Did Jude Treat Noncanonical Writings as if They Were Inspired? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1179&b=Jude

Did Jude Treat Noncanonical Writings as if They Were Inspired?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

There are sixty-six books commonly accepted as Scripture—the divinely inspired Word of God. Origen (c. 185-254), a prolific early Christian writer, noted a commonly accepted list of 27 New Testament books, indicating that by the second or third century, the New Testament canon was established (McGarvey, 1974, 1:66). There are many other books, beside the New Testament canon, that are considered inspired by some scholars, but not all (A.P. Staff, 2003, p. 1). The Bible is complete as it is, sufficient for the spiritual needs of Christians (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Luke 21:33; John 12:48).
Critics of the Bible would like nothing better than to show that God’s Word is a tangled web of contradictions, inconsistencies, and untruths. To that end, many critics have attempted to chip away at the credibility of Scripture by showing that it simply is impossible to determine what material is Scripture and what material is not. They have alleged that the biblical writers themselves accepted extrabiblical sources as inspired Scripture. One instance of a biblical writer allegedly treating noncanonical material as authoritative is in Jude 9. “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ ”
Aside from Jude 9, there is no biblical record of any “contention” or meeting between the devil and Michael the archangel. Many scholars, based on the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin, and Didymus (Guthrie, 1962, p. 918; Earle, Blaney, and Hanson, 1955, p. 411), assume that Jude 9 is a reference to an apocryphal book called The Assumption of Moses, a work that is extant only in fragmental form (in Latin and in a translation from Greek). The fragment now known as The Assumption of Moses presents the account of Moses’ appointing of Joshua as his successor, and a description of the future of Israel during the conquest of the Promised Land. According to Richard Lenksi, scholars believe that the missing portion of The Assumption included “an elaboration” of Deuteronomy 34:5, the biblical account of Moses’ death, showing how God used angels to bury Moses (1966, pp. 601-602). It is thought that The Assumption of Moses, at this point, used Zechariah 3:1-2 as its basis for the use of the phrase “The Lord rebuke you!” It has not been proven, however, that Jude intended to quote from The Assumption of Moses.
If Jude intended to reference it, it cannot be determined that Jude actually quoted the apocryphal book, because the material Jude allegedly quoted does not exist. If The Assumption of Moses did indeed contain material about Moses’ burial, then Jude independently wrote the same thing that the writer of The Assumption wrote. Thus, Jude confirmed that this particular portion of The Assumption is historical. That is very different from stating that any portion of The Assumption was inspired. It may be that Jude simply intended to reference an oral tradition (which was true) that became the basis for The Assumption (Guthrie, 1962, p. 918).
Jude is the only New Testament book that seems to include a direct citation of a Jewish apocryphal work, which is, in this case, The Book of Enoch (Guthrie, p. 917). The apparent reference to Enoch’s prophecy is in Jude 14-15. An example of the kind of criticism that comes against Jude 14-15 is that of Carroll D. Osburn, a distinguished professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University. Dr. Osborn argued in his book Peaceable Kingdom (1993, p. 94) that Jude should not be included in the New Testament canon because, among other reasons, Jude 14-15 discusses an event that also is recorded in The Book of Enoch. Enoch’s book apparently has more than one author, but scholars differ on which author wrote which portions, and it is uncertain when each portion was written. According to Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, The Book of Enoch is pre-Christian, and parts of it are probably pre-Maccabean (1949, p. 246). However, there is no positive proof that The Book of Enoch existed as early as the time of Jude (Barnes, 1949, p. 400), or that it can even be traced back as far as the third century (Woods, 1962, p. 399). It is thought to have been written in Palestine. David Childress gave an overview of the history of The Book of Enoch:

The apocryphal Book of Enoch the Prophet was first discovered in Abyssinia in the year 1773 by a Scottish explorer named James Bruce. Bruce, a sort of 18^th Century Indiana Jones, may have seen the Ark of the Covenant at Axum (or its copy, as we surmise), and was able to obtain the ancient Coptic Christian text, approximately 2,000 years old. In 1821 The Book of Enoch was translated by Richard Laurence and published in a number of successive editions, culminating in the 1883 edition (2000, p. 328).

James C. VanderKam, in his book, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, claimed that Jude (in verses 14-15) quoted 1 Enoch 1:9 (1984, p. 110), and at first glance, that appears to be a correct assessment. First, consider Jude 14-15:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Now notice the wording of 1 Enoch 1:9:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Several points should be considered about Jude’s citation of Enoch’s prophecy. Because it is so difficult to date the origin of The Book of Enoch, and because numerous portions of the book suggest that the writer was influenced heavily by the New Testament, Guy N. Woods, commentating on Jude, wrote:

There are sharp variations between the statement allegedly cited by Jude and the actual statement as it appears in Jude. There is more reason for supposing that the book of Jude is older than this so-called “Book of Enoch” and that the author quoted from Jude rather than Jude from him! In the same fashion that Peter knew that Noah was a preacher, that Lot was vexed in Sodom, and that Paul knew the names of the Egyptian magicians; Jude learned of Enoch’s prophecy—by inspiration (1962, p. 399).

Let us assume, for the sake of our study, that The Book of Enoch existed at the time that Jude wrote, and that Jude really was referencing it. Simply because Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy and approved it, does not necessarily imply that Jude certified the entire collection of Enoch’s writings as inspired of God. The Greek word translated “prophesied” in Jude 14 is propheteuo, a word that is used on only one occasion in the New Testament (Matthew 15:7) for a citation of an Old Testament passage (Isaiah 29). The cognate Greek noun prophetes, which relates to the verb propheteuo, was used by Paul to refer to a heathen poet (Titus 1:12). There is no evidence, then, that Jude referred to Enoch’s prophecy as an inspired work. Why, then, did Jude mention The Book of Enoch? He recognized that the prophecy of Enoch had turned out to be a true prophecy. Jude never gave indication of what he thought of the remainder of The Book of Enoch.
Many times in Scripture, inspired writers use other sources of information; sometimes these sources are inspired, and sometimes they are not. For an example, one occasion when an inspired writer used an uninspired source is in 1 Corinthians 10:4, where Paul apparently made a reference to Jewish legend to support his own inspired interpretation of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Lenski, 1937, pp. 392-393). On other occasions (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12-13), Paul quoted from pagan poets to support his own assertions, and even told his audiences that the specific portions of the pagan writings he referenced were accurate. Did Paul claim that these extrabiblical materials were inspired? Certainly not. Paul used supporting materials that would have been meaningful to his audiences. The noncanonical works that were cited by New Testament authors were highly respected. The fact that Paul used noncanonical sources to add an extra dimension to his message should not motivate us to regard any of Paul’s writings as inferior, or to totally disregard them. The same is true in the case of Jude’s epistle.
Further, Jude did not necessarily imply that Enoch saw into the future to predict attitudes or actions of the sinners under consideration in the epistle. All that is necessarily implied in Jude 14-15 is that Enoch’s prediction happened to be descriptive of the men about whom Jude wrote (Barnes, 1949, p. 399).
We probably will never be sure when (or if) Jude received information from earthly sources about Enoch’s writing or The Assumption of Moses. Perhaps Jude heard about it from traditional sources or from the books themselves, but this does not alter the fact that Jude was inspired of God. It is possible that the Holy Spirit, as He inspired Jude, certified that one particular portion of The Book of Enoch is correct, though not inspired. It is altogether certain, however, that despite critics’ allegations, the Bible continues to stand firm as the sole message from the Creator—always accurate and dependable.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1949), Barnes’ Notes—James, Peter, John, and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978 reprint).
Childress, David Hatcher (2000), Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited).
Earle, Ralph, Harvey J.S. Blaney, and Carl Hanson (1955), Exploring the New Testament, ed. Ralph Earle (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press).
Guthrie, Donald (1962), Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1970 reprint), third revised edition.
Kenyon, Frederic (1949), The Bible and Archaeology (Britain: Harper and Brothers).
Lenski, Richard C. H. (1937), The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lenski, Richard C. H. (1966), The Interpretation of I and II Peter, the Three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Osburn, Caroll D. (1993), The Peaceable Kingdom (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
A.P. Staff (2003), “The Canon and Extra-Canonical Writings,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1972.
VanderKam, James C. (1984), Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, The Catholic Biblical Association of America).
Woods, Guy N. (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Political Correctness and "Bashing" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4722

Political Correctness and "Bashing"

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The adverse impact of “political correctness” on American culture cannot be overstated. Its sinister influence has been monumental and subversive in the extent to which it has reshaped American values, literally driving the population farther away from its Christian moorings, and redirecting civilization toward hedonism, socialism, atheism, humanism, and a host of other anti-Christian philosophies. As Chicago University Professor Allan Bloom rightly documented in his bestseller, The Closing of the American Mind, the average college student in the last 50 years has been brainwashed to accept the notions that truth is relative, absolutism is therefore wrong, and that the only real virtue is openness and tolerance (1987, pp. 25-26). Intolerance, therefore, is the ultimate and only sin. Under the guise of “sensitivity” and “diversity,” political and social liberalism have contributed mightily to stripping from the American way of life its original values and moral principles that built America into the great nation she has been. As judge Robert Bork noted in his Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, universities are subjecting students to “diversity training” as they are bullied, intimidated, and even coerced into avoiding language that is deemed “insensitive” to feminists, homosexuals, and others (now even Muslims)—those who fully intend to silence all opposition to their anti-Christian behavior (1996, pp. 214ff.,240,298ff.). These ideologies have been so sinister and pervasive in society for the last several decades that otherwise clear thinking Christian people—especially young people—have been unconsciously or unknowingly affected. Since the universities of America have successively convinced three generations of Americans that objective truth no longer exists, many Americans seem to have difficulty engaging in rational evaluation of false ideologies. They have been made to believe that if they engage in logical evaluation of a viewpoint and conclude that the viewpoint is incorrect, they must keep their “opinion” to themselves lest they be guilty of the inexcusable evil of “judging” and “bashing” others.
One area wherein “political correctness” has made encroachments into the thinking of Christians is seen in their reluctance and hesitation to be specific in identifying religious and moral error and those who promulgate it. A general feeling seems to exist that, while one may not agree with a particular behavior or viewpoint, nevertheless, it is inappropriate to publicly speak against the behavior or identify those who espouse the viewpoint or behavior. To do so is deemed unkind and uncompassionate.
It is ever the case that error and falsehood are self-contradictory, and typically guilty of the same malady it imagines in others. Observe that those who express their disdain for “bashing” do not hesitate to bash the ones they accuse of bashing, and to do so publicly. They openly express to others (people who have no real connection to the matter) their rejection of and dislike for specific persons and groups who have had the unmitigated gall to express disapproval of a false religion or an immoral action (e.g., New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn’s letter to the president of New York University, claiming that “the President of Chik-fil-A continues to make statements and support causes that are clear messages of extreme intolerance and homophobia and a belief that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender [LGBT] Americans are less than others,” adding, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views”—see Editorial, 2012). The “bashing” measuring stick is inherently hypocritical, self-contradictory, and frankly, absurd.
The only solution to moral chaos, religious confusion, and sexual anarchy is to return to the reasonable perspective that absolute truth exists, as does an objective standard of morality to which all humans are amenable. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter from Paris addressed to James Madison and dated August 28, 1789: “I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively” (1789). That code of morality derives from the Creator of the Universe—whom the Founders identified as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (Declaration…, 1776).
Religious truth and morality must not be determined by our feelings, subjective inclinations, or personal preferences. In the grand scheme of things, human opinions simply do not matter. Rather, all humans are obligated to go to the only objective standard of right and wrong that transcends human opinion: the Bible. We must allow the only supernatural book in the world to shape our thinking. Only by turning to God’s Word can we achieve proper perspective and arrive at the only legitimate viewpoint. We must place each and every idea under the light of God’s Word before jumping to conclusions and finalizing personal opinions. “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105).

Defining Terms

Does the Bible teach that it is unkind, sinful, or inappropriate to name individuals or express a negative evaluation of specific persons, religions, or behaviors publicly? Is doing so to be guilty of “bashing” them? In order to answer these questions, consider the following observations.
First, we must define terms to make certain that we pinpoint the issue. Various dictionaries define “bashing” as “to engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism”; “a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that the act is motivated by bigotry.”
When we turn to the Bible, we find that God desires that Christians “[l]et all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31-32; cf. Colossians 3:12). Christians are to let their “speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6), “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1), “in humility correcting those who are in opposition” (2 Timothy 2:25), “having compassion for one another” (1 Peter 3:8). Christians are to love everyone—even their enemies (Matthew 5:44). They are to treat others the way they themselves desire to be treated (Matthew 7:12). If such is the case, does it not logically follow that we should refrain from speaking against purveyors of religious or moral error, since doing so would be unkind, malicious, and certainly not something we would want done to us? The biblical answer to that question is an unequivocal “no.”
To interpret the above verses in such a manner would result in a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to a host of other verses. We must “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, ASV), making certain that our understanding of one passage or concept does not conflict with other passages and principles. It is true that those who hold the truth on a particular doctrine can be guilty of mistreating and being unkind to those who embrace error; but it does not follow that the mere act of identifying error publicly is inherently unkind, insensitive, or intolerant. Why?
The Bible clearly teaches that evaluating the legitimacy of a viewpoint or practice, and then identifying those who promote that erroneous belief or practice, are not only appropriate actions, but they are expected and required of the faithful. False religion flourishes first and foremost by means of the failure of the proponents of truth to step forth and confront the error. Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often credited with the idea that: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” One of the great tragedies of our day, with the decline of American civilization and the Christian religion in America, is that error has become so predominant that the advocates of truth have been bullied into sheepish silence. America is literally being inundated with immorality and destructive religious and political philosophies due, in large part, to the mistaken notion that fatal error should not be openly confronted, exposed, and condemned.
Consider this parallel: when a child engages in behavior that is disobedient, or even dangerous to his own physical safety, a parent is called upon to discipline the child. A variety of forms of discipline might be used in the process, including instruction, verbal reprimands, removal of privileges, physical restraint, and even corporal punishment (in harmony with Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; et al.; cf. Miller, 2003). What child in such a predicament does not think the parents are being unkind, harsh, insensitive, accusatory, and intolerant? The child would likely view the parents’ actions as violent. If the parent raises his or her voice in the process, the parent could easily be perceived as mean or out of control. Yet, the child’s perception reflects immaturity, as well as a lack of spiritual development and the cultivation of “the peaceable fruit of righteousness” in one’s heart and life (cf. Hebrews 12:11). Observe, then, that those who raise the specter of “bashing,” immediately dismissing anyone who speaks against a religion or behavior, are actually spiritually immature individuals who have not yet grasped the mind of Christ.

The Only Standard

Does the Bible provide instances in which God, Christ, or their approved representatives called names or criticized specific persons, groups, doctrines, and behaviors? Did Jesus or the apostles ever mention people by name and identify the error being espoused? Did God’s emissaries ever speak out publicly against specific persons and viewpoints? As a matter of fact, the Bible is replete with such instances. Consider the following few from both Old and New Testaments which illustrate and confirm this ongoing feature of God’s nature.

Old Testament Examples

(1) Numbers 16: Moses confronted Korah, Dathan, and Abiram publicly— in the presence of their families and even the entire nation.
(2) Numbers 25: The names of Zimri and Cozbi are forever publicly emblazoned in Scripture for their evil deeds. They were fatally confronted by the courageous Phinehas. God Himself issued to the entire congregation of Israel His own assessment of their sexually immoral behavior and the valiant response by Phinehas.
(3) Deuteronomy 13: Three scenarios in Israelite society are set forth in which the death penalty was to be invoked. All three concerned the attempt to introduce idolatry into society, whether by a prophet, a family member, or an entire city. In all three cases, the responsible individuals were to be dealt with publicly, with the entire community (“the hand of all the people”) participating in the executions. No concern for privacy was shown to the perpetrators who sought to subvert people from the right ways of God.
(4) Joshua 7: After a glorious victory over Jericho, the nation was plunged into despair by the military defeat at Ai—a fiasco that resulted in the deaths of 36 men and caused the entire population to degenerate into a state of frightful panic. When Joshua tore his clothes, fell on his face before God, whining about their predicament, he asked God why He allowed such to happen. God snapped him back to reality rather quickly with these words: “Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them” (Joshua 7:10-11). God identified the transgression as theft and deceit, but did not specify who in the nation was responsible. Instead, he instructed Joshua to call the nation together the next day and to ascertain the guilty ones (by casting lots—1 Samuel 14:41-42; cf. 1 Samuel 10:19-21; Jonah 1:7; Proverbs 16:33; NOTE: observe the triple use of an expression that further indicates the method was casting lots: “which the LORD takes” [vs. 14]). Joshua was to bring forward the tribal groups, and then work down through the family clans, the households, and finally, the individual men in each household. The process commenced the next morning, culminating with Achan being pinpointed as the culprit. Once the ill-gotten items which he had illegally confiscated from Jericho were recovered from his tent, Joshua urged Achan to confess his sin. Having done so, he was taken to the Valley of Achor and executed. These events were done publicly, as indicated by the expressions “all the children of Israel” (vs. 23), “all Israel with him” (vs. 24), and “all Israel” (vs. 25). Question: Were God and Joshua’s actions “motivated by bigotry”? Were their actions “a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack” on Achan and his family? Did they “engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism”? Were they guilty of violating the Golden Rule, or bashing?
(5) 1 Kings 18: Elijah engaged in a public disputation with those who promoted an erroneous religion. He even “mocked” (vs. 27) the false prophets as the day wore on and their public humiliation increased. When a courageous spokesman for truth and morality stands up publicly and con-fronts people, or admonishes or rebukes them, he is merely emulating the same behavior Elijah exhibited—who even ordered the false teachers to be seized and executed (vs. 40).
(6) Psalms: Among the 150 psalms in the book of Psalms are a number that are classified as “imprecatory” psalms (e.g., 7,35,55,58,59,69,79,109,137,139). In these psalms, the inspired writer invokes severe denunciations and curses on the enemies of God. Expressions like, “Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly” (35:8), and “Let them go down alive into hell (sheol)” (55:15), would, to the “politically correct” mindset of many in America today, be viewed as “bashing” people. But this assessment would be premature, immature, and unspiritual. The imprecatory psalms serve several noble purposes, including (1) encouraging the wicked to turn to God, (2) confirming God’s righteous judgment against the wicked, and even (3) comforting the righteous and stimulating them to praise God (7:17). Such piercing expressions can actually indicate possession of a depth of righteous regard for what is right and pure that imitates God Himself (cf. the phrase “zealous with My zeal” in Numbers 25:11; also Miller, 2013). We must nurture and shape our own spiritual sensibilities to mirror God’s.

new testament examples

Moving to the New Testament, Jesus was the Master example of defending the Faith in public to the point of openly rebuking those who championed error.
(1) Matthew 23 constitutes a scathing denunciation of the Pharisees. This obviously harsh rebuke (cf. Proverbs 15:10) was done publicly in the presence of both His disciples as well as a “multitude” (vs. 1) of people—with the Pharisees apparently present as well, whom Jesus addressed directly (vss. 13ff.). While this forceful, direct condemnation was not typical of Jesus’ interactions, it was nevertheless appropriate and exemplary. Observe closely some of the expressions Jesus used to identify the scribes and Pharisees: “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “fools,” and “brood of vipers.” He used several penetrating, abrasive words to identify their behaviors. Yet, we know Jesus never said or did anything that was unChristlike, unkind, or inappropriate. By today’s skewed sensibilities, there’s no question that Jesus “bashed” the scribes and Pharisees. But call it what you will, He did nothing wrong. Hence, identifying immoral behavior and false religion today is not inherently wrong. [NOTE: While religious liberals typically identify the moral and religious conservative as “pharisaical” (or “the radical right”), the fact is, quite ironically, the exact opposite is true. Those who are lax in the strictures of the Bible and Christian morality are the spiritual heirs of pharisaism. As Jesus declared in Matthew 15: “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9). They are the ones who are “blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14).]
(2) John 2: When Jesus cleansed the temple (twice), driving the moneychangers and their animals out of the temple, pouring out their monies, and overturning their tables (Matthew 21:12; John 2:15), He must have appeared to be incredibly abrasive, harsh, mean-spirited, intolerant, fanatical, unkind, and bigoted. He certainly would be perceived today as “bashing.” Yet, again, we know that the holy Son of God did nothing wrong. The carnally minded person may well have difficulty comprehending such actions, but the “spiritually minded” (Romans 8:6) person grasps the gravity of the situation and understands the necessity of firm action. The eternal destiny of precious human souls is at stake!
(3) Acts 5: The names of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, are recorded publicly for all time, even as Peter’s confrontation of their actions was public. The events caused awareness of their deeds to spread throughout the area (vs. 11).
(4) Acts 18: Apollos engaged in public refutation of those Jews who conflicted with the truth: “for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 18:28).
(5) 1 Corinthians 5: One of the members of the church in Corinth was guilty of fornication. Fornication in New Testament (Koine) Greek is a broad term that includes illicit sexual intercourse of every kind—including homosexuality, bestiality, bisexuality, and pedophilia (Reisser, 1975, 1:497-500). Yet, Paul enshrined in an inspired document for all time a public condemnation of the wayward member, and insisted that the church take public action against him: “when you are gathered together…deliver such a one to Satan” (vs. 4, emp. added). They were to “purge out the old leaven” (vs. 7) and “put away from yourselves the evil person” (vs. 13). All these instructions entail public identification and declaration of a single individual’s spiritual infractions. Immoral behavior (e.g., homosexuality), political principles (e.g., socialism, Marxism, atheistic communism), and religious ideologies (e.g., Islam) that undermine Christian civilization, the core concepts on which America was founded, must be exposed and refuted publicly—even as they are flaunting themselves in the public sector. Organizations, politicians, and individuals who foment the moral and religious corruption of society—in government, education, and beyond—must be confronted.
(6) Galatians 2: Paul included inspired, public remarks concerning the misconduct of even a fellow apostle:

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14, emp. added).

The phrase “before them all” is rendered “in front of them all” in the NIV, and “in the presence of all” in the NASB. The action was done publicly. Was Paul guilty of being unkind? Was he guilty of “bashing” Peter, or failing to treat Peter the way he, himself, wanted to be treated? To ask is to answer.
(7) 1 Timothy 5: Paul informed Timothy that for elders who sin, he should “rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20). Observe: not only are there situations in which even the leaders of a church are to be publicly reprimanded, but a critical and extremely significant purpose is served: “that the rest also may fear.” Public confrontation of those who dispense moral or doctrinal error is one important means by which the spread of that or similar misconduct may be checked and discouraged (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6; Deuteronomy 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). Public identification of error, and those who espouse and spread it, is a very valuable aid in helping people to sort through the issues and keep themselves on the straight and narrow. It is also a powerful stimulus to avoid misconduct, since we typically wish to avoid being shamed publicly (2 Thessalonians 3:14). One of the tragic features of America’s spiral into moral degradation has been the failure of society to maintain public disapproval of misbehavior—from punishing school children in the classroom with paddling and other forms of public shame, the shaming of unwed mothers, public condemnation of sexual perversion, and a host of other actions that aid in keeping a civilization from rushing toward moral depravity and eventual destruction. Once evil was allowed to “come out of the closet” and be “tolerated” without culture-wide expressions of disapproval, a landslide of corruption has been the inevitable result in our society. The propaganda of “tolerance” and “bashing” is fomenting and hastening America’s moral and spiritual downfall.
(8) 1 Timothy 1: Consider Paul’s admonition to the young preacher Timothy:

This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:18-20, emp. added).

Observe that Paul not only enshrined publicly the names of two people for the entire world for all time, he also instructed Timothy as an evangelist to wage spiritual warfare (2 Timothy 2:3ff.) by standing up to those who manifest faulty faith and seared consciences. Paul’s comments to Timothy about these wayward individuals were public, and not even directly addressed to Hymenaeus and Alexander. The remarks were an admonition to Timothy about them, in precisely the same way that concerned citizens today warn about the threat of false religion and sexual perversion to the spiritual health of the nation. Thus, to mention names in this way cannot be construed as gossip or slander. In fact, Paul made clear that Christians are to turn such impenitent people over to Satan in hopes of teaching them a lesson. [NOTE: To “turn over to Satan” was an expression that meant to acknowledge publicly that the individual had abandoned God’s truth and thus removed himself from the kingdom and placed himself back under the influence of Satan (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4).] And notice that “fighting the good fight” (1 Timothy 6:12), and the fact that “we wrestle…against spiritual hosts of wickedness” (Ephesians 6:12), and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Corinthians 10:4) are admonitions that must inevitably entail public confrontation of spiritual adversaries. The presentation of the precepts of the Gospel inevitably includes “rebuke” (2 Timothy 4:2). To suggest that we cannot or should not name names or speak out against immoral behavior is to hamper the accomplishment of the very task God has assigned to Christians in their spiritual warfare.
(9) 2 Timothy 1/2: Paul made similar remarks in his second letter to Timothy:

This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes…. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-18, emp. added).

Once again, calling specific people’s names and the moral error they promote is fully scriptural and Christlike. Notice also that these comments were made to Timothy, not directly to the individuals to whom Paul was referring. Observe further that doing so may help other people’s moral and spiritual condition from being overthrown.
(10) 2 Timothy 3: Some 1,500 years after-the-fact, by divine inspiration, Paul recorded the names of what appear to be the Egyptian magicians that withstood Moses and Aaron in their efforts to convince Pharaoh of God’s truth: “Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith” (2 Timothy 3:8). This public name-calling was issued in the context of those who were contemporary with Timothy who were guilty of the same behavior as the Egyptians of old.
(11) 2 Timothy 4: Paul’s final inspired instructions to Timothy include the following:

[F]or Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words (2 Timothy 4:10-15, emp. added).

Observe that if it is right and proper to name the names of those who do right and remain faithful, it is just as scriptural to name the names of those who do not.
(12) Titus 1: Paul issued comparable instructions to the evangelist Titus in his work on the Island of Crete. These instructions included the inevitability of public debate to silence purveyors of error and to prevent them from subverting whole households (1:10ff.). Again, public identification of those who promote morally harmful or spiritually destructive ideas and behaviors is indispensable to inhibiting the spread of damaging influences.

summary

Think of it: Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Zimri, Cozbi, Achan, Ananias, Sapphira, Phygellus, Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, Jannes, Jambre, Demas—names forever ensconced in the annals of inspired writ, along with many others (e.g., Judas). Is the Author of the Bible a “basher”? Was He unkind, unloving, rude, or “intolerant” for calling such names? For those who still have respect for the Bible as the Word of God, the answer is obvious. A host of additional examples are found in the pages of Holy Writ. The Bible clearly teaches that naming names and identifying specific individuals, religions, and groups with regard to their beliefs and practice is not inherently wrong. Indeed, if the Bible were being authored today, the Holy Spirit would certainly include the names of those who promote moral depravity and false religion, even as He did in the first century (e.g., Revelation 2:6,14-15,20; 3:16). Such action is, in fact, required by God of those who wish to be counted faithful to Him. Indeed, the concept of public confrontation of sin is an extremely prominent doctrine—a feature that coincides with and emanates from the very nature of God.
The above instances, and a host just like them, demonstrate that part of the nature of God is to address fatal error openly and publicly. After all, “[o]pen rebuke is better than love carefully concealed” (Proverbs 27:5). Hence, those who perpetuate the “bashing” myth in our society, to be consistent, must pronounce God Himself to be harsh, unloving, and guilty of bashing people. They must view themselves as more loving than deity. Such is the conundrum into which a person places himself when he buys into the liberal agenda. But God is perfect, unable to sin, and the very essence of love (1 John 4:7-8). He endorses naming specific people and groups. Hence, the “politically correct” segment of society, including religious liberals, are simply misguided by the arrogant claim to be more loving and understanding than God and everyone else.
Observe that anytime a person makes a negative comment publicly regarding the actions of any present or past historical figure (e.g., Barack Obama, George Bush, Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Napoleon, Nero, George Washington, Charles Manson, Bonnie and Clyde, etc.), that person is logically engaging in the same behavior that this article defends. If it is wrong to make verbal, public assessments of politicians and historical personages, then history books are sinful if they include any remarks of a negative nature—pointing out mistakes or even evil actions performed by those individuals (e.g., murder, bank robbery, conquering nations). Indeed, the Bible itself records the sinful actions committed by hundreds of individuals throughout the centuries. The person who condemns public confrontation of error, while reading and accepting the Bible, is guilty of duplicitous conduct.
The issue, then, is not whether error and misbehavior should be identified publicly, but rather how it is identified, i.e., in what manner and with what spirit and attitude. God loves the sinner but hates the sinner’s sin (Romans 12:9; Jude 22-23). But this love cannot necessarily be seen in the outward acts that God manifests in dealing with false religion and immorality, since many of His confrontations throughout Bible history have appeared on the surface, to the unspiritual mindset, to be rather harsh. Hence, when a human confronts error, observers must take care that they do not assume that the confronter’s motive is insincere or unloving. There may well be external indicators that would lead one to conclude that the accuser is unloving and unconcerned for the souls of those he may challenge. But one must not assume anything merely on account of the act of pinpointing error.

Is public rebuke ever inappropriate?

Born of Animosity

The Bible most certainly indicates that there are limitations and restrictions with regard to public rebuke. Some examples would include occasions in which the speaker shows an unmistakable attitude of contempt for those he criticizes. He may smirk disrespectfully or use snide words that are demeaning, even crude. He may presume to know the motives and make judgments about a person’s heart. He may say things that are clearly personal attacks, rather than remaining focused on the specific doctrinal or moral issue under consideration. He might even convey to his hearers a personal dislike for the person he criticizes, rather than manifesting a genuine love and desire that the wayward be reclaimed and his soul be saved (Proverbs 10:18).

False Accusation

Another case where public rebuke is wrong is when the one doing the rebuking does not have his facts correct. In doing so, he fails to speak the truth. He becomes guilty of unrighteous judgment and making illegitimate assessments without sufficient evidence—thus judging according to the “appearance” of things (John 7:24). He is guilty of false accusation (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 19:18-19; Luke 3:14), and perhaps even slander (Proverbs 10:18; 2 Timothy 3:3). Further, there is the situation in which the accuser is guilty of the very thing he condemns in others (Romans 2:1; John 8:1-11). In addition to his hypocrisy, he is guilty of discrediting the legitimacy of the cause he advocates. Jesus articulated the antidote for such a one: “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).

Handle Privately

There are also clear situations in which a wayward person should first receive private instruction rather than being confronted publicly with his infractions (e.g., Matthew 18:15; Acts 18:26). Yet such instances do not imply that all public rebuke is wrong, or must be preceded by private contact. When “ravenous wolves” in “sheep’s clothing,” who have an ongoing history of promoting moral evil and subverting many people, are devouring the flock—be it the church, the court, or the country—time is of the essence, and a response in kind, i.e., as public and direct as his own tactics, is called for. He should be publicly identified (see Matthew 7:15, Acts 20:29, and Romans 16:17 with regard to God’s warnings about false teachers). Satan wants the truth to be stifled so that he can make unimpeded progress. Being silent and avoiding direct confrontation leaves people spiritually vulnerable.
One must also take into consideration the audience in front of whom the public rebuke occurs. We ought to be careful about carte blanche “airing of dirty laundry” in the presence of those who do not need to hear the information. Genuine love for the kingdom of Christ and the souls involved will cause one to use discretion as to how far and wide the matter is repeated. Creating a Web site for the whole world to see, in order to broadcast the alleged misdeeds of a fellow Christian far beyond the relevant audience, is hardly wise, judicious, circumspect, kind, or useful.

Gossip

We must also recognize the difference between appropriate public rebuke and the sin of gossip. We humans seem to gravitate toward tidbits of information that expose the failings of others. Without going into the detail that such a subject merits (since the Bible has a great deal to say about the sins of gossip, slander, backbiting, whispering, tale-bearing, reviling, and the like: Romans 1:30; 2 Corinthians 12:20; 1 Timothy 3:11; 5:13; Titus 2:3; 1 Peter 2:1; James 4:11; et al.), let it be said that public rebuke of persons who promote error cannot inherently be gossip—since, as amply noted above, God did it and requires the faithful to do it. The intent of the heart of the confronter, the purpose of the rebuke, and the nature and certainty of the error being identified are a few of the criteria that serve to distinguish between gossip and legitimate public confrontation.

An Objection

Consider one objection that has been offered in response to the thesis of this article: “Just because God or His inspired emissaries called names and pinpointed false religion and immoral persons publicly, it does not follow that we are qualified or authorized to do so—we’re not God and we’re not inspired.” This quibble fails to recognize that if God called names and specified purveyors of error publicly (and endorsed others who did so), such behavior cannot be taboo. If speaking against immorality and false religion is inherently wrong and unloving, then God would not have engaged in such behavior. God Himself and the emissaries He endorsed would be guilty of sin. On the contrary, it is evident from the ongoing application of this principle that God authorizes—and even requires—its use by all persons, when done correctly and accurately. Further, since this behavior is obviously part of the very nature of God, and since our constant desire should be to want to be like God, we should emulate Him in our revulsion of the destructive error promoted by individuals and groups that will result in the loss of souls (cf. Numbers 25:11,13). Indeed, to confront error is Christlike. The sober warning of the apostle Peter sounds eerily apropos to America today:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words (2 Peter 2:1-3).

What would God have us to do under such circumstances? “[E]xhort and convict those who contradict” and “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:9,13). “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). “[E]ven so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).

a word of caution

Two cautionary considerations: First, there are those who claim to be Christian who have a reputation for conducting themselves like rabid dogs that bite, tear, and devour those who disagree with them (cf. Galatians 5:15). They resort to unchristian behavior and tactics under the guise that they are contending for the faith. As Paul explained to the Philippian Christians: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely” (vss. 15-16, emp. added). Such persons are self-condemned, and do more harm to the cause than good. Their behavior is certainly not the action that this article advocates, and we do not endorse such wicked behavior. But, in our haste to refrain from emulating such individuals, we must not allow ourselves to go to the other extreme and fail to oppose that which God expects to be publicly opposed.
Second, not every difference of opinion on a particular matter merits public confrontation. In fact, sadly, much ungodly, unnecessary division has been foisted upon society, doing untold damage to the cause of Christ and the tranquility of the church, by those who relish contention, strife, and wrangling with others on matters of opinion. Christians are permitted by God to hold differing opinions on a host of matters that have no eternal consequence, and that do not affect a person’s spiritual standing before God. Christians must grow to the point that they are able to distinguish between matters of option and matters of obligation, and make certain that any public disturbances are necessitated by the latter, not the former (cf. Hebrews 5:14).
May we strive in our study of the Bible to become acquainted with the God of the Bible, and to seek to be like Him (to the extent that we frail human beings are able to do so). May God bless us with unwavering determination to “have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). May we rise up in the midst of a civilization that is in the throes of a moral and spiritual freefall and, “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), articulate the will of the Creator for all people.

REFERENCES

Bloom, Allan (1987), The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Bork, Robert (1996), Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: ReganBooks).
Declaration of Independence (1776), National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
Editorial (2012), “The Chick-fil-A Business,” New York Times, July 30, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-chick-fil-a-business.html.
Jefferson, Thomas (1789), “Letter to James Madison,” The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit (tj050135)).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Children and the Rod of Correction,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1255.
Miller, Dave (2013), “The Imprecatory Psalms,” Reason & Revelation, 33[8]:86-88,92-94, August, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1#.
Reisser, Horst (1975), Porneuo, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Testability by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=700

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Testability

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

As modern science has acquired the ability to see deeper and deeper into the natural world, problems with the waning theory of evolution continue to plague its proponents. A multiplicity of natural, biological systems exhibit complexity that could not have arisen through natural, evolutionary processes. In response to these findings, the Intelligent Design movement has begun to gain major footholds in academic circles. In a nutshell, intelligent design suggests that many natural systems are too complex to have evolved.
In an attempt to discredit intelligent design, supporters of evolution have made and repeated one primary line of attack. They posit that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. The writings of those who bring this accusation against intelligent design are legion. In an article titled, “UNLV Teachers Dismiss ‘Design’ Theory,” the author quotes Stanley Smith, professor of the Department of Biological Sciences, as saying: “[S]cience includes hypotheses that must be tested and proved or discarded.” Smith then stated: “All science follows the scientific method, in which we make observations in nature, create testable hypotheses as to why we see patterns that we do and then conduct experiments that test those hypotheses” (as quoted in Thomas, 2005). Smith further quipped that intelligent design does not meet this criterion. Associate professor of biological sciences, Steven de Belle, commented on intelligent design as well. He stated: “‘It is not science. The defining feature of the scientific method is lacking in ID,’ which includes making observations and testing hypotheses” (Thomas, 2005).
In an article describing the University of Kansas decision to teach a course on intelligent design as religious myth, Paul Mirecki, the chair of KU’s religious studies department, and teacher of the new course, commented on intelligent design in this way: “Creationism is mythology.... Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not” (Gendall, 2005).
In his article titled “Scientific Theories More Than Guesses,” Jonathan Hoffman wrote: “Thomas Harrington correctly pointed out that a scientific theory is testable and falsifiable. What he failed to state, however, is that ‘intelligent design’ does not meet these criteria” (2005).
Here, then, is the alleged situation. Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and confirmed. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not scientific because it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified, and therefore should not be viewed as science. In order to sort this out, it would be appropriate to see just how testable and falsifiable the theory of organic evolution really is.
Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals. This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is a testable idea. Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald wrote in Biological Sciences: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation” (1963, p. 42). David Kirk noted: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent” (1975, p. 7). And Martin Moe stated:

A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).

According, then, to every piece of experimental data that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals. Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verifies this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). And yet, the general population is being led to believe that evolution is scientific because it is experimentally testable and falsifiable? If, by scientific, it is meant that, regardless of the outcome of the experiments, the theory will be maintained, then by all means evolution is scientific. In reality, the origin of life according to organic evolution has been tested and disproved. Therefore, if the foremost precept of organic evolution is untestable (at the least) and has been satisfactorily disproved (at the most), how can its advocates maintain that it alone belongs in the science classroom?
Is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified? In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. Basically, millions of dollars were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in biological systems such as DNA and living organisms (see Butt, 2005).
Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically. Countless tests have been designed to assess the amount of intelligence possessed by individuals. Web sites that discuss such testing often use words and terms for their tests such as “scientifically valid,” “intelligence testing,” “developed by Ph.D.s,” etc. (see IQtest Home Page). From such admissions, it can be inferred that intelligence is measurable and testable. If a person could take the different aspects of IQ tests that verify intelligence and apply them to things that are studied in the natural world, then intelligence could be tested and verified. In essence, that is exactly what has been done in intelligent design books such as Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and William Dembski’s Intelligent Design.
W.R. Thompson, in his introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, stated it perfectly when he said:

It is...right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (p. xxii).

In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism. Furthermore, they know that evolution cannot be tested nor is it any more scientific than intelligent design; in fact, it is less so. Therefore, in order for them to keep it ensconced in textbooks, they must suppress criticism of it and not allow its varied and numerous flaws to be considered critically. The situation that has arisen due to this irrational adherence to evolution is nothing short of “abnormal and undesirable in science.” The next time someone demands that evolution is testable, ask for the experimental evidence that confirms that life came from non-life and observe the tell-tale silence that speaks the truth.

REFERENCES

Behe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press).
Butt, Kyle (2005), “The SETI Project, Falling “Floppy Discs,” and A Major Missed Implication,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/361.
Dembski, William A. (1999), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Gendall, Michael (2005), “Religious Course Stresses Mythology,” [On-line], URL: http://badgerherald.com/news/2005/11/29/religious_course_str.php.
Hoffman, Jonathan (2005), “Scientific Theories More Than Guesses,” [On-line], URL: http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051129column.php.
IQtest Home Page (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.iqtest.com/.
Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).
Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
Thomas, Laurel (2005), “UNLV Teachers Dismiss ‘Design’ Theory,” [On-line], URL: http://unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=880.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.
Thompson, W.R. (1956), “Introduction,” Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (New York: Dutton: Everyman’s Library).
Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World).

Answering Christ’s Critics by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=578

Answering Christ’s Critics

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: Unbelief & skepticism continue to expand their impact on society. Recent attacks on the person of Christ have come from The DaVinci Code as well as the so-called “gospel of Judas.” According to www.thebeastmovie.com, on June 6, 2006 (i.e., 6/6/6) a movie ridiculing the historicity of Christ (titled The Beast) is scheduled to be released in theatres worldwide. Likely many will ponder over questions that these sources raise regarding whether Jesus ever really lived, or if He did, whether He was a fraud. Others may simply choose to believe whatever they read, hear, or see. Regardless, Christians need to be prepared to give reasonable answers (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) when they are called upon to defend their faith in the Son of God. Twice in the past decade Apologetics Press has dealt extensively in Reason and Revelation with the historicity of Christ (see Jackson, 1998, 18[1]:6-7; Butt, 2000, 20[1]:1-6). This issue of R&R deals with questions critics of Christ often ask once they realize that His existence 2,000 years ago is indisputable. We hope that you benefit from learning how easily the allegations can be refuted.]
Once skeptics come to the realization that the evidence for the historicity of Christ and the historical accuracy of the New Testament cannot logically be explained away, the next step frequently taken by critics of Christ is to attack the Bible’s own portrayal of Jesus. If the enemies of Christ can discredit His claims of divinity by demonstrating instances of deceitfulness and inappropriate behavior in His life, then Jesus certainly could not be Who He and the Bible writers claimed that He was—God in the flesh (John 1:1,14). However, if the charges against Jesus’ life and character are proven to be fallacious or unsubstantiated, then such accusations should be dismissed, and Jesus’ true identity must either be accepted or rejected based upon the fact that the Bible’s portrayal of the life of Christ is consistent with His claims of deity.
So what have critics alleged about the Son of God? In an essay that appeared on evilbible.com, one enemy of Christ wrote: “Dear believer: ...I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, for his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped and not worshipped” (Schnook, n.d.). Atheist Dan Barker observed in an article titled “Why Jesus?”: “It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity—mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice—than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus” (1993). Another critic of Christ has stated: “...Jesus taught few precepts that he himself did not violate! According to the Bible, JESUS WAS A HYPOCRITE AND NOT REALLY PERFECT AFTER ALL”! (Morgan, 1996, emp. in orig.). Allegedly, Jesus did and said many questionable things throughout His ministry that should cause one to flee from Him rather than follow Him. This article addresses several of those criticisms and provides reasonable responses in defense of the deity and unblemished disposition of Christ.

DID JESUS IGNORE THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT?

Like many critics of the life of Christ today, the first-century Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, the Pharisees came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the book of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence (as are many critics today), that on one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went through the grainfields on the Sabbath...were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived likely was even more relentless than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, “Jesus ignored the restrictions as to what can’t be done on the Sabbath” (McKinsey, 2000, p. 265). He supposedly allowed His disciples to “work” on this particular Sabbath, which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).
Jesus responded to the criticism of His enemies by giving the truth of the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David (recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was inconvenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. Like many of Jesus’ enemies today, “The Pharisees were out to ‘get’ Jesus; and any charge was better than none” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the pharisaical interpretation of the law (which was more sacred to some Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated: “In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields!” (p. 165, emp. added).
Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to cause the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to exonerate His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field—an act that the law permitted—yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question—silence—was that of hypocrites who had been exposed.
Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.

They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).

One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath (Leviticus 12:3; John 7:22-23). The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [NOTE: Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6; cf. Coffman, p. 167). Jesus did not ignore nor encourage defiance of God’s command to keep the Sabbath.

DID JESUS BREAK THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT?

Consider the mother who asks her son to do something for a neighbor, and the son responds to his mother by saying, “Woman, what does that have to do with me?” Responding to a mother’s (or any woman’s) request in twenty-first-century America with the refrain, “Woman...,” sounds impolite and offensive. Furthermore, a Christian, who is commanded to honor his father and mother (Ephesians 6:2), would be out of line in most situations when using such an expression while talking directly to his mother.
In light of the ill-mannered use of the word “woman” in certain contexts today, some question how Jesus could have spoken to His mother 2,000 years ago using this term without breaking the commandment to “[h]onor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12; cf. Matthew 15:4; Matthew 5:17-20). When Jesus, His disciples, and His mother were at the wedding in Cana of Galilee where there was a depletion of wine, Mary said to Jesus, “They have no wine” (John 2:3). Jesus then responded to His mother, saying, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). Notice what one skeptic has written regarding what Jesus said in this verse.

In Matt. 15:4 he [Jesus—EL] told people to “Honor thy father and thy mother”; yet, he was one of the first to ignore his own maxim by saying to his mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 44).
Imagine someone talking to his own mother in such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as ‘woman.’ Talk about an insolent offspring! (1995, p. 134).
Jesus needs to practice some parental respect... (McKinsey, 2000, p. 251).
Apparently Jesus’ love escaped him (McKinsey, n.d., “Jesus...”).
Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother? In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus. Surely the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn’t he, (and she was the mother of God—Ed.) not to mention the fact that the son of God would never be rude? (Mc­Kinsey, n.d., “Problems...,” parenthetical comment in orig.).

As one can see, Mr. McKinsey is adamant that Jesus erred. He uses such words to describe Jesus as disrespectful, insolent, unloving, and rude. Is he correct?
As with most of Christ’s critics, Mr. McKinsey is guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in twenty-first-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in their proper first-century setting. It was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman (gunai)....” This “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address” (Vincent, 1997), “with no idea of censure” (Robertson, 1932, 5:34). The New International Version correctly captures the meaning of this word in John 2:4: “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” (emp. added). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith (Matthew 15:28), when affectionately addressing Mary Magdalene after His resurrection (John 20:15), and when speaking to His disconsolate mother one last time from the cross (John 19:26). Paul used this same word when addressing Christian women (1 Corinthians 7:16). As Adam Clarke noted: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers” (1996).
As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (gunai) instead of “mother” (meetros) when speaking to Mary (which even in first-century Hebrew and Greek cultures was an unusual way to address one’s mother), Leon Morris noted that Jesus most likely was indicating

that there is a new relationship between them as he enters his public ministry.... Evidently Mary thought of the intimate relations of the home at Nazareth as persisting. But Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but “the Son of Man” who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51). A new relationship was established (1995, p. 159).

R.C.H. Lenski added: “[W]hile Mary will forever remain his [Jesus’—EL] mother, in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men. The common earthly relation is swallowed up in the divine” (1961b, p. 189). It is logical to conclude that Jesus was simply “informing” His mother in a loving manner that as He began performing miracles for the purpose of proving His deity and the divine origin of His message, His relationship to her was about to change.
Finally, the point also must be stressed that honoring fathers and mothers does not mean that a son or daughter never can correct his or her parents. Correction and honor are no more opposites than correction and love. One of the greatest ways parents disclose their love to their children is by correcting them when they make mistakes (Hebrews 12:6-9; Revelation 3:19). Similarly, one of the ways in which a mature son might honor his parents is by taking them aside when they have erred, and lovingly pointing out their mistake or oversight in a certain matter. Think how much more honorable this action would be than to take no action and allow them to continue in a path of error without informing them of such. We must keep in mind that even though Mary was a great woman “who found favor with God” (Luke 1:30), she was not perfect (cf. Romans 3:10,23). She was not God, nor the “mother of God” (viz., she did not originate Jesus or bring Him into existence). But, she was the one chosen to carry the Son of God in her womb. Who better to correct any misunderstanding she may have had than this Son?

DID JESUS VIOLATE THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT BY ENCOURAGING THIEVERY?

Numerous passages of Scripture teach—either explicitly or implicitly—about the sinfulness of thievery. One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In the book of Leviticus, one can read where “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them... You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.... You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him’ ” (19:1-2,11,13). If a thief was found breaking into a house at night and was struck so that he died, the old law stated that there would be “no guilt for his bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Under the new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, saying, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (4:28). And to the Christians at Corinth, Paul wrote that thieves “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, God obviously considers stealing to be a transgression of His law.
Critics of the deity of Christ, however, assert that Jesus once commanded His disciples to steal a donkey and a colt prior to entering Jerusalem during the final week of His life. According to Matthew’s gospel account, Jesus instructed His disciples, saying, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them” (Matthew 21:1-3). Luke added: “So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, ‘Why are you loosing the colt?’ And they said, ‘The Lord has need of him.’ Then they brought him to Jesus” (Luke 19:32-35). Regarding this story, McKinsey asked: “Are we to believe this isn’t theft? Imagine seeing a stranger driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it” (1985, p. 1). Allegedly, “Jesus told people to take a colt...without the owners’ permission.” And that, says McKinsey, is “commonly known as stealing” (2000, p. 236). Another infidel by the name of Dan Barker commented on this event in the life of Jesus in his book, Losing Faith in Faith, saying, “I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing” (1992, p. 166). But did Jesus really encourage His disciples to steal a donkey and a colt? Can His actions be explained logically in light of the numerous statements throughout Scripture that clearly condemn thievery?
Before responding to these criticisms, consider the following: If a husband were to e-mail his wife and ask her to walk to a neighbor’s house and pick up the neighbor’s truck so that he could use it to haul an old furnace to the junkyard, would someone who read his e-mail (perhaps finding a hard copy of it crumpled up in the trash) be justified in concluding that this gentleman asked his wife to steal the truck? Certainly not. Since the e-mail had no other information in it than a request for the wife concerning a neighbor’s truck, a person reading the note would have to have access to additional information in order to come to the conclusion that this man and his wife were guilty of theft. The reader may be ignorant of the fact that the husband had prearranged such a pick-up with his neighbor the previous day. Or, perhaps the neighbor had told the husband at some earlier time that he could use his truck whenever he needed it.
What Mr. McKinsey and other skeptics never seem to take into consideration in their interpretation of Scripture is that the Bible does not record every single detail of every event it mentions (cf. John 21:25). The Bible was not intended to be an exhaustive chronological timeline citing every aspect about the lives of all of the men and women mentioned within it. The New Testament book of Acts covers a period of about thirty years, but it actually is only about some of the acts of some of the early Christians. There were many more things that Paul, Peter, Silas, Luke, and other first-century Christians did that are not recorded therein. For example, Paul spent three years in Arabia and Damascus after his conversion (Galatians 1:16-18), yet Luke did not mention this detail, nor the many things Paul accomplished during these three years.
The case of Jesus telling His disciples to go locate the donkey and colt does not prove thievery, any more than Jesus’ disciples inquiring about and occupying an “upper room” makes them trespassers (cf. Mark 14:13-15). When sending His two disciples to get the requested animals, Jesus told them exactly where to go and what to say, as if He already knew the circumstances under which the donkey and colt were available. Jesus may very well have prearranged for the use of the donkeys. Neither Mr. McKinsey nor any other skeptic can prove otherwise. Similar to how a man is not obligated to go home from work every night and rehearse to his wife everything he did each hour at work, the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event, including the one regarding the attainment of two animals. No contradiction or charge of wrong is legitimate if unrelated circumstantial details may be postulated that account for explicit information that is given.
Furthermore, the innocence of Jesus and His disciples is reinforced by the fact that the disciples were able to leave with the beasts. Had the disciples really been stealing the animals, one would think that the owners would not have allowed such to happen. Also, nothing is said in the text about what happened to the animals after Jesus rode them into Jerusalem. For all we know, Jesus’ disciples could have immediately taken them back to their owners.
Skeptics who accuse the Lord of thievery have no solid ground upon which to stand. Unless it can be proven that Jesus’ disciples took the animals by force (and without prior permission), justice demands that the accusations of guilt must be withdrawn.

WAS JESUS TRUSTWORTHY?

When Christ spoke to a group of hostile Jews in Jerusalem regarding God the Father, and His own equality with Him (John 5:17-30; cf. 10:30), He defended His deity by pointing to several witnesses, including John the Baptizer, the Father in heaven, and the Scriptures (5:33-47). One statement that has confused some Bible readers concerning Jesus’ defense of His deity is found in John 5:31. Jesus began this part of His discourse by saying, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true” (emp. added). According to many Bible critics, this declaration blatantly contradicts the following statement He made on another occasion when speaking to the Pharisees. He said: “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true” (John 8:14, emp. added). How could He say that His witness was both true, and not true, without having lied?
Imagine for a moment an innocent man on trial for murder. He is judged to be guilty by the jury, even after proclaiming his innocence. (Someone had framed the defendant for the murder, and all the evidence the jury heard pointed to the defendant as the offender.) When leaving the court house, if the man who was wrongly convicted is asked by a reporter, “Are you guilty?,” and he responds by saying, “If the court says I’m guilty, I’m guilty,” has the man lied? Even though the statements, “I am guilty,” and “I am not guilty,” are totally different, they may not be contradictory, depending on the time and sense in which they are spoken. After the trial, the wrongly accused defendant simply repeated the jury’s verdict. He said, “I am guilty,” and meant, “The court has found me guilty.”
When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was not confessing to being a liar. Rather, Jesus was reacting to a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case (Robertson, 1997). “Witness to anyone must always be borne by someone else” (Morris, 1995, p. 287). The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15; cf. Matthew 18:15-17). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). In John 5:31, “Jesus points to the impossibility of anyone’s being accepted on the basis of his own word.... He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear witness to himself, that would make it untrue” in a court of law (Morris, p. 287). If Jesus had no evidence in a trial regarding His deity other than His own testimony about Himself, His testimony would be inconclusive and inadmissible. Jesus understood that His audience had a right to expect more evidence than just His word. Similar to the above illustration where an innocent man accepts the guilty verdict of the jury as final, Jesus said, “My witness is not true,” and meant that, in accordance with the law, His own testimony apart from other witnesses would be considered invalid (or insufficient to establish truth).
But why is it that Jesus said to the Pharisees at a later time that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Even if in a court of law two witnesses are required for a fact to be established (a law Jesus enunciated in verse 17), that law does not take away the fact that Jesus was telling the truth, just as it did not take away the fact that the wrongly accused man mentioned previously was telling the truth during his trial. Jesus declared His testimony to be true for the simple reason that His testimony revealed the true facts regarding Himself (Lenski, 1961b, p. 599). He then followed this pronouncement of truth with the fact that there was another witness—the Father in heaven Who sent Him to Earth (8:16-18). Thus, in actuality, His testimony was true in two senses: (1) it was true because it was indeed factual; and (2) it was valid because it was corroborated by a second unimpeachable witness—the Father.
God the Father (John 8:18; 5:37-38), along with John the Baptizer (John 5:33), the miraculous signs of Jesus (5:36), the Scriptures (5:39), and specifically the writings of Moses (5:46), all authenticated the true statements Jesus made regarding His deity. Sadly, many of His listeners rejected the evidence then, just as people reject it today.

WAS JESUS IGNORANT OF ELIJAH’S ASCENSION?

When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus regarding the need to be “born again” (John 3:1-8), He also sought to impress upon the mind of this ruler of the Jews that His words were from above. Jesus spoke of spiritual things that no man knew (Matthew 13:35; cf. 7:28-29; Luke 2:47). One of the reasons Jesus gave for being able to expound on such spiritual truths is found in John 3:13. Here, the apostle John recorded that Jesus said to Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John 3:13). According to the skeptic, this statement by Jesus is severely flawed. Since the Old Testament reveals that Elijah escaped physical death and “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11; cf. Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5), allegedly Jesus could not truthfully tell Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to heaven.” Is the skeptic right?
For Jesus’ statement to contradict what the Old Testament says about Elijah, one first must presuppose that Jesus was referring to the exact same place to which Elijah ascended. Can the skeptic be certain that the “heaven” to which Jesus referred, is the same one into which the body of Elijah ascended? The words “heaven” or “heavens” appear in our English Bibles about 700 times. And yet, in many of the passages where “heaven(s)” is found, the inspired writers were not discussing the spiritual heaven with which we most often associate the word. For example, in Genesis 1 and 2 the Hebrew word for heaven appears 15 times in 14 verses. Yet in every instance, the word is referring to something besides the spiritual heaven where God dwells. The word “heaven(s)” (Hebrew shamayim, Greek ouranoi) is used by Bible writers in three different ways. It is used to refer to the atmospheric heavens in which the airplanes fly, the birds soar, and the clouds gather (Genesis 1:20; Jeremiah 4:25; Matthew 6:26, ASV). “Heaven(s)” also is used in the Bible when referring to the firmament where we find the Sun, Moon, and stars—the sidereal heavens, or outer space (Genesis 1:14-15; Psalm 19:4,6; Isaiah 13:10). The third “heaven” frequently mentioned in Scripture is the spiritual heaven in which Jehovah dwells (Psalm 2:4; Hebrews 9:24), and where, one day, the faithful will live forevermore (Revelation 21:18-23; John 14:1-3). The context of John 3 clearly indicates that Jesus is referring to the spiritual heavens wherein God dwells (cf. John 3:27). The passage in 2 Kings 2:11, however, is not as clear. The writer of 2 Kings easily could have meant that the body of Elijah miraculously ascended up high into the air, never to be seen by anyone on Earth again. Nowhere does the text indicate that he left Earth at that moment to dwell in God’s presence. He definitely went somewhere, but we have no evidence that he was transferred to the actual throne room of God Almighty.
The Bible indicates that when God’s faithful servants leave this Earth, their spirits are taken to dwell in a place referred to as paradise (or “the bosom of Abraham”—Luke 16:19-31). Recall when Jesus was fastened to the cross, and told the penitent thief, “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The word paradise is of Persian derivation, and means a “garden” or “park.” Where was it that Jesus and the thief went? Neither of them went to heaven to be with God the Father on that very day for, in John 20:17 after His resurrection, Jesus reassured Mary that He had not yet ascended to the Father. So where did Jesus and the thief go after dying on the cross? Peter gave the answer to that question in his sermon in Acts 2 when he quoted Psalm 16. Acts 2:27 states that God would not abandon Christ’s soul in hades, nor allow Christ to undergo decay. So while Christ’s body was placed in a tomb for three days, Christ’s spirit went to hades. [NOTE: The word hades occurs ten times in the New Testament, and always refers to the unseen realm of the dead—the receptacle of disembodied spirits where all people who die await the Lord’s return and judgment. One part of hades, where Jesus and the thief went, is known as paradise.] Peter argued that David, who penned Psalm 16, was not referring to himself, since David’s body was still in the tomb (Acts 2:29), and his spirit was still in the hadean realm (Acts 2:34). Acts 2 indicates that a faithful servant of God does not go directly to be with God the Father when he dies; rather, he goes to a holding place in hades known as paradise—the same place where Abraham went after he died (Luke 16:22ff.), and the same place where the spirit of Elijah went after he was caught up from the Earth. In short, the Bible does not teach that Elijah left Earth to begin immediately dwelling in the presence of the Father (where Jesus was before His incarnation—John 1:1). Thus, technically he did not ascend to the “place” whence Jesus came.
For the sake of argument, consider for a moment that the skeptic is right, and that Elijah’s spirit did not go to paradise, but was taken to dwell in the very presence of God. Could Jesus still have made the statement He did, and yet not be inaccurate? We believe so. Notice again the response to Nicodemus’ question, “How can these things be?” Jesus said: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man” (John 3:12-13, emp. added). It may be that Jesus meant nothing more than that no one has ever gone up to heaven “by his own act” or “on his own terms” (see Bullinger, 1898, pp. 281-282). Elijah and Enoch had been taken by God, which is different than freely ascending up into heaven by one’s own ability. Furthermore, Jesus’ words, “No one has ascended to heaven,” also could have meant that no one has ever gone up into heaven to then return and speak firsthand about what he saw, and to spread the same saving message that Jesus preached. Jesus was emphasizing to Nicodemus how no one on Earth at that time was revealing such spiritual truths as Christ was, because no one ever had ascended to heaven only to return and talk about what he had seen and learned. Such seems to have been the main point Jesus was making in John 3:13. No one on Earth had seen what Jesus had seen, and thus none could teach what He taught.
Truly, the skeptic’s accusation that Jesus either lied or was mistaken regarding His comment to Nicodemus about no one having ascended to heaven is unsubstantiated. Perhaps the word heaven used in 2 Kings 2:11 was not meant to convey the idea of the spiritual heavens in which God dwells. Or, considering the Bible’s teaching on departed spirits of the righteous being in a holding place known as paradise, and not in the actual presence of Almighty God, Jesus could have meant that no person has ever ascended to the throne room of God from which He came. Furthermore, it also is interesting to note that Nicodemus, being “a man of the Pharisees” (John 3:1), and thus one who would have been very well acquainted with the details of the Old Testament, did not respond to Jesus by saying, “Wait a minute, Rabbi. What about Elijah and Enoch? Isn’t it written in the law and prophets that they ascended to heaven?” Surely, had Jesus contradicted something in the law and the prophets, it would have been brought to His attention, especially by a Pharisee. Yet, the apostle John never recorded such a statement.
Admittedly, at first glance, it might appear as if the statements, “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11) and “No man has ascended to heaven” (John 3:13), are incongruous. However, when a person considers all of the possible solutions to the allegation that Jesus was ignorant of Elijah and Enoch’s ascensions, he must admit that such a conclusion is unjustified.

WAS JESUS A HYPOCRITE?

A man who instructs a person to refrain from doing something he deems inappropriate, but then proceeds to do the very thing he forbade the other person to do, is considered a hypocrite. A preacher who teaches about the sinfulness of drunkenness (cf. Gala­tians 5:21), but then is seen a short while later stumbling down the street, intoxicated with alcohol, could be accused of being guilty of hypocrisy. Some have accused Jesus of such insincere teaching. Allegedly, in the very sermon in which He condemned the Pharisees for their unrighteousness (Matthew 5:20), Jesus revealed His own sinfulness by way of condemning those who used a word He sometimes uttered. Based upon His forbiddance of the use of the word “fool” in Matthew 5:22, and His use of this word elsewhere, skeptics have asserted that Jesus (Who the Bible claims “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth”—1 Peter 2:22; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21) was guilty of hypocrisy (see Morgan, 1996; Wells, 2001). In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus stated:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.” But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, “Raca!” shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, “You fool!” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:21-22, emp. added).

Whereas in this passage Jesus warned against the use of the word “fool,” in other passages Jesus openly used this term to describe various people. Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus likened the person who heard His teachings, but did not follow them, to “a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matthew 7:26, emp. added). When teaching about the need to be prepared for His second coming, Jesus compared those who were not ready for His return to five foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-12). Then, while Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for their inconsistency in matters of religion, He stated: “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?” (Matthew 23:16-17; cf. 23:18-19, emp. added). The question that some ask in response to these alleged hypocritical statements is, “How could Jesus condemn the use of the word ‘fool’ in Matthew 5:22, but then proceed to use this word Himself on other occasions?”
First, for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22 to contradict His actions recorded in other passages, the skeptic must prove that the term “fool,” as used in 5:22, is the same word used elsewhere. The Greek word “Raca,” used earlier in Matthew 5:22, is a transliteration of the Aramaic term whose precise meaning is disputed. [Most likely, it means “an empty one who acts as a numskull” (Lenski, 1961a, p. 219; cf. also Robertson, 1930, 1:44).] The exact meaning of the term “fool” (Greek more) in this context also is debated. “Most scholars take it, as the ancient Syrian versions did, to mean you fool” (Bauer, et al., 1957, p. 533, emp. in orig.). Although some assume that more is the vocative of the Greek moros, in all likelihood,

just as “Raca” is a non-Greek word, so is the word more that Jesus used here. If so, then it is a word which to a Jewish ear meant “rebel (against God)” or “apostate”; it was the word which Moses in exasperation used to the disaffected Israelites in the wilderness of Zin... (Numbers 20:10). For these rash words, uttered under intense provocation, Moses was excluded from the Promised Land (Kaiser, et al., 1996, p. 359).

Thus, it is quite possible that more (translated “[Y]ou fool” in Matthew 5:22) is not the normal Greek moros (fool) that Jesus applied to the Pharisees on other occasions (Matthew 23:17,19), but represents the Hebrew moreh (cf. Numbers 20:10). [For this reason, translators of the American Standard Version added a marginal note to this word in Matthew 5:22: “Or, Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation.”] Obviously, if two different words are under consideration, Jesus logically could not be considered a hypocrite.
Second, it must be remembered that Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:22 were made within a context where He was condemning unrighteous anger (5:21-26). Whereas the Pharisees condemned murder, but overlooked the evil emotions and attitudes that sometimes led to the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus condemned both the actions and the thoughts. Instead of dealing with only “peripheral” problems, Jesus went to the heart of the matter. As someone Who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25), Jesus was more than qualified to pronounce judgment upon the hypocritical Pharisees (cf. John 12:48). Like the unrighteousness that characterized the Pharisees’ charitable deeds (Matthew 6:1-4), prayers (6:5-15), fasting (6:16-18), and judgments (7:1-5), Jesus also condemned their unrighteous anger. [NOTE: Jesus did not condemn all anger (cf. Ephesians 4:26; John 2:13-17), only unrighteous anger.] It was in this context that Jesus warned against the use of the word “fool.” Jesus was not prohibiting a person from calling people “fools” if it was done in an appropriate manner (cf. Psalm 14:1), but He was forbidding it when done in the spirit of malicious contempt. He “warned against using the word fool as a form of abuse” that indicated “hatred in one’s heart toward others” (“Fool,” 1986; cf. Matthew 5:43-48). As in many other situations, it seems that the attitude, rather than actual words, is the focus of the prohibition.
While this verse, when taken in its context, is seen to be consistent with Jesus’ words and actions recorded elsewhere in the gospel accounts, His prohibition regarding the manner of a word’s usage should not be overlooked in the apologist’s effort to defend the deity of Christ (or any other Bible doctrine). We may call an atheist a “fool” for not acknowledging God’s existence (Psalm 14:1), but to do so in a hateful, malicious manner is sinful. Remember, the Christian is called to “give a defense to everyone” in a spirit of “meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

CONCLUSION

Although critics of Christ were numerous during the time in which He lived and shortly thereafter, many peoples and nations since that time have either considered Him, at worst, a “sublime person” (cf. Renan, n.d.) and great moral teacher, or, at best, the Son of God. But times have changed. Unfortunately, the world in which we live (even nations founded upon Christian principles, i.e., the United States of America) is becoming less and less tolerant of the personality and teachings of Christ.
With increasing frequency, Jesus’ enemies are casting caustic criticisms at our Lord and His church. Books, journals, Web sites, movies, etc. are being produced at record speed that attempt to undermine the very foundation of Christianity—the fact that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). With this in mind, Christians must prepare themselves for the defense of Christ’s historicity, deity, and spiritual purity. Nothing is more essential to the Christian’s faith than Christ. What then could be more important for Christians to do than to defend Who He really was—the Son of God?

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (1993), “Why Jesus?,” Freedom From Religion Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php.
Bauer, Walter, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butt, Kyle (2000), “The Historical Christ—Fact or Fiction?,” Reason & Revelation, 20[1]:1-6, January.
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Coffman, Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Dummelow, J.R. (1937), One Volume Commentary (New York,NY: MacMillan).
“Fool,” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Jackson, Wayne (1998), “The Historicity of Jesus Christ,” Reason & Revelation, 18[1]:6-7, January.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961a), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961b), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Jesus, Imperfect Beacon,” Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#issref113.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus,” Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1985), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, January.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morgan, Donald (1996), “Jesus Was a Hypocrite,” [On-line], URL: http://www.buffaloatheists.com/articles/group1/jesus%20was%20a%20hipocrite.htm.
Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Renan, Ernest (no date), The Life of Jesus, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/ernest_renan/life_of_jesus.html.
Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Robertson, A.T. (1997), Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schnook, Charlotte (no date), “The Bible is Fit for Worship?” [On-line], URL: http://www.evilbible.com/is_bible_fit_for_worship.htm.
Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL:http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).