The Thesis and Anti-Thesis on Life and it’s Negation
Life is futile. A senseless waste. We live, we die. That is it.
We squeeze out meaning. Or inject it into our veins. We run, but we know not for what, and then expire. We build our castles and pile up things. Then we die.
The sun rises and sets or spins and spins. Seasons come, seasons go. We grow old. We die. The same remains until the sun burns out and we grow cold.
All is futile.
There is no meaning, accept what we make. So fill your coffer, kill the pain. Feed your pleasure, though a monster it becomes.
Thus is life if there’s no hope beyond the grave.
Yet, if this is the sleepy land and we wait for what is true life then this is but the testing ground. We plant what grows for us there. If we make our meaning here, then we destroy it there. If we are lethargic and vague in pursuit then we’ll obtain the wind.
Our Chronological and Geographical Snobbery and Our Need for a Standard Beyond Ourselves
Science is about what is and can never be about what ought be. Thus, left to our own devices, left to science and our subjective view of what ought to be, we are left with a “might makes right” morality. We are left to Nietzsche and Nazism, to Stalin and suffering. We need a standard that science with all its greatness cannot give us. We need a salvation that science with all its greatness cannot give us. Science, what is, without what ought be, a moral standard beyond us, will inevitably lead to the moral atrocities committed in concentration camps.
Hitler and Nazism justified extermination camps based on what they thought was a good rationale. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Dread Scoot vs. Sandford shows that humans are not omniscient. Even now in the 21st century. We will continue to make grave mistakes if we continue in our historical snobbery and arrogant pride and disregard all previous history. As we say “we’ve arrived, we know,” we quote many dead civilizations. I guess we might say with those civilizations, “we’ve arrived” …to our tomb.
We can look down our nose at the Aztecs for their bloody sacrifices. But then, they didn’t know any better. We can look in disdain at Baal worshipers and their practice of baby sacrifice. Perhaps we can even look to Africa, India, and Islam and disdain some of their practices. But, here in the States, here where we lay more babies down each day then what the U.S. lost on D-Day, here where “have it your way” is the moral mantra, here there is nothing to be gained. We’ve arrived. We don’t need a moral compass. We are the moral compass.
We’ll follow our impulses. “Might will make right” and “have it your way” will hold sway. We’ll wade in blood. We’ll turn away. Until we drown.
We don’t need the light of history or God’s word. We are god. We make the rules.
We walk in the darkness we’ve created (cf. Is. 59:10ff). We walk on bodies through the cemetery we’ve created. No wonder we don’t want a light.
Is it not plain that we need Truth, Jesus the Lord of life and the Great Light of the world, to shine away our darkness (Is. 35:5)? We need the Lamb to set on the throne and be our Shepherd (Rev. 7:14-17). All other leaders fail. Scientists and Presidents cannot and will not bring salvation or what finally ought be. The One in the beginning that said it was very good (Gen. 1:31) alone can make it good again (Rev. 21:1ff). The LORD in the face of Jesus Messiah is our sure hope.
The Subversive Nature of True Art
True beauty and art subvert the lie whispered in the Garden that roars in cacophonous echo today: “You shall be like gods!”
We walk the path that was blazed by our forebears; we autonomously seek for meaning in ourselves. Yet, periodically we stand before a sunset or Mozart or some other masterpiece and our autonomous walk is halted and we know, we intimately know, and even bask in the fact that we are not god and our good is not in autonomy, it is outside of us. We need. We need God.
Sin Brings a Type of Living Hell
“A trail of mutilated frogs lay along the edge of the island.” This is the sad result of sin. In C. S. Lewis’ book Perelandra, Weston, now the “unman,” leaves a trail of mutilated frogs. Weston is the epicenter of evil. He is whole-hearted evil, a predecessor to the Miserific Vision.
Yet, Weston, the “unman,” is just a concentrated picture of what we saw with Adolf Hitler and his regime. It is a picture from a different angle of the mutilation that lays in the wake of Planned Parenthood. When we anonymously try to create our own utopia we leave a trail of mutilation. Whether we listen to the Nazi idea or the Planned Parenthood idea that says, with our culture, “have it your way,” “listen to your heart,” “do what feels right.” When we “have it our way,” “listen to our heart,” and “do what feels right,” then “might will make right” because there will be no higher authority and we may just have a reincarnation of the atrocities of Dachau and Auschwitz. We might just have people “aborting” the “clump of cells” in their womb because that is just what they want to do, it is what is convenient; we might just have “doctors” sell that “clump of cells” as human organs.
Truly, as much as we think we can, we can’t “have our cake and eat it too.” We can’t indulge in sin and also think it won’t bring consequences. Sin since the beginning has been accompanied with consequences. We can’t, for example, indulge in pornography as individuals or as a society and not have an avalanche of abominations over take us. When we make humans sexual objects to be exploited that is sadly what they become, and so human sex trafficking and child abduction ensue.
To quote an unlikely source, Friedrich Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil that philosophy always creates a world in it’s own image, it cannot do anything different. When we create a world where morality doesn’t exist then in a very real way morality doesn’t exist, at least that’s how people live. In this world each will do what is right in his own eyes, might will make right, and atrocities will flourish. Various attempts at the “Final Solution” will abound, and so will death and desolation.
We reap what we sow philosophically so right now we’re reaping a whole host of debauchery. Could it be that teachings have been tainted and thus a litany of death ensues. Maybe it’s time to re-explore worldviews and their corresponding idea of human flourishing and the ability that they have to match reality to their claims.
Human bodies ripped from the womb, mutilated, and sold, and the world doesn’t bat an eye. Sad; yet sadly not surprising in our naturalistic, hedonistic, secular day. Truly, “Moral decay doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is supported by the idolatry of the society at any given time, and expressive of its worship, even if such be completely unarticulated.”[i] Moral decay happens when something other then God is our ultimate good, our summum bonum (cf. Rom. 1). Humanity spirals out of control and implodes in on itself whenever we make gods in our own image; whether infanticide in the Roman Empire, Auschwitz during the Nazi regime, or rampant abortion today. When we decipher and dictate anonymously and subjectively what is good and prospering for ourselves and society we damn ourselves and those around us. We, so to speak, eat again of the forbidden fruit and cast ourselves out of Eden. We fall into a pit we ourselves dug. We kill Abel, revel in Babel, and inculcate innumerable evils. We make life a sort of living hell; picture the living, walking, and tortured skeletons engraved in our memories from the horrors of concentration camps.
O’ for the worlds that lay asunder,
for the shalom that is slain.We ingrain habits of unrest,
we fester and pass on spoil.O’ for the earth to break,
for all to be made anew.For the habits in my heart to pour out,
and for living waters to ensue.God this world is broken,
we are altogether damaged and damned.“Destroy the destroyers of the earth”(Rev. 11:18),
destroy what in me destroys.Shalom was slain
but through the slain Messiah (is/will be) renewed.O’ God, Maranatha!
__________________________
[i] Noel Doe, Created for Worship: From Genesis to Revelation to You (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2009), 236.
A Brief Defense of the Resurrection
If the resurrection didn’t happen why go to church? Why read the Bible? Why seek to uphold the New Testament ethic?
The launch of the World Wide Web in 1990 changed the world. It led to a wealth of information unprecedented in any other age to include what followed after the creation of the printing press in 1440. The Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution, the first moon landing, the first flight, the Model T, antiseptics, the Industrial Revolution; they changed the world and, one could argue, for the better. However, their significance pales in comparison to the question of the resurrection.
The topic of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is profoundly important. Upon it Christianity, indeed, heaven and hell rest. It is the hinge on which the direction of one’s life hangs, but it is more than that. The resurrection, if it happened, means that the hermeneutic with which we look at the world, even the whole of the universe, must correctly fit that evidence.
It means that all of history—that of the television to that of Tokyo—and everybody—Albert Einstein to Adolf Hitler—hang in the balance. It means that there is a day of reckoning; a day of profound peace and of hell. It means this world will one day finally be great for some and for others it will be the best they’ve known. It means that there is purpose and extreme futility.
It means that the unreal is real. It means that the far out has burst upon the scene. It means that what is seen is not it. It means that there is more. It means that there is meaning and direction to the cosmos. It means history is going somewhere and it is on its way.
If the resurrection happened then that new creation is the most significant thing that has happened since the (literal) beginning of time with the creation of all things. If the resurrection indeed happened then it confirms the words and work of Jesus. If the resurrection happened, it truly changes everything.
Second, it is important to consider arguments for the resurrection because the Bible itself all over the place argues for the resurrection. It’s what the Christian hope is built upon. If it didn’t happen then what are we doing?!
So, many of the sermons in Acts seek to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah (see Acts 9:22; 13:16ff; 16:13; 17:3, 17; 18:4-5, 19; 19:8ff; 24:25; 26:6, 22-26; 28:23, 31 cf. 18:28; from the beginning of the church preaching and teaching was integral 2:42).[1] Also, Luke wrote an “orderly account” to Theophilus so that he would have “certainty” (Luke 1:3). Luke said that Jesus “presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs” (Acts 1:3).
Peter says “we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). John talks about very tangible proof: “…we have heard… we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands… the life was made manifest, and we have seen… that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). Even when warned at the cost of punishment Peter and John said in Acts that they could not but speak of what they had seen and heard (Acts 4:20).
The reality of the resurrection is something that is obviously very important to the New Testament authors. It is something that they did not take for granted but gave witness to (cf. e.g. Jn. 19:31-37). The reality of the resurrection is no less important for us today. We must still give testimony to it. We must still give the “many proofs” (cf. Acts 1:3) for it.
Before look at the question: did the resurrection happen? I think it’s important to consider: is it even possible for the resurrection to happen? So, let’s consider the assumptions that we have as we look at the evidence.
Our starting places or assumptions have a big impact on the way we weigh evidence. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e. Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward Tom was still convicted. Why? Because people were prejudice against the truth. The people’s a prior assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.[4]
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it happens when people consider the evidence for the resurrection. Atheists and naturalists will obviously claim that Jesus could not raise from the dead because for them that is not even a possible option. It must have been something else. There must be a different explanation. And so, they propound all sorts of other ideas. Yet what they offer does not do justice to all the information.
More common, however, is a more popular form of denial. Either people just say it’s not possible without clearly weighing the evidence or they deny it because of doctrine. That is, they don’t like certain things that the New Testament teaches and realize if they deny the resurrection then they don’t have to worry about any of the other teachings; such as repentance. However, as Timothy Keller has said, “The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like [Jesus’] teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.”[5]
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”
Notice that this teaching is of “first importance.” There is a lot that we can disagree on but this is not one of those things. This is one of the absolute bare essentials. If we lose this then the whole structure collapses. Also, notice that Paul is delivering something to us that he “received.” Paul is incorporating an earlier confession or tradition that was passed down.[6]
First, Jesus was Crucifixed. Christ died (1 Cor. 15:3). And He died on a cross. This is basically an undisputed fact.[7] Tacitus says:
“Christ, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and a pernicious superstition was chekcked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital istelf” (Annals of Imperial Rome xv.44).
The Talmud even reports that Jesus (Yeshu) was hanged (as in on the cross) on the eve of the Passover (b Sanh 43a-b; cf. Justin Martyr Dial. 69) for practicing sorcery (it is important to note that the authorities did not deny that “strange” things accompanied Him).[8] The Jewish historian Josephus says that Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross (Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3). Lucian, a Greek writer of the 2nd century, mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as well (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13).
This is very significant, because to be hung on a tree, to be crucified, was to be cursed in the eyes of the Jews. Paul tells us this (Gal. 3:13) reminding us of Deuteronomy 21:23. How could Christianity develop and believe in a crucified, cursed, carpenter as their long-awaited promised Messiah? What could make sense of the fact that Jesus was crucified and later venerated as the Promised One, indeed, God incarnate?[9] Surely a crucified man could not be the Messiah (Deut. 21:22-23 cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24).[10] Plus, the expectation was a king in the vein of David. A Yehoshu’a that defeats Israel’s enemies, not a Yehoshu’a that will be defeated by dying upon a tree.[11]
This makes the existence of the Church all the more amazing. Why would people such as Peter, James, and Paul follow—to death!—someone that was crucified?! What could account for this historical fact? Why would Jews switch their day of worship from Saturday, the Sabbath, to Sunday in light of someone that died a horrible death on the cross?[12] Why would the Church be persecuted for “eating flesh” (i.e. celebrating the Lord’s Supper) if Jesus only died and never raised?
Of course, we know that Jesus, the Messiah, died as the Lamb of God to take away our sins. We see that His death was the fulfillment of passages like Isaiah 53. However, that was not immediately understood. They did not a first understand that the Messiah must suffer many things (cf. e.g. Lk. 18:31-34; 24:11). They did not understand that Jesus’ death was indeed in “accordance with the Scriptures.” Yet, they would understand. So, we see, “Jesus’ resurrection is, in fact, the best explanation for why ancient monotheistic Jews would worship him as divine.”[13]
Second, Jesus was Buried. Jesus was buried (1 Cor. 15:4). Laid in a tomb and later His tomb was found empty. There are multiple attestations of this. The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell us about this. Further, they tell us that women were the first people on the scene. This is significant because a woman’s testimony was no good in court in that day.[14] If the empty tomb story would have been made up they would not have chosen women to be the first witnesses to the resurrection. Instead, it would have made sense for them to say that Peter, for instance, was the first person on the scene.
Also, they would not have left any discrepancies in the accounts. However, discrepancies remain. They are not irreconcilable but they remain. If the story of the empty tomb was fabricated the account of it would be much more tidy.[15] Anyhow, if Jesus did not rise from the dead His followers would have no motivation to claim that He did.
One of the theories put forward against the resurrection is that Jesus was not actually dead when He was taken off the cross.[16] However, think of this: Jesus would have been a more horrific image than a zombie. He would have been in no position to convince His disciples that He had rose from the dead. Plus, He would then be a deceiver which greatly conflicts with His amazing ethical teachings.
All of this aside, it is just not possible that Jesus would have lived through the whole ordeal.[17] So William Lane Craig has said that the apparent death theory is foolish when we consider “the beatings of Jesus, His exhausting all-night trial and interrogations, His scourging, His crucifixion, the spear in His side [which serves to demonstrate that He did in fact die], the binding and wrapping of His body in seventy-five pounds of linen and spices, and the cold tomb sealed by a large stone.”[18]
In fact because of the type of beating that Jesus underwent before He was even crucified He could have died even beforehand so there was no way that He would have lived through the crucifixion.[19] Further, the guards though not doctors or scientists likely had as much experience with dead bodies as morticians. They would have known if Jesus was not dead. So Alexander Metherell, who has both a medical degree and a doctorate degree in engineering and has edited five scientific books, has said that “there was absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead” and “there’s just no way he could have survived the cross.”[20]
People have even claimed that Jesus death was faked. They claim that Jesus was slipped a drug that put Him into a deep stupor (they use Mk. 15:36 as their proof text) so people thought He was dead. However, this theory falls short for a number of reasons. Not least is the fact that had Jesus fell into a deep stupor He would have in fact died. One of the ways, probably the most common way, which people died on the cross was through asphyxiation. Thus if Jesus was drugged He would have certainly died of asphyxiation anyhow.
William Edwards concludes his study “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ”:
“It remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[21]
Although the “swoon theory” is unbelievable it does lend credibility to the other evidence leading to the resurrection. This is because if someone is willing to claim that Jesus did not die on the cross rather than face the other evidence then the other evidence must be substantial indeed.
So what then is the significance that Jesus was buried and that Paul and the confession stated that? The Heidelberg Catechism says that “His burial testified that He had really died.”[22]
Third, Jesus’ Tomb was Empty. Jesus rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:4) and thus left an empty tomb. Actually, it was never even claimed that the tomb was not empty. That was not an option that anyone could have claimed because the tomb was empty. Instead, the authorities that wanted to crush the early Christian movement said that the disciples stole Jesus’ body (Matt. 28:13, 15). Yet, that claim is preposterous for a few reasons. For example, Jesus’ followers did not have the motivation or the means to put on such a pointless charade (the penalty for the tomb-breaker was capital punishment, see the Nazareth Inscription). People have also put forward the idea that the women went to the wrong tomb. This view, however, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny either. If the women had gone to the wrong tomb then the authorities would have said so. They did know where the tomb was; they set guards in front of it.
First, we see early attestation that the tomb was empty. Paul quoted an early confession that Jesus was raised (1 Cor. 15:4) which implicitly states that the tomb was empty. We also have other very reliable historical sources that all claim that the tomb was empty.
Second, if the tomb wasn’t empty it would have been impossible for the Christian movement, which is founded on the resurrection, to get started in Jerusalem. Perhaps if the disciples would have moved somewhere else then it would have been possible but not in Jerusalem. People there had certainly seen Jesus teach, die a horrible death, or at least heard rumors about Jesus. Jews and Gentiles alike had reasons for hostility against the radical upstart movement. People didn’t understand Christian teaching and as Jesus predicted it brought division. So if people in Jerusalem could have produced Jesus’ body to shut up the movement before it got off the ground they would have. But they didn’t, because they couldn’t. If the tomb was not empty then there could be no Christian movement; especially in Jerusalem. Paul and the Gospel writers all identify and give names of multiple people that were said to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. If people wanted to they could question them and determine the validly of their claims. So Craig shows that “the controlling presence of living witnesses would prevent significant accrual of legend.”[23]
Again, and thirdly, the fact that the Gospels tell us that women discovered the empty tomb argues for its validity. This, once again, is because if the Gospel accounts had been made up, they would not have been made up to include women being the witnesses to the empty tomb. Something else to consider looking at is the Shroud of Turin.
Fourth, Jesus Appeared to Many. Jesus appeared too many (1 Cor. 15:5-9). Paul gave a pretty substantial list of witnesses. In fact, Paul basically said, they are still around, here are their names, you can go question them yourself. Actually, that is apparently what Luke did. Luke did a thorough investigation of the whole thing and his final verdict was that the resurrection and thus the Church did indeed happen.
The New Testament lists twelve separate appearances over a forty-day period:[24]
- Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:10-18)
- Mary and the other women (Matt. 28:1-10)
- Peter (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5)
- Two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35)
- Ten apostles (Lk. 24:36-49)
- Eleven apostles (Jn. 20:24-31)
- Seven apostles (Jn. 21)
- All of the apostles (Matt. 28:16-20)
- Five hundred disciples (1 Cor. 15:6)
- James (1 Cor. 15:7)
- Again to all the apostles (Acts 1:4-8)
- The apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-9; 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1)
One of Jesus’ followers (likely Mark) fled naked risking great shame (or worse) but was transformed by the good and surprising news of the resurrection (cf. Mk. 14:32-52). Paul, a persecutor of the Church, was radically transformed and ended up being persecuted himself for preaching the truth of Jesus the Christ’s resurrection.
As has been very often pointed out:
“The disciples… went from dejected, dispirited and grieving followers of a crucified rabbi to apostles, those who had beheld the risen Christ and who, on that basis, preached him as Lord of life and the Judge of history… The actual resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the disciples’ transformation from cowardice, despair and confusion to confident proclamation and the willingness to suffer persecution, hardship and even martyrdom for the sake of Jesus and his gospel.”[25]
And who would die for a known lie? Who would go to a bloody painful death if it could be avoided simply by denying a lie?
After Jesus was taken His apostles were scared and hid in the upper room. Peter denied Jesus 3 times. After Jesus’ resurrection he appeared to the apostles and many others. After the apostles saw the resurrected Jesus they were no longer scared, they were emboldened. All of the apostles died for their beliefs, except John. Yet, tradition says he was boiled alive and later exiled to the island Patmos. Following is how the apostles died:
- Peter- crucified
- Andrew-crucified
- Matthew- the sword
- John- died a natural death after being boiled in oil and exiled
- James, son of Alphaeus- crucified
- Philip- crucified
- Simon- crucified
- Thaddaeus- killed by arrows
- James, the brother of Jesus- stoned
- Thomas- spear thrust
- Bartholomew- crucified
- James, the son of Zebedee- the sword
Many have contended that the appearances were just hallucinations. However, this theory also falls short for various reasons. Actually, even the Orthodox Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, believed that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead even though he didn’t believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So, for instance, he said, ““When this frightened band of apostles suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society… Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation.”[26]
Others have put forward the “conspiracy theory” view that says the disciples made up the resurrection story. However, as I said, the Gospel accounts have small, though not contradictory, discrepancies in them. This would not make any sense if the early followers of Jesus got together and fabricated the whole thing. However, it would not make any sense for them to fabricate the whole thing anyhow. What would they gain from such lies?! Nothing. Nothing but persecution and death. So clearly the crucifixion of Jesus was not just some conspiracy theory that some whacks made up to serve their own end.
Can you imagine the disciples saying, in the words of William Lane Craig,
“Let us band together… to invent all the miracles and resurrection appearances which we never saw and let us carry the sham to death! Why not die for nothing? Why dislike torture and whipping inflicted for no good reason? Let us go out to all nations and overthrow their institutions and denounce their gods! And even if we don’t convince anybody, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of drawing down on ourselves the punishment for our own deceit.”[27]
Even mobsters, like Henry Hill and Alphonse D’Arco, from time to time break down and confess what they swore on life and limb they would not confess. Surely Jesus’ followers who had everything to lose and nothing to gain would break down and confess it was a hoax if it was. Thus the “conspiracy theory” fails to meet the demands of the evidence.[28]
Further, Craig points out that “if we distrust these men, then we must distrust all writers of history and records. If we accept the records of secular historians, then we must by the same standard also accept the reliability of the disciples’ testimony to the resurrection.”[29] Similarly, Licona points that “to claim as useless any effort to know the past is not only the death of history but of the legal system too.”[30]
If Jesus Christ has been raised there is purpose and direction to the cosmos; to our life. If Jesus rose from the dead His claim and promises our justified. If Jesus rose then we, who have faith in Him, will also rise. If Jesus rose the Kingdom of God and new creation has broke into this broken world. Truly, “The resurrection of Jesus… is the symbol and starting point of a new world.”[34]
- William Lane Craig, The Son Rises
- Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
- Gary R. Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
- Lee Strobel, The Case for the Resurrection & The Film Collection
- How has the resurrection changed you?
- How has it changed someone you know or know of? For instance, think of the Apostle Paul.
- How should the fact of the resurrection continue to change you?
- What should you do differently this week in light of the resurrection?
- How can you thank Christ for the resurrection and all that it means?
- Lastly, read 1 Corinthians 15 this week, pray, and think about the importance of the resurrection of Christ.
______________________________
[1] Marten Hengel rightly says Paul considered the “Jewish-Messianic message and its concomitant scriptural evidence… quite important from the very beginning.” (Marten Hengel, “Paul in Arabia” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 [2002], 59).
[2] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 115
[3] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 530. See also e.g. Licona’s discussion of John Dominic Crossan’s view in The Resurrection of Jesus, 44-45 see also 608.
[4] See also John Adams in Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 609.
[5] Keller, The Reason for God, 210. Also, William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 279.
[6] Licona says “Paul wrote the letter we now refer to as 1 Corinthians in A.D. 54 or 55. If Jesus died in A.D. 30, we are reading a letter that was written within twenty-five years of Jesus’ death by a major church leader who knew a number of those who walked with Jesus. If this letter contains tradition that Paul has preserved, we are even closer than twenty-five years to the events it claims to report” (The Resurrection of Jesus, 223-24. See 223- 35).
[7] Even John Dominic Crossan says the fact that Jesus was crucified is “as sure as anything historical ever can be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991], 145).
[8] See: “Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a.”
[9] Martin Hengel says, “A crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish” (Crucifixion John Bowden trans. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 10) as Paul himself later would say (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). See also Ibid., 61-62, and esp. 89. Justin Martyr Apology I ch. 13. Also the Alexamenos graffito shows how foolish many thought it was to worship one that had been crucified. The graffiti depicts a Christian worshiping an image of a man on a cross with a donkey head.
[10] cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 75. Truly, “a crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms for the Jews” (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 292). Paul himself was among the rulers that “did not recognize him,” the Messiah, nor what the prophets said regarding Him (Acts 13:27). Yet he later was enlightened to the fact that the Scriptures were fulfilled (v. 27b) when Jesus was condemned, i.e. “cursed,” on a tree (v. 29 see also vv. 30-39). Also, Loren T. Stuckenbruck after examining the relevant apocalyptic and early Judaism literature says, “messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves” (“Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism” 112 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 90-13.
[11] In Paul’s day “Messianic expectation married social discontent. The result was the offspring of anticipation and action” (David P Seemuth, “Mission in the Early Church” in Mission in the New Testament, 51). People, not least Paul, did not expect a suffering servant that would die a violent death to be the long awaited messiah. They expected a messiah that would bring violence to their oppressors.
[12] See Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 579-80 and Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 554. “Wright argues that the empty tomb and the postresurrection appearances of Jesus are necessary conditions for the rise of early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus” (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 107).
[13] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 553.
[14] Cf. e.g. Wright who says “women were simply not acceptable witnesses” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 607 cf. 326). Also, Craig, The Son Rises, 59-61.
[15] So N.T. Wright has said, “The stories exhibit… exactly that surface tension which we associate, not with tales artfully told by people eager to sustain a fiction and therefore anxious to make everything look right” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 612).
[16] Or, as Islam teaches, Jesus was not really the one that was crucified. This, though ludicrous, is not any worse than thinking Jesus did not really die. Surah 157-58 says, “And [for] their saying, ’Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.”
[17] To think of it in terms of the miraculous, it would be more miraculous for Jesus to have lived through the crucifixion and what lead up to it then that He was resurrected from the dead.
[18] See his further helpful elaboration in The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 37-40.
[19] Cf. Alexander Metherell, interviewed in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 196.
[20] Alexander Metherell, interviewed in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 200, 202.
[21] William Edwards, M.D., et.al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association (March 26, 1986), 1463.
[22] Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 41.
[23] Craig, The Son Rises, 106. “Something more than mere curiosity about an ancient puzzle draws our attention to the first centuries of Christian history… whether or not we regard ourselves as Christians or in any way religious, we cannot altogether escape the tectonic shift of cultural values that was set in motion by those small and obscure beginnings” (Wayne A. Meeks, “The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993], 1). “The creation of so many texts and their survival is remarkable and counter-intuitive. Jesus was a Jew, and anti-Semitism was rife in the Greco-Roman world. He came from Nazareth, a tiny village in Galilee, a remote landlocked principality. He was crucified, a brutal and humiliating form of execution reserved for the lowest orders to deter subversives, troublemakers, and slaves like those who followed Spartacus” (Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” 228-29 in In Defense of the Bible).
[24] See Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 546.
[25] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 551.
[26] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Fortress Press, 1988), 125.
[27] Craig, The Son Rises, 24. Craig says this referencing Eusebius of Caesarea’s argument in Demonstratio evangelica 3. 4, 5.
[28] See Craig, The Son Rises, 23-36 for a concise and pungent argument.
[29] Craig, The Son Rises, 25.
[30] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 95.
[31] Thomas Arnold as quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 217.
[32] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 608.
[33] Ibid., 610 cf. 619.
[34] N. T. Wright, Surprised By Hope (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008), 67.
The Shape and Reshaping of Paul’s Understanding of the Messiah (and it’s significance)
First, it is important that we spend some time looking at Phariseism because whatever is said about it will affect what we say about Paul.[1] We can see from the NT witness as well as other texts that Pharisees held considerable influence.[2] Inevitably, Paul was shaped greatly by his Pharisaic training.[3]
Before Paul’s conversion (when he was still known as Saul) he thought of Jesus in light of Deuteronomy 13:1-5. He thought that Jesus was a deceiver that was leading people astray (cf. Jn. 7:12, 32, 47; 9:22; 16:2). Jesus claimed to be something He was not thus He deserved to be killed. Paul thought that anyone that followed after Him likewise “shall be put to death” (Deut. 13:5). Jesus’ followers were in Paul’s mind saying, “Let us go after other gods” (v. 2). He took it upon himself to “purge the evil from [the] midst” (v. 5) of God’s people. Paul was convinced that he “ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9) even though it was against his teachers’ advice (5:33ff).
He likely thought that Jesus was a false prophet or dreamer like Theudas (Acts 5:36), the Egyptian (Ant. 20.169-172; J.W. 2.261-263; Acts 21:38),[4] or Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37). When Paul saw Stephen preaching about Jesus “he realized that the new movement was dangerous as well as blasphemously ridiculous.”[5] Paul, in persecuting “the Way” (Acts 16:17; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22;), saw himself as “offering service to God” (Jn. 16:2).
Surely a crucified man could not be the Messiah (Deut. 21:22-23 cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24).[6] Plus, the expectation was a king in the vein of David. A Yehoshu’a that defeats Israel’s enemies not a Yehoshu’a that will be defeated by dying upon a tree. In Paul’s day “Messianic expectation married social discontent. The result was the offspring of anticipation and action.”[7] Not surprisingly many lacked the interpretive key to understand that the Davidic King would also be the Suffering Servant. That key would not come until the Christ Himself revealed it on the Emmaus road (Luke 24). It was not until after Paul received this interpretive key that he knew that Jesus was the true and better Prophet than Moses (Deut. 18:15-22). Jesus had proved Himself by raising from the dead (v. 22). Paul knew that if he did not obey the LORD it would be required of him (v. 19).
Before Paul understood the Kingdom of God was at hand he sought to bring it in with his own hands. He hunted the Crucified One’s followers like animals (Acts 8:1 note διωγμὸς; 22:4 says “to the death;” v. 19 says he even “beat” people), though he likely thought of them as lower than animals. He did all he could to bring havoc on the church (8:2) despite Gamaliel’s advice against such action (Acts 5:34-39; cf. Aboth 4.11). In this Paul acted more in the Shammaites vein than that which he was reared under Gamaliel in the Hillel brand of Pharisaism.[8]
Pharisaism was very influenced by Nehemiah and the reforms that were sought in that book (cf. esp. chs. Neh. 8-13). For instance, Sabbath keeping was very important for Pharisees, and Nehemiah says that wrath was coming upon Israel because they were profaning the Sabbath (Neh. 13:18) and in general the Law that God had given His people. Thus “the Way’s” (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22 for “the Way”) emphasis on “the Lord’s Day” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10) as opposed to the Sabbath would have also been abhorrent to Pharisaism (Matt. 12:2; Lk. 14:3; Jn. 5:10 cf. Neh. 9:14; 10:31; 13:15-22). It appears that the Pharisees wanted to put into practice the principles laid out especially in Ezra-Nehemiah to bring about a lasting kingdom. The Pharisees like those in Ezra-Nehemiah realized that what had happened to them was a result of their evil deeds and great guilt (Ezra 9:13; Neh. 9:26-27 cf. Deut. 28:15-68; 29:16-28; 31:16-21, 27, 29), and so they covenanted and obligated themselves (cf. Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:38; 10:29, 32, 35) so that they would stop repeating the cycle of entropy that they were so accustomed to (cf. Neh. 9).[9] They needed the circumcision of the heart, the giving of the Holy Spirit, that only Jesus could bring, though they did not know it (cf. Is. 32:14-16; 44:3; Ezek. 36:26:27; 11:19-20; Jer. 31:33; Joel 2:28; Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:17; Gal. 3:14).
A crucified man from Nazareth did not at first fit Paul’s description of the Messiah,[10] let alone his understanding of monotheism. Paul would have related to Peter when he said, “Far be it from me Lord” that you should suffer (Matt. 16:22 cf. 2 Sam. 7:13, 16; 1 Chron. 17:14; 22:10; Ps. 89:4, 29, 36-37 110:4; Is. 9:7; Ezek. 37:25). Paul with Peter and many others were looking for the One that would deliverer them from oppression, not be delivered into oppression (see again the confusion of the time in John 12:32-34 cf. 3:14; 8:28). Even Simeon saw “the consolation of Israel” and it was revealed to him by the Spirit that Jesus was the Christ (Luke 2:25-26), yet he would not have thought that “salvation” (v. 30) and glory to Israel (v. 32) would have came through the Messiah being cut off.
Thus, in light of Paul’s background, it is very significant that Paul’s vision of the Christ was so radically reshaped. A huge paradigm shift had taken place in his life and view of everything. Paul went from persecuting the people of the “the way,” those who follow Jesus, to following alongside them and eventually leading the charge, yet he had to truly “count the cost.” Paul honestly suffered the loss of all things, and counted them a worthless trash, in order that he may gain Christ.
Paul, in space in time, was transformed by his risen Lord and King. He went from persecutor to persecuted. He went from confining those who confessed Jesus as Lord to preaching nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Once Paul was convinced, he reasoned with others that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4[11]). So “Jesus Christ’s resurrection,” for Paul, “represents the hinge of history.”[12] In Jewish thought resurrection is the precursor of the age to come. “Hence, Jesus’ resurrection signaled that the new age has come. God’s saving promises are being realized.”[13]
Significance Paul saw the risen Lord Jesus. Paul, a persecutor of the Church, ended up leading various churches. Paul, who would have known if the whole thing was a hoax, died for His Lord Jesus.
The resurrection happened.
It changed everything for Paul.
Has it changed everything for you?
______________________________________________
[1]N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God vol. 1 in Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 181.
[2]Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 181.
[3]cf. Ibid., 182. Later Wright says that the Pharisee’s “goals were the honour of Israel’s god, the following of his covenant charter, and the pursuit of the full promised redemption of Israel” (Ibid., 189). We see from the NT that this begins to come to fruition in Jesus’ inauguration of the Kingdom of God yet there is a “not yet” aspect to the Kingdom.
[4]See Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 202.
[5]F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame vol. 1 in The Advance of Christianity Through the Centuries F.F. Bruce gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 83. See Don N. Howell Jr., “Mission in Paul’s Epistles: Genesis, Pattern, and Dynamics” 63-91 in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach William J. Larkin, Joel F. Williams eds. (New York: Orbis Books, 1999), 68. Also, N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 327-28.
[6]cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 75. Truly, “a crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms for the Jews” (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 292). Paul himself was among the rulers that “did not recognize him,” the Messiah, nor what the prophets said regarding Him (Acts 13:27). Yet he later was enlightened to the fact that the Scriptures were fulfilled (v. 27b) when Jesus was condemned, i.e. “cursed,” on a tree (v. 29 see also vv. 30-39). Also, Loren T. Stuckenbruck after examining the relevant apocalyptic and early Judaism literature says, “messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves” (“Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism” 112 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 90-13.
[7]David P Seemuth, “Mission in the Early Church” in Mission in the New Testament, 51.
[8]See John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1999), 30.
[9]Moses knows that Israel is going to turn away from LORD (Deut. 28:15-68; 29:16-28; 31:16-21, 27, 29), and says that the ultimate curse will be exile however after exile will come covenant renewal and the perfect keeping of the Torah (30:1-10) (Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 261). “Covenantal ideas were therefore fundamental to the different movements and currents of thought within second-temple Judaism” (Ibid.). “It was the covenant that drove some to ‘zeal’ for Torah, others to military action, others to monastic-style piety” (Ibid., 262).
[10]Martin Hengel says, “A crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish” (Crucifixion John Bowden trans. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 10) as Paul himself later would say (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). See also Ibid., 61-62, and esp. 89. Justin Martyr Apology I ch. 13. Also the Alexamenos graffito shows how foolish many thought it was to worship one that had been crucified. The graffiti depicts a Christian worshiping an image of a man on a cross with a donkey head.
[11] Acts 9:22; 13:16ff; 16:13; 17:3, 17; 18:4-5, 19; 19:8ff; 24:25; 26:6, 22-26; 28:23, 31 cf. 18:28; from the beginning of the church preaching and teaching was integral 2:42. Hengel rightly says Paul considered the “Jewish-Messianic message and its concomitant scriptural evidence… quite important from the very beginning” (Marten Hengel, “Paul in Arabia” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 [2002], 59). Also, in Luke’s “orderly account” that he wrote to Theophilus so that he may have “certainty” (Luke 1:3), he said that Jesus “presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs” (Acts 1:3). I. Howard Marshall sees the spread of the message of Jesus the Christ as the main story-line that the book of Acts is concerned with (Acts, 26).
[12] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 292 see also 853.
[13] Ibid.
Abortion: This Subject is a Matter of Life or Death
Thinking about abortion is very difficult but very important. I hope to look at it with grace and candor. So, out front, I want to say two things: First, abortion is wrong and a grave sin against a holy God. Second, there is grace and forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus Christ! So even as we think about this difficult subject, I do not want us to have a holier-than-thou mind set. We are all sinners saved by the grace of God. 1 John 1:9 gives us all hope: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I also want us to realize that the problem of abortion cannot be fixed by mere legislation (abortion was happening when it was against the law and infanticide has sadly been around for thousands of years). Legislation is important however. Yet, the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is people’s hearts; people need to be transformed by God from the inside out. So, the problem is not just abortion, that is a fruit, albeit perhaps the ugliest fruit, of this society’s worldview.[1] This fruit is seen all over the place just in different flavors. However, the underlying problem is the same, idolatry. People worship convenience, their unhindered sexual lifestyle, their accomplishments, or a thousand other things above the one true God. We know from Romans chapter one the chaos that ensues when things usurp God’s place on the throne. When we make a god out of what is no god, it is its own punishment. God gives people up to a debased mind; to do what ought not to be done.
Society often paints things in a thin veneer. It looks attractive. When examined closely, however, it is most worthless, even poisons. It is interesting that many have abortions to escape consequences but end up instead sadly multiplying them as the Scriptures say (cf. Rom. 1). The immediate physical and psychological consequences of an abortion are often many, to speak nothing of long term affects. However, these sadly are just a foretaste of what awaits those who do not turn to Jesus for forgiveness.
Statistics Regarding Abortion in America
• Since 1973, there have been 53,000,000 reported and legal abortions. This is equal to the population of 19 western states.
• There are 1.21 Million abortions per year (2005)
• There are approximately 3,700 abortions per day.
• 1/3 of American women will have an abortion by the time they are forty-five.
• Reasons why women have an abortion:
o 1% of all abortion occur because of rape or incest
o 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems
o 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons:
Some say they have responsibility to other people
Cannot afford a child
Having a child would interfere with work, school, etc.
Don’t want to be a single parent or would have problems with the father of the child
• Partial birth abortion (the name alone is sad) is used to abort women who are 20 to 30 weeks pregnant.
• Some studies report that up to 90% of women chose not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound.
• The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.
• Babies of 22 weeks gestation have survived, though this is still very rare.
• Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.
• There are several health risks for the woman:
o Breast cancer
o Ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
o Bad effects on future pregnancies
o Becoming sterile
o Sexual dysfunction
o Mental health risks
(From The Village Church)
Why is Abortion Wrong?
First, because Genesis 1:26-27 tells us we are created in image of God. Second, because Exodus 20:13 tells us, “Thou shall not murder.”
However, are these texts enough? Or could people object that that is all well and good but what is inside a woman womb is not a human. What can we say about that from Scripture?
Exodus 21:22-25 says:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (See Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, 159-60, 160n2 and Frame, 718-21).
There is quite a few things to note on this significant passage. First, notice what the result is if there is no harm to the child (see v. 22)? Just a fine. However, what happens if there is harm? “Life for life,” it says. Notice that this still means it is an accident but the punishment is still life for life. In other cases of accidental manslaughter this was not the mandate but provision of “house arrest” and protection was made. Therefore, this shows the seriousness of protecting unborn life. If God has such hatred for the accidental death of an unborn child what is His reaction to intentional death? Wrath (cf. Jer. 7:30-34).
Meredith G. Kline points out that
“Induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to the abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism” (“Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” 200-01).
Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Job 31:15-18; Ps. 22:9; Hos. 12:3; Gen. 25:23-26) says:
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. [14] I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. [15] My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
Psalm 51:5 says: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Remember the context? David is repenting of his sin. What is David saying here? He is saying he has a sinful nature inherited from Adam. He is not saying it was his mother’s fault. Note, “Sin in Scripture is a personal quality, never an impersonal one. It is never a property of things, only of persons” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 722). Thus, we see here a very strong argument for personhood beginning at conception. If he had a sin nature in his mother’s womb than it follows that he was a real human being with a soul. “Fetal tissue” or any type of tissue or inanimate object for that matter is not sinful, people alone are sinful. Do you see the conclusion here? David was a person, a real human person, in his mother’s womb.
We could also look at Judges 13:3-5 and Luke 1:35. Jesus too was a divine-human person from conception (cf. Heb 2:17-18; 4:15; Lk. 41-44 cf. 2:16).
We see in Scripture that we should take precautions so as to avoid the possible destruction of life (Deut. 22:8 cf. 19:5). Thus, even if you are not entirely persuaded by these arguments the principle that we see in Scripture would lead us not to agree with abortion. As Frame says, “Even if the above arguments are only, say, 80 percent certain, they make it highly probable that abortion destroys human lives. And God’s law clearly tells us not to take that risk. So our practical response should be exactly the same as if we were persuaded 100 percent” (Frame, 724).
To illustrate this point imagine I go hunting with you. We go out into the thick woods and after a while I hear a rustling in the grass so I do what any hunter should do, I don’t hesitate, I point in that general direction, and fire a few shots hoping I hit my intended target. Would you hunt with me very long if that was my practice? No, because you would be either to scared or dead. Do you see the principal? You don’t just shoot at any rustling noise because a human could be making the noise and not a deer. We take precautions to protect life!
The United States Military goes by an ROE, Rules of Engagement. They for instance have to have positive identity before they engage an enemy force. Or they have to use escalation of force. Our military personnel take great precautions to not destroy innocent life, even to the point of putting their own self in great harm, and yet in our own country we do not take these same precautions with our unborn. We do not have “positive identity” and yet many are okay with taking life. Should we not rather take great precautions even if we are not exactly sure when life begins? If we as a country make people put hand rails up on their own house and enforce all sorts of other codes, should we not also protect the unborn even if their is disagreement when life begins?
DNA: “From the point of conception, unborn children have a full complement of chromosomes… Therefore, the child is not ‘part of his mother’s body.’ His genetic makeup is different from hers. So we should not treat the unborn child as we treat hair or fingernails, or even as we treat organs like the gall bladder or liver. The unborn child is a separate and unique human being” (Frame, 725). Yes the child is dependent on his mother yet he will also be after he is outside of the womb and that in no way gives his mother the right to kill him. Though there are helpful scientific observations, “Personhood is a metaphysical, religious, theological, and ethical category, not a scientific one. There are no scientific observations or experiments that can detect a difference between a person and a nonperson” (Frame, 726). Yet, as we saw above, if we have a ROE for combat how much more should we go to great lengths to protect human unborn life!
I read an article about a teenage boy that falsely admitted to a crime and later was proven innocent from DNA. People are sometime proven guilty and proven innocent by their DNA and yet not proven to be human by their DNA this does not make sense to me.
Objections that People Raise (see Grudem, Politics, 162-63 regarding this section)
1. Unable to interact or survive on its own: I have already said how I think this argument is faulty above. A young baby is also unable to survive on its own and that in no way justifies starving it, for example.
2. Birth defects: The question here is whether we would think it is right to put a child to death after it is born because it may have problems. There have also been predictions about the capabilities of child that have been wrong. So, no, potential birth defect or known birth defects cannot justify an abortion (cf. Ex. 4:11; Jn. 9:2-3).
3. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest: These situations, though few (around 1% or less of all abortions), should be treated with much sensitivity and love. However, the child should not be punished for the sin of the father (Deut. 24:16).
4. Abortion to save the life of the mother: People make it seem like this problem arises very often however the truth is it does not (less than 0.118% of all abortions). This situation is different from the ones above because the choice is between the loss of one life (the baby) and the loss of two lives (the baby and the mother). As we have seen, the Scriptures teach the importance of protecting human life. So if both lives cannot be protected I believe the right thing to do is protect the life that can be protected. I agree with Grudem, though this is a difficult subject.
“I cannot see a reason to say this would be morally wrong, and in fact, I believe it would be morally right for doctors to save the life that can be saved and take the life of the preborn child from the mother’s body (for example from the Fallopain tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy) results from directly intending to save the life of the mother, not from directly intending to take the child’s life. If the medical technology exists to save the child’s life in such cases, then of course the child’s life should also be saved. But if abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, this would seem to be the only situation in which it is morally justified” (Politics, 163-64).
5. If Abortion is not allowed it is a wrongful restriction of freedom: However, does that make any sense? I think not. Does not the government make restrictions, isn’t that what we have empowered them to do? Did you know I do not have the freedom to drink and drive, the madness! I am not allowed to shoot guns at people, the government is so restrictive… not even in the city limits… As we can see, the government restricts people and that is right and good. We should not be able to drink and drive, shoot guns at people, etc.
6. “All children should be wanted children”: This, to tell you the truth, makes me sick. Yes! Duh! All children should be wanted children. But the problem is with the parents. It saddens me that we have taken consumerism and applied to human life as a society. Today, there are many people that want to customize their children. However, once a child is born can you just put him or her to death because you don’t want them? Surely not (at least yet)! So, again, this argument holds no ground. It simply pushes the problem back. Children should be wanted. However, the child should not be killed because they are not wanted, the parent should change to want the child. Of course, there is also adoption which is also a good option for many people.
7. Others say, “I’m personally against abortion, but I just don’t support laws against abortion”: That is akin to saying, “I am personally against drunk driving (or murdering for that matter) and I recommend people not do it but don’t support laws against it because individuals should make that decision themselves.” Do you see how silly that is?! Let’s just have no laws! That is foolish and unbiblical. This is especially foolish in a country where we actually have a say.
8. Others say, “We should reduce the causes of abortion but not have laws against abortion”: That would be like saying lets reverse the laws on murder and just have more classes on anger management. That is ridicules. Yes, classes on anger management are important and we should have them but that alone will never do.
9. Yet others say, “Christians should not try to impose their moral standards on other people”: I would agree that we should not impose our religion on people. However, moral standards are a different thing, especially when we live in a country that essentially lets the consensus of the majority make the rules (See Gen. 41:37-45; 42:6; 45:8-9, 26; Dan. 4:27; Jer. 29:7; Neh. 1:1; Esther 5:1-8; 7:1-6; 8:3-13; 9:4,12-15, 20-32; 10:3 for the NT cf. Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 for people “imposing” their moral standards). Plus, non-Christians saying this are acturally wanting to impose their moral standard on people. However, their moral standard says that their should be no moral standard, or it should be very low, or it should allow abortion, or it should allow everything except pedophelia.
[1] One person has said, “What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic.”
The Grave Necessity for a Hideous Hell
Hell is unashamedly a dreadful doctrine; yet, as we will see, a necessary doctrine.[1] C. S. Lewis’ said,
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.”[2]
We don’t desire controversy for the sake of controversy.[3] Rather, we want to be convinced biblically,[4] logically, and practically that hell is a necessary doctrine.
It is important before considering the evidence to think about our a priori assumptions. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mocking Bird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e. Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward Tom was convicted. Why? Because people were prejudice against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it happens when people consider other forms of evidence. This is especially likely to occur when emotional issues are involved. So when people consider what the Bible teaches on certain subjects they come with tinted glasses. One theologian, for instance, admits that he “was led to question the traditional belief in everlasting conscious torment because of moral revulsion and broader theological considerations, not first of all on scriptural grounds.”[6]
John Stott believed in annihilationism. Stott, by his own admission, left the ranks of what is “traditional orthodoxy for most of the church fathers, the medieval theological and the Reformers.” Even as Stott emotionally wrestled with the doctrine of hell he said, “our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it. As a committed evangelical, my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”[7]
As we look at the wrath of God we look from a certain vantage point in the cultural climate in which we live. This inevitably shades our perception of things. One book I read told of a Korean man that struggled not with the wrath of God (and even hell) but with the love and grace of God.[8] This was because he had seen horrible wickedness and clearly understood that wickedness deserves justice.
Timothy Keller tells about a woman that told him that the very idea of a judging God was offensive. Keller responded by asking why she wasn’t offended by the idea of a forgiving God. The woman was puzzled so Keller continued:
“’I respectfully urge you to consider your cultural location when you find the Christian teaching about hell offensive.’ …Westerns get upset by the Christian doctrine of hell, but they find Biblical teaching about turning the other cheek and forgiving enemies appealing. I then asked her to consider how someone from a very different culture sees Christianity. In traditional societies the teaching about ‘turning the other cheek’ makes absolutely no sense. It offends people’s deepest instincts about what is right. For them the doctrine of judgment, however, is no problem at all. That society is repulsed by aspects of Christianity that Western people enjoy, and are attracted by the aspects that secular Westerns can’t stand.”[9]
Many people are chronological or geographical snobs. That is, they have baseless biases and think their place in space and time has the unique vantage point to decipher morals, values, and truth claims of people in different times and cultures than their own. However, why should one think that non-Western cultures are inferior to our own?
The various aspects of the unpopularity of Christianity actually show that it is transcultural. Keller says,
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this is the place, the Christian doctrine of divine judgment.”[10]
Let’s, as Keller says, for the sake of argument, listen to the transcultural truth of Scripture. Let’s not be biased. Let’s take our tinted glasses off and seek to see why hell is necessary.
“If the resurrection really happened…”
Imagine for a moment that Christ actually rose from the dead in bodily form after being in the grave for three days. How would His followers have reacted? For the sake of argument, suppose Christ did indeed rise from the dead. And I do not mean some vague floating mist. I mean a bodily resurrection. How would Jesus’ followers have responded?
You would think it would leave a movement in its wake. One that would continue to the present day. They would do and say things that otherwise would not make sense.
Psychological
There would be psychological differences in the group that followed Jesus. If the group was frightened after Jesus’ death, for example, hiding away, we would expect that after His bodily resurrection, they would be bold. They would be excited. They would tell people about Jesus.
In short, their psychological state would go from scared, disillusioned, and depressed to fearless, reassured, and energized. They would go from hiding in shame to hazarding their lives.
Volitional
The transformation of their psychological state would transform their actions as well. So, we would expect His followers to tell others about it. In fact, they would go to great lengths and even suffer to share the news about Jesus. They would willingly be counted insane or even go to the gallows, so to speak. In short, they would show through their actions that they had seen and touched the resurrection.
Religious
Religious texts would be reexamined and reinterpreted in light of the traumatic event. For instance, Jews would look at Isaiah 53 through a different lens. The group of followers would also have other practices that could not be explained in any other way except by the resurrection. For example, they may have a meal celebrating the work of Jesus. This practice would be strange by outsiders, yet they would still practice it because of its significance.
Traditions
Previously held religious traditions would be changed. Changes would happen that could not be explained except through a cataclysmic event. Examples of ingrained religious traditions that would be significant if changed:
1) The day a religious group gathers for worship.
2) The changing of a religious rite used to enter a religious group. An example here would be doing away with circumcision as a rite of entrance into a religious community.
It is not unreasonable to believe if something big happened it would lead to a change in tradition. It must be understood, however, that traditions do not change unless there is a reason to change them. For example, it would take something significant to change the day a religious group would gather for worship if they were told to worship on a particular day (e.g., Exodus 20:10); and it would take something big to change the religious rite of passage into a group if there was already solid precedence for a particular rite (e.g., Leviticus 12:3).
Heritage
If the resurrection happened, it would have left a heritage in its wake. People would still be impacted by it. People would still gather in mass in celebration of it. People would still be psychologically changed by it. People would tell other people about it. People would… be transformed.
If the resurrection really happened…
If the resurrection happened, it would make sense that we should not be lackadaisical about it.
Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? If the resurrection really happened, it changes everything!
in X 
