The "Offensive" Gospel - The Devil's Tactics to Suppress the Truth

"Students may argue for a higher grade on a paper or a report giving, for example, one of the following reasons:

          My mother was sick, and I had to stay home last week.

          My friend went to New York, and I had to drive her to the airport.

          If you give me a D on this paper, I will flunk out of school.

An instructor may feel sympathetic to the student, but such matters cannot change the grade. The grade is based on the quality of the paper, not on extenuating circumstances."

"The law courts have an equally difficult time separating the appeal from the issue.  Should the woman who murders her husband because he abuses their children be treated the same as all other murderers? Is the act of murder then different? Lawyers in arguing their cases make broad appeals to pity, sometimes with justification."

(Horner, Winifred Bryan.  "Avoiding Fallacies."  Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition.  New York: St. Martin's, 1988. 213-14.)

____________________________________________________________

In both of the quotes, Bryan illustrates the use/misuse of what rhetoricians call an "Appeal to Pity."  Too often, appeals to pity are utilized even in Biblical discussions for the sake of "winning the argument."  If we win the opponent's pity, or that of the audience, does that alter truth?

The phrase, "I'm offended" is a rhetorical device most often employed to silence the opposition without offering any logical or valid argumentation.  It is an appeal to pity (rhetorical fallacy) and has no bearing on the truthfulness (or the falseness) of the opposition's argument.  Often, the phrase "I'm offended" is followed up by some argument such as "because you weren't nice to me" or "you disrespected me."  These are purely subjective arguments based on appeals to pity, and are also a mixture of the fallacies known as ad hominem and red herring.

Too often, modern people (including Christians) mistake being offended in secular terms [1. to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in; 2. to affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably; 4. to hurt or cause pain to - dictionary.com] with the Biblical use of "offended" [5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways - dictionary.com]. Being angry over the content of the message and even the delivery of it is not the same as being caused to fall into sinful ways.  Unfortunately, the term "I'm offended" too often causes well-intended Christians to retreat and to either sugar-coat the message or to weaken it in order that the person is no longer "offended."  Is this a Biblical principle? Does the Bible allow someone to claim that they are "offended" in order to stop the message from being presented, or to even alter the method by which it is being presented?

In this article, we will consider a few examples in which the phrase “I’m offended,” or at least the sentiment contained therein, is utilized.  In each example, think about whether or not an individual (or even individuals) altered the message or the method of conveying the message by being “offended.” 

First, in Acts 7, Stephen addresses a group of fellow Jews, reminds them of the history of God concerning the Israelite people, and how often they rebelled against Him.  Would they have been "offended" by Stephen's message? If not at that point, then they certainly were when Stephen says, "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.  Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And THEY KILLED THOSE WHO FORETOLD THE COMING OF THE JUST ONE, OF WHOM YOU NOW HAVE BECOME THE BETRAYERS AND MURDERERS, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it" (Acts 7:51-53).  Essentially, Stephen is calling to light the rebellion of the present age of the Jews and laying the crucifixion of Christ at their feet (reference Matthew 27:25).  That is understandably hard for the audience to hear; would you be happy about being called both rebellious and a murderer? In this instance, the audience chose to utilize a physical version of "I'm offended."  Acts 7:54 states that the audience was "cut to the heart" and that they "gnashed at him with their teeth."  Gnashing with one's teeth is an obvious sign of extreme hatred, in this instance because of the truth found in the message of Stephen.  Then, Acts 7:57-58 says that they "cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and cast him out of the city and stoned him." 

Note that in Acts 7, Stephen does not sugar-coat the message, nor does he try to soften the truth using empty rhetoric.  He does not tell the audience that they have "great intentions" and that "perhaps they didn't know what they were doing" when they called for the death of Christ.  Was Stephen abusive in his wording? Could he have used "softer" tones and words containing more "tact"? God obviously approved of both the message and the methods used by Stephen, which is evidenced in Acts 7:55 where we are told that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, saw the glory of God, and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God.  Additionally, why do we so often assume that Stephen was murdered because of the method or word choice he chose (Acts 7:51-53) rather than the message? The text says that the audience was angered when they heard “these things,” which is a reference to the whole message and not just the so-called “offensive” section. 

Second, consider the term “cut to the heart.”  This phrase is used in Acts 7:54 where Stephen’s audience hears his message.  In this instance, it resulted in Stephen’s death, but in another passage it led to repentance.  When Peter addressed an audience of Jews in Acts 2, the result was that they were “cut to the heart” the same as the audience in Acts 7.  However, at least three thousand in this audience asked what they could do to be saved rather than becoming angry and murdering the messenger.  Was the message of Peter softer than Stephen’s? Were his words tactfully chosen so as not to “offend”? Actually, Peter’s message is essentially the same.  In Acts 2:36, Peter says, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED, both Lord and Christ.”  If that seems mild, consider also Acts 2:23 where Peter says, “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, YOU HAVE TAKEN BY LAWLESS HANDS, HAVE CRUCIFIED, AND PUT TO DEATH…”  This isn’t a generalized “we have all put Christ to death.”  Peter is reminding his audience that they had personally and physically called for the death of Christ (reference again Matthew 27:25). 

If the message in Acts 7 is the same as is delivered in Acts 2, why were the outcomes so different? The accusations are the same, yet many obeyed in Acts 2 while those in Acts 7 rebelled further. 

Third, in John 6, Jesus teaches over 5,000 Jews, including the twelve.  Throughout this passage, Jesus actually does not utilize the tones inherent in rebuke for the most part.  Two exceptions would be John 6:26 where He rebukes the audience for seeking Him for physical food rather than the words of truth and John 6:61 where He asks the audience if His message offends them.  Does Jesus alter His message or the method by which He is conveying the message when the audience is so obviously "offended"? What we are told in the context is that from "that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more" (John 6:66).  However, Jesus does not stop His challenge when the majority of the 5,000 departed; instead, He turns to the twelve and says in John 6:67, "Do you also want to go away?" Would it “offend” you today if someone dared question your allegiance to Christ?

Now, some may argue that the message of Christ and His challenges in John 6 would only have had a negative impact on those who were in some way hard of heart, but would not have had "hurt" anyone seeking the truth.  However, does the text bear this out? What about the example of the disciple who answers Jesus' challenge in John 6:67? Peter answers the challenge of Jesus by saying in John 6:68-69, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.  Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Was the message somehow easier for Peter than for the majority of the 5,000? Note that Jesus does not ask the twelve if the message offends them, only if they would "also want to go away?" One could easily conclude that the message of Jesus equally "offended" the twelve, but that they did not allow their sentiments to overshadow the truth.  

Like Jesus, Stephen, and Peter, modern Christians need to express the truth of the Gospel and not allow personal sentiments or even threats cause us to retreat.  While even many modern Christians claim that it isn’t the message that “offends,” but rather the method of conveying the message, the Scriptures simply do not support this argument.  Being angry over the delivery of the message is not the same as being caused to fall into sinful ways (refer back to the definitions of “offended”).  If that were so, then the example of Stephen in Acts 7 would constitute his causing the audience to "fall into sinful ways" by murdering him because of his word choice or message.  Is this a viable option? If so, God also contributed to causing the audience to fall into sinful ways because He showed His obvious approval of Stephen and his method of conveying the message.

Christians today need to cease retreating when the phrase “I’m offended” (or similar phraseology) is used to stop discussion.  While we are not to be abusive in our word choice, being plain and even blunt is exactly the method we should utilize.  We should not insult an individual’s intelligence (Matthew 5:22), but we do need to challenge people to be faithful and even question their faithfulness at times.  Questioning an individual’s faithfulness is a principle well established in the Scriptures; the prophets, judges, Apostles, evangelists, and even Christ often did this.  Being chastised by God is never pleasant; who ever enjoyed being disciplined by their parents as it was happening? However, Hebrews 12:5-11 instructs us that while it may not be “joyful for the present” (it may “offend” us), it is done because God loves us and because we are His children.  Dare we tell the Lord that we are “offended” by His chastisement?

Christians and Politics

The following is an article that was originally posted in January of 2013.  Since these issues are still prevalent in our society today, and appears like they will be for the foreseeable future, I felt that the article was still applicable (with a few edits).  Please consider it carefully.

______________________________________________________

The last few days, I have seen a lot of discussion on Facebook concerning President Obama’s recent gun control legislation.  I have also seen a lot of ensuing discussions, often between Christians, about this topic and whether there should or should not be gun control.  Also, I have seen a lot of Christians insinuate that those that choose to have a political opinion against the proposed gun control are somehow lacking in faith or more concerned about this world.  There has also been numerous Christians point to Romans 13 as the foundation for this assumption. 

However, not once have I seen a Christian advocate going against those gun control laws once they are in place. Consider it this way: if we are to be subject to our authorities (and we absolutely are), and those governing authorities grant us the ability to peacefully verbalize our opposition to their rules, then why are we not allowed to utilize those freedoms? Must we do it respectfully? Absolutely.

Now, onto more important matters…I have also heard Christians complain because certain similarities have been noted between our current administration and the tyrant Hitler.  Some Christians still believe in supporting President Obama (meaning, they actively praise his mandates and stance on various political issues)…now, in all honesty, it doesn’t matter if you agree with him on politics.  If two Christians disagree on taxation, healthcare, or even gun control, it doesn’t matter in the end and the two should not part company because of those disagreements.  However, there ARE other areas of concern that should be viewed differently.

For instance, think about President Obama’s obvious pro-abortion stance (I could go through and prove yet again where he is possibly the most pro-abortion president that the U.S. has ever had, but I have done this numerous times).  Consider also how pro-homosexual he has been.  Do these things not contribute to the moral depravity of the United States?

For those Christians that still support President Obama and say that we should not talk about the evil nature of his politics (and yes, being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual are in the realm of politics for the world), let us make a few comparisons.  The abortion rate in America has leveled off at 1.2 million per year, which means that during the Obama administration (this includes all 8 years and assumes that the rate remains steady), an approximate 9.6 million babies will have been murdered (and yes, I understand that the president cannot single handedly stop abortion in the U.S, however, Obama has signed for additional funds for abortion, as well as allowing for it under Obamacare).  Would you like a little perspective? There were an estimated 5-6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust, which is 3.6 million less deaths than abortion.  The Germans were indoctrinated with the belief that Jews were sub-human and that it was not only their option to kill them, but their duty.  Americans have been indoctrinated with the belief that babies are not human until they are born.

How far does it have to go before we realize the evilness? Do I believe that when we get to the judgment day that God will care about my stance on gun control? No, I don’t.  Do I believe that God will care about my stance on abortion and homosexuality (and the like)? Yes I do.  Do I believe that God will hold me accountable for whether or not I did my best to rid the world of those sins? Yes I do.  Do I believe that we will convince God that since we believe in a leader’s economic/healthcare plan that we can excuse the other evil things he promotes? No, I do not.

Many say, “We just need to pray about these things.”  Absolutely we need to pray. But have you stopped to consider that perhaps God has allowed us freedom of speech so that we might oppose these things? Or that He has granted us the freedom to vote so that we can oppose them? If we pray, but then keep silent on issues such as these because we like other aspects of the leader, then do we not fall into the same category as what is found in James 2:15-17? If we say, “Well, we prayed about it,” but we do nothing else, are we not essentially saying “depart in peace, be warmed and filled” without actually DOING anything? Remember what Mordecai said to Esther in Esther 4:14: "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?" Consider the principle established by Mordecai in this passage; are we neglecting what God has blessed us with (freedom of speech) if we choose to remain silent?

For some Christians, speaking out against the evil that a leader promotes is equivalent to speaking evil of the leader.  It is for this reason that many Christians will rebuke other Christians for making these types of comparisons and drawing attention to these sorts of evils.  There is, however, a difference between speaking evil of a leader and opposing the evil that that leader stands for. There is a difference between opposing such evil and not obeying the authorities on issues that are not of moral concern (such as taxes, healthcare, gun control, etc). If there is no difference in these things, then Elijah the prophet sinned when he openly opposed the King and Queen in 1 Kings 18:17-40. Elijah tells King Ahab to his face that it was his (Ahab’s) wickedness that was causing trouble in Israel.

Consider how David portrays the wicked in Psalm 10:1-8 (note: David is not necessarily speaking of leaders here, but the wicked of the world nonetheless).  The wicked blesses the greedy, but renounces the Lord.  God is not in their thoughts, and both cussing and deceit are in their mouths.  In secret places they murder the innocent (remember abortion?), and they fix their eyes on the helpless to take advantage of them.  If there are comparisons to be made here, perhaps I should allow the reader to do so.

Think also of Proverbs 6:16-18 in which Solomon writes about the things that are abominations to God.  He includes, amongst a lot of other things that each Christian should take note of and work hard to avoid, hands that shed innocent blood. 

Romans 1:18-32 discusses a society that has cast aside the will of God.  It shows the wickedness that then thrives in that society.  Which of these things is not present in America today? We have worked hard as a society to cast God out of our government, our schools, and our thoughts.  We have promoted the theory of evolution (which inherently devalues human life), abortion, and homosexuality.  It is also interesting to note that God brought Judah low because King Ahaz had “encouraged moral decline in Judah and had been continually unfaithful to the Lord” (2 Chron. 28:19).

Perhaps Christians should consider how to hold up the hands of those opposing evil rather than tearing them down. It seems that we, as Christians, spend so much time complaining about how someone phrased something than we do about the true evil in the world.  Are we not tying the hands of those trying to what is right when we do that? When we bog down any possible discussion because we want to complain about harshness or because we are somehow “offended” by what was said? Do we not draw the attention OFF of the topic when we do that?

In the end, I have my personal opinions concerning healthcare, economics, and gun-control, and I will most likely continue to voice those opinions until the government takes away my freedom of speech.  However, I don’t view those things as being tied to my ability to reach heaven, nor anyone else’s ability to reach that same goal…in other words, because someone disagrees with me on those things doesn’t mean that they won’t make it to heaven. On the other hand, we need to speak out against the “politics” of abortion and homosexuality, both of which are clearly condemned in the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 1:18-32; Revelation 21:8; Galatians 5:19-21).

Lacking Morality

Many non-believers, some claiming to be atheists, will ask Christians why it is so wrong for each individual to set their own moral standards.  To them, this seems like a logical conclusion and grants them the freedom to…do whatever they wish. 

Earlier this morning, I saw a news article on the topic of abortion, so I read through some of the comments.  In one interaction, a person advocating abortion called an anti-abortionist a “twisted human being.”  The advocating not ending an innocent’s life is the twisted one (Isaiah 5:20-21)?

This example perfectly illustrates the reason for which God has said that mankind is not to be trusted with self-defining good and evil; we simply cannot do it! If each man or woman defines good and evil in their own way without having a single source of authority, then it simply comes down to differences of opinion.  Many advocate the idea of simply being “good to one another,” but who defines what “good” is if there is no God? In fact, we should question the reasoning as to why we should even be “good” to one another by man’s standards; if the evolutionist advocates Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest,” then wouldn’t being “good” to one another go against their core evolutionary belief?

In Jeremiah 10:23, we read “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.”  Likewise, we read in Proverbs 16:25 that there “is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”  Both passages illustrate for us that mankind is fallible in their reasoning if they try to do so without God.  God, the single source of infallible authority and reasoning, can distinguish between good and evil, while mankind makes twisted judgments based largely on emotion and misconstrued perceptions of morality.  Again, this principle is illustrated for us in Isaiah 55:7-9: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.  ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’”  Mankind cannot set our own code of morality because every single person (without God) will have a differing opinion; if we all have different opinions, then it comes down to who has the power to enforce their opinion.  Obviously, a world without God is chaos and is wicked (Romans 1 & 2).

A few months ago, I published a short article on my blog concerning logical fallacies in argumentation.  To further establish that point, consider nearly any conversation concerning “abortion.”  When anti-abortionists, such as myself, argue against the immorality of abortion, the “what about cases of rape or abuse” (red herring) argument is invariable utilized.  Why is this a red herring argument? Simply because there are so few cases of abortion in which rape was a contributing factor (check the stats if you wish).  Additionally, it is an argument that plays off of human emotion rather than logical reasoning; for instance, the argument is typically phrased in such a manner as to make the anti-abortionist feel ashamed, such as “You REALLY believe that a woman who has already suffered the pain and humiliation of being raped to carry and give birth to the seed of the man who raped her?!” This is an entirely emotional argument which is not in any way, shape, or form founded in logic.  Rarely, if ever, does the person call the baby a baby; more often than not, they use terms such as “fetus” and “seed” because such words allow a disconnect between the truth of what they are killing and the fact that they are killing a baby boy or girl.  Why is it the baby’s fault that the father raped their mother? It was not their choice, nor is there a “rapist gene” that is passed to the baby (although some pretend that if the father is a rapist, so will the baby be). 

Then, generally, comes the ad hominem attack of “you are a twisted human being.”  Obviously, there are times in which someone standing for the right takes the low road and personally attacks the person advocating abortion rather than attacking the issue at hand.  Now that we’ve noted that it does take place, let’s get back to the topic at hand.  More often than not, this is the next progression in the discussion; the abortion advocate will malign the character and intelligence of the anti-abortionist by both name calling and using phrases such as “science has proved.”  “Science” can “prove” anything we like; for instance, the science of Nazi Germany supported Hitler’s perspective of the Jewish community.  Do we wish to stand by that science? In fact, there are startling similarities between that “science” and the “science” supporting abortion; for instance, Hitler portrayed Jews as being either subhuman or nonhuman, which is exactly the image of babies intended by such terms as “fetus” and “seed.” 

“Science” changes and is fallible, but God’s word is not.  Likewise, mankind’s opinions and reasoning is fallible, but God’s is not.  How logical is it to advocate the murder of an innocent child, but condemn a serial killer? How logical is it that a woman can legally murder her child without the knowledge or consent of the father, but if she is herself murdered while pregnant, the murderer is charged with two murders? Mankind cannot even follow their own twisted logic!

If our nation is to rise above the current immoral mess, then we must not only verbally acknowledge God as the only source of authority, but actually adhere to His standards…not ours.  We must also seek out faithful older men and women in Christ to learn from and set them up as “heroes” in the eyes of our children rather than earthly, wicked celebrities. 

What do Brittney Spears, Miles Cyrus (Hannah Montana), and similar celebrities have in common? What about Robin Williams and Heath Ledger? Elvis Presley and Philip Seymour Hoffman? In each of these examples, immorality has ruined their life; both Spears and Cyrus quickly degraded from a Disney poster-girl to, if we are honest, slut; both Williams and Ledger committed suicide; and Presley and Seymour both died because of drug addictions.  These are examples of mankind setting their own moral code.  These are but a few examples and one might argue that they are the minority.  But are they? They are not! This IS the norm for that kind of lifestyle, and yet many Christian parents point to such celebrities as examples and even encourage their children to get into such professions.  Some parents say “but look at the fame” or “look at the monetary value!” Perhaps the best argument against such a lifestyle and such immoral choices can be found in the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:26 where He asks two questions: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”

We are not to base our morals on our own opinions, nor are we base them others who have ignored the will of God.  God’s word is not an opinion and it is not fallible.  Unlike mankind, He is able to properly distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil.  Following the so-called “logic” of mankind will only cause our eternal soul to be lost.  We need to follow the principles of God’s word and not human emotion (although they do occasionally coincide).  We need to ensure that we do not fit those in Romans 1:22 who professed to be wise, but really were fools.  If our principles are built on a foundation other than Christ, then we have the wrong principles. 

The "Opinion" of God

"The Bible is a very precious book.  It is the word of God.  In Hebrews 1:1,2, we have these words: 'God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.'  It is very important to us that God has spoken by His Son, but just now I want to notice that 'God has spoken."He has spoken on many subjects, and when He speaks we ought to listen.  There are some men for whom I have very high regard, and when they speak I like to be there to hear.  What they have to say is worth hearing.  How much more so are the things that God has said.  Sometimes I think we act as though the things He has said are trivial and of little importance."[1]

In our society (39 years after this quoted text was written), we have a similar take on the “opinions” of God.  Since our society has “freedom of speech,” we have elevated our opinions to the status of “fact,” and we have downgraded truth to being a subjective interpretation.  Is God's word merely an "opinion" that may contain good advice, but no command(s)?

Often, when Scripture is quoted, it is responded to with some phrase such as “in my humble opinion,” which is generally followed by an argument far removed from Scripture.  Since when do our lowly opinions weigh as heavily as God’s truth? This is the point that Mr. Irven Lee was driving at; when God speaks, we should realize that it is more than worth listening to. 

“Our way is simply a more efficient method” and “it is similar to what we are already doing” are phrases continually utilized (or some variation of these phrases) to justify adding activities that are unauthorized to the repertoire of Christians, whether collectively or as “individuals.”  These are decisions based solely upon opinion and not upon the Scriptures.  To further accentuate the point made by Mr. Lee, consider how in 2 Samuel 7 David has decided to build a house for the Lord and Nathan, without inquiring of the Lord, tells him to do whatever is in his (David’s) heart.  Why does Nathan do so? Because he believes it to be a “good” deed, even noble.  However, God uses the phrase in the following verses: “…have I ever spoken a word…” In Hebrews 1-2, God says that He has spoken to us and has given us His word and will, but in 2 Samuel 7 He says that He has not spoken.  What principle are we to glean from this juxtaposition?

If we downgrade God’s word to the level of an opinion, add what we think is a good idea without having the proper Scriptural foundation, and proceed without inquiring of God, then we are seeking to direct our own steps (Jeremiah 10:23).  While we may think something to be a good idea in our own “humble opinion,” it will only lead us to death (Proverbs 16:25).  As illustrated numerous times throughout the Scriptures, our opinions do NOT hold as much weight as God’s truth.  Proper Biblical authority, or do not participate.

---

[1] Lee, Irven.  Good Homes in a Wicked World.  Hartselle: 1976.

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.