Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part I

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I) Popping the Hood on Scripture

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gleason Archer

The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism.

As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects.

Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian. Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites. 1

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

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

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

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

At the end of the day, it’s not just what the Bible says, it’s what the Bible is. That’s what makes this exchange both significant and distinctive. We’re not merely gauging the authenticity of an ancient text. The question on the table is whether or not God exists and is the Word of God, in fact, His Message to us? Or, is it merely a religious comic book without the pictures?

The critic needs it to be the latter in order for their worldview to remain intact. But however fortified their defenses may be – regardless of the rapid abundance that characterizes their rhetoric – their stance needs to be countered with something compelling and in a way that points them to the Truth (Jn 14:6).

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

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

Here we go…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maundy Thursday

/in , , /by

I) Intro

“The Last Supper” is one of the world’s most famous paintings. Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned by Lodovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan in 1495 to create, what is now considered, a legendary work of art. Today, the painting resides in the dining hall at the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. At the time, however, it was Sforza’s family mausoleum.1  

The painting measures 28 feet long and is 15 feet high. While it took three years to complete, it has been admired and studied for centuries.  Da Vinci chose to depict the apostles’ reaction to Christ’s statement that one of them would betray Him. He does an amazing job of portraying a number of emotional reactions which can be seen in the faces of every one of the disciples, all of whom are grouped in threes. While there are obviously no captions on the painting to reveal which disciple is which. Notes penned by Da Vinci himself have been discovered that reveal who’s who.2

If you take a look at the restored version of Davinci’s work crafted by Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli below, you can better decipher which disciple is which by using the key to the left.

 

1. Bartholomew
2. James, son of Alphaeus
3. Andrew
4. Judas Iscariot (Notice how he’s clutching what appears to be a money bag. He is also tipping over the salt cellar. This may be related to the near-Eastern expression to “betray the salt” meaning to betray one’s Master. He is the only person to have his elbow on the table and his head is also horizontally the lowest of anyone in the painting.)3
5 Peter
6. John
7. Thomas
8. James the Greater
9. Philip
10. Matthew
11. Jude Thaddeus
12. Simon the Zealot

When you pull back and pop the hood on all that happened that night, it’s evident that Jesus had a lot on His plate. There wasn’t anything haphazard about all that occurred, however. Ever since God’s initial conversation with Moses, where He laid out all that needed to be done for the Passover Meal, it was this particular evening that God had in His mind where everything would be brought together in a way that pointed to His Solution for man’s sin.

In a way, you could say that Jesus had a Divine script before Him that outlined everything that needed to be done in order for His death and resurrection to resonate the way that it needed to. It wasn’t just about positioning Himself as a martyr, it was doing so in a way that was consistent with the Truth and the prophecies that gave context to what was about to happen.

II) Divine Documentation

It’s nothing short of phenomenal when you really study God’s Word and see all of the symbolism and the manner in which all of these Scriptural “threads” are woven together in a way that results in something profoundly supernatural.

Ravi Zacharias is Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), which celebrated its thirtieth anniversary in 2014. Dr. Zacharias has spoken all over the world for 42 years in scores of universities, notably Harvard, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the president’s cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow.

At the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders held in Mozambique.4 On a podcast entitled “Created for Significance, Part 2,” he explains how the existentialist lives for the moment, the utopian is always looking to the future and the Hebrew focuses on the events and the traditions of the past.

Given those dynamics, look at how Jesus addresses the present, past and future in the space of two sentences:

25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:25)

  •  “For whenever you drink this cup” – present
  • “…the Lord’s death” – past
  • “…until he comes” – future

When you really study the Bible as Divine documentation, it’s amazing what you discover in terms of 66 books all culminating into a rich, cohesive whole. 66 books written over 1,500 years all pointing to one central theme: the redemption of man.

Professor M. Montiero-Williams, former Boden professor of Sanskrit, spent 42 years studying Eastern books and said in comparing them with the Bible: “Pile them, if you will on the left side of your study table; but place your own Holy Bible on the right side – all by itself, all alone – and with a wide gap between them. For,…there is a gulf between it and the so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other utterly, hopelessly, and forever…a veritable gulf which cannot be bridged over by any science of religious thought.”5

III) Spiritual Propaganda –  Doubting the Credibility of Scripture

Some want to doubt the credibility of Scripture. Generally speaking, the hesitancy comes from one of two ideas that the Bible was compiled by strategically collecting a series of antique texts that happened to corroborate with the spiritual propaganda they wanted to promote. The other statement that you hear fairly often is that the Bible is “filled with errors” and is thus unreliable.     

The number of extant Old Testament MSS is fairly limited. That’s not to say what we have isn’t sufficient enough to be certain that what we have in our hands today is an accurate rendering of the original text, but it’s the fact that we don’t have thousands of original copies that made the Dead Sea Scrolls such a significant find. When you’re able to take a document that was originally written in 900 A.D. and compare it to another rendering of the same text that was done 1,025 years beforehand (Dead Sea Scrolls were dated 125 B.C.) and determine that the texts are virtually identical, you have more than adequate justification to feel confident that your Bible is, in fact, the Word of God!
A) The Old Testament

Here are some things to consider: First of all, the Old Testament is a series of carefully guarded texts, most of which come from people who had direct contact with God. Their credentials, as far as having had contact with God, coupled with the accuracy of their prophecies, make it very difficult, even for the most aggressive cynic, to doubt their integrity.

For example, the Pentateuch – the first five books of the Old Testament authored by Moses. These books document the activity of God, the Law of God and the words of God all written by someone who had direct contact with God.  Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Jonah – while they didn’t converse as frequently with God face to face, they nevertheless interacted directly with their King. Most of the minor prophets present their content in the context of visions and oracles. In other words, God dictated to them what they were to proclaim through an experience similar to a dream. Though that may seem somewhat subjective, again, the accuracy of their visions from a historical perspective certifies their content as more than credible.

1) Dead Sea Scrolls

While the notion that the OT should be perceived as reliable due to the supernatural conversations / interactions the writers had with God may resonate as logical, that doesn’t address the possibility that the original writings may have been changed and corrupted over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls was an archeological find that effectively puts those fears to rest. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a series of some 40,000 inscribed fragments from which over 500 books have been reconstructed, Among these reconstructed books is the majority of the Old Testament.6 What made the find so significant is prior to their discovery, the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament that was available at the time was from 900 AD on. The Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the book of Isaiah, was dated 125 AD making it over 1,000 years older than any manuscript we had previously possessed.

When comparing the manuscripts from 900 AD to the scrolls date 125 AD, the accuracy and consistency was nothing short of stunning. For example…

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word “light,” which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX and IQ Is. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission – and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage (LXX refers to the Septuagint and IQ Is is the Isaiah scroll found in the first cave at Qumran, the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). 7

Given the consistency of the texts, to doubt the overall credibility of the Bible is to adopt a prospective based on a nonsensical cynicism more so than an objective analysis.     

B) The New Testament – the Bibliographical Test

The New Testament is just as solid. In this case, you’re not having to reach back as far in order to examine the accuracy of the original manuscripts and the number of original MSS is significantly more. When seeking to verify the integrity of an ancient manuscript, two things are considered:

  • how many original copies do we have
  • how many years have lapsed the original document and the first copy

These two dynamics combine to form what is referred to as the “Bibliographic Test” and is used to evaluate the authenticity of  ancient texts. Compared to the New Testament, Homer’s Iliad is the most credible, based on the above criteria. Take a look at how the two compare:

Bibliographical Test – New Testament Compared to Homer’s Iliad
work when written earliest copy time span number of copies
Home (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643
New Testament 40 – 100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years over 24,000

The strength of the New Testament is nothing short of substantial. When comparing one copy to another, the variations that exist are minimal. Josh McDowell, in his book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” writes:

That textual variations do not endanger doctrine is emphatically stated by Sir Frederic Kenyon (one of the great authorities in the field of New Testament textual criticism): “One word of warning already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading…

It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially in this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one of other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.

Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.8

So, from the standpoint of consistency, as far the copy of the Bible that we have in our possession today being the same as what was originally dictated by God and documented by the writers He spoke through, we have an intellectually solid justification for concluding that we have an accurate copy of the original.      

C) The Canon

So, we’ve got an authentic collection of antique texts. But how were those texts assembled and was there conflicting literature that was strategically omitted in order to preserve a line of thought that was more of a human campaign than it was a Divine revelation? Bottom line: No. The “canon” of Scripture was not assembled according to a template that accommodated preferences as much as it insisted on authenticity.      

1) The Old Testament

The manner in which the Old Testament was compiled is best explained by simply considering the Jewish people. As God worked in their midst through events and specific personalities, His Activity and Counsel was documented. The resulting literature was not a collection of commentaries as much as it was a record of what God said and what God did. It was not a subjective account manufactured by a panel of like minded spectators. It was an exclusive collection of individuals, each of whom had been specifically tasked to lead, speak and teach with the Authority that had been given to them by God.

Anyone that qualified as a “man of God” was not perceived as such because of their charisma or academic credentials. They were recognized as prophets because of the way in which they presented their platform under the heading of “thus saith the Lord.”

You could conceivably pose as a prophet, but the consequences of falsely presenting yourself as a messenger of God were lethal (Dt 13:15). Only an obvious fulfillment of the prophecies you proclaimed could validate you as authentic (Dt 18:21-22). Hence, true prophets were easily identified and the content they disseminated as being Divinely Inspired was readily accepted.

In A.D. 70, a council of Jewish religious leaders congregated in Jamnia to discuss the canonization of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon and the book of Esther. Some want to point to this conference as an example of a subjective human element being used to establish the content of Scripture. Thing is, these books hardly constitute the bulk of the Old Testament. Furthermore, these books weren’t disputed as much as they merited discussion for a variety of reasons – one of which is the book of Esther doesn’t mention the Name of God even once. This quartet of unique texts would be recognized as canonical and the discussions that took place were documented, thus providing evidence for future generations that not only were these books recognized as Scripture, but the majority of the Old Testament at the time of Christ and before had been established and embraced unreservedly.          

2) The New Testament

The criteria used to define a particular New Testament book as worthy of being included in the Canon was similar to the attributes that were considered where the Old Testament was concerned. Namely, apostolic authority. Did the writer interact with Jesus himself, or did the writer have the approval of one who did? Given that kind of filter, the field is narrowed considerably.

The early church was staffed by the apostles. This was not due to a lack of qualified personnel or a knee jerk reaction to the departure of Jesus. This is the way Christ had set it up. For three years, Jesus had taught and led these men so they could accurately and effectively promulgate the gospel.

In John 16:13, He explains how the Holy Spirit would guide them and you see that Authoritative Guidance in Acts 2:42 where it says that the early believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer. Matthew, John and Peter were both apostles, having walked with Christ during His three year ministry. Paul was commissioned as an apostle by Jesus on the road to Damascus in the ninth chapter of Acts. Between those four individuals, you have the majority of the New Testament (Matthew, John, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1-2 Peter,  1-3 John and Revelation).

In addition, you have the brothers of Jesus; James and Jude (the books that bear their names). These men do not promote themselves as apostles, but in  1 Cor 9:5 they are referenced alongside the apostles which implies an apostolic dynamic. The fact that Jesus appeared specifically to James (1 cor 15:7), along with the way in which Paul sought him out when he visited Jerusalem in the immediate aftermath of his conversion (Gal 1:19), makes it obvious that James possessed credentials that were recognized as apostolic (see also Gal 2:9).

While there isn’t a specific biblical account of Jude having been visited by the risen Christ, 1 Cor 15:3-7 references a group of people referred to as “apostles” that are listed independently of the “Twelve.” Jude may have been a part of that group. The bottom line, however, is that both James and Jude had a unique relationship with Christ given the fact that they were all a part of the household of Joseph and Mary. They were both initially skeptical as to the Divine Identity of Christ (John 7:5), but were committed champions of His gospel after the resurrection. So while Jude is not mentioned as prominently as James, given the aforementioned realities and the content of his epistle, his book was embraced as canonical and was referenced as such by Clement of Rome in A.D. 96 and Clement of Alexandria in A.D. 200.9

Generally speaking, when the term “Apocrypha” surfaces, it’s usually in reference to the Old Testament additions that were made in 1546. In some instances, however, you’ll hear about the “New Testament Apocrypha” which applies to the literature that was being circulated between 65 and 170 A.D.. Books such as the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (A.D. 70-79), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 115-140) and the Acts of Paul and Thecla (A.D. 170) – these were some of the writings that concerned the Synod of Hippo. But as was the case in the past, when it came to clarifying what was biblical and what was not, there was no need to engage in lengthy, subjective discussions. Dismissing the notion that they were worthy of being considered inspired was an easy conclusion to make given their obvious lack of apostolic authority and subsequent want of Divine substance.

They Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 was a gathering of religious authorities whose purpose was, in part, to confirm the 27 books that comprised the New Testament as canonical. There wasn’t any doubt as to which books belonged and which did not, but it was nevertheless an appropriate step to take in order to reinforce the fact that in order for a book to qualify as Scripture, it had to be penned by an apostle or someone who represented an authenticated extension of that ministry.

Some had attempted to sidestep that test of authenticity thus making it needful to clearly define the books of the New Testament. The thing that’s crucial about this meeting is that nothing new was established. They simply stated what was already understood as far as what books in the New Testament qualified as Scripture.

There’s a group of texts called the Apocrypha that were added to the Old Testament in 1546.10. The books in question had been in circulation for a while, having been written over a period of centuries dating as far back as 200 years before Christ (Judith) and 100 A.D. (Baruch). But while the books, in some cases, deal with biblical themes, they are sorely lacking when compared to their Scriptural counterparts in terms of authority and accuracy.

Many Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period, as well as Luther and like minded reformers, rejected the Apocrypha. It was only at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent in 1546 that the Apocrypha was awarded canonicity by the Catholic leadership. Thing is, the Council of Trent was more about protecting the Catholic paradigm that it was upholding the Truth. The Reformation had brought to the surface inconsistencies that existed between what the pope was advocating and what Scripture proclaimed. Martin Luther lead the charge under the heading of “sola Scriptura, ” which means “Scripture alone.” He said “a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.”11

Catholicism would not yield without a fight, however, and the Council of Trent was , in some ways, an attempt to reclaim the people and the reputation it had lost. But the Council appealed to tradition more so than Truth when attempting to defend its various practices. Thus, the adoption of the Apocrypha fails to resonate as an Inspired decision and is not included in the Protestant canon.    

D) The Bible is Full of Errors

Skeptics will sometimes justify their refusal to take the Bible seriously by insisting that it’s “full of errors.” The reason for their skepticism, however, is not based on a careful study of Scripture. Rather, it’s more often than not,  the perspective of a cynic that’s resolved to keep the Word of God at a distance in order to avoid having to perceive themselves in the light of its Truth.

That’s not to say there aren’t passages that are difficult to process and understand. The gospel writers sometimes describe the same scene differently to the point where critics insist that they contradict one another thus disqualifying the whole of Scripture as credible. But “differences” don’t necessarily equate to “contradictions” provided the elements that give each account an air of distinction don’t conflict with one another.

For example, when describing Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem in the context of his “triumphal entry,” Mark, Luke and John mention one donkey (Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15). Matthew 21:2 mentions two.

Take a look:

saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. (Matt 21:2)

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

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

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

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.12

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

You can read about more examples of “difficult to understand” passages in another “Muscular Christianity” post entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The bottom line, however, is that the Bible is not flawed. Passages that are difficult to understand do not constitute reasons to doubt the accuracy of the text as much as they are cues to pop the hood on said passage and actually study it. Look at the original languages, consider the culture of the time, ponder the audience that’s being addressed. Deploy the approach of an investigative reporter, and do so in the context of a disposition that seeks to understand what happened, as opposed to a prejudiced perspective that questions whether it happened at all.

It’s interesting to watch the amount of academic dust that gets kicked up when educated critics of the Bible unleash the full fury of their sarcasm into the marketplace. Their credentials and the dogmatic tone of their rhetoric can come across as quite compelling as they dismiss the Authority of Scripture.

Yet, on the other side of the aisle stands a formidable constituency of learned individuals who, while they don’t get the same amount of press, are nevertheless just as educated and just as forceful in their defense of God’s Word and the Christian perspective. From a layman’s standpoint, it’s not always easy to sort out the weeds from the grass, but those who defend the integrity of Scripture inevitably win out because their defense is founded on a comprehensive analysis of the facts as opposed to their adversaries whose platform is characterized by a disposition that dismisses everything save that which is consistent with their intellectual preferences.

In other words, of the information that exists to either verify or explain a particular passage of Scripture, the only facts they’re willing to admit into the dialogue are those that match their definition of what’s reasonable. The resulting exchange isn’t so much an objective evaluation of a biblical text as much as it’s an attempt of the part of the skeptic to overwhelm substance with sarcasm.

Dr. Gleason Archer is the author of the “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.” In the preface, he describes his inspiration for writhing the book and the experiences he draws from as he sets out to resolve the intellectual tension that some verses can create.

The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism. As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects. Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian. Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites. 13

He goes on to say that his faith has been validated and strengthened, rather than challenged and weakened as he’s tackled some of the more difficult- to-understand passages:

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information.14

When you step back and consider the intellectual strength of the man who is speaking, coupled with the hands on experience he’s had with a variety of archaeological  and literary artifacts, it’s virtually impossible to dismiss his content as a desperate attempt to protect a set of flawed convictions. What he brings to the table resonates as more than a mere “response.” Rather, it’s an objective platform as compelling as it is substantial – to the point where the criticisms leveled against the Word of God are quickly revealed as pathetic shadows that are effortlessly dispelled by the Light of God’s formidable Truth.

IV) Conclusion

George MacDonald was a Scottish minister as well as a prolific writer. He’s been cited as a major influence by authors such as C.S. Lewis (“The Chronicles of Narnia) and J.R. R. Tolkein (The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring). He once said, “To try and explain the truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.”15

Some want to say that the Bible represents the quintessential example of circular reasoning. In other words, some will defend the Truth of Scripture by citing the Bible as its own witness. But Scripture is validated by history, archaeology, literature as well as the multitudes of changed lives over the centuries. It is not lacking for evidence, uniqueness, consistency or accuracy. As Professor Williams stated, there is a gulf between the Bible and every other book that’s ever been authored. It is, quite simply, the “words” of God.

The substance of Christ’s comments to His disciples at the Last Supper is but one example of the richness of Scripture. It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the entire Bible is God-breathed. It truly is. And the benefits that accompany obedience to God’s Word are as abundant as they are advantageous.

It’s true. It’s God. …and it’s only Thursday. Wait till you see what happens this weekend!

1. “The Last Supper”, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo_da_Vinci), accessed May 12, 2015
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, http://rzim.org/about/ravi-zacharias, accessed June 2, 2015
5. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 15
6. “The Levon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library”, http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls, accessed June 17, 2015
7. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 58
8. Ibid, p45
9. Although Jude had earlier rejected Jesus as Messiah (John 7:1-9), he, along with other half brothers of our Lord, was converted after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:14). Because of his relation to Jesus, his eyewitness knowledge of the resurrected Christ, and the content of his epistle, it was included in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170). The early questions about its canonicity also tend to support that it was written after 2 Peter. If Peter had quoted Jude, there would have been no question about canonicity, since Peter would thereby have given Jude apostolic confirmation. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 96) plus Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) also alluded to the authenticity of Jude. Its diminutive size and Jude’s quotations from uninspired writings account for any misplaced questions about its canonicity. (notes on the book of Jude [“The MacArthur Study Bible”, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2010, p1922])
10. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1972, p 36
11. “Sola scriptura”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura, accessed July 23, 2015
12. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334
13. Ibid, p12
14. Ibid, p15
15. George Macdonald, quoted by Ravi Zacharias

Speaking Up When It Matters

/in , , , /by

It amazes me how some want to believe that you can separate church and state. Our Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in place, not to restrict Christianity’s influence on government, but to prevent the government from influencing Christianity. That was the culture back then and that was the foundation upon which our country was built. Don’t forget that every reference to “Providence” and “Creator” and the “Supreme Judge of the Universe” in the Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George who was, not only King of England, he was also the head of the Anglican Church. He didn’t process those titles as references to a generic “higher power.” He heard them as references to God as He’s revealed in Scripture.

Every form of government is ultimately based on the way that system defines a human being. You are either sorted according to a human convention or you are created in the image of your Heavenly Father.

There’s only two options.

And if you want to argue that there is more than one religion, again, you’ve only got two religions in that every religious school of thought empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something to merit the favor of your preferred deity (Gen 3:5). Christianity, on the other hand, says that the only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary.

Ephesians 6:12 says that the “struggle” is always spiritual. When you look at the Democrat talking points, you see things that are contrary to God’s Word and, as a believer, you have a responsibility to point that out (Eph 5:11). You want to do it right (Eph 4:15). No one wants to listen to a jerk. But to remain silent, or to be hesitant, or to be less than substantial in the way you communicate is not piety.

It’s cowardice.

Here’s what I’m thinking…

When Nehemiah was in charge of building the wall, at one point he had the Israelites work with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other (Neh 4:17-19). They weren’t doubting God for His Protection. Rather, they were being wise in the way they were prepared to defend what God had entrusted to them.

As far as “division” or “differences” are concerned, Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 11:19. He mentions how those differences reveal who has God’s approval. In other words, those disparities reveal who it is that’s championing the Truth as opposed to their own preferences.

1 Chron 12:32 describes the men of Issachar as those who, “…understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” Defending the practical and economical wisdom of tariffs, promoting the morality of preventing males from competing in women’s sports, and pointing out how homosexuality represents a lifestyle that is contrary to the way the human species is designed, is not a defense of the gospel, nor does it change the heart of the one who’s determined to be their own bottom line (Jer 17:8-10; Eph 6:12).

But God hates dishonest scales (Prov 11:1), there’s only two genders (Gen 1:27), homosexuality is a pointless perversion (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:27), and Socialism inevitably translates to a violation of 2 Thess 3:10.

People who say, “You can’t force your beliefs on me” are indirectly forcing their beliefs on everyone else because they don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated (2 Cor 4:4). They’re not interested in determining if what you’re saying is True, they just want to get their own way by demonizing you.

Ephesians 4:15 says to, “…speak the truth in love.” If anyone is going to notice that the tomb is empty, you witness needs to be evident in everything you say, think, and do (Col 3:17) and that includes being politically astute and speaking up when it matters.

A Time to Speak

/in , , , /by

I’m seeing several posts coming from well meaning people saying that we need to just love everybody and avoid any kind of confrontation.

Last year, President Trump narrowly missed being assassinated. This after several years of his opponents calling him a Nazi, a fascist, and a threat to democracy.

We need to just pray and not argue…

Where in Scripture does God tell us to be quiet and remain in our prayer closet while everyone else is voting, debating, knocking on doors, and basically pushing back against the narrative that says there is no absolute save the person who stares back at you in the mirror every morning?

This is the time to speak!

Here’s what I see:

First of all, to process Christ’s approach to the cross as our template for the way we confront evil is to forget that Jesus at one point said,

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns. (Lk 22:53).

Jesus’ willingness to be crucified was not meant to be an example for the way we resist evil and fight back against corruption. He had to go to the cross in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled and to pay our debt (Matt 26:54). While there may be a time when Christ asks you to sacrifice yourself, simply laying down and doing nothing in the face of being attacked or not standing up for what’s right, believing that you’re an example of piety, is not an accurate interpretation of the whole of God’s Word.

John the Baptist wound up in prison for rightfully confronting the current administration and calling out Herod as being an immoral dirtbag. Jesus said that no human being was greater than John (Matt 11:9-11; Lk 3:19-20).

How many times in the Old Testament did a prophet confront a king or an entire nation and tell them that they were godless and offensive in the sight of God? Was Nathan vague in the way he spoke to David (2 Sam 12:7)? Did Elisha mince words when he told the king of Israel what was going to happen to him and his wife as a result of doing evil in the sight of God (1 Kings 21:21-24)?

Did David give Goliath a brochure? Did Paul try to be extra sensitive when he spoke to King Agrippa (Acts 26:24-29)?

There’s a difference between righteous indignation and the kind of rage that springs from thinking of no one other than yourself. Ephesians 4:26 says to not let your anger provoke you to the point where you do something wrong. That’s obviously something you want to avoid. Simply exchanging insults on social media is not accomplishing anything.

But at one point, David said…

Do I not hate those who hate you, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. (Ps 139:21)

What David is saying is that he hates the work of sinners, and for good reason. Nothing good comes from those who intentionally try to do the wrong thing. And when you consider the pain and the problems that come from doing the wrong thing, you have every reason to detest that kind of mindset.

But, how do you respond to the “wrong thing?”

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

Expose them!

The person who doesn’t want to be “exposed” is not going to want to listen to you, nor do they want others to listen to you. They will be antagonistic and that kind of reaction is difficult to endure, which is why it’s so important to know what you believe and why you believe it so when it’s time to “expose them,” you sound like you have a point.

It also takes courage. For those who cringe at the thought of being criticized, it’s easy and convenient to retreat behind a biblical sounding excuse to not say or do anything.

That’s not discipleship, that’s cowardice.

What would’ve happened had our founding fathers not stood up to King George?

On one hand, they could’ve referred to Christ’s command to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s as well as the biblical admonishment to obey those in authority (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1).

But rather than base their perspective on a mere portion of Scripture, they looked at God’s Word as a whole and were able to justify separating from England due to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

They stood up and they spoke out.

Your witness means very little if you smile at the things that send a person to hell and endorse the things that put Christ on the cross.

David didn’t just sing, Paul didn’t just write, and Jesus didn’t just pray.

There’s a time to be silent and there’s a time to speak.

This is the time to speak.

A Difficult Truth or a Convenient Lie?

/in , , , /by

 

When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.

All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference. There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.” That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective. Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences. Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.

That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.

The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning. The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, captures that mentality in a presentation she made entitled, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs” featured on ted.com. At one point she says:

We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1

The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.

To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.

Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.

This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.

This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.

Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.

There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)

Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.

That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.

You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.

It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.

However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”

But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.

The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.

The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”

The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”

…true?

The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.

As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.

 

 

1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025

2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025

Sanctified Violence

/in , , , /by

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided. Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded.

As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end. Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy.

Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal?

Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence. Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations. Here we want to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right. But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction. For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites. In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as…

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword. The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you. You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind. In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack.

Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be. Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words. First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35). As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures. The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow. Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared.

While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished. You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld. If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment. God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace. A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.” It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

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

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.” Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified. For further reading, refer to the links below:

The Black Robe Regiment

/in , , , /by

Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibly wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.

His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.

Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.

At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”

He begins by saying…

It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.1

He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.

In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, until those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.2

You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.

For example, John Leach was imprisoned for sending to Patriot forces information pertaining to the disposition of British troops. He recorded some of his experiences while in prison in a Journal that’s preserved in the “New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865.”On June 30, he talks about a comment made by one of his British jailers…

June 30, 1775. Friday, Continued in the same confinement; and Saturday, Major harry Rooke took a Book of Religion from Mr Joseph Otis, the Gaol keeper, who told him the Book belonged to some of the Charlestown prisoners, taken at Bunker\’s Hill fight, and was given them by a Clergyman of the Town. He carried it to show General Gage, and then brought back, and said, “It is your G–d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins this Country; Damn your Religion.” I would only add this remark, that this Pious officer holds his commission by a Sacramental Injuection, from his most Sacred Majesty King George the 3d.3

You can also see the prominence of Christianity and even how certain denominations were regarded with a special sense of disdain by the British when you consider the diary of Thomas Hutchinson.

Thomas Hutchinson was the Governor over Massachusetts appointed by King George. He recorded a conversation he had with the monarch in July of 1774.

This would’ve been in the aftermath of “The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774” that were enacted as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These were incendiary moves on the part on the part of King George that would result in galvanizing the colonies even further in their resolve to separate from England.

Among the things represented in the new legislation was the replacement of the Massachusetts Council with officials appointed by the crown rather than it being an elected body. You can hear King George questioning the way in which this new group of leaders was being received in the conversation he was having with his Governor.

He begins by asking what sort of doctrine is being preached in the colonies…

King George: I have heard, Mr H., that your ministers preach that, for the sake of promoting liberty or the public good, say immorality or less evil may be tolerated?
Hutchinson: I don’t know, sir, that such doctrine has ever been preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been publicly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call themselves sober men, that the good of the public is above all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be obtained by other means.
King George: That’s a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr H., what is your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the Council? Will it be agreeeable to the people and will the new appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?
Hutchinson: I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform myself who they are. I came to town late last evening, and have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice that has been made.
❶ King George: Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable persons should be appointed.
❷ Hutchinson: The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of England; what are Congregationalists. If the Council shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it will make the change more disagreeable.
❸ King George: Why are they not Presbyterians?
❹ Hutchinson: There are a very few churches which call themselves Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.
Lord Dunmore: The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England, Congregationalist, or rather Independents.
King George: Pray, what were your ancestors, Mr. H.?
Hutchinson: In general, sir, Dissenters.
King George: Where do you attend?
Hutchinson: With both, sir. Sometimes at your Majesty’s chapel, but more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very worthy minister, a friend to government, who constantly prays for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.
King George: What is his name?
Hutchinson: Doctor Pemberton.
King George: I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good man. Who is minister at the chapel?
❺ Hutchinson: The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who frequently inclulates upon his hearers due subjection to the government and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it; and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short prayer before the sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and for the Chief Ruler in the Province. 4

❶ Here is where King George is inquiring about the Massachusetts Council that used to be an elected body that has now been replaced with people who’ve been appointed by the crown.

❷ The “Dissenters from the Church of England,” in this context, refers to the Congregationalists who were loyal to the crown and had not repudiated the Church of England. These were the posterity of the early Pilgrims who had settled in the New World in the early seventeenth century.Lead by William Bradford in 1620, the Pilgrims, also called “Separatists,” were resolved to worship in a manner consistent with the Scriptures as opposed to the institutionalized church created by Henry VIII in order to secure a divorce the Pope was unwilling to grant him.

The Puritans were similar to the Separatists, but instead of wanting to break completely from the Church of England, they wanted to merely purify it. They arrived in the New World in 1630 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony just south of Plymouth Rock.By the 18th century, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had combined to form the Congregationalists. But while they were now functioning under one denominational heading, you still had two distinct groups that were defined by their allegiance to the king.Published in 1907, “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution,” written by James H. Stark, references this dynamic.

The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years\’ existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution.5

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why King George and his Governor could feel somewhat confident that they were drawing from an amicable group of people by defaulting to a specific “type” of Congregationalist. Doctrinally, they were not altogether consistent with the Anglican church, but they were at least somewhat sympathetic to their English Sovereign.

As far as Hutchinson’s reference to the Episcopalians, while they did not formally organize until 1780, during the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, they were considered the American version of the Church of England. While there were exceptions, an Episcopalian’s loyalty to the crown was more pronounced then their Congregationalist counterpart and certainly more  intense than what you saw in the various sects that sprung up in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. You see this in the way many Episcopalians felt obliged to flee America after the Revolutionary War, including the Episcopalian minister referenced by Hutchinson in his conversation with King George.

In 1662, the Common Book of Prayer was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text.”

The fact that Hutchinson states that staffing the new Massachusetts Council with Episcopalians would’ve been “more disagreeable,” is indicative of the way ardent Patriots viewed Episcopalians with suspicion. Hence the choice of those coming from the Congregationalist group would be a more strategic option.

❸ To understand King George’s comment, you have to go back to the sixteenth century and look at the way in which the crown had exacted legislation that compelled a uniform approach to Christ that ultimately violated the Word of God.

Act of Uniformity

In 1558, Queen Elizabeth, as part of trying to eliminate the tensions between Catholicism and the Protestant mindset, she introduced legislation that dictated the way in which people were to pray and worship. It was called, “The Act of Uniformity” and it included a revised “Book of Common Prayer” which outlined how services were to be conducted as well as the verbiage of the prayers that were to be said everyday (click here to see the prayer that was to be repeated every morning). In addition, it made it a punishable offense to not attend Anglican services once a week.

In 1662, it was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text” (see sidebar). This resulted in over 2,000 ministers being ejected from their pastorate in what was called, “The Great Ejection. Many of those that were forcibly displaced were Presbyterians who made their way to the New World.

Thoroughly Protestant

While the Church of England represents a hybrid combination of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines, Presbyterians, on the hand, are thoroughly Protestant. From the perspective of the monarchy, they were positively toxic in part because of the way in which they recognized how the church was being manipulated by various sovereigns to perpetuate their power.

Elizabeth not unreasonably believed that the maintenance of the Episcopacy was necessary to the continuance of Royalty. She knew that the church of Geneva, which the Puritans declared to be their model, was not only essentially republican, but could not be perfectly established except in a republic...6

The Church of Geneva was founded in 1536 during the Protestant Reformation. It represented the central location of Protestant thought. As a Presbyterian, while you were not Puritanical in your doctrine, you nevertheless shared with some of your Puritan counterparts an unwillingness to allow a monarch to dictate your conscience in the way you worshipped, how you were to set up your church leadership or the way you ministered to others.

And while the Presbyterian denomination is a separate group of believers who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines, including, in some circles, a Calvinistic approach to predestination, in many instances when you hear an 18th century Englishman refer to a “Presbyterian,” it was a reference to anyone who recognized the discrepancy between engaging your faith according to a biblically based paradigm as opposed to a government imposed infrastructure.

This is where much of the real tension surfaced.

Church Government

In addition to the fact that all men are created equal (Gen1:26; Prov 2:22; Gal 3:28) thus invalidating the Divine Right of Kings, a large part of the Presbyterian doctrine pertained to church government. Churches were to be governed by elected elders not Anglican Bishops. By attempting to impose a crown appointed hierarchy to rule over the spiritual affairs of a Presbyterian who believed that leadership should be based on a biblically founded approach, England violated an Absolute documented in Scripture. As a result, Presbyterians were only too willing to oppose the established order and because of the presence they commanded in New England, the Revolution was often referred to as something inspired by a Presbyterian perspective.

Chief Instigators

You see this dynamic reflected in a pamphlet written by Joseph Galloway, who was a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He opposed the Revolution and fled to England. He believed that the Revolution was a religious quarrel instigated by Congregationalists and Presbyterians…

But they did not stop there: The principal matter recommended by the faction in New England, was a union of the congregational and presbyterian interests throughout the Colonies…Thus the Presbyterians in the southern colonies, who, while unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, were raised into weight and consequence; and a dangerous combination of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to those of the established Church and Government, was formed.7

Dr. Albert S. Bolles in his history of the Province and State of Pennsylvania from 1609 to 1790 reinforces that by elaborating on the enemy’s regard for Presbyterian clergy…

English Translation: “In this building formerly York Hotel on September 3, 1783 David Hartley, on behalf of the King of England, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, on behalf of the United States of America, signed the Final Treaty of Peace recognizing the independence of the United States.”

To the Presbyterian clergy the enemy felt an especial anitpathy. There were accounted the ringleaders of the rebellion. For them there was often not so much safety in their own dwellings as in the camp. When their people were scattered, or if it was no longer safe to reside among them, the only atlernative was to flee or join the army, and this alternative was often presented. Not unfrequently the duty of the chaplain or the pastor exposed him to dangers as great as those which the common soldier was called to meet. There was risk of person, sometimes capture, and sometimes loss of life.8

David Hartley was Britain\’s Minister Plenipotentiary. He had full diplomatic powers and represented the crown when he signed the Treaty of Paris with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and several others in 1783. Hartley and Franklin were good friends and Hartley frequently spoke against the Revolution in Parliment. After Cornwallis\’ surrender at Yorktown, it was Hartley and Franklin that composed the Treaty of Paris.On February 3rd, 1779, Franklin responded to Hartley who had written a letter proposing that the United States end their alliance with France. At one point, he says:

The long, Steady, & kind regard you have shown for the Welfare of America, by the whole Tenour of your Conduct in Parliament, satisfies me, that this Proposition never took its Rise with you, but has been suggested from some other Quarter; and that your Excess of humanity, your Love of Peace, & your fears for us that the Destruction we are threatened with, will certainly be effected, have thrown a Mist before your Eyes, which hindred you from seeing the Malignity, and Mischief of it.— We know that your King hates whigs and Presbyterians; that he thirsts for our Blood; of which he has already drank large Draughts; that his servile imprincipled Ministers are ready to execute the wickedest of his Orders, and his venal Parliament equally ready to vote them just.9

Franklin doesn’t attempt any restraint or indulgence in describing King George or those members of Parliament who viewed America with disdain. The fact that he begins his description with the way in which King George hated Presbyterians demonstrates the way in which the monarchy associated the Revolution with a Christian perspective.

At the Highest Levels of Government

Members of Parliament were being informed from a variety of sources as to the nature of the American rebellion being founded on a religious premise.

Andrew Hamond was a captain in the British Navy. In a letter dated August 5, 1776, to Hans Stanley, a British Diplomat who sat in the House of Commons, he mentions that while there are some within the colonies who are loyal to the crown, there are nevertheless deep religious convictions running thoughout that, in some cases, are thoroughly determined to gain their independence:

It seems that they have long had divisions among them on religious accounts, and the Churchmen are clearly of opinion that it is the Presbyterians that have brought about this revolt, and aim at getting the government of America into their hands. 10

William Jones of Nayland was a distinguished theologian and a prolific writer. In 1776 he wrote an essay entitled, “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776” in which he addresses what he believes to be the principle driving force of the American Revolution:

And having nothing now to oppose but the Hanover family on the throne, they have at last taken up arms against that, and will carry on a war against the authority, the commerce, and the honour of this country, as long as they have the means of rebellion in their hands; for this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641; and accordingly the first firing against that King’s troops was from a Masschusset meeting-house. 11

The Presbyterian was considered to be one of the chief instigators of the War for Independence, hence King George\’s comment to Hutchinson when he was asking if the Congregationalists being considered were of the Presbyterian stripe.

❹ The Presbyterian Church was started by John Knox in Scotland. It’s presence in the vocabulary being used by those in Parliament wasn’t so much a reference to doctrine as much as it was a referral to the way in which a biblically based argument was being used by “Presbyterians” to justify severing ties with England.

You see this explained by John Adams in a letter he wrote to Hezekiah Niles, who was the editor and publisher of the Niles’ Weekly Register from 1811-1836 and before that was the editor of the Baltimore Evening Post.

In his letter, Adams refers to Dr. Jonathan Mayhew who was one of the earliest ministers to object to the idea that it was a Christian’s duty to suffer beneath the administration of a tyrant. Rather, according to Mayhew, it was the Christian’s obligation to resist (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p39).

In addition to being an articulate speaker, Mayhew was also a prolific writer. At one point, he wrote a lengthy exposition entitled, “Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospels in Foreign Parts.” This was a rebuke directed towards the Church of England, who, under the auspices of witnessing to unchurched peoples, were using their charter to enforce an Anglican approach to one’s relationship with Christ and church government.

This was, again, an extension of the “Act of Uniformity” referenced earlier. Because it struck at the way in which the Church was to be set up according to a biblical model as opposed to a state sanctioned hierarch, the “Presbyterian” dynamic was considered by the Church of England to be a problem that needed to be rooted out.

Mayhew’s addresses this in Section XIV which is entitled, “That the Society have long had a formal design to root out Presbyterianism, &c. and to establishing both Episcopacy and Bishops in the colonies: In pursuance of which favorite project, they have in a great measure neglected the important ends of their institution.”

However this may or may not resonate as a serious issue in the mind of a 21st century layperson, in the eighteenth century when Christianity was more than just a token tradition, it had monumental ramifications which Adams explains…

Rev Henry Caner

He was a devoted Loyalist, and when it was evident he could no longer be useful in Boston, he went with the British troops to Halifax. In one of the record books of King’s Chapel, Dr. Caner made the following entry:

“An unnatural rebellion of the colonies against his Majesty’s government obliged the loyal part of his subjects to evacuate their dwellings and substance and take refuge in Halifax, London and elsewhere;[348] by which means the public worship at King’s Chapel became suspended, and it is likely to remain so until it shall please God, in the course of his providence, to change the hearts of the rebels, or give success to his Majesty’s arms for suppressing the rebellion.

Two boxes of church plate and a silver christening basin were left in the hands of the Rev. Dr. Breynton at Halifax, to be delivered to me or my order, agreeable to his note receipt in my hands.”

After being a rector in Boston for twenty-eight years this aged clergyman was driven from his home and native land. Dr. Caner’s escape from Boston is thus described by himself in a letter dated Halifax, May 10, 1776:

“As to the clergy of Boston, indeed they have for eleven months past been exposed to difficulty and distress in every shape; and as to myself, having determined to maintain my post as long as possible, I continued to officiate to the small remains of my parishioners, though without support, till the 10th of March, when I suddenly and unexpectedly received notice that the King’s troops would immediately evacuate the town. It is not easy to paint the distress and confusion of the inhabitants on the occasion. I had but six or seven hours allowed to prepare for this measure, being obliged to embark the same day for Halifax, where we arrived the first of April. This sudden movement prevented me from saving my books, furniture, or any part of my interest, except bedding, wearing apparel, and a little provision for my small family during the passage…” (The Loyalists of Massachusetts

If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It Spread an Universal Alarm against the Authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops and Diocesses and Churches, and Priests and Tythes, were to be imposed upon Us by Parliament. It was known that neither King nor Ministry nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could Tax Us they could establish the Church of England with all its Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tythes, and prohibit all other Churches as Conventicles and Sepism Shops.12

What Adams is saying is that the Revolution was more than just an agitated populace wanting a more just representation in Parliament. The Church of England was using its politically based essence to impose the authority of English Rule on all things pertaining to church and beyond. In addition, it insisted than any other denomination was unlawful (Conventicles) and sick (Sepism Shops). And this included Presbyterians.

❺ Dr Henry Caner represents a great illustration of how certain Episcopalians were considered Tories because of their commitment to the Church of England. Like many of his Episcopal contemporaries, Caner felt compelled to leave the country and flee to England in order to avoid any fallout from having remained loyal to the crown (see sidebar). (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39316/39316-h/39316-h.htm#Footnote_70_70)

The bottom line is that “religion,” specifically Christianity, was not only the philosophical foundation upon which our Founders based their justification for separating from England, it was also the way in which a flawed approach to Scripture was being used by the Church of England to enforce a political agenda.

It was the American clergy during this time – the “Black Robe Regiment” – that placed these Realities before their engaged congregations and in so doing provided the needed resolve, endurance and courage to stand up against tyranny and defeat what was a fundamentally flawed approach to government.

1. “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
2. Ibid
3. “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865“, David Clapp and Son, Boston, MS, 1865,  “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775″p 256
4. “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson: Captain-General and Governor in Chief of His Late Majesty\’s Province of Massachusetts Bay in North America”, S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, England, 1883-1886, p167-169
5. “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution“, James H. Stark, W. B. Clarke Co, Boston, MA., 1807, p8
6. “Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth: Or, Sketches of Life From the Bye-Ways of History“, Benedictine Brethren of Glendalogh, edited by William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. ETC, Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, England, 1842,  p82
7. “Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion”, Page 54. Joseph Galloway, London: G. Wilkie, 1780. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (81)
8. “Pennsylvania Province and State: A History from 1609 to 1790“, Albert S. Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY, 1899, p417
9. “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin”, “Letter in Answer to the Proposition of quitting the Alliance of France”,  Vol 28 https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp, accessed April 14, 2023
10. “Naval Documents of the American Revolution“, Volume VI, edited by William James Morgan, Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1972, p 68
11. “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776,” The Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. William Jones, 12 vols. (London, 1801), Vol. 12, p 356
12. “From John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, 13 February 1818”, “National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854, accessed April 22, 2023

Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities

/in , , /by

The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – certainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.

You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:

The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.

You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.

Below is a brief yet potent list: Read more

Why Does it Have to be so Difficult?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I was looking at the story about how the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea. It was a timely devotion because of the way my bride and I were rehearsing some challenges yesterday.

In the chapters leading up to the exodus, God had demonstrated His Reality in the context of several miraculous signs that were so compelling, that no one in Egypt doubted the superiority of Israel’s God. After the Passover, Pharaoh couldn’t wait to send the Israelites on their way. This wasn’t just an example of brilliant statesmanship on the part of Moses, or a series of unfortunate events that coincidentally promoted the idea of granting Israel their independence. This was the miraculous Power of God in full display and what was an impossible situation, as far as the Hebrews being subject to the most powerful empire on earth with no hope of ever being free from a life of bondage, were now leaving in the context of a total and complete victory over their former taskmasters.

But then, Pharaoh changes his mind and he goes after the Israelites. He corners them against the Red Sea and there’s nothing the Hebrews can do but just wait for Pharaoh’s chariots and spears to end their lives.

But then, God parts the Red Sea and before it’s all over, Israel will, once again, see God doing what only He can do with the result being total and complete victory.

But before the waters parted, the Hebrews go up to Moses and, rather than calmly asking that he approach the Lord and ask for some help, they are terrified and wonder out loud if the whole purpose of leaving Egypt was to simply be killed in the desert.

When Moses approaches God, the Lord responds by asking him, “Why are you crying out to me?” (Ex 14:15)

The commentary on this verse is pretty minimal. But I hear it as God asking Moses, why are you freaking out?

Perhaps that’s not the most scholarly approach. Moses wasn’t necessarily terrified, but I can’t help but think that God was pointing back to the last several months of signs and wonders and asking Israel through His conversation with Moses, “Why are you so forgetful? Do you not remember all of what’s happened recently? Do you think that I’m somehow perplexed by what’s going on now?”

We know how the story ends. The Red Sea parts, Pharaoh’s army is destroyed and Israel can’t stop cheering.

But in the very next chapter, the nation of Israel is out of water and they’re in the desert and they…

…grumble (Ex 15:24)

Here’s where I have a question.

Why is it that the Red Sea couldn’t be the last round of major obstacles. You come within a heartbeat of being totally destroyed by Pharaoh’s army, you’ve got Pharaoh in front of you, the sea behind you, you’ve got nowhere to run, there’s nothing you can do and then, God delivers you and…

…cue music, the Israelites ride off into the sunset to the Promised Land and the lights come up.

Happy Ending!

But it’s one round of major problems after another. Chapter 14, Pharaoh’s army is holding a knife to your throat. Chapter 15, you run out of water. Chapter 16, you run out of food. Chapter 17 you run out of water again and you get attacked by the Amalekites.

Why does God allow so much adversity? It’s like with every problem that gets solved, suddenly you’re looking at something else that seems even worse.

It doesn’t take much to get to a place where you feel like nothing ever really gets done. No matter how many times you cry out to the Lord, it’s like there’s nothing there and you’re just engaging in what amounts to a pointless exercise that does nothing more than give you a false sense of encouragement.

But then, after the dust settles, you realize, after looking back, that some things have changed. You’re compelled to revisit some major breakthroughs and resolutions that, at the time, were major headlines in your life and you were thanking God and celebrating His Reality!

Perhaps, it’s healthy to imagine God asking you in your moment of need, “Why are you crying out to me?”

“Have you forgotten all that I’ve done?”

“Do you remember the empty tomb?”

“Have you forgotten Who I am?”

No. No, Lord. I’ve not forgotten and You’re right. I need to take a breath and be mindful of, now just what You’ve done, but Who it is I’m talking to.

But why can we not just take care of “this” once and for all? Why do I feel compelled to come back to You with a different scenario, but, more often than not, the same problem?

Why did You let the Israelites go thirsty? Why do You let them go hungry? Yes, You provided for them, but not before they got to a place where they were desperate. Why does it have to get to a place where people are hurting before You move?

Maybe it’s because no one is asking God for help until they’ve exhausted all their resources and they’re compelled to remember, “…from whence cometh my help.” (Ps 121:1)

Or perhaps it’s because it’s only when you’re having to exercise the muscle of genuine faith, that muscle actually grows.

JD Walt in his devotional, “The Gift of Thirst,” has a great little take on this when he says…

Something about thirst creates desperation. Something about desperation focuses prayer. Something about prayers of desperation creates a context for divine breakthroughs. Something about divine breakthroughs transform nominal religion into blazing faith. Something about blazing faith changes not just one life but transforms entire communities and traverses up and down generational lines. 

God always has a point and some of the greatest breakthroughs, which are also the greatest times of growth, happen only after some of the greatest trials. A.W. Tozer once said,”It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until he has hurt him deeply.”

You see that in James 1:2-4:

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (Jas 1:2-4)

Why does it have to be so difficult? Because sometimes that’s the only way you can see Him for Who He is and be able to benefit from all that He does.

Pharisees Doubt the Resurrection of Christ – an Example of Fake News

/0 Comments/in , , /by

“Fake News” is a sinister mechanism. Reason being is that you can be both ethical and accurate without telling the whole truth with the result being all of your subscribers walking around believing that they have an accurate perspective on the issues when, in fact, they’re clinging to a lie that has a much bigger and more diabolical purpose attached to it.

The following is a great example of “fake news.” I’ve got the passages that are being either distorted or referenced cited in parenthesis. As you read, consider how this same approach can be used to falsify the way in which our nation’s politics and culture are being presented, yet all the while appear completely ethical.

Pharisees Doubt The Resurrection of Christ

All of Israel is caught up in the rumors pertaining to the supposed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, a religious and political criminal that was recently put to death. While some are insistent that he is, in fact, alive, there are many others who dismiss it as yet another attempt being made on the part of his followers to validate his claims that he was the Son of God. We sat down with several high ranking officials, both from the Jewish and the Roman institutions that championed what was a very difficult, yet just, decision to get their thoughts.

From the very beginning, the Nazarene who referred to himself as the Son of God, was a problem in the way he incited many Jews to question the Law and their own heritage. His exploits weren’t curious as much as they were damaging, though many of those who heard him speak were unaware of just how toxic his perspective was. Thankfully there were steady and c

ommitted hands ready to prevent his corrosive effect from spreading by publicly questioning him and revealing his true colors.

“We challenged him,” said Simon, one of our more prominent Pharisees. “We demanded that he validate his testimony concerning himself and he wasn’t able to do it. (John 6)”

“His illegitimacy is no secret,” says Reuben, an associate of Simon and with him while they were questioning Jesus. “His mother was a disgrace and to see him now trying to assert himself as being equal to Jehovah is not only ludicrous, it’s almost sad to see someone so desperate to cover up the scandalous and unlawful aspects of his birth. (Mk 6:3)”

Clavius, a familiar tribune who serves Rome and has been an advocate for our Jewish traditions on many occasions, has no trouble being critical of Jesus.

“I remember a servant who lived in the household of one of my centurions who was deathly ill,” said Clavius. “He asked the Christ to come and heal his servant and this Jesus, who is supposedly compassionate, never even came to his home. I remember hearing that and from that moment forward, I was convinced that he was a problem and a fraud. (Matt 8:5-13)”

Atticus is yet another distinguished Roman, having served in the Roman army for two decades and a veteran of many conflicts. He was one of the guards who were stationed at the site of the Christ’s tomb (Matt 27:62-65).

“It’s insane!” he said. “I’ve been around death more than once.  Jesus died. He’s dead. It might make you sad, but that doesn’t change the fact He’s gone. And I know what it is to grieve, but to see this rabble refuse to accept the death of their cause and their champion by inventing this ridiculous story that he ‘rose from the grave’ is nothing more than a crazy effort to not accept the fact that your Christ is no more and you need to move on.”

When asked about the way in which the Pharisees were accusing the disciples of having stolen Christ’s body in order to give the appearance of Jesus having risen, Atticus said, “Your readers need to know that the disciples are lying! There is no resurrection. They broke the seal, they violated the sovereignty of Rome, they’re a stench among their own people…they’re insane! (Matt 28:11-15)”

Among those who insist that he rose is a former small business owner named Peter. As a fisherman, your fortunes are limited by default. Perhaps that’s why the prospect of becoming one of the Christ’s followers appealed to him to the point where he abandoned his craft and his family (Matt 8:14-18; 1 Cor 9:5). Maybe in the context of aligning yourself with someone who challenges the governing authorities could lead to a more prominent and financially sound position. Whatever his motivation was, his resolve to promote the fantasy of a risen “Messiah” is still very much intact.

“I’ve seen him!” said Peter. “I’m ashamed to admit that during his arraignment and trial, I denied even knowing him – I was that determined to put as much distance between myself and my former teacher as possible (Matt 26:73-75).”

“But that all changed when I saw him,” Peter said. “He’s alive and I’ll stake my life on it (Acts 4:18-19).”

Peter’s passion is admirable, but does that passion negate the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses let alone the sworn statements coming from established and reputable Roman officials and Jewish authorities?

“There is something both healthy and beneficial in retreating from emotionally charged declarations and instead cling to the certainty of one’s spiritual heritage,” said Simon. “We obey the political authorities that God has instituted and we revere the Law He gave to Moses. This is my stance and I hope it is one that our people will adopt as well.”