The book of Ecclesiastes is notoriously difficult to interpret. In this article I share my best attempt at understanding and explaining what this book is about.
Many have argued that the main message of Ecclesiastes is that we shouldn’t look for meaning and purpose in this world or in this mortal life. While that might be a valid application of the truths found in Ecclesiastes, I don’t think that is its primary message. It seems to me that the main purpose of Ecclesiastes is to teach the following conditional:
If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd.
Yes, one of the applications we can learn from Ecclesiastes is not to look for ultimate meaning in this life or the things of this world. But I think more so the main message we’re supposed to take away from Ecclesiastes is that death is horrific. In this regard it’s a treatise on how terrible, crushing, horrific, awful, and unsettling death is. Death causes life to be meaningless. Thus, it fits into the overall corpus of Scripture in that it helps us to understand that death, which is the result of our evil choices, is terrible and destructive. Ecclesiastes helps us see how serious and terrible God’s punishment for us, death, truly is. The more we understand how crushing death is, the more we’ll appreciate God’s victory over death and the eternal life He offers us freely through faith in Christ.
Someone may say, “Well, wouldn’t Solomon know that life doesn’t end at death, that there’s life after death?” Maybe and maybe not. God’s revelation is progressive in that He has given more details over time. It’s easy for us to know about life after death now because we have all 66 books of the Bible. But remember that Solomon didn’t have the New Testament, and not even all of the Old Testament had been written during his time. Thus, it might be the case that Solomon didn’t know there was life after death. There are even hints throughout Ecclesiastes that Solomon was uncertain about whether or not there was life after death (Eccl. 2:15-17, Eccl. 3:18-22, Eccl. 4:2-3, Eccl. 6:3-6, Eccl. 7:2, Eccl. 9:5-6, Eccl. 9:10). Also, even if Solomon did know that there’s life after death, he might still have decided to write Ecclesiastes to drive home in a powerful way this true conditional statement: “If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd.”
I’ve come to this conclusion about the main message of Ecclesiastes in part because Paul seems to teach the same conditional truth in 1 Corinthians 15—“If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32b). Below, I’ll include the pertinent verses from 1 Corinthians 15 so you can see how closely Paul’s message here is to the main message of Ecclesiastes. I’ll underline the sections that are especially pertinent to understanding Ecclesiastes.
1Corinthians15:12
“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. . . . 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death . . . .32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die . . . . 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.”
In 1 Cor. 15 Paul affirmed the conditional truth of Ecclesiastes (if life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd), as can especially be seen when he wrote, “If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32b). But then Paul pointed out that the first part of this conditional hasn’t been met – life doesn’t end at death. That’s because the dead will be raised. And Paul argued that in light of this, our toil in this life is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58b). In other words, both of the following conditionals are true:
- If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd. Both Ecclesiastes and Paul affirm this truth.
- If life doesn’t end in death because the dead will be raised, then life, and the toil of this life, isn’t fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd. Ecclesiastes affirms this implicitly at the end of chapter twelve, but Paul affirms it explicitly.
Here are various ideas found throughout Ecclesiastes that reinforce its main message, which is “If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd.”
- Solomon explains his purpose was to try and “see what is good for people to do under heaven during the few days of their lives” (1:3).
- IF life ends at death, then all of our effort and work is in vain ( 1:3).
- IF life ends at death, then there’s never any ultimate satisfaction in life ( 1:8).
- IF life ends at death, then chasing accomplishments is futile because no matter what you accomplish, in a few hundred years no one will remember you ( 1:11, Eccl. 4:15-16, Eccl. 9:13-16).
- IF life ends at death, there’s no meaning to our efforts and work because they’re mostly driven by selfish ambition and jealousy of others ( 4:4).
- IF life ends at death, there’s no ultimate meaning in riches because you can’t take them with you to the grave ( 5:13-17).
- IF life ends at death, there’s no ultimate satisfaction in riches because no matter how much you accumulate, you’ll always want more ( 4:7-8, Eccl. 5:10-12, Eccl. 6:7).
- IF life ends at death, then building wealth is futile because when you die, it all goes to someone else, and you can’t control whether or not that person will be an idiot ( 2:4-12, Eccl. 2:18-24).
- IF life ends at death, then you might as well eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no lasting ultimate meaning, however, in these activities ( 2:1-3).
- IF life ends at death, being wise has no advantage over being foolish because the wise and the foolish both end at death ( 2:13-17, especially Eccl. 2:16).
- IF life ends at death, then there’s no real advantage in being wise or righteous ( 7:15-17).
- IF life ends at death, then there is no rhyme or reason to life’s random events ( 3:1-8, Eccl. 9:1a, Eccl. 9:11-12, Eccl. 10:8-11, Eccl. 10:14, Eccl. 11:1-6).
- IF life ends at death, then there is no ultimate justice, for in this life bad people often prosper and escape punishment whereas good people often suffer and are oppressed ( 3:16-18, Eccl. 4:1-3, Eccl. 5:8-9, Eccl. 7:15-17, Eccl. 8:9-14, Eccl. 9:2-3, Eccl. 10:5-7).
- IF life ends at death, then it’s actually wiser to mourn over your mortality than to eat, drink, and be merry ( 7:2-4).
- Death is destructive, seemingly random, and no one has control or authority over it ( 8:7-8a).
- The aging process, which is part of death, is devastating, ugly, frustrating, humiliating, and wretched ( 12:1-8).
Sections in which Solomon encourages the reader to “enjoy life” (Eccl. 2:24-26, Eccl. 3:9-15, Eccl. 3:22, Eccl. 5:18-20, Eccl. 8:14-15, Eccl. 9:7-10, Eccl. 10:19, Eccl. 11:8-10) are not positive encouragements to enjoy the gifts God gives us in this life; rather, they are actually sarcastic jabs similar to the statement “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Of course we should enjoy the gifts God gives us in this life, that’s a true statement, but that’s not the point that Solomon is making in Ecclesiastes. Below are the verses that lead me to believe Solomon is making sarcastic jabs similar to “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” I’ll underline the words that seem to indicate he’s being sarcastic:
There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. Eccl. 2:24
There is futility which is done on the earth, that is, there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked. On the other hand, there are evil men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I say that this too is futility. So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun. Eccl. 8:14-15
Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going. Eccl. 9:7-10
Indeed, if a man should live many years, let him rejoice in them all, and let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. Everything that is to come will be futility. Eccl. 11:8
Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart. Eccl. 5:18-20
In relation to these verses from Eccl. 5:18-20, it’s important to note that a recurring theme throughout Ecclesiastes is people occupying themselves with meaningless pursuits in this life to keep them busy so they don’t think about more serious things like mortality and the meaning of life. If life ends at death, it will be a frustrating waste of time to try to figure out the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. This is because if life ends at death, there is no ultimate meaning to life. Don’t even think about such things but instead just occupy your time with eating, drinking, and being merry (Eccl. 1:13-18, Eccl. 2:10-12, Eccl. 5:18-20, Eccl. 7:13-14, Eccl. 7:23-25, Eccl. 7:27-28a, Eccl. 8:14-17).
Solomon seems exasperated by trying to figure out these deep things about ultimate meaning and concludes it’s a waste of time. We’ll never be able to figure it out, so don’t even try. Just eat, drink, and be merry, and that’ll keep you from wasting time trying to understand what you’ll never be able to figure out. Trying to unlock this mystery will just make you frustrated and depressed so, instead, occupy yourself with eating, drinking, and being merry for tomorrow we die. Again, I see this as a sarcastic jab in light of his overall message that if life ends at death, then life is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd. This is especially driven home in Eccl. 6:11b-12a: “What is the advantage for mankind? For who knows what is good for anyone in life, in the few days of his futile life that he spends like a shadow?”
Many have argued that the main point of Ecclesiastes is found in Eccl. 12:13: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.” However, it seems to me that this is merely the main application of the book, which follows from the actual main point of the book that’s found in Eccl. 12:14: “For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” In other words, if life ends at death, then we might as well live it up, eat, drink, and be merry, because, after all, you only live once! But because life doesn’t end at death, we can be assured that God will judge us in the next life for all we do in this life. In light of that truth, the application then follows: we shouldn’t merely live it up, eat, drink, and be merry, but instead keep God’s commands, not only out of fear of judgment for the bad things we do, though that should motivate us, but also out of the expectation of reward for the good things we do.
It might be tempting to think that Christians, since we know life doesn’t end at death, don’t have much to learn from Ecclesiastes. Keep in mind, however, that one of the major points of application from Ecclesiastes is that it’s a terrible mistake to look for ultimate meaning and purpose in this world. And unfortunately, Christians often make that mistake; I know I do. We focus too much on success or achievements in this life, or we fixate on accumulating wealth, or we try to find fulfillment in power, influence, and fame. This even happens for those of us in ministry. I confess that I’m very achievement-oriented, and so I tend to seek fulfillment in accomplishments like degrees, ministry positions, getting a book published, speaking at a conference, etc. But if I’m not careful, those things can become more important to me as ends in themselves instead of merely means to serve other people.
When we tend to seek ultimate meaning and purpose in this world, we often end up frustrated and depressed like Solomon in Ecclesiastes because, as this book teaches us, there’s just no lasting fulfillment in this transitory life. So, Ecclesiastes can be a huge help in fixing our thinking and reminding us that true meaning is found in loving God and loving others, for that’s what we were created for. In this regard the main application of Ecclesiastes is similar to what Jesus taught: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:19-21).
It’s interesting to note that Western culture eventually came to this same conclusion, namely, that if this physical life is all there is, then life is utterly meaningless. This was the eventual conclusion of Modernism, that we’re merely the result of an accidental, haphazard process of evolution and there’s no meaning to life except to eat, drink, and procreate. This conclusion threw Western culture into an existential crisis in the 1800s, as Ecclesiastes teaches it should, and it was out of this crisis that Postmodernism was born. The key driving idea behind all of the Postmodern movements, starting with Romanticism in the early 1800s, culminating with Existentialism in the mid-1900s, and continuing through to today, is this: there is no objective meaning to life, but don’t despair, you can create your own subjective meaning by following your heart. I’m sure Solomon would find that idea absurd and futile. I know I do.
Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4515xOn
What Does the Bible REALLY Say About Homosexuality? with Dr. Robert Gagnon
PodcastCan a biblical case be made to justify the practice of homosexuality? Does science support the narrative that people are “born gay”? And what did Jesus really teach about sexual ethics in light of the Old Testament? In this powerful episode, Frank is joined by Dr. Robert Gagnon, arguably the world’s leading scholarly authority on the topic, to tackle one of the most divisive moral issues of our time. Drawing from Dr. Gagnon’s landmark book, ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice‘, widely regarded as the standard work on the subject for over 25 years, they examine what Scripture and science reveal about the issue of homosexuality. Tune in as they answer questions like:
This episode kicks off the new year with a topic that many Christians avoid, but one we can’t afford to ignore as biblical morality continues to be challenged in the public square and the church. Along the way, Dr. Gagnon shares how publishing this book nearly cost him his academic career, and why the truth was worth the backlash. Don’t miss the next episode where Frank and Dr. Gagnon continue unpacking the cultural and theological consequences of redefining God’s design for sexuality.
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
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
Website – RobertGagnon.net
Follow Dr. Gagnon on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56
Follow Dr. Gagnon on X – https://x.com/RobertAJGagnon1
Is the Bible No More Credible Than the Book of Mormon?
4. Is the NT True?Bart Ehrman (see timestamp 12:51 – 17:46) and Alex O’Connor (see timestamp 1:12:40 – 1:14:32) have both tried to undermine the eyewitness argument for Jesus’s resurrection by comparing it to the eyewitness testimony for Mormonism’s golden plates. Both Alex and Bart challenge Christian apologists with this question:
Are they right that this is a double standard? After all, Mormonism has a total of twelve eyewitnesses for its key claim about the golden plates. In addition to Joseph Smith’s testimony, eight witnesses say they saw the golden plates, plus three more witnesses say that an angel showed them the plates. There are a few simple points of response to this specific challenge.
Christianity is privileged over Mormonism because it ‘got there first’. Just like Islam, Mormonism tries to build upon the historic Christian message.[1] And just like Islam, Mormonism is birthed from a supposed angelic appearance. But the apostle Paul writes all the way back in c.50 A.D.:
He also writes in 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 (ESV) that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, whose servants likewise disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Moreover, the Bible ‘signs off’, as it were, with a warning for all future generations. Jesus says in Revelation 22:18 (ESV):
And yet the Book of Mormon comes along in the 19th century and church authorities say in its introduction:
The reality is that Christianity’s eyewitness testimony trumps Mormonism’s by the rule: first-come-first-served. Christianity is smart; it safeguards itself against specific alterations of its message, and that is the privilege it gets for being first on the scene. It beats Mormonism by 1800 years.
Mormonism’s eyewitness testimony is unstable in comparison to the testimony of the apostles. The apostles’ eyewitness testimony is unified and doesn’t carry the stain of eventual scandal, faction, and dissension.
Mormonism’s witness history is much more stained. With the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ own official website, we learn that each of the three witnesses – who claimed to see an angel – later fell out with Joseph Smith and never reconciled with him. We also learn that some of the eight witnesses (who were mostly made up of two families) eventually became estranged from the LDS church.
In apostolic Christianity, there is no falling out between any of the key figures such that a key eyewitness like Paul, Peter, James, or John walks away from the church or is excommunicated from the church.
An important principle from Detective J. Warner Wallace is that we can learn a lot by observing the lives of eyewitnesses. Disunity stains the record of Mormon witnesses in their relationships with either the LDS church or with Joseph Smith, adding doubt to key elements of their testimony about the golden plates.
Christianity’s testimony has a supporting structure; Mormonism’s doesn’t. To acknowledge Bart and Alex’s challenge; Christianity’s eyewitness testimony certainly has important evidential value. The apostles were willing to go to their deaths for what they believed, and it is difficult to pin them down for a false motive if they merely invented Christianity for personal gain.
But apostolic eyewitness testimony is only one piece of a broader cumulative case for Christianity.[2] The apostles proclaimed Jesus’s resurrection not only because they were convinced that they saw him alive, but they did so at personal cost and while appealing to the greater metaphysical story of the Old Testament (see for example Peter’s speeches in Acts 2-3, or Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
And we also have non-Christian sources, written within 100 years of Jesus’s lifetime, from which we can verify and reconstruct the apostolic claim of the resurrection.[3] Notwithstanding the argument for biblical reliability, Christianity can still make a case for the resurrection even without the Bible.
Not so on Mormonism. Mormonism’s claim to the golden plates is isolated and does not locate itself within a greater plausibility structure (for instance, nowhere are the plates prophesied about in the Bible). And Mormonism cannot appeal outside of itself – neither to non-Mormon sources nor to archaeology – to verify its eyewitness claims about the golden plates.
In summary
Christians are not guilty of a double standard for affirming the eyewitness testimony of apostolic Christianity but rejecting the eyewitness testimony of Mormonism. Mormonism’s eyewitness testimony can be criticised for three reasons:
By contrast, Jesus’s apostles warned of future false prophets altering their message, they remained committed to unity of faith until their deaths, and they plugged their eyewitness testimony into both history and an overarching structure of scriptural fulfilment and Messianic expectation.
Eyewitness testimony is only one part of a broader cumulative case for God’s existence and Jesus’s resurrection. But Mormonism solely appeals to taking 12 witnesses at their word in an isolated claim. Mormonism’s eyewitness testimony is not the same as Christianity’s.
References:
[1] [Editor’s Note: Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons, commonly identify as a denomination of Christianity. From the perspective of historic Christianity that label however is mistaken since historic Christianity contradicts Mormon doctrine by affirming Trinitarian monotheism, rejecting polytheism, denying any “Heavenly Wife” of Father God, and more. The theological differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity are not just “denominational” disagreements but rather heretical divergence. In this way, Mormonism is better understood as a cult offshoot departing from Christianity rather than a denomination within Christianity. In this blog, “Christianity” refers to historic/orthodox Christianity (i.e., Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodox) in distinction from Mormonism/Latter Day Saints.]
[2] See for example Frank Turek’s 6 Es for the reliability of the New Testament; See also J Warner Wallace: The Cumulative Case For Christianity: Death By A 1,000 Paper Cuts. Incidentally, Wallace has plenty of work on the differences between Mormonism and Christianity on his YouTube channel.
[3] Besides archaeology, the two main non-Christian sources which testify to the apostles’ claims are Roman-source Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Jewish-source Josephus (Antiquities 18.63–4). For more on the authenticity of Josephus’s passage, see T C Schmidt’s ground-breaking 2025 book “Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ.” A helpful chapter on external corroboration of the New Testament can be read in J. Warner Wallace, “Chapter 12: Were They Corroborated?” in Cold-Case Christianity: Updated and Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, David C Cook Publishers: 2023).
Recommended Resources:
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.
Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian – Apostate Prophet Shares His Powerful Testimony (Part 2)
PodcastEx-muslim turned Christian, Ridvan Aydemir aka “Apostate Prophet”, returns to the program to continue his conversation with Frank about theological problems with Islam and his recent conversion from atheism to Christianity. Together they answer questions like:
There’s even more important insights to share, so be sure to stay tuned for a future episode with the Apostate Prophet where he shares even more advice on evangelizing Muslims, the Hamas-Israel conflict, misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians, and why radical Islam has no place in the West!
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
Ex-Muslim Tells Americans The Truth About Islam
How God Destroyed My Atheism with David Wood
Charlie Kirk and Apostate Prophet on Islam
ApostateProphet.com
The Apostate Prophet YouTube Channel
Follow the Apostate Prophet on X
How Does Paul’s Relationship with the Jerusalem Church Present a Problem for Islam?
4. Is the NT True?In a previous article, I offered a simple reason why the Qur’an cannot possibly be the word of God, since the proposition that the Qur’an is the word of God entails a necessary contradiction. Here, I am going to present an equally compelling reason to reject the Qur’an as the word of God.
As I alluded to in my previous post, the Qur’an contends that the disciples of Jesus were Muslims. According to Surah 3:52,
If The Apostles were Muslim . . .
So according to the Qur’an, there is no question that the apostles were Muslims, under Jesus. But what if we could establish that the teaching of the apostles differed starkly from the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an? Here’s an argument to ponder:
Premise 1: If the original disciples of Jesus rejected core Islamic teachings, Islam is false.
Premise 2: The original disciples of Jesus rejected core Islamic teachings.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam is false.
In order for a Muslim to escape the conclusion, he or she has to reject one of these two premises. What possible escape routes might be available? One escape route might be to say that the disciples of Jesus were fooled or somehow mistaken – or perhaps they corrupted the true message of Jesus sometime after this. Or maybe even the 12 disciples of Jesus are not even who is in mind here. This escape route, however, is blocked by Surah 61:14,
Thus, such speculation runs into the following problem: Jesus’s apostles were victors who rose to dominance because of Allah’s support for them, indicating their message was approved by Allah. This becomes clear also when we read Surah 3:55:
In syllogistic form, the argument can be summarized as follows:
Premise 1: There were victors rising to dominance who Allah supported (Surah 3:55; 61:14).
Premise 2: The victors were either Jesus’s apostles or not Jesus’s apostles.
Premise 3: If they were not Jesus’s apostles, then we would see records of these non-apostle victors.
Premise 4: We do not see such records.
Premise 5: Therefore, it is false that the victors were non-apostles.
Conclusion: Therefore, the victors were Jesus’s apostles.
So, when we read Surah 3:52, we can be sure that it is referring to the disciples. Allah blessed these persons. It was the apostles whom Allah brought to dominance and vindicated. But now a Muslim might well ask, “How do you know the apostles rejected core Islamic teachings?” It is to this question that I now turn my attention.
Consider Paul the apostle. Now, I understand that the apostle Paul was not one of the original disciples of Jesus, but converted to Christianity following a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. But I am going to argue that Paul was approved by the original disciples of Jesus. This strongly suggests that his view about the nature of God and identity and mission of Christ matched that of the disciples. In any case, even in the absence of the evidence I am about to present, if we take Surah 3:55 and Surah 61:14 seriously, then Paul’s teaching must have been consistent with the disciples, because the Christianity that prevailed is what Muslim polemicists would consider to be Pauline Christianity – and the Qur’an tells us that the true followers of Jesus were the ones who achieved dominance and became the victors.
Commentators
Am I completely off-the-wall with this contention? No; In fact, I am in good company. Consider the following quotations from respected Quranic commentators:
Renowned thirteenth-century commentator Al-Qurtubi, says of Surah 61:14:
Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (English translation, page 653), the earliest extant biography of Muhammad, says the following:
Or consider Al Tabari’s History (Volume IV, p. 123):
Thus, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq all are led to praise the apostle Paul as a direct consequence of these verses.
Independent Reasons from History
There are several independent historiographical reasons for thinking that Paul’s teaching was approved by the original disciples of Jesus. Among them are the following:
Reason 1: Individuals in the early church, who are likely to be associated with the apostles (Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius) speak approvingly of his letters.
Reason 2: Never do the early church show knowledge of a fundamental dissension between Paul and Peter on matters pertinent to Christology and the nature of God, even though they often mention him alongside the apostle Peter.
Reason 3: Paul tells us in Galatians 2 that he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabus to confirm that the gospel he was preaching to the gentiles was the same as theirs. It is unlikely that he made this story up in order to support his own apostolic authority – because in the same chapter he also mentions the dispute that happened between Paul and Peter regarding circumcision when Peter came to Antioch.
Reason 4: Paul makes a disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:18-19:
Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. If Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul was recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.
Reason 5: Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:9-11,
Paul thus appears to endorse the other apostles and even goes so far as to say that he considers himself less than the least of them. Paul seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians also believed his message to be consistent with the other apostles. This strongly suggests that Paul and the other apostles were generally in agreement on the core matters of the faith.
Paul’s theology was radically at odds with core Islamic teaching, since Paul affirmed not only the deity of Christ, but also the crucifixion and resurrection (all of which are expressly rejected by Islam).
Paul’s Words
For the purposes of argument, I will only appeal to the non-disputed works of Paul, works that all Christian and non-Christian historians unanimously grant were written by him.
In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul quotes what is likely an early Christian hymn:
The crucifixion of Jesus is already starkly at odds with Islamic theology (see Surah 4:157-158). Furthermore, there are at least three reasons why this text teaches the deity of Christ:
1. It says that Christ was “in the form of God” and then “took the form of a servant” – he is thus putting the two in the same category, since he uses the greek word morphé (meaning “form”) in both clauses.
2. The context of the passage instructs us to emulate the humility of Christ. But it is no act of humility on the part of a creature to not seek to be God.
3. Verses 10 and 11 link with Isaiah 45:23: “To me [i.e. Yahweh] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.”
To take one further example, Paul appears to expand upon the shema (from Deuteronomy 6:4) in 1 Corinthians 8:6, identifying Jesus Christ as Lord of the shema:
This suggests, by extension, that the disciples of Jesus likewise affirmed the deity of Christ. It also seems unlikely that they would have reached such a radical conclusion had Jesus not himself identified Himself in this way, especially given (1) the Jewish Messianic expectations; (2) The Jewish concept of God; and (3) the connotations of crucifixion to a Jew.
To conclude, there is no reason to think that Jesus’ disciples were Muslims as the Qur’an contends and every reason to think otherwise. This presents yet another formidable challenge to the Islamic religion and gives even more rational warrant for its rejection.
Recommended Resources:
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/450zGNI
Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian – Apostate Prophet Shares His Powerful Testimony
PodcastWhat makes a devout Muslim from Turkey walk away from Islam in the face of extreme hostility? This week, Frank sits down with Ridvan Aydemir (better known online as the Apostate Prophet) whose stunning journey took him from Islam, to atheism, to Christianity. AP opens up about escaping the grip of Islamic doctrine, confronting the violence embedded in its worldview, and discovering the evidence that finally led him to Christ. You’ll also hear how an unlikely friendship with Christian apologist David Wood helped reshape his search for truth. During their conversation, Frank and AP answer questions like:
Be sure to check out AP’s YouTube channel which is packed with eye-opening videos that break down the Islamic worldview, expose its dangers, and equip Christians to reach Muslims with the truth. And stay tuned for the next episode where Ridvan explains more in depth his journey from atheism to Christianity!
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
Charlie Kirk & Apostate Prophet on Islam
The Islamic Dilemma from David Wood
43 Scientific Mistakes in the Quran
Mohammed Hijab DESTROYS the Islamic Dilemma!! with David Wood & Michael Jones
ApostateProphet.com
The Apostate Prophet YouTube Channel
Follow the Apostate Prophet on X
A Simple Reason Why the Qur’an Cannot Be the Word of God
4. Is the NT True?The Islamic religion claims that the Qur’an, revealed allegedly by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad beginning in 610 A.D., is the inspired and inerrant word of God. Such an assertion, however, is highly problematic, and many, many arguments could be given to convincingly refute it. In this article, I am going to offer one of those reasons, which I perceive to be the most damning. My argument here can be summarized in syllogistic form as follows:
Premise 1: Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not.
Premise 2: If the Bible is the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.
Premise 3: If the Bible is not the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur’an is not the Word of God.
First, a note of qualification. By “the Bible” I refer specifically to the Torah and the gospels as we possess them today and as possessed by Christians at the time of Muhammad in the seventh century. Granted, there are textual variants in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, but the core message of the New Testament remains the same — they are thus immaterial to what I’m attempting to establish here.
Premise 1 need not be defended, since it is self-evident that the two alternatives are mutually exclusive and exhaustive possibilities. Premise 2 is easy to establish, since the Qur’an and the Bible fundamentally contradict one another. The most obvious item of conflict relates to whether Jesus died by crucifixion, denied by the Qur’an (Surah An-Nisa 157-158) but affirmed throughout the New Testament and indeed a cornerstone of New Testament theology. The Qur’an also repeatedly denies the core Biblical concept that Christ is the incarnate eternal Son of God, affirming instead that He is only a messenger or prophet (e.g. Surah Al-Maeda 75). The Qur’an, on multiple occasions, denies the Trinity (e.g. Surah An-Nisa 171; Surah Al-Maeda 73). The Qur’an, of course, repeatedly misrepresents Christian theology on these matters, but this is immaterial to the issues that concern us here. If, then, the Christian Scriptures are indeed the inspired Word of God, the Muslim Scriptures cannot be, since the Qur’an so fundamentally disagrees with the theology of the Bible.
The Qur’an’s Affirmation of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures
For the Muslim to reject the conclusion of the argument, at least one of the three Premises must also be rejected. As I have shown, Premises 1 and 2 cannot be reasonably denied. What, then, of Premise 3? The Qur’an, over and over again, affirms the Christian Scriptures, claiming consistency with them, and asserting that the Torah and the Gospel (the “Injil”), and also the Psalms, are previous revelations from Allah. Consider, for example, the following verses.
The Qur’an even goes so far as to assert that the prophet Muhammad is prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments. Consider the following verses.
One will search in vain, however, to find any mention of Muhammad in any Biblical text. This has left Muslim apologists doing hermeneutical gymnastics to inject Muhammad somewhere into the Bible. All such attempts, however, have proven futile.
Confronted with this obvious Qur’anic error about the contents of the Christian Scriptures, Muslim apologists will often attempt to argue that the Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, or that the “Injil” (the Gospel) refers to a special book given only to Jesus (whom the Qur’an calls “Isa”) which has left no record in history. As we shall see, however, neither the historical record, nor the Qur’an, allows for that possibility.
Has the Message of the Injil and Torah Been Corrupted or Lost?
Muslims cannot consistently maintain that the Scriptures delivered previously have been corrupted or lost, since the Qur’an appears to assume that these Scriptures are still with the “people of the book” (Christians and Jews). The case here is strong and the implications difficult to escape. Let’s take a look at some of these texts in the order that they appear in the Qur’an.
This verse contends that the Scriptures previously revealed by Allah (i.e. the Torah and Injil) are “with them” (i.e. the people of the Book) at the time of the revealing of the Qur’an in the seventh century. If the Jews and Christians that the Qur’an is addressing didn’t have access to these Scriptures, the verse makes no sense. Here is another example which further illustrates this point:
Again, Christians and Jews are witnesses to the verses revealed in the previous Scriptures. The “you” of this verse clearly refers to the Christians and Jews of Muhammad’s day. Here’s another example from the same chapter:
Notice in the above verse the use of the plural personal pronoun “them”. The revelation from Allah was apparently sent not only to Jesus but to them (meaning, the people of the Book). Why, then, do Muslims frequently claim that the Injil was revealed only to Jesus?
Perhaps the most frequently cited verse in connection with this topic is the following text from the fifth chapter of the Qur’an:
How can Christians and Jews judge by what has been revealed in the Torah and Injil if they do not have access to those Scriptures? Again, the text assumes that the “people of the book” have access to the previously-revealed Scriptures. Some Muslims like to draw our attention to verse 48, which says that the Qur’an is Muhaimin (a guardian or overseer) of the previous Scriptures. The Qur’an, therefore, is to be used to determine which parts of previous Scriptures to accept or reject. There are at least three problems with this rejoinder, however:
We go on:
Not only does this text command the “people of the Book” to uphold the Torah and the Injil (which they must have in their possession for the command to make sense), but they are told of the Scriptures that were previously “sent down to you“. Who does “you” refer to? In context, it can only refer to the people of the Book. This is difficult to square with the popular Islamic notion that the Injil was revealed only to Jesus and was quickly lost without leaving any trace in history. Again, this text assumes that the “people of the book” possess the Torah and the Injil and that they have been neither corrupted nor lost.
As if those weren’t enough, here’s one final example:
This text again makes no sense unless the Christians and Jews have access to the Books revealed before Muhammad. The Muslim contention that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures have been corrupted beyond recognition is simply without support from the Qur’an.
Was Jesus A Successful Preacher of Islam According to the Qur’an?
Muslims typically maintain that Jesus preached Islam, but was apparently not very successful in winning converts, because His message became quickly corrupted. Such a notion, however, is contrary to the text of the Qur’an. Let’s take a look at some more verses:
According to this text, Jesus was at least somewhat successful as a preacher of Islam and his own disciples themselves, at least some of whom — Peter, Matthew, John — are contributors to the New Testament. If these disciples were Muslims, why is their theology so strongly at odds with the Qur’an?
In the above text, Allah promises Jesus that He will place those who follow him “above those who disbelieve up to the Day of Doom.” If barely anyone was a true follower of Jesus (i.e. a Muslim), then this text cannot be understood.
This text again attests that the disciples of Jesus were Muslims. Interestingly, the story recounted in the above passage does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but can be traced to the Arabic infancy Gospel (dated to the sixth century) which Muhammad would have had access to. Indeed, I would argue that there is a strong case to be made for literary dependence on this apocryphal book. Here is the relevant text from the Arabic infancy Gospel 36:
“Now, when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from His birth, on a certain day He was occupied with boys of His own age. For they were playing among clay, from which they were making images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals; and each one boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys: The images that I have made I will order to walk. The boys asked Him whether then he were the son of the Creator; and the Lord Jesus bade them walk. And they immediately began to leap; and then, when He had given them leave, they again stood still. And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.”
Notice in particular how this passage ends. Jesus is accused of being a “wizard”. The Qur’an states that “the disbelievers among them said, ‘This is a clear magic.’” It seems probable that this source is where the author of the Qur’an is drawing from on this point.
We go on:
Who are “those who were made to inherit the Book after them”? Isn’t this referring to those who inherited the books of Abraham and Moses and Jesus (the three prophets listed in the above text)?
This text implies that a group from among the Jews believed the Islamic teachings of Jesus. Why, then, did they leave no trace in history? The final sentence (“Then we supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became victors”) is typically interpreted by commentators as being in reference to Christianity becoming the religion of the Roman empire in the fourth century A.D. If this is the case, why does the Christian religion that gained victory over the Roman empire look so different from Islam? The Christianity that became the dominant religion in the Roman empire maintained the deity of Christ and his death by crucifixion, two propositions expressly denied by the Qur’an.
Can Anyone Change Allah’s Words?
The Qur’an states plainly on several occasions that no one can alter or change the words of Allah and that Allah preserves and protects His words. Here’s what the Qur’an says:
Muslims are frequently telling us about the miraculous textual preservation of the Qur’an. As an aside, the notion that the text of the Qur’an as we possess it today perfectly resembles the Qur’an of the seventh century is demonstrably untrue — but that’s a subject for another day. My question for Muslims is thus: If Allah was able to perfectly preserve the text of the Qur’an, why wasn’t he able to do the same with the Bible? Do the above verses not apply equally to the previous revelations of Allah?
What Does The Historical Record Say About Biblical Textual Preservation?
As far as ancient texts go, the New Testament is the best attested of antiquity, based on the sheer volume of manuscripts (between 5 and 6 thousand Greek manuscripts) and the earliness of those manuscripts. Moreover, the earliest manuscripts we have demonstrate the existence not of a single line of corrupt transmission, but multiple lines of transmission with varying levels of accuracy. Multiple lines of transmission defy the possibility of being under the control of any central editing process. The burden of proof lies with the skeptic who asserts corruption of the primitive New Testament texts since the extant manuscripts show multiple lines of independent transmission.
Conclusion
To conclude, the argument developed above represents a formidable challenge to the Islamic religion, and I challenge any Muslim to show me where I have erred. In order to maintain his Islamic faith, a Muslim must reject one or more of the premises of the syllogism given at the start of this article. If he cannot do so, the conclusion follows necessarily and inescapably.
Recommended Resources:
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/44AJqhu
Top 10 Reasons Why Borders are Biblical – Part 2
PodcastDo you have locks on your doors? What about a fence so your kids can play safely in the yard? The truth is, everyone believes in secure borders and as long as human nature is bent towards evil, borders will be necessary.
This week, Frank picks up where he left off from the last episode as he explains what the Bible really says about immigration, borders, and deportations while answering questions like:
The best way to protect America and help people outside of our country is to control immigration at a sustainable level while exporting our ideas of economic and political liberty to other nations. We can’t bring everyone to America, but we should try to bring America to everyone.
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
Top 10 Reasons Why Borders Are Biblical – Part 1
Trump’s Border Wall ‘Morally Good’ Because Bible Cities Had Walls by Wayne Grudem
Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them by Frank Turek
If Life Ends at Death, Then Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, for Tomorrow We Die
Theology and Christian ApologeticsThe book of Ecclesiastes is notoriously difficult to interpret. In this article I share my best attempt at understanding and explaining what this book is about.
Many have argued that the main message of Ecclesiastes is that we shouldn’t look for meaning and purpose in this world or in this mortal life. While that might be a valid application of the truths found in Ecclesiastes, I don’t think that is its primary message. It seems to me that the main purpose of Ecclesiastes is to teach the following conditional:
Yes, one of the applications we can learn from Ecclesiastes is not to look for ultimate meaning in this life or the things of this world. But I think more so the main message we’re supposed to take away from Ecclesiastes is that death is horrific. In this regard it’s a treatise on how terrible, crushing, horrific, awful, and unsettling death is. Death causes life to be meaningless. Thus, it fits into the overall corpus of Scripture in that it helps us to understand that death, which is the result of our evil choices, is terrible and destructive. Ecclesiastes helps us see how serious and terrible God’s punishment for us, death, truly is. The more we understand how crushing death is, the more we’ll appreciate God’s victory over death and the eternal life He offers us freely through faith in Christ.
Someone may say, “Well, wouldn’t Solomon know that life doesn’t end at death, that there’s life after death?” Maybe and maybe not. God’s revelation is progressive in that He has given more details over time. It’s easy for us to know about life after death now because we have all 66 books of the Bible. But remember that Solomon didn’t have the New Testament, and not even all of the Old Testament had been written during his time. Thus, it might be the case that Solomon didn’t know there was life after death. There are even hints throughout Ecclesiastes that Solomon was uncertain about whether or not there was life after death (Eccl. 2:15-17, Eccl. 3:18-22, Eccl. 4:2-3, Eccl. 6:3-6, Eccl. 7:2, Eccl. 9:5-6, Eccl. 9:10). Also, even if Solomon did know that there’s life after death, he might still have decided to write Ecclesiastes to drive home in a powerful way this true conditional statement: “If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd.”
I’ve come to this conclusion about the main message of Ecclesiastes in part because Paul seems to teach the same conditional truth in 1 Corinthians 15—“If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32b). Below, I’ll include the pertinent verses from 1 Corinthians 15 so you can see how closely Paul’s message here is to the main message of Ecclesiastes. I’ll underline the sections that are especially pertinent to understanding Ecclesiastes.
1Corinthians15:12
In 1 Cor. 15 Paul affirmed the conditional truth of Ecclesiastes (if life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd), as can especially be seen when he wrote, “If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32b). But then Paul pointed out that the first part of this conditional hasn’t been met – life doesn’t end at death. That’s because the dead will be raised. And Paul argued that in light of this, our toil in this life is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58b). In other words, both of the following conditionals are true:
Here are various ideas found throughout Ecclesiastes that reinforce its main message, which is “If life ends at death, then life, and the toil of this life, is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd.”
Sections in which Solomon encourages the reader to “enjoy life” (Eccl. 2:24-26, Eccl. 3:9-15, Eccl. 3:22, Eccl. 5:18-20, Eccl. 8:14-15, Eccl. 9:7-10, Eccl. 10:19, Eccl. 11:8-10) are not positive encouragements to enjoy the gifts God gives us in this life; rather, they are actually sarcastic jabs similar to the statement “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Of course we should enjoy the gifts God gives us in this life, that’s a true statement, but that’s not the point that Solomon is making in Ecclesiastes. Below are the verses that lead me to believe Solomon is making sarcastic jabs similar to “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” I’ll underline the words that seem to indicate he’s being sarcastic:
There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. Eccl. 2:24
There is futility which is done on the earth, that is, there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked. On the other hand, there are evil men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I say that this too is futility. So I commended pleasure, for there is nothing good for a man under the sun except to eat and to drink and to be merry, and this will stand by him in his toils throughout the days of his life which God has given him under the sun. Eccl. 8:14-15
Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going. Eccl. 9:7-10
Indeed, if a man should live many years, let him rejoice in them all, and let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. Everything that is to come will be futility. Eccl. 11:8
Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart. Eccl. 5:18-20
In relation to these verses from Eccl. 5:18-20, it’s important to note that a recurring theme throughout Ecclesiastes is people occupying themselves with meaningless pursuits in this life to keep them busy so they don’t think about more serious things like mortality and the meaning of life. If life ends at death, it will be a frustrating waste of time to try to figure out the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. This is because if life ends at death, there is no ultimate meaning to life. Don’t even think about such things but instead just occupy your time with eating, drinking, and being merry (Eccl. 1:13-18, Eccl. 2:10-12, Eccl. 5:18-20, Eccl. 7:13-14, Eccl. 7:23-25, Eccl. 7:27-28a, Eccl. 8:14-17).
Solomon seems exasperated by trying to figure out these deep things about ultimate meaning and concludes it’s a waste of time. We’ll never be able to figure it out, so don’t even try. Just eat, drink, and be merry, and that’ll keep you from wasting time trying to understand what you’ll never be able to figure out. Trying to unlock this mystery will just make you frustrated and depressed so, instead, occupy yourself with eating, drinking, and being merry for tomorrow we die. Again, I see this as a sarcastic jab in light of his overall message that if life ends at death, then life is vanity because it’s fleeting, futile, meaningless, and absurd. This is especially driven home in Eccl. 6:11b-12a: “What is the advantage for mankind? For who knows what is good for anyone in life, in the few days of his futile life that he spends like a shadow?”
Many have argued that the main point of Ecclesiastes is found in Eccl. 12:13: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.” However, it seems to me that this is merely the main application of the book, which follows from the actual main point of the book that’s found in Eccl. 12:14: “For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” In other words, if life ends at death, then we might as well live it up, eat, drink, and be merry, because, after all, you only live once! But because life doesn’t end at death, we can be assured that God will judge us in the next life for all we do in this life. In light of that truth, the application then follows: we shouldn’t merely live it up, eat, drink, and be merry, but instead keep God’s commands, not only out of fear of judgment for the bad things we do, though that should motivate us, but also out of the expectation of reward for the good things we do.
It might be tempting to think that Christians, since we know life doesn’t end at death, don’t have much to learn from Ecclesiastes. Keep in mind, however, that one of the major points of application from Ecclesiastes is that it’s a terrible mistake to look for ultimate meaning and purpose in this world. And unfortunately, Christians often make that mistake; I know I do. We focus too much on success or achievements in this life, or we fixate on accumulating wealth, or we try to find fulfillment in power, influence, and fame. This even happens for those of us in ministry. I confess that I’m very achievement-oriented, and so I tend to seek fulfillment in accomplishments like degrees, ministry positions, getting a book published, speaking at a conference, etc. But if I’m not careful, those things can become more important to me as ends in themselves instead of merely means to serve other people.
When we tend to seek ultimate meaning and purpose in this world, we often end up frustrated and depressed like Solomon in Ecclesiastes because, as this book teaches us, there’s just no lasting fulfillment in this transitory life. So, Ecclesiastes can be a huge help in fixing our thinking and reminding us that true meaning is found in loving God and loving others, for that’s what we were created for. In this regard the main application of Ecclesiastes is similar to what Jesus taught: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:19-21).
It’s interesting to note that Western culture eventually came to this same conclusion, namely, that if this physical life is all there is, then life is utterly meaningless. This was the eventual conclusion of Modernism, that we’re merely the result of an accidental, haphazard process of evolution and there’s no meaning to life except to eat, drink, and procreate. This conclusion threw Western culture into an existential crisis in the 1800s, as Ecclesiastes teaches it should, and it was out of this crisis that Postmodernism was born. The key driving idea behind all of the Postmodern movements, starting with Romanticism in the early 1800s, culminating with Existentialism in the mid-1900s, and continuing through to today, is this: there is no objective meaning to life, but don’t despair, you can create your own subjective meaning by following your heart. I’m sure Solomon would find that idea absurd and futile. I know I do.
Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4515xOn
Top 10 Reasons Why Borders are Biblical
PodcastImmigration is one of the most emotionally charged issues of our time, but what does the Bible really say about borders and deportations? Are borders unbiblical, or do they play a necessary role in human flourishing? And can governments enforce laws without violating Jesus’ teachings? In this episode, Frank goes straight to Scripture to discuss one of today’s most heated cultural debates, exposing how key Bible passages are often taken out of context to support mass immigration narratives that the text itself does not teach.
Tune in as Frank lays out why the Bible consistently affirms borders and answers questions like:
If you’ve ever felt confused by how Scripture is used in the immigration debate, this episode is for you! Tune in as Frank explains why borders and justice aren’t opposed to compassion, but work together when Scripture is understood correctly. And because all ten biblical reasons for borders can’t fit into one program, this conversation sets the stage for a follow-up episode you won’t want to miss!
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
How to Interpret Your Bible – self-paced online course
Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion by Allie Beth Stuckey
The Unseen Realm with Dr. Michael Heiser
Trump’s Border Wall ‘Morally Good’ Because Bible Cities Had Walls by Wayne Grudem
Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them by Frank Turek
But Jesus Never CLAIMED to be God? Actually, He Did—3 Times
Jesus ChristOne of the most common objections skeptics raise to the deity of Christ is the idea that Jesus never actually claimed to be God. Sure the church ended up worshiping Him as such, but this was a later development that was projected onto Jesus but wasn’t something He intended to claim for Himself . . . or so the argument goes.
If you are expecting to find a Bible verse in which Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives and proclaims in English, and every other known language, “I am God!” You won’t find it. He actually did one better . . . but we’ll save that for the end.
Biblically, there are several ways to know that Jesus is God. He accepted worship, possessed all the eternal attributes of God, did things only God can do, and was given titles of deity. (Those are all great subjects for future blog posts.)
But Jesus did also CLAIM to be God, and here are three times He did just that:
#1 Mark 14:61-62
After His arrest, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish court. The high priest asked him point blank: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus replied, “I am…and all of you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Reading with modern eyes, it looks as if Jesus is simply claiming to be a “son of man”—not God Himself. But when set within its cultural and biblical context, Jesus was making a reference to a prophecy in the book of Daniel. This not only identified Him as the “Son of Man” predicted in chapter 7, but the eternal Sovereign Lord of all, who will return to judge the very court in which He now stood trial. When seen in the light of Psalm 110, Jesus was claiming to sit on the very throne of Israel’s God.
Still fuzzy? It wasn’t to the biblically literate Jews who heard him make these claims. In fact, Jesus’ claim to be God was considered blasphemy, and according to Leviticus 24:16, blasphemy was punishable by death. The high priest acknowledged his understanding of this by tearing his robes and calling for Jesus’ execution (Mark 14:63-65).
#2 John 10:30
One day, Jesus was walking around the temple complex and was surrounded by some Jews who wanted to know if He was the Messiah. After identifying God the Father as “greater than all,” He said, “The Father and I are one.”
Through modern eyes, this could look like Jesus was simply saying that He and God had some kind of special connection—that they were really “in sync.” But when seen through the eyes of ancient Jews, Jesus was actually claiming to be of the same essence and nature as God Himself.
We only need to look at the reaction of the Jews to know that they understood what Jesus was saying. They immediately picked up stones to stone Him for “blasphemy,” saying, “because you, a mere man, claim to be God!”
#3 John 8:58
While having a heated argument with some Judeans about their relationship to Abraham, they asked Jesus in verse 53, “Who do you think you are?” To this Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” I AM. This is Jesus’ most explicit claim to deity.
Modern eyes might read this and think, I am . . . what? Rewind over a thousand years to Exodus 3, where we find Moses standing face to face with a bush engulfed in flames. From within the bush, God calls Moses and unmistakably identifies Himself: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When Moses asks for God’s actual name, God answers, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”
When Jesus identified Himself as “I am,” He was not only claiming to be God, but the very God of the Old Testament: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course, the Jews understood exactly what He was claiming, and once again, picked up stones to execute Him for blasphemy.
Jesus was an intentional and articulate communicator and there was no ambiguous language in His claims to deity. The people to whom he was speaking were not confused—they got the message.
Three times He claimed to be God, and three times they wanted Him dead for it.
Recommended Resources:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).
Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4p82ACG