પ્રિય રશ્મિકાંત ભાઈ, આપના પ્રતિભાવ બદલ આભાર, અણગમતા સત્યને દબાવી દેવાની આ યુક્તિ ભલે પ્રચલિત હોય પણ હુ એવી કોઈ યુક્તિઓ કરતો નથી મારી પાસે પ્રત્યેક અર્ધસત્ય અને કુમંછીત સવાલોના ઉત્તરો હાજર છે સમય મળ્યુએ હુ આપના પ્રત્યેક સવાલોના ઉત્તરો આપવા માટે તૈયાર છુ જ, એ માટે હુ બાઈવલ વિરુધ્ધા આપના અને દરેક ના સવાલોના ઉત્તરો આપવા માટે નવુ પાનુ “તમારાસવાલોનાજવાબો” આ બ્લોગમાં જોડી રહ્યો છુ જે આપને કદાચ ગમશે.
રહી વાત લાગણી દુભાવાની તો એ પ્રત્યે હુ આપને એક સત્ય સમજાવી દઉ છુ કે મારી લાગણીઓ કદી પણ પ્રભુની વિરુધ્ધ બોલનારાઓ દ્વારા દુભાતી નથી પણ માનવતા પર કુઠારાઘાત કરનારાઓ જ્યારે પરમાત્મા પરમેશ્વર ના ઠેકેદારો બની બેસે છે અને માનવતા પર જે આખે પાટા બાંધવાના અત્યાચાર થાય છે અને લોકોને અંધકારમાં ઢસડીને લઈ જાય છે ત્યારે મારી લાગણી દુભાય છે. આપની બાબતમાં હજુ એવુ નથી થયુ. આમ પણ પ્રભુ યેશુ પોતે જ કહે છે “એમનુ અપમાન કે એમનો તિરસ્કાર તો માફ કરી દેવામાં આવશે પણ પરમપિતા પરમાત્મા પવિત્ર આત્મા પ્રત્યેના દરેકે દરેક અપમાન અને તિરસ્કારને કદી પણ માફ કરવામાં નહિ આવે” અને બાઈબલ ના લખનાર પવિત્ર આત્મા (હોલિ સ્પિરી) જ છે” એટલે આપનો કે અન્ય કોઈનો ન્યાય હુ નહિ પણ પવિત્ર આત્મા જ લેશે અને હુ આપને કે અન્ય કોઈને કોઈ પણ પ્રકારનુ વેઠવુ ના પડે એ માટૅ પ્રાર્થના કરીશ કે “હે દયાળુ પરમેશ્વર, મારા ભાઈઓને માફ કરજો, તેઓ નથી જાણતા કે તો શું કરી રહ્યા છે.”…… પ્રભુ યેશુના નામે……….આમીન.
FaithFacts
Introduction to Apologetics
What is Apologetics?
Apologetics derives from the Greek word “apologia” or defense. Apologetics is the science and art of presenting reasonable defenses for the truth of Christianity. Or put another way, it is using reason, evidence, and testimony to explain the Christian faith. The word is derived from 1 Peter 3:15 (“always be ready to give a reason/defense [apologia] to every man for the hope that is in you”).
Many Christians hold a strong view that belief is strictly a matter of faith. In this view Christians have a power to believe that is graciously granted by the Holy Spirit as a result of verbal testimony of changed lives through Jesus Christ and the words of Scripture. For many, this is sufficient. In fact many will argue that no one should rely upon any arguments or rationale outside of this since God’s word is all sufficient and the Holy Spirit is the only entity that can change a person’s heart.One just needs to believe that since God’s word says it, one simply needs to have “the faith of a child.”
In addition to simple faith, however, the Bible also strongly encourages individuals to “test” all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), to always be ready to provide a reason for their belief (1 Peter 3:15), to ask for wisdom and to use their minds (Matthew 22:37, etc.). Apologetics can involve many disciplines to corroborate or validate the claims of the Bible. These disciplines would include, but are not limited to science, history, philosohy, and others. It is this reasoned approach that can bolster the faith of many Christians and reach doubters and skeptics when it comes to key questions such as “Does God exist?”, “Do we exist by accident or design?”, “Is Jesus Christ who he claims to be?”, and “Why are we here.”
We reject as unbiblical all ideas that attempt to limit Christianity blind faith. Such ideas include “fideism” (the idea that reason and faith are completely incompatible) or “presuppositionalism” (the idea that faith is the only basis for rational thought). We are instructed to “take every thought captive for Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). While there will always be a step of faith for the Christian, the Christian faith is the only one that is evidential in history. God’s revelation is not just contained in the pages of Scripture (special revelation), but is evident through other disciples (general revelation) as well.
While it is the Holy Spirit who convicts us to faith, it would be a gross error to put God the Holy Spirit in a box. He works through many avenues to bring people to faith.
(Note: Our thanks to John Weber for some of the above material.)
The Biblical Case for Apologetics
“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense [apologia] to anyone who asks you for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)
In addition to the above passage in 1 Peter, the Bible commands us elsewhere to apologetics:
- “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:9)
- “I urge you to contend for the faith.” (Jude 3)
- “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
- “Whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me.” (Philippians 1:7)
Apologetics was a common practice that accompanied the proclamation of the Gospel in the New Testament:
- Jesus used testimony and evidences (miracles and fulfilled prophecy) to confirm His identity (Matthew 4:23, 11:5; Luke 24:25-27; John 5:31-36;John 10:37-38; John 14:11; John 20:30-31).
- Paul routinely reasoned from the perspective of the audience (Acts 9:22, 14:15-17, 17:2-4, 17:16-32, 19:8, 26:25-29, 28:23-24; Romans 1:18-2:16; 1 Corinthians 9:20-23).
- Paul includes a strong apologetic with his clearest explanation, that isdefinition, of the gospel in the New Testament—1 Corinthians 15:1-11.
- Luke insists that the truth of his account was verified by “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3)
- A model apologetic for Jews is Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost inActs 2. In verse 22 he appeals to Jesus’ miracles. In verses 25-31 he appeals to fulfilled prophecy. In verse 32 he appeals to Christ’s resurrection. By means of these arguments the apostles sought to show Jews that Christianity is true.
Inference: If you are preaching, evangelizing, witnessing, or sharing the gospel without apologetics, you are not doing them biblically.
Faith vs. Reason
- Thanks to sin, human wisdom has become entangled with pride. As a result, “not many who are wise” are among the believers in the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:21), which demands humility. Men “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18-32) and are “blinded” to justify their unrighteousness. (Ephesians 4:17-18; Romans 3:10-11; 2 Corinthians 4:4)
- Faith is equally available to all. Unlike knowledge of, say, quantum physics or classical Chinese, faith requires no special intellectual gifts. “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.” (Matthew 11:25)
- When Paul condemns human “wisdom” and “philosophy,” or Luther condemns “reason,” it is not the gift of reasoning and knowledge that is being condemned, but only its abuse, as twisted by pride and sin. (Isaiah 29:13-14; 1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 1:27-29, 2:1-5, 2:13-14, 3:18-20;Colossians 2:8, 23; 1 Timothy 6:20; James 3:15-17)
- Jesus instructed us to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind.” (emphasis added, Mat. 22:37)
- Luther’s famous Diet of Worms proclamation in 1521: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything. Here I stand, I can do no other!”
Role of the Holy Spirit
We know that the Holy Spirit is actively engaged in regenerating a person and bringing him to faith. In fact, without the role of the Holy Spirit nobody would be saved. See Christian Cram Course. But this does not mean that we should not use apologetics. As put by William Lane Craig in his book Reasonable Faith, “When one presents reasons for his faith, one is not working apart from or against the Holy Spirit.” Craig argues that it is indeed unscriptural to refuse to reason with an unbeliever.
While there may be times when it is inappropriate to use apologetics in our witnessing, it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit often uses our apologetic arguments to bring people to faith. We must always be prepared to give an answer to the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15).
We recommend that Christians study and memorize answer the two dozen or so basic question of skeptics: Tough Questions.
Easy Summary for Memorization
Manuscript Evidence
All of the books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus or by interviewers of eyewitnesses. (Three of the writers were Jesus’ disciples—Matthew, John, and Peter.)
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible
Reliability of the New Testament as Historical Documents
- “Astounding” number of ancient manuscripts extant: 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin and 9,000 other–totaling over 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament. These are dated from 100 to 300 years after the originals. (There are no original manuscripts [“autographs”] extant, but the number and similarity of copies allows scholars to reconstruct the originals.)
- Early fragments: John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt; Bodmer manuscript containing most of John’s gospel 150-200 A.D.; Magdalen fragment from Mat. 26 believed by some to be within a few years of Jesus’ death; Gospel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dated as early as 50 A.D.
- Comparison with other ancient documents (available copies versus the originals):
Caesar—10 copies—1000 year gap
Tacitus—20 copies—1000 year gap
Plato—7 copies—1200 year gap
- F. F. Bruce: “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good attestation as the New Testament.”
- William F. Albright: “Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers circa.25 and circa. 80 AD.”
Quotations from Early Church Fathers:
- Clement of Rome (a disciple of the apostles) cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97 A.D. Ignatius (who knew the apostles well) referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110. Polycarp (disciple of apostle John) quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s Epistles from 110 to 150. Taitian’s harmony of the Four Gospels completed in 160 A.D. Irenaeus (who apparently heard the apostles) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians in 160 A.D.
- Of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. Even if we had no manuscripts, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from these quotations. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive.
Primary Source Value
- Testimony of the New Testament authors themselves: Luke 1:1-3, 3:1, John 21:24, Acts 26:24-26, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3.
- Both liberal and conservative scholars in recent years have moved to the view that ALL of the New Testament was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (Liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson’s book Redating the New Testament. Conservative scholar Kenneth Gentry’s book Before Jesusalem Fell). One reason for their argument for early date for the New Testament is because there is no mention in the past tense of the devastating destruction of Jesusalem and the temple anywhere in the New Testament, and there is consistent mention of it still standing (even in the book of Revelation). Though the Gospels include prophecies of such a destruction, they are prophetic stock-in-trade. These prophesies lack any details that certainly would have been added if written after this important historical event.
- Substantial other evidences of New Testament being written between 40 and 60 A.D. See Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.
Reliability of the Old Testament
- Jewish scholars performed “unbelievable” care in copying and preserving Scripture.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 are dated from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. These manuscripts predate by 1000 years the previous oldest manuscripts. They represent every Old Testament book except Esther (as well as non-biblical writings). There is word for word identity in more than 95% of the cases, and the 5% variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and spelling.
Over 25,000 sites have been discovered that pertain to the Bible. As Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archaeologist said, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
Archaeological and External Evidence for the Bible
Archeology consistently confirms the Bible!
Archaeology and the Old Testament
- Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. In use in Ebla was the name “Canaan,” a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The tablets refer to all five “cities of the plain” mentioned in Genesis 14, previously assumed to have been mere legends.
- Greater proportion of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch (first five books) than in rest of the Old Testament. Accurate Egyptian names: Potiphar (Gen.39),Zaphenath-Paneah (Joseph’s Egyptian name, Gen. 41:45), Asenath(Gen.41:45), On (Gen. 41:45), Rameses (Gen. 47:11), Oithom (Exodus 1:11).
- Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. These include housing and tombs that could have been of the Israelites, as well as a villa and tomb that could have been Joseph’s.
- Confounding earlier skeptics, but confirming the Bible, an important discovery was made in Egypt in 1896. A tablet—the Merneptah Stela—was found that mentions Israel. (Merneptah was the pharaoh that ruled Egypt in 1212-1202 B.C.) The context of the stela indicates that Israel was a significant entity in the late 13th century B.C.
- The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey.
- Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. Confirms many details of Genesis, Deuteronomy, such as: (a) siring of legitimate children through handmaidens, (b) oral deathbed will as binding, (c) the power to sell one’s birthright for relatively trivial property (Jacob & Esau), (d) need for family idols, such as Rachel stole from Laban, to secure inheritance, (e) form of the covenant in Deuteronomy exactly matches the form of suzerainty treaties between Hittite emperors and vassal kings.
- Walls of Jericho—discovery in 1930s by John Garstang. The walls fell suddenly, and outwardly (unique), so Israelites could clamber over the ruins into the city (Joshua 6:20).
- In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11).
- In 1990, Harvard researchers unearthed a silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the book of Exodus.
- In 1993, archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at Tel Dan. The words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the “House of David” and the “King of Israel.” And the Bible’s version of Israelite history after the reign of David’s son, Solomon, is believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by independent account of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions.
- It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded in the palace walls! Even more, fragments of a stela (a poetic eulogy) memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named inDaniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablet was found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son.
- The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered southeast of the Dead Sea. Evidence at the site seems consistent with the biblical account: “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.” The destruction debris was about 3 feet thick and buildings were burned from fires that started on the rooftops. Geologist Frederick Clapp theorizes that that pressure from an earthquake could have spewed out sulfur-laden bitumen (similar to asphalt) known to be in the area through the fault line upon which the cities rest. The dense smoke reported by Abraham is consistent with a fire from such material, which could have ignited by a spark or ground fire.
Archaeology and the New Testament
- The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology. Luke sites exact titles of officials. (Titles varied from city to city so they are easily checked for accuracy.) Lysanias the Tetrarch in Abilene (Luke 3:1)—verified by inscription dated 14-29 A.D. Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)—verified by pavement inscription. Gallio—proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in A.D. 51 (Acts 18:12). Politarchs (“city ruler”) in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Chief Man of the Island on Malta (Acts 28:7). Stone Pavementat Pilate’s headquarters (John 19:13)—discovered recently. Pool at Bethesda— discovered in 1888. Many examples of silver shrines to Artemisfound (Acts 19:28). Inscription confirms the title of the city as “Temple Warden of Artemis”. Account of Paul’s sea voyage in Acts is “one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship.”
- Census of Luke 1. Census began under Augustus approximately every 14 years: 23-22 B.C., 9-8 B.C., 6 A.D. There is evidence of enrollment in 11-8 B.C. in Egyptian papyri.
- Problem: Historian Josephus puts Quirinius as governor in Syria at 6 A.D. Solution: Recent inscription confirms that Quirinius served as governor in 7 B. C. (in extraordinary, military capacity).
- Problem: Herod’s kingdom was not part of the Roman Empire at the time, so there would not have been a census. Solution: it was a client kingdom. Augustus treated Herod as subject (Josephus). Parallel—a census took place in the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor under Tiberius.
- Enrollment in hometown? Confirmed by edict of Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, in 104 A.D. “…it is necessary for all who are for any cause whatsoever way from their administrative divisions to return home to comply with the customary ordinance of enrollment.”
- Opinion of Sir William Ramsay, one of the outstanding Near Eastern archeologists: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length…In short, this author should be placed among the very greatest of historians.”
- Diggers recently uncovered an ossuary (repository for bones) with the inscription “Joseph Son of Caiaphas.” This marked the first archaeological evidence that the high priest Caiaphas was a real person. According to the gospels, Caiaphas presided at the Sanhedrin’s trial of Jesus.
External References to Jesus and the Christian Church.
- Josephus. Born to priestly family in A.D. 37. Commanded Jewish troops in Galilee during rebellion. Surrendered, and earned favor of Emperor Vespasian. Wrote 20 books of Antiquities of the Jews. Refers to John the Baptist (killed by Herod) and to James, the brother of Jesus (condemned to death by stoning by the Sanhedrin). He referred to Jesus in his Antiquities 18:63. The standard text of Josephus reads as follows:
“About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was the achiever of extraordinary deeds and was a teacher of those who accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When he was indicted by the principal men among us and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him originally did not cease to do so; for he appeared to them on the third day restored to life, as the prophets of the Deity had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him, and the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Josephus—The Essential Works, P. L. Maier ed./trans.).
Although this passage is so worded in the Josephus manuscripts as early as the third-century church historian Eusebius, scholars have long suspected a Christian interpolation, since Josephus could hardly have believed Jesus to be the Messiah or in his resurrection and have remained, as he did, a non-Christian Jew. In 1972, however, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of a different manuscript tradition of Josephus’s writings in the tenth-century Melkite historian Agapius, which reads as follows:
“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”
Here, clearly, is language that a Jew could have written without conversion to Christianity. (Schlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971.])
According to Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history, “Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding Antiquities 18:63: 1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position; 2) it is entirely a Christian forgery—a much smaller minority position; and 3) it contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus’s original, authentic material about Jesus—the large majority position today, particularly in view of the Agapian text (immediately above) which shows no signs of interpolation. Josephus must have mentioned Jesus in authentic core material at 18:63 since this passage is present in all Greek manuscripts of Josephus, and the Agapian version accords well with his grammar and vocabulary elsewhere. Moreover, Jesus is portrayed as a ‘wise man’ [sophos aner], a phrase not used by Christians but employed by Josephus for such personalities as David and Solomon in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, his claim that Jesus won over “many of the Greeks” is not substantiated in the New Testament, and thus hardly a Christian interpolation but rather something that Josephus would have noted in his own day. Finally, the fact that the second reference to Jesus at Antiquities 20:200, which follows, merely calls him the Christos [Messiah] without further explanation suggests that a previous, fuller identification had already taken place. Had Jesus appeared for the first time at the later point in Josephus’s record, he would most probably have introduced a phrase like “…brother of a certain Jesus, who was called the Christ.”
- Early Gentile writers, referred to by Christian apologists in 2nd century.
- Thallus—wrote a history of Greece and Asia Minor in A.D. 52. Julius Africanus (221 AD), commenting on Thallus, said: “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness [during the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me [since the Passover took place during a full moon.]“
- Official Roman records of the census, and Pontius Pilate’s official report to the Emperor. Justin Martyr wrote his “Defense of Christianity” to Emperor Antonius Pius, referred him to Pilate’s report, preserved in the archives. Tertullian, writing to Roman officials, writes with confidence that records of the Luke 1 census can still be found.
-
Roman historians
- Tacitus—Greatest Roman historian, born 52 A.D., wrote a history of the reign of Nero in 110 A.D. “…Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberias was emperor; and the pernicious superstition was checked for a short time only to break out afresh, not only in Judea, the home of the plague, but in Rome itself, .. ” (Annals 15:44)
- Suetonius—AD. 120. In his Life of Claudius: “As the Jews were making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”
- Pliny the Younger—Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote the emperor in A.D. 112 about the sect of Christians, who were in “the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day, before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God.”
Note: A good web site for biblical archaeology is www.christiananswers.net.
Prophetic Evidence
Some 2000 biblical prophecies have already been fulfilled—with no prophetic failures. The probability of 16 predictions being fulfilled is 1 in 1045. For 2000 predictions to be correct is an inconceivable probability number.
Fulfilled Prophecy as Evidence for the Bible’s Divine Origin
- 2,000 prophecies including some 300 prophecies and implications about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
- There are no prophetic failures.
- While there are both obvious and subtle prophecies, most are very detailed and specific.
- No other religion has specific, repeated, and unfailing fulfillment of predictions many years in advance of contingent events over which the predictor had no control.
- Studies of psychics show only around 8% of their predictions come true and virtually all of these can be attributed to chance and a general knowledge of circumstances.
- Mathematicians have calculated the odds of Jesus fulfilling only 8 of the Messianic prophecies as 1 out of 1017 (a 1 followed by 17 zeros). This is equivalent to covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars 2 feet deep, marking one of them, mixing them all up and having a blind-folded person select the marked one at random the first time. For more on this, see What Are The Odds?
- Fulfilled prophecy is powerful evidence that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin.
- Objection: Jesus manipulated events to fulfill prophecy. Answer: (a) Many prophecies were out of his control (ancestry, place of birth, time of death). (b) His miracles confirmed Jesus to be the Messiah. (c) There is no evidence that Jesus was a deceiver. (d) In order to manipulate all the people (including his enemies) and even his disciples to make it appear that he was the Messiah, Jesus would have needed supernatural powers. If he had such powers, he must have been the Messiah he claimed to be.
Examples of Non-Messianic Prophecies
- The Succession of Great World Kingdoms (Daniel 2:37-42). Even negative critics agree that Daniel foretold the governments in order of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
- Cyrus King of Persia (Isaiah 44:28-45:1). Since Isaiah lived between about 740 and 690 BC and Cyrus did not make his proclamation for Israel to return from exile until about 536 (Ezra 1), there would have been no human way for him to know what Cyrus would be named or what Cyrus would do.
- Israel to Be Returned to Its Land A Second Time (Isaiah 11:11-12). The first time God reclaimed a people was from Egypt through the Exodus; the second time is from the Babylonian Exile (Isaiah 51:9-11).
- The Closing of the Golden Gate (Ezekiel 44:2-3). The Golden Gate is the eastern gate of Jerusalem, through which Christ made his triumphal entry on Palm Sunday before the crucifixion (Matthew 21). Ezekiel predicted its closing and in 1543 Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent closed the gate and walled it up, not knowing he was fulfilling prophecy. It remains sealed to this day exactly as the Bible predicted.
- The Destruction of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-14). The prophecy was partly fulfilled when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city and left it in ruins. Alexander the Great later attacked the seemingly impregnable Island of Tyre by taking the stones, dust, and timber from the ruined mainland city to build a causeway to the Island. This prophecy is comparable to saying that Chicago will be destroyed and never rebuilt.
- The Doom of Edom (Petra) (Jeremiah 49:15-17). Given the virtually impregnable nature of the ancient city carved out of rock and protected by a narrow passageway, this was an incredible prediction. Yet, in 636 AD it was conquered by Muslims and today stands deserted but for tourists.
- Flourishing of the Desert in Palestine (Ezekiel 36:33-35). Since before the turn of the twentieth century, Israel has been renovated and Israel’s agriculture is flourishing.
- Destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:1-2). Fulfilled literally when the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple buildings. According to historian and eyewitness Josephus, some of the stones were 37 feet long, 12 feet high and 18 feet wide. Stones were even pried apart to collect the gold leaf that melted from the roof when the temple was set on fire.
Examples of Messianic Prophecies
Topic | Old Testament | New Testament |
---|---|---|
Messiah to be the seed of the Woman | Genesis 3:15 | Luke 2:5-7 Galatians 4:4 |
Messiah to be the seed of Abraham | Genesis 12:2-3, 18:18 | Matthew 1:1-2 Luke 3:34 Acts 3:25 Galatians 3:16 |
Messiah to be of the tribe of Judah | Genesis 49:10 | Matthew 1:1-2 |
Messiah to be of the seed of David | 2 Samuel 7:16 Psalm 132:11 Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15 |
Matthew 1:6, 22:42-45 Luke 1:31-33 Acts 2:29-30 Romans 1:3 |
Messiah to be born of a virgin | Isaiah 7:14 | Matthew 1:18-25 Luke 1:26-38 |
Messiah to be born in Bethlehem | Micah 5:2 | Matthew 2:1-6 Luke 2:4-6 |
Tribute paid to Messiah by great kings | Psalm 72:10-11 | Matthew 2:1-11 |
Messiah to be heralded by a messenger | Isaiah 40:3 Malachi 3:1 |
Matthew 3:1-3 |
Messiah to be the Son of God | Psalm 2:2,7 | Matthew 3:17 Luke 1:32-33 |
Messiah to be anointed by the Holy Spirit | Isaiah 11:2 | Matthew 3:16-17 |
Galilee to be the first area of Messiah’s ministry | Isaiah 9:1-7 | Matthew 4:12-16 |
Messiah to be meek and mild | Isaiah 40:11, 42:2-3, 53:7 | Matthew 12:18-20, 26:62-68 |
Messiah to minister to the Gentiles | Isaiah 42:1, 49:6-8 | Matthew 12:21 Luke 2:28-32 |
Messiah will perform miracles | Isaiah 35:5-6 | Matthew 9:35, 11:3-6 John 9:6-7 |
Messiah to be a prophet like Moses | Deuteronomy 18:15-19 | Matthew 21:11, 24:1-35 John 1:45, 6:14 Acts 3:20-23 |
Messiah to enter the temple with authority | Malachi 3:1-2 | Matthew 21:12 |
Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey | Zechariah 9:9-10 | Matthew 21:1-11 |
Messiah to be betrayed by a friend | Psalm 41:9 | John 13:18-21 |
Messiah to be forsaken by his disciples | Zechariah 13:7 | Matthew 26:31, 56 |
Messiah will be smitten | Isaiah 50:6 | Matthew 26:67, 27:26,30 |
Messiah to experience crucifixion (long before crucifixion was invented) | Psalm 22:15-17 | Matthew 27:34-50 John 19:28-30 |
Messiah will be pierced | Zechariah 12:10 | John 19:34-37 |
Details of Messiah’s suffering and death and resulting salvation (hundreds of years before Christ!) | Psalm 69:21 Isaiah 53:2-12, |
Matthew 26-27 Mark 15-16 Luke 22-23 John 18-19 |
Messiah to die in 33 AD | Daniel 9:24-26 | 33 AD is the widely accepted historical date of the crucifixion |
Casting of lots for His garments | Psalm 22:18 | John 19:23-24 |
Messiah to be raised from the dead | Psalm 16:10 | Acts 2:25-31, 13:32-37, 17:2-3 |
Messiah’s resurrection | Job 19:25 Psalm 16:10 |
Acts 2:30-31, 13:32-35, 17:2-3 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 |
Messiah to ascend to heaven | Psalm 68:18 | Luke 24:51 Acts 1:9 Ephesians 4:8-13 |
Messiah to be at the right hand of God | Psalm 110:1 | Matthew 26:64 Mark 14:62 Romans 8:34 Hebrews 1:3 |
Messiah, the stone which the builders rejected, to become the head cornerstone | Psalm 118:22-23 Isaiah 8:14-15, 28:16 |
Matthew 21:42-43 Acts 4:11 Romans 9:32-33 Ephesians 2:20 1 Peter 2:6-8 |
Statistical Evidence
The Bible contains 66 books, written by approximately 40 different writers, over 1600 years, on 3 different continents, in 3 different languages, on thousands of different subjects, yet with one central theme—God’s redemption of mankind from sin won for the whole world by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Discussion Questions
- Is all truth contained in the Bible?
- Is the Bible all true?
- What arguments have you heard against the Bible?
- How is the Bible different from other holy books?
- What is meant by “Scripture interprets Scripture?”
- What are the “original autographs?”
- Why is someone creating a logical fallacy to say there is no God?
Statistics of the Bible’s Power
Amazingly Consistent Theme of the Bible
The Bible contains 66 books, written by approximately 40 different writers, over 1600 years, on 3 different continents, in 3 different languages, on thousands of different subjects, yet with one central theme—God’s redemption of mankind from sin won for the whole world by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Logical Consistency of the Bible
For a successful debate, show that your opponent’s views are arbitrary orinconsistent, and that your position is consistent and not arbitrary. The Bible isinternally consistent (“self consistent” or “logically consistent”). Some debating points:
- Life after death in heaven or hell may be, in one sense, difficult to believe, but it is entirely internally consistent with the rest of the Bible. If there is a truly just God, justice is only certain if there is ultimate justice. The non-biblical view, in contrast, is inconsistent when it holds that we came from nowhere and go to nowhere, but life is filled with meaning in between. Thus only the biblical worldview is internally consistent.
- The statement that “there are no moral absolutes” contains two mistakes:
- The declaration itself is an absolute statement, thus it contradicts itself.
- A person cannot live his life without moral absolutes. Examples: fairness vs. unfairness; kindness vs. hatred.
- For another example, the doctrine of original sin is consistent with the need for a savior.
- If there is an omnipotent God, the miracle of creation, as well as the other biblical miracles, is very plausible.
A logical thought progression to make sense of the Christian faith:
Is there a God? If so,
- Is it logical to believe that God knows what is going on down here? If so,
- Is it reasonable to believe that He cares about what is going on down here? If so,
- Is it reasonable to believe that He cares enough to communicate His concerns to us? If so,
- How might He communicate truth to us? Can the Bible demonstrate that it is indeed God’s Word?
Geisler lists these criteria for establishing if a book was from God:
- It would claim to be God’s Word.
- It would be historically accurate when it speaks on historical matters.
- The authors would be trustworthy.
- The book would be thematically unified and without contradictions.
- We would have received accurate copies of the original manuscripts.
- It would make statements that would reveal knowledge about the way things work beyond the knowledge of its day. (See Geisler Encyclopedia pages 692-693.)
- It would make predictions about the future that could not be known through natural means.
- The message would be unique.
- The messengers would be confirmed by miracles.
- The words would have a transforming power.
Christian Cram Course: The Bible in Less than a Day
Top of page
(All CREDITS GOES TO ====>>> http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course)
Tough Questions and Some Answers
- Is Christianity based on blind faith?
- Is there rational evidence for the existence of God?
- Are Christians “Anti-Science?”
- How do you know that the Bible is true? Isn’t it just a bunch of fables?
- But is the Bible really “God’s Word?”
- How do you square Jesus’ miracles with reality?
- How can you say that Jesus is God?
- Aren’t all religions the same? Is Christ the only way to God?
- Isn’t religion merely cultural?
- What about people who have never heard of Christ?
- How can a good God allow evil and suffering?
- How can a loving God order people killed?
- Why do you believe in objective moral values?
- If it feels good for me isn’t it right?
- Why can’t I live my life as an agnostic?
- Isn’t religion an invention of people just to meet their psychological needs?
- I’ve lived a pretty good life. I’ll go to heaven, if there is one, won’t I?
- Why are there hypocrites in the church?
- Why are Christians so judgmental?
- If I become a Christian, won’t I lose my freedom?
- I’m not into organized religion. Can’t I be a Christian without going to church regularly?
- How do I discover the TRUTH?
- Questions & Answers Recommended Resources and Links
- Why Question?
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Common Misconceptions about Christianity
1. Christianity is based on blind faith. Christianity is not based on blind faith, but rather faith based on evidence. Blind faith is superstition. Christianity is overwhelmingly supported by reason, evidence, and scientific inquiry as we show in various articles on our website: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians.
2. We get to heaven based on how good we are here on earth. Well, we do get to heaven based on good works, but not our good works! We get to heaven based on the works of Jesus Christ! The Bible teaches that no one is good enough to get to heaven on the basis of their good works. It is Christ’s sacrifice for our sins that saves us from God’s wrath and hell. Seehttp://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel andhttp://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course. This is the biggest single misconception about Christianity. This is what separates Christianity from all other world religions and worldviews. Because we cannot possibly be good enough to get to heaven, Christ’s sacrificial life, death, and resurrection are absolutely necessary to get people to heaven. We are saved by grace (that is, it is a gift) through the medium of faith, and specifically not through our own merit (Ephesians 2:8-9).
3. Christianity is a laundry list of things to do. No matter how many ways we try to state this fact in #2 above, it does not seem to sink in. Even many Christians, when asked how we get to heaven, will answer something like, “I always try to be a good person.” But this is an incorrect response and shows great misunderstanding of the Christian message. The correct answer is, “There is no reason at all why I should go to heaven except for what Christ did for me on the cross.” Christianity, unlike other religions, is not a religion as such at all—but rather a personal relationship. God has reached out to sinful man and through his only son Jesus has offered a way to be reconciled to Himself through a personal relationship with Jesus. So Christianity is not a laundry list of things to do. There is nothing we can add to Christ’s finished work on the cross as payment for our sins.
4. Once we become a Christian, being saved by God’s gift of grace, it does not matter what we do. This is the corollary of #2 and #3 above. There are some people who think that since we are saved by Christ’s finished work on the cross, we can just go on sinning and God will forgive us. While we are saved by God’s grace through the medium of faith in Christ, good works will result from a true saving faith. Thus good works are evidence of a saving faith. This is very different from saying that we are saved by being a good person. While the Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, the Bible does not teach “easy believism.” A true Christian will repent of his sins continually and surrender his life to God. While we will never be perfect, or anywhere near perfect—and have ups and downs—a Christian will continue to improve over time through a process the Bible calls sanctification. So, while we are saved as a gift of God available to all who trust in Christ, after being saved, a Christian, by the power of the Holy Spirit, will seek to conform his life to God’s will—as best he understands God’s will and his duty. The Christian life is more about direction than perfection. For more detail, see http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course#christianlife.
5. There are many ways to heaven, many paths to God. Because man is separated from God by his sin, the penalty for our sin had to be paid somehow for justice to be done. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Thus Christ is thus the only name under heaven by which man may be saved (Acts 4:12). Seehttp://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same.
6. It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. This is a nice idea, but does not hold up to logic. Christianity is so radically different from other belief systems that if Christianity is true, the others are false. One can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. Sincere belief in a cult, in a false religion, in atheism, or in the tooth fairy do not get one to heaven. For an explanation see our article Why Christianity: http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/why-christianity.
7. The New Testament was written long after the events took place and are thus subject to legends being inserted into the text. The New Testament was written entirely by eye witnesses to the life of Christ or by interviewers of eyewitnesses. Many of the books were written within 25 or so years of Christ’s death, and many scholars—both liberal and conservative—are moving toward the view that all of the books of the New Testament were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The one book for which some doubt remains is Revelation. But recent scholarship holds that even this book was written prior to 70 AD. This is the view that liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson presents in his book Redating the New Testament. This is also the view that conservative scholar Kenneth Gentry presents in his book Before Jerusalem Fell. So there was not enough time for the stories to have been developed into legend. Further, as professor of Medieval and Renaissance English, C. S. Lewis said, “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man [Jesus] as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.” (quote from Lewis’ “God in the Dock.”)
8. The Bible has been changed or is otherwise not true to the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts—that is, the actual pieces of parchment or papyrus upon which St. Paul and others wrote the Bible—are no longer extant. But, especially as regards to the New Testament there has been an unbroken chain of manuscripts from the originals. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts extant, including ones from the first and second centuries. Scholars have been able to correlate the manuscripts to know that the Bible we have today is faithful to the originals. See http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps. A good book on this issue is The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?by F. F. Bruce. Regarding the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, first discovered in 1947 were from the time of Christ and even to the 2nd century BC. These manuscripts predate the previously oldest known manuscripts by a thousand years. Comparisons of these texts with the others already in existence showed that they were essentially identical. This information confirms how carefully the texts were copied over the centuries and has given scholars tremendous confidence in the accuracy of the Old Testament we have today.
9. The Bible cannot be trusted because of all the miracle stories. If God exists, miracles are possible. In fact, if God exists, miracles are certain. If he can create the universe—a miracle beyond human comprehension—he could certainly do the other miracles in the Bible. Perhaps the greatest miracle story is the resurrection of Christ. We devote an entire article to the evidence from modern scholarship of the veracity of this claim: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/contemporary-scholarship. The claim that miracles do not exist is held only by those who hold to a view of naturalism, which says that the physical universe is all that there is. The philosophy of naturalism assumes that the there is no such thing as the supernatural. We are convinced that the evidence is strongly in favor of the existence of God, and that therefore miracles are possible. To say that miracles are not possible is really atheism. Seehttp://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/does-god-exist.
10. The Bible conflicts with science. While the Bible was not written as a science textbook, a careful analysis of the Bible reveals that the Bible does not conflict with science at all. Charges leveled at the Bible turn out to be red herrings. See http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/are-christians-anti-science.
11. Christianity must be false because evolution is true. We are persuaded, after much study, that not only is macroevolution not true (macro-evolution being the vertical evolution of higher life forms in which a greater quantity and quality of genetic material is introduced by pure chance)—it cannot possibly be true. While this may sound puzzling in this age, we back up this claim with the evidence. For a summary of the research and a discussion of the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, see http://www.faithfacts.org/evolution-or-creation/origins-and-silly-putty.
12. The Bible condones slavery. Actually, both the Old and New Testaments specifically condemn the slave trade (Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10). Just because slavery was a common practice in the ancient world does not mean that God condoned it. The Bible speaks of many activities that were common or customary but were wrong in God’s eyes. Indeed the Old Testament in particular was a history of how bad mankind was, which precipitated the necessity of Christ to come to earth to set things straight. It must also be pointed out that much of what was described as “slavery” in the Old Testament was not racial forced slavery. Rather it was voluntary servitude, in which people would commit themselves to work for someone else for a period of time in exchange for certain benefits. Many slaves seemed to have lived almost like free men, or lived with a family as quasi-family members. The Old Testament Hebrew laws also had rules about letting indentured servants become free after a certain period of time, namely 6 years (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) or at other intervals such as the so-called Jubilee. The Deuteronomy passage is instructive about the type of slavery that was practiced—not only that slavery was a voluntary act but also prescribes rules of aid for the slave. The Bible reminds the Hebrews that they were once slaves in Egypt themselves and they were not to treat people the way that they had been treated. While the Bible may not condemn slavery as loudly as we might prefer, it is true that the Bible teaches that we are all equal in God’s eyes (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 9:6; Colossians 3:11). These passages and others laid the groundwork for the abolition movement, which was a Christian movement. See this link: Abolition. Here are three links with further information on this topic:Got Questions, Christian Answers, Bible Encyclopedia.
13. The Bible demeans women. In fact, the Bible elevates the status of women. Christianity has had a freeing influence for women, especially in comparison to other religions. For a comparison of Islam and Christianity, seehttp://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/contrasting-christianity-and-islam#women. The passage that is sometimes pointed to that critics say demean women is Ephesians 5:22-33. This passage, while it points out that men and women have different roles, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies just as Christ loved the church. See also http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/The-Impact-of-Christianity for a list a cultural benefits women have gained from Christianity. The example is Jesus, who treated women (as well as others demeaned in his culture) with mercy and respect. (See the comments in #14 below.)
14. The Bible cannot be correct given the strange rules the Jews had to follow. The rules given to the Jews by God fell into different categories. There were civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. Many of the laws given to the Jews in the book of Leviticus seem strange to us today. While helpful to the Jews (both medically and spiritually), these laws do not apply universally. The civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were specifically repealed in the New Testament. Examples: Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17. Moral laws were not repealed, but certain harsh earthly penalties for them are not in force in the same way since Jesus’ gospel of grace. Jesus’ example, such as toward the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, was not to condemn the transgressor to harsh punishment as the culture would have demanded (in this case being stoned to death), but to show mercy and insist that she leave her life of sin.
15. The God of the Bible is immoral. This statement is occasionally made by certain vocal atheists who seem to have an ax to grind against the God who made them. It seems incredibly presumptuous of fallible man to think they know better than God. The charge comes about mainly in regard to God’s command to the Jews to take over the land of Canaan and kill the inhabitants, in which the Jews became the responsible agent to execute specific justice against an immoral indigenous society. See http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/how-can-a-loving-god-order-people-killed for an explanation.
16. The Bible does not permit the charging of interest. Not charging interest or receiving interest was a practice in the Old Testament to give benefit to people in need. The New Testament effectively abrogates this practice in Jesus’ Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-29).
17. I can be a “Jesus Only” Christian. Some people who don’t like all the moral commands in the Bible want to tear out the pages of the Bible they don’t like. This is problematic for many reasons. One reason is that if you pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like, that is creating a God in your own image. This is idolatry, which is a violation of the Second of the Ten Commandments. Another reason is that if you think that the Bible is not reliable, you don’t know who the Jesus you think you worship is, since what we know about Jesus comes primarily from the Bible. We have more comments on this in this article our article “Cults, Heresies, and Heterodoxies.”: http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/cults-and-heresies.
18. Christianity is about being financially prosperous. This view of the Christian faith has become popular among some televangelists. It teaches that material prosperity and success in business and personal life is to be expected as external evidence of God’s favor. This is referred to as the “Prosperity Gospel.” It is a dangerous distortion of the biblical gospel. It is true that if one practices biblical principles in one’s life—ethics, hard work, concern for others, discipline, etc—one is more likely to be successful financially as well as physically healthy, but it is not always the case. The focus on this movement is incorrectly put on the accumulation of wealth and material goods, rather than on the true gospel. The biblical gospel is very clearly the declaration of Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection to save us from God’s wrath and hell. Seehttp://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel. The Bible teaches an attitude about money and wealth that directly contradicts the Prosperity Gospel:
a. 1 Timothy 6:7-10: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
b. Mark 10:17-22:”go, sell what you own, give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven . . .”
c. Matthew 6:19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
d. Luke 18:22-25: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
e. 1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”
In fact, one of Christ’s most quoted sermons (The Sermon on the Mount inMatthew 5) essentially assures a Christian that they will suffer hardships.
19. Most Christians think favorably of televangelists. Overwhelmingly, Christians think that most of the TV preachers are full of baloney. Sadly, many televangelists preach a distorted Gospel. Christians whose beliefs are rooted in the truths of the Bible are quick to point out the discrepancies.
20. Christianity is different by insisting that its claims are exclusive. Actually all religions claim exclusivity. Just ask a Muslim or a Hindu if a Christian is one of them. Even those who say that there should be no exclusivity in religion are in reality making an absolutist claim by eliminating from their circle those religions who claim exclusivity. See http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/arent-all-religions-the-same.
21. Evangelical Christians take everything in the Bible literally. While we take the Bible to be all true, we do not mean that the Bible is to be taken in a wooden literal sense. Just as in other forms of communication, there are different types of language in the Bible. These include history, poetry, parables, allegory, and figures of speech such as hyperbole, symbolism, allusion, and metaphors. The Bible should be taken in the sense in which it was intended by the writer. Context is the key.
22. Christians are not supposed to judge. This is a classic case of taking the Bible out of context to support a particular viewpoint. It is based on Matthew 7:1which says, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” The immediate context for Jesus’ statement here is hypocrisy. Jesus explains in verse 5 which follows, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” So Jesus is teaching that we must not judge hypocritically. Indeed, the entire Bible is about how to judge rightly—to determine truth from falsehood, right from wrong. The Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight (Isaiah 5:20-21).” Christians are to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), to “take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). But we cannot judge someone’s heart and we are instructed to avoid judging by appearances but to judge rightly (John 7:24). And Christians are always to demonstrate love, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22), as well as gentleness and respect(1 Peter 3:15). Those who cite the Matthew 7 passage usually have something for which they do not want to be judged. The misuse of this passage is often in the context of the gay rights debate. See Gay Rights.
23. All Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Some do believe that. But many, if not most, believe that the Genesis account of creation contains much symbolism and literary content that is not inconsistent with the standard scientific model. They see no conflict between the Bible and the view that the earth is billions of years old. That is, Christians often hold to an old-earth view.
======================================================================================
Why the Resurrection Is Important
“Man,” writes Loren Eisley, “is the cosmic Orphan.” He is the only creature in the universe who asks, Why? Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions. “Who am I?” he asks. “Why am I here? Where am I going?”
Ever since the Enlightenment, when modern man threw off the shackles of religion, he has tried to answer these questions without reference to God. But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible. “You are an accidental by-product of nature, the result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence. All you face is death. Your life is but a spark in the infinite darkness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever.”
Modern man thought that in divesting himself of God, he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him. Instead, he discovered that in killing god, he had also killed himself.
Against this background of the modern predicament, the traditional Christian hope of the resurrection takes on an even greater brightness and significance. It tells man that he is no orphan after all, but the personal image of the Creator God of the universe; nor is his life doomed in death, for through the eschatological resurrection he may live in the presence of God forever.
This is a wonderful hope. But, of course, hope that is not founded in fact is not hope, but mere illusion. Why should the Christian hope of eschatological resurrection appear to modern man as anything more than mere wishful thinking? The answer lies in the Christian conviction that a man has been proleptically raised by God from the dead as the forerunner and examplar of our own eschatological resurrection. That man was Jesus of Nazareth, and his historical resurrection from the dead constitutes the factual foundation upon which the Christian hope is based.
Top of pageThe Decline of Skepticism
Of course, during the last century liberal theology had no use for the historical resurrection of Jesus. But a remarkable change has come about during the second half of the 20th century. A new quest of the historical Jesus had begun. By 1968 the old scepticism was a spent force and began dramatically to recede. So complete has been the turn-about during the second half of this century concerning the resurrection of Jesus that it is no exaggeration to speak of a reversal of scholarship on this issue.
What are the facts that underlie this remarkable reversal of opinion concerning the credibility of the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus? It seems to me that they can be conveniently grouped under three heads: the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. Let’s look briefly at each.
Top of pageThe Resurrection Appearances
First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8)
According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary.
Let us look briefly at each appearance with a view toward its historical attestation.
- The appearance to Peter. We have no story in the gospels telling of Jesus’ appearance to Peter. But the appearance is mentioned here in the traditional formula, and it is vouched for by the apostle Paul himself. As we know from Gal. 1:18, Paul spent about two weeks with Peter in Jerusalem three years after his Damascus road experience. So Paul would know personally whether Peter claimed to have had such an experience or not. In addition to this, the appearance to Peter is mentioned in another ancient formula found in Luke 24:34: “The Lord is risen indeed and has appeared to Simon [Peter]!” So although we have no detailed story of this appearance, it is quite well-attested. As a result, even the most sceptical New Testament critics agree that Peter experienced something which he called an appearance of Jesus alive from the dead.
- The appearance to the Twelve. This is the best attested resurrection appearance of Jesus. We have stories of this appearance in Luke 24:36-43and in John 20:19-20. Undoubtedly the most notable feature of these stories is the traditions passed on by Luke and John of the physical demonstrations of Jesus showing his wounds and eating before the disciples. The purpose of the physical demonstrations is to show two things: first, that Jesus was raised physically and second, that he was the same Jesus who had been crucified. Thus, they served to demonstrate bothcorporeality and continuity of the resurrection body. There can be little doubt that such an appearance occurred, for it is attested in the formula, vouched for by Paul, who had personal contact with the Twelve, and described by both Luke and John.
- The appearance to the 500 brethren. The third appearance comes as somewhat of a shock: then he appeared to more than 500 people at one time! This is surprising since we have no mention whatsoever of this appearance elsewhere in the New Testament. This would make one inclined to be rather skeptical about this appearance; but it comes from old information which Paul had received and Paul himself apparently had personal contact with these people, since he knew that some had died. This is seen in Paul’s parenthetical comment “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” Why does Paul add this remark? The great New Testament scholar of Cambridge University, C. H. Dodd, replies, “There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the 500 are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, ‘The witnesses are there to be questioned.'” Notice: Paul could never have said this if the event had not occurred. He could not have challenged people to interrogate the witnesses, if the event had never taken place and there were no witnesses. But evidently there were eyewitnesses to this event, and Paul knew that some of them had died in the meantime. Therefore, the event must have taken place. Since the gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] tend to focus their attention on the appearances in Jerusalem, we do not have any story of this appearance to the 500 because it occurred in Galilee.
- The appearance to James. The next appearance is one of the most amazing of all: he appeared to James, Jesus’ younger brother. What makes this amazing is that neither James, or any of Jesus’ younger brothers, apparently believed in Jesus during his lifetime (see Mark 3:21, 31-5; John 7:1-10). They did not believe he was the Messiah, or a prophet, or even anybody special. But after the resurrection, Jesus’ brothers unexpectedly pop up in the Christian fellowship in the upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). There is no further mention of them until Acts 12:17. This is the story of Peter’s deliverance from prison by the angel. What are Peter’s first words?—”Go, tell this to James.” In Gal. 1:19 Paul tells of his two week visit to Jerusalem about three years after his Damascus Road experience. He says that besides Peter, he saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. Paul at least implies that James was now being reckoned as an apostle. When Paul visited Jerusalem again 14 years later, he says there were three “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem: Peter, John, and James (Gal. 2:9). Finally in Acts 21:18, James is the sole head of the Jerusalem church and of the council of elders. We hear no more about James in the New Testament, but from Josephus the Jewish historian we learn that James was stoned to death illegally by the Sanhedrin sometime after AD 60 for his faith in Christ. Not only James, but also Jesus’ other brothers became believers and were active in Christian preaching, as we see from 1 Cor. 9:5: “Do we have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” How is this to be explained? On the one hand, it seems certain that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him during his lifetime. On the other hand, it is equally certain that they became ardent Christians active in the church. Most of us have brothers. What would it take to make you believe that your brother is the Lord, so that you would die for this belief, as James did? Can there be any doubt that the reason for this remarkable transformation is to be found in the fact that “then he appeared to James”? Even the skeptical New Testament critic Hans Grass calls the conversion of James one of the surest proofs of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
- The appearance to all the apostles. This appearance was probably to a limited circle somewhat wider than the Twelve. For such a group, see Acts 1:21-22. Once again, the facility of this appearance is guaranteed by Paul’s personal contact with the apostles themselves.
- The appearance to Saul of Tarsus. The final appearance is just as amazing as the appearance to James: “last of all,” says Paul, “he appeared also to me.” The story of Jesus’ appearance to Saul of Tarsus (or Paul) just outside Damascus is related in Acts 9:1-9 and is later told again twice. That this event actually occurred is established beyond doubt by Paul’s references to it in his own letters. This event changed Paul’s whole life. He was a Rabbi, a Pharisee, a respected Jewish leader. He hated the Christian heresy and did everything in his power to stamp it out. He was even responsible for the execution of Christian believers. Then suddenly he gave up everything. He left his position as a respected Jewish leader and became a Christian missionary. He entered a life of poverty, labor, and suffering. He was whipped, beaten, stoned and left for dead, shipwrecked three times, in constant danger, deprivation, and anxiety. Finally, he made the ultimate sacrifice and was martyred for his faith in Rome. And it was all because on that day outside Damascus, he saw “Jesus our Lord” (1 Cor. 9:1).
We can try to explain these appearances away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul’s information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” This conclusion is virtually indisputable.
At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul’s information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul’s. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical [elements].
The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be ‘unbelievable’; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50’s. This places them as early as Paul’s letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul.
Top of pageThe Empty Tomb
Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus. Allow me to review briefly some of the evidence undergirding this connection.
(1) The historical reliability of the burial story supports the empty tomb. Jesus’ burial is described in the earliest gospel in the following way:
And when evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And Joseph brought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and He rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph were looking on to see where He was laid. (Mark 15:42-47)
If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus’ grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, it is a very short inference to historicity of the empty tomb. For if Jesus had not risen and the burial site were known:
- The disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms.
- Even if the disciples had believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is doubtful they would have generated any following. So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly.
- The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside. For these three reasons, the accuracy of the burial story supports the historicity of the empty tomb.
Unfortunately for those who wish to deny the empty tomb, however, the burial story is one of the most historically certain traditions we have concerning Jesus. Several factors undergird this judgment. To mention only a few:
The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4.
- It is part of the ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel.
- The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development.
- The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus’ day.
- No other competing burial traditions exist.
For these and other reasons, most scholars are united in the judgment that the burial story is fundamentally historical. But if that is the case, then as I have explained, the inference that the tomb was found empty is not very far at hand.
(2) Paul’s testimony supports the fact of the empty tomb. Here two aspects of Paul’s evidence may be mentioned.
- In the formula cited by Paul the expression “he was raised” following the phrase “he was buried” implies the empty tomb. A first century Jew could not think otherwise. As E. I. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites presuppose the existence of the empty tomb.
- The phrase “on the third day” probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it “on the third day?” The most probable answer is that they did so because this was the day of the discovery of the empty tomb by Jesus’ women followers. Hence, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. Thus, in the old Christian formula quoted by Paul we have extremely early evidence for the existence of Jesus’ empty tomb.
(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark’s passion source.
And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and annoint Him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?’ And looking up, they saw the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, ‘Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, “He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you.”‘ And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:1-8)
As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:
- Paul’s account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul’s own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.
- The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say “The President is hosting a dinner at the White House” and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the “high priest” as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus’ death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.
(4) The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal [fake] gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, “Has thou preached to them that sleep?” And the cross answers, “Yea”. In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.
(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role of women in Jewish society.
- Women occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as “Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women” and “Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.”
- The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and the gospels accurately record this.
(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.
One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb” and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, “it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.
Top of pageThe Explosion of the Christian Faith
Finally, we may turn to that third body of evidence supporting the resurrection: the very origin of the Christian way. Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus. The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of these earliest disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The resurrection of Jesus is therefore the best explanation for the origin of the Christian faith. Taken together, these three great historical facts—the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith—seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation.
Top of pageOther Explanations
But of course there have been other explanations proffered to account for the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. In the judgment of modern scholarship, however, these have failed to provide a plausible account of the facts of the case. This can be seen by a rapid review of the principal explanations that have been offered.
- The disciples stole Jesus’ corpse and lied about the resurrection appearances. This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two considerations decisive against it: (a) it is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women, not imposters. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the evident sincerity of these early believers. (b) It is psychologically impossible to attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering do requisite for such a ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning – not mentally motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the question.
- Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken down and placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped to convince the disciples he had risen from the dead. Today, however, the theory has been entirely given up: (a) it would be virtually impossible medically for Jesus to have survived the rigors of his torture and crucifixion, much less not to have died to exposure in the tomb. (b) The theory is religiously inadequate, since a half-dead Jesus desperately in need of medical attention would have elicited in the disciple’s worship of him as the exalted Risen Lord and Conqueror of Death. Moreover, since Jesus on this hypothesis knew he had not actually triumphed over death, the theory reduces him to the level of a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing he had risen, which is absurd. These reasons alone make the apparent death theory untenable.
- The disciples projected hallucinations of Jesus after his death, from which they mistakenly inferred his resurrection. The hallucination theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (a) it is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the disciples’ case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting. The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could do was wait to be re-united with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such diversity. (b) Hallucinations would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus’ resurrection. As projections of one’s own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the mind. But we have seen that Jesus’ resurrection differed from the Jewish conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus glorified in Abraham’s bosom, where Israel’s righteous dead abode until the eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited belief in Jesus’ resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode of thought. (c) Nor can hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding Christ’s resurrection.
Thus, none of the previous counter-explanations can account for the evidence as plausibly as the resurrection itself. One might ask, “Well, then how do skeptical scholars explain the facts of the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith?” The fact of the matter is, they don’t. Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply self-confessedly left without an explanation.
These three great facts—the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith—all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.
Craig adds this in his book Reasonable Faith: “If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence (and it seems to me that they can) and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible (and the consensus of scholarship is that they can), then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors (and my experience in debating the comparative merits of the hypothesis convinces me that it cannot), then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead. The significance of this event is then to found in the religio-historical context in which it occurred, namely, as the vindication of Jesus’ own unparalleled claim to divine authority. I think the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is such that a well-informed investigator ought to agree that is more likely than not to have occurred.”
For additional articles on the evidence for the resurrection, see Craig’s web sitehttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer. While at the site, under Search this Site, enter “resurrection.” We also recommend these books: Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, and Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. These sources dig even deeper into the evidence for the resurrection and counter charges by skeptics.
=======================================================================================
Evolution: Science or Creation Story?
The uninformed are sometimes of the opinion that the debate over evolution is about science versus the Bible. This could not be further from the truth. The modern debate is about whether or not science itself supports the theory of evolution. This article is about the scientific problems of Darwinism. In other articles we address the theological aspects of the debate.
As evidenced by a wave of recent books on the subject, there is a growing uneasiness in the scientific community about the validity of Darwinian evolution. Many scientists and philosophers are taking a fresh look at evolution, and based on the latest evidence are raising huge questions. Indeed, a hard look at the scientific data accumulated since the time of Darwin in the late nineteenth century, is leading some observers to conclude the following: The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so fragmentary that it would not command any respect at all, if it were not for the fact that the evolutionists have agreed in advance to exclude all thought of intelligent design.
There are, it seems, two definitions of science. One is to look at the facts, test the hypothesis, and see where it leads you—even if you don’t like it. This, of course, is the traditional definition. But many are now questioning whether evolutionary dogma may have used a second definition—to start with a definition of naturalism, and look only at the pieces of evidence which fit that philosophy.
The purpose of this essay is to survey several books on the topic, and to present their arguments about the growing problems for evolution. The reader is asked, for the moment, to look at this question as a true scientist would—that is, without a preconceived conclusion. Rather, examine the evidence as a jurist in a court of law.
Over 700 scientists worldwide have signed a statement of scientific dissent from darwinism. See this website for the statement and list of signers of the statement: Scientific Dissent Statement.
This article is primarily an article about science. But we will examine aspects of the philosophy behind this debate. We specifically will not draw from the Bible. Yet we will demonstrate how Darwinists are more closed-minded than Christians.
(Notes: While the terminology used in this essay may be new to some people, the concepts are not difficult. They are easy enough to be understood by high school students. References used are by their number listed in the Resource List at the end. For example, all references to Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial are referenced in the text as number 5.)
We have grouped the issues into four categories:
- Problems w/Darwinian Mechanism
- Problems of Building Consistent Evolutionary Tree
- Problems from Unexplained Anomalies
- Is Darwinism Good Science (or Bad Philosophy)?
======================================
How the Bible and Evolution Conflict
An Analysis of the Tension Between Two Worldviews
Let’s first make the point that the tension between the Bible and evolution is not at all about the age of the earth! Authors Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn, in their bookBeyond Creation Science, argue that the majority view of Christians throughout the ages has been that the Bible teaches an old earth. They quote, for example, St. Augustine, considered the top theologian in the early Christian age, as saying in his ancient book titled The Literal Meaning of Genesis: “But at least we know that it [the creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar.” While some Christians hold to a literal 6-day creation, even these do not necessarily hold to a young earth view, believing that the creation week happened billions of years ago.
The tension between evolution and creation is philosophical not scientific. Here are some points:
- Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points.Creation: In the beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance.
- Darwinian doctrine insists that the evolution of life is a random process—that we are here by a series of pure accidents (e.g., mutations, and molecules in motion, gene recombinations and duplications). This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of election—that life is not merely a series of accidents. According to the Bible, each believer is in some sense individually foreknown and chosen by God from before the foundations of the world. (1 Samuel 16:7-12; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 24:31, 25:34; Romans 8:29-30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 1:4-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9)
- The God of the Bible is more than Creator and Savior. He is also Sustainer. With evolution, life is a self-sustaining process ruled by fate, and God plays no role in the universe or in the ongoing lives of men. This contradicts the biblical doctrine of providence—that all things happen under the authority of God, and that God is still at work sustaining (though not re-creating) His creation. (Genesis 45:7-8, Nehemiah 9:6; Esther 4:14; Psalm 104:30, 145:16, 147:9;Proverbs 16:9,33, Isaiah 45:1,7, 46:10; Matthew 6:26, 10:29-31; John 5:17, 14:16-17, 15:26, 16:13-15; Acts 17:26, 18:9-11; Romans 8:9-11; Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)
- Still another aspect of the God of the Bible is that He is Judge. The Bible makes a major point of an afterlife in heaven or hell. Indeed, Jesus discusses this concept more than any other biblical figure. As part of the process of ultimate judgment by God, a new type of resurrection body will emerge to another life—to either be glorified in heaven or condemned to hell for eternity. Evolution is in great conflict with this view, including the fact that the physical cannot evolve into an afterlife. (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 23:33, 24:31; Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:42-53; 2 Peter 2:4-10)
- The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)
- The Bible indicates that creation was a completed event in the past, and is not continuing as evolution suggests. (Genesis 2:1-3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Hebrews 4:3-11) As put by the Concordia Study Bible (annotations page 8), “His creative work was completed—and it was totally effective, absolutely perfect, ‘very good.’ It did not have to be repeated, repaired or revised, and the Creator rested to commemorate it.”
- Given the above, the creation by God of distinct “kinds” as described inGenesis 1 and 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least superfluous.
- The Bible indicates that there is clear physical evidence of creation. (Psalm 19:1-6; Acts 17:24-29) Evolution denies the evidence for creation. If Darwinism were a reasonable hypothesis, atheists would have a perfectly good excuse, in contradiction to Romans 1:20. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible.
- There is no hint of evolution in the Bible. While this is an argument from silence and thus does not necessarily preclude evolution, such an important concept as to origins would surely have been suggested in the Bible due to its theological implications. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. It is mentioned approximately 64 times in 18 books of the Bible.
- Evolution is a philosophy based on naturalism and materialism. Naturalism holds that nature is all there is and that the universe is self-sufficient without a supernatural cause or control of the world. Materialism regards matter as the original cause of all—that matter did its own creating. Materialism denies the existence of the soul. The philosophical assumption of evolution is therefore essentially atheistic or agnostic, thus clearly incompatible with special creation and the other miracles of the Bible. With evolution, if God exists, He is so distant as to be irrelevant.
- The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)
- Some 75 passages of Scripture including those by Jesus, refer to the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2, confirming it as actual history. (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 3:38, Revelation 2:7) See In the Beginning elsewhere on our site.
- There is an important reason to interpret from the Bible that Adam was a real person. Unless the concept of original sin through Adam is true, Jesus’ coming makes no sense. That is, Christians believe that Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins was necessary because of man’s sin nature inherited in some sense from Adam. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the “second Adam.” So if Adam was not real, thus did not bring sin into the world, Christ’s redemptive sacrifice was not necessary. (Genesis 3:15-19; Romans 4:22-25, 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,45-57; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).
- The overarching theme of the Bible is Creation/Fall/Redemption. (God created the universe “very good.” Then man spoiled it by his rebellion—the “Fall”, necessitating God’s redemption of mankind through Christ.) This sequence is crucial to Christian theology. Did God really create things bad, not “very good” as the Bible says (Genesis 1:31)? If things were bad to start with, the Fall becomes a superfluous concept. (The Fall presupposes that there was something good from which to fall.) Thus, a major point of tension exists between the Bible and evolution at the heart of the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Note the following quote from G. R. Bozarth, The American Atheist magazine, September 1978, 30:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
- Evolutionism, indeed, denies that man even has a sinful nature or else suggests that we should not be faulted for our human nature because “that is just our nature.” Thus evolution is inconsistent with the Christian belief that man is indeed fallen and in need of a savior.
- The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to the Bible, which has not changed over time.
- Morality in evolutionary thought is a function of natural selection, survival of the fittest, or situation ethics. The Bible teaches transcending moral truth, given by God. (Exodus 20:1-17; Isaiah 5:20-21)
- Evolution is closely associated with the philosophy of secular humanism, which accepts human beings as the ultimate source of meaning and value. The Bible, of course, places God as the ultimate source of meaning and value.
- The Bible teaches that man was created for a special purpose. Evolution denies that man has a divine purpose, or at least implies that man’s purpose in life is whatever one wants to make of it (secular humanism). (Isaiah 43:7;Jeremiah 29:11; Matthew 6:10; Romans 8:28, 14:12; Galatians 1:15;Ephesians 2:10, 3:21; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:10)
- Since evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence ofmeaning, and therefore an absence of objective moral values. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible. Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to havethe Truth, which gives ultimate hope. (John 14:6; Colossians 1:27)
- The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.
Here is a helpful article about whether Adam and Eve were literal people: Keller on Adam.
======================================================================================
Theistic Evolution
Trying to Reconcile Evolution and Creation
Many Christians feel compelled to try to reconcile evolution and creation through a view called “theistic evolution.” In this article we will examine whether there are legitimate ways to do this. But anyone who attempts to do so are up against an initial problem that evolution is essentially an atheistic philosophy. For the evolutionist, if God exists he is irrelevant. The following definition of evolution was the 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers and is consistent with what other major science organizations mean by evolution:
“The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.”
The concept of evolution being a godless random chance process is emphasized throughout the writings of scientists. For example, consider the words of famous geneticist Richard Lewontin:
“It is not that the methods and insitutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannopt allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
Or consider this quote from Richard Dawkins: “miraculous additions at any one stage of descent…i.e. any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all.”
From such quotes we may infer that it is either/or: either 100% evolution or 100% intelligent design. But the landscape here is getting murky. Some intelligent desing proponents are saying that evolution happened but also that God’s supernatural intervention helped at certain key points. Here is an interesting article that actually puts scientists in four different camps on this question: Paul Nelson on Design and Common Ancestry.
First, let us make a distinction between “Old Earth Creationism,” “Young Earth Creationism,” and “Theistic Evolution.” Old Earth Creationism says that God intervened in natural processes at key points, such as at the creation of man. This view is sometimes called Progressive Creationism. A difference between Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists is that Old Earthers do not see the 6-day creation account in Genesis as literal 24-hour days, but rather long indeterminant periods of time. Or they may say that the 6-days of Genesis were literal but there were very long gaps in between the days. The proponents of Old Earth Creationism believe that the Bible is fully compatible with the generally accepted view of scientists about the age of the earth and other details of science. The most well-known proponent of old earth creationism is astronomer Hugh Ross whose website is Reasons to Believe.
Young Earth Creationistists hold to a literal 6-day creation. But they also believe that their views are fully compatible with science—that the vast majority of scientific evidences that help date the age of the earth point to a very young earth. The proponents of this view include Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research.
The majority view among Christians, including those holding to Intelligent Design, is for an old earth.
Old earth (progessive) creationists believe that when the Bible says that there was no death before Adam’s Fall, it means spiritual death only. This is a necessary belief for the progressive creationist because they assume that man was created by God long after other animals were created, and these animals lived and died essentially as they do now. So physical death came into the world prior to Adam.
Young-earth creationists disagree, saying that when the Bible says “death,” it means physical death as well as spiritual death. And this physical death must applied to animals as well as mankind.
There are numerous other implications about how the book of Genesis is interpreted in this regard. This all interesting to the theologian. But we would emphasize here that the bigger debate is not about the age of the earth. The key point in the debate with evolutionists is whether God created the universe and life, or whether it was a matter of pure chance.
There are four basic categories of theistic evolution, which we will simply call TE-1,TE-2, TE-3. In discussion with proponents of theistic evolution, we have noticed that most have not thought their position very deeply. They simply hold to some sort of vague idea. By breaking down these various views we might help the reader to get a better grasp of the possibilities. Our thanks to Stephen Meyer at the Discovery Institute for some of this helpful thinking.
TE-1 says that God directed evolution and further that we can scientifically detect this. This view, along with young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism can be considered part of the Intelligent Design movement. All 3 groups believe that we can infer from rigorous scientic examination that an intelligent agent must have been involved in the origins of life and its various forms. TE-1 seems to be an extreme version of progressive creation in that God was involved in every tiny mutation and each “natural” selection event. As far as we know, there are yet no visible groups that are proponents of TE-1.
TE-2 says that God directed evolution but that this cannot be detected scientifically. This group seems to take their view of origins of man largely on faith as they offer no scientific explantion for it. If we understand their views, The BioLogos Forum is a proponent of this idea. Like TE-1, God intervened trillions and trillions of times into random processes. Here’s an interesting article about this: Olasky on Evolution. Olasky points out that there are serious contradictions with this view and Christianity. Also see our article How the Bible and Evolution Conflict.
TE-3 says that God did not direct the evolutionary process in any way. Yet they still say that God was involved in the process somehow. Thus, they believe that God guided an un-guided process. This view is obviously logically contradictory and thus is impossible.
Deism. There is another view that allows God in the picture. It says that God created the universe and then stepped back and let things run on their own. Evolution by random chance then took over and became the mechanism by which lifeforms came into being. This view is called deism. While it is a possible view, it certainly is not Christian. The Christian God not only created the universe, but specifically created all life. Further, God is not only creator, but sustainer of the world as well. There is a further philosophical problem with deism that has led many theists who have studied philosophy to discard it. The problem is that under deism whatever is, is right. In other words, if God allows all events to happen, how can one say that any event or choice is wrong? Thus ethics has no meaning.
We might call this view “Deistic Evolution.” And it seems that there are at least a couple of version of it, which can label DE-1 and DE-2. Here is how they might look:
DE-1. God’s only role is that of creating the universe.
DE-2. It seems that a few people say that God created the universe and did not intervene again until raising Jesus Christ from the dead. This seems to be yet another attempt to reconcile Christianity with evolution. But there are numerous problems with this view as well. For example, why would you assume that humankind would even exist at all if God did not ultimately determine it? Is God involved in your life? Can you trust in a God that is not really sovereign in all things?
So, any form of deism brings the ire of atheists and Christians alike.
Some Christians trying to harmonize evolution and creation will make the statement, “I believe that God used evolution to create.” This is a naive statement. In fact, it is an internal contradiction. By definition, evolution is purely a random chance process (“undirected material process”) with no part by a Creator God. We believe it is impossible for the rational Christian to say that God used evolution to create.
A final consideration is that some Christians have attempted to reconcile creation and evolution by compartmentalizing science and religion. Under this view, the two disciplines attempt to find truth in different ways, and the disciplines should respectfully not interfere with each other. But this too is inconsistent with Scripture. This is merely succumbing to society’s effort to marginalize Christianity. The Bible insists that its worldview is all encompassing (Romans 1:19-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5;Philippians 2:10).
And some Christians attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible due to an unfounded concern that the Bible will not hold up to scientific scrutiny. This is an unwarranted fear. Concerning science and Scripture, while the Bible was not written as a science textbook, Christians should welcome the Bible being investigated through scientific endeavors such as archeology, geology, paleontology, etc. The Bible consistently holds up under such tests. It is now even recognized that the Bible correctly demonstrates pre-science knowledge throughout the science disciplines. And there are no scientific mistakes in the Bible (Defender’s Study Bible, annotations by Henry Morris, page 1525).
See our essays at Tough Questions.
Christianity is not based on blind faith, but faith in evidence. The Bible teaches that we should use our minds (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37) to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) in light of evidence (Acts 1:3, 2:32; 1 Corinthians 15:6;Colossians 2:81), and to contend for the faith intellectually (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). The Bible is trustworthy. Christians do not need to discount the Bible or to water down their faith by putting faith in the theory of evolution.
Conclusion: Creation and evolution are competing worldviews that cannot be successfully reconciled.
Evolution is poor science. It is a bankrupt philosophy that is harmful to society. It is contrary to Christianity. The evidence is greatly against it. Why are you still clinging to it?
==============================================================================================
Evolution/Creation Class Study
An Outline for a Bible Class Study
- Here is a group of videos that can be used in a class study.
DVD’s: “The Case for the Creator,” “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” and “The Privileged Planet.” These three DVD’s can be purchased as a set fromhttp://www.buzzplant.com/illustra/ecard1/.
Video: “The Triumph of Design,” featuring Phillip Johnson.
- Available from Triumph of Design or 1-800-771-2147 (days) or 1-888-US AWARE x 800 (after hours)
- Recommended further reading: Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. See also Prof. Johnson’s web site www.origins.org.
Video: “From Evolution to Creation” by Gary Parker, Ph.D.
- Recommended further reading: Creation Facts of Life by Gary Parker
- Video and book available from Answers in Genesis,www.AnswersInGenesis.org or 1-800-778-3390.
Video: “The Challenge of the Fossil Record: Evolution? The Fossils Say No!” by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
- Recommended further reading: Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish, Bones of Contention, by Martin Lubenow. (Books and video available from the Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org or 1-800-337-0375.)
Video: “Opening Darwin’s Black Box, An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe.”
- Recommended further reading: Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, Ph.D. The book and video are available at www.IntelligentDesign.org. Note: The video may be out of print. Contact the Discovery Institute 206-292-0401. They may have suggestion for other videos.
Video: “Darwin’s Dilemma, available at http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/.
- Discussion: Semantic Considerations and Scientific Problems with Evolution
- Recommended further reading: Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E. Johnson.
- Discussion: The Philosophical and Theological Problems of Evolution
- Recommended further reading: Evolution: Science or Creation Story,available on this web site.
CONCEPT:
This class can be presented in church group sessions of an hour in length with only limited prior study or preparation. The last 2 classes can be led by someone who has read at least some of the materials listed for further reading.
The following videos could also be used, depending on how long you want the series to continue: “Facts and Bias: Creation vs. Evolution” featuring Ken Ham (available from Answers in Genesis), “Scientific Creationism” and/or “Biblical Creationism” featuring Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. (from the Institute for Creation Research), “Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe” featuring Steve Austin, Ph.D. (from the Institute for Creation Research).
=======================================================================================
How to Interpret the Bible
I. Introduction
II. Principles of Biblical Interpretation
III. Examples for Study
IV. Summary
I. Introduction
In 1993 Hank Hanegraaff (“The Bible Answer Man”) wrote a book entitled Christianity in Crisis. In the book he exposed problems within evangelicalism. Many think that in actuality Hanegraaff understated the problems of both doctrine and practice within Christianity, and time has made the issues even more acute.
Forgive us for saying so, but perhaps it is time to be honest with ourselves. American Christianity, at least much of it, is a mess. It is separated into divisive sects, giving the world the impression that we don’t know what we are doing. Or even more alarming, that the true God is somehow irrelevant and confused. This is not to say that individual American churches are not proclaiming the Gospel in its truth and purity. But some serious introspection is in order.
Let us warn you. This article will make many Christians uncomfortable. But perhaps we need to feel uncomfortable. We as Protestants should acknowledge that Sola Scriptura was supposed to solve doctrinal problems, but it does not always work that way when humans are involved.
Each sect places itself apart, even above the others, thinking that they uniquely possess biblical truth. But they can’t all be correct as there is too much contradictory opinion. We all seek comfort and constancy in our theology. We’ve got enough uncomfortable situations to deal with in our daily lives. But we make here a serious challenge: We think that Christians are too complacent, and indeed members of every group seem to fear the thought of seriously examining their own doctrine.
Peer pressure too often outweighs good scholarship. But there is a related issue. People tend to seek an identity. We are comfortable with a label. We see ourselves fitting in with a particular group: I am Catholic, or I am Methodist, or I am Reformed, etc.
We deal with all kinds of Christians and pseudo-Christians on our website. So we have some basis to make our claim. Yes, we mean what we said—Christians areafraid to deal with passages of the Bible that are challenging to them. Each group assumes that their leaders must have theology right, and fail, as Paul instructs us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, to test everything.
We often simply choose to ignore challenges to our pre-conceived notions about what the Bible actually teaches. We have built doctrine by picking and choosing the passages that fit our ideas and ignored those that challenge us. This has led to a shallow, lazy, distorted, and divisive Christianity. It is high time to open our minds to reasonable challenges to our thinking. Fortunately, with the internet, the days of Christians being able to duck doctrinal challenges are over.
We should not fear challenges, but rather welcome them. Consider this: One can learn more about their own position by studying the challenges to it. For example, in our own work we have learned better how to defend the Trinity by studying what Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses think about it. Truth is more important than fear.
Let’s survey the Christian landscape. The cults are gaining ground. Liberal Christians have arbitrarily thrown out anything in Scripture they don’t like. Even conservatives, in spite of giving lip service to inerrancy—that all Scripture is God-breathed—often dismiss many passages that appear too tough to handle.
But that’s just the beginning. We have Catholics and legalistic Protestants who have invented non-biblical doctrines. There are the ultra-fundamentalists who think that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally—making a mockery of language itself including the language of Scripture.
And we note that high profile Pentecostal preachers are teaching a false gospel of prosperity while giving false hope of healing to the afflicted through the practice of “slaying in the spirit”—which is nothing more than psycho-social manipulation. And we have the prophecy wonks that see the end of the world behind every world event.
Yet we find “mainstream” orthodox Evangelical Protestants and Catholics with issues as well. Statistics clearly show that a majority of their members are ignorant of basic Christian doctrines and on average live lives that are indistinguishable from others in the culture. Even among Protestants we have at least two distinct groups— the Calvinists versus the Arminians—each thinking the other group is seriously deceived. This debate—which is largely over the exact nature of man’s free will—has been raging for 2000 years and is not likely to be resolved this side of heaven. In all of these we see shallow, superficial Christianity as a result of a shallow, superficial understanding of the Bible. Cheap grace and easy-believism is rampant throughout the church.
Non-Christians can see right through our bickering and through the fakers, pseudo-intellectuals, hypocrites, and false prophets. The modern church is often an embarrassment to biblical Christianity; it is many times a stumbling block to seekers. (For more see this 4-part video Christianity and Crisis by Hank Hanegraaf:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7jHvm-MKfE.)
Gut check time. As you read this, does your attitude confirm what we are saying? Chances are that you are thinking that all this is true about the other groups out there, but not about yours. We submit that every group has blind spots. We need to humble ourselves before God and ask God to reveal truth.
Who has a heart hardened by biases and preconceptions, Lord? Is it I? Is it I? Show me the blind spot in my own eye, Lord! Give me the fortitude to deal with error that I might hold. Give me a passion for biblical truth. And give me the courage to speak up against error, even among my peers.
Our thesis is that these problems result from an often shallow and distorted view of Scripture! We are not trying to solve every problem with this short article. But we want to challenge our Christian brothers and sisters into re-examination.
Let us say here that we affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. And we think that the toughest challenges to the Bible can be met. With that in mind, let’s consider some basic concepts on how to interpret the Bible.
II. Principles of Biblical Interpretation
Overarching prerequisites and principles:
A. Prior acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
B. A predisposition of faith and obedience (John 7:17-18, 8:43)
C. Seeing the parts in relation to the whole through proper interpretive methods, including these:
- Grammatico-historical method: gathering from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey, taking into account the grammar and culture of their times and their primary audiences. We should remember that the Bible was spoken for us today but not to us. Audience relevance is often key to grasping what the writers intended. This applies to the sacred writings the same principles, as well as the same grammatical processes and exercises of sense and reason which apply to other books. In other words, we should use principles of language as well as standard reason to determine what the author intended and how the original readers would have understood it.
- Covenant-historical method: paying careful attention to the rise and development of the Kingdom of God in all its aspects through the course of biblical history, which is the central core and directing rudder of world history. Covenant-historical interpretation is the antidote both to the unbiblical legalism that flourishes in American Christianity, and to the prophetic speculation and fantasies that have diverted Christians from real-world concerns and the real hope of the Gospel.
- Redemptive-historical method: interpretation of the Bible based on the principles that
a. Scripture is progressive revelation.
b. Scripture can only really be understood Christologically throughout.
c. Old Testament people of God belonged to the same organic covenant body as we the New Testament people of God.
Practical guidance for earnest students of God’s Word:
According to the Roman Church, it is neither the right nor the responsibility of any individual Christian to interpret the Bible and declare its meaning. That authority ultimately rests with the church’s teaching office (the Magisterium). This position, however, reflects several misconceptions concerning the Protestant principle of private interpretation:
1. Private interpretation does not mean that we should rely solely on our own judgments, ignoring the insights and research of others.
2. Private interpretation does not mean that we have the right to “distort” the Bible in accordance with our own conceptions.
3. Private interpretation does not mean that we can ignore the history of interpretation in the church.
4. At the same time as we exercise our God-given responsibility to interpret the Scriptures, we must be aware of the element of subjectivity that influences all interpretation:
- pride
- prejudice
- hidden agendas (personal and theological)
- cultural conditioning
- historical circumstances
- socio-economic factors
- unconscious expectations
- educational background
- personality distinctives
- occupational pressures
- interpersonal relational background
As we seek to interpret the Scriptures, we must also keep in mind the contributions of the past. Fee and Stuart in their book How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth remind us that, “Interpretation that aims at, or thrives on, uniqueness, can usually be attributed to pride (an attempt to ‘out clever’ the rest of the world), a false understanding of spirituality (wherein the Bible is full of deep truths waiting to be mined by the spiritually sensitive person with special insight), or vested interests (the need to support a theological bias, especially in dealing with texts that seem to go against that bias). Unique interpretations are usually wrong. This is not to say that the correct understanding of a text may not often seem unique to someone who hears it for the first time. But it is to say that uniqueness is not the aim of our task.”
Ten guidelines for rightly dividing the unified Word of Truth:
1. Doctrine must be squarely built upon Scripture. Our doctrines must be erected from a proper interpretation of Scripture or a legitimate inference from Scripture, and not from cherished traditions, human creeds or confessions. While there is a place for creeds (and some are clearly more biblically-based than others), the Christian’s conscience is ultimately bound to Scripture alone.
2. Scripture is Self-interpreting. The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the Bible teach. In other words, the body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.
3. Context is Critical. Every word, clause, sentence, paragraph of Scripture comes to us in contexts – from the immediate passage to the part of a book, to the whole book, to the historical context of the book, the author’s identity, setting and purpose, and ultimately to the entire Bible. Working outwardly to determine context in this manner is a helpful discipline for understanding anything we read or hear in Scripture. Tunnel vision is perilous.
4. The Clear Must Interpret the Unclear. A related principle that is very helpful in interpreting the Bible, prophecy and apocalyptic literature in particular, is that murky passages can often be clarified by other scriptures which address the particular topic in a more straightforward way. For example, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John’s apocalypse, may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul’s epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence clearer.
5. Distinguish between what the Bible records and what it commands, commends, or approves. We must recognize the difference between passages which are didactic and those which are reportorial. Emulation is not always synonymous with obedience.
6. Incidental or rare events within Scripture should not necessarily be taken as normative for Christians today. For example, Acts 1:26 says that the early apostles drew lots in order to find the Lord’s will on who would replace Judas (whether Joseph or Matthias). But it is less than likely that this should be our approach when confronted with important decisions—especially since the drawing of lots occurred at the beginning stage of early church history and was, apparently, discontinued soon after (the New Testament records no other instances of drawing lots).
7. Recognize Distinctive Apostolic Practices. Distinctive apostolic practices that are rooted in theology, not in the culture of the day, may be taken as normative for the church, unless clearly temporary in nature.
8. Don’t build a doctrine upon a single verse or an uncertain textual reading. In other words, we should not erect an entire teaching or system of doctrine upon a verse in isolation from its context, or which has dubious textual support. Christian doctrine should be built upon passages which exist in the original manuscripts and can be confirmed through the science of textual criticism.
9. Be alert to figurative language. The Bible uses multiple literary genres, and is filled with figurative language. This fact should cause the interpreter to take great care in his treatment of the Bible, making certain to not interpret literally that which was intended to be understood metaphorically or figuratively. All Scripture has a literal sense, but that sense is not always expressed in literal terms.
10. Pray for the Holy Spirit’s Illumination. The Holy Spirit’s work is not only to show what the Bible means, but also to persuade Christians of its truth. Illumination is the Spirit’s work, enabling Christians to discern the meaning of the message and to welcome and receive it as from God. Theologian Charles Hodge states that obedience in the believer’s life is the inevitable result of the illuminating work of the Spirit.
III. Examples for Study
Below are some selected passages for discussion. With these questions, we are not necessarily trying to prove a point. We are not even offering answers for all of these, though we have some answers to many of these questions in the articles on our website. Our primary goal is that our readers will begin to dig deeper into the Bible—to consider questions that you may not have considered seriously in the past. Some of these issues are probably familiar to you; others may not be familiar to you. Perhaps some of these passages you have passed right over in your studies because you did not know quite how to deal with them. You may disagree with answers implied, but as long as these questions get you to think more deeply about the Bible, we have achieved our goal. These questions would make a great Bible study with friends. So here we go.
Is the Bible always to be interpreted literally?
1. When Jesus said that he is the vine (John 15:5), did he mean that he is a woody plant? Is God literally a rock (2 Samuel 2:3, Psalm 18:2, etc.)?
2. Should we literally hate our mother and father to be Jesus’ disciple (Luke 14:26)?
3. If your eye causes you to sin, should you pluck it out (Mark 9:47)?
4. Must we sell everything we have and give it to the poor in order to inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18-22)?
5. Did the mountains and the hills really break into song and the trees clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12)?
6. Did God hold out his hands literally to an obstinate people (Isaiah 65)? Does God have hands?
7. Would the moon literally turn to blood before the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31)? Aren’t such statements about actual worldly judgments by God that are expressed in poetic or astronomical language rather than literal language?
8. When God judged Babylon, an event in actual history, did the stars and sun stop giving their light (Isaiah 13:10) and the heavens literally tremble (Isaiah 13:13)? Given this passage and numerous others like it in the Bible (for example, Isaiah 24:23;Ezekiel 32:7; Amos 5:20, 8:9; Zephaniah 1:15) what do you think of Matthew 24:29?
9. Do we have a literal talking snake—scales and all—in Genesis 3? (See Revelation 20:2 for some help on this one.) Is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9) a literal tree? (There may differences of opinion here.) Are the Tigris and Euphrates rivers mentioned in Genesis literal rivers? Is it reasonable for literal and non-literal language to appear in the same context?
10. Did Jesus in Revelation 1 literally have eyes like a flame of fire (v. 14) and did he literally hold seven stars (v. 16)? Did the beasts in Revelation 13 literally have ten horns and seven heads (v. 1) or speak like a dragon (v. 11)? Did the birds inRevelation 19 literally eat the flesh of kings and all men (v. 18)? Did the angel inRevelation 20:1 have a literal key to the bottomless pit? Is the Book of Life inRevelation 20:12,15 literal—with paper or parchment pages?
11. Rather than insisting that you interpret the Bible literally, would it be more faithful to Scripture to say that you interpret it the way it was intended to be interpreted?
The divinity of Jesus. This section is in part to help Christians defend the Bible against skeptics. Muslims, in particular, and others say that Jesus never even claimed divinity. But such claims are based on a failure to understand Jesus’ claims in context. So these questions also show how Scripture can help interpret Scripture.
1. What did Jesus mean in John 8:58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”? (See Exodus 3:14.)
2. What did Jesus mean by calling himself the “Son of Man,”? (See Daniel 7:13-14.)
3. See Revelation 22:12-13 and compare to Revelation 1:8 and Isaiah 44:6. (Jesus and YHWH are both the “alpha and omega” and the “first and the last.” These passages are helpful when discussing the Jesus’ divinity with Jehovah’s Witnesses.)
4. What did Jesus mean when he told Caiaphas the high priest that he (Caiaphas) would see him (Jesus) “coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64)? Caiaphas immediately declared Jesus to be speaking blasphemy. Why? Not only did Jesus affirm that he is the Son of God (verse 63), but his claim was reinforced by the prophecy of “coming on clouds.” Caiaphas understood that only God is described in Scripture as having showed himself in clouds, or came in clouds in judgment—though no one ever literally saw God. See such passages as Exodus 13:21, 14:24, 16:10, 19:9, 24:15, 33:9, 34:5; Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 11:25; Psalm 18:9-12, 97:2-5, 104:3; Isaiah 19:1; Ezekiel 30:3; Daniel 7:13-14; Joel 2:1-2; Nahum 1:3.
5. Are Jesus’ miracles to be taken literally? Why? See Matthew 11:4-6; Luke 7:22-23;John 10:25, 38; John 14:11; John 15:24. And see 2 Peter 1:16. Isn’t it clear from these passages that Jesus staked his ministry in part on his miracles, affirming that we are to take these literally?
6. Did Jesus literally—really and truly—rise from the dead? See 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul makes an impassioned plea that the resurrection was a fact of history attested to by many witnesses, and moreover he stakes all of Christianity on the resurrection.
(For more on Jesus’ divinity, see Jesus is God and Resurrection.)
Varying uses of the same word. In every language even very basic words can have quite different meanings. Let’s consider, for example, the words “all” and “whole.” Does “all” always mean “all”? Can such words imply a limited universe as well as an unlimited universe? This is an interesting word study that we could apply to many biblical words.
1. Is “all” inclusive—that is without exception—in Romans 3:23 (“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”)? (See section just preceding this verse: vs. 9-19.)
2. Did “all”—every last person in Judea—go out to see John the Baptist (Matthew 3:5)?
3. Is “all” in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (God desires “all people to be saved”) inclusive? This is an interesting passage because even conservative Christians have differing opinions on it. Most Christians—Arminians and Lutherans—think yes, but given the numerous passages on election/predestination such as Ephesians 1 and Romans 8,9—perhaps it is not inclusive. In context, Paul may have in mind that all groups of people should be included. (See vs. 1, 8). Expressing a Calvinist view, according to footnotes to 1 Timothy 2:3-4 in The Reformation Study Bible, “This does not mean that God sovereignly wills every human being to be saved (i.e. that God saves everyone). It may refer to God’s general benevolence in taking no delight in the death of the wicked, or to God’s desire that all types of people be saved (i.e. God does not choose his elect from any single group).”
4. Similarly, see 2 Peter 3:9 (God is patient toward you…wishing all to reach repentance”). Here Calvinist theologians argue that “all” refers to the “you” just preceding—which would be referencing the elect Christians to whom Peter is speaking. So, by this understanding, God wants all the elect to be saved. The Reformation Study Bible: “The repentance in view, for the sake of which God delays judgment, is that of God’s people rather than the world at large. God is not willing that any of his elect should perish (John 6:39).” Hmm. Have you ever thought about this passage in this light?
5. Is it inconsistent for the Bible to declare that Christ gave himself a ransom for “all” in1 Timothy 2:6, but for “many” in Matthew 20:28.
6. What does Paul mean in Romans 8:22 by the “whole creation” groaning? Many people think that Romans 8:22 is about the physical universe which God will restore. But consider Colossians 1:6, 23 where Paul states that the gospel had already been proclaimed by his time to “the whole world/all creation under heaven.” Since the “whole creation” in Colossians is about people and not the physical universe, and is limited to people in the Roman world, could Paul be referring in Romans 8:22 to a group of regional people in a covenant context rather than literally all of physical creation? Note also that in Luke 2:1, “all the world” does not mean literally all the world, but rather the Roman world, which in fact is how it is translated in some Bibles.
Biblical prophecy: a closer look at Scripture. Warning—these questions may be particularly challenging. This is only a very brief look at a complicated subject. But it is time that the church took a fresh look at eschatology, in particular the imminency passages in Scripture. Again our purpose is not to flesh out strong doctrinal positions in this brief article, but to make our readers think about how they have heretofore interpreted the Bible. With propchecy, we need to realize that the Bible must be consistent througout.
1. Are we living today in the “last days,” as many are telling us? What does Peter (1 Peter 4:7) mean by “the end of all things is near/at hand”? (See Acts 2:14-20;Hebrews 1:2; James 5:3,9; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 2:18). Given that Peter, James, John, and the writer of Hebrews all declared that the last days/last hour were in their own generation, and given the study above that shows that all can have specific application rather than inclusive application, and given that whatever Peter was speaking about was to happen soon, wouldn’t it be reasonable and consistent that Peter is speaking about something other than the end of the physical universe? Obviously, the physical universe did not come to an end in the imminent time frame that Peter declared. Now notice that Jesus speaks about the close of the age (Greekaion, Matthew 24:3, et.al.) which would happen in his generation (Matthew 24:34)—what age is in question? Wouldn’t this be the close of the Old Covenant age, which is clearly confirmed by Hebrews 8:13? Doesn’t Paul also confirm the time line in 1 Corinthians 10:11, as well as the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 9:26, that the end of the ages had come upon them? Now see Daniel 12:11 which declared the time of the end would be when burnt offerings ceased—which occurred with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD—once for all ending the Old Covenant age. Doesn’t this all fit together that the last days of which the Bible speaks can reasonably be understood to be the close of the Old Covenant age in 70 AD—rather than the end of the world? (Surprised? This one should generate some fun and healthy discussion!)
2. If you think that the “last days” began in the first century and continue to today, where is your biblical support for that view? How could the end of something be longer than the period of which it is the end?
3. While this is controversial, consider more closely Matthew 24:34 when Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Did he mean in their literal generation? Well, here are all the times in the New Testament where we see “this generation.” We see that the term generation/this generation is used in 23 passages in the New Testament outside of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and every time it clearly means—without debate—or without exception the generation of people alive when Jesus spoke. Isn’t it reasonable to interpret this generation the same way in the Olivet Discourse? How can “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 be about people thousands of years later? Wouldn’t Jesus have said “some future generation” if that is what he meant?
4. Has the gospel been proclaimed to the whole world yet per Matthew 24:14? SeeColossians 1:6, 23; Romans 1:8, 16:26. Chances are that you have been taught that we are still waiting for this to happen, but doesn’t Paul over and over proclaim that this prophecy had already been fulfilled by the time of his writings?
5. What does John mean in Revelation 22:10 when he says, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book.” See Daniel 12:4,9,11. Wouldn’t John likely have Daniel’s prophecies in mind, so that in juxtaposition to Daniel who said to seal up the words of his prophecy for its fulfillment would be a long time off, John says not to seal up his prophecy—could it be because the fulfillment was imminent? You are going to resist the obvious implications, but for confirmation of the time line, see Revelation 1:1,3,7; Revelation 3:11; Revelation 6:17; Revelation 22:10,20. Can we safely continue to ignore or explain away the imminency of these and numerous other eschatological passages and be faithful to Scripture?
6. See Matthew 5:18. Has heaven and earth passed away? If not, aren’t you still under the law?
7. For those who believe that speaking in tongues today is legitimate, consider 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Speaking in tongues is an issue that divides Christians, and is thus certainly important. Note that it indicates that tongues would cease whencompleteness comes. Given the above line of thought about the last days and the end of the ages, hasn’t completeness—at least in an important sense—already come? On the other hand, for those who do not believe in speaking in tongues, why don’t you? Has knowledge, which is mentioned along with tongues in this passage, passed away too? (OK. We didn’t say this study would be easy!)
Justification. Now that we have you stirred up, let’s take a very quick look at another controversial topic—justification, that is how we are saved. New Christians may not be familiar with the debate. The debate is primarily between so-called Calvinists andArminians, both camps being named after theologians of hundreds of years ago. Calvinists emphasize that salvation is by God’s election of chosen people, that is—they are predestined to heaven. They also emphasize man’s “radical depravity,” that is man’s complete inability to save himself. Arminians, on the other hand, emphasize man’s free will to choose Christ and thus salvation. Both groups ultimately agree on God’s sovereignty and salvation by grace. A check on the internet will reveal how virulent this debate can sometimes be.
There is another group called Semi-Pelagians. (Pelagius was another ancient theologian.) This group believes that we are saved by a combination of God’s grace plus man’s good works. Catholics and some legalistic Protestants hold to this view. This group would seem to be on the edges of orthodoxy as defined by most Protestants. (Full-Pelagians believe that we are saved by works alone and not by grace. This view is clearly heretical.) The debate between Calvinists, Arminians, and Semi-Pelagians is potentially resolvable (see http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course#salvation), but it may not be as easy as each side assumes. It turns out that there are dozens of passages that tend to support each camp. Here are some questions for each camp:
1. If you think that man is completely free through his own will to choose things of God, how do you deal with the numerous passages on election, for example John 1:12;Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9:6-24; 1 Corinthians 1:26-28; Ephesians 1:1-22; Titus 1:1-2; 1 Peter 1:1-9? Come on now, you can’t just ignore these passages.
2. If you think that man is only righteous through the righteousness of Christ (“imputed righteousness”), how do you deal with the 241 times that the Bible describes certain people as being righteous, blameless, or upright (without any mention of imputed righteousness)? You can check these out via a word search at such sites ashttp://www.searchgodsword.org/.
3. If you think that we are saved through faith alone per Ephesians 2:8-10, how do you deal with James 2:14-26 which states that we are not saved by faith alone? (We offer some help in other places on our site: http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/christian-cram-course#salvation and http://www.faithfacts.org/bible-101/what-is-the-gospel.)
4. If you think that all we have to do to be saved is confess Christ—end of story—how do you deal with the numerous “if” passages and perseverance passages in the Bible, for example Matthew 6:15; Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:10-13; John 15:10,14;Romans 2:7; Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 3:6-14;Hebrews 10:26-39; 1 John 1:6-7; 1 John 3:23-24; 1 John 4:12-21?
5. Finally, how should be deal with the passages in the Bible that command us tounity: John 17:20-23; Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-16;Philippians 1:27; Colossians 3:12-16; Titus 3:10?
IV. Summary
We have introduced some difficult, even controversial topics. And we have not attempted to completely resolve these issues. Our point, to repeat, is to help us Christians open up our thinking enough to challenge our pre-existing assumptions and begin deeper investigations of Holy Scripture. Let’s be a bit more humble. Our goal should be truth over complacency.
We will probably receive some criticism. But our commitment to God’s word is worth it. Christians can debate certain issues vigorously without dividing over them. Iron sharpens iron, and we look forward to hearing from our readers. We are happy to have your feedback. None of us has all the answers. But we are also hopeful that we will hear from a few—especially pastors—who are sympathetic to what we are saying.
Oh, Lord. The Sum of your word is truth. It is a lamp to my feet, a light to my path. Grant me understanding. Send out your light and truth; let them lead me. —from Psalm 43 and Psalm 119.
Leave your Valuable Reply and be Blessed.....