Discipleship – Page 17 – Muscular Christianity

He Loves the Sin, but Hates the Sinner…Really?

God is love, but God is just. Both characteristics are represented perfectly and completely in Him.

I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. (Lev 11:45)

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.(Dt 32:4)

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. (1 Jn 4:16)

So however love and justice might sometimes appear to be at odds with one another, with God they co-exist in perfect harmony.

The same can be said for His regard for sinners. On one hand, He loves sinners:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 Jn 4:10)

…but because He’s Perfectly Just, He also hates sinners:

The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. (Ps 11:5)

This is important to recognize. We often hear how God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. The Lord does hate, “those who love violence” and on Judgment Day, it will be sinners that are cast into hell and not sin (Rev 20:15).

Some read that and recoil. That doesn’t sound like the merciful God that we all know to be in place. After all, it was His mercy that prompted the cross and the empty tomb and the subsequent “good news” that has been preached for the last two thousand years.

Yes, that is true and it’s a good thing because otherwise there isn’t any hope for anybody. David acknowledges that in Psalm 143:2. We’re all lost apart from God’s grace.

But that grace needs to be received and in order for it to be received it needs to be valued. And grace has no value if the person seeking it believes themselves to be tolerable in the sight of God apart from a humble and a penitent disposition. Maintaining the false notion that God loves those who adore the very thing that he hates is nonsensical.

Here’s the bottom line: It’s not so much that God hates sinners as much as He hates those who love sin. To try and distinguish the behavior from the person exhibiting the behavior is an accurate approach, but only to a certain point. It’s only the one who is truly repentant that receives God’s grace. A prideful and / or an indifferent heart cannot hide behind a token acknowledgment of God.

Thankfully, we’re not the ones who are tasked with identifying those who are reverent as opposed to those who are not. But God can and He does (Gal 6:7; Heb 9:27). Hence the fallacy represented by the phrase, “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” The sinner who mourns his wrongdoing can expect the grace of God (Heb 4:14-16), but the sinner who revels in his rebellion should not expect anything other than the wrath of God (Matt 7:21-23).

There you have it!

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part III

7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?

Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11;3)

Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?

Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time. Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute. While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.

On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”

Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe.

However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.

8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?

Matthew 21:2 says:

saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.

Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey.

Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)

Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.¹

So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.

9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?

Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)

Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.

Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.²

10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?

The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added])

Matthew 27:62-63 says:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir, ” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ (Matt 27:62-63)

Mark 15:42-43 says:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)

Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:

It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)

“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.³ So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread).

The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:

¹⁴It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])

In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.⁴ Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.

Conclusion

G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with. Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance.

It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose. Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill. The fact is, the debt was paid. The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.

There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18). Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument. Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.

So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334

2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015

3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)

4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part II

This is Part II of “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer” – a response to a video on youtube that suggests that the questions being posed can’t be adequately responded to by believers. This article demonstrates that such is not the case. To access Part I, click here.

6) When Jesus rose for the grave, how many women went to the tomb and which ones?

The gospel writers reference several women, both at the tomb as well as at the foot of the cross. Matthew 27:55 says that there were “many women” standing at a distance from the cross as Jesus was dying. Luke doesn’t ever name any of the women, he just refers to them as “the women” (Lk 23:49, 55). And with the exception of Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Mark and John reference either different women or use different descriptions to identify those who were there.

If Matthew’s “mother of James and Joses” is John’s “wife of Clopas” and the woman John describes as “Mary’s sister” is the woman Mark calls “Salome,” you’ve got a total of four women and it looks like this:

The Women at the Cross (each color represents one particular woman that’s described differently by the gospel writers)
verse	Mary (Jesus’ mother)	Mary Magdalene	Mary, wife of Clopas	Mary, mother of James and Joses	Mary’s sister	mother of Zebedee’s sons	Salome
Matt 27:56		✔		✔		✔
Mk 15:40		✔		✔			✔
Jn 19:25	✔	✔	✔		✔

While you have four different accounts, at no time does Matthew or John state that the women they reference were the only ones present, they simply chose to acknowledge a particular person or persons. Same thing with Mark. He only lists three, but he doesn’t qualify his trio to the point where he rules out the possible presence of other women.

Bottom line is we don’t know for certain who all was there, all we can do is connect the dots as they appear in Scripture. We can be confident that Mary’s mother was there along with Mary Magdalene. As far as the other two Mary’s and Salome, all we do is speculate as to whether or not the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joses and Salome was Mary’s sister.

You’ve got the same kind of dynamic at the empty tomb. Again, Luke refers to them as “the women” (Lk 24:1). Matthew, Mark and John again highlight certain personalities that were present:

The Women at the Empty Tomb
verse	Mary Magdalene	Mary, the mother of James	the other Mary	Salome
Matt 28:1	✔		✔
Mk 16:1	✔	✔		✔
Jn 20:1	✔

Thanks to having looked at the way the same writers referred to “the women” at the foot of the cross, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Matthew’s “other Mary” is the woman he described as “Mary, the mother of James and Joses” in chapter 27. That means that he and Mark are probably referring to the same woman in their respective accounts, as far as the “other Mary.” Matthew doesn’t mention Salome and John only references Mary Magdalene.

So, of “the women” that were present, we know of three for certain, although there might’ve been others. Mary Magdalene is a definite as well as “the other Mary” and another woman named Salome.

Over the years, several great minds have tried to more specifically identify the players that were present. Again, we’re looking at a situation where the Bible doesn’t clarify things as well as we might like, but there are two things we want to avoid in these kinds of situations:

#1 – fail to appreciate the big picture

#2 – attempt to edit Scripture in order to manufacture a scenario that’s easier to process

Dr. James D Tabor does a great job of presenting a case for Mary, the wife of Clopas, to being the mother of Jesus based on the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is conspicuously absent from the New Testament shortly after his having brought his young family back to Nazareth from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). It would’ve been customary for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widow based on Jewish law. When you couple that with the fact that Clopas was the father of James and Joses and Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses, it becomes fairly obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (wife of Clopas) are actually the same person.

Should that prove to be accurate, the women at the tomb, based on Dr. Tabor’s theory and a comprehensive snapshot of Scripture would be:

Mary Magdalene
Mary – the mother of Jesus, James and Joses
Salome

That sounds downright compelling right up to the point where he suggests that the book of John has been edited.¹ Regardless of how “logical” a particular explanation may be, if it involves having to change the content of the Bible in order for it to work, at that point the Bible is no longer inerrant and you no longer have the Word of God, rather you have a flawed text.

Granted, what we have with the gospel writers is not conclusive in terms of the women that were there at the empty tomb. It’s not that they contradict one another as much as their decision to reference certain women in lieu of others results in a list of characters that’s speculative. But it’s not who was at the tomb, it was the fact that no one was in the tomb – that’s the point the gospel writers are making. It could very well be that there was a whole congregation of women at the tomb which would mean that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John chose to document everyone that was present. But that doesn’t mean that their respective accounts are contradictory, nor should it distract from the fact that Christ had risen from the grave.

So, the short answer to our critic’s question is three, based on what we have in Scripture coupled with some speculation. But in the end, the emphasis should not be on who was not AT the tomb, rather the issue is Who was not IN the tomb!

Click here to read Part III!

1. “Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.” This is a portion of the post made by Dr. James D. Tabor entitled “Sorting Out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters at http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/27/sorting-out-the-jesus-family-mother-fathers-brothers-sisters/, accessed May 31, 2015

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part I

Popping the Hood on Scripture

The critic bangs his hand on the desk and insists that unless he can break down the Word of God to the point where it can fit comfortably within the boundaries of his intellectual preferences, his skepticism will remain intact and the condescending tone he uses when he addresses believers in Christ will also remain decidedly sarcastic.

When confronted with a situation in Scripture that doesn’t make sense, the believer responds as a diligent student does when they are challenged by something in the classroom they don’t understand. They don’t accuse the professor as being flawed, nor do they doubt the integrity of the curriculum. Rather, they proceed as someone who needs to learn as opposed to someone who wants to critique.

It’s the philosophical starting point that distinguishes the cynic from his Christian counterpart. The atheist needs to keep the Reality of God at an arm’s distance and therefore keeps the curtains drawn in order to maintain the illusion that man’s ability to reason is subordinate to the One Who gave him that ability to begin with. The Christ-follower, on the other hand, recognizes the limitations of the human perspective and, in the face of something seemingly illogical, labors to understand in the light of God’s Identity and Authority.

Still, you can’t simply say “If the Bible says it, then I believe it” and not come across as academically anemic. The passages cited by critics as evidence that the Bible is less than credible, can be resolved, you just have to be willing to pop the hood on Scripture and do some digging.

The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism. As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects. Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian. Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites. ¹

Dr. Gleason Archer (see call out to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information.²

And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:

Be fully prepared in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how a bumble bee can fly; yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its fine performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text.³

At the end of the day, it’s not just what the Bible says, it’s what the Bible is. That’s what makes this exchange both significant and distinctive. We’re not merely gauging the authenticity of an ancient text. The question on the table is whether or not God exists and is the Word of God, in fact, His Message to us? Or, is it merely a religious comic book without the pictures? The critic needs it to be the latter in order for their worldview to remain intact. But however fortified their defenses may be – regardless of the rapid abundance that characterizes their rhetoric – their stance needs to be countered with something compelling and in a way that points them to the Truth (Jn 14:6).

The following ten questions are posed in a video on youtube entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The questions are not the sort that break new ground as far as Bible difficulties are concerned and like the objections that have been raised in the past, there are rebuttals and explanations, it’s just a matter of referencing books like Dr Gleason’s “Encyclopedia” or any one of a number of other similar resources, not to mention Scripture itself.

The final frame of the video states that the “silence is deafening.” We want to make sure we can break that silence with something that not only addresses the questions, but more importantly provides an approach to God and the Message of that gospel that’s intellectually sound – unobstructed by questions that seemingly have no answer. In that way, it’s not only their intellect that’s satisfied, it’s their soul as well.

Here we go…

1) When Noah’s ark landed, how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia?

There’s an article you can access by clicking here that elaborates on a time when the continents as we know them today were actually one solid land mass. That would give both animals and people the ability to migrate without having to contend with the insurmountable obstacle of an ocean between them and where they would ultimately make their home.

2) If the ark was covered in pitch, it also made it air tight. How did they survive for 40 days and 40 nights since Noah couldn’t open the window?

Probably because the areas that were covered in pitch were those that came in direct contact with the water as opposed to the airtight coffin you interpret the ark to be.

3) Why were Adam and Eve punished for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they didn’t / couldn’t understand what they were doing?

They did understand what they were doing in that they had been told not to eat from that particular tree (Gen 2:17).

4) Why would God place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so close to His innocent creation, then allow Satan to tempt them and all the while stand back and do nothing?

Love and obedience go hand in hand (Jn 14:21) and love isn’t love unless its voluntary. In the absence of a choice, you don’t have love as much as you have a calculated reaction.

Dr Ravi Zacharias explains it this way:

What would it take to create a loving world void of evil? A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learned that someone had told you they loved you but that they had been forced to say it, their words would not mean very much. Thus, if we want to speak of a loving world, we must also speak of a world in which choices are exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, i.e. evil.

5) When the women went to Jesus’ empty tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did an angel roll it away after the women got there?

When looking at the four gospel accounts, Matthew 28:2 is worded in a way that’s distinct from Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1-2 and John 20:1. Matthew reports the scene of the empty tomb in a mannerthat makes it sound as though the stone was rolled away upon the arrival of the women that had come to care for Jesus’ body as opposed to it happening prior to their arrival. The NIV Text Note elaborates on the Greek verbiage used in the text as being past tense so there’s no inconsistency between the four accounts, even though there might appear to be.⁴ See also James 1:13.

To continue on to Part II, click here.

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p11
2. Ibid, p12
3. Ibid, p14
4 .There was. The sense is “Now there had been.” It is clear from the parallel accounts (Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1) that the events of vv. 2-4 occurred before the women actually arrived at the tomb (NIV Text Note on Matthew 28:2) NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1985. p1489

Maundy Thursday | Part I

It’s Thursday, the 14th of Nisan. Tomorrow begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread – the high water mark of the Jewish spiritual calendar. At 3:00 today the Passover Lamb will be slaughtered and the Passover meal will be served. While it’s a ceremony in and of itself, over the years the Jews have merged the two events into one and it’s very typical to refer to this whole timeframe as “Passover Week.”¹ And what a week it is! But this year, when Jesus leads His disciples through the Passover liturgy, He’s going to explain the true meaning and purpose of this ritual that’s been performed for centuries.

The term “Maundy Thursday” is used to describe this day where Jesus had His “Last Supper” with His disciples. The word “Maundy” (pronounced “MAHN-dee”) is loosely based on the Latin word for “commandment” (man datum) – a word that Jesus used in John 16:33 when He said, “A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

It’s hard to overstate the significance of this time of year in the mind of your typical Hebrew. Long ago, on the night the Jewish nation left the land of Egypt and tasted the sweetness of freedom for the first time in 430 years, God established this festival that would mark the beginning of the new year. It would be on this night that the Jews would remember the awesome Power that God deployed on their behalf in order to set them free from the oppressive rule of their Egyptian taskmasters. From now on, the Jewish spiritual calendar would be centered around this night and for Christians this night would represent the initial phases of a Divine Plan that would defeat the power of sin once and for all.

This is Maundy Thursday.

It’s Time to Move

In Exodus 12, you have God telling Moses and Aaron how to prepare for what would be an event that the Jewish community would celebrate from that point on. Several plagues had ravaged Egypt, but the one that would be experienced this particular night would make all of the others pale in comparison. The firstborn of every household would die and before the night was over, there wouldn’t be a single home without a corpse somewhere inside, including the palace of Pharaoh.

The only exception to that rule was the home whose door frames had been distinguished with the blood of a year old male lamb that was devoid of any kind of blemish or imperfection. It would be that blood that would cause the Lord to “pass over” that particular home and the firstborn would be spared. Every other house that had not been so identified would experience the wrath of God.

Can you feel the crescendo? Not only is Israel on the threshold of being able to walk away from their bondage, but a wonderfully terrible manifestation of God’s Power was getting ready to happen that would

reveal the gods of Egypt as being utterly false
it would convince Pharaoh to let God’s people go
and it would put in place a template that God would use to frame the institution of grace through the death and resurrection of His Son centuries later

This is a major milestone! So much so that God saw fit to establish a ceremony that was to be performed even before they christened their doorposts with the blood of the blood of the Passover lamb. And this same ceremony would be observed as a holiday that is celebrated to this day.

It says in Exodus 12:1:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,²“This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. (Ex 12:1)

And the first week of the first month would be marked by a seven day festival called the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” – a collection of meals, offerings and sacred assemblies as described in Numbers 28:17-25.

An Important Prelude

The Passover Meal was the event that signaled the beginning of the Feast and it involved a specific sequence and a distinct menu which you can see in Exodus 12:8-11:

You had the meat of the lamb that had been slaughtered in order access the blood that would be needed to stain the doorframe.
You also had a collection of bitter herbs the were indigenous to Egypt that would remind future generations of their “bitter” lives as slaves under Pharaoh.
And you were to eat it as though you were in a hurry, in order to remember how Israel had to leave quickly the night of the Exodus. Hence, you were to eat bread devoid of any yeast.

The night of the first Passover was characterized by a lot of activity. The Passover Meal was to be done “in haste” (Ex 12:11). Following the meal, the priority was to ensure the blood of the lamb was appropriately applied to every household’s door because come midnight, the Lord would unleash the tenth plague resulting in the death of every first born in Egypt. After that, they would need to be ready to leave because, according to Exodus 12:29-31, it was still dark when Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and insisted that they leave immediately, so there wasn’t much time.

Once the Hebrews were settled, however, the Passover Meal was reconfigured somewhat. In Deuteronomy 16, it was established that the Passover lamb would be sacrificed at a location the Lord would determine. So while you ate the Passover meal with your family as you had before, you weren’t necessarily going to be eating it in your kitchen. Rather, you would be eating it wherever the tabernacle or Temple was located (see Dt 16:5-6).²

A Lot of Activity

By the time Jesus was preparing to eat His last Passover Meal, Jerusalem had become the central place of worship, thus the streets were clogged with pilgrims from all over the Roman empire eagerly anticipating Passover Week.

Hayyim Schauss, in his book “The Jewish Festivals: A Guide to Their History and Observance,” describes the scene in Jerusalem that Jesus and His disciples were no doubt observing as they were preparing for the “Last Supper.”

Midday … The spirit of the holiday has permeated every nook and cranny of Jerusalem. By now all have ceased working; even the tailors, the shoemakers, the haircutters, and washers have finished the last piece of work for the pilgrims. Thousands of Jews march through the town, this one with a sheep, that one with a goat, riding high on his shoulder. All direct their steps to the Temple, to be among the first to offer their Pesach sacrifice. The regular afternoon sacrifice at the Temple is offered an hour earlier than usual and at about three o’clock the people begin the slaughtering of the Pesach sacrifice. The ritual is repeated three times. When the court of the Temple is filled with the first comers, the gates are shut. The Levites blow the ceremonial t’kioh, t’ruoh, t’kioh (a threefold blast) on their trumpets and the sacrifice begins. The owner himself slays the animal. The priests stand in rows, bearing aloft gold and silver trays, each metal borne by a different row of priests. They perform their share of the ritual and the Levites stand on a platform and sing Hallel, Psalms of praise for holidays, to the accompaniment of musical instruments. The elaborateness of the ritual and the singing and playing of the Levites add dignity and beauty to the scene, and the Jews gathered in the court are filled with devotion and piety. The first section files out of the court and the second section files in. The same ritual is performed again. It is repeated once more for the third and final section. Members of the third section are called “Lazybones.” The entire ceremony and ritual is carried on in a comparatively quiet and orderly manner. Once, in the time of the famous Hillel, there was such a surge and crowding at the sacrifice of the Pesach that an old man was crushed to death, but that never happened again. So orderly is the crowd that all three sections have finished in less than two hours, and the priests are left alone to clean up the court.³

One has to be very careful before labeling a portion of the Bible as being in error because in so doing you inevitably create a dynamic where the whole of Scripture can be called into question. Should the Truth of God’s Word be determined solely on the basis of how well it resonates with one’s sense of logic, you no longer have an Authoritative text. Rather, you have a resource that can be either be embraced in part or dismissed altogether based on “what makes sense.” In either case, you’ve positioned the human intellect above the One Who fashioned man’s capacity to reason to begin with. Not only is that not logical, it’s positively lethal in the way it strips God’s Word of its Power and Relevance (Matt 5:18; 1 Cor 15:16-19; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

The streets are choked with not only the locals, but people from all over the civilized world. When you can close your eyes and envision the sea of humanity that is converging on Jerusalem during this time, it gives you an even more vivid picture of the size and diversity of the crowds that would be gathered to demand the death of Christ, which would happen in less than 24 hours.

Was it Really Thursday?

There’s been some speculation that since the gospels don’t seem to agree on the actual night that Jesus performed this ceremony, these constitute portions of Scripture that are either flawed or have become corrupted over the years.

You have to be very careful before labeling a portion of the Bible as being in error because in so doing you inevitably create a dynamic where the whole of Scripture can be called into question. Should the Truth of God’s Word be determined solely on the basis of how well it resonates with one’s sense of logic, you no longer have an Authoritative text. Rather, you have a resource that can be either be embraced in part or dismissed altogether based on “what makes sense.” In either case, you’ve positioned the human intellect above the One Who fashioned man’s capacity to reason to begin with. Not only is that not logical, it’s positively lethal in the way it strips God’s Word of its Power and Relevance (Matt 5:18; 1 Cor 15:16-19; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added])

If Jesus’ Last Supper was a the Passover meal, then John’s statement doesn’t make sense in that, according to him, Jesus was put to death on the day before Passover. But then, compare that notion to what it says in Matthew 27:62-64:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” (Matt 27:62-64)

According to Matthew, this conversation is happening on the Sabbath which puts Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday. Since the Last Supper happened the night before, it’s obvious the Passover Meal was celebrated Thursday night. Mark 15:42 references the time Jesus was buried as being “Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath)” which corroborates with Matthew. Then in Luke 22:7, it says:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” (Lk 22:7)

The NIV Text Note on Luke 22:1 says:

Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable.⁴

So, again, if Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are being referred to simultaneously with the term “Passover Week” or “Feast of Unleavened Bread,” then Luke’s reference to the “day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” is obviously referring to the 14th of Nisan, which, that year, fell on a Thursday when you consider Matthew and Mark’s account. The NIV Text note on verse seven reinforces that:

Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. On the 14th of Nisan between 2:30 and 5:30 in the court of the priests – Thursday of Passion Week.⁵

Going back to John’s statement in John 19:14 – given the customary way in which the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were simultaneously referred to in the context of one term, it is now easily reconciled with his synoptic counterparts. In this instance, John uses the word “Passover” to refer to “Passover Week.” You see that in the way the New Century Version of Scripture renders the verse:

¹⁴It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])

Now, it’s much more obvious that John’s use of the term “preparation day” is referring to the day before the Sabbath which, that year fell on the 15th of Nisan. Consequently, “preparation day” was not just the day prior to the Sabbath, it was also the first day of Passover Week.

In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath. Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.

The Passover Lamb

When you really pop the hood on Scripture, you inevitably discover the kind of symbolism that ties the whole of God’s Word together in a way that’s nothing short of inspiring. For example, in the book of Ezekiel you read of how God gave him a vision of the glory of God departing from the temple. The southern kingdom of Judah had looked on while the Assyrians had conquered the northern kingdom of Israel. But while it could be accurately said that the reason for Israel’s demise was because of their refusal to obey and honor God, Judah was right behind them.

Ezekiel’s vision shows the glory of God departing from the Temple in Judah in chapters 8-11. In chapter 11, verse 23 it says, “The glory of the Lord went up from within the city and stopped above the mountain east of it.” The mountain being referred to here is the Mount of Olives. When Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem in Luke 19:29, He made His way into the city from the Mount of Olives. When He ascended into Heaven in Acts 1, He did so from the Mount of Olives (verse 12) and when He returns, according to Zechariah 14:3-4, He will take His stand against those who opposed Jerusalem from atop the Mount of Olives.

Jesus didn’t do anything randomly. His whole life was punctuated with actions and characteristics that were fulfillments of prophecies articulated centuries beforehand:

where He was born (Micah 5:2)
His escape from Herod’s plot to kill all of Israel’s newborns (Jer 31:15; Hos 11:1 [Matt 2:15])
the way His ministry was prefaced by a messenger (John the Baptist [Is 40:3; Matt 3:1-2])
the passion He exhibited when He cleared the Temple (Ps 69:9; Jn 2:15-17)
the healings that He did (Is 35:5; Matt 9:35)
the manner in which He entered Jerusalem on a donkey (Zec 9:9; Lk 19:35-37)

While Scripture doesn’t specifically reference Jesus’ approach to Jerusalem as a mirror image of the route the glory of God used to exit the Temple centuries before, it’s still an intriguing act on the part of Christ as far as the way in which it brings yet another Old Testament event under a cohesive Messianic heading.

You see that also in the way Paul references Christ as the ultimate Passover Lamb:

Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Cor 5:7)

It’s not that Jesus’ death occurred on Thursday afternoon when the lamb for the Passover Meal was being slaughtered as much as it’s a cue to step back and realize that God’s Purpose in establishing the Passover ceremony was not to simply remember how He had delivered Israel from the power of Pharaoh as much as it was to recall and embrace how the death and resurrection of Christ has destroyed the power of sin.

The NIV Text Note on that verse says “In his death on the cross, Christ fulfilled the true meaning of the Jewish sacrifice of the Passover lamb (Is 53:7; Jn 1:29).”⁶

That’s the Passover meal we participate in every time we take communion. It’s not just a piece of bread and small cup of grape juice, nor is it a mere piece of unleavened bread and a portion of mutton. It’s what’s represented by those things – the Solution to the lethal power of sin – the sacrifice of God’s Son. That’s what Jesus was explaining to His disciples at the Last Supper, the meal God had in mind when He first gave the Passover instructions to Moses.

Regardless of what day it may have been for the Hebrews when they celebrated the Passover meal the first time, for us as believers, it’s always the Thursday of Passion week that we recognize as the day Jesus collected His disciples in the upper room and spoke the words that we repeat every time we take communion: “Do this in remembrance of me…” (1 Cor 11:24).

That’s Maundy Thursday.

Click here to read Part II!

1. “The week of masso-t, coming right on the heels of Passover itself (during which masso-t were actually eaten, along with the lamb, bitter herbs, etc.) very naturally came to be know as Passover Week (cf. Encylopedia Britannica, 14thed., 12:1041), extending from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Abib, inclusively. (Arndt and Gingrich [Greek-English Lexicon, pp 638-39] state: ‘This [i.e. Passover] was followed immedialy by the Feast of Unleavend Bread…on the 15th to the 21st. Popular usage merged the two festivals and treated them as a unity, as they were for practical purposes.’)” (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, Zondervan Corporation, 1982, Grand Rapids, MI, p376)

2. Several regulations were given concerning the observance of Passover. Passover was to be observed “in the place which the Lord your God will choose.” This implied the sanctuary of the tabernacle or the Temple in Jerusalem. (“Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 1986, p380

3. “The Jewish Festivals: A Guide to Their History and Observance”, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. Schauss, Hayyim (2012-04-04), p53

4. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582

5. Ibid

6. Ibid p1740

One Day and a Wakeup

Today is Wednesday. Things will begin to pick up speed from this point on.

The Problem with Judas

Judas has agreed to betray his King. It’s tempting sometimes to wonder how Judas, someone who had been witness to so many things that constituted undeniable proof that Jesus was more than just a charismatic teacher – Someone Who personified supernatural Power – how could a person stand so close to all that and still be inclined to betray Him and see Him handed over to those who wanted to see Him die?

When you pop the hood on Judas Iscariot, he’s a problem child from the very beginning. But there’s still something to learn from his situation that’s both profound and necessary.

When he’s first introduced in all four of the gospels, he’s referenced as the one who would become a traitor. So, right from the beginning, it’s understood that he’s destined for trouble.

“Iscariot” literally means “a man from Kerioth” which would mean that he was the only one of the twelve disciples that was not from Galilee. So, he’s an outsider, but not just in terms of where he grew up.

John spends the most time on Judas, as far as referencing him throughout the disciples’ time with Christ leading up to the Last Supper. The first time he’s mentioned is in chapter six when Jesus is affirming the disciples as a group for having gotten their mental arms around the idea that He’s the Son of God. Jesus responds by saying, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (Jn 6:70). You’ve got to wonder if Judas heard this and what his reaction was.

In the twelfth chapter, John relays how Mary poured an expensive container of perfume over Jesus’ feet, which was a gesture of worship. Judas objects by saying that it was a terrible waste in that the same perfume might’ve been sold and the profits gone to the poor. John elaborates by saying that Judas didn’t particularly care about the poor and that his only reason for objecting was so he could better access the money for himself. Apparently he was a thief and it was common knowledge that he often helped himself to the disciples’ corporate fund which he as in charge of.

John 13 has Jesus washing the disciples’ feet during the Passover meal. This doesn’t happen until tomorrow, but it’s appropriate to mention here because in verse 10, He’s making a point to Peter about the symbolism of what He’s doing and Peter responds by suggesting that Jesus wash not only His feet, but his whole body. Jesus explains that His act of washing the disciples feet is more about service than it is cleanliness. He elaborates by saying that everyone at that table was “clean,” to mean that everyone at the table was not only practicing good hygiene, but also maintaining a proper spiritual disposition. That is, everyone except Judas (see verse 12).

The Last Supper

It’s now 6:00 on Wednesday. The Hebrews defined 6:00 PM as the beginning of a day so we’re now technically looking at Thursday and the clock is winding down.¹ Come Thursday, 3:00 PM, the Passover Lamb would be slaughtered and what amounts to the Super Bowl of the Jewish Calendar would begin – the Passover Celebration.²

In Matthew 26:14, Judas is reported as having put the key into the ignition and starting up the judicial machinery that would produce the trial and proceedings that would result in Christ’s arraignment and conviction. In less than twelve hours, Jesus would be having His “Last Supper” with His disciples that would include Judas. Judas had to get moving.

At one point, Jesus said that it would be better for Judas had he not been born (Matt 26:24). It’s not just the fact that Judas betrayed Jesus, it’s the fact that he was, by definition, one of Christ’s closest companions. When Peter asked who it was that was going to betray Christ, Jesus responded by saying that it was the “one whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.”³

According to Middle Eastern custom, when you ate with someone, you were being admitted into a social circle where it was understood that you were a trusted friend.⁴ There’s more to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus than what might appear to be on the surface in that it his actions required more than a momentary lapse in good judgment. Judas planned, thought, considered and decided. However one might attempt to rationalize Judas’ behavior and somehow minimize the heinous rating of his actions, there’s not getting around the fact that his was a despicable and unconscionable crime.

But Wait

Judas would commit suicide (Matt 27:5). There’s a part of us that reads that and a subtle sense of moral superiority stirs within us. We feel better about ourselves as we survey the landscape of Judas’ character and conclude that we’re not “that bad.” I mean, seriously, “How could anyone do such a thing?”

But wait. There’s a lesson that the example of Judas teaches, at least it’s the “take home” for me.

Romans 7:14 says:

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. (Rom 7:14)

The NIV commentary on the phrase “I am” says that the personal pronoun and the verb, taken together, suggest that Paul is describing his present (Christian) experience.”⁵ That means that every believer has the capacity to sin. And not just those sins that result from a momentary lapse of self control or good judgment. Paul says that there is a constant compulsion to do wrong in the mind of the believer (Rom 7:21-23). Left unchecked by the Power of the Holy Spirit, that inclination can, and will, produce a harvest of rebellion that even today’s paparazzi might find difficult to print.

The only thing that separates us from our unsaved counterparts is that we have a choice. We are neither blind nor hopeless (Rom 7:24-25; 2 Cor 4:4), but while the power to resist and flourish is available, it must be chosen (Rom 12:2; Eph 6:12-18; Col 3:12).

You can see examples of people who had every resource they required in order to stand, but instead chose to stoop and imprisoned themselves in a cage of consequences and shame (1 Cor 5:1-5).

The Lesson of Judas

This is the lesson of Judas. Every day represents a series of decisions that either keep us moving forward or start us down a road that leads to a lot of wasted time and opportunities. We’ve got to own our mistakes and be willing to alert others to the blind spots in their rear view mirror (Matt 18:15; Lk 17:3; Jn 7:24; Eph 5:11; Gal 6:1; 2 Tim 4:2; Jas 5:20). But in the midst of all that, we need to bear in mind that the same poison that drove Judas to initiate the machinations that put Christ on the cross exist in the mind of every believer and it’s only the One Who lives in our heart that can prevent us from choosing the same mindset.

One day and a wake up.

It’s going to be a long day for Judas, but we can be looking forward to a lifetime of great days if we heed the lessons his decisions teach us.

Let’s get moving!

Click here to ready “Maundy Thursday | Part I

1. at twilight – Lit, “between the two evenings.” Since the new day was reckoned from sunset, the sacrificing of the lamb or kid was done before sunset while it was still day 14 of the first month. “Twlight” has been taken to signify either that time between sunset and the onset of darkness, or from the decline of the sun until sunset. Laster Moses would prescribe the time for the sacrifice as “in the evening at sunset” (Dt 16:6). According to Josephus, it was customary in his day to kill the lamb at 3:00 PM. This was the time of day that Christ, the Christian’s Passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7) died (Luk 23:44-46). (text note on Ex 12:6, MacArthur Study Bible, p110 [emphasis added])

2. Ibid

3. John 13:26

4. dipped his hand into the bowl with me. It was the custom – still practiced by some in the Middle East – to take a piece of bread, ora piece of meat wrapped in bread, and dip it into a bowl of sauce (made of stewed fruit) on the table. will betray me. In that culture, as among Arabs today, to eat with a person was tantamount of saying, “I am your friend and will not hurt you.” This fact made Judas’s deed all the more despicable (cf. Ps 41:9) (NIV Text Note on Matthew 26:23, p1484, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985)

5. Ibid, p1716

https://books.google.com/books?id=7MxjbcsnqE8C&pg=PT687&lpg=PT687&dq=The+statement+of+E.C.+Hoskyns+on+John+19:14+is+very+appropriate&source=bl&ots=FcN6NQLSCJ&sig=eCCzM1PdRA-r2B-eY7KtOz9KHTA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2WtDVaPoDYmkNrOTgHA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20statement%20of%20E.C.%20Hoskyns%20on%20John%2019%3A14%20is%20very%20appropriate&f=false

Cognitive Dissonance – Where Did That Vacuum Cleaner Come From?

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

It’s sometimes used by critics to describe born again Christians, believing that their convictions are maintained despite credible scientific evidence that reveals their “faith” to be less than intellectually sound, and therefore a source of mental discomfort.

In other words, I’ve got to shut down a part of my brain in order to maintain my ridiculous grin while singing hymns in light of the fact that, while I want to believe the words are true, deep down I know that I’m actually verbalizing ancient fiction and pointless fantasy.

Well, let’s take a moment, examine the facts and let’s see just who’s brain is truly hurting.

Where Did That Vacuum Cleaner Come From?

If I were to go to my closet and find a vacuum cleaner that hadn’t been there before, how would you attempt to explain that?

You would probably tell me that someone put it there.

But then, that would be inconsistent with your perspective on the origins of the universe. In the absence of a Creator (aka Intelligent Design), all of the raw materials along with the laws that govern the way in which they interact simply popped into existence thanks to a fortuitous collection of circumstances and an incomprehensible amount of time.

Just imagine that! All of the inner workings of not just the electric motor and the various belts and hoses that comprise the vacuum cleaner, but even the infrastructure that exists at the molecular level – the exquisite elegance of the atomic strata that forms the various materials, surfaces and forces that make that vacuum cleaner come to life with the mere switch of a button.

What are the odds, huh?

Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? But dress that notion up with several degrees and multiple layers of scientific sounding verbiage and you have Natural Selection, Evolution and the primordial soup you insist birthed the intricacies of life as we know it.

My Vacuum Cleaner’s Going to be a Drummer

As nonsensical as it may be to think that an Electrolux can materialize out of nothing and find its way into my closet, just imagine that vacuum cleaner developing a sense of self to the point where it knows right from wrong and even develops a personality of its own.

Now, I’m not talking about programmed responses to specific stimuli, I’m saying that vacuum cleaner is alive! That’s how some very learned individuals attempt to explain the difference between the mind and the brain.

Some scientists maintain that consciousness and the subjective elements of the mind came into being once the human brain reached a certain level of complexity. The problem with that, however, is that they’re declaring that matter has within it the capacity to become both material and non-material. At that point, they’ve redefined the essential constitution of matter and while panpsychism is not a new theory, it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence to support it.

But that’s alright. In the atheistic world, logic and reason can be dismissed with nothing more than a wave of an academic looking hand and just like that, we’ve entered into an arena where true science is sacrificed at the altar of metaphysical preferences and vacuum cleaners can evolve into poets and pop musicians.

My Vacuum Cleaner’s Definition of “Clean”

It’s amazing how my vacuum’s definition of clean has evolved. It’s a little bizarre, actually.

My vacuum specializes in hard wood floors. It got together with some other vacuums and formulated some ground rules that they could all agree upon as far as what constituted “clean.” Thing is, carpeting didn’t fit well with their criteria and they actually started to eliminate those vacuum cleaners that were set up for carpet, believing them to be inferior. Kind of sad, but it makes sense if you’re of the mindset that says linoleum requires a more advanced level of complexity and machines that can’t handle that are destined for extinction.

That’s how the Germans viewed the Herero tribe in South Africa in 1903. The Hereros staged an uprising against the German taskmasters who had set up a colony there. The Herero disposition was understandable given the cruel and inhumane way in which the Germans treated them based on their feeling of racial superiority. In response, the German government deployed General Lothar von Trotha along with 14,000 troops to not only defeat the Herero tribe, but to exterminate them completely.

Von Trotha was ruthless, but what made his actions even more heinous is the Darwinian doctrine he used to justify his actions. In a local newspaper article, General von Trotha expressed how much of his thinking had been influenced by Darwin by saying, “At the outset, we cannot do without the natives. But they finally have to melt away. Where the climate allows the white man to work, philanthropic views cannot banish Darwin’s law ‘Survival of the Fittest.’” (click here to read more about Darwin’s view on race, ethnic superiority and how it all ties in to Natural Selection).

Can You Smell That?

That’s not the smell of stupidity, but it’s awfully close.

The Christian Doctrine is as unique as it is profound. But even without popping the hood on all that Christ brings to the table, there is a dramatic insufficiency in the “god-less” explanations for the origin of the universe and all of the intangibles that constitute the human experience. In other words, you don’t need to understand the cross and the Resurrection to appreciate the obvious Signature of God on His creation. And to ignore that Signature is both belligerent and nonsensical.

It is the atheist that has to squirm and adjust in order to overlook the disconnect between their theories and the gargantuan elegance of the cosmos along with the exquisite intricacies of the cell and the atom. Standing on the Foundation of a God-centered perspective, the universe is understood as His handiwork and one’s life as a purposeful journey that transcends business cards and checking accounts.

Clinging to Darwin and humanistic mantras, you’re no different than a vacuum cleaner and if that doesn’t inspire some “cognitive dissonance,” I don’t know what would.

Don’t forget to roll up the cord…

“I Dare You” – Part Three | Ambition

IV) Ambition

A) Two Words

My Dad loved to debate. Give him a topic that he could sink his teeth to and buckle up because it was like drinking from a fire hydrant – just a barrage of verbiage.

That’s what made his response to a question I posed to him so significant and so memorable to me. I asked him, “How do you know Christianity is true?” His answer: “It works.”

Two words! And yet, within those two words you have the bottom line that characterizes any truism. Does it work? Does it make sense and does it resonate practically?

B) Yardage Versus Touchdowns

Christianity does work and it makes a substantial difference at every level of the human experience. One area in particular is ambition – the desire to succeed and the fulfillment that comes from accomplishing something significant.

Left unchecked by something profound, ambition can consume a person and reduce them to something either pathologically selfish or utterly disillusioned to the point of despair.

Money and other apparent indicators of success is a lot like yardage. On September 13,th, 2009, the Denver Broncos squared off against the Cincinnati Bengals. When it was all said and done, the Bengals had gained a total of 307 yards, the Broncos, 302. Yet, the Broncos won.17 While the Bengals had more in the way of total net yards, it was the Broncos that came out on top.

It’s almost exasperating, isn’t it? Sometimes it seems that no matter how hard you work, the prize you’re pursuing seems perpetually out of reach and in those rare moments where you’re able to achieve the thing that you’ve been working towards, by the following day another goal has taken its place.

C) Solomon’s Essay – The Whole Duty of Man

King Solomon was king of the Jews and reigned for approximately 40 years.18 At one point he wrote an essay that elaborated on the plight of human beings as far as what it is that drives them and produces lasting fulfillment. What makes his writing so compelling is that he had the resources necessary to conduct the kind of experiments that he did. By virtue of his immense wealth and intelligence, he could test the empirical power of different stimuli to produce true satisfaction. He reflected on the allure of riches and accomplishment as well as the pursuit of knowledge, pleasure and power. In the end he concludes that the only thing that truly matters is your relationship with God and the sense of significance that you enjoy is directly related to the degree of obedience you render to your Heavenly Father:

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecc 12:13)

To go back to our initial illustration, while yardage is an indicator of sorts, in the end the only thing that really counts is the scoreboard. And the scoreboard, in this instance, is what you’re able to do that endures beyond today and echoes through all eternity. In other words, it’s only your obedience to God that produces the lasting impact and fulfillment we desire.

In some ways, this might seem overly philosophical and not especially practical. But Solomon is not alone in his recognition of the mirage that is represented by believing that the acquisition of power and success will satisfy our need for fulfillment

In June of 2005, Tom Brady was the quarterback for the New England Patriots. He was 27 at the time and had recently won his third Superbowl. Those victories combined with his other accomplishments represented what most would define as a legitimate reason to feel like they had arrived and were now basking in the light of a fulfilling and problem-free existence.

But that wasn’t the case. At one point, Tom said: “Why do I have three Super Bowl rings, and still think there’s something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, ‘Hey man, this is what is.’ I reached my goal, my dream, my life. Me, I think: God, it’s gotta be more than this. I mean this can’t be what it’s all cracked up to be. I mean I’ve done it. I’m 27. And what else is there for me?”¹⁹

Compare that to some of the observations Solomon made:

⁴ I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. 10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my labor, and this was the reward for all my toil.11Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. (Ecc 2:4-11)

It’s appropriate at this point to underscore the fact that Solomon wasn’t some dark and depressed personality who was incapable of enjoying anything. At one point he says:

I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly – my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives. (Ecc 2:3)

Solomon is maintaining a sound perspective throughout all his experiments and observations. He’s not melancholy, he’s simply observing the hollowness of the human experience regardless of how embellished it may be with those things that supposedly provide a sense of worth and satisfaction,

In a similar way, Tom Brady is not clinically depressed when he takes a step back and observes the way in which material things and human accomplishments – regardless of their substance and significance – fail in providing true and enduring satisfaction.

The fact of the matter is the goal posts never stop moving. There is never a place where another level of accomplishment isn’t apparent. And in the same way, there’s no earthly prize that cannot either be taken away or stripped of its luster with the passage of time. Regardless of how you attempt to evaluate it, the very nature of our world is transient and it is therefore foolish to define ourselves according to a paradigm that is neither durable nor stable. To use Solomon’s phrase, it is “meaningless.”

D) All Your Might

Still, this is not our cue to refrain from being excellent at what we do or less than aggressive in the marketplace. In the same Divinely inspired text authored by Solomon he says:

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might…(Ecc 9:10)

In a similar vein, Colossians 3:17 says:

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3:17 [see also Prov 22:29; 2 Thess 3:10])

Cloaking a bad work ethic or veiling laziness by holding up a Bible and insisting that your being a slacker is justified in that you’re refraining from being materialistic is a distortion of Scripture. You are commanded to work hard and strive for excellence in whatever you set your mind to do. But you don’t do so in a way where your activity defines who you are. It’s there where your identity and your overall perspective is dictated by your status in the marketplace that you consign yourself to a life of yardage rather than touchdowns.

E) The Validation of Obedience

So here is yet another reason to recognize the Bible as being the Word of God and to accept it as True from cover to cover. The life that is characterized by a relentless pursuit of that which God would do through your obedience to Him produces a sense of purpose and fulfillment that is enduring. It’s not just “noble,” it’s the most reasonable approach that one can take in light of the alternative being an existence founded on temporary plateaus and insatiable appetites.

F) Spiritual Commodities

Another way to look at it is to consider that everything we pine for is a spiritual commodity. While we desire wealth, it’s not the mere accumulation of money, it’s the sense of peace that financial security provides. We want a particular thing because of the joy it produces when we have it in our possession. We seek to be accepted and loved by those we admire. It’s not just a physical exchange, it’s an emotional craving. At every turn, the “thing” we want is something intangible and therefore a spiritual article.

Now look at Galatians 5:22-23:

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)

The “fruit” of the Spirit is the result of the Spirit’s activity within you. If you go down the list of the qualities that are produced as a result of Christ living in and through you, you recognize them as the very things that we as human beings desire to have and experience. Yet, if we attempt to realize those things through any means other than that which is founded upon one’s relationship with Christ, the end result is less than fulfilling.

If you want peace and you determine that its finances that will deliver that sense of well being you’re looking for, go back to Tom Brady’s interview and revisit his sense of disillusion when contemplating his achievements and resources. If you want something more authoritative, consider Solomon’s comments in Ecclesiastes 5:10:

Whoever loves money, never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. (Ecc 5:10)

If its joy you want and you’re determined that what you seek is best experienced in the context of the amusements and pleasures that lie before you, you’re obligated to an existence that is forever frustrated by the fact that you continually need more in order to enjoy the same level of fulfillment. There’s always a bigger flat screen to possess, a bigger boat, a faster car – there’s no one thrill that produces an enduring sense of satisfaction.

While we as human beings crave love, many will seek to satisfy that longing by defaulting to the self- absorbed facsimile of love otherwise known as lust. The difference being that love is all about giving and lust is all about getting. If your approach to romance and intimacy is based on a self serving premise, the level of fulfillment you’re destined to experience is extremely limited compared to the alternative where you’re consistently focused on the gratification of your sweetheart.

And it’s not just about sex and marriage. In Acts 20:35, it says:

In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:35)

With that as a backdrop, look at what Mental Health America’s “Live Your Life Well” website says about people who are focused on the well being of others rather than themselves:

Research indicates that those who consistently help other people experience less depression, greater calm, fewer pains and better health. They may even live longer.²⁰

While there is a tendency to regulate Biblical admonishments to serve others as being noble but not always practical, the truth is it’s not only practical, it’s very healthy. So by approaching relationships using the Truth of Scripture as your guide, you’re not only experiencing the kind of enduring love you need, but you’re also healthier than what is yielded by a more secular approach.

G) Who He Is Not What He Gives

We are driven to quench our thirst for substance and significance. We long for success in our endeavors, but if we want to secure points and not just “yardage,” we need to focus on that which goes beyond the transient environment we exist in and instead concentrate on the eternal domain that we truly live in.

And when we determine to qualify our ambitions according to God’s Power and Direction working through us, we don’t do so for a particular result, as much as we surrender to Christ simply to gain Him. The blessings He provides are secondary to the Lord and Savior that He is. It’s not the trappings of life that we’re going for, it’s the definition of life – the Life that is only available in and through Him.

This can be a tough pill to swallow and it’s one of the reasons that so many opt for either a diluted form of Christianity or a perspective intentionally devoid of a Christian perspective altogether. But it’s only hard if you overlook the foundational realities of the world we live in.

While the Fruit of the Spirit is appealing and it makes sense to perceive it as the core of what we all as human beings desire, it is realized only through denying yourself as opposed to gratifying yourself.

This lands in a good place. Go with me, here…

1) The Inner Man

Luke 9:23 says:

²³ Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. ²⁴ For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. ²⁵ What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? (Lk 9:23-25)

Some will interpret this passage to be a call to asceticism or an extreme form of self-denial. But here’s the thing: It’s not what you give or what you possess that defines you, your identity is defined according to what is in your heart.

Look at Proverbs 4:23:

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. (Prov4:23)

…and also Luke 6:45:

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. (Lk 6:45)

The heart, according to Scripture, is who you truly are and it’s the heart that is reviewed by God as He considers your thoughts, your words and your actions. While we as human beings might be overly impressed with what can be seen on the outside, God is able to see deeper and clearer by being able to peer into the inner man.

then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive, and deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know the human heart), (2 Chron 6:30)

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.” (Jer 17:9-10)

The heart is where we experience the tension that occurs when our desires are not being addressed the way we want them to be (see Ecc 2:20). It’s here where it’s determined how we will quench our thirst for fulfillment and significance (see Lk 12:34). And it’s here that God needs to be positioned as the Supreme Manager over the entire process because it’s when He’s in charge that you’re able to get beyond the kiddie rides and experience the big roller coasters. You’re now into what is truly substantial as opposed to what is ultimately revealed as trivial. You’re scoring points rather than accumulating yardage!

You can see this Ephesians 3:16-21. Take a look:

“… that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height– 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen”(Eph 3:16-21 [NKJV]).

H) The Fullness of God

You don’t want to gloss over this verse as nothing more than a collection of “churchy” sounding clichés that don’t resonate with any meaning in the secular marketplace.

Throughout the entire book of Ephesians, Paul uses a phrase: “for this reason.” It’s a continual progression of Truths that crescendo into a logical conclusion that is downright motivating. In chapter three, we’re a little more than half way through His treatise. But even within the above five verses we have a motivating picture of what can result when Christ is given control over our inner man.

Picking up with verse 17, if Christ is occupying a position of Absolute Leadership in your heart as a result of your having accepted Him as your Lord and Savior, you’re now able to “get” just how freakishly amazing His Love is. And it’s a result of catching a glimpse of that Love that you’re filled with the fullness of God.

It’s that “fullness” that translates into the Fruits of the Spirit. The things that you and I want are all bound up in what we have access to when we’re overwhelmed by the fullness of God.

The “fullness of God” is simply a term referring to the fact that you’re firing on all cylinders. All that God would offer, all that God would do in and through you, all that you would do, feel and experience as a result of God’s Presence dominating your existence – that is the fullness of God and friend, that’s what you and I want even when we think we want something else.

Remember, the “thing” we want is ultimately a spiritual commodity. The only True Source for love, joy, peace etc. is the Author of those things. If you’ve caught a glimpse of God’s Love for you, then:

you’re perpetually amazed at what He’s done on your behalf (1 Jn 3:1)
your disposition tends to be continually enthusiastic because you’re aware of His Power and Purpose animating your actions and future (Psalm 139:16; Phil 3:14; Col 1:29)
you’re able to process both the triumphs and the trials that come your way from a position of strength (Ps 18:32, 40, 43-49; Phil 4:12-13; Col 1:10-11)

In short, you know who you are because you’re convinced of Whose you are. And with that as a foundation, your sense of self is no longer inextricably linked to your accomplishments as much as it is based on the Author of those accomplishments Who’s working in and through you (see Phil 2:13). You’re no longer gauging your worth according to the substance of your resume, nor are you dependent on the transient trophies offered by the marketplace for the sense of fulfillment that we all seek. Instead you commit to the Lord whatever it is you’re working towards and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from obedience rather than clinging to the temporary validation of a successful enterprise. Moreover, your gaze is constantly fixed on what’s next. Not because you’re dissatisfied with your current status, but because you’re constantly being beckoned forward by your Heavenly Father. Take a look at the way Paul describes it:

Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:13-14)

So here’s the bottom line: Rather than settling for a sense of ambition that produces nothing more than an insatiable desire for more, the Biblical approach is to instead recognize that what you want is ultimately a spiritual commodity that is experienced only by engaging the Author of those commodities in the context of obedience. To remain perpetually overwhelmed by Who He is and to base your definition of success on the degree to which you do as He directs results in an energized disposition, an enthusiastic outlook and a confident regard for who you are and where you’re headed because your eyes are fixed on a prize that doesn’t deteriorate and never fails to satisfy.

That’s the kind of ambition that transforms the daily grind into something inspiring, that’s a life worth living and that’s one more reason to embrace the Gospel as the Absolute Truth because “it works.”

Conclusion

It was a Sunday during the summer of 1981. I was at Parris Island benefiting from all the great training provided by the Drill Instructors. As was the case with every Sunday, you were given the opportunity to attend church but I had chosen to remain behind this time simply because there was so many things that needed to get done. No sooner had the group departed that I felt bad about not having gone and I made my regrets known by saying so out loud.

A fellow recruit heard me and responded by saying that my remorse was based on having been “brainwashed” into thinking that church was important and I was clinging to a pointless tradition rather than a Truth that merited any real consideration.

I don’t recall my response being especially articulate, but I do remember reflecting on his accusation and deciding that he was as wrong as he could be because I had considered the substance of the Gospel Message and had determined that it was authentic. I was not brainwashed. I had measured the claims of Christ and found them to be credible. This was more than just a collection of colorful illustrations depicting charming little stories. God is real, His Son did live, die and come back to life and my existence is infused with a sense of purpose that goes beyond a holiday tradition or a weekend routine.

And as certain as I was back then, I’m even more convinced now. The ever increasing volume of evidence, logic and utility that validates and characterizes the Christian paradigm is as accessible as it is obvious and as my awareness of these things grows, so does my passion for alerting skeptics to things they may have overlooked as they consider Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, the King of kings and the Savior of all mankind.

He is. It works and I dare you not to believe!

1. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 131.
2. “Creation came ‘from nothing,’ not God: Stephen Hawking”, USA Today, September 2, 2010, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
3. Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover November 2002. Also see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe
4. Bill Bryson, A Short History Of Nearly Everything, 16.
5. Lee Strobel, The Case for Creation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 145
6. Ibid, p219
7. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc, 1972, 1979), 181 (H.P. Liddon was an English Theologian that lived between 1829 and 1890 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddon])
8. Ibid p185
9. Ibid, p 82
10. Ibid, p 187
11. Tertullian, The Apology, accessed February 13, 2013
12. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 185.
13. “Charles Colson”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Colson<, accessed February 15, 2013
14. “Chuck Colson on the Resurrection”, Baylyblog, http://baylyblog.com/blog/2012/04/chuck-
colson-resurrection, accessed February 15, 2013 [From a speech delivered by Chuck Colson at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention 2/84 and reported in Religious Broadcasting 3/84.]
15. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 259
16. Billy Graham, Storm Warning, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2011), 253.
17. “Game Center”, http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009091303/2009/REG1/broncos@bengals/recap#tab:analyze,accessed June 4, 2010
18. “Solomon”, About.com, http://judaism.about.com/library/2_history/leaders/bldef-p_solomon.htm, accessed March 1, 2013
19. “Transcript: Tom Brady, Part 3”, 60 Minutes, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-1015331.html, accessed March 2, 2013
20. “Help Others”, Live Your Life Well from Mental Health America”,http://www.liveyourlifewell.org/go/live-your-life-well/others<, accessed March 9, 2013

“I Dare You” – Part Two | The Resurrection

III) The Resurrection

A) Show Us the Father

In John 14, Jesus is briefing His disciples, preparing them for the task of taking the baton of the gospel to the masses. He’s getting ready to be crucified and after His Resurrection. He’ll be headed home and it will be up to His disciples to ensure that His Message continues to be proclaimed.

In verse 6, Jesus states that no one can come to the Father except through Him. For those who’ve been brought up in Sunday School, this is familiar territory. But for the disciples, these are still uncharted waters and you can see that in Philip’s response to Jesus when he says, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Philip articulates what we all want to see and know. While creation very eloquently proves the reality of a god, it doesn’t provide a definitive picture of the face of God. We want to know God. We want to hear His Voice, we want to experience His Company, we want to feel His Power. But in order for that to happen, we have to have an address.

Jesus was an impressive figure. He didn’t teach as a mere educator. Rather, He spoke as the One Who actually wrote the textbook He taught out of (Mk 1:22 [see also 2 Tim 3:16-17]). Throughout His ministry, He was constantly underlining Himself as God Incarnate. He was here to give God a specific address in history so that people could better understand the Nature and the Message of God.

As logical as that all sounds as far as a Divine strategy is concerned, it’s still a stretch for anyone to embrace the idea that the Person you’re sitting next to is the Creator of the Universe and the Redeemer of your soul. Philip had been with Christ since the beginning of His earthly ministry. We find him first in John 1 and at the time, he’s so confident that he has found the Messiah, he says as much to Nathanael in verse 45.

His confidence was probably bolstered in John 6 when Jesus asks him for his thoughts on how they should go about feeding a crowd that included 5,000 men plus whatever women and children were in the mix. Philip had to be inspired as he watched Jesus use two fish and five barley loaves to feed a group that Philip himself had said would require eight months wages to facilitate.

Philip is the one who some Greeks approached in John 12:20 with a request to interview Jesus which shows that Philip was recognized as one of Christ’s cadre even to those who are on the outside looking in. Perhaps that’s why Jesus expressed a little surprise at Philip’s request in John 14:8 when he asked Jesus to show them the Father.

No doubt, Philip was thinking of something along the lines of God’s appearance on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:16-19 [see Ex 20:18-21] or Exodus 33:22 when God manifested Himself in the context of something obvious and dramatic.

By this point, Jesus had performed in a way that qualified as obvious and dramatic. Making the blind see, healing those who had been paralyzed and bringing Lazarus back to life were all significant indicators that Jesus was more than just a charismatic educator.

But miracles lose their luster after a while. It didn’t take the Hebrews long for them to completely forget and / or rationalize away the obvious Reality of God even after they had been led through the Red Sea. Exodus 15 has Miriam celebrating the demise of the Egyptians. Three months later they’re at the foot of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:1. By this time, the miracle celebrated in Miriam’s song isn’t the only extraordinary thing that has occurred. The crossing of the Red Sea (Ex 14:21-22), the destruction of the world’s most formidable military force (Ex 14:27-28), a miraculous provision of water, meat and bread (Ex 15:25; 16:13-36; 17:5-7) and a successful stand against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-13) – all of these things now are etched into the minds of the Israelites as Moses heads up to the top of the mountain and stays there for 40 days and nights. But at some point while he’s gone, the Israelites decide that the God Who has been leading them isn’t God at all. Rather, their god is this cow made out of gold they decided to whip up using the jewelry they were wearing at the time (Ex 32:1-4).

Miracles are conclusive, but only for a season. At least that’s the way human nature affects their significance over time. Still, Jesus responds to Philip’s request by reminding him of the miracles that He had performed up to that point. Not only were they obvious indicators that a supernatural Someone was present, but those same miracles were fulfillments of specific prophecies that had been articulate centuries beforehand because that was all a part of the prophecy that pertained to Christ which He had fulfilled to the letter (Is 9:6; 29:18-21; 35:5-6; 61:1).

B) One Particular Miracle

There was one miracle in particular, however, that Jesus had highlighted as being especially compelling and that was the miracle of His Resurrection which He spoke of in Matthew 12:39-40. He’ll refer to it again as He responds to Philip and the rest of the disciples now in the context of what is documented in John 14-17.

The Resurrection is huge! H.P. Liddon says: “Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.”⁷ The Resurrection is what Jesus would have on His business card if He carried one at all because He is the only religious figure in human history to not only claim that He was God, but proved it by voluntarily dying and coming back to life. That was the one miracle He put on the table when He was pressed for some kind of definitive sign. You see that in Matthew 12:39-40 and Paul reiterates it in Romans 1:4.

So, in a way, this all becomes very easy in that Jesus’ claims are very unique when compared to every other religious system. He does not claim to be a messenger, rather He claims to be God (John 8:58; 10:30), and then He proves it by His Resurrection. So if His Resurrection is an event that can be validated, then the platform of the cynic has just become very unstable.

C) He Really Did Die

But how do you prove it? There’s no film to refer to, all of the eyewitnesses are long gone so what’s left as far as a credible source of information? And let’s take this a step further. Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the Bible is not admissible as evidence, apart from those things that can be regarded as historical events.

The approach that we take then is the same approach that is taken in academic circles when seeking to establish the historicity of a particular event or person. You assemble all those things that mention that person or event and then draw your conclusions based on the substance of their testimony.

First of all, the fact that Jesus died and that His body was never recovered is not a matter of conjecture or speculation.

The resurrection of Christ is an event in history where in God acted in a definite time-space dimension. Concerning this, Wilbur Smith says, “The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.⁸

Jesus did exist and He did die and His body was never definitively accounted for after He was laid to rest. That much can be determined from the wealth of literature, art and even the presence of the Christian church as an institution in that it is based on the historical as well as the theological reality of Christ.

What happened to Christ’s body is the question. Critics have either been looking for a corpse or insisted that one did exist for over two thousand years. But they make that assertion in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be overlooked without the risk of being less than objective in your analysis.

D) Josephus on the Resurrection

Josephus was a Jewish historian that lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was employed by the Romans and he mentions this about Jesus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And 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.⁹

In many ways, this one quote is a slam dunk. Here’s a man who had access to people who were contemporaries of Christ. He was born only seven year after Jesus died and the fact that he mentions Jesus’ resurrection in what would be considered a secular text is equivalent to Christ’s Resurrection being reported in the news. Some have very vehemently attempted to discount this quote as something that Josephus could not have written. However, this same passage written by Josephus was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century and is included in the most recent Loeb edition of his works.¹⁰ It is credible.

E) Tertullian’s Apology

Another example of a secular text that references Jesus’ resurrection would be Tertullian’s Apology. Tertullian lived from 160 – 220 AD. He was born in Carthage, Africa when it was a Roman province. By this point, Rome had become violently opposed to Christianity thanks to Nero who blamed the great fire that decimated most of Rome on the Christians in 64 AD. Subsequent Caesars followed suit and while much of the more heinous persecutions had faded by the time Tertullian was championing the Christian faith, local proconsuls still made it very hazardous to claim Christ as Savior.

It was in this cultural climate the Tertullian wrote his Apology. It was a letter written to the Roman government basically challenging them to consider the logic of their predisposition against Christianity. He crafts a very compelling defense and at one point when he is describing the Christian faith, he says:

But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at the time Roman governor of Syria, and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified…At his own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it was an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world- portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulcher, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dad on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulcher was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror; without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both the spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, give it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked by delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the word, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven, – a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.¹¹

Again, this is not “biblical.” This isn’t a Bible study. Rather, this is a concerned citizen appealing to the Roman decision makers on the basis of logic. In his explanation of the Christian faith, He refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection as things that happened as opposed to things that are merely believed to have happened. The fact that he punctuates his account of Christ by referencing the eclipse that happened when Jesus was killed highlights how some of these things can be verified by referring to their own records. He is not laboring to convince his audience based on mere conjecture. Rather, he’s providing an account of what happened and how those events provided the basis of the doctrine that Christians subscribe to.

F) Ignatius’ Last Words

The eclipse that happened around the time that Jesus was crucified was documented by the Romans and you can read more about it by clicking here. Greek historian Phlegon wrote: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an eclipse of the Sun which was greater than any known before and in the sixth hour of the day it became night; so that stars appeared in the heaven; and a great Earthquake that broke out in Bithynia destroyed the greatest part of Nicaea.”

Another example that demonstrates the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection that comes from a secular source would be the account of Ignatius who lived from 50-115 A.D. He was the Bishop of Antioch, a native of Syria and a pupil of the apostle John. Enroute to a martyr’s death, he wrote his “Epistles,” and this is what he said of Christ:

He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, nad not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He also rose again in three days…”¹²

G) The Martyrs Speak

Martyrdom is a significant piece of evidence at this point in the discussion because there have been many people who have voluntarily died because they refused to recant their belief that Christ rose from the grave.

While many religions have been harassed and persecuted, what makes the Christian dynamic so extraordinary and thus so credible is that the initial disciples were eyewitnesses to Christ having risen. This would be the thing that would embolden them to spend the rest of their lives not only promoting and publishing the Gospel Message, but to die a martyr’s death because they refused to deny the centerpiece of their creed, that being that Jesus – God Incarnate – had arose.

Again, there have been many people throughout history who have voluntarily given their lives for something they believed to be true, but very few, if any, have forfeited their lives for something they knew to be false.

Chuck Colson’s testimony and his experience during the Watergate trial demonstrates this dynamic. First of all, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, President Nixon was forced to resign his Presidency in 1974 due to what was revealed as a criminal act perpetrated by members of his team illegally breaking into the Democrat campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel. Chuck Colson was Special Counsel to the President and he was the first member of Nixon’s cabinet to serve time in prison for actions related to the Watergate scandal.

He later became a Christian and went on to accomplish some extraordinary things in the context of his “Prison Fellowship” ministry.¹³ His steadfast confidence in the reality of Christ’s resurrection was based in part on the reaction of His disciples in the aftermath of His being arrested. In a speech delivered to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 1984, he said:

Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell, myself and the rest believed passionately in the President. We had at our fingertips every imaginable power and privilege. I could phone an aide’s office and have a jet waiting at Andrews Air Force Base, order Cabinet members of generals around, change the budget.

Yet even at the prospect of jeopardizing the President, even in the face of all the privileges of the most powerful office in the world, the threat of embarrassment, perhaps jail, was so overpowering and the instinct for self-preservation so overwhelming, that one by one, those involved deserted their leader to save their own skin.

What has that got to do with the resurrection? Simply this: Watergate demonstrates human nature. No one can ever make me believe that 11 ordinary human beings would for 40 years endure persecution, beatings, prison, and death, without ever once renouncing that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead.

Only an encounter with the living God could have kept those men steadfast. Otherwise, the apostle Peter would have been just like John Dean, running to the prosecutors to save his own skin. He had already done it three times.

No, the evidence is overwhelming. Those men held to that testimony because they had seen Christ raised from the dead. And if indeed He was resurrected, that affirms His deity. As God, He cannot be mistaken in what He teaches and cannot lie. An infallible God cannot err. A holy God cannot deceive.¹⁴

Human nature prohibits men from willingly sacrificing their lives for something they know not to be true. And yet, history is full of men and women who have sacrificed their well being and even their lives for the cause of Christ. Why? Because they knew Jesus rose from the grave. Beginning with the disciples who were eyewitnesses and continuing with the martyrs who based their certainty on the evidence that history and nature provides, believers have stood by their convictions even to the point of death.

And it’s because of that certainty that the church has endured and it’s the fact that it has endured – despite the death sentence that has so often been associated with being a believer – that provides significant substance to the claim that “He has risen, He has risen indeed!”

H) Nothing Else Matters

Simon Greenleaf, famous Harvard professor of law, says: “All that Christianity ask of men…is, that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were being given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross- examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth.”¹⁵ Jesus really did live, He really did die and He really did come back to life. By doing so He proved His claim to Divinity and the moment that a person recognizes this fact as a historical truism, it changes everything.

The great Methodist preacher, author and missionary of the past generation, Dr. E. Stanley Jones, described how he was once addressing an Indian University on the verities of eternity. When he sat down the thoughtful Hindu president stood up and sonorously solemnized, “If what this man says is not true, then it doesn’t matter. But if what he says is true, than nothing else matters.”¹⁶

Jesus really did live and He really did die and He really did come back to life. Compared to Christ’s Resurrection and the claims to Deity that were validated as a result, nothing else matters.

“I Dare You” – Part One | Creation

I) Intro

As a Youth Pastor, I was always challenging my students to be able to articulate what they believe and why. It’s important to be able to clearly state what it is that shapes your perspective and determines your values, especially for a Christian. Otherwise, much of what a relationship with Christ brings to the table is never accessed due to an overly casual approach characterized by Biblical illiteracy and a secular mindset.

For me, I’ve got a collection of facts and truths that, taken together, form the basis of what compels me to embrace the cross and the efficacy of Scripture. And the more I study and the more I learn, the more compelling the substance of those Truths become.

Recently, it’s gotten to the point where some things that I’ve learned about creation inspired me to put some additional thoughts down on paper. The result was a “dare,” more or less, extended to those who either discount Christianity as an ornamental inconvenience or a system of myths that have somehow endured over the last 2,000 years.

It’s broken down into three sections: Creation, the Resurrection and Ambition. Each segment brings to the surface a body of empirical evidence that makes it very hard to maintain the posture of a cynic. In short, I dare you to not believe…

II) Creation

Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

While some want to view creation as a cosmic accident that just happened to land in a good place, science and mathematics testify to something very intentional.

In his book, “The Case For Creation,” Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Robin Collins, who has degrees in both mathematics and physics from Washington State University as well as a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University, he has spent the last decade doing research, writing, and teaching at Messiah College where he is currently serving as an associate professor of philosophy. At one point in the interview, he says:

Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.¹

An aggressive invitation to consider the practical Truth of Scripture

The bottom line is that while some will theorize how life was initiated apart from an Intelligent Designer, they do so in a way that requires a certain precision to be in place that cannot be explained. While there are several examples of the “precision” that needs to be in place in order for life to exist, the cosmological constant is especially compelling.

A) Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.”

When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.

Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.

This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control.

Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around. But that is not the case. The cosmological constant is actually very small. How small? One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes.

Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.

B) These Are Not Random Processes

I’ve read several arguments proposed by people who want to eliminate the need for a Designer. They’ll argue that there are natural processes in place that allow for evolution. The problem with their argument is that they don’t attempt to explain the origin of those processes. They simply point to the way in which things could conceivably flow, without explaining how that flow was initiated.

Dr. Ian Musgrave is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He has a website called talkorigins.org and his arguments are obviously very well thought out and substantially reinforced with his academic credentials. In his article “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations” he offers a very credible sounding rebuttal to the often quoted impossibility of an enzyme forming by chance.

He proposes that the theory of life being able to start by itself should not be based on the formation of enzymes; rather it should be analyzed according to the construction of much simpler life forms. He suggests that the attention should be focused on the manufacturing of monomers or polymers – something that can be arrived at in a way that doesn’t involve the sort of mind numbing probability values associated with the fortuitous appearance of an enzyme.

At the beginning of his argument, he says “Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.” I would agree. These are not random processes. But the fact that it’s not random necessitates structure and order – dynamics that do not and cannot appear apart from being intentionally established by a Designer. It’s almost comical that he’s so dogmatic about how a simple life form can develop as a result of the chemical and biochemical laws that naturally exist, yet he doesn’t attempt to account for how those laws came about to begin with.

Stephen Hawking is a very well known physicist and mathematician who retired in 2009 from his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years. The position was once held by Sir Isaac Newton. In his most recent book, “The Grand Design” he challenges Newton’s belief that creation necessitates the work of God by saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”²

While you can’t help but be impressed with Hawking’s credentials and accomplishment, his theory seems fundamentally flawed right from the beginning in that he’s presuming the existence of gravity and from there builds his platform. But if there is no gravity, than he has no platform.

It seems to me that there are a great number of lettered individuals on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the origin of life. But the thing that tips the scales in favor of those who champion the idea of a Creator is that the individuals who passionately search for a plausible sounding explanation apart from God inevitably base their assumptions on complex processes that need to be present in order for their theories to work.

It would be like me standing in front of an ATM with a random debit card attempting to determine the correct PIN in order to access the accounts associated with that card. You could only speculate how long it would take me to figure out the correct sequence of digits, but let’s suppose I did. Could I walk away with whatever cash I was able to withdrawal and say that all that was required were the four numbers I happened upon? No. The numbers are secondary to the technology necessary to process those numbers. Yet, in many instances, this is what some of these brilliant individuals will do when it comes to postulating their theories pertaining to the origin of life. They’ll focus on the PIN and ignore the ATM. In other words, they’ll speculate as to how certain elements came into being, but will base their models on things that, while they are foundational to their theories, are either assumed without explanation or accounted for using a level of speculation that borders on something ridiculous.

My point is that if you start with nothing, you have no gravity, you have no chemical law, you have no physical property. Your starting point consists of absolutely nothing. Scientists who assert the possibility of any kind of life form appearing as a result of random processes require the presence of these processes which, according to Dr. Musgrave, are not random in and of themselves. Hence the need for an ordered structure even in the context of the mechanisms that produce theses lucky accidents of creation.

C) Another Set of Rules

Another example of this would be Dr. Martin Rees who is an amazingly accredited astronomer that became professor of astronomy at Cambridge when he was in his thirties and has since accumulated several prestigious honors in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics.

He wrote a book entitled “Just Six Numbers” that identify six mathematical values that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe. He describes these numbers as being intricately choreographed, to the point where if they were altered “even to the tiniest degree,” he said, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”³

One writer summarized what Rees was saying by explaining it this way:

For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise by comparatively stately manner – specifically, in a way that converts seven one thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say – and not transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly – to 0.008 percent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.⁴

Dr. Rees is a spiritual skeptic, so rather than allow the facts to point to the most obvious conclusion as far as they’re having been put in place by a Designer, instead he asserts that our universe is but one of many universes that have been generated through the ages, ours just happens to be the one where the settings are calibrated correctly.

But even if what Dr. Rees is suggesting is true, you still have to have a process that’s producing these universes. You cannot effectively refute the need for an Intelligent Designer to explain any aspect of creation by proposing theories that necessitate an impetus that is ordered in any way, shape or form.

Dr. Robin Collins elaborated on that kind of practice in Strobel’s book when he said, “…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced.”⁵

D) Mathematical Elegance

At the end of the day, when you make these kind of assertions that are inevitably contrary to everything we can observe in the physical universe, you no longer have science as much as you have metaphysics posing as a very weak brand of science. Yet it is not uncommon among those who would diminish those physical realities that showcase God’s handiwork. Consider the words of George Sim Johnson:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random science.⁶

The bottom line is that the universe is exquisitely and intricately engineered to the point where the mere notion of it all coming together by chance is utterly ridiculous. The beauty and mathematical elegance of creation is so compelling in terms of the way it points to God, that to dismiss Him with theories that require massive probability values in order for them to be plausible is simply not reasonable.