apologetics Archives - Page 51 of 139

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Jesus and Elon Musk

Can you get an interview with the richest man in the world and then talk about Jesus? Our friends at the Babylon Bee did—the hilarious Christian news satire site. Elon Musk, who is a fan of the Bee, sat for a wide-ranging interview last month that lasted nearly two hours. How did that happen? How did they decide what to ask him—including asking him if Jesus is his Lord and Savior? What happened behind the scenes?

Frank is joined by Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, to answer those questions and more. Seth is a student of apologetics who is eager to engage the culture with the truth of Christianity. Frank and Seth discuss some of Elon’s answers regarding Christianity, including the fact that his instincts on free will vs materialism are correct.

Musk is highly influential and just about anything he says is covered as news. Although the Bee’s interview has received almost unanimous praise and about 2 million views, some in the Christian community have claimed that Seth and his team should have been more aggressive in questioning Mr. Musk and presenting the gospel. Does Seth have any regrets about the way they handled the interview? Would he do anything differently if he could do it over? Are there any lessons for evangelism in here? How is his relationship with Elon now?

Don’t miss this one!

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

January 20, 2022/by Frank Turek

The Top Ten Questions to Ask Skeptical Friends

Podcast

How do you get a spiritual conversation started? Can you do it without appearing awkward? Should your goal be to bring someone to the foot of the cross in every conversation you have? Join Frank as he reveals the Top Ten questions that will help you have effective evangelism conversations with friends and even people you meet for the first time. As you’ll see, your goal should not be to bring everyone to the foot of the cross in every conversation. Just moving people closer to Christ incrementally should be your goal in most instances. This takes the pressure off of you by acknowledging that other people and the Holy Spirit have roles in the process too, which will mean you’ll be more apt to evangelize. Your job is to be faithful and to leave the results to God. Frank’s Ten Questions will help you be faithful and move people closer to Jesus. Don’t miss this very practical show!

January 14, 2022/by Frank Turek

What Would It Take To Prove That God Doesn’t Exist?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Atheists who feel certain that there is no God are staking out a rather interesting position. As a corollary of their position, they are of course also convinced that those who believe in God are engaging in a form of wishful thinking, that their desire to believe in a “cosmic judge” of good and evil clouds their thinking, preventing them from following where “the science” actually leads, as they believe they have done. Indeed, many believe that religion is no more than the opiate of the masses. But a bit of careful consideration will lead to quite the opposite conclusion. Holding to atheism may have some superficial appeal, as the theist must concede that it is not possible to directly see or experience God. But pretending to know with certainty that there is no God, no supreme and perfect being, is itself an act of wishful thinking. Granted, completely eliminating doubt as to God’s existence is not possible, nor can we know fully or with certainty God’s character or attributes. But being certain he’s not there? That’s a decisive conclusion to draw.

What reasons or evidence do atheists provide in support of their conclusion? Most no doubt rely on their belief in Darwinian evolution as a satisfactory alternative explanation for how life appeared on this planet. Others might point to the existence of evil in the world and contend that an all-powerful and all-loving God would not allow evil to exist. Since evil does exist, God doesn’t. Still, others will attack the claims of theists, arguing for instance what they take to be contradictions in the resurrection accounts and concluding that all religion is just so much wishful thinking. But “knowing” that there is no God requires much more than any of these rationales could provide. In order to be entirely certain that there is no God, that in other words nowhere in the universe can God be found, one would have to have access to, well, the entire universe. Given the size and scope of the visible universe, this is quite a task. Add to that any aspects or dimensions that may elude our senses and the task becomes even more insurmountable.

Here is the odd thing about such a quest. In order to really satisfy oneself that the universe is devoid of God, the searcher must attain complete knowledge of the universe, for any lack of knowledge could relate to the very place that God is present. Moreover, since an all-powerful God would theoretically precede and transcend this universe, one would have to have the capability to examine anything that exists beyond the universe, a task beyond the reach of science. In short, then, one must become omniscient – possess total and complete knowledge of all places and all things – for only then could they know with the certainty atheism connotes that we are not in fact creatures of an intelligent and powerful creator but the products of mindless evolution.

Ironically, of course, at this point, the searcher would possess the very attributes of God. Proving the truth of atheism is, in the end, a futile quest, for one would need to be godlike to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Now to this conclusion some might object, arguing that by this reasoning, no one could be certain that unicorns or tooth fairies do not exist, since there is no way to prove these negatives either. But such a contention would miss the point. First, while there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of such mythical creatures, there are by contrast many logically compelling reasons to conclude that an uncaused first cause is necessary to explain that which we see around us. There are arguments from the design inherent in nature and the fine-tuning seen in the universe, as well as by the existence of evil. Each individual argument is logically sound and combined they are, to most who have considered them, sufficient warrant to believe that a Supreme Being must exist.

Moreover, the stakes involved are completely different. Being wrong about whether a unicorn can be found somewhere does not bring with it the same consequences as the question of whether there is a perfect being out there who created us. The former is simply a matter of intellectual curiosity. But the latter carries with it much weightier questions regarding who we are, why we are here, and most importantly, whether anything is expected of us by the One who brought us into being.

Weighty questions, worthy of our careful consideration.

How the Chain of Custody Affirms the Biblical Jesus

Podcast

We don’t possess the original New Testament papyrus scrolls. They deteriorate too quickly to have survived this long. So how do we know that the manuscripts we have now are accurate representations of the originals? Is it reasonable to believe that they have been corrupted and embellished to falsely say that Jesus rose from the dead?

Detective J. Warner Wallace joins Frank to answer those questions. He cites a technique that law enforcement uses to ensure that evidence from murder or any crime isn’t corrupted. It’s called the Chain of Custody. Is there a chain of custody that secures the evidence about the identity of Jesus from the time of the eyewitnesses all the way to the fourth century when manuscript evidence was more abundant? Listen to find out. This is fascinating!

January 7, 2022/by Frank Turek

Artless Similarities: More Evidence for Gospel Reliability

4. Is the NT True?

By Erik Manning

While reading the gospels, you’ll notice similarities between the characters portrayed across the different stories. Parallels between the gospels concerning character depictions are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Philosopher Tim McGrew calls these ‘artless similarities.’

In an earlier video, we saw this kind of unity of character with Jesus between John and the Synoptics. But let me give another example with two somewhat lesser-known characters in the gospels — Mary and Martha. We find their stories in both Luke and John. For this evidence, I’m drawing from Peter J. Williams’ excellent book Can We Trust the Gospels?

Mary And Martha in Luke

As we read Luke 10 and John 11, we see that the two stories are very different. The majority of John 11 is about Jesus raising Mary and Martha’s brother Lazarus from the dead. With no obvious link to John, Luke gives the following story:

“As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

(Luke 10:38–42)

If John and Luke knew each other’s gospels, clearly they could’ve simply copied the names, but they obviously didn’t copy their completely different stories. Both gospels give us a glimpse of two characters who are in stark contrast: Martha is a hard worker and stressed out about practical matters. Mary sits and listens to Jesus’s teaching while ignoring her sister’s worries over entertaining their guests. Both sisters have different personality types: one is proactive and practical, while the other is introspective and thoughtful.

Mary And Martha in John

The same two women are seen in John’s gospel after their brother has died. Jesus visits them in Bethany, their hometown. Martha went straight to Jesus as soon as she heard he got there, while Mary remained seated at home (John 11:20). Right off the bat, we see a coincidence in the kinds of responses. Both Luke and John describe Mary as sitting while Martha is in action. In both accounts, Martha is the welcoming committee. She isn’t afraid to get a little fussy with Jesus for not coming sooner, just as she got upset when she wanted Jesus to rebuke her sister for not helping with the meal preparation in Luke. (John 11:21)

The fidgety Martha then tells her sister that Jesus is calling her after meeting Jesus. (John 11:28) Mary gets up and rushes to Jesus. Those with her think she’s going to the tomb to weep. (John 11:31) Unlike Martha, Mary “fell at his feet.” (John 11:32) Remember that she was at Jesus’ feet in Luke. Jesus sees her weeping (John 11:33), we don’t have a record of where Martha weeps.

Mary also seems to be perplexed with Jesus for not coming earlier, but Jesus doesn’t even talk to her. Jesus gets deeply emotional when he sees Mary crying with the others and asks where Lazarus is buried. Jesus seems to be especially moved by Mary’s tears. At the tomb, Jesus himself weeps and commands the stone to be moved. At this point, the ever-practical Martha blurts out, “Lord, by this time there will be a bad odor, for he has been dead there four days.” (John 11:39) She obviously fails to realize that Jesus is about to raise Lazarus from the dead.

Then in chapter 12, Martha is once again seen as serving. (Jn 12:2) Mary pours costly perfume on Jesus’ feet. (Jn 12:3) She’s once again at Jesus’ feet. As Jesus had to defend Mary to Martha for her right priorities, he also had to defend her to Judas and the rest of the disciples. Judas (and perhaps the other disciples) said the ointment should’ve been sold and given to the poor instead of being wasted on Jesus’ feet.

The Same Mary and Martha

Although these two stories are completely different, they both describe the two women in complementary ways. The physical matter of Mary “sitting” and placing herself at Jesus’ feet and Martha’s practical concern illustrates this. Likewise, Martha appears to be more active in both stories. It seems clear from this that both Luke and John are talking about actual people, showing that the Gospel accounts are shaped by eyewitness testimony.

Additionally, there are some practical insights here for the believer. In both accounts, Jesus shows love for his friends. He’s direct when they’re out of line, but commends them when they do what’s right. Jesus also jumps to his friends’ defense when they’re being misunderstood. He weeps with them when they weep and is willing to put himself in harm’s way to help them. As you may recall, the high priest plotted to kill Jesus after Jesus raised their brother from the dead. (John 11:53)

Lydia McGrew sums these points up well in her book The Eye of the Beholder:

“Jesus’ interactions are always with specific people, never abstractions…His friendships in all four Gospels show us something more than a gifted, focused communicator; they show us a man who felt human affection for specific people, as we do ourselves.” p. 398

Who is your authority?

Podcast

As we enter 2022, how do you make decisions about the biggest issues in life? Who or what is your authority? What doctrines are you following? Everyone believes in certain doctrines—truths about reality. Even atheists. These doctrines govern not only what we think but what we do, how we act. Paul wrote to his disciple, Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:15-16). Are we really watching our lives and doctrine closely? Join Frank as he examines that question and the ultimate question, who is your authority? Is it you? Your parents? Your culture? Your government? Your church? Or is it Jesus? This show has some very practical insights and questions you can ask to help you follow Christ and make better decisions. Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!! Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9 Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

December 30, 2021/by Frank Turek

Why God May Place More on Us Than We Can Endure

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Have you ever heard the phrase, “God will not place more on you than you can endure.” Another way of phrasing the statement is by saying “God will not place more on you than you can bear.” Christians are known for such platitudes. These cliches are well-intentioned as they do not come from malice. Rather, they come from an attempt to condense Christian truths into short, memorable memes or Twitter-worthy statements. But is it true that God will not place more on us than we can bear/endure?

A careful reading of Scripture shows this not to be the case. For instance, Paul writes to the Church of Corinth,

“We don’t want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of our affliction that took place in Asia. We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength—so that we even despaired of life itself. ⁹Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a terrible death, and he will deliver us. We have put our hope in him that he will deliver us again ¹¹while you join in helping us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gift that came to us through the prayers of many” (2 Cor. 1:8-11).[1]

Did you catch the phrase in verse 8, “We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength.” From the passage of Scripture, it can be adduced that Paul and his companions were allowed to be tested in a manner that was beyond their ability to handle. This counters the thought behind the aforementioned platitude. It appears that the benevolent God of creation does allow his children to endure hardships that exceed their ability to stand for three reasons.

Affliction Provides the Ability to Comfort (1:3-4, 6-7)

Back in verses 3-4, Paul writes, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. ⁴He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any kind of affliction, through the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Cor. 1:3-4). He continues by saying, “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation. If we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings that we suffer. ⁷And our hope for you is firm, because we know that as you share in the sufferings, so you will also share in the comfort” (2 Cor. 1:6-7). Paul says that their afflictions serve as an example to others. By their suffering and affliction, they are better able to minister to the suffering and afflicted.

Paul denotes a truth that was foreign to the Greco-Roman world in that suffering is not always a bad thing. David Garland writes,

“Suffering comes for anyone who preaches the gospel in a world twisted by sin and roused by hostility to God. If God’s apostle experienced so much distress in carrying out his commission, then we can see that God does not promise prosperity or instant gratification even to the most devoted of Christ’s followers.[2]

Roman philosophy presented a different view of their gods. Roman philosopher Cicero believed that the gods produced health, wealth, and security, certainly not affliction.[3] Oddly, many modern Christian circles resemble Roman philosophy more than Christian theology.

Since God is the epitome of the Good, he holds good reasons for permitting afflictions, even those that overwhelm us. Later, the faithful child of God will realize that they were only able to minister to those in need because of, not despite, the afflictions they were allowed to endure. The late Dr. Randy Kilby used to say at Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute, “You have to get under the spout where the glory comes out.” By that, he noted that the child of God can only spiritually give what they have been given. Thus, the comfort they receive from God during times of affliction can be used to minister to others in need.

Affliction Portrays God’s Strength (1:5)

Furthermore, Paul holds that overwhelming affliction demonstrates God’s strength working through the believer. Paul writes, “For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also through Christ our comfort overflows” (1:5). God may allow a person to experience overwhelming problems so that God’s strength is shown through that person. Paul held out hope that as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also the blessings of God will overflow. Paul noted to the Roman Church that “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). That is to say, faithfully enduring hardships while remaining faithful to Christ produces a wealth of rewards that will be fully demonstrated in heaven.

It is often thought that the most important Christians in heaven are those who have the fattest wallets, the fanciest suits, and the biggest homes. However, God’s kingdom is an upside-down kingdom as fully illustrated in Jesus’s Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the one hand, the story holds that the man faithful man named Lazarus—though he was poor, downtrodden, and abused by the world—would be greatly rewarded in eternity. On the other hand, a rich man who had everything that money could buy but who neither had any love and compassion for his fellow man nor God landed in the most precarious of eternal circumstances.

But why did a good God design the world in this manner? Paul later answers the question in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 12, he describes an instance where he pleaded with the Lord to remove a thorn in his flesh. He begged the Lord three times to remove his affliction. However, the Lord responded by saying, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Consider why God chose Israel. The Hebrew people were not mighty like the Egyptians or Philistines. However, through Israel, God’s power was exhibited to the world (Gen. 12:1-3). Bethlehem Ephrathah was chosen as the birthplace of the Messiah even though it was a small and minute town on the edge of nowhere (Micah 5:2). As the prophet Zechariah noted, “‘Not by strength or by might, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord of Armies” (Zech. 4:6). Overwhelming affliction may be used by God to demonstrate his power through his vessel to others as an evangelistic tool.

Affliction Promotes Divine Trust (1:8-11)

Finally, affliction promotes divine faith and trust in the Sovereign God. Verse 9 is critical in understanding the passage. Paul denotes that “we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead” (1:9). If a person relied only on one’s strength, where is the need for faith in God? For example, with great practice, a person can become a pool shark. They can run the table on their adversaries. The person trusts in one’s skill set to help the person succeed in the game. However, overwhelming affliction creates a dire need to trust One higher. Since enduring hardships with trust in God produces the fruit of endurance, proven character, and divine hope (Rom. 5:30); it is actually a good thing that God allows us to face overwhelming situations where one’s trust must be placed in the God of creation. Certainly, it will not seem like a good thing while enduring the circumstance. But when God comes through as only God can, then trust is developed. Trust is crucial in healthy relationships. It must be remembered that through the process God is still working out everything for the good of those who love and trust him (Rom. 8:28). The endgame is the most important. Just as parents teach their children hard lessons to help them grow, so God must teach and train us to be the people he desires us to be by permitting hardships in our lives.

Conclusion

I must admit, I have used the phrase “God will not place more on us than we can bear” in my early days as a pastor. While at the time it was thought that the statement was positive and encouraging, it does not necessarily mesh with the teachings of Scripture. In some circles, it is believed that God only provides riches, health, and blessings for his children. Ironically, such belief systems find a home more in the camp of Roman philosophy rather than Christian philosophy. The goodness of the Anselmian God—that which nothing greater can be conceived—may require him to place his children in circumstances that are far beyond what they may endure to produce future blessings that would have only come through their trials of fire. Through the trials of Joseph, God led him to success in Egypt which would eventually be used to save his family and nation from certain doom as a famine ravaged through their land. Through the heartaches and despair of Job, he encountered God in a personal fashion and was eventually blessed double from what he previously owned. Through the horrific execution of Jesus, salvation was offered to the world, and death was defeated. With this in mind, the words of one of my mentors ring true. When facing overwhelming trials, rather than asking, “What are you doing to me, God?” we should rather ask, “What are you doing for me, God?” Therefore, rather than saying, “God will not place more on us than we can endure,” perhaps we would be better served in saying, “God will not place more on us than he can endure.”

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2007, 2020).

[2] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 62.

[3] See Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.36, 87.

The Fascinating Origin of Christmas Traditions | with Bill Federer

Podcast

How did we go from the birth of Jesus to Santa, stockings, reindeer, the North Pole, Christmas trees, and Kris Kringle? Does any of this come from Christianity or real-world historical events? The surprising answer is “YES” (well, much of it anyway)! Join Frank as he welcomes the ever insightful historian Bill Federer onto the show to share the fascinating story of how so many Christmas traditions originated and have been passed down to us today.

If you want to see a visual presentation of this, be sure to watch the Hope ONE Livestream from December 23rd with Bill Federer. It is posted on our YouTube Channel.

And thanks for considering us as you make your year-end donations. This podcast, all of the events we conduct on college and high school campuses, and everything you see on TV and online are funded by your generous donations. Your support goes 100% to ministry and 0% to buildings! Thank you for donating here.

December 23, 2021/by Frank Turek

How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This is part three of a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part one addressed the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Part two explained the formation and preservation of the Old Testament text. This post will address issues surrounding the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha.

Canon

Before going any further, we must first establish what we mean when we say “canon.” We are not, of course, referring to the weapons of bygone eras. Rather, canon refers to an ancient measuring stick cut from a reed-like plant which was used as an infallible standard—much like a yardstick. The term was later applied to the biblical texts that the church received in its collection of authoritative books.

The Tanakh

The Jewish order of the Old Testament was and is radically different from how we typically order our books. From an early time, it appears that the Jews had a threefold division of the Hebrew canon. This threefold division is often referred to as the Tanakh based on the three divisions—Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). This final division could sometimes be called “the Psalms” since Psalms was the first and largest book among the writings and was often representative of the whole. Also, note that Jews combined several books. So while their canon contains the same content as our protestant Bibles, their Bible only has twenty-four books instead of thirty-nine. Consider the breakdown below from Genesis to Chronicles:

The Septuagint (250-150 BC)

After Alexander the Great Hellenized the known world, Jewish scholars realized they needed to translate the Hebrew scriptures into Greek so that more people could read them. Legend has it that seventy-two Jewish translators (six from each of the twelve tribes), over the course of seventy-two days, each translated the text from Hebrew to Greek independently, and all seventy-two translations came out the exact same. The translation, therefore, came to be known as the Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta meaning “seventy”) and is often represented by the Roman numerals LXX.

A couple of points are worth noting about the Septuagint. First, this translation changed the order of the books to the order that we are more familiar with today. That is to say, it changed from the threefold division of the Tenakh to our current order of law, history, poetry, major prophets, and minor prophets. Furthermore, the Septuagint also included the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha

The Apocrypha consists of a dozen or so Jewish books written during the intertestamental period. These books contain history, poetry, wisdom literature, and prophecy. Probably most famous among the Apocrypha are the first and Second Maccabees. These books detail the Jewish rebellions and reclamation of the temple from the Syrians. While these works contain much historical value, they also contain disputable material. This is especially true of second Maccabees which teaches that saints in heaven intercede for people on earth (15:11-16) and that prayers and sacrifices can be offered for the dead (12:39-46). Roman Catholics us this last text to justify belief in purgatory and the practice of indulgences.

Tobit, another Apocryphal book, contains a fanciful story about a devout Jewish man in exile who is blinded by bird droppings in his sleep. His wife Sarah, also had troubles of her own. A demon had killed seven of her previous husbands on her wedding night. So God sent the angel Raphael to help Tobit and Sarah conquer the demon. Ultimately, they use a fish heart and liver to drive out the demon from the wedding chamber. Finally, Tobit’s son rubs fish gall on Tobit’s eyes to heal his blindness. This story is entirely fanciful.

Another book, known as Judith, describes God’s deliverance of the Jewish people. In this story, Judith seduces an Assyrian king only to cut off his head during his drunken stupor. We have no evidence that this story ever occurred. Moreover, this book erroneously states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, not Babylon.

Other Apocryphal books include Sirach (wisdom literature similar to Proverbs), Baruch (not written by Baruch), Wisdom of Solomon (not written by Solomon), and additions to Daniel (Susanna and Bel and the Dragon).

Why The Bible should not Include the Apocrypha

You are probably familiar with the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox debates over whether the Apocrypha belongs in our modern Bibles. In the remaining space, I’d like to offer five reasons why I don’t believe the Bible should include the Apocrypha.

1. The Apocrypha Acknowledges that Prophets Weren’t Speaking during its Time

Consider the following texts from 1 Maccabees:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when the prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise (1 Macc. 14:41).

And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them (1 Macc. 4:46).

Notice how all three of these verses indicate God was not speaking through prophets during their time.

2. Jews Never Accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture

Consider the following quotation from first-century Jewish historian Josephus:

From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.¹

Josephus indicates that after the time of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), Jews continued to write books (the Apocrypha), but these books were not on par with Scripture, because the prophets had stopped speaking.

Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud, which is a sacred collection of Rabbinical traditions, notes that “after the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel” (Yoma 98). In other words, special revelation ceased after the time of these prophets. Therefore, we should not consider the Apocrypha as Scripture since it followed after these prophets.

Finally, around the year AD 90, a council of Jewish leaders gathered at Jamnia to figure out how to reconstruct Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. As they discussed their sacred books, they merely reaffirmed the universal practice of all Jews that the Apocrypha did not belong in their Bible.

3. The New Testament Never Refers to the Apocrypha as Scripture

The New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament hundreds of times. Often they preface their quotes with phrases such as “it is written” or “Scripture says.” Consider the following examples:

As it is written: None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10).

Scripture says, They will look on him whom they have pierced (John 19:37).”

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion (Heb 3:7-8).

Never once do the New Testament authors do something similar with an Apocryphal text. This omission is telling considering the fact that the New Testament authors usually quoted from the Septuagint which contained the Apocrypha. Meaning, the New Testament authors were well aware of the Apocryphal texts. They simply never refer to them as Scripture.

4. Jesus Affirmed the Three-Fold Division of the Tanakh

Two quotations from Luke indicate that Jesus believed in a closed Old Testament Canon that did not include the Apocrypha. Consider Luke 24:44:

Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

In this text, Jesus makes a clear affirmation of the threefold division of the Old Testament—Apocrypha not included. Also consider Luke 11:51:

From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

By speaking of Abel (the first biblical martyr) and Zechariah (the last biblical martyr), Jesus indicates that the Old Testament canon concluded with Chronicles (traditional order of the Tanakh). It is worth noting that several martyrs died in the Maccabees. Jesus doesn’t mention them because he didn’t consider Maccabees as part of his Bible.

5. The Catholic Church didn’t Grant Authority to the Apocrypha until Later

The earliest Old Testament canonical list from a Christian comes from Melito of Sardis (AD 170). His canon leaves out the Apocrypha. Origen’s canonical list in the mid-third century also leaves out the Apocrypha. Additionally, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Council of Laodicea leave the Apocrypha out of their canon.

Sometime in the fourth century though, the Apocrypha started to gain acceptance in some circles as demonstrated by some of the canonical lists (St. Augustine and the Council of Hippo) and biblical manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Of course, St. Augustine also persuaded his friend Jerome to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate in AD 404. That said, Jerome prefaced the Apocryphal writings by stating:

Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.²

Jerome made a clear delineation between Scriptural texts and the Apocrypha. Scripture established church doctrine. The Apocrypha was for mere edification alone.

For the next thousand years, the Catholic Church was hardly unified on the Apocrypha. William of Ockham, influential medieval theologian, echoed Jerome’s sentiments when he wrote that apocryphal texts “are read for the edification of the people, but not for the establishment of doctrine.³ Even Cardinal Cajetan, a chief opponent of the Protestant Reformers and appointee of Pope Leo remarked:

The Latin church is greatly indebted to Jerome on account of his separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books. . . . those books and any others there may be like them in the Canon of the Bible are not canonical in the sense of establishing point of faith; yet they can be called canonical for the edification of the faithful.⁴

Despite being far from unified, the Council of Trent official granted canonical status to the Apocryphal text in what can only be seen as a counter-Reformation move.

Moving On to the New

The next post will transition to the New Testament. Specifically, the post will address two key question. First, would the early church have expected more Scriptural books? And second, what clues tipped off the early church that certain books were authoritative Scripture while others were not?

God and Evil

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tony Williams

Evil, or some derivation of it, is one of the more popular reasons people cite when they walk away from believing in God or choose not to believe in Him in the first place. The most popular atheists who have most recently driven the conversation on why one should not believe in God talk about the existence of evil in the world as a reason no god, and certainly no good god, could possibly exist.

The argument essentially says that: first – bad things happen, second – a good god would not allow bad things to happen, and third – therefore there must be no god at all. But how do these philosophers identify what evil is? What is their objective source to label evil, evil?

I would ask you to consider one simple idea that may change the way you see evil; You can’t know what is evil unless you first know what is good. In other words, there can’t be wrong without right. This is common sense, but it must be pointed out to bring the thought all the way to its conclusion.

Rust is a bad thing when it develops on your vehicle. If you were to see a spot of rust on your car, you would not be excited. Rust is corruption of what was originally made to serve a good purpose. Without perfections, there can be no imperfections. Without good, there can be no evil.

In atheism, there can be no objective evil or objective good. There is, at most, what can be thought of as an agreement among the majority of current humans that certain behaviors like murder, theft and adultery are bad because they somehow lower our odds of survival. Ultimately, these standards can change with time, and we certainly see that taking place on a regular basis in the 21st century.

The biblical story, on the other hand, says that “good” is how the world was originally ordered by a perfect God to be, and it was corrupted by evil that sought to go against the order that God established. That doesn’t apply just to morality (murder, theft, etc.) in the Bible. It indicates that all creation was affected by this “fall”. The physical world has fallen into disrepair and death in all the forms of natural evil that we see today (natural disasters, diseases, etc.).

The narrative of the Old and New Testaments is the story of a perfectly ordered creation falling into decay and death as a result of the choice by the first humans to defy God. In order to save the broken from their brokenness and be reconciled to Himself, God sent His Son to die for the sins of all mankind because only God Himself could bring things back into the order that He had set in place at the beginning.

One of my pastors used to use the popular Southern Illinois phrase, “you can’t get there from here” when examining bad ideas. The idea that evil disproves God is turned on its head when one thinks the thought to its conclusion. Like you can’t have shadows without light, you can’t have objective evil without objective good. The best explanation available for a source for objective good is described in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible; God is Good!

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Jesus and Elon Musk

The Top Ten Questions to Ask Skeptical Friends

What Would It Take To Prove That God Doesn’t Exist?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How the Chain of Custody Affirms the Biblical Jesus

Artless Similarities: More Evidence for Gospel Reliability

Mary And Martha in John

The Same Mary and Martha

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Who is your authority?

Why God May Place More on Us Than We Can Endure

Affliction Provides the Ability to Comfort (1:3-4, 6-7)

Affliction Portrays God’s Strength (1:5)

Affliction Promotes Divine Trust (1:8-11)

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Fascinating Origin of Christmas Traditions | with Bill Federer

How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha

Canon

The Tanakh

The Septuagint (250-150 BC)

The Apocrypha

Why The Bible should not Include the Apocrypha

1. The Apocrypha Acknowledges that Prophets Weren’t Speaking during its Time

2. Jews Never Accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture

3. The New Testament Never Refers to the Apocrypha as Scripture

4. Jesus Affirmed the Three-Fold Division of the Tanakh

5. The Catholic Church didn’t Grant Authority to the Apocrypha until Later

Moving On to the New

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God and Evil

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED