The Federal Deficit

/in /by

Many of those who despise President Trump justify their hatred by insisting that he’s a heinous human being and anyone who supports him is just as sinister.

There was a question on Quora that I attempted to answer and it was, yet again, another situation where you feel as though no amount of facts can sway someone who’s determined to ignore anything other than what they want to hear.

At one point in the exchange, she said this:

…the US federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2026 (starting Oct 1, 2025) stands at approximately $1.17 trillion for the first six months, representing the third-worst first-half in history. While slightly lower than the same period in FY2025, the deficit remains historically high, with total FY2026 projections nearing $1.85.

When you read, “The US deficit is now at $1.17 trillion over the first 6 months of FY2026, the 3rd-worst first-half in history,” you are inclined to think the US economy is weak and getting progressively weaker.

The problem with that perspective is that it doesn’t take into consideration other information that significantly changes the conclusion that number by itself would imply.

Take a look…

Biden
2023 1.695 trillion + 138 billion “President Biden and Vice President Harris have ignored resounding messages from Iowans and Americans nationwide, as well as alarms from global credit ratings companies. By consistently choosing a spendthrift agenda over fiscal sanity, this administration has hamstrung our economy for generations to come,” Grassley said. “Our nation needs a change of pace from the one this administration has set. Vice President Harris’ recent proposals, however, signal an unwillingness to meaningfully address Americans’ concerns and a readiness to double down on policies that have caused major consequences, like prices rising over 20 percent in less than four years.” United States Senate Committee on the Budget
2024 1.833 trillion
Trump
2025 1.78 trillion -50 billion WASHINGTON, DC –Today, the Joint Economic Committee released its Monthly Fiscal Update. In FY2025, the nation ended with a $1.78 trillion deficit, $50 billion (2.8 percent) less than FY2024. Leading to the decreased deficit impact was the record-setting tariff collections of $195 billion for FY2025, increased tax receipts, and modifications to the student loan program authorized in the 2025 reconciliation act. While customs duties jumped significantly in FY2025, it still accounts for only 3.7 percent of total receipts. United States Congress Joint Economic Committee
2026 1.2 trillion (first half) -139 billion WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its monthly budget review which estimated the federal budget deficit totaled $1.2 trillion in the first half of fiscal year 2026. That amount is $139 billion less than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) released the following statement:

“The non-partisan CBO recently did a comparison of the first six months of last fiscal year (FY25) with the first six months of this fiscal year (FY26). The report showed that the combination of savings from cutting bureaucratic waste and increased revenue from tariffs helped lower the deficit by $139b, which is over 10%. If we continue cutting waste and fraud from the federal government as well as incentivizing economic growth, we will stabilize the debt and put our nation on a credible path to balance going to 3% deficit-to-GDP from 6% over the next several years.”

 Budget Committee 

If you take a closer look at the 2025 statement made by the Joint Economic Committee, you’ll see how they highlight the fact that the 2025 deficit was 50 billion dollars less than the last year of the Biden administration.

Then, if you take a look at what this year’s Budget Committee said,  despite the sobering amount represented by the first six months of this year, we’re nevertheless 139 billion dollars less than the same time last year.

So, would it not make sense to be encouraged by this number, based on the way it can be compared to last year’s situation which represented a 50 billion dollar improvement over the previous year?

Absolutely!

But if you’re determined to ignore anything that doesn’t promote what you want to believe, not only will your conclusions never be accurate, but you’ve restricted yourself and anyone else impacted by your thought processes to a world of pain and problems.

However nonsensical that may sound, it is precisely what happens when you’re resolved to define truth according to what you feel as opposed to what is real and that is the fundamental dispute that fuels all of the political tension that exists in our society today.

Faith

/in /by

Moses

Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. (Acts 7:22)

Before the burning bush, Moses was already one amazing individual.

When the book of Acts describes him as someone who was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” that means he was taught in the context of the same sort of intellect that built the pyramids (see sidebar).

He most likely would’ve received training in history, chemistry, and military tactics. In short, he would’ve been more than prepared to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

And yet…

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Num 12:3)

A King’s Education

Moses was adopted and raised in the house of the daughter of Pharaoh, which meant he lived in the royal household. Acts 7:22 states, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.” From this verse we see that Moses had all the education of the known world available while in the royal house of Pharaoh. Any university or tutoring scholar, as it were, would have deemed it a privilege to tutor the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.

Egypt was, at that time, one of the most productive and progressive countries of the known world, with educational achievements far above any other land. Their economic and social life, too, was highly developed. Even today, Egypt’s colossal pyramids, with their mathematical precision, confound the understanding of the most educated builders in the world. This was the environment in which Moses was raised from his youth. (Portand Bible College | The Call of Moses)

That’s significant because, according to Scripture, Moses spoke to God face to face…

The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Ex 33:11)

That just makes Moses all the more admirable.

He was an accomplished military tactician, he was educated, and he was a prince. He would be the one who lead the Israelites through the Red Sea, he would write the first five books of the Old Testament and he would be revered throughout the ages as the great Law Giver (The Ten Commandments).

And in the midst of this, he was authentically humble.

Faithful

Yet, it wasn’t his humility that God appreciated, it was his faithfulness:

“When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num 12:6-8)

It’s not surprising that God would underscore Moses’ faith as being Moses’ most admirable characteristic given the way faith is described in Hebrews:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6)

When you’re faithful, you’re not just obedient, you’re consistently obedient. And the reason you’re obedient is not just because you want to stay out of trouble, it’s because you want to honor the One Who’s showing you what to do.

It Comes From Him

But you can’t truly honor something that you doubt. Inevitably, compromise seemingly becomes necessary in order to accommodate the possibility that the object of your faith isn’t entirely trustworthy.

You see that in James 1:5-8

5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. (Jas 1:5-8)

The good news is that the faith that we want and need is not something that we have to manufacture within ourselves. God gives you the faith that you need. Both the faith that you used to accept the gospel as your bottom line (Eph 2:8), and the faith that you use to navigate your everyday activities is a something that comes from Him.

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Rom 12:3)

You’ve Got to Ask

But while the faith you need is always available, it’s not automatic. Just like you have to plug in your phone to keep it charged, you have to keep your brain connected to your King in order to access the Resources you need to keep both your perspective and your performance in line (2 Pet 1:3). You do that by spending time with Him – talking to Him in prayer and letting Him speak to you through His Word (Lk 11:9-12; 2 Tim 3:16-17). When you do that, you’re keeping both your powers of observation (Rom 8:6; 12:2) as well as your imagination (Is 26:3) founded on what amounts to Perfect Peace and Power.

Today and Tomorrow

Faith isn’t the ability to know the future as much as it’s a confidence in the One Who does (Matt 6:25-34). Ask for the faith that you need (Lk 17:5; Mk 9:24) and let yourself be energized by the Perspective that transforms both the moment in front of you and the road ahead.

For further reading: Why You Want to be Spiritually Ripped

How Do You Know?

/in , , , , /by

If you were asked, “How do you know that Jesus really did die and come back to life?” how would you respond, if you couldn’t point to the Bible as a Resource?

It’s Current

We wouldn’t still be talking about the Resurrection today unless it really happened.

Simon Ben Kosiba is one of a handful of “counterfeit” Jewish Messiahs that were revered as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy, but we don’t hear about them today because…

…they’re dead.

It works.

You live your life according to biblical principles, you benefit. If you opt to ignore those same principles, you have to deal with the consequences.

Some may respond by saying, “Well, it works for you…” While that’s not always the case, more often than not, that response comes from a mindset that wants to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences in order to justify maintaining themselves as their own bottom line.

If you’re not sinning, then you’re not lying, you’re not stealing, and you’re loving your neighbor as yourself. You’re on a much better path than if you were doing things differently and that applies to everyone.

It makes sense.

Every “religion” empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. After a while, that starts to sound a little suspicious in that the focus is more on you and what you’re capable of despite the obvious limitations of the human condition.  As a Christian, the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. That makes more sense in that the emphasis is now more on God – Who He is and what He’s capable of rather than on the individual and what they’re obviously not able to do.

For further reading, check out COEXIST.

What Does It Mean to be Saved?

/in /by

Being “saved” sometimes resonates as something illusive. You hear terms like “evangelical,” “born again,” “redeemed…”

But what does it mean and how does one make it happen?

First of all, let’s look at a couple of questions and scenarios that will help rule out some things that can be distracting otherwise.

You and Your Typical Demon

Imagine two individuals—one is a demon the other is a believer. Try to determine which one is which based on the way they might answer the following questions:

Question #1: Do you believe in God?  

James 2:19 says:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (Jas 2:19)

Based on that passage, what do you think the demon would say?

Question #2: Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?

In Matthew 8:29, several demons see Jesus coming and they say:

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”  (Matt 8:29)

Obviously the believer would answer yes, but how do you think the demon will reply based on the verse we just read?

Question #3: Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

Again, the believer is going to answer yes. What’s the demon’s answer going to be?

Colossians 2:15 says: 

“And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he (Jesus) made a public spectacle of them (Satan and demons), triumphing over them by the cross.” (Col 2:15)

Based on those two verses, how do you think the demons would answer? What do you think? Is there a difference in the way our two individuals answered the questions? Let’s take a minute and review what was asked:

  • Do you believe in God?
  • Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?
  • Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?

There’s no difference between these two individuals based on the questions that were asked. Both answered in exactly the same way. James 2:19 indicates that demons believe in God. Matthew 8:29 quotes a demon as accurately referring to Jesus as God’s Son, and it’s evident from the other Scriptures we looked at that the devil and those who serve him are very aware of the defeat that was dealt them when Jesus rose from the grave.

Do you smell that?

That’s the aroma of reality.

The fact is, demons “believe” that Jesus is God’s Son and that He rose from the grave. So, there’s got to be something else besides just a willingness to acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure with some theological substance attached to Him.

But what?

Believing With Your Heart

When you believe something in your mind, it changes the way you think. But when you believe something in your heart, it changes the way you live. You see that idea expressed in Proverbs 4:23:

“Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Prov. 4:23)

It’s significant that Scripture references the heart as what constitutes the source of who you are rather than the mind. Some maintain that if you can change a person’s mind, you can change who they are, but who someone is as a person is determined by more than mere facts. Two people can be confronted with the exact same scenario and be presented with the exact same set of information yet process it differently because who you are determines the way you think.

With that in mind, take a look at Romans 10:9-10:

“That is you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Rom. 10:9-10).

“It’s with your heart that you believe.” It’s comparable to that situation where someone agrees that diet and exercise are healthy habits. But it’s the one who actually engages those habits that demonstrates a belief that resides in his heart.

So, Jesus isn’t just “the” Messiah, He’s “my” Messiah. He’s not just King of kings, He’s “my” King. He’s my Creator, He’s my Redeemer, He is my Lord.

A Complete Transformation

Your belief doesn’t merely qualify you as morally perfect before God – which is what happens when you accept God’s gift of grace.1 It also facilitates a complete transformation of who you are.

 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Cor 5:17)

When you make the Reality of Christ your reality – when you’re recognizing that what He did on the cross was for you in the most direct and personal way possible – at that point, you’re no longer respecting a Nativity scene or a crucifix, you’re now sitting down with the Son of God as your Savior and not just a lifeless idea.2 In that moment, you go from being a spiritual corpse to having a spiritual pulse.3 Your membership into the Kingdom of God is now guaranteed,4, but you’re also operating according to an entirely new internal paradigm in that God’s Spirit is living in you.

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard that word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). [See also Jn. 14:17; Gal. 4:7.]

It’s His Spirit that’s now providing a Voice that, up to now, wasn’t even available (see Eph 2:1). This Voice is now guiding you and giving you a new kind of desire for doing the right thing at the right time in the right way for all the right reasons.5

Conclusion

Let’s go back to the Q/A session with two individuals we were envisioning at the beginning of our discussion. Let’s imagine that they have to answer one more question, and here it is:

Does the Spirit of Christ live in you?

Romans 8:9 says:

“You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.” (Rom 8:9)

What would the demon say, what would the believer say?

What would you say?

According to Romans 8:9, that is the determining factor. That is what distinguishes the believer from the demon in our scenario.

There are many who go through life having convinced themselves that they’re believers—thinking that a mental acknowledgment of Christ’s reality equates to the saving belief referenced in Scripture. It’s not an uncommon fallacy, but it is nevertheless a departure from God’s Word that is both tragic and lethal.

On the other hand, the belief that comes from the heart that manifests itself as a personal conviction and not just a mental acknowledgement opens the door to a relationship with the One Who put the stars in their place and gives you, not only a guarantee of an eternity spent with Him, but a life that’s truly worth living as long as you’re walking this earth.

That’s what it means to be saved!

The Billy Graham Association has a great piece that will walk you through the verses and the subsequent steps you need to take to make Christ your personal Savior and not just a mental picture. Click here to read more.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:22; Titus 3:5; Hebrew 10:15-18
2. Revelation 3:20
3. Ephesians 2:1; 2:3-5
4. John 1:12; 14:3
5. Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:12; ; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29; 1 Peter 1:15-16

The Right to be Wrong

/in /by

The total population of the United States was reduced by 2% as a result of the casualties inflicted by the Civil War.1 It wasn’t fought over economic disputes. Financial disagreements are quickly revealed as trivial once the horrors of war park themselves in your front yard. And while it’s not inaccurate to say that the war was fought over slavery, there’s more to it than that. The bottom line is that the Civil War was fought over the way a human being was to be defined.

There were four political parties that came to the table during the Presidential election in 1860: The Northern Democrats, the Southern Democrats, the Republican Party and the Constitutional Union Party.2 Each of these parties was defined by their stance on slavery. The reason the Republican Party chose newcomer Abraham Lincoln as their champion is because of the way he was able to identify the core issue at the heart of the slavery debate.

Many were distracted by the South’s justification of slavery by categorizing as a matter of “state’s rights.” Lincoln handily dismantled that argument. At one point he said: “…the doctrine of self-government is right – absolutely and eternally right,” but argued that “it has no just application” to slavery. “When the white man governs himself,’ he asserted, “that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government – that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”3

And the thing is, the South did not simply want to be left alone. As new territories were being added to the Union, the South was insistent that these new states were to be added as slave states.4  And when South Carolina announced its decision to secede, it simultaneously confiscated all Federal property and infrastructure and claimed it as its own. 5

This was not autonomy that was being desired, it was an attempt to gain authority over that which defined the nature of a human being as well as any resource that could aid them in their bid for control. That is what caused the North and South to war against one another.

What makes this topic important is that you will often hear deviations from Truth asserted in the context of a right to be left alone or a right to be happy. On the surface, it appears correct. But if the issue in question is predicated on something that is morally wrong, then it’s no longer a question of rights. The South did not have the “right” to enslave an entire race, nor did it have the “right” to confiscate property that was not their own. They did have the right to govern themselves, but not to the extent that it violated the rights of others.

Today we debate over things like same sex marriage and any one of a number of entitlements from health insurance to employment.  The pursuit of one’s own happiness is part of our philosophical foundation as a nation. But that same philosophy references an Absolute as the justification for our ability to secure the blessings of life and liberty. When we step outside the moral boundaries defined by that Absolute, we are no longer exercising our “right” as much as we are simply rebelling against that which is right. And while rhetoric and legal sounding verbiage can veil that for a season, inevitably it will be revealed for what it is – immoral, unjust and just plain wrong.

The Civil War was both tragic and costly. Whether it could’ve been avoided is speculative, but the lessons to be learned in terms of being vigilant in recognizing a perversion of the Truth are not vague or illusive. And those lessons need to be deployed now as we process what’s going in our culture and in our government.

The result of apathy may not be a Civil War, but left unchecked, the result will not be healthy.

Postscript: Check out this video from Prager University. It’s excellent and reinforces the point about the Civil War being about slavery and slavery alone – http://www.prageruniversity.com/History/Was-the-Civil-War-About-Slavery.html

1. “Civil War Casualties”, “Civil War Trust”, http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html, accessed June 6, 2014
2. By the late 1850s, the Democratic Party was split over the issue of slavery. Northern Democrats generally opposed slavery’s expansion while many Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist across the United States. In the presidential election of 1860, the Democratic Party split in two, with Stephen Douglas running for the Northern Democratic Party, and John C. Breckinridge representing the Southern Democratic Party. Two other political parties competed in this election as well. One of these parties was the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its candidate. Lincoln and the Republican Party opposed slavery’s expansion. The other party was the Constitutional Union Party. The party’s candidate, John Bell, hoped to compromise the differences between the North and South by extending the Missouri Compromise line across the remainder of the United States. Slavery would be permitted in new states established south of the line, while the institution would be illegal in new states formed north of the line. The Northern and Southern Democratic Parties only officially existed in the election of 1860. (“Northern Democrat Party”, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Northern_Democratic_Party, accessed July 3, 2013)
3. “Team of Rivals”, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Simon and Shuster, 2006, page 203
4. Ibid, p162 (The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a piece of legislation that prohibited slavery from those territories procured from France as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectually nullified that act by stating that states could choose by “popular sovereignty” whether or not they were to be slave or free. The problem was that those who had the resources and political clout to affect the outcome of these supposedly democratic procedures were predominantly wealthy slave owners. It wasn’t a compromise, it was a political maneuver that further revealed the true motivation of the more vocal proponents of the pro-slavery faction, while simultaneously galvanizing those who opposed it.)
5.Ibid, p297

Ask a Canaanite

/in /by

The Conquest of the Promised Land was a series of military campaigns led by Joshua (see Josh 12). The mission was to completely destroy the Canaanites and settle the land that God had promised Abraham in Genesis (see Gen 13:14-17; 15:19-21).

That same land, by the way, is the land that the nation of Israel occupies today. Some process the violence initiated by the Israelites against the inhabitants of Canaan as being similar to the way in which other nations throughout history have determined to overwhelm neighboring countries and expand their borders and influence by force.

But the Conquest of the Promised Land wasn’t a self absorbed determination to divide and conquer. For all intents and purposes, Israel was hopelessly outgunned and outnumbered from the start. They were hardly a threat, let alone a force, to be taken seriously by any of the fortified cities and established armies that comprised the area of Canaan (Numbers 28-33). The reason Israel triumphed was not because of their military might or because of their superior rating in the eyes of God (Dt 9:1-6), rather, it was because the Canaanites had become so decadent and so heinous in the eyes of God. Israel was merely an instrument of Divine Judgement (Dt 9:4).

But who were the Canaanites and what had they done that made them such an irritant in the eyes of God?

Let’s take a look…

I) Who Were the Canaanites?

When Noah’s voyage came to an end, he left the ark with his three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. From these three boys came all of the nations that are scattered around the earth to this day (Gen 9:19). Ham was a problem child and his rebellious nature was passed on to his sons, who you see listed in Genesis 10:6: Cush, Mizraim, Put and…Canaan. In verse 15, you see the sons of Canaan listed. Taken together, these families / tribes comprised the people group collectively referred to as the Canaanites. They were a wide spread group and as they lived and prospered, their territory grew. But as their landholdings increased, so did their decadence and perversion.

You see that in Genesis 24:3 where Abraham asks his chief servant to swear that he would not get a wife for his son Isaac among the Canaanites who he could see were degenerating into a life of wickedness. He also knew that however heinous the Canaanites were at the time, their conduct as well as their prospects would only get worse based on the fact that God had already told him that their land would be given to him.

II) God’s CleanUp Operation

By the time Moses and Joshua began what was actually God’s “clean up” operation in Deuteronomy 2-3, the pagan practices of the Canaanites were in full swing.

The religion of these pagan people were basically a fertility cult. At temple scattered throughout their land, Canaanite worshipers actually participated in lewd, immoral acts with “sacred” prostitutes. Theirs was a depraved form of worship that appealed to the base instincts of man’s animal nature.1

But more than just depravity, part of Baal worship included sacrificing children by burning them alive (2 Chron 28:2-3). In light of this kind of lifestyle and behavior, you can see why God’s anger would be peaking. And that’s why, in some cases, God instructed the Israelites to destroy entire cities and leave nothing alive.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15 instructs the Israelites to make an offer of peace to neighboring cities that were not within the explicit borders of the Promised Land. But verses 16-17 says to kill anything that breathes that lives within the walls of those cities that warranted the full wrath of God.

That included women and children.

Why would you kill women and children?

Do they not merit a kinder and more gentle treatment?

III) Women and Children…?

In Genesis 15:16, God is talking to Abraham and states how in the fourth generation of his family, his descendants would come back to the land he was living in presently and claim it as their own. There would be a bit of a delay because, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

Just how sinful many Canaanite religions 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. God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.2

A generation, in this instance is 100 years. 400 years later, you see that prophecy coming true in Deuteronomy 2. This is one of the first areas that were conquered by the Israelites as they entered the land of Canaan after 40 years of wandering in the desert. Every town belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites, is completely destroyed. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, elaborates:

They put all the Amorites to the sword, men, women, and children (v. 33, v. 34); this they did as the executioners of God’s wrath; now the measure of the Amorites’ iniquity was full (Gen. 15:16 ), and the longer it was in the filling the sorer was the reckoning at last. This was one of the devoted nations. They died, not as Israel’s enemies, but as sacrifices to divine justice, in the offering of which sacrifices Israel was employed, as a kingdom of priests. The case being therefore extraordinary, it ought not to be drawn into a precedent for military executions, which make no distinction and give no quarter: those will have judgment without mercy that show no mercy. 3

This was not “business as usual.” As has already been pointed out, not every city / people group was put to the sword. But those who had distinguished themselves by wallowing in the kind of decadence that equated to spitting in the face of God over and over again – as Matthew Henry pointed out – it wasn’t a military action that was directed towards the Amorites, it was the wrath of God being prosecuted in a way that resulted in the total destruction of an entire nation.

Again, this was not a template, nor a precedent, but it’s an example of what can, and often does, occur to a nation that doesn’t just turn their back on God, but runs in the opposite direction over a period of centuries and by so doing sinks deeper and deeper into a pit of depravity that ultimately becomes their grave.

IV) Still, Women and Children?

There are scores of commentary and attempts to reconcile the idea of a loving God with genocide. Some want to suggest that the Biblical text is a form of hyperbole – that what we read as a slaughter of innocent women and children is a figure of speech and nothing more.

But the question isn’t “How could God be so cruel and destroy an entire nation including women and children?” Rather, the question should be, “How could an entire nation collectively say ‘No,’ to a loving God?” And as far as taking the lives of women and children, however difficult that may be from a human standpoint to process, consider this:

1. The Cross

Anytime you’re inclined to think of God as cruel, you have to go back to the cross. With that one event, you have the ultimate exclamation point, as far as God’s unconditional love for all people (Rom 5:8). Is God capable of being a tyrant? The answer is “Absolutely, not!”

Just? Yes.

Cruel? No.

2. We Belong to Him

As far as human life is concerned, regardless of the age of the person in question, that individual was created by God (Ps 139:13). From that standpoint, we belong to God and our lives are ultimately His to do with as He pleases (Ps 24:1).

Rebuking God for the way in which He handles that which belongs to Him falls short of what’s logical and appropriate. And while some are quick to say, “But He has no right to be cold-hearted.” Again, the cross reveals that assertion as having no basis in fact. In addition, God’s essence is holy and completely devoid of anything evil (Job 34:10; Ps 77:3; 1 Jn 1;5; Jas 1:13). So, should He choose to do something that appears harsh, one can rest assured there’s a holy agenda being served (justice, punishment, discipline) as opposed to something sinister.

 3. More Than a Moment

When we see an infant, we see the innocence and helplessness that defines that child at that moment. On the other hand, God sees their entire life laid out before Him. It’s not a life that has never been lived, it’s a known existence from start to finish. If God chooses to bring that person home before they’re born, it could very well be an act of mercy if that child is to grow up and do all kinds of evil.

By bringing that child immediately to their eternal dwelling, they’re prevented from condemning themselves as a result of their sin. As a side note, is it not ironic that many of those who are indignant with God, as far as Him commanding the death of infants and children, have no problem with babies being destroyed in the context of abortion?

4. Don’t Forget Jezebel

While in most cases, it’s unfair to pit a man against a woman, in terms of physical strength, it’s neither wise nor healthy to suggest that a woman cannot pose a very real threat. Consider Jezebel. She was the wife of King Ahab. In 1 Kings 18, you see her behind a campaign to kill all of the prophets of God in Israel.

In the next chapter, after a brilliant display of God’s superiority over the Baal and his prophets that was facilitated through Elijah, Elijah now is running for his life in order to escape the indignation and the wrath of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:3). She was hideously evil (1 Kings 9:22; 21:25-26) and ruled over Israel through her sons after the death of her husband for a period of 10 years. In the end, she died a very violent and gruesome death (2 Kings 9:30-37) – a destiny that was prescribed in 1 Kings 21:23 as a punishment for the vile acts she committed against God and her subjects.

Jezebel demonstrates that one’s gender doesn’t limit the atrocities one can commit against God. No doubt, the females within the Canaanite  community, given their reverence for Baal, were guilty of similar behaviors and were therefore deserving of the same kind of fate.

V) Conclusion

Anytime you’re confronted with a Divine act or behavior that seems out of Character for God, you’re being wise by establishing the cross as your starting point and from there allowing for the fact that there is such a thing as justice and there is such a thing as discipline.

Our perspective is limited (Is 55:8) and we’re not capable of seeing the big picture. Given those two dynamics, it’s more than appropriate to trust God even though certain aspects of a situation lack the kind of bottom lines we would prefer.

But regardless of harsh God’s Judgment was against the Canaanites, the fact was they were living a life and revering a standard that taunted the Reality of God. While grace is always available, it is possible to incur the wrath of your Heavenly Father?

How?

Ask a Canaanite.

1. “Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary”, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1986, p205
2. “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p28-29
3. “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible”, biblstudytools.com, Deuteronomy 2, accessed July 3, 2016

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: Ask the Right Questions About Christianity

/0 Comments/in /by

A Powerful Tool

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.

Some Good 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.