Christianity Archives - Page 45 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Does God Treat Women like Second-Class Citizens in the Old Testament?

Perhaps the most scathing statement ever made about the God of the Old Testament came from the pen of Richard Dawkins. He famously snarled:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]

Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists have successfully persuaded the masses into believing that God is a moral monster.

Sadly, Christians have not been immune to these attacks either. Dating back to the second-century heretic Marcion, people within the church have succumbed to the notion that the God of the Old Testament is radically different from Jesus in the New. Commenting on Marcion’s views, Michael Kruger notes that his “theology was shaped by what he regarded as an insurmountable problem with the Old Testament. He viewed the God of the Old Testament as vengeful and wrathful; and viewed the God of Jesus, as described in the writings of Paul, as peaceable, merciful, and loving.”[2]

Among other complaints, one of the more powerful critiques leveled against the God of the Old Testament is that he is anti-women. Some go so far to suggest that God places women on par with chattel. This critique is especially powerful considering the contemporary feminist movement. But is this critique warranted? Does the Old Testament portray God as negatively as some would like us to believe?

In this article, I will argue that a close examination of the Old Testament vindicates God’s morality with respect to women. I will substantiate this claim in two steps. First, I will demonstrate that the skeptic’s objections are largely based on poor hermeneutics. And second, I will examine some of the most popular “problem” texts used to advance the false narrative that God is misogynistic and establish that they do not portray God in a negative light.

Hermeneutical Principles

A surface reading of a few Old Testament texts may lead some to believe that God thinks women are inferior to men. One reason detractors have reached this conclusion is because they fail to use basic hermeneutical principles when interpreting biblical text. Specifically, critics ignore historical context, overlook the distinction between case laws and God’s ideals, and assume a mere description of an event means God’s prescription of it.

Historical Context

“The first stage in serious Bible study,” notes Grant Osborne, “is to consider the larger context within which a passage is found.”[3] He goes on to note, “Since Christianity is a historical religion, the interpreter must recognize that an understanding of the history and culture within which the passage was produced is an indispensable tool for uncovering the meaning of that passage.”[4] Osborne’s advice is especially pertinent considering the wide chasm that exists between the Ancient Near East (ANE) and twenty-first century America.

If we are to understand what Moses meant in the Penteteuch, we must have some understanding of his millieu. Moreoever, we must remember that Israel was birthed out of the ANE where partriarchy, primogeniture, polygamy, and slavery were accepted norms.[5] That is to say, Israel did not exist in a vacuum, isolated from its neighboring nations. This close proximity explains why many of those less than ideal structures existed in ancient Israel.

With this context established, one readily observes that God does not endorse the broken structures of patriarchy, polygamy, slavery and so forth. Rather, we observe that God worked within those already existing structures, seeking to make incremental moral improvements on established practices.[6] This strategy is not too different from a new pastor who aims to take his church in a new direction, but he does so gradually lest he leave others behind.

A good example of this approach comes from Jesus when talking about divorce. He notes in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” In other words, divorce was not God’s ideal. As Jesus mentions, “from the beginning it was not so.” However, Israel existed in a fallen context where people abused their marriages. In an attempt to mitigate against divorcing one’s spouse for any reason or not being able to get a divorce even though the spouse was habitually unfaithful, Moses permitted it under certain circumstances. In this way, God’s aim was to move the needle closer towards his ideals outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Case Laws vs. God’s Ideals

Detractors also make a mistake by confusing case laws with God’s universal ideals. Unlike God’s ideals, case laws were not universal in scope. Rather, they were given in the Mosaic Law to address specific situations where people had disregarded God’s ideals. One can spot a case law because it usually begins with the words “if” or “when” and goes on to describe a certain less than ideal situation with some concluding judgments or provisions.[7]

A clear example of a case law is found in Exodus 22:1. The law states, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” Notice that this case law does not endorse theft. Instead, it recognizes that moral concessions have been made against God’s ideals (Exod 20:15). As a result, this law aimed to make the best out of a bad situation by prescribing the appropriate amount of restitution for stolen property.

With respect to women, consider Exodus 21:7-11. This case law states:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Notice that the text begins with the word “when,” indicating that God is not prescribing slavery or misogamy. Rather, this case law assumes that the described situation is less than ideal. In this particular case, a father attempts to arrange for his daughter to marry a man with means, thus providing long-term security for her. The difficulty with the text revolves around why a man would want to buy a woman who functioned as both a servant and a wife at the same time.

What we can discern from this text is that the master had been previously married, given that he has a son. And since the son is of marriageable age, the master must be older. Therefore, the most likely explanation is that he is a widower, although divorce is a possibility. Therefore, in an attempt to protect the inheritance for his existing children from his first wife, he makes a special agreement with the woman’s family in what amounts to an ancient prenuptial agreement.

With the special considerations aside, the man was still to treat this woman as his legal wife. Biblical scholar Douglas Stuart remarks, “The original Hebrew text brings out that a woman whose service contract is purchased along with her bride price is still a real wife, with all the protections that would accrue to anyone’s daughter given in marriage in Israel under the provisions of the covenant.”[8] Meaning, if the man married the woman, he had to protect her and love her as his own wife.

The text goes on to provide additional provisions for the woman. First, if the master did not follow through with marriage, then the woman could be redeemed. This provision implies that the original agreement assumed marriage, not simply servitude. He cannot, however, sell her to foreigners.

Another viable option was that the woman could marry the master’s son. If this situation were to transpire, then the father must treat her like his own daughter.

But, if the son marries someone else, and no other suitor redeems the woman, then the father is to provide for her as if she had married into the family. Because most women could not provide for themselves in the patriarchal world of the Ancient Near East (ANE), women relied on marriage as a means of survival. Again, this sample case law does not provide a universal norm. It merely seeks to make the best out of a less than ideal situation.

God’s ideals, on the other hand, refer to his heart on the matter and are universal in scope. Meaning, God’s ideals are his desires for all people at all times. And a quick examination of these ideals reveals that God is actually for not against women. Consider Genesis 1:27 which claims, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” As a result of being made in God’s image, both men and women are equally valuable to him.

Also consider Genesis 2:24 which asserts, “a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” According to biblical scholar Gordon Wenham, it is easy for us to miss the significance of this transition in relationships. He remarks, “In modern Western societies where filial duties are often ignored, this may seem a minor point to make, but in traditional societies like Israel where honoring parents is the highest human obligation next to honoring God, this remark about forsaking them is very striking.”[9] In other words, God placed such a high value on the new wife, that he commanded man to make her his highest priority, even higher than his parents.

In these two passages alone, we discover God’s heart for women. He values them just as much as he values men.

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive

A third hermeneutical principle critics ignore is the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive texts. Prescriptive texts are clear commands or prohibitions from Scripture. For example, God forbids murder (Exod 20:13). At the same time, Scripture describes murder (Gen 4:8). What should be plainly obvious is that Scripture’s description of an event does not imply God’s approval of it. Certainly, God did not approve of how the men treated the concubine in Judges 19 despite Scripture’s description of the horrific event.

If someone fails to grasp these hermeneutical principles, they will misinterpret the Old Testament.

“Problem” Texts

In this section, we will consider three types of texts that skeptics claim portray God as misogynistic. Specifically, we will consider texts dealing with polygamy, the bride-price, and women POWs.

Polygamy

The practice of polygamy is well established in the Old Testament. Be that as it may, God never prescribes polygamy. On the contrary, he asserts that a man should “be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). Moreover, Leviticus 18:18 forbids polygamy when it declares, “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.” While some argue that this text-only forbids incestuous relationships, a good case can be made that it forbids polygamy altogether. As Paul Copan argues, “This phrase ‘a woman to her sister’ and its counterpart, ‘a man to his brother,’ are used twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and never do they refer to a literal sister or brother.”[10] Finally, God specifically forbade the kings of Israel to take multiple wives (Deut 17:17).

At the same time, the Old Testament describes several polygamous situations. One thinks of David and Solomon who disregarded God’s prescribed ideal (Deut 17:17). When it came to Israel’s rulers, however, taking multiple wives and concubines was typically for political purposes, not sexual advances.[11] But again, a mere description of polygamy in no way suggests that God endorsed it. In fact, where polygamy is described, discord and strife quickly follow.[12]

Consider the case law found in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. It reads:

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn, but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.

This case law refers to a polygamous situation which is already under way—a clear violation of God’s ideals (Gen 2:24). Now that the deed is done, how should the Israelites make the best out of this messy situation?

Some might be tempted to think that the man should divorce one of his wives. But taking that route would actually do more harm than good. After all, it was extremely difficult for a non-virgin woman to get married in that culture. More than that, women had difficulty fending for themselves and relied heavily on men. For these reasons, the law does not encourage divorce.

Moreover, polygamy is not even the point of the law. As Eugene Merrell notes, “The matter of law that is pertinent here is the proper bestowal of inheritance rights.”[13] In other words, this law ensured that the husband followed the proper customs by giving the firstborn son the inheritance, irrespective of who his mother was. Yes, the case law assumes polygamy occurred; but that is a far cry from God’s endorsement.

Bride-Price

In addition to polygamy, many of the same skeptics suggest that bride-price laws treated women like chattel. A closer examination of the law, however, reveals that it existed to protect woman and express the solemnity of the marriage covenant. As Paul Copan notes, “the bride-price was the way a man showed his serious intentions toward his bride-to-be, and it was a way of bringing two families together to discuss a serious, holy, and lifelong matter.”[14]

The bride-price also provided compensation to the woman’s father for the work she would have otherwise contributed to her family and served as a financial safety net for the women in the case of divorce or the husband’s early death.[15]

Consider Exodus 22:16-17. This case law reads, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

In this particular case, a man seduced a virgin whom he had no intentions of marrying. His act showed complete disregard for the value of the woman, jeopardizing her future prospects of marriage. Therefore, in an attempt to hold him accountable for his sexual advances, the law mandates that he pay the bride-price and marry the woman, provided that her father agrees. Douglas Stuart suggests, “Since it would be much harder to marry her to someone else once she had been sexually compromised, [the father] was still owed the bride price for her, lest no bride price ever be paid in the case that she was never, in fact, married thereafter.”[16]

While the arrangement may not find its way into a Hallmark movie, it presents the best-case scenario for the woman in ancient Israel. It protected her from unwanted sexual advances, and it provided her with long-term financial security. At the same time, though, the father of the woman had the right to refuse the suitor while simultaneously keeping the bride-price. One can assume that the father and the daughter usually made a joint-decision in situations like this one (Gen 24).

In sum, the bride-price protected women against sexual advances, expressed the seriousness of the marriage covenant, strengthened relations between the two families, and offered financial security for the woman. It did not imply that women were mere property.

Women POWs

Finally, critics also claim that Israelite men were allowed to capture and rape foreign woman POWs. Yet, a closer examination of key texts refutes this assertion. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 declares:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Notice how this case law actually offers protection for women. Instead of instantly raping the women—which was normal procedure among other ANE cultures[17]—the law ordered Israelite men to wait at least a month before getting married and engaging sexually with the woman.

This waiting period served multiple purposes. First, it prevented the Israelite soldier from entering into marriage too hastily in uncontrolled lust like one might see in Las Vegas. In fact, we can assume that this allotted time period prevented scores of unhappy marriages since the law assumes that Israelite soldiers often lost desire for the woman after the month’s end. If this change in feeling occurred, the soldier was to let the woman go. In no circumstances was her allowed to treat her as a slave.

A second reason for the waiting period was to allow the woman time to mourn her family and reflect on the prospect of integrating into the Israelite community. As Eugene Merrill argues, “The idea behind all these procedures seems to be that of cutting off all ties to the former life in order to enter fully and unreservedly into the new one. This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.”[18]

In the end, this law forbade rape of any kind by prescribing a one-month waiting period for women POWs. At month’s end, the Israelite soldier could choose to marry the woman (if she acquiesced) and then have sexual relations with her.

Another difficult text related to women POWs is Numbers 31:17-18. When referring to the Midianite women, Moses ordered the Israelite officers to “kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” Admittedly, this text looks damning on the surface. The context, however, provides explanation.

In Numbers 25 we read that the Midianite women seduced the Israelite men and compelled them to worship Baal. Baal worship, it must be noted, was not simply bowing to an idol. Rather, it included temple prostitution, bestiality, and a whole littany of other sexual sins. This pagan worship involving sexual immorality was the motivation behind God’s command to destroy the Midianite women while sparing the virgins.

The virgins, after all, had not seduced the Israelite men. It was the non-virgin women who participated with the Israelite men in pagan sexual immorality.[19] And lest we think God did not hold the men accountable for their action, Numbers 25 tells us that God sent a plague and wiped out twenty-four thousand of them for their sin. After sparing the virgins, then, the Israelite men would have then followed protocal from Deuteronomy 21:10-14, waiting at least one month before marrying the virgin and engaging sexually with her.

Conclusion

As this article indicates, a close examination of the Old Testament vindicates God’s morality with respect to women. I substantiated this claim in two steps. First, I established that most critics reach their negative conclusions using faulty hermeneutics. And second, I examined several “problem” texts and demonstrated that they do not portray a misogynistic attitude on God’s part.

Certainly, the ancient patriarchal society was far from ideal. But Israel’s treatment of women was a vast improvement over their Canaanite neighbors. And while we might wish that the Israelites had progressed, even more, they laid the groundwork for even more female advancement in the New Testament. Eventually, it was the church, following the example of Jesus, who dramatically raised the status of woman worldwide. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to state that modern-day feminists have Christians to thank for the advancement of women in our society.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 51.

[2] Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2018), 117.

[3] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IVP Press, 2006), 37.

[4] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 158.

[5] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of The Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 60.

[6] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 61.

[7] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2004), 292.

[8] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, The New American Commentary (Nashville, B&H Publishing, 2006), 483.

[9] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary (Mexico City: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 71.

[10] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of The Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 113.

[11] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 330.

[12] Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 331.

[13] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy: The New American Commentary (Nashville, B&H Publishing, 1994), 292.

[14] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 117.

[15] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 117.

[16] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, 510.

[17] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? 120.

[18] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 291.

[19] Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 1981), 211.

Wanda, Westview, and Free Will

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

A lot can be said about Marvel’s first Disney+ series, WandaVision (Spoilers ahead!), from its weird, off-putting sitcom beginning to the broader impact the series’ events will have on the MCU. But, being that we’re named FreeThinking Ministries, obviously, we have to talk about what WandaVision confirms to us about free will.

This show isn’t the first MCU story to address free will, determinism, and human responsibility (see my article “Captain America, Bucky, and Moral Responsibility”). Superhero movies all contain moral themes such as the struggle of good vs. evil, the dangers of power, and our obligations to one another. But no discussion of morality seems to make any sense without first assuming that we have some ability to choose between right and wrong. In the case of Bucky Barnes, he has his freedom overridden at times and is compelled to do terrible things. But when he is “himself” and in control of his choices, Bucky chooses to be a hero, which is really what matters most.

WandaVision begins with Wanda and Vision in a weird sitcom reality, and it’s obvious to the viewer that something just isn’t right. The people of Westview start doing and saying odd things and it seems that they are somehow being controlled by someone or something. Eventually, we discover that someone is Wanda. Due to her immense grief, Wanda creates her own bubble around the town of Westview, the Hex, and transforms the town into her perfect world. She creates her own Vision and controls the minds and actions of (almost) every human inhabitant in town. Vision, one of the few “free thinkers” inside the Hex, eventually realizes that something is wrong and temporarily breaks the spell of some of his neighbors. He discovers that they are not only being controlled but that this control causes them great suffering since their “real” selves are locked away inside of them.

It should be obvious to the viewers of WandaVision that what Wanda has done to these people is terrible, that they are just being used to create Wanda’s own perfect world. Even if the residents of Westview were not internally suffering and were completely oblivious that they were being mind-controlled, that would still be truly evil. Freedom is a great good, and controlling or manipulating people is evil.

But let’s move from Wanda’s actions to those of the residents of Westview. She has made them all to be her perfect neighbors. However, are the people actually being good neighbors? Are they doing anything that’s actually praiseworthy? No, they are simply doing whatever Wanda wants them to do. If Wanda had made the people terrible neighbors who hurt each other instead, should they be blamed for their bad behavior? Again, they should not, since Wanda is the one in control of their actions, not the townspeople. When the residents of Westview were under Wanda’s control, they would not be responsible for any of their actions, Wanda would.

There are many philosophers and theologians who deny human freedom, thinking that we are in some way similar to the citizens of Westview. Maybe we are not being directly controlled by a Scarlet Witch, but we simply “dance to our DNA,” follow our animal instincts, or pursue our heart’s greatest desire. Regardless, if we are not free in some meaningful sense, how can we deserve praise or blame for any of our actions? We can’t. Furthermore, we would not even be persons, but merely an extension of whatever controls or programs our thoughts and behaviors. If I’m a nice guy, don’t praise me; thank God or the laws of physics. If I’m a jerk, that’s not my fault—I was born this way.

Sometimes smart people think dumb things regarding human freedom and moral responsibility. But it doesn’t take an advanced degree to realize that the residents of Westview could not possibly be responsible for any of their actions while they were under Wanda’s control. And neither can we if all of our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are caused and determined by someone or something else. Once again, we see the importance of good stories and how they can illustrate basic truths about reality. In the case of WandaVision, we plainly see the value of freedom and, with further thought, its connection to moral responsibility.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

A popular argument that is wielded by Christian apologists, at both the scholarly and popular level, is based on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, taken by many contemporary scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that goes back to within only a couple of years of Jesus’ death. Indeed, Michael Licona states that “In nearly every historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 weighs heavily and is perhaps the most important and valuable passage for use by historians when discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.”[1] The text reads as follows:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In this article, I want to offer a critical appraisal of this argument, with a view towards evaluating the evidence for this text being a creed as well as the data that bears on its dating. I will conclude by offering an appraisal of the evidential value of this text in relation to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

Several lines of evidence are commonly adduced in support of this text being derived from an oral creedal tradition. The first of those is the use of the words “delivered” (Παρέδωκα) and “received” (παρέλαβον). Craig Keener notes that this “is the language of what scholars call ‘traditioning’: Jewish teachers would pass on their teachings to their students, who would in turn pass them on to their own students. The students could take notes, but they delighted especially in oral memorization and became quite skilled at it; memorization was a central feature of ancient education.”[2] Richard Bauckham notes that “these Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul’s Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g., m. ‘Avot 1.1).”[3] Indeed, the Mishnaic tractate of Avot says “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and delivered it to Joshua,” (m. ‘Avot 1.1).

This view of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being derivative of pre-Pauline tradition seems to command the consensus opinion of the scholarly guild, and is accepted even by skeptics including German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann[4] and UNC Chapel Hill New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman[5]. In agreement with the scholars cited above, Ehrman notes that “the terms [Paul] uses here of ‘delivering to you’ and ‘having received’ are code language in ancient Jewish circles for traditions that are passed down from a teacher to his students: during his studies the teacher ‘receives’ a tradition and then in his teaching he ‘delivers’ it to his own followers. That’s how traditions get circulated among teachers and students. Paul, good Jew that he is, is simply referring to information that has been given to him by others before he passes it along himself.”[6]

I think this view of the text is most likely the best interpretation of Paul’s introductory formula, Παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον. This is all the more plausible given that Paul belonged to the Pharisaical sect of Judaism, which Mark and Josephus both inform us were zealous for tradition (Mk 7:3,5; Jos. Ant 13.10.6; 13.16.2). There are also various Pauline texts that indicate the importance of tradition to Paul (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1, 2, 3; Gal 1:14; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6; 1 Thes 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6).

The question remains, however, whether the expression should be taken to simply indicate that the information Paul is passing on is derivative from pre-Pauline tradition, or whether the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 itself represents a verbatim transcript of an earlier oral creedal tradition. Advocates of the latter view have tended to emphasize aspects of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that appear to be non-Pauline. Michael Licona observes that “with a lone exception in Galatians 1:4, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (‘for our sins’) is absent elsewhere in Paul (and the rest of the New Testament), who prefers the singular: ‘sin.’ The phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ is absent elsewhere in the Pauline corpus and the New Testament, where we read γέγραπται (‘it is written’). Instead of the typical aorist, the perfect passive ‘he has been raised’ is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:12–14, 16, 20 and in 2 Timothy 2:8, which is also a confessional formula believed to be pre-Pauline. ‘On the third day’ is only here in Paul. In Paul, the term ὤφθη (‘appeared to’ or ‘was seen’) is found only in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 and 1 Timothy 3:16. ‘The Twelve’ is only here in Paul. Elsewhere he uses ‘the apostles.’”[7] This observation, in my opinion, contributes only weak evidence to the case for the pre-Pauline origins of the text itself (as opposed to the facts that the text expresses). Every New Testament author utilizes expressions that he does not customarily use, so caution is warranted before drawing firm conclusions about authorship from word choice, especially when the relevant text is as short as this.

A second argument that this text is of pre-Pauline origin is that “we can see parallelism in the text: the first and third lines are longer, have the same construction (verb, closer modification, proved by the Scriptures) and are followed by a short sentence introduced by ὅτι.”[8] It is possible that Paul constructed the parallelism of this text himself, since it is only here, out of all of Paul’s epistles, that he offers a summary of the key elements of the gospel, presumably with the intent that his readers commit them to memory. Indeed, Paul himself at times constructs his own parallelisms (e.g. Rom 1:26-27; 1 Thes 2:3,5,10). Thus, it is not entirely implausible that he would create this parallelism for ease of memorization, though one may say in response that the parallelism is somewhat less predicted on the hypothesis of Pauline origin than on the hypothesis that this text represents a pre-Pauline creed. The text, with its parallelisms and rhythmic style, does indeed sound like a creed up until verse 8, wherein we read, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” This verse, I would argue constitute some evidence against the text being of creedal origin, though this is not by any means decisive since Paul could plausibly have transitioned from something more formal into the informal addition of himself to the end of the list. Paul also adds in verse 6 concerning the five hundred, “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” This too does not comport well with the claimed creed-like structure of these verses, though it may be Paul’s own editorial insertion into the text of the creed. Thus, the parallelist structure of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 may, again, be taken only as weak evidence in favour of the text being of pre-Pauline origin.

The German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann has argued that “within the report of the first appearance of Christ to Cephas in verse 5, the clause ‘he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve’ can be detached as an independent unit from the tradition handed down by Paul during his founding visit. This is suggested not only by the parallel to Luke 24:34 (‘the Lord was really raised and appeared to Simon’), but by Mark 16:7 (‘tell his disciples and Peter’).”[9] Concerning the parallelism of “he appeared” in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, Lüdemann suggests that this “could be explained in two ways: either Paul was modeling his language in verse 7 on verse 5, which employed a tradition about an appearance to James and to al the apostles, or Paul was reproducing two independent traditions. In the latter case either the one formula had already been modeled earlier on the basis of the other or the two formulae have a common origin. In either case, it is clear that verses 5 and 7 both derive from earlier tradition.”[10] Thus, establishing the actual historical origins of this text is more complex than often made out, and more than one plausible scenario exists.

Some scholars have observed a correspondence between 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and Paul’s words in Acts 13-28-31 that may support the text of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 being derivative of an earlier creedal tradition.[11] Acts 13:28-31 indicates that,

28 And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.

Bart Ehrman even notes that “Possibly this is the tradition that lies behind 1 Corinthian 15:4 as well: ‘and he was buried.’”[12] If this is so, then 1 Corinthians 15:4 may indeed indicate that Jesus buried in a tomb (as opposed to a common grave), a point that is often contested.[13]

Another line of evidence is Paul’s use of κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω to describe the tradition.[14] Paul writes that he is going to remind them of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε (“the gospel I preached to you, which you received”). He also uses, when describing this gospel, the phrase τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν (“the word I preached to you”). When referring back to the content of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul uses οὕτως κηρύσσομεν (“we preach in this way”) (1 Cor 15:11; c.f. 1 Cor 15:12, 14). Licona states that “Κήρυγμα/κηρύσσω is a more formal term than εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω and can refer to an ‘official or public announcement,’ though this need not be the case. It is interesting, therefore, to see that after citing the tradition, Paul changes his description of his message and the activity of imparting it from εὐαγγέλιον͂εὐαγγελίζω το κήρυγμᾶκηρύσσω.”[15] Licona is correct that the noun Κήρυγμα and its related verb κηρύσσω can refer to an official or public announcement (e.g. LXX 2 Ch 30:5; EsdA 9:3; Pr 9:3; Jon 3:2), though it need not necessarily. However, even if this is the intended meaning in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, I do not think this at all implies the verbatim proclamation of a prescribed text, such as a creedal statement. It could simply be that the content of the gospel message (which is summarized by 1 Cor 15:3-7) was publicly proclaimed. In fact, Paul uses both of those words frequently in his letters to refer to the preaching of the gospel (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 1:21, 23, 2:4, 9:27; 2 Co 1:19, 4:5, 11:4; Gal 2:2, 5:11; Phil 1:15; Col 1:23; 1 Thes 2:9, 3:16, 4:2; 1 Tim 3:16, 4:2; 2 Tim 4:17; Tit 2:3; 1 Pet 3:19; Rev 5:2). Thus, his use the term in 1 Corinthians 15 is not at all surprising, and I do not judge that I can even call this weak evidence supporting 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Probably the weakest argument I have encountered for the pre-Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the use of the Aramaic name Κηφᾶς (transliterated into Greek) for Peter.[16] Since Κηφᾶς is the transliteration of an Aramaic name into Greek, so the argument goes, this is suggestive of an early origin. However, of the ten times in his letters that Paul mentions Peter, five of those he uses the name Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Gal 2:9). In fact, the Nestle-Aland text also uses Κηφᾶς in an additional two of those texts (Gal 1:18, 2:11). Of the four times Peter is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, every single one of them uses the name Κηφᾶς. Thus, this argument too I can not even consider to contribute weak evidence to the case for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being a pre-Pauline creedal tradition.

Of the arguments summarized above, the strongest in my opinion are the use of “delivered” and “received” (1 Cor 15:3) combined with the rhythmic structure and parallelisms of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Given that these features seem at least somewhat more probable on the hypothesis that this text represents a creedal tradition than on its falsehood (and the absence of stronger disconfirming evidence), these data are, in my opinion sufficient to make the pre-Pauline origins of this text somewhat more probable than not, though this conclusion is by no means as certain as it is often implied. What does seem to be secure, however, is that Paul received information from the Jerusalem apostles, which is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. The only question that is still uncertain is whether Paul is summarizing that information in his own words or whether he is quoting from an earlier formalized creedal tradition that preceded his own writing.

One objection that is sometimes raised is that Paul indicates elsewhere that “I did not receive [the gospel] from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:12).[17] If Paul received the gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ, so the argument goes, then how can Paul be passing on tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which he had previously received from the other apostles? However, even though Paul received the gospel by the revelation of Christ Jesus, it does not follow that he did not receive a creed tradition containing that gospel from the Jerusalem apostles. Moreover, if Paul had not known from other people that Jesus had been raised from the dead, then he would not have known who spoke to him on the road to Damascus, or for that matter what was meant by “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). The appearances that Paul lists in 1 Cor 15:3-7 (to Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, and all the apostles) were almost certainly learned about from his conversations with other people.

The Date of the Creed

Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem”[18] since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death.[19]

Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19).[20] Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.”[21] Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10).

These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well. The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

With so much lack of certainty about whether 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represents a pre-Pauline creedal tradition and the precise dating of such a tradition, is this text of any evidential value to the case for the resurrection? I would argue that the answer is ‘yes’. Regardless of whether this text is pre-Pauline or Paul’s own literary construction, what is well supported is that those verses summarize information that Paul had received from the Jerusalem church leaders. The text thus gives one a window of insight into what was being proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles, in particular Peter and James, whom we know Paul was personally acquainted with. This is further supported by Paul’s words in verses 8-11:

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Note what Paul says in verse 11: “Whether then it was I or they [i.e. the Jerusalem apostles], so we preach and so you believed.” Paul thus seems to assume that the Corinthian Christians, to whom he was writing, understand his summary of the gospel to be consistent with what had already been preached by the Jerusalem apostles. We also know independently that the Corinthian church were acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12). Thus, it is probable that the message Paul communicates in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is consistent with what was being preached by Peter, James and the Twelve. Michael Licona agrees. He notes, “even if Paul received the tradition embedded in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 from someone outside of the Jerusalem leadership, his constant interaction with these leaders in and outside of Jerusalem coupled with his high regard for tradition virtually guarantees that the details of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 are precisely in line with what the Jerusalem leadership was preaching (1 Cor 15:11). We have what amounts to a certifiably official teaching of the disciples on the resurrection of Jesus.”[22] Thus, irrespective of the question of whether Paul is passing on an oral creedal tradition, and when and from whom he may have received it, this text does provide sufficient reason to conclude that the apostles before Paul were claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. The text is also of evidential value since Paul provides his own eyewitness testimony to have encountered the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

One important caveat I wish to make here is that we ought not be overly-reliant on 1 Corinthians 15 to build our case for the resurrection, since it is difficult to make a robust case, as I have done elsewhere [23], for the rationality of the apostles’ belief to have witnessed the risen Christ unless we are able to determine what the resurrection appearances were like. The report in 1 Corinthians 15 is consistent with a floating, non-speaking Jesus, or with a Jesus who appears only once, briefly, and speaks only a few words. The case for the resurrection therefore cannot and should not be divorced from a robust case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospels and Acts and their grounding in credible eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore, a popular criticism of using 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in arguments for the resurrection is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both.[24] Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? Again, if we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone, though the Pauline evidence certainly inclines that way, in particular Paul’s statement, ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί (“and last of all as to one untimely born he was seen also by me”). This, it may be argued, draws a separation between his experience from that of those who were apostles before him. Kirk MacGregor notes, “This observation rules out the possibility that Paul is here attempting to convey that he experienced Christ in a manner qualitatively identical to those listed in the creed. But Paul moves one step further. By placing ὤφθη κἀμοί (‘he was seen also by me’) after ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, Paul explicitly shows ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to be a qualifying phrase which modifies ὤφθη κἀμοί rather than a temporal indicator. Hence Paul uses ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι to explain how the character of his appearance was qualitatively distinct from those recounted in the primitive tradition. While the previous disciples ‘saw’ Jesus in the normal fashion, Paul admits to have ‘as to one untimely born seen’ Jesus—namely, to have seen him in an abnormal fashion.”[25] This evidence is surely suggestive but it does not seem to me to be conclusive. Paul may simply be indicating that he had an encounter with the risen Lord despite the fact that Paul had not known Jesus during his earthly ministry.

How, then, can this case be made robustly? It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul. Thus, the case from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 should be complemented with a robust case for the author of Luke-Acts being a travelling companion of Paul. I have articulated this argument in detail elsewhere.[26]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the balance of evidence is in favor of the text in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 being derivative from a pre-Pauline credal tradition, though it is not nearly as conclusive as it is often portrayed as being. While it is plausible that Paul received this tradition upon his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, this is by no means certain, and any attempt to pin down the precise date is traipsing into highly speculative territory. Nonetheless, the text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves. Having thus eliminated the scenario that the claim of encounters with the risen Jesus arose much later and did not originate with the original apostolic eyewitnesses, we can move towards examining whether the claim originated as a result of deliberate deception on the part of the apostles, their being honestly mistaken, or because Jesus really was raised bodily from the dead, a topic that I have discussed in detail elsewhere.[27]

Footnotes

[1] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 223.

[2] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Ilinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

[3] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Michigan: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 264-265.

[4] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[5] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[6] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle. Also see Bart Ehrman, “The Core of Paul’s Gospel,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, June 2, 2016 https://ehrmanblog.org/the-core-of-pauls-gospel/

[7] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 224-225.

[8] Ibid., 226.

[9] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), Kindle.

[10] Ibid.

[11] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010).

[12] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2014), Kindle.

[13] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 336.

[14] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gary Habermas and Michael L. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004), 221.

[17] John W. Loftus, “The Resurrection of Jesus Never Took Place,” in The Case Against Miracles, ed. John Loftus (Hypatia Press, 2019), 335.

[18] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 226.

[19] Ibid., 229.

[20] Ibid., 230.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Ilinois; Notingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 232.

[23] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[24] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[25] Kirk R. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006):225-234.

[26] Jonathan McLatchie, “The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts”, Jonathan McLatchie Website, October 5, 2020, https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-evidential-contribution-of-luke-acts/

[27] Ibid.

Resurrection Defense Series: The Testimony of Women

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

The month of March has been designated as Women’s History Month. It has often been erroneously suggested that the Bible is misogynistic in its portrayal of women. While this article cannot combat every claim of misogyny weighed against the Scriptures, it is ironic that it was the early testimony of women, those that skeptics claim the Scripture dismisses, that strongly suggests the high historical probability of the resurrection event. This article will look at four ways that the early testimony of women serves as a defense for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Before doing so, let us first look at what the Gospels state concerning the women’s testimony that Jesus had risen.

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb. ²There was a violent earthquake, because an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and approached the tomb. He rolled back the stone and was sitting on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. ⁴The guards were so shaken by fear of him that they became like dead men. ⁵The angel told the women, “Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. ⁶He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there.’ Listen, I have told you.” ⁸So, departing quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell his disciples the news. ⁹Just then Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came up, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. ¹⁰Then Jesus told them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me there” (Matt. 28:1-10).

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him. ²Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb at sunrise. ³They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance to the tomb for us?” ⁴Looking up, they noticed that the stone—which was very large—had been rolled away. ⁵When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; they were alarmed. ⁶“Don’t be alarmed,” he told them. “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they put him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; you will see him there just as he told you.’ ” ⁸They went out and ran from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid” (Mark 16:1-8).

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared. ²They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. ³They went in but did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁴While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men stood by them in dazzling clothes. ⁵So the women were terrified and bowed down to the ground. “Why are you looking for the living among the dead?” asked the men. ⁶“He is not here, but he has risen! Remember how he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee, ⁷saying, ‘It is necessary that the Son of Man be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day’⁸And they remembered his words. ⁹Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. ¹⁰Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. ¹¹But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. ¹²Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths.^, So he went away, amazed at what had happened (Luke 24:1-12).

On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. ²So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” ³At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. ⁴The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. ⁵Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. ⁶Then, following him, Simon Peter also came. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. ⁷The wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. ⁸The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then also went in, saw, and believed. ⁹For they did not yet understand the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. ¹⁰Then the disciples returned to the place where they were staying. ¹¹But Mary stood outside the tomb, crying. As she was crying, she stooped to look into the tomb. ¹²She saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus’s body had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. ¹³They said to her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “Because they’ve taken away my Lord,” she told them, “and I don’t know where they’ve put him.” ¹⁴Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus. ¹⁵“Woman,” Jesus said to her, “why are you crying? Who is it that you’re seeking?” Supposing he was the gardener, she replied, “Sir, if you’ve carried him away, tell me where you’ve put him, and I will take him away.” ¹⁶Jesus said to her, “Mary.” Turning around, she said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!”—which means “Teacher.” ¹⁷“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus told her, “since I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” ¹⁸Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her (John 20:1-18).

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

A woman’s testimony did not hold much weight in an ancient court of law. That is not to say that a woman held no importance in court. Nonetheless, if a woman’s testimony contradicted a man’s testimony, the man’s testimony was generally accepted unless two women both testified against the man. Even then, there was no guarantee that the woman’s testimony would be accepted (see m. Ned. 11:10). In rabbinical tradition—not the law of God—a woman could not participate in the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. She was not even permitted to cite the Shema, the greatest commandment found in Deut. 6:5 (Ber. 3:3). Yet it was women who first saw the risen Jesus.

Ironically, the women’s testimony of the resurrection is missing in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Thomas Oden holds that since the women’s testimony was not permitted in the official court of law, the creed was deliberately shortened to provide the best evidence for the Christian faith (Oden, Word of Life, 497-498). If that is the case, then why was their testimony included in the biographies of Jesus? The answer—Because it was true! The women’s testimony is quite bizarre if it were not a genuine event. If one were to invent a story in the first century, the first witnesses would certainly not be women. They would have been the last considered for such a role. Jesus’s great love for his female disciples is found by his choice in disclosing the resurrection event—the greatest miracle in history—first to his female disciples.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

Women serving as the first witnesses of the resurrection provide several embarrassing factors to consider. Historically, embarrassing details verify the truthful nature of a story. A person will not willingly expose things that intentionally embarrass its authors or primary ambassadors. However, when it comes to the resurrection story, the male disciples were embarrassed by the testimony of women on multiple fronts. First, the male disciples were embarrassed by the devotion of the women. None of the male disciples offered Jesus a proper burial. It was the female disciples who took it upon themselves to anoint the body of Jesus. In the hurried events of Good Friday, Jesus’s body was rushed into the tomb and was not given a proper Jewish burial. This was unacceptable in ancient Judaism. Where were the men? The women were concerned as they approached the tomb about how they would get inside since the stone was so large because they had no male counterparts joining them. Were the men still asleep? As anyone who grew up in church knows—if it were not for the women, nothing would get accomplished.

Second, the male disciples were embarrassed by the women being the first ambassadors of the resurrection. The women were essentially the very first evangelists of the resurrection message. Jesus told them to tell the disciples about his appearance (John 20:17).

Third, and here it gets worse, a woman with a checkered past was appointed as the first witness of the resurrection. Some have postulated through the centuries that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In AD 591, Pope Gregory the Great taught, “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.” Contrary to Gregory the Great, there is no biblical evidence to suggest that Mary was a prostitute. However, the Gospels do note that Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven demons until Jesus cast them out (Luke 8:1-3). So, wait! A woman who had been possessed by seven demons—an indication of the severity of her possession—was chosen as the first witness?!? This makes absolutely no sense unless it were in fact true. If a person were going to invent a story, Mary Magdalene would be the LAST person one would choose as the story’s primary witness.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The third point is simple. Historically speaking, the more sources that are found for an event, the higher the probability that the event in question occurred. The early testimony of women is found in all four Gospels. Regardless of how one handles the issue of sharing among the Gospel writers, these stories are independent as noted by the differences in their presentation. All the Gospels serve as four independent sources. This is profound given the absence of women in 1 Cor. 15:3-9. It is unspeakably absurd to invent the women as the first witnesses and then plug them into all four biographies of Jesus unless some historical basis was found in the story. The women’s eyewitness accounts hold a strong historical case for its authenticity, which further verifies the legitimacy of the resurrection event.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

While this article has been focused on the historical validation of the resurrection event, one cannot bypass the high level of importance that Jesus placed on his female disciples. Jesus was revolutionary in his elevation of women. Because of the value he placed on women, his female disciples played a significant role in the early ministry of the church (Eckman, ECH, 14). Women were among his early financial contributors (Luke 8:3). To the shock of everyone in attendance, Jesus permitted Mary to sit at his feet, an honor that most rabbis only gave to men (Luke 10:39). While women were not permitted to read the Torah in the synagogue, they were in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus not only highly valued women, but he also gave some of the women who followed him the highest honor imaginable—they were the first witnesses of the risen Jesus!

Conclusion: Norman Geisler says it best, “It is an unmistakable sign of the authenticity of the record that, in a male-dominated culture, Jesus first appeared to a woman” (Geisler, “Resurrection, Evidence For,” BEOCA, 651). The church has often dropped the ball when giving women the value that Jesus affords them. Nonetheless, the testimony of women stands front and center as evidence that Jesus really did walk out of the tomb alive on the first Easter Sunday. The most unlikely individuals to hold value in the first century found themselves as the ambassadors of the greatest message ever given. Jesus had risen, and the risen Jesus chose to unveil this radical new truth to those who had often been neglected and considered unimportant. Isn’t that just like Jesus? Should we have expected anything else?

Sources

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Geisler, Norman L. “Resurrection, Evidence For.” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Mishnah Berakhot 3:3 (sefaria.org).

Oden, Thomas C. The Word of Life: Systematic Theology. Volume Two. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.

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

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Fazale Rana

At last. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

The ride has been long and dark. And there is still a ways to go before we exit to the other side, but we will arrive there soon.

The emergency approval and first distributions of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines give us all hope that we will soon see an end to the COVID-19 pandemic and return to some semblance of normalcy by the end of 2021.

As a biochemist, I find it a remarkable achievement. Within the span of months, we have gone from experiencing the first cases of COVID-19 in the US (most likely in early 2020) to having two vaccines that appear to be highly effective against the SARS-2 coronaviruses less than a year later. Prior to this accomplishment, the fastest that we have been able to develop a new vaccine is four years.

This success reflects the resolve of governments around the world who have worked collaboratively with public and private research teams. It also reflects the hard work of life scientists and biomedical investigators who have labored tirelessly around the clock to understand the biology of the SARS-2 coronavirus, translating this knowledge into public health policies, treatments for COVID-19, and ultimately, vaccines to prevent infections and halt the transmission of the virus.

As a Christian, I see a divine hand in the rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccines, reflecting God’s providential care for humanity.

To fully unpack this theological idea, I need to begin by describing the science that undergirds the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and offer a brief history of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines belong to a category called mRNA vaccines. The chief component of these vaccines is a laboratory-made mRNA designed to encode a viral protein, usually one that resides on the virus surface. (Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines contain mRNA that encodes the SARS-2 coronavirus spike protein. This protein coats the virus surface and plays the central role in the binding and entry of the virus into the host cell.)

Vaccines made from mRNA were first proposed by life scientists in the early 1990s. The principle behind mRNA vaccines is straightforward. Once injected into the patient, the mRNA finds its way into immune cells, where the cell’s machinery translates the synthetic viral mRNA into copies of the viral protein. Some of these newly made proteins are broken down inside the cell, with the fragments becoming incorporated into major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I). The MHC-I is transported to the cell surface, becoming embedded in the plasma membrane. Here it presents the viral protein fragment to the immune system, triggering a response that leads to the production of antibodies against the viral protein—and, hence, the virus. Initially, this process provides sterilizing immunity. More importantly, it triggers the production of memory T cells and memory B cells, providing long-term immunity against the viral pathogen.

Once the viral protein is translated, the synthetic mRNA undergoes degradation. Once this breakdown occurs, the mRNA component of the vaccine becomes cleared from the patient’s cells.

“Schema of the RNA Vaccine Mechanism” by Jmarchn is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

While the principles behind mRNA vaccines are straightforward, life scientists have faced significant hurdles developing workable vaccines.¹ These technical challenges include:

Lack of mRNA stability.RNA molecules are inherently unstable, readily hydrolyzing into their constituent components. Once injected in the patient, naked mRNA rarely survives long enough to make its way to the target cells. Even if it does find its way into the cell’s interior, it may undergo breakdown before it can be translated into high enough levels of the viral protein so that an immune response becomes triggered.
Low rates of translation. All mRNA molecules are not equal when it comes to their rate of translation. Those RNA molecules which encode viral proteins often have certain sequence characteristics that make them appear unusual to our cells’ machinery, preventing these molecules from being efficiently translated into proteins.
Difficulty in delivering mRNA into cells. It is a real challenge for the mRNA component of the vaccine, once it has been injected into the patient, to make its way into the interior of target cells, because the mRNA has to penetrate the cell’s plasma membrane. This penetration process (and tendency to traverse the cell membrane barrier) is influenced by the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA (which, in turn, determines the mRNA’s physicochemical properties). Also, some cell types are more amenable to mRNA penetration through their plasma membranes than others. It is rare for sufficient levels of “naked” mRNA to cross the cell membrane so that the immune system can be activated.
Reactogenicity of the mRNA. The mRNA component of the vaccine can trigger an adverse reaction in some patients, causing an unintended immune response that can lead to anaphylactic shock.

Despite these serious challenges, life scientists and biomedical researchers have continued to pursue mRNA vaccines because of the significant advantages they offer compared to both conventional and putative next-generation vaccines.

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Some of the advantages of mRNA vaccines include:

Safety. Vaccines using mRNA are inherently safer than vaccines made up of inactivated or attenuated viruses. These latter types of vaccines can cause infections in the patients if the viral particles are not adequately inactivated or if they are not completely attenuated. Also, because the production of these vaccines involves handling live viruses, the risk to the workers is real, potentially leading to an outbreak of the disease at research and production facilities.

Compared to DNA vaccines (which are being pursued as a potential future generation vaccine type), mRNA vaccines have virtually no risk of modifying the patient’s genome—in part because mRNA will degrade once it has been translated, never making its way to the cell nucleus.

Ease of development and manufacturing. Researchers have long held the view that once these technical challenges are overcome, new mRNA vaccines will be much easier to develop than conventional vaccines. (The rapid development of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines attests to this view.) Vaccines made from mRNA are also much easier to produce than conventional vaccines, which require viruses to be cultured. Culturing viruses takes time and adds complexity to the manufacturing process. In other words, mRNA vaccines are much more amenable to mass production than conventional vaccines.

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

Over the course of the last decade or so, life scientists and biomedical researchers have learned ways to overcome many of the technical issues that are endemic to mRNA vaccines. In fact, by the end of 2018, researchers had successfully developed mRNA vaccine technology to the point that they were on the verge of translating it to widespread therapeutic use.

Through these efforts, researchers have learned that:

The stability of the mRNA can be improved by making modifications to the nucleotide sequences, particularly in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions of the molecule. RNA stability can also be enhanced by manipulating the coding region of the molecule, increasing the guanine and cytosine content. These changes can be affected without changing its coding information. mRNA stability can also be improved by complexing it with positively charged materials. (These types of complexes readily form because RNA molecules are negatively charged.)
The translatability of the vaccine’s mRNA can be enhanced by making changes to the mRNA sequences in the 3′ and 5′ untranslated regions and through the preferential use of specific codons. These changes lead to the production of high levels of the viral protein, once the mRNA makes its way into the cells.
The reactogenicity of the mRNA can be minimized in a number of different ways. For example, adverse reactions to mRNA can be reduced by incorporating nonnatural nucleotides into the mRNA. Complexing the mRNA with other materials can also minimize adverse reactions to the mRNA. (The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine uses a positively charged, nonnatural lipid to complex with the vaccine’s mRNA, reducing its immunogenicity and stabilizing the mRNA.)
The delivery of mRNA to cells can be dramatically improved through a variety of means. The vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna both make use of lipid nanoparticles to encapsulate the mRNA. The development of lipid nanoparticles to facilitate the delivery of mRNA to cells has been perhaps the biggest breakthrough for mRNA vaccines. Not only do these nanoparticles facilitate the entry of mRNA into cells, but they protect the mRNA from degradation before reaching the cells.

Even though the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines represent the first-ever mRNA vaccines used on humans, they took nearly three decades to develop thanks to the tireless efforts of life scientists and biomedical researchers. This developmental history includes numerous studies in which their safety has been assessed, leading to significant improvements in vaccine design, ensuring that any adverse reaction to mRNA vaccines is negligible.

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

This concerted effort has paid off. And, in large measure, these previous studies have made it possible for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna scientists to rapidly develop their COVID-19 vaccines. At the point when the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic, researchers had already developed mRNA vaccines for a number of viral pathogens and tested them in animal models. They had even progressed some of these vaccines into small-scale human clinical studies that included safety assessments. Bioengineers had already started work on pilot-scale production of mRNA vaccines, along the way developing GMPs (Good Manufacturing Practices) for the manufacture of mRNA vaccines.²

In effect, when the pandemic broke, all the researchers at Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna had to do to develop their COVID-19 vaccines was to know the right sequence to use for the vaccine’s mRNA. In other words, the scientific and biomedical communities just happened to be poised and ready to go with mRNA vaccines when the first outbreaks of COVID-19 appeared around the world.

Harvard medical doctor Anthony Komaroff puts it this way:

So, 30 years of painstaking research allowed several groups of scientists—including a group at Pfizer working with a German company called BioNTech, and a young company in Massachusetts called Moderna—to bring mRNA vaccine technology to the threshold of actually working. The companies had built platforms that, theoretically, could be used to create a vaccine for any infectious disease simply by inserting the right mRNA sequence for that disease.

Then along came COVID-19. Within weeks of identifying the responsible virus, scientists in China had determined the structure of all of its genes, including the genes that make the spike protein, and published this information on the Internet.

Within minutes, scientists 10,000 miles away began working on the design of an mRNA vaccine. Within weeks, they had made enough vaccine to test it in animals, and then in people. Just 11 months after the discovery of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regulators in the United Kingdom and the US confirmed that an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 is effective and safely tolerated, paving the path to widespread immunization. Previously, no new vaccine had been developed in less than four years.3

We were literally at the point of matriculating mRNA vaccines into large-scale human clinical trials at the precise point in time that the COVID-19 outbreak began. If this outbreak occurred even a few years earlier, I question if we would have been able to develop effective mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 with the same speed and have the capacity to rapidly produce and distribute large quantities of vaccines once the mRNA vaccine was ready to go. The rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been made possible because of the advances in mRNA vaccines that have occurred over the course of the last few years, yielding the technical knowledge to rapidly develop and manufacture mRNA vaccines. In fact, some biomedical scientists consider mRNA vaccines to be the ideal vaccines for this reason.

As a Christian and a biochemist, I can’t help but see God’s providential hand at work in the timing of the COVID-19 outbreak. It happened precisely at the time that advances in mRNA vaccines would allow for a rapid response. The remarkable confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic with the advances in mRNA vaccines has one of two possible explanations: It’s either a fortuitous accident or a reflection of God’s providential timing and faithful provision to humanity.

As a Christian, I choose the latter explanation.

You might say that mRNA vaccine were prepared in advance for such a time as this.

Two Kinds Of People Who Have Tried To Shame Me Away From Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

In my last job, I had two interesting encounters, first with a secular Jewish leftist man and second with a New Age prosperity gospel feminist Christian woman.

So let’s talk about the two people.

The man who thinks that conservative Christians are stupid

The first kind of person who tried to shame me for being a Christian is the person who thinks that Christianity is stupid. This kind of person invokes things that he hears in secular leftist pop culture as if it is common knowledge that theism generally, and Christianity in particular, is false. He’s watched a documentary on the Discovery channel which said that the eternally oscillating cosmology was true. Or maybe he watched a documentary on the History Channel that said that Jesus never presented himself as God stepping into history. He presents these things that he reads in the New York Times, or sees on MSNBC, or hears on NPR with the authority tone that Ben Carson might take when explaining modern medicine to a witch doctor.

Here is how things usually go with him:

Me: here are two arguments against naturalistic evolution, the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.
Him: but you don’t believe in a young-Earth do you? I mean, you believe in evolution, don’t you?
Me: let’s talk about how proteins and DNA is sequenced, and the sudden origin of Cambrian body plans
Him: (shouting) Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in evolution?

And this:

Me: there hasn’t been any global warming for 18 years, and temperatures were warmer in the Medieval Warming Period
Him: but you don’t deny climate change, do you? everyone on NPR agrees that climate change is real
Me: let’s talk about the last 18 years of no warming, and the temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period
Him: (shouting) Do you believe in climate change? Do you believe in climate change?

He asks these questions so he can either label me as a nut, without having to weigh the evidence I’m presenting, or have me agree with him, without having to weigh the evidence I’m presenting. It’s all about ignoring the evidence, so he can get back to his busy, busy practical life – and get back to feeling smug about being smarter than others. I think a lot of men are like this – they don’t want to waste their valuable time studying, they just want to jump to the right conclusion, then get back to doing whatever they want – like running marathons, or driving their kids to hockey practice, etc.

So how do you respond to a man who gets his entire worldview from the culture, but never deals with peer-reviewed evidence? Well, I think you just defeat his arguments with evidence and then present your own (peer-reviewed) evidence, and then leave it at that. If the person just wants to jump to the conclusion that all the “smart” people hold to, without doing any of the work, then you can’t win. There are atheists out there who believe in the eternal oscillating universe they saw Carl Sagan talking about in their elementary school. You might try to argue for an origin of the universe by citing new evidence like the CMB and light element abundances. But sometimes, they won’t care. Carl Sagan said it 50 years ago, and that settles it. It doesn’t matter that the new evidence overturns the old theories, they don’t care.

Do you think that Christianity will make non-Christians like you?

Consider 2 Tim 4:1-5:

1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:

²preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

³For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

⁴and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

⁵As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

And 1 Peter 3:15-16:

¹⁵but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

¹⁶having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

If you have orthodox theological beliefs in this day and age then you are going to be shamed, humiliated, and reviled by people. And it’s not just having an orthodox view of who Jesus is that annoys them (e.g. – deity, the exclusivity of salvation, morality, etc.). No, their disapproval spreads on into politics, especially abortion, and gay marriage – basically any kind of rules around sexuality. That’s what’s really bugging these people, I think.

The woman who thinks Christianity is life-enhancement

This one is especially difficult when you are a young man because we naturally look to women for approval and respect. You find yourself sitting in church or youth group, hoping for the approval and respect from the Christian women for your sound theology and effective apologetics. Little do you know that many Christian women understand Christianity as life-enhancement, designed to produce happy feelings. God is their cosmic butler whose main responsibility is to meet their needs and make their plans work out. Although you might be keen on sound theology and good apologetics arguments, she doesn’t think that’s important.

So how to deal with this unmet need for approval and respect from women in the church?

First thing, be careful that you don’t attend a church where the pastor is preaching and picking hymns that give you the idea that God is your cosmic butler. Second, read the Bible very carefully, and understand that with respect to God’s purposes for you in this world, your happiness is expendable. You cannot be looking to attractive Christian women that you happen to meet in church to support you, as many of them have long-since sold out to the culture. They are not interested in learning evidential apologetics to defend God’s reputation, or in defending the unborn, or in defending natural marriage, or in defending the free enterprise system that supports family autonomy from the state, etc. Those things are hard and unpopular, especially for those women who were raised to think that Christianity is about life enhancement and peer-approval.

Here’s 1 Cor 4:1-5 to make the point:

1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

²Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.

³But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.

⁴For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.

⁵Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

And 2 Tim 2:4:

⁴No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

Or, since I like Ronald Speirs from Band of Brothers so much:

This is the situation in which we find ourselves, so get used to it. And believe me, I have to deal with this, too. So I have all the sympathy in the world for you. Resign yourself to the fact that no one is going to approve of you for being faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ; not secular men, not Christian women. There is no cavalry coming to rescue you.

Apologetics and Imagination

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

Whenever I’m asked what I’m reading, my answer is always the same: TLC on repeat. At any given time, I will be reading something by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, or G.K. Chesterton. Or, I’m reading something about them or their works. Recently, I completed The Good News of the Return of the King: The Gospel in Middle-earth by Michael Jahosky, which, as the title states, reflects on the gospel message within Tolkien’s created world. But more importantly, it also illustrates why imaginative works are so important to share the good news.

While J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, there seems to be nothing overtly Christian about The Lord of the Rings. The characters have no religion and there is no mention of God. Tolkien’s work seems even less Christian when compared to Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, which is intentionally a Christian allegory. The main thesis of Jahosky’s book, however, is that LotR is not a Christian allegory but a parable, meaning it is about the same thing that Jesus’ parables are about: the good news about the return of the king.

The obvious question at this point is Why? Why would a Christian author create a gospel-eque work when we can just read the actual gospel in the Bible? I think Christians, especially apologists, have grossly undervalued the importance of the imagination in the life of the believer. Now, this statement may conjure an image of an online atheist troll proclaiming, “Hahaha u admit ur god is imaginary!!!” But by imagination, I don’t mean imaginary, as in fake or make-believe. I simply mean the mental faculty that allows us to “see” beyond this world. And it is this act of “seeing” which can be a powerful tool to introduce someone to the gospel.

Throughout his life and ministry, Jesus could have just lectured about theology or given collections of rules to follow. But he often taught in parables, fictional stories used to convey truth about the Kingdom of God. Instead of simply saying that God is loving and merciful, he provided stories that illustrated what God’s love and mercy are like. Jesus’ parables enable us to see truth in action, which is much more impactful than straightforward propositional statements.

This is why the imagination is so important, not just to Christians, but also to unbelievers. Our culture has become increasingly post-Christian, and many people simply do not understand concepts such as sin and salvation. The gospel is like a foreign language. Thus, we need a way to translate the good news into something our culture can understand. If you’ve followed FreeThinking Ministries for a while, you know we often do this with TV and movies. We use Star Wars and superheroes to illustrate truths about the Christian worldview. Every good story can provide some point of connection to the one True Story, the gospel. We use our imaginations to “see” the gospel, which prepares people to hear the gospel.

But more than just showing people the truth of Christianity, we must also convey its goodness and beauty. This is why we need more tools than just syllogisms in our apologetics—we need good stories. Tolkien does not preach to us in Lord of the Rings; he presents a world bathed in goodness and beauty. This awakens a desire within us to find the source of all that is good and beautiful: God. And while we may not be master storytellers like J.R.R. Tolkien, we can still find imaginative ways of illustrating the good news. We must show people how Christianity answers our mind’s deepest questions and satisfies our heart’s greatest desires.

God created our rational minds and he created our imaginations. Apologists tend to focus on the first while neglecting the second. Arguments and syllogisms will take us only so far, targeting just one aspect of the soul. We need to find creative ways to engage the whole person, to show not just the truth of Christianity, but also its goodness and beauty. Perhaps a stroll through Middle-earth can be the first step towards an encounter with the one true King.

Problems with Evolutionary Biology

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Let me see if I understand,” I said to my daughter’s high school biology teacher. “The human eye is the evolutionary product of a light-sensitive spot on the skin. Is that right?”

“Right,” she said.

“And by evolution, you mean a mindless, random process that didn’t really have an end in mind. In other words, there was no “designer” for the eye or the body for that matter. Am I getting that right?”

“Right again,” she replied.

But how could an undirected process produce such highly functional complexity, I wondered aloud. She gave me a look that said, “you really don’t have the time or, probably, the background to understand, so do we really have to go there?”

We did, and I persisted, trying another tack that I had been wondering about for a while.

“Okay, well let me ask you just a few questions” I countered. “Would you agree that evolution as you understand it is a gradual process of adaptation over time, where changes that are advantageous accumulate?”

“Yes,” came her quick reply.

“Would you agree that over time these gradual adaptations would lead to the development of complex systems, such as organ systems?”

“Yes, that makes sense,” she said.

“Would you also agree,” I pressed, “that, generally speaking, the more complex the system, the longer it would take for these gradual adaptations to evolve so that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?”

“Yes.” The response was a bit slower, more thoughtful.

Shifting gears a bit, I asked, “In the field of human biology, would you agree that generally speaking, the human female reproductive system is considerably more complex than its male counterpart?”

“I’m not sure what you mean,” she queried.

“Well,” I started, “the male half of the equation involves dividing cells to get to 23 chromosomes and providing a, uh, delivery mechanism. The female system involves the production of eggs, the delivery of the eggs to a specific location, the means for implantation, and if that occurs, the creation of a placenta that is fine-tuned to support the development of the life that is growing. The whole system must work in conjunction with the woman’s body, provide for correction of any mistakes occurring to minimize miscarriages, screen the fetus from harmful substances in the woman’s blood, connect the fetus to the mother by means of a two-way umbilical cord, and provide a method for the baby to be safely delivered into the world. More amazingly, the two systems must somehow recognize each other and work together, so that the 23 chromosomes from each half form a single cell that has the complete instructions for a new human life to begin. This seems like a pretty complex, interconnected, and interdependent system requiring multiple components to work just right. And yet it does work right millions and millions of times.”

“I suppose there’s something to that, but” she hesitated, “what’s your point?” Her tone matched her more serious expression.
“Just this,” I responded. “What exactly were all those men doing generation after generation waiting for the first fully functional female to evolve?”

She stared at me, no doubt wondering whether I was trying to mock her. But, though my question was of course facetious, I wanted to know where my logic was flawed. After all, the premises seem valid. If designed, it makes perfect sense that God could create a system in which some parts are more complex than others, and still have them work together for a purpose. But how could mammalian sexual reproduction – involving separate male and female individuals -ever evolve simultaneously? I wanted to know where that very first human male and very first human female came from. She took a deep breath and began her answer…. and it didn’t have anything to do with God.

“Well, it didn’t work that way,” she said. “Evolution occurred gradually, over time, as the predecessors to humans slowly began to change.”

“Fair enough,” I responded. “So, tell me about that first pair of monkeys, the very first male and female monkey from which you say we evolved.”

“Well,” she began, formulating her thoughts, “it didn’t work that way.” I gave her a quizzical look and she continued. “Those predecessors also evolved slowly, over time, from still more primitive forms of life.”

I was patient. “Like what?” I asked. I don’t think anyone had pressed her for answers like this, but after all I wasn’t worried about getting a grade. My daughter, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t be too thrilled about dad’s efforts at higher learning. Luckily, she wasn’t nearby.

In answer, the teacher started to explain that monkeys had evolved from still lower forms of life. It was a long process with smaller animals making adaptations, adding features, becoming larger. It all sounded quite vague and fuzzy, as she painted the picture of a planet teeming with life of various kinds, widely dispersed, and being driven by this engine of evolution.
I tried to stay on track with her. Then she made the jump that I was expecting – she started talking about life emerging from the primitive seas. Single-celled life forms that began to replicate and pass their DNA on to the next generation. She paused when she saw me starting to shake my head.

“Wait a sec,” I said. “You’re getting ahead of me, or perhaps more precisely, you’re moving back too far. I’ll grant you that life first began in the seas, but even if I grant you the ‘primordial soup’ theory, you’re still making quite a jump. What I want to focus on are the first male and female land mammals. If we wind the clock back, there must be a point on the early Earth in which there are no mammals walking the land. None whatsoever. Whatever life exists, it hasn’t yet evolved to sexually reproducing, warm-blooded mammals. Before that point, maybe there’s life in the sea, but the land is barren; after that point, the land begins to get populated. You with me?”

She nodded.

“I’d like to know what model science has to explain how that first began. That first couple.”

She was still formulating an answer, so I pressed on. “I can understand that once you have thousands of fully functioning mammals that over time they may begin to change, especially if subjected to some environmental challenge. That makes perfect sense, whether it is directed by the genes, as I believe was designed into them, or whether it’s a random process. But tell me how the first pair appeared on the land.”

I was hoping to get an answer, because I had been wondering for a while how Darwinists made sense of that rather large step, from single-celled asexually reproducing life to complex, sexually producing mammals. But it was not to be. “Coach.” We both looked in the direction of the voice. The bio teacher was also a coach, and someone was trying to get her attention. She smiled and said, “Let’s continue this later.” Was that a look of relief that crossed her features? Probably, I eventually decided. We never did finish the conversation.

Perhaps Darwinists have a plausible model for this transition, but I have yet to hear it. Instead, what I have heard is always along the lines of what’s recounted above – vague and fuzzy references to a planet teeming with evolving life, and then a jump to the oceans, where DNA first appears. But this jump appears to be a “just so” story, with a vague promise that someday science will make it all clear, will discover these missing links that just “must be there.” But common sense, and reason, tell me that when those original sexually reproducing mammals first appeared on Earth, they were able to reproduce in that fashion immediately, making use of an incredibly complex and interdependent system, a system that has all the hallmarks of design. And a system that couldn’t take long periods of time to evolve because, unless it’s working properly and completely on day one, there won’t be a next-generation upon which evolution could act.

Perhaps, like Frank Turek puts it, I just don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. Until I do, then, I guess I’ll just keep believing that the incredible complexity of life is what it appears to be – the telltale sign of an intelligent designer that set it all in motion for a purpose. After all, every time I see a complex, highly organized, interdependent system – like a watch or a plane or a car – I don’t struggle trying to figure out how it assembled itself. So, why do people struggle so hard when it comes to something even more complex – like life?

Why indeed.

5 Ways Progressive Christianity and New Age Spirituality Are Kind of the Same Thing

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Think about the phrase “New Age.” What comes to mind? Old documentaries of hippies at Woodstock experimenting with LSD and yoga? Shirley MacLaine holding a cluster of crystals on the cover of Time Magazine back in the ‘80s? Deepak Chopra teaching Oprah how to move things with her mind in the ‘90s? As old or out of touch as these images may seem, New Age beliefs are hotter than ever and have permeated our culture—but with a slick new image. The psychic hotline of the ‘80s has been replaced by winsome hipster gurus who have traded robes for skinny jeans—often translating Eastern religious ideas into Christianese.

Many Christians aren’t even aware of how New Age beliefs have infiltrated Christendom through the Progressive Church. I’ve written about Progressive Christianity here, and talked about it here, here, and here. It wasn’t until I recently did a study of New Age Spirituality that I realized how much Progressive Christianity has in common with it.

Here are 5 ways Progressive Christianity and the New Age Spirituality are kind of the same thing:

1. The redefinition or abandonment of the concept of sin

New Agers believe all people are inherently divine….that there is no such thing called “sin,” but only the failure to remember our divinity. In her master class on the Oprah and Friends network in 2008, New Age leader Marianne Williamson led countless Americans through the book, A Course in Miracles. Participants were encouraged to affirm “There is no sin,”[1] and were taught, “The Atonement is the final lesson [a person] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation.”[2] And all of this information supposedly came from Jesus Himself.[3]

Several years ago I heard a Progressive pastor teach on Genesis 3, the famous passage in which Eve was tricked by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit. Rather than reading the account as historical fact, he was unpacking the moral “truth” we could all learn from this creation story. He made the point that when this first couple took that fateful bite, it was their shame, not their sin, that separated them from God. In other words, they failed to recognize their belovedness…their inherent goodness and worth. If they were “separated” from God, it was they who were distant….not God. Progressive writer Brian McLaren describes it this way: “They lose their fearlessness in relation to God.”[4]

Notice the similarity of language. Without original sin we are all good, and we are only distant from God in our own minds when we forget that.

2. The denial of absolute truth

New Age thought is marked by its relativism: a rejection of objective morality and absolute truth. If something feels true to you, it’s true. If it feels right to you, it’s right. If something feels real to you, it’s reality. In other words, your own thoughts and feelings are your authority for what is true and real.

One distinctive feature of Progressive Christianity is its denial of biblical authority. But of course, no one operates without an authority—if you remove one authority, you will replace it with another. Typically, Progressive Christians shift the authority for what they believe is true from the Bible to themselves—by becoming their own moral compass which will inevitably ebb and flow with culture.

3. An acceptance of Jesus, but a denial of His blood atonement

New Age thought leaders almost always couch their teachings in Christian language. Jesus is an example of someone who attained enlightenment by connecting with the divine—an example any of us can follow. His death wasn’t a saving act…the “saving” comes from within ourselves when we realize we have the same capabilities as Jesus already within us. This is often referred to as “Christ consciousness.” This is why many New Agers see no contradiction in reciting the Lord’s prayer while believing in karma and the healing power of crystals. Of course, this is an outright denial of His atoning death and resurrection.

Many (not all) Progressive Christians also deny the blood atonement of Jesus. Last year, popular Christian musician Michael Gungor took to Twitter to rant about the idea of God requiring a blood sacrifice for sin, calling it “horrific.” In his controversial book, Love Wins, Rob Bell refers to this idea as something Christians simply picked up from surrounding cultures and used to explain the death of Jesus. In a 2016 lecture explaining the Eucharist (Communion for us Protestants), Bell joked about the ridiculousness of atonement theory, summing it up as: “God is less grumpy because of Jesus.” This gave the audience a good laugh, as Bell went on to explain that the real reason we pass the bread and wine is to “heighten our senses to our bonds with our brothers and sisters in our shared humanity.”

Many Progressive Christian leaders have popularized the phrase “cosmic child abuse,” a term first coined by Steve Chalke to protest the idea that a loving God would require a blood sacrifice for the sin of mankind.

4. It’s all about “me”

New Age thought revolves around the “Self.” Self-empowerment and realization of our innate divinity are central to its teachings and practices. According to New Age blogger Kalee Brown, when Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” in John 14:6, “The ‘me’ Jesus referred to isn’t himself, but rather the Self within you” (emphasis mine). A Course in Miracles also asks the participant to affirm: “My salvation comes from me.”[5] And hey….if we are all divine, why shouldn’t it be about us?
The typical Progressive Christian will probably not agree that it’s all about them—in fact, they tend to be very focused on social justice. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a theological shift. Progressive favorite Richard Rohr even goes so far as to write that each of us and sometimes “creation” is the “fourth member of the blessed Trinity,” implying that the fullness of God isn’t complete until we become a part of it.[6]

Generally speaking, the concept of sin is abandoned or redefined, truth becomes relativized, and a mere martyr’s cross gives us a more palatable Jesus who is a great teacher, moral example, and doting BFF—but not the all-powerful warrior King who will one day return in a blood-dipped robe to judge the living and the dead. (Revelation 19:13; 2 Timothy 4:1)

5. Universalism

Former New Ager and now Christian believer Steven Bancarz noted that New Age proponents affirm the idea that all roads lead to God. He wrote:

The New Age movement holds tightly to religious pluralism and universalism, which is the view that all religions are inspired by a common Source and they all point to the same truth that we will one day reach, regardless of what path we choose to get there.

Many Progressive Christian authors affirm some form of universalism—implicitly, by denying the concept of a literal hell, or explicitly, by declaring that all people will be reconciled to God, regardless of their beliefs or religious practices.

The concept of universal reconciliation (that Jesus will reconcile all sinners to Himself,) was smuggled into the mainstream consciousness of the Evangelical church through the wildly popular 2007 book, The Shack. Years later, its author, William Paul Young, confirmed his intention in his book, Lies We Believe About God. He wrote, “Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation? That is exactly what I am saying!”[7]

None of this is new. Throughout church history these ideas have emerged again and again. They are old pagan dogmas recycled as new and edgy ideas, dressed up in modern garb and given a Christian make-over. Trevin Wax put it perfectly on Twitter:

One of the insufferable aspects of heretics and heresies is how boring, predictable, and recycled they are. Orthodoxy is thrilling in its holding together of paradox and mystery. Heresies are narrow because they’re tailored to their times.

Progressive Christians may think they are being cutting-edge and relevant by stepping outside the bounds of orthodoxy, but in reality, they are simply falling for the ideology that has kick-started every false religion since the fall of man: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

It is no less damning if the “creature” is….yourself.

References:

[1] Schucman, Dr. Helen (2007-12-25). A Course in Miracles Foundation for Inner Peace. Kindle Edition. Lesson #259

[2] Ibid., Kindle Locations 21635-21636

[3] A Course in Miracles is a collection of spiritual revelations recorded by Columbia University Professor Helen Schucman. She dictated messages from an entity she called “the Voice,” that she later identified as “Jesus Christ.”

[4] McLaren, Brian (2011-2-1) A New Kind of Christianity, Harper One; Reprint edition p. 50

[5] Schucman, Dr. Helen (2007-12-25). A Course in Miracles Foundation for Inner Peace. Kindle Edition. Lesson 70

[6] Rohr, Richard. The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation (Kindle Location 1255). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.

[7] Young, William Paul (2017) Lies We Believe About God, Atria Books p. 118

From Laws of Physics to Reasonable Faith

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Many may be surprised to find that knowledge is actually the foundation for faith in God.

A Blind Faith And God’s Hiddenness

Two common challenges to the truth of the Christian worldview are the seeming hiddenness of God and the accusation that Christianity requires a blind faith. Many people see the great amount of suffering in the world and in their own lives and wonder where God is and why He doesn’t seem to care to alleviate the suffering. Many skeptics also see Christians making claims about reality that are demonstrably false, and those people conclude that Christians’ faith is a belief despite evidence to the contrary- a blind faith.

The skeptic knows that there must be continuity between the present and the past (and the future) for us to reasonably believe that what happens in the present can be used to infer what has happened in the past (or make predictions about what will happen in the future). Armed with knowledge of the past, there is a solid, logical foundation to conclude something about the future. This also means that without knowledge of the past, there is no solid foundation to trust something with the present or the future.

This is how the skeptic believes they are being logical as they conclude that the Christian God is hidden (if not non-existent) and unfaithful, and how they also conclude that Christians’ faith is blind. Today, I want to take some time to show an understanding of the physical world will demonstrate that the skeptic has made a mistake in their reasoning to both conclusions about God’s supposed hiddenness and the supposed blind faith of Christianity.

Is Faith In God Really Blind?

Let us start with the very book that claims to accurately describe the Christian God: the Bible, and with the actions of this God: creation. If the Bible accurately describes the Christian God, then we have this series of arguments regarding faith in God for present and future experiences:

If the laws of physics are constant, then God’s character is constant (Jeremiah 33:25-26).
The laws of physics are constant.
If God’s character is constant, then His character can be trusted to be the same across all time.
God’s character is constant.
If God’s character has been faithful in the past, then His character will be faithful in the present and the future
God’s character has been faithful in the past.
Therefore, God’s character will be faithful in the present and the future.

This faith is a reasonable faith that is grounded in what we already know and have experienced. For the skeptic who wishes to claim that Christianity is an illogical and unreasonable faith, they must face in inconvenient reality: If they believe that Bible describes the Christian God, then it necessarily follows from Jeremiah 33:25-26 that the Christian God is faithful to His promises, and our trust in Him (faith) for present and future difficulties and sufferings is logically grounded in God’s past faithfulness through difficulties and sufferings. This means that our faith in God is a most logical faith.

What If The Laws of Physics Are Not Constant?

However, the soundness of the argument and our trust in the constancy of God’s character is dependent upon the reality of the constancy of the laws that govern the heavens and the earth (this universe). If these laws are not constant and have changed and if God is just as constant (the first premise in the argument), then God’s character can change. This means that if the laws of physics change, then God’s character changes, which necessarily implies that God’s promises can be rescinded, His faithfulness is laughable, and He is certainly not to be trusted.

If the skeptic were to deny constant laws of physics to avoid the conclusion that the Christian faith is a reasonable and logical faith, then they would suffer the logical consequence of the collapse of the entire scientific enterprise. While some (non-scientific) skeptics may be willing to live with this logical implication, many would be unwilling to do so. But they would be unwilling to do so at the cost of logical consistency. Because consistency is a necessary feature of logic and because reality is consistent, both logic and reality are abandoned with such a philosophical move.

When logic and reality are abandoned, though, all we have is a delusion guided by blind faith. Ironically, it is the skeptic who would refuse to surrender knowledge of the natural world (the goal of the scientific enterprise), in order to avoid the logical conclusion of God’s faithfulness (or even His existence), who is the one committed to a delusion and blind faith. (See the post “6 Ways Atheism Is A Science-Stopper” for more details on this line of reasoning.)

Now, if the Christians were to deny constant laws of physics for whatever reason (see “Is Genesis History” for an example), they then would suffer the logical consequence of the collapse of God’s faithful character. For a Christian who denies the constancy of the laws of physics, yet affirms God’s faithfulness, they, like the skeptic, do so at the cost of logical consistency- an abandonment of reason. Again, when logic and reason are abandoned, all that is left is a blind faith. And in a second move of irony, the skeptic who complains about a Christian’s blind faith does so only while affirming their own blind faith. (See the post “How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline“).

Interestingly, when the skeptic looks at the beliefs of Christians who deny the constancy of the laws of physics, they have an excuse for believing that the Christian faith is a blind faith; however, if the skeptic examines nature, they have no such excuse (Romans 1). So, if we bring together the idea that the Bible accurately describes the Christian God and the idea that the laws of physics are constant, then we have the conclusion that trust in the Christian God is necessarily a reasonable faith.

God’s Hiddenness

But how does this address the idea of God’s apparent hiddenness? If God has been faithful in the past, then it necessarily follows that He will be faithful in the future. As we read through the Bible, we see time after time that God has been faithful despite the sufferings. As Christians get older they often look through their lives and see how God has carried them through their sufferings and has remained faithful to them through the process. We have testimonies of God’s past faithfulness despite suffering from people of the ancient past (the Bible), the recent past (writings of past Christians in history), the present (friends, family, and the rest of the current Church), and even in our own personal lives. It is through his knowledge—this strong body of evidence of God’s past faithfulness and the constancy of God’s character evidenced by the scientific study of the natural realm—that we know that God is being faithful now and will be faithful in the future. Even if we cannot “see” how God is working right now, we can be assured that He is at work and our trust in Him is properly and reasonably placed.

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Hermeneutical Principles

Historical Context

Case Laws vs. God’s Ideals

Prescriptive vs. Descriptive

“Problem” Texts

Polygamy

Bride-Price

Women POWs

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 a creed?

The Date of the Creed

The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Early Testimony of Women Postulates that the Story was not Invented.

The Early Testimony of Women Provides Embarrassing Details.

The Early Testimony of Women Proves Multiple Attestation.

The Early Testimony of Women Portrays their Elevated Status.

Sources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Messenger RNA Vaccines

Challenges Developing mRNA Vaccines

Advantages of mRNA Vaccines

Clearing the Technical Hurdles

The COVID-19 Vaccines and God’s Providence

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The man who thinks that conservative Christians are stupid

The woman who thinks Christianity is life-enhancement

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Blind Faith And God’s Hiddenness

Is Faith In God Really Blind?

What If The Laws of Physics Are Not Constant?

God’s Hiddenness

Recommended resources related to the topic: