Secular History, Science and the Bible

Unfortunately, many Christians today fall prey to two concepts that Satan loves to utilize: 1. Secular history/science must confirm an event to be true before it can be accepted and 2. If we compromise, more of the world will accept God.  On occasion, secular history/science does point to God, but is it only true because we have evidence apart from the Bible? Can we truly convince non-Christians about the power of God if we ourselves to not fully accept what the Bible states (i.e. – the 24-hour days of creation)?

Mankind needs to realize that “science” is not always what it is projected as being; many scientists today, such as Stephen Hawking, insinuate that “science” is infallible and often Christians believe such lies.  Science is constantly changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.  For instance, the scientific community used to present the view that the world is flat as fact, not a theory.  Did that make it true that the world is flat? If so, someone needs to inform modern science that the world is flat because scientists used to claim it to be so.  Obviously, no one today accepts this view, but amazingly enough the Bible actually confirms the truth and did so long before scientists “discovered” it (Isaiah 40:22).  An ancient text confirms a “scientific” fact before science does, and yet we rely on “science” to confirm God’s existence and power? Perhaps our priorities are more than a little out of order.

One archaeologist, Dr. Hawass, stated that, “Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence” (New York Times, “Did the Red Sea Part?”).[1]  If this logic applies to Biblical events, then it must also be true for the theory of evolution; if there is no historical evidence, then it is not true.  How many scientists would stand behind such a claim? Not many, if any, but it is a commonly accepted view concerning the Bible.

When it comes to miracles, mankind often goes to the extreme in order to explain away the existence and power of God.  In his article, “Walking in the Midst of the Sea,” Henry Morris states that liberal “theologians, always seeking naturalistic explanations for Biblical miracles, have attempted to explain this Red Sea crossing as a shallow fording of what they call the ‘Reed Sea,’ at the extreme northern end of the Red Sea.”[2]  A “shallow fording”? Consider: Is it a greater miracle that God parted a deep section of the Red Sea, or that He drowned the Egyptian army in shallow water? Additionally, modern scientists have run computer models on shallow parts of the Red Sea in order to prove that it could simply have been wind that parted the waters.  Christine Dao and Brian Thomas state that according “to the researchers, winds blowing at over 60 miles an hour ‘could have pushed water back at the bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a costal lagoon.’”  Consider this quotation for a moment; note the use of “could” and “believed.”  How is this scientific proof? Dao and Thomas further state the following: “How relevant is this study to the famous crossing of the Red Sea? First, it is doubtful that the shallow-water area that the model examined was the real site of the crossing…it does not fit with the details of the Exodus account…”[3]  Logically, Dao and Thomas acknowledge that God’s intervention is the only viable conclusion.

Often in the scientific community there arises archaeological discoveries that are indicative of God’s hand, yet scientists attempt to explain it away.  For instance, in 2010 workers building a highway discovered the fossils of 80 whales encased in sandstone in the desert of Chile.  How did 80 whales get to that location? How were they so well preserved? Even if they had found the fossil of a single whale, similar questions would arise, but 80 whales? Brian Thomas writes that clearly “a catastrophe must have happened, since so many whales died at once.  Just as clearly, the catastrophe must have involved large quantities of fast-moving sand in order to encase the huge animals in sandstone.”  Likely, given the exact location of the whales in “a low spot called the Caldera basin,” they were deposited there in this number as the waters from the flood abated, which “would account not only for the large numbers of remains found in one place, but also for their preservation.”  While some scientist may claim that the whales were deposited there millions of years ago in some sort of evolutionary primordial soup and further claim that the existence of only sea creatures substantiates such a claim, how would they explain another instance in South America in which 300 whales were found buried alongside land animals?[4] The flood, it seems, is the only viable conclusion to arrive at.

Considering such “scientific knowledge,” the words of the Apostle Paul ring true.  In Romans 1, Paul depicts a society that has lowered God to be equal with men and animals, which is essentially what mankind has done with the theory of evolution.  In Romans 1:20, Paul states that for “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…”  While we are without excuse, we fit very well with what Paul states in 1:22, “Professing to be wise, they became fools…”  The majority of scientists believe themselves to be too intelligent to believe in God (if you doubt this summation, read nearly anything said or written by Stephen Hawking concerning the existence of God). 

While it is interesting to look at research done that further supports the Biblical proof that God exists, it is not necessary for our salvation.  We do not need secular history or science to prove that God exists.  Remember the words of the writer of Hebrews, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).  On occasion, secular history and science will line up with the Biblical accounts, but more often than not we will have no “scientific” evidence.  Which is worth more, faith or fallible science?

Finally, consider the following question in connection with this brief study: what hope is there in evolution?

---

[1] Slackman, Michael.  “Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say.”  The New York Times.  The New York Times, 02 Apr. 2007.  Web. 31 January 2015.

[2] Morris, Henry.  “Walking in the Midst of the Sea.”  The Institute for Creation Research.  N.P., n.d. Web. 31 January 2015.

[3] Dao, Christine & Brian Thomas.  “Computers Help Show the Mechanics of a Miracle.”  The Institute of Creation Research, Web.  31 January 2015.

[4] Thomas, Brian.  “Whales in the Desert?” The Institute for Creation Research.  11 Dec. 2011.  Web. 31, Jan. 2015.

Authority and Providence in the Book of Esther

The book of Esther is unique in many ways; the most important aspect of its uniqueness is, however, that God is not directly mentioned, but we are shown His power and strength.  There seems to be two main themes throughout the book: the providence of God concerning His chosen people and the power of God to rule in the kingdoms of men.  It could also be argued with justification that the manipulation and wickedness of the unrighteous will receive their just reward if they do not repent, which would be illustrated with the events surrounding Haman’s demise.   

In other Biblical texts, we are told pointblank that God has His hand in bringing about specific events.  For instance, we are told multiple times in Genesis that God is providing for Joseph or that He is placing Joseph in particular circumstances in order to bring about a specific end result.  In Genesis 39:2, we are told that the “Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man…”  Also, we are told that those around Joseph recognized this fact: “And his master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord made all he did to prosper in his hand” (Genesis 39:3).  This concept is expressed numerous times, either explicitly or alluded to, throughout the account of Joseph’s life.  By contrast, we are shown the providence of God in the book of Esther and are intended to come to the conclusion that God is the only logical explanation for how and what happens.

Unfortunately, when we get to the book of Esther, the discussion is often dominated by one topic: the assumed virtue of Queen Vashti in chapter 1.  In the first chapter, Vashti is ordered by King Ahasuerus to present herself before a party including all of his officials and servants, and many people assume that Queen Vashti was asked to appear in inappropriate attire or no attire at all (perhaps this conclusion derives from Esther 1:11 where we are told that Ahasuerus commanded that Vashti be brought before the party wearing her royal crown; since we are not explicitly told that she would be wearing other attire, some may assume that she was wearing nothing but her crown).  While it is possible, is it a necessary conclusion? And, perhaps more importantly, is that the point that is being made in chapters 1 and 2?

The authority of the government was an extremely important aspect of the Medo-Perisan Empire; what the king said was meant to be followed to the letter.  Secular history proves this point and we have additional passages in the Bible that further emphasizes this point.  Consider what we are told in Daniel 6:8, “Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.”  When Darius discovers that his signing of decree was actually a plot to legally assassinate Daniel, he is furious because he knows and understands that even he, as king, cannot change the decree.  It was signed, sealed, and delivered.  This is an important point; in Esther 1, we are told that under Ahasuerus, the Empire stretched from India to Ethiopia.  For an empire of this magnitude, “authority” is fragile and arguably an illusion.  As a result, any form of rebellion not addressed would have been detrimental to the empire as a whole, and even more so when it is the queen who is being rebellious.  If even the queen does not obey the king and gets away with it, then why should anyone else adhere to his authority? Further, the text actually tells us that this is the reason for which Vashti is removed from her prominent position:

“But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command brought by his eunuchs; therefore the king was furious, and his anger burned within him.” (Esther 1:12)

“Then the king said to the wise men who understood the times (for this was the king’s manner toward all who knew law and justice…” (1:13)

“What shall we do to Queen Vashti, according to the law, because she did not obey the command of King Ahasuerus brought to her by the eunuchs?” (1:15)

And so we see that it is the rebellion that is the root of the problem, not the reasons for which she rebelled (which we are not told in the text and can only surmise).  Further, the text informs us that there was a great fear that others would hear of Vashti’s rebellion and would follow her example: “For the queen’s behavior will become known to all women, so that they will despise their husbands in their eyes, when they report, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in before him, but she did not come’” (1:17).  They even fear that there will be “excessive contempt and wrath” (1:18) if Vashti is not punished for her rebellion.

There is a principle of authority being established here: if those in high places do not heed the authority of the one in power, then others will follow their example and reject the authority.  A similar principle is established for us on a higher level in Leviticus 10:3.  Following Nadab and Abihu’s rejection of God’s authority concerning what fire to use to burn the incense, God says the following to Aaron (via Moses): “By those who come near Me, I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”  Obviously, God’s authority is much more powerful than man’s authority, it is not fragile, and it certainly isn’t an illusion, but the principle is applicable in both instances.  If those in positions of leadership rebel against the authority of the one in power, others will follow.

In spite of this show of authority by the Medo-Persian Empire[1], one of the overall themes for the book of Esther is that God rules supreme.  While all of the events in the book are intended to show the power of the empire, all they really do is show that God can bring about whatever result He intends.  This is alluded to by Mordecai in Esther 4:14 where he says to Esther, “For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish.  Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Esther was there for the express purpose of being the salvation of the Jews from Haman’s plot, much like Joseph rose to power to save his family in the end and to make them prosper. 

This is not a concept unique to the book of Esther; rather we learn it not only through logical deduction, but also through being explicitly told that God rules over the kingdoms of men.  For example, in Daniel 5:21, we are told that King Nebuchadnezzar was “driven from the sons of men,” suffered many afflictions such as eating grass like oxen and dwelling among donkeys in order to teach him humility and to show him that “the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whom He chooses.”  We are shown that through the example of Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph (Egypt), and Esther (Medo-Persian Empire).

Authority is obviously a concept that is extremely important throughout the Bible; we learn of the power of God’s authority over everything, even the most powerful earthly empires.  If we assume Vashti to be virtuous because she did not comply, then we must either assume that Esther was not virtuous and did comply with inappropriate requests, or that the king never asked her to do so.  Do we want to make such a deduction concerning Esther? In Esther 1:19, the advisors of the king recommend that Vashti be dethroned and that the king “give her royal position to another who is better than she.”  The inference is that to be better than Vashti, the succeeding queen must be willing to comply.  Is the insinuation that Esther would comply to an inappropriate request?

The book of Esther is an amazing book with a great many in-depth concepts that deserve to be studied through and applied.  Rather than letting the book be overshadowed by assumptions and leaps of logic, we need to dig in and see what actually is in the book, locate the themes, and allow those themes to give us hope as Christians.  Shouldn’t we be encouraged to know that even if we don’t currently understand why things happen that God is in control? That He has a purpose? That the governments of earth are only granted as much power as God allows them to have and that they have no bearing on our eternal soul? That, in essence, is the overall purpose of the book of Esther.

---

[1] This concept is further illustrated by the decree for all young, beautiful virgins to be brought before the king so that he may choose another queen and the fact that the command was adhered to even by the Hebrew subjects in Esther 2.

Perceptions of Sin

Recently, one of the ladies at Summersville stepped on my toes and made an excellent point concerning the existence of Satan. Essentially, she said that we (Christians) get so caught up in proving the existence and reality of both God and Heaven that we often forget to express the existence and reality of both Satan and Hell.  For me, this point struck home because even though I often make references to Satan, it is typically just in passing.  When was the last time you heard a sermon strictly on the existence of Satan and his active efforts to obtain your soul?

Are you scared of Satan?

In all honesty, we spend very little time examining how Satan is an active adversary and we more often than not treat him as though he were a fairy tale.  Satan is thrilled that many Christians take this perspective of him! If we convince ourselves that he either doesn’t exist or that he isn’t powerful, then we will not view him as a viable threat.  Wouldn’t that make us easy targets?

Modern Christians get so caught up in the rhetoric of political correctness and misguided compassion that we forget how truly vile sin is to appear to us.  While we are to be compassionate towards the person in sin, which is to be shown through our willingness to aid them in finding the truth, we are not to be compassionate towards the sin.  Our society has lead us to believe that sin isn’t really that bad or that it is a state of being rather than a choice.  Sadly, many Christians have fallen for this rhetoric and so we believe that alcoholism is a disease and homosexuality is something some people are born into.  In essence, we cannot differentiate between the sinner and the sin.

How did the inspired authors of the New Testament view sin? Peter, speaking of Christians who return to the world after having tasted salvation, does not paint a very pretty picture of sin.  He does not paint sin as something an individual “sacrifices” in order to become a Christian, but rather as something disgusting and revolting.  In fact, Peter likens a Christian returning to sin as a dog returning to eat its own vomit and a pig returning to wallow in its own excrement.  Does that glorify sin? How often do we refer to sin in such a manner? Unfortunately, we rarely refer to sin in this disgusting manner; we water down how bad sin truly is in efforts of not offending the person caught up in it.

Consider also how Jude depicts sin: “And on some have compassion, making a distinction [from the false prophets]; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 1:22-23).  Jude does an excellent job of differentiating between the sin and the sinner: “…pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”  The terminology in this passage is active, not passive; Jude does not merely suggest that we subtly recommend that individuals cease sinning, but rather he says that we are to pull them from the fire.  If someone were literally on fire, would we subtly suggest that they need to be saved from it? Or would we pull them from it? If we are willing to pull someone physically from a fire without fear of being perceived as not being compassionate enough, then why are we not as willing to do so for their eternal soul?

From the inspired New Testament writers, we have learned that sin is vile and disgusting.  We have also learned that sinners need to be actively pursued and pulled from the fire; sinners need salvation, not “understanding” concerning the sin in which they reside!

In addition to how we view sin, we need to carefully consider our perception of Satan.  Is he passive or aggressive? Does he simply sit by and hope that we fall into sin, or does he seek us out? What do the Scriptures say on this issue?

In 1 Peter 5:8, we read that our “adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”  Peter does not seem to be under the misconception that Satan is passive, but rather aggressive to the extreme.  Perhaps our perception of reality has been skewed by the many movies depicting lions as cute, cuddly creatures and we don’t fully understand what Peter is saying.  Or do we simply overlook this danger? Was Satan passive in Genesis 3, or was he actively seeking to make mankind sin?

Are you scared of Satan?

We often depict how glorious Heaven will be for the saved (as we should), but do we depict Hell as the pit of despair that it truly is? Do we give people a reason to be frightened of Hell? God certainly provides us with enough evidence of not only the existence of Hell, but of why we do not want to end up there.  Do we pass that evidence on?

In Mark 9, Jesus establishes the principle that we are to do whatever it takes to avoid sin in our lives because of the horrors of Hell, which is summed up numerous times in the chapter by the repetition of the phrase, “Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.”  Consider also the depiction of Hades in Luke 16:19-31; the rich man was so tormented that he sought the relief of a single drop of water (16:24).  Does this seem like a place that we should passively hope to avoid?

Unfortunately, many Christians today are under the misconception that sin actually holds worth or value and that giving it up is the same as giving up freedom.  Does sin have value? Are we making a sacrifice to obtain salvation? In John 8:34, Jesus says that “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.” Does this depict freedom that Satan wants us to believe it is? If we do away with sin, then we are no longer slaves of sin (Romans 6:5-7).  We aren’t sacrificing sin, we are being freed from sin.

Additionally, we work so hard to keep people from feeling bad about the sin in their life that we forget that they are supposed to feel sorry.  Too many times, Christians seek to make a person feel good about where they are before they have the right to do so; in other words, we want to pass over godly sorrow and go right to the feeling we ought to get with salvation.  Paul discusses this concept in 2 Corinthians 7 where he expresses that he is saddened that making the Corinthian’s sorrowful for their sin was necessary, but that it was in fact necessary.  Individuals living in sin have to have godly sorrow, because godly sorrow leads to repentance…which leads to salvation! The purpose is not to create despair within a sinner where they are hopeless, but rather to create in them this godly sorrow and the realization that God can save them from this condition if they are obedient to Him. 

Our conclusion concerning not only sin, but this life as well, should be the same as Solomon’s and Paul’s conclusion.  Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 12:13 that man should “Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all” and Paul wrote in Galatians 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”  This is the manner by which we should live and the attitude we should express to those around us.  

Concerning Modesty

As I sit here at my desk wearing a warm sweatshirt and looking at the thermometer, it says that it is about 14 degrees outside.  Why, then, would I want to compose an article on the subject of modesty when it is absolutely freezing outside?[1] Simply because people are not emotionally invested in their summer wardrobe (or lack thereof) during the winter months and hopefully will be willing to consider what the Scriptures have to say concerning modesty and the attitudes that surround it.

Many articles on this topic seek to define specific lengths for pants, skirts, etc, but we will examine the attitudes that surround true modesty.  What does our clothing state about our godliness? Are we seeking to be close to God and to profess godliness (1 Timothy 2:10), or are we professing a rebellious attitude of “you can’t tell me what to wear” (2 Timothy 3:8-9)?

Generally speaking, people will not go to answer their door when they are in their underwear because that would be both inappropriate and embarrassing; in other words, it is embarrassing for the postal worker or the UPS man to see an individual in their underwear.  However, many, many people (including some Christians) flood the beach every year and parade around in less clothing than what they would typically consider their underclothing, but this is not embarrassing to them.  Why is that?

How often do you hear fellow Christians (or perhaps you have said it yourself) that are going on vacation during the summer say that they just cannot wait to wear their new swimsuit, or that they just purchased a new pair of shorts, etc? When questioned about the impropriety of such clothing, the response typically goes as follows: “I don’t FORCE anyone to look at my body!”  Or, perhaps, they say that since the Bible does not give a specific length for pants, shirts, or skirts that you cannot either.  True, the Bible does not state a specific length, nor does it specifically state that we are not to wear bikinis, swimsuits, shorts, or short skirts.  However, the Bible does address both propriety and moderation, both of which are meant to profess godliness.

Consider what 1 Timothy 2:8-10 teaches us concerning modesty: we are to be holy, which speaks to our character and our attitude concerning our obedience of God.  We also learn that there are two sides of immodesty: propriety and moderation.  Propriety is “conformity to established standards of good or proper behavior or manners” and the “appropriateness to the purpose or circumstances; suitability.”[2]  Moderation is “the quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance.”[3]  While many people may argue that culture defines what is appropriate and that being at the beach dictates that a bikini is appropriate, note that both “propriety” and “moderation” are tied directly to another very specific term that is to guide the attitude behind our dress and behavior: godliness.  The passage does not say that we are to be guided by what is deemed appropriate by our current culture, but rather by “professing godliness,” which is timeless. 

So, 1 Timothy 2:8-10 is only addressing the ladies, correct? Actually, Paul ties both men and women together in this attitude of professing godliness by saying “…in like manner also” at the beginning of 2:9.  Men are to be as concerned about modesty as women are to be and we, through our (un)dress can portray an attitude not professing godliness.

What we wear on the outside is directly connected to what we are on the inside.  Often, people complain because they choose to dress or undress in a certain manner, then are labeled by others as being a certain type of person; this is because of the fact that who we are on the inside dictates how we act and how we dress.  Consider 1 Peter 3:1-6 where we are taught that adornment is not to be concentrated on the outward, but rather on the inward.  Our clothing should reflect the beauty of the incorruptible spirit that is within us.  We are taught through this passage that the attitude of modesty begins with a chaste spirit and that there are many godly women throughout the Bible that expressed this particular attitude.  What does this lead the Christian to do? Have the proper attitude and mindset (Philippians 4:8-9).  What is the point of all of this? To be precious in the sight of God, which shows respect to God, to our fellow Christians, and to ourselves.  By doing this, we keep ourselves pure and holy so that we can receive a greater reward than being able to wear inappropriate clothing. 

Unfortunately, many Christians today advocate the concept of a “grey area” in our service to God, especially concerning modesty.  The “grey area” is when someone tries to get as close to some imagined line of sin as possible without “falling in.”  How short can we wear our pants or skirts before crossing the line into immodesty? Is this the appropriate attitude for a Christian to have? How close can I get to Satan before he takes my soul? In order to create a “grey area,” we have to mix light and darkness together, which we are explicitly told in the Scriptures cannot happen with God (1 John 1:5).  How can we advocate a “grey area” in our obedience when there is no darkness in God? If we attempt to walk as close to some imaginary, self-proclaimed line of sin without going over it, then we have already crossed it with our attitude of rebellion.  Romans 8:5-6 tells us that there are two mindsets: one is concentrated on the spiritual while the other is concentrated on the carnal.  If our goal is to accentuate the importance of the most recent immodest clothing trends rather than professing godliness, then our mindset is obviously carnal rather than spiritual. 

How does our (un)dress impact our brethren? As state previously, many people argue that they don’t force anyone to look at their body by wearing inappropriate clothing, therefore the blame must fall solely upon the other person’s shoulders.  What do the Scripture say concerning this attitude? John 13:34 teaches us that we are to love one another as Christ has loved us and Hebrews 10:24 tells us that we are to consider one another in order to stir up love and good works.  How can we possibly fulfill either of these passages if we cause others to stumble spiritually because of the way we dress (Luke 17:1-2)? Our goal is to love one another and aid one another in reaching the mutual goal of Heaven.  How can we consciously do something that is carnal because it makes us “happy” when we know that harms the mindset of others?

Finally, what does our modesty/immodesty say about how we respect ourselves? As was written in 1 Peter 3, our attire reflects our inward character.  When we dress inappropriately and defend such, we disrespect not only God and our fellow Christians, we disrespect ourselves.  We are to keep ourselves unspotted from the world (James 1:27), be pure in both action and thought (2 Timothy 2:22), and have purified hearts (1 Peter 1:22).  After considering such passages, it is impossible to honestly advocate immodest apparel.

So, as we conclude, consider that in Proverbs 7 we learn that there is attire that is “appropriate” for a harlot and that it provokes thoughts and feelings in the opposite sex that are improper.  The world understands this concept and that clothing insinuates something about the wearer, but it seems that many Christians deny this fact.  If what we wear ought not have an impact on the opposite sex, then why is there “special clothing” utilized in the marriage relationship? We need to stop being both selfish and carnally minded, and concern ourselves with the care and well-being of our fellow Christians.  Set aside emotional arguments and honestly ask yourself if you are seeking to dress in a manner professing your godliness?

---

[1] Please note that the Scriptures deal with moderation in connection to modesty as well, but that is beyond the scope of this particular article

[2] propriety. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propriety (accessed: January 07, 2015).

[3] moderation. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moderation (accessed: January 07, 2015).