Garcia
You’ve got to ask the right questions in order to arrive at the right conclusions.
If the answer to that question is, “Yes,” then he is subject to deportation. He admitted to being here illegally as is documented on the Homeland Security report dated April 16, 2025.
Illegal immigrants are allowed a hearing, unless their conduct is criminal and / or they represent a threat to national security, which is just one of the “classes of deportable aliens” documented in 8 USC 1227. At that point, the Attorney General can deport them immediately.
MS-13 was declared a terrorist organization in February, 2025. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was validated as a member of MS-13 in October of 2019, according to a Department of Homeland Security Report.
In addition, when Garcia was arrested, he was apprehended alongside two other MS-13 gang members. Two other judges have confirmed him being affiliated with MS-13, Intelligence reports that he was involved in human trafficking and, at one point, his wife petitioned that a restraining order be filed against him.
All of this qualifies Garcia as a criminal and is subject to be deported immediately. The only “due process” that he qualifies for is immediate deportation according to the authority vested in the Attorney General.
President Trump’s Executive Order isn’t a “Constitutional Crisis,” as much as it’s a restoration of the legal guardrails designed to promote national security and define the rights and responsibilities of both citizens and non-citizens.
These laws have been in place for decades. United States Code 1325 identifies the penalties for attempting to enter the United States illegally and was established in 1925. The authority of the Attorney General to immediately remove illegal immigrants was defined in 1952.
The Supreme Court decision stated that Garcia was wrongfully deported because of a 2019 court order that prevented him from being sent back to El Salvador.
This is a part of that ruling…
Two things stand out immediately.
First, the government has evidence that Garcia is a part of MS-13 and to say that his arrest is “warrantless” and there is no basis in law for Garcia being deported represents an insane disregard for the obvious.
The press continually uses the word “alleged,” as though the evidence that identifies Garcia as a member of MS-13 is somehow speculative. His tattoos are readily recognized by those who are familiar with Mexican gang culture as indicators of his being a member of MS-13. It’s not the kind of thing that you dismiss by saying, “…they are interpreted that way” or the photo showing Garcia’s hand was Photoshopped.
Beyond that, however, you have the report detailing Garcia being arrested in March of 2019:
On 03/28/2019 at approximately 1427 hours, Detective ______ with the Hyattsville City Police observed four individuals loitering in the parking lot of the Home Depot located at 3301 East West Highway in Hyattsville, MD 20782. As Det. ______ approached the individuals, two of the individuals reached into their waistbands and discarded several unknown items under a parked vehicle. All four individuals were stopped by Hyattsville officers. Det. _____ immediately recognized Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO aka “Bimbo” as a member of the MS-13 Sailors Clique. Two small plastic bottles containing marijuana was located on scene. All four individuals were transported back to District I for interviews.
Member of the Prince George’s County Gang Unit MS-13 Intelligence Squad have encountered Chrishyan HERNANDEZ-ROMERO on multiple occasions. He has an extensive criminal history for multiple assault, concealing dangerous weapons, burglary , and many other criminal offenses. He has also been found guilty of gang participation in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in December of 2018. Offices know HERNANDEZ-ROMERO to be an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique with the rank of “Observacion” and moniker of “Bimbo.”
Officers also interviewed Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ. During the interview officers observed tattoos of skulls covering their eyes, ears, and mouth. Officers know these kind of tattoos are indicative of the Hispanic gang culture. The tattoos are meant to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” He also had a tattoo of a devil on his left leg which officers know only higher ranking MS-13 gang members are allowed to get a tattoo with the horns. This represents power with MS-13. Officers made contact with a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Jose Guillerno DOMINGUEZ is an active MS-13 gang member with the Sailor’s Clique the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker “Manico.”
Officers then interviewed Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA. During the interview, officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls had and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations. Officers know such clothing to be indicative of Hispanic gang culture. The meaning of the clothing is to represent “ver, oir y callar” or “see no evil, hear no evil, and say no evil.” Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13. Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Western clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of “Chequeo” with the moniker of “Chele.”
Officers interviewed Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA. During the interview officers were unable to determine his gang afflilation. Officers know MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang. Officers will continue to monitor Jason Josue RAMIREZ-HERRA for further gang activity. He was sent on his way without further incident.
This report doesn’t mention Garcia’s tattoos. It goes beyond any tats and instead references an informant who identifies Garcia, not just as a member of MS-13, but someone who has an official rank within its membership.
Secondly, the 2019 court order doesn’t say that Garcia shouldn’t be deported. He was to be removed from the US based on his being a member of MS-13 and a flight risk. Rather, it simply says that he shouldn’t be deported to El Salvador.
The news has repeatedly referred to as an “administrative error” on the part of the Trump administration. The “error” comes from the sworn testimony of Robert Cerna, the ICE Field Officer responsible for Garcia’s deportation.
Cerna overlooking the restraint that would’ve prevented Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in 2019 doesn’t apply in the same way in 2025. Since then, Garcia has been defined as an MS-13 gang member, not just according to his tattoos and his ballcap, but also by two judges. This supersedes the court order issued in 2019, as is explained by Tom Holman:
“I don’t accept the term ‘error’ in Abrego Garcia,” Homan said. “There was an oversight, there was a withholding order. But the facts surrounding the withholding order had changed. He is now a terrorist, and the gang he was fearing, from being removed from El Salvador, no longer exists.”1
Conclusion
Enforcing immigration law was neither the goal nor the priority of the Biden administration. However illegal immigration translates to a host of problems ranging from economic instability to national security risks, the Democrat party sees them as as voters that can conceivably change the political demographics of the country and help sustain the strength of the Liberal element within the US. Hence, the verbiage used by some in Congress to describe illegal immigrants as “asylum seekers” and others in the media referring to them as “undocumented immigrants.” By positioning illegals as victims and the Democrat party as those who are “trying to help,” the security, sanctity, and the solvency of the country are compromised in the name of a false compassion that is nothing more than a dirty quest for power.
Here’s the bottom line:
- Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn’t just an illegal immigrant, he’s an international terrorist.
- Because he’s an international terrorist, the only due process that he’s entitled to is an expedited deportation
- The Supreme Court is basing its position on an Immigration Law that says the Attorney General can’t deport an alien to their original country if by doing so it would put that alien’s life or freedom in jeopardy because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or a political opinion (USC 1231 (b) (3)(a)).
But since then, Garcia has been identified as a member of a terrorist organization and no longer qualifies for that provision and he is therefore deportable (see USC 1227 Deportable aliens (a)(4)(B)). - Those who say the evidence that identify him as a member of MS-13 is “thin” or “unsubstantiated,” are overlooking a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence as well as having been positively identified by a reliable informant.
To quote DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia Mclaughlin…
“I think this illegal alien is exactly where he belongs—home in El Salvador. He was in our country illegally, he is from El Salvador, was born in El Salvador, and, oh, the media forgot to mention: He is a MS-13 gang member. The media would love for you to believe that this is a media darling, that he is just a Maryland father. Osama Bin Laden was also a father, and yet, he was not a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists. He should be in this El Salvador prison, a prison for terrorists, and I hope he will remain there.”
1.”Trump “border czar” Tom Homan says Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador wasn’t a mistake”, CBS News, By Adam Thompson, Updated on: April 29, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/border-czar-tom-homan-abrego-garcia-maryland-el-salvador-trump/, accessed May 17, 2025
Baked On Grease
Oswald Chambers once said that one of the greatest strains in life is waiting on God.
It’s true.
You pray, you work, you hope, you pray some more and the thing that you’re wanting to happen continues to lie dormant and you wonder if you’re wasting your time.
You even start to doubt God and question whether or not He’s listening or if He’s telling you, “No.” And while you’re willing to accept the fact that maybe He’s got you on a different course than the one you’ve mapped out, the desire in your heart doesn’t fade and you find yourself stuck between defeat and despair – not sure how to proceed and not certain if you even want to try anymore.
Baked on grease can be a real challenge to clean up. But one thing that works really well is to let it soak. Some of the most stubborn messes can be easily wiped clean by simply letting that pan soak in some soapy water for a little bit and what a moment ago was virtually impossible to remove, not comes off easily and completely.
Regardless of how our situation looks, there are innumerable variables that only God can fully know. Sometimes what we’re asking requires the removal of some baked on grease. There’s things that have to be addressed in order for our request to be answered in a way that’s complete and structured in a way where He gets the glory. And in order for that to occur, we have to “soak.”
That doesn’t mean we do nothing, nor does it mean that we have to struggle with a negative or an exasperated disposition. Rather, we move forward with confidence and a perspective based, not on our circumstance, but the One Who’s in charge of our circumstances.
In other words, don’t give up…
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal 6:9)
God is always doing something (Jn 5:17) and there’s always a Purpose behind whatever it is that we’re contending with – a portion of that being the development of our spiritual biceps in order that we might become more like Christ (Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 3:18 [Is 40:29-31; Hab 3:19]). And while that doesn’t always resonate as a real priority compared to what we’re striving for, it’s only when we’re processing our triumphs in the context of true wisdom that our victories move us in a genuinely positive direction (Dt 8:10-18).
So keep at it and trust that, regardless of what might appear to be a gauge that doesn’t move or a situation that doesn’t change, God is listening and He is working. You might be having to “soak” for a little bit, but that is progress in and of itself and, like it says in Galatians 6:9, you will reap a harvest if you don’t give up.
Go get ’em!
Ten Questions for Atheists
Here’s my thought:
You remove God from the equation and the questions that are otherwise answered according to a biblically based dynamic are now responded to with horrendous probability values, concepts that bend the laws of Nature rather than explain them, and philosophical arguments that do not match what we know about the human experience. In short, you’ve got to do a lot of intellectual scrambling to make up for the lack of substance that characterizes an atheist’s perspective on life.
Take a look at the following questions and you tell me…
1) Where did you get your gravity from?
The origin of the cosmos, from the standpoint of the atheist, comes about as a result of a lucky collision of random elements. Then, thanks to the properties of gravity, physics, chemistry and so on, the elegant intricacies of life begin to surface. But where did you get your gravity from? Everything about your explanation is predicated on the preexistence of ordered systems within which your raw materials can combine and form into more complicated life forms. But you never attempt to explain who or what put the science in place that produces your end result.
2) How does a vacuum cleaner become a drummer?
If the starting point for life was something basic that then evolved into a thinking organism with a unique personality and capable of artistic expression, then at some point your “matter” is no longer a mere collection of molecules. It has somehow become both material and non-material and you’ve redefined the essential composition of what matter is. “Panpsychism” is not a new theory, but it borders on the absurd given the lack of evidence there is to support it.
3) Where is your fossil record?
When Darwin first published his theory of evolution, he admitted that the fossil record that was needed in order to substantiate his theory was sorely lacking. Chapter Nine of his book “Origin of Species” is dedicated to what constitutes the most glaring discrepancy of his theory. He says “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”1
He goes on to explain that it’s not his theory that is flawed, rather it’s the geological record. “Origin of Species” was published in 1859. The fossil record is no more conclusive now as it was 150 years ago. “Java Man,” the iconic image of man’s supposed distant ancestor, is a creative extrapolation based on three teeth, a skull cap and a femur.2 It is not even remotely close to a complete skeleton, nor are the other hypothetical half man / half ape intermediaries that fill the textbooks of biology classes throughout the nation.
The archaeopteryx (ar-key-OPT-er-icks), the fossil remains of a bizarre looking bird discovered in 1861, is unreservedly embraced by many proponents of Darwin’s theories as a conclusive example of a transitional life form, bridging the gap between reptiles and birds. The problem, however, is that birds are very different from reptiles in terms of their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs and their distribution of weight and muscles. The fact that you have a reptilian look bird doesn’t qualify it as a reptile when it is fundamentally a bird.3
Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, sums it up by saying:
…[T]he universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre life forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.4
4) What’s the point of your existence?
That may sound kind of abrupt, but think about it: If the fact that you have a pulse is due to nothing more than a fortuitous and altogether random pileup of chemical materials, then you have no real role to play. Your presence in the cosmos is entirely inconsequential – you don’t matter to the storyline because there is no storyline and you’re just an insignificant bump in the road.
You might respond with a noble sentiment that says you’re here to do as much “good” as you can do, or you might feel liberated to be as self serving as you can possibly be. But, again, if there’s nothing intentional behind the structure of the universe, then even the very definition of what’s “good” becomes subjective.
In the absence of a definitive standard, what resonates as a positive to one person is perceived as a problem to another. In short, it’s all pointless. There’s nothing truly worthwhile that endures and you are nothing more than dust on a windy street.
5) How would you defend Darwin’s regard for Africans?
This is a little awkward:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.5
Darwin saw Africans as being inferior to Caucasians. In his mind, from a scientific standpoint, Negroes were similar to gorillas in that they were an evolutionary precursor to Europeans. Given Darwin’s prestige as the iconic champion of Evolutionary Theory, no doubt this is something you agree with.
6) What makes your definition of “moral behavior” superior to mine?
While Hitler’s approach to the Jewish people today is regarded as unconscionable, in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s many perceived it as scientifically sound.
Germany’s “Society for Racial Hygiene” was Darwinian as far as its philosophical foundation and the ruthless acts committed in the context of the Holocaust were endorsed by some of the greatest German minds of that time as being a reasonable compliment to the forces of Natural Selection.6
Hitler’s approach worked for him and those who were like minded because they weren’t Jewish. But what if Adolf Hitler had been born a Jew? Would he have been as passionate in his belief that his race was inferior to those with blond hair and blue eyes?
Probably not.
But how would he have pleaded his case? If he was on the short end of Darwin’s evolutionary stick, how would he have convinced Germany’s scientific think tank that his brand of “moral behavior” was superior to their clinical justification for murder?
In the absence of an Absolute moral standard, the basis for one’s behavior is now more about what’s preferred as opposed to what’s right, and the code of ethics that is established for the community is established by those who are more persuasive rather than those who are more wise.
7) At what point do you admit that your theories are based on impossible scenarios?
Scientists have concluded that the chances of a single protein molecule coming together by chance is 1 in 10450 power. These are the sort of probability values upon which you build your entire approach to life, morality and all the intangibles that constitute the human experience. Is that your idea of a credible philosophical foundation?7
8) What makes your explanation of the origin of the cosmos any less “faith based” than mine?
You believe that something can come from nothing, that order can proceed from chaos and, given enough time, a plant can develop a personality. In other words, you subscribe to a doctrine that transcends the natural world as we know it, which is the essence of the term “supernatural.”
In the absence of the concrete evidence required to substantiate your theories, like Darwin, you have “faith” that science will one day vindicate your convictions. Regardless of how you attempt to veil your paradigm in academic sounding verbiage, your arguments are ultimately founded on a metaphysical platform and not an empirical one.
When it comes to the origin of the cosmos, you believe in processes and forces that don’t exist. If your aversion to including a Judeo-Christian perspective in the conversation pertaining to the creation of the universe is due to the fact that one must have “faith” in order to subscribe to such a thing, then what prevents you from disqualifying yourself given the fact that your approach is no less subjective?
9) Why does the tone of the conversation change anytime the name “Jesus Christ” is mentioned?
You can talk about any religious figure that has ever graced the world stage and the tone of the conversation remains comfortably academic. But mention the name Jesus Christ and something changes. People start getting a little uncomfortable.
Why?
If Christ is nothing more than either a ridiculous fairy tale or a self-serving promotion designed to advance the fortunes of charlatans posing as pastors, then why does the very mention of Jesus’ Name reverberate in a manner that makes people look down and take a sudden in interest in their shoes?
10) If the Bible is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then why make Peter a coward, Moses a murderer and Jacob a liar?
Why include all of the flaws and shortcomings belonging to the principal characters of Scripture?
If Christianity is nothing more than a massive PR campaign, then how do you explain what is obviously a nonsensical decision as far as discrediting the heroes of the Bible by detailing their weaknesses and bad decisions? Peter denied that He even knew Christ while talking to a servant girl. He wasn’t even conversing with someone of stature. He caved in the face of talking with a girl that was probably young enough to be his daughter (Matt 26:69-70). Moses was guilty of murder (Ex 2:11-12) and Jacob was a liar (Gen 27:19). Compare that to the way even Muhammad’s fingernail clippings and hairs were fought over by his followers.8
Scripture presents human beings as they are and not the way in which an intentionally misleading commercial would attempt to play down the undesirable characteristics of its main characters. Furthermore, the Bible invites questions and acknowledges its absurdity should its central theme prove false (Is 1:18, 1 Cor 15:19, 2 Pet 1:16).
In short, this is hardly the verbiage of a text attempting to mislead its reader.
Conclusion
No doubt, there will always be those that simply refuse to believe. At the end of the day, it’s a spiritual dynamic that’s being engaged, which doesn’t always fit neatly within the confines of a box defined by purely empirical parameters.
But…
The existence of God can be recognized (Rom 1:20), the Reality of Christ can be observed (Acts 26:25-27) and His Gospel can be understood (Jn 6:65; 1 Cor 2:12; Jas 1:5). The only thing that’s illogical about the Bible is why God would go to the lengths that He does for the sake of humanity.
To dismiss the Bible and Christianity in general based on the notion that it has no basis in fact is not an assessment founded on evidence, rather it’s a choice inspired by preferences. What is it that possesses a human being to look at the stars – to consider the elegant intricacies of the created order – and respond with an explanation that contemptuously dismisses God and replaces Him with horrendous probability values, questionable time frames and theoretical processes that mock the boundaries of legitimate science? Moreover, what drives an individual to spit upon the notion of a sinless Savior who lays aside His right to condemn and sacrifices Himself in order to redeem?
Typically, atheists proudly promote themselves as enlightened thinkers that tolerate followers of Christ as fools that refuse to accept the obvious and instead cling to antiquated myths that are ultimately revealed as limiting and intolerant.
Here’s my thought: I see you at the foot of the cross either sneering at your God as He dies for you or dismissing it as a pointless fiction. I hear you dismiss the depths of the ocean, the expanse of space and the exquisite complexity of our planet as crossword puzzles that can be solved, it’s just a matter of time. And finally, I watch you passionately cling to a terminal existence where significance and happiness are built upon a foundation comprised entirely of things that are destined to die, quit or change at any given moment.
Christ brings a lot to the table – more than what you might’ve been lead to conclude based on whatever bad experiences you’ve had with “religion” in the past. Don’t evaluate a system according to the way that it’s abused and don’t dismiss your King according to the way He’s been distorted.
I’ve got no further questions…
1. “Origin of Species”, Charles Darwin, Penguin Classics, New York, NY, 2006, p250
2. “The Case for a Creator”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p61
3. Ibid, p57
4. Ibid p56
5. “On the Origin of Species – Sixth Edition”, Charles Darwin, https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Charles%20Darwin%20-%20The%20Origin%20of%20Species%20-%206th%20Edition.pdf, accessed March 4, 2015
6. “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Jerry Bergman, http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust, accessed August 28, 2015
7.”Probability and Order Versus Evolution”, Henry Morris, PhD., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/, accessed May 11, 2015 (see also http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/)
8. “Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction”, Jonathan A.C. Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011, https://books.google.com/books?id=9JafXLrLiwYC&pg=PT48&lpg=PT48&dq=Muhammads+fingernail+clippings+&source=bl&ots=9yZoCsiR2G&sig=SGuWORW8dxaD9P_gOeAc9MqB3U0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAGoVChMIvNesz_DVxwIVCjI-Ch0HRg3t#v=onepage&q=Muhammads%20fingernail%20clippings&f=false, accessed September 1, 2015
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part III
7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?
Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11:3)
Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?
Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time.
Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute. While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.
On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”
Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe. However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.
8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?
Matthew 21:2 says:
saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey. Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)
Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:
The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.1
So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.
9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?
Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)
Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.
Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.2
10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?
The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:
Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added])
Matthew 27:62-63 says:
Mark 15:42-43 says:
It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)
Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:
It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)
“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.3 So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:
14It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])
In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.4
Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.
Conclusion
G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with. Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance.
It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)
Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose.
Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill.
The fact is, the debt was paid.
The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.
There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18).
Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument.
Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.
So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.
1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334
2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015
3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)
4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part II
This is Part II of “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer” – a response to a video on youtube that suggests that the questions being posed can’t be adequately responded to by believers. This article demonstrates that such is not the case. To access Part I, click here.
6) When Jesus rose for the grave, how many women went to the tomb and which ones?
The gospel writers reference several women, both at the tomb as well as at the foot of the cross. Matthew 27:55 says that there were “many women” standing at a distance from the cross as Jesus was dying. Luke doesn’t ever name any of the women, he just refers to them as “the women” (Lk 23:49, 55). And with the exception of Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Mark and John reference either different women or use different descriptions to identify those who were there.
If Matthew’s “mother of James and Joses” is John’s “wife of Clopas” and the woman John describes as “Mary’s sister” is the woman Mark calls “Salome,” you’ve got a total of four women and it looks like this:
| The Women at the Cross (each color represents one particular woman that’s described differently by the gospel writers) | |||||||
| verse | Mary (Jesus’ mother) | Mary Magdalene | Mary, wife of Clopas | Mary, mother of James and Joses | Mary’s sister | mother of Zebedee’s sons | Salome |
| Matt 27:56 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Mk 15:40 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Jn 19:25 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
While you have four different accounts, at no time does Matthew or John state that the women they reference were the only ones present, they simply chose to acknowledge a particular person or persons. Same thing with Mark. He only lists three, but he doesn’t qualify his trio to the point where he rules out the possible presence of other women.
Bottom line is we don’t know for certain who all was there, all we can do is connect the dots as they appear in Scripture. We can be confident that Mary’s mother was there along with Mary Magdalene. As far as the other two Mary’s and Salome, all we do is speculate as to whether or not the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joses and Salome was Mary’s sister. You’ve got the same kind of dynamic at the empty tomb.
Again, Luke refers to them as “the women” (Lk 24:1). Matthew, Mark and John again highlight certain personalities that were present:
| The Women at the Empty Tomb | ||||||
| verse | Mary Magdalene | Mary, the mother of James | the other Mary | Salome | ||
| Matt 28:1 | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Mk 16:1 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| Jn 20:1 | ✔ | |||||
Thanks to having looked at the way the same writers referred to “the women” at the foot of the cross, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Matthew’s “other Mary” is the woman he described as “Mary, the mother of James and Joses” in chapter 27. That means that he and Mark are probably referring to the same woman in their respective accounts, as far as the “other Mary.”
Matthew doesn’t mention Salome and John only references Mary Magdalene. So, of “the women” that were present, we know of three for certain, although there might’ve been others. Mary Magdalene is a definite as well as “the other Mary” and another woman named Salome.
Over the years, several great minds have tried to more specifically identify the players that were present. Again, we’re looking at a situation where the Bible doesn’t clarify things as well as we might like, but there are two things we want to avoid in these kinds of situations:
#1 – fail to appreciate the big picture
#2 – attempt to edit Scripture in order to manufacture a scenario that’s easier to process
Dr. James D Tabor does a great job of presenting a case for Mary, the wife of Clopas, to being the mother of Jesus based on the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is conspicuously absent from the New Testament shortly after his having brought his young family back to Nazareth from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). It would’ve been customary for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widow based on Jewish law. When you couple that with the fact that Clopas was the father of James and Joses and Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses, it becomes fairly obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (wife of Clopas) are actually the same person.
Should that prove to be accurate, the women at the tomb, based on Dr. Tabor’s theory and a comprehensive snapshot of Scripture would be:
- Mary Magdalene
- Mary – the mother of Jesus, James and Joses
- Salome
That sounds downright compelling right up to the point where he suggests that the book of John has been edited.1
Regardless of how “logical” a particular explanation may be, if it involves having to change the content of the Bible in order for it to work, at that point the Bible is no longer inerrant and you no longer have the Word of God, rather you have a flawed text.
Granted, what we have with the gospel writers is not conclusive in terms of the women that were there at the empty tomb. It’s not that they contradict one another as much as their decision to reference certain women in lieu of others results in a list of characters that’s speculative.
But it’s not who was at the tomb, it was the fact that no one was in the tomb – that’s the point the gospel writers are making. It could very well be that there was a whole congregation of women at the tomb which would mean that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John chose to document everyone that was present. But that doesn’t mean that their respective accounts are contradictory, nor should it distract from the fact that Christ had risen from the grave.
So, the short answer to our critic’s question is three, based on what we have in Scripture coupled with some speculation. But in the end, the emphasis should not be on who was not AT the tomb, rather the issue is Who was not IN the tomb!
Click here to read Part III!
1. “Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.” This is a portion of the post made by Dr. James D. Tabor entitled “Sorting Out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters at http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/27/sorting-out-the-jesus-family-mother-fathers-brothers-sisters/, accessed May 31, 2015
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part I
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 (see callout to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”
And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:
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
