 A few years ago I traveled to Cambridge to take an apologetics course. One thing the professor said that I have not forgotten is how important in the pursuit of truth is the phrase: Not Only.
He had learned it from one of his professors. Once you learn it, you will see that it applies to much in your thinking ~ from theology to grocery shopping. You will find the phrase handily popping into your mind when someone says something that you know is mostly true, but not quite right. When you hear a claim that is just a little too strong, a little too comprehensive to match reality, you can pull these handy two words out of your pocket.
Recently when I was teaching an apologetics class, a man walked into the room and said, “The only apologetic you need is a changed life.” It was one of those times. I pulled out my two words. And they fit.
Eta Linnemann studied under historical-critical theologians Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs. She excelled in her scholarship of the Bible – but she did not believe it was the inspired Word of God. In her book Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical) Eta tells of her conversion to a real, vibrant relationship with God.
First, Eta realized that her scientific work on the text of the Bible did not produce any truth. Eta saw that her academic discipline was based on a philosophy “which made bold to define truth so that God’s Word was excluded as the source of truth.” Initially, this insight led to personal addictions to dull her great disillusionment with her life’s work. Eta would come to say that she owed “those initial insights to the beginning effects of God’s grace.” Through the Word spoken to her by a Christian friend, Eta encountered Jesus Christ, and entrusted her life to Him.
The confirmation that God’s promises are a reality came about a month later when Eta heard of a missionary helper in Nepal who was thrown into prison for his faith. Eta read the accounts of his trial. From what she knew of this helper, she knew that he could not have given his answer to the court based on his own ability. Mark 13:9-11 surged before her eyes.
Mark 13:9-11 (ESV)
9 “But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. 10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Eta had only had academic interest in this passage before. Now she saw Scripture connected with reality. “Suddenly I was convinced that God’s promises are a reality, that God is a living God, and that he reigns. ’For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm’ (Ps. 33:9).”
So what should we think if someone claims that the only apologetic you need is a changed life?
Not only.
In Eta’s case, it took both the truth plainly spoken to her, and her observation of the truth lived out in someone’s experience. I know in my own life, God used both the clear teaching of the Word and my observation of girls in my dorm who walked with God in a real way. I believe this is because we are whole people. We have an experiential, subjective side. And we have an intellectual, objective side. We cannot come to Jesus with just part of who we are.
Robust apologetics includes both clearly stated truth and testimonies of that truth lived out in real ways. I am sure that missionary-helper in Nepal had no idea that his faithfulness would be instrumental in the faith-journey of someone like Eta Linnemann. We surely should live out the truth in a faithful, transparent way. But we also have to speak the truth with gentleness and respect. Paul saw both the proclamation and the experience of truth as essential.
1 Thessalonians 1:5 (NASB)
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
Speak truth, but Not Only. Live truth, but Not Only.
Speak and live truth.
~Betsy McPeak
Did Paul preach a different gospel?
This series is in response to three claims in an online article called “The Resurrection Hoax” by Abdullah Kareem found here.
CLAIM 1: The oldest versions of Mark’s gospel do not give an account of the resurrection.
CLAIM 2: Matthew and Luke relied on the “Q” Source to write their gospels and to change Mark’s gospel to make it match their accounts of the resurrection.
CLAIM 3: Paul’s account of the resurrection does not match the gospel accounts.
In Part 1 we saw how Mark’s gospel does report the resurrection, with or without the disputed final verses of the manuscript. In Part 2 we saw that the Q document is a theory, not a manuscript, and that even if it did exist, it would not mean that Mark and Luke wrote unreliable gospels. In Part 3 of this series we will look at CLAIM 3.
Abdullah claims that the contradiction between Paul and the gospels can be seen in Paul’s omission of the physical details of the resurrection. Abdullah’s primary source for this argument is John Shelby Spong’s Resurrection: Myth or Reality. Abdullah quotes Spong:
For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God’s kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (p. 241)
CONTRADICTION – OR COMPATIBLE DIFFERENCE?
For Paul to say that Jesus was raised from the dead does not contradict an empty tomb, even if Paul does not explicitly state that the tomb was empty. If I said that Jeremy wore polka-dotted shorts to the movies, my sister would not be contradicting me to say that Jeremy went to the movies. My sister would just not be including all of the details that I did.
A contradiction does not result merely from different accounts, but from accounts that cannot both exist at the same time. If I said that Jeremy wore polka-dotted shorts to the movies, and my sister said that Jeremy did not wear polka-dotted shorts to the movies, then we have a contradiction – because both cannot be true at the same time.
Paul says that Jesus was both buried and then raised. That he does not mention an empty tomb does not a contradiction make.
CAN A SPIRITUAL BODY EAT FISH?
Paul does claim that the natural body is raised a spiritual body (I Corinthians 15:44), but that Christ’s body was raised a spiritual body does not mean that it did not exit the tomb. Paul’s account does not contradict the appearance of Jesus’ to the disciples either. In fact, the gospel accounts report acts of Jesus, such as disappearing after breaking bread to Cleopas and another disciple (Luke 24:31), that would be hard to understand if Jesus had a normal, physical body. John’s gospel tells us that “Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them…” If anything, Paul’s description of a spiritual body raised in power and glory matches the gospel accounts of Jesus’ appearances after His resurrection. We do not know the exact nature of a resurrected body, but there is no logical reason to think that Jesus could not eat fish in His resurrected, spiritual body. A spiritual body does not equal a spirit without a body. It is not a contradiction to say that Jesus had a spiritual body, and that He also ate fish or showed His nail-scars, because there is no claim in any New Testament writing that says a spiritual body is a ghost banned from fish-eating or scar-showing.
PAUL GETS A GREEN LIGHT
Both liberal and conservative Bible scholars agree that Galatians was written by Paul. In Galatians 1:11 – 2:10 Paul claims that he received his gospel from a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. But Paul also states that he verified his gospel in Jerusalem twice with eyewitnesses – Peter and James first, and then again years later with Peter, James and John. Paul says that he submitted his gospel to the eyewitnesses because he wanted to make sure that he was not running in vain. If Paul’s account of the good news contradicted the gospel accounts, Peter (from whom Mark drew his gospel accounts) and John (author of the gospel of John) would have told Paul of the contradiction. But instead, Peter, James, and John gave Paul the green light to take the gospel to the Gentiles.
So I would ask Abdullah, where’s the contradiction?
~ Betsy McPeak
 “Today there are people who talk about Q as though it’s a gospel. Q, as I see it, is not a gospel, it’s a hypothesis.” ~ Dr. Elaine Pagels
In my last blog I quoted three arguments that Muslim apologist Abdullah Kareem makes in his online article, “The Resurrection Hoax,” as to why the resurrection is not an historical fact, but a legend which developed over time. Here are Kareem’s claims:
CLAIM 1: The oldest versions of Mark’s gospel do not give an account of the resurrection.
CLAIM 2: Matthew and Luke relied on the “Q” Source to write their gospels and to change Mark’s gospel to make it match their accounts of the resurrection.
CLAIM 3: Paul’s account of the resurrection does not match the gospel accounts.
Last time we discussed Claim 1. This time we will look at Claim 2.
New Testament critics often bring up the “Q document” as a reason to caste doubt on the eye-witness testimonies of the gospels, and to suggest a conspiracy by the disciples and other early Christians to make up parts of the Jesus story, particularly the resurrection.
WHAT IS THE Q DOCUMENT?
The “Q” comes from the German word quelle, which means source. The theory is that there was a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and perhaps some of his acts, and that Matthew and Luke used this collection in writing the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Q document theories are many and varied.
Basically, the Q document is a hypothetical answer to a question. The question is: Why are there some passages in Matthew and Luke which have the exact same wording and do not appear in Mark. Some scholars say this points to another source of these sayings, which they call the Q document.
In studying this issue the most interesting person that I encountered is Eta Linnemann, a German Protestant theologian who studied under Rudolf Bultmann. She originally held her teacher’s view – that the Bible is not historically reliable – until a conversion experience in 1977 when she renounced her former views and asked readers to burn her previously written books.
SOURCE OF THE SOURCE
In Linnemann’s Trinity Journal article “The Lost Gospel Of Q—Fact Or Fantasy?” (Spring 1996) she explains the origin of the Q document theory by saying that “Schleiermacher (1768–1834) got the modern ball rolling” by twisting a quote of Papias. The 2nd century Bishop of Hierapolis Papias had characterized Matthew’s oracles or writings or sayings as having been written in the Hebrew style. According to Linnemann, Schleiermacher twisted the word translated as oracles or writings into “sayings” only, whereas “Unfortunately for Schleiermacher, <logia> here means ‘what the Lord Jesus said or did,’ not just ‘sayings.’ ”
Because understanding the source of the Q (quelle or source) theory is critical to understanding it, let’s look at Linnemann’s account of the next step in the development of the Q theory:
Christian Hermann Weisse (1801–1866), founder of the two-source theory, was the first to build on Schleiermacher’s error (Stoldt, History and Criticism). Contrary to Schleiermacher, Weisse claimed the sayings source as a source for Luke’s gospel as well, misusing Schleiermacher’s authority, who had argued the opposite. And so the infamous Q made its debut in the theological world.
THE REAL Q
The only Q document that exists is the one that contemporary scholars wrote by extracting the common verses between Matthew and Luke, not found in Mark. John S. Kloppenborg wrote Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance in 1988. This is the simplified, but technical reference of the Q sayings. In 2000, Kloppenborg then collaborated with James M. Robinson and Paul Hoffman on what is considered the definitive edition of Q, The Critical Edition of Q.
Many New Testament scholars believe that the Q theory is a sound one. But even if Q ever did exist, it does not necessarily follow that the gospels accounts are conspired. Kareem’s claim that Matthew and Luke relied on Q to write their gospels does not mean that Matthew and Luke altered the historical accounts or twisted the truth. Kareem’s suggestion that Matthew and Luke altered Mark’s account has no basis in sound scholarship that I could find.
I highly recommend the article “What is the Q ‘Gospel’? The Gospel According to ‘St Q’? by James M. Arlandson from his series called Historic Reliability of the Gospels (which you can find here) that examines various theories of Q and provides good recommendations for further study.
WHAT IF?
IF the Q theory is true, Arlandson suggests a scenario something like this:
The Q document was a collection of Jesus’ sayings that originated in Galilee. They did not focus on the crucifixion and the resurrection, but they simply focused on Jesus’ teachings. Q could have been written, oral or both. The narratives about Jesus’ death and resurrection originated in Jerusalem where they occurred. The word spread after the events occurred. Travelers from Galilee and other outlying areas heard of Christ’s death and resurrection when they journeyed to Jerusalem on pilgrimages. When the gospel writers wrote their gospels, it was in keeping with the Greco-Roman historical method and was not considered unreliable historically to use reputable accounts of Jesus’ sayings or of his deeds, including both Q and the crucifixion and resurrection narratives. Matthew, being a disciple of Jesus and an eye-witness to many of the events, verified the material. Mark wrote under Peter’s supervision. Peter was very capable of determining the reliability of the accounts, since Peter was in the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. The sayings and deeds could also have been verified by many eye-witnesses who were still living at the writing of the gospels.
SUMMARY
The Q document is a theory meant to explain the common passages in Matthew and Luke. We do not have an actual copy or fragment of Q as far as we know. The only Q is the one compiled from extractions of Matthew and Luke by contemporary scholars. Even if Q did exist at one time, that does not mean that the gospel accounts were conspired or are historically unreliable.
RECOMMENDATION
If you were in a discussion about the Q document with Kareem, or someone else with the same position, remember to ask them to explain the warrant for their claims ~ WHY is their claim true? Listen to their explanation, and then interact with the reasoning behind their conclusion. An argument that the gospels are conspired because of a hypothetical document is just not a strong argument.
~ Betsy McPeak
Paul claimed that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then the preaching of the gospel is without foundation, and our faith is in vain. So it makes sense that critics of the Christian faith would attack the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We will spend the next few weeks making sure that we know how to give a reasonable defense to some of the common attacks against the resurrection account. First, let us look at the challenges against the New Testament accounts of the resurrection as articulated by a Muslim apologist.
Abdullah Kareem, like many others, claim that the resurrection is a developmental legend, rather than a true historical event.
The following is a quote from Abdullah’s website: http://www.answering christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax
The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never contained the story. The “resurrection” passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John, it’s completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark! …
This means the Gospel writers fabricated the resurrection story. The legend of Jesus’ “resurrection” developed over a period of time. This explains why Paul, the earliest Christian writer, never records the Gospel version. Paul only says Jesus was “crucified for the sins of mankind” and he “rose from the dead”, which does not explain anything.
Abdullah raises three common issues used to discredit the gospel testimonies of Jesus. Christians must know what to say in response to these claims. The next three blogs will examine these common attacks against the resurrection:
CLAIM 1: The oldest versions of Mark’s gospel do not give an account of the resurrection.
CLAIM 2: Matthew and Luke relied on the “Q” Source to write their gospels and to change Mark’s gospel to make it match their accounts of the resurrection.
CLAIM 3: Paul’s account of the resurrection does not match the gospel accounts.
PART 1: The Ending of Mark’s Gospel.
Abdullah is absolutely correct that some of the oldest copies of Mark do not contain the last 12 verses recorded in most Bibles, at least of those that have been found. If you look in your Bible, you probably have a footnote telling you this. You can go to www.biblegateway.com and look at Mark 16 in different versions. Many versions will tell you that verses 9-20 are questionable. For example, the English Standard Version says:
[Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.][a]
Mark 16: 9-20 is what is called a textual variant. This passage varies from manuscript to manuscript. It is actually one of the largest textual variants in the New Testament. (See my previous 3-part blog series to find out how significant textual variants of the New Testament really are.)
In April 2007 a group of New Testament scholars met at Southeastern Baptist Seminary in Wake Forest for a conference called “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not.” Four scholars presented papers, each with a particular viewpoint on Mark 16: 9-20. Each of these scholars believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary presented the position that Mark ended his gospel with verse 8. Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Seminary presented the “Byzantine Priority” viewpoint that Mark 16: 9-20 is original. Dr. J.K. Elliott, Professor of NT Textual Criticism, University of Leeds, argued that the original ending of Mark has been lost. Dr. David Alan Black of Southeastern Baptist Seminary defended the position that Mark added those last 12 verses to finish off Peter’s lectures, believing Mark to have recorded Peter’s lectures as the gospel of Mark.
My point is this: Christians ought not discredit their position by not being forthright about the 1% of textual variants in the New Testament that are not spelling or grammatical errors. There are a few passages, like Mark 16: 9-20, that are debated, even among conservative, Bible-believing New Testament scholars.
My other point is this: Even if Mark 16: 9-20 is not original, it does not affect the historicity of the resurrection. In fact, none of the important textual variants affect a single significant doctrine! Abdullah’s claim that Mark did not contain the resurrection story is not true. Mark 16: 1-8 is in the oldest manuscripts. As the stained-glass picture above states, even in the first 8 verses of Mark 16 we see the resurrection recorded.
Mark 16
English Standard Version (ESV)
The Resurrection
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Notice that this passage clearly says that Jesus has risen. This is not a story found only in the last 12 verses of Mark; it is not a story developed over the years as a legend. It is right here in the undisputed section of Mark’s gospel.
What is found in the last 12 verses of Mark are the post-mortem appearances of Jesus and the ascension of Christ, which can be found elsewhere in New Testament documents. Bart Ehrman claims that we will not know whether to practice snake handling or not if we do not know if the ending of Mark is original. Mark 16:18 does say that believers will not be harmed if they pick up serpents or drink poison, but it is not ordained as a church practice here or elsewhere. We do have the example of a snake attaching itself to Paul while he was building a fire, and we know Paul was unharmed. But Paul did not handle the snake as a ritual to prove God’s faithfulness. In fact, Christ clearly taught us, in His temptation, that we are not to put God to the test, exemplified when He refused to jump off the pinacle at Satan’s taunting.
Interestingly, Daniel Wallace revealed in 2012 that a first century copy of Mark may have been recently discovered. A new carbon dating method that does not destroy the manuscript can now be utilized to determine the date of these old manuscripts. You can read more about this new discovery here. Textual criticism is very much alive. Hopefully this new discovery will settle the question about Mark 16:9-20. But even so, that would not change what we already know ~ that Christ is risen from the dead.
He is risen indeed!
~ Betsy McPeak
Competitor’s Question:
What is the difference in the purpose, the destiny, and the essential duty of man? These words all seem the same.
In Category 3 of both NCFCA and Stoa Apologetics Questions for the Limited Prep Individual Event you will find these three similar questions:
- What is the purpose of man?
- What is the destiny of man?
- What is the essential duty of man?
I agree. These questions sound very similar. Let’s examine them closely to separate the nuances of their meanings so that you can be more specific as you answer these three questions.
According to Merriam-Webster purpose is “something set up as an object or end to be attained.” The Westminster Confession addresses the “end” of man in this way:
Question. 1. What is the chief end of man?
Answer. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
We know what it means to enjoy a relationship. But what does it mean to glorify God? Thomas Watson said that ”Glorifying God consists in four things: 1. Appreciation, 2. Adoration, 3. Affection, 4. Subjection.” In 1 Corinthians 10:31 we read, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” So to glorify God means to bring honor to Him by what we do, how we do it, and why we do it.
The Oxford Dictionary defines destiny as “the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future.“ The Bible says that those who trust in Christ for their righteousness will be given eternal life, whereas those who live a life of sin will be given eternal death (Romans 6:23). There are two ultimate destinies spoken of in the Bible – eternal life and eternal death.
Merriam-Webster says that duty is the ”conduct due to parents and superiors.” According to a Biblical worldview man’s duty is to Creator God. Ecclesiastes 12:13 says to “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Micah 6:8 says “…And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Let’s see if an analogy gives us insight.
I create a housekeeping robot named Sam-Sam for my home.
The purpose of my robot answers the question “why.” Why did I make the robot? To clean my house. Sam-Sam’s purpose or reason for existing is to make my house sparkle.
What is Sam-Sam’s destiny? Here I am asking what will happen to Sam-Sam? Well, if Sam-Sam does a good job, I will keep him, and I will oil him and care for him as long as he cleans my house well. But if he gets rusty or breaks beyond repair, I will sell him for scrap metal.
What is Sam-Sam’s essenatial duty? His duty is to mop my floors, make my bed, and cook spinach souffle for dinner. Basically, whatever I command Sam-Sam to do is his duty.
Remember in apologetics, we need to defend the Biblical answer against a non-Biblical position by explaining both points of view, and then by showing why the Biblical position is preferable. So you need to look at some other worldviews and see what they say are the purpose, destiny, and duty of man.
But your work is only halfway done when you can put the Biblical answer side-by-side to a non-Biblical answer. To defend Christianity, which is what apologetics is all about, you must defend the strength of the Biblical position over the non-Biblical view. Why is the Biblical answer preferable?
If you need help with the reasons to prefer, see my previous blog HERE.
~ Betsy McPeak
 The story of Jephthah and his daughter is sometimes brought up by critics of the Bible who use the story to say that God is evil.
Jephthah was a mighty warrior born to Gilead by a prostitute. But Gilead had other sons by his wife. These legitimate sons told Jephthah that he had no part with them, and they drove Jephthah away — until they needed help. When the Ammonites came against Israel to take their land, the sons of Gilead fetched Jephthah to lead them in battle, and told him that he would be their head. Right before the battle, Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, that if God would give Israel victory over the Ammonites:
Judges 11:31 – “…then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” (NASB)
Oh Jephthah, how could you do that!?! Didn’t you know the quandaries you would cause for thousands of years!
God gives Jephthah victory over the Ammonites, and then Jephthah returns home. His only child ~ a daughter ~ is the first to meet Jephthah, dancing with her tambourine. But Jephthah is grieved. He does fulfill his vow to the Lord, although it is not clear exactly what that means.
Richard Dawkins blames God in this story for “looking forward to the burnt sacrifice,” and for not intervening. An Atheist Freethinker in Canada also paints God as capricious in his blog: ”…the biblical story… ends in death for an innocent girl so her dad can get the big promotion he wants. An unnecessary death to a bloodthirsty god who was not satisfied with the deaths of twenty cities.”
Many find some of the historical accounts in the Old Testament puzzling, to say the least. Critics of Biblical Christianity make God out to be a moral monster, particularly in Old Testament stories like this one. How can God approve of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter? Why is Jephthah mentioned in the Hebrews Hall of Faith (Hebrews 11:32)? Christians often do not know how to answer these challenges.
First of all, commentators and Hebrew scholars disagree on the details of the story of Jephthah found in Judges 11. Matthew Henry says that Jephthah did not actually sacrifice his daughter, but gave her to work in the temple as a virgin. Jephthah’s daughter mourned her virginity, not an early death, for 2 months prior to her father keeping the vow. Adam Clarke says that the best Hebrew scholars say that the vow contained the conjunction “or” rather than “and,” meaning that Jephthah was vowing to either offer it up to the Lord, or sacrifice it, depending on what the “it” was that greeted him. Keil & Deilitzsch say that the Hebrew cannot mean “or,” and that Jephthah meant to sacrifice a human, since it would have been a puny vow to sacrifice a household animal for a military victory. Augustine said that when Jephthah said whatever came out to meet him, he could not have meant an animal, as what sheep greets a general after a war? Jamieson, Fausset and Brown in their 1871 commentary say that Jephthah meant to sacrifice a human when he made the vow. Calvin says: “Jephthah, hasty in making a foolish vow, and too obstinate in performing it, marred the finest victory by the cruel death of his own daughter.” One commentator suggested that “I will offer it up as a burnt offering” would be better translated “I will offer it up as a sacrifice,” which would be true if Jephthah gave up his only child to celibacy.
Matthew Henry in commentating on a provision in the law (Leviticus 5:4-13) for rash swearing says:
If a man binds himself by an oath that he will do or not do such a thing, and the performance of his oath afterwards proves either unlawful or impracticable, by which he is discharged from the obligation, yet he must bring an offering to atone for this fully in swearing so rashly, as David that he would kill Nabal. And then it was that he must say before the angel that it was an error, Eccl. 5:6. He shall be guilty in one of these (Lev. 5:4), guilty if he does not perform his oath, and yet, if the matter of it were evil, guilty if he does. Such wretched dilemmas as these do some men bring themselves into by their own rashness and folly; go which way they will their consciences are wounded, sin stares them in the face, so sadly are they snared in the words of their mouth.
If Jephthah did sin either by making a rash vow or by sacrificing his daughter, he is still listed in Hebrews as one of the faithful. But then so is Rehab who was also a prostitute. But then so is Gideon who made a golden ephod with which Israel played the harlot. But then so is David who took another man’s wife and then had her husband killed. But does this not give us all hope that we can be considered faithful, even though we make huge mistakes?
We must also remember that just because the Bible reports events does not mean that it sanctions the events. The narratives of the Bible describe what happened, but we ought not to treat the descriptions as prescriptions. We find it difficult when particular acts are not commended or rebuked within the historical narratives of the Bible. But when Scripture is silent in one place we must let the whole counsel of God speak. The narrative in Joshua does not commentate on the immorality of Rehab’s harlotry. But the law of God tells us clearly elsewhere that harlotry is wrong. In Jephthah’s case, it is unclear exactly if and how he was sinful in his vowing, and since there is no internal commentary on those actions, we must look elsewhere for principles on vows. The Biblical passage does not say that God was bloodthirsty or desirous of a human sacrifice! Dawkins and other atheists attribute those qualities to God without textual support.
We certainly do not think that CNN approves of every murder it reports, or that historian Robert Leckie approves of every event he records in George Washington’s War. We must treat the narratives of the Bible as narratives.
We must never be more clear than the Bible is.
UNCLEAR: Did Jephthah make a rash vow? Did Jephthah’s vow contain an either/or element? Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter in the end or did he just devote her to the Lord in temple service? Did Jephthah sin in making the vow? Did Jephthah sin in keeping the vow? What did God think of Jephthah’s post-war actions?
CLEAR: God’s law prohibited child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:29-32; Deuteronomy 18:10). God’s law made a provision to deal with the guilt of rash or thoughtless vows (Leviticus 5:4-13). Vows to the Lord are not required, but if they are made, they must be kept if lawful (Deuteronomy 23: 22,23). When a person vows to give persons, cattle, houses, or land to the Lord, ordinarily, there is a way to redeem what was promised through a sacrifice, although the firstborn is not included in the redemption possibility, because the firstborn is already devoted to the Lord (Leviticus 27). Jephthah and other imperfect followers of God are said to be faithful (Hebrews 11).
So how do we make sense of Jephthah when in a conversation with an unbeliever? Perhaps we could say something like this:
We know that Jephthah was a valiant man, because the Old Testament tells of his bold leadership and trust in God in a battle defending against those trying to take Israel’s land. Jephthah is also recorded as being faithful in the book of Hebrews. But just because he was faithful, does not mean he was perfect. Hebrew scholars and theologians disagree on the details of the Biblical account of Jephthah’s vow. But whether or not Jephthah sinned regarding the vow and in whatever happened with his daughter, we can be sure that if he did do wrong, God did not approve of it. We know this because of the clear passages that tell us what God thinks about vows and human sacrifices. The Bible does not condone every event that it reports. Narratives and histories do not always give moral analysis of the accounts they record. We know from clear passages that God does not approve of child sacrifice or rash vows, therefore if Jephthah did either of those, God did not like it. That God allows evil, whether that applies to this case or not, shows that God made man in His image – including the dignity of choice – not that He approves of evil. If God approved of evil, He would not orchestrate such a costly plan to defeat it.
~ Betsy McPeak
We used to love to do spin art. You squirt paint onto a card as it twirls around and around in a battery-operated spinner. When you turn off the spinner, you have paint splashed in a unique pattern each time.
Apologetics is like spin art. You put in the paint. But the results vary every time.
One of the most famous apologetics sermons in Scripture is Paul’s sermon delivered on Mars Hill. How did that turn out? Let’s look at the response of the people to Paul’s skilled and powerful words as recorded in the New Testament.
Acts 17:32-34
English Standard Version (ESV)
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
Three outcomes are mentioned here.
1. Some mocked.
This week I was mocked. I was called names. I was belittled. I was bombarded with verbal assaults and then told that my email address would be blocked, even though this person had initiated the exchange with a question, and I had answered it very respectfully. This has not happened to me in awhile, so it really took me aback. At first I was just plain shocked. I went back and read my emails to see if I had sounded arrogant or agressive. We usually second-guess ourselves first, and rightly so. But I had purposefully, thoughtfully showed this person respect and kind interest. This experience reminded me how we cannot always measure our faithfulness to defend the faith by the response we receive.
2. Some were truly interested and wanted to hear more.
This response can be really fun! You can do more research, spend more mealtimes together, and truly get to know someone else and their ideas. I think of life-time friendships that started out with a simple conversation. The response of “interest” seems to be the most common one in my experience.
3. Some believed.
This, of course, is an incredible experience! When God uses you to plant the truth, and you also get to see the harvest, you will feel that you are bursting with joy!
I remind you of these varied outcomes so as to encourage you as you seek to be faithful in defending the truth. Please do show the utmost love, gentleness and respect. But if you have done that, do not be alarmed if everyone does not believe. It could be just a matter of time.
Be faithful. When things stop spinning, trust God with the results.
~ Betsy McPeak
Can a heart-shaped pattern of oak trees be an apologetic for Biblical Christianity?
Yes!
A British farmer whose wife died suddenly 15 years ago spent weeks planning and planting the oak seedlings that form the heart in his field. The bottom tip of the heart points toward his beloved wife’s childhood home. The whole project points to the kind of love that human beings have because they are made in the image of a personal, relational God.
The naturalistic view of man reduces him to matter and energy. While it is certainly true that our behavior can be  described by neuro-scientific processes, that description is not the whole picture.
We are our bodies.
But we are not ONLY our bodies.
The problem is not in observing and categorizing what is going on in our brains when we experience an emotion like love or anger. The problem is in reducing our behavior to the biological function.
In 1748 La Mettrie published L’homme machine describing the transition of man to animal in the evolutionary process with this conclusion:
Let us conclude boldly then that man is a machine, and that in the whole universe there is but a single substance with various modifications.
A little later Pierre Cabanis would claim that:
…the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.
In March of 2012 the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies gathered a group of neuroscientists and philosophers to share their research on ethics and morality functions in the brain. Neuro-economist Gregory Berns of Emory University presented the findings of his study of the human brain to ascertain where in our gray matter those values we hold sacred exist. Berns used functional MRIs to locate increased blood flow in different creases of the brain, depending on what type of ethical decision was being made.
But let’s not make the mistake that Stephen Hawking makes when he says that we can call the laws of physics – god – if we want, even though it would not be a personal god. In other words, Hawking finds the explanation of those laws as sufficient to explain the universe. But function does not explain causation. Even if it is amazing to understand how matter and energy behave, and to categorize that behavior into laws, it does not tell us WHY the universe is here at all. It just tells us how the universe acts. The laws do not explain the reason the universe is here anymore than gravity explains why a ball exists, though it explains how the ball acts when dropped from a tower.
Back to brain function ~ as amazing as it is that bloods flows in different brain creases when different types of moral decisions are made, we cannot accept that the brain activity tells us the WHY of the decision. Correlation does not mean causation.
The British farmer who created a heart in his oak grove no doubt had different brain activity as he lovingly thought of his departed wife than he does when he takes out his trash, but does that brain activity explain the love???
Or is it a better explanation that man is relational because he is made in the image of a relational God?
Which worldview has more explaining power?
~ Betsy McPeak
 In the last blog we looked at Sam Harris’ new book Free Will in which Harris argues that we are no more responsible for our actions than a grizzly bear is responsible that he is a grizzly bear. The book cover paints this picture for us well by hanging the letters of the words “free will” from puppet strings.
Before we look at how we are much more than grizzly bears, let’s look at what is true about what Harris is saying. Harris strongly connects actions with nature. He says that the murderer acts out of a murdering mind. A grizzly bear acts according to the nature of a grizzly bear. There is truth here. There is a relationship between nature and actions. But is that relationship determinism?
Does it square with reality that we bear no responsibility for our nature?
Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
The English rock band “The Who” asked if man was trapped in his badness in their song released in 1971 called “Behind Blue Eyes”:
No one knows what it’s like
To be the bad man
To be the sad man
Behind blue eyes
And no one knows what it’s like
To be hated
To be fated to telling only lies
But the song does not end with fate to tell only lies. It ends with a deep down hope, perhaps even a certainty that there is something better:
But my dreams they aren’t as empty
As my conscience seems to be
Forty years later the desire to be better can still be seen in our popular culture. Here are the first 2 lines of a contemporary song by Mumford & Sons:
weep for yourself, my man,
you’ll never be what is in your heart
In apologetics we often ask which worldview has the most explaining power. Which worldview accounts for reality as we know it to be?
So I ask you, does Sam Harris’ deterministic naturalism, viewing man as matter without choice, explain this deep desire to be other than we are?
No.
But the Christian worldview of creation, fall, redemption does.
Creation
God made man in a most special way ~ in His own image. The image we bear cannot be reduced to the physical realm, because God whose image we bear is far more than physical. We are physical and spiritual. We are graced with the dignity of being in God’s likeness. We are moral, creative, relationship-oriented. We are not subject to our natures in the same way that a grizzly bear is. In creating us in the likeness of the Triune God, we are the pinacle of God’s creation on earth. From the garden on we are given choices with both dignity and responsibility. True choices.
Fall
Because of the historic fall, separation broke into every relationship of man, including his relationship with himself. Man is far from who he was meant to be. And he knows it. Songwriters will continue to write about it.
In fact, the Apostle Paul is as brutally honest about the delta between what he experiences in his person and what he knows should be the truth as any 21st Century poet: “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”
Redemption
Those who walk with God have been redeemed by a mighty outside power. They have been given a new nature that creates both a conflict with the old nature still in our bodies, and a hope that eventually light will conquer darkness ~ even the darkness in us. Everything will be made right in Christ. The deep yearnings of our soul for everything to be made right exists because something really is wrong. But the yearning can be satisfied when Christ redeems and restores.
Let’s be honest ~ deterministic naturalism does not explain who we really are and who we long to be. Let’s be compassionate ~ and weep with fallen, languishing man as we offer the answer for the hope that is within us.
Yesterday’s Google alert on Criminal Justice was more like an alarm!
Here are 2 of the clips from the Google alert:
Guilty, but not responsible?
The Guardian
The US neuroscientist Sam Harris claims in a new book that free will is such a misleading illusion that we need to rethink our criminal justice system on the basis of discoveries coming from the neurological wards and MRI scans of the human brain in … |
The Illusion of Free Will
WNYC
In his new book, Free Will, he says science proves there’s no such thing and that the premise has major policy implications for our criminal justice system and for our understanding of war in society. Sam Harris used the example on air of Saddam …
Yes, Sam Harris says straight up that free will is an illusion. He is saying that our choices are not really our choices. Our choices are determined by all that makes up the universe. In fact he says that if he were to switch places with a socio-pathic murderer, he would do the very same thing, and could do no other thing, unless he were in a different universe. Harris also claims that this determinism is not fatalism ~ although a good reason why not is missing. In his lecture Harris tries to assure us on the one hand that our choices matter, while telling us on the other that we have no say over that matter. These are direct statements by Harris:
The choices we make in life are as important as most people think, but the next choice you make will come out of a wilderness of prior causes that you can’t see and did not bring into being.
You are by no means condemned to who you were yesterday.
The unfolding of our lives is a fundamentally mysterious process.
We don’t know what we are going to think and feel next….Recognizing this can be quite liberating.
Our choices matter.
We don’t choose to choose what we choose.
What I’m going to do next remains a mystery that is fully determined by a prior state of the universe and the laws of nature…
Happily I think we can maintain a very strong sense of morality and an effective criminal justice system without lying to ourselves about the causes of human behavior. What do we most condemn in people? … The intention to do harm.
If you decide to kill your neighbor after weeks of library research…then killing your neighbor really says a lot about you. The point is not that you are the sole independent cause of your actions. I mean after all you didn’t make yourself. The point is that for whatever reason, you have the mind of a murderer. Now you are not ultimately responsible for having this mind, in fact when we look at the details we see that you’re not even partially responsible for it in the same way that a grizzly bear isn’t responsible that he is a grizzly bear. But a bear really is a bear, and it really will eat you. And if you see one in the parking lot, it’s worth worrying about. But you can worry about it without ever attributing free will to it.
Harris’ Grizzly Bear Ethics let us off the hook for the true responsibility of our actions.
You can read Harris’ 96-page book, or you can listen to his oral presentation of the book here. The advantage of listening to the lecture is that you will hear the unbelievable, frightening comments of his fellow believers at the end of his talk. Harris is witty and easy to listen to, as usual, but do not let that keep you from hearing what he is saying.
Neuroscientist Ramachandran agrees with Harris:
“In this elegant and provocative book, Sam Harris demonstrates — with great intellectual ferocity and panache — that free will is an inherently flawed and incoherent concept, even in subjective terms. If he is right, the book will radically change the way we view ourselves as human beings.”
You have heard it said: Ideas have consequences. The consequence of treating man as simply his physiological make-up is that we no longer hold him accountable for his actions. In the You Tube lecture Sam says that we understand if someone has a brain tumor that “makes” them commit a crime. Then he goes on to say that a brain tumor is not really a special case. Whatever the genetics and childhood of a person are, these are like the brain tumor, “making” them commit whatever crime they commit. On page 54 of his book Harris says:
Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved with morality itself.
Harris seems to be saying that although a person is not responsible for his/her choices, society still has to respond to the results of their choices for the sake of all, but the response is not because of what the person deserves, but for the safety and best interest of all. We are back to the goal of his utilitarian ethic put forth in The Moral Landscape ~ man’s happiness.
Sam Harris ends his lecture on free will by trying to cheer us up ~ saying that unveiling the illusion of free will should end arrogance, since we can no longer look down on someone for what they could not help. At the same time, he sees the need to deal with the criminals, like Saddam Hussein’s son, but in the way you would deal with a grizzly bear about to eat you.
Next week I hope to show you that you are not like a grizzly bear. You are much, much more.
~ Betsy McPeak
|
Subscribe to new blogposts |
A few years ago I traveled to Cambridge to take an apologetics course. One thing the professor said that I have not forgotten is how important in the pursuit of truth is the phrase: Not Only.
Category 3: Purpose, destiny, and essential duty of man.
Competitor’s Question:
What is the difference in the purpose, the destiny, and the essential duty of man? These words all seem the same.
In Category 3 of both NCFCA and Stoa Apologetics Questions for the Limited Prep Individual Event you will find these three similar questions:
I agree. These questions sound very similar. Let’s examine them closely to separate the nuances of their meanings so that you can be more specific as you answer these three questions.
We know what it means to enjoy a relationship. But what does it mean to glorify God? Thomas Watson said that ”Glorifying God consists in four things: 1. Appreciation, 2. Adoration, 3. Affection, 4. Subjection.” In 1 Corinthians 10:31 we read, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” So to glorify God means to bring honor to Him by what we do, how we do it, and why we do it.
The Oxford Dictionary defines destiny as “the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future.“ The Bible says that those who trust in Christ for their righteousness will be given eternal life, whereas those who live a life of sin will be given eternal death (Romans 6:23). There are two ultimate destinies spoken of in the Bible – eternal life and eternal death.
Merriam-Webster says that duty is the ”conduct due to parents and superiors.” According to a Biblical worldview man’s duty is to Creator God. Ecclesiastes 12:13 says to “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Micah 6:8 says “…And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Let’s see if an analogy gives us insight.
I create a housekeeping robot named Sam-Sam for my home.
The purpose of my robot answers the question “why.” Why did I make the robot? To clean my house. Sam-Sam’s purpose or reason for existing is to make my house sparkle.
What is Sam-Sam’s destiny? Here I am asking what will happen to Sam-Sam? Well, if Sam-Sam does a good job, I will keep him, and I will oil him and care for him as long as he cleans my house well. But if he gets rusty or breaks beyond repair, I will sell him for scrap metal.
What is Sam-Sam’s essenatial duty? His duty is to mop my floors, make my bed, and cook spinach souffle for dinner. Basically, whatever I command Sam-Sam to do is his duty.
Remember in apologetics, we need to defend the Biblical answer against a non-Biblical position by explaining both points of view, and then by showing why the Biblical position is preferable. So you need to look at some other worldviews and see what they say are the purpose, destiny, and duty of man.
But your work is only halfway done when you can put the Biblical answer side-by-side to a non-Biblical answer. To defend Christianity, which is what apologetics is all about, you must defend the strength of the Biblical position over the non-Biblical view. Why is the Biblical answer preferable?
If you need help with the reasons to prefer, see my previous blog HERE.