How Many Israelites Exited Egypt?

Numbers 1:20-46 tallies by tribe the number of Israelites in the Exodus, with the exception of the tribe of Levi. Verse 46 gives the total tally: 603,550. The average population of each of the listed tribes is roughly 50,000.³ So, if we assume the tribe of Levi was similar, the tally rises to 650,000 individuals. However, women were not included in the figure (verse 2). If we assume there were approximately as many women as there were men, we infer that there would have been 1,300,000 adult Israelites at the Exodus.

According to verse 3, those individuals age 19 and below also were not included in the tally. If we assume that, at the time, the ) were, on average, living to age 70 (Psalm 90:10), then roughly 27% of the population was not included in Moses’ tally (if we assume all age brackets had approximately the same number of Hebrews).⁴ If so, the Hebrew population was roughly 1,780,000 at the Exodus.

Adult Male Isrealite Population at Exodus According to Numbers 1

Could the Hebrew Population Be That High in 215 Years?

As described previously,⁵ one can use statistics to arrive at reasonable population estimates at different times in history, based upon certain assumptions. If the initial Hebrew population in Egypt was 79 individuals, the average lifespan of the Hebrews was 70, they continued having children for half of their lives, had 10 children on average (due to the extremely elevated birthrates implied in the text; Exodus 1:7,12,20), and typically lived to see the births of half of their grandchildren on average (i.e., the generation length is 1.5), after 215 years, the Hebrew population would have been 1,770,000 people. Keeping in mind that if the average number of children per couple was larger or the generation length was slightly longer (e.g., 10.1 children on average and a 1.6 generation length—both of which are highly plausible), the Hebrew population quickly grows by tens of thousands.

Perhaps more notable is the fact that these calculations assume that the Hebrews gave birth to all of those individuals, with no males marrying outside of the Israelite family (as did Joseph, each of the other sons of Jacob, and Moses, for instance). If such marriages occurred only a fraction of the time (like the individual mentioned in Leviticus 24:10), the Hebrew population grows even higher. If, for example, intermarriage with the Egyptians occurred in only 5% of marriages,⁶ the final potential Hebrew population rises to 2,374,328. A higher percentage of such intermarriages increases the Hebrew population further and decreases the average number of children that would have been born in each home.

Also notable is the fact that the population record given in Numbers 1 may be more difficult to harmonize with, for example, a 430-year sojourn in Egypt of Jacob’s family. With the same assumptions stated above, in order to match the Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus in 430 years, the average number of children per family must be roughly four (and with little intermarriage outside of the Hebrew lineage). This scenario would be difficult to reconcile with (1) the lack of birth control methods at the time; (2) the notable alarm exhibited by the Egyptians as they observed the Hebrew population growth (Exodus 1:9-10,12); or (3) the thrice highlighted abnormality of the population explosion being witnessed at the time (Exodus 1:7,12,20).

Bottom line: the biblical claim about the Hebrew population by the time of the Exodus, after only 215 years of reproduction in Egypt, is not unreasonable. On the contrary, Moses’ record provides further support for the Bible’s reliability and sheds light on the potential Hebrew home at the time of the Exodus.

Endnotes

¹ See Jonathan Moore (2025), “When and Where Was Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt? The Long and Short of It (Part 1),” Reason & Revelation, 45[2]:2-9, February.

² See Acts 7:14, adding to Stephen’s 75, Joseph, his wife, and two sons (who were already in Egypt).

³ 50,296.

⁴ However, with the thrice highlighted elevated Hebrew birthrates at the time (Exodus 1:7,12,20), the percentage of Hebrew children in the population at the time may have been higher, depending upon how long the elevated birthrates occurred. If the child population bracket at the time of the Exodus was 25% higher (comprising 34% of the total population instead of 27%), the total Hebrew population rises to 1,970,000. However, if the elevated period was in effect for the entire 215-year period, the percentage of children in the population would have matched the other age brackets, lowering the estimated Hebrew population at the Exodus back to roughly 1,780,000.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2011), “Population Statistics and a Young Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 31[5]:41-47, May; see also Walter Lammerts, ed. (1971), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).

⁶ In the population algorithms, this scenario was modeled as each couple having 10.5 children on average instead of 10 children.

The post Could There Really Have Been Over a Million Israelites by the Exodus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem…. John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem…. Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all.⁴

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem”? Dawkins quoted from 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem. These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.⁵

How often are individuals born in one place and reared in another? I was born in Georgia, brought up in Oklahoma, went to undergraduate and graduate school in Tennessee, and yet have lived most of my life in Alabama. When people ask where I’m from, I generally say, “Alabama.” I sometimes say, “I was raised in Oklahoma.” I rarely say, “I was born in Georgia,” yet that is where I was born. Interestingly, no one ever accuses me of contradicting myself.

Blind Faith or Contradiction Confusion?

If Dr. Dawkins actually believes that John 7:41-42 contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote, then he may be so blinded by an allegiance to atheism and naturalism that he refuses to interpret the Bible fairly. (Yet, surely Dawkins desires for his readers and listeners to interpret his own writings and speeches fairly. Will he not give the Bible writers the same level of fair and honest evaluation that he expects others to give him?) Or, perhaps Dawkins is unaware of what constitutes a genuine contradiction.⁶ If John wrote that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. However, John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Missing the Messiah…Again

Rather than honestly and reasonably pointing out a legitimate contradiction, Dawkins has tragically aligned himself with the very people in John 7 who missed (or altogether rejected) the astonishing evidence for Jesus’ Deity (and, in Dawkins’ case, the inspiration of the Bible). The Old Testament writers specifically (and miraculously) prophesied hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would “come forth” from “Bethlehem Ephrathah” (Micah 5:2)—i.e., Bethlehem of Judea.⁷ Furthermore, the prophets also perfectly predicted the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-7) would dwell in Galilee and let His light shine in the land of Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1-2). This, too, happened just as the prophets predicted (Matthew 4:12-16).

These two marvelous pieces to the Messianic puzzle (presented 700 years earlier by Micah and Isaiah) were missed by many souls in the first century, just as they are missed by Dawkins and many others today. Yet, Christians will follow the example of Christ (Luke 19:10; 1 Timothy 1:15) and never stop striving to help unbelievers see the Light. With God’s help, we will continue demonstrating both the supernatural attributes of the Bible and the One Whom the Bible perfectly presents—the Prince of Peace, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Endnotes

¹ Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 97.

² Ibid., pp. 96-97.

³ Ibid., p. 94.

⁴ Ibid., 93, emp. in orig.

⁵ For more information on Micah 5:2 and John 7, see Eric Lyons (2022), “Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem,” Reason & Revelation, 42[8]:86-89, August, https://apologeticspress.org/micah-the-messiah-and-the-little-town-of-bethlehem/.

⁶ See Eric Lyons (2013), “Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions—Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 33[11]:122-125,128-129, November, https://apologeticspress.org/dealing-fairly-with-alleged-bible-contradictions-part-ii-4747/.

⁷ This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah. People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrathites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 2:4; 4:11; 1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4).

The post Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction? 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.

In verses 17-48 of chapter 5, Jesus cannot be speaking disparagingly of the Law of Moses or setting Himself and His teaching against Moses’ teaching. After all, He authored the Hebrew Scriptures—including the Sabbath (e.g., Matthew 12:8). Why would He then minimize or ridicule them? He knew that Old Testament commandments were “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12) and extremely vital (Psalms 19:7-11; 119). He knew that the Old Testament would continue to function in useful ways for God’s people during the Christian era (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:14-17). Negative attitudes about the Old Law arise from misconceptions concerning the Law’s function.² Rather than pitting His teaching against Moses’ teaching, in reality, Jesus was contrasting, in pointed and impressive fashion, the difference between God’s original intentions inherent within Mosaic legislation and the pharisaical/scribal distortions of God’s law which had collected over the centuries.³

Throughout His discourse on this matter, Jesus does not say, “It is written” or “Moses said” as He did on other occasions.⁴ Instead, He uses such introductory phrases as “You have heard that it was said to those of old” (5:21) and “You have heard that it was said” (5:38). These ambiguous allusions alert the reader to the existence of a body of rabbinical commentary and interpretation which had gradually accumulated, and which had come to shroud and even contradict original Mosaic legislation. Jesus repeatedly accused the religious leaders of neutralizing the true intent of the Old Law by their misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Scripture (e.g., Matthew 15:3,6; 12:7,12). Consider the following exegetical analysis which shows Jesus did not contradict Moses.

Verses 17-20

Verses 17-20 serve as an introduction to verses 21-48. Verse 20 sets the stage for Jesus’ main point, i.e., that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (their doctrine and practice) was not synonymous with true righteousness that pleases God. The Jews possessed religious ardor and enthusiasm (like many who follow worship fads and false religion), but their practice of religion was fraught with ignorance and misconceptions concerning the actual substance and content of proper religious activity (Romans 10:1-3).

Because His teaching was so different from the prevailing approach to religious teaching by the Jewish hierarchy, popular sentiment no doubt held that the teaching of Jesus contradicted the teaching of Moses as represented by the Jewish leadership. Jesus’ teaching did, indeed, contradict much of the Jewish religion of His day, but His teaching did not contradict Mosaic teaching. Christ’s work was the logical sequel to Old Testament religion.

To clarify this misconception, in one dramatic and sweeping declaration, He reaffirmed His positive relationship to the Old Law: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (5:17). His relationship to the Law was not one of destructive opposition but constructive fulfillment. Jesus’ life and work was, in reality, the logical goal ⁵ of the Law of Moses (Romans 10:4). He brought Old Testament religion to completion and fruition. This obviously meant that Mosaic legislation would soon become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13) and therefore removed as a legitimate means of approaching God (Hebrews 10:9). But Jesus did not wish to leave the impression that He possessed a negative attitude toward the Old Law. On the contrary, the Old Law was a divine instrument designed to accomplish divine purposes.

We would do well to study carefully three New Testament terms which are used to describe the condition of the Old Covenant. Jesus declared that He did not come to “destroy” (5:17) the Law. Katalusai means “to end the effect or validity of something,” to “set at naught,” “to destroy, demolish, overthrow, throw down.”⁶ In other words, Jesus’ life and work was not designed to “put down” or “frustrate” the Law’s plan and purpose. Rather, His mission “fulfilled” or completed the Law. On the other hand, the Old Law as a temporary instrument by which Jews could demonstrate faith was “wiped away” (exaleipsas, Colossians 2:14) and therefore invalidated and made powerless (katargesas, Ephesians 2:15). ⁷ In other words, the Old Law did its job during the time period for which it was intended, but since Jesus has come and done His job, the Old Law is now unemployed—out of a job with no further legal efficacy and therefore deprived of its influence and power as a specific means of manifesting faith. ⁸ We no longer need a “supervisor” or “custodian” (paidagogos—Galatians 3:24-25) now that we may be “children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). Verse 18 underscores the fact that the Law would remain intact and fully functional until Jesus fulfilled its purpose by offering Himself as the ultimate antidote for man’s estrangement from God. Not one letter nor one tiny stroke of a single letter would pass before fulfillment was achieved.

Armed with this realistic and accurate appraisal of the Old Law, Jesus next stressed to His contemporaries the importance of remaining submissive and obedient to God’s laws given through Moses (5:19). The Jewish leadership in particular was reckless, inconsistent, flippant, and outright disobedient in many areas of God’s law. They both practiced disregard for humble and complete obedience and taught others to do the same. This sorry approach to God’s religion under the Old Testament dispensation would naturally carry over into the New Testament dispensation. Jesus declared such individuals would be “least,” i.e., regarded lightly and with contempt. Those who are “great” in the kingdom are those who hold all of God’s commands in highest regard—even those which men deem insignificant according to human estimation. Unlike those who dismiss complete obedience under the guise of “grace,” those who are “great” in Christ’s kingdom are those who manifest careful sensitivity and diligent concern for compliance with every commandment of God.

Who in Jesus’ day would dare to violate Old Testament laws and teach others to do likewise? Obviously, the scribes and Pharisees—the religious authorities of the day. How, specifically, were they doing such? By distorting and misinterpreting the Old Testament law for their own selfish purposes (cf. Matthew 15:1-9). Consequently, in order for Jesus’ contemporaries to be acceptable to God, their “righteousness,” i.e., their religious practice, was going to have to surpass the righteousness of their religious leaders (5:20). That is, those who wished to be pleasing to God were going to have to interpret Mosaic Law properly and act in harmony with it.

Beginning in verse 21, Jesus proceeds to illustrate what it means to exceed “the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” He does so by alluding to some of the “thicket” that had grown up around original Mosaic legislation. He then delineates the divine intentions underlying several Old Testament issues, depicting the original intent of God’s will on several Mosaic matters.

Jesus fully understood the absolute goodness of God’s laws (cf. Deuteronomy 10:13; Psalm 119). As God Himself, He knew God’s laws in every period of human history have been designed to promote spirituality in those who would submit in humble obedience. God’s laws have always been calculated to engender holiness and purity of heart. Jesus’ contemporaries felt that their external, civil emphasis on the Old Law was sufficient, but Jesus maintained that such anemic compliance made void (i.e., neutralized and extricated the original intent and force of) the Word of God through Moses. As a result, Jesus continually condemned mere external observance of divine laws (e.g., Matthew 23). He never minimized obedience to the specifics of Mosaic law during His time on Earth. Such an approach is not “legalism.” Jesus’ contemporaries perverted true religion by emphasizing external observance to the exclusion of internal intention.

Verses 21-26

Jesus next offered another contrast. The matter of murder was dealt with in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). The reference to “danger of the judgment” is not found in the Old Testament. Jesus combines these two quotations in order to emphasize the fact that legislation against murder eventually came to be construed as merely a prohibition against the outward act. Jews, therefore, felt justifiable when they held resentment and anger in their heart toward another just as long as they did not outwardly act on the anger to the extent of murdering. They felt they could comply in action and ignore attitude. But, obviously, God’s law through Moses was not intended only to forbid murder while permitting murderous anger to be harbored within the heart. As a matter of fact, the Old Testament repeatedly condemned feelings of anger and hatred (Leviticus 19:17; Proverbs 24:12,17-18,29; 25:21-22). Thus verses 22-26 constitute Jesus’ exegesis of the meaning of God’s original legislation concerning murder without the distortion of years of rabbinic commentary. [NOTE: Observe that the common claim that the Law of Moses addressed only the outward action, while Jesus’ laws went further by addressing the heart and motives behind the outward action, is an erroneous claim. Read Leviticus 19:17-18; Proverbs 4:23; 25:21-22 (quoted by Paul in Romans 12:20).]

Jesus explained that God wanted Jews (and the same carries over for people living today—Christian and non-Christian) to relate to one another in love, harmony, and unity. Verbal expressions of abuse (e.g., “raca” and “fool”) often reflect a heart full of hate. Jesus declared that a hateful attitude is equivalent to murder (cf. 1 John 3:15). “Raca” means “empty head” and is reminiscent of our word “idiot.” Such invectives not only reveal the unkind heart of the user but also deeply injure the individual to whom they are directed. There are certainly times when such words are apropos (e.g., Psalm 14:1; Matthew 23:17). However, Jesus here condemned the harsh, sinful attitude of anger that expresses itself with hostile words of contempt. We humans are so prone to gauge spirituality solely by external action. But God looks upon the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). He sees from whence ugly language and action arises.

We humans also have a tendency to feel we can be right with God and situated within His good graces while being unjustly estranged from our fellowman. Verses 23-24 extend the teaching on anger by noting that homage paid to God is ineffectual as long as we are out of sorts with our brother. If we cannot love our fellowman whom we have seen, we cannot love God whom we have not seen (1 John 4:20). We must not let the Sun go down on our wrath (Ephesians 4:26). If we have done something to another that we should not have done, God wants us to clear up the matter. He will hold us accountable for such at the Judgment and we may be held accountable in this life if the offended individual decides to go to court and sue (5:25-26). The offender would do well to settle the matter with the offended on the way to the courthouse before the judge rules against the offender and he is tossed in jail! Again, Jesus provided expert commentary on the original import of Mosaic law.

Verses 27-32

Jesus next turned to another legal matter associated with the Law of Moses and Jewish misinterpretation (5:27). In effect, Jesus declared, “You’ve understood the Old Law to forbid merely the outward act of adultery. But I’m telling you that the original law was designed to discourage lust and divorce—items that go hand in hand with adultery.” He then argued (5:28) that when males lust in their hearts after a woman, they’re psychologically committing adultery, the very thing which the Law condemned (cf. 2 Peter 2:14).⁹ A person would do well to completely amputate the member of his body that facilitates such evil (5:29-30; cf. 10:28). Of course, Jesus was not advocating mutilation of the body. Rather, He stressed the seriousness of sin as it rises from the heart and receives impetus from our physical senses. We simply must put to death our members (Colossians 3:5) in this life or face a far greater hardship: eternal hell.

When the Jews chose to misconstrue Deuteronomy 24 to mean they could divorce their wives for any reason, they were further violating the commandment against adultery (5:31). They were responsible for causing their wives to go to other men and thereby commit adultery (5:32). Since the woman had been put away for some reason other than fornication, whoever married her would be guilty of committing adultery as well. Notice that the guideline of Deuteronomy 24 was not a part of original Sinai regulation. It was a concession evoked by hard hearts (Matthew 19:8) and centered—not upon the legality of divorce—but on the rights of the innocent wife.¹⁰

So Jesus was not setting the Law of Moses (“don’t commit adultery”) in opposition to His own teaching (“don’t lust after a woman”). The Old Testament, itself, explicitly forbade lusting after females (Exodus 20:17; Proverbs 5; 6:25; 7:25). Rather, Jesus was explaining that the original law forbidding adultery, by implication, forbade anything that would lead to or contribute to adultery.

Verses 33-37

Next Jesus addressed Himself to His contemporaries’ perversions of the Old Law regarding oaths and swearing. Old Testament passages dealing with oaths¹¹ were calling for honesty and truthful commitment. An oath was merely a formal declaration of intention by the individual. The Old Law possesses no hint whatsoever of differing degrees of determination on the part of the oath-taker. All oaths were to be taken on the basis of God’s presence and culpability before Him.

However, with the passing of time, the Jews had developed an elaborate system of oath-taking which differentiated between levels of intensity based upon various objects (e.g., heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, hair). The religious leaders of Jesus’ day had gotten to the point where the validity of an oath depended—not upon the truthfulness of the individual—but upon the sacredness of the object by which one swore. Jesus condemned such frivolous politicking and reaffirmed the original intent of divine will: tell the truth under all circumstances. After all, God is over every single object to which one might appeal to validate his oath. So all oaths ought to be simply above-board affirmations of truth in light of God’s omnipresence. James echoed the same teaching (James 5:12). Jesus, therefore, was not forbidding judicial oaths that amount to simple “yes” or “no” affirmations of truth. He was forbidding swearing by objects with a view to escaping a straightforward declaration of truth.

Verses 38-42

Our Lord’s next allusion was to the lex talionis of Mosaic law which tailored penalties and punishment to fit the crime (5:38).¹² The Old Testament passages which treated this matter¹³ were originally intended to promote just retribution, prescribing appropriate penalty for crimes committed against one’s fellowman. These prescriptions were, therefore, restraining measures designed to set limits on punishment while demonstrating God’s view of sin and wrong. The lex talionis reflected God’s humane justice and assisted man in nurturing a healthy view regarding what constitutes appropriate response to man’s inappropriate and injurious behavior. In addition, the “eye for an eye” dictum functioned as a deterrent which discouraged a wrong doer from ever risking his own person by inflicting harm upon the person of another.¹⁴

In time, Jewish sentiments perceived the lex talionis as a way to “get back” at an assailant. They regarded this law as a way to secure revenge rather than as a merciful, benevolent restriction. In this way, anger and malice were encouraged rather than discouraged as God intended. In much the same way, our society seems gripped by an insatiable desire to sue anybody and everybody for any and everything. The spirit of revenge and greed is rampant in American culture. The misuse and abuse of our judicial system has made a mockery of laws which were originally intended to facilitate just recompense. Now the system thrives on the spirit of vengeful retaliation by the citizenry and the greed of their lawyers—a tragic distortion of justice. We are in need of the same verbal correctives that Jesus issued to the Jews.

Jesus declared what was in God’s mind in the original Mosaic expression. While laws must exist which discourage and punish the perpetual lawbreakers as well as protect the innocent (1 Timothy 1:8-9; Romans 13:1-7), God wants individuals to love and live in harmony with one another, and to forgive one another when mistakes are made. Consequently, the believer ought to “[r]esist not him that is evil” (5:39, ASV). By way of explanation for such a bold statement, Jesus cites three specific situations which illustrate what He meant by nonresistance: (1) turn the other cheek, (2) relinquish the cloak, and (3) go the second mile (5:39-41).

Notice that in each of these cases, Jesus was bringing into focus, not so much the specific situation, but the attitude which underlies these three situations. This is precisely where scribal thought was defective. We must capture the attitude of heart inherent in these examples in order to apply properly the teaching which Jesus is here enjoining to the myriad of circumstances which we face throughout life. We tend to want to minimize and diffuse the potency of Jesus’ words in these examples in order to leave ourselves free to take vengeance when we see fit. While we would not deny that there are appropriate times when a Christian can rightfully defend himself (e.g., Acts 16:36-38; 22:25; 25:10-11), we ought to be extremely careful that we do not become guilty of the very spirit which Jesus condemned: the spirit of revenge and retaliation. By the time we get finished explaining what Jesus did not mean by “turn the other cheek,” we may well have completely neutralized what Jesus did mean.

Jesus, Himself, is the supreme and definitive example of what it means “not to resist an evil person” (vs. 39). He gently tolerated the abuse directed against Him personally—a point which Peter drives home with penetrating poignancy (1 Peter 2:21-23). Notice that this pronouncement against resistance is explained by several parallel New Testament phrases: (1) Romans 12:19—“give place to wrath” (i.e, step aside and allow God to retaliate in His own way in His own good time); (2) 1 Corinthians 4:12—“being persecuted, we suffer it” (i.e., we endure or tolerate the mistreatment rather than lash out at our persecutors); (3) 1 Peter 2:19-20—“endur[e] grief, suffering wrongfully” and “take it patiently” (i.e., bear up under unwarranted abuse without retaliating); (4) 1 Peter 2:23—“reviled not… threatened not but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (i.e., Jesus took the blows without reacting spitefully or vengefully); and (5) Romans 12:17— “Recompense to no man evil for evil” (i.e., do not fall prey to natural human inclination to reciprocate when mistreated).

Paul addressed in Romans 12 essentially the same point which Jesus addressed in Matthew 5. To do so, Paul appeals to the Old Testament—further underscoring the fact that Jesus was upholding and defending the Old Law in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22 to emphasize to the Christian the same point that God and Christ wanted the Old Testament Jew to recognize, i.e., that vengeance and retaliation are out of harmony with God’s will and that returning good for evil is the appropriate course of action for those who love God.

Whether the child of God faces physical violence, judicial injustice, or governmental oppression, he will “bend over backwards” to accommodate and avoid altercation. He will sincerely and genuinely care for those who mistreat him (cf. Acts 7:60). He will be less concerned for self-preservation and more concerned for the welfare of his fellowman (cf. Luke 10:30-37). Rather than being guarded, defensive, selfish, and “tight” with “our” things, we will be open, liberal, generous, and benevolent (Proverbs 21:26; Luke 6:38). Jesus summarized verses 38-41 by advancing a positive declaration in verse 42: “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” This command is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 15:7-11. Study this Old Testament passage very carefully, for it proves conclusively, not only what Jesus enjoins regarding returning good for evil, but that Old Testament religion also addressed the heart, the attitude, and the motives which underlie our external behaviors.

Verses 43-48

The final paragraph of chapter 5 pertains to the mixture of Mosaic legislation and tradition regarding treatment of enemies. The phrase “love your neighbor” is found in Leviticus 19:18 but the formula “hate your enemy” is not found in Scripture and was clearly a distortion of God’s Old Law in order to accommodate human inclination. In fact, kind treatment of enemies is commanded in the Old Testament (Exodus 23:4-5). It is true that God wanted the Jewish nation to execute righteous vengeance upon wicked, pagan societies at various points in history (cf. Romans 13:1-7). But these civil decrees were not intended to endorse, sanction, or promote hatred of people out of personal bias.

On at least two separate occasions, Jesus Himself made clear that the original Mosaic injunction to “love your neighbor” meant that the child of God should seek the welfare of everybody—including his enemy. On one occasion, He identified Leviticus 19:18 as the “second” greatest commandment of the Old Law (Matthew 22:39). On another occasion, He elaborated upon this command by relating the incident of the “Good Samaritan” and showing that our “neighbor” is anyone, regardless of ethnicity, who needs our assistance (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus deliberately selected a Samaritan—a mortal enemy of the Jew—as the “hero” of this narrative in order to emphasize that loving one’s neighbor encompasses even enemies. Stephen (Acts 7:59-60) also epitomized the essence of Matthew 5:44.

Fathers, who have a particularly talented son or daughter who accomplishes some significant feat, are prone to express their pride in their offspring by ribbing a friend with their elbow, pointing at their performing child, and saying, “That’s my son.” In like manner, God’s children (5:45) are those who “do Him proud” by treating the wicked antagonist in a loving manner. Indeed, this attitudinal ingredient is representative of God Himself. The bestowal of His physical blessings (i.e., sunshine and rain—vs. 45; cf. Acts 14:17) is extended even to those who do not deserve them. God is kind even to the unthankful and the evil (Luke 6:35).

Not only does beneficial reciprocation make us like God, it makes us unlike the ungodly. Even the impenitent and willful tax collectors and Gentiles (teloni, ethnikoi) manifest kindness, love, and friendly greetings toward their own kind. That is, the traitorous and greedy tax collector and the non-Jew—both of whom Jesus’ hearers would regard as degenerate—possessed a measure of “love” and good will. But the follower of God goes beyond normal, typical, worldly human inclinations by transcending them to attain the higher place of spiritual living.

Finally, Jesus encapsulates in brief, terse terminology a fitting finish to these thoughts on God’s will regarding love for fellowman. He calls upon the Jews (and Christians today) to be “perfect” in the same fashion that God is “perfect” (5:48). The term teleioi does not refer to perfection in the sense of sinlessness. Rather, “perfect” means “mature,” “full-grown,” “being fully developed in a moral sense.”¹⁵ In context, Jesus is opposing the fragmented approach which the Jews were taking in their interpersonal relationships. Their love for neighbor was divided and incomplete. They needed to love their enemies as well as their friends. On this basis, they are admonished to be complete in the same fashion that God is complete. He loves the whole world of humanity—including those who are evil (John 3:16). In like manner, the love which Jews were to have for their fellowman was to be full, whole, and complete. Their love was to be a total love, extending even to enemies.

Conclusion

A careful, verse-by-verse analysis of Matthew 5 demonstrates that, far from denigrating the Law of Moses, Jesus declared to His contemporaries the logical goal of that Law, i.e., Himself. Not only did He not criticize the Mosaic system, He, Himself, conformed to its precepts perfectly (cf. Hebrews 4:15). He urged all other Jews to do the same. Rather than speaking derisively of the Law, or contradicting the Law, Jesus provided masterful commentary on a variety of legal matters that the Jewish hierarchy had distorted and misrepresented in their leadership role responsibilities. He challenged His contemporaries (and all of us) to go beyond the mere mechanical implementation of God’s laws. We are encouraged to realize the full potential of the vibrant, life-giving guidelines of the Creator in our lives. We are called upon to refrain from distorting the will of God and neutralizing divine intent. We are commanded to possess a righteousness that exceeds the petty, diluted, watered-down religion of those who have lost sight of what God intends for our souls. He wants us to be “happy” in a way that people will never be happy—unless they mold their hearts, minds, and lives around the potent and powerful truths of the eternal God. No, Jesus did not contradict or demean the Law of Moses. Rather, He upheld it.

Endnotes

¹ See The Anvil Rings series available from Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/pdf-books/, as well as a host of books through the centuries that effectively answer the skeptics’ allegations.

² Cf. Romans 3:19-20; 7:7,12,14; Galatians 3:21. Study Gordon Ferguson’s discussion of the interrelationship of grace, law, and love in Thomas B. Warren and Garland Elkins, eds. (1978), God Demands Doctrinal Preaching (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), pp. 225-236. Certainly, the Old Law was inadequate (Hebrews 8:7) to accomplish God’s ultimate objective on Earth. As the Hebrews writer declared so often, the New Testament with all of its attendant elements is “better” (Hebrews 1:4; 6:9; 7:7,19,22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16,35,40; 12:24) than the Mosaic system that preceded it. But this is so for the reason that the Mosaic law was not designed to do what Christ’s law could do. The seeming denigrations in the New Testament of the Law are actually directed at the misconceptions and improper attitudes which many of the Jews possessed about the Law. How unfortunate that anyone would latch on to these negative descriptions and then draw the equally false conception that Christians are not under law or obligated to be involved in meticulous obedience.

³ This contrast continues on into chapter 6 where He includes corrective comments pertaining to benevolent giving (6:1-4), prayer (6:5-15), fasting (6:16-18), and materialism (6:19-34).

⁴ Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:3; 12:26; Luke 24:27; John 3:14; 5:45-46; 7:19ff.

⁵ The Greek term in Romans 10:4 (telos) refers to the fact that Christ (the plan He implemented) is the “end,” i.e., goal/aim/purpose/climax/target, of the law. In his 1985 Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), p. 541, Hermann Cremer observed that the word “does not, as is commonly supposed, primarily denote the end, termination, with reference to time, but the goal reached, the completion or conclusion at which anything arrives, either as issue or ending, and thus including the termination of what went before,” emp. in orig.

⁶ Frederick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 522; James Moulton and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), p. 329; Robert Mounce (2006), Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 1183.

⁷ Danker, pp. 344,525.

⁸ This is not to say that the Old Testament has no value to the Christian. Paul stated emphatically that it is extremely relevant to the Christian Era—Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6,11; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; et al. Rather, the Old Covenant was addressed specifically to the Israelites—not Gentiles—and it reached its climactic pinnacle at the cross. Now, under Christianity, all human beings—Jew and Gentile—are amenable to the terms of the New Covenant.

⁹ Of course, Jesus was not saying that lust is exactly equivalent to adultery and, thus, grounds for divorce. He was simply noting that lust and adultery are both sinful. The adultery that is just grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9) refers to the physical act—even as murder refers to the physical act of taking another person’s life.

¹⁰ See Jack P. Lewis (1978), “From the Beginning It Was Not So…” in Your Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas B. Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), pp. 410-419. See also Dave Miller (2020), “Did Moses Command Divorce? (Deuteronomy 24:1-4),” https://apologeticspress.org/did-moses-command-divorce-deuteronomy-241-4-5880/.

¹¹ Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 5:11; 23:21-23.

¹² “At a deeper level the talion is understood to state an aesthetic principle of poetic justice, in which the core idea is the exactitude of the fit, the perfection of the matching. Let the punishment fit the crime”—William Miller (2006), Eye for an Eye (New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 65.

¹³ Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21.

¹⁴ “It shut the door to unlimited revenge and kept the punishment from exceeding the crime”—Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, eds. (2001), “V” in The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press).

¹⁵ Danker, pp. 995-996.

The post Does Jesus’ Teaching Contradict the Teaching of Moses? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

I’m confused about the Bible’s teaching on money. It seems contradictory. (And skeptics certainly think so.) We learn in Proverbs 21:20 that “[p]recious treasure and oil are in a wise man’s dwelling, but a foolish man devours it.” Psalm 112:1,3 indicates that “the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in His commandments…wealth and riches are in his house.” Yet, Jesus once instructed a rich man, saying, “[G]o, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mark 10:21). Jesus then said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). Jesus also famously taught in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Matthew 6:19, ESV). How can all of these Bible verses (and others, e.g., 1 Timothy 6:9-10) about money be consistent with each other? Should we give away everything we own, or can we save some money (i.e., “laying up some treasures on Earth”)? Is it acceptable to earn and possess riches or not?

Answer:

The Bible’s message about any and all “money matters” is entirely consistent, despite what skeptics argue.¹ Sadly, most of the world (and perhaps many in the Church) are unaware of (1) the Bible’s critical message about material things and humankind’s management of them as well as (2) the marvelous harmony with which Jesus and the Bible writers addressed these matters.

Property

The Bible does not teach that merely possessing money, a house, a business, or a mode of transportation (whether that be a camel or a car) is inherently evil. Job was undeniably a faithful and righteous man of God (Job 1:1,8; 2:3; Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:10-11). He also was very wealthy. “[H]is possessions were seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys, and a very large household, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the East” (Job 1:3). What’s more, following Job’s heart-wrenching trials, the Lord gave the patriarch “twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10). Indeed, “the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys” (Job 42:12).

Perhaps no one in Scripture is as synonymous with “faithfulness” as is the patriarch Abraham. Although not perfect, Abraham was an obedient servant of the Lord (Hebrews 11:8-19; James 2:19-24). And, Abraham “was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold” (Genesis 13:2). His “possessions”² were “great” (Genesis 13:6). He also had hundreds of servants (Genesis 14:14; 15:2; 22:5).

A house (as well as the land upon which it sits) is the most expensive thing the average person will ever purchase.³ Property prices around the world vary greatly. According to the popular housing website Zillow.com, the typical value of a house in the United States is over $350,000⁴ or $2,485 per square meter.⁵ In the United Kingdom, property is twice as expensive.⁶ In South Korea, the average price of property (per square meter) is nearly $13,000.⁷ Though quite expensive in many countries around the world, it is not intrinsically sinful to purchase (or rent) and occupy property.

The New Testament reveals that the righteous Zacharias (Luke 1:6), the father of John the baptizer, had “his own house” (Luke 1:23,40). Peter had a house in Capernaum (Luke 4:38). The Roman centurion who exemplified “great faith” possessed his own home (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10). Mary, Martha, and Lazarus had a house in Bethany, which Jesus visited (Luke 10:38; John 11:20,31). Aquila and Priscilla were faithful servants of the Lord who had “their house” in (seemingly) Ephesus in which the Christians met (1 Corinthians 16:19; cf. Acts 18:2,18-20), as well as a home in Rome (Romans 16:5).⁸ Nympha was a Christian in Laodicea who opened “her house” to the church (Colossians 4:15, NASB). And Philemon, who was Paul’s “beloved friend and fellow laborer,” had a house in which the local church met (Philemon 1-2). In fact, Philemon’s house was large enough to have a “guest room,” which Paul hoped to use in the future (Philemon 22). It seems clear that the early Church was “dependent upon the hospitality of prominent church members who furnished their own houses” in which to gather and worship.⁹ It is also clear that saving money to pay a rent or mortgage payment is not inherently sinful.

Property is not the problem. Working and receiving wages is not wicked. On the contrary, “The desire of the lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to labor” (Proverbs 21:25). Recall that Jesus condemned the lazy servant in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25. Paul taught, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). And, “if anyone does not provide for his own…he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 
(1 Timothy 5:8).

Receiving and possessing money for our diligent efforts is not equivalent to the sin of materialism. To gain some measure of wealth (whether $1 or $1 million) is not innately evil. The issue is, what kind of stewards are we of all that God allows us to receive and use for the few years we are on Earth? What are our motivations when it comes to acquiring, saving, and using any money, property, and wealth that we receive? Do we have a sinful “love of money” (1 Timothy 6:10)? Do we foolishly think that material things will bring us true, lasting joy (Ecclesiastes 5:10)? What do our actions involving material things say about our love, commitment, and passion (or lack thereof) for God, eternal life, the Lord’s Church, and the lost?

Are we guilty of the sin of greed (Luke 11:39)? Are we jealous of what others have? Are we consumed with material thoughts and things (Luke 12:13-21)? Do we worry about physical things (Matthew 6:25-34)? Simply put, do we think about and handle material things righteously or unrighteously?

God Owns Everything

Out of nothing, the eternal, omnipotent God created everything. He intentionally “made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11). “[A]ll things have been created by Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16, NASB). “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3, NASB). A biblical view of material things begins with (and cannot possibly be grasped without) first understanding that God created the Universe and everything in it out of nothing, and thus He logically owns everything.

God rhetorically asked the patriarch Job, “Who has been first to give to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the entire heaven is Mine” (Job 41:11, NASB). “Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it” (Deuteronomy 10:14). “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). The wealthy King David praised God, saying, “For all things come from You, and of Your own we have given You” (1 Chronicles 29:14).

The covetous, arrogant, rich farmer in Jesus’ parable in Luke 12 was wrong in every which way when it came to his attitude about and actions toward wealth. First, he failed to acknowledge God as the actual owner of all that he had. Instead, this rich man spoke of “my crops,” “my barns,” and “my goods.” His life could be summed up with the selfish “me, myself, and I” attitude. Second, he failed to thank God for the material possessions in his care. Did this rich man make “[t]he ground [that] yielded plentifully” (Luke 12:16)? Did he make the seeds to put in the ground, the rain that waters the seeds and soil, or the Sunlight that the plants need to grow? Did he create the Law of Biogenesis, which ensures that seeds reproduce, and do so after their own kind? Did he create his own power and energy to work the field (or to oversee the work done by others; cf. Deuteronomy 8:17-19)? An attitude and expression of thanksgiving were sorely missing in the life of this wealthy individual. Third, this rich man was not interested in doing good things for others with his great wealth (cf. Matthew 22:39; 25:31-46). He wanted to store up wealth so that he could take it easy and “eat, drink, and be merry…for many years” (Luke 12:19). His goals, affections, and actions were earthly in nature. He is the epitome of laying up treasures on Earth rather than in heaven (Matthew 6:19-20).

Humans Are Simply Stewards of God’s Stuff

Whenever the Bible writers addressed people being an “owner” of anything (e.g., having “your house”), the concept is meant in a limited, accommodative sense. After all, God made the land and sea and everything in them. He created gold, silver, bronze, copper, and every other precious metal in the Universe. He made the plants and trees out of which paper money is made. Rest assured, any other material thing we think we “own” ultimately was created by and is still owned by God.

Long before we were born, all material things were God’s. Long after we’re gone (if this world is still here), all material things will continue to be His. For the relatively brief period of time that we are here, we are using His things. We have been given the serious task of managing the Maker’s materials.

Like the servants in the Parable of the Talents, we have been entrusted with God’s money¹⁰ and are expected to manage it in a manner that pleases the Master (Matthew 25:14-30). Whether an individual has a lot or a little ($500,000, $50,000, or $500; cf. Matthew 25:15), God requires good stewardship. Whether you are the “owner” of a large company that employs 1,000 people or you are one of those 1,000 people who receives a modest income, God expects and deserves good stewardship of His things. But neither being the employer nor employee is inherently good or evil.

Good Stewardship Has Always Involved Giving Back to God

First and foremost, good stewardship has always involved giving. Before anything else we think or do, our first reaction (and not our second, third…or last) must be to joyfully give a generous percentage of our income and material blessings back to God. Good stewards are not tight-fisted misers who worry and are fixated on material things, but are hard-working, cheerful, wise, and generous givers (Acts 20:35; 
2 Corinthians 9:7).

Giving, and giving “off the top” or “of our firstfruits,” has been a timeless, unchanging principle with God. It’s what He has always expected from His creation. Going all the way back to Genesis 4, Adam and Eve’s son, Abel, “brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering” (Genesis 4:4). This offering was an acceptable, faithful “gift” from Abel to God (Hebrews 11:4).

The patriarch Job “offer[ed] burnt offerings…regularly” (Job 1:5). Abraham gave a tenth of his goods to Melchizedek, “the priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18-20; cf. Hebrews 7:1-4). We also find that Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, made a vow to God, saying, “of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to you” (Genesis 28:22).

Under the Law of Moses, the firstfruits were the earliest gathered grains, fruits, and vegetables that the Israelites dedicated to God in recognition of His faithfulness for providing the necessities of life. The Israelites offered to God a sheaf (a large bundle) of the first grain that was harvested on the day after the Sabbath following the Passover feast (Leviticus 23:9-14). God commanded the Israelites, saying, “The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19). The wise man wrote: “Honor the Lord with your possessions, and with the firstfruits of all your increase” (Proverbs 3:9).

The Israelites were expected to be generous stewards of all God had given them. Moses wrote: “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22). Furthermore, rather than “every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes,” God instructed the Israelites to “bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, and all your choice offerings which you vow to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 12:8,11). The Israelites were also instructed to “not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger” (Leviticus 19:9-11). Indeed, in addition to their firstfruits and their tithes, there were a number of sacrifices, offerings, and gracious gifts (e.g., Deuteronomy 16:10) that faithful Israelites made throughout the year.

Given how much emphasis is placed on stewardship matters in the Old Testament, Bible students should not be surprised by the prominence of this subject matter in the New Testament.¹¹ Though no specific percentage is mandated under the Law of Christ, the prevailing principle for giving and overall stewardship is for saved-by-the-grace-of-God, heaven-bound believers to think about material things from an eternal, heavenly perspective. If our overall purpose in life is to (1) love God, and (2) love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40), then such values and priorities should be reflected in every area of life, including our handling of money and material possessions. If we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), if our dreams and passions are for Christ, His Church, the lost, and eternal life (Luke 19:10; Philippians 1:19-24; Colossians 3:1-4), then our spiritual goals should be reflected in our stewardship of physical things.

If there is anything that gets in the way of following Jesus, then we must cut it loose (cf. Matthew 5:27-30): for the adulterer, it is adultery; for the homosexual, it is homosexuality; for the drunkard, it is alcohol; for the rich young ruler of Mark 10, it was his material possessions to which he had an unhealthy attachment. The Creator of the Universe and Savior of humankind could see this young man’s physical possessions were interfering with his heavenly pursuits. Jesus told him exactly what he needed to hear—in truth, the most loving thing that He could say to this apparently covetous man: give everything away and follow Me (Mark 10:21). What better cure for an unhealthy fixation on material things than to give everything away? Yet, rather than react with the willingness and excitement of Peter the fisherman and Matthew the tax collector, who chose to follow Jesus at any and all costs (Matthew 4:18-20; 9:9; Mark 10:28), the rich young ruler was disappointed to hear what Jesus said “and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions” (Mark 10:22).

Sadly, many people and, seemingly, especially most rich people, have the same unhealthy attachment to physical things as did the rich young ruler of Jesus’ day—thus Jesus’ statement: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25). Paul instructed Timothy to 
“[c]ommand those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God” (1 Timothy 6:17). Indeed, a mental, emotional, and physical fixation on money and material things is a recipe for spiritual destruction. It seems there is no better cure for such a sinful way of thinking and living than to perform a “drastic surgery” (cf. Matthew 5:29-30), i.e., give it all away, start over from scratch, and allow God to be our guide every step of the way.

Are Godly Stewardship and Saving Money Inconsistent?

How can the Bible’s teaching on God blessing people with material possessions (e.g., Psalm 112:1-3; Proverbs 21:20) be consistent with “[setting] your affection on things above, not on things on the earth” (Colossians 3:2, KJV)? How can setting aside money for any possible future days or years on Earth be acceptable if Jesus said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth” (Matthew 6:19)? How are these verses not contradictory to each other, as well as to the practice of many Christians?

First, more than anyone who has ever lived, Jesus was aware of the great danger materialism posed to humanity—both now and throughout history. What percentage of the world’s population is “overly concerned or preoccupied with material possessions rather than with…spiritual things” (i.e., materialistic)?¹² How many people struggle with an “excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed” (i.e., greed).¹³ How many unfaithful stewards of material things will suffer the same fate as the one-talent steward of Matthew 25 and tragically be “cast…into the outer darkness” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:24-30)? Whatever the answer is about acquiring and saving money and material possessions, may we never underestimate the temptation of the “lust of the eyes” (1 John 2:16; Matthew 4:8-9).

Second, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 6:19 must be interpreted in light of the immediate and remote contexts of Scripture. The preceding 18 verses were largely targeting one’s motivations for various actions. In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus instructed us not to do charitable deeds “as the hypocrites do” (to be seen of men). In 6:5-8, Jesus told us not to pray “like the hypocrites” (to be heard by men). In 6:16-18, Jesus taught us not to fast “like the hypocrites” (to be seen of men). And, in Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus was teaching us that judging another is wrong when that judgment is hypocritical.

What if we are doing charitable deeds to be seen of God? Then by all means, “do good to all men” (Galatians 6:10)! What if our prayers are led from a pure heart and with righteous intentions? Should we pray? Most certainly (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:17). Can we fast today if the purpose of our fasting is to be seen of God and not men? Indeed. And what about passing judgment? After condemning unrighteous judgments (7:1-4), Jesus instructed a person to “first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (7:5). He was saying, in essence, “Get your life right first. Then, in love, address your brother’s problem.” He was saying, when you judge, judge righteously (as when we pray, fast, and do good deeds—do it without hypocrisy—John 7:24).

And what about “laying up treasures”? As with all of these other things Jesus discussed, it depends on your intentions, motivations, and priorities. Where is your “heart” in what you’re doing? Is God or money your master (Matthew 6:24)? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:21). Jesus then immediately illustrated the importance of how we “look” at life. “If…your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness” (6:22-23). If we look at our one life on Earth with a godly, heavenly perspective, then we will have a godly perspective about money. We will not worry about money nor the things that money can help us attain (6:25-34), but we will be at peace as we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,” and trust Him that “all these things shall be added to you” (6:33). Yes, God will “give good things to those who ask Him” (7:11).¹⁴ Some (or many) of those good things include a measure of money that we are tasked as stewards to handle with a heavenly perspective.

Saving for Sunday

What does a proper, heavenly stewardship mentality look like, practically speaking? May it include saving anything? Absolutely. At least it should. A hard-working “laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18; cf. Colossians 3:23). With those wages, we should first joyfully “lay something aside, storing up” for the first day of the week to be able to give when the collection is taken up at our local congregation (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; cf. Acts 2:42; 2 Corinthians 9:5). A person may sometimes get paid on Mondays. Thus, money is “saved” for six days before it is ever contributed to the church.

Saving for Special Gifts

Sometimes we should save for specialized gifts—such as when we save money to support a mission work or to help with a disaster relief effort. Luke records how there were “many” women who were followers of Jesus “who were contributing…out of their private means” (Luke 8:3, NASB) to the work of Jesus and the apostles. These women had means or “possessions” which they were continually sharing with the disciples. Was it wrong for these women to possess anything? Did they have to give up every possession they owned at one time and never acquire and save anything else? Or did they have the freedom to keep some things and continually buy and sell for the main purpose of supporting the ministry of Jesus? Surely, to ask is to answer.

When the early Christians in Antioch learned of a coming famine, “the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea” (Acts 11:29). These good-hearted, gracious Christians either gave of that which they had already saved or began to store up savings from their current earnings. Obviously, saving money to give it away is a great thing to do. In fact, Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:28: “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need.” What is our first and main motivation to work? To give. After all, Jesus taught: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

Saving for Taxes

Many U.S. citizens labor nearly one-third of every year for the government. That is, depending upon one’s income, number of dependents, tax breaks, etc., many working Americans may be required by the government, with the threat of fines and imprisonment, to pay over 100 days’ wages to local, state, and federal governments every year. We pay income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Many Americans hand over more money to the government each year than they spend on food, clothing, and shelter combined.¹⁵

Is it a God-approved, wise action to save money for the purpose of being able to pay government-mandated taxes? Absolutely. When asked about whether it was “lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not,” Jesus taught: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:17,21). To the Christians living in the heart of the Roman Empire, Paul taught: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities…. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1,7).

It may be that you are accustomed to the government automatically taking income taxes out of your paycheck, but with many occupations (e.g., self-employed individuals) in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is no automatic removal of taxes from wages. In those cases, individuals are expected to continually save a sizeable portion of their income (perhaps tens of thousands of dollars or more) for the sole purpose of paying taxes.

Saving for Family

Whether living under the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ, obedient children (of all ages) have been expected, yes commanded, to honor their parents (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2). Such honor and respect are not mere lip service. On the contrary, it may very well involve helping them financially (perhaps due to poor health or simply old age). On one occasion, Jesus sharply rebuked the hypocritical Pharisees because one of their many heartless, made-up laws and traditions was interfering with their obedience to the Fifth Commandment and helping their parents who were in financial need (Mark 7:1-23).

Paul clearly taught in 1 Timothy 5 that prior to destitute individuals (e.g., needy widows) seeking help from their local church, they should be financially (and otherwise) helped by their family members, if they have any (5:16). The “children or grandchildren” of widows should “first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God…. [I]f anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 
(1 Timothy 5:4,8).

What might be appropriate for honest, hard-working Christian sons and daughters to do when working throughout the year? Perhaps to save some money or set aside some possessions with the intention of using such wealth to help and honor their aging parents.

Conversely, it might be appropriate for parents to save a portion of their money, possessions, and property for the purpose of passing it on to their children. According to Proverbs 13:22, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” Perhaps in some countries where property is so expensive, parents leave their children a house in which to live (a house which otherwise the children may not be able to afford). Perhaps parents leave their children farmland so that their children and grandchildren will be able to work and provide for their families, as well as possibly to provide jobs for people in the community.

Parents may be righteously motivated to leave something for their children’s or grandchildren’s education. In many countries, free primary and secondary public education is non-existent.¹⁶ Could it be a God-honoring, loving act for a grandfather to save some of his paycheck every week for the purpose of one day helping to pay for a teacher to teach his grandchildren to read and write? (According to the Institute for Statistics, there are 773 million illiterate adults in the world.¹⁷ What a blessing it would be for these souls to learn to read the Bible, as well as many other soul-nurturing and educational books and articles.)

What if a grandmother saved up enough money to send one or more of her grandchildren to preaching school, to medical school, or to college to learn how to become a school teacher? Perhaps one day those grandchildren return to help people physically, mentally, emotionally, and especially spiritually in their local communities (thus, making their grandparents’ savings and gifts an exponential blessing), potentially serving the needs of hundreds or thousands of people.

Saving for Housing

Many people may have “much more house” than they need and much more than the Lord may be pleased with. (Are gaudy houses really God-honoring? Some Christians may need to downsize and use the profits in one or more God-honoring ways.) Good stewards will carefully evaluate the percentage of their income they save for housing. As we observed earlier, providing adequate shelter and living quarters for one’s family (as well as for guests)¹⁸ can be an honorable way to utilize some of the monies that God has entrusted into our hands.

Practically speaking, the renting and purchasing of living space is often quite expensive. Given that the inspired wise man wrote, “the borrower is the slave of the lender” (Proverbs 22:7, ESV), it might be appropriate for a family to save thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars over time before purchasing some type of property—which might “free up” many thousands of dollars saved on interest that could then be used to further the Lord’s work. In essence, saving more money and borrowing less money (on houses, cars, education, etc.) might be a great way to do more good for the Lord in the long run.

If a faithful steward borrows money for various necessary purchases, the Bible is clear that such monies should be repaid. “Better not to vow than to vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). “The wicked borrows and does not repay” (Psalm 37:21). “Pay to all what is owed to them…. Owe no one anything” (Romans 13:7-8, ESV).

Saving for Some Physical Pleasures?

God could have created a physical realm where few, if any, physical pleasures existed. Yet, He made a beautiful Universe (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11; 11:7), which testifies to His “eternal power” and magnificence (Romans 1:20). Even after God’s global Flood, in which “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:6), God still left us a beautiful world to admire and study—not to worship, but to appreciate as a gift from God. The Psalmist wrote: “The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them” (111:2).

Is it wrong to save some money to occasionally enjoy a view of a beautiful beach, a majestic mountain, or a raging river?¹⁹ Is it inappropriate to save and spend some money to see zebras at the zoo or warthogs in the wild (and to, among other things, remind our children of their Maker)? Even when Paul seriously warned of the dangers of materialism and a love of money, commanding Timothy to “[i]nstruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches”—even then, the apostle remarked that “God…richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17, NASB).

When the Maker (and not money) is our Master, and when we “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), then we are laying up treasures in heaven and not on Earth (Matthew 6:19-21). The wise man of Ecclesiastes learned that from a purely earthly perspective, everything is empty and meaningless (1:2,9). However, once a person’s perspective and priorities are in line with Heaven’s, it can be “good and fitting…to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him…. [T]his is the gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:18-19, ESV).²⁰

When we have a heavenly perspective about earthly things and our priorities are in line with the Prince of Peace, then it certainly seems that God has given authorization for His stewards to enjoy some of the fruits of their labors. Enjoy these fruits as gifts from God. Enjoy them as “a foretaste of glory divine.”²¹ Enjoy them responsibly—with moderation and self-control (Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6; 1 Corinthians 9:27). Enjoy and share them with others (cf. Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:25-37).

Saving in General

As is evident by a fair and balanced treatment of Scripture, saving and having a measure of wealth is not inherently sinful. God has always expected people to (1) work hard and (2) use their income wisely (Proverbs 6:6-11; 14:23; 20:4). Generally speaking, just as children who obey and honor their parents will often be blessed with a long life (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1-3),²² honest, wise, hard-working individuals will be the most likely to receive larger incomes.²³ “The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, but those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty” (Proverbs 21:5). “He who has a slack hand becomes poor, but the hand of the diligent makes rich” (Proverbs 10:4).

Many might not consider themselves “rich,” but if we have clean water to drink, food in our stomachs, clothing on our bodies, and a roof over our heads, we are quite well off. Still, many of us have more—much more (cf. Luke 12:48; Matthew 25:15). What do we do with “more”? The Proverbs writer instructed his son to “[h]onor the Lord with your possessions” (Proverbs 3:9). Implied in this statement is that the son would have possessions (and thus owning various things is not inherently sinful). More important, whatever possessions we have (whether a house, a vehicle, a computer, a savings account, or 1,000 acres of land) should be utilized for God-honoring reasons in wise, God-honoring ways.

Conclusion

Can we “seek those things which are above” (Colossians 3:1), while owning a $100,000+ house? If the faithful first-century Christians could own and utilize property, then surely, we can, too. (But, again, we need to evaluate our circumstances. Are we being unwise, tight-fisted, and materialistically minded with our dwelling places, or are they being used to the glory of God in wise, loving ways, as faithful early Christians used them?)

Can we obey Jesus and “not lay up for [our]selves treasures on earth” (Matthew 6:19) while simultaneously having one or more savings accounts? It certainly seems so. Yet, it is paramount that we do exactly what Jesus was teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and evaluate our motivations and actions. God knows our hearts. He sees our good works or lack thereof. He knows what kind of stewards we are of His things. He knows whether we “are choked with cares, riches,²⁴ and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity,” or whether we are “the good ground” that “bear[s] fruit with patience” (Luke 8:14-15; cf. John 15:1-8). Are we like the unfaithful rich farmer of Luke 12 or like faithful Abraham who, though very rich, set his sights on heaven, “wait[ing] for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:10)?

Whether managers of money, houses, businesses, or any number of possessions, are we being “good and faithful servant[s]” of God (Matthew 25:21)? One day, we will give an account. Until then, let us have our minds on our Maker, our hearts set on heaven, and our wealth used, and perhaps even saved for a time, for God-honoring things in God-honoring ways.

Endnotes

¹ Steve Wells (2013), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB Books), pp. 1617,1618; See also Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), pp. 282-285,419-421.

² Liz Knueven (2019), “The 7 Most Expensive Things You’ll Ever Pay For, According to Financial Planners,” Insider, August 15, https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/most-expensive-things-americans-will-pay-for-2019-8.

³ https://www.zillow.com/home-values/102001/united-states/. According to the insurance comparison site, The Zebra, “The average home price in the U.S.” in 2022 was “$348,079” (https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/average-home-price-in-us-2022/).

⁴ “Global Cost of Property” (2022), Compare the Market, https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/home-contents-insurance/features/global-cost-of-property/.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Which they may have owned at two different times.

⁸ Marvin R. Vincent (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), Romans 16:5.

⁹ Among other things (e.g., possessions, property, time, abilities, our bodies, etc.).

¹⁰ According to V.P. Black, “The Bible talks more about money than it does about faith, repentance, confession, baptism, church organization and qualifications about elders and deacons all combined” [V.P. Black (1968), Lord Teach Us How to Give (Belmont, MS: KeMa Publishers), p. 51]. What’s more, “There are 89 chapters in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John combined, and the subject of giving is discussed 123 times in these four books” [V.P. Black (1968), Rust as a Witness (Chickasaw, AL), p. 15].

¹¹ “Materialistic” (2023), Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialistic.

¹² “Greed” (2023), Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed.

¹³ For a thorough article on what the Bible teaches about acceptable prayers, see Kyle Butt (2010), “Defending the Bible’s Position on Prayer,” Reason & Revelation, May, 30[5]:33-36,37-39, https://apologeticspress.org/defending-the-bibles-position-on-prayer-3483/.

¹⁴ Frederick Danker (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 1029.

¹⁵ Scott Greenberg (no date), Tax Foundation, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2016-april-24/.

¹⁶ Grace Lu (2019), “Education as a Human Right,” One Track International, July 24, https://onetrackinternational.org/education-as-a-human-right/.

¹⁷ “Literacy” (2023), Institute for Statistics, https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/literacy.

¹⁸ Let’s use our houses for hospitality!

¹⁹ E.g., the Colorado River that runs through the Grand Canyon.

²⁰ Cf. Ecclesiastes 3:12,13; 8:15; 9:7.

²¹ Oh, how much better heaven will be!

²² Children who do not get involved in drugs, alcohol, fornication, and all manner of sinful and riotous living that their parents forbid (for their own good), will generally be children who live into adulthood and (if they continue to listen to and obey the wise counsel of the Lord) will “live long on the Earth” (Ephesians 6:3).

²³ Again, generally speaking.

²⁴ “[T]he deceitfulness of riches…” (Mark 4:19).

The post Is the Bible’s Message About Money Contradictory? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, Scripture, indeed, repeatedly calls for Christians to love everyone—whether family, friends, fellow Christians, or enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; 22:36-40; Romans 12:9-21). We are to “[r]epay no one evil for evil” (Romans 12:17), but strive to “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave” us (Ephesians 4:32). But Christian kindness and love are not antithetical to such things as, for example, punishing rule breakers. A father who loves his son, and would even die for him, will promptly discipline him for unruly conduct (Proverbs 13:24; Ephesians 6:4). A school principal may genuinely love and care for every student under his oversight, but he may occasionally have to expel a disorderly child from the school for at least two reasons: (1) so that the hundreds of other students who want to get an education can safely and successfully do so, and (2) in hopes that such drastic measures will cause the unruly child to awaken to his senses before it is too late (and he does something far worse as a teenager or as an adult). An uninformed outsider, who sees a father disciplining his son or a school principal punishing a student, may initially think less of these adults and wonder how they could call themselves Christians. The logical, more informed bystander, however, will quickly size up the situation and easily see the consistency in loving, disciplinary actions.

In the epistle of 2 John, the apostle expressed his concern for the eternal destiny of Christians, saying, “Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward” (vs. 8, NASB). John was alarmed because deceptive false teachers who denied the incarnation of Jesus were a serious threat to the salvation of Christians. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2 John 7). These false teachers (known as Gnostics) alleged that Christ could not have been incarnated because the flesh is inherently sinful. And, since the flesh is supposedly intrinsically evil, Gnostics taught that Christians did not need to resist fleshly temptations. Just “do whatever feels good” and know that such wicked actions are only physical and not spiritual. Allegedly, the soul could still be pure, even if the individuals themselves participated in wicked activity.²

The apostle John (who had “seen” and “handled” the actual body of Christ—1 John 1:1-4; i.e., Jesus did come in the flesh) repeatedly condemned the central teachings of certain Gnostics who were confusing and misleading first-century Christians.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil…. Whoever has been born of God does not sin (1 John 3:4-9).

False doctrine was a real and present danger in the first-century church, just as it is today. Christians were (and are) to be on “guard” because “some have strayed concerning the faith”—profane and idle babblers and teachers of contradictory doctrines of “what is falsely called knowledge” (Greek gnosis; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; cf. 2 Timothy 2:15-26). Denying the physical life, death, burial, and resurrection of the body of Christ was heresy, and thus John and others warned the early church of such deception. What’s more, claiming that “all unrighteousness is not sin,” was to directly contradict the Law of Christ. In truth, “the works of the flesh are evident,” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19,21). John wrote: “Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,” because “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 3:10; 5:17).

Christians are commanded to withdraw fellowship (lovingly, faithfully, and sorrowfully) from brethren who rebel against the teachings of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). Such actions by Christians and churches are taken for at least two reasons: (1) to keep the church and the Christian families that comprise her from being harmed spiritually by the defiantly unfaithful (whose very tolerated presence would have even more damaging effects than an incessantly disruptive student in a school room; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6-7); and (2) in hopes of causing the wayward child of God to come to his senses (being “ashamed” of his sinful conduct; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5)—repenting of sin and being restored to the family of God.

Similarly, in 2 John 10-11, the apostle of the Lord instructed hospitable Christians to recognize the seriousness of greeting and housing deceptive false teachers. [NOTE: “The greeting was ‘Chairo!’ literally, goodspeed or God speed. This greeting was more than mere formality; it was an approval of the course being pursued by the one thus greeting, and included a desire for success in the effort attempted.”³] First-century roaming teachers and preachers “depended on the generosity of the members of the church” for their housing and hospitality.⁴ John the apostle, however, wanted the church to understand the serious threat that these dangerous false teachers posed to the precious bride of Christ. Doctrinal error is not something to “play with,” especially when such error involves the foundation of the Church (the life of Christ—2 John 7) and the denial of sin (the very thing that results in eternal death for the impenitent—Romans 6:23; Luke 13:3,5). By refusing to house and bid God-speed to deceptive teachers, the ungodly efforts of these misleading “messengers” would be greatly diminished. In time, they might choose to (or have to) stop their sowing of error altogether because of lack of opportunities, assistance, and encouragement. Such a result combined with genuine repentance would be the very thing for which Christians hope and pray.

Anyone who can see the reasonable and loving consistency of parents telling their children to “be nice to everyone,” but “don’t listen to these dangerous people” (showing them pictures of known child molesters), should be able to see the consistency of God’s message concerning Christian love and hospitality, and the way Christians react to false teachers who espouse damnable error. Children who shun dangerous sexual predators are protecting their own innocence, as well as keeping themselves and their families from a moment (or a lifetime) of grief. What’s more, the avoided, dangerous strangers are not given the opportunity to continue in their sins. Thus, the children’s obedient avoidance of them could be of great help to the sinful strangers in the highest way possible—if they awaken to their spiritual senses.

Christians are actually fulfilling the Law of Christ to “do good to all” (Galatians 6:2,10) even as we identify and refuse to embrace and fellowship false teachers. We are “doing good” to the “household of faith” by helping keep her pure and unaffected by cancer-spreading deceptive teachers (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Allowing error to spread would be tantamount to “rejoic[ing] in iniquity,” which is unloving (1 Corinthians 13:6). What’s more, the false teachers themselves are in no way encouraged to continue down the road of deceit. Rather, it is the hope and prayer of Christians that false teachers would become convicted of the error of their ways and repent before the Master Teacher (Luke 2:47; John 7:46) returns and judges them eternally for their doctrinal deceit (2 Peter 2).

[NOTE: Near the conclusion of his excellent commentary on 2 John, Guy N. Woods made an appropriate observation that both Christians and critics of 2 John 10-11 should consider: “John does not here forbid hospitality to strangers, or, for that matter, to false teachers when, in so doing, false teaching is neither encouraged nor done. Were we to find a teacher known to be an advocate of false doctrine suffering, it would be our duty to minister to his need, provided that in so doing we did not abet or encourage him in the propagation of false doctrine…. What is forbidden is the reception of such teachers in such fashion as to supply them with an opportunity to teach their tenets, to maintain an association with them when such would involve us in the danger of accepting their doctrines…. The test is, Does one become a partaker by the action contemplated? If yes, our duty is clear; we must neither receive them nor give them greeting; if No, the principle here taught is not applicable.”⁵]

Endnotes

¹ Cf. Steve Wells (2015), “Should Believers Discuss Their Faith with Nonbelievers?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/discuss.html.

² For more information, see “Gnosticism” (1982), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:484-490.

³ Guy N. Woods (1979), New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 349, italics in orig.

⁴ I. Howard Marshall (1978), The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 74, emp. added.

⁵ Woods, pp. 349-350, emp. added.

The post Biblical Consistency and the Believer’s Treatment of False Teachers appeared first on Apologetics Press.

So what does the Bible actually say about the death of King Saul?

• First Samuel 31 reveals that Saul “was severely wounded by the archers” (31:3) in Israel’s battle with the Philistines. In fact, it appears that he knew he was mortally wounded because he instructed his armorbearer, saying, “‘Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me.’ But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore, Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him” (31:4-5).
• Second Samuel 1 indicates that an Amalekite came to David after Israel’s defeat, presenting him with Saul’s crown and bracelet. The Amalekite told David that, after Saul was wounded and in agonizing pain, the king instructed him to kill him. “So,” the Amalekite said, “I stood over him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen” (1:8-10).
• Later in 2 Samuel, when David gathered and buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan, the inspired writer noted that “the Philistines had struck down Saul” (21:12).
• Lastly, the chronicler addressed the death of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, saying, “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore He [the Lord] killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.”

The skeptic wants to know whether Saul killed himself, or if he was killed by the Amalekite, the Philistines, or God. How are these verses not, as Dennis McKinsey put it, “versus”?—“1 Samuel 31:4…versus 2 Samuel 21:12…versus 2 Samuel 1:8-10…versus 1 Chronicles 10:14.”³ How are these scriptures not contradictory?

Differentiating Between a Lie and Inspired Truth

The reader must keep in mind that the Bible writers recorded a number of lies made by various people: Satan lied to Eve (Genesis 3:4); Cain lied to God (Genesis 4:9); Samson lied to Delilah (Judges 16:1-22); David lied to Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-2); The older prophet of 1 Kings 13 lied to the younger prophet—a lie that cost the younger prophet his life; Job’s “friends” repeatedly made false allegations about him throughout the book of Job; Jesus’ enemies frequently lied about Him; etc. Keep in mind that many of the lies recorded in Scripture were told without further comment by the inspired writers. That is, the writers rarely stopped to identify and condemn the lies explicitly (e.g., Moses never explicitly called Satan’s statement in Genesis 3:4 a lie). Instead, the reader is expected to fairly infer what is implied (i.e., God told the truth, while Satan lied).

The young Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:8-10 told a story that directly contradicts the inspired writer’s account only a few verses earlier. [NOTE: 1 and 2 Samuel were originally one book. Thus, 1 Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 1:10 are only separated by 20 brief verses within the same book.] Furthermore, we would not even have the young Amalekite’s words were they not written down by the writer of Samuel. Are we really supposed to conclude that the writer of Samuel could not recall who killed Saul within 20 verses?

Think about it: Who was lying in Genesis 2:17 and 3:4—God or Satan? Who was guilty of speaking falsehoods about Job—the inspired writer (Job 1:1), or Job’s “friendly” false accusers whom the writer quoted at length (e.g., Job 4-5; cf. 42:7-9)? To ask is to answer. Similarly, it should be relatively easy to differentiate between the truthful account of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31 and the dishonest report of the young Amalekite (recorded by the same penman) in 2 Samuel 1.

Why would the Amalekite lie, some ask? We are not told. Likely he thought his story, along with Saul’s crown and bracelet, would bring him favor with Saul’s worst enemy and the next king of Israel. He probably had in mind a reward of riches, honor, and power. Instead, David chose to execute him for having the audacity to end the life of (or at least say he ended the life of) a king previously chosen by God Himself (1 Samuel 9). The Amalekite alleged to do something that even David himself would not do (1 Samuel 24:6).

Did the Philistines Kill Saul?

Even if 2 Samuel 1 can be logically explained, what about 2 Samuel 21:12 where the reader is reminded that “the Philistines had struck down Saul”? How can this be true if Saul killed himself (1 Samuel 31:4-6)? Two brief responses should adequately and reasonably answer this inquiry.

First, the words “struck down” (KJV; NKJV; NASB; NIV) are translated from the Hebrew nâkâh. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs, in their respected Hebrew lexicon, nâkâh can mean everything from “to strike, smite, hit,” and “beat,” to “kill.”⁴ In his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, noted Hebrew scholar William Gesenius remarked that nâkâh can mean anything from striking to killing, but it is used “mostly in the sense of hurting.”⁵ The King James translators used various words to translate nâkâh throughout the Old Testament, including beat, smite, strike, punish, slay, kill, etc. The simple fact is, the penman of 2 Samuel 21:12 could easily have meant that King Saul was seriously struck down on Mount Gilboa, and not that the Philistines “killed him.”

Second, even if it could be proved that 2 Samuel 21:12 means the Philistines “killed” Saul in Gilboa, is there not a legitimate, general sense in which that term could be used? Consider the 21^st-century soldier who is mortally wounded in the heat of battle but makes it to a hospital in time to be hooked up to a number of machines, which help to extend his life for a few days. If doctors later remove the ventilator, feeding tube, etc., from the soldier (at the family’s request), and he quickly dies, what might people truthfully report about the man’s death? Surely that he gave his life in the line of duty—that he was “struck down in the heat of battle” while valiantly serving his country. Did the family and doctors kill the soldier, or did the enemy? In one immediate sense, the soldier finally died after being unplugged from various life-sustaining machines. Yet, most everyone would fairly and sensibly see the reality of the matter: a courageous soldier was killed in battle.

In a similar way (though not so courageously), the wicked King Saul was apparently mortally wounded by the Philistines. “The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded” (1 Samuel 31:3). He knew he was “done for.” The battle was lost to the Philistines, and he chose to inflict the final, fatal blow upon himself rather than waiting for what he knew was inevitable. In a more immediate, literal sense, did Saul kill himself? Yes. Is there also a general sense in which one might honestly say the Philistines killed Saul? Surely most fair-minded people would say so.

Did God Kill Saul?

Many years later (between 500-450 B.C.),⁶ when the chronicler recorded his account of the events surrounding Saul’s death, he also wrote about the Philistine archers who struck Saul (1 Chronicles 10:3), as well as Saul’s subsequent decision to fall on his sword and die (10:4-5). However, the chronicler added the following: “So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance. But he did not inquire of the Lord; therefore He killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse” (10:13-14). Thus, the skeptics claim “contradiction” on this front as well. “How could God have killed Saul if Saul killed himself?”

In the same sense in which “the Lord set a king over” Israel (1 Samuel 12:13; cf. 10:24), the Lord “killed” Saul. Throughout Scripture, the Bible writers repeatedly testify to how God works and accomplishes things providentially (i.e., “God orchestrates His will through natural laws”).⁷ Did Samuel make Saul a king over Israel? Yes (1 Samuel 12:1). Did the Bible writer not also contend that Israel “made Saul king”? Yes (1 Samuel 11:15). Still, God “was behind” it all. He knew, and His inspired writers prophesied hundreds of years earlier, that Israel would have a king (Genesis 36:31; Deuteronomy 17:14-15). God worked this out “behind the scenes,” while using Samuel and the children of Israel to accomplish His will.

In like manner, God knew ahead of time (1) that He was going to punish Saul for his sins, and (2) how He was going to punish Saul. In fact, He informed Saul of such retribution through the prophet Samuel. The God-inspired prophet revealed to Saul, “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king” (1 Samuel 15:23). What’s more, God used the spirit of Samuel to speak to Saul from the realm of the dead. Exactly one day before Saul’s death, God arranged for the departed soul of Samuel to speak to Saul a divinely inspired message, saying,

[T]he Lord has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also deliver the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines (1 Samuel 28:17-19).

Did the Lord use the Philistines to kill Saul? Yes. Was God working providentially to arrange such warranted capital punishment? Absolutely. God knew what He was going to do, how He was going to do it, and when it would be accomplished. Indeed, as the chronicler recorded (1 Chronicles 10:13-14), there is a legitimate sense in which God justifiably killed Saul. Such Divine operation through various individuals and nations (such as the Philistines) is seen consistently throughout Scripture. The same God Who created the world with “the breath of His mouth” (Psalm 33:6), and the same God Who is currently “upholding all things with the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3), is the same God Who has worked and currently is orchestrating His will through natural laws. Anyone who is very familiar with the Bible should not be surprised to read truthful expressions such as “He [God] killed him [Saul],” even if God did not actually “pull the trigger.”

Conclusion

Answering the question, “Who killed King Saul?” provides Bible students with a golden opportunity to be reminded of three vital principles of interpretation. First, context is always critical to any correct understanding of any account or conversation. Part of getting “context” is identifying “who is talking?” In the case of 2 Samuel 1, an uninspired Amalekite is alleging to have killed King Saul, and one should no more believe his claim than we should believe that Cain didn’t know where Abel was or Samson didn’t know from whence his strength came.

Second, remember that a “contradiction” is not a “contradiction” if words are used in different senses. In the case of “Who killed King Saul?,” God, Saul, and the Philistines all truthfully “killed” him in different senses.

Third and finally, the Bible writers often harmoniously supplemented each other’s accounts. Reading all accounts gives the Bible student the best understanding of anything and everything the Bible teaches.⁸ Since the “sum” or “entirety” of God’s “word is truth” (Psalm 119:160), we should refrain from lazy, faulty, “partial” interpretations, and we should hunger for all of God’s Word, which when rightly divided, gives us the complete, truthful picture that God has painted for us.⁹

Endnotes

¹ Dennis McKinsey (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 71.

² Steve Wells (2013), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB), p. 1610.

³ McKinsey, p. 71.

⁴ Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/5221.html.

⁵ William Gesenius (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/5221.html.

⁶ See Eric Lyons (2017), “A Flawed Assumption Many Make About Kings and Chronicles,” https://apologeticspress.org/a-flawed-assumption-many-make-about-kings-and-chronicles-5421/.

⁷ Kyle Butt (2016), “God’s Providence and the Problem of Evil,” https://apologeticspress.org/gods-providence-and-the-problem-of-evil-5294/.

⁸ Or any book for that matter. We best understand rulebooks, math books, biographies, etc. when we read them in their totality. Why would we not read the Bible in this same manner—and even more carefully and thoroughly if it is, in fact, the Word of God?

⁹ Cf. 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17; cf. also Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19.

The post Who Killed King Saul? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

“When I read Genesis 5, the numbers appear mythical. I don’t mean in length, but the actual, statistical likelihood that there are ten zeros in the list and many fives. In fact, almost everything follows a zero. Adam lived 800 years after his son. Noah had his children at 500 years old, and the flood started when Noah was 600 years old, and he lived 350 years after the flood. Enoch was taken after 300 years. There is no deviation or variation. It’s like the author was either unable to do math, or made it too simple, or was just making it up—thus all the zeros. Can you help with this issue?”

A:

Normally, when people ask questions about the numbers in Genesis 5, the discussion centers on the long lifespans of the patriarchs (e.g., “How could Methuselah live to be 969 years old?”). This question, however, considers the likelihood of so many of the patriarchs’ lifespans, as well as their ages when they had sons, ending in 0 or 5. Are Moses’ numbers made up?

First, keep in mind that simply because something may initially seem improbable does not necessarily make it impossible or incorrect. Many Bible questions are more clearly answered once we delve more deeply into the biblical, historical, and cultural context. For example, in the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it. The Bible writers could truthfully equate “on the third,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” (even though such language may initially sound contradictory to us).

Second, there actually is some variation from “0” and “5” endings in Genesis 5. The lifespans of four of the ten patriarchs end in numbers other than 0 and 5. Seth died at 912, Jared at 962, Methuselah at 969, and Lamech at 777 (Genesis 5:8,20,27,31). Furthermore, the ages at which Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech had sons ended with numbers other than 0 and 5 (Genesis 5:18,25,28). A person may question the amount of variation within Genesis 5, but there is variation. What’s more, there is even more variation of numbers in Genesis 11 in the list of 10 Messianic ancestors between Noah’s son, Shem, and Abram (11:10-32).

Third, there obviously was some rounding of numbers up or down. Since there were no days, weeks, or months mentioned in Genesis 5, the numbers clearly include a rounding to the nearest year. Do we not often truthfully and acceptably round up or down all sorts of numbers? When someone asks (at 10:59), “What’s the time?” is it wrong to say it’s 11:00? Is it dishonest to say, “We just drove 800 miles,” when we actually drove 789 miles? Is it a lie to say a car costs $10,000 when it really costs $9,999? God neither lies nor approves of lying (Titus 1:2; Ephesians 5:25); however, rounding numbers (when no deceit is intended) is acceptable and often customary. In fact, the person who says, “I’m 22 years, 11 months, 28 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes, and 22 seconds old,” rather than simply saying “22” or “23,” is being excessively specific (and annoying). The rounding of numbers is often a welcomed relief.

Finally, even if all 10 patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5 did have children or pass away at an age that ended in a 5 or 0 (which was not the case), such ages would not make the numbers wrong. They might seem statistically unlikely, but how many times in human history has something happened that seemed statistically unlikely? Has someone ever rolled a pair of dice 10 times and 10 times in a row got a total of 5 or 10? Probably. How many times could someone roll a pair of dice and not get combinations that equal seven? In 2009, a woman did this 157 times in a row, which reportedly is a 1 in 1.56 trillion chance. Yet, it happened.

Though the numbers in Genesis 5 may seem unusual at first glance, a more thorough consideration helps to clarify the matter. In truth, the number-endings are neither impossible nor unlikely.

Endnotes

¹ See Eric Lyons (2004), “Did Jesus Rise ‘On” or ‘After’ the Third Day?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-rise-on-or-after-the-third-day-756/.

² And is technically still rounding to the nearest second (and not tenth of a second or hundredth of a second, etc.).

³ Claire Suddath (2009), “Holy Craps! How a Gambling Grandma Broke the Record,” TIME, May 29, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901663,00.html.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ For questions pertaining to some of the different numbers given in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, see the excellent article by Dr. Justin Rogers (2020), “Can I Trust the Numbers in Genesis 5?”, Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/can-i-trust-the-numbers-in-genesis-5-5849/.

The post Q&A: Number Endings in Genesis 5 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Looking back on that event over 50 years later, I shudder to imagine the extent to which destructive seeds of doubt were sown in the hearts of numerous young people regarding the divine authenticity of the Bible and Christian morality. Such a dismissive, cavalier attitude on the part of a person placed in a position of authority no doubt wielded a monumental impact on juvenile minds. Yet his surface, superficial treatment of Scripture betrayed an abject ignorance of the Bible as well as what can only be described as extreme prejudice. “Prejudice” is defined as “an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.”¹ The teacher had pre-judged the Bible, having come to a conclusion that was based on inadequate evidence. It was the Sixties—a time when sinister forces were operating to overthrow the founding principles of America. As Bob Dylan’s 1964 song declared: “The Times They Are a-Changin’.”²

Since that time, attacks on the Bible and the Christian religion have intensified and become common place throughout the public educational system of the nation. For decades now, many professors, instructors, and teachers at every level of schooling have been brazen and fearless in their relentless assault upon the religious and spiritual moorings of America. Their hostility toward God, the Bible, and Christianity have come to thoroughly permeate and dominate public education. Their skepticism has burgeoned into acceptance of ideologies that forthrightly reject the Christian worldview, including atheism, Marxism, and eastern religion. In the meantime, no telling how many millions of Americans—from childhood to adulthood—have lived their lives since then, having rejected Christianity based on such flimsy misinformation foisted upon them via the flawed beliefs of their mistaught teachers.

But “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Legion have been the skeptics over the last 2,000 years who have maintained that the Bible contradicts itself. An innumerable host of alleged discrepancies have been brought boldly forward and foisted upon an unsuspecting audience. Yet, scores of volumes have been written over the centuries that provide logical, decisive refutation of all such allegations leveled at the Bible. They have all been adequately answered and the Bible fully exonerated—providing yet additional proof of its own divine origin.³

The nature of human existence is such that all human beings are under obligation to weigh the evidence and arrive at the truth. All are fully capable of doing so—and all will be held accountable for doing so. Those who lack the will or interest to do so will be judged accordingly. Jesus stated forthrightly: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Paul enjoined: “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). And as John insisted: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Whether that young student-teacher realized it or not, he functioned as a false prophet that day in that Phoenix school classroom. It was the responsibility of all who listened to him to do as the noble Bereans who “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

By the way, what about the alleged contradiction touted by the student-teacher before the classroom filled with vulnerable, naïve youth? Even a casual, surface analysis of the Bible shows that the “eye for an eye” allusion refers to the Lex Talionis⁴ of the Old Law which were designed to limit the amount of punishment by making it fit the crime (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Hence, these laws were built into the Hebrew civil law code for the purpose of regulating civil society in 1500 B.C. The latter allusion, “turn the other cheek,” is a reference to Jesus’ remark in the Sermon on the Mount in which He was teaching the necessity of not being vengeful or retaliatory when a person is mistreated by another person (Matthew 5:38-42). Incredibly, the two references have nothing to do with each other, apply to completely different circumstances, and in no way constitute a biblical contradiction. Using them to level such a lame accusation demonstrates, to say the least, gross rhetorical incompetence.

Endnotes

¹ Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prejudice.

² Bob Dylan (1963/1964), “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Bob Dylan Newsletter, https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/.

³ See the three volumes in The Anvil Rings series at https://store.apologeticspress.org/collections/books/products/apbkel0001.

⁴ “The lex talionis gave permission for mutual injury”—Edward Young (1964), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 111; See also Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, eds. (2001), The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 543; William Miller (2006),  Eye for an Eye (New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 65.

The post “Everybody Knows the Bible Contradicts Itself” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In comparing the two accounts of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant, Matthew indicates that the centurion came to Jesus personally. At the same time, Luke explains that he sent others to plead with Jesus on his (and his servant’s) behalf. How can both of these accounts be true?

A:

The accounts in question are found in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Indeed, Matthew indicates that “when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him” (Matthew 8:5). On the other hand, Luke notes that when the centurion “heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant” (Luke 7:3; cf. 7:6). Do the differences in these accounts demand that we judge them contradictory, or can they be reasonably and justly harmonized?

To help answer this question, consider a scenario where the President of the United States sends two individuals from his administration to your house with an official invitation to dine at the White House. What might you truthfully tell your friends about this encounter? To one friend, you might give every detail, describing the two individuals who came to your house, what they said to you, and how you responded to them, etc. To another friend, you might simply say, “The President has asked me to come to eat at the White House, and I told him, ‘Yes!’” The two different versions you tell are totally different, but both are true. How can the second account be truthful? Because “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”¹—a legal principle (known as the “law of agency”)² that billions of people around the world have understood and accepted for millennia.³

Though some may not like it, and others (who continually cry “Bible contradiction”) may “not have it,”⁴ the fact is, the Bible writers frequently (and logically) employed this widely practiced and accepted, legal principle of proxy in their penning of Scripture. Before turning our attention back to the centurion’s interaction with Jesus, consider a few (of the many) examples of the “law of agency” in Scripture.

• Moses wrote about Joseph, who was second in command of all of Egypt (Genesis 41:37-44), repeatedly doing things that he undoubtedly ordered to be done (and not literally done by him). The text says that Joseph “gathered…and laid up the food in the cities; he laid up in every city the food of the fields which surrounded them. Joseph gathered very much grain, as the sand of the sea, until he stopped counting” (Genesis 41:48-49). Later, “Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians” (Genesis 41:56). “Joseph” also “gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house” (Genesis 47:14). What’s more, “Joseph gave” and “fed” the Egyptians “with bread in exchange for all their livestock” (Genesis 47:17). Most everyone easily and rightly understands that all these statements are made in light of Joseph’s authority and not of him personally doing each and every one of these individual tasks (on behalf of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of people). It truthfully can be said that what Joseph authorized and commanded, “he did.” Like all sorts of leaders in the past and present, Joseph was viewed as ultimately responsible for Egypt’s success or failure (at least during seven years of plenty and seven years of famine—Genesis 41:1-47:26). All those actions done on Joseph’s behalf were done (in a very real sense) “by Joseph.”
• At one point, Joseph reminded his brothers that they had sold him “into Egypt” (Genesis 45:4), when technically they sold him to the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), who in turn sold him into Egypt. Nearly 2,000 years later, Stephen used Joseph’s same language to describe Joseph being sold by his brothers “into Egypt”—Acts 7:9. Truly, this type of speech was used, understood, and perfectly acceptable among Israel for 2,000 years!
• The Gospel writers frequently use such acceptable legal language throughout their accounts of the life of Christ. For example, John wrote that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though,” John explains, “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-2).
• Prior to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all indicate that He instructed two of His disciples, saying, “Go…find a colt…and bring it here” (Luke 19:30; Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:2). The disciples then “brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (Mark 11:7; cf. Matthew 21:7; Luke 19:35). Yet, when John briefly addresses these same events, he simply notes, “Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it” (12:14). Did Jesus personally obtain the donkey? No. However, what Jesus commanded, “He did” (in the “law-of-agency” sense).
• One of the most well-known examples of this type of language is found in Acts 1:18. Luke mentions that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity,” yet literally it was the chief priests who used the deceased Judas’s 30 pieces of silver, which he had returned to them, to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:3-10).

The accounts of Jesus speaking “to the centurion” are easily harmonized by considering that (1) “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”; and (2) the Bible writers frequently used this language throughout Scripture. Did the humble centurion⁵ plead with Jesus via the Jewish elders (in Luke 7:3) and through his friends (in Luke 7:6)? Yes. Did Jesus respond to the centurion through these same men? It certainly seems so (Matthew 8:7; Luke 7:3-9). Might it also be the case that at some point, the centurion personally came to where Jesus and the crowd were located in Capernaum, but not necessarily in Jesus’ immediate presence? Yes. And, though not demanded, could it be that Jesus also momentarily bypassed the proxy and spoke directly to the centurion? Indeed, such is possible.

Whereas Matthew gives a more summarized view of the interaction between Jesus and the centurion, omitting the technical details regarding those who were sent on the centurion’s behalf (Luke 7:3-8), Luke includes those details. On the other hand, whereas Matthew includes more of Jesus’ hard-hitting speech on this occasion (Matthew 8:10-13), Luke gives a very abbreviated form (Luke 7:9). As expected from two honest, independent writers, we have two different (but harmonious!) accounts.

Endnotes

¹ From the Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se.”

² See “Agency Law and Legal Definition” (2021), USLegal, https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/agency/.

³ If a man hires an assassin to murder the President, both the assassin and the man who hired him would be guilty of murder. In fact, the “man behind the murder” (who didn’t actually pull the trigger yet proposed and funded it) would likely be prosecuted to a greater degree and given a more severe sentence upon being found guilty “of murder.” Indeed, “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself.”

⁴ That is, they seem unwilling to listen to any possible explanation that potentially absolves the Bible writers of error.

⁵ Who, as a Roman soldier leading 100 men, would have been accustomed to “doing things” through the soldiers under his command.

The post Did Jesus Actually Speak to the Centurion? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In Genesis 22:2, God instructed Abraham, saying, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” The Telegraph of London highlighted this verse as “No. 8” in its article, “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages.”¹ Popular atheist Penn Jillette referred to this passage in his popular video titled, “How Did You Become an Atheist?”² And, in his 2009 debate with my colleague Kyle Butt, American atheist Dan Barker asked the audience to “remember the thing about when Abraham—he [God] asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. By the way, Abraham should have said, ‘No way, I’m better than you, I’m not going to kill my son.’”³

Is Genesis 22:2 really a good Bible verse to use to spread atheism? Should this passage of Scripture logically lead people away from the Bible and the God of Abraham?

Does Atheism Not Justify the Killing of Humans?

Prior to a discussion of Genesis 22, one is compelled to ask the atheist upon what basis he deems the killing of a child as wrong or evil? As leading unbelievers have admitted, atheism logically implies, “Everything is permitted,”⁴ including murder. Do atheists not frequently justify the murder of unborn children? Renowned atheist Peter Singer indicated in 2000 that it would not even be wrong to kill a disabled child who had already been born. He wrote: “[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”⁵

Thirteen years later, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article by secular bioethicists Dr. Alberto Giubilini⁶ and Dr. Francesca Minerva⁷ in which they argued “that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”⁸ Taking atheism to its logical conclusion, they continued, declaring:

The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being…. Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) childrequiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of….⁹

Giubilini and Minerva concluded, saying:

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy…then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn….

[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

[W]e do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion…. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.¹⁰

Yes, some leading atheists have been bold enough to take their earthly, naturalistic, evolutionary ideas to their logical conclusion (at least theoretically), arguing for the killing of healthy, innocent newborns, even when others would love to adopt the children.¹¹

Thus, some of the world’s leading atheists have justified murdering human beings, even when doing so means the taking of the only life that child will have (according to naturalistic atheism). So how exactly can atheists objectively and non-hypocritically condemn God and Abraham in Genesis 22?

It Was a “Test”

Even still, Genesis 22 poses no real problem. Why? Because God did not actually intend for Abraham to kill his son as a burnt offering; God’s command was only a “test” (22:1). When a mother asks her young son (whom she watched from a distance make a mess), “Who did this?” the question is not asked for informational purposes. She is testing her son to see if he will tell the truth and take responsibility for his actions. When a teacher gives her class what appears to be an impossible-to-pass, closed-book test (the contents of which have never been covered in class), the students may initially think their teacher is being terribly unfair. However, the students later learn that the test was actually “a test” of their character: who all would be honest and take their “F” versus who would dishonestly cheat on the test in order to get an “A”? In the end, those who “failed” were actually given a “100,” while those who “passed” were given a “0.” At first, before all the facts were known, the teacher seemed quite unfair; but in the end, the students learned an important life-lesson, while also discovering that their teacher was actually very just and wise.

Scripture reveals that God has occasionally asked questions and made statements that were meant, not in the more normal ways, but as “teaching moments” or “tests.” In John 6, Jesus asked Philip about the great multitude who followed Him, saying, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” (John 6:5). But Jesus asked the question “to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do” (6:6). Would Philip and the apostles recall that Jesus miraculously had furnished more than 100 gallons of a tasty beverage at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (in John 2) and conclude that Jesus alone could just as easily miraculously feed thousands of people on this occasion if He so desired? Or, would the disciples worry themselves with the large number of people and the limited natural resources? Jesus knew they were not going to purchase food for the multitude, but He still asked the question—because it was a test of their faith. He made it a growing moment.

On another occasion, Jesus tested a Gentile woman (Matthew 15:21-28). Initially (and superficially), one might conclude that Jesus was rude and unloving to the woman who asked Him, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed” (15:22-27). However, many people miss the fact that Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples (who earlier claimed that the Pharisees were offended at His preaching—15:12) how the tenderhearted respond to potential offensive truths. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who, earlier in the chapter, responded to Jesus’ “hard preaching” with hard-heartedness (Matthew 15:1-12), a Gentile woman seeking assistance from Jesus acknowledged her unworthiness and persistently pursued the Holy One for help, even in the face of a difficult, divinely orchestrated test. In the end, Jesus did what He knew He was going to do all along—He healed the humble woman’s demon-possessed daughter.¹²

So what does all of this have to do with Abraham in Genesis 22? Simply that God never actually wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son—anymore than Jesus wanted His disciples to purchase bread to feed thousands of people, or than He wanted to withhold healing from a Gentile woman’s daughter. Abraham’s faith was tested, and He passed the test without ever killing Isaac (Hebrews 11:17).

In fact, had Abraham actually killed Isaac, he would have disobeyed God, since at the moment when Abraham was about to slay his son, “The Angel  of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!… Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him’” (Genesis 22:11-12).

Admittedly, God’s test of Abraham was a deep and difficult experience for the patriarch. But keep in mind that God knew all along (1) it was a test, and (2) that the passing of the test did not actually include Abraham killing Isaac. The patriarch demonstrated such great, trusting commitment to God that he would be willing to not withhold (22:12) even his most precious, promised son, if that is what his Master asked of him.

[NOTE: Although Abraham did not know that God was testing him (any more than the disciples and the Gentile woman mentioned earlier knew that Jesus was testing them), Abraham stood firmly upon the promises of God. The Lord had guaranteed him saying, “Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him…. My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear….  At the appointed time I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son” (Genesis 17:19,21; 18:14). “And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him—whom Sarah bore to him—Isaac” (21:1-3). Once more God reminded Abraham that “in Isaac your seed shall be called” (21:12). The same God who tested Abraham’s faithfulness only a few verses later (in Genesis 22), is the same God Who had recently promised him that Isaac would have many offspring (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:16; 17:2,4-6,16). Thus, Abraham concluded that, though he might kill his son at God’s trying command, God would virtually immediately raise him from the dead.

Abraham’s insight and confidence is exhibited when he said to the young men who accompanied him and Isaac on part of their journey: “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you” (Genesis 22:5). Notice that Abraham did not say that “I” will come back to you, but “we” (Abraham and Isaac) “will come back to you.” As the Hebrews writer notes, Abraham was willing to offer up Isaac, “concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (11:19). Such complete trust is what God wants from anyone who seeks after Him (Matthew 16:24-25; Philippians 1:21).¹³]

Endnotes

¹ “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages” (2009), Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html, emp. added.

² Penn Jillette (2010), “How Did You Become an Atheist?” BigThink, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w.

³ Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Dan Barker vs. Kyle Butt (2009), Apologetics Press, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnk4UCvY89U.

⁴ Jean-Paul Sartre (1989), “Existentialism is Humanism,” in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, trans. Philip Mairet (Meridian Publishing Company), http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm, emp. added.

⁵ Peter Singer (2000), Writings on an Ethical Life (New York: Harper Collins), p. 193, emp. added.

⁶ Dr. Giubilini is a “Senior Research fellow on the Oxford Martin Programme on Collective Responsibility for Infectious Disease” (https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-alberto-giubilini).

⁷ Dr. Francesca Minerva is currently a research fellow at the University of Milan. Much of her work is in the area of applied ethics. She is also the co-founder and co-editor of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. For more information, see www.francescaminerva.com.

⁸ Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (2013), “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Journal of Medical Ethics, 39[5]:261, https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/39/5/261.full.pdf, emp. added; https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.

⁹ Ibid., 39[5]:263.

¹⁰ Ibid., emp. added.

¹¹ Giubilini and Minerva wrote: “What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption” (39[5]:263).

¹² For more discussion on this test, see Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2011), “Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3797&b=Matthew.

¹³ For further insight into the biblical teaching on life, death, and eternity, see Eric Lyons (2022), “Making Sense of Life and Death,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/making-sense-of-life-and-death/.

The post Is Genesis 22:2 a Reason to Reject the God of the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The YouTube channel BigThink, featured popular American magician, actor, and entertainer Penn Jillette in a video titled “How Did You Become an Atheist?” The video has been viewed some 2.5 million times. In it, Jillette stated: “I read the Bible, cover to cover. And I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist, if you read the Bible…cover to cover, I believe you will emerge from that as an atheist…. The Bible itself will turn you atheist faster than anything.”¹

When Penn Jillette was asked, “Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?” he said, “Because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing.” He then gave his first specific example of what will make a person an atheist, saying: “When you see Lot’s daughter gang raped and beaten and the Lord being okay with that.”²

Indeed, in an attempt to protect two guests in his house, Lot offered his two daughters to an angry mob of homosexuals in Sodom, saying, “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish” (Genesis 19:8).³ As incomprehensible and detestable as Lot’s actions were, there is nothing in Genesis 19 or anywhere in Scripture that indicates God was “okay with that” (as Jillette contends). Quite the opposite, in fact. Genesis 19 actually reveals that the two guests, who were really angels sent by God, did not allow anything to happen to Lot’s daughters. Rather, they struck the wicked men of Sodom with blindness and later safely ushered Lot’s daughters (as well as Lot and his wife) out of the repulsively sinful city prior to God destroying it (19:12-25).

[NOTE: To read more about whether or not Lot was “righteous,” see https://apologeticspress.org/righteous-lot-2400/.] 

Endnotes

¹ Penn Jillette (2010), “How Did You Become an Atheist?” BigThink, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w.

² Ibid.

³ He also later became drunk and impregnated his daughters, albeit unknowingly (Genesis 19:30-36).

The post Is Genesis 19:8 a Reason to Reject the God of the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many Christians foolishly and hypocritically avoid the Bible’s teaching on hell, but refer regularly to Scripture’s allusion to heaven. Yet, as Russell and many other critics of Christ are very well aware, according to Jesus and the Bible writers, “eternal punishment” is just as much a reality as “eternal life.” After explaining to His disciples how God will separate the righteous from the wicked at the Judgment (Matthew 25:31-45), Jesus concluded by telling them that the wicked “shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life” (25:46, ASV).³ Earlier He stated that the wicked will be sent away “into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Hell’s fire “shall never be quenched” (Mark 9:43), the figurative “worm” that eats on the flesh of hell’s inhabitants “does not die” (Mark 9:48), and the wicked who find themselves in hell (due to their rejection of God’s gracious gift of salvation through Christ) “shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, RSV). As it was in Sodom, when God “rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all, even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30). Thus, as Jesus taught, “My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:4-5).

Bertrand Russell accused Jesus’ preaching to be full of “vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His [Jesus’] preaching.” “You do not,” he contrasted, “find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane towards the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.” He added:

I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world…. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

So there you have it: how can people believe and accept the message of the chroniclers of Christ (i.e., the Gospel writers), when such accounts are full of hell-fire-and-brimstone preaching?

Consider four reasons why Jesus’ and the Bible’s teachings on hell logically should not make anyone an atheist. First, Bertrand Russell stated that he did not “feel” that any “humane” person can believe in eternal punishment, and since Christ did, then He had a “defect” in His “moral” character. Yet, truth, objectivity, and logical argumentation are not based upon people’s feelings. Atheists cannot logically condemn the Bible’s teaching about hell as objectively “inhumane” and “immoral,” while simultaneously believing that human beings arose by chance from rocks and rodents over billions of years. If an eternal, supernatural Creator does not exist, then objective⁴ goodness and wickedness, justice and cruelty cannot logically exist. Actual good and evil, fairness and unfairness can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference—“some objective standard…which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.”⁵ Indeed, the best that atheists can “argue” about the biblical teaching of hell is that they “feel” like it is “immoral,” but they cannot actually prove such.

Second, atheists and agnostics also fail in their assessment of hell because they fail to grasp what the Bible teaches about the reality, offensiveness, and severity of sin. This failure should come as no surprise because a person cannot have a proper view of sin without having a proper view of God and the Bible. Once a person comes to know that God exists and the Bible is His Word,⁶ he then learns that there are no “white lies,” innocent “alternative lifestyles,” or mere “affairs.” There is only Truth or lies. There is only God’s infinite right way versus all of the prideful ways of man. There is only pure holiness versus repulsive unholiness. There is only light and darkness. And, since “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), His innately pure and holy nature will not allow Him to tolerate lawlessness (Habakkuk 1:13; Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 John 3:4).

Third, God’s perfect justice demands punishment for wrongdoing. The Bible reveals that God is 100% just. There is nothing unfair about Him. “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,” exclaimed the psalmist (89:14). “All of His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4). A just judge is one who shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 1:17), and God “shows no partiality nor takes a bribe” (Deuteronomy 10:17). A corrupt judge allows the guilty to go unpunished, while a just judge pronounces righteous judgment upon lawbreakers. “[H]e who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality” (Colossians 3:25). The guilty cannot “buy” their way out of punishment. They can’t “flirt” their way out of righteous judgment. Similar to how citizens of an earthly kingdom rightly rejoice at the pronouncement of punishment for the wicked, humanity should rejoice that we have a just Judge who also punishes evildoers.

“But wait a minute! A just judge wouldn’t punish people forever!” Says who? Says the sinner who has a shallow, flippant view of the wretchedness of sin and the holiness of God? Says the sinner who did the crime but doesn’t like the time? Says the person who is not perfectly impartial? Says the person who knows virtually nothing compared to the omniscience of God? What’s more, aren’t just and fair sentences and punishments (even in the physical realm) often much, much longer than the amount of time the crime actually took to commit? A man can murder an innocent person in only one second and yet justly spend the next 1.5 billion seconds (or 50 years) in prison. Certainly the thought of being punished forever and ever is a sobering, scary thought, but in truth, only the omniscient, infinitely wise, and perfectly just Judge is in a position to decide appropriate punishment for unforgiven sin. In truth, a rejection of God based upon the biblical teaching of hell is a rejection based upon emotion, not evidence.

Fourth and finally, though “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and though all sinners deserve eternal punishment, because of God’s perfect love, no one has to go to hell. God has given us an all-powerful, spiritual lifeline (Romans 1:16). Indeed, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Some unbelievers love to talk about God’s “vindictive fury,” but they willfully ignore the overall theme of the Bible—“God is love” (1 John 4:8). He doesn’t want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). 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. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17). Indeed, God is so loving that He not only warned us of the eternal consequences of unforgiven sin,⁷ but even when we succumbed to sin, God took upon Himself the punishment for our sins, that we might be saved! So why will many people still go to eternal hell? Because they choose to. Because they “trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was [they were] sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29).

Endnotes

¹ Bertrand Russell (1927), “Why I Am Not a Christian,” https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html, emp. added.

² Ibid.

³ For a detailed response to annihilationists who claim “eternal” hell is not a reference to “time” or “duration,” but only an allusion to its “nature,” see Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2005), “The Eternality of Hell [Parts 1 & 2], Apologetics Press, Reason & Revelation, January & February, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1474&topic=427; http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1475.

⁴ Independent of people’s feelings.

⁵ Thomas B. Warren and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 284.

⁶ See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2017), Reasons to Believe (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 1-50.

⁷ Though Bertrand Russell criticized Christ for preaching on hell, while praising Socrates for being “bland and urbane towards people who would not listen to him,” Socrates was not dealing with the absolute, most important message that man could ever hear: the way to eternal life versus the tragedy of eternal punishment. Logically speaking, Jesus’ warning others about hell was one of the most loving things that He (or anyone) could preach. After all, if His preaching on hell convinced men to follow God’s gracious “way” to eternal life (John 14:6), then He saved them from eternal death. No one thinks of firemen, policemen, or doctors as being unkind when they warn others of potential physical harm or death, so how could anyone logically argue that Jesus was being unkind when He warned His hearers of the greatest tragedy of all—eternal, spiritual separation from God?

The post How Can a Loving God Send Souls to Hell? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Admittedly, on the surface, the two statements may appear contradictory. However, there actually is a very simple explanation for the differences in the two verses: Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, while Luke presents the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Thus, Jacob is Joseph’s father (in Matthew 1:16), while Heli is Mary’s (in Luke 3:23).

But how can this be? Luke does not say that Mary is the offspring of Heli; rather, “Joseph” is “the son of Heli.” What logical, biblically sound explanation leads to the rational conclusion that Luke 3 is the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary? Consider the following seven points.

First, the two genealogies are totally different from the time of David to Jesus. It’s not merely that two different “grandfathers” of Jesus are listed—all the names given for the preceding 1,000 years before Christ are different (except in the case of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, where there likely was intermarriage among the two families, or else they were different people who wore the same names). Joseph descended from David’s son, Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), while Mary descended from David’s son, Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Second, Matthew and Luke were writing to different audiences: Matthew to the Jews and Luke to the Greeks. From the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel account, he focused on Jesus’ connection to Abraham and David, from whom the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied that the Messiah would come. Luke, on the other hand, writing to a broader audience, took the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam (the father of all mankind) and to God (the Creator of all mankind).

Third, though writing to a wider audience, Luke follows the Jewish tradition of only mentioning males in a line of descent. David Roper noted: “Women might be mentioned incidentally (Mt. 1:3,5), but the lines of descent were through men…. [A]s a rule, Jews did not include women in genealogies.”³ What’s more, according to Adam Clarke, “whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.”⁴ Thus, Luke gives a fleshly genealogy of the virgin-born Jesus (Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7) through His mother, Mary, though designated by her husband’s name.

Fourth, the terms “son” and “daughter” are used in Scripture in a wide variety of ways. “Son” may mean (among other things) son by actual birth, grandson (Genesis 29:5; cf. 24:24,29), descendant (Matthew 1:1), step son (Matthew 13:55; Luke 4:22), as well as son-in-law (1 Samuel 18:27; cf. 24:16).⁵ Likewise, in addition to the ordinary usage of the word, Bible writers used the term “daughter” to designate daughter-in-law (Ruth 2:2), female descendant (Luke 1:5; 13:16), the women of a particular place taken collectively (Luke 23:28), women in general (Proverbs 31:29), etc.⁶ In short, in different senses, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were all “of Heli.”

Fifth, Matthew tells of the coming and arrival of Jesus from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke writes from Mary’s point of view. Give serious attention to the following narratives of Matthew and Luke and consider how different their overall frame of references are:

• From Matthew (1:18-2:1a):

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king….

• From Luke (1:26-49,56; 2:7,17b-19):

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”

And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name….” And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house….

And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths….

[T]hey [the shepherds] made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.

Given the Gospel writers’ stark differences in perspectives of the accounts of the coming and arrival of Jesus—with Matthew’s clear focus on Joseph and Luke’s heavy attention on Mary—it was perfectly natural for Matthew to give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph and Luke through Mary.

Sixth, the Greek article tou (“the”) is absent before Joseph’s name in Luke’s genealogy of Christ. Yet, as Frederic Godet correctly highlighted, the word occurs before every one of the other names in the genealogy (e.g., the Heli, the Matthat…the Adam, the God).⁷ Godet also noted: “In the genealogy of Matthew, the article ton⁸ is put in the same way before each proper name, which clearly proves that it was the ordinary form in vogue in this kind of document.”⁹ Thus,
“[t]his want of the article [in Luke’s genealogy—EL] puts the name Joseph outside the genealogical series properly so called, and assigns to it a peculiar position.”¹⁰ Perhaps such peculiarity is a heavy hint of this genealogy being through Jesus’ maternal grandfather (Heli), and not Joseph.

Finally, “If Luke were presenting Joseph’s genealogy,” Lenski logically argues, “it would according to his own statement be the genealogy only of the supposed father of Jesus, and of what value would such a genealogy be? No man could find a reference to the legal relation of Joseph to Jesus in hos enomizeto”¹¹ (“as was supposed”).¹² Furthermore, Roper suggests, “The phrase ‘being, as supposed, the son of Joseph’ should probably be thought of as parenthetical, with the words son of Eli [or Heli—EL] referring to Jesus, not Joseph.”¹³ Thus, as A.T. Robertson concluded, “Jesus would…be Heli’s grandson, an allowable meaning of ‘son.’”¹⁴ In fact, not only should

[t]he parenthesis in our versions…be extended to include the name Joseph: “(as was supposed of Joseph).” To shorten it as is done in our versions makes the entire list up to “of God” (v. 38) dependent on “as was supposed,” for there is no way to restrict this clause except by including “of Joseph” in it as a part of the parenthesis.¹⁵

The New Testament Greek manuscripts lack parentheses in Luke 3:23, just as they lack parentheses and all other sorts of punctation throughout (which English Bible translators have added in attempts at greater clarity). Though “as was supposed” is undoubtedly a parenthetical expression, it makes better sense if such includes Joseph [“(as was supposed of Joseph)”]. Had this fuller expression been made parenthetical long ago, fewer individuals might have had difficulties seeing Mary’s ancestry in Luke’s genealogy of Christ.

In conclusion, it is perfectly logical to argue that Luke did not trace Jesus’ legal lineage from Joseph back to David and Abraham (as did Matthew). Rather, he traced the physical bloodline of His virgin mother (not his stepfather) back to David, Abraham, and Adam. Such a logically possible explanation exonerates Luke and Matthew of any error in their penning of Jesus’ genealogies.

Endnotes

¹ Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 46.

²  Ibid., p. 80.

³ David Roper (2003), Truth for Today Commentary: The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications), 1:43.

⁴ Adam Clarke (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁵ In fact, as Dave Miller explained, “[T]he Jews had no word to express this concept [of a son-in-law—EL] and so just used ‘son’” [Dave Miller (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=932].

⁶ See “Daughter” (1996), International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁷ Frederic Godet (1881), A Commentary on The Gospel of St. Luke (New York: I.K. Funk), 1:128, www.google.com/books/edition/A_Commentary_on_the_Gospel_of_St_Luke/htQ2AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1.

⁸ “The Definite Article ‘the’ has various endings (e.g., u and n—EL), which show the function of the word it describes in the sentence” (see “Grammar: The Definite Article,” in Shirley’s Greek Courses, http://www.drshirley.org/greek/grammar/g_def-art.pdf).

⁹ Godet, 1:128.

¹⁰ Ibid.,  emp. added.

¹¹ R.C.H. Lenski (1961), The Interpretation of the St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg), p. 219, emp. in orig.

¹² Joel Green noted in his commentary on Luke that “[o]ther appearances of the verb [nomizo—EL] ‘to think’ or ‘to assume’ [translated ‘as was supposed’ in Luke 3:23—EL] in Luke-Acts show that Luke has in mind an assumption, wrongly made, that leads to persons acting as if it were true” [Joel Green (1997), The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 189, emp. added]. Though obviously assumed to be, Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son.

¹³ Roper, 1:43, emp. in orig.

¹⁴ A.T. Robertson (1950), A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper & Row), p. 261, emp. added.

¹⁵ Lenski, p. 220, emp. added.

The post Who Was Joseph’s Father in Jesus’ Genealogy? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Who were the women who came to the tomb? Matthew said it was Mary Magdalen and the other Mary. Mark said it was Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke said it was Mary Magdalen, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. John said Mary Magdalen….

Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Mark said there was one “young man.”… Luke said there was [sic] two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there’s two angels. See what’s happening here? See how the myth is growing and getting more exaggerated?¹

Indeed, two of the most frequently cited reasons for questioning (and perhaps rejecting, as in the case of Barker) the four resurrection accounts have to do with the identity and number of women who went to the empty tomb of Jesus, as well as who (and how many) they actually found there.

The Women

Many fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Was it essential for the apostle John to mention every woman who came to the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection, or was he at liberty to mention as few as he wanted (John 20:1)? If Mary Magdalene was at the tomb on that Sunday morning, and John recorded that she was there, without ever denying the presence of others (some of whom were mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke), could his record of the events be truthful? Of course. Differences exist among the Gospel writers’ accounts, but no one has proven that they are discrepant. Just as a person might say, “I went to the ball game with Bill, Bob, and Bubba,” he might also truthfully say, “I went to the game with Bill and Betty.” These statements are not necessarily contradictory. One can easily (and honestly) supplement the other. A person may only mention Bill and Betty in one setting when talking to one group (e.g., at worship where the church knows the married couple), while at another setting when talking to a different group (e.g., at the office where only the men are known), he may truthfully just mention the men. We must keep in mind that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote at different times, to different people, for different reasons.

Consider the scenario where four different newspaper reporters are covering the 2021 NBA finals (between the Phoenix Suns and the Milwaukee Bucks). All four writers are from different cities, including Phoenix, Milwaukee, Charleston, South Carolina, and Athens, Greece. Here are the four different headlines from the Bucks’ third win in the series:

• From Phoenix: “Timely Team Effort Lifts Bucks Over Suns”
• From Milwaukee: “Jrue Holiday’s Big Night on Offense and Defense Leads to W”
• From Charleston: “Hometown Hero Kris Middleton Shoots Lights Out in Win”
• From Athens: “Greece’s Giannis Leads the Way for Another Bucks Win”

All four reporters focused on different people in their headlines (and stories) for different reasons for their different audiences. Yet, all four reports were truthful. No reasonable person would accuse the writers of contradicting one another. Similarly, no rational, fair-minded individual should assume the Bible writers were errant in their accounts of the events on the morning of Jesus’ resurrection.

Furthermore, if the Bible writers always told every detail of every account the same way (mentioning the same people, places, things, and events exactly alike), the criticism would then be, “They all copied each other’s accounts. They conspired with one another!” When an experienced detective interviews various suspects regarding a crime, and all four suspects have the exact same alibi (down to the smallest details), the detective will be highly suspicious of such “perfect” repetitiveness—wondering if collusion has taken place to cover up a crime.

One of the many marvels of the Gospel accounts is how similar they are so as not to be contradictory, yet how different they are so as not to be guilty of collusion. This perfect balance of various truthful differences is what should be expected by independent truth-tellers, especially those who were inspired by God.

The Number and Nature of Those Already at the Tomb

The Gospel writers also differ in their accounts of who was at the tomb of Jesus when the women arrived. Regarding the number of individuals present, if there were “two” (as Luke and John specify), then there was at least one (on whom Matthew and Mark focus). Matthew and Mark do not say “there was only one,” but they do mention one individual. As with the number of women who came to the tomb, the number of individuals who were already at the tomb is not contradictory but supplementary. If I tell someone, “I have an old car with a lot of miles on it,” and I tell someone else, “I own two old cars you should check out,” I have not contradicted myself. Both statements are factual. Simply because I did not mention both cars in the first conversation is not a denial of owning more than one older car. It’s quite telling how easily skeptics can understand the legitimacy of supplementation not being equivalent to a contradiction in their own everyday-life scenarios, yet not give the Bible writers the same fair treatment.

Still, what about the nature of the individuals at the tomb of Jesus? Were they men or angels? The answer is simply, “They were both.” Lest someone scoff at such an answer, pause for a moment to consider how versatile certain things are (as well as the description of those items). In one setting, a person may refer to his handheld device as a “phone,” and in another setting, his “flashlight.” He may take out this device at a meeting to check his “calendar,” while later on that night he uses it as an “alarm clock.” (Imagine telling someone in 1950 that his “phone” would one day also be his flashlight, calendar, alarm clock, camera, directory, etc. He would have thought you had gone mad. Yet, to those in the 21^st century, it all makes perfect sense.) Many things are not either/or; they are both/and.

Similar to how Jesus was both God and man (John 1:15,14; Philippians 2:5-11), the individuals at the tomb of Jesus on the day of His resurrection were both angels and men. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all correct in their accounts. The angels were in human form. Mark and Luke referred to their humanity (in their appearance), while Matthew and John referred to their angelic nature. Consistent with what Scripture teaches elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 18:1-33; 19:1,5,15), in the past, both God and angels have come to Earth in the form of human beings.

The four Gospel accounts independently testify that various women arrived at the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection and were greeted by angels who were in the form of men. Such differently worded statements are without contradiction. In truth, they stand as perfectly harmonious accounts with different, supplemental material from four different independent writers.

Endnotes

1. Dan Barker (1996), “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?” Debate with Michael Horner at the University of Northern Iowa, April 2, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.

The post How Many Women, Men, and Angels Were at the Tomb of Jesus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

According to The Telegraph of London, one of the “top 10 worst Bible passages” is Ephesians 5:22, in which Paul taught, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”¹ In his book God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, Dan Baker titled chapter nine simply “Misogynistic.” Barker alleged: “Women are second-class. Because of Eve’s insubordination, she was forced to become dependent on man. From then on, all women are inferior, so the bible says.”²

Is God really misogynistic? Does the Bible teach that women are actually inferior to men? And do women, according to the Scriptures, have to “submit to their husbands”?

Before answering these questions (which we are happy to do), let’s pause momentarily to ask what value atheistic, Darwinian evolution places upon women? The fact is, Charles Darwin himself wrote in The Descent of Man that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman.”³ The Bible never teaches that men are more valuable than women, or that men should use their “intellectual powers” and physical strength to force women to do whatever they want. Yet, when atheistic evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, then “might makes right” and the “fittest” survive and excel to dominate and exploit the weaker to their own pleasure. Atheists simply have no logical moral grounds upon which to make a rational argument for why men should treat women with love and respect.

On the other hand, if God exists and the Bible is His Word, then a faithful man of God will love and cherish women. After all, the God of the Bible loves women. He loves “the world” (John 3:16), which is full of men and women. He created women (as He did men) “in His image” (Genesis 1:26-27). When God put on flesh and dwelt among mankind, He showed great compassion upon women (Luke 11:11-15; John 4:1-42; 19:25-27). He loves women so much that He freely offers them (as He does men) eternal life through Jesus’ sacrificial death (John 3:16; Luke 24:47; Romans 1:16). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29). Christian husbands and wives are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). In truth, men and women are equal in their worth to God.

Furthermore, God not only loves women, He commands men to love, cherish, protect, and honor women. To the church at Colosse Paul wrote: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19). To husbands in Ephesus he commanded: “[L]ove your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her…. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself…. [L]et each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself” (Ephesians 5:25,28,33). Peter wrote that husbands are to dwell with their wives “with understanding, giving honor to the wife” (1 Peter 3:7).⁴

So what is the main problem that atheists and skeptics (especially in the 21^st century) have with the biblical teachings about men and women? Largely that God created two (and only two) different sexes to have different roles in the home and in the Church. Yet, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly holy, loving, and just Creator of the Universe has every right to define the roles of His creation. A man may dislike that he was not created with the anatomical and physiological ability to carry a child in a womb for nine months, to give birth to a baby, or to nurse a newborn. He may prefer to be a follower in the family rather than the courageous leader God expects him to be (1 Corinthians 11:3). He may wish that he wasn’t assigned the role of selfless protector (Ephesians 5:25). If he was given the choice, he might rather take what he perceives (however so naively) to be the “easier role,” and just “submit” to his wife, and let “the buck stop” with her, and not feel the pressure of being the leader of the family.

Children may cry that their Creator is unfair because they must “obey [their] parents” (Ephesians 6:1). Teenagers may think it quite ignorant to have to submit to older people (1 Peter 5:5) “who don’t even know how to use a smart phone.” An unmarried man with no children may disdain God for detailing in the Bible that he’s not qualified to be an elder or deacon in the local church (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9)—even though he’s a billionaire and the CEO of a Fortune-500 company! “How could a poor, married farmer with 10 kids be more qualified to serve as an elder of a local church than a billionaire bachelor?!”

Similarly, a woman may dislike that Paul wrote that “the head of every man is Christ” and “the head of woman is man” (1 Corinthians 11:3). She may claim that the biblical teaching of man’s headship over women (Genesis 3:16) and the command for wives to “submit to” their husbands “made her an atheist.” She may openly despise Christianity, since, in the church, the apostle Paul taught, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.⁵ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:12-14, ESV).⁶ Yet, none of this proves that God doesn’t exist or that the Bible is not His inspired revelation to humanity. It only demonstrates what has always been the case—most people do “what is right in their own eyes” (cf. Judges 17:6; 21:25). Like spoiled children who are angry at their parents (whose rules they deem “unfair” and do not understand the wisdom of), prideful people become angry with their “Father” in heaven. Most people refuse to bow to the will of their Creator. Most of humanity fails to “humble [themselves] under the mighty hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6). It should come as no surprise then that the same souls who refuse to “acknowledge God” (Romans 1:28, ESV) and to submit to Him, will also belittle His Word, especially those passages requiring humble, respectful submission of wives to their husbands.

Endnotes

¹ “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages” (2009), Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html.

² Dan Barker (2016), God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (New York: Sterling), p. 99.

³ Charles Darwin (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, reprint), pp. 873-874, emp. added.

⁴ For more information on “The Biblical View of Women,” see Kyle Butt’s 2011 article by this title at http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3654.

⁵ First Timothy 2:12 was also included in the Telegraph’s list of “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages,” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html.

⁶ For further reading on the role of women in the church, see Dave Miller (2014), “Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5007&topic=389.

The post Is Ephesians 5:22 a Reason to Reject the God of the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

According to 2 Kings 23:29-30:

In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went to the aid of the king of Assyria, to the River Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him. And Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him. Then his servants moved his body in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place.

On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 reads:

And the archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, “Take me away, for I am severely wounded.” His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

Is there actually a contradiction between these passages, or is there merely an unfair desire for them to contradict without real proof of such discrepancy? As is the case with most allegations of biblical inconsistencies, once again skeptics assume (1) the worst, and (2) much more than they can ever prove.

The two accounts of the death of Josiah are not contradictory but supplementary. Just as reading multiple reports of a current news event should give the reader a more robust view of things, reading both accounts of Josiah’s death gives us a fuller picture, not a discrepant one. Though Pharaoh Necho had no quarrels (at least on this occasion) with Josiah and his army (2 Chronicles 35:20-21), nevertheless Josiah ignored “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” (2 Chronicles 35:22). The King of Judah foolishly “disguised himself” and went “to fight in the Valley of Megiddo” (2 Chronicles 35:22), where Pharaoh Necho “killed him” (2 Kings 23:29). The chronicler details that it was the archers (under Pharaoh’s authority) who shot Josiah (35:23). This difference is not one generally highlighted by skeptics as a contradiction between the two accounts. Most fair-minded people understand that a “king,” “president,” or some other ruler may be said to “do something” when, in actuality, he gave the command for it to be done. That is, it was done under his authority and thus (in one legitimate sense) “by him.” If skeptics can seemingly concede the sensibleness in this difference between Kings and Chronicles, one wonders why they will not also consider possible, rational explanations for other differences by two different, independent writers of two different historical accounts?

Could it be that the phrase in 2 Kings 23:29 that “Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo” means nothing more than it was at Megiddo that King Josiah received his mortal blow, but that his heart actually stopped beating somewhere else, sometime later? Suppose a man is shot on Main Street but is not pronounced dead until he’s in an ambulance, halfway to the hospital. Can one not truthfully say (in one sense) that the man was killed on Main Street—that he received his “dying blow” there, though his brain activity did not technically stop until he was in the ambulance or perhaps at the hospital? Surely to ask is to answer. Admittedly, a few translations word 2 Kings 23:30 as Josiah being “carried…in a chariot dead (meeth) from Megiddo” (KJV), but, as John Haley noted many years ago, the Hebrew term meeth can mean “dying or in a dying state.”⁴

Furthermore, simply because the chronicler noted “[s]o he [Josiah] died” after he mentioned that Josiah’s servants “brought him to Jerusalem” (2 Chronicles 35:24) is not proof that Josiah actually died in Jerusalem. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: “The statement and he died…is just a common form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard for their chronological order.”⁵ Indeed, the chronicler is merely stating the fact that Josiah died and not exactly when he died. As we have noted in other articles,⁶ Bible writers often recorded their material topically or climactically, and not necessarily chronologically. We should no more assume the chronicler was writing strictly sequentially in 2 Chronicles 35:24 than we should when we ask our spouse to tell us how his or her day went. (What reasonable person would criticize others for not telling various events in chronological order if that was not their stated intention?)

The fact that Dennis McKinsey thought so much of the question regarding where Josiah died, even contending it is one of the “simple, straight-forward problems” of the Bible, should be an indication of just how weak his case (and others’) is against the Bible. Scripture reveals that Josiah died after receiving his “death blow” in battle at Megiddo. Precisely when and where he took his final breath, we do not know, nor do we have to know to exonerate the Bible writers of any proven error in their penning of Scripture.

 Endnotes

The post Did Josiah Die in Megiddo or Jerusalem? 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.

A horrifying incident is recorded during the lifetime of Abraham involving his nephew Lot and the angelic visitors who came to Lot to warn him to flee the city:

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof” (Genesis 19:4-9).

The western mind—indeed, the Christian mind—has difficulty processing this incident, specifically, the callous, despicable behavior of Lot regarding his daughters.

One must remember that pre-Christian civilizations did not possess the refined moral sensibilities that a nation like America has enjoyed. Generally, the pagan societies of human history have engaged in all sorts of wicked, depraved, dehumanizing, and savage behaviors that were considered by those cultures to be perfectly appropriate. Consider, for example, those societies that have practiced cannibalism—including a number of American Indian tribal groups¹—literally devouring other human beings and forcing others to do the same. Likewise, many cultures have had disgusting family relationships and relaxed sexual mores that are jarring to the Christian mind.² As astonishing and objectionable to us—completely inexcusable and unjustifiable—as it may seem for a father to sacrifice his own daughters in such a fashion, it verifies the fact that the unnatural lust of homosexuality was considered far more repugnant than even illicit heterosexuality.

Nevertheless, scholars have documented the fact that Lot’s rationale was rooted in a cultural norm that informed his decision. The biblical notion of hospitality is given a prominent position in Christian thinking and behavior. It is imperative that God’s people “practice hospitality” (Romans 12:13; cf. Romans 16:23; 1 Timothy 5:10; 1 Peter 4:9; 3 John 8). One cannot even be considered for the high church office of elder without possessing this critical quality (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8). Americans have practiced a number of cultural amenities that manifest hospitality, including taking a guest’s coat, offering something to drink, indicating the location of the restroom, and offering for the guest to be seated. But Lot was being more than just hospitable. He was acting in harmony with a deeply honored obligation of antiquity—what Clarke referred to as “that sacred light in which the rights of hospitality were regarded among the eastern nations.”³ “A guest was sacred and his person inviolable.”⁴ These rights required him to protect the lives of those whom he had “taken in” for hospitable purposes at all costs. He was to protect his guests—even with his own life.⁵

In his Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, Fred Wight explains: “In the lands of the East, when a host accepts a man to be his guest he thereby agrees at whatever the cost to defend his guest from all possible enemies during the time of his entertainment.”⁶ Based upon his travels to Egypt and Palestine to visit biblical sites, H. Clay Trumbull, Lyman Beecher Lecturer at Yale Divinity School, wrote in his Studies in Oriental Social Life about an occurrence of this very custom. An American missionary visited in the home of a Turkish governor who handed the American a piece of roast mutton and stated: “By that act I have pledged you every drop of my blood, that while you are in my territory no evil shall come to you. For that space of time we are brothers.”⁷ In the Oriental mind, hospitality is “the virtue of virtues,” “the trait of traits,” and involves “a profound sense of obligation to a principle.”⁸

Lot hinted at this profound commitment when he reminded the mob: “only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof” (Genesis 19:8). The word “shadow” refers to the sacred duty of protection that Lot was under obligation to provide.⁹ English translations render the phrase: “They have come to my house, and I must protect them,”¹⁰ “I am responsible for them,”¹¹ “They have come under the protection of my roof.”¹² Hence, from the perspective of the Oriental mindset, Lot was “a courageous champion of the obligations of hospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment.”¹³

But the Eastern commitment to the principle of hospitality went even further. The Eastern tribal groups known as the Khonds possess the same passion for hospitality, as reflected in this Khond proverb: “For the safety of a guest, life and honor are pledged; he is to be considered before a child.”¹⁴ This perspective, indeed, this narrow-minded fixation, explains the absurd behavior of Lot in the treatment of his daughters.

The virtue of hospitality has a pre-eminence, in its obligations and in its significance, not recognized to the same extent elsewhere in the world at large…. In the primitive East, hospitality is more far-reaching in its scope and more exacting in its obligations than anything which we know of under that name in the conventional West.¹⁵

Of course, this “exaggerated emphasis on hospitality”¹⁶ to the neglect of his obligations of fatherhood does not make Lot’s actions appropriate—let alone sanctioned by God.¹⁷ Even if we postulate that he didn’t expect the mob to accept his offer—due to their depraved sexual proclivities—even making the offer is unacceptable and to be viewed as unconscionable. We might add, however, that if the choice came down to preserving the lives of his guests versus preserving the lives of his daughters, and if the lives of the guests took precedence over the lives of himself and his own family (Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:31), we can at least understand that all human life, whether the lives of those closest to us or the lives of those who are complete strangers, is equally valuable—even if we question which should be preserved over the other. Since God does not sanction situation ethics,¹⁸ Lot’s predicament should not be viewed as an “either/or” situation. He should have sought to preserve all lives committed to his charge, refusing to compromise with the depraved mob. In any case, awareness of the peculiar notions of the Asiatic mindset at the time regarding hospitality helps us at least to make sense of Lot’s bizarre offer, though we reject it as completely unacceptable to God.

 Endnotes

The post Lot's Daughters appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What exactly did Jesus predict in Mark 9:1? Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” Jesus prophesied that some of His listeners on that occasion (including His disciples—Mark 8:34) would still be alive to “see the kingdom of God come with power” (NIV).

Skeptics contend that the coming kingdom Jesus mentioned in this passage is a reference to “the end of the world,”⁴ when Jesus returns (Matthew 24:36-25:46; 2 Peter 3:10-13) and when “an entrance will be supplied…abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11). The same eternal, “heavenly kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:18) that Peter and Paul eagerly anticipated is supposedly the same kingdom about which Jesus prophesied in Mark 9:1. Are skeptics correct?

As is the case with so many so-called “contradictions,” skeptics have once again assumed a sense (or definition) of a word, which cannot be proven. They have chosen a meaning that contradicts the passage rather than considering a logical sense of the word “kingdom” which perfectly fits with Jesus’ prophecy.

Admittedly, at times God’s kingdom is rightly understood in its future sense. After all, Jesus taught: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him…. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’” (Matthew 25:31,34). This “kingdom” is the heavenly phase of God’s kingdom, which the righteous will “inherit” at the end of time (1 Corinthians 15:50).

However, there is a real, biblical sense in which God’s Kingdom exists in the present—and has been in existence since the first century. In fact, long before Jesus correctly prophesied of this coming Kingdom, the Old Testament prophets did so. Isaiah and Micah prophesied of “the mountain⁵ of the Lord’s house” being established in Jerusalem “in the latter days” (Isaiah 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-4). About 200 years later, in the sixth century B.C., Daniel recorded a divinely revealed, prophetic dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 2:1-45). According to Daniel, the king dreamed of a great image with a head of gold, a chest and arms of silver, a belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. In the dream, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands and struck the image. The clay, iron, bronze, silver, and gold were crushed and became like dust, carried away by the wind. But, “the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35). Daniel revealed to Nebuchadnezzar that the image he saw represented various earthly kingdoms. Babylon was the head of gold, while the other elements of the image stood for future empires that would rise up after Babylon. History has shown that the chest and arms of silver represented the Medo-Persian Empire. The belly and thighs of bronze were for the Grecian Empire. And the legs of iron and feet of both iron and clay stood for the Roman Empire.

Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that it would be during the days of this fourth kingdom⁶ (the Roman Empire) that the God of heaven would “set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;…it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). Its beginning would be small, like the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands, but it eventually would consume all other kingdoms and become a great mountain filling the whole Earth.

What is this kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar dreamed, and Daniel spoke? What is this great kingdom that would eventually fill the whole Earth? It’s the spiritual Kingdom of Christ—the Church. More than 500 years before the Church was established, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar in a prophetic dream that a Kingdom made “without hands”—a spiritual Kingdom of divine origin—would be established during the days of the Roman Empire.

This entity is the Kingdom that Jesus prophesied would come during the lifetime of His first-century hearers. Jesus not only prophesied of this Kingdom in Matthew 16:28 (as well as in the parallel passages in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27), He also predicted it just a few verses earlier in Matthew 16:18-19. To the apostle Peter, Jesus said: “I will build My church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven….” Jesus promised to establish His Church and then equated the Church with the Kingdom of heaven, to which He gave Peter “the keys.” What do keys do? They unlock doors, thus allowing entrance. When did Peter open the doors to the Kingdom? Only a few months later in Acts 2 when Peter and the apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4), preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and about 3,000 souls became Christians (2:41), submitting to the authoritative lordship of Jesus Christ—the King of kings (1 Timothy 6:15-16; Ephesians 1:21). On that day, the Day of Pentecost, the Kingdom of God (in its present sense) came “with power” (Mark 9:1), just as Jesus had prophesied.

From Acts 2 onward, God’s Kingdom has existed, and New Testament Christians have been servants in this Kingdom. To the church at Colosse, Paul noted how God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Colossians 1:13). With the Christians in Asia Minor, the apostle John declared that he shared “in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:9). Indeed, the Christians in Asia Minor nearly 2,000 years ago were already fellow citizens in the Kingdom of Christ.

Conclusion

Christians are not “haunted” by Mark 9:1, nor do we have to “concoct an endless number of rationalizations to explain its [alleged] failure.”⁷ A rational, biblical, easy-to-understand explanation exists: words have different meanings, and Jesus used the word “kingdom” in this verse in reference to His Church—God’s spiritual Kingdom in the present. Indeed, those who heard Jesus’ prophecy of Mark 9:1 saw Christ’s Kingdom come in their lifetime.

Endnotes

The post A Failed Prophecy of Christ? appeared first on Apologetics Press.