Tag Archive for: New Testament

Are the Gospels Hopelessly Contradictory? with J. Warner Wallace

Are there contradictions between the gospel accounts? If so, how can we trust the central tenet of Christianity–the Resurrection of Jesus? Last week, J. Warner Wallace and his son Jimmy Wallace joined Frank to discuss their exciting new graphic novel, ‘Case Files: Meaning and Murder‘. For this midweek podcast, J. Warner Wallace returns to share how he used his skill set as a detective to investigate the claims of the New Testament gospels and compares his findings to those of atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman.

Together, Frank and Jim answer questions like:

  • What’s necessary to prove an event occurred in the past?
  • Why weren’t first-century historians bothered by textual differences found in the Gospels?
  • Why is it better to have four different gospel accounts vs. one harmonization?
  • Why would God allow these textual differences?
  • What surprised Jim the most the first time he read the Gospels as an atheist?
  • Why do detectives separate eyewitnesses?
  • When doing detective work, why does Jim prefer it when the stories are “messy”?
  • Does the evidence always determine the verdict? In other words, why do Jim and Bart come to different conclusions when it comes to the Resurrection of Jesus?
  • Why is bias against the supernatural a double-standard for materialist atheists?
  • What’s the best way to test an eyewitness?
  • If the Gospels are contradictory and can’t be trusted, why do critics like Erhman conclude that much of the New Testament is true and that the disciples really believed they saw the resurrected Jesus?
  • How are atheists disagreeing with themselves and agreeing with Christians when it comes to alternative explanations for the resurrection?

And so much more! If you normally listen to podcasts on 2x speed you may need to slow it down for this one and take some notes!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Cold-Case Christianity
GRAPHIC NOVEL: Case Files: Murder & Meaning (don’t forget to grab your pre-order bonuses!)

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Can I Trust the Bible? with Dr. Andy Steiger

 

In an age of growing skepticism and hostility toward the Bible, are there any good reasons to take it seriously? Last week, Dr. Andy Steiger, president of Apologetics Canada, joined Frank to tackle the problem of evil and to explore the ultimate purpose of suffering. This week, Andy returns to discuss, ‘Can I Trust the Bible?‘—a brand-new video series he co-created with Wesley Huff, defending the Bible’s reliability. In this episode, Frank and Andy dive into pressing questions like:

  • Should Christians engage with secular platforms?
  • How has Wes Huff’s debate with Billy Carson and recent interview with Joe Rogan influenced Apologetics Canada?
  • What is Bart Ehrman getting wrong about New Testament manuscripts?
  • How do we know the Pauline epistles were written early?
  • What did plagiarism look like in the ancient world?
  • Are there actual “mistakes” in New Testament manuscripts?
  • Why aren’t the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels in the Bible?
  • Are extra-biblical sources for Jesus more reliable than the Bible?

Be sure to check out Wes and Andy’s new video series along with even more great content on the Apologetics Canada website, including infographics, new podcast episodes, online courses, recommended resources for children, and MUCH more!

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

Resources mentioned during the episode:

WEBSITE: ApologeticsCanada.com

VIDEO SERIES: Can I Trust the Bible?

WES HUFF INFOGRAPHICS + OTHER HELPFUL CONTENT: Apologetics Canada Resources

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin? Does It Matter?

“It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or by Joseph’s seed. What matters is that Jesus came to earth, died, and was resurrected.”

This is more or less what was said in a conversation I had several years ago with a now self-proclaimed progressive Christian. At the time, he was trying to work out his theology. Today, his words ring with expectancy to be answered. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter in regard to our faith if He was?

Virgin Birth: Negotiable or Not?

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has always been considered a non-negotiable core doctrine of Christianity and is mentioned in the earliest creeds. Among Christians, this doctrine wasn’t broadly questioned until a period of history referred to as “the Enlightenment”. Sometimes called “the Age of Reason,” the Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that took place primarily in the 18th century. It has had an incalculable impact on Western culture, profoundly affecting the way people think about philosophy, politics, religion, and science.

As science was given precedent over religion, one of the trends to emerge during the Enlightenment was skepticism towards anything miraculous or supernatural. In other words, believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible such as the virgin birth is superstitious and unscientific, so they must be mythological. This seems to be a popular view among progressive Christians today.

​Does the Bible teach that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? 

The prediction, 700 hundred years before Christ (Isaiah 7:14):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfillment (Matthew 1:22-23):

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Seems pretty simple, right? Isaiah predicted the Virgin Birth and Matthew records that prediction coming true. Not so fast.

A common claim among skeptics is that the word translated “virgin” really just means “young woman” or “maiden,” and there is no reason to assume that Mary was a virgin.

Young Lady, Virgin, or Both?

This reasoning might make sense if we were only reading these Scriptures with a Western, American mindset. With any Scripture, however, we have to look at it through the lens of the culture in which it was written. The Hebrew word in question is almah, which does mean “young woman” or “maiden.” However, in ancient Hebrew culture, all young women of marriageable age were considered to be virgins. Strong’s Online Concordance notes:

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

There is another Hebrew word that specifically means “virgin” (bethulah), but it’s likely that Isaiah preferred almah because he wanted to communicate that the virgin would also be young. Long before the virgin birth was an established doctrine, 70 Hebrew scholars must have agreed, because when they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” Apparently, they understood exactly what that word meant in context.

Mary herself clearly stated that she was a virgin in Luke 1:34. When the angel told her she would conceive a child, she was perplexed and asked, “But how can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin?

As with most core doctrines, the case for the virgin birth of Jesus doesn’t just come down to one or two Bible verses. Scripture teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He literally has two natures. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman, to fulfill the promise God made to Eve in Genesis 3:15. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, He would not be fully human, and could not have been the promised Messiah.

As I’ve written previously, Scripture teaches that humans inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and it would seem that sin nature gets passed down through the line of the father (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). According to Hebrews 7:26, Jesus did not have a sin nature. Also, it’s important to note that Jeremiah prophesied that there would never be a king of Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:28-30). Matthew 1:12-16 tells us that Joseph was in fact, a descendant of Jeconiah.

If Jesus had been conceived by the seed of Joseph instead of by the Holy Spirit, He would have received a sin nature, and would not be fully God. As a descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have had a right to the throne of Israel, and He could not have been the promised Messiah.

Prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled by Jesus, the virgin birth allowed for Jesus to be both fully God and fully human, unstained by sin, and God Incarnate. The doctrine of the virgin birth matters because it must be true for salvation to even be possible.

Recommended Resources:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f3rRZP

/by

Do Oral Cultures Operate the Same as the Telephone Game?

Secular scholars, especially those who attack the historicity of the New Testament, claim it is difficult to establish historical knowledge that is valid and reliable because of the infallibility of the human memory. People do not recall information accurately, especially if the account is written years after the event. However, historians and archaeologists have been able to make strong cases for their accounts considering several factors, such as the closeness of the written document to the event, multiple attestations to the incident, and so on.

In this article, I will discuss the factor of oral tradition communities, how literate people recorded their history, and whether their methodology is reliable or not. Western and advanced societies might not realize that there is a pattern that oral communities usually follow to preserve their history and pass it on to the next generation. The first-century Middle Eastern people were no exception, and we can today trust their recordings despite the minor variations we have in the written accounts of the New Testament.

The Secular Theory of Oral Tradition

Secular philosopher Paul Ricoeur describes the reference modes of history and fiction as interweaving. He believes that when historians try to make sense of an artifact to understand the historical event, their imagination imposes itself making them come up with their own fiction about history. [i] Schröter explains that “the narration of history represents a fictionalizing of the past, whereas the fictional narrative imitates the historical narrative.”[ii] Therefore, the final product is never accurate. It is a mixture of the history and imagination of the writer.

Bart Ehrman generally agrees with this view accusing the writers of the NT of not being reliable and the Gospel accounts being recorded as people were playing a telephone game. He states,

“Nearly all of these storytellers had no independent knowledge of what really happened [to Jesus]. It takes little imagination to realize what happened to the stories. You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game ‘telephone.’ A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants.”[iii]

Ehrman’s analogy might seem appealing to some people; however, the question that we should investigate is whether preserving history in an oral culture is like a telephone game, as Ehrman claims.

What Is Oral Culture?

Oral culture is a term that refers to preliterate cultures to characterize the thought and expressions that carry over into manuscript and print culture. People talk to one another about certain events until these events are written. Robert Cochran makes a distinction between oral culture and oral history. He states, “Oral culture is culture based on the spoken rather than the written word; oral history is a record of the past based on spoken accounts.” [iv] In our times, an estimated one billion people do not know how to read or write any language, and so they live in what we call oral culture. [v]

It is important to explain also what oral tradition is not. According to Lynne Kelly, oral tradition is “not teaching how to hunt or how to gather during daily excursions. It is not about stories casually told around the campfire at night – these are more folk tale than myth and are usually for children. Oral tradition is about formal knowledge, about the way oral cultures store, maintain and transmit knowledge which is central to their physical and social worlds.” [vi] In other words, oral cultures are not a bunch of savages uneducated societies. They are people whose lack of written language and advanced education forced them to find alternative ways to remember and record their history accurately and reliably.

How Do Oral Cultures Save Their Knowledge?

Literate cultures record their knowledge on paper, books, or electronically. If they cannot write, then the knowledge must be committed to memory—practiced, repeated, and saved for future use in human memory. According to Kelly, the way formal knowledge is stored in literate culture is similar to oral culture,

We can assume that the individuals within oral cultures have the same range of intellectual potential, physiology and memory ability that has been typical of all humans for at least the last few millennia. We need to look beyond superficial differences and accept our similarities. It is only when the complexity of oral tradition is acknowledged that the control of knowledge can be seen as a tool for power. [vii]

People who lived under oral culture were also human beings with the same abilities to find accurate ways to record and pass on their knowledge.

Different elements were used to save knowledge in oral cultures, such as repetitions, rhythm, poetry, narratives, and stories that were transmitted in social gatherings. De Costa adds that “in oral cultures many constructions are aggregative rather than analytic, that is to say, remembered information is not systematized individually but in groups or series of related groups by means of parallelisms, antitheses, and epithets.” [viii]

So, oral cultures created and used different methods to repeat information and learn it. Basic knowledge is acquired in daily interaction to learn what is appropriate and how someone should act in a certain circumstance, and Specialized knowledge is acquired by participating in ceremonies and discussions with elders. [ix] This is why early Christians formed liturgy and creeds. The whole purpose was to keep repeating the basics of their faith over and over so it is not forgotten.

Is All Oral History Mixed with Myths?

The ancient Near Eastern civilization left one of the oldest writings (cuneiform), which included different information, such as migrations of people, chronology of political states, foreign relations, internal governance, legal institutions, and official acts. [x] Moreover, a variety of inscriptions from different places in the world distinguish between mythical, folklore, historical, political, and religious. Wiessner notes that the Enga of Papua New Guinea distinguishes clearly between myth and historical traditions. [xi] Historical information includes news about “wars, migrations, agriculture, the development of cults and ceremonial exchange networks, leadership, trade, environmental disasters, and fashions in song and dress.” [xii] In other words, because of inscriptions, historians are able to differentiate between myths and other genres, which is a piece of evidence that not all oral tradition is mixed with myths.

Were The Gospels Written According to the Telephone Game?

The majority of first-century Middle Easterners were literate people who lived in oral cultures. The New Testament was written within the first century after the death of Christ. The first written book of the NT was the First Letter to the Corinthians, which Paul wrote AD 53-55. The Gospels were written between AD 70-95, about 40-65 years after the death of Jesus. According to Bart Ehrman, this period of time is enough for people to forget what Jesus had said and done, and consequently, corrupt the Gospels.

The Purpose of the Telephone Game vs. Written Oral History

As per the previous information about oral tradition, it seems that Bart Ehrman has not done a good job investigating the culture of the first-century Middle East; otherwise, he would not have depicted the process of writing the NT books to the telephone game. The purpose of the telephone game is totally different from the purpose of written oral history. The purpose of the telephone game is to have fun, so people purposely disrupt the process of communication to laugh at the end results. Writing the Gospels tradition was precisely the opposite. The men of God wrote purposely to preserve the words and deeds of Jesus from disruption (Luke 1:1-4).

One-Way Chain of Communication

I am not sure if first-century people played the telephone game; however, this game represents a single one-way chain of communication, whereas, oral tradition is like a web or network. It does not pass information from one person to another person, but it passes information from many people to many people. When Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, there were many people alive who witnessed and testified Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven, and there were multiple opportunities for skeptics to investigate: “Did this really happen?” (1 Cor 15:6).

Liberal scholars who support Ehrman’s theory believe that “oral history reveal that cultures do not tend to remember events over much more than two generations and that memories ‘become increasingly inaccurate until they are so corrupt that they can hardly be distinguished from myth.”[xiii] If a generation lives for 20-30 years, and information is corrupted after the second generation, then it is reasonable to conclude that the NT books are reliable by secular standards because they were written within the first two generations after the death of Jesus.

Conclusion

It is simply impossible for any culture to retain all their knowledge without some formal information system. Therefore, literate cultures came up with ways to retain information, such as repetition in special ceremonies, conversations with elders, and social gatherings to pass on their knowledge. If Western culture found different ways to store information, that does not mean Eastern and Middle Eastern cultures have never done so. Further study of oral culture tradition shows that depicting the process of writing the NT books with telephone games is emphatically wrong.

References:

[i] Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, Trans. K. McLaughlin and D. Pellauer, vol. 3, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984– 1988), 190-192.

[ii] Jens Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013), 34.

[iii] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 72-74.

[iv] Robert Cochran, “Oral History and Oral Culture,” In The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, ed. Michael Ryan, 2011.

[v] Thomas Farrell, J. “Oral Culture,” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, ed. Patrick Colm Hogan, (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

[vi] Lynne Kelly, Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies: Orality, Memory and the Transmission of Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 15.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Elena De Costa, “Orality,” in Concise Encyclopedia of Latin American Literature, ei. Verity Smith, ed. Routledge, 2000.

[ix] J. Goody, The Interface Between The Written And The Oral (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1987), 156-7.

[x] J. Puhvel, “epigraphy,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed, July 28, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/epigraphy.

[xi] P. Wiessner, “The vines of complexity: egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of inequality among the Enga,” Current Anthropology, vol. 43, no. 2, (2002): 233–69

[xii] Ibid, 237.

[xiii] Richard Bradley, “The Translations of Time,” in RM, Van Dyke & SE Alcock, eds., Archaeologies of memory, Blackwell, (2003): 221–7.

Recommended Resources:

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

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

 

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates.

Sherene was also involved in her local church among the young youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.

Sherene is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. Additionally, she holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. Currently, Sherene is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and M.A. in Arabic and linguistics from PennWest University.

Original Blog Posting: https://bit.ly/3ZQetUT

 

/by

The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death

Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?

Christianity On Trial

A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.

More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.

On the Witness Stand

Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.

In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.

But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.

Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?

So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?

The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.

If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.

Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?

Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”

Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.

Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.

Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.

Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.

They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie

The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.

Recommended Resources:

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

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

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

 

/by

In the Gospels, Jesus is Pro-Life

When you encounter Jesus in the gospels, it’s not hard to see why the world would be a better place if everyone was more like him. And in the gospels, Jesus is pro-life. In fact, life is the issue for Jesus. ‘Life’ is why Jesus came into the world.

The Bible is About Life

The Bible’s most famous verse even says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV)

Humans weren’t originally created to face death (Romans 5:12), and Jesus hates death – that’s why he conquered it (Romans 6:9; 2 Timothy 1:10). Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life (Mark 10:45; John 5:24; 1 Timothy 1:15) – that’s why he came.

So when our world, and our leaders, say that it’s actually better for some innocent people to be killed and moved from life-to-death rather than from death-to-life, we can know that they are not in agreement with the most loving person in history.

Most people want Jesus on their side. But, as Greg Koukl writes:

“What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about” (para. 17).

So, here is what the gospels say about Jesus, and the beginning and end of life.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the Beginning of Life

In the gospels, we are chronologically introduced to Jesus when the angel Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her that she will miraculously conceive (Luke 1:26-38).

Then we see an example of an unborn baby (John the Baptist – about 22-24 weeks gestation) alive and leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41-44), because of the news that Jesus is going to be born.

Mary is also called “mother” by Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) before Jesus is even born, which presumes the existence of a human being for Mary to be the mother of.

The infancy narrative of Luke’s gospel affirms life in the womb.

In addition, we have a couple of verses in the gospels where Jesus himself (now all grown-up) specifically mentions scenarios of pregnant women.

Speaking about future difficulty, Jesus says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” (Mark 13:17 NIV)

Jesus sympathizes with the hardship that comes with pregnancy and motherhood, particularly during difficult times, and we know how accommodating Jesus is of the women who follow him and listen to his teaching.[i]

Jesus champions women in the gospels. But Jesus is also a champion of the birth of human beings. He says, “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (John 16:21 ESV)

Jesus recognizes the pain that comes with pregnancy, but he also says that the joy of a human being born into the world is greater than this agonizing pain – to the point that the anguish of pregnancy is not even remembered when measured against the birth of a new human being into the world.

Jesus’ statement in John 16:21 is non-particular and absolute. He is saying that there is joy when any human being, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), is born into the world. Jesus views human life too highly for us to say that he is anything other than pro-life.

And Jesus is also clear that testing circumstances and the inevitability of suffering is no reason not to live (John 16:33). In fact, the meek life Jesus himself chose to live demonstrates this (just read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Philippians 2:6-8). Life in-and-of-itself is precious to Jesus and not to be discarded.

The only time Jesus says someone would be “better off” not to be born is when he speaks about Judas (Mark 14:21) – someone who is not innocent, and someone of whom Jesus is foreknowingly aware of the consequences for his betrayal.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the End of Life

Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life, and this is patterned in the gospels when Jesus raises a little girl (Mark 5:41-42), a young man (Luke 7:14-15), and a weak-and-ill grown man (John 11:43-44) from the dead.

In our culture, we hear the argument that some (weaker) people are better off dead because the suffering that they will continue to face in their lives is ‘intolerable’. The argument presents death as the best, and even the only, ‘solution’.

Those whom Jesus healed all eventually died again. But he never treated death as the ‘solution’ for their situations.

Jesus admits that life will be hard: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 NIV). But “take heart” connotes perseverance, endurance, and trust in God – the opposite of opting for death.

Opting for death as the solution to life’s sufferings is not on Jesus’ radar. In fact, Jesus is the only (truly) innocent person who needed to face physical death to fix the problem of suffering. And even in his story, life triumphs over death.

The gospel message in its most basic form is that Jesus came to save us from death and give us life. But those who champion death as a solution want the reverse: they want death to ‘save’ someone from life.

Such an attitude is an affront to the love of Jesus, because it runs completely counter to the power of the gospel message. Jesus came that people may have life (John 10:10), which you can’t have if you opt for death as a solution.

Societies that Pursue Jesus Flourish the Most

‘Life’ is not a peripheral issue for Jesus. If ‘life’ matters to history’s greatest person, it should matter to us. Peoples and nations who have followed the principles that matter to Jesus have succeeded in history. Pray that Jesus would be placed at the heart of our society. Apart from him, we are told by the God-man himself that we can do nothing (John 15:5). Pray that our nation would value life. Life matters.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” (John 1:4 NIV)

References:

[i] For more on this see, Rebecca Mclaughlin, Jesus Through the Eyes of Women (Austin, TX: Gospel Coalition, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/4dzGX9y

/by

Why the Best Explanation Can Be a Miracle

,

By Al Serrato

We all intuitively seek the best explanation for a set of facts or circumstances. It’s called abductive reasoning. Detectives make use of this method of reasoning when endeavoring to solve a crime; they put the pieces together so that a picture of what occurred emerges in sufficient detail to have confidence that it is true. Parents do it when they notice that a freshly baked pie has a piece missing and little Johnny has crumbs on his fingers and fruit staining his lips. Perfect knowledge is not required to know with sufficient certainty what occurred.

Abductive Reasoning in Christian Apologetics

As it relates to apologetics, abductive reasoning is a formal way of supporting the case for the validity of Christian truth claims. Though there are dozens of pieces of evidence to support the belief that the Resurrection took place, many apologists will make the case using a “minimal facts” approach. These generally undisputed facts include that Jesus lived, that he was put to death on a Roman cross, that his tomb was later found empty, and that his followers experienced encounters with him which were, simply put, life changing. These followers included skeptics who knew him well, such as his brother James; zealots who were persecuting his followers, such as Paul; and numerous men and women who had been following him during his earthly ministry.

A Cumulative Case

What best accounts for these well-established facts? Could it be they were all hallucinating? That makes little sense as we know that hallucinations do not occur in mass settings. Were they simply mistaken about who it was they were seeing? This too lacks explanatory appeal as mistaken identification is not plausible for family members and close friends and certainly not for many such people. Was it simply wishful thinking? While his followers no doubt missed him dearly, it is not reasonable to conclude that they would face death by insisting that he was still alive, when they knew he was not. Nor would wishful thinking explain the change in those who were initially persecuting Jesus’ followers, nor for those who only became followers after his death. Seeing that the cumulative case points to the fact of the Resurrection can be a powerful way to support the faith.

Losing the Case Before the Courtroom

But many remain unconvinced. When I have encountered such people, I have found that by and large they do not employ abductive reasoning as described above. They have not assessed and considered the piles of evidence from history to determine what other reasonable inference would better fit the known facts. Instead, they begin with the presupposition that miracles – which of course include resurrection from the dead – simply cannot occur. Consequently, any explanation of the historical facts and events which posit a miracle are to be rejected out of hand. The case is lost before it is even considered.

In short, many argue that relying on the possibility of a miracle is simply an admission of ignorance. If you cannot first explain how the miracle occurred, they argue, you should not be able to rely on it.

We can know THAT it happened without knowing HOW it happened.

This challenge to provide an explanation for the “best explanation of the facts” – that is, to explain the miracle – is clever but misplaced. There are many circumstances in which we can know something to be true, or to work, without knowing how it is that this is so. Take our ability to reason or our native sense of fair play: I make use of these things even though I have no way of explaining how reason works, or why I should be able to rely on it to reach true conclusions. I cannot explain how I know that “playing fair” is something that should matter to me. Consciousness is another example: in operating rooms around the world, anesthesiologists make use of drugs that can put people “under” and then restore them to consciousness without knowing how it is that this occurs. They understand the effect these drugs have on the cellular level, and they can measure differences in brain wave activity, but understanding how a grouping of brain cells goes from conscious to unconscious and back is still beyond scientific understanding. Though not usually considered as such, consciousness and reason are themselves “miraculous” – no sufficient naturalistic processes can account for them.

So, if the evidence that a man was put to death and then appeared again in a re-animated and enhanced body is sufficiently credible, then the fact that we cannot currently “explain” how it occurred does not prove that it did not occur. Consider for a moment the many medical “miracles” that have occurred. There are countless cases in which a disease process stops, or reverses, for reasons that are unclear, at least at present. As knowledge and technology advance, some of these miracles will be explained through naturalistic mechanisms. But how can the skeptic possibly know that this will always be the case? Would this not require perfect knowledge on his part, in order to know with certainty that departures from the laws of nature can never occur?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more, with seeking more knowledge and more information to get the “how” questions answered. There is nothing wrong with trying to rule out all naturalistic explanations before considering the supernatural. And it may be, in the end, that additional knowledge will modify, or perhaps even change, some of our views.

But refusing to go where the evidence leads because of a belief that supernatural events are “impossible” is a reflection of underlying bias, not an expression of enlightened thinking.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

 

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

 

/by

Recommended Books on Historical Apologetics for The Gospels & Acts

I am often asked which books I recommend for defending the reliability of the Gospels/Acts and Christianity in general, so here is my list. It is not exhaustive, but it will definitely give you a good start.

The categorized as “mandatory” are more basic, while some of those labeled as “recommended” or “supplementary” delve into more profound and scholarly content. Any item marked with a * can be accessed for free online as PDF files. A significant number of these works are downloadable from http://historicalapologetics.org, http://books.google.com, or http://archive.org.

Mandatory Reading:

Author Book Title
Bennett, Edmund * The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint
Lewis, CS Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism (Essay in Christian Reflections)
McGrew, Lydia Testimonies to the Truth: Why You Can Trust the Gospels
Paley, William * A View of the Evidences for Christianity
Pitre, Brant The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ
Williams, Peter J. Can We Trust the Gospels?

Recommended Reading:

Author Book Title
Bauckham, Richard Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd edition
Blomberg, Craig The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel
Blomberg, Craig The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
Boyd, Greg & Eddy, Paul Rhodes The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition
Hill, Charles E. Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy
Kennedy, Titus Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels
Kruger, Michael J. & Kostenberger, Andreas The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity 
McGrew, Lydia Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels & Acts
McGrew, Lydia The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage
McGrew, Lydia The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices
Paley, William * Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul
White, Jefferson Evidence and Paul’s Journeys: An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul

Supplemental Reading:

Author Book Title
Bernier, Jonathan Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition
Ramsay, William * St. Paul the Ancient Traveler and Roman Citizen
Smith, James *The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul

Reference Reading:

Author Book Title
Carson, DA and Moo, Douglas An Introduction to the New Testament 
Hemer, Colin The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History
Lardner, Nathaniel * The Credibility of the Gospel History, 17 volumes
Norton, Andrews * Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels
Norton, Andrews * The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

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

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

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith. 

Originally published at: https://bit.ly/4dG4gyQ

 

/by

Timothy’s Tale: Unveiling Undesigned Coincidences In Paul’s Journeys

Because Paul crisscrossed paths with many folks, some repeatedly, it’s quite enlightening to compare how these people are portrayed in the book of Acts with what Paul hints at in his own letters. Among these characters, Timothy stands out as a particularly intriguing figure.

In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul mentions sending Timothy, his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord,” to jog the Corinthians’ memory about Paul’s ways in Christ. Now, from this passage alone, it’s a bit tricky to figure out if Timothy was sent before the letter or with it. In 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, though, Paul makes it clear that Timothy was dispatched before the letter was penned. He talks about Timothy’s impending arrival as something distinct from when the Corinthians would receive the letter itself – “When Timothy comes, …”

Contradictory Accounts?

Now, when you stack these two passages side by side, a puzzling question pops up. If Timothy was sent first, why didn’t he show up first? And if he did arrive first, why bother sending instructions afterward on how to welcome him?

The most sensible answer is that Timothy, even though sent ahead, must have taken a more roundabout route to Corinth. The quickest way from Ephesus, where Paul was writing, to Corinth would be by ship, covering the distance in a jiffy with a favorable wind. But, as we dig into Luke’s account in Acts 19:21-22, we discover that Timothy, when leaving Ephesus, opted for the overland route, traveling up through Macedonia.

We stumble upon these coincidences that weren’t orchestrated but fit together seamlessly. Paul’s letter doesn’t mention a word about Timothy’s trek through Macedonia, and Acts doesn’t bring up Paul’s letter. Yet, Acts offers the only sensible explanation for these offhand remarks Paul makes in his letter, creating this neat puzzle where the pieces just click into place.

How Did The Philippian Church Know Timothy?


But there’s more about Timothy. When Paul writes the church at Philippi, he says:

“I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Philippians 2:19-21).

In this passage, it’s pretty clear that the Philippians knew Timothy and had seen him working alongside Paul. The nifty part is how there’s this subtle and smooth connection between what’s written in Philippians and the story in the book of Acts. So, in Acts 16, Paul starts traveling with Timothy, a convert from around Lystra and Iconium. After that, the Acts story gets into Paul’s travels across Asia Minor to Troas and then Macedonia.

When they hit Philippi, the story dives into Paul’s missionary adventures, detailing his struggles and hardships. Acts 17 continues the journey, covering Paul’s move from Philippi to Thessalonica, where things get pretty heated, and he has to leave. Then comes this sneaky part: the brothers secretly send Paul and Silas to Berea at night, and when they get there, they hit up the Jewish synagogue. That’s when Timothy pops back into the picture:

“Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there” (Acts 17:14).

So, even though Timothy wasn’t explicitly mentioned during the journey, Acts 17:10-15 shows that he was indeed rolling with Paul at Berea. Silas gets more spotlight in the story, but Acts hints that Paul had more buddies along, including the author himself. This revelation about Timothy being there in Berea fills in the gaps and explains how the Philippians knew about Timothy’s skills and saw him working hard with Paul, like a son with his father.

What’s interesting is that Acts doesn’t just say Timothy was in Philippi. You have to connect the dots by piecing together Timothy’s role from different mentions in Acts. It’s not like the author of Acts was trying to be all sneaky and create a link with Philippians. Instead, this connection adds weight to the idea that the author of Acts really knew Paul’s life inside out, including his friends and moves during that time.

Paul Alone In Athens

But wait, there’s another nice example of an undesigned coincidence in this same passage. So, in Thessalonica, Paul’s ministry gets interrupted by a rowdy bunch of Gentiles riled up by the local Jews, prompting a quick escape with Silas for Berea (Acts 17:10). When the troublemakers catch wind that Paul’s still preaching in Berea, they show up, causing a ruckus. Paul has to skedaddle to Athens in a hurry, leaving Silas and Timothy behind (Acts 17:14). Now, Acts doesn’t spill the tea on why Paul left Silas and Timothy hanging. But then, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5 gives us the missing piece:

“Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith…”

Turns out, under the circumstances, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to check on the folks there and report back while Paul was busy in Athens. This neatly clears up the unexplained bit in Acts, making sense of the separation from Silas and Timothy.

Timothy’s Mixed Upbringing

Here’s another neat example of undesigned coincidences, from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, where describes Timothy rather than mentioning his travels:

“…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15)

Clearly, Paul’s talking about the Jewish scriptures here, but he doesn’t give any hint as to how Timothy, who wasn’t circumcised until after his conversion as a young man (as mentioned in Acts 16:3), got to know them. The missing piece of information falls into place when we check out Acts 16:1:

“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.”

Seems like Timothy’s Greek dad wasn’t on board with the whole circumcision thing. But his Jewish mother made sure he got schooled in the scriptures of her people. Paul even names his mother and grandmother in 2 Timothy 1:5.

Timothy’s Knowledge Of Paul’s Persecutions

But there’s more! In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, Paul talks about how Timothy followed his teachings, behavior, and experiences, especially the tough times in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. Now, the Antioch here isn’t the famous one in Syria, but a different one in Pisidia. Acts 13 in the Bible says that Paul and Barnabas got into trouble there, stirred up by the locals. They had to skip town and faced more problems in Iconium, so they moved on to Lystra and Derbe.

In Acts 14, it mentions Paul getting stoned and dragged out of the city by angry folks from Antioch and Iconium. This lines up perfectly with what Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 3:10-11 about the persecutions he faced in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. It matches not only in the cities but also in the order Paul talks about them.

Here’s another cool tidbit: In Acts, Lystra and Derbe are often mentioned together, just like in 2 Timothy. But, interestingly, Paul doesn’t face any troubles in Derbe, and sure enough, it’s not mentioned in the list of persecutions in 2 Timothy. So, there’s a perfect match between what Paul says and what happened in Acts.

Now, Paul also implies that Timothy saw or at least knows about these persecutions. Acts backs this up. In Acts 15:36, it says Paul went on a second journey to check on the folks he converted during the first trip. In Acts 16:1-2, we find out that Timothy, a disciple from Lystra, was well-regarded in the community. This suggests that Timothy might have been converted during Paul’s earlier visit when all the tough times were going down. So, it looks like Timothy was there, or at least very aware of what Paul went through in those cities.

What This All Means

Does the fact that these passages don’t match up exactly, and they’re scattered throughout without sounding alike, make you think someone’s trying to trick us? Or does each one just fit naturally where it is? If it’s the latter, it’s pretty unlikely that someone cooked up these connections on purpose. These accounts sound like what we would expect if different people, at different times and places, are sharing different parts of the same story.

Think about it this way: Imagine someone trying to copy an important document, but they change a few words here and there to make it seem original. We can see this happening with some writings from the second century, like the “Gospel of Peter,” where they use phrases almost identical to ones found in well-known Gospels to make their writing seem legit:

  • “And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord.” (similar to Mark 15:17)
  • “And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them.” (similar to Luke 23:32-33)
  • “And in that hour the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was rent in twain.” (similar to Mark 15:38)
  • “But who shall roll away for us the stone …?” (similar to Mark 16:3)
  • “Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone.” (similar to Mark 16:6)

Here, the similarities are on purpose to make it seem real. But when we look at Acts and the Pauline letters, they’re not like that. They don’t match word for word, and they’re connected in more subtle ways. This makes it pretty impressive evidence that they’re telling us the truth about what really happened, without needing to fake anything.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith. 

Originally published at: Is Jesus Alive?

/by

Dangerous Homefront, part 2: NT Prooftexts we Know and Love

,

In part 1 of this series, we looked at a few Old Testament passages that people often misinterpret. In part 2 we shift to the New Testament. It’s worth noting that sometimes the error is just an innocent mistake. It’s not always from bad intentions, or false teachers, or heretical theology. Sometimes there are malicious forces at work here, but often it’s just well-meaning people getting confused about what the Bible says. The list of verses below is just a sample of commonly misinterpreted texts. There are many more too choose from, but I’m willing to bet that if you are a church-goer you’ve heard at least one of these misinterpretations before.

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

This is perhaps the most quoted verse of Scripture surpassing even John 3:16. The love of God is succinctly portrayed in the one-verse Gospel message of John 3:16 and this was considered a beautiful redeeming truth to be shared and enjoyed – perhaps more than any other verse until now. In recent times, the most prized message in Scripture is more often to abstain from “passing judgment.” So Matthew 7:1 has risen in popularity. But this anti-judgement verse does not promise freedom from judgment. For all will eventually be judged by God (Revelation 20:11-15). Nor does it even disbar judgment between believers (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 1:20). Rather, in context, this verse cautions against hypocrisy. The immediate passage following this one chastises hypocrites who attempt to remove a speck from another man’s eye when all the time there is a plank in his own (Matt. 7:1-5). This verse communicates a boomerang effect to one’s actions consistent with the rest of the Sermon the Mount – and this verse is part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).[1]. Scripture encourages Christians to judge sin, at least among believers – “let judgment begin with the church” (1 Peter 4:17). Now, Christians shouldn’t be condemning other people to hell, or acting on their own initiative (individually) to disbar people from becoming Christians. In those senses Christians “shouldn’t judge.” But Matthew 7:1 isn’t saying to never judge anyone else, it’s saying to never judge in this hypocritical and condemning ways. We should still use judgment to exercise church discipline, to administer righteous verdicts and punishments, to recognize and extinguish sin, to distinguish between truth and error, discern between wise and unwise, and identify good and evil.

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The problem that rides on this verse is that Satan gets too much credit. One may think, from this verse, that Satan is the one to fear, the one who can “destroy both soul and body in hell.” This misunderstanding seems to be more the product of poor theology than malicious exegesis. For the One who is truly Lord over Hell is not Satan but God (1 Chron. 29:11-14; Ps. 103:19). God is sovereign over everything—hell included. Satan is but a prisoner; God is the warden (Job 1:6-12; Rev. 20:1-3, 10). God is to be feared above all else, above even Satan.

Matthew 18:19-20

Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This little passage is one of the most victimized in all of Scripture. First, this verse is often used to justify all shades of “health and wealth” theology, namely the belief that God must give believers whatever they ask (no matter how self-centered it may be) as long as they ask God in groups. The second offense is a little more innocent. Christians often quote verse twenty as an invocation of God’s presence be it at prayer meetings, worship services, or whatever else. The answer to both of these problems is, again, context. Matthew 18:15-20 is about church discipline. And the reason the numbers “two or three” are mentioned is because those are the numbers of witnesses that would testify in the case of a legal or religious offense. To prevent “he said she said” arguments, two or three witnesses were brought forth to establish trustworthy testimony (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Hebr. 10:28). Moreover, since only God has the ultimate authority to judge (Deut. 32:39; Rom. 12:19), any human judgment over other men was to be done with God’s conferred authority. And in these verses we see God conferring His authority for judgment only to groups of believers, that is, to a church, the “body of Christ.” God’s presence to creation is a universal fact (Ps 139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:27-28). So, He hardly needs to be invoked at prayer meetings or at church services (recognized, yes, but not invoked). His presence is mentioned here in reference to His conferring authority to believers for the exercising of judgment within the church.

Revelation 3:15-16

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

These verses do not mean that God prefers spiritual coldness (disbelief, hostility, inactivity, uselessness) to lukewarm spirituality (hypocrisy, casual Christianity). That interpretation would mean that God wills disbelief (or hostility, inactivity). Thus God not only permits disbelief, but He prefers it. That is, He wants it. This idea is dangerous enough in that it suggest that God is guilty of evil, but it also presents a stiff challenge to Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:4 which says, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Such a misinterpretation also suffers contextual blindness. John was addressing the wealthy Church of Laodicea which was inconveniently located south of Heiropolos, known for its therapeutic hot springs, and north of Colossae with its cold refreshing waters.[2] Laodicea, not having an adequate water source of its own brought water in from these outside sources. Thus the water they acquired was lukewarm and dirty by the time it reached them. John, therefore, is drawing the contrast between the therapeutic hot springs and the revitalizing cold springs–both good options–and between these two is the feted lukewarm water of Laodicea.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This verse is usually treated as an evangelistic invitation, however the context reveals that John is still talking to the Church at Laodicea. That is, John is addressing believers. This knocking and calling is not unto salvation, for that much is already assured to these believers. Instead the invitation is to a deeper fellowship with God.

Stay tuned for Parts 3 in this series!

Endnotes

[1] This boomerang affect is visible in Matthew 6:14-15, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (See also Matt. 7:2, 12).
[2] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation Rev. Ed. in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 109-10.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John is a licensed minister with earned degrees from Charleston Southern (BA), Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD). His doctorate is in philosophy of religion, minoring in ethics. As a new addition to Crossexamined in 2023, John brings a wealth of experience to the team including debating atheists, preaching the Gospel, teaching apologetics in schools and churches, publishing books and articles, and creating websites. John is also a teaching fellow with Equal Rights Institute and president of Pella Pro-Life in his hometown of Pella, Iowa. There he resides with his lovely and brilliant wife Hillary Ferrer, founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. Together they specialize in cultural apologetics with an emphasis on family-based apologetic training.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3r0C5qp

/by