Category Archives: Apologetics

Is the Bible to be interpreted as literal or metaphorical?

By Spencer D Gear

(image courtesy cliparts.co)

One of the ways to put down those who interpret the Bible literally, the fundamentalists, and Bible-believing Christians is to say that we don’t interpret the Bible literally but metaphorically, allegorically or through some other deconstruction. Some add that it is the uneducated or uninformed who take the Bible literally and are perpetrating false views of the Bible.

This is how Robert Funk debunks such Christians:

As I look around me, I am distressed by those who are enslaved by a Christ imposed upon them by a narrow and rigid legacy. There are millions of Americans who are the victims of a mythical Jesus conjured up by modern evangelists to whip their followers into a frenzy of guilt and remorse—and cash contributions. I agonize over their slavery in contrast to my freedom. I have a residual hankering to free my fellow human beings from this bondage, which can be as abusive as any form of slavery known to humankind. I believe that such a hankering is inspired by Jesus himself, who seems to be untouched by religious bigotry and tyranny and unacquainted with the straightjacket of literalism and dogmatism. Liberation from fear and ignorance is always a worthy cause. In the last analysis, however, it is because I occasionally glimpse an unknown Jesus lurking in and behind Christian legend and piety that I persist in my efforts to find my way through the mythical and legendary debris of the Christian tradition. And it is the lure of this glimpse that I detect in other questers [quests for the historical Jesus] and that I share with them (Funk 1996:19, emphasis added).

Robert M. Price is just as adamant in castigating fundamentalists and Christian supernaturalists for their foolish, inaccurate understanding of the Scriptures:

We are viewed as insidious villains seeking to undermine the belief of the faithful, trying to push them off the heavenly path and into Satan’s arms. But this is not how we view ourselves at all. We find ourselves entering the field as the champions and zealots for a straightforward and accurate understanding of the Bible as an ancient text. In our opinion, it is the fundamentalist, the apologist for Christian supernaturalism, who is propagating false and misleading views of the Bible among the general populace. We are not content to know better and to shake our heads at the foolishness of the untutored masses. We want the Bible to be appreciated for what it is, not for what it is not. And it is not a supernatural oracle book filled with infallible dogmas and wild tales that must be believed at the risk of eternal peril (Price 2005:15, emphasis added).

I came across this kind of issue in my blogging on Christian Forums, with this perceptive question from one person: [1]

How do we know if certain passages [of the Bible] are metaphorical?

I’m wondering how can we know if certain biblical stories are literal or metaphorical? For example, the story of creation, exodus, the big flood, etc. I’ve always wondered that cause it seems to me there is a lot of disagreement in Christianity concerning this question. And recently I heard that there are some indications in original texts…different writing style or something? Thanks in advance and excuse me for my ignorance

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar took this line:

‘A classic example in both church and culture today is thinking that the truth of the Genesis stories of creation depends upon their factuality. This has led to disputes about “creation” versus “evolution,” “intelligent design” versus “random evolution,” and so forth. These disputes would not have occurred without the modern (Enlightenment) conviction that truth equals factuality. For many defenders of the “truth of Genesis,” the truth of these stories is dependent upon their factuality and evolution is a competing factuality. A parabolic reading of these stories would eliminate this conflict and place the issue where it belongs. To whom does the earth belong? Is it the creation of God and the gift of God, wondrous and calling forth awe, plenteous and calling forth gratitude and adoration, and intended for the whole of creation? or is it ours?” (Borg & Crossan 2006:219, note 19).

My response to the poster was: [2]

What is your understanding of the meaning of “history”?

This will be a starter from me. Often, “history” is understood two ways: (1) “Actual happenings in the real world”, and (2) “What people write about actual happenings in the real world” (Wright 1992:81). Wright notes that the second definition technically is the correct one and is the only meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

In this understanding, which I accept, history is writing about events that happened. Wright goes on to say that history is not “bare facts” or “subjective interpretations” but is “the meaningful narrative of events and intentions” (Wright 1992:82). I agree.

The questions relating to your post include: Is Genesis 1 written about a meaningful narrative and intentions about what happened at the beginning of the world?

On the other hand, what is metaphor? My Australian Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘metaphor’ as ‘a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable, in order to suggest a resemblance, as A mighty fortress is our God’.

However, if we talk about a “literal” creation in contrast to a “metaphorical” creation, it does not help us to determine what went on at creation. Why? Because “literal” and “metaphorical” refer to the way words refer to things, but we are still left with what the metaphor refers to. It has not been defined.

Perhaps better language would be to use “concrete” and “abstract” instead of “literal” and “metaphorical”. When the OT and NT use the metaphor of “sleep” to indicate death, it is still referring to a concrete situation – death.

So, do Genesis 1 and 2 refer to what a person (Moses) has written about what happened in the real world (history), or has Moses written in the abstract, using a metaphor?

Another replied: [3]

Everything in the Bible is for your edification and even the metaphors are to be used to understand what God wants you to know.

My response was: [4]

The issue has many more serious ramifications. Let me explain:

This is what some have written in regard to Genesis 1 being metaphorical and not literal in what is known as the Framework Hypothesis of Genesis 1:

“The evidence that the Genesis cosmogony has been shaped by the employment of the Bible’s two-register cosmology thus demonstrating that the picture of the week of days is one element of a broader pattern in which upper-register realties are described through the metaphorical use of lower-register terminology” (The Great Debate, 185).

“The creation narrative is not to be taken literally but is kerygma-theological, and redemptive” (TGB, 218).

“The Framework Hypothesis regards the seven day scheme as a figurative framework” (JGD, 219). “While the six days of creation are presented as normal solar days, according to the Framework interpretation, the total picture of God completing his creative work in a week of days is not to be taken literally” JGD, 219).

Another has written:

Literal or Metaphorical: Even today there are very few biblical literalists who read Genesis 2 and 3 absolutely literally. They do not believe that God was literally “walking in the garden in the cool of the evening,” for instance. It is certainly good theology to distinguish between God and our metaphorical descriptions of God, but we don’t want to lose the beauty and drama of the biblical story. God is very much a participant in the drama of Adam and Eve. One of the reasons we know and love this story is because God is portrayed in such human terms. But once you acknowledge that the portrayal of God in this story is a metaphor, then there is no reason not to view the whole story as a metaphor. When we do so we find that this is a very rich and profound discussion about human life and happiness.

We lose much of the meaning of the story when we try to make it a historical account of the origin of the species. Remember that this was originally written for a bronze-age culture. If we get hung up on the question of whether Genesis 2 is a factual account, then we will lose the truths the story is trying to communicate, just like we could get a misleading understanding of God if we used these verses to declare that God has hands and feet.

This is how metaphorical / allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is explained:

The literalness of the garden is questioned. Although ‘the tree of life and the knowledge of good and evil could have been literal’ and although ‘man faced a real historical choice between life and the knowledge of good and evil’, in fact ‘the language used to describe this choice … is metaphorical. The ‘paradise of Eden’ was taken by pre-Reformation commentators partly as literal and partly metaphorical.’

As for ‘the tree of life’, the ‘serpent’ and other imagery (in Gen.2), Forster and Marston see them as ‘pure symbolism (and not literally as well) in Revelation 20-22 and Gen.2-3’

Here’s another acceptance of metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3:

If we all agree that the serpent is metaphorical, why push for literalism elsewhere in the Creation account? The story of the serpent is part of a larger apocalyptic (or, revelatory) tale — the story of the beginning. Thus, a consistent view of this Creation story is consistently metaphorical. The Creation-Days and their unusual numerology represent something. The Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge represent something. The consumption of the forbidden fruit represents something.

As long as we retain the essentials of the story — the meaningful images that convey to us God’s goodness, our fault, our dilemma, and our hope — there’s no reason to resist reading Creation metaphorically, and every reason to embrace what it appears was intended.

So did God create actual days or were they only metaphorical ways of expression of creation?

I take the view that this is factual history dealing with the reality of the creation of the universe.

Notes

[1] Wolf911 (#1)

[2] ozspen #2

[3] papaJP (#4)

[4] ozspen #5

Works consulted

Borg, M and Crossan J D 2006. The last week: The day-by-day account of Jesus’s final week in Jerusalem. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Funk, R W 1996. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a new millennium. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder & Stoughton (A Polebridge Press book).

Price, R M 2005. The empty tomb: Jesus beyond the grave. New York: Prometheus Press.

Wright, N T 1992. The New Testament and the people of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Some of the effects of alcohol use – a Christian response

By Spencer D Gear

To discuss alcohol or no-alcohol use with evangelical Christians is like opening up the topic of speaking in tongues, eternal security or millennial views. If you don’t believe me, please take a read of some of the discussion on the blog, Christian Fellowship Forum, “Request” (posts 18-72; I’m ozspen).

This is part of what the Australian government, Department of Health and Ageing, says about alcohol:

Due to the different ways that alcohol can affect people, there is no amount of alcohol that can be said to be safe for everyone. People choosing to drink must realise that there will always be some risk to their health and social well-being.

What about drinking alcohol during pregnancy? This research, “Alcohol in pregnancy: What questions should we be asking?” stated:

“If you are planning a pregnancy, are pregnant or are breastfeeding, it is safest if you do not drink alcohol at all. Drinking alcohol may cause harm to your baby. At high levels it can also harm your health. There is no evidence for a safe level of drinking in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Either stopping or dinking less alcohol at any time during your pregnancy will reduce the risk of harm to your baby.

Benefits of stopping drinking include reduced risk of:

alcohol crossing the placenta into your baby’s bloodstream;

miscarriage, bleeding, premature birth and stillbirth;

Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This can lead to learning difficulties, poor coordination, slow physical and mental development and defects of the face, heart and bones….

Breastfeeding: If you drink, breast milk will contain alcohol. This can:

affect the development of your baby’s brain;

affect your baby’s ability to feed;

reduce the milk supply available to your baby (p. 65).

Other Christians who join me in opposing the use of alcohol are:

Norman Geisler, “To drink or not to drink: A sober look at the question”. Geisler concludes his study with this advice:

To drink or not to drink? We have taken a sober look at the question. What is the answer? Just say No! Why? Because drinking alcoholic beverages is unbiblical, deadly, addictive, unhealthy, costly, a bad example, not edifying, and unnecessary. Clearly, total abstinence is the safest policy.

Why then is our society in general—and evangelical Christianity in particular—on such a self-destructive alcoholic course. Hosea gave part of the answer: ?My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge? (Hos 4:6). The rest of the answer lies is in resisting temptation. The Bible declares that no temptation (including drugs) is too strong to resist: ?No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it? (1 Cor 10: 13). Mark Twain once said of the temptation to gamble that the best toss of the dice is to toss them away.

Likewise, the best use of the beer can is to toss it into the reprocessing bin—after the contents have been poured down the drain!

Richard Land and Barrett Duke, “The Christian and Alcohol”.

Land and Duke conclude their study with these recommendations:

In conclusion, we offer five general principles that the Christian would do well to follow when he is making a decision about alcohol use or any other activity. First, the lordship of Christ takes priority. Christians are not free to do anything they please. They belong to Christ and should make every effort to engage in behavior that honors his lordship over their lives. Paul provides the definitive expression of this principle: ?For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:20). Second, selfishness should be shunned. Selfishness is the root of all sin. It leads people to seek their own interests, even to the detriment of others. The biblical guidance is clear: ?Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor (1 Cor 10:24). Third, sacrifice is a Christian virtue. The needs of others must overrule our own exercise of freedom. Paul taught, “But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor 8:9). Someone might say that the weaker person is the one with the problem and that stronger Christians should not allow weaker ones to impose standards on them that God has not required. Paul does not qualify his statement, however. In fact, he exaggerates this principle of sacrifice for the weaker Christian, declaring, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (1 Cor 8:13). Jesus provides the supreme example of such a sacrificial mentality. He recognized the human need for forgiveness and willingly gave up his rightful place in heaven, took on human flesh, and sacrificed his life on the cross for the sake of others. We are not saying that it is not the right of Christians to drink alcohol if they choose to do so. We are saying that Christians should not consider that their rights are more important than their responsibilities to live in such a way that their fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord are not offended.

We recognize that this is not always practicable. Christian legalism, for example, may become so demanding that it creates an unrealistic intrusion into the lives of other Christians. When this occurs, Christians should not feel bound to accommodate these expectations. For some, the issue of alcohol use is such an intrusion, but we ask how the Christian is harmed or his spiritual liberty is hindered if he abstains from drinking alcohol for the sake of his fellow believers? Alcohol consumption is not the same as some other activities legalistic Christians might expect others to give up. Alcohol is a dangerous drug which has and continues to devastate millions of people. When one refrains from drinking alcohol, he is avoiding an activity that is not only offensive to some, but that is deadly to many. This seems to us to be an appropriate application of the principle of sacrifice.

Fourth, God‘s glory should be the most important concern for Christians. With every activity, the Christian should ask whether or not God will be glorified. Paul summarized, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). We ask any Christian who chooses to drink alcohol whether God is glorified more by the one who drinks or by the one who abstains. Considering the principles we have already laid out, it seems obvious to us that God is glorified most by the Christian who abstains. There is no glory for God in the willful pursuit of pleasure that has no regard for one‘s influence or effect on others.

Finally, the Christian must remember that he will be judged for his every deed, both those that affect his own life and those that affect the lives of others. Paul counsels, “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (1 Cor 11:31). Whether in this life or the life to come, God will hold Christians accountable for their behavior. It does not even matter whether or not we believe we are justified to engage in certain activities. The real question is whether or not God thinks we are. Given the current problems alcohol is causing in our culture, the potential that our drinking has in influencing others to drink, and the many health problems associated with alcohol, it is inconceivable that God considers recreational or social drinking to be the best choice a committed Christian can make. Every Christian should live to hear his Lord declare, “Well done, good and faithful servant “, throughout each day of his life and ultimately on that final day of judgment which awaits us all.

We have supported these five principles with passages from one book of the Bible, Paul‘s first letter to the Christians at Corinth. It should not come as a surprise that so many principles for spiritual decision making would be found in this letter. The church at Corinth was evidently one of the most carnal and immature fellowships of Christians with whom Paul had to deal. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected. The culture in
Corinth was one of the most debased in the Roman Empire. It was so bad that the term “Corinthianized” became the word of choice throughout much of the Roman Empire to describe someone who had fallen into the darkest depths of immoral behavior. Unfortunately, some of the Christians who came out of that cultural morass brought their liberated mindset into the church in Corinth. Paul‘s extant letters to that church reveal the extent of the problem their attitudes were causing. Paul found it necessary to counsel the Christians who had escaped the immorality of their debauched culture to ?be imitators? of him (1 Cor. 4:16). He also shared many principles for faithful living with them. American Christians find themselves currently in the midst of an increasingly secular and immoral culture—a culture devastated by alcohol abuse. Today‘s Christians run the same risks that they too will become influenced by a mindset too fixed on personal pleasure and liberty. We would do well to follow Paul‘s counsel as well and apply the principles he shared with our Christian counterparts nearly 2,000 years ago.

Kenneth Gentry supports the “moderation” view in, “The Bible and the question of alcoholic beverages”. His conclusion is:

The thrust of my study is intentionally narrow. My concern is to present the biblical data regarding the general question of the morality of alcohol consumption. Though other issues might tangentially bear upon the topic, the ultimate issue in the debate should be, ?What saith the Lord?? Or to put it in contemporary parlance, we might ask, “What would Jesus do?” And we have seen that he would make wine and drink it (John 2:1–11; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34).

In the final analysis it is quite clear that Scripture neither urges universal total abstinence nor demands absolute life-long prohibition.

Although alcoholic beverages can be, have been, and are presently abused by individuals, such need not be the case. Indeed, the biblical record frequently and clearly speaks of alcoholic beverages as good gifts from God for man’s enjoyment. Unfortunately, as is always the case among sinners, good things are often transformed into curses. This is true not only with alcohol but with food, medicine, sex, wealth, authority, and many other areas of life. In fact, gluttonous eating of food is paralleled with immoderate drinking of wine in Scripture (Deut 21:20; Prov 23:20–21; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34), just as is the perverted use of sex (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; 1 Pet 4:3).

The reader should not conclude that I intend for this study to encourage drinking by those who do not presently do so. I do not. I have never and will never encourage others to drink. Whether or not an individual wants to drink is a matter of his own tastes and discretion (within biblical limits, of course).

Neither should the reader think that this study presents all that can be said on the biblical understanding of the question of alcohol use. Again, such is not the case. Space constraints prohibit an in-depth analysis of all the data of Scripture. Nevertheless, I believe that the issues presented herein capture the essence of the biblical position.

The only point I make herein is that the biblical evidence shows that God allows alcohol consumption in moderation. Too often the Bible takes the back seat to emotional, anecdotal, and social arguments against alcohol consumption. This is most unfortunate — especially when considering the matter in ecclesiastical circles for Christians must “let God be found true” (Rom 3:4).

Link between alcohol use and cancer

There is a report in The Independent (UK) newspaper, 8 April 2011, about the link between alcohol use and cancer, “Report reveals alcohol cancer link”. Part of the report reads:

One in 10 cancers in men and one in 33 in women across Western Europe are caused by drinking, according to new research.

While even small amounts increases the risk, drinking above recommended limits causes the majority of cancer cases linked to alcohol, experts said.

And even former drinkers who have now quit are still at risk of cancer, including of the oesophagus, breast, mouth and bowel.

NHS guidelines are that men should drink no more than three to four units a day while women should not go over two to three units a day.

But the new research, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found cancer risks at even lower levels.

Experts analysed data from eight European countries, including the UK, and worked out what proportion of men and women were drinking above guidelines of 24g of alcohol a day for men and 12g a day for women.

In the UK, one unit is defined as 8g of alcohol, meaning 12g is roughly a small 125ml glass of white wine (1.6 units).

In the British Medical Journal, 7 April 2011, “Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study “, these were the results and conclusions of this research:

Results If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries. For selected cancers the figures were 44% (31 to 56%) and 25% (5 to 46%) for upper aerodigestive tract, 33% (11 to 54%) and 18% (?3 to 38%) for liver, 17% (10 to 25%) and 4% (?1 to 10%) for colorectal cancer for men and women, respectively, and 5.0% (2 to 8%) for female breast cancer. A substantial part of the alcohol attributable fraction in 2008 was associated with alcohol consumption higher than the recommended upper limit: 33?037 of 178?578 alcohol related cancer cases in men and 17?470 of 397?043 alcohol related cases in women.

Conclusions In western Europe, an important proportion of cases of cancer can be attributable to alcohol consumption, especially consumption higher than the recommended upper limits. These data support current political efforts to reduce or to abstain from alcohol consumption to reduce the incidence of cancer.

An Australian study from 2009, according to ABC News [Australia], “Study bolsters alcohol-cancer link”, stated that:

The National Drug Research Institute has found more than 2,000 Australians die from alcohol-related cancers each year.

The study, conducted by researchers at Curtin University, found 1,200 men and 900 women in Australia died from alcohol-related cancer in the past year, with 200 deaths in WA.

The institute found links between alcohol consumption and cancer to be extensive, and says the numbers could increase as links to other cancers are discovered.

Currently links between alcohol and mouth, throat, oesophagus, liver, breast, colon, rectal and prostate cancers have been established.

Researchers also found a woman who consumes five standard drinks a day is five times more likely to be diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer than a non-drinker.

Tanya Chikritzhs from the National Drug Research Institute says the links between alcohol and cancer are extensive.

“Basically the more you drink, the more you’re at risk,” she said.

“Heavy drinkers, when it comes to let’s say rectal cancer for instance, are many times more likely to be at risk of cancer than a person who is a very light drinker.”

Professor Chikritzhs says she was surprised by the research relating to colon and rectal cancer, as the risk of death for women who drink moderately was considerably greater than men.

“For a man who drinks 2.5 standard drinks a day, the risk is about 10 per cent greater than someone who doesn’t drink. For a woman, it’s over 200 per cent greater,” she said.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May 2011, in the article, “Quit drinking to cut cancer rate”, stated:

CANCER COUNCIL AUSTRALIA has revised dramatically upwards its estimate of alcohol’s contribution to new cancer cases and issued its strongest warning yet that people worried by the link should avoid drinking altogether.

New evidence implicating alcohol in the development of bowel and breast cancer meant drinking probably caused about 5.6 per cent of cancers in Australia, or nearly 6500 of the 115,000 cases expected this year, a review by the council found. This was nearly double the 3.1 per cent figure it nominated in its last assessment, in 2008.

The council’s chief executive, Ian Olver, said the updated calculations revealed breast and bowel cancer accounted for nearly two-thirds of all alcohol-related cancers, overtaking those of the mouth, throat and oesophagus.

”The public really needs to know about it because it’s a modifiable risk factor,” said Professor Olver, calling for awareness campaigns to alert people to the link. ”You might not be able to help your genes but you can make lifestyle choices.”

Professor Olver said public advice should not conflict with the National Health & Medical Research Council’s 2009 recommendation people should drink no more than two standard alcohol units daily, already half the previous safe threshold for men….

”I’m not talking about tobacco-style warnings but at the moment there’s no requirement for any health advice on alcohol packaging, and that’s wrong,” said Professor Daube, from Curtin University.

So what will now be done by governments that have this research? Remember what happened when research found the link between cigarette smoking and cancer? Will the same happen with this research link between alcohol use and cancer? I’m not holding my breath!!!

The above presents some of the evidence on which you can make a decision with your God-given discernment and conscience. For my wife and me, we have chosen to avoid the consumption of alcohol. You can read some of our reasons in: “Alcohol and the Christian“.

Anger with God over illness and death

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

It is not unusual to hear of people who get angry with God over the sudden death of a loved one or of a younger person diagnosed with a terminal condition. We see it on www forums like this one, “How can I not be angry at God for taking my wife away?” The best answer to this question, chosen by voters on the forum was, “You have to know that God did not take your wife away from you”. Really?

Then there is a mother who gives another perspective:

I am 69, Mum of three, grandma to 11 and great grandma to 10, but nearly 11. I have had cancer five times. In my neck, breast, face, bowel and ovary. I have experienced Radio therapy, chemotherapy, and operations.
People have asked aren’t you angry with God. The answer is no, I’m not angry with God, He has brought me through it all, I am well and look after myself. I do my best and God does the rest.
Through it all I have learnt so much.

Anger with God over tragedy comes in this story:

I just heard another story of a family’s lives being turned upside down. Their son, who was preparing to graduate from college is now fighting for his life. His illness came from out of the blue, and it leaves this Christian family devastated. They want to know why this is happening and where the God who they’ve always believed in is. Why doesn’t our all powerful, sovereign God intercede? They are angry, confused, and hurt.

How should we respond to the news that a Christian man with a young family has been diagnosed with cancer, has been through chemotherapy, and the specialist has advised that he should get his house in order as he has only a few months to live?

(Cancer image Wikipedia)

Would the words of an old song say it the way it is or do we yearn for something other?

This world is not my home

I’m just a-passing through.

My treasures are laid up

Somewhere beyond the blue.

I have become aware of this situation in recent months. Here are some details (I have changed a few of the details to protect the innocent):

Please pray for a miracle for the healing of this man (aged in his 30s with 4 young children) who is an evangelical Christian.
This person has contacts around the world so there could be thousands praying for his healing. Please join these people and ask God to grant healing to this man who is in the prime of his life.
His condition is deteriorating and he is losing weight quickly. He may have only a few months to live.
Anger with God has been expressed over this illness.
Prayer was asked for God to perform a miracle and confound the medical profession and the logic of human wisdom.
May God be glorified!

How should we respond as evangelical Christian believers?

The natural human reaction is to become angry with God that a person in the ‘prime of life’ with children should die in this way. Is this a godly reaction? As those who have been born-again by the Spirit of God, what should be our response?

A well-known Scripture comes to mind: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). It is godly and not glib to say that with impending death of a loved one who loves Jesus, that God is working all things, including this possible death, “according to his purpose”. God would never ever do anything unjust or contrary to his perfect will. But I’m jumping ahead of myself.

There are some fundamentals that we need to understand to get death into perspective, whether death in the womb, as children and teens, middle aged or in older age. These are some of those fundamentals: (1) the sovereignty of God in life and death; (2) the need for compassion towards the needy, and (3) the Lord who still has the ability to heal if it is according to His will.

A. The sovereignty of God in life and death

When we look at deaths through cancer, HIV, accidents, disasters, and heart disease, some people find it difficult to believe in the God of sovereign control. When we turn on the TV news and see the floods, other disasters and crime around the world, how is it possible to even consider that a benevolent, perfect Lord God is in control of the universe?

How can we talk of God’s sovereignty when we consider the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Idi Amin?

Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot killing fields Cambodia Idi Amin

God always has authority over all nations. But wait a minute! How can this be possible in light of the genocides just mentioned, the slaughter in the Sudan, and the other evil in our world? For biblical perspectives on evil and suffering, see my article, “The ‘grotesque’ God, evil & suffering“. See also “Notes on the problem of evil” by Ron Rhodes and “The polemic shot in the foot” by Ravi Zacharias.

These are the core Christian beliefs regarding governments:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended” (Romans 13:1-3 NIV).[1]

However, there is this qualifier: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!'” (Acts 5:29). This means that when the laws of governments clash with the laws of God, we must obey God rather than human governments.

What is meant by the sovereignty of God?

“By the sovereignty of God we mean that as Creator of all things visible and invisible, God is the owner of all; that He, therefore, has an absolute right to rule over all (Matt. 20:15; Rom. 9:20, 21); and that He actually exercises this authority in the universe (Eph. 1:11)” (Thiessen 1949:173).

This sovereign authority is not based on some impulsive, arbitrary, whimsical will, but on the wise and holy counsel of God Himself.

When it comes to understanding cancer, evil and disasters in our world, we need to consider another attribute of God. It is difficult for us to grasp the content of this verse from Psalm 139:16. It makes it clear that God is in charge of the times of a person’s beginning and end of life: “Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”.

This verse gives us just a glimpse of God’s attribute of omniscience. The omniscience of God means that “He knows Himself and all other things, whether they be actual or merely possible, whether they be past, present or future, and that He knows them perfectly and from all eternity. He knows things immediately, simultaneously, exhaustively and truly. He also knows the best way to attain His desired ends” (Thiessen 1949:124).

Therefore, God has knowledge of the possible and the actual. From our human perspective, we call God’s knowledge of the future, foreknowledge. But from God’s viewpoint, “He knows all things in one simultaneous intuition” (Thiessen 1949:125).

In Psalm 139:16, we see an example of the omniscience of God. From a human view, it is God’s foreknowledge and we find it difficult to get our mind around the fact that all the days of every human being from formation in the womb to the last breath drawn, are known to God. This applies to my friend who is dying of cancer before reaching an old age. It is clear that pre-natal forming by God is indicated by the use of the language of “my body”. A person’s life begins in the womb and continues after birth until physical death and beyond – into the intermediate state. God’s omniscience sees all those days and they are written in God’s “book”. What an amazing insight into God’s attribute and of human existence!

There are verses in the New Testament that cause us to think of God’s omniscience in relation to life and death. Matthew 10:28-31 states:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.[2] And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

The one who determines what happens in life after death is the One Lord God Almighty. We are to fear Him with a godly fear.

Psalm 116:15 reminds us: “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his faithful servants”. God does not tell us that all will live to seventy[3] or eighty years (see Psalm 90:10). But he does assure us: “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). The New Living Translation gives a beautiful rendition of this verse: “For to me, living means living for Christ, and dying is even better”. For dying of cancer at a young age to be seen as “even better” than living for Christ in the here and now, one must see life and death from God’s perspective. Too much of human misery is seen humanistically rather than theistically.

Corrie Ten Boom, a Nazi prison camp survivor and worldwide missionary, wrote in a letter in 1974:

Sometimes I get frightened as I read the Bible, and as I look in this world and see all of the tribulation and persecution promised by the Bible coming true. Now I can tell you, though, if you too are afraid, that I have just read the last pages. I can now come to shouting “Hallelujah! Hallelujah!” for I have found where it is written that Jesus said, “He that overcometh shall inherit all things: and I will be His God, and he shall be My son.” This is the future and hope of this world. Not that the world will survive but that we shall be overcomers in the midst of a dying world.

Betsy and I, in the concentration camp, prayed that God would heal Betsy who was so weak and sick. “Yes, the Lord will heal me,”, Betsy said with confidence. She died the next day and I could not understand it. They laid her thin body on the concrete floor along with all the other corpses of the women who died that day.

It was hard for me to understand, to believe that God had a purpose for all that. Yet because of Betsy’s death, today I am traveling all over the world telling people about Jesus.

What a beautiful way to see the meaning of death and its continuing impact for the good of the relatives who remain! Until we have the mind of Christ, we will not grasp God’s perspective on life and death. Paul reminded the Corinthian church:

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:14-16 ESV).

If Christians are still thinking naturally and not according to the Spirit of God, they will not understand how death for the believer is “even better” than living in this wicked world. The growing Christian with “the mind of Christ” discerns God’s sovereign will and omniscience in death happening at any age.

The theology of life, death and life-after-death needs to be taught in our churches, otherwise people will be shocked by cancer or sudden death that happens in youth or mid-life, rather than old age. I recommend John Piper’s message, “The death of a Spirit-filled man” for a fuller understanding of death and what follows for the believer.

God is sovereign Lord of life and death and his omniscience knows all that will happen in the future. But there is a dimension to life on earth that needs Christian understanding. See the article, “Is it wrong to get angry with God?”

B. The need for compassion towards the suffering & needy

In August 2008, The World Bank estimated that “at a poverty line of $1.25 a day, the revised estimates find 1.4 billion people live at this poverty line or below”. How should Christians respond to such a desperate need?

In this article I am discussing a Christian man with a young family and wife and he has only months to live. How should local Christians respond? Ephesians 4:32 provides insight: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you”.

“Compassionate” is also used by the NET and NAB Bibles. For “compassionate”, other translations use “tender-hearted” (KJV, NASB, NLT, ESV, NRSV). What is the meaning of the Greek, eusplagchnoi that is used here? It is a rare word that “indicates a very deep feeling, ‘a yearning with the deeply felt affection of Christ Jesus'”. A tender-hearted or compassionate person has “deep feelings of love and pity” (Hendriksen 1967:223).

We should not overlook the fact that Eph. 4:32 also exhorts Christians to “be kind”, which is a “Spirit-imparted goodness of heart, the very opposite of malice or badness mentioned in verse 31″ (Hendriksen 1967:223).

This deep love of Christ for the cancer sufferer must be expressed by believers through being alongside and caring for the sufferer. How can this be spoken to the sufferer? It involves being present, speaking and praying with the person who has cancer. This may involve practical actions to help the person and family at this point of need.

A parallel passage is Colossians 3:12-13:

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you”.

Remember Matthew 25: 37-40 and the link of caring for the needy and the final judgment:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'”.

The Golden Rule provides fundamental instruction: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:41). If you or I were in need of compassion or assistance in any way, would we appreciate those who were tender-hearted towards us? Of course! Therefore, the Christian’s obligation is to be that kind of person to others. The Christian is one who must care for the needy and suffering.

Alan Redpath wrote this of Nehemiah: “You never lighten the load unless first you have felt the pressure in your own soul. You are never used of God to bring blessing until God has opened your eyes and made you see things as they are” (in Swindoll 1998:110).

Yes, we need compassion for those who are suffering physically. But what’s the part of God in healing the sick?

C. I believe that it is possible for God to heal today.

Jesus healed the sick when he was on earth, but He has returned to the Father in glory. What role has God given to Christians after Jesus’ personal departure? I am of the view that miracles, including miracles of healing, are meant to continue and I have expounded on it in this article, “Are miracles valuable?” See also Jack Deere’s article, “Were miracles meant to be temporary?”

Here we have a few indications of the continuing ministry of miracles, including healing:

John 14:12 states, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father”. First Corinthians 12:9 confirms that God has given “to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit” (see also vv. 28, 30). James 5:13-16 places a healing ministry within the church:

“Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective”.

The church needs to be taught that one of the roles of elders is to anoint the sick person with oil and “prayer offered in faith” (by the elders) will raise the sick person up if sins are confessed. The initiative is with the sick person to call for the elders for anointing and prayer.

What does it mean to say that prayer for healing is “offered in faith”? It is not prayer plus oil that leads to healing. God does bring healing in answer to prayer as is seen by the example of Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:1-6. But what is the prayer “offered in faith”? It has to deal with the faith of the sick person who called for the elders and from the elders who prayed. It is prayer that depends on the sovereign Lord. The prayer’s answer is with the Lord who heals. His sovereign will is to be obeyed. James is very clear about actions that must be done in accordance with the Lord’s will: “You ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that'” (James 4:15).

However, we must never overlook this fact that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). This is the Christian tight rope: Prayer to the Lord by righteous people is effective in praying for the sick, but faith of both the sick and the elders are required. Also, God’s will, unknown to those who pray, is also involved in the outcome. Nevertheless, we are called to pray for the sick.

The teaching on the prayer of faith is not a verse to support a concept that “all who are anointed with oil, prayed for by elders, will be healed by God”. See my article in opposition to “blab it and grab it” theology as taught by some extreme charismatic leaders. Evangelical, charismatic theologian, Wayne Grudem, states:

“I do not think that God gives anyone warrant to promise or ‘guarantee’ healing in this age, for his written Word makes no such guarantee, and our subjective sense of his will is always subject to some degree of uncertainty and some measure of error in this life” (1994:1067 n35).

Also note that this praying for the sick is extended beyond the role of elders. James 5:16 states: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective”. Individual Christians are authorised to confess their sins to one another and pray for each other that a person “may be healed”.

God can and does heal, but we cannot command him to do so when we want it to happen. He is sovereign Lord and answers prayers according to His will.

D. Can we change God’s mind through prayer?

Will the praying of thousands of people for my friend’s healing make more difference than if only only a handful are praying? Can God’s mind with regard to healing a person be changed through the prayers of one or a multitude of prayers?

God does listen to righteous people when they pray, but God does not do what the righteous demand. God does whatever His righteous will determines. God’s language with Sodom & Gomorrah came in the form of a question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25)

The Lord God Almighty will demonstrate His justice in the life and death of all who suffer and die. God’s perfect will must be done, but it is He who decides when the last breath is drawn, whether through a still birth, dying as a child, dying in middle age, or dying at a ripe old age. A Christian friend of mine died recently at the age of 103.

E. Catch a glimpse of heaven

The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). To the thief on the cross, Jesus gave this assurance, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Therefore, the Christian assurance is that at death he/she is ushered into the presence of the Lord which is “gain” or “even better” than life on earth (Phil. 1:21).

Therefore, why do Christians want to stay longer on the earth? It is a very human desire to remain with a spouse and children. But God has an “even better” location for the believer who dies physically, that is described as a place of “many rooms” (John 14:2).

What are the experiences of atheists, agnostics and Christian believers at death?

It is reported that Professor J.H. Huxley, the famous agnostic, as he lay dying suddenly looked up at some sight invisible to mortal eyes, and staring awhile, whispered at last, “So it is true.”

Sir Francis Newport, head of the English Infidel Club, said to those gathered around his death bed, “Do not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in his angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know that I am lost forever.”

Dwight L. Moody, the famous Christian preacher, awakening from sleep shortly before he died had just the opposite to say: “Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me. If this is death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go.”

“No, no, Father,” said Moody’s son, “You are dreaming.” “I am not dreaming,” replied Moody. “I have been within the gates. I have seen the children’s faces.” His last words were, “This is my triumph; this is my coronation day! It is glorious!” (from “What if there is a heaven?“)

Shortly before he died, John Bunyan, said:

“Weep not for me, but for yourselves; I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, through the mediation of His Blessed Son, receive me, though a sinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song and remain everlastingly happy, world without end” (in Lutzer 1997:141)

Conclusion

Far too much hope is placed on living in this wicked world. It is “far better” to be in the presence of the Lord at death.

God has provided means of healing in this present age through medical science (which is not covered here) and the ministry of the church. However, God does not guarantee healing in this life. He does guarantee his sovereign will for all true believers. See my article, “Should God heal all Christians who pray for healing?”

The vision before the believer at death is:

Heaven’s Sounding Sweeter All The Time

Life has been so good, I can’t complain
When I’m down, God gives me strength to rise again
I get weary from the struggle of it all,
That’s when I listen, how I listen for His call

Chorus
Heaven’s sounding sweeter all the time
Seems like lately, it’s always on my mind
Someday I’ll leave this world behind,
Heaven’s sounding sweeter all the time

2. Oh, it’s hard to lose a loved one to the grave
but we have the blessed hope that Jesus gave
God’s gonna wipe all the tears from our eyes
When we meet Him in that land beyond the skies

Works consulted

Grudem W. 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hendriksen, W. 1967. Ephesians, in New Testament Commentary: Expositions of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lutzer, E. W. 1997. One minute after you die: A preview of your final destination. Chicago: Moody Press.

Swindoll, C. R. 1998. Swindoll’s ultimate book of illustrations & quotes. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Thiessen, H. C. 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes:

[2] The NIV footnote is: “Or will; or knowledge”. The English Standard Version translates as: “And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father”.

[3] The language of older Bible translations such as the KJV was “threescore and ten” for seventy.

Whytehouse designs

Mother nature or the Lord God who sent the flood waters?

Photo courtesy Queensland Government (link no longer available, 5 September 2016)

See Brisbane floods, January 2011, “What a difference a metre makes” (Brisbane Times).

By Spencer D Gear

I. Introduction

Why does God allow such devastation as we have seen in Queensland with the floods of December 2010 and January 2011? By 13 January 2011,

“About 19,700 homes and 3500 business premises are expected to be flooded in Brisbane and about 3000 homes and businesses in the Ipswich area, while some 3585 people have already been evacuated”.[1]

Have you been listening to or reading the mass media to hear their views? The secular media blame it on “mother nature”. These are some media grabs that I have read:

A Sydney newspaper stated: “ MOTHER nature has unleashed its fury in the state’s north with 18 rivers expected to break their banks by tomorrow night as the Queensland floodwaters run south”.[2]
Another newspaper headline was, “Australian floods ‘disaster of biblical proportions'”.[3]
Federal Opposition treasury spokesman, Joe Hockey, stated: “Australia is a rich-enough nation to be able to handle the worst of mother nature – floods, droughts, you name it, all the horrible events that occur on a regular basis at this time of year”.[4]
Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, on 11 January 2011 at a press conference said: “This is our darkest hour of the past fortnight…. Mother nature has unleashed something shocking out of the Toowoomba region”;
“Mother nature has delivered something terrible in the last 48 hours but there’s more to go”, said Anna Bligh.[5]

So, who sends the rains? Is it “mother nature” or God Himself? God is very clear about this in the Scriptures. If it is God who sends this “disaster of biblical proportions”[6] (the language of the media), what is God up to and how can this come from an absolutely loving, just and good God?

These are some of the questions from both secular and Christian people. Under normal circumstances, I would choose to expound a portion of Scripture, but after so much devastation in Queensland and northern NSW, I believe it is appropriate for me to provide a Christian response to the question, “Why does God send or allow floods to devastate Qld?”

The answer is similar for: Why was there a Tsunami in 2004 in the Indian Ocean?[7] Who was responsible for the devastation of Cyclone Tracy in Darwin on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 1974?[8] What about the Brisbane floods of 1974? What about September 11, 2001 and the Muslim attacks on New York City and then Washington DC?[9]

This raises the theological issue known as theodicy, which asks: Since God is omnipotent (all-powerful), is absolutely good, and His sovereignty means that he controls everything in the created universe, how is God not the author of evil? How can evil exist in the world and allow such things as the suffering caused by the Queensland floods, cyclone Tracy, and the Indian Ocean tsunami?

These are some of the questions of theodicy. The word, theodicy, comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and dike (justice/right). It deals with the justification of the goodness and righteousness of God in the midst of evil in the world.[10]

Photo courtesy Queensland Government (link no longer available, 5 September 2016)

1. Let’s establish some foundational layers:

A. First layer: We live in a violent and fearful world, but that does not mean that the Lord God is not sovereignly in control.

The Bible is very clear that God governs the entire universe, from the smallest bird to the wildest Queensland storm or tsunami. Let’s looks at a few verses from the OT and NT.

Amos 3:6: “When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (NIV)[11]

Isaiah 46:9-10, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me… I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please'”.

Matthew 10:29: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care”.

Matthew 8:27: Of Jesus, it was said: “The men were amazed and asked, ‘What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!'”

No person or thing, no tsunami, September 11, or the Qld floods, can ruin the nature and actions of the sovereign will of God. They may cause people to doubt God and blame mother nature, but we need to get back to the fundamentals of God Himself. “I am God, and there is no other”. Will we scoff at Him or will we bow before Him?

B. Second layer: Satan and his demons are alive and well on planet earth.

When God created the universe, Gen 1:31 states that “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”. But by the time of Genesis 3, we find that Satan, in the form of a serpent, was tempting Eve to sin. So, from a time perspective, between the events of Gen. 1:31 and Gen. 3:1, there seems to have been a rebellion among the angels with many turning against God and becoming evil demons, doing evil.

The head of the demons, Satan (meaning “adversary), is mentioned in 1 Chron. 21:1 when “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel”. In Job 1:6, “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them”.

We know from various passages in the Scriptures that the work of Satan and demons is to get people to sin and they engage in destructive activity (see Gen. 1:3-6; Matt 4:1-11; John 8:44; Rev. 12:9; Ps. 106:37). In John 10:10, their actions are described by Jesus this way: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full”.

Satan and his demons are alive and well on planet earth and their motives are to destroy. BUT … there’s a

C. Third layer: The evil one, Satan, is in this world but he has to get permission from God to operate.

Job 2:6-7 states: ‘The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he [i.e. Job] is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”. So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head'”.

But it was with the permission of the sovereign Lord.

Luke 22:31 states: Jesus said, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat”. This was Satan controlled by Jesus.

There is not a single person or thing in the universe, not even raging waters coming down from Toowoomba into the Lockyer Valley and then the Brisbane River that can frustrate the sovereign will of God. Satan is a powerful enemy and does a lot of evil in this world, but Satan has to get God’s permission to operate and all of Satan’s actions are within the sovereign will of God. Satan cannot break free from the harness that God has placed on him.

Remember who caused Job’s problems. Job 2:6-7 said it was Satan who was given permission by God to punish Job. When we come to the very last chapter of Job in 42:11, we read: “All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought on him…”

Job had the trouble of Satan in this world, but God used Satan, on a leash, to bring trouble to Job. Why couldn’t Satanic actions happen to us?

D. A fourth layer is the consequence of what happened to human beings as a result of Adam & Eve’s actions in the Garden of Eden.

You know the story well from Genesis 3 of how Adam and Eve fell into sin and sin has infected the entire human race.

Original sin or original corruption is the language. The Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 6, states it so well:

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[12]

“Children of wrath” is a phrase used to describe the effects of Adam’s sin on all human beings. Read about it in Romans 5:12-21. This is the inheritance of every human being from the time of Adam and Eve. We inherit a sinful nature and it is passed from parent to child.

Eph. 2:3 says that we are “by nature children of wrath” (ESV). We are born separated from God and antagonistic towards God.

How is this applied to the Queensland floods?

My wife and I had a personal experience of this during the 1974 Brisbane flood. We, as sinful but redeemed human beings, were living on the banks of the Brisbane River at Graceville while I attended theological college. We were silly enough to live in our 20-feet caravan and had our car there in a flood-zone. We lost car and caravan because of our frail, sinful humanity, inherited from Adam. Call it our lack of planning, or stupidity, but it was a result of our frail, sinful humanity.

There was another example in The Australian newspaper of 13 January 2011,

POLICE were attempting to ensure the safety of thousands of homes abandoned by evacuees as reports emerged of looters using boats to rob riverside homes west of Brisbane…

The situation has prompted Premier Anna Bligh to appeal to residents to report any incidence of looting and prompted anger among some local councillors.

Ipswich councillor Paul Tully described the looters as the scum of the earth.[13]

The stealing of goods by looters is an example of the outworking of an inherited sinful nature of people in our community.

I was interacting this month with a person who has become a friend, Jim Parker, on a blog called “Christian Forums”. This is how he expressed it to me when I asked, “Why does God allow such devastation as we are seeing in Queensland with the floods of December 2010 – January 2011?”

Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask why people insist on building cities on flood plains.

San Francisco was destroyed by a massive earthquake because it is built on a major earthquake fault. So they rebuilt it on the major earthquake fault.

People build homes along the Russian River north of San Francisco. About every 5-7 years their homes are destroyed by floods. They rebuild….

People know the dangers of the places where they build cities and they choose to rebuild them after they are destroyed by “natural disasters” which, having happened once, should be sufficient data to decide to move somewhere else.

But when they don’t and another flood or earthquake just like the last one happened they ask, “Why did God allow this?”[14]

But how does what happened with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, relate to the destructive nature of flood waters, earthquakes and tsunamis? Let’s look at some biblical teaching that may help us to process floods, cyclones and other disasters in our natural world.

Teaching no. 1: God is the sovereign Lord who sends the rain.

Do you remember Matt. 5:45? “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”.

The rain we receive comes from the totally good, righteous and loving Creator and sovereign Lord of the universe. May I add that the lack of rain we receive is also from the sovereign Lord God.

There would be no rain unless God caused it to happen.

Teaching no. 2: Sin affects our natural world deeply.

We can see it in the tsunami, the Qld floods, cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and what the media love to call “mother nature’s” actions.

Let’s note a couple verses from the OT:

Gen. 3:17, ‘To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life”.

Lev. 18:25: “Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants”.

Please note especially Rom. 8:20-22, which reads: “²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now (ESV).

What does it mean that creation “was subjected to futility[15]” or “vanity”? “Vanity” is a rare NT word found only here and in Eph. 4:17and 2 Peter 2:18. It means, “empty, futile, vain”.[16] In Rom. 8:20, Paul writes of the whole of creation subject to vanity, futility and v. 21 says that creation is in “bondage to corruption or decay” and what an analogy in v. 22: “the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now”.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been groaning with tears welling up in my eyes as I saw cars and houses being swept away in the raging waters with people on their roofs and screaming for help. I’ve been grieved to hear of lives lost, including that of children. Talk about the whole creation groaning!

Do you remember Genesis chs. 6-9 and why God sent the flood to deluge the entire world in Noah’s time? Why did God do it? Gen. 6:11-13 states:

¹¹ Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. ¹² God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. ¹³ So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

God said to Noah that he would never wipe out the whole human race like that again (Gen. 9:15): “I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life”.

God sends the rain, but the creation groaning with disasters like this is related to sin entering the world. How do we know? God told us.

Teaching no. 1: The sovereign Lord sends the rain;

Teaching no. 2: Sin affects our natural world deeply;

Teaching no. 3: There will be suffering in our world.

Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN, reminded me:

“And lest we think naively in response to these calamities, as though the cost of lives was something unusual, let’s remind ourselves of the obvious and the almost overwhelming fact that over 50,000,000 people die every year in this world. Over 6,000 ever hour. Over 100 every minute. And most of them do not die in ripe old age by sleeping peacefully away into eternity. Most die young. Most die after long struggles with pain. And millions die because of the evil of man against man.

“Sudden calamities shock us only to make more plain what is happening every hour of every day of your entire life. Thousands perish in pain and misery every day. Probably seven or eight thousand people will have died during this worship service. Some of them are screaming out in pain just now as I am speaking and as you sit there in relative comfort. If there is to be any Christian joy in this world, along with love, it will be sorrowful joy, broken-hearted joy. What person in this room, who has lived long enough, does not know that the sweetest joys, the deepest joys, are marked with tears, not laughter?”[17]

What is to be the Christian’s response to trials and suffering? I’ll mention just two:

Firstly, We are to show compassion to those in need.

Remember Matthew 25: 37-40 and the final judgment?

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Remember the Golden Rule: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:41).

Secondly, for the Christian, the Book of James reminds us:

² Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, ³ because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. ⁴ Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything (that’s James 1:2-4).

This is a sermon in itself. Let me give it to you in brief and this is a tough one to learn. But it is thoroughly biblical: If you want to experience growth in your Christian life, accept the many trials that God sends your way because this is what they do:

They test your faith to find out what kind of stuff your Christian life is made of;
This testing causes you to persevere in your faith; and
When this perseverance is complete through enduring trials, you will be mature and complete in your faith, not lacking anything.

If that is what trials do to your Christian faith, why don’t you say to God, “Thank you for the trials with a purpose that you always send my way. Please send me more so that my faith will grow and I will mature”.

But let me warn you! God in his sovereign will does not warn you in advance what those trials will be. But if you are a true believer in Christ, they are always meant for your good – to cause your faith to grow up, to mature.

If you don’t believe me, you talk with those who have been tested through intense physical or emotional suffering. Talk with somebody who has been persecuted for his or her faith.

Remember Habakkuk 3:17-18:

¹⁷ Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
¹⁸ yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

We will experience suffering in our world. What is to be our response? “Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior”.

Let’s review:

Teaching no. 1: The sovereign Lord sends the rain;

Teaching no. 2: Sin affects our natural world deeply;

Teaching no. 3: There will be suffering in our world.

Teaching no. 4: Tragedy should cause us to re-evaluate our priorities

Calamity, whether through cyclones, floods, earthquakes or other devastation, should jolt us to rethink and change priorities. If we build in flood-prone zones near a river, losing many possessions may cause us to see the damage that a materialistic lifestyle can do. I’m reminded of that Jesus said:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt. 6:19-21).

If the floods in 2010-2011 in SE Queensland don’t cause people to re-evaluate their priorities in life and death, what will?

Teaching no. 5: There will be an increase in trouble and disasters as we approach the second coming of Christ.

We don’t know when this will be, but we know this from Luke 21:23-30:

“How terrible it will be for pregnant women and for nursing mothers in those days. For there will be disaster in the land and great anger against this people. They will be killed by the sword or sent away as captives to all the nations of the world. And Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the period of the Gentiles comes to an end.

“And there will be strange signs in the sun, moon, and stars. And here on earth the nations will be in turmoil, perplexed by the roaring seas and strange tides. People will be terrified at what they see coming upon the earth, for the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then everyone will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory. So when all these things begin to happen, stand and look up, for your salvation is near!”

Let me say it again, on the authority of Jesus: “So when all these things begin to happen, stand and look up, for your salvation is near!”

Use your mind in discerning where to live.

To understand the impact of floods and cyclones, God has given us minds to discern which areas of Australia are the most prone to floods and cyclones. If we want to avoid being victims of floods and cyclones, we can choose to avoid living in those areas.

The Australian government’s, Attorney-General’s Department, Emergency Management for Schools, has compiled this graph of the most cyclone prone areas in Australia as Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland.

www.crikey.com.au has located this range of maps to show the flood prone areas of Brisbane and District after the January 2011 floods.

May the Lord help us to be wise in making decisions about where we live in Australia.

Disasters and God’s judgment

I received an email with the content of this blog (below) under the heading, “Japan denounced Israel exactly 1 year before earthquake and tsunami”. This blog appeared at Armageddononline.com #257:

Ron Reese from 5 Doves has discovered that ON MARCH 11TH, EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO, JAPAN DENOUNCES ISRAEL!!!
http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/annou…3/0311_01.html

Exactly 1 year ago March 11, 2010…The exact day of the 9.0 earthquake in Japan hit a year later in 2011.
Genesis 12:3 “I will Bless those who Bless (Israel), and Curse Those Who Curse you.”

Remember, America forced Israel to remove 8,000 Israeli’s from their homes in Gaza, then came Katrina where
America lost 800,000 houses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama.

Japan demanded that Israel not build 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem. After the 9.0 earthquake Japan may
have to rebuild 1.6 million homes.

God is not mocked! Pay attention America!

A more detailed comment by Ron Reese is in, ‘Ron Reese (15 March 2011) “On March 11th, exactly one year ago, Japan denounces Israel!!!’

What are we to make of those who want to link Japan’s actions (sins?) against Israel with the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on 11th March 2011?

Jesus will not allow us to draw the conclusion that the Japanese, because of their response to Israel, are any more sinful than we are. This is clearly stated in Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (ESV).

To paraphrase Jesus for Aussies today, based on Luke 13:1-5: There are people present today who speak about the Japanese who denounced Israel one year before the tsunami. Jesus answers these who see this as judgment against Japan: “Do you think that these Japanese are worse sinners than all Australians because they acted in this way? No, says Jesus. I tell you: but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”.

We do not have the right to pronounce that the earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear meltdown are God’s judgment on Japan – based on Luke 13:1-5. Providing judgment is God’s job and he will do it in our time. God has told us (Luke 14) that we all are sinners who need to repent and the Japanese crisis should be a reminder that all sinners need to repent.

Conclusion: The Judo Technique

I wrap up with an illustration that I learned when I was studying Jim Kennedy’s gospel presentation Evangelism Explosion.[18] I’ve adapted it for this message:

You are in discussion with non-Christians about the floods and other disasters and you begin to say what the Bible teaches about sin, disasters and the future. A person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible. You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures”.

Many people are devastated by this objection. What happens to them? Their attempt to share a biblical view of trials and disasters fizzles.

This need not be the case. I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the Bible’s view of suffering and of the Gospel. The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.

He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true. When we witness and share Christ’s view on life, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel, not defend the Bible. BUT when people object to the Bible, we DO NEED good answers to respond. And there ARE EXCELLENT answers.

The judo technique works like this. The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with. Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches. Instead use the technique of the judo expert. The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.

Here’s how it works in presenting a biblical view on trials and disasters. The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, biblical criticism or something like that.

There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.” It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel and a biblical view of disasters. I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.

“You don’t believe the Bible, John? That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part. However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.

“I would like to ask you a question. The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life. So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”

In addition, I’d like to ask you: “What is your understanding of what the Bible states is the reason for painful personal experiences and disasters in our world?”

He may say that he does not believe in eternal life. He could say, “The Bible has a loony message about what causes disasters like floods and I don’t believe it”.

To this you could say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand. It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message and the reasons for disasters, would it not? What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life and what causes disasters like floods? What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on these subjects?”

My experience is that over 90% will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that. Or they’ll say that there is no answer and “mother nature” is the cause.

You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John. You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message and the causes of disasters. Your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches. Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”

Now the tables have been turned. Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message and the Bible’s reasons for disasters. Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.

This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be. So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel and give biblical reasons for suffering and disasters. It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from the deadness because of sin.

Brothers & sisters in Christ: God is sovereign. As the creator of all things visible and invisible, He is the owner of all. He has the absolute right to rule over all, and He exercises this authority in the universe. [19] All human beings are accountable to him.

Endnotes:

[1] Rory Callinan 2011, “Anger rises as looters plunder homes”, The Australian, 13 January 2011, available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/anger-rises-as-looters-plunder-homes/story-e6frg6nf-1225986639966 (Accessed 13 January 2011).

[2] “NSW towns bracing for floods”, The Daily Telegraph, 8 January 2011. Available at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/nsw-towns-bracing-for-floods/story-e6frf7l6-1225983985425 (Accessed 9 January 2011).

[3] “Australian floods ‘disaster of biblical proportions'”, National Post, Gracemere, Qld., available at: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Australian+floods+disaster+biblical+proportions+official/4052002/story.html (Accessed 9 January 2011).

[4] “Qld floods damage Australia’s economic performance”, Lexi Metherall and staff, ABC Southern Queensland, 5 January 2011, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/05/3106548.htm?site=southqld&section=audio&date=%28none%29 (Accessed 9 January 2011).

[5] “Now is not time to panic”, The Courier-Mail, 11 January 2011, available at: http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/toowoomba-hit-by-tsunami/story-fn6ck45n-1225985261691 (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[6] “Australian floods ‘disaster of biblical proportions'”, National Post, Gracemere, Qld., available at: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Australian+floods+disaster+biblical+proportions+official/4052002/story.html (Accessed 9 January 2011).

[7] See “2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[8] See “Cyclone Tracy”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Tracy (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[9] See “September 11 Attacks”, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[10] Some of the information in the last 2 paragraphs is based on W. Gary Crampton 1999, “A biblical theodicy”, Trinity Foundation. Available at: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/theodicy.html (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[11] Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from the New International Version of the Bible 2010, available from BibleGateway.com at: http://www.biblegateway.com/ (Accessed 12 January 2011).

[12] Available at: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ (Accessed 13 January 2011).

[13] Callinan, ibid.

[14] Jim Parker, Christian Fellowship Forum, The Fellowship Hall, “Why does God allow floods to devastate?” #50, 10 January 2011, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?redirCnt=2&tsn=41&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120493 (Accessed 13 January 2011).

[15] mataioteti (dative).

[16] E. Tiedike 1975. mataioo, in C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 1. Exeter: Paternoster Press, p. 552

[17] John Piper 2005, Desiring God, “Where is God? The Supremacy of Christ in an Age of Terror”, September 11, available at: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/where-is-god (Accessed 13 January 2011).

[18] The Australian edition of Evangelism Explosion (1983) is published by Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, 81-83 Wentworth St, Port Kembla, NSW, 2505, pp. 84-85.

[19] Based on Henry Clarence Thiessen 1949. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 174. See: 1 Chronicles 29:11; Psalm 115:3; Isaiah 45:9; Ezekiel 18:4; Daniel 4:35; Matthew 20:15; Romans 9:14-24; 11:36; Ephesians 1;11; 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 4:11.

The King James Version disagreement: Is the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament superior to that used by modern Bible translations?[1]

Erasmus, courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

What moves a religious person to become a born again Christian? I was raised in the liberal Methodist church in Bundaberg, Qld., Australia and went to Sunday School and church religiously. But that religion didn’t change the parents and children in our sugar cane farming household.

The change came in 1959 when my parents attended a landline Billy Graham crusade rally at the Bundaberg Showgrounds. Billy was preaching in Brisbane and his voice was booming out of the loud speaker system at the showgrounds.

My religious parents were sitting in their old Ford Prefect utility in the arena of those showgrounds (called fair grounds in the USA). After Billy’s proclamation of the Gospel, he gave the invitation to repent and to receive Jesus Christ by faith. Both of my parents got out of the Ute and moved to the podium where trained people met them for counselling to receive Christ.

On that day in May 1959, a religious household became a Christian home where Christ dwelt. Of course, my parents had to grow in their faith and they shared Christ with the three children. I was the eldest of the children and received Christ as my Lord and Saviour in the early 1960s as a teenager.

As church goers, we had used only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. All of my Bible reading and memorisation as a new Christian was from the KJV. I deeply appreciate the foundation to my faith that was bolstered by my reading and study of the KJV.

But this was not the language that an Aussie bloke spoke with thee, thy, thou lingo. It did not communicate with me and I felt hindered when I wanted to share my faith. It conveyed the idea that Christianity was assigned to a previous historical era (anachronistic) and out of touch with the ordinary folks.

When I went to Bible College in the early 1970s, a course in bibliology caused me to investigate Bible translations further. I am grateful for three resources that have helped me understand the Greek text behind the KJV New Testament and to assess it. The information below is gleaned from these resources:

D. A. Carson 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & exp.). Chicago: Moody Press.

Bruce M. Metzger 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In recent decades there has been an emerging pro-KJV debate that has been promoted by organisations and people such as the Trinitarian Bible Society and Gail Riplinger. There is a recognised “King James Only” movement.

On a practical level, I experienced two recent examples of the promotion of the KJV over other translations. The first was in a local church where I preach by invitation from time to time. I preached at this church on 26 December 2010. When I sent the order of service to the elder who reads the Bible in the service, with a copy of the Old Testament and New Testament in the New International Version, I was told that only the KJV or the New King James Version was allowed for public reading in that church. However, I could use whatever translation I preferred in my preaching. I preached from the NIV. This church obviously has a policy that supports the priority of the KJV Only view.

A second example was in a response to some blogging that I did on Christian Forums. In the thread, “Do any of you believe tongues is necessary?“, one response by JEBrady was, “Jesus never said anything about speaking in tongues, to my knowledge. Most of what you can find on the subject in the NT will be in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. Recommended reading for you.”.[2] My response[3] was:

“For those Pentecostal/charismatic believers who accept that Mark 16:9-20 is in the Scriptures (these are generally KJV supporters), they could say that Jesus did speak about tongues in Mark 16:17: ‘And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues’ (NIV).

“I do not support Mark 16:9-20 as being in the oldest and best manuscripts of the NT”.

Then there was this reply by Alive_Again:

“That’s the problem with the Hort-Westcott translations. They’ve eliminated scripture. The Mark scriptures in question were quoted by early church fathers. Just because it was translated from an older copy doesn’t mean it was more accurate.
It’s not surprising that the 40 odd scriptures taken from the NIV and recent versions of the Word of God take out scriptures that demonstrate how to deal effectively with the devil and one of the most important demonstrations of the Holy Spirit – speaking with “new” tongues (new to you)”[4].

Another writer, Jimoh[5], wrote: “Problem is Oz, many other scriptures are not included in those same texts… like dozens of the Psalms and half the book of Hebrews”.

In light of the above details, I find it necessary to examine some background to the Byzantine text-type, the Textus Receptus behind the KJV, and the Greek text gathered by Erasmus. Is the KJV a superior Bible version and have the modern versions been corrupted by Westcott & Hort’s ideology of Alexandrian text-type in gathering NT manuscripts?[6]

A part of page 336 of Erasmus’s Greek Testament, the first “Textus Receptus.” Shown is a portion of John 18 (courtesy keypoint.com)

1. The first Greek text to be published was that by Dutch scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (ca. AD 1469-1536) of Rotterdam, Holland. This was published in March 1516 and there were hundreds of printing errors in it. He published it as a diglot – in two languages, Greek and his own rather sophisticated Latin.

2. To prepare his Greek text, Erasmus used several Greek MSS but there was not one of them that incorporated the entire NT.

3. None of his MSS was earlier than the tenth century.

4. Erasmus consulted only one MSS for the Book of Revelation and the last leaf was lacking, so the last six verses were omitted in that Greek MSS. So what did he do? He translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek and published that as the last 6 verses of the book of Revelation. Therefore, in the Greek of the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation, it contains some words and phrases that have been found in no other Greek MSS.

5. In other parts of the Greek NT, Erasmus introduced words he had translated from the Vulgate. Just as one example, in Acts 9:6 are the words from the KJV, “And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” These words have been found in no other Greek MSS. It is possible that Erasmus assimilated something that paralleled Acts 22:10.

6. Erasmus’s Greek NT testament is behind the King James Version NT. Yet it is based on only half a dozen minuscule MSS and not one of them is earlier than the tenth century. Erasmus’s text was printed by a number of publishers, the most important being Robert Estienne whose surname has been Latinised as Stephanus. He issued 4 editions and the third edition of 1550 is the first critical edition of the Greek text. It was Stephanus who introduced verse numbering into the text. The second edition was the one that was used by Luther for his German Bible (Carson 1979:34).

7. Theodore Beza, the successor to John Calvin, published a Greek text in 9 editions that varied very little from that of Stephanus.

8. The KJV translators relied on Beza’s editions of 1588-1589 and 1598. (The above information has been gleaned from Carson 1979:34-37). Carson explains:

“In 1624, thirteen years after the publication of the KJV, the Elzevir brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham, published a compact Greek New Testament, the text of which was largely that of Beza. In the second edition, published in 1633, there is an advertising blurb (Metzger’s term) that says, in Latin … (“The text that you have is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or perverted”). This is the origin of the term Textus Receptus (or TR, as it is often referred to): the Latin words “textum … receptum” have simply been put into the nominative. The TR is not the “received text” in the sense that it has been received from God as over against other Greek manuscripts. Rather, it is the “received text” in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs. Nevertheless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness” (1979:36).

9. Up until 1881, the TR, only with a few modifications, was the basis of all European translations. The most prominent MSS of the TR were from the Byzantine family and these were the dominant MSS for 2 centuries. It is true that Beza had access to codex Bezae, which is a Western text-type, but it had such significant differences when compared with the others, that it was not used with any significance by Beza.

10. The TR is not in total agreement with the Byzantine family of texts as the Byzantine text-type is found in several thousand witnesses, while the TR only refers to about one-hundredth of that evidence.

11. It is common for defenders of the TR and the KJV, to speak against the textual critical theories of B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort. This has been happening for about a century. Westcott & Hort had available to them the newly discovered codex Sinaiticus and by 1889-1890, codex Vaticanus, along with other MSS. Westcott, Hort & Bengel presented a case for following text-types and they found that the Byzantine tradition did not go any further back than the fourth century and that it was “a conflation of earlier texts” (Carson 1979:40). Westcott & Hort considered that the Alexandrian tradition (e.g. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) was earlier than the Byzantine text-type, which only went back to about the middle of the fourth century.

Codex Vaticanus

Two columns of the Codex Vaticanus. Click for full-size image.
(courtesy Bible Research)

12. On this basis, the earliest text-type is not that of the Byzantine TR behind the KJV, but the Alexandrian tradition which is generally accepted today as being closer to the original manuscripts. Hence the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT and other translations since 1881 (except the NKJV) are based on the Alexandrian text-type. Carson (1979:52) is convinced from the evidence that “the Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available”. Part of his assessment is:

“Not only is the Alexandrian text-type found in some biblical quotations by ante-Nicene fathers, but the text-type is also attested by some of the early version witnesses. More convincing yet, Greek papyri from the second and third centuries have shown up, none of which reflects a Byzantine text and most of which have a mixed Alexandrian / Western text. The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type (Carson 1979:53).

13. There have been various KJV editions. The 1631 edition omitted the word “not” from the seventh of the Ten Commandments and so obtained the reputation of being called “Wicked Bible”. There was a 1717 edition printed at Oxford that has the reputation of being called the “Vinegar Bible” because the chapter heading of Luke 20 read “vinegar” instead of “vineyard” (Geisler & Nix 1986:567-568).

The 1769 revision of the KJV, which we use today, differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 details (Goodspeed in Geisler & Nix 1986:568). Many of these are minor changes of spelling. See: ‘Changes in the King James Version‘ from 1611 to 1769. A copy of the 1611 edition of the KJV is currently available for sale as The Bible: Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha (Oxford World’s Classics).

Concerning what Erasmus did in omitting the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7-8, Bruce Metzger explains:

Erasmus replied that he [Erasmus] had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found–or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscripts had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscripts had been prepared expressly in order to confute him (Metzger 1992:101).

Thus, there are many good reasons for regarding the Textus Receptus behind the NT of the King James Version as not being superior to that used by the modern Greek critical text.

Jemand wrote a helpful summary in this area:

Websites that militantly defend the absurd notion that the King James Version of the Bible, and it alone, is “the preserved word of God” willfully and deliberately misrepresent the truth to make it appear that all other versions of the Bible are counterfeits of the real thing. The New Testament portion of the New King James Version (NKJV) is translated from the same Greek text that the New Testament portion of the King James Version is translated from. Here is a brief summary of the origin of that Greek text (I wrote this summary myself for use in another thread):

The first printed Greek New Testament was printed in 1514 as part of the Complutensian Polyglot which was not yet ready for publication. In 1515, publisher Johann Froben entered into a business agreement with the Dutch scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in which Erasmus was to prepare for publication a Greek New Testament, the first to ever be published. Froben wanted his Greek New Testament to be on the market before the Complutensian Polyglot, so Erasmus had to very hastily put his text together. Very much to his dismay, he was not able to find a Greek manuscript that contained the entire Greek New Testament; therefore he used several manuscripts, but mostly two 12th century manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle—one of which contained the four gospels and the other the Book of Acts and the epistles. This resulted in a manuscript for publication that contained corrections between the lines and in the margins. The published work, not surprisingly, included hundreds of typographical errors, causing F. H. A. Scrivener to comment that it was, “in that respect the most faulty book I know.”

Yet other difficulties plagued Erasmus in the preparation of his Greek text of the New Testament. He had only one Greek manuscript that contained the Book of Revelation. This manuscript that Erasmus had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin was incomplete—it lacked the final leaf that had contained the last six verses—and it had other defects. It included a commentary on Revelation and in places Erasmus was not able to distinguish between the text and the commentary. Therefore, in those places where the text was either missing or in doubt, he used the Latin Vulgate and translated it into Greek to complete his Greek Text. The result was that his Greek text of Revelation includes readings that are not found in any Greek manuscript and even a word that does not exist in the Greek language, but which because of superstition are still included in the so-called Textus Receptus, proving that for some people superstition trumps manuscript evidence. And translations from the Latin Vulgate are not limited to the Book of Revelation, but are found in other parts of his Greek text of the New Testament. This is the reason why, for example, the text of Acts 9:6 in the King James Version is very different from the text in other translation that do not rely upon the mistakes of Erasmus, including all of them that are translated from the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text type.

Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (King James Version)

Acts 9:6 but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (Revised Version of 1881 and similarly in every standard translation since then)

The first edition of Erasmus’ Greek text of the New Testament was published in 1516 with a second edition in 1519. The reception was mixed—the 3,300 copies sold quickly but the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford (and some others) forbade their students from reading them. A very important and historical objection to these two editions of Erasmus’ Greek text of the New Testament came from one of the editors Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot, Stunica. This objection was that the Greek text for the last part of 1 John 5:7 and first part of 1 John 5:8 were missing. Erasmus replied that he had never seen a manuscript of the Greek New Testament that included those words but very foolishly and very much to his regret later made the promise that he would include them in the third edition of his Greek text of the New Testament if Stunica could provide him with even one Greek manuscript in which the words were found. To the dismay of Erasmus, Stunica, a man lacking the moral fiber of which Erasmus was made, provided Erasmus with such a manuscript—a manuscript that was apparently written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy who translated the words from the Latin Vulgate and inserted them into his Greek manuscript. Erasmus kept his word and inserted the words into the third edition of his Greek text of the New Testament which was published in 1522, but included a lengthy footnote in which he wrote that he believed that the Greek manuscript supplied to him containing those words was probably written for that very purpose. That manuscript is now known as Codex Greg. 61 and the words are known as the Comma Johanneum. The King James translation of the New Testament translates those words as “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness on earth:” During the nearly four centuries since Codex Greg. 61 was written, the Comma Johanneum has been found in only three other Greek manuscripts:

Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript in which the Comma is found in a marginal note that was written in the 17th century

Tisch. w 110, a 16th century manuscript that is a copy of the Greek text of the New Testament in the Complutensian Polyglot

Greg. 629, a 14th century (or possibly 16th century) manuscript

Erasmus had now seen the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot and generously used it to revise his own Greek text, making changes to 90 passages in the Book of Revelation alone in his fourth edition of 1527. In 1535, Erasmus published his fifth and final edition in which he made only minor revisions of his Greek text.

Robert Estienne (also known by his Latin name Stephanus) published four editions of the Greek New Testament in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. The Greek text in his third edition was very similar to the Greek text in the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus. In his fourth edition, he introduced the numbering of the verses in the New Testament, the numbering system still employed (for the most part) today. The third edition, or Jean Crispin’s (sometimes spelled Crespin) much smaller reprint of it, became the textual basis for the New Testament in the Geneva Bible translated by William Whittingham and other English Protestants, the first English version to include variant readings in the margins.

Théodore de Bèze (commonly spelled Beza) published nine editions of the Greek New Testament and a tenth was published posthumously in 1611. Four of the nine included variations in the Greek text, those of 1565, 1582, 1588-89, and 1598. The editions of 1588-89 and 1598 were used to a significant extent by the translators of the New Testament portion of the King James Version, but the primary text used by the translators of the King James Version was the 1550 edition by Stephanus. The translators of the New Testament portion of the New King James Version consistently translated from the Greek text underlying the New Testament portion of the King James Version (Jemand, Bible Forums, ‘Is the NKJV corrupted?’ #106, 20 March 2009)

I know that this kind of post will not go down well with Textus Receptus and KJV Only supporters, but these matters need to be clarified.

I recommend the article by Daniel Wallace, “Why I do not think the King James Bible is the best translation available today”.

Appendix A

One of the finest histories of the Christian church is that by Kenneth Scott Latourette 1975. A History of Christianity (vol. 1, rev. edn.). New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Latourette states of Erasmus:

“He was ordained to the [Roman Catholic] priesthood…. He wished to see the Church purged of superstition through the use of intelligence and a return to the ethical teachings of Christ. He desired no break with the existing Catholic Church. He initiated no innovation in doctrine or worship…. He got out an edition of the Greek Testament [Textus Receptus] with a fresh translation into Latin” (pp. 661-62).

Appendix B

Bruce Metzger (1992:99-103) has summarised the situation:

Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript which contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, one of the Gospels … and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others of the same books and entered occasional corrections for the printer in the margins or between the lines of the Greek script. For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are so mixed up as to be almost indistinguishable, Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript-but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.

Even in other parts of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate. Thus in Acts ix. 6, the question which Paul asks at the time of his conversion on the Damascus road, ‘And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’, was frankly interpolated by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. This addition, which is found in no Greek manuscript at this passage (though it appears in the parallel account of Acts xxii. 10), became part of the Textus Receptus, from which the King James version was made in 1611.

The reception accorded Erasmus’ edition, the first published Greek New Testament, was mixed. On the one hand, it found many purchasers throughout Europe. Within three years a second edition was called for, and the total number of copies of the 1516 and 1519 editions amounted to 3,300. The second edition became the basis of Luther’s German translation….

Among the criticisms leveled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot, that his text lacked part of the final chapter of I John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning ‘the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth’ (I John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In a guarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found – or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to refute him.

Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a twelfth-century manuscript which has the Comma written in the margin in a seventeenth-century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is, a sixteenth-century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629, dating from the fourteenth or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the sixteenth century. The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus (ch. 4), attributed either to Priscillian or to his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain. The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of I John, when it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century. The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800….

Thus the text of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen miniscule [lower case script] manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a miniscule of the tenth century, which agrees often with the earlier uncial [upper case script] text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! Erasmus’ text is inferior in critical value to the Complutensian, yet because it was the first on the market and was available in a cheaper and more convenient form, it attained a far greater influence than its rival, which had been in preparation from 1502 to 1514….

Subsequent editors, though making a number of alterations in Erasmus’ text, essentially reproduced this debased form of the Greek Testament. Having secured an undeserved pre-eminence, what came to be called the Textus Receptus of the New Testament resisted for 400 years all scholarly efforts to displace it in favour of an earlier and more accurate text.

Works consulted

Carson, D A 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Metzger, B. M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,and Restoration (third ed). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Endnotes:

[1] By modern translations, I am referring to examples such as the New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New Living Translation and the New Revised Standard Version. The New King James Version is not included because of its dependence on the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text.

[2] #12 of the thread.

[3] I’m OzSpen, #147 of the thread.

[4] #148 of the thread.

[5] #149 of the thread.

[6] I provided some of this information in #153 and #154 of the thread.

Governments may promote gay marriage. Should we as evangelical Christians?

(courtesy LGBT, Wikipedia)

Spencer D Gear

Governments have changed legislation and brought in new social changes through the centuries. Christians are bigoted, intolerant and narrow-minded for considering that homosexuals will burn in hell.

That’s the view of Meryl Miller, a new columnist in the Fraser Coast Chronicle (FCC), in her new column, The M-Files, “Face the facts, folks: gay marriage is on the way” (3 December 2010, p. 21). On 6 December 2010, I phoned the FCC editor, Peter Chapman, to ask if he would accept an article as my right of reply to Miller’s article. Even though I pressed for the need for balance by adding my opposing article, he refused, claiming that the controversial nature of some columnists encourages people to write letters to the editor. He said that he would consider a lengthy letter from me.

Miller’s new column generated so much telephone response that editor, Peter Chapman’s “My Comment” column, “New column had the phone ringing” (FCC, 4 December 2010, p. 18), stated that “I have asked her not to write about religion next week nor cats, dogs and dingoes”. Miller had advocated for “the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to marry their partners”, according to Chapman. However, Chapman’s views are that “it’s a touchy subject for many of us” and “the truth is it’s really something we are going to have to accept”.

Really? Not in your life for me. On 7 December 2010, I sent a letter to the editor of the FCC that incorporates some of the following material.

Miller promotes the following fallacies on which her philosophy teeters.

Taking examples from contemporary society as norms for morals is a dangerous practice (examples given in the article were of deaths of the indigenous, equal rights for women and against domestic violence, out-of-wedlock babies, defacto relationships, climate change, flat-earthers, Salem witch-hunters, etc). It’s dangerous because relativism and pragmatism at government level, have produced some of the most horrendous ethics in world history. Ever heard of the Holocaust, Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, Stalin’s killing fields, the genocide of abortion, euthanasia in Holland, etc? When I give individuals and governments the right to make up their own moral framework, I cannot stop the logical conclusions of giving that right to everyone.

By the way, I take public stands against discrimination and immorality based on ethnicity, domestic violence against women, sexual abuse, pedophilia, abortion, euthanasia, etc. However, that does not give governments or individual human beings the authority to invent what is right and wrong. Ethics needs a higher norm than puny human decisions.

To say that “slowly, inexorably, we are inching towards a society which is more tolerant, more understanding, more compassionate, more open-minded” is a very intolerant statement because it opposes all those who do not accept Miller’s agenda of ‘tolerance’. Miller is as intolerant as anyone around, except she is intolerant towards those who oppose her views, while blaming the Christians and heterosexuals for being intolerant.

If “gay marriage is no more harmful to our moral fibre than other modern conventions we once found so shocking”, why is it that heterosexual marriage has been the norm throughout human history? Scoffing at “archaic views on gay marriage” amounts to being scornful of the tried and tested moral absolute of marriage exclusively for a man and a woman. Miller establishes her own absolute of relativistic pragmatism. She promotes her intolerant ‘tolerance’ towards those who support exclusively heterosexual marriage. Hers is a self-defeating argument. It is not an “open-minded” approach but a promotion of homosexual marriage while rejecting the heterosexual exclusive nature of what God has created.

God’s view is that heterosexual marriage is His ordained method for marriage and reproduction. From the very earliest of times, according to Genesis 1:27-28, we know this: ‘God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”’.

This is impossible for the homosexual to do. As for the marriage union, God said: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design is for the marriage union to be exclusively between a man and a woman. This is impossible for homosexuals to do.

As for the marriage union, God said, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design has been for the marriage union to be between a man and a woman. Governments that change this are working according to their own, fallible, imperfect human ethics.

So they are “religious extremists who preach from their lofty soap-boxes that homosexuals will burn in hell”, according to Miller. This is a self-defeating argument as the author herself is promoting an extremist position of tolerance towards homosexuals but she is not prepared to be tolerant to “religious extremists” who differ from her view. By the way, she has no clue about the doctrine of hell when she doesn’t understand who will be going there. It’s time she read and understood the Bible (I’m working on my PhD in New Testament).

Miller opposes the intolerant, bigoted, narrow-mined, heartless people who state that homosexuals will burn in hell, while claiming she is a Christian. It’s time that Miller knew the Scriptures which state that all unrepentant unbelievers will not inherit the Kingdom of God. First Corinthians 6:9-11 includes the sexually immoral, including adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals, idolaters, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. The good news of the Gospel is “that is what some of you were”. Jesus changes all sinners from the inside out.

Since when did Miller become a systematic theologian to pronounce that “the laws of God do not, should not, determine the laws between consenting adults in a committed relationship”? That’s Miller’s relativistic invention, not God’s standard.

She says that “I consider myself a Christian – but that does not give me the right to be a moral dictator”. What is a Christian that enables Miller to make such an anti-biblical statement? Christians believe that governments “do what is good” (according to God’s standards) and government is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoers” (Romans 14). These are wrongdoers according to God’s absolutes of right and wrong according to Scriptures, not relativistic governmental standards and the norms of morality created by Miller.

She rejoices in the birth of Connor Harris through surrogacy and two male homosexuals are the parents. It takes a male sperm and a female ovum to create human life. Homosexuals cannot create human life alone.

What has happened in Massachusetts (USA) with the legalisation of homosexuality and homosexual marriage has provided an example of the increase in HIV infection within the homosexual community. This report from 2008, “Inequitable Impact:The HIV/AIDS Epidemic Among Gay and Bisexual Men and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in Massachusetts”, demonstrates the increased HIV rate among MSM (men having sex with men) in Massachusetts:

“This is the second in a series of reports examining the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on residents of Massachusetts. The first report, An Added Burden: The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Communities of Color in Massachusetts, focused on the ongoing racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence and prevalence in the Commonwealth. This report examines one mode of HIV exposure, same-sex sexual behavior between men, and its role in an inequitable impact of HIV on gay/bisexual men and other men who have sex with men.

Efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV in Massachusetts have been successful in a number of populations at risk, including injection drug users and heterosexual men and women. However, less success can be reported from work with gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), who represent over 50% of HIV cases reported among Massachusetts men between the years 2004 and 2006, and 39% of all HIV cases reported during this period. These rates of new infection are striking in light of the fact that only 4.3-9.4% of Massachusetts men (18-64 years old) report having had sex with men in the past twelve months on standardized behavioral surveys over the past seven years. These impacts represent an inequitable rate of infection that is nearly 25 times higher for men who have sex with men than for men who report only having had sex with women (emphasis added).

While the impact of HIV on MSM is most evident among white men, at 70% of new white male cases, MSM has emerged as a first- or second-ranked mode of exposure for black and Hispanic men in recent years. In half of the health service regions of the Commonwealth, MSM is the leading mode of exposure for persons recently reported with HIV, particularly evident in Boston, Metrowest, and Southeastern Massachusetts. The inequitable impact of HIV on MSM is also seen among the youngest persons at risk, with 44% of individuals age 13-24 recently reported with HIV having MSM as their mode of exposure. Even among men not born in the US, MSM represents over a third of new HIV cases reported in Massachusetts.

In Africa, “On average it is estimated that HIV infection rates amongst MSM (men who have sex with men) are four to five times higher than the population overall, with highs in certain areas” (AFRICA: Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV).

The issues here are God’s absolutes versus humanistic relativism created by Miller, the Massachusetts legislature and others. What’s the difference? The differences are the reasons for opposing homosexual marriage. Miller’s major fallacies are that she creates her own relativistic absolutes that oppose God’s standards. None of us would be on earth if homosexuality were the norm. In addition, she is discriminatory against other relationship aberrations such as bigamy, polygamy and polyandry. See Bill Muehlenberg’s excellent piece of satire, “Time for some real marriage equality”. The high level of HIV infection in the male homosexual community should sound alarm bells!

The Fraser Coast Chronicle deserves better than to promote a one-eyed columnist who is narrow-minded in her opposition to what has sustained societies throughout human history – heterosexual marriage.

On 7 December 2017, Australia became the 26th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

Dilemmas surrounding Judas Iscariot’s death

ChristArt

By Spencer Gear

There are some alleged contradictions in the story of Judas Iscariot when we compare Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18-19. A friend has sent me the questions (in bold below). F. F. Bruce (1951:77) acknowledged that ‘the main problems are: (1) Who bought the field? (2) How did Judas die? (3) Why was the place called “the Field of Blood”?’

Was it Judas who bought the field or was it the priests? This is my first question. One text suggests the priests, the other suggests Judas.

Acts 1:18 does state that ‘Judas bought a field” and this field was called ‘in their language, Akeidama, that is field of blood’ (NIV). Most translations have Acts 1:18-19 as a parenthesis inserted by the author, Luke.

Matt. 27:6-8 says that “The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” ⁷ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.⁸ That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day” NIV).

On the surface it does sound contradictory, but notice the language of Matt. 27:6-8: The chief priests bought a potter’s field that was ‘a burial place for foreigners’, that was called ‘the Field of Blood to this day’.

F. F. Bruce in his commentary on the Book of Acts (Bruce 1979:49) states:

‘(According to Matt. 27:7, it was the chief priests who bought it with the reward of treachery, which Judas had had flung back in their faces. The common harmonization of the two accounts at this point –suggested, for example by E. Jacquier in Les Actes des Ap?tres (Paris, 1926), ad loc. – is that the chief priests, considering the thirty sheckles to be legally Judas’ property, bought the field with them in his name.) He did not live, however, to enjoy the fruits of his shameful act, for he swelled up and sustained a fatal rupture. (The Latin Vulgate harmonizes this account with Matthew’s by saying that “having hanged himself he burst asunder in the midst”; Augustine (Against Felix the Manichaean i.4) says “he fastened a rope round his neck and, falling on his face, burst asunder in the midst.”) It should be noted by the English reader that “in the midst” does not mean “in the midst of the field”, but refers to Judas’s body. The field was accordingly called by an Aramaic name meaning “the field of blood” (According to Matt. 27:7, it was the potter’s field, and was used thereafter to bury aliens in.)’

The other was how did he die? By hanging, or falling off the cliff headlong. Not that if someone hung themselves, it might appear unlikely that if the rope broke, that he would fall headlong.

Three things are stated of Judas and his death:

Judas ‘hanged himself’ (Matt. 27:5 NIV), and
He ‘fell headlong’ (Acts 1:18 NIV);
‘His body burst open and all his intestines spilled out’ (Acts 1:18 NIV).

Are any of these facts contradictory?

What does it mean that he fell ‘headlong’ (Acts 1:18)? ‘Headlong” is the Greek, pr?n?s. In Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek lexicon, it gives the meaning of pr?n?s as ‘forward, prostate, head first, headlong’ but admits the meaning, ‘swollen, distended’ as a possibility (1957:707). Therefore “headlong” is not the necessary meaning.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of all time, Dr. A. T. Robertson, wrote that the meaning is not ‘headlong’ but ‘”flat on the face” as opposed to kuptios on the back’ (Robertson 1930:16). F. F. Bruce (1951:77) in his Greek commentary on the Book of Acts states that ‘fell headlong’ is literally, ‘”having become prone”, i.e. falling flat’.

So if I follow these Greek authorities, it is easy to see that when Judas was released from whatever device hanged him, he fell forward, prostrate, flat on his face. So there is no contradiction between a person being hanged and his then falling prostrate on his face (‘fell headlong’).

I have no problem in understanding that a body that died from hanging and falls on its face can ‘burst open; and have the intestines spill open. Acts 1:18 provides information that is supplementary to Matt. 27:3-10 and not what is contradictory. It is reasonable to infer that the rope that hanged Judas snapped under stress or through somebody cutting it and that when it fell, it hit something that caused the body to burst open and the intestines to fall out.

Therefore, Matthew (probably written to a Jewish audience) and Luke/Acts (probably for a Gentile audience) are like two journalists describing the same event but from different angles for different audiences.

My concern is that in putting forth their message, it still doesn’t explain some seemingly contradictory facts proposed to make their point. Who do you believe purchased the field? How do you make sense of him falling headlong after hanging?

Who purchased the field? The priests did, but with 30 pieces of silver that legally belonged to Judas. So the priests bought the field, but Judas also did it as it was Judas’s money.

There is no problem in understanding that a person can be hanged and fall on his face or on his head when being cut down from the hanging device.

Acts 1:18 How did Judas die?

This is how some scholars see it:

While Luke’s description of Judas’s death is rather gory, Acts 1:18 would not be a problem were it not that Matthew seemingly has a different story. In Matthew’s account, “Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). Matthew also reports that the chief priests used the money “to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.” Aren’t the two accounts contradictory?

It is clear that Matthew and Luke have different concerns in mentioning the incident. Matthew is more interested in the purchase of the field, which he sees as a fulfillment of Scripture. He combines Zech. 11:12-13 (the thirty pieces of silver and the potter) and Jeremiah 32:6-12 (buying a field), perhaps with overtones of Jeremiah 18:1-4 (going to the potter’s house), and links them all under Jeremiah’s name.

Luke has another concern, which is that Judas got what he deserved, a horrible death. (A similar situation is reported in Acts 12:21-24, where the author narrates the story of Herod Agrippa I’s death.) The focus is not on the purchase of the field (which would have appeared a reward, especially to Jews for whom landowning in Palestine was important), but on his death in the field (which was ghastly).

Both authors want to point out that the field was called “The Field of Blood,” thus memorializing the deed. Acts appears to connect the title to Judas’s blood in his death, while Matthew ties it to the fact that the blood money paid for the field. It is hardly surprising that the same name might mean different things to different people.

A closer look at the two stories highlights gaps in the narrative that raise questions about the events. But the accounts are not necessarily contradictory. Acts is concerned that Judas’s money and name were connected to a field. Whether or not the chief priests actually purchased it, perhaps some time after Judas’s death, would not be a detail of concern to the author. His point was the general knowledge that Judas’s money went to the purchase, which resulted in the title “Field of Blood” being attached to the field. Another possible reason for the name, also a concern of Acts, was that Judas split open and his intestines poured out. Such a defacing of the body, probably with the concomitant result of the corpse being at least partially eaten by vultures and dogs, was horrible in the view of the Jews, for whom proper burial was important. In fact, they even valued forms of execution that did not deface the outside of the body (such as strangulation) over forms that defaced the body (such as stoning, the worst form in their eyes).

Matthew points out that it was a guilt-motivated suicide, accomplished by the most common means, hanging. Suicide in Jewish literature is most often connected to shame or failure. (So 2 Samuel 17:23; compare the other accounts of suicide in Old Testament history, which were normally to avoid a more shameful death.) However, since suicide by hanging was usually accomplished (at least by poorer people) by jumping out of a tree with a rope around one’s neck, it was not unusual (nor is it uncommon in India today) for the body to be ripped open in the process. I hesitate to say that this was exactly what happened, but it is certainly a plausible explanation.
Therefore, we will never be fully certain about what happened at the death of Judas. What I have shown is that there are certainly credible explanations as to how the two accounts fit together. I have shown how it may well have happened, not how it must have happened. In doing so we see that there is no necessary contradiction. Yet what is important in reading these narratives is to focus on the points they are making, not on the horrible death. With Matthew we see that Scripture is fulfilled even while those fulfilling it are driven by guilt and shame to their own self-destruction. And with Acts we see that sin does have consequences: Judas not only lost his office through his treachery, but came to a shameful end as well, an end memorialized in the place near Jerusalem named “Field of Blood” (Kaiser, et al 1996:511-512).

Gleason Archer (1982:349-350) provides his assessment of Acts 1:18 online HERE.

References

Archer, G L 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House). Available online HERE.

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, R W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bruce, F F 1951. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek text with introduction and commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Bruce, F F 1979. Commentary on the Book of Acts (The New International Commentary on the New Testament – F. F. Bruce, gen ed). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Kaiser, W C, Davids P H, Bruce F F & Brauch, M T 1996. Hard sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, citation located HERE. A copy of this book is available at Google Books, “Hard Sayings of the Bible“.

Robertson, A T 1930. Word pictures in the New Testament: The Acts of the Apostles, vol 3. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Copyright (c) 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document is free content. You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version. This document last updated at Date: 24 March 2014.

Whytehouse designs

Genetic cause of homosexuality?

Female Homosexual Symbol Clip Art

clker.com

By Spencer D Gear

Homosexuality is “not some kind of insidious disease” [1] according to an anonymous letter writer to the Fraser Coast Chronicle (Name & address supplied to the editor). Instead, homosexuality “is a genetic inheritance handed down from the parents’ gene pool. Both mother and father may or may not contribute however in balance, it favours the mother’s side of the gene distribution”, says the writer who does not want to be identified publicly.

Part of the following is in my letter to the editor, sent 11 December 2010, to the Fraser Coast Chronicle. This letter was not published.

This genetic argument to support homosexuality was expected. To those who oppose homosexual marriage, this writer in the FCC states that homosexuality is caused by the “gene pool”. In other words, we are born this way. What is the inference if the cause is our genetic heredity? Is homosexuality therefore to be treated like Down Syndrome? The implication is that it cannot be changed. This letter writer did not quote any authority or research to support his/her views.

But for those who oppose this genetic cause (people like myself)[2], this writer lambasted us as “narrow-minded experts” and “slanderers” who are depriving homosexuals of “democratic rights and freedom of belief that the Christian God loves them”.

Name-calling is detrimental to a healthy discussion about any subject and especially a controversial one such as homosexuality.

When he was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology (e.g., genetic inheritance), gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied,

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors … not negate the psychosocial factors”.[3]

In addition, a gay neuroscientist, promoter of gay rights and whose gay partner died of HIV, Simon LeVay, has acknowledged that there are multiple factors that may contribute to a homosexual orientation.[4]

LeVay told Discover Magazine, “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work”.[5]

A study published in 2006 by Anthony F. Bogaert[6], Brock University, Canada, has been promoted worldwide as evidence of a biological basis of homosexuality in young men with older brothers. Bogaert’s research has been reviewed and some have found significant flaws in it.[7] Dr. Neil Whitehead, a NZ research scientist, found that one of Bogaert’s broad statistics could easily hide crucial confounding data.[8]

A recent study reported in the UK’s Guardian newspaper (2008) stated that US researchers found a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors.[9]

Therefore, it is inaccurate and misleading for the FCC letter writer to place exclusive emphasis on genetic inheritance of homosexuality received from the parents’ genetic pool.

I agree that the Christian God loves everyone, but all behaviour has eternal consequences.

For your research:

There’s a range of articles dealing with the genetic or other causes of homosexuality on the NARTH website.

Notes:

[1] Fraser Coast Chronicle letters, “Sexuality is in the gene pool”, Name and address supplied but not printed, 10 December 2010, p. 20. The Fraser Coast incorporates Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Fraser Island in south-central Queensland, Australia.

[2] I have incorporated a letter-to-the-editor that I had published in the Fraser Coast Chronicle, 8 December 2010, “Heterosexual marriage has sustained societies” into this article, “Governments may promote gay marriage. Should we as evangelical Christians?”

[3] Cited in Julie Harren 2008, “Homosexuality 101”, available from NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) at: http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html (Accessed 11 December 2010).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Cited in A Dean Byrd, Shirley E Cox, & Jeffrey W Robinson 2001. “The innate-immutable argument finds no basis in science”, available from NARTH, http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html (Accessed 11 December 2010).

[6] Details from, “Do mothers create gay sons in the womb?”, available from NARTH at: http://www.narth.com/docs/domothers.html (Accessed 11 December 2010).

[7] See “Canadian psychiatrist finds major flaws in Anthony Bogaert’s study of gay brothers”, available from NARTH at: http://www.narth.com/docs/bogaert.html (Accessed 11 December 2010).

[8] In ibid.

[9] “US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics”, The Guardian [UK], 1 December 2008. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa (Accessed 11 December 2010).

Evidence for Jesus: Testing the transmission evidence

(Vaticanus John 1:1-14a)

By Spencer D Gear

How do we know if the God-man, historical Jesus, existed and was the Jesus manifested according to the New Testament? On Christian Forums, I asked Hillard, “So what historical evidence will you accept to determine the date of Jesus’ birth?”(#16 of this thread). This was his response (#18 of this thread):

Historical evidence is all we need to tell us if there was a particular man named Jesus who was the leader of a group, a few words written thousands of years ago and passed down to us are not enough because too many things have happened in history that might have tainted or changed the writings, don’t forget, people throughout history could be killed for writing the wrong things also peoples opinions are not evidence they are only their opinions.

For all we know the stories in the Bible could have been written by the supporters of a Jewish left or right -wing political nationalist named Jesus who was trying to undermine the Romans, his supporters would write anything if they thought it would help their cause they might even give him a God like status, if all we had were the writings of Stalins supporters we might be misled into thinking he was a really nice man.

In my reply, I said that I take history more seriously than you seem to do and have written on this topic. In determining if the NT is a trustworthy and accurate document, historians use three tests: (1) The Transmission Test; (2) The Internal Evidence Test, and (3) The External Evidence Test.

The transmission test is an examination of how the documents reached us from when they were written. Since we don’t have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in:

The number of manuscripts (MSS);
The time interval between the original and the earliest copy

A. NEW TESTAMENT

Transmission Test for Historical Documents (incl. New Testament)

Author/ Book	Date Written	Earliest Copies	Time Gap	No. of Copies	% Accuracy
Hindu Mahabharata	13^th century B.C.				90
Plato	c. 400 B.C.	A.D. c.900	1300 yrs	7	?
Homer, *Iliad*	900 B.C. (900-700 B.C.?)	400 B.C. ?	500 yrs ?	643	95
Demosthenes	300 B.C.	A. D. c. 1100	1,400 yrs	200	?
Caesar, *Gallic Wars*	100-44 B.C.	A.D. 900	1,000 yrs	10	?
Tacitus, Annals	A.D. 100	1100 A.D.	1,000 yrs	20	?
Pliny Secundus, *Natural History*	A.D. 61-113	c. A.D. 850	750 yrs	7	?
New Testament	A.D.50-100	c. 114 (fragment) c. 200 (books) c. 250 (most of NT) c. 325 (whole NT)	c. +/- 50 yrs c. 100 yrs c. 150 yrs c. 225 yrs	5,366(Gk) 24,000+ (with other translations)	99+

The chart above is a comparison of ancient manuscript totals (Josh McDowell, Christianity: Hoax or History? Tyndale House Publishers, 1989, pp. 50-51; Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, 1986, p. 408)

B. AN ASSESSMENT

I am in agreement with the late Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, formerly director and principal librarian of the British Museum, who wrote just before his death:

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” [1]

These people who were used by the Lord to write the New Testament, were living in a hostile culture. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies. They would dare not manipulate the facts because they would be challenged by those who wanted to discredit them.

A witness must testify of his/her own knowledge. When we apply this to the NT, we see clearly that we have primary evidence from eyewitnesses. I John 1:1 states, ” That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life (NIV)”. [2]

Would you dare to suggest that the writings of Plato, Demosthenes, Caesar, Tacitus and Pliny Secundus are not accurate. The historical writings of the NT present superior evidence to all of these other ancient writings. These are assessments by eminent historians have reached these conclusions about the New Testament.

A.N. Sherwin-White, distinguished Roman historian, says this about Luke’s writings: “For [the Book of] Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” [3]

Luke is commended by classical historian, G.A. Williamson, for demonstrating “complete familiarity with the thought, expression, and habitual terminology of the speakers, and . . . what memories the people of that time possessed!–if not on written notes, which we have reason to believe were commonly made.” [4]

Thanks to the archaeological efforts of the late Sir William Ramsay, many of the critical views of the NT have been overthrown. Ramsay himself was converted from the critical view of liberal theology. He wrote:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [the Book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”[5]

I suggested to Hillard that he become better informed about assessing historical evidence. His retort was (in #21): “It would seem to me that you have a lot of modern day opinions and not much more, I for one believe that Jesus lived, but again that’s only my opinion (and incidentally my hope)”. I came back with: “You don’t seem to care about the standards by which one judges whether a document is historical or not. Could it be that you are establishing your own “modern day opinions” for this topic?” (#22)

Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at the University of Tübingen, Germany, Dr. Martin Hengel wrote:

“Ought we not rather to reckon that in the early period of the Gospel tradition, the roughly forty years up to the composition of the Gospel of Mark, the weight of the authority of the eyewitnesses was still very tangible and that oral traditions initially predominated, i.e. that in this stratum of the tradition we come very close to the remains of the preaching of Jesus himself? [6]

Notes:

[1] Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology. New York: Harper and Row, 1940, pp. 288f, in Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Revised and Expanded). Chicago: Moody Press, 1968, 1986, p. 405; also in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter. Eastbourne, Sussex, England: Kingsway Publications, 1977, p. 48.

[2] Suggested by John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1975, p. 88.

[3] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 189, in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1979, p. 55.

[4] G. A. Williamson, The World of Josephus. London: Secker & Warburg, 1964, p. 290, in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 326.

[5] William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896, p. 8, in Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 326.

[6] Martin Hengel 2000. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Harrisburgh, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, p. 173.

Just accept it by faith – a No! No!

Faith

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

In the letters-to-the-editor, Time Australia, 10 January 2005, I read: “As a southern Baptist Sunday-School teacher, I tell my students what most of us here in the Bible Belt [USA] believe: the Scripture is the inerrant word of God, given by inspiration to the writers of the Bible. That Matthew and Luke record different details makes neither of them inaccurate. Nor does the fact that some of this cannot be corroborated by other sources. That’s why we call it faith” (on 18 June 2016, this article was not available online)

This was a response to a one-eyed liberal theological view that debunked the Christmas story, “Secrets of the Nativity” (13 Dec. 2004 cover story, Time).

Is this Sunday School teacher’s response the way to communicate with unbelieving Aussies who don’t give a hoot about God and who wouldn’t go near a Bible?

This seems to be a call to some blind leap of Bible-Belt faith that accepted the inspired, infallible word of God. When the apostle Paul was dealing with the pagan philosophers at the Areopagus, Athens (see Acts 17:16-34), he took a different line.

Dialogue with them

If they didn’t care about God, he started where they were. He got to know his audience: “He was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (v. 16).

If God was not at the forefront of their agenda, he reasoned daily with them – even in the marketplace (v. 17). This was no one-way communication. It was a vigorous dialogue.

For those who had very different views of God, he even debated the professional philosophers (v. 18). This is not everybody’s cup of tea. Thank God for leading apologists such as William Craig, Norman Geisler, John Montgomery, Josh McDowell and others who debate some of today’s leading secular philosophers.

For those with a view that we ought to “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die,” Paul still proclaimed the Gospel, even at the risk of being called a “babbler” (v. 18). Even in that pagan paradise, he proclaimed the good news about Jesus Christ and His resurrection.

If these pagans were interested in philosophy other than the one true God, Paul continued his listen-observe-proclaim approach and other doors of opportunity opened. Those at the Areopagus asked: “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?” (v. 19).

With this new opportunity, he identified with the fact that “you are very religious” and have an altar “to the unknown god” (vv. 22-23). Now he’s back to using dialogue with the views of his audience.

He even discusses these issues: the nature of the one true God (vv. 24-25), the nature of human beings and their responsibility before God (vv. 26-27), ordinary quotes from secular people (vv. 28-29), and then he proclaimed the Word (vv. 30-31) – repent (the cross), judgement (the Christ) and the resurrection (Christ’s alive). This is hardly a politically correct method in these days of tolerance toward most things – except born-again Christianity.

K.N.N.O.W. the steps:

Know people and their “idols”

Nature of God

Nature of human beings

Ordinary quotes from life

Word of God (repent, judgement, and resurrection)

An example

Let’s try to flesh this out in a very compact summary of three one-hour conversations with John, a secular counsellor (he could be a school teacher, labourer, medical doctor or a bus driver), who is fairly vocal about his postmodern views. Postmodern? Just hang in there.

Spencer (S): John, in your presentation to that sex education class, I appreciated your enthusiasm for the subject and the practical and thoughtful ways that you answered their questions. You did say that all values were relative. You left it up to the students to choose their own values and you wouldn’t suggest the best way to respond to sexual choices. Are you saying that there are no sexual values that are absolutely fixed?

John (J): Yep! I would never tell students that this or that is a wrong view about sex. That would be judgmental. Besides, there are no such things as absolutes.

S: Are you saying that there is no way to say that having sex with anybody is wrong?

J: Absolutely! Choice of these values is up to the individual. Who are you to say that Peter (a 20-year-old) having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, Jane (as long as Peter uses a condom), is wrong?

S: You are committed to free choice in your view of sexual ethics. Are you absolutely sure of that?

J: You got it! Absolutely.

S: So you do believe in absolutes? Do you see what you are doing with sexual values? You say that there are absolutely no fixed standards. Relativism reigns! And yet you are absolutely sure about that.

J: It’s the only sensible way to go. As a counsellor, I am committed to being non-judgemental with my clients (and sex ed. students).

S: If those sex ed. students want to have sex with a 10-year-old, that’s OK – because you can’t be judgemental?

J: Don’t be ridiculous! I don’t support paedophiles.

S: So you have given up being the postmodern, trendy guy. You really do believe in absolutes. Sex with children is absolutely wrong. I agree with you. But let’s talk about absolutes and values.

J: You caught me out on that one.

S: But there’s more to it, John! You are left to your own human devices to decide what’s right and wrong. It’s self-defeating!

J: I’m not going to give up that easily. It makes sense to my grey matter that being non-judgemental is the way to go.

S. You mean that being non-judgemental is right. So you do believe in right and wrong after all! Let’s talk about another way of deciding right and wrong. Your god of relativism has let you down. Let’s get down to the nitty gritty of values that will never let you down and you don’t have to make arbitrary judgements.

J: What do you mean? I don’t know of any other way. Any other way will put me out of step with my counselling and sex ed. colleagues.

S: Ah, you want to be postmodern, politically correct, good-guy counsellor in your profession! The Lord God of heaven and earth who made us as moral beings, has taken the guesswork out of value judgements. He sets the rules for morality and they make sense in a world that wants to throw out His kind of morality.

Let’s look at a few examples: (1) “You shall not murder.” (2) “You shall not commit adultery.” (3) “You shall not steal.” [1] Sounds pretty restrictive, doesn’t it? Law and order in Australia are built on two of these – laws against murder and theft. But it’s too bad the other has been ignored.

You’re a counsellor. You know the heartache that adultery and busted marriages cause for adults and for children. What would happen if murder and theft also were unregulated according to your rules? The Lord God states that good law invokes rules against murder, theft and adultery.

Remember situation ethicist, Joseph Fletcher? When he debated John W. Montgomery, he stated “that none of the Ten Commandments represents a normative principle for human conduct which is intrinsically valid or universally obliging regardless of the circumstances, so that, for example, in some situations theft is the right thing to do; in other situations, respect for property of others is the right way to act.” Fletcher stated that a feature writer for a national news organisation reported this comment and Fletcher “received in ten to twelve weeks about 1,500 letters, almost all of them of protest and denunciation.”[2]

You as a counsellor know what relativism is doing to sexual morality for your clients and in this country. According to your premises, you have no grounds for opposing paedophilia, sexual abuse, domestic violence, murder or theft, if we choose our own values.

J: Your view sounds too religious and restrictive for me [ends dialogue].

Dr. J. Budziszewski calls all of us to unmask the “intellectual bluff” [3] of people like John and “follow-through” with an expose of their ways.

Biblical Christianity does not say, “Just believe!” Acts 1:3 states, “After his suffering, [Jesus] showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” He gave evidence to the disciples, as he did for “doubting” Thomas after His resurrection (John 20:27-29).

In the traditional verse in support of the ministry of apologetics, Peter wrote, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer [an apologia, defence of the faith] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect . . .” (I Peter 3:15 NIV).

Endnotes

1. Exodus 20:13-15.

2. Joseph Fletcher & John Warwick Montgomery 1972, Situation Ethics, True or False, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 13.

3. J. Budziszewski 2003, “Off to College: Can We Keep them?,” in Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler (gen. eds.), Is Your Church Ready? Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 121.