl who spends all day in front of a mirror playing with cosmetics – to achieve his ends. She is not Daniel. But today she is getting the call, anyway. It’s on her.
What is the lesson here? God can use anybody. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be moral, study theology, and study apologetics, and keep your character clean so you have self-control. It means that any believer is just one step away from glory, no matter what they did in the past. That’s how God rolls.
Further study
If you are interested in the story of Esther, then you should listen to the entire series by Alistair Begg.
The point I am making in this post is in this lecture.
Esther is about two themes: 1) how should a believer in God live in a society where believers are a minority? And 2) even when things look really out of control, God is in control and is never more than one step away from saving his people.
I have a lot of Christian apologist friends who struggle to go to church and struggle to read the Bible. The links above will take you to some great preaching on one of the most interesting books of the Bible. Go there, grab the MP3s, and listen to them with no distractions.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2WV31HD