[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the October issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Second, the Bible is clear that there is only one reason God ever gives humans any commands at all. In Deuteronomy 6:24, Moses wrote: “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day.” According to this verse, God’s commandments are always given for the benefit of those who receive them. In 2 Peter 1:3, we read that God’s divine power “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” If God does not need human worship, why then does He so adamantly command it? He commands worship, “for our good always,” so we can have everything we need for “life and godliness.”

Why Do We Need to Worship God?

With a proper understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, worship, and God’s relationship to humans, we can easily answer the initial question, “Why does God demand that we worship Him?” The simple answer is, “Because humans need to worship God in order to experience their best possible life.” I think, however, that if this article ended with that answer, the reader would be less than satisfied. What we really want to know is why is it best for humans to worship God? What is it about the fact that humans need to think and say that God is awesome, almighty, worthy of praise, honor, and glory that helps humans achieve their highest potential?

The answer lies in the fact that it is always best to understand, recognize, and admit the truth of objective reality. Furthermore, a person must recognize objective reality in order to behave in a way that will bring about the most beneficial outcome. We can illustrate this truth in a number of ways.

Imagine that a person needs to cross the Grand Canyon. A failure to recognize and admit the truth of gravity could bring about catastrophic results. Gravity is real. It is powerful. If a person wants to go across the Grand Canyon, a refusal to admit this, or a momentary lapse in judgment, in which this reality is not considered, can be fatal. Now, there are several options that a person has for getting across the canyon safely. That person could fly across, recognizing that he would need some source of power, such as hot air in a balloon or fuel for a plane. The individual could build a bridge, a rather costly endeavor, but given the time and resources, one that would be effective. Whatever the person chooses, however, he must calculate the Law of Gravity. The second he attempts anything that does not take that reality into account, he is destined for failure. He must think, believe, and understand that gravity is real, powerful, ever present on Earth, and something to remember and think about.

Take the example of the theoretical “Perpetual Motion Machine.” You may be aware that the U.S. Patent Office has been forced to refuse to consider all patents for any machine that claims it can run forever without an external source of energy. They have taken this stand because the Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in layman’s terms, that all closed systems are moving toward a state of disorder. If no more energy is coming in, and energy is less usable after every energy transaction, then eventually all machines run down. You can imagine a wise engineering professor who has been teaching mechanical engineering for many years explaining this situation to his eager class of new recruits. What does he insist that they recognize and learn? There are no perpetual motion machines. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is real. It is powerful. It cannot be broken. Every machine you ever build must admit this truth. He does not want the students to think and say these things so that the Second Law feels good about itself. He wants them to admit the truth so that they can build machines that work.

What happens, then, when an objective reality that needs to be recognized and admitted is “housed” in a person? All of us have experienced this to some degree. Imagine you are in a trivia game and there is a sports fanatic on your team. Every sports question he gets right. He has studied sports stats all his life. He collected sports cards from the time he could read. Your team is asked a question about Barry Bonds and the Baseball Hall of Fame. Who does your team want to answer the question? You do not ask the guy who knows science or the girl who has a doctorate in English literature. You turn to the sports guy who insists that he knows the right answer.

Now, I said we have all experienced this “to some degree,” but let’s take our illustration a step further. What if this man actually does know every single fact about every sport ever played? Any actions that failed to recognize this reality could be catastrophic. Imagine your team is asked a sports question worth 10 million dollars. Your teammate confidently says he knows every question about sports that could be asked and insists that you let him answer it. He explains that if you do not, your team will lose 10 million dollars. He is not bragging. He is not trying to force you to build up his ego. He simply wants you to admit the truth that he knows more about sports than you do, so that your team achieves the best outcome.

Any good sports team understands this concept. If there is a person on a football team who is quicker on his feet, more agile, and throws the ball faster and more accurately than anyone else on the team, everyone needs to recognize that he should play quarterback. If those on the team or the coaches refuse to recognize and admit this truth, they will not arrange the team in the best way. When it comes down to the wire, and a 70-yard pass needs to be made, the quarterback would not be bragging to say that he needs the ball and can make the throw better than anyone else on the team. He is simply stating a truth that everyone involved with the team needs to recognize and admit.

Let us shift this discussion slightly and consider how we often train children to think and behave. Imagine a mother is sitting with her child at the park. They are watching the other kids play. One little boy runs past a young girl, bumping her, causing her to fall. He immediately stops, apologizes, and helps her to her feet. The mother might turn to her child and point out the boy’s actions and explain that this is the correct way to behave. When we see laudable, honorable, just, loving, kind, benevolent, wise, competent behavior, we praise it so that it will be imitated. In this case, the child who performed the kind deed may never hear the words of the mother, but both the mother and her child need to recognize and admit the justice and kindness of the action if they want to behave in a just, kind way.

Of course, all illustrations break down at some point and do not provide a perfect analogy to the concept that is being illustrated. These illustrations can help us see, however, that recognizing and admitting reality is the only way to make decisions that will provide the best possible outcome. That being the case, any attempt to help us understand reality is one that will help us get the most out of life. If it is true that God is all-powerful, a refusal to admit this will only cause us harm. God asks us to understand this, say it to ourselves, to other people, and back to Him, not to stroke His ego, but to help us make the best possible decisions.

You can imagine the engineering professor demanding: Professor: “Say it again class. What must be calculated in all machines?” Class: “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Professor: “Why must it be calculated?” Class: “Because it never fails.” Professor: “Where and when does the Second Law work?” Class: “Everywhere in the Universe all the time.” Professor: “What will happen if you forget this Law?” Class: “You will be a terrible engineer!” You can see how this would go. The Second Law does not need us to understand it and “praise” it. We need to understand it in order to function properly in a world where it is a reality.

Does It Seem Like a Little Much?

Even knowing the truth, that we need to recognize objective spiritual reality, some will argue that the repeated insistence by the God of the Bible that humans worship Him is overkill. Why does God feel the need to repeat, over and over, that humans recognize His power, brilliance, and majesty?¹ And if God already knows all this about Himself, why does He require that humans keep repeating back to Him how good, glorious, and awesome He is?

First, God often wants us to express to Him things He already knows. When He asked Adam, “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” (Genesis 3:11), God already knew the answer. Adam needed to confess his sins to God for his, Adam’s, sake, not to provide God with information. In the New Testament, Jesus taught His disciples to pray and ask God for things such as food and forgiveness. He then explained to them that “your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him” (Matthew 6:8). God does not need us to inform Him of His majesty. We need to keep repeating it back to Him so we do not lose sight of the truth of it.

Second, the history of humankind reveals that humans come pre-programmed with a religious instinct to worship something. When humans aim their praise and worship toward the wrong entities, it ends in sinful behavior that leads to disaster and destruction. The apostle Paul wrote about how the pagan Gentiles “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things….[A]nd worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:23-25). Even with God’s repeated and insistent demand that humans recognize the spiritual objective reality of His all-mighty nature, humans turned their attention to “those which by nature are not gods” (Galatians 4:8).

We can illustrate what happens when a person attributes to something a power it does not have. Imagine a person believing that a dense rock will float. He is standing on the deck of a ship, ties himself to a large rock, and jumps in the water, fully trusting that he will float. His attributing the ability to float to something that does not have that ability could easily cost his life. Or think back to our Grand Canyon example. What if a person believes that a trash bag acting as a cape is stronger than the force of gravity? He jumps off, fully trusting the ability of his plastic cape, yet his “flight” does not end how he planned. When people worship the wrong entity or idea, they “serve” things that are not the ultimate, all-powerful reality, and it can never lead to their best life.

Modern, enlightened individuals may insist that they do not worship anything. They do not bow down to statues, or anything else for that matter. They believe in themselves, in the power of humanity to do good and make moral progress, and they hope for a better world that will come about when we get rid of religious baggage and traditional monotheistic thought. Try as they may, however, to deny their instinct to worship, they have set up an idol in their hearts—themselves. Moses warned about such self-worship. In his speech to the Israelites, who were going into the land of Canaan, he told them about all the good things God would do for them. They would “eat bread without scarcity” and “lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). He warned them to beware not to “forget the Lord your God” (8:11). And how would they forget a God who performed miracles, brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand, fed them manna for 40 years, and personally directed them through the wilderness? 
“[T]hen you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth’” (8:17). Humans cannot bring themselves into existence. They do not have the power to make the Sun rise and set. Humans are so limited that we cannot “add a single hour” to our lives (Matthew 6:27, ESV). How then can we pretend that we are the ultimate reality, responsible for our own success and final destiny? No, when humans put themselves in the place of God, their end is destruction, their god is their appetites, and their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19). History has shown that only a constant recognition and repeated recital of God’s reality and true nature grounds a person in the understanding of objective reality.

Conclusion

God is the ultimate reality. He is infinite in all His attributes. He knows everything, has all power, is all-loving, never makes a mistake, and wants only what is best for His creation. When we recognize and admit these truths, we are able to make the best possible decisions. When we fail to admit these objective spiritual realities to ourselves, to others, and to God, we are arranging our physical and spiritual lives in ways that can only end in catastrophe. “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. Praise the Lord” (Psalm 150:6).

Endnotes

¹ The admonitions are actually scattered over a period of 1,600 years and addressed to many different people.

The post Why Does God Demand We Worship Him? (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Several leading voices in the atheistic community believe they have the answer to such a question. They contend that humans made up the stories in the Bible, and therefore the God Who is depicted in its pages reflects the human characteristics of narcissism and megalomania. Atheist Dan Barker wrote: “Megalomania does not have a precise medical definition. In the old days, it was called ‘a narcissistic personality disorder,’ and that seems to fit the God of the Old Testament perfectly. ‘Look at me, me, me! I am wonderful! Nobody is more powerful!’”¹ He continued this thought by stating: “The Old Testament is crammed with ego-stroking proclamations, attention-seeking and show-off displays of God’s self-proclaimed majesty.”² And: “Like a football player showing off to both impress the cheerleaders and intimidate the competition, the Lord Jealous was a macho boaster. ‘Look at me! I am the great and terrible Lord!…’ Truly great people are psychologically secure, not dependent on the opinions of others. God is not great. He is merely megalomaniacal.”³

Preacher-turned-atheist Charles Templeton, in his book Farewell to God, wrote: “And what is this consuming need the God of the Bible has to be worshipped, to be everlastingly praised and assured that he is the Great One, the most deserving of adoration and praise? Today such a condition would be diagnosed as pathological.”⁴ The late Christopher Hitchens, outspoken atheist and vehement opponent of the God of the Bible, stated: “There is, first, the monarchial growling about respect and fear, accompanied by a stern reminder of omnipotence and limitless revenge…”⁵

While those statements were made nearly two decades ago, the sentiment is still prevalent among those who do not believe in the God of the Bible. Most modern unbelievers with whom I’ve interacted, however, would not use openly harsh and “unfriendly” terms like megalomaniacal and “macho boaster.” In fact, many of the younger atheists and agnostics seem to be distancing themselves from the aggressive and hostile approach of the New Atheism movement. Instead, the modern young unbeliever might be heard to say something as simple as, “If God knows he is all-powerful, why would he force everyone to worship him and praise him?” The question is simply left out there in a way that suggests it has not, or cannot, be answered satisfactorily. Why are the Scriptures filled with commands, demands, and admonitions for all people to worship God alone, recognize His infinite qualities, and bow before Him?

This Accusation Seems Misguided to Christians

Before we begin to answer this question, Christians may be surprised that this is even an accusation that needs an answer. This is the case because they have never felt like they were “commanded” to praise God, extol His virtues, or tell others of His excellence and glory. These reactions simply come naturally to them as they have learned about the character of God and His innumerable acts of righteousness, power, justice, mercy, grace, forgiveness, love, and goodness. Psalm 23 provides an excellent example of this attitude. The writer of the psalm, King David, is not writing because He is forced to worship God. Instead, he is writing because he recognizes all the ways that God has, and will, bless his life. David simply wants others to know how wonderful his God is.

It is interesting that agnostic Bart Ehrman once stated: “The problem is this: I have such a fantastic life that I feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for it; I am fortunate beyond words. But I don’t have anyone to express my gratitude to. This is a void deep inside me, a void of wanting someone to thank, and I don’t see any plausible way of filling it.”⁶ Christians feel this same overwhelming sense of gratitude, but they do not experience the void of having no one to thank. On the contrary, their gratitude naturally extends to praising, thanking, and glorifying their Creator Who is responsible for their lives.

In truth, when a person loves and appreciates another person, he or she does not feel obligated to express those sentiments, they just come naturally. Imagine the young fiancé who is asked about his future bride. He gushes over her beauty, her intellect, her kindness, tender heart, and a million and one other praiseworthy attributes about her that he has grown to love. His glowing description is not forced or out of obligation but is the natural reaction to how he feels about her. Or think about the avid basketball fan who believes Michael Jordan is the best basketball player to have ever played the game. If you ask him why he thinks that, he will be thrilled to tell you all the stats, intangibles, and great moments he believes prove that MJ is the best. His praise for Jordan’s basketball skills flows naturally from his appreciation for how good Jordan is at the game, not from a sense of necessity or obligation.

As people experience the joy and beauty of a loving relationship with God, they cannot help but worship the God Who provided such a “fantastic life.”

• “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!” (Psalm 34:8).
• “For you have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:13-14).
• “I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; for you have magnified Your word above all Your name. In the day when I cried out, You answered me, and made me bold with strength in my soul” (Psalm 138:2-3).

These types of verses could literally be multiplied by hundreds. They are not the voices of forced, obligatory, constrained worship, but are instead the cries of those who have seen the beauty and worthiness of God.

A beautiful picture of this natural and spontaneous praise is presented in Luke 19. When Jesus approached Jerusalem in what most Bible scholars call the Triumphal Entry, the “whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen” (19:37). The Pharisees, who refused to recognize the truth of Jesus’ deity, said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples” (19:39). Jesus responded by saying: “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out” (19:40). Jesus’ point was simply that all those who recognize the truth of God’s character cannot help but praise Him, and that even extends (in one sense) to every aspect of the created world that shows His glory (read Psalm 148). To the Christian, the opportunity to praise God is a privilege.

Answering the Skeptics’ Challenge

Having noted that praise to God flows naturally from a heart of gratitude, I would like to begin building an answer to the skeptics’ challenge by presenting two separate but connected ideas. First, the Bible never, ever, in any way, even remotely, insinuates that God needs the praise and worship of humans. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches exactly the opposite. The psalmist recorded God’s message to the Israelites regarding sacrifices in the Old Testament as follows: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you; For the world is Mine, and all its fullness…. For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine” (Psalm 50:10-12). You can easily understand God’s point in this discussion. The Israelites might be questioning why they would be “forced” to burn animal sacrifices to God. Was it that God somehow needed them? God’s answer shows that He has an endless supply. He does not need the animals that the Israelites are sacrificing. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul explained to his listeners on Mars Hill: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24-25). Any accusation against God that suggests He is “dependent on the opinions of others” or has a “consuming need” to be worshiped is either intentionally or inadvertently distorting what the Bible says on the subject.

Second, the Bible is clear that there is only one reason God ever gives humans any commands at all. In Deuteronomy 6:24, Moses wrote: “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He may preserve us alive, as it is this day.” According to this verse, God’s commandments are always given for the benefit of those who receive them. In 2 Peter 1:3, we read that God’s divine power “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.” If God does not need human worship, why then does He so adamantly command it? He commands worship, “for our good always,” so we can have everything we need for “life and godliness.”

(Part II to cont. in Nov.)

Endnotes

¹ Dan Barker (2016), God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (New York: Sterling), p. 168.

² Ibid., p. 169.

³ Ibid., p. 179.

⁴ Charles Templeton (1996), Farewell to God (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart), pp. 4-5.

⁵ Christopher Hitchens (2007), God Is Not Great (New York: Twelve), p. 99.

⁶ Bart Ehrman (2008), God’s Problem (New York: HarperCollins), p. 128.

The post Why Does God Demand We Worship Him? (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In December 2024, the world celebrated a groundbreaking leap in quantum technology as Google revealed its quantum computing chip.¹ Today, innovations like Google’s “Willow” chip demonstrate how scientists leverage quantum principles to create unprecedented computational power. Yet, even as we marvel at these achievements, some crucial questions remain unasked: What does quantum technology truly reveal about the nature of the Universe, and what does it mean for Christians as science continues to uncover deeper layers of complexity and mystery? Quantum mechanics, the study of subatomic particles, emerged in the early 20^th century through the work of pioneers like Max Planck, a man whose views stood in stark contrast to many who study quantum physics today.² In as much as quantum mechanics correctly describes the processes of nature, these processes and their mathematical relations were not invented by scientists—they were discovered as a pre-existing framework governing the Universe. Far from diminishing the Christian faith, quantum discoveries invite believers to marvel at a Universe that reflects the fingerprints of its Creator, a God Whose wisdom and design can be seen in what we understand and must therefore extend beyond our current understanding.

Quantum mechanics reveals an intricate framework governing the Universe, a framework so precise and complex that it invites us to question its origins. From the principles of superposition and entanglement to the unprecedented computational potential of quantum technologies, these discoveries point to an underlying order beyond mere chance. Just as DNA serves as a powerful analogy for intelligent design, quantum mechanics unveils a reality far deeper than human comprehension. This article explores the implications of quantum mechanics for understanding the nature of the Universe and highlights the evidence of an intelligent Creator woven into the fabric of reality. By examining the limitations of naturalistic explanations and the necessity of design, we are invited to see the quantum world as a reflection of divine Intelligence.

Classical Physics vs. Quantum Physics

Classical physics governs the macroscopic domain, encompassing the behavior of everyday objects like cars, airplanes, and celestial bodies. Its laws, including Newton’s laws of motion, provide an intuitive framework for understanding motion, gravity, and forces on a scale we can observe and experience directly.

Quantum physics, on the other hand, delves into the subatomic world of atoms and subatomic particles, where the application of classical physics no longer applies. This divergence arises because quantum phenomena follow principles beyond the laws of classical physics and are unique from our conventional understanding of the macroscopic world. These principles,³ such as indeterminate states, probabilistic measurements, and non-local effects, challenge classical intuition but remain grounded in physical realities like energy conservation and the impossibility of faster-than-light travel. For instance, wave-particle duality reveals that particles such as electrons and photons can behave both as discrete particles and as waves, depending on how they are observed. Similarly, the uncertainty principle, a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, asserts that it is fundamentally impossible to simultaneously measure both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute precision. This limitation challenges the rigid framework of cause-and-effect in classical mechanics, which assumes perfect predictability given sufficient data.

Another defining feature of quantum mechanics is the principle of superposition, which describes how particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously until they are measured. This principle, while counterintuitive, forms the basis for groundbreaking technologies like quantum computing, where superposition allows quantum bits (qubits) to perform complex calculations far beyond the capacity of classical computers.⁴

The divergence between classical and quantum physics becomes even more pronounced when considering their respective limitations. Classical physics fails to accurately describe phenomena at the quantum level, such as the behavior of electrons within an atom. Unlike planets orbiting a star, electrons do not follow fixed trajectories but are better represented as probabilistic “clouds” of potential locations. This distinction underscores the necessity of quantum mechanics for understanding the building blocks of matter.

Despite these differences, classical and quantum physics are not entirely disconnected. At larger scales and higher energies, the probabilistic effects of quantum mechanics average out, allowing classical physics to emerge as a valid approximation of quantum behavior. This transition is known as the classical limit,⁵ illustrating how the two frameworks are complementary rather than contradictory. Modern physics has even merged these domains through quantum field theory, which integrates quantum mechanics with the principles of special relativity, offering a unified description of particles and forces.

Ultimately, while classical physics provides an accessible framework for understanding the macroscopic world, quantum mechanics reveals the intricate and often bewildering rules governing the Universe at its most fundamental level. Though complex, quantum physics is not a loophole for fantastical claims like perpetual motion or time travel. It is a predictive framework that must be understood with scientific rigor and not misused for pseudoscientific narratives. These discoveries challenge us to think beyond the familiar and to appreciate the profound complexity and order underlying all of creation. Far from diminishing the awe of scientific inquiry, quantum mechanics invites us to explore deeper truths about the Cosmos.

Quantum Computers

These precise principles allow humanity to harness them for groundbreaking technologies like quantum computers. Creating quantum computers requires solving immense engineering challenges. These machines rely on qubits, the building blocks of quantum computation. Qubits are highly sensitive and implemented using advanced methods such as superconducting circuits, trapped ions, or photons.⁶ For instance, superconducting qubits operate at temperatures near absolute zero to reduce noise and energy loss, while trapped ion qubits use electromagnetic fields to isolate and manipulate ions.

Despite the incredible potential of quantum computers to solve problems beyond the reach of classical machines—such as factoring large numbers exponentially faster with Shor’s algorithm,⁷ employing Grover’s algorithm⁸ for database searching, or simulating complex molecules for drug discovery—current systems remain highly unstable and face numerous limitations. Quantum systems require precision and careful engineering to function. Any disturbance—temperature, radiation, or interference—causes decoherence, rendering the system ineffective.⁹

High error rates further complicate computations, requiring sophisticated error correction methods that drastically increase the number of qubits needed for reliable results.¹⁰ Additionally, the scalability of qubit systems remains a major hurdle, as maintaining quantum entanglement across large-scale devices while minimizing noise is an immense engineering challenge.¹¹ Practical quantum computers also face severe hardware constraints, including limited qubit connectivity and the need for cryogenic cooling near absolute zero, which imposes significant energy demands.¹² Moreover, current NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) devices are limited in their computational power, capable of performing only small-scale tasks without demonstrating clear quantum advantage for practical applications.¹³ Finally, while quantum computing excels at certain problems, theoretical constraints suggest that not all computational tasks benefit from quantum speed-up, limiting its applicability.¹⁴ These challenges demonstrate the significant gap between the theoretical promise of quantum computing and its current, practical limitations.

While quantum computers are astonishingly powerful, their existence and operation depend entirely on human intelligence and effort. Despite their speed and complexity, they cannot create, program, or assemble themselves. Every part of the quantum computer—from hardware design to error correction—requires human ingenuity. Humans must write algorithms and design the systems that harness these principles. Without explicit input, quantum computers cannot determine which problems to solve, and they remain idle, incapable of autonomous operation. None of these advancements occurred spontaneously; they resulted from careful planning, experimentation, and deliberate effort. This limitation highlights the broader truth that intelligence is required to create systems of order and purpose—a concept that extends beyond quantum computing to the very foundation of life itself.

Quantum Mechanics and the Origin of Life

The exploration of quantum mechanics and its potential role in the origin of life has sparked fascination, speculation, and debate. Academics Johnjoe McFadden, a professor of molecular genetics, and Jim Al-Khalili, a theoretical physicist from the University of Surrey, stand at the forefront of this discussion. Together, they direct the world’s first doctoral training center dedicated to quantum biology, a field that seeks to integrate quantum mechanics into biological processes. McFadden and Al-Khalili present a hypothesis that leans more toward the fanciful—if not outright fantastical—and yet is hailed by some as “science” in today’s discourse: quantum mechanics may have mediated the search for a self-replicating molecule—a proto-enzyme—in the alleged primordial soup. At the heart of their hypothesis lies quantum coherence—a phenomenon in quantum mechanics where matter particles exhibit wave-like properties and exist in multiple states simultaneously. Their idea is that quantum coherence could have played a fundamental role in overcoming the insurmountable challenges of abiogenesis, the concept of life arising from non-living matter.

By leveraging these states, McFadden and Al-Khalili suggest that quantum processes might have accelerated the search for functional self-replicating molecules in the chaotic prebiotic world. In essence, they invoke the strange principles of the quantum realm as a kind of “search engine” to explain the improbable transition from inanimate chemistry to life. While their ideas are creative and intriguing, they rely heavily on conjecture rather than empirical evidence. As critics have rightly pointed out, quantum mechanics may explain processes within living organisms but falls far short of solving the fundamental question of life’s origin. Even McFadden and Al-Khalili concede: “Of course, any scenario involving quantum mechanics in the origin of life three billion years ago remains highly speculative.”¹⁵

Physicists working with quantum systems must cool their equipment to near absolute zero and isolate it from environmental noise to maintain coherence. In contrast, the hypothesized primordial soup—a chaotic, warm environment teeming with unstable chemicals—lacks the controlled conditions necessary to sustain quantum coherence. For McFadden and Al-Khalili’s hypothesis to hold, quantum processes would need to survive long enough to locate a functional self-replicating molecule.¹⁶ This stretches the boundaries of plausibility and ignores the physical realities of quantum systems.

McFadden and Al-Khalili’s reliance on quantum mechanics to explain abiogenesis represents a form of “naturalism-of-the-gaps.” Just as some invoke time as a “magic wand” to solve the improbabilities of Darwinian evolution, quantum coherence is presented as the catalyst for overcoming the challenges of abiogenesis. However, this approach is intellectually unsatisfying and scientifically unconvincing. The principles of quantum mechanics are fascinating and powerful, but they cannot be used as a placeholder for evidence.

Theoretical physicist David Griffiths offers a well-founded cynicism toward such speculative claims: “In general, when you hear a physicist invoke the uncertainty principle, keep a hand on your wallet.”¹⁷ Griffiths’s caution highlights the need for skepticism when quantum mechanics is invoked to explain the unexplainable. While quantum processes undoubtedly play roles in biological systems, extrapolating these processes to the prebiotic world without evidence is a leap too far.

The Problem of Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis— The theory that life arose from non-living chemicals—remains one of the most significant hurdles for naturalistic explanations of life’s origin. Proponents of abiogenesis face multiple challenges, including the instability of RNA, the improbability of self-replication, and the unresolved issue of homochirality.

The Instability of RNA

RNA, a central molecule in the RNA world hypothesis, is proposed to have acted as both a gene and an enzyme in the early stages of life. However, RNA is inherently unstable, degrading rapidly without repair mechanisms. Even DNA, which is far more stable, requires complex cellular machinery to maintain its integrity. Nobel Prize-winning research has shown that living cells rely on intricate repair systems to prevent DNA damage.¹⁸ RNA, which is 100 times less stable than DNA, could not have survived the harsh conditions of the primordial soup long enough to support the emergence of life. Without these repair mechanisms, RNA would quickly degrade, rendering abiogenesis implausible.¹⁹

The Improbability of Self-Replication

The RNA world hypothesis assumes that a self-replicating ribozyme emerged spontaneously from a pool of prebiotic chemicals. Chemist Graham Cairns-Smith calculates the probability of a single molecule converting into RNA by chance at 1 in 10¹⁰⁹—a number so astronomically large it exceeds the total number of particles in the Universe.²⁰ McFadden and Al-Khalili acknowledge this problem, admitting, “Clearly, we cannot rely on pure chance alone.”²¹ Their solution—quantum coherence as a search mechanism—introduces more speculation without addressing the underlying improbability.

The Problem of Homochirality

Life depends on the exclusive use of left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, a phenomenon known as homochirality. In biologically unaided chemistry, molecules form in a 50:50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms. For life to exist, a system must achieve and maintain this chemical asymmetry. Quantum mechanics offers no explanation for how homochirality could arise spontaneously in a prebiotic environment. Without a mechanism to produce homochirality, the RNA world hypothesis collapses.²²

Max Planck and the Role of God in Quantum Mechanics

The foundational contributions of Max Planck, widely regarded as the father of quantum theory, provide a critical perspective in understanding the origins of quantum mechanics and its implications. Planck’s groundbreaking proposal in 1900—that energy is quantized—paved the way for modern physics, revolutionizing our understanding of the subatomic realm. Yet, unlike many modern scientists who divorce science from faith, Planck’s discoveries deepened his conviction in a Creator.

Far from attributing the laws of the Universe to random, mindless processes, Planck saw divine Intelligence behind the order he observed. He famously stated:

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.²³

For Planck, the Universe’s complexity and structure revealed the work of a Creator, not chance. He explicitly rejected the materialistic worldview that dismisses God’s role in the cosmos:

There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony.²⁴

Planck believed that science and religion shared a common goal: the pursuit of truth. He observed that both disciplines ultimately lead to God—science revealing Him at the end of rational inquiry and religion affirming Him as the foundation of faith. In his lecture, “Religion and Natural Science,” Planck remarked, “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover, God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking.”²⁵ This perspective stands in stark contrast to the speculative claims of naturalism, which seek to explain the origin of life and the Universe without acknowledging a Creator.

While quantum mechanics reveals intricate principles governing the fabric of reality, Planck understood that such principles could not exist without a Lawgiver. As he poignantly noted:

That God existed before there were human beings on Earth, that He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity, and that He will remain enthroned on a level inaccessible to human comprehension long after the Earth and everything that is on it has gone to ruins; those who profess this faith and who, inspired by it, in veneration and complete confidence, feel secure from the dangers of life under protection of the Almighty, only those may number themselves among the truly religious.²⁶

Thus, Planck’s work provides a powerful rebuttal to those who attempt to use quantum mechanics as an explanation for life’s origin. The very existence of quantum principles, finely tuned and intelligible, points—not to randomness—but to a purposeful and intelligent Creator.

The Case for Intelligent Design

The complexity and precision required for life suggest an intelligent cause rather than random, unguided processes. Quantum mechanics itself reveals a profound order and design at the subatomic level, hinting at something deeper within creation. Some have suggested that quantum physics exposes a connection between consciousness and the very fabric of reality. If consciousness were merely a product of evolution, it would arise naturally from physical processes in the brain, much like heat radiates from fire. However, consciousness does not emerge in this way, so it cannot be solely attributed to evolution.

If quantum reality truly depends on consciousness, then consciousness must already exist wherever atoms are present. This implies that the existence of atoms inherently points to the existence of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is not a byproduct of evolution but an independent and fundamental aspect of reality itself. The principles of superposition, entanglement, and coherence demonstrate that the Universe operates under finely tuned parameters. If the Universe operates according to such intricate and discoverable principles, it is reasonable to ask: who or what established these principles?

DNA, Quantum Computing, and Evidence of Design

Consider DNA, the code of life. DNA is far more advanced than any manmade computational system, including quantum computers. It contains a four-letter code (A, T, C, G) that stores the instructions for building and sustaining all living organisms. A single gram of DNA can hold up to 215 petabytes²⁷ of information, equivalent to billions of books, vastly surpassing the data density of any quantum computer.

To compute the probability of even one gram of DNA arising by chance is an exercise in absurdity. Statistical biology estimates that the odds of even a single functional protein forming randomly are one in 10¹⁶⁴.²⁸ Considering that there are only approximately 10⁸⁰ elementary particles in the Universe and only about 10¹⁸ seconds since the alleged Big Bang, the probability of 1/10¹⁶⁴ represents an astronomically small likelihood. Even if every particle in the Universe participated in a unique interaction every second since the beginning of time, the total number of events would only amount to 10⁹⁸. This is still vastly smaller than the number of possible amino acid combinations required for a single functional protein, making the formation of such a protein through random processes effectively impossible within evolutionary timescales and models for the Universe.²⁹ When extended to the complexity of DNA, the improbability becomes so vast that it defies comprehension.³⁰

DNA has long been recognized for its unparalleled integration of storage, replication, and functionality. While quantum systems focus primarily on processing rather than long-term storage, DNA’s redundancy, self-replication, and built-in mechanisms for reading and writing its code set it apart as uniquely suited for life’s complex requirements. The staggering complexity of the quantum realm pales in comparison to DNA, making the notion of its random origins even more implausible.

This comparison underscores a stark truth: while quantum computers demand intelligent design and deliberate effort, DNA—infinitely more complex—is claimed by some to have arisen by random processes. Such a claim is impossible to reconcile with the observable necessity of intelligence in creating order and functionality. How absurd and utterly irrational it would be for the designers of a quantum chip to examine their intricate creation and declare that the complexity of their computer and its programming “merely appeared to be designed.” Yet, this is precisely the stance taken by contemporary neo-Darwinian biologists such as Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, and Richard Lewontin, who insist that biological organisms, despite their breathtaking intricacy and functionality, only seem to have been designed.³¹ Such a claim not only defies common sense but also diminishes the profound ingenuity evident in the natural world.

Rather, DNA reveals evidence of infinite Intelligence. Unlike quantum computers, which require constant external guidance, DNA operates autonomously. It self-replicates, adapts, and executes instructions without ongoing external input. Its ability to create diversity within species demonstrates foresight and functionality that no human-engineered system can replicate. Evolutionary models often argue that random mutations produced DNA’s complexity, yet such assumptions conflict with the observable necessity of intelligence in creating intricate systems.

The advancements in quantum computing and the complexities of DNA both point to a deeper truth. Intelligence and design are essential for creating systems of order, whether in the quantum realm or in biological life. Quantum computers showcase humanity’s ability to harness the laws of physics, but DNA reflects an intelligence far beyond human capability.³² These systems, both technological and biological, highlight the fingerprints of infinite Intelligence—a Creator Who designed life with purpose and precision.

A Biblical Perspective on Quantum Mechanics

From a biblical perspective, the order and complexity observed in quantum mechanics align with the belief in a Creator Who designed the Universe with purpose. Genesis 1:1 declares, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The discoverable laws of physics, including quantum principles, reflect the intentionality of their Creator. Far from being random or purposeless, the Universe reveals a consistent, ordered structure that allows for scientific exploration and discovery.

The Apostle Paul affirms this truth in Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse” (NEV). The beauty and complexity of quantum mechanics serve as evidence of God’s craftsmanship, inviting humanity to marvel at His creation rather than attributing it to blind chance.³³

Faith, Science, and the Creator

The exploration of quantum mechanics and its potential role in the origin of life highlights the limitations of naturalistic explanations. While McFadden and Al-Khalili offer creative hypotheses, their reliance on quantum coherence to overcome the challenges of abiogenesis is speculative and unsupported by evidence. The instability of RNA, the improbability of self-replication, and the problem of homochirality remain insurmountable hurdles for naturalistic theories.

By contrast, the order and complexity observed in quantum mechanics and DNA point to an intelligent Creator Who designed life with purpose and precision. Quantum mechanics reveals the fingerprints of a divine Lawgiver, while DNA showcases His infinite wisdom. Rather than invoking quantum principles as a “magic wand” to explain the unexplainable, we can acknowledge a Creator who made all things in an ordered manner. As Psalm 19:1 declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.”

In the end, faith and science are not at odds. Scientific discovery reveals the intricacy and beauty of God’s creation, inviting us to stand in awe of the One Who created the Universe and all life within it. The quantum realm reveals a depth of beauty, design, and complexity so vast that it mirrors the immeasurable expanse of the Universe itself—like peering through a telescope into eternity. Every discovery at this level, from the behavior of subatomic particles to the not yet fully described forces holding all things together, points to an underlying order that transcends randomness. Yet, as scientists delve into these mysteries, many elevate themselves, claiming to hold the Universe’s secrets, when in reality they are only uncovering God’s design. As the Scriptures remind us, “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Intelligence without humility blinds the mind to the obvious truth: such complexity demands a Creator.

No one enters a museum and ignores the artists behind its masterpieces. To gaze upon the intricate workings of the quantum world, the ocean’s depths, or the heart of a distant black hole, and deny the Creator, is a failure of both reason and purpose. God invites us to see His fingerprints in every layer of creation, to admire Him, and to fall in love with the One Who designed it all. To refuse this invitation is not just a travesty; it is a rejection of the truth and a degradation of the very minds He lovingly bestowed upon us. The words of Max Planck echo this notion:

Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but—which is even worse—also any prospects at a better future.³⁴

Endnotes

¹ Chris Vallance (December 10, 2024), “Google Unveils ‘Mind-Boggling’ Quantum Computing Chip,” BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c791ng0zvl3o.

² Einstein was well-known for his reluctance to accept the more counterintuitive implications of quantum physics. Yet, he deeply recognized that genuine scientific inquiry assumes the existence of a guiding consciousness. He once remarked that “anyone who devotes themselves seriously to science cannot help but be convinced that a spirit reveals itself in the laws of the Universe—a spirit far greater than that of humanity, before which we must humbly stand in awe” [Max Jammer (1999), Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology (Princeton University Press), pp 92-93].

³ The process of uncovering these principles is fundamentally similar: follow clues, develop models, test them rigorously, and discover that most initial ideas are incorrect. Despite its reputation for strangeness, quantum physics is no different in its methodology. For instance, the concept that “the sum of the masses of isolated objects multiplied by the derivative of their positions with respect to time remains constant” was not immediately obvious. It took years of mathematical refinement and experimentation before this principle was named and simplified as “conservation of momentum.”

⁴ See R. Shankar (2019), Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton, NJ: Springer), second edition.

⁵ The classical limit in quantum physics refers to the transition where quantum systems begin to exhibit classical behavior as certain parameters (e.g., large masses, high quantum numbers, or macroscopic scales) are reached. This concept helps explain how classical mechanics emerges as a limiting case of quantum mechanics. A foundational discussion of the classical limit is found in P.A.M. Dirac (1958), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), fourth edition, pp. 105-108.

⁶ Classical bits and quantum bits (qubits) operate under fundamentally different principles. Classical bits can exist in only two distinct states, 0 or 1, and these states can be fully measured, copied, or erased without altering the bit itself. Measurement of a classical bit is straightforward and does not change its state, ensuring stability and reproducibility. In contrast, quantum bits can exist not only in state 0 or state 1 but also in a superposition—a linear combination of both states. Unlike classical bits, qubits can only be measured partially, with the outcome determined probabilistically. Measurement of a qubit fundamentally alters its state, collapsing it into a single definite state. Additionally, quantum mechanics imposes limitations that prevent qubits from being perfectly copied (due to the no-cloning theorem) or completely erased, further distinguishing them from their classical counterparts.

⁷ P. Shor (1997), “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer,” SIAM Journal on Computing, 26[5]:1484.

⁸ Lov Grover (1996), “A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search,” in Proceedings of 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 212-219.

⁹ Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang (2010), Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 144-152.

¹⁰ John Preskill (2018), “Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond,” Quantum, 2:79.

¹¹ Phillip Kaye, Raymond Laflamme, and Michele Mosca (2007), An Introduction to Quantum Computing (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 112-120.

¹² David P. DiVincenzo (2000), “The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation,” Fortschritte der Physik, 48[9-11]:771-783.

¹³ Scott Aaronson (2013), Quantum Computing Since Democritus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 239-246.

¹⁴ N.D. Mermin (2007), Quantum Computer Science: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 185-192.

¹⁵ Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili (2014), Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology (New York: Broadway Books), p. 183, emp. added.

¹⁶ McFadden and Al-Khalili (2014), pp. 173-196.

¹⁷ David J. Griffiths (2005), Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall), second edition, p. 105.

¹⁸ Gerald F. Joyce (1989), “RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life,” Nature, 338[6212]:217-224.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ In his book, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story, Cairns-Smith discusses the improbability of RNA molecules forming spontaneously in a prebiotic environment. He estimates that the formation of RNA from simple organic compounds would require approximately 140 specific steps, with each step having about six possible reactions, only one of which leads toward forming RNA. Thus, the probability of a starting molecule eventually converting into RNA is comparable to rolling a six on a die 140 times consecutively, which equates to a probability of (1/6)¹⁴⁰ or roughly 1 in 10¹⁰⁹. See A.G. Cairns-Smith (1985), Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 44-45.

²¹ McFadden and Al-Khalili (2014), p. 280.

²² For more information about the problem of homochirality in the beginning of life, see Joe Deweese (2023), “Homochirality and the Origin of Life,” Reason & Revelation, 43[11]:122-124, November.

²³ Planck as cited in Hans Joachim Eggenstein (1984), In the Beginning Was the Matrix: Max Planck and the Origins of Quantum Theory (Munich: Philosophical Publishing House).

²⁴ Max Planck (1932), Where Is Science Going? trans. James Murphy (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 168.

²⁵ Max Planck (1958), Religion und Naturwissenschaft (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag), p. 27.

²⁶ Max Planck (1950), A Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. Frank Gaynor (London: Williams and Norgate), p. 167.

²⁷ A petabyte (PB) is a unit of digital data storage. 1 petabyte = 1,000 terabytes (TB) = 1,000,000 gigabytes (GB).

²⁸ In his book, Signature in the Cell,Stephen Meyer derives this probability using a hypothetical protein that is 150 amino acids long. He estimates the ratio of functional folds to the total number of possible sequences to be 1/10⁷⁴. He then accounts for the requirement that each bond between amino acids must be a peptide bond, which he calculates as a probability of 1/10⁴⁵. Additionally, he includes the necessity for each amino acid to be a “left-handed” optical isomer to enable proper folding, assigning the same probability of 1/10⁴⁵ for this factor. Combining these probabilities, he multiplies 10⁷⁴×10⁴⁵×10⁴⁵ resulting in a final improbability estimate of 1/10¹⁶⁴. See Meyer (2009), Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne).

²⁹ Meyer (2009).

³⁰ George M. Church, Yuan Gao, and Sriram Kosuri (2012), “Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA,” Science, 337[6102]:1628.

³¹ Stephen C. Meyer (2013), Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne), p. 218.

³² The DNA in a single human cell is about two meters (six feet) long when uncoiled. In all cells of the human body, the total DNA length would span approximately 10 billion miles, enough to travel to Pluto and back. See B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, et al. (2002), Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. (New York: Garland Science).

³³ For more information on Creation and quantum mechanics, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?” Reason & Revelation, 33[2]:14-21, February; Jeff Miller (2017), “Quantum Mechanics: ‘No Universal Cause Necessary’?” Reason & Revelation, 37[6]:64-65, June;

³⁴ Max Planck (1958), p. 7.

The post Quantum Mechanics: Unveiling the Creator’s Design in the Fabric of Reality appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Microbiome and Microbiota

The term “microbiome” was coined in 2001 by Lederberg and McCray.³ With regard to the human mouth, it refers to the entire habitat of the microbial residents of every surface area of the oral cavity.⁴ These surfaces are many—including both the top (dorsum) and bottom (ventral) of the tongue, lip, teeth, maxillary vestibule, keratinized gingiva (gums), gingival sulcus (the shallow groove between the gum and the tooth surface), buccal mucosa,⁵ tonsils, hard and soft palates, the throat, saliva, salivary glands beneath the tongue, and even the plaque that forms.⁶ The word “microbiota” refers to the unique combination of microorganisms that exist within this complex oral topography.

Over 700?

The reader is surely surprised to learn of the sheer number of distinct bacterial species that naturally inhabit the human mouth. While the actual number of bacteria, archaea,⁷ fungi, viruses, and protozoa that inhabit the human mouth is unknown,⁸ “the oral cavity has the second largest and diverse microbiota after the gut, harboring over 700 species of bacteria”⁹—“one of the most heavily colonized parts of our bodies.”¹⁰

These myriad species are not undesirable intruders or invaders. The oral cavity is their permanent home—a home that normally maintains a fairly constant temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, providing a stable environment in which to survive.¹¹ Within the overall oral cavity are “many distinct microenvironments” that provide unique and site-specific advantages for the various species.¹² The microbiota unquestionably belong there. In fact, our bodies live in harmony with literally millions of tiny micro-organisms that perform a variety of essential functions.

In Harmony?

Do these 700+ species war with each other, making the mouth a biological warzone of conflict and carnage, inflicting sickness and suffering upon the human host? Quite the opposite. In fact, “most of the microorganisms that inhabit the oral cavity live in a symbiotic relationship.”¹³ The symbiotic relationship that they sustain with each other and with their human host enables ongoing fulfillment of mutual benefits.¹⁴ Indeed, the microbes work in concert with each other to perform very intricate, specific tasks that are useful to the human host, thereby maintaining symbiotic equilibrium in a “mutualistic relationship.”¹⁵ That interaction and balance among oral microorganisms aids the human body in repelling the invasion of undesirable organisms from outside the body.¹⁶ Together they “form highly regulated, structurally and functionally organized communities attached to surfaces as biofilms, with interspecies collaborations as well as antagonisms that contribute to ecologic stability.”¹⁷

As noted, an extensive variety of microbiotas and biofilms, composed of hundreds of species, are scattered among multiple sites of the oral cavity. The species within each biofilm, as well as the other biofilms, all work in harmony—unmistakably designed to work together for the common good of human health. Not only do they not harm the human host, their commensal interrelationship helps keep pathogenic species in check.¹⁸ In fact, the microbes within the oral cavity can even aid the body’s immune responses outside the oral cavity.

That is not to say that the species never conflict with each other: “The relationship between the two bacterial species can be antagonistic or synergistic, depending perhaps on the composition of the remaining species in the biofilm or other environmental conditions.”¹⁹ Thus, even when a “clash” occurs, the overall well-being of the human host is the goal of the interactions and adjustments. Even when the microbiota is “disturbed” by any number of possible circumstances, nevertheless, “the relationship between the oral microbiome and its host is dynamic and…the composition of microbial communities is remarkably stable.”²⁰

The entrance of pathogens from outside the system can cause problems—which immediately elicit the attention of the microbiota. In fact, due to “the interplay of the host’s immune system with its microbial symbionts, acute infections of the oral mucosa are rather rare.”²¹ Not only does the oral mucosa²² serve as a physiological barrier, “the functions of immune networks within this mucosa reflect the site-specific challenges faced within the oral cavity” with the ability to “trigger immune responses to the development of pathologic microbial communities.”²³ The oral cavity is conspicuous for its “specialized immune-cell networks” that possess the exceptional capability to respond to the constantly fluctuating environmental conditions by means of “tissue-specific cues and exclusive immunologic responses that are tailored to the oral cavity.”²⁴

However, as is typically the case, we humans are “our own worst enemy.” We can be responsible for instigating the instability of our own oral microbiome. Scientists list a number of factors that interfere with that stability and hamper the effectiveness of microbial communities. These culprits include poor oral hygiene, excessive use of antibiotics, modern diet trends, alcohol, and tobacco.²⁵ Incredibly, researchers have come to believe that disrupting the delicate balance of our oral microorganism residents can contribute to additional bodily ailments, including asthma, diabetes, allergies, cancer, and obesity.²⁶ What’s more, while various types of toothpaste typically reduce harmful bacteria, they can also suppress the beneficial bacteria. Likewise, mouthwashes that claim to kill 99% of bacteria would seem to be at variance with what scientists have discovered concerning the crucial role played by the oral microbiome. Mouthwashes can also significantly reduce the ability of saliva to serve as a buffer against tooth decay and disease ²⁷ In fact, some studies suggest that the use of antibacterial mouthwash can “increase blood pressure as a result of its inhibitory effect on the oral microbiome.”²⁸

Inter-Communication?

As researchers continue to dig deeper, they discover new layers of complexity. It turns out that the synergism among the microorganisms includes actual communication between species by means of QS—“quorum sensing”:

Bacteria within a biofilm can communicate with each other by producing, detecting and responding to small diffusible signal molecules in a process called quorum sensing, which confers benefit for host colonization, biofilm formation, defense against competitors and adaptation to changes in the environment.²⁹

These signaling molecules are secreted by the bacteria themselves in order to engage in nutritional and signaling interactions with other bacteria, thereby acting in concert for the benefit of the human host.³⁰ Such intelligent synergism could not have evolved via mindless happenstances of alleged eons of evolutionary time.

Their Purpose?

But what, specifically, do these millions of microorganisms do? We are in constant contact with all types of germs, bacteria, and other microorganisms—which enter our mouths. “The oral microbiome…forms an ecosystem that maintains health in a state of equilibrium,”³¹ making it “crucial in maintaining oral as well as systemic health.”³² Scientists have discovered that this complex ecological community performs astonishing activities that regulate oral health, contributing to “critical metabolic, physiological and immunological functions.”³³ Incredibly, though only 1 out of 10 cells in our bodies is human, this prolific microbial society is responsible for performing “many biological functions that we could not perform on our own and protect[s] us from invasion by pathogenic microorganisms.”³⁴ Hence, resident bacteria are “crucial for maintaining homeostasis.”³⁵

 Keep in mind that each human body is genetically unique and different from all others. If a supernatural Creator is responsible for the existence of human bodies as well as the multitude of living organisms that inhabit those bodies, one would fully expect to discover symbiotic harmony.³⁶ Such is certainly the case with the interrelationships among the bacteria and between the bacteria and the human host. Complex relationships between humans and microbes facilitate human health while simultaneously providing the means for the microbes to survive and flourish. Humans and microorganisms literally depend on each other.³⁷

Further, “the variable microbiome…is exclusive to an individual.”³⁸ Consequently, diversity and variation of species within the microbiome are “individual specific and site specific.”³⁹ “Rather than being fixed, the composition of the oral microbiota changes throughout life consistent with the oral cavity being a dynamic microbial environment.”⁴⁰ So the oral microbiota differs from person to person.⁴¹ The microbial communities are programmed to react to varying environmental conditions by “modifying their species composition and population size.”⁴² Some oral bacteria species are site specific at one or multiple sites within the mouth. Others are subject-specific.⁴³

In fact, the bacteria possess on their surface “adhesins.” Adhesins are proteins that enable the bacteria to attach to various surfaces in the mouth. Consequently, the bacteria will select for colonization those oral surfaces that possess complimentary receptors that will adhere to and bind with their own specific adhesins.⁴⁴ This site specialization is essential for the formation of a biofilm in which the bacteria can colonize and grow. “Once established, the new community of bacteria then begins the process of replication, maturation, and formation of a complex biofilm that can contain hundreds of species.”⁴⁵

If these striking realities were not enough to convince us of divine design, consider the fact that each species of bacteria can differ markedly in its purpose and function. As previously noted, some bacteria in the mouth specifically inhibit pathogens, i.e., those bacteria that cause disease. These bacteria resist colonization by pathogens. One species, for example, manifests “direct antagonism against oral pathogens.”⁴⁶ Another such species actually produces hydrogen peroxide in large quantities which, in turn, hampers the growth of a harmful bacterial species.⁴⁷ What’s more, while diet affects the oral microbiome, scientists have come to suspect that it works the other way as well. Oral cavity microorganisms can influence a person’s dietary preferences and, thus, “modulate the expression levels of taste receptors in the mouth.”⁴⁸

Saliva

As an active and integral member of the oral microbiome, the origin of human saliva is inexplicable from an evolutionary standpoint. Its sophistication and complexity alone constitute proof of its divine design. Saliva provides a multi-purpose function for the human mouth and body—including lubrication, temperature, and digestion.⁴⁹ Yet, apart from these vital functions, saliva is a critical and essential component in the efficient functioning of the oral microbiome. It serves as “a protective system that limits the type of bacteria that can live in the mouth.”⁵⁰ “Saliva is used by oral biofilms as a delivery system, bringing nutrients, peptides, and partially dissolved carbohydrates.”⁵¹ Human saliva “keeps the bacteria hydrated and also serves as a medium for the transportation of nutrients to microorganisms.”⁵²

Saliva contains components—including enzymes, proteins, and glycoproteins—that provide the central source of nutrition for microorganisms. As many as 10⁸ microorganisms have been found in a single milliliter of saliva—an average of 100 million bacteria.⁵³ At the same time, saliva also contains elements that possess antimicrobial action.⁵⁴ In addition to these salivary components, the composition of the microbial communities in the mouth are affected by the “variation in the amount and velocity of salivary flow.”⁵⁵ In fact, salivary flow, together with oxygen concentration, nutrient availability, and gingival crevicular fluids, creates “spatial gradients,” that further demonstrate the complicated nature of the oral cavity and its inhabitants’ interaction with the human host.⁵⁶ Together, saliva and bacteria even protect tooth surfaces against acid.⁵⁷ Indeed, saliva’s multi-pronged properties help regulate and maintain a balanced oral microbiome.

Conclusion

Despite the amazing number of discoveries that have accumulated through the years, despite the progress that has been made in an effort to unravel and understand the marvelous mysteries of the human oral microbiome, when all is said and done, “little is known about the microflora of the healthy oral cavity.”⁵⁸ As always, the ignorance of man must bow to the intricacy and complexity of God’s handiwork.

How may such intricate, complicated, profound, extensive, mind-boggling symbiotic interrelationships be explained from an evolutionary perspective? “Well, over a period of millions of years, humans and the various organisms co-evolved a mutual dependency.” This “explanation” is nonsensical and meaningless. The myriad microorganisms and the human host needed each other from the beginning of their existence. How did the hundreds of species come into existence in the first place? How did they then “decide” to find an evolved human and gain entrance into that human’s mouth? How did species that are antagonistic to each other come to inhabit the oral cavity together? Was a microorganism convention conducted to discuss and decide the matter?

FACT: Every single one of these microorganisms—as well as their human hosts—possess concise design variables that prove the inability of gradual mutation and natural selection to function as causative agents. Can such design, complexity, order, purpose, and intelligence come out of mindless, evolutionary chaos? To ask is to answer. The Truth: God is the causative agent: “In the beginning, God created….”

Virtually with one accord, the scientists who have spent years of their lives exploring the layered intricacies of the human oral microbiome inevitably feel compelled—perhaps unwittingly—to use terminology that tacitly implies its divine intelligent design:

• “the finely-tuned equilibrium of the oral ecosystem”⁵⁹
• “the complex dynamics and fitness factors of key organisms in oral microbiomes”⁶⁰
• “a complex ecosystem whose equilibrium serves as a remarkable example of reciprocal adaptation”⁶¹
• “a staggering number of species”⁶²
• “astounding diversity”⁶³
• “a complex ecological community”⁶⁴
• “exceptionally complex habitat”⁶⁵
• “finely tuned…to protect from disease”⁶⁶

Yet, even in the face of tremendous strides made in recent years to unravel some of the mysteries of these incredibly sophisticated, seemingly innumerable species, researchers acknowledge that the complex processes “are still not fully understood”⁶⁷—an understatement if there ever was one.

“Finely-tuned”? “Complex dynamics”? “Remarkable”? “Staggering”? “Astounding”? “Exceptionally complex”? Follow the logic. To be candid, the human oral microbiome screams divine design.⁶⁸ Its complex marvels could not possibly have come about gradually over millions of years via blind, sheer accident. The Creator had to have literally preprogrammed millions of microscopic creatures to live throughout the human oral cavity to perform unending, ongoing tasks for the benefit of those created in His image (Genesis 1:26). The rational, unprejudiced person will surely acknowledge the conclusion that such evidence requires. The psalmist put it this way: “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:14).

Endnotes

¹ Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1952), The Collected Letters of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (Amsterdam: C.V. Swets & Zeitlinger; Committee of Dutch Scientists), 4:135, https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/leeu027alle04_01/leeu027alle04_01_0008.php#b0076; Clifford Dobell (1932), “Letter 39. 17 September 1683. To F. Aston,” Antony van Leeuwenhoek and His “Little Animals” (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co.), pp. 238ff.

² J.A. Gilbert, M.J. Blaser, et al. (2018), “Current Understanding of the Human Microbiome,” Nature Medicine, 24:392-400.

³ J. Lederberg and A.T. McCray (2001), “‘Ome Sweet ‘Omics—A Genealogical Treasury of Words,” The Scientist, 15[7]:8, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c06e/e544b5e87e82f7705c401e1eff5cc8e1f780.pdf?_ga=2.78678612.1501589133.1598356620-2085924697.1588006444.

⁴ The buccal mucosa refers to the lining of the inside of the cheek.

⁵ Priya Nimish Deo and Revati Deshmukh (2019), “Oral Microbiome: Unveiling the Fundamentals,” Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Pathology, 23[1]:123,125, January-April; Akshima Sahi (2020), “What Microorganisms Naturally Live in the Mouth?” News-Medical, September 16; A. Jørn, B.J. Paster, L.N. Stokes, I. Olsen, and F.E. Dewhirst (2005), “Defining the Normal Bacterial Flora of the Oral Cavity,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43[11]:5730, November; M. Kilian, I. Chapple, M. Hannig, P.D. Marsh, V. Meuric, A. Pedersen, M.S. Tonetti, W.G. Wade, and E. Zaura (2016), “The Oral Microbiome: An Update,” British Dental Journal, 221:660, November 18.

⁶ Archaea are single-celled microorganisms with structure similar to bacteria.

⁷ Maria Avila, David Ojcius, and Ozlem Yilmaz (2009), “The Oral Microbiota: Living with a Permanent Guest,” DNA & Cell Biology, 28[8]:406; Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁸ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 122, emp. added.

⁹ Kilian, et al., p. 658.

¹⁰ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

¹¹ Lea Sedghi, Vincent DiMassa, Anthony Harrington, Susan V. Lynch, and Yvonne L. Kapila (2021), “The Oral Microbiome: Role of Key Organisms and Complex Networks in Oral Health and Disease,” Periodontology 2000, 87[1]:107, October; J.L. Welch, F.E. Dewhirst, and G.G. Borisy (2019), “Biogeography of the Oral Microbiome: The Site-Specialist Hypothesis,” Annual Review of Microbiology, 73[1]:335-338.

¹² Akshima Sahi (2020), “What Microorganisms Naturally Live in the Mouth?” News-Medical, September 16.

¹³ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 124.

¹⁴ Anil Kumar and Nikita Chordia (2017), “Role of Microbes in Human Health,” Applied Microbiology Open Access, 3[2]:1; Kilian, et al., p. 655.

¹⁵ Lu Gao, Tiansong Xu, et al. (2018), “Oral Microbiomes: More and More Importance in Oral Cavity and Whole Body,” Protein Cell, 9[5]:488,496.

¹⁶ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

¹⁷ Avila, et al., p. 406.

¹⁸ Sedghi, et al., p. 107.

¹⁹ Avila, et al., p. 409.

²⁰ P.D. Marsh, D.A. Head, D.A. Devine (2015), “Ecological Approaches to Oral Biofilms: Control Without Killing,” Caries Research, 49[Supplement 1]:46-54; Kilian, et al., p. 664, emp. added.

²¹ E. Zaura, E.A. Nicu, B.P. Krom, and B.J. Keijser (2014), “Acquiring and Maintaining a Normal Oral Microbiome: Current Perspec-tive,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 4:85; Kilian, et al., p. 660.

²² “The oral mucosa refers to the moist, membrane-like lining that covers the inside of the mouth, including the lips, cheeks, tongue, and floor of the mouth. It is a protective barrier that shields the underlying tissues from injury, infection, and chemical irritants”—“Oral Mucosal Diseases” (2025), UC Davis Health, Department of Dermatology (Sacramento, CA), https://health.ucdavis.edu/dermatology/specialties/medical/oral.html#:~:text=The%20oral%20mucosa%20is%20the,or%20ulcers%20on%20this%20lining.

²³ N. Dutzan, T. Kajikawa, L. Abusleme, et al. (2018), “A Dysbiotic Microbiome Triggers T_H17 Cells to Mediate Oral Mucosal Immunopathology in Mice and Humans,” Science Translational Medicine, 10[463]:eaat0797; Sedghi, et al., p. 110.

²⁴ Sedghi, et al., p. 110; “Oral Mucosal Immunity and Microbiome” in Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, ed. G.N. Belibasakis, G. Hajishengallis, N. Bostanci, M.A. Curtis (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1197, emp. added; R.Q. Wu, D.F. Zhang, E. Tu, Q.M. Chen, W. Chen (2014), “The Mucosal Immune System in the Oral Cavity—An Orchestra of T Cell Diversity,” International Journal of Oral Science, 6[3]:125-132; A. Esberg, S. Haworth, R. Kuja-Halkola, P.K.E. Magnusson, I. Johansson (2020), “Heritability of Oral Microbiota and Immune Responses to Oral Bacteria,” Microorganisms, 8[8]:1126.

²⁵ Sedghi, et al., p. 113; E. Xiao, M. Mattos, G.H.A. Vieira, et al. (2017), “Diabetes Enhances IL-17 Expression and Alters the Oral Microbiome to Increase Its Pathogenicity,” Cell Host Microbe, 22[1]:120-128; Mi Klein, L. DeBaz, S. Agidi, et al. (2010), “Dynamics of Streptococcus mutans Transcriptome in Response to Starch and Sucrose During Biofilm Development,” PLoS One, 5[10]:e13478; A. Cekici, A. Kantarci, H. Hasturk, T.E. Van Dyke (2014), “Inflammatory and Immune Pathways in the Pathogenesis of Periodontal Disease,” Periodontology 2000, 64[1]:57-80; P. De Pablo, T. Dietrich, T.E. McAlindon (2008), “Association of Periodontal Disease and Tooth Loss with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US Population,” Journal of Rheumatology, 35[1]:70-76; J. Wu, B.A. Peters, C. Dominianni, et al. (2016), “Cigarette Smoking and the Oral Microbiome in a Large Study of American Adults,” The ISME Journal, 10[10]:2435-2446; W. Pitiphat,  A.T. Merchant, E.B. Rimm, K.J. Joshipura, “Alcohol Consumption Increases Periodontitis Risk,” Journal of Dental Research, 82[7]:509-513.

²⁶ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131.

²⁷ Sedghi, et al., p. 121.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 113; C.P. Bondonno, A.H. Liu, K.D. Croft, et al. (2015), “Antibacterial Mouthwash Blunts Oral Nitrate Reduction and Increases Blood Pressure in Treated Hypertensive Men and Women,” American Journal of Hypertension, 28[5]:572-575.

²⁹ Y.H. Li and X. Tian (2012), “Quorum Sensing and Bacterial Social Interactions in Biofilms,” Sensors, 12:2519-2538; Kilian, et al., p. 659.

³⁰ W.C. Fuqua, S.C. Winans, and E.P. Greenberg (1994), “Quorum Sensing in Bacteria: The LuxR-LuxI Family of Cell Density-Responsive Transcriptional Regulators,” Journal of Bacteriology, 176:269-275; Avila, et al., p. 408; Kilian, et al., p. 662.

³¹ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 127.

³² Ibid., p. 122.

³³ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

³⁴ Avila, et al., p. 405.

³⁵ Kilian, et al., p. 660.

³⁶ However, one must keep in mind that through the six thousand years of human history, genetic degeneration has occurred and the application of the laws of thermodynamics continues to degrade the effectiveness and efficiency of all biological organisms.

³⁷ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131.

³⁸ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 124.

⁴⁰ Sedghi, et al., p. 110.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 112. Also M.W. Hall, N. Singh, et al. (2017), “Interpersonal Diversity and Temporal Dynamics of Dental, Tongue, and Salivary Microbiota in the Healthy Oral Cavity,” NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes, 3[1]:1-7.

⁴² Avila, et al., p. 405.

⁴³ Jørn, et al., p. 5724.

⁴⁴ R.J. Gibbons (1989), “Bacterial Adhesion to Oral Tissues: A Model for Infectious Diseases,” Journal of Dental Research, 68:750-760; Jorn, et al., p. 5731; Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁴⁵ P.D. Marsh (2006), “Dental Plaque as a Biofilm and a Microbial Community—Implications for Health and Disease,” BioMed Central, 6:1-7; B. Rosan and R.J. Lamont (2000), “Dental Plaque Formation,” Microbes and Infection, 2[13]:1599-1607; Sedghi, et al., pp. 115-116; Welch, et al., pp. 335-338.

⁴⁶ Sedghi, et al., p. 113.

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 122.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 108,120.

⁴⁹ Avila, et al., p. 406; Michael Wilson (2004), Microbial Inhabitants of Humans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 318ff.

⁵⁰ Maria del Mar Ferrándiz Lorenzo (no date), “Bacteria in Our Mouths: How Many and What are They?” KIN Laboratories, https://www.kin.es/en/bacterias-que-tenemos-en-la-boca/.

⁵¹ Avila, et al., p. 406. See also P.E. Kolenbrander, N.S. Jakubovics, N.I. Chalmers, and R.J. Palmer, Jr. (2007), “Human Oral Multispecies Biofilms: Bacterial Communities in Health and Human Disease” in The Biofilm Mode of Life: Mechanisms and Adaptations, ed. S. Kjelleberg (Norfolk, VA: Horizon Bioscience), pp. 175-194.

⁵² Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123.

⁵³ Kilian, et al., p. 660; Also Lorenzo.

⁵⁴ W. van’t Hof, E.C. Veerman, A.V. Nieuw Amerongen, and A.J. Ligtenberg (2014), “Antimicrobial Defense Systems in Saliva,” Monographs in Oral Science, 24:40-51; Kilian, et al., p. 660.

⁵⁵ Sedghi, et al., p. 115.

⁵⁶ Ibid., p. 115; D.M. Proctor, J.A. Fukuyama, P.M. Loomer, et al. (2018), “A Spatial Gradient of Bacterial Diversity in the Human Oral Cavity Shaped by Salivary Flow,” Nature Communications, p. 9.

⁵⁷ Kilian, et al., p. 660.

⁵⁸ Jørn, et al., p. 5721.

⁵⁹ Kilian, et al., p. 657, emp. added.

⁶⁰ Sedghi, et al., p. 107, emp. added.

⁶¹ Kumar and Chordia, p. 131, emp. added.

⁶² Avila, et al., p. 408, emp. added.

⁶³ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 123, emp. added.

⁶⁴ Kilian, et al., p. 659.

⁶⁵ Deo and Deshmukh, p. 122, emp. added.

⁶⁶ Kilian, et al., p. 652, emp. added.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 660, emp. added.

⁶⁸ Even as the Universe “declares” (i.e., “announces/makes known”) the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). Ludwig Koehler et al. (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. 766.

The post The Human Oral Microbiome: A Mouthful of Proof for God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

God’s Challenge to the Nations

In Isaiah 45, God speaks through Isaiah to Cyrus, the Persian king, over a century before Cyrus is even born.¹ The Lord declares, “I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me” (Isaiah 45:4, ESV). This prophecy is stunning: God identifies Cyrus long before he appears in history and declares that he will be the instrument of Israel’s deliverance. Isaiah 46 continues this theme. Here, God contrasts Himself with the idols of Babylon, which must be carried on the backs of animals (Isaiah 46:1-2). These false gods are burdensome, helpless, and mute. In contrast, the Lord declares, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9-10, ESV). 

This is a direct challenge to anyone who doubts God’s existence or God’s perfect knowledge of the future. Unlike the lifeless idols that require human hands to move them, God moves history itself. No pagan deity can do this. False gods and false conceptions of God must remain silent because they have no knowledge of the future. But the true God predicts and ensures what will happen.

Conclusion

God’s ability to declare the future is a display of His divinity. This is one reason why the prophecy of Cyrus is so significant. Cyrus does not know the God of Israel, yet he fulfills God’s will precisely as foretold. The Persian king’s actions are not outside of God’s influence but are part of His divine plan. This truth is meant to bring comfort to God’s people. If God alone knows the future, and if the future unfolds according to His purpose, then those who trust Him need not fear. The Israelites might have doubted their God, but Isaiah reminds them that their deliverance is already assured because the One who reveals the future remains Lord of the future.

The God of the Bible is God alone. He proves this through His perfect knowledge of the future. He alone declares the end from the beginning.

Endnotes

¹ For evidence of the book of Isaiah being written in the 8th century B.C. (cf. Isaiah 1:1), 150 years before Cyrus of Persia lived, see Clyde M. Woods’ commentary on Isaiah; John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, chs 1-39; and E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah.

The post How Does God Prove That He Is God? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Background

What precipitated such an unprecedented court case? Why all the hysteria? In the 1920s, several state legislatures in the U.S. were contemplating banning some form of the Theory of Evolution from being taught in public schools. On March 21, 1925, Tennessee Governor Austin Peay signed into law the Butler Act, which was first introduced by Representative John Washington Butler two months earlier and was the first of its kind in the country. Specifically, the Butler Act stated:

That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities, normals¹ and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.²

When the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) learned of the passing of the Butler Act, they quickly began soliciting in newspapers for a willing Tennessee participant in hopes of testing the veracity of the Butler Act. The ACLU wanted to represent a science teacher who had taught evolution since the Butler Act became law in Tennessee. However, the teacher they ultimately represented was far from the ideal candidate and one of the first signs that the “Scopes” Trial should never have happened.

The Unprincipled Selection of Scopes

John Scopes was a first-year math and physics teacher and football coach at Rhea County High School in Dayton, Tennessee in 1924-25. He was not the school’s biology teacher. But Scopes did substitute for the regular biology teacher (Principal William Fergeson) for two weeks in April 1925 using the previously approved textbook A Civic Biology, which indeed contained material on human evolution.³

How did Scopes become the defendant in (what many have called) “the trial of the century”? Did one or more of his students accuse him of breaking the Butler Act? Was there a parent, school administrator, or a group of vile Christians out to get Scopes (as the terribly historically inaccurate 1960 movie Inherit the Wind vividly portrayed)?⁴ Not at all.

The school term was already over, and Scopes was enjoying some leisure time at the tennis courts in Dayton when a few leading community members summoned him to the local drugstore. They weren’t looking to tar and feather Scopes but rather to use him as a pawn in their plan to bring some excitement and commerce to their little town. They were hoping that he had taught human evolution so that they could contact the ACLU about representing Scopes in a trial in Dayton because “such a case would put Dayton on the map and benefit business.”⁵

Scopes admitted, “I had been tapped and trapped by the rush of events.” This young man, with only one year of teaching experience under his belt, agreed to stand trial, saying, “If you can prove that I’ve taught evolution, and that I can qualify as a defendant, then I’ll be willing to stand trial.” If? What did he mean, “If”? Scopes admitted in his memoirs, “To tell the truth, I wasn’t sure I had taught evolution.” But the townsmen “weren’t concerned about this technicality.”⁶

Scopes had “expressed willingness to stand trial. That was enough.” The owner of the drugstore proceeded to call the Chattanooga News: “‘This is F.E. Robinson in Dayton,’ he said. ‘I’m chairman of the school board here. We’ve just arrested a man for teaching evolution.’” And what was Scopes’ reaction to being “arrested”? He said: “I drank the fountain drink that had been handed me and I went back to the high school to finish playing tennis with the kids…. 
[T]hey [Robinson and the other men] would handle the technicalities of my ‘arrest’ and bond.”⁷ The next day, the Chattanooga News announced Scopes’ “arrest,” which was then picked up by the Associated Press, which then became a national story. Apparently, so unusual were the circumstances surrounding Scopes’ original “arrest” and subsequent indictment that when the Court initially convened for his actual trial in July, Tennessee’s Attorney General Tom Stewart suggested, “[I]n this case, we think a new indictment be returned…. 
[B]oth sides are anxious that the record be kept straight and regular….”⁸

Legendary Lawyers

As if the selection of Scopes as the defendant in this trial was not bizarre enough, the leading prosecutor selected was a three-time presidential candidate and former Secretary of State who had not tried a case in more than 30 years. William Jennings Bryan was a very intelligent, talented, articulate individual,⁹ but his selection as prosecuting attorney may have had more to do with his fame than an overall commitment to facts. Dayton lawyer Sue Hicks,¹⁰ who “just happened” to be present at Robinson’s drugstore the day of Scopes’ “arrest,” no doubt called upon Bryan (a Miami, Florida resident at the time) to serve on the prosecution team, in part because of his well-known advocacy for anti-evolution legislation, but also for his sheer iconic status, which would do exactly what the leading townsmen desired—“put Dayton on the map and benefit business.”¹¹

Upon learning that the legendary William Jennings Bryan was selected to prosecute Scopes, nationally known agnostic and trial lawyer Clarence Darrow convinced the ACLU (of which he was a member) to allow him to join the defense team as lead defender. Darrow was a fierce critic of the Bible and Christianity.¹² During the Scopes Trial, Darrow referred to Bryan’s Bible-believing, Christian religion as “fool religion.”¹³ And in his essay, “Why I Am An Agnostic,” Darrow made his thoughts about God and the Bible crystal clear: “The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom.”¹⁴ Bryan referred to Darrow as “the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States.”¹⁵

A Court Case or a Publicity Stunt?

In one sense, the Scopes Trial was cut and dry (or at least it should have been): Had John Scopes violated Tennessee law (i.e., the Butler Act)?¹⁶ This was the central question. Judge John T. Raulston instructed the Grand Jury on the first day of proceedings, saying:

Gentlemen of the grand jury, on May 25, 1925, John T. Scopes was indicted in this county for violating what is generally known as the anti-evolution statute…. 
[T]he vital question now involved for your consideration is, has the statute been violated by the said John T. Scopes or any other person by teaching a theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and in Rhea County since the passage of this act and prior to this investigation. If you find the statute has been thus violated, you should indict the guilty person or persons, as the case may be. You will bear in mind that in this investigation you are not interested to inquire into the policy or wisdom of this legislation.¹⁷

Throughout the trial, Judge Raulston similarly stated:

It is not within the province of the court under these issues to decide and determine which is true, the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible, or the story of the creation of man as taught by evolution…. [T]his court is not further concerned as to its policy, but is interested only in its proper interpretation and, if valid, its enforcement…. The question is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught men descended from the lower order of animals.¹⁸

Though technically Scopes was on trial, in reality, the defense, prosecution, and media made sure that it was more of a theatrical stage to banter about freedom and “fundamentalism,”¹⁹ the Bible and evolution, secularism and Christianity. How often does a defense attorney—whose client did not plead guilty at the beginning of the trial—argue a case for seven days and then abruptly conclude (as Darrow did), “I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty. We make no objection to that and it will save a lot of time and I think that should be done.”²⁰ In what reasonable trial does the defense (a) call the prosecuting attorney to take the stand and be cross-examined, (b) admit that the prosecuting attorney (Bryan in this case) would not be very valuable as a witness (in terms of what the trial was originally about), and (c) agree that they themselves may be cross-examined, but then never give the prosecution the opportunity to do so because the defense suddenly tells the jury and judge to find their client guilty, and the trial quickly comes to an end with no closing arguments?²¹

Prosecuting attorney Bryan seemed strangely eager to take the stand as an expert witness on the Bible. When asked, “Mr. Bryan, you are not objecting to going on the stand?” his response was, “Not at all.”²² Perhaps Bryan sincerely wanted to try to “give a defense” of the Bible and of the freedom of Tennesseans to teach creation to the exclusion of evolution? Maybe he was mostly motivated by the genuine expectation of cross-examining Darrow and the other defense lawyers?²³ Perhaps Bryan allowed pride to get the best of him? Or maybe it was a combination of all three?

Though at one point in the trial the bailiff declared, “People, this is no circus. There are no monkeys up here,”²⁴ the Scopes Trial might accurately be described as more spectacle than substance. (A case could be made that it was more unusual and bizarre than the infamous O.J. Simpson trial 70 years later.) The New York Times reported before the trial ever began that an actress offered “the use of a trained chimpanzee to combat the law” (i.e., the Butler Act). Renowned radio announcer Quinn Ryan, from WGN Chicago, “famous for creating broadcasts that were ‘almost as good as being there,’” comically portrayed Bryan’s entrance into the courtroom as if he was a heavyweight boxer, saying, “Here comes William Jennings Bryan.²⁵ He enters now. His bald pate like a sunrise over Key West.”²⁶ What’s more, while inside the court, Darrow was cited for “contempt and insult,”²⁷ blatantly insulting the judge’s integrity multiple times in one day;²⁸ one writer described the scene outside the courthouse (even as the trial was just getting started), as “half circus and half a revival meeting.”²⁹

Much Bigger Than Scopes

While in one sense, the Scopes Trial was simply about a statute violation, in reality, it was about something much bigger: a battle between ideas of human origins and what should be taught in public schools. Did humans evolve from animals (as Darrow passionately believed), or are we the descendants of an original man and woman supernaturally created by God, to Whom we are accountable (as Bryan was convinced is true and literally taught in the Bible)?

At various times in the proceedings, both sides referred to the anticipated future trial in an appellate court, which was expected to focus on the constitutionality of the Butler Act.³⁰ In fact, Darrow indicated during the Scopes Trial that going to a higher court was his only purpose, saying, “What we are interested in, counsel well knows what the judgment and verdict in this case will be. We have a right to present our case to another court and that is all we are after.”³¹ In his 1932 autobiography, Darrow went further in stating what his purpose had been in the Scopes Trial:

My object, and my only object, was to focus the attention of the country on the progamme of Mr. Bryan and the other fundamentalists in America. I knew that education was in danger from the source that has always hampered it—religious fanaticism. To me it was perfectly clear that the proceedings bore little semblance to a court case, but I realized that there was no limit to the mischief that might be accomplished unless the country was roused to the evil at hand. So I volunteered to go.³²

Alleged Proofs of Evolution in the Scopes Trial

Since the Scopes Trial was technically about whether John Scopes had violated the Butler Act—and not about the legitimacy of the law itself—Judge Raulston was “not interested to inquire into the policy or wisdom of this legislation.”³³ Thus, the judge ruled that testimony from evolutionary scientists was not germane to Scopes’ innocence or guilt and thus inadmissible evidence for the jury to consider. However, the judge did allow “expert testimony” (in the form of affidavits) to be read into the trial records (making up about 20% of the overall transcript of the trial) for the benefit of the appellate court in the event Scopes was found guilty and the defense appealed the case.³⁴

So, what proof of evolution did the “experts” give that “religious fanatics” and “fundamentalist Christians” like William Jennings Bryan missed, willfully ignored, or outright rejected in 1925? Was the creationist’s dismissal of evolution (and especially human evolution, as stated in the Butler Act) inconsistent with the available facts? Should there be, as Darrow claimed during the trial, “no question among intelligent men about the fact of evolution”?³⁵

Comparative Anatomy

The terms “similar,” “homology,” and “comparative anatomy”³⁶ occur some 60 times in the testimony of the expert evolutionists filed into the official Scopes Trial record on day seven of the proceedings. Known as “homology,” the comparison of similar body structures of various living organisms allegedly proves evolution. Since, for example, the flipper of a whale, the wing of a bat, the forefoot of a dog, and the human arm and hand have certain similarities, supposedly they share the same ancestor from many millions of years ago. According to this line of argumentation, the first humans were not specially designed by the Creator, but evolved from animal ancestors.

Creationists rationally and unashamedly acknowledge the many similarities that exist among the various kinds of animal life on Earth, and even between animals and humans. (Millions of living things have eyes, ears, mouths, digestive systems, respiratory systems, etc.) In truth, similarities among living things fit perfectly with the Creation viewpoint. Such similarities should be expected among creatures designed to breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food, live on the same land, and generally use the same five senses to function in our physical world. But homology neither proves creation nor evolution. Similar structures are just a fact. When evolutionists (like those in the Scopes Trial) contend that homology is evidence of evolution, they are not stating a fact but are making an unproven (and unprovable) assertion.³⁷

Embryonic Recapitulation

The terms “embryo” or “embryonic development”³⁸ appear 40 times in the expert evolutionists’ written testimony in the Scopes Trial. According to these men, “the facts of comparative embryology” are powerful evidence of evolution³⁹ and had been recognized by evolutionists such as Ernst Haeckel for decades. Haeckel, for example, “believed that organisms retrace their evolution as embryos, when they ‘climb their own family tree.’”⁴⁰ One evolutionary zoologist in the Scopes trial alleged:

In many instances certain early stages in the development of an advanced organism resemble in unmistakable ways the end stages of less advanced organisms. There is, in fact, in the long ontogeny of members of high groups, a sort of rough-and-ready repetition of the characteristic features of many lower groups. This fact has so impressed some biologists that they have embodied it into a law, the so-called biogenetic law: that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In less technical language this means that the various stages in the development of the individual are like the various ancestral forms from which the species is descended, the earliest embryonic stages being like the most remote ancestors and the latter stages like the more recent ancestors. In still other words, the concept may be stated as follows: The developmental history of the individual may be regarded as an abbreviated resume of its ancestral history.⁴¹

Supposedly, the human embryo goes through evolutionary stages of growth—through a kind of “fish stage,” “salamander stage,” and even an animal-like tail stage. One evolutionary anthropologist in the Scopes Trial stated: “Going to the human embryo we find these vestiges of an earlier condition much more developed while others appear for a time and then vanish before birth. Such a case is the free tail possessed by every human embryo, a few weeks before its birth.”⁴²

Interestingly, more than a decade prior to the Scopes Trial, prominent British evolutionary anatomist and physician Sir Arthur Keith, admitted in his book The Human Body, “It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate [retrace—EL] the features of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in the animal kingdom. Now that the appearances of the embryo at all ages are known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in its appearance. The truth is, we expected too much.”⁴³

And what have we learned in the last century? Renowned evolutionist Stephen J. Gould wrote in 2000 in Natural History magazine:

Haeckel remains most famous today as the chief architect and propagandist for a famous argument that science disproved long ago but that popular culture has never fully abandoned…. Once ensconced in textbooks, misleading information becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts…. We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not majority, of modern textbooks.⁴⁴

The so-called biogenetic law (of embryonic recapitulation), which played such a prominent part in the written evolutionists’ testimony in the Scopes Trial, was and is a farce.⁴⁵

Vestigial Organs

Two sections in the expert evolutionists’ written testimony dealt with vestigial organs⁴⁶—the idea that animals and humans have previously functional, but now leftover, useless structures of evolution. Allegedly:

There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body,⁴⁷ sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities. Among these are the vermiform appendix, the abbreviated tail with its set of caudal muscles…. These and numerous other structures of the same sort can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has any use for them.⁴⁸

Another Scopes Trial evolutionist alleged: “Man has a vestigial tail [i.e., the coccyx—EL] composed generally of about four vertebrae so small and so short as to be entirely concealed in the flesh and muscles at the base of the spine.”⁴⁹

What is the truth of the matter? Once again, the “experts” in the Scopes Trial got it wrong—very wrong! The more that doctors have learned about the human body, the more they have recognized legitimate functions of the so-called “vestigial organs.” The appendix serves an “immunological function…in the developing embryo” and “continues to function even in the adult.”⁵⁰ Furthermore, the appendix “acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs,”⁵¹ serving as “a reservoir of good gut bacteria.”⁵² And the human coccyx is extremely important. It serves as a point of attachment for several pelvic muscles that help us stand up. And, like the shocks on a car, the coccyx is also used as a shock absorber when we sit down.⁵³ Although the evolutionary experts in 1925 confidently asserted, “All of the lines of evidence presented point strongly to organic evolution, and none are contrary to this principle,”⁵⁴ real, observable, rational, operational science has proved them very wrong.

What’s more, while “vestigial” organs are not the useless organs that many have made them out to be, suppose (for the sake of argument) that scientists did discover one or more organs in the human body that had a reduced function—or no function at all? What if the particular organ functioned perfectly in the past but not so much today? Would this actually be evidence of evolution? Not at all. The human body is a marvelous thing to study and shows amazing, complex, functional design—which logically demands a Designer (and not accidental evolution over many millions of years). However, since the first humans were on Earth, much degeneration has taken place. Many diseases and mutations have been introduced into the human gene pool. Is it possible that there could be a loss of a gene for an organ at some point, which causes the organ not to function as well as it once did—or perhaps lose function altogether one day? If so, then even if it were ever proven that a “vestigial organ” exists, such an organ would not logically prove evolution to be true. In fact, wouldn’t the presence of “vestigial organs” actually be evidence of “devolution,” not “evolution,” with organisms being more complex the farther back in time we go?⁵⁵

Once again, the “evolution-is-a-fact” hype surrounding the Scopes Trial was anything but factual.⁵⁶ The more we continue to learn, the more erroneous and inadequate the impotent theory of evolution is demonstrated to be. Millions of people may still believe it, but they do so more out of a religious commitment to blind faith, rather than because the evidence demands such a verdict.

Alleged Human Evolution

The evolutionary scientists in the Scopes Trial also had much to say about “evidence” for human evolution, but as with all the other “proofs” they offered, their “evidence” was either irrelevant, deficient,⁵⁷ or (eventually) disproven altogether. “The dawn man of Piltdown”⁵⁸ (i.e., Piltdown Man) was determined to be a forgery in 1953. (Someone had combined the skull of a human and the jawbone of an ape.) The “Java ape-man,” as one Scopes Trial scientist called him,⁵⁹ was “erroneously based on the skull cap of a gibbon and fossilized teeth and thigh bone of a modern human.”⁶⁰ It was not some kind of missing link! What’s more, “Rhodesian man,” “Heidelberg man,” and “Neanderthal man” (all of which were brought up multiple times by the Scopes Trial evolutionists in their affidavits) were nothing more than varieties of past humans.⁶¹ (And if we look around the planet today, there is still a great amount of observable variety within humankind. Such diversity should also be expected from the fossil record: human bones of various shapes and sizes.)

Human Evolution’s Racist Implications

Though the Scopes Trial expert evolutionists may not have been racist in their affidavits, the textbook that Scopes used (or allegedly used) to teach evolutionary theory included racist language. Under consecutive sections titled “Evolution of Man” and “The Races of Man,” Scopes’ textbook taught impressionable minds the following:

Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants. If we follow the early history of man upon the earth, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals…. The beginnings of civilization were long ago, but even to-day the earth is not entirely civilized…. At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.⁶²

Where would such racist ideas of white supremacy originate? Not from the Bible, not from the Creator and Christ, and not from pure Christianity, Whose Author and Namesake taught that everyone is created in the image of God and has a priceless immortal soul, which Jesus loves so much that He gave His life to save. The arrogant, destructive, repulsive teachings of Scopes’ textbook are the detestable logical effects of naturalistic evolutionary ideas, including the evolutionists’ beloved hero, Charles Darwin, who was mentioned more than 20 times in the trial by Scopes’ defense lawyers and expert evolutionists. What’s more, Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was referred to in the trial as “one of the epoch-making books of all time.”⁶³ Readers would do well to acquaint themselves with the full title of Darwin’s book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The fact is, Darwinian evolution, so fiercely defended in the Scopes Trial, implies that some groups of humans are closer to our alleged ape-like ancestors in their mental faculties than others. Thus, some groups of humans are supposedly superior to others. The Bible teaches exactly the opposite. There are not different species or races of men; there is just one human race—an intelligent people—that God created “in His image” in the beginning (Genesis 1-2), both “male and female” (Genesis 1:27). According to the Bible, all of humanity descended from Adam and Eve, the first couple (1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20), and later Noah, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the Flood (Genesis 6-10). Whatever the shades of our skin, whatever the shapes of our bodies, we share equal value as human beings (Genesis 1:26-28; cf. Romans 10:12)—but not according to Darwinian evolution and Scopes’ biology textbook.

The Bible on Trial

The climax of the eight-day Scopes Trial came near the end—at the latter part of day seven. Following the defense’s lengthy submission of expert evolutionary testimony, they abruptly called to the stand to testify, of all people, the world-famous prosecuting attorney and three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. “[E]ven if your honor thinks it is not admissible in general, so we wish to call him now,” said defense attorney Hayes.⁶⁴ Against the other prosecuting attorneys’ better judgment,⁶⁵ Bryan seemed eager to take the stand (though admittedly, from the beginning of his questioning and throughout, both Judge Raulston and the defense attorneys led Bryan to believe that he would have equal opportunity to put Darrow and the others on the stand).⁶⁶ [Had Bryan known that he would actually never have an opportunity to question Darrow or the others, he may not have chosen to testify.]⁶⁷

So, what happened during Darrow’s one-sided interrogation of Bryan? In short, the renowned agnostic tried to humiliate Bryan and discredit his literal interpretation of various biblical miracles, including (1) God creating Eve from Adam’s rib, (2) the Genesis Flood, (3) the extraordinarily long day during the time of Joshua,⁶⁸ and (4) Jonah surviving for three days inside of a large sea creature.

Admittedly, if no supernatural God exists, then (a) the miracles of the Bible are make-believe, (b) the Bible itself is merely a work of fiction, and (c) Bible-believing Christians are very naïve (just as Darrow wanted the world to believe in 1925). However, if an omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural Being does exist,⁶⁹ then He could work any number of supernatural miracles (which are in harmony with His divine will).

• If there were no Universe, and He chose to create one, He could simply speak it into existence (Psalm 33:6-9).
• If He wanted to miraculously create a grown man from the dust of the ground and a mature woman from the man’s rib,⁷⁰ such a feat would seem quite simple for God after everything else He had previously made during the creation week.
• If the same God Who made light, as well as mornings and evenings on Earth without a Sun on days 1-3 of creation (Genesis 1:3-19),⁷¹ chose to make the Sun and Moon in Joshua’s day to “stand still” (at least in some sense), such an act by the Creator of the Universe would be simple—whether we understand exactly how He did it or not. (And we don’t!) Is it possible for the omnipotent Creator, Whom the Bible says currently “upholds the Universe by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, ESV), to miraculously manipulate a day on Earth to His liking? Is it possible for God to perhaps refract light or to specially create some kind of light to illuminate a part of the Earth for a longer period of time than the normal daylight hours? Though skeptics (whether in 1925 or 2025) often ridicule the idea of miracles, in truth, if a supernatural God exists, then supernatural miracles are possible—including an astronomical miracle on behalf of the Israelites when they faced the armies of the Amorites.
• If the Creator of everything on Earth chose to (1) prepare “a great fish to swallow Jonah,” (2) keep Jonah safe inside the sea creature for three days, and then (3) speak to the fish to have it vomit Jonah onto dry land, an all-powerful God could do exactly that.
• And if there were no written revelation from the Creator to humankind, He could certainly make that happen (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21). He could ensure that writers of His choosing penned what He wanted humanity to know. If He wanted mankind to know that He created the world and everything in it, He could tell them through His divinely inspired writers. If He wanted His human creation to know about some of the miracles He worked through the millennia, again, He could communicate such information through His chosen writers.

In reality, the highly irrational position is Darrow’s atheistic (or agnostic) evolution. Naturalistic atheism contends that matter came from nothing, life came from non-life, intelligence came from non-intelligence, and complex, functional design (like that found in everything from a honeybee to the human brain) had no designer. Such commitment to naturalism is a blind faith.⁷² Yet it’s “fundamentalist Christians” who are portrayed as irrational⁷³—for believing that a supernatural God could create a “whale” (or some type of sea creature)⁷⁴ that could swallow Jonah. Have we forgotten that evolutionists contend that non-fish evolved into fish, some of which left the water to become dog-like creatures, and some of those dog-like creatures eventually went back into the oceans to evolve flukes, baleen, blowholes, and much more—on their way to becoming gigantic whales? This is the only “factual” story about whales that children can hear in school today, despite (1) no real evidence (only imaginative interpretations of various fossils), and (2) the law of biogenesis, which observably indicates that life reproduces after its own kind⁷⁵ (i.e., fish do not become land animals and land animals do not become fish or whales).

Eight TakeAways from the Scopes Trial

1. Always look to the source material for the real story. The propaganda machine was hard at work in 1925, just as it is today. We should not simply read what an evolutionist or a creationist says about a matter. Examine the actual evidence for yourself and come to honest, informed, logical conclusions, whether about the Scopes Trial, the Bible, or anything else—but especially about eternally important matters!
2. Neither Scopes’ lawyers nor their “expert” evolutionists proved evolution to be true. Everything they testified about evolution was erroneous, irrelevant, or very inadequate.⁷⁶
3. Darrow neither disproved the Bible nor any miracle of the Bible; he merely mocked it and those who believed the evidence for its Divine inspiration and reliability.⁷⁷
4. Though Christian-minded Tennessean lawmakers undoubtedly meant well in 1925 when passing the “anti-evolution” Butler Act, attempting to legislate various Bible teachings is probably not the wisest course of action. After all, how has that worked out for Christians when they find themselves in the minority in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world, in this century or some other?⁷⁸ Perhaps the best course of action is to kindly encourage “free and just” legislation that allows for and promotes robust study and open, honest debate in schools and society at large.
5. Christians should continually pray for strength and prepare themselves to endure mocking and misrepresentations from anyone, including media propaganda. Just as Bryan and “fundamentalist Christians” were mocked in 1925, and just as Jesus was unjustly scorned and misrepresented 2,000 years ago, Christians will (at least occasionally) be unfairly persecuted (Matthew 5:10-12; 1 Peter 4:14-16).
6. Regardless of how disrespectful others may be when talking about God, the Bible, Jesus, or Christians, “[l]et your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6). Give honest, reasonable answers to questions in a spirit of “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV). Drastically different than the way Inherit the Wind (1960) portrayed Tennessee Christians’ hateful treatment of Darrow, in truth, the agnostic admitted near the end of the trial just how well he had been treated: “[S]o far as the people of Tennessee are concerned…I don’t know as I was ever in a community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great mass as I have found them since I have been in Tennessee. Yet I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon anybody’s part—any citizen here in this town or outside, the slightest discourtesy. I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north, and that is due largely to the ideas that southern people have and they are, perhaps, more hospitable than we are up north.”⁷⁹
7. Christians must balance being courageous with being wise. Bryan may have appeared to bravely take the stand in the Scopes Trial, but it was a foolish move on that occasion (and not because the Bible cannot be logically defended).⁸⁰ Jesus wants Christians to be courageous (Matthew 10:27-28), but He also taught His followers to “not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (Matthew 7:6). Or as the wise man said: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4).
8. Anyone who is interested in more information on the Scopes Trial should read Bryan’s closing argument,⁸¹ which he was not allowed to deliver due to the trial’s unusual ending. Though imperfect, Bryan makes several fundamental points for both creationists and evolutionists to seriously consider, most notably regarding morality and the afterlife. 

Conclusion

The Scopes Trial was more than a legal showdown—it was a cultural clash revealing a deep divide between naturalistic and theistic worldviews, one that still exists today. Though a century has passed, the lessons remain relevant: truth matters, civility counts, and genuine Christian faith requires both courage and discernment. Let us learn from history—not to mindlessly relive battles fought in 1925, but to be honest, think clearly, stand faithfully, and speak graciously as we have opportunity to do good in 2025.

Endnotes

¹ Schools that trained teachers.

² Butler Act (1925), Tennessee Virtual Archive, teva.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/scopes/id/166.

³ George W. Hunter (1914), A Civic Biology (New York: American Book Company), librarycollections.law.umn.edu/documents/darrow/Hunter_Civic_Biology_1914.pdf, pp. 194-196.

⁴ The witch hunt, jailing, and burning in effigy of Scopes’ character portrayed in the award-winning 1960 movie Inherit the Wind is far from reality; it is a gross mischaracterization of the facts of history that seemingly few people know. Sadly, impressionable students in countless classrooms around the U.S. watch this classic. Like the General Theory of Evolution, the facts are not on the side of Inherit the Wind, yet most students will not hear the real story about the Scopes Trial.

⁵ John T. Scopes and James Presley (1967), Center of the Storm: Memoirs of John T. Scopes (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston), p. 61.

⁶ Ibid., pp. 60-61, emp. added.

⁷ Ibid., pp. 60-61.

⁸ Scopes Trial Transcript in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), (Dayton, TN: Bryan College), p. 4. NOTE: The first 319 pages of this book are a “word-for-word report” of the Scopes Trial.

⁹ Regardless of how historically inaccurate the movie Inherit the Wind portrayed his character.

¹⁰ Apparently the same “Sue” whom Johnny Cash sang about in “A Boy Named Sue.”

¹¹ Scopes and Presley, p. 61.

¹² Clarence Darrow (no date), Absurdities of the Bible (Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications); see also Clarence Darrow (1929), Why I Am an Agnostic (Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius), pp. 27-40, librarycollections.law.umn.edu/documents/darrow/why_I_am_an_agnostic.pdf. See also Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 99.

¹³ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 288.

¹⁴ Darrow (1929), p. 40.

¹⁵ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 299.

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 4,6, emp. added.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 202,284.

¹⁸ By “fundamentalism,” Clarence Darrow, in essence, is referring to Christians who interpreted such things as the biblical creation account, Flood account, etc., literally rather than figuratively.

¹⁹ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 306.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 284.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid., p. 282.

²⁴ “Evolution Stirs Heat in Dayton, Tennessee; Citizens Protest Sharing Trial Publicity with Chattanooga—Meeting Ends in Fist Fight” (1925), The New York Times, May 20, www.nytimes.com/1925/05/20/archives/evolution-stirs-heat-in-dayton-tennessee-citizens-protest-sharing.html.

²⁵ “WGN Broadcasts the Trial,” www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/monkeytrial-wgn-radio-broadcasts-trial/.

²⁶ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 211.

²⁷ Ibid., pp. 206-207.

²⁸ “Dayton Keyed Up for Opening Today of Trial of Scopes” (1925), The New York Times, July 10, https://www.nytimes.com/1925/07/10/archives/dayton-keyed-up-for-opening-today-of-trial-of-scopes-intense.html.

²⁹ In reality, the Tennessee Supreme court overturned Scopes’ conviction on a technicality. “Under section 14 of article 6 of the Constitution of Tennessee, a fine in excess of $50 must be assessed by a jury…. Since the jury alone can impose the penalty this Act requires, and as a matter of course no different penalty can be inflicted, the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in levying this fine [of $100—EL], and we are without power to correct his error. The judgment must accordingly be reversed…. The Court is informed that the plaintiff in error is no longer in the service of the State. We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case” [“John Thomas Scopes v the State, Appeal from the Criminal Court of Rhea County” (1927), Supreme Court of Tennessee, January 17, https://famous-trials.com/scopesmonkey/2087-appealdecision].

³⁰ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 206, emp. added.

³¹ Clarence Darrow (1932), The Story of My Life (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), p. 249, emp. added, gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500951h.html.

³² Scopes Trial Transcript, pp. 6, 202. Even on day seven of the trial, Judge Raulston reminded the defense, “The question is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught men descended from the lower order of animals” (p. 284).

³³ Ibid., pp. 201-280. One scientist (Dr. Maynard Metcalf) was allowed to give testimony in person, though without the jury’s presence (pp. 133-143).

³⁴ Ibid., p. 168, emp. added.

³⁵ And derivatives thereof, e.g., similarity, homologous, and comparative anatomist(s).

³⁶ For more information on homology, see Jerry Bergman (2001), “Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?” Journal of Creation, 15[1]:26-33, April 1, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism/.

³⁷ Or derivatives thereof.

³⁸ Scopes Trial Transcript, pp. 201-280.

³⁹ Stephen Jay Gould (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious!),” Natural History, 109[2]:43.

⁴⁰ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 273.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 235, emp. added.

⁴² Sir Arthur Keith (1912), The Human Body (London: Williams and Norgate), pp. 94-95, emp. added.

⁴³ Gould, pp. 44,45, emp. added.

⁴⁴ For more information on embryonic recapitulation, see Trevor Major (1994), “Haeckel: The Legacy of a Lie,” https://apologeticspress.org/haeckel-the-legacy-of-a-lie-596/. See also Elizabeth Mitchell (2020), “Recapitulation Theory: How Embryology Does Not Prove Evolution,” September 5, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/recapitulation-does-embryology-prove-evolution/.

⁴⁵ Scopes Trial Transcript, pp. 267-268. Vestigial structures were also discussed in other parts of the written affidavits.

⁴⁶ The number of vestigial organs in the human body that Wiedersheim claimed was actually 86, not 180, as asserted in the Scopes Trial—Robert Wiedersheim, (1895), The Structure of Man: An Index to His Past History, trans. H. and M. Bernard (London: Macmillan).

⁴⁷ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 268, emp. added.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 246-247, emp. added.

⁴⁹ “The Last Word” (2003), New Scientist, 177[2381]:65, February 8. See also Warwick Glover (1988), “The Human Vermiform Appendix: A General Surgeon’s Reflections,” Journal of Creation, 3[1]:34-35.

⁵⁰ Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, as quoted in Seth Borenstein (2007), “Scientists: Appendix Protects Good Germs,” www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2007/10/06/scientists-appendix-protects-good-germs/61698570007/.

⁵¹ Midwestern University (2017), “Appendix May Have Important Function, New Research Suggests,” ScienceDaily, January 9, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm.

⁵² “Coccyx” (2018), Healthline, www.healthline.com/health/coccyx#1.

⁵³ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 280, emp. added.

⁵⁴ For more information, see R.L. Wysong (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press), pp. 397-399.

⁵⁵ If macroevolution is true (i.e., large-scale changes of one kind of creature into another, which requires new genetic information), shouldn’t human bodies be producing new, never-before-seen organs? (Which is not happening!)

⁵⁶ Not really proving what they claim to prove—that humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

⁵⁷ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 278.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 237.

⁵⁹ Jeff Miller (2023), “Does the Evidence REALLY Support Human Evolution? (Part 1),” Reason & Revelation, 43[8]:88, August, https://apologeticspress.org/does-the-evidence-really-support-human-evolution-part-i/.

⁶⁰ For more information, see Miller (2023), 43[8]:86-89,92-93.

⁶¹ Hunter (1914), A Civic Biology, pp. 195-196.

⁶² Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 215.

⁶³ Perhaps the defense knew earlier (or all along) that they wanted to try to get Bryan on the stand, but to Bryan it was a total surprise. Bryan testified during the questioning, saying, “I didn’t know I was to be called as a witness” (Ibid., p. 293).

⁶⁴ Scopes Trial Transcript, p. 284.

⁶⁵ As they let their objections be known several times before and during the questioning (Ibid., pp. 284,286,288,292,299).

⁶⁶ Bryan responded to the request that he take the stand by saying, “If your honor please, I insist that Mr. Darrow can be put on the stand, and Mr. Malone and Mr. Hays.” Judge Raulston replied: “Call anybody you desire. Ask them any questions you wish.” To which Bryan said: “Then, we will call all three of them” (p. 284). At one point during the questioning of Bryan, he said to Darrow: “You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance” (p. 287). Again, the judge was expecting Bryan to have an opportunity to question Darrow, saying, “He [Bryan] wants to ask the other gentleman [Darrow] questions along the same line” (p. 288). When Bryan was on the stand, even Darrow once implied that he [Darrow] would take the stand, too, saying, “Wait until you get to me” (Ibid., p. 293, emp. added).

⁶⁷ Bryan never got an opportunity to question Darrow (or deliver his closing statement) because following the questioning of Bryan, the seventh day’s proceedings ended. When the trial resumed on day eight, Darrow abruptly threw in the towel, saying, “I think to save time we will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty” (Ibid., p. 306).

⁶⁸ Joshua 10:12-14.

⁶⁹ And the evidence indicates He does. See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-119, https://apologeticspress.org/7-reasons-to-believe-in-god-5045/. See also AP’s book Does God Exist? (www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=874), as well as the “Existence of God” section of the AP website (https://apologeticspress.org/category/existence-of-god/).

⁷⁰ Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8-12; 1 Timothy 2:13.

⁷¹ Keep in mind that “the Father of lights” (James 1:17), Who is “light” (1 John 1:5), could create light easily without first having to create the Sun, Moon, and stars. Just as God could produce a fruit-bearing tree on Day 3 without seed, He could produce light supernaturally on Day 1 without the “usual” light bearers (which subsequently were created on Day 4). For more information, see Eric Lyons (2006), “When Were the Sun, Moon, and Stars Created?” apologeticspress.org/when-were-the-sun-moon-and-stars-created-1990/.

⁷² For more information, see Jeff Miller (2014), “There’s No Such Thing as a Naturalist,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-naturalist-5050/.

⁷³ Admittedly, many who wear the name “Christian” do not reason or act like Christ (e.g., John 10:37-38) nor seem to care about speaking words of “truth and reason” (Acts 26:25).

⁷⁴ See Eric Lyons (2012), “Was Jonah Swallowed by a Fish or a Whale?” www.apologeticspress.org/was-jonah-swallowed-by-a-fish-or-a-whale-2830/. See also Dave Miller (2003), “Jonah and the ‘Whale’?” apologeticspress.org/jonah-and-the-whale-69/.

⁷⁵ For more information, see Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis—Parts 1-2, Reason & Revelation, 32[1-2]:2-11,14-17,20-22, January & February, apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-biogenesis-part-i-4165/; apologeticspress.org/the-law-of-biogenesis-part-ii-4178/.

⁷⁶ For more information, see Jeff Miller (2024), “Four Reasons to Believe Evolution Is Not True,” Reason & Revelation, 44[8]:2-5,8-11, August, apologeticspress.org/4-reasons-to-believe-evolution-is-not-true/.

⁷⁷ For evidence of the inspiration of the Bible, see Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). See also Dave Miller (2020), The Bible Is From God: A Sampling of Proofs (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press) and “The Inspiration of the Bible” section of www.apologeticspress.org. 

⁷⁸ In one memorable scene near the end of Inherit the Wind, Darrow’s character asks Bryan’s character to imagine if the tables were turned and someone like Scopes’ character had “the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying that only Darwin could be taught in the schools?” Oh, how the tables have turned!

⁷⁹ Scopes Trial Transcript, pp. 225-226.

⁸⁰ Darrow was not interested in truth or in helping the world learn the truth through a fair investigation. He simply wanted to try to make fun of Bryan (and Christians who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and a literal creation of Adam and Eve, etc.). Furthermore, Darrow “fought dirty” and strategically (and dishonestly) worked things out (by abruptly throwing in the towel on the next day and asking the court to find his client [Scopes] guilty) so that Darrow never had to take the stand himself (against Bryan)—and thus the questioning of Bryan was entirely one-sided.

⁸¹ William Jennings Bryan (1925), The Last Message of William Jennings Bryan, https://archive.org/details/cain-2009-william-jennings-bryan-last-message-9781906267162/mode/2up.

The post The 100th Anniversary of the Scopes “Monkey” Trial appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One line of questioning that often seems to seek exits instead of answers begins with the statement, “Why doesn’t God just…?” This type of question is often asked by leading atheists as a subtle argument against God’s character. Why doesn’t God just perform miracles for amputees? Why doesn’t God show Himself clearly so more people will believe? Why doesn’t God let everyone into heaven? Why doesn’t God stop bad people from harming good people? The list could go on and on.

Notice that there can be a subtle implication in questions phrased this way. The subliminal message is often something like this: If God cared about amputees, He would miraculously heal them all. Or, if God really loved people, He would never allow anyone to go to hell and would save all people. Or, God must not care that bad people harm good people, or maybe there is no God at all. We can see that it is often the case that people use the form of a question to attack God’s character or existence, while claiming to innocently be seeking answers to their questions. On the other hand, there are many who ask such questions who are truly seeking answers. Thus, we must all ask ourselves if we are really seeking answers.

In addition, it is important to understand that a question is not an argument against something. For instance, “Why doesn’t God just show Himself?” is not evidence that God does not love people or does not exist. It is simply a question that potentially has an excellent, logical, reasonable answer. Furthermore, when a person says something to the effect of, “I can’t think of a good reason why God doesn’t show Himself more clearly,” that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many people couldn’t think of anything that would sink the Titanic. Millions of people couldn’t think of any good reason not to use asbestos in factories.

Let us, then, briefly analyze the question: Why doesn’t God show Himself? This has been called the problem of Divine Hiddenness, and there are many materials available on the topic. I’d like to urge you, the reader, to stop right here and try this little exercise. If someone were to agree to pay you one million dollars if you could come up with a logical reason why a loving God might not openly show Himself to every human on the planet, do you think you would take some time to seriously consider the question?

I’m not going to answer the question in this article, but I would like you to consider something. At the beginning of the animated Disney movie “Beauty and the Beast,” a haggard, old woman knocks on the door of the castle where a haughty and spoiled prince lives. The night is stormy, cold, and wet and the poor old woman begs the prince to give her a dry place to stay. The hard-hearted prince callously sends her on her way. He soon learns of his costly mistake when the beggar reveals that she is a beautiful woman who was testing the prince. The prince’s pleas for forgiveness fall on deaf ears, because the woman could see that there was no love in his heart.

Why doesn’t God just show Himself? “There is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised and we did not esteem Him” (Isaiah 53:2-3). Could it be that God is showing Himself to all people, but some just don’t have eyes to recognize Him? [For more information, see Eric Lyons (2016), apologeticspress.org/why-doesnt-god-show-himself/.]

The post Why Doesn’t God Just… appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. And the children of Israel went up in orderly ranks out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 13:17-18).

It has been suggested that here we have a case where God speaks of the future in conditional terms. It is claimed that God selected a certain route for the Exodus because of what the Israelites might have done otherwise—thus evoking the question, “Don’t we see God here considering the possibility—but not the certainty—that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?” The implication is that God’s omniscience is limited to the extent that He could not know for sure ahead of time whether the Israelites might change their minds and desire to return to Egypt. Hence, God is omniscient only in those areas where knowledge is available, but He is not omniscient in those areas that are “unknowable”—as in the case of the Israelites’ potential decision to abandon their attempt to exit Egypt.

Such a view most certainly makes God appear to be a precarious leader of His people: “We better do it this way, no, wait, we might better do it that way.” Such thinking borders on disrespect and a demeaning view of God which misapprehends the nature of Deity—Who is infinite in all His attributes. It is difficult for we humans—who are so enmeshed in a time/space continuum—to grasp the eternality of God and the fact that He is not subject to time or, in any way, restricted, limited, or confined by time. As the creator of time, He exists outside of time. So when the Bible depicts Him speaking of the future, such references are for the benefit of humans.

The underlying Hebrew grammar in this passage does not suggest that God, Himself, was uncertain about or unaware of what the Israelites would ultimately do. Uncertainty is not built into the word, though it may be used in a sentence where uncertainty is involved. The English rendering “lest perhaps” (NKJV) or “lest peradventure” (ASV/KJV) is one word in the original. The premiere Hebrew lexicon of our day defines the Hebrew term [פֶּן־] as “so that not, lest”—which does not inherently or necessarily imply uncertain possibility. If there are passages where the notion of “perhaps/possibility” are present, but there are also many passages where the same Hebrew term is used with no notion of “perhaps” or “possibly,” then the element of possibility or uncertainty is not inherent in the Hebrew word. Consequently, we must refrain from imposing or forcing that element onto the passage. Consider these English translations that capture the thrust of Exodus 13:17—

Christian Standard Bible: “for God said, ‘The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.’”

Common English Bible: “God thought, If the people have to fight and face war, they will run back to Egypt.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.”

The MSG: “for God thought, ‘If the people encounter war, they’ll change their minds and go back to Egypt.’”

These renderings rightly convey that God knew ahead of time that the Israelites would change their minds if they encountered the Philistine obstacle. It is stated in Scripture for the benefit of the reader.

Consider the following verses where the same Hebrew term is used that is used in Exodus 13:17—

Genesis 26:7—“The men who live there will kill me for Rebekah because she’s very beautiful” (CEB).¹

Genesis 26:9—“I was afraid that you would kill me so that you could have her” (ERV).²

Genesis 31:31—“I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force” (NASB).³

Genesis 44:34—“Do not let me see the misery that would come on my father” (NIV).⁴

Judges 7:2—“Israel would boast against me” (NIV).⁵

Observe that, even if the wording of a number of translations leaves the inaccurate impression that God did not know what they would do, consider: To whom was God speaking when He made the statement, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt”? Moses had just completed an address to the entire nation regarding the necessity of an annual commemoration of their exit from Egypt. God must have been speaking to Moses and, perhaps, the elders of the nation, when He stated the rationale for His selected travel route. The verse simply reads, “and God said….” Surely, He was not just speaking into the air with no particular audience. Since they had just left Egypt, it makes perfect sense that, in His miraculous guidance of the nation via their divinely-designated leader, He spoke the words to Moses as an explanation for why he (Moses) was being instructed to take the route that avoided Philistine territory. In which case God was introducing into Moses’ mind the need for him as their leader to consider the possibility (which God knew to be a reality) that they might not follow through with their commitment to God. In that scenario, God would have been giving Moses a leadership lesson.

Built into God’s relationship with His people was the fact that He continuously placed before them two options: obey or disobey. He warned of punishment if they chose to disobey, but also refrained from punishment if they would repent and obey. So the “change of mind” that God often expressed in His dealings with Israel was not unanticipated or based on uncertainty within Himself as to what the people might do. He knew ahead of time whether they would repent, and so He reacted accordingly. There was no uncertainty or lack of knowledge involved on God’s part. Jonah 3:10 illustrates this consistent pattern: “Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” God’s changing responses were not due to His lack of knowledge, but to the people’s own free will decisions. Just because every verse does not offer this technical explanation as to God’s operations, we must, nevertheless, assume that it applies to all such situations. So His “change of mind” is simply the application of His intention to act in relation to their actions: “If they do this, I will do this; if they do that, this will be My response.” In other words, God accommodates human limitations by couching His actions in time-laden expressions. The issue is not whether God will change His mind (as in Numbers 14:19-20), but whether He knows ahead of time that He will do so. Changing His mind does not imply limited omniscience. Human free will is so delicate and sensitive that God goes out of His way not to interfere with it or short circuit the process necessary for free will to be exercised unimpeded.

Endnotes

¹ Of 15 English translations, 7 have “will kill me,” 7 have “would kill him,” and 1 has “would kill me.”

² Of 20 English translations, 14 have “lest I die,” 2 have “lest I should die,” 2 have “I would die,” and 2 have “I will/I’ll die.” Use of the term “lest” does not suggest only possibility, since the statement that Isaac makes indicates that he concocted the lie for the very reason that he was convinced they would (not might) kill him if they thought she was his wife.

³ Of 34 English translations, 3 have “lest thou/you take,” 3 have “lest thou shouldest take”/“lest you should take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst violently take away,” 1 has “thou wouldst have taken,” 1 has “He’ll take his daughters,” and 24 have “thou/you wouldst/would take.” The context shows that Jacob was confident that Laban would (not might) take back his daughters by force.

⁴ Judah insisted to Joseph that if he and his brothers returned to Jacob without Benjamin, it would devastate their father—not might, may, possibly, or perhaps—but, rather, it would destroy him.

⁵ God required Gideon to reduce the size of his army for the expressed reason that if such were not done, the Israelites would—for certain—take credit for their victory. The NASB has, “for Israel would become boastful.” The New Revised Standard reads, “Israel would only take credit away from me.”  

The post Does God Know the Future? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

I thought about my son as I read the story in Mark 9:14-29 of the demon-possessed boy and his father. In this episode of Jesus’ ministry, He and His three closest followers had been on the Mountain of Transfiguration, and they were rejoining the other apostles. As Jesus drew near, He saw a large multitude of people arguing with the apostles. When He inquired about the cause of the dispute, a man stepped forward and explained that he had brought his demon-possessed son to the apostles in order to be healed, but they could not cast out the evil spirit. When Jesus saw the son, the Bible explains that “the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth” (Mark 9:20). When Jesus asked the father how long this had been going on, the man said it had been happening to the son “from childhood,” indicating that it had been many years. What’s more, the father explained, “And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him” (Mark 9:22).

Let us pause here in the telling of the story and think about this distraught father. What do you think this man and his family had already tried in order to heal their son? No doubt they had visited every doctor and holy man within many miles, grasping at any hope that some new treatment or incantation would at last remove the evil spirit. Notice that this was no mere annoyance. This demon often attempted to kill the boy. How vigilant the family must have been in order to keep him alive this long. What measures had they taken to keep him safe? Did the mother and father alternate staying awake at night to watch and make sure the child did not come to harm? When they traveled, did they make sure the boy was not near water that would allure the demon to throw him in? How many times do you think they had paid a “professional” to heal their son, only to be disappointed? The fact that he still had the demon and was coming to Jesus shows us that all treatments up to that point were ineffective. Can you imagine how many times this persevering father had his hopes set on a cure, only to discover nothing worked? Have you ever tried something so many times, and had your hopes dashed so often, that you refused to get your hopes up because you just did not think you could handle one more failure?

As we jump back into the story, we hear the man say to Jesus, “But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us” (Mark 9:22). We can feel exactly where the man’s “if You can do anything” statement originated. He had most likely been through the drill dozens of times. He heard of a person who might be able to help. He visited that person and presented his son. The person did everything in his power to help, but the son remained possessed. In fact, that is exactly what had happened to this man earlier in this story. Most likely he had heard of the miracle working power of Jesus. He arrived to find Jesus absent and His followers healing all kinds of sickness and disease. Possibly, he watched other people be healed and even some demons be cast out (since the apostles were astonished that this one gave them trouble and was impossible for them to cast out, indicating that others were not). And yet, with every word and effort from the apostles, this man lost more and more hope. Once again, he had brought his innocent, tortured child to someone who he thought could help, and once again there was nothing that could be done, at least by the apostles. “If You can do anything,” was the most hopeful response he could muster for Jesus, because no one else ever had been able to “do anything” in this child’s case.

I am sure Jesus’ response shocked the man. He literally said to him, “If you can” (Mark 9:23, ESV). Think about that response. How much effort had the man put into protecting his son? How often had he tried to get him help? Surely, there was nothing more he could do. He could not heal the son himself! And yet, Jesus’ response forced him to recognize that something was lacking in his attempt. Jesus continued, “all things are possible to him who believes” (Mark 9:23). After all this man had done for his child, was there more he could do? What was Jesus trying to get him to see?

As I read the story again for this article, I can almost feel the man break down. He has come to the end of his rope. He has “believed” in so many people, practices, medicines, incantations, and nothing has ever worked. It is as if he does not have one more “belief” in him—not this time, not to have his heart broken again, not to face the crushing disappointment of going home with a child who will be plagued by this demon his whole life. “Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!’” (Mark 9:24). Can you hear the desperation in his voice? I can. I have been reading this story for more than 30 years and for many years missed the feeling of the father’s despair and helplessness, trying to convince Jesus that he was doing all he could do.

I think this is where all of us find ourselves at one time or another in our lives. There are aspects about the Christian faith that, for some reason or particular circumstance in our lives, strike us as difficult to believe. Maybe it is the college freshman who is sitting at the feet of an extremely well-spoken, highly credentialed atheistic professor who very convincingly (albeit deceptively) argues that modern science has finally done away with the idea of a supernatural Creator in the minds of all those “educated enough to have an opinion on the subject.” Maybe it is the divorced mother who gets another call from the principal of her son’s school telling her that he is in trouble again. What else is she supposed to do? She works a full-time job. She comes home to cook and clean. She takes the kids to church, prays for them, begs God to put someone in their lives that can be a father figure, and yet nothing seems to be working. Or maybe it is the mother and father of the little five-year-old girl who is on her third round of chemotherapy. This time there is only a 10% chance that any of the treatments will work, and the odds overwhelmingly indicate their daughter will be gone in a year. These people believe in God, at least they want to, but their circumstances seem to make it nearly impossible to “really” believe. What is God’s response?

“If You Can!”: Your Doubt Is Your Fault

God has never scrimped on providing evidence of His reality and of His power to accomplish anything and everything that He wants to do. When He sent Jesus into the world, He expected honest-hearted people to be absolutely convinced by the evidence He provided of Jesus’ deity. The Old Testament is filled with predictive prophecy documenting the life of Jesus. Jesus did miracles the likes of which no person had ever accomplished. These mighty works validated His claim to be the Son of God. God the Father spoke from heaven at least twice (at Jesus’ baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration) and claimed Jesus as His Son. Jesus confounded the false teachers with the truth in a way no other human ever had. He was constantly right about everything He ever said while on Earth, including predicting His own death and resurrection. And yet, when He met the apostles in Galilee after His resurrection, as He repeatedly told them He would, “they worshiped Him; but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). How is that possible? How could Jesus show all those miracles, fulfill all the prophecies, predict His own resurrection—and some still doubt? “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?” (Mark 9:19). How much more could Jesus have done to bring about faith in those He encountered?

I often think that we look at those “faithless” people in the first century and feel a moral superiority, thinking that if we had lived in that time, we certainly would have understood Jesus was/is the Messiah and would have followed Him right up to the foot of the cross, never flinching. And yet, we have the whole story. We have seen how it ends, but we still doubt. We doubt that God has a plan for the little girl with cancer, even though He tells us such little children are the citizens of heaven. We doubt that God loves the child or her parents; if He did, surely He would not allow them to suffer so much pain and emotional trauma. Yet, we claim to know and believe that He watched as His own Son hung on a cross, having the power to stop His torture, but allowing it to continue because of His great love for His human creations. The college student doubts the credibility of the Creation narrative, yet the entirety of the modern scientific world has not even been able to build a flying machine that would compare to a common house fly. The divorced mother doubts God’s activity in her life, yet she knows He is the heavenly Father Who sees, and watches, and knows. Doubt about God, His ability, His care, or His plan is never God’s fault, and it is not viewed in the Bible in any positive way. When we doubt, it is our fault, and it will do us no good. “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).

Just Admit It

The father in the story in Mark did what all of us must do. He admitted that his doubt was his fault and begged that Jesus help him anyway. “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). All too often, we want to blame our unbelief on God. We do not directly point a finger to heaven and accuse God of failing us, but our thoughts and words often veil that sentiment. The college student opines that if God really did create the Universe, why didn’t He show Himself more clearly and give us more substantial evidence. The grieving parents wonder why, if God is so powerful and loves us so much, He let their only son die in a car accident. Why would God do that? The homosexual teen, who grew up in a Christian home, wonders how God could have “created” her to have homosexual desires. If such desires are wrong, why did God create her like this? Why would God give Adam a wife who would tempt Him to disobey? How can a loving God cause the death of innocent children in the Old Testament? How can a loving God send people to hell for eternity? And on and on the list goes.

Many times, questions such as these are not asked with a sincere, “I’m honestly looking for an answer” motivation. Instead, they are posed in a way to challenge God’s righteousness, love, power, and care for us. They are often designed to cause, or are the symptoms of, doubt—doubt about God, His moral perfection, His love, and His power. Until we recognize that any and all doubt about God’s care, love, power, and plans springs from our own weakness, then we will not find a solution to our doubt struggle and it will only grow worse and worse. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed” (James 1:13-14). “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8-10). Until we recognize that our doubt is our fault, it is not good, and God is not to blame for it, we will not be able to get over it. 

Interestingly, I have in front of me as I write, a two-page paper written by a young man who says he does not believe in God. He has titled his explanation for his lack of belief: “The Argument from Non-resistant Non-belief.” In a rather lengthy syllogism, he attempts to argue that no perfectly loving God exists. He reasons that if a loving God exists, then no human would ever be “non-resistantly in a state of non-belief.” In other words, no person would be an unbeliever who was not actively trying to resist the evidence for God. And yet, he argues, that he has tried all he can to believe in God, to have faith “as a mustard seed.” He demands that he is not trying to resist God, just the opposite, and yet he does not believe in God. Therefore, he concludes God does not exist. Notice the lengths to which a person will go to avoid taking personal responsibility for his own doubt. He challenges the God of the Bible, instead of recognizing that the fault lies in his own weakness and disbelief. Our doubt is our fault. We must admit it if we want to move past it.

Ask God to Help—He Will

As soon as we, as Christians, recognize that our doubt is our fault, and we admit that, we are in the perfect position to begin finding a solution to our doubt struggles. Notice that the father of the demon-possessed child begged Jesus to help his unbelief. And Jesus healed his son. Do you believe it was easier for the man to believe in Jesus after he saw Him cast the demon out that no other person could, not even the apostles? Of course it was. Jesus readily supplied the man with evidence that would lead his humble, honest heart to a stronger faith in the Son of God.

God will do the same for us. Imagine this prayer: “God, I do not see how my daughter having cancer can be something that a loving Father would do. I do not understand how this can help anyone. But, I believe You sent Your Son to die for me and I believe that ‘all things work together for good to those who love God.’ Please help my unbelief and show me how this can be part of Your plan.” Dear reader, do you believe God would answer such a prayer and open the heart and mind of such a humble soul to gradually understand at least some reasons why He would allow that pain? Do you believe He would help such a parent find comfort drawing near the Creator?

Or can you hear the humble prayer of the struggling homosexual? “God, I know that You are just and all that You do is right. I know that You have said that homosexual behavior is a sin. I do not understand why I have these feelings, and I sincerely believe that I’m trying my hardest to fight them. I know, however, that You have promised that You will not allow me to be tempted beyond what I can handle. Please help me overcome these temptations and my own sinful desires.” Can you imagine that a prayer such as that prayed by a sincere heart with the motivation to overcome temptation and sin would not be met with help from the Father? “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:7-11). “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

When we recognize our doubt as the spiritual weakness that it is, admit that it is our fault and that God is not to blame, and we are willing to humbly ask our God to help us through our crippling doubt, what will happen? “’If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes” (Mark 9:23, ESV).

The post Struggling with Doubt appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Donnie DeBord (Th.M. and Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Dr. DeBord is an assistant professor of Systematic Theology and Bible at Freed-Hardeman University and teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on the Trinity.]

The doctrine of the Trinity remains misunderstood and neglected. Perhaps Christians see Trinitarian theology as impractical, too academic, or perhaps even unnecessary.¹ Fred Sanders described the situation this way: “We tend to acknowledge the doctrine with a polite hospitality but not welcome it with any special warmth.”² How can we believe or preach God’s good news until we know a bit about Who God is? In contrast with our contemporary neglect of the triune God, Paul could not help but praise God as he reflected on how the Father has blessed us through Christ and sealed us with the Spirit, all of which is for the ultimate glory of God (Ephesians 1:3-14).³

Similarly, Peter said the Christian’s life is bound up in the foreknowledge of the Father, sanctification by the Spirit, and obedience to Christ—all due to the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Peter 1:1-2). What some may see as “a dull or peculiar irrelevance turns out to be the source of all that is good in Christianity. Neither a problem nor a technicality, the triune being of God is the vital oxygen of Christian life and joy.”⁴ Just as the cherubim praise the thrice holy God, we too can become better worshipers as we look closer into the nature of God. The best doxologies, Gilles Emory said, “do not regard an action of God…but rather they are focused directly on the glory of God and his sanctity. They do not express a wish, but rather they declare the reality of God.”⁵ I think Augustine was right when he said, “This is the fullness of our joy…to enjoy God the Trinity in whose image we have been made.”⁶

When working on my dissertation, I was advised to write an “elevator speech” explanation of what I was working on.⁷ So, how would we do this with the Trinity? It’s hard, but here is how I try to do it: our God exists as three persons who share the same substance.⁸

God Is One

Before we can appreciate the threeness of God, we must articulate the oneness of God. There is one God. Moses said, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). God alone is God (Psalm 86:10). Besides Him, there is no God (Isaiah 44:6). Zechariah 14:9 confirms: “And the LORD will be King over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.” Paul said, “there is no God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4). God is one, and we are to be singularly devoted to Him. God said, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). The New Testament, even while affirming the deity of Christ and the Spirit, commands Christians to believe in one God (James 2:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6).⁹

While there are three divine persons, each shares in the singular divine substance. They do not each have their own divine substance apart from the other two. That would result in three divine beings—three gods. It is best to see that the Son and Spirit eternally share in the Father’s divine nature. This sharing is without beginning and any diminishment (John 1:1; 5:26; 10:38; 15:26). This precision helps us honor the oneness of God while also maintaining the threeness of God. Matthew Barrett summarized this truth this way: “There is in him no composition, nor can he be compounded by parts. If he could, then he would be a divided being (parts are divisible by definition), a mutable being (parts are prone to change), a temporal being (parts require a composer), and a dependent being (depending on these parts as if they precede him).”¹⁰ God’s nature is one in every way. God’s “oneness” is the most extreme unity.

Each Divine Person Is “the LORD”

“The LORD” has been used in Scripture to translate the divine name with which God revealed Himself to Moses. God said He is the “I AM” (Exodus 3:14). God subsequently revealed His glory to Moses by passing by him and proclaiming His name “I AM” or “The LORD” (Exodus 33:19). God’s name “I AM” or “the LORD” has been understood to communicate God’s aseity (that God exists independent of any cause), uniqueness (holiness), transcendence, and faithfulness. The Bible helps us see that the Father, Son, and Spirit share the same essence by describing each of them as “the LORD.” The New Testament uses the word “Lord” to refer to the Father (Luke 1:32), the Son (Luke 2:11), and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). This is appropriate because the three share that same divine nature. In the ancient world, to name something was to describe its substance. The Father, Son, and Spirit share in one name (Matthew 28:19).

It would not be appropriate to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as the great “WE ARE.” “They” are “the I AM” because the three share the same substance. There is only one substance and one divine consciousness shared by three persons. It would be difficult to avoid the charge of polytheism if we believed there were three divine beings with their own divine substances, or three “centers of consciousness,” or a society of divine beings. Instead, God has revealed His nature in the name “I AM.”

There is a novel trinitarian theology labeled social trinitarianism, which teaches that God is three distinct individuals (three beings) rather than the historic position of God as one Being (i.e., substance) shared by three persons. Briefly, social trinitarianism is the idea that each member of the Trinity is fully divine and that the divine persons enjoy a loving relationship with one another as distinct beings.¹¹ Social trinitarianism is defined this way: “Each of the divine persons must have something—be it his own distinct substance, his own distinct intellect, his own distinct act and faculty of will, or so on—which is his alone, and which the others do not have in the same way.”¹² So, instead of one substance shared by three persons, social trinitarians believe there are three beings who share a set of attributes that make them regarded as gods. There are, it seems, three divine substances. This model sees the Trinity as a family, society, or team. This position is put forward in contrast to the historic model of the Trinity that begins with the oneness of God and proceeds to investigate how the three divine persons share the singular divine substance.

In this social-trinitarian model, the divine persons do not share a singular substance; they each have their own divine substance. This may seem like a small differentiation, but the implications are quite troubling. In this paradigm, it is difficult to explain how there are not three gods. Similarly, in this view, the divine persons are closer to three humans who share in human nature but interact and may have different and/or submissive wills to other members of the divine family.¹³

Social trinitarianism, I believe, should be rejected because the Bible repeatedly affirms the oneness of God rather than three beings who happen to share common attributes belonging to a genus we call god. Furthermore, it seems dangerous to affirm a distinct will and being to each of the divine persons. This would appear to encroach upon the oneness of God.¹⁴ Furthermore, the social trinitarian model is a conspicuous leap from historic trinitarian theology.

So, the Father, Son, and Spirit exist and act with one undivided and inseparable substance. Since the entire Trinity shares the same substance, we know that honor, authority, power, eternity, and mind is shared by each of the three persons. The Father, Son, and Spirit have no distinction in nature, attitude, or will (John 1:1).

God Is Three

Why isn’t there just one divine person? Why is there a Trinity? The oneness of God is taught clearly in Scripture and is, perhaps, easier to understand than the threeness of God, but the threeness of God is revealed as well. These are difficult concepts to reconcile. Apart from Scripture, we would have little reason to believe in the threeness or triunity of God. But, as Fred Sanders said, “God made it known that his unity was a triunity precisely when the Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit in the fulfillment of the promise of redemption.”¹⁵ This Divine Triunity is taught in several ways, but it is beautifully displayed as the Father, Son, and Spirit are routinely placed together as the God who saves. As Michael Horton said, “The confession ‘one God in three persons’ arises naturally out of the triadic formulas in the New Testament in the context of baptism (Mt 28:19 and par.) and liturgical blessings and benedictions (Mt 28:19; Jn 1:18; 5:23; Ro 5:5-8; 1 Co 6:11; 8:6; 12:4-6; 2 Co 13:13-14; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Ti 2:5; 1 Pe 1:2).”¹⁶

God is eternally one but never lonely or isolated. “God is love” (1 John 4:8,16). This divine love is eternally and perfectly shared between the Father, Son, and Spirit. We see glimpses of this in Scripture as Jesus is described as the Father’s Son and the beloved Son. The Spirit is also described as “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ.” Jesus’ pronouncement of the baptismal formula links the three persons to one name. Individuals are baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Paul’s doxology groups the three together, saying, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). So, the three persons of God are linked together in worship and works of salvation.

The oneness and threeness of God are not math problems to be reconciled or contradictions requiring magical theological maneuvers to maintain the unity of Scripture. The oneness and threeness of God describe two categorically distinct truths: (1) there is one divine substance, and (2) three persons eternally share one divine substance. The oneness and threeness of God are mysteries revealed to us. We should accept them, marvel at them, and investigate these truths as best we can. God’s threeness is revealed to us in Scripture in several different ways. In each of these ways, we can see the one divine essence is shared by the three divine persons.

The One God Who Creates

Scripture opens with the truth that “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Even in the Old Testament, we see this creative act involved more than one divine person. Proverbs 8:22-36, for example, was understood by ancient Jews and Christians to refer to a second divine person present at Creation. While we may immediately think of God the Father in Genesis 1:1, John taught us the Son was “in the beginning with God” and that “[a]ll things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:2-3). Furthermore, it is in Christ that “all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17).

Moving forward in the Creation account, we find the Holy Spirit was active in creation as well. The Son was not alone in the work of creation. During the creation of the heavens and earth, “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). The phrase “Spirit of God” is found around 24 more times in the Bible, and each time this refers to the Holy Spirit. The words describing the Spirit’s creative work in Genesis 1:2 are echoed in Luke 1:35 to describe the Spirit’s work in the creation of Christ’s human nature. Subsequently, Christians are said to have been born again by “water and the Spirit” (John 3:5; Titus 3:5-6). So, it is right to say God created the heavens and the Earth. We can see this was not an isolated work. Rather, it was the collective work of the triune God.

God the Son

The Bible also describes the Son’s relationship to the Father in such a way that affirms His deity as well as His distinct personhood. The Son is distinct from the Father but also eternally shares in the divine substance (John 1:1). Jesus calls God His own Father, but Jesus called God His Father differently than we can claim that God is our Father. When Jesus called God Father, He was claiming to be equal with the Father (John 5:18,26). The Son eternally receives His divine life from the Father (John 5:26). The Son is able to bring many sons to glory because He Himself is Son (Galatians 4:4-6).¹⁷ As the divine Son, He is installed as King by the Father and should be worshiped (Psalm 2:2,12; see Acts 4:25-26; Hebrews 1:5; Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9).

The Gospel of John identified Christ as God by identifying Him with the I AM. The seven main I AM statements (John 6:35; 8:12; 10:9,11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1) and other important I AM constructions (John 4:26; 6:20; 8:18,24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5,8) point to Jesus being the I AM. John’s presentation of Jesus as the “I AM” points his readers back to Exodus 3:14-15 and 33:17-20, where God reveals His nature in the proclamation of His name “Yahweh,” the great “I AM.”¹⁸

Since there is one divine substance, the Son was able to say, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (John 14:11). This sharing of the singular divine essence is implied again as Jesus said, “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works” (14:10). The one divine essence is shared by Father, Son, and Spirit in such a way that Jesus can say “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.” Since He shares the same nature, Jesus was able to say “[w]hoever has seen me has seen the Father” (14:9).

There is an eternal sharing or communication of the divine nature. John described it this way: “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God.” Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” In this we can imagine the origin of glory and the glory radiating around the original glory. Christ’s Sonship seems to be a shorthand way of teaching that Jesus shares in the Father’s divine nature.¹⁹

Furthermore, Christ demonstrated His divinity (His sharing in the divine nature) as He performed divine works. Christ can forgive sins because He shares in the divine substance (Mark 2:1-12; Matthew 9:5-6). The Word both is God and is with God (John 1:1). In Isaiah 45:23, we learn that every knee should bow, and every tongue confess the LORD. Jesus is able to “explain” the Father because He is “God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father” (John 1:18, NASB 2020).

Jesus said He would “give life” as a divine work (John 5:21,25). Jesus explained that He is able to give life because the Father has eternally shared His divine life with Him (John 5:26). The Son, because He shares in the singular divine substance, should be honored as the Father is honored (John 5:23). In Philippians 2:10-11, we see that every knee shall bow to Christ who, as Lord, shares in the divine substance. Finally, “perhaps no stronger assertion of Christ’s deity could be made than the announcement given by all of the apostles that there is no other name in heaven or on earth by which we may be saved (John 1:12; Acts 3:16; 4:12; 5:41; Romans 10:13; Philippians 2:9; 1 Peter 4:14; Revelation 2:13). This could mean only that Jesus of Nazareth was none other than Israel’s Great King, Yahweh, whose name alone was to be invoked.”²⁰

God the Spirit

This Spirit is described as “God” (Acts 5:4) and the “Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:9). The Spirit was described as God when God’s people sinned against Him (Isaiah 63:10; Matthew 12:31-32; Acts 5:3). The Spirit is grouped with the Father and Son as the three share the one “name” or substance of Matthew 28:19. The Spirit is also included with the Father and Son in texts like 2 Corinthians 13:14 in which Paul prayed, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” The Spirit was present with the Father in Matthew 3:16 to confirm Jesus’ Sonship when He was baptized in the Jordan River.

The deity of the Spirit is demonstrated in the Spirit’s involvement in work only God can do. This exclusively divine activity is seen in the Spirit’s eternal pre-existence and work to bring about Creation (Genesis 1:2) and the regeneration of God’s people (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5-7). The Spirit is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10). The Spirit is omniscient (Isaiah 40:13-14). The Spirit reveals the future (1 Timothy 4:1). The Spirit was described by the Son as “another Helper” and “the Spirit of truth” to be with the apostles instead of the incarnate Christ (John 14:16-18). God’s love is “poured into our hearts” through the Spirit (Romans 5:5). The Spirit, as a divine work, sanctifies God’s people (1 Peter 1:2). Christians are the “temple of God” because God’s Spirit dwells within them (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19).

The deity of the Spirit is also seen in the works of the Spirit during the incarnation of Christ. This divine work was prophesied in Isaiah 42:1-14 as God revealed that His Spirit would rest upon His chosen Servant. The Spirit, as a divine person, created the human nature of Christ in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18). Jesus’ miraculous work was completed through the Spirit’s direction and empowerment (John 3:34; Matthew 12:28). Finally, the Spirit is also said to have raised Christ’s body from the dead (Romans 8:11).²¹

Conclusion

The oneness and threeness of God demonstrate God’s perfection. Instead of isolation or loneliness, our triune God eternally enjoys His divine fullness. The three persons of God also remind us of our own Christian certainty. The Father, Son, and Spirit share their overflowing love with us and exalt us for their own glory. The triune God is our great comfort in every situation in life. We can know the Father, Son, and Spirit are at work to bring us home.

So, how do we speak of God appropriately? Speak of God as He has revealed Himself. This self-revelation of God from God is accommodative—it is as much as we can handle, but it is also accurate. We can know God as the one God who exists as God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the three persons who share the same divine substance.

Our affections and worship should be singularly focused on God. And, as we focus on the oneness of God, we are also compelled to consider the three persons of God. We can agree with Gregory of Nazianzus, who said, “No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one.”²² Indeed, there is one divine essence. We have our hope in the one God, Who, through actions appropriate to the three persons, saved us and brought us to Himself for our salvation and His glory.

Endnotes

¹ And sadly, some consider the concept self-contradictory, rejecting altogether the reality of the triune God.

² Fred Sanders (2017), The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Wheaton, IL: Crossway), second edition, p. 13.

³ All Scripture references are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

⁴ Michael Reeves (2012), Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic), p. 18.

⁵ Gilles Emery (2011), The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God, Thomistic Ressourcement Book 1 (The Catholic University of America Press), p. 6.

⁶ Augustine, On the Trinity, 1.8.18.

⁷ An elevator speech is a brief explanation of what you are studying.

⁸ John Frame explained “substance” this way: “Substance means something like ‘what he really is.’ So, the Father really is God, the Son really is God, and the Spirit really is God. Or you can think of the one substance as the ‘Godness of God.’ All three persons have that Godness” [John Frame (2006), Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R), p. 35].

⁹ John Owen said, “Hence it follows, that when the Scripture revealeth the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be one God, seeing it necessarily and unavoidably follows thereon that they are one in essence (wherein alone it is possible they can be one), and three in their distinct subsistences (wherein alone it is possible they can be three),—this is no less of divine revelation than the first principle from whence these things follow” [The Works of John Owen (n.d.), ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark), p. 379)].

¹⁰ Matthew Barrett (2021), Simply Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 137.

¹¹ This theology begins with a combination of several post-Enlightenment ideas. First, the idea has roots in Hegelian philosophy, as it sees the basic distinction in ultimate reality as the Father/Son distinction rather than the Creator/creature distinction. Then there is the acceptation of the Schleiermachian idea that the Old Testament writings had to be against the polytheistic pagan deities, but now that the pagan deities are no longer heavily worshiped the plurality of God can be freely expounded. Finally, the influence of modernity’s emphasis on personality and relationship combines with Hegel and Schleiermacher to provide a brand-new way of looking at the Trinity. This model has three persons who choose to love each other and work together, but they are three different “people” just as you and I are different people. This novel view is popular, but it does not present God as one.

¹² Michael Joseph Higgins (2023), “Simply Given: Self-Gift and Consubstantiality in Aquinas and Social Trinitarianism,” International Journal of Systematic Theology, p. 3.

¹³ This description is, admittedly, brief and overgeneralizing. For a better introductory description of the position, see “The Perfect Family: Our Model for Life Together Is Found in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (1988) by Cornelius Plantinga in Christianity Today, March 4.

¹⁴ For more thorough responses to social trinitarianism, see chapters 8 and 9 of Stephen Holmes (2012) The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity (Downers: IVP Academic) and Matthew Barrett (2021), Simply Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

¹⁵ Fred Sanders (2016), The Triune God in New Studies in Dogmatics, ed. Michael Allen and Scott Swain (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 37.

¹⁶ Michael Horton (2011), The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 274.

¹⁷ “Son” or “Son of God” can refer to Adam, Israel, or the installation of a king by his father. The Bible also uses the word Son to refer specifically to the relationship between Father and Son. This shared relationship is built on their shared nature. “Son” or “sonship” can focus on a declaration of kingship or enthronement. While there are passages in which this ancient Near Eastern meaning is applied to the Son, it is also true that Sonship is a way in which Jesus affirmed His eternal equality with the Father. This is clear in John 5:17-18 and Hebrews 1. For a healthy discussion of Jesus as Son, see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:274-275 and R.B. Jamieson (2021), The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; an Imprint of InterVarsity Press).

¹⁸ Keown said, “John does not use the construct neutrally or merely as an identification device. Most likely, they point to Jesus’ divinity in terms of Exodus 3:14 (LXX): ‘I am the one who is’ (egō eimi ho ōn). It also calls to mind Isaiah 40-55 where ‘I am’ is used as a title for God (Isa 43:10,25; 45:18; 46:4; 51:12; 52:6). This is confirmed by the Jews’ response; they recognized it as a radical claim to divinity and sought to kill him (John 5:18; 8:59; 10:33)” [Mark J. Keown (2018), Discovering the New Testament: An Introduction to Its Background, Theology, and Themes: The Gospels & Acts (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 1:291].

¹⁹ This sharing in one divine substance is especially clear in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as Paul said, “[Y]et for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Bible readers are accustomed to reading “Lord” as a reference to God in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the word “Lord” refers overwhelmingly to the Son rather than the Father.

²⁰ Michael Horton (2011), The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), pp. 276-277.

²¹ Interestingly, the resurrection is also attributed to God’s work (Romans 6:4; Acts 2:32). Jesus said He laid down His own life so that He could “take it up again” (John 10:18, cf. John 2:19). Galatians 1:1 attributes the resurrection of Christ to the Father. So, who raised Jesus? The resurrection of Christ leads us to accept what is called “the doctrine of inseparable operations.” This just means that since the three divine persons share one divine nature, each person of God is involved in the works which are only appropriate for the individual persons. Only the Son of God could make us to be the sons and daughters of God. This work is especially appropriate for Him as Son. The Spirit is involved in this work, and the Father is involved in this work, but the Christian’s adoption to sonship is through the Son Who worked by the Spirit at the Father’s direction. The three persons of God share one divine essence, but there are three persons who operate as is fitting for each of them based on their eternal divine relations. This helps us understand a bit better how “through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:18).

²² Gregory Nazianzen, Orations, 40.41.

The post Our Triune God: One in Substance and Three in Person appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Although atheistic evolution says that everything in the natural realm came from nothing, that self-replicating life in nature came from non-life, that complex, functional design in the natural realm came about without an ultimate designer, and that human intelligence ultimately came from non-intelligence, an honest assessment of the Universe (with its necessary natural laws)⁴ reveals otherwise. Matter demands a Maker. Laws demand a Law-Giver. Life demands a Life-Giver. Complex, functional design demands a Designer. Intelligence in the natural realm demands an ultimate, intelligent Creator.

Indeed, the material realm cries out for a Creator, Who, again, is the most extraordinary Being imaginable. In fact, there is no adequate adjective in the human vocabulary to describe how far above every human thought, word, and deed that God is (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9). Suffice it to say, the very thought of and belief in God is the pinnacle of all thoughts and beliefs by an immeasurable distance.

If God exists,⁵ then it is reasonable to conclude that God (1) could freely choose to communicate to His human creation, (2) would have the ability (as the omnipotent, omniscient Creator) to communicate to humanity, (3) would choose to reveal important information to His human creation if He expected anything from them, and (4) would inform humanity that the message was, indeed, from Him, as well as offer sufficient proof. (That is, a just God would not leave it up to mere human guesswork as to whether or not He had ever communicated to humankind about important matters that He expected them to know.) In fact, there is one book in the world that (1) claims divine inspiration hundreds of times, (2) gives sufficient proof to back up those claims,⁶ and (3) is the most accessible book in human history—the Bible. Even according to secular sources, the Bible ranks #1 in the most printed documents in world history,⁷ with an estimated five to seven billion copies printed since the invention of the printing press in the 15^th century,⁸ not including the myriad of manuscripts copied by hand prior to the invention of the printing press. What’s more, the Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages, beginning more than 2,000 years ago. Thus, God not only gave what He wanted humankind to know in written form, but that revelation became the most accessible book in human history.

The Logical Response to Our Supernatural Creator

Surely such a magnificent Maker—Who has created, sustained, and enlightened humankind—should be the focus of our existence. Regardless of our human condition (whether young or old, strong or weak, rich or poor, healthy or sick, etc.), surely the very thought of the God of the Bible would be enough to awaken us to our spiritual senses (rather than simply react in animal-like ways to the fears and fleshly desires of our physical existence). Surely our purpose in living would be wrapped up in Who God is and what He expects from us.

If we have carefully contemplated the Creator, it should not take a command from Him for us continually to stand in awe of Him and to serve Him. Supreme reverence for God should be the natural response to Who God is. An infinitely intelligent and powerful eternal Being “simply” spoke the Universe into existence. That alone should buckle our knees and melt our hearts. The psalmist sang of God’s Creation: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth…. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:6,9). And what is the logical, emotional, and thrilling response to such a powerful Creator? The answer is found between these two creation truths of Psalm 33: “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him” (33:8).

The patriarch Job suffered like few in human history undoubtedly have ever suffered. He longed for a meeting with God and wanted answers. Yet, when God appeared to Job⁹ out of a whirlwind and spoke to him, not about Job’s suffering, but about God’s mind-boggling created realm (Job 38-41), Job seemingly forgot all about His suffering because of His newly found, intensified focus on Almighty God.¹⁰ Job reacted to the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe with authentic praise and a penitent spirit:

Behold, I am insignificant; what can I say in response to You? I put my hand on my mouth… I know that You can do all things, and that no plan is impossible for You…. Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I do not know…. I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent, sitting on dust and ashes (Job 40:4; 42:2-6, NASB).

Job lost all 10 of his children in one day; he lost his vast wealth in the blink of an eye; and he was experiencing immense bodily pain, not to mention suffering with some of the worst “comfort” from friends a person could ever receive. Yet, Job’s response to Almighty God was (1) a humble heart and (2) complete admiration for his Maker.¹¹

What Is Your Response to God?

Job learned that God is the supreme, sovereign Ruler of the Universe Who is worthy to be trusted and served faithfully regardless of what we may personally want or what may occur to us in this lifetime. Yet, even before his supernatural meeting with God, Job displayed a determined faithfulness to the Ruler of the Universe. He declared: “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15). Indeed, God and His will for our lives is bigger, better, and infinitely more important than what we may personally want for our temporary earthly existence.

In response to God—to Who God is and what He commands at any point in time—Noah built an ark, Abraham left his homeland to dwell in tents in Canaan, and Moses, the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, chose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:25). While the (likely wealthy) tax collector Matthew was sitting in his office, he heard Jesus say, “Follow Me.” “So he left all, rose up, and followed Him” (Luke 5:27-28). When Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow Him, they “immediately” left their boat, their nets, and their family “and followed Him” (Matthew 4:18-22). To use the words of Peter to Jesus, “[W]e have left all and followed You” (Matthew 19:27).

It seems that most people approach God and His Word with the mindset that they will “obey” God and “follow” Jesus, but they will do so as long as God does not demand too much from them. If “following” God is socially acceptable, if “trusting” Him is convenient, if “loving” Him is easy, then “we’re all in.” Most people don’t say these things, but many seem to think and act this way. They allegedly “love” God, but they do so because (at the moment) it is the easy, comfortable thing to do.

A man once asked Jesus, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus said, “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’” The man replied to Jesus, saying, “‘Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.’ Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.’ But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions” (Mark 10:17-22).

It appears that this rich, young ruler had most everything in his life in line with God’s will—except one thing—his attitude toward money. Jesus, Who knows our thoughts, knew the one thing with which this man had a spiritual problem—an unhealthy relationship with money. Sadly, rather than do whatever the Lord required, this man went away sorrowful. He was willing to “do” whatever was relatively easy, but he was unwilling to give his life completely over to Christ and do whatever God wanted.

What’s our response to God? Are we willing to give up anything and everything for the Word of God—the same mighty and majestic Word that created the world? Will we give up lying, laziness, or a love of money? In response to the reality, nature, and revelation of God, will we give up pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, or any other enticing sin that stands between us and eternal life?

In a very real sense, life on Earth is a test.¹² It is a test to see:

• Will we choose to wallow in a world of “me, myself, and I,” or will we recognize the majesty of our Maker (and live every day basking in His glory)?
• Will we illogically look to “nothing” for our origins and seek to fulfill fleshly desires like our alleged animal ancestors and relatives,¹³ or will we “[r]emember now [our] Creator” and “put away evil from [our] flesh” (Ecclesiastes 12:1; 11:10)?
• Will we be wise in our own finite eyes and seek to “direct [our] own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23), or will we acknowledge and trust the Lord’s infinitely wise ways (Proverbs 3:5-7)?
• Will we wander the broad road of sin that leads to eternal destruction, or will we intentionally walk the more difficult and narrower road that leads to eternal life (Matthew 7:13-14)?
• Will we seek to rule our own lives, or will we acknowledge the sovereignty of God in every area of our lives?
• Will we seek to please and “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28), or will we “[f]ear God and keep His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13)?
• Will we be a slave to sin (that leads to eternal death), or will we serve the Savior (Who gave His life to give us eternal life; John 3:16; Romans 6:15-23)?

What Is Your Response to Christ?

If God exists and the Bible is His revelation to humanity, anything other than a revered, head-over-heels, “crazy”-in-love-with-Christ reaction to Jesus is illogical. He not only created us and sustains us (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), but He loves us more than anyone else ever has or ever will. And such love has not merely been expressed verbally (John 3:16; 13:34); it has been demonstrated in the most selfless, sacrificial way possible.

Though “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and though all sinners deserve eternal separation from our perfectly holy God, because of God’s perfect love, grace, and mercy, no one has to be lost eternally. God has given us an all-powerful, spiritual lifeline (Romans 1:16). Though “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23; cf. Revelation 2:11), “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4). From the moment wretched sin entered the world, God began revealing His answer to the sin problem (Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3). Following thousands of years of promises and prophecies throughout the Old Testament pointing to the ultimate “Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), “God sent forth His son” to redeem the slaves of sin to become children of God (Galatians 4:4-5). “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Indeed, God is so incredibly loving that He not only warned us of the eternal consequences of unforgiven sin (cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), but even when we succumbed to sin, God left the splendors of heaven to take upon Himself the punishment for our sins so that we could be saved. Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:7-8). When we succumbed to sin and were wholly unable to save ourselves from the eternal consequences of such, the perfect Lamb of God “died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:6-8). And, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

“God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). The Creator of the Universe cares so much for every human being, deeply desiring for every person to be saved from sin and receive eternal life, that He literally came to Earth in human flesh for the purpose of paving the path to heaven (John 14:6). He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

Conclusion

Complete loyalty (however imperfect—1 John 1:5-10) is the only reasonable response to our Creator. Total admiration and submission to our Lord and great Redeemer is our joy and privilege. Like the apostle Paul, who was “appointed for the defense of the gospel,” we should seek to grow in our faith that our singular purpose in life is that “Christ will be magnified” in our bodies, “whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:17,20-21). Gain what? And how much? In response to Peter saying, “we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?” Jesus said: “[E]veryone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:27,29).

Endnotes

¹ For more information on a saving, biblical faith, see “‘Believing’ in John 3:16,” Reason & Revelation, 39[9]:98-101,104-107, September, apologeticspress.org/believing-in-john-316-5723/.

² Of everything other than Himself.

³ Which is why Apologetics Press spends so much time and energy producing material for all ages about the existence of God. See store.apologeticspress.org. See also apologeticspress.org/category/existence-of-god/.

⁴ See Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 2^nd edition.

⁵ See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/7-reasons-to-believe-in-god-5045/. See also Dave Miller, ed. (2017), Does God Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press) and apologeticspress.org/category/existence-of-god/.

⁶ See Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). See also Dave Miller (2020), The Bible Is From God: A Sampling of Proofs (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons (2021), Defending the Bible (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); and apologeticspress.org/category/inspiration-of-the-bible/.

⁷ “Printing Books: The 10 Most Printed Documents in History” (2023), www.mvpprint.com.au/printing-the-10-most-printed-documents-in-history/.

⁸ “Best-selling Book” (2021), www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction.

⁹ Something He did not have to do, but chose to do.

¹⁰ Job was already a righteous, faithful follower of God (Job 1:1-5,8; 13:15; 42:7-8), but His understanding, appreciation, and respect for God seem to have increased dramatically after God spoke to him in chapters 38-41.

¹¹ For a biblical response to pain and suffering in this world, see Dave Miller’s excellent book from Apologetics Press titled Why People Suffer. You can freely read the online PDF version at apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Suffering-DM_2022.pdf, or you can order a hard copy at store.apologeticspress.org/collections/books/products/apbkdm0021.

¹² We may wish that this world was not a proving ground for the next, but nothing will change the reality of the situation. God tested Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2-3), He tested Abraham in the land of Moriah (Genesis 22:1ff.), He allowed Job to be tested in the land of Uz (Job 1-2), and He tested the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 20:20). God does not tempt His creation to sin (James 1:13-14), but He does test us “that His fear may be before [us], so that [we] may not sin” (Exodus 20:20).

¹³ Cf. Jo Marchant (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44, October 18-24.

The post So You Believe in the God of the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One can easily see the problem with using a God-of-the-gaps argument to reasonably or logically establish any idea. First, a gap in knowledge never proves anything other than that the person in the discussion does not know something. As those in archaeological circles are fond of saying, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” An idea cannot be proven to be true simply because we do not currently know the answer. This is a form of a logical fallacy known as an “argument from ignorance.” Imagine using this kind of reasoning in a criminal case. We do not know who committed the murder of the company CEO, so we conclude it must have been the janitor. What evidence do we have for the janitor? None, but someone had to do it, so we just plug in a janitor-of-the-gaps argument and whisk the poor cleaning professional off to jail. Without adequate evidence, we cannot reasonably assert that we know what is the cause of something just because all our attempts to explain it have failed.

Another obvious problem with the God-of-the-gaps argument is that all it takes to disprove it is to provide a piece of positive evidence that shows another answer to be correct. Since the ancients did not understand thunder, they claimed it was proof that a sky god was angry. As modern science has advanced, we now have an excellent understanding of the physical causes of thunder and sky god activity is unnecessary to explain it. The field of archaeology provides many excellent examples that illustrate this type of failure of arguments from ignorance. In 2008, a skeptic named René Salm wrote a book that claimed the Bible could not be inspired and Jesus was not a real person, because no archaeological evidence existed that proved that the town of Nazareth was inhabited during the first century.¹ He was using a lack of evidence to prove a positive assertion. The next year, in 2009, archaeologists working in the area of ancient Nazareth uncovered a home that dated back to the first century. This discovery completely refuted Salm’s incorrect thesis. Similarly, the God-of-the-gaps argument is a logical fallacy that should not be used by anyone who is trying to make a reasonable case for the existence of God.

We stated, however, that the God-of-the-gaps is an argument and an accusation. It fails miserably as a legitimate argument that can validate any conclusion. Most often, however, when it appears in the writings of skeptics and unbelievers, it is being used as an accusation. The gist of the accusation is that those who believe in God do not have evidence for God’s existence, they just see concepts and phenomena in nature that scientists have not yet explained, and they insert the idea of God as the explanation. For instance, when Michael Shermer, well-known unbeliever and founder of Skeptic magazine, was asked, “What are the fallacies that people use to supposedly prove that there is a God,” he responded by saying, “Probably one of the most common ones is God-of-the-gaps argument, ‘You scientists can’t explain x, therefore x must not have a natural explanation, ergo there must be a super natural explanation.’”² In a video titled “Scientist Destroys the God of the Gaps,” atheist Richard Dawkins was asked, “How would you respond when people say, ‘Look, we don’t understand the origin of life on Earth, and therefore God must have done it.’” Dawkins responded by saying, “Even theologians don’t buy that, at least sophisticated theologians. It’s what they call a God-of-the-gaps argument. It’s pushing God into the few remaining gaps in our understanding…. [I]t would be bad logic, bad science, and bad philosophy to say, ‘Oh, I don’t understand it, therefore God did it.’”³ Dawkins is correct, most theologians and Christian apologists do not argue this way. But, as the reader can see from Michael Shermer’s statement and the title of the video of Dawkins, skeptics and unbelievers accuse theists of using the God-of-the-gaps argument as one of their primary approaches to establishing the existence of God. How can Christians answer the accusation that belief in God rests upon the fallacious God-of-the-gaps idea?

Answering the 
God-of-the-Gaps Accusation

In 2021, Stephen Meyer authored a book titled Return of the God Hypothesis.⁴ Dr. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. He is the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He titled chapter 20 of his book, “Acts of God or God of the Gaps?” And, while we at Apologetics Press would disagree with his old-Earth conclusions and his acceptance of certain aspects of evolution, his discussion about how to answer the God-of-the-gaps accusation is one of the best I have read. He begins by showing what an actual, incorrect logical fallacy and “argument from ignorance” would look like. He stated, “Arguments from ignorance occur when evidence against one proposition is offered as the sole grounds for accepting an alternative. Thus they have the following form:

Premise: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence E.

Conclusion: Therefore, cause B produced or explains E.”⁵

He notes how easy it is to identify this type of fallacy and how unreasonable it would be to use such thinking to try to prove any conclusion. He states that skeptics often claim that the argument for God’s existence based on intelligent design is guilty of this type of illogical thought. How can the theist who is using the design argument show that it is not a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance? Meyer states: “To depict proponents of the theory of intelligent design as committing the GOTG fallacy, critics must misrepresent the case for it.” He summarizes this misrepresentation by showing that skeptics are claiming that the theistic argument looks like this:

“Premise: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.

Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced the specified information in life.”

If this were how the design argument actually worked, there would be serious problems with it, and the skeptic would be right to challenge it as false. Meyer points out, however, that this misrepresentation of the design argument leaves out a very important premise. Meyer reconstructs the design argument to include the positive evidence that it implies:

“Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.”⁶

Notice that there is no gap in the properly stated form of the design argument. We have been doing scientific research for hundreds of years. We have discovered that intelligence is the only entity capable of producing large amounts of specified information. We see large amounts of specified information in cells. Therefore, we are forced by what we know about intelligence from centuries of scientific research to conclude that the specified information in cells is the product of an intelligent Creator. On the other hand, we also know enough about how matter behaves to conclude that it is impossible to get the specified information from materialistic causes. Origin-of-life experiments have been done for decades that have shown how matter does and does not behave. In every single experiment done to date, we have seen that natural processes not only do not produce life, but they cannot produce life. This is not a gap in our knowledge. The argument for design is based on what we know to be scientifically valid in every instance.

Why, then, are so many skeptics convinced that the design argument is a God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy? The reason for this is a prior commitment to naturalism. If a person begins by assuming that there has to be a naturalistic process that brought about life, then that person is forced to see a gap in our current knowledge, since no naturalistic processes have ever (in any experiment under any circumstances) even come close to producing a living cell. As Meyer explained, the question is often posed, “What chemical process first produced life?” Since no such chemical process has been discovered, we are told this is simply a gap in our current knowledge that will be filled in the future. But, as Meyer notes,

Nevertheless, our present lack of knowledge of any such chemical process entails a “gap” in our knowledge of the actual process by which life arose only if some materialistic chemical evolutionary process actually did produce the first life. Yet if life did not evolve via a strictly materialistic process but was, for example, intelligently designed, then our absence of knowledge of a materialistic process does not represent “a gap” in knowledge of an actual process.⁷

Meyer offers a great illustration of the point that a “gap” only exists if a person begins by assuming that all scientific explanations must be materialistic. He writes:

Imagine someone mistakenly enters an art gallery expecting to find croissants for sale. That is, he thinks the gallery is actually a fancy bakery. Observing the absence of pastries and rolls, such a person may think that he has encountered a gap in the services provided by the gallery. He may even think that he has encountered a gap in the staff’s knowledge of what must definitely be present somewhere in the gallery. Based on his assumptions, the visitor may stubbornly cling to his perception of a gap, badgering the gallery staff to “bring out the croissants already,” until with exasperation they show him the exit. The moral of the vignette? The gallery visitor’s perception of a gap in service or in knowledge of the location of the croissants derives from a false assumption about the nature of this establishment or about art galleries in general and what they typically offer to visitors.⁸

There is only a gap if a person will not accept what we know scientifically to be true. We “do have extensive experience of intelligent agents producing finely tuned systems such as Swiss watches, fine recipes, integrated circuits, written texts, and computer programs.”⁹ Furthermore, “intelligence or mind or what philosophers call ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information.”¹⁰ And “it takes a mind to generate specified or functional information, whether in ordinary experience, computer simulations, origin-of-life simulation experiments, the production of new forms of life, or, as we now see, in modeling the design of the universe.”¹¹

Conclusion

The design argument for the existence of God is not an argument from what we do not know or we do not understand about the Universe and life in it, but instead is an argument based on the aspects of nature that we know to be true. As John Lennox stated in his debate with Michael Shermer, “I see God not in the bits of the Universe that I don’t understand, but in the bits that I do.”¹² “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…” (Romans 1:20).

Endnotes

¹ René Salm (2008), The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press).

² Michael Shermer (2022), “Fallacies in Proving God Exists,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_Tlsj4i-k.

³ Richard Dawkins, “Scientist Destroys the God of the Gaps,” https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1707548059332046.

⁴ Stephen C. Meyer (2021), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (New York, NY: HarperOne).

⁵ Ibid., p. 414.

⁶ Ibid., p. 415.

⁷ Ibid., p. 424.

⁸ Ibid., p. 424.

⁹ Ibid., p. 338.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 187.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 385.

¹² Debate between Michael Shermer and John Lennox at the Wesley Centre in Sydney, Australia, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_OPWiXbSDA&t=112s.

The post The “God of the Gaps” Argument: A Refutation appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In addition to inserting italicized words, English translations also contain words that were inserted by translators without being italicized. Again, perhaps most of the time, their decisions are well-intentioned and helpful. At other times, however, they can mislead the English reader. One such example is seen in Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. Among His remarks to her was the declaration that “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Some translations insert the article “a” before “spirit.” This erroneous insertion of the indefinite article is unwarranted. Most English translations recognize this fact and render it accordingly.²

“God is spirit” is equivalent to comparable biblical constructions, including “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). In each case, we are being informed about the very nature and essence of God—not His personality.³ “Spirit,” “light,” and “love” are attributes of God. They are characteristics or qualities of His being. We humans possess a spirit and a physical body; but God is spirit. He is non-corporeal. Jesus said, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Though in the eternal realm, “we will be like Him” and “we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2), nevertheless, His being will most surely far surpass and transcend our spiritual, heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44,49).

The depiction of the nature and character of God in the Bible is unlike any other representation of deity by humans throughout history. The God of the Bible is not physical,⁴ but rather transcends the physical. As the Creator, He brought into being all that is physical when He created the Universe. Humans are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27)—which refers to spiritual aspects of the divine nature. Our physical bodies are not created in His image, since He is non-physical. For Jesus to leave the spiritual realm to come to the Earth to die a physical death and shed physical blood on our behalf, a physical body had to be “prepared” (Hebrews 10:5) for Him to inhabit temporarily.

A host of descriptions of the spiritual nature of deity may be found in the Bible—though human limitations can hamper our comprehension and our ability to conceptualize fully the divine nature.  In closing, consider these two:

Blessed be Your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise! You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You” (Nehemiah 9:5-6).

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.” Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:22-29).

Endnotes

¹ For more on this thorny subject, see Jack Lewis (1991), Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications), pp. 141-171; Walter Specht (1968), “The Use of Italics in English Versions of the New Testament,” Andrews University Studies, 6:88-109, January; John Eadie (1876), The English Bible (London: Macmillan), 2:180-285; William Wonderly (1956), “What About Italics?” Bible Translator, 7:114-116, July; F.H.A. Scrivener (1884), “On the Use of the Italic Type by the Translators, and on the Extension of their Principles by Subsequent Editors,” in The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge: University Press), pp. 61-81.

² English translations that include “a” are the ASV, AMPC, BRG, DARBY, DRA, GNV, GW, JUB, KJV, NOG, NMB, TPT, RGT, WYC, and YLC. Those that omit “a” are the AMP, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, EXB, GNT, HCSB, ICB, ISV, PHILLIPS, LEB, TLB, MSG, MEV, MOUNCE, NABRE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLV, NLT, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, TLV, VOICE, and WEB.

³ Henry Alford (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1:732.

⁴ It is true that the Holy Spirit utilized anthropomorphisms to accommodate Himself to the finite human mind. But the Bible is consistent in its representation of deity as a non-physical, spiritual Being Whose eternal nature preceded the creation of physical matter. God created time, matter, and space—but He Himself exists outside of time and space.

The post God Is “A” Spirit? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While various forms of evolution have been promoted for millennia,_² Charles Darwin’s version included a new feature: natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that “nature” selects the best “fit” organisms for survival, while those less suited for an environment, if they do not migrate, will tend to die off. So, if a particular variety of finch or English Peppered Moth is more suited to an environment than another variety, the better suited option will tend to survive and propagate its genes, while the less suited species will tend to eventually die out, along with its “inferior” genes. Natural selection is, by and large, a reasonable idea and does not contradict biblical Creation. Natural selection does not, however, actually change an organism. It does not have the capability of changing a single-celled organism into a human over time, as Darwin theorized it could. In the well-known words of Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”³

How, then, does the new, “more fit,” variety come about? Princeton University evolutionary biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant spent over 35 years studying Darwin’s famous Galapogos finches. As we have discussed elsewhere,⁴ Darwin noted how different shapes and sizes of beaks in finches may have contributed to the survival and flourishing of various bird varieties and the extinction of others. But where did the beak shape and size variety originate? As high school Biology textbooks correctly teach, the Grants found that “for beak size and shape to evolve, there must be enough heritable variation in those traits to provide raw material for natural selection.”⁵ “Heritable variation” refers to genetic variety that can be inherited from parents and expressed in the species’ offspring. In other words, parents already have the genetic variety in their genes which is then expressed in their offspring. If that potential for variety did not already exist in the genes of the parents, that variety could not be expressed in an offspring. “Without heritable variation in beak sizes, the medium ground finch would not be able to adapt to feeding on larger, tougher seeds during a drought.”⁶

Now to the point: elephants, along with any species on the planet, have a tremendous amount of genetic potential for variety in their offspring. Some elephants have “tusk genes” and are able to grow tusks, while the other elephants have “tuskless genes.” If poachers target elephants with tusks, obviously the elephants with tusk genes are going to tend to die out, along with the tusk genes that they have. In the meantime, the elephants with tuskless genes will tend to survive and begin thriving. The population of African elephants (and the genes they possess) will shift to predominantly tuskless, which is what scientists are finding. But did African elephants evolve?

Well, it depends upon your definition. Did the overall population of the African elephant change (“evolve”) from predominantly tusked to tuskless? Yes. Was the change Darwinian (i.e., the kind of change that could allow an elephant to grow new components and turn into something else)? No. New genetic information is required in order for a species to evolve across a phylogenic boundary into a totally different kind of species,⁷ and no new genetic information was introduced to the species (and there is no known natural mechanism for the generation of new genetic information⁸). Instead, already existing genetic information was simply expressed more often among the elephants.

Here are three key takeaways from the tuskless elephant study:

1. Are tuskless elephants still elephants? Yes. They have not evolved into something else, nor will they do so given enough time.
2. Has new genetic information spontaneously generated (or been created by random genetic mutations) as tuskless African elephants have begun to gain dominance? No. The genetic information already existed.
3. Has progressive evolution happened? No, and, in fact, de-evolution has occurred since the tusk gene has diminished in the African elephant population (i.e., genetic information is being lost). While tuskless elephants can more easily survive death by poachers, overall tuskless elephants will be more vulnerable to other predators in the wild.

Variety among species exists. Some varieties thrive in certain environments/situations. If, however, distinctions in species must come from the genetic variety of their ancestors, where did the original genetic information originate? That’s the more important question. If the origin of information is always the product of a mind, then the genetic information for the tusks of the African elephant originated from a powerful Mind that created it.

Endnotes

¹ Shane C. Campbell-Staton, et al. (2021), “Ivory Poaching and the Rapid Evolution of Tusklessness in African Elephants,” Science, 374[6566]:483-487.

² Bert Thompson (1981), The History of Evolutionary Thought (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

³ Hugo de Vries (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court), pp. 825-826, emp. added.

⁴ Kyle Butt (2006), “What Do the Finches Prove?” R&R Resources, 5[9]:33-R, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/0609.pdf.

⁵ Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine (2010), Biology (Boston, MA: Pearson), p. 472, emp. added.

⁶ Ibid., p. 473, emp. added.

⁷ Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1]:2-20, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4779&topic=296.

⁸ Ibid. Cf. Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2],” Reason & Revelation, 34[2]:14-21, https://apologeticspress.org/god-and-the-laws-of-science-genetics-vs-evolution-part-2-4788/.

The post Are Tuskless Elephants Evidence of Rapid Darwinian Evolution? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Just how strong is this rugged beetle’s armor? Researchers have discovered that the beetle can withstand pressure from loads that are 39,000 times its own body weight. To help us understand the significance of that fact, it would be “akin to a 90 kg (200 lb—KB) human withstanding the weight of about 280 doubledecker buses.”¹ Of course, with this kind of armor technology—the real life equivalent of something out of a superhero movie—scientists want to know how it works. What makes the beetle’s exoskeleton so remarkably strong?

When the research team zoomed its microscopes in on the hard outer shell of the beetle, they found “two key microscopic features” that “help it withstand crushing forces.”² First, they discovered that the two halves of the outer shell connect by a series of joints that interlock with multiple connection points. The amount of interconnectivity varies between different parts of the beetle’s body. Certain areas are extremely tightly connected, while others are looser and act almost as springs that cushion and absorb shock.³ The second key feature, as described by Rivera and his colleagues in the Nature magazine article that discusses the major work they did on the beetle, is detailed in very complicated engineering terms in the article.⁴ Temming summarized it well when she wrote:

The second key feature is a rigid joint, or suture, that runs the length of the beetle’s back and connects its left and right sides. A series of protrusions, called blades, fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces to join the two sides. These blades contain layers of tissue glued together by proteins, and are highly damage-resistant. When the beetle is squashed, tiny cracks form in the protein glue between the layers of each blade. Those small, healable fractures allow the blades to absorb impacts without completely snapping….⁵

Rivera’s team noted that their research may provide significant knowledge to our current understanding of mechanical engineering. Under a section titled “Biomimetic sutures,” they explain that when the suture design of the beetle is compared and tested against that found in our most advanced “turbine engines and aerospace structures,” the design of the beetle performs better than our best designs. They found that blades “mimicking the DIB (diabolical ironclad beetle—KB) suture are slightly stronger…than current engineering fasteners…, yet demonstrate a substantial increase (more than 100%) in energy displacement.”⁶ They went on to say that based on our new knowledge of how the beetle’s armor is designed, they believe that in our current fields of engineering there is  “considerable potential for further improvement of these interdigitated interfaces by tuning material parameters.”⁷ In other words, we can copy this beetle’s design and make stronger material than we have at the present.

Sadly, the obvious implication of the beetle’s armor design is completely missed by the research team. They incorrectly attribute these phenomenal features to “millions of years” of evolutionary change due to “environmental pressures.” Such a conclusion truly defies logic. Literally, the most brilliant human researchers in the world have, for many decades, collaborated together to contemplate, engineer, design, and build the most advanced connecting joints and protective structures ever conceived in the human mind. They have used these joints and structures, as rocket scientists, to build aerospace devices that must withstand massive amounts of pressure. And for all that, when we look at the tiny, two-centimeter long diabolical ironclad beetle, its armor eclipses the abilities of our best and brightest rocket scientists. An unbiased observer cannot miss the implication. Whoever designed the beetle’s armor possesses an intelligence superior to the combined abilities of the world’s rocket scientists. How long will it take the human race to recognize that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:9)? Isn’t it ironic that the lofty ways of God are so clearly evident in a tiny, ground-crawling beetle?

Endnotes

The post The Ironclad Beetle: Armored Tank of the Insect World appeared first on Apologetics Press.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness…. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

These words are hardly surprising, since most people understand that they are not perfect and, in fact, have sinned many times. Yet reading further in 1 John, one encounters the follow startling remarks:

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God (1 John 3:6,9).

The skeptic might easily conclude that the Bible contradicts itself—or at least John did.

However, in Greek, tense generally refers to “kind of action” which consists of linear or punctiliar. “Linear” refers to continuous action, while “punctiliar” refers to point action, a single event. The verb rendered “have (not) sinned” (a perfect active indicative) in chapter 1 refers to point action in the past with abiding results. John was saying that Christians sin, but they commit isolated, less frequent acts of sin since they are no longer under the rule of sin, and they constantly repent and confess their sins (vs. 9).

Chapter 3, on the other hand, uses a present indicative of continuous action. It refers to habitual, ongoing sin without compunction, with sin ruling one’s life as in his pre-Christian state. John did not contradict himself. He simply called attention to the fact that Christians are certainly not perfect. We make mistakes like everyone does. However, having changed our minds (the meaning of “repent”) about our pre-Christian lifestyle, we have deliberately chosen to forsake the sinful behavior that characterized our lives as non-Christians. Those who have not become Christians, however, have no motivation to resist sin, striving every day to eliminate it from one’s mind and life.

The post Can Sin vs. Cannot Sin? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”¹ Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”² The highly respected 17^th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”³ The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave “one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.”⁴ The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”⁵

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

The post The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In contrast, the Bible use of the term reflects a different meaning. A “concubine” in antiquity was, in fact, a wife. What distinguished her from other wives was the fact that she was of lower birth, sometimes even occupying a slave status. Bible scholars recognize this fact. For example, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains the term pilegesh: “A concubine was a true wife, though of secondary rank…. Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not cohabit with a man unless married to him.”¹ Professor of Oriental Languages, Biblical Archaeology and Dogmatics in Vienna, Johann Jahn, explains: “[A]lthough this connexion [sic] was in fact a marriage, and a legitimate one, it was not, nevertheless, celebrated and confirmed by the ceremonies [of the higher ranking wife].”² English classical scholar Francis Newman noted: “A concubine, in ancient times, was only a wife of inferior rank, and the union was just as permanent as with a wife.”³ M’Clintock and Strong state that “concubine” “denotes in the Bible not a paramour, but only a female conjugally united to a man in a relation inferior to that of the regular wife…. Concubinage therefore, in a scriptural sense, means the state of cohabiting lawfully with a wife of second rank.”⁴ Biblical scholar, linguist, and Christian apologist, John Haley, adds his voice to the same point: “Moreover, a ‘concubine,’ in those days, was not simply a kept mistress, as the word might now imply, but was a wife of lower rank, who was wedded with somewhat less than the ordinary formalities.”⁵

In a country where social status and barriers are of minimal concern, it is difficult for us to grasp the magnitude of the chasm that existed between classes in ancient cultures, a chasm that stayed with a person throughout life regardless of advancements along the way. Hence, even if a woman of lower social rank married a man of higher social rank, she could still be treated with disrespect as “second class”—though fully a wife.

A good example of the true nature of concubinage is seen in the outrageous and gruesome experience of the Levite during the Dark Ages of Jewish history in Judges 19. A resident of the Tribe of Ephraim, he married a woman from Bethlehem of Judah. She is identified as a “concubine.” Without recounting the details of the chapter, it is noteworthy to observe that the Levite is identified as the “husband” of the concubine (vs. 3). Her father is identified as the Levite’s “father-in-law” (vss. 4,7,9) and the Levite is his “son-in-law” (vs. 5).

In the case of Solomon, the meaning of “concubines” is suggested in the very text where they are mentioned:

But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites—from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel, “You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart (1 Kings 11:1-3).

Observe three indicators in the text that aid in understanding the distinction between wives and concubines. First, we are told that Solomon loved many “foreign women”—and the countries of origin for these women are noted. Solomon is not specifically condemned for loving the women—but for marrying them. Second, the reason for the prohibition is that such foreign women would make him receptive to their false gods. Sure enough, the text states that “his wives turned away his heart.” But those who are specifically mentioned as the foreign women/wives are the 700 wives and 300 concubines. Why mention the concubines at all if they were not participants in the religious subversion of Solomon by his wives?

Third, observe the grammar of verse 3. In the NKJV, a comma occurs both before and after the term “princesses.” The word “princesses” is describing the word “wives” in contrast with the “concubines”—who were not princesses. In other words, the distinction being made is not between wives vs. non-wives. The distinction being drawn is between wives of noble birth vs. wives of low birth. Several English translations help to clarify this factor:

CSB/ESV/GNV/HCSB/MEV: “He had seven hundred wives who were princesses and three hundred who were concubines.”

CEB: “He had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred secondary wives.”

CJB: “He had 700 wives, all princesses, and 300 concubines.”

CEV: “Seven hundred of his wives were daughters of kings, but he also married three hundred other women.”

DRA: “And he had seven hundred wives as queens, and three hundred concubines.”

EHV: “He had seven hundred wives who held the rank of princess and three hundred concubines.”

GW/NOG: “He had 700 wives who were princesses and 300 wives who were concubines.”

ICB/NCV: “He had 700 wives who were from royal families. He also had 300 slave women who gave birth to his children.”

LEB: “He had seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines.”

NET: “He had 700 royal wives and 300 concubines.”

NIV/NLT: “He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines.”

NLV: “He had 700 wives, kings’ daughters, and 300 women who acted as his wives.”

NRSV: “Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines.”

WYC: “And wives as queens were seven hundred to him, and three hundred secondary wives.”

Additional verses where “queens” and “concubines” are mentioned together, further implying the difference being simply one of social status, not marital status, include Song of Solomon 6:8-9 and Daniel 5:2-3,23.

Keep in mind that Hebrew had no technical term for “wife.” The normal word for “woman” (ishah) did “double duty” so that only context can determine whether “woman” or “wife” is being noted. Observe that it makes perfect sense to understand 1 Kings 11:3 as referring to all of Solomon’s foreign women. In fact, the word translated “women” in verse 1 is the plural form of “woman” (nishah), forms of which also occur in verses 3, 4, and 8. The word “concubines” is clearly intended to be included among the “foreign wives” who subverted Solomon’s heart.

These facts are further substantiated by an incident in the life of King David. When his son Absalom mounted a coup to dethrone his father, he complied with the advice of his counsellor Ahithophel to publicly defile David’s 10 concubines (2 Samuel 16:21-22). When David succeeded in foiling his son’s coup and returned to Jerusalem, the Bible says:

Now David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten women, his concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood (2 Samuel 20:3).

By definition, a “widow” is someone whose husband is deceased.⁶ Though the concubines were still alive, David was treating them as if their husband (himself) was dead.

Of course, the teaching of the New Testament, and the accurate application of Christianity to society, results in the elimination of polygamy and concubinage, as well as all other objectionable social institutions that conflict with the character of Deity. Indeed, “Christianity restores the sacred institution of marriage to its original character, and concubinage is ranked with fornication and adultery.”⁷ Nevertheless, awareness of the biblical meaning assigned to the word “concubine” enables the English reader to understand that Bible characters who possessed concubines were not guilty of taking “mistresses,” but were, in fact, married to them—and not merely engaging in extra-marital intimate relations.⁸ In any case, the Bible does not sanction the practice of unmarried sexual partners.

 Endnotes

The post Concubines appeared first on Apologetics Press.

#1—Atheists Rightly Point Out How Unloving and Cowardly Christians Are Who Do Not Evangelize

Penn Jillette is a famous comedian, actor, and entertainer, as well as a very outspoken atheist. In 2010, he made a five-minute personal video about a kind gentleman who handed him a Bible after one of his shows. Jillette said: “I believe he knew that I was an atheist. But he was not defensive and he looked me right in the eyes…. He was really kind, and nice, and sane…and talked to me and then gave me this Bible.”²

Although many (perhaps most) atheists do not want to be approached with the Gospel, Jillette went on to say:

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be going to Hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward…how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?³

The fact is, Jillette was simply using logic in drawing this conclusion: If Christians believe what they say they believe about eternal life and eternal death (Matthew 25:46), then they will teach the Gospel to others in a kind, loving, Christ-like manner.⁴

#2—Atheists Correctly Call Out the Hypocrisy of Pretend Christianity, But They Illogically Conclude That Pretend Christianity Justifies a Rejection of the Real Thing

One atheist was reported to have said a few years ago: “We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding. It doesn’t. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy,” etc.⁵ The fact is, many people who call themselves Christians do not walk in the light of the Lord, but sadly stroll in the devil’s darkness.

Consider one example. In 2014, 86% of Alabamians claimed to be Christians.⁶ In Montgomery, the state’s capital city of about 200,000 people,⁷ the proverbial phrase “you’ll find a church on every corner” rightly portrays this city of over 250 churches.⁸ Sadly, in 2015, this “Christian city” was statistically crowned “the most sexually diseased city in the nation.”⁹

Indeed, atheists should call out such blatant hypocrisy on the part of many “Christians.” In fact, they are doing what Christian parents, preachers, and Bible teachers should be doing continually—warning those who claim to be Christians not to live in sin, including any kind of sexual sin.¹⁰ No doubt, hypocrisy runs wild in “Christian America” today¹¹ in part because (a) so many churches seem more interested in social gatherings and entertainment than preaching on sin and salvation,¹² and (b) most churches appear too politically correct to address specific sinful situations in their midst, which only exacerbates the problems in churches across the country (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13).

Still, for all the disheartening hypocrisy among the religious today, just as a counterfeit $100 bill does not prove that genuine $100 bills do not exist, counterfeit Christianity is not a logical reason to reject authentic Christianity. Neither Cain’s unacceptable religious sacrifice nor his murder of Abel made true worship and service to God illogical. What’s more, neither Judas’s thievery nor his betrayal of Jesus made the religion of Jesus invalid. God condemns hypocrisy (Matthew 5:20), but He gives everyone sufficient evidence to know the Truth and obey it (John 8:32)—to follow the evidence where it leads and to become real, genuine Christians, like Peter and Paul, Philip and Phoebe, and Aquila and Priscilla.

#3—Atheists Correctly Point Out the Illogical, Blind Faith of Many “Christians,” But They Fail to Acknowledge that Atheism (Not Christianity) is Based Upon “Blind Faith”

In his book The End of Faith, atheist Sam Harris addressed beliefs and the importance of evidence and reason. He was especially critical of Christians, saying:

Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.¹³

Sadly, Harris’s words seem to accurately describe many (perhaps most) who profess to be Christians. Rather than being real truth seekers and evidence followers, many are “Christians” because of mere feelings, emotions, preferences, and traditions. Atheists rightly call out such illogical, evidence-less faith. “That’s how I was raised,” or “I just feel it in my heart” are not real reasons to be a Christian (or anything else for that matter). To claim to be a Christian for irrational, mere feel-good reasons is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unChristlike. The fact is, God has always expected man to be reasonable, just as the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus were reasonable (1 Samuel 12:7; John 5:31-47; 10:37-38; Acts 26:22-25; 2 Peter 1:16). [For proof that reason and divine revelation go hand-in-hand, be sure to read Is Christianity Logical? available from Apologetics Press.¹⁴]

While atheists correctly point out the illogical, blind faith of many Christians, the truth is, the evidence actually disproves atheism and supports genuine Christianity.¹⁵ If, as the First Law of Thermodynamics indicates, in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed, then a Universe could not create itself from nothing.¹⁶ Thus, if naturalistic atheism is true (and at one time absolutely nothing existed),¹⁷ then there should be absolutely nothing today. Yet, here we are—an entire Universe, which is perhaps the greatest evidence for the existence of God. Indeed, matter demands a Maker. The existence of intricate, self-replicating life demands an original life Giver.¹⁸ Complex, functional design in nature demands a Designer, not an accidental explosion of a tiny ball of matter.¹⁹ Intelligence in the material realm demands an intelligent Creator (i.e., intelligence does not arise from dust, dirt, rocks, water, or mud, much less from “nothing”). The Bible’s supernatural attributes demand a supernatural Author.²⁰ And the historical, miracle-working, resurrected-from-the-dead Jesus Christ demands a supernatural explanation.²¹

Conclusion

It can be helpful for atheists to point out any flaws in those who claim to be Christians. The truthful, logical criticisms of others combined with humble hearts can lead to necessary repentance and renewed dedication to our Creator, Savior, and Judge (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 17:30-31). Let’s just be sure not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” While faithful Christians are still imperfect (1 John 1:5-10; 5:13), and while phony, hypocritical Christians have always been with us, such flaws are in no way a logical argument against the Flawless One (1 Peter 2:21-24), His Word, and the need to be faithful members of His Church.²² In fact, the evidence will lead any honest, good-hearted, seeking soul to this conclusion (Proverbs 8:17; Luke 8:4-15).

Endnotes

¹ Recall how Jesus told the parable of the unjust steward in hopes of His hearers learning an important lesson (Luke 16:1-8)—seemingly that if an unrighteous man is willing to take drastic measures to prepare for his physical future, how much more should the righteous be willing to do in preparation for eternity?

The post 3 Things We Can Learn From Atheists appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In order to answer that question, one must first define terms and, more specifically, ascertain the meaning behind the original word from which an English translation is taken. After all, the current state of English is such that we use the word “evil” to refer to spiritual, moral evil, i.e., sin or wickedness. But is that the meaning of the Hebrew word that lies behind the word “evil” in this verse?

As a matter of fact, the Hebrew word translated “evil” (rah) has various shades of meaning. It often has the meaning of distress, misery, injury, calamity, and adversity.² For example, consider its use in Amos 6:3—“Woe to you who put far off the day of doom” (NKJV). The NASB has “the day of calamity.” Jeremiah 42:6 reads in the ESV: “Whether it is good or bad, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God.” The NKJV has: “Whether it is pleasing or displeasing, we will obey the voice of the LORD our God.” Isaiah 31:2 renders the word “disaster” in the NKJV: “Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster.” In Micah 1:12 “good” is contrasted with “disaster.”

Ahab complained to Jehoshaphat that the prophet Micaiah never prophesied “good” concerning him, but only “evil” (1 Kings 22:8,18). He was referring to the misfortune that came upon himself.³ In the great admonition that Moses issued to the younger generation near the end of his life, he urged: “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil” (NKJV). The NASB rightly renders the verse: “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity” (Deuteronomy 30:15). “Good” and “evil” here refer, not to sin or moral evil, but to “prosperity” vs. “adversity.” The previous generation grumbled against Moses in the desert: “And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place?” (Numbers 20:5). They did not mean that the desert was immoral or sinful. They meant it was a “wretched place” (NASB/NRSV), a “terrible place” (CJB/ISV/NIV), a “horrible place” (EHV).

The NKJV renders Job 31:29 as: “If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, or lifted myself up when evil found him.” A clearer rendering is: “If I have rejoiced at my enemy’s misfortune or gloated over the trouble that came to him” (NIV). What did Jacob mean when he explained to Pharaoh “few and evil have the days of the years of my life been” (Genesis 47:9)? He used the word to mean “poor, not beneficial.”⁴ The CJB renders it: “they have been few and difficult.” The NCV has: “short and filled with trouble.” Many additional verses manifest similar meanings for rah that have nothing to do with sin, moral evil, or wickedness.

One final observation regarding Isaiah 45:7. Based on the way Hebrew parallelism functions, the verse itself offers assistance in defining its use of the word “evil.” It is placed in antithesis to the word “peace.” The opposite of “peace” is not moral evil or wickedness—but physical disturbance, trouble, and adversity. The same is true in verse 11:

Therefore evil shall come upon you;
You shall not know from where it arises.
And trouble shall fall upon you;
You will not be able to put it off.
And desolation shall come upon you suddenly,
Which you shall not know.”

Hebrew parallelism in this verse demonstrates that “evil” = “trouble” = “desolation.”

Returning to verse 7, the NKJV reflects the parallelism nicely:

“I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.”

God is not the author of evil. Intrinsic evil, by definition, refers to violations of God’s will, i.e., sin (1 John 3:4). Sin is committed when human beings⁵ exercise their free will and choose to transgress God’s laws, thus committing evil. Humans are the source of evil in the world—not God.⁶

 Endnotes

The post Is God the Cause of Evil in the World? appeared first on Apologetics Press.