Slavery in the Bible

/in /by

While you find the word, “slavery” in the Bible, in no way shape or form do you find an endorsement for the kind of slavery that existed in the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Not even close.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary sums it up real well by saying that “Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel.” And the slavery that’s referred to in the New Testament is a Roman institution that contradicts the way the gospel defines all of humanity as being equal in the sight of God and therefore eliminates all cultural categories that would otherwise be used to justify the enslavement of a particular people group.”

Still, while Scripture doesn’t give  slavery a Divine stamp of approval, it is nevertheless present as a form of servitude that can appear harsh at times and in that way generates some questions which deserve some answers.

Here’s what we’re going to look at:

  • The Old Testament defines kidnapping as a capital offense. That directive alone is enough to destroy any notion of a Biblical endorsement of the slave trade as it existed in modern history.
  • The word “slavery” in the Old Testament is used to describe one of three types of servitude, none of which entail the kind of inhumane dynamics that characterized the 18th and 19th century slave trade. It was:
    • a temporary arrangement established for the sake of working off a debt that couldn’t otherwise be paid
    • a work release program assigned to an apprehended thief which compelled him to work off the dollar amount of whatever had been stolen
    • an alternative to war where the enemies of Israel agreed to live among the Hebrews as workers that were to be treated with kindness and respect
  • In the New Testament, slavery was a Roman Institution that crumbled beneath the weight of the gospel in that all men are created equal under God. And while that Truth would be used to dismantle the machinations of the slave trade by future generations, it was also deployed as a way to redefine the relationship between master and slave in a manner that was both immediate and transformational

Here we go…

I) Slavery in the Old Testament

First of all, in Exodus 21:16, you read how kidnapping was considered a capital offense:

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

That verse alone is enough to condemn anyone to death who owned a slave in the United States during the time leading up to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. So, again, anyone who wants to even imply that Scripture condones the kind of slavery that existed in our country during the 17th and 18th centuries is absolutely wrong in that it was based on kidnapping. As far as the other kinds of slavery that are represented in the Old Testament, you have three basic categories:

#1) To make restitution for whatever it was that you stole

There were no penitentiaries in the ancient world. If you stole something, you were to make restitution by working off the dollar value of whatever it is that you stole. You see this in Exodus 22:3:

A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft. (Ex 22:3)

So, that’s not “slavery” per se as much as it’s a work release program.

#2) To pay off financial obligations that you couldn’t afford to pay off otherwise
…In Revelation 18:13 the word “slaves” is the rendering of a Greek word meaning “bodies.” The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply “servant,” “bondman,” or “bondservant.” Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery ( Exodus 21:20 Exodus 21:21 Exodus 21:26 Exodus 21:27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Joshua 9:6-27 ). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.

The second appearance of “slavery” as it’s found in the Old Testament refers to that situation where you found yourself in debt and could not afford to pay it off. Since there was no such thing as a status of “bankruptcy” in the ancient world,  you simply made yourself and / or members of your family available as servants (see 2 Kings 4:1-7  for examples of children being put to work to pay off debt).

Bear in mind that this was voluntary, temporary and was to be conducted in manner that honored the worker’s dignity:

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 4243 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25:39-43 [see also Ex 21:2])

So, according to this verse, should you choose to hire yourself and / or your family to the person you were indebted to, you / they were in the employ of that person only until:

  • the debt was paid off either through your labor or income you were able to earn through other means (Lev 25:49) or…
  • a period of six years had passed or…
  • the Year of Jubilee which happened every 50 years (see Ex 21:2)
The only exception to that rule is if you got married to someone that was also working for your employer. Because she is also serving out an obligation, if your term was up before hers you couldn’t simply cancel her debt and justify it by saying that you wanted to leave with your new family. Rather, you had the option of choosing to remain in the employ of your boss for the rest of your life or the Year of Jubilee when all Hebrew slaves were set free and all property was returned to the original owner (see Lev 25:8-55). Then again, you could simply wait until her debt was satisfied and then move on from there.

The bottom line is that this kind of servanthood was designed to be temporary, dignified and voluntary and engaged as an alternative to bankruptcy. It was not permanent nor was it founded on the color of one’s skin and built around the idea that a human being was nothing more than a piece of property.

#3) An alternative to combat and judgment

Apart from that situation where a thief is to offer restitution for his crime through an extended period of physical labor that matched the value of what had been stolen (Ex 22:3-4) or working off a debt that you couldn’t pay otherwise, the only other reference to slavery in the Old Testament is in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.

While it may see that this is a Divine Endorsement of Slavery, there’s more to this than what meets the eye and it goes back to the book of Genesis.

     A) A Man by the Name of Canaan

All of the peoples in the world, both past and present, hail from one of the three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Of these three, Ham distinguished himself as being especially heinous in the immediate aftermath of the Flood.

To fully appreciate the vile nature of Ham, you have to remember that this situation with his father is happening not too long after the Flood. Ham had waited for seven days with his family on board the ark before it even began to rain (Gen 7:10). He saw the entire planet covered in water (Gen 7:19) while he and he family remained on board for more than a year (Gen 7:11; 8:13). And he was there to see the very first rainbow in recorded history (Gen 9:12-13). He had seen God’s Power and Mercy firsthand. For him to be as rebellious as he was required a truly lethal deficiency in character – a trait that was apparently passed on to his son, Canaan.

In Genesis 9:20-25, you read:

20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his drinking and learned what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said:

Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.

Not only did Ham seemingly take some pleasure in mocking his father’s indecency and indiscretion, but there’s reason to believe, according to verse 24, that Ham actually did something to Noah. Whatever the case may be, Noah saw something in Ham that was also present in Canaan, Ham’s son – something that would surface in the form of a character trait that would result in idolatry and all the consequences that go along with it. In this instance, one of the consequences would be a lifetime of servitude.

     B) Anything that Breathed…

Fast forward to the book of Joshua. The Israelites are getting ready to claim the land that had been promised to Abraham several centuries beforehand. But this wasn’t a mere collection of military campaigns, it was the Judgment of God being poured out against the vile behavior of…

…the descendants of Canaan.

Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts and from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their “worship” was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination.1

The Canaanites have descended into a mindset that despises God, just as Noah had declared in his response to Ham’s belligerence centuries beforehand. Their idolatry and their immorality are so repugnant in the sight of the One that saved their forefathers from the Flood that they are now literally on death row from God’s standpoint. These aren’t whole people groups, however. Rather, they’re cities and areas that represent concentrated regions of pure evil and it’s these cities that God specifies in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God (Dt 20:16-18 [see also Dt 7:1-2]).

Again, these are geographical areas and not entire bloodlines. You see that in Joshua 11. There were Hivites among the northern kingdoms that joined forces against the Israelites that lived below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. The Israelites totally destroyed them. In verse 14-15, it says:

The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15As the Lord commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses (Josh 11:14-15).

But, again…

     C) …Only in Specific Areas

While there were Hivites among those destroyed in Joshua 11:14-15, there were also Hivites living in Gibeon:

These devoted nations are here named and numbered (v. 1), seven in all, and seven to one are great odds. They are specified, that Israel might know the bounds and limits of their commission: hitherto their severity must come, but no further; nor must they, under colour of this commission, kill all that came in their way; no, here must its waves be stayed. The confining of this commission to the nations here mentioned plainly intimates that after-ages were not to draw this into a precedent; this will not serve to justify those barbarous laws which give no quarter. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 12

19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:19-20)

So not every Hivite was killed. Only those that lived among the northern kingdoms referenced in Joshua 11:3 (they lived at the foot of Hermon in the land of Mizpah) were destroyed. But those that were spared were nevertheless condemned to become slaves as was stated centuries beforehand in Genesis 9:25.

Critics of Scripture are quick to point to the total decimation of all those that lived in the cities that God had directed Israel to destroy as evidence that God endorsed genocide. Their perspective is that a God Who would condone or, even worse, command the Israelites to “not spare anyone that breathed” is not worthy of worship.

Their indignation is ill founded, however.

First of all, as has already been discussed, it wasn’t entire people groups that were destroyed – just those that lived in areas that engaged in an aggressive brand of idolatry and decadence. Just like there were Hivites living in Gibeon as well as Mizpah, the Hittites were not exclusive to one particular area in that you have godly Hittites showing up later in Scripture occupying prominent positions within Israel such as Uriah, one of David’s Mighty Men (1 Chron 11:41 [“Uriah” in Hebrew means, “Yahweh is my light”]). So, yes there were entire cities that were put to the sword, but not entire ethnic groups. And the inhabitants of those cities slated for destruction were not mere military targets, they were direct descendants of the sons of Noah who knew and experienced God first hand. Yet, they chose a reprehensible lifestyle and a form of idolatry that was a belligerent dismissal of what they knew to be True which included an awareness of what happens when you choose a lifestyle that labors to advance a satanic agenda.

This is the wrath of God. And when you process it knowing the truly despicable psychology and methodology that characterized the Canaanites, while it still makes you cringe the way you might wince as you view pictures of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is an understandable horror given the evil that was being addressed and justly destroyed.

But not all those who deserved the wrath of God were taken to task for their actions. Some were given an option despite the spiritual blood on their hands.

     D) You Have an Option…

Every city that constituted a threat to Israel, with the exception of those that were specified by God as being objects of His Wrath, were to be given the option of either being destroyed in combat or live among the Israelites as servants:

10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. 11 If it accepts your offer of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. (Dt 20:10-11)

If they didn’t accept that offer, however, the men were to be completely destroyed and all the remaining inhabitants:

12 However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. 13 When the Lord your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. 14 But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. 16 However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. 17 You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. (Dt 20:10-18)

So with the Conquest of the Promised Land, you have a large territory populated with a substantial number of people, many of whom have distinguished themselves as truly heinous in the eyes of God. They live in specific cites / areas that the Lord had directed the armies of Israel to wipe out entirely. Every city – even those that are slated for destruction – are given the option of surrendering and living among the Israelites as servants. But only Gibeon is allowed to take advantage of that offer (see Josh 11:20). Every other city chooses to fight Israel and God deals with them accordingly.

     E) Surrounding Nations

There are the “other nations” surrounding the area where the Canaanites are being destroyed. It’s these nations that are being referred to in Leviticus 25. If you look at a map of the area surrounding Canaan, those nations would’ve included the Moabites, Hittites, Ammonites, the kingdom of Bashan, the Edomites and the Philistines. Take a look at the chart below and consider the lineage and the disposition that characterizes each of these nations.

nation lineage history
Moab Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was the nephew of Abraham who was a descendant of Shem (see Gen 19:25) Balak enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel (Num 22). The Moabites were hostile to Israel on more than one occasion.
Ammonites Ammon was the son of Lot, the brother of Moab (see Gen 19:38). They were a part of the party that enlisted the help of Balaam in order to curse Israel. They were enemies of Israel throughout their existence. Click here for more information.
Amorites “Amorite” literally means, “dwellers in the summits.” They were not one particular nation, but a collection of Canaanites that dwelled in the high country as opposed to the lowlands. In Numbers 21 you read of how the Israelites defeated Sihon king of the Amorites after he denied them permission to pass through his territory and attacked them.
Bashan Bashan was an Amorite territory that consisted of 60 cities. The king of Bashan was a giant of a man named Og. After the defeat of King Sihon, he and his army attacked Israel and were soundly defeated.
Edomites The Edomites were descendants of Esau who was Jacob’s brother. But while they were close relatives, all of Esau’s wives came from the Canaanites. The Edomites were hostile towards Israel (see Numbers 20:14-21) and are listed among the enemies of Israel that Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 14:47 and again in 2 Samuel 8:13-14 where David defeats them in combat and established garrisons in their cities.
Philistines The Philistines were descendants of Egypt – one of Ham’s four sons (Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan). While the Philistines are probably recognized most readily by the story of David and Goliath, they were enemies of Israel beginning as early as Genesis 26:14-15 when they were antagonistic towards Isaac.

 

Joshua 12 gives a summary of all the nations and kings that were conquered as part of the conquest of the Promised Land. In Joshua 13, God identifies several other territories that need to be subdued but represent campaigns that are distinct from the original marching orders given to Moses and Joshua. Among those that God enumerates are the five cities within the territory of the Philistines. While the Philistines were not initially listed alongside those slated for destruction, the five cities that God specifies could nevertheless be counted as Canaanite cities. Reason being is that while they were governed by Philistine rulers, the inhabitants were entirely Canaanite and thus deserving of God’s wrath.

Each of these “surrounding nations” represent enemies of Israel and to be an enemy of Israel is to be an enemy of God (see 1 Sam 2:9-10; Zec 2:8). To oppose God is to invite His Wrath and that’s exactly what is going on behind the scenes when you’re looking at Israel’s military actions.It’s not Israel’s tactical might nor their moral superiority that translated to increased land holdings or a greater population of servants (Dt 9:1-6). It’s the fact that all of these nations, to varying degrees, had identified themselves as enemies of God and it’s for that reason that they were either executed, defeated in combat or allowed to live among the Israelites as servants.           1) Servants and Not Enemies Given the obvious tension that existed between Israel and her hostile neighbors, it’s not difficult to imagine the potential for the way in which a slave might be physically abused by a Hebrew or the hostile actions a passionate enemy of Israel might attempt while serving an Israelite. God made it very clear on numerous occasions that a foreigner was to be treated with dignity and respect. Even those Egyptians that had chosen to live among the Israelites were to be treated with kindness and love:

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev 19:34)

That being the case, should a foreign soldier find themselves working for an Israelite and they give full vent to the antagonism they feel towards the Hebrew community by doing something heinous, while their actions may merit some harsh discipline, their punishment was to be just and not used as an excuse to play out hostile intentions based on past social and military experiences.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. (Ex 21:20-21)

By the way, the word “property” in Exodus 21 is actually translated “money.” It’s not a term to be interpreted as something demeaning as much as it’s referring to the worth of that servant’s labor. The Contemporary English Version translates it as:

However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property. *Ex 21:21 [CEV])

 Another thing to consider is the way in which runaway slaves were treated. Rather than them being returned to their master, they’re allowed to remain with whomever they took refuge:

If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. (Dt 23:15)

 The bottom line is that “slavery” in the Old Testament is completely different from the slave trade that existed in the United States. Whereas slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was a form of servanthood that was either offered as a means by which you could pay off a financial debt, or imposed as a work release program / alternative to judgment, the slave trade as it existed in the 17th and 18th centuries was based on kidnapping (a capital offense) and the dehumanization of individuals to the point where they were mere appliances with no rights, no future and no real value.

II) Slavery in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the world is ruled by Rome and their domination was maintained almost entirely by slave labor.

Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city. As many as 1 in 3 of the population in Italy or 1 in 5 across the empire were slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.2

Much of the slave population in the Roman Empire was procured in the context of military campaigns where those who were defeated were enslaved. Their numbers were further supplemented by piracy and kidnapping.

”… if any people ought to be allowed to consecrate their origins and refer them to a divine source, so great is the military glory of the Roman People that when they profess that their Father and the Father of their Founder was none other than Mars, the nations of the earth may well submit to this also with as good a grace as they submit to Rome’s dominion.”3

Unlike the situation in the Old Testament where Israel’s military victories and their domination over the surrounding nations were a consequence of those countries’ resolve to rebel against God, Rome’s approach to the world was inspired by nothing more other than to simply increase its size and might as is evidenced by the way in which they defined themselves as dedicated disciples of Mars, the god of war (see sidebar to the right).

And while those who were consigned to a lifetime of menial labor within the Hebrew community were treated with kindness and respect, those that had to answer to their Roman masters were nothing more than pieces of property who had fewer rights than freed criminals.

This was not an institution endorsed or invented by God. Whereas slavery in the Old Testament was either a way of paying off a financial debt – be it a loan or something you stole – or offered to a condemned people as an option to being a casualty of a just war, here it’s just a terrible manifestation of greed and a will to dominate those around you.

A) Man is Made in the Image of God

In addition to Scripture’s condemnation of kidnapping, which deals a lethal and final blow to the slave trade right out of the chute, there’s also the fact that because man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) you can’t rightfully strip a person of their humanity to the degree where they’re nothing more than an appliance. Genesis 9:6 demonstrates that because man is made in the image of God that murder is considered an assault on the Person of God as well as an attack on the individual:

Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Gen 9:6 [see also Jas 3:9])

In a similar way, to reduce a person to nothing more than an intelligent beast is to ignore the Divine Dignity that characterizes every human being that has ever walked this earth. You see this expressed in Job 31:13-15:

“If I have denied justice to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me 14 what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? 15 Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:13-15)

Yet, this is what the Roman brand of slavery was: A demeaning subjugation of another human being that, not only consigned them to a lifetime of hard labor, but also stripped them of the most basic human rights. God’s condemnation of such an institution was expressed in the Old Testament, as has already been mentioned (Lev 19:34). But God’s grace takes it a step further by erasing all of the cultural boundaries that would otherwise elevate one person over another.      

B) There is No Slave or Free…

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Col 3:11)

It’s that Truth in particular that Paul emphasizes in his letter to Philemon. Onesimus was a runaway slave that had, at one point, belonged to Philemon. Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and then ran away to Rome – a crime punishable by death. But after hearing the preaching of Paul, he became a believer and worked alongside Paul for a season before deciding he needed to make things right with his former master. While Onesimus would’ve been safe under Old Testament law (Dt 23:15-16) in that, while he would’ve been held responsible for what he stole, he would not have been handed over to his original master, his future was far more bleak under Roman law. But in the context of the gospel, Philemon and Onesimus are in a place where they can view each other as equals in that they’re both sinners saved by grace.

This is what Paul is referring to when he says…

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord. (Philemon 1:12-16)

So, while in the Old Testament where a slave who had taken refuge with another person was not to be handed back over to their original master, Paul points to the New Covenant that is even more liberating by admonishing Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a…

…brother!      

C) Making a Difference

As has already been mentioned, Roman law forbade the harboring of fugitives and runaways were often punished with great severity. Freedom was a possibility but, for all intents and purposes, was highly unlikely. You were doomed to watch others bask in the light of comfort and liberty while you were forever destined to be at their beck and call to do whatever work needed to be done.

It was a crushing reality in some cases, in others it was just a cultural and legal weight that had to be borne with no complaint and to aspire to the status of a free man was to reach for something that was virtually impossible. Given that kind of culture, imagine the response of a master whose slave is suddenly enthusiastic about doing the work they’re assigned to do. Ponder what must’ve been going in the mind of a Roman whose slave bordered on belligerent just yesterday and is now respectful and even pleasant.

This is what the New Testament encouraged among those who were slaves. While both the Old and New Testament provide a voluminous and substantial body of Divine Concepts for the abolitionist, the New Testament don’t merely condemn slavery as much as it eliminates any social construct that could justify the elevation of one person over another by establishing all people being equal in the sight of God .

You see this in the book of Colossians. To slaves he says:

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Col 3:22-25)

And to their masters, he says:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Col 4:1)

In order for this change to occur, it would require a Divine change of heart which is precisely what the gospel facilitates:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here… 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:17; 21 [see also Jn 1:3])

It’s in the context of being a “new creation” and becoming the “righteousness of God” that, not only would the relationship between slave and master be dramatically changed, it would also promote the Power and the Reality of the gospel itself. And as the gospel spread, so did the tools and the Truth that would one day be used to eliminate slavery entirely.

III) Conclusion

Critics of Scripture have a series of talking points that can be hard to refute if you engage them according to the way in which they formulate their convictions. They’re not looking at a full color portrait, they’re looking at a black and white thumbnail that resonates as compelling only if certain elements are accepted as both comprehensive and assumed givens. If you structure your rebuttal according to a series of questions whose answers reveal those elements as flawed, they’re forced to concede the fact that their argument is lacking. On the other hand, if you target only those things they cite as relevant, you never get beyond the thumbnail and, not only does your platform look anemic, more importantly the full color portrait get overlooked and the Truth gets ignored once again.

That said…

Does the Bible advocate kidnapping as an acceptable practice?

No. It doesn’t. It was a capital offense which means that the Slave Trade as it existed in the United State during the 18th and 19th centuries is contrary to God’s Word.

What did the nation of Israel provide as an alternative to penitentiaries? How did an Israelite go about filing for bankruptcy?

You didn’t file for bankruptcy, rather you worked off the dollar amount of whatever you owed. And if you were guilty of having stolen something, you were not incarcerated, instead you provided restitution by working off the value of whatever it is that you stole. These were the dynamics that characterized two of the three types of slavery referenced in the Old Testament.

Did the Israelites offer their enemies the opportunity to live among them as respected servants as an alternative to war?

Yes. To raise your hand against the Israelites was to take your idolatry a step further in that now you were not only ignoring Him, you were actively seeking to destroy His Work and His People. This placed you in a category of wrongdoing so heinous that justice in the form of the death penalty was an absolutely certainty. On the other hand, to live among the Israelites as dignified servants allowed you a second chance and in that way receive grace that, apart from God’s intervention, was neither deserved nor desired.

Was the slavery that existed in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ similar to the slavery referenced in the Old Testament?

No. Slavery was a consequence of war in the Roman world. In the Old Testament, it was either an alternative to war or an institution used to make restitution for a crime or make good on a debt. And where slavery in the Roman empire involuntarily reduced you to a subhuman status with no rights and no prospects, in the Old Testament it was an option and one that was chosen in the context of respect and dignity.

How can Scripture be said to promote slavery when it was the Bible that the Abolitionist used as a philosophical foundation upon which to base their argument that slavery was wrong?

When Abraham Lincoln took the stage in his debates with Stephen Douglas, it was his articulate condemnation of slavery that earned him the Republican party’s nomination for President. On September 16, 1859, in Columbus, Ohio, he gave a speech. In it, you can see a sample of the rhetoric that earned him a spot in the national spotlight. Stephen Douglas believed slavery to be something that could be engaged on the premise that negroes were subordinate to the white race and were not to be thought of as equals in any way. And he believed that the slavery question should be determined by individual states – an approach referred to as “popular sovereignty.” Lincoln identifies the fallacy of that argument by referring to a comment made by Thomas Jefferson almost a century beforehand that references the inevitably justice of God and how it will be visited upon the United States because of the way certain elements approved of and even insisted upon the enslavement of the black race.

Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.

Bottom line: Those who insist that the Bible condones slavery rely on a distortion of Scripture and not an expression of it. Remember, it was the Christian creed that inspired the spiritual songs4 of freedom sung by the slaves and it was that same doctrine that the abolitionists based their arguments upon5. To even suggest that the Bible supports slavery requires a limited intake of Scripture, a biased perspective on history, and a resolve to base one’s convictions on an intentionally streamlined collection of facts rather than a comprehensive analysis of the truth.

1. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
2. “Slavery in the Roman World,” Mark Cartwright, “Ancient History Encyclopedia”, https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/, accessed November 1, 2019
3. “Military of Ancient Rome”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome, accessed November 1, 2019
4. African American Spirituals Lyrics, https://africanamericanspirituals.com/African-American-Spirituals-Lyrics.htm, accessed January 21, 2020 5. “Christian Abolitionism”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism, accessed January 22, 2020

Islam, Syrian Refugees and How to Love Your Enemy

/in /by

“Pure Christianity” is never exercised in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10; Jas 1:5). Dressing up whatever policy or conviction you in the guise of “compassion” or “Christian charity” –  if it doesn’t pass the litmus test of  a comprehensive perspective on Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17)  – you’re simply attempting to give your flawed opinions the look of a Biblically based disposition, the result being neither healthy nor wise.

The question on the table is “Does denying Syrian refugees into the US run contrary to the commandment to love your enemies and to be loving and charitable to all people?”

90% of Syria

90% of Syria is Muslim. When you scan the headlines, you find differing stories as to whether or not you can accept these people as legitimate refugees or you need to at least consider the fact that they pose a potential threat given their creed as well as the history of the way terrorists have infiltrated those areas they define as targets. Given the question marks surrounding the true nature and agenda of these people, a vetting process has been established, but, according to some, it’s been diluted to the point of becoming almost non-existent in order to accommodate President Obama’s commitment to welcome 10,000 refugees by September of 2016.

Many believe that this is a logical response to a problem that doesn’t really exist, others see it as an irresponsible mindset that could case the country harm. There are several “bullet points” that emerge in the context of this debate, and while some appear both credible and compelling, there’s a warning represented by the aforementioned statistics thast need to be acknowledged in order to arrive at a conclusion that is taking into consideration all of the facts.

  • Do Muslims represent a real threat?
  • Are the Syrian refugees devoid of any possible terrorist element?
  • What is the appropriate Christian response?

Are Muslims a Threat?

The struggle that’s going on in Syria right now is being described as one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. What began as an uprising fueled by economic and political unrest has become a struggle that’s drawn according to sectarian lines. In other words, it’s become a religious battle between the Suni’s and the Shiite’s. The struggle between Suni’s and Shiites goes back to the beginning of Islam as far as who is the true successor to Mohammed.

But there are nevertheless some common denominators between the two factions, one being their mutual hatred and resolve to destroy the United States. Some will argue that this is not the tenor of most Muslims and is therefore illogical and unfair to be hesitant when labeling Muslims in general as being a threat to national security. But here’s the problem:

The moment you put that uniform on – the moment you align yourself with Islamic teachings – you are subscribing to a creed that includes a divine endorsement for murder in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims are radical, but the more orthodox your interpretation of the Quran, the more militant you become.

Furthermore, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

The Problem of Abrogation

While the Bill of Rights gives everyone the opportunity to practice their religion without any kind of governmental limitation, the Supreme Court in 1878 appropriately ruled that the practice of one’s religion does not serve as a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words, should your religion be used as a way to justify murder, then your religious beliefs no longer fall beneath the umbrella of the First Amendment.

Because of the way in which our nation’s 200 year history has been consistently punctuated with acts of terror prosecuted by individuals who claim a commitment to Allah as being their inspiration, being a Muslim, by default, puts you in a position where your voluntary ties to these acts defines you as a potential threat to the general welfare and not as a mere religious pilgrim.

That may sound harsh and even inaccurate, given the way many Muslims appear to be kind and more than gracious,  and they may very well be. But it’s imperative to realize that those who are “moderate” are viewed by their more orthodox counterparts as “Uncle Tom’s” and not followers of the true faith.  And it’s also important to realize that the Qur’an insists on the destruction of the infidel. It’s not a question of how you interpret the Qur’an, rather it’s your personal disposition as to which passages you embrace and which ones you do not.

The contention is that the most recent revelations of Mohamad are the ones that you obey. Should any of those contradict what had been documented in the past, you are to ignore anything that was previously stated and instead obey the newest admonishments. This anomaly is called “abrogation” and it’s most threatening manifestation is in the context of jihad:

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad’s life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations. 1

This is why any Muslim who is “peaceful” is nevertheless conflicted in that they are hard pressed to condemn their more militant counterparts. After all, the terrorists are simply obeying what is in the Quran. For example:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. (“Radical vs Moderate Islam: A Muslim View“)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

What About Christianity?

Some will argue that Christianity has fueled may of the conflicts that have plagued the human existence, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t being categorized as a threat. “Why not?” they ask.

First and foremost, just because you carry a Bible doesn’t make you a believer any more than brandishing a cross on your shield qualifies you as a Christian soldier. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as a truly “righteous” cause that merits the use of force. But there’s a difference between what’s right from a Biblical standpoint and what’s merely profitable.

The Crusades are often viewed as a Christian enterprise that illustrates how people who are supposedly Christ followers can be just as violent as their Islamic counterparts thus giving the impression there is no distinction between one “religious” group over another.

But the Crusades were not fought for sake of advancing the gospel as much as it was for the sake of protecting the interests of Alexis I, the emperor of Constantinople and promoting the influence of Pope Urban II. The Jews surrendered their home to the Muslims in 638. It wasn’t until 1096 that the first Crusade was initiated. If it was a purely Christian impetus that inspired the Crusades, why did it take over 400 years for any kind of military campaign to be launched? Fact is, the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their territory to include Constantinople. Only then did Alexis I reach out to the Pope who was only too happy to seize the opportunity to extend his authority into what was previously an exclusively Greek Orthodox dynamic. Bottom line: The Crusades were about wealth and power and not the cause of Christ.

That’s not to say that providing aid to Alexis the First would’ve been an inappropriate gesture. But to offer forgiveness of one’s sin in exchange for taking up arms against the Turks…

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (portion of Pope Urban II’s speech at Council of Clermont, 1095)

…is not even remotely biblical let alone a “holy” war.

And as far as the kind of violence the you do see in Scripture, there’s a fundamental difference there as well.

War in the Bible versus Jihad

Dr. Emir Caner grew up as a Muslim and later, along with his brother, converted to Christianity. Part of what makes his story so compelling is that his father was a devout Muslim. According to the Hadith, you are to be put to death if you renounce your faith in Allah. Rather than following the Qur’an to the letter, their father chose instead to disown them and they never saw their father again until he was on their deathbed. He’s currently president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia.

He explains the difference between war from a biblical standpoint and the way it’s promoted in the Qur’an:

…war, in Christian thought has the express purpose of securing peace (see Timothy 2:2) and removing those who oppress and act wickedly (see Romans 13:1-7). But war in Islam is different both in its scope and purpose. The latter half of sura 9:5 commands, “But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees…

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).2

God and Allah

And it’s not just the difference in what prompts war. It comes down to the fundamental difference between God and Allah. Dr. Emir Caner is joined by his brother in the book, “Unveiling Islam.” Together they explain that:

The greatest difference between Jesus Christ as God and Savior and Muhammad as prophet of Allah, comes at this point. Jesus Christ shed His own blood on the cross so that people could come go to God. Muhammad shed other people’s blood so that his constituents could have political power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Further, since Muhammad is held to be the “excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day” (sura 33:21), we need to look no righter for explanation of violent acts with Islam than at the character of its founder. Was Muhammad a man of peace who shed other people’s blood only as a last resort? When he killed others, were his acts part of war or for personal vengeance? The answers to such questions tarnish the ethical integrity of the Islamic worldview.3

Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world. Allah is to be worshiped, period. Any who will not do so must be defeated, silenced, or expelled. The theme is conquest, not conversion, of the unbelieving world. Allah has called the Muslim to make the name of Allah alone to be worshiped. 4

At the end of the day, Christianity and Islam represent two vastly different paradigms, both in the natures of God and Allah as well as in the way they are to be championed and proliferated. A very short and succinct way of expressing the differences would be to simply reflect on how Allah invites his followers to die for him, whereas God says, “No, I’ll die for you.” But what about the way in which you are to treat your enemy from a Christian standpoint? Does Christian charity not demand that we as a nation welcome anyone within our borders, regardless of their intent?

Senior Intelligence Community officials assess the greatest international terrorist threats currently facing the United States come from violent extremists inspired by al-Qa‘ida, including its allies and affiliates, who are committed to conducting attacks inside the United States and abroad.

Loving Your Enemy versus Enabling Them

Here’s the thing: There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them. In 2 Kings 6, the Arameans were at war with Israel and had surrounded the city of Dothan in an effort to capture the prophet Elisha. Elisha prayed that God would strike the army with blindness and God honored Elisha’s request. Elisha then led the army into Samaria, at which point the eyes of the Aramean army were opened. Rather than destroying them, Israel fed them and sent them away. Afterwhich the king of Aram ceased to war with Israel. But that peace didn’t last. In the very next chapter, the nation of Aram is once again attacking Israel.

The point is, chapter six illustrates how a Christian is to deal with their enemy – with compassion. That isn’t to say that there are no casualties in the kind of warfare prosecuted by believers (2 Kings 18:8). The Arameans were no strangers to Israel. You see them throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, in 2 Samuel 8, King David killed 22,000 of them in a battle where they had tried to defeat Israel by fighting alongside the Zobahites.

But war in general is fought either as a last resort to subordinate a wicked ideology and ensure a lasting peace, or it is engaged for the sake of promoting a wicked ideology and advancing a quest for power. War is never choreographed nor is it scripted. By the time the situation has deteriorated to that point, horrific scenes are commonplace and those who survive that value life will carry with them scars and psychological wounds that they will bear for the rest of their lives. Individuals such as Hitler, however, had no problem sleeping at night because the presence of a breathing Jew –  or any who would offer them sanctuary-  was nothing more than an obstacle to overcome. A Hebrew was not a soul that Christ had died for. They were a social poison that was therefore unworthy of the dignity that every human being would otherwise rate when viewed through the lens of a Christian paradigm. Death and suffering were merely processes by which the Nazi archetype would be established.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Dt 20:10-15 [see also Lev 19:33])

That’s the distinction between war waged as a form of conquest and war waged in the name of justice. In both situations you have an enemy, but in the context of conquest, you have a nameless entity that needs to be eliminated. When the cause is just, on the other hand, the enemy is a human opponent that merits the consideration due a person that God valued enough to redeem.

But that doesn’t mean you hesitate to do whatever is required to subdue them should they attack (Num 21:1-3). Nor does it mean that you allow them to keep a sword in their hands as long as they remain a threat (see sidebar [Dt 20:10-11]).

When Israel went to war with neighboring nations, they were instructed to first make an offer of peace. It would be in the context of that offer that Israel’s enemy could demonstrate that they were no longer an enemy, but merely a foreigner that was now entitled to the same rights and privileges of an Israelite.

Take for example Uriah the Hittite. The Hittites were among those that Israel fought as part of the conquest of the Promised Land (Dt 20:17). Yet, Uriah is listed among David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 23:39). Uriah literally means, “My light is the Lord.” So, here’s an example of someone who’s lineage included a people group that had at one point been at war with Israel, but had since adopted the Israelite faith and proven his worth and integrity to the point where he was now serving in a prestigious, military position.

While we don’t have video footage of the feast the Jews held for their enemies, no doubt the mood of the Arameans was that of a conquered opponent. The reason the gesture resonated the way that it did was because it was deployed from a position of strength. It’s one thing to impress your enemy with a noble surrender, but when you have the higher ground, the impression you’re making by being compassionate can be even more powerful.

It’s Not a Courtroom, it’s Combat

In warfare, your enemy is not a mere criminal in that their agenda is not that of a common thief or a murderer. Rather, it’s the demise of the ideals that serve as the philosophical foundation upon which your nation is based.

That is their target.

When contending with an enemy soldier, it’s not a criminal attack that you’re trying, it’s a military attack that you’re combating. Hence, any kindness must be executed in a manner that prevents them for shaking hands with one hand and delivering a lethal blow with the other. It’s only when your foe is having to admit defeat or, at the very least, the very real likelihood of being overwhelmed, that your hospitality compels them to reevaluate their hatred for you and the value system you represent.

It should be noted as well that any pagan foreigner who chose to live among the Israelites was expected to obey the same laws that had been prescribed for the Jews (Num 15:16). The worship of Jehovah was not dictated (Ex 12:48) and the Israelites were commanded not to oppress or mistreat any foreigner (Ex 23:9). But as far as moral and criminal statutes – those laws were expected to be upheld.

In some instances, that might seem like a violation of one’s civil liberties – especially from today’s point of view. But you have to realize that it was the foreigner’s reverence for their pagan deities that served as the basis for their determination to destroy Israel. Committing to a new moral / legal code was not an infringement of their rights as much as it was a necessary pledge of allegiance to the general welfare of the Hebrew nation as opposed to its demise.

In Conclusion

Using Scripture as a template for the way in which the US is to approach the admission of 10,000 Muslims into our cities has to go beyond a hippie-like dismissal of evil based on a solitary Bible verse. Rather, it must be a comprehensive perspective of the Bible which includes the reason you are to love your enemies and the manner in which you are to make that love apparent.

Those who sneer at military action or condemn the use of deadly force forget that the opponent whose sole objective is power process their offer of peace as them simply removing themselves from the battlefield and exchanging the indignity of violence for the certainty of being destroyed.

  • Pacifism is not an application of of the Bible, it’s a distortion of it.
  • Socialism is not a system illustrated by the life of Christ, it’s a humanistic attempt to solve the problem of greed.
  • Loving your enemy is not about making yourself vulnerable to attack as much as it’s a victor’s kindness extended to their foe as an encouragement to change.

Unless it can be determined conclusively that a Syrian refugee is not inclined to embrace those portions of the Qur’an that condemn the infidel to death, you are welcoming into your neighborhood a potential threat. Offering aid and assistance is one thing, handing over the keys to your home is another. That’s not being disobedient to the Word of God, that’s an application of the wisdom contained within it.

1. “Middle East Forum”, “Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam”, David Bukay, 2007, http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam, accessed June 20, 2016)
2. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19
3. “Unveiling Islam”, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002, 2009, p20
4. Ibid, p90

The God Delusion | Part Two – What About Prayer?

/0 Comments/in /by

Dawkins 1 | God 0

Richard Dawkins, in his continued attempt to mock the legitimacy of the Christian faith, references something he refers to as “The Great Prayer Experiment.”

He explains…

...the physicist Russell Standard (one of Britain’s three well-known religious scientists, as we shall see) has thrown his weight behind an initiative, funded by – of course – the Templeton Foundation, to test experimentally the proposition that praying for sick patients improves their health. Such experiments, if done properly, have to be double blind, and this standard was strictly observed. The patients were assigned, strictly at random, to an experimental group (received prayers) or control group (received no prayers). Neither the patients, nor their doctors or caregivers, nor the experimenters were allowed to know which patients were being prayed for and which patients were controls. Those who did the experimental praying had to know the names of the individuals for whom they were praying  – otherwise, in what sense would they be praying for them rather than for somebody else? But care was taken to tell them on the first name and the initial letter of the surname. Apparently that would be enough to enable God to pinpoint the right hospital bed. The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous amount of ridicule, and the project duly received it. As far as I know, Bob Newhart didn’t do a sketch about it, but I can distinctly hear his voice:

What’s that you say, Lord? You can’t cure me because I’m a member of the control group?…Oh, I see, my aunt’s prayers aren’t enough. But Lord, Mr Evans in the next door bed…What was that, Lord?…Mr Evans received a thousand prayers per day? But Lord, Mr Evans doesn’t know a thousand people…Oh, the just referred to him as John E. But Lord, how di you know they didn’t mean John Ellsworth?…Oh right, you used your omniscience to work out which John E. they meant…1

The study that Dawkins references was done in 2006. The two groups were further divided into three sub groups:

  • people that knew they were being prayed for
  • people that were being prayed for and did not know it
  • people that received no prayers and didn’t know it

The results of the study were clear cut. There was no difference between those being prayed for and those who were not. There was a difference in the amount of suffering however, in that the people who knew they were being prayed for suffered more than those who weren’t being prayed for and had no clue.

Bottom line: Prayer doesn’t work, God isn’t real and to believe otherwise is either complete stupidity or an example of a blind faith that resolves to believe regardless of the quantifiable evidence that exists to refute it.

Dawkins: 1 | God: 0

A Weak Response

Dawkins cites several theologians who embarrass themselves by attempting to explain the results in the context of how God either uses suffering to accomplish His Purposes or such studies are pointless in that they attempt to quantify God – which you can’t do.

It’s not that they don’t have a point. God does use suffering to strengthen a believer’s faith (Romans 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:3-7). But it also says that you mourn with those who mourn (Rom 12:15).

It is encouraging to know that God has a Purpose and He can be trusted when you’re going through a hard time, but you telling someone they should be “happy” when something terrible has happened is not always helpful. And saying that you can plot the Reality of God on a graph or prove His existence on a calculator is no different than saying you can package love in a shoebox or reproduce peace in a test tube. God is more than a “result,” just like a person is more than a photograph.

Still, you should be able to expect some kind of material evidence to support the validity of the Christian faith and when a clergyman responds to a test like this by saying people should welcome suffering or God can’t be “proven,” their responses sound pretty weak and Dawkins’ argument appears to be all the more compelling.

If God’s real, and prayer supposedly is a person asking God for something, then it follows that, in a study such as this, you should see some kind of evidence that God is at least listening. No?

Dawkins concludes by assuming that the “faithful” will soldier on, despite the lack of evidence and proof, and wait it out until they get the result they want.

But Wait

It’s interesting because, while the study Dawkins cites occurred in 2006, there’s an article in Newsmax magazine entitled, “Studies Prove the Healing Power of Prayer” that references several similar studies that produced much different results:

  • The American Journal of Public Health studied nearly 2,000 older Californians for five years and found that those who attended religious services were 36 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.
  • A study of nearly 4,000 older adults for the U.S. Journal of Gerontology revealed that atheists had a significantly increased chance of dying over a six-year period than the faithful.
  • Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship.
  • The American Society of Hypertension established in 2006 that church-goers have lower blood pressure than non-believers.
  • Scientists have also revealed believers recover from breast cancer quicker than non-believers, have better outcomes from coronary disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and are less likely to have children with meningitis.
  • Research at San Francisco General Hospital looked at the effect of prayer on 393 cardiac patients. Half were prayed for by strangers who had only the patients’ names. Those patients had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia, and needed less drug treatment.They also got better quicker and left the hospital earlier.

So, which studies do you believe? And why does Dawkins not acknowledge other similar studies that actually reinforce the utility and the Power of prayer?

That’s a question that may not ever get a satisfactory answer, but let’s take a minute and look at Scripture.

In Jesus’ Name

First of all, God is not a vending machine. You don’t simply put in your “prayer coin,” pull a lever and expect Divine machinations come to life, spit out the result you want, in the timeframe you’re expecting. He’s God, you’re not. The Bible makes some pretty broad sounding guarantees when it comes to prayer.

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt 7:7-8)

On surface, it looks like if you position your appeal just right, you’re gold! Whatever you want, whatever you need – it’s yours. But look at John 14:

13 And I will do whatever you ask  in my name , so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything  in my name , and I will do it. (Jn 14:13-14)

 “In my Name” is more than just a poetic compliment to your prayer. “In the Name of Jesus,” or “in Jesus’ Name” invokes a dynamic that establishes the Priority and the Precedence of God. Specifically, His Will:

14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to  his will,  he hears us.15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 Jn 5:13-14)

And that’s not a “hidden clause.” That’s consistent with the kind of approach you would expect in a wise, father figure. A child can approach their Dad for anything they want, but the Dad isn’t going to respond in the affirmative if the child asks for a machine gun. Take a look at Matthew 18:19-20:

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matt 7:9-11)

You see where this is all going?

God sees you and your life laid out before Him in a way that’s not limited by the constraints of time and space. He knows what’s best from womb to tomb.

Ask.

Absolutely!

But ask knowing that should He say, “No,” or “Wait,” it’s not Him being cruel and it’s certainly not a prompt to doubt His Reality. Rather, it’s a cue to remember His Sovereignty which is Ultimately founded on an unconditional love and an uncompromising commitment to our welfare.

You Don’t Talk to Your Father That Way

When satan was attempting to get Jesus to make some compromises, he honed in on, what would naturally be, a logical means by which Christ could recruit the attention and the admiration of those He sought to save by throwing Himself down off the top of the temple and emerge unharmed (Matt 4:5-7).

Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16,  saying that you don’t put the Lord your God to the test. That passage in Deuteronomy is referring the scenario in Exodus when the Israelites were on the march and had come to point where they were without water. Despite very recent demonstrations of God’s Power and Presence in the context of all the miracles He had done in their midst, here they are now asking, point blank, “Is God among us or not? (Ex 17:7)”

Kind of like the study Dawkins wants to use to demonstrate the Reality of God.

“You do what I want you to do, when I want you to do it, and I’ll give you a second look…”

That doesn’t sound like a reverent request as much as it sounds like a belligerent demand. It’s almost like a child approaching their Dad insisting that unless he gives them that machine gun, they’re going to throw a fit. Things like “You don’t love me!” or “You’re not my real Dad!” are shouted in response to their father’s refusal to meet their demand. Whether they’re legitimate expressions of indignation or strategic phrases deployed for the purpose of securing a specific outcome, either way, it’s wrong. Especially if what the father is withholding from his child is something that could prove harmful.

Yet, that’s the approach some take with God. It’s not healthy let alone appropriate. You don’t talk to your Father that way.

There’s a degree of audacity represented by a human being looking at God and saying, “Oh yeah? Prove it!” Yet, from Dawkins’ perspective, there’s nothing audacious about it because he views humanity as being an absolute in and of themselves.

The cross is foolishness to unbelievers (1 Cor 1:18) and it makes sense. If you’re not convinced that you need forgiveness, then what’s the purpose of a Savior? If you answer to yourself and yourself alone, then the notion of a God is at once ridiculous and intrusive.

That was the mindset being addressed by Jesus when He responded to the Pharisees who were demanding a sign by saying, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matt 16:4) It’s similar to the way God responded to Job who, seemingly had every reason to be indignant with God, by saying, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job 38:3)

Do you smell what’s on the stove?

Brace Yourself Like a Man

Consider the created order (Rom 1:20), contemplate the miracle of grace (Rom 5:8). Recognize who and what you are before your King and appreciate the gift that He’s given to you, as far as your ability to ask for things in prayer, (Matt 7:7-12; Heb 4:16).

Park there for a minute.

It’s a gift!

You need to be careful to process it as something that has been given to you by God and not a license to make demands of God. You don’t talk to your Father that way and should you feel inclined to be a little indignant, remember Who set the planets in motion and initiated the pumping action of your heart.

Most of all, be mindful of the fact that the One you’re getting ready to criticize is the One Who secured a “non-guilty” verdict for you by dying on the cross.

Brace yourself like a man…

A Privilege to be Revered

Perhaps the most succinct refutation of Dawkins’ outlook on prayer in that it is not a practice to be evaluated by man, rather it is a privilege to be revered by man. And to abuse it as a means to test God is to make the focus of your prayer your own arrogance.

In that moment you’re not conversing with the Almighty as much as you’re just talking to hear yourself speak (Matt 6:5-15).

Perhaps that’s why He taught us to begin our conversations with Him by saying: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:9-10 [emphasis added])

Your Kingdom, Your will, because… You’re God.

1. “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, Great Britain, 2006, p86-87

The Truth | Part Two: Christianity

/0 Comments/in /by

A question can serve as a powerful tool to reveal the difference between what’s real and what’s preferred.

Depending on who you’re talking to, it’s not always an easy distinction to make because of the way some see themselves as their own absolute. Truth is whatever they choose to endorse based on the extent to which it makes them happy. However compelling the evidence may be that demonstrates the fallacy of their argument, they can undermine its effectiveness by insisting that it’s either irrelevant or unreliable. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is incontrovertible. When the only standard that you answer to is the one who stares back at you in the mirror every morning, you can restrict the information being considered to only those facts that reinforce the idea that you are your own bottom line.

When you ask a question, however, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal.

But the right question can do more than just influence the direction of a dialogue, it can reveal the truth and those who are opposed to it.

That’s how Jesus was able to successfully contend with the Pharisees – He asked them questions that required legitimate answers and not just strategic responses. Just like it’s possible to be honest without telling the whole truth, you can sound like you have a point and yet be completely wrong simply by emphasizing certain aspects of an issue and ignoring all that would otherwise provide context and a more complete understanding of what is being discussed.

In some instances, it’s ignorance. But in other scenarios, it’s a willful disregard that masquerades as either critical thinking or a wounded disposition. Those that pose as either enlightened thinkers or victims that need attention are rehearsed, conditioned, and encouraged by a society that promotes the individual as his own absolute and if you have a complaint, you automatically have a cause.

You don’t reason with someone who’s god is their stomach (Rom 16:18; Phil 3:19), but that doesn’t change the mandate we have to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have (1 Pet 3:15). And that hope isn’t limited to what happens when your heart stops beating, it’s the hope that we have that regardless of the situation that we’re in, there’s a Truth to be discovered that translates to wisdom (Jas 1:5), strength (Eph 1:19; Phil 2:13; Col 1:29), and peace (Is 26:3; Phil 4:7).

So, while those who are determined to maintain themselves as their own deity are philosophically invested in a lie that will not be surrendered, regardless of the liberty and the power freely offered by the Truth (Jn 8:32), you still want to be able to champion what’s right and do it in a way that makes a difference and doesn’t just make a noise.

And one of the ways you can do that is to ask the right questions.

Here are some questions you can ask that demonstrate the validity of the Christian doctrine.

1) Every religion on earth empowers the individual with the ability to earn their way into heaven, except one. Which religion is it?

a) Islam
b) Judaism
c) Christianity
d) Scientology

As a Muslim, your eternal destiny is determined by your behavior on earth. You’re required to obey the Five Pillars of Islam and Jihad is also a way of being able to gain favor with Allah.

As a Jew, you’re status is improved with “mitzvahs,” or good works.

Scientology asserts that you are a thetan – an entity that exists separately from the body and you improve your thetan by clearing it from the engrams that prevent it from functioning more freely.

While there are no Eastern religions mentioned here, they fall into the same category. A Buddhist is looking to end suffering by achieving Nirvana in the context of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Hindus pursue Moksha in order to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth.

Christianity says that you are a spiritual corpse and there’s nothing you can do to improve your status or your destiny (Ps 14:3; Is 64:6; 1 Cor 2:12; Eph 2:1); . Rather, salvation is a gift that you receive by faith (Eph 2:8-9). You do not earn you way into heaven. It’s by God’s grace alone and, from that standpoint, it’s the only true religion because it’s the only creed where man cannot be his own deity.

For more reading on this, read “Either God is God or man is god” and “COEXIST.”

Bottom line: Not all religions are the same.

2) Which work of antiquity is considered to be the most accurate rendering of the original text? The Illiad by Homer or the New Testament?

a) The New Testament
b) The Illiad

When looking to verify the validity of any ancient text, you’re looking at two things:

  • How many original manuscripts (MSS) do we have today?
  • How long was it before the first copy and the initial writing of the text in question?

The Iliad, by Homer is considered to be classic and was a standard in intellectual circles for centuries. Look at how the two works compare with one another in terms of textual integrity:

Textual Integrity of the New Testament
work when written earliest copy time span # of copies
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 1,757
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years 23,769
originally quoted from “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and since updated according to “The Bibliographical Test Updated“

From a purely academic standpoint, the New Testament is the most academically verifiable work of antiquity that we have today.

To read more about this, head out to “The Accuracy of Scripture: Part Two – The New Testament.”

Bottom line: The New Testament is an accurate rendering of the original text.

3) What did the early disciples gain by insisting that Jesus had risen from the grave?

a) Wealth
b) Power
c) Fame
d) none of the above
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said it best when he said, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

There are no historical records that document how the apostles died, but there is certainly no documentation that suggests they got wealthy or became powerful. Instead, the only traditions that exist are those that say they all suffered a martyr’s death. John wrote the book of Revelation from the island of Patmos (Rev 1:9) and he may have been the only apostle who died of natural causes.

The thing to notice, however, is that if the resurrection of Christ was nothing more than a marketing campaign that could be used to make money and promote one’s social and political status, the reputation of the disciples would’ve been far better documented and underscored as something other than how to become a disciple of Christ, you must take up your cross and die. (Mk 8:34-35; Lk 9:23; Gal 5:24).

Bottom line: You don’t become a Christian to improve yourself. Rather, you become a Christian when you’re ready to surrender yourself (Lk 14:33; Rom 6:13).

4) Simeon bar Kosba was a second century Jew that was endorsed as the Messiah by the greatest rabbi of the time, Akiva ben Yosef. Why is he not more well known?

a) he didn’t win any military battles
b) the Romans didn’t have to work hard to defeat him
c) because he’s dead

Simeon bar Kosba is not more well known because he’s dead.

H.P. Liddon said in one of his more well known sermons, “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.” (“The Power of Christ’s Resurrection“) He makes a good point in that Jesus didn’t just preach and perform, He died and came back to life. That what makes Christ distinctive and what makes Christianity such a standout in that a Christian doesn’t put their faith in a messenger or a great teacher. Rather, they are putting their faith in God Incarnate.

The Bible is very transparent about this when it says, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Cor 15:19). It is the Resurrection that makes all the difference and that is why we know about Jesus Christ and all of the others who claimed messianic status don’t even register.

Bottom line: The reason we worship Christ and don’t just remember Him is because His tomb is empty.

5) Which miracle did Jesus say would prove that He was the Son of God?

a) healed people who were blind
b) feeding of the 5,000
c) his death and resurrection
d) bringing Lazarus back to life

Jesus stated specifically that what would “prove” that He was the Son of God was His death and Resurrection:

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. (Matt 12:39-41)

Bottom line: Jesus, through His Resurrection, demonstrated His Authority over death and, ultimately, His Authority over all things (Matt 28:18-20).

6) When you see a painting, you see a painter. When you see a building, you see a builder. When you see a cupcake, you see a baker. When an atheist looks at the universe, he sees…

a) an accident
b) a cosmos created by a loving God
c) the work of an impersonal deity

The Pew Research Center, in their survey entitled, “Views About Human Evolution Among Atheists” concluded that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics believe that human beings are the result of Natural Selection.  And for those who are looking for a scientific sounding reason to deny the need for God to have created the heavens and the earth can find what they’re looking for in articles such as “The Big Bang Didn’t Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say.”1

The problem with the atheistic approach is that, regardless of how they attempt to explain the origin of the universe, they can’t do so without assuming the preexistence of the necessary matter and processes that have the capacity to somehow combine into a molecule.

For example, some want to assert the idea that a quantum vacuum qualifies as absolute nothingness and fluctuations within this quantum vacuum could conceivably create an entire universe.

Sir Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton. A brilliant scientist that is aptly described by a quote coming from Neil deGrasse Tyson, when he was asked which scientist he would like to meet. He responded by saying, “Isaac Newton. No question about it. The smartest person ever to walk the face of this earth. The man was connected to the universe in spooky ways. He discovered the laws of motion, the laws of gravity, the laws of optics. Then he turned 26.”4

It’s an insanely unlikely scenario, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that however a “quantum vacuum” implies the complete absence of matter, it is actually a sea of fluctuating energy. So, with that theory, however popular it may be, it is nevertheless a self-defeating axiom because it isn’t a vacuum at all.

Dr. William Lane Craig is a member of nine professional societies, including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Afflilation, and the Philsophy of Time Society. He’s written several books and he makes a great observation about the nonsensical plight of the atheist who wants to eliminate God from the debate pertaining to the origin of the universe, specifically when attempting to use the idea that a quantum vacuum can produce life as we know it in that quantum physics has to have a starting point and you can’t use it to explain itself.

…you’ve got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being…If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself.2

Atheists often attempt to validate their position by declaring their theories to be rooted in science, yet their explanations are rarely observable let alone repeatable. And however cynical they may be when it comes to faith based paradigms pertaining to the origin of the cosmos, they seemingly forget that some of the greatest scientific minds that humanity has ever produced saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms.

…here’s a partial list of leading scientists who were believers: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descrates, Bolye, Newton, Leibiz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Levin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Palnck, Mendel. A good number of these scientists were clergymen. Gassendi and Mersenne were priests. So was Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian astronomer who first proposed the “Big Bang” theory of the universe. Mendel, whose discovery of the principles of heredity would provide vital support for the theory of evolution, spent his entire life as a monk in an Augustinian monastery. Where would science be without these men? Some were Protestant and some were Catholic, but all saw their scientific vocation in distinctively Christian terms.3

In short, however dogmatic atheists may be in declaring the universe to be a byproduct of purely random and unexplainable phenomenon, their logic is quickly revealed as being more metaphysical baggage that scientific integrity. 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.

For more information, read, “I Dare You: Part One-Creation.”

Bottom line: Everything that’s been made has a Maker (Rom 1:20).

7) What does man deserve from God?

a) an explanation
b) a verdict
c) an accommodation

Some want to believe that if God doesn’t function in the way they believe He should behave, that proves He doesn’t exist. You’ll hear some suggest that if God was everything He claimed to be, there wouldn’t be any natural disasters or nonsensical tragedies.

Others want to believe that they deserve a special accommodation, in that their conduct isn’t as bad as others and for that reason they should be granted some kind of Divine concession rather than the judgement they would otherwise receive.

But every bit of pain and suffering is a result of a choice that humanity, not only made in the Garden of Eden, but the choice that every human being makes every day when they walk up to God as He’s sitting on His Throne and tells Him to get out of their chair (Gen 2:17; Ps 14:1; Rom 3:12).

What makes sin so toxic isn’t just the sin itself as much as it’s Who you’re sinning against (Is: 40:12-14; 45:9-10).

When you take an honest inventory of Who God is, the idea that a human being would have the audacity to disobey Him or to rebel against Him is unconscionable, and yet..; .

…that’s what we do all day, every day (Rom 3:23).

He made it clear that the consequences of sin would have a terrible impact, not just in the context of eternal judgment, but even in the context of natural disasters (Rom 8:19-21). This is what we choose and for that reason we deserve a verdict and nothing less.

But while we chose to rebel against Him, He nevertheless chose to save us (Rom 5:8). The havoc we brought upon ourselves, the death that we choose everyday, the rebellion we stage and the consequences we embrace are all a result of a sinful disposition against God and not because of a weak or an indifferent God.

It’s not that you accept or dismiss the pain caused by a tragedy as an unavoidable curse leveled against humanity by a cruel deity. Instead, you regard it as a chosen part of the human experience that God in His Grace offers to help, heal, and ultimately redeem.

But in order to experience that redemption and assistance, you first have to be able to admit that you need redemption and assistance, and that’s why Christianity is such a challenge for some. They would rather pretend to be their own absolute so they can be evaluated according to a standard of their own making, rather than have to answer to their Creator and be told that they can’t secure admission into heaven according to their own merit.

Bottom line: “You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary.” (Jonathan Edwards)

1. “The Big Bang Didn’t Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say”, Mike Wall, June 24, 2012, space.com, https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html, accessed January 20, 2025
2. “The Case For a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p101
3. “What’s So Great About Christianity”, Dinesh D’Souza, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois, 2007, p99
4. “Neil deGrasse Tyson > Quotes > Quotable Quote”, goodreads.com, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/598930-when-asked-about-which-scientist-he-d-like-to-meet-neil, accessed January 20, 2025

I Dare You | Part Two: The Resurrection

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Truly Thankful…

/0 Comments/in /by

The Act of Uniformity in 1662 insisted that all public prayers be restricted to what was documented in the Common Book of Prayer. In other words, rather than praying in a way that reflected your personal regard and need for God, you were now simply reciting a scripted statement crafted according to a pattern sanctioned by the state.1

Sacraments were more than just ceremonies, the way we might take communion. The exercise itself was considered to be capable of “saving” those who participated.2

In addition, it mandated that all those who served in church leadership positions be ordained according to an Episcopal format rather than the qualifications documented in the Bible that emphasized a commitment to Christ more so than a commitment to the monarchy.3

This resulted in something called the “Great Ejection” where over 2,000 ministers were expelled from the Church of England because they refused to commit to what they perceived to be a state sanctioned corruption of Scripture.

Back then, the church was the government and the government was the church. You didn’t dispute matters of doctrine without simultaneously questioning the authority of the king. “Religious Persecution” was much more than just a heated debate. It often translated to imprisonment, torture, and even death.4

It was during this time that you had a number of people who believed the Church of England needed to be “purified” and they became known as the “Puritans.”

Varying levels of “purity” were insisted upon. Those that were determined to separate completely from the Church of England relocated to Holland and from there sailed to what we know today as Massachusetts.

Without an understanding of what “religious persecution” really entailed and an appreciation for the sacrifices and the hardships the Pilgrims endured, it’s easy to gloss over the significance of Thanksgiving.

The Pilgrims left Holland in September of 1620 with 102 passengers. They arrived in Plymouth Harbor in December of that same year. During the first two months, while houses were being built, as many as two to three people died every day. Only 52 people survived the first year in Plymouth.5

It was in the Fall of 1621 that the Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest. That was the celebration that would later be the basis for the holiday we celebrate as Thanksgiving. They had forfeited all that was familiar and reliable and exchanged it for an environment that was oftentimes lethal. But with the help of the God they were determined to serve and worship according to the Word of God and not an act of Parliament, they had endured and they were able to establish a pattern and a premise that would go on to result in the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America.

In 1789, Congress recommended to President Washington to establish a national day of public thanksgiving and prayer. This wasn’t new territory. Congress had recommended a National Day of Prayer and Fasting on sixteen different occasions during the war for Independence. But this was different in that it was not so much an appeal for help as much as it was a word of thanks.

By this point, the Revolutionary War had been won and the Constitution had been ratified (June 21, 1788). There was a lot to be thankful for and it wasn’t just a generic feeling of gratitude for a collection of favorable circumstances. It was an intentional acknowledgement of the One Who protects and provides a resolution to tyranny and persecution and, ultimately the problem of our national and individual sins.

This is our heritage and this is the context of Thanksgiving. Let us be truly thankful…

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington6

  1. “Does God Hear Scripted Prayers”, Greg Salazar, “Desiring God”, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-hear-scripted-prayers, accessed November 17, 2024
  2. “What’s the Difference Between Ordinances and Sacraments”, GotQuestions.org, https://www.gotquestions.org/ordinances-sacraments.html, accessed November 17, 2024
  3. “Christian liberty: the Puritans in Britain and America”, “Christian History Institute”, https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/christian-liberty-puritans-in-britain-and-america, accessed November 17, 2024
  4. “Marian Persecutions”, https://samplecontents.library.ph/wikipedia/wp/m/Marian_persecutions.htm, accessed November 17, 2024
  5. “Who Were the Pilgrims”, “Plimoth / Patuxet Museums”, https://plimoth.org/for-students/homework-help/who-were-the-pilgrims”, accessed November 17, 2024
  6. “Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091, accessed November 17, 2024

This is a post with post format of type Link

/0 Comments/in /by

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus.

This is a standard post format with preview Picture

/0 Comments/in /by

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi.

Read more

Post Formats is a theme feature introduced with Version 3.1. Post Formats can be used by a theme to customize its presentation of a post.
/0 Comments/in /by

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus – more on WordPress.org: Post Formats

Postformat Gallery: Multiple images with different sizes

/0 Comments/in /by

Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lor

Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem.

Read more