What does a ministry-minded Christian couple do when they experience five miscarriages, numerous disappointments, doubts, unanswered prayer, and incurable cancer? They PRAISE GOD and write a comforting and brilliant new book, ‘How Does God Use Suffering for Our Good?‘, that will help thousands of others who are experiencing pain and suffering.

This week, Frank sits down with Dr. Clay Jones and his wife of 50 years, Jean E., to explore the hard realities of suffering and the even harder truth that God can use the most devastating events in our lives for good–both now and in eternity.Clay and Jean E. share lessons from their own lives and the Scriptures while answering questions like:

  • If evil and suffering are happening to you is it all your fault? Do you just need more faith?
  • What was Clay’s first major life crisis and how did it shape his worldview?
  • How did Clay process learning he had incurable bone cancer and how is he feeling now?
  • How are some Christians misrepresenting the Gospel?
  • How did five miscarriages change Jean E.’s perspective and what good came from it?
  • How does suffering lead to glory and what does it REALLY mean to give glory to God?
  • What is God’s “Plan A” for your life?
  • How did keeping truth journals help Jean E. stay anchored in Christ during hard times?
  • What does it mean that Christians will ultimately reign with Christ?
  • What is the Jones’ best advice for those experiencing pain and suffering?

One thing is certain in this life: We will all experience hardship and pain. If you’ve ever asked, “Why me?” this episode is just for you. This is as real as it gets, folks. Read, listen, and be encouraged!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined.org
How Does God Use Suffering for Our Good? by Dr. Clay & Jean E. Jones
Why Does God Allow Evil? self-paced online course with Dr. Clay Jones
Why Does God Allow Evil? by Dr. Clay Jones
What Is the Unpardonable Sin? – Christian Research Journal
The Lord Made Orgasms Possible
ClayJones.net
JeanEJones.net

Download Transcript

It was the only way I knew how to explain my love of Fixer Upper to my bewildered husband. Since the show aired, I would plunk myself down, yell in frustration (who picks a midcentury modern over a classic Victorian, I mean, come on!?), and bask in the beauty of the big reveal. Yes, I loved the shiplap, but like other Christian fans, what I enjoyed most was having a show featuring a Christian couple who truly loved each other.

What Christian fans weren’t expecting was to watch the designing duo green-light the normalization of homosexuality when they partnered with HBO for the newest reality, Back to the Frontier. The fallout gave fans everywhere a front row seat to a Christian accountability meeting, and they had a lot to say.

“Christians shouldn’t judge (Matthew 7:1)!”

“…All you holier-than-thou scripture-spouting know-it-alls pick and choose your bible verses to quote.” Toni (People Magazine)

“I guess someone forgot Matthew 7:1.”

Yep, Matthew 7:1 became the theological “shiplap” of the comments section–That verse was everywhere! What none of those folks seemed to realize, however, was that they, too, were judging. Which got me thinking, if the anti-judgment crew didn’t realize this, would the new believer? Would our kids? That’s why we are going to evaluate whether Christians can judge, and if so, how we can judge well. Grab your spiritual tool belts, mama’s. It’s demo day (Colossians 2:8).

To Judge Or Not To Judge?        

At first glance, Matthew 7:1 appears to be on the side of the comment critics. Jesus warns, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” If taken at face value, then everyone from Franklin Graham to Matt Walsh owes the Gaines an apology, but that would be a mistake. Why? Because this verse isn’t banning believers from making any judgments; it’s warning against making improper judgments.

At that time, the Jews (particularly the Pharisees) struggled with two huge problems: legalism and double standards. Instead of leading people to God from a place of humility, they set themselves up as God and rejected anyone who didn’t follow their own subjective version of the law (Matthew 12:1-8).

Jesus was setting things straight by saying that man isn’t holy enough to condemn someone eternally, and that accountability can’t be hypocritically applied. His warning in Matthew 7:1 was meant to spark humility by showing that if people were held to their own “measure,” they would quickly be found wanting. Instead, Jesus told them to examine their own hearts, repent, and then “remove the speck” from the eye of their brother (Matthew 7:3-6).

This is the method of righteous judgment. It leaves eternal judgment to God, while allowing believers to correct one another from a position of humility. Righteous judgment is necessary for protecting believers from false teachings and enables the believer to stand firm against the pressure of secular culture (Colossians 2:8 & Ephesians 6:11-18).

So yes, to follow God, a Christian can make and use good judgment. We can help our kids learn how to judge rightly by following five important practices.

#1- Be Theologically Sound

“Teach Me Knowledge And Good Judgment, For I Trust Your Commands.”
Psalms 119:66

To make the right judgments requires an objective standard of right and wrong from which we base morality. Where does that standard come from? Not man, not culture, but God. God’s word is very clear on sex, sin, and marriage, so then why is there so much debate?

There is a very real war being waged over the heart, mind, soul, and body of each one of us. One of Satan’s goals is to distort the word of God into a counterfeit faith to lure people away from Him. This is why, to judge rightly, we need to be immersed in scripture.

For more help on how to read the Bible well, check out our podcast here.

Next, check yourself before you wreck yourself. . . hermeneutically speaking. Does the conclusion you made align with the world of God, His nature, our identity, the reality of sin, and the redemptive work of Christ? If so, well done![1] This will help you avoid a common but preventable error: cherry-picking verses.

Cherry-picking is when a single verse or part of a verse is (often) taken extremely literally to advance a person’s own desires or conclusions without regard to the verse’s context or application. Like when the Pharisees gave themselves a free pass to perform circumcisions on the sabbath but condemned the disciples for “working” when they plucked a handful of grain for a snack (Matthew 12:1-2).

Sorry-not-sorry critics in the comments section! If you posted Matthew 7:1, you’re guilty of making a judgment based on a verse you had cherry-picked.[2]

When a bumper-sticker-worthy verse pops up during your quiet time, guide your children to read the passages (or chapters!) around it to properly discern its meaning. As you read together, point out how the passage reveals God’s goodness, his grace, and his redemption through Christ. From there, you can play “spot the counterfeit” whenever culture tries to offer its own broken version of love, empathy, and acceptance.

Our ROAR method is great for this and perfect for your next movie night!

#2- Be Restoration Focused 

Every righteous judgement needs two important ingredients: love and humility. Love delights in the truth (1 Corinthians 13). Humility is the anchor that roots our judgement in love. Humility reminds the believer of their life before Christ and guides us when we need to hold each other accountable.

How we do this will look different depending on who we are addressing. If addressing a non-believer, our approach will be evangelistic in nature. The goal is to point them toward Christ by seeking to find out what led them to that conclusion, gently address its logical failings, and offer an account of how truth is rooted in Christianity.

If we’re addressing a believer, our approach is gracious accountability. We affirm our mutual call to submit to the truth of God, address the biblical error, encourage the believer to repent, and be restored in righteousness (James 5:20).

To help kids be restoration-minded, role-play how you would address a correction in love by using a character on a show or in their favorite storybook. What tone should you use? If this person were a believer, how would you speak to them? How would our approach change if they are an unbeliever? How would you correct a logical error while pointing to the truth of Christ?

Remember kids, Elijah may be the patron saint of sass [3], but in most cases our tone should be heaped with grace (Colossians 4:6).[3]

#3- Be Seasoned with Salt   

Grace, however, isn’t possible without a little thing called truth. Truth is what enables us to make a right judgement.[4] If our conversions aren’t rooted in truth, then we will lead people into bondage through progressive affirmation. This is exactly what progressives want.

Progressive theology rejects the truth of God in exchange for whatever feels right to each person.[5] It’s part relativism, part spiritualism, mixed into a deadly cocktail of bad theology by a guy who looks like Jesus without any of his redeeming qualities. Pun intended.

The goal is to convince the theologically weak and the empathetic folks into believing that the truth of God is harmful to those who live contrary to his commands. To truly love their neighbor, Christians have to reject the idea of dying to self and accept everyone without question. This, dear reader, is a pack of lies.

Our kids need to know that we are not ‘casting stones’ when we make a right judgment.[6]   The most loving thing we can do is speak the truth. As you practice your ROAR, remind your kids that empathy is a gift from God. To Chip’s point, we can rightly listen and understand a person’s past, but a person’s past doesn’t get to censor the truth of God. In short, a person’s past should alter how we preach God’s word, not if we preach God’s word.

#4- Be Consistent in Word and Deed   

Now for a little heart check, mamas. Before we confront another, we need to ask two questions.

  1. Am I Currently Living In Sin? 
    I’m not meaning the random times where we fall short…like yesterday in traffic. If that were the case, then no one could judge anything! I mean, is there a part of our lives where we are living in habitual sin? If so, we have no business removing the plank from the eye of someone else until the sawdust is removed from our own, Matthew 7:3-6.
  2. Am I Applying A Double Standard?
    This “good for thee but not for me” problem wasn’t unique to the Pharisees. We, too, can develop this spiritual blind spot when we justify our own sin as “less sinful” than that of another. Don’t be fooled, mamas. Our kids notice when we draw the line at shows normalizing LGBTQ lifestyles, only to erase it when we watch the saucy period drama. When we make a judgment, we need to be consistent with that judgment.

Kids need to see what it looks like to live an integrated faith through our example. Model how to sacrifice earthly pleasures for the glory of God. Show them how to love like Christ, ask forgiveness, and stand firm in the faith. Remind them that it’s not possible to fully unplug from everything ungodly, but to the best of our ability, we can direct ourselves and our money toward that which glorifies God.[7]

#5- Be Confident In Christ       

One of my favorite quotes is from Jason Whitlock: “When we are fearful before God, we are fearless before culture.” This fearlessness is the heart of 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”

When our identity is rooted in Christ, we are issued a set of spiritual armor and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who gives us wisdom and the boldness to speak truth. The problem is that too many Christians either callously lob truth grenades or cower the moment a cultural criticism comes blazing toward them, Ephesians 6:16.

Who Then Do We Fear?  

Our kids need to know that to be set apart in Christ means that we are set against culture (John 15:18-19) while still seeking people (Matthew 28:19). People will hate us for speaking truth, but we aren’t called to seek man’s approval; we are called to seek righteousness.

To build up your child’s confidence, affirm their identity in Christ. Remind them that the world is going to push back, but we can equip ourselves for the challenge by knowing God’s word and rebuttals to common objections to the faith. Train them to recognize faulty logic, so when someone attacks their character (or their grammar), the baseless insult will bounce right off their shield of faith.

Final Thoughts     

It’s not easy to watch a believer defend their own worldly compromise, but it shouldn’t wreck us. Here’s the truth: if we are still breathing, and they are still breathing, the Holy Spirit is still working. We can encourage them in truth and lift them up in prayer, whether it’s a TV couple or a family member.

Additonal Resources:

Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn
The Theology Handbook by The Daily Grace Co.
10 Questions Every Teen Should Ask (and answer) about Christianity by Rebecca McLaughlin
Mama Bear Apologetics Edited by Hillary Morgan Ferrer

References: 

[1] If not, it could be due to a hermeneutical error. Check out our blog here. For some, however, it could be a worldview issue. See if you add anything to these two statements: I am a _______ Christian.  I am a Christian, but/and I believe__________. Whatever is added into those blank spaces will usually reveal what someone truly worships. For example, someone who calls themselves a “progressive Christian” is a person who doesn’t believe in the gospel but a filtered view that Jesus affirms whoever we say that we are and cheers us on as we live our best life now. It has a guy who looks like Jesus, but it’s a false worldview that, if believed, will lead away from Christ. Secondly, if anything was added after the “I am a Christian” statement, it too is usually what the person actually worships, be it social justice, LGBTQ+, BLM, etc. Please know that each of those movements is a separate worldview that is in direct opposition to God. You cannot be a Christian and follow a pop-cultural religion. Only Christ saves; every other religion falls short.

[2] Fair warning: critics will use the “cherry-picking” accusation when a believer rightly quotes scripture. So long as judgment you have taken the verse within context you aren’t cherry picking, you are quoting. There’s a big difference.

[3] 1 Kings 18 records his snarky mocking of the prophets of Baal. This is a description, not a prescription, folks.

[4] It is also a vital aspect of the nature of God, John 14:6.

[5] See chapter 15 of Mama Bear Apologetics.

[6] You practice your discernment with this comment posted on an article from the NY Post. Matt Lustig said: “…A true religion preaches love and acceptance. Jesus would tell us to love, accept, and be kind to everyone. Reverend Graham and those like him are false Christian’s.”

[7] To put this in perspective, you have supported a company who affirms LGBTQ+ & DEI if you have: electronics by apple or android; ate at Chik-Fil-A; shopped at Home Goods, Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, or Amazon; ate a Kellog’s product; had Starbuks; flew United, Delta, or American; have an American Express card; used Pinterest; and more!

Recommended Resources:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 


Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4rB6jLb

Does the Quran actually support Zionism? If not, why does it say that the land we know as Israel was given to Israel by God? In this midweek episode, Frank welcomes back Ridvan Ademir, a.k.a Apostate Prophet, to continue their eye-opening conversation about the Hamas–Israel conflict. Together, they peel back the political headlines and examine the theological and historical roots driving the crisis in Gaza. Together, they tackle questions like:

  • Where do we see Israel mentioned in the Quran and what does it say?
  • Why isn’t “Palestine” mentioned in the Quran?
  • How and when did Palestine’s national identity emerge?
  • Why does the Quran say the Holy Land belongs to the Jews? Is Allah a Zionist?
  • What started the 1948 Israel-Arab War?
  • Why do Palestinians have multi-generational refugee status?
  • What are Hamas’ stated goals and why doesn’t the West take their charter seriously?
  • What roles did Presidents Winston Churchill and Bill Clinton play in the conflict?
  • Why did Yasser Arafat reject the 1993 land deal and launch an intifada?
  • Why have repeated peace negotiations failed and is a two-state solution even possible?
  • What is the irony behind leftist groups who support a pro-Palestine narrative?

You’ll learn how Islamic history shapes modern geopolitics and why Christians must think clearly about what’s unfolding in the Middle East. If you want more context beyond the headlines, be sure to listen in and check out Frank and AP’s previous conversations in the resources below. Understanding the proper history behind this conflict matters now more than ever!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined

Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian (Part 1)

Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian (Part 2)

What No One Ever Told You About the Hamas-Israel Conflict

Were Jews In Israel Before 1948?

The Truth About Hamas in Their Own Words

Apologetics Roadshow with David Wood

The Hamas Charter 1988

AP’s YouTube Channel

Download Transcript

For many nonbelievers, the idea that God could punish his “children” with eternal “torture” is just too much to accept. They reject the notion of hell, often saying that they simply will not believe in such a God, as if their personal aversion to judgment and possible condemnation can somehow change reality. In responding to such a challenge, one can quickly be made to feel that we’re defending the … indefensible? We know that God can appear harsh, and that he will someday judge us, but is he actually callous and uncaring? The exact opposite of what one would view as a “loving father?”

There is, of course, no emotionally satisfying answer to this challenge. There is no way to make someone feel good about a place of suffering, whether it is an earthly prison or the eternal suffering that characterizes hell. So, are we then left with the choice of either rejecting the existence of hell, on the one hand, or simply sounding unloving by saying something along the lines of “it is what it is?” Is there a middle ground, in which we can make some intellectual sense of why there is such a place, even if the teaching remains jarring and harsh?

In the temporal realm, no one disputes the need for prisons. Depending on the severity of the crime, the goal in incarcerating an offender may vary. For some, the focus will be on rehabilitation, by attaching unpleasant consequences for criminal behavior while holding out hope for a change of heart, and then, a change of behavior. Many low-end offenders can benefit from programs that are made available to the inmate along with incentives to encourage pro-social behavior. For the most violent offenders, on the other hand, there is another purpose: to incapacitate them, so they can no longer prey on the innocent.

In both cases, it is also true that confinement is additionally meant to punish. This point bears emphasis. Justice at its most basic level punishes evil and rewards good. But in our temporal worldly system, the punishment we speak of is, in essence, the incarceration, the very same act that accomplishes the separation. We do not first separate inmates from society and then inflict additional punishment; there are no medieval tortures that await them, no mistreatment that is deliberately inflicted to further the pain these inmates feel, no chain gangs to make their daily lives unbearable. In a very real sense, the punishment is the product of the incarceration, not an additional purpose.

Indeed, it is for this reason that some would argue that prisons today do not provide adequate punishment for wrongdoers. Such people feel that justice would be better served if additional punishments were inflicted. But this criticism does not – indeed, cannot – apply to the eternal. Why? Because forcible separation from God is the worst thing that can befall any soul. I repeat: eternal separation from God is the worst outcome that can possibly be imagined. There is nothing more that can be done, nothing that can increase the pain that such a soul would experience. By the same token – and this is the salient point – there is nothing to be done that would lessen the pain. When one fully grasps what it means to spend eternity separated from God, there is no way to make such an outcome more bearable.

Consider for a moment of what the pain of separation consists. In a prison setting, being prevented from exercising any real control over the activities of one’s day, and one’s movement, would be bad enough. But being unable to spend time with others, being forcibly torn from one’s family and one’s closest friends – this indeed is torment. Imagine for instance a newlywed knowing that his lovely bride will be 80 before he is released. Or a new mother knowing that her vulnerable child will have to grow up without knowing her. This is anguish, pure and simple.

Move now to a still deeper level. Even for the most hardened of criminals, there are people to whom they are attached, with whom they wish to spend time, even if they are simply fellow inmates. These others have some quality, some set of attributes, which makes them attractive, which makes their companionship desirable. That is why solitary confinement is such an extreme form of punishment. We were meant for fellowship and forcing someone to remain isolated is a harsh punishment indeed.

Now, consider the soul facing eternal separation and eternal alone-ness, isolated and embittered, aware of but forcibly separated from the God against whom their rebellion rages. What a human being feels on a limited and temporal basis, such a soul feels magnified a million, a billion …. an infinity of times. And such a soul is not experiencing separation from a limited and flawed human being, but from the source of all life, of all beauty, goodness and truth, of all joy. Can we even find words to describe what such infinite emptiness feels like?

No, God does not actively torture people in hell. But he does not change his nature to suit those who in rebellion to his law shake their fist at him. While he desires that all will accept the gift he has offered through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, he does not override the free will of those who choose to remain committed to their sinfulness. The separation that he imposes at the end of such a life, just though it is, is a horrible thing indeed.

But it is not torture. It is the nature of things.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

 


Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

What can Christians learn from a former Muslim who now follows Christ? And how can Christians speak truthfully and lovingly with Muslims about Jesus? This week, Frank welcomes back Ridvan Aydemir, also known as the Apostate Prophet, to share more about his journey from Islam to atheism and ultimately to faith in Christ. Together, they tackle the Israel–Hamas conflict, the ideology behind Hamas, and why understanding Islamic theology is essential for effective evangelism. In this episode, Frank and AP will tackle questions like:

  • What ultimately led AP out of Islam, through atheism, and into Christianity?
  • How can Christians lovingly and wisely point Muslims to Christ?
  • What core memory of Christianity does AP still hold from his childhood?
  • What is AP’s new angle on the Islamic Dilemma and why is it such a powerful apologetics tool?
  • What’s the true purpose and worldview of Islam, including its moral framework?
  • What are some of the key differences between Islam and Christianity?
  • What does the Hamas Charter reveal about Islam’s view of Israel?
  • What was Ridvan taught about Christianity and the Jewish people as a young Muslim?
  • Where did Hamas come from and how did it rise to power in Gaza?
  • Why are so many leftist groups in the West sympathetic to Hamas?

If you’re trying to make sense of the chaos in Gaza—or want to have clearer, more compassionate conversations with Muslims about faith—you won’t want to miss this episode. Tune in as Frank and AP cut through misinformation, expose ideological contradictions, and point listeners toward truth, clarity, and Christ-centered evangelism.

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined
Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian (Part 1)
Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian (Part 2)
The Hamas Charter 1988
CE International Website
CE Arabic Website
AP’s Website
AP’s YouTube Channel

Download Transcript

Can a logical person REALLY believe in miracles? Frank responds to a challenge from our skeptic friend, Mike, while tackling the big question: do miracles contradict science and the laws of logic? From science and history to philosophy and faith, we’ll explore what God’s nature reveals about the probability of divine intervention. Tune in as Frank answers questions like:

  • Is it reasonable to believe in macroevolution?
  • What is the acronym L.I.F.E.?
  • Who else besides Christians question the theory of macroevolution?
  • Why must miracles be rare to be meaningful?
  • What are four ways Jesus demonstrates His divinity?
  • How many miracles do we find in the Bible?
  • In what three time periods do we see the most miracles in the Bible and why?
  • Does God have limitations–or is He truly all-powerful?
  • What’s the difference between overpowering and violating the laws of physics?
  • How did Jesus become the central figure of the human race?

During the end of the podcast, Frank also addresses concerns regarding the last podcast episode and Josh Howerton’s “proof of a propaganda war”. Did Josh only get it “half right”? If you’ve ever wondered whether miracles are reasonable, this conversation will pinpoint why faith in God actually makes sense!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined
2026 ‘Change My Mind’ College Tour
Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God
3 BIG Reasons Why God May Choose to Hide Himself

Download Transcript

I never set out to become a witness to the West’s unraveling. I was just a minister seeking to show God’s love to people. In short, I simply loved Muslims—deeply and sincerely—and believed that the surest way to honor that calling was to study Islam from within its own intellectual world. That conviction led me to Islamic College in London. I was excited that I was going to learn under Muslim scholars. So, I wasn’t seeking conflict or controversy. Far from it. Instead, I was pursuing what I saw as a ministry of respect and understanding.

Shifting Cultural Currents

For several years, the professors supported my work. Classmates welcomed my questions, and I completed an M.A. in Islamic Studies believing I had formed genuine friendships. Yet even then, during my repeated visits to London, something unsettling tugged at me. I sensed cultural currents shifting beneath the surface of the city I had come to love, though I lacked words to describe it.

During those visits, especially when staying in neighborhoods with dense Muslim populations, I often felt as if I was walking through two London’s at once. It would become abundantly clear, as I interacted with countless people, that British culture was not very evident. There was not much assimilation. Another culture has overtaken it, and many British elites were on board.

When I landed in London on October 7, 2023, I expected nothing more than a week full of scholarly conversations with Shia leaders.[1] Instead, I stepped directly into the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians. Suddenly I noticed that, almost below the level of conscious awareness, the city’s emotional atmosphere shifted with a speed that left me disoriented. Suddenly, it wasn’t the same London I thought I knew. Within minutes, I was added to a group text coordinating rallies, and the words “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “resistance” appeared in messages. I was stunned.

Organized Jew-Hatred 

Later, a Muslim friend urged me to meet protest organizers, and was glad to introduce me to them. He insisted I had a role to play, but the invitation scared me to death. What have I got myself into? By the next morning, October 8, I saw with my own eyes, as I was headed to church in an Uber, coordinated demonstrations filled the streets. It felt less like a reaction and more like a mobilization. I realized that there was an organized network of Jew hatred that I didn’t know existed, at least in that magnitude.

“There was an organized network of Jew hatred that I didn’t know existed, at least in that magnitude”

Throughout that week, I took twenty-two Uber rides across the city, and eighteen drivers delivered unsolicited monologues about Israel with nearly identical certainty. I was stunned by the vitriol. What I noticed was a narrative template toward the Jews that I later discovered was in the Quran. I found myself listening quietly, wondering how these views had become so widespread, so quickly, and so synchronized. With each ride, the sense of ideological cohesion grew more visible, and I felt like a visitor in a city I once understood. The London I loved for its diversity now felt dominated by a single, unchallenged narrative.

What I felt most was that the Church there was very weak. And that weakness carried a cost. That disorientation deepened when I watched American and European universities erupt days later with the same slogans and emotional choreography. It was then I realized I was witnessing the expression of a coherent transnational worldview, not a series of isolated events.

“the Church there [in London] was very weak. And that weakness carried a cost.”

Inside Islamic college, the rupture was equally swift and painful. When I publicly defended Israel’s right to exist, relationships that once felt steady collapsed almost instantly. I found this reaction to be profoundly shocking. What I didn’t know was that I was getting an education that I would have never received in a classroom. A professor who had championed my academic work sent a short message cutting all contact. Others followed. There was only one person maintaining communication, who I would still call a friend, who offered a quiet kindness when the others withdrew.

Mainstream Jew-Hate 

More jarring still, I later learned that certain Shia leaders in the broader network wondered aloud if I might be a spy for Israel. I thought me, a spy? You have to be kidding. That suspicion didn’t anger me; it showed how deep the polarization ran. In that moment, I finally saw that anti-Israel sentiment wasn’t fringe. Instead, it was central in ways I’d sensed but never admitted.

After the initial shock, I turned to research in search of clarity, and what I found reframed my entire experience. I discovered through my Media investigations, that there were concerns raised about possible connections between the Islamic College and Al-Mustafa International University, an institution controlled by Iran’s Supreme Leader and described by some analysts as a “foothold” for exporting revolutionary ideology.[2] Some pro-regime Iranian outlets even called the College Al-Mustafa’s UK “branch,” though the College strongly denies any link.[3]

Reports also documented troubling public statements by staff. For example, one lecturer compared Israel to Nazi Germany, while another described Anders Breivik as an “ultra-Zionist.” A former principal appeared in footage encouraging chants for Hezbollah, a group now banned in the UK. Can you imagine Hezbollah? As I read, a cold clarity settled over me—these were not scattered controversies but pieces of a coherent pattern.

More investigation yielded that processes had been triggered by UK regulatory bodies far before my own personal breaking point. Middlesex University, the higher education body that validated the College’s degrees, withdrew its partnership with the organization after damning accusations were leveled on national news channels.[4] The Office for Students stated that it was reviewing the situation.

Reports also detailed how the Islamic Centre of England, which was described as having close connections to individuals at the College, held a vigil where IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani was praised, resulting in a Charity Commission warning.[5] The group of students from the college was reported to have visited the home of Ayatollah Khomeini on their trip to Iran in 2016.[6] It became clearer that the philosophy I was being confronted with was institutional.

Input from external perspectives contextualized the anecdotal evidence I was presented with about Al-Mustafa. Analysts such as Kasra Aarabi describe Al-Mustafa University as the “heart of Iran’s international ideological messaging,” from where the regime seeks to grow its reach abroad through highly-supervised networks of scholars.[7] This is an idea that many progressives turn their heads in denial. These studies say the university claims affiliated centers in dozens of countries, including some reported to be operating in the UK.

Pro-regime Farsi outlets have also suggested that certain leaders at the London college were connected to Al-Mustafa, though the College denies any formal ties. These were not antagonistic voices. They were pro-Iranian regime. Still, the mix of rhetoric, leadership backgrounds, and institutional relationships suggested a shared ideological direction rather than coincidence. Only then did I understand that the reflexes I saw in London after October 7 were not improvised. They were cultivated over time.

Asymmetric Integration  

All this led me to start seeing things through a particular framework that made sense of both my experience and the wider crisis in the West: Asymmetric Integration. The West assumes that integration is symmetrical – that newcomers to the open society will enter with a mindset of adopting civic norms and contributing in a pluralistic, multi-valued context. But that assumption breaks down when a new mindset sees openness not as a value to be mutually held, but a thing to be used.

Asymmetric Integration happens when a liberal society welcomes newcomers, which is great. But when it allows certain ideological networks to quietly pull that society into their own worldview, this is problematic. That’s what I saw, writ large. The result isn’t multiculturalism but one-way permeability. The West values rights and freedoms; the ideological ecosystem values faith and internal cohesion. One system is permeable; the other is rigid. That asymmetry constitutes a vulnerability the West doesn’t yet comprehend.

“[With] asymmetric Integration . . . the result isn’t multiculturalism but one-way permeability.”

Beyond culture, the asymmetry is civilizational: Liberal societies assume identities can coexist without hierarchy; many ideological systems born abroad assume truth rests on hierarchy and authority. It’s a deep conflict. Take the interview Der Spiegel conducted with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. Putin asked, “Can you imagine the Russian Federation negotiating with some party inside the European Union?” And yet that’s conventional practice in Europe, which doesn’t pretend all its constituent powers have identical identities and interests.

Liberalism presumes debate and dissent; these networks presume cohesion and loyalty. Liberalism believes diversity dilutes the strength of beliefs; these networks believe beliefs should remain pure. And because liberal democracies assume good faith, they have difficulty recognizing when a different worldview does not. Thus, the West is not just failing to integrate certain communities, it is being integrated into ideological architectures it did not choose, and doesn’t understand. Suddenly the transformations I felt in London, the rapid mobilization of protests, and the rupture in my academic community all made painful sense.

“Because liberal democracies assume good faith [and mutual respect], they have difficulty recognizing when a different worldview does not.”

Another element of this asymmetry is how crises function within each worldview. In liberal societies, a crisis provokes questions, such as “What happened?”, “Why?”, and “What can we learn from this?” In ideological ones, whose foundation is different, crises are opportunities for rollout, not inquiry. The narrative is set, the action plans are in place, the orchestra of emotions is expertly rehearsed. A crisis doesn’t inspire their reaction; it triggers it.

That is why protestors appeared on the streets in London within hours, why college campuses in the United States exploded days later with matching slogans, and why the attitudinal response seemed harmonized across the world. It was only those on the inside, who recognized that this was not a task for improv theater, for whom this was a reflex, rather than an act of hesitation

The Biggest Weakness in the West       

I think the biggest weakness in the West is that they have lost confidence in their core values and everything that Western philosophy stands for. These days, with the rise of multiculturalism, it feels like a lot of institutions are scared to stand up for the things they believe in because they do not want to get labeled as intolerant or bigoted. In that kind of environment, “being open” is not always positive. Instead of being a virtue, it becomes a vulnerability.

I did not really get this at first. It was only after I personally lost my place in a community that I had really been trying hard to understand. The exact moment this happened was when I acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. It was at that moment that the whole illusion of “shared values” just disappeared, and I was exposed to the underlying truth beneath the community.

Today, I can say with confidence that “tolerance” without discernment, without understanding, and without inclusion is not really a virtue or moral strength. Instead, it’s a sort of surrender to power and loss of legitimacy. This moment was the end of innocence for me, and that I now look at the institution and the civilization that embraced me in a fundamentally different way.

These insights did not come from theory alone; they emerged from years inside Islamic academic environments where I was welcomed warmly until the moment I stepped outside the boundaries of ideological conformity. My story is only one expression of a larger structural phenomenon, which is networks shaped abroad embedding themselves into Western institutions that no longer defend their philosophical foundations. Unless the West recovers the confidence to distinguish between integration and absorption, it will continue to erode silently.

Our culture is in danger, but the shift isn’t going to be obvious. It won’t be announced or declared, just slowly shoved out of place. Key institutions will be overtaken and our moral footing will slip away. So, I first fell in love with these institutions and held high hopes for them. That’s why it was so painful when I left them, having gained an understanding of something that few in the West are honest with themselves about.

I thought I could understand myself and my place in the world by studying in London. Instead, what I learned shocked me, and my world was turned upside down. In the future, Western countries will have to recognize the asymmetry in these kinds of cultural encounters, and quickly, or else it will find out that the institutions it’ll be welcoming won’t be integrating as it expects, but slowly transforming the West.

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: Islam has two main factions or denominatios – Sunni (about 85-90% majority) and Shia (the minority). Here, ‘Shia’ refers to a subset of orthodox Islam.]

[2] Turner, C. (2023, March 4). University watchdog “engaged” in talks with London college over Iran links — Discussions follow claims that the Islamic College in Willesden has ties to Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Telegraph.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240412001735/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/university-watchdog-engaged-talks-london-college-links-iranian/

[3] C. Turner, “University watchdog “engaged” in talks with London college over Iran links — Discussions follow claims that the Islamic College in Willesden has ties to Iranian Revolutionary Guards,” The Telegraph, (4 March 2023)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240412001735/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/university-watchdog-engaged-talks-london-college-links-iranian/

[4] Campaign Against Antisemitism, “Middlesex University reportedly cutting ties with the Islamic College over links to Iran and inflammatory staff, (7 March 2023), https://antisemitism.org/middlesex-university-reportedly-to-cut-ties-with-islamic-college-over-links-to-iran-and-inflammatory-staff

[5] Aarabi 2023.

[6] Aarabi 2023.

[7] Aarabi 2023.

Recommended Resources: 

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 


Tim Orr serves full-time with the Crescent Project as the Assistant Director of the Internship Program and Area Coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London. In September, he will begin a PhD in Religious Studies at Hartford International University.

Tim has served as a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis, and for two years, he was also a research assistant on the COVID-19 study led by Hartford International University. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, Shia Islam, and gospel-centered ministry to Muslims.

He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran. His work has been published in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals, and he is the author of four books. His fifth book, The Apostle Paul: A Model for Engaging Islam, is forthcoming.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4apWecu

What began more than three years ago as a Substack post is now headed to the Arizona Supreme Court. That fact alone should give Arizonans pause, not because of me, but because of what Arizona State University is arguing the law allows it to do.

The controversy began with a required ASU employee training called Inclusive Communities. On its face, that title sounds unobjectionable. Having worked at ASU for over two decades as a philosophy professor, I have seen many trainings and ideological fashions come and go. Universities, after all, are places where leftist ideas circulate freely and enforce a chilling effect on the few conservatives that slip through the DEI filter.

The ASU email announcing the required training read: “The training accelerates continuing efforts to encourage meaningful change at ASU while contributing to a national agenda for diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging and social justice.” The letter tells us it is required to be taken every two years.

But this training was different. Once I began it, I realized I was being compelled, as a condition of employment, to sit through material that engaged in race-based blame and overt anti-Christian rhetoric. It caused psychological harm and emotional distress.

There were slides with the following teaching straight out of Neitzche’s power dynamic: “Privilege is interconnected with power in our society i.e. those who have privilege have the ability to create/maintain social norms, often to their benefit at the expense of others.” Truth is whatever those in power say it is and the only solution is to disrupt the power dynamic and get your truth into the privileged position. There was a module about how white supremacy is normalized in our society by the unconscious bias of white people.

The race-based content instructed employees to judge entire groups of people according to skin color—precisely the sort of racial essentialism Arizona law prohibits in education when funded by the state. The anti-Christian content was equally clear. Employees were told we must “decolonize” from Christian missionaries and be liberated from “heteronormativity,” the belief, rooted in Scripture, that God created human beings male and female.

This was not optional professional development. It was mandatory bigotry. And it was funded by taxpayer dollars.

Knowing Arizona law well enough, I believed ASU was violating it. So, I wrote about the training on my Substack, expecting little more than to register a protest. Instead, I was surprised when the Goldwater Institute reached out to confirm that yes, ASU’s required training did in fact violate state law, and asked whether I would be willing to take the issue to court.

There is no money involved in this case. The goal is straightforward: enforce Arizona law and end race-based, ideological anti-Christian training imposed on public employees.

ASU’s response has been telling as it flails about trying to find a strategy. First, it denied the training existed. Then it claimed the training did not involve race-based evaluation. Next, it said the training was not required. When those arguments failed due to the simple existence of screenshots, the university abandoned its in-house legal team and hired Perkins Coie (the firm best known for its role in the Clinton campaign’s Russia dossier) to reframe the case entirely.

ASU now argues that I lack standing to sue, that even if the university violated the law, no employee has the right to challenge it in court.

That argument should alarm every state employee, regardless of political ideology. Suddenly, I have gone from the conservative Christian professor opposing DEI intersectionality, to the champion of all employees in Arizona.  I’ll take the promotion.

If ASU prevails, the implication is clear: state employees have no legal recourse when their employer violates the law. Today, the issue involves DEI training. Tomorrow it could involve something else entirely.

Imagine a future administration in which MAGA ideology dominates the university, and faculty are required to attend a hypothetical ICE training they believe violates state law. Under ASU’s position, those employees would have no standing to challenge it. The university would simply move to dismiss the case, and the courts would never reach the merits.

I do not expect bags full of thank-you cards from Marxist professors to arrive at court a la Miracle on 34th St. But ASU has chosen a strategy that places it squarely against employee rights. That is no small matter.

This case is no longer just about defending Christianity against intersectional ideology. It is about whether state employees in Arizona retain the basic right to hold their employer accountable under the law.

That is a cause worth fighting for, all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

 


​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

How do you make the case for Christianity? It seems that the burden of proof always falls on Christians, but there are certain aspects of reality that need to be explained regardless of your worldview (even atheism!). The question remains, which worldview fits the story of reality better than the others?

In this evergreen podcast episode, Frank breaks down 10 aspects of reality that support the Christian worldview by answering questions like:

  • What is the cosmological argument?
  • How is the universe fine-tuned at three different levels?
  • Why is atheism, not Christianity, at odds with science?
  • Where do the laws of logic come from?
  • Why doesn’t science say anything?
  • Where does objective morality come from?
  • How did Jesus Christ become the most influential person in human history?
  • Why is it essential to not make hasty generalizations about a whole group or worldview from single incidents?
  • What proof is there that you are in a propaganda war right now?

In the last part of the program, Frank explains why you can’t make firm conclusions about entire groups with insufficient data, which is especially true about short videos we see online (like ICE arrests). Don’t let propaganda poison your perspective! For more information on how to think clearly and logically be sure to check out the resources below!

If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Donate to CrossExamined
Stealing From God
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
You Are In a Propaganda War–Here’s Proof with Josh Howerton
Train Your Brain: An Introduction To Logic

Download Transcript

You may have heard it said that when Jesus cried out in a loud voice from the cross saying “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-34; Matthew 27:45-46) this was when God the Father turned his back on Jesus or turned his face away from Him because as He bore the sins of the world and God could not face Him. For example, the modern hymn “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us” declares this in the first verse of the song: “How great the pain of searing loss. The Father turns His face away.”

Theologian Wayne Grudem states in his magisterial systematic theology that the atonement of Jesus not only caused physical pain and death, but that scripture teaches that God abandoned Jesus on the cross:

But far worse than desertion by even the closest of human friends was the fact that Jesus was deprived of the closeness to the Father that had been the deepest joy of his heart for all his earthly life. When Jesus cried out “Eli, Eli, lama sabach-thani?” (Matt. 27:46), he showed that he was finally cut off from the sweet fellowship with his heavenly Father that had been the unfailing source of his inward strength and the element of greatest joy in a life filled with sorrow. As Jesus bore our sins on the cross, he was abandoned by his heavenly Father, who is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Hab. 1:13). He faced the weight of the guilt of millions of sins alone (Grudem, Systematic Theology).[i]

People as notable as William Lane Craig have asserted as much: “While I understand the sentiment behind the unbelievable treatment of Jesus, I find [that] interpretation unwarranted, implausible, and incoherent.”[ii]

  1. It is Unwarranted
    Nowhere in the passages (either Mark or Matthew) do the gospel authors communicate that God turned his back on Jesus or turned his face away because the sin of the world was laid upon Christ. While this idiosyncratic interpretation is not un-Biblical (it goes against anything the Bible directly states), it seems to be non-Biblical (the Bible does not say that God turned his back on Jesus at any time in scripture). Non-Biblical is not problematic in any orthodox sense (leisure suits are not mentioned in the Bible, but they do not violate any Biblical principle), but to state that God turned his back on Jesus is simply not found in the Bible; thus it is Non-Biblical.

Furthermore, the text (both in Mark and Matthew) never states that Father turned away or was separated from the Son. To read that into the passage, is just that: to read that into the passage. This is a classic example of eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there), instead of exegesis (drawing out a text’s meaning in accordance with the author’s context and discoverable meaning). Reading from the text, we notice that Jesus cries “with a loud voice.” Does he need to speak up because the Father cannot hear him? No, the Father, being divine, is all-knowing. It is more likely that Jesus is speaking with a loud voice so those around him can hear what he is saying. In short, he is speaking loudly so they will understand what is going on (see: Apologetic Value of “My God, My God” below).

  1. It is Implausible

The Protestant Reformers set forth a principle of scriptural interpretation to govern biblical hermeneutics. It is sometimes called the analogy of faith. R. C. Sproul explains:

we are to interpret Scripture according to Scripture. That is, the supreme arbiter in interpreting the meaning of a particular verse in Scripture is the overall teaching of the Bible.

Applying this interpretative principle to this passage, you will not find other scripture stating that God turned his back on Jesus thus resulting in Christ crying out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  If we want scripture to enlighten our understanding of Mark 15:33-34 and Matthew 27:45-46, we should turn to Psalm 22.  Interestingly, verse 1 of Psalm 22 is the line, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ironically, Craig provides insight into this cry of Jesus:

This is thought to be the moment at which, so to speak, God the Father turned His back on His Son and allowed him to experience the separation from God that is sinners’ just desert for sin. This seems plausible; but upon reflection second thoughts arise. In the first place, once one realizes that what Jesus is doing here is reciting the words of Psalm 22, which is the prayer of God’s righteous servant in distress, then a very different perspective emerges. Far from showing Jesus’ alienation from God at that point, his praying Psalm 22 seems to show his deep reliance upon God at this bleakest moment of his life. Moreover, a little later he prays, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23.46). Here he addresses God as his Father.

Psalm 22, in a general sense, is a psalm written about a person who is crying out to God to save him from the derision and torture of his enemies, and then thanks God for saving him in the last ten verses. Given the salvation of the person in the latter part of the psalm, it is not a cry of despair, but a cry of help, which God rescues. God has vindicated Jesus, not abandoned him. As Psalm 22:24 declares, “For he has not despised or abhorred the torment of the oppressed. He did not hide his face from him, but listened when he cried to him for help.”

  1. It is Incoherent
    Not only is the interpretation of God turning his back on Jesus on the cross unwarranted and implausible, but it is also incoherent. Given the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus, who is fully man and fully God, it is metaphysically impossible for there to be a separation in the Trinity.  If God had to turn his face or back away from Jesus (obviously metaphorically speaking) then Jesus would have to turn away from himself, because he is God. It would be metaphysically impossible for there to be a rift in the Trinity. Thomas H. McCall builds out a full argument against the “disrupted Trinity” view in his book Forsaken: The Trinity and the Cross, and Why it Matters. I will let you read his argument, but in short, God’s nature is unbreakable and the persons of the Trinity cannot be broken. Whether one adheres to Latin Trinitarianism or Social Trinitarianism, McCall remarks that “for Latin trinitarianism there is no Trinity without the relations between the persons, while for social trinitarianism there is no monotheismwithout the relations between the persons. In short, orthodox Trinitarian theology forbids a breach between the persons of the Trinity: it is incoherent.

Apologetic Value of “My God, My God”     


One of the values of interpreting Mark 15:33-34 in light of Psalm 22 is apologetics. I find the most warranted, plausible, and coherent understanding of Jesus’ cry as a declaration to those who are standing at the foot of the cross. In essence, Jesus is NOT looking UP crying out to God in despair, but looking DOWN to those surrounding him and citing the first line of Psalm 22. Why is he citing the first line?  Because he is telling the listeners to read that psalm. David E. Garland in the NIV Application Commentary to the Gospel of Mark states, “Without chapter and verse divisions in the Hebrew Scriptures, specific passages were cited often by the first verse or key phrases.”[iii] It is like when a person sings the first line of a song and everyone knows the song they are singing.

Why is Jesus telling those at the foot of the cross to read Psalm 22? Because it has prophetic declarations for the coming Messiah.

Verse 16 declares, “For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced by hands and feet.” This is a perfect description of what is happening to Jesus as he cries out “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” David, who wrote the psalm, did not have his hands and feet pierced, but Jesus, hanging on the cross, certainly had. This is described hundreds of years before the Roman crucifixion had even been invented.

Notice verses 17 and 18: “I can count all my bones-they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” Jesus is declaring, read Psalm 22, it is a messianic psalm, I am fulfilling this prophecy in your presence, so you know that I am the messiah.

This is evidence of Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God as Peter pointed out in Mark chapter 8 when Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?” Jesus is pointing to the evidence that it is true, He is the Christ (the anointed one), the Son of the Living God. Josh and Sean McDowell elaborate in their recent book Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life Changing Truth for a Skeptical World on the Old Testament prophecies of the messiah fulfilled in Jesus Christ:

The numerous and pervasive instances in the Old Testament of description and detail that correspond to the life of Jesus are like threads in a tapestry that is gradually filled in to reveal him as the Messiah. Put another way, the Old Testament can be compared to a jigsaw puzzle. The numerous pieces remain puzzling until they are assembled enough to fill out the intended picture. In the same way, the Messianic references in the Old Testament remain puzzling until patient study begins to reveal them as a picture of the person of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is thus the decryption key for unlocking the meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures.[iv]

The words of Peter recorded by Luke resonate clearly when one contemplates the fulfilled prophecy of Christ: “But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:18)

Resources:

Articles/Books:


Videos:

Lori Burton, “Prophecies of the Passion,”

References: 

[i] [Editor’s Note: The author of this blog did not include the page number for this quote. It does however reflect the kind of things that the purported author would say. It is left, unchanged here, under the good faith assumption that the quote is indeed from the stated source.]

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

Recommended Resources: 

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)    

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

 


J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.