Tag Archive for: theology

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

Dangerous Homefront, part 1: OT Prooftexts we Know and Love

,

Years ago, on a trip to Washington DC I found myself going through a few different airports and learning a life lesson along the way. The flights led me through several security checks. I had no problem with the baggage scans and the metal detectors till I got to LaGuardia airport in New York. I was stopped. I had forgotten about a small pocketknife on my key-chain. Not being a terrorist, or John Wick, I don’t think of a one-inch blade as a weapon. My pocketknife was confiscated. It was no big loss, but it was enough to teach me something. One airport let that pocketknife slip by unnoticed. But in New York they spotted it instantly. In New York they knew the threat of terrorism. Their sensitivities were keen, their awareness raised. They knew that a few box cutters can be used to highjack a plane and kill thousands. I miss my little pocketknife. But I’m glad that the airport security was as tight as it was. New York is safer because of it, and so is America.

What was the difference between those airports? They all knew that terrorism still happens, and plane crashes are a real threat. They all had undergone the same security regulations training. They all had to adopt heightened security standards since 9/11. They were all big enough airports, seeing thousands of passengers every day. But in New York they took their job a little bit more seriously. They had to. The danger was not only real, but obvious, and – since this pocket-knife incident was around 2002 – 9/11 was still a fresh memory, painted in somber living colors of gray dust and red blood.

In the Christian church how often do we allow dangerous elements to slip under our radar? What bad interpretations of the Bible have we adopted because we did not let their imminent threat rouse us to action? As tragic a disaster as 9/11 was, more hangs in the balance when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Here eternal souls are at stake. Here whole denominations are tottering. Here is where God’s voice is most clearly heard. But, in spite of the gravity of this issue, God’s Word is still constantly mishandled, even among well-meaning Christians. Let’s look at a few examples. As you’ll see, Biblical apologetics is not just for counteracting cults. It’s useful for some church house-cleaning too.

The Danger with Prooftexts
Correctly interpreting the Bible is an exercise in humility. We should approach the Bible, with the humble posture of a teachable student, willing to learn, and wanting to hear what God has to say. It doesn’t matter what we would prefer to hear. God’s message is the reference point, and that’s what we’re trying to reach. Sometimes, however, people pull a single verse or passage out of context, to make it “mean” something it probably doesn’t mean. That’s called “prooftexting.” Any verse or passage used that way is called a ”prooftext.” Sometimes people resort to prooftexting on accident. But other times, people use prooftexts to put words in God’s mouth, to make God say something He never said. When God’s words are taken out of context, they can be distorted to say most anything. That’s the danger of prooftexting.

We’re going to look at a few prooftexts from the Old Testament. Then in Part 2 of this series, we’ll look at prooftexts from the New Testament. Finally, in part 3, we’ll offer guidance to correct against prooftexting errors. I encourage you to look these passages up in their original context and read the surrounding verses. See if you can identify what the verse more likely means and how people might miss that target.

1 Chronicles 4:9-10[1]

“Now Jabez was more honorable than his brothers, and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I bore [him] in pain.’ 10 And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, ‘Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep [me] from evil, that I may not cause pain!’ So God granted him what he requested.”

Perhaps you read the book, The Prayer of Jabez. It was popular a few years ago, and it’s resurfaced now and again. The book was easy to read, simple, and seemed to offer a straight-forward method for lining one’s life up with God’s blessing. It wasn’t quite “health and wealth” theology, but it was close enough that a lot of people liked it for the same reasons. Stepping back a bit, we can see that, first, the story is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, the story describes what did happen not necessarily what should happen, especially in our day and age.

Second, the passage is much too brief an interjection to support the volumes of theologizing that have been put upon it. If the passage was enriched by a greater historical or circumstantial context or perhaps prescriptive in nature, then more could be said of it. But as it stands, there are only two verses in Scripture which deal with Jabez (1 Chron. 4:9, 10) and one verse that mentions a city by that name (1 Chron. 2:55).[2] That’s not a lot to work with.

Third, the common interpretation that Jabez’s prayer is somehow special in its profound insights on blessing is undermined by the facts that Jabez could equally have been blessed for his being “honorable” or for his being an otherwise cursed person under a name that means “pain”, for God has always had a heart for the “nobodies” and the “underdogs.”[3] The prayer may have been mentioned to demonstrate how God blessed Jabez in spite of his words rather than because of them.

Fourth, perhaps the most troubling thing about the way this passage has been handled is that it’s used as a magic formula, as if there are magic prayers that unlock God’s stored up blessings. The text makes no suggestion that this prayer is prescriptive nor that it mechanically brings about the desired effect. Prayer for Jabez works just as it does for us. Prayer is a relational activity that should be God-centered and the results are guaranteed only to fit what God wants, whether or not people agree.[4]

Psalm 118:24

“This [is] the day [which] the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”

The passage is often cited as a reminder that God makes every day and we should be glad about this fact. One might hear this verse quoted, perhaps in hymn form or in a prayer, bright and early Sunday morning as a commencement for the day’s worship service. But this verse is not referring to just any day, but one day in particular. If we examine the larger passage we can find another memorable line in verse twenty-two, “The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.” This memorable verse would be repeated by the Apostle Peter hundreds of years later in 1 Peter 2:7 with specific reference to the ministry and work of Christ as a foundation for the building of the church. Furthermore, Psalm 118:22 suggests that this “day” refers to the day of salvation, and indeed the larger context of Psalm 118 agrees with this interpretation.[5] The Psalmist is celebrating God’s work of salvation and, in verse twenty-four, the particular day in which it occurs. This is the day of salvation, the LORD has brought about salvation, and that’s cause for rejoicing.

Proverbs 29:18

“Where [there is] no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy [is] he.”

The word hazon interpreted as “vision” is often misunderstood to mean a “vision” in the sense of goal-setting, vision statements, and strategic planning in the corporate world. That is, people need to have a clear “vision” of their goal so they are inspired to work harder, work together, overcome obstacles, and achieve that goal. Whatever truth there is to that sense of “vision” that’s not what this verse is about. Nevertheless, in church settings the idea is usually that chaos erupts when the church does not have a set ministry plan, a singular vision of ministry agreed upon by the head pastor, church leaders, or the denomination.

I’m not trying to dismiss the value of goal-setting and clear vision statements for your church or business, but that’s just not what this verse is about. The word here is hazon, and it refers to divine communication to prophets.[6] In context, the “vision” here is about divine revelation through a prophet, namely, God’s revealed law (Scripture). This sense fits best with parallel structure of the verse.[7] The first line tells of perishing for lack of vision.[8] But the second line of the verse explains the object of this vision – what are they looking at with their “vision. It says, “But he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” This vision refers to seeing God’s law, specifically God’s standard as revealed through the prophets. And for those who do not have the law, they can’t keep the law, they don’t benefit from it, and they suffer and perish without it.

Isaiah 53:5

“But He [was] wounded for our transgressions, [He] [was] bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace [was] upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.”

This verse, or at least the last line of it, “by His stripes we are healed,” is often quoted in reference to physical healing from diseases and disorders. This passage, however, is talking about eternal salvation. Usually the common error in cases like this is to flatten out one’s soteriology (theology of salvation) reading eternity into every earthly deliverance. But here the opposite is done. Isaiah 53 is one of the clearest Messianic and soteriological passages in Scripture. The nature of Christ’s eternally redemptive work is explained in this prophecy. To reduce this passage to physical healing is to say that Christ died on the cross so you wouldn’t have lower back pain. Or Christ rose from the grave to deliver you from migraines. But the whole thrust of this passage is that the Messiah is not simply assuming the pains and sufferings of the world on her behalf; He is bearing the load of her sin-punishment. In summary, the thrust of this entire chapter is that Christ dies a substitutionary death for the atonement and spiritual redemption of men. To be fair, Jesus does heal people – that was a major part of his earthly ministry. But full and final healing isn’t guaranteed for all believers until heaven. That completed sense of healing is still in view here, as Christ isn’t just delivering people from the wages of sin (justification), and from slavery to sin (sanctification), but also delivering believers ultimately from the presence of sin through glorification in heaven. Isaiah 53:5 does not however guarantee that Christians will be, in this life, physically healed by Christ’s suffering. Were a person to make an argument from Scripture for physical healings today, he would do better finding his support elsewhere.

Stay tuned for Parts 2 and 3 in this series!

Endnotes
[1] Since many misinterpretations have ties to the KJV, or at least were first proliferated under the KJV-popular era, all Scripture verses are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.
[2] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Lynchburg, VA: Old Time Gospel Hour, 1890, reprint ed. N.D.), 534.
[3] This point hardly needs defense. Nonetheless for God’s Word as it concerns the care of the poor, destitute, and otherwise “lowly” see: Ex 22:25-27; 23:11; Le 19:9, 10; 23:22; 25:25-28, 35-37, 39-43; De 14:28, 29; 15:2-14; 24:12-21; 26:12, 13; 1Sa 2:7; Ne 8:10; Job 5:15, 16; 31:15; 34:18, 19, 28; 36:6, 15; Ps 9:18; 10:14; 12:5; 14:6; 34:6; 35:10; 37:21, 26; 41:1-3; 68:10; 69:33; 72:2, 4, 12-14; 74:21; 102:17; 107:9, 36, 41; 109:31; 112:4, 5, 9; 113:7, 8; 132:15; 140:12; 146:5, 7; Pr 22:2, 22, 23; 28:27; 29:7, 13; 31:9, 20; Ec 5:8; Isa 1:17; 11:4; 14:30, 32; 16:3,4; 25:4; 29:19; 41:17; 58:7, 10; Jer 20:13; Eze 18:7, 16, 17; Da 4:27; Zep 3:12; Zec 7:10; 11:7; Mt 5:42; 11:5; 19:21; 25:35, 36; Mr 14:7; Lu 3:11; 4:18; 6:30; 7:22; 11:41; 12:33; 14:12-14; 16:22; 18:22; 19:8; Ac 20:35; Ro 12:8, 13, 20; 1Co 13:3; 16:1,2; 2Co 6:10; 9:5-7; Ga 2:10; 6:10; Eph 4:28; 1Ti 5:9, 10, 16; Heb 13:3; Jas 1:27; 2:2-9, 15, 16; 5:4; 1Jo 3:17-19. Naves Topical Bible (No Bibliographical Data given) in Gramcord [CD ROM] (Vancouver, WA; Gramcord Institute, 1998), “Poor.”
[4] The intimacy of the Psalms, which themselves tend to be as much prayers as songs, bear witness to the personal and relational nature of prayer. And it is a plain fact that prayers often go unanswered or at least answered with a “No.” But God also accomplishes everything He intends to accomplish (1 Chron. 29:11-14; Ps. 104:27-30; Isa. 14:24, 26-27; 55:11). Therefore prayer is only guaranteed to bring about the desired results when those desired results align with God’s plans. Furthermore, the only prayer in the New Testament era that can be argued as a formulaic prescription is the Lord’s Prayer found in Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. But even this appears more to be an outline rather than a formulaic prescription, for of all the prayers to be found in the rest of Scripture, nowhere else is the Lord’s Prayer repeated verbatim.
[5] “Salvation” refers here both to temporal salvation (earthly deliverance) and eternal salvation. Psalm 118 is rich with imagery of God’s immanence and direct earthly salvation. Indeed, temporal salvation is the predominant kind suggested in Psalm 118 but in verse nineteen the setting begins to shift saying, “Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, [and] I will praise the LORD, 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.” This reference to “gates of righteousness,” like the “gates” in Psalm 100:4, suggest God’s abode. And the Petrine interpretation of Psalm 118:22 as seen in 1 Pet. 2:7 bolsters this interpretation. Indeed the Psalmist believes God to be his savior in warfare, but also His savior unto heaven. For more on the ancient Hebrew expectations of the Kingdom of Heaven see Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona, IN: BMH, 1987).
[6] Allen P. Ross notes, “The word hazon refers to divine communication to prophets (as in 1 Sam 3:1) and not to individual goals that are formed . . . . The prophetic ministry was usually in response to the calamitous periods, calling the people back to God– hazon meaning revelatory vision should be retained. If there is no revelation from God, people can expect spiritual and political anarchy” (Allen P. Ross, Proverbs in Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 8 [CD ROM] [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997], Prov. 28:19).
[7] Parallelism is the pairing of related lines for literary affect be it emphasis, contrast, development, cause and affect, question and answer, etc. For excellent studies on Hebrew parallelism see James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ., 1981); and Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry.
[8] The term for “perish,” para means to “let go,” “unbind,” or “uncover” and is variously rendered as “unrestrained” (NASB), “cast off restraint” (NIV, ASV, NKJV), or “made naked” (Young’s Literal). Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Reprint from the 1906 ed., 7th printing (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 828, Strongs #6544.


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

5 Fatal Flaws in Transgender Ideology

,

Many people who support transgender surgery and cross-sex hormones may be well-intentioned, but the transgender ideology behind those intentions is fraught with fatal flaws. Here are just five of many. Contrary to transgender ideology:

1. The Design of the Body Proves There are Only Two Genders

Transgender advocates insist there are multiple genders. However, the design of the human body shows there are only two genders. Humans can either produce sperm or eggs. There is no third reproductive output in humans or mammals. Of course, there are humans who cannot produce either due to biological deficiencies, but that is an incapacity, not a thirdcapacity to produce something else. Thus, the claim that there are more than two genders can only be entertained if one detaches the concept of gender from biological sex.

However, insisting that gender is completely different from someone’s biological sex doesn’t work either. If gender and biology were completely different things — if there’s no relationship between the two — then why would anyone advocate for cross-sex hormones or sex change operations? Which leads us to flaw two.

2. Transgenderism Must Presuppose Fixed Genders

While transgender advocates deny that there are only two genders, they must unwittingly presuppose two genders for transgenderism to be possible. Why? Because if I’m a biological man but think I’m a woman, I must have some idea of what a man and woman are to recognize my problem. I must also know what a man and woman are to make the so-called “transition.” If genders are completely fluid with no fixed reference points, there would be no way to recognize the mismatch between my biology and psychology and no destination for my transition. In other words, “gender dysphoria” could not exist without two known, fixed genders.

The denial of fixed genders has sparked a bit of a civil war among some identifying as LGBTQ, because if the T’s get their way, the L’s, G’s, and B’s don’t exist (search for #LGBminustheT). How can one be lesbian, gay, or bisexual if there are no fixed genders? Each of those identities rely on fixed genders. Likewise, some feminists are unhappy because, without fixed genders, there are no women and therefore no women’s rights.

This is one reason why Matt Walsh’s documentary, “What is a Woman?,” has so many transgender advocates and Leftwing academics stumped by the question, “What is a woman?” They are caught in a dilemma. If they say a woman is a biological female, then transgender ideology is false. If they refuse to define a woman, transgenderism is not possible. Who is transitioning to what? And what happened to women’s rights?

3. You Can Change Your Mind But Not Your Biology

When biology and psychology are mismatched, why do we think changing the body instead of changing the mind is the way to fix the problem? We don’t do this for other conditions.

When anorexics falsely think they are overweight, we don’t say, “You’re right. Let me get you some liposuction.” For people who honestly believe they should have healthy limbs cut off (a condition known as “trans-abled”), we don’t say, “You’re right. If you think you should not have a right arm, we will cut if off for you.” When your daughter insists she’s a mermaid, you don’t take her off the coast and drop her in the ocean. So, why do we think we should cut off healthy sex organs instead of helping people change their minds?

While you can change your mind, it is literally impossible to change your biology. You can mutilate your body, but you cannot change the DNA of your 100 trillion cells or the many thousands of biological differences between men and women.

Any attempt to “transition” between the sexes implicitly admits these differences and affirms the binary nature of gender. Otherwise, there would be no use for hormones or puberty blockers. In fact, if there were no differences in the physical and biological designs of men and women, transgenderism would not only be impossible but unnecessary. If men and women were the same, there would be no need or desire to transition. So instead of me thinking I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body, why not think I’m a man with a woman’s mind? That way I can actually fix my problem with good mental health care.

4. Sex Is Not Assigned At Birth

For transgender ideology to succeed, people must come to believe that gender is arbitrary and is “assigned” at birth. But everyone knows that gender is not “assigned” at birth — it is discovered at birth (or sometimes before). It’s not like people vote at gender-reveal parties, or that doctors arbitrarily decide the sex of a newborn. No, they discover and state the baby’s sex because there is no ambiguity.

In the extremely rare cases where genitals are ambiguous (intersex), tests are done and choices are made to correct the problem. Most patients end up male or female rather than assuming a non-binary status. This is not the same as transgenderism where people with fully formed and healthy sexual organs attempt to transition to the opposite sex. Intersex is a biological condition; gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. The existence of intersex conditions does nothing to support the claim that sex is “assigned” at birth. Birth defects do not disprove the norm. In fact, they would be impossible to identify without the norm.

We live in a fallen world. All of us are born with deficiencies and defects. That doesn’t mean we are less human or less worthy of respect.  But that also doesn’t mean we should mandate that everyone else live according to such deficiencies or defects.  When someone is born deaf, we don’t tell the rest of the world they can never speak or listen to music because it might offend the deaf. Yet that is precisely what transgender activists and the rest of the woke world are trying to impose on our entire society.

5. There is No Basis for Transgender Rights

We seem to be inventing new “rights” in America every 10 minutes. But where do rights come from? They can’t come from the government because a right is something you have regardless of what anyone else says about it (including your government). Rights can only come from God (“our Creator” as the Declaration of Independence puts it). Without God, every moral issue is reduced to a matter of opinion.

What evidence do we have that God wants anyone to amputate perfectly healthy sex organs? There is none from natural law, the Bible, or any other supposed revelation that claims to come from God.

People can demand that their government legislate or declare certain behaviors as “rights,” but that doesn’t make them rights any more than a government can legislate that a biological man is a woman. That doesn’t make him a woman. Instead of trying to change reality to fit our thoughts, we should be trying to change our thoughts to fit reality. As I document in the new third edition of Correct Not Politically Correct (from which this column is adapted), there are several more fatal flaws in transgender ideology, including the evidence showing that transitioning doesn’t fix the underlying problem. But that’s for the next column.


Recommended resources related to the topic:

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) pdf, PowerPoint by Frank Turek
Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case, and is co-author of the new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God. 

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/436g5Yq

/by

Why is God’s Word so Hard to Understand?

,

The following question comes from one our Crossexamined Community members.

“Why did God allow the Bible to be written in a way that gives Christians an opportunity to misunderstand it?”

This question intrigues me because it’s a universal problem. Everyone who’s ever tried to dig into the Bible has found it difficult sometimes to understand what God is saying. And some passages are so difficult that theologians across Church history can’t agree on what they mean.

Of course we could all benefit from learning how to interpret the Bible correctly. Sometimes we struggle over a passage and it would be easy to understand if we just knew a few basic principles for interpretation. But even if you had the best education and years of practice, there are still some passages that will baffle you. No amount of schooling will be enough. God’s word can still be difficult.

Moreover, this interpretive problem points to a theological problem. If God’s word is so easy to misinterpret and so hard to understand, then what does that say about God? Is God just playing games with us? Is this some big game of “keep-away” and He’s eluding us, refusing to let us understand what He’s saying? That sounds like a capricious, mischievous God. Not a good look.

1. Much of the Bible is Easy to Understand

First, we should note that a lot of the Bible is straightforward, fairly easy to understand, and there’s no real challenge in figuring out how to rightly apply it. That’s important to remember, so we have a sense of balance between the easy and hard parts of the Bible. Jesus was able to translate the Gospel message so that an uneducated foreign woman – the woman at the well – was able to understand exactly what He meant (John 4). God can, and does, communicate in ways that anyone, with ears to hear, can understand Him.

But one chapter earlier, Jesus was confusing the well-educated Pharisee, Nicodemus (John 3). Pharisees were some of the most educated and biblically literate scholars in their day. To this day, we don’t know if Nicodemus ever grasped what Jesus meant by “born again.” Sometimes, God communicates in ways that challenge and confound the most educated among us. Other times, God speaks clearly, His words cutting like a knife so that everyone understands what He’s saying.

2. Sometimes We’re the Problem

We also should admit that often the problem isn’t in the Bible. A passage can be straightforward and easy-to-understand. But if we don’t like what God is saying to us, we might play dumb, thinking we aren’t responsible to follow directions that we don’t understand. But playing dumb is a dangerous game. If you keep acting dumb, eventually you won’t be acting. I call this phenomenon: “sin-stupid.” When people suppress God’s truth long enough, their conscience is seared (1 Timothy 4:2), their hearts become hard (Romans 2:5), their spiritual discernment gets dull, till they can’t understand things that used to be obvious. Repeated unrepentant sin makes people stupid over time.

Or perhaps we aren’t rebelling against God or suppressing His word. We might just be a little lazy or distracted, and we aren’t paying close attention to see what God is saying to us. If God’s word were on billboard, we at least need to stop speeding, stop multitasking, and slow down enough to read what He’s telling us. God’s word might be easy enough to understand, but if we’re just sprinting past, paying little attention, then we’re liable to misinterpret Him. That’s not God’s fault. That’s ours   .

3. God Has Other Purposes Besides Clarity

At the heart of this question is the assumption that God wants to be understood. And, yes, God relates with mankind in ways that invite us to know Him more, understanding who He is, how He works, and what He wants. But we cannot assume that God’s only purpose in communication is clarity.

Sometimes God speaks in riddles, or indirectly, or in downright incomprehensible ways. If God was aiming primarily at being clear, then He’s failed. But we have no good reason to think that clarity is God’s only aim here. Indeed, we have reason to believe He’s trying to be murky and confusing to some people.

4. God is Sorting Out the Followers from the Fans

Jesus famously explained his use of parables saying they were not just to clarify kingdom principles among believers but also to confound non-believers (Matt 13:10-17).

“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’

He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’” (Matthew 13:10-13; NIV)

Scripture has some passages for easy-reading and some for difficult-reading. And this is an intentional sifting method to bless those believers who have “ears to hear” without rewarding non-believers with kingdom insights that aren’t fit for them.

5. God is Beautiful, Not Basic

Another reason for these difficult passages is that God isn’t a “bread-and-water” God. He’s not basic. He could have made a world without tastes, and colors, and smells, and experiences. But He included all that stuff because He’s an artist, an aesthete. Likewise, God’s word isn’t reducible simply to information, any more than food is reducible entirely to fuel. It’s designed for an aesthetic interaction. It’s a beauty to be enjoyed. It’s an encounter to be experienced. Just as food is more than calories, so God’s word is more than information. It has flavor, and texture, and ambience so that there’s more to imbibe than just raw information. If Scripture were just about information transfer, then we could hurry through it. Get the info and go. But Scripture is to be experienced, and that means ruminating on it sometimes. Let the flavors simmer a bit.

6. God Promotes Wisdom

Sometimes the difficulty we face in God’s word is a matter of wisdom. By that I mean, there’s supposed to be a wrestling match with the language and ideas in Scripture, a struggle to pry wisdom from those obtuse words. The struggle is part of the path to wisdom. Without the struggle people might gain some head-knowledge, but they’re liable to miss the deeper application of wisdom. Plus, as Jesus explained, not everyone will understand the hard language sometimes. So, the challenging parts of the Bible can be a filtering mechanism that way, separating the wise and foolish, the teachable from the unteachable.

7. God Promotes Personal Growth

Besides wisdom, and aesthetics, there’s also personal growth to be found as we struggle through God’s word. If everything was laid out for us easy-peasy, then we might never face the kind of resistance-training needed to get strong. Then we’d never grow strong enough to live out the tasks God has for us.

In sum, there is more to God’s purposes than just being clearly understood. Sometimes God speaks in ways that keep his Kingdom truths out-of-reach, out of the “wrong hands” so to speak. For disciples, the difficult passages in Scripture slow us down so we can relish experiencing God’s word, chewing and savoring what He’s saying. The same passages can also lend a sense of mystery, so that in searching for the answers we can find wisdom along the way. And they can present obstacles for us to press into, and struggle over it. There we can gain strength and grow through the experience.

Yes, we can still learn what God has said through Scripture. But beyond mere head knowledge, God imparts character, wisdom, and beauty through His written word. Thanks for the great question Crossexamined Community!


If you want to find out more about our Crossexamined Community
you can sign up here for your own free trial.

 

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 edition 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.

/by

Is the God of the OT the Same God of the NT?

,

There’s no shortage of accusations claiming the Bible depicts a vision of two Gods: the grumpy, moody, and often volatile, curmudgeon like God of the Old Testament, and the mushy, judge free, glorified sugar daddy God of the New Testament. Is this the case? Does the Bible present a clash of the God’s? The malevolent God of the Old Testament and the benevolent God of the New Testament? Or does God suffer from a bad case of bi-bolar disorder, is he the first mental health patient, exhibiting fits of schizophrenia, or some sort of split personality disorder? Not quite.

Progressive Revelation

What the Bible presents is a God who reveals himself in both Testaments through progressive revelation. As the story unfolds, the revealed nature of God crystalizes, elucidating in greater detail who God is. While it is true that one may capture clearer glimpses of God’s grace in the New Testament due to his ultimate grace coming to fruition at the cross, this does not mean the Old Testament is bereft of God’s benevolence toward humanity. Throughout the Old Testament the Bible presents a God who tirelessly pursues his people even after countless rejections of his warnings of impending judgment.

Mercy in the Old Testament

Yes, judgment comes, but it does so after they ignore his warnings to turn toward him. Even the prophets of the Old Testament as they rail against the nations, are in many ways messengers of mercy, by warning people and giving them a heads up, in advance, to make things right. When they don’t, sure judgment ensues. But so does the great hound of heaven, with another invitation to align to him once again.

Judgment in the New Testament

As you come to the New Testament, it’s not like God is morally indifferent. Like some pushover deity wrapped around our finger whose only aim is to indulge our hedonistic impulses. Not in the least. One’s not hard pressed to find God’s judgment at work there either. A cursory read of Romans 1-3, or Jesus’s clearing of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), or the hardening of the Jewish nations heart as seen in Romans 11:11-24 are a few salient examples. Not to mention the book of Revelation, which unfolds God’s plan of justice in the eschaton (Rev. 20:11-15) or the fact that Jesus addressed the topic of hell more than heaven. In the end, the Bible does not portray of dual headed god, but the entire canon unveils for us the fuller picture of One God who is both just and loving and of course so much more.

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by

Is The God of the Old Testament The Same as the God of The New Testament?

,

There’s no shortage of accusations claiming the Bible depicts a vision of two Gods: the grumpy, moody, and often volatile, curmudgeon like God of the Old Testament, and the mushy, judge free, glorified sugar daddy God of the New Testament. Is this the case? Does the Bible present a clash of the God’s? The malevolent God of the Old Testament and the benevolent God of the New Testament? Or does God suffer from a bad case of bi-bolar disorder, is he the first mental health patient, exhibiting fits of schizophrenia, or some sort of split personality disorder? Not quite.

Progressive Revelation

What the Bible presents is a God who reveals himself in both Testaments through progressive revelation. As the story unfolds, the revealed nature of God crystalizes, elucidating in greater detail who God is.

While it is true that one may capture clearer glimpses of God’s grace in the New Testament due to his ultimate grace coming to fruition at the cross, this does not mean the Old Testament is bereft of God’s benevolence toward humanity. Throughout the Old Testament the Bible presents a God who tirelessly pursues his people even after countless rejections of his warnings of impending judgment.

Mercy in the Old Testament

Yes, judgment comes, but it does so after they ignore his warnings to turn toward him. Even the prophets of the Old Testament as they rail against the nations, are in many ways messengers of mercy, by warning people and giving them a heads up, in advance, to make things right. When they don’t, sure judgment ensues. But so does the great hound of heaven, with another invitation to align to him once again.

Judgment in the New Testament

As you come to the New Testament, it’s not like God is morally indifferent. Like some pushover deity wrapped around our finger whose only aim is to indulge our hedonistic impulses. Not in the least. One’s not hard pressed to find God’s judgment at work there either. A cursory read of Romans 1-3, or Jesus’s clearing of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), or the hardening of the Jewish nations heart as seen in Romans 11:11-24 are a few salient examples. Not to mention the book of Revelation, which unfolds God’s plan of justice in the eschaton (Rev. 20:11-15) or the fact that Jesus addressed the topic of hell more than heaven. In the end, the Bible does not portray of dual headed god, but the entire canon unveils for us the fuller picture of One God who is both just and loving and of course so much more.

 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Other Recommended Resources On This Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

 

/by

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts

,

Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth.[i]  Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument 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. [ii]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? 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.

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.

There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection, and that is that Luke claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometres from Jerusalem (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian also provides some reason (though, as we shall see, not our only reason) to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced.

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to discuss in any detail in the present paper. However, I will list a few examples. First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi.  This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. [iii]

Second, the reliability of the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Perhaps the most convincing category of this sort of evidence are those cases when the book of Acts is accidentally confirmed – that is, a natural question raised by Acts is illuminated in an incidental way by an extrabiblical secular account. To take one example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [iv]and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew, [v]is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also makes an allusion to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean sea from Ephesus. Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 we read: “That is why I sent you Timothy…” And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes…” From those two incidental texts, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of Paul’s writing, but nonetheless that Paul expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some indirect route to Corinth, through Troas and Macedonia. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did in fact take such an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. This artless dovetailing is best explained by the historical reliability of Acts on this detail. Even if, as I have suggested above, Luke was not present with Paul at this time, this sort of evidence indicates that Luke had reliable access to information concerning Paul’s travels, which suggests he was personally acquainted with Paul.

Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [vi] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [vii] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [viii]

Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

I have previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). It therefore may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [ix]

Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [x]Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [xi] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.389 and 4.81), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,’” (Jn 4:39).

Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.

An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.

Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [xii] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [xiii] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail. 

Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1.

It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.

Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [xiv]

Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [xv] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.

A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [xvi] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.

Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [xvii] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.

What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.

Conclusion

Having argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”

Footnotes:

[i] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.

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

[iii] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[iv] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[v] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).

[vi] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.

[vii] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.

[viii] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.

[ix] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.

[x]  Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[xiii] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.

[xiv] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, Kindle.

[xv] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

[xvi] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).

[xvii] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Tomb is Empty, Our Hope Is Not by Gary Habermas and Michael atton (Self-Paced Course)
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection with Mike Licona (Podcast)
Doubting towards Faith by Bobby Conway (Self-Paced Course)

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

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3LXLOpW

 

/by

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus is the Only Way?

, ,

By Ryan Leasure

Is it hateful or arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation? Charles Templeton thought so. He argued:

“Christians are a small minority in the world. Approximately four out of every five people on the face of the earth believe in gods other than the Christian God. The more than five billion people who live on earth revere or worship more than three hundred gods. If one includes the animist or tribal religions, the number rises to more than three thousand. Are we to believe that only Christians are right?”[1]

What are we to make of Templeton’s claims? Is it presumptuous to say that Jesus is the one true way of salvation? Or even worse, are Christians guilty of committing “absurd religious chauvinism” as some put it?[2] These common refrains are the fundamental tenets of religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God.

In a culture that abhors dogmatic truth claims, should Christians heed the warnings of the religious pluralists and stop teaching that Jesus is the only way of salvation? I don’t think so for a couple of reasons. First, religious pluralism is a self-defeating proposition. It crumbles in the face of logical scrutiny. And second, pluralism ignores scientific and historical finding. Let’s explore both in turn.

Religious Pluralism is Self-Defeating

To support their claim, religious pluralists share the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable goes something like this:

There were five blind men who all encountered an elephant in a field. The first man grabbed the tail and said, “oh it’s a rope.” The second blind man touched a leg and asserted, “no, it’s a tree.” The third blind man grabbed the trunk and declared, “no, it’s a snake.” The fourth blind man grabbed a tusk and cried, “no, it’s a spear.” The fifth blind man touched its side and exclaimed, “no, it’s a wall.”

The pluralist argues that the blind men are like the different world religions. Each belief system naively thinks their view of reality is the correct one, but, in the end, they’re all misguided. Rather, all the religions are fundamentally the same and will ultimately lead to the same place. No single “right way” exists according to the pluralist.

The Religions Contradict Each Other

While pluralists like to mention that all religions teach essentially the same thing, nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take, for example, the nature of God in each major religion. Hinduism acknowledges multitudes of gods that are one with creation. Buddhism, while extremely spiritual, does not worship a god. New Age spirituality teaches that each person should see themselves as god. Islam believes in one God, named Allah, who is transcendent above creation. Judaism believes in a transcendent God named Jehovah. Christianity teaches that God is triune in nature, and is both transcendent and immanent in his creation.

Let’s look at one more example — how each religion views Jesus of Nazareth. Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age all say he was a wise, moral teacher. Islam teaches that he was a prophet, though not divine, and that he didn’t die on a cross. Judaism teaches that he was a false prophet who led many astray and was crucified for blasphemy. Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine, he died on a cross, and he rose again from the dead.

If space permitted me, I could also explain how each of these religions differ on creation, scripture, the nature of humanity, sin, salvation, and eternal life. In other words, these religions have almost nothing in common.

Pluralism Defies Logic

To say all religions teach the same thing commits all kinds of logical fallacies. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity. God, however, cannot be both a Trinity (Christianity) and not a Trinity (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way.

This would violate the Law of Noncontradiction which teaches that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. To suggest, therefore, that all religions can be true about the nature of God violates one of the most fundamental laws of logic.

Or consider the nature of Jesus. It cannot be true that Jesus is God (Christianity) and not God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way. Again, this would violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims Too

Ironically, pluralists make exclusive claims themselves. In effect, they’re saying that pluralism is true, while all contrary religious claims are false. That is to say, pluralists are guilty of doing the very same thing that they chastise the other religions for doing.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, should we say the pluralists are hateful for saying their view of reality is the right one while all of us naive religious folk are wrong?

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical Facts

Now it’s one thing to say that all the different religions can’t be right. It’s another to claim that one of them is the truth. Strong evidence, though, points in the direction of Christianity.

Scientific Evidence

Consider the origin of the universe. All the scientific data suggests that space, time, and matter, all came into existence simultaneously a finite time ago. Meaning the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

This fits nicely with the Christian belief that God created the world out of nothing, but it contradicts pantheistic religions such as Hinduism which teach that god is one with the universe — bound by space, time, and material. Additionally, the scientific data that the universe came into existence a finite time ago contradicts Buddhism’s belief in an eternal/cyclical universe.

The scientific evidence leaves the theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Deism) as possibilities. Yet when we turn our attention to Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity quickly rises to the top.

Historical Evidence

For example, ancient historians are unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion in the first century. Islam, however, denies that Jesus — a prophet from God — was crucified. Since dozens of independent historical sources confirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion, we can be confident that Islam doesn’t pass the historical test as the one true religion. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion is so certain that prominent skeptic scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[3]

With only three viable options remaining, we turn our focus to the resurrection. Did Jesus rise again from the dead? If he did, Christianity is true, while Judaism and Deism are not. And we have lots of reasons to believe Jesus did, in fact, rise again. Let me give you two quick examples.

First, Christians claim that women were the first eye-witnesses to this incredible event. In a culture where nobody took a woman’s word seriously, it’s hard to imagine that Christians would have made up this detail. Since the early Christians would have had no motivation to make up this embarrassing fact, we have good reason to believe that this detail accurately portrays what really happened.

Additionally, Jesus’ closest followers were all willing to die for their belief that he rose again. Don’t you think, at some point, at least one of them would have caved under the threat of crucifixion or beheading and said the entire thing was a hoax? Yet not one of them did. This is telling, especially since those same disciples acted like cowards during Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.

If Jesus rose again from the dead, that means what he claimed about himself has been vindicated — namely that he is God, and that he is the one true way of salvation.

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?

I don’t know anyone who would say that Jesus of Nazareth was hateful. Most actually affirm the exact opposite, he was incredibly moral and loving. Yet it’s this same Jesus who makes the claim that he is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

As we ponder the question at hand, consider the following statement by outspoken atheist and famed illusionist Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”[4]

So is it hateful to tell people Jesus is the only way? I submit to you that it’s the loving thing to do.

Footnotes

[1] Charles Templeton, Farewell to God (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart), 27
[2] John Hick and Paul Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 141
[3] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.
[4] Quoted in, Justin Taylor, “How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone to Not Proselytize?” TheGospelCoalition.org, 18 Nov 2009, accessed 20 March 2023 at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-much-do-you-have-to-hate-somebody-to-not-proselytize/

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3JF54Wf

/by

Is Hell An Eternal Restraining Order?

,

By Al Serrato

Making sense of the existence of a place like Hell is a common struggle for the Christian apologist. Almost immediately, we are placed on the defensive, being asked to justify how a “loving” God could condemn any of his creation to a place of constant, and eternal, torment. I’ve often heard the challenge brought like this: “Isn’t God’s love for us like that of a parent? Can you imagine any loving parent ever wishing, or wanting, such extreme punishment for their own child?”

The answer, of course, is no. No parent would delight in tormenting his children. And neither does God. But just as human parents must sometimes resort to court orders to keep their children away, so too does God employ the equivalent of an eternal “restraining order.” Though not intended this way by the atheist, the analogy to parental love actually works against the challenger’s case, because it makes clear the need for enforced separation to be imposed even in the context of what was originally intended as a loving relationship.

Sometimes Children Victimize Their Parents

Everyday throughout this country, there are parents who are being victimized by their children. In many cases, the children want something that the parent is not able, or willing, to give. Often, the abuse consists of verbal or physical assaults or of some form of theft, and many times the problem is fueled by an underlying drug or alcohol addiction. In many such cases, the abused parents seek assistance from the police and the courts to have their offspring restrained from contacting them. For most, this final step is heartbreaking, but it is often the last resort, the only means by which the parent can safeguard his or her wellbeing. In some, more extreme, cases, the parent’s testimony in court might contribute to a criminal conviction which will land the son or daughter in prison, sometimes for life. The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.

“The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.”

If this causes the offspring pain, that pain is not “intended” by the parent; it is, instead, an unavoidable consequence of the path set in motion by the offender.

How Does This Analogy Apply to God?

Applying this analogy to an eternal setting has its drawbacks. God, of course, cannot be victimized. He has no fear of us, and no need to incarcerate us in order to protect himself. But does he not have the same right to association that we do? When a person uses his or her free will to rebel against God, God is not required to ignore that rebellion. Indeed, if God truly is a perfect being, embodying perfect justice, he could not simply ignore it and remain true to his nature. For God to maintain perfect justice, he must attach an appropriate consequence to violations of his law. On earth, that justice often involves incarcerating the wrongdoer, to both punish the offender and to minimize his ability to continue to use his free will to harm others. Similarly, God makes use of his power to separate those who refuse to accept the gift of life that he offers, an offer, it bears noting, he makes on his terms only

Consider Eternity

For those who have died in rebellion, no further chance is offered them. Eternally “restrained” from fellowship with God, they experience eternity aware of all that they have lost. Consider for a moment what eternal separation from God must be like. Despite the effort by so many to pile up money and toys and success in this world, these things do not make life rich or fulfilling. All the riches and success in the world would mean nothing if a person were utterly alone. No, such things are simply means to an end, an end which always involves relationship with others. That is why solitary confinement is so destructive to the human mind and spirit. In the end, it is human companionship – rich and meaningful relationships – that brings joy in life. Conversely, the loss of such attachments often lead to depression, alcohol and drug use to blunt the pain, and in some cases suicide.

Every relationship on earth, however satisfying, necessarily involves a flawed human being that is not capable of bringing limitless joy. Additionally, while we still draw breath, the possibility of adding new relationships continues. What happens to us, however, at death? What do we encounter when we see more clearly, for the first time, the One who created us, the source of all life, the Being who embodies all perfections? Every person on earth is but a mere shadow of this ultimate Being. When we begin to consider the joy we feel when deeply in love, or conversely the agony brought on by the loss of a loved one, and multiply that experience not by millions or billions, but by infinity itself, we may begin to see why human writers, even divinely inspired ones, cannot quite grasp the horror of the thought. A lake of fire would seem tame by contrast.

But this place of suffering is internal, self-centered, self-focused. An eternity of caring only about oneself, apart and alone and without hope of reunification with the source of joy and love. It is not a place where God inflicts torture, but rather one in which infinite torment awaits on the far side of the abyss. God derives no pleasure when he acts to restrain an unrepentant sinner. Indeed, he provides an alternative – a means of salvation – to all.

For those who refuse His gift, they will have only themselves – literally, and eternally – to blame.  

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) | Frank Turek

Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) | Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) | 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

What is Divine Omnipresence?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

The term omnipresence describes the all-presence of God. Omnipresence is a compound word comprised of the word “omni”, meaning “all,” and “presence” which defines a person or being’s location. Thus, “omnipresence” speaks of God’s all-present nature. This means that spatial locations do not limit God. Existing as a transcendent being, God is present in all places at all times. Let’s take a brief look at how omnipresence impacts our understanding of God.

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Physical Realm

First, God’s omnipresent nature implicates that the physical realm does not limit God’s presence. Contrary to popular opinion, God is not limited by the physical sphere. Thomas Aquinas argues that in addition to God’s omnipresent nature, God is the only Being in all existence that exists as pure act.[1] That means everything else, including the laws of nature, are potentialities. God is pure existence.

We will return to the distinction between God’s presence and the physical realm in a moment. But for now, one should understand as the psalmist extolled in his rhetorical question, inquiring, “Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” (Psa. 139:7, CSB). David continues by saying, “If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me; your right hand will hold on to me” (Psa. 139:10, CSB). David teaches that God’s presence is everywhere, at all times and places. Even though the universe is estimated to be some 250 times bigger than what is observed, God is not limited by even the incomprehensible expanse of the universe.

This even impacts dimensional thinking. Physicists claim that the physical universe contains at least 11 dimensions and could escalate to amazingly 28 dimensional realms. If true, this would mean that God would exist in all dimensions and even one beyond. Omnipresence also indicates omnidimensionality.[2] Hugh Ross explains,

“Whoever caused the universe, then, must possess at least one more time dimension (or some attribute, capacity, super-dimension, or supra-dimension that encompasses all the properties of time). To put it another way, God is able to interact with us in ways we interpret (through our time-bound experience of cause and effect) as the result of timelike capacities in the person or essence of God or the existence of other timelike dimensions or properties through which God operates.”[3]

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Spiritual Realm

Second, divine omnipresence also indicates that God is not limited by the spiritual domain. Romans 8:35 says,

“Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 37–39′; CSB).

Notice that the text states that no angelic or spiritual being could separate a believer from God’s love. Neither death nor life could separate a person from God’s incomparable love. But how is this possible? God’s love is inseparable when the tremendous ability of God to transcend the scope of time, space, and the spiritual domains of heaven and hell is understood. Not even the spiritual domain can separate us from the benevolent, loving presence of God Almighty.

Divine Omnipresence Implies The Special Nature of God’s Essence

Third, God’s omnipresent essence does not indicate that everything in nature is God. Thus, omnipresence does not teach a pantheistic notion of God—that is, the idea that all things are in some way divine. Aquinas contends that “God is in all things by His power” by his presence and essence. [4] In other words, all things are held together by the omnipresent power of God. However, Aquinas distinguishes between God’s essence and the essence of the thing itself.[5] Though the creation is held together by God’s presence and power, that does not indicate that the material thing becomes God. God’s presence is distinct from the physical and spiritual domain.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Alone Possesses Omnipresence

Fourth, nothing and no one can possess the omnipresent attribute that God possesses. Aquinas asserts, “To be everywhere primarily and absolutely, is proper to God … But a thing is everywhere absolutely when it does not belong to it to be everywhere accidentally … It belongs therefore to a thing to be everywhere absolutely when, on any supposition, it must be everywhere; and this properly belongs to God alone.”[6] Aquinas goes on to eloquently state, “Therefore to be everywhere primarily and absolutely, belongs to God, and is proper to Him: because whatever number of places be supposed to exist, God must be in all of them, not as to a part of Him, but as to His very self.”[7] Therefore, the claim that people can be God is sheer insanity when considering that people are spatially confined to a singular spatial location. Only God could possess the attribute of omnipresence. No angel or demon, and not even Satan himself, could possess the awesome power of omnipresence. God and God alone is the Omnipresent Being.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Is The Perfect Judge

God’s benevolent and just judgment serves as a powerful aspect of God’s omnipresent nature. Since God is always present in every place, that indicates that God sees all that happens in every place at every point in time. Just the sheer immensity of such a task overwhelms my feeble mind.

Understand that this is not just mere philosophical conjecture. The statement is found securely in the context of Scripture. For instance, Solomon conveys that the “eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, NIV). Because of God’s omnipresent vision, God is able to issue just and fair judgment as God knows all the circumstances of an event while even understanding the internal thought processes of each person involved.

God’s omnipresent judgment should cause a believer to pause before judging their neighbor. Paul asks, “why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10; CSB). James, agreeing with Paul, writes, “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James. 4:12, CSB).

Conclusion

God’s omnipresent nature is truly awe-inspiring. God’s omnipresent nature ensures that God can help us at any point in our lives and in any place. It assures that God can be with our friends and families even when we are physically separated from them by hundreds of miles. God’s omnipresent nature also guarantees that nothing can separate us from God’s loving presence, not even death. With a firm grasp of God’s omnipresent nature, we should be led to live our lives with courage and faith rather than fear and doubt. If we have a personal relationship with God, then we are never alone.

Footnotes

[1] Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a3.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1999), 33–34.

[6] “First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.q9.a1, in A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 105.

[7] That is, God is not limited by any dimension.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)

Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics by Brian Chilton (Book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3meSo0c

 

/by