105 Sermon Illustrations on Apologetics

THE LETTER TO DIOGNETUS: [The English Text of this letter follows Dr. Haykin's paper]

AN EARLY CHRISTIAN DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH IN THE PLURALISTIC ROMAN EMPIRE

DR. MICHAEL A. G. HAYKIN

Principal, The Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College

130 Gerrard Street East

Toronto, Ontario M5A 3T4

By and large the writings of the New Testament era as well as those from the period immediately following, the works of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, are concerned with establishing the faith and discipline of Christian communities. They are works that generally address those within the fold of Christianity. After 150 A.D., though, there is a noticeable shift in the orientation of Christian literature. There is now a significant stress on what we call apologetics, that is, the presentation of reasons for holding to the Christian faith, the attempt to answer the ridicule and objections of unbelievers, and an attack on alternative world-views in the Graeco-Roman world, exposing their inadequacies and problems for belief.

The Letter to Diognetus, a spirited, stirring defence of the truth of the Christian worldview, is one of the most attractive of these second-century apologies. In fact, Avery Dulles, in his A History of Apologetics, describes it as "the pearl of early Christian apologetics." {Note 1} It stems from the joyous faith of a man who stands amazed at the revelation of God's love in his Son and seeks to persuade a Graeco-Roman pagan by the name of Diognetus to make a similar commitment to the Christian faith. Who wrote this marvellous Christian letter we do not know. From the Greek of the letter it can be observed that "the author was a Christian of cultured mind, with a Classical training, who was possessed of considerable literary skill and style." {Note 2} Nor is the identity of Diognetus, the recipient, known, though some have speculated he may have been one of the tutors of the philosopher-emperor, Marcus Aurelius. {Note 3} Furthermore, beyond the fact that this masterful apologetic was written within the bounds of the Roman Empire, the geographical location of its author is also unknown. However, we do have some idea of its date. There is evidence within the text that would place it in the final quarter of the second century A.D. {Note 4}

Before we look more closely at its reasoned defence of the Christianity, a word should be said about the intriguing circumstances by which we have come to possess this document. We owe our knowledge of the text to a single thirteenth-century manuscript which was discovered in Constantinople in 1436. A western scholar happened upon it in a fish shop where it lay under a pile of wrapping paper. There is little doubt that it would have been used to wrap up a sale if the scholar had not rescued it! At some point in the following century three copies of it were made. The manuscript then disappeared until 1793-1795, when it reappeared at the monastery of Maursmünster in Alsace. At that time the thirteenth-century manuscript was deposited in the university library of Strasbourg. It was good that copies of it had been made for on August 24, 1870, the library was burned to the ground as Prussian artillery pounded the city during the Franco-Prussian war.

One further aspect of the text of the letter should be mentioned. There are three major lacunae in the text, at 7.7, 10.1 and 10.8. Apparently when the letter was discovered portions of the manuscript had been gnawed by mice! The last of these gaps is the most serious for it comes right at the end of the letter, and so we do not know how the text actually ends.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 1

In the first chapter, the author notes that Diognetus is interested in learning about the Christian faith. In fact, he has three specific questions that he wants answered: read Diognetus I. The first of these questions is rooted in the fact that the Greeks and Romans regularly accused the early Christians of being "atheists." They were "atheists" since they refused to worship the Greek and Roman gods. The second question is indeed noteworthy. Many pagans were struck by the way that the early Church was a community of love, something very different from their own experience of social relationships. The final question has its basis in the Roman reverence for antiquity. What was true had to be ancient. {Note 5} The recent origin of Christianity thus posed a major stumbling-block for acceptance of its truth claims.

It is fascinating to note the final sentence of this initial section of the letter. "I ask of God, who bestows on us the power both of speech and of hearing, that it may be given to me so to speak that you may be edified as much as possible by your hearing, and to you so to hear that I by my speaking may suffer no regret." This is nothing less than a prayer for Diognetus' conversion. In other words, the author clearly assumes that the embrace of Christian truth cannot come from reason alone. God's Holy Spirit must give Diognetus the ability "to hear" the truth.

Incidentally, this sentence also tells us something of the importance placed upon speech in Graeco-Roman society. The author does not write of "writing and reading" but of "speech and hearing." This letter, like most of the letters of the ancient world including those of the New Testament, would have been dictated to a scribe. And when it was received, the recipient would read it aloud, not silently as we would. There is a well-known passage in Augustine's Confessions in which Augustine recounts coming upon the northern Italian bishop Ambrose, who was instrumental in his conversion, reading in a garden. What Augustine found most striking was the fact that he could not hear Ambrose. It was obvious that the bishop was reading, but he was doing it in a way completely foreign to the mores of the ancient world. When one read, one pronounced the words out loud. Libraries must indeed have been very noisy places!

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 2-4:

THE FOLLY OF GRAECO-ROMAN IDOLATRY

The first three sections of the letter after the opening chapter contain a vigorous attack on both Graeco-Roman paganism and Judaism. The former engages in the folly of worshipping the products of human imagination and technology (2.1-10). The latter, the author admits, worships the true God, but with a wrong understanding, for the Jews think God stands in need of their sacrifices (3.3-5). The frontal attack made upon Graeco-Roman paganism is particularly instructive about the way in which the second-century Church went about defending its faith in a pluralistic culture.

The Greeks and Romans were unashamedly polytheistic. Their universe was peopled with innumerable gods and divine spirits. Forests and fields, homes and places of employment, earth, sky and water were thought to be filled with these beings. The Apostle Paul mentions this popular understanding of the universe in 1 Corinthians 8:5 when he states that his culture knew of "many gods and many lords" in heaven and on earth. But, the Apostle goes on in the following verse, whatever his Greek and Roman contemporaries might believe, he and his fellow Christians were assured that there was but "one God, the Father" and "one Lord Jesus Christ." As for the Greek and Roman gods the early Church recognized that they were, in Paul's words, "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:3). Undoubtedly they "existed" for those who worshipped them, but from the standpoint of reality they simply did not exist. They were, as Paul says in his speech on Mars' Hill, a classic defence of the Christian perspective on life, "something shaped by art and man's devising" (Acts 17:29).

Drawing upon this monotheistic foundation and critique of Graeco-Roman idolatry, the author of the Letter to Diognetus seeks to first show Diognetus that the gods and goddesses whom he worships are nothing more than the products of human technology: Diognetus 2.2-6. This passage is not only indebted to the Pauline texts that we have noted above. It also goes back to passages in the Old Testament which ridicule the foolishness of the idolatry of the pagan nations around Israel. Consider, for instance, Jeremiah 10:3-10. {Note 6}

The author then seeks to reason with his pagan correspondent. By rejecting their society's idolatry, Christians have drawn upon themselves the opprobrium of their fellow citizens (2.6). But, in fact, are not those who worship these gods and goddesses more disrespectful of them? Diognetus 2.7-8. The author could say a lot more about the folly of Graeco-Roman religious rites and views, but he suffices with one final comment: "Christians are not in bondage to such gods" (2.10). To understand this comment one must bear in mind the Apostle Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians of the idolatry of his day. Paul, as we have seen, maintained first of all that the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses had no objective reality. Yet, he went on to argue, this did not mean that pagan religion was harmless. In fact, it was "the locus of demonic activity, and … to worship such ‘gods' is in fact to fellowship with demons" (1 Corinthians 10:19-20). {Note 7} These demonic powers used traditional Greek and Roman religion with its various rites and myths as so many masks to ensnare men and women and so bring them into a state of bondage. {Note 8} Conversion to Christianity then not only meant coming to the realization that Graeco-Roman religion was a "grand illusion," {Note 9} but also spelled freedom from the tyranny of numerous demonic powers.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 7-8:

THE "MASTER AND MAKER OF THE UNIVERSE"

A good defence of the Christian faith not only displays the problems with rival worldviews, but also sets forth how Christians view the world. Thus, after the author of this second-century apology has differentiated Christian worship from that of Judaism (3.1-4.6) and discussed the ways in which the Christian life-style is at once identical to and yet radically different from that of their pagan neighbours (5.1-6.10) {Note 10}, he turns to answer his friend's first question: who is the God in whom Christians trust?

The writer begins by indicating that the Christian concept of God is not the product of human thought or philosophy. He has already mentioned this fact back in chapter 5: "This lore of theirs [i.e. Christians] has not been discovered by any design and thought of prying men, nor do they champion a mere human doctrine, as some men do" (5.3). Now, in chapter 7, he gives a much fuller statement: Diognetus 7.I-2. Here the author affirms unequivocally that Christian truth is ultimately not a matter of mere human reason or religious speculation. Rather, it is rooted in God's revelation of himself. The writer assumes that ultimately we can know nothing about God unless he reveals himself.

The same point is made yet a third time in 8.1-5. Two philosophical speculations about the nature of God are here mentioned and rejected, both of them from the earliest period of Greek philosophy. The first, the assertion that God is fire comes from the philosopher Herakleitos of Ephesus (fl. 500 B.C.), who could also make the pantheistic statement: "God is day and night, summer and winter, war and peace, fullness and want." The declaration that God is water appears to be a reference to the Ionian thinker Thales (fl. 580-540 B.C.), the father of Greek philosophy. Unlike some of his Christian contemporaries, notably Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165 A.D.), who regarded Greek philosophical thought as playing an important, albeit subordinate, role in preparing Graeco-Roman civilization for the gospel, the writer of this letter flatly asserts the opposite. In the words of H. G. Meecham, "All such strivings after God are discredited." {Note 11} God was unknown before he revealed himself (8.5), and that revelation was made through the incarnation of his Son: Diognetus 7.2.

From a scriptural perspective, God's revelation of himself certainly preceded the incarnation. As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son." Failure to take into account God's revelation of himself in the Old Testament era will cause problems for the author of this letter when he comes to answer Diognetus' question concerning the antiquity of Christianity. But more on this later.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 7:

THE "BELOVED CHILD"

Christianity, then, is ultimately not a human attempt to find God, be it by philosophical speculation or religious ritual. Rather, it is founded on God's revelation of himself, and that in a person, his Son. Although the personal name of the incarnate Son, Jesus, is not mentioned in this text, there is no doubt that this is the person of whom the author writes so eloquently. The Son, by whom God made the heavens and the earth (7.2) {Note 12}, was sent to reveal God: Diognetus 7.4-5. These lines reveal a high Christology indeed. Who is this One whom God sent to reveal himself? Well, he is "a son." He is sent "as God." When he called men to repentance and faith, it was God who was calling. As L. B. Radford comments: "He is God so truly that His coming can be described as the coming of God." {Note 13}

That he does not belong to the order of creation is also clear from 7.2. Whatever the precise import of the various names listed at the beginning of this verse — "some servant," angel, ruler, "one of those who administer the affairs of earth," "one of those entrusted with the ordering of things in heaven" — the Son's dominion over the entirety of nature, and by implication his deity, is trumpeted forth.

A reasoned defence of the Christian faith cannot, therefore, leave out of consideration the person of Christ. Indeed, upon his uniqueness the entirety of the faith hangs.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 8-9:

THE ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE CROSS

This discussion of the way in which God has revealed himself opens the way for the author to provide an answer to what would have been a basic question for most peoples in the Roman Empire, be they Jew, Greek, or Roman: "why is it that this new race of men or mode of living has entered into our world now and not formerly?" (Letter to Diognetus 1) It was axiomatic among the ancients that what was true was old and what was new was questionable and probably false. This raised an obvious problem for those seeking to convince men and women of the truth claims of Christianity, for Christianity took its rise from the appearance of Christ. The standard answer among Christian apologists was that the Old Testament era predicted the coming of Christ. Seen in this light, Christian truth had a much better claim to antiquity than either Greek or Roman thought, neither of which were over a millennium old.

The Letter to Diognetus, however, does not take this approach. Earlier, in the sections dealing with Judaism, the author had taken such a hard stance against Judaism (3-4) that the impression is given that Judaism was of no value at all, not even as a forerunner of Christianity. Thus, the author is forced to argue: Diognetus 8.9-9.2.

Even though this argument is probably the only major weakness of the letter, it does provide yet another support for embracing the Christian faith. The author argues that God revealed his plan of salvation to none but his "beloved Child" until men realized their utter and complete inability to gain heaven by their own strength. Then, when men were conscious of their sin and the impending judgement, God … Diognetus 9.2-5. This is a truly marvellous text, as the author, overwhelmed by what took place at the cross, is lost in rapture and wonder. Here, as so often happens in the writings of Paul, theology gives way to doxology. Yet, the doxological nature of this passage should not lead us to overlook the way that it also contributed to the author's defence of the Christian worldview. Why should the truth claims of Christianity be weighed seriously? Because, unlike other religions, it deals decisively with the problem of human sin. The renowned historian of this era, Henry Chadwick, puts this point well when he states that one of the major reasons for the growth of the church was the fact that the gospel it preached "spoke of divine grace in Christ, the remission of sins and the conquest of evil powers for the sick soul, tired of living and scared of dying, seeking for an assurance of immortality." {Note 14}

This passage also reminds us surely that apologetics, though using reason, need not be dry and lifeless. It can, and should, speak to the heart as well as to the mind.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 10:

THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND MARTYRDOM

Finally, the author of this letter presents two "evidences" for the truth of Christianity. The first is the Christian community. Diognetus, like many other pagans, had been amazed at the love shown by Christians for one another. Listen to the way that Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115-ca. 200 A.D.), a pagan satirist, portrays the Christian church in his satire The Passing of Peregrinus, which deals with the career of a shyster by the name of Peregrinus. For a while in his career Peregrinus pretended to be a Christian, and in fact, became a teacher in a Christian community in Asia Minor (now modern Turkey). Finding himself in prison for his professed faith, Peregrinus was soon the centre of attention from members of the church. "First thing every morning," Lucian wrote, "you would see a crowd of old women, widows, and orphans waiting outside the prison" bringing him "all sorts of food." In fact, Lucian went on to say, Christians "are always incredibly quick off the mark, when one of them gets into trouble like this — in fact they ignore their own interests completely." And why do they do this? Well, Lucian explained to his pagan audience, the Christians' "law-giver," by whom he means Christ, "has convinced them that once they stop believing in Greek gods, and start worshipping that crucified sage of theirs, and living according to his laws, they are all each other's brothers and sisters." {Note 15} Coming from a pagan author not at all well-disposed towards Christianity this is a remarkable testimony to the way in which many early Christian communities were centres of love.

Pagan life was characterized by passions quite different. "Living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus 3:3) is the way that Paul depicts the social fabric of the Empire in the first century. No wonder, then, Christian communities stood out like brilliant lights in a dark firmament (see Philippians 2:14) and no wonder Diognetus asked, "what is the affection they [i.e. believers] have for one another? (Letter to Diognetus 1)" The answer is found in the final extant chapter of the letter: Diognetus 10.2-7. Christians love one another because God first loved them and showed that love through the sacrificial gift of his own beloved Son. Embracing the Son's death for one's sins by faith alone (see 8.6) leads to a desire to imitate God, the great lover of mankind. And it is in the mutual love of believers for one another and for their neighbours that evidence will be seen that "God lives in heaven" (10.7). Christian love is thus one key evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview.

LETTER TO DIOGNETUS 5-6:

EARLY CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Further discussion of the remarkable nature of these Christian communities is found in Diognetus 5. Christians are not, the author stresses, distinguished from their culture by virtue of their geographical location, language, or customs of dress, food and other matters of daily life (5.1-2, 4). In other words, Christians did not seek to escape from involvement in their society. Yet, their worldview did draw certain lines of demarcation between themselves and their surrounding culture. The fact that they were destined for heaven, "a world of holy love," to quote a later Christian author, Jonathan Edwards, meant that their lives in this world were ordered differently from that of their pagan neighbours. In essence, they lived in the world, but did not belong fully to it: Diognetus 5.5, 8-9.

In particular, this paradoxical relationship to their society is well seen in their attitude towards child exposure and sexual expression. In common with the rest of Graeco-Roman society Christians married and bore children (5.6a). Unlike their culture, however, they utterly refused to endorse the practice of child exposure: 5.6b. This practice was common throughout the Graeco-Roman world for such reasons as having too many mouths to feed, an unwillingness to divide one's worldly wealth among too many heirs, etc. A frank statement of this practice has been found recently in a letter written around the year 1 B.C. by a man who was away on a business trip. His pregnant wife in Alexandria, who was about to give birth, was instructed as follows: "When you give birth, if it is male leave it, if a female, cast it out." {Note 16}

A second area where the Christian communities differed radically from their culture was in the area of sexual ethics: Diognetus 5.7.

A second piece of evidence has to do with the way that Christians respond to the hatred of Graeco-Roman society towards the church. This hatred and the Christian response to it is mentioned a number of times in the letter. For example, see Diognetus 5.11-17. As this passage lays bare, Christians were verbally abused by their fellow Greeks and Romans, despoiled, put on trial as evil-doers, and condemned to death. Notice, how they reacted: with love: 5.11.

The mode of execution varied, for Roman punishment was tailored to the social status of the criminal rather than the crime. Thus beheading was' the major form of execution for citizens of the Empire who committed a capital offence. Others would be exposed to a whole range of horrific means of execution, including burning and being mauled to death by ferocious beasts. Both of the latter are mentioned in this letter. In 10.8 we read of believers who "endure for righteousness' sake the fire which is but for a season." And at the close of chapter seven the author mentions death by "wild beasts": Diognetus 7.8. Notice the way in which the author views the martyrdoms of believers. They are, first of all, a means by which the church grows. As the North African theologian Tertullian (fl. 190-215 A.D.) put it: "the blood of the martyrs is seed." Second, the author of the Letter to Diognetus, sees in the steadfastness of the martyrs nothing less than a proof for the truth of the martyrs' testimony. Apologetics in the early Church took place not only by means of reasoning through the spoken word and such tracts as this letter, but also in the midst of horrific martyrdoms. Justin Martyr, who himself was martyred, was brought to Christ by watching the way that believers died in the arena. "When I myself revelled in the teachings of Plato," he tells us, "and heard the Christians misrepresented and watched them stand fearless in the face of death and every other thing that was considered fearful, I realized the impossibility of their living in sinful pleasure." {Note 17} 17 Similarly, Tertullian spoke of the apologetic power of those who shed their blood for their love of Christ: "whoever beholds such noble endurance will first, as though struck by some kind of uneasiness, be driven to enquire what is the matter in question, and, then, when he knows the truth, immediately follow the same way." {Note 18}

LESSONS

1) Vital importance of prayer;

2) Answer the questions being asked;

3) Use of the Scriptures, God's divine revelation;

4) Focus on Christ and the human condition;

5) Importance of the Christian community as a vehicle of witness.

~~~~~ Footnotes to above paper ~~~~~

1. A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus Instrumentorum / Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 28.

2. L. W. Barnard, “The Enigma of the Epistle to Diognetus” in his Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and Their Background (New York: Shocken Books, 1966), 172. For a listing of possible authors, see ibid., 171-172

3. See the discussion of Dulles, History of Apologetics, 28-29.

4. See the discussion of Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), 178-179. Barnard (“Epistle to Diognetus”, 172-173) would date it no later than 130 A.D.

5. Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1984), 21-22.

6. See also the critique of idolatry in extra-biblical Jewish literature, for instance, The Wisdom of Solomon 13.10-15.17. It should be noted that there was also a long philosophical tradition among the Greeks that ridiculed the superstitions of polytheism. See Dulles, History of Apologetics, 23.

7. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1987), 370.

8. Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 27.

9. This description is that of Brown, ibid., 27.

10. For a discussion of chapter 5, see Bruce Fawcett, “Similar yet Unique: Christians as Described in the Letter to Diognetus 5", The Baptist Review of Theology, 6, No.1 (Spring, 1996), 23-27.

11. “The Theology of the Epistle to Diognetus”, The Expository Times, 54 (1942-1943), 98.

12. For biblical attestation of this same truth, see John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2.

13. The Epistle to Diognetus (London: 1908), p.39. See also Joseph T. Lienhard, “The Christology of the Epistle to Diognetus”, Vigiliae Christianae, 24 (1970), 288.

14. The Early Church (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1967), 55.

15. The Passing of Peregrinus 11-13 [trans. Paul Turner, Lucian: Satirical Sketches (Harmondsorth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1961), p.11] .

16. P. Oxy. 4.744.

17. Apology 2.12.

18. To Scapula 5.

___________________________________________________________________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS

[This is the English text only from "The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation, and Notes" by Henry G. Meecham, (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1949), pages 75–89. For presentation purposes the style of the notes and document have been changed. Technical notes ("ad loc") referenced are not included in this document.]

I

SINCE I perceive, most excellent Diognetus, that you are exceedingly zealous to learn the religion of the Christians and are making very clear and careful inquiry about them — both who is the God in whom they trust and how they worship Him, so that all disdain the world and despise death, and neither account those to be gods who are esteemed such by the Greeks, nor observe the superstition of the Jews; and what is the affection which they have for one another; and why it is that this new race of men or mode of living has entered into our world now and not formerly — I welcome this eager desire in you, and I ask of God, who bestows on us the power both of speech and of hearing, that it may be given to me so to speak that you may be edified as much as possible by your hearing, and to you so to hear that I by my speaking may suffer no regret.

II

1. Come then, clear yourself of all the bias that occupies your mind, and get rid of the habit that deceives you, and become as it were from the beginning a new man, as one too who is to hear a new story, even as you yourself also acknowledged. See not only with your eyes, but also with your understanding, what substance or form they chance to have whom you declare and esteem to be gods. 2. Is not one a stone, like that which we tread on, another bronze, no better than the implements which have been forged for our use, another wood already decayed, another silver, which needs a man to guard {Note 1} it lest it be stolen, another iron eaten through by rust, another earthenware, not a whit more pleasing than that made for the meanest service? 3. Are not all these of perishable matter? Have they not been forged by iron and fire? Did not the sculptor fashion one of them, the brass-worker another, the silversmith another, the potter another? Before they were modelled by these men's arts into the form of these gods, was not each of them subjected to transformation — and still is so even now — at the hands of each artificer? Might not the vessels now formed out of the same material, if they met with the same workmen, be made similar to such images as these? 4. Again, could not these things which are now worshipped by you become at the hands of men vessels like the rest? Are they not all dumb? Are they not blind? Are they not without souls? Are they not destitute of feeling? Are they not without motion? Are they not all rotting away? Are they not all in course of decay? 5. These things you call gods! These are what you serve! These you worship and in the end you become like them! 6. For this reason you hate (the) Christians — because they do not think that these are gods. 7. For is it not you, who, although you consider and think that you are praising the gods, are much more despising them? Are you not much rather mocking and insulting them, when you worship those of stone and earthenware, which you leave unguarded, and yet those of silver and gold you lock us at night and in the day-time set guards by them, lest they be stolen? 8. And by the honours that you think to offer them you are punishing them rather, if indeed they are endued with sense; but, if they lack sensibility, you are refuting {Note 2} them by the very fact of worshipping them with blood and steaming fat. 9. Let anyone of you endure this treatment, let him bear with these things being done to him! Nay, there is not a single man who will, if he can help it, suffer this infliction, for he has sense and reason. But the stone suffers it, for it has no feeling. You do not then (by your offerings) show up its sensibility! {Note 3} 10. Well, I could say many other things about the fact that Christians are not in bondage to such gods. But if to anyone even these arguments should not seem sufficient, I think it needless to say more.

III

1. In the next place I suppose that you arc especially anxious to hear why they (Christians) do not worship in the same manner as the Jews. 2. The Jews indeed, since they abstain from the religion described above, rightly deem that they worship the one God of the universe and think of Him as Master; but in offering this service to Him in like fashion to those already mentioned they go utterly astray. 3. For whereas the Greeks furnish an example of foolishness by making offerings to images void of sense and hearing, these Jews ought rather to consider it folly maybe, not piety, in thinking that they are offering these things to God as though He were in need of them. {Note 4} 4. For "He who made the heaven and the earth and all things that are in them" and provides us all with what we need would not Himself need any of these things which He Himself supplies to those who imagine that they give to Him. 5. But those who think that they are rendering due sacrifices to Him by blood and fat and whole burnt offerings, and that they are doing Him reverence by these tributes, seem to me in no way better than those who show the same lavish honour to deaf images. For the one class seem to offer sacrifices to things unable to partake of the honour, the other to Him who is in need of nothing.

IV

1. But, in truth, I do not think that you need to learn from me that, after all, their qualms concerning food and their superstition about the Sabbath, and the vaunting of circumcision and the cant of fasting and new moon, are utterly absurd and unworthy of any argument. 2. For how can it be other than unlawful to receive some of the things created by God for man's use as created ‘good' and to refuse others as useless and superfluous? 3. And is it not impious to slander God as though He forbids the doing of a good deed on the Sabbath day? 4. And to glory in the mutilation of the flesh as evidence of their election, as if they were on this account especially beloved by God — does this not call for derision? 5. And their star-gazing and watching of the moon, so as to observe months and days and to distribute at their own inclinations the orderings of God and the changes of the seasons, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning — who would consider this an example of piety and not much more of folly? 6. Well then, I think that you have learned sufficiently that Christians are right in keeping aloof from the general fatuity and deceit and from the meddlesomeness and pride of the Jews; but as for the mystery of the Christians' own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man.

V

1. For Christians are distinguished from the rest of men neither by country nor by language nor by customs. 2. For nowhere do they dwell in cities of their own; they do not use any strange form of speech or practise a singular mode of life. 3. This lore of theirs has not been discovered by any design and thought of prying men, nor do they champion a mere human doctrine, as some men do. 4. But while they dwell in built Greek and barbarian cities, each as his lot was cast, and follow the customs of the land in dress and food and other matters of living, they show forth the remarkable and admittedly strange order of their own citizenship. 5. They live in fatherlands of their own, but as aliens. They share all things as citizens, and suffer all things as strangers. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and every fatherland a foreign land. 6. They marry, like all others; they breed children, but they do not cast out their offspring. 7. Free board they provide, but no carnal. bed. 8. They are "in the flesh", but they do not live "after the flesh". 9. They pass their days on earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven. 10. They obey the appointed laws, yet in their own lives they excel the laws. 11. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. 12. They are unknown, yet they are condemned; they are put to death, yet they are made alive. 13. "They are poor, yet they make many rich". They suffer the lack of all things, yet they abound in all things. 14. They are dishonoured, and yet are glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of, yet are vindicated. 15. "They are reviled, and they bless"; insulted, they repay with honour. 16. When doing good they are punished as evildoers; suffering punishment, they rejoice as if quickened into life. 17. By the Jews they are warred against as foreigners, and are hunted down by the Greeks. Yet those who hate them cannot state the cause of their hostility.

VI

1. Broadly speaking, what the soul is in the body, that Christians are in the world. 2. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians throughout the cities of the world. 3. The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, but "are not of the world". 4. The soul, itself invisible, is guarded in the body which is visible; so Christians are known as being in the world, but their religion remains unseen. 5. The flesh hates the soul, and, though it suffers no wrong, wars against it, because the flesh is hindered from indulging its pleasures; so too the world, though in no wise wronged, hates Christians, because they set themselves against its pleasures. 6. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the limbs; so Christians love them that hate them. 7. The soul is enclosed within the body, but itself curbs {Note 5} the body; and Christians are detained in the world as in a prison, but themselves restrain {Note 6} the world. 8. The soul, though immortal, dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians sojourn among corruptible things, awaiting the incorruptibility which is in heaven. 9. When faring ill in food and drink the soul becomes better; so Christians when buffeted day by day flourish the more. 10. To so high a rank has God appointed them, and it is not right for them to refuse it.

VII

1. For this is not, as I said, an earthly discovery which was committed to them, and no mortal idea which they think it their duty to guard with such care, nor have they been entrusted with the stewardship of mere human mysteries. 2. But in truth God Himself, the all-sovereign and all-creating and invisible God, Himself from heaven established among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible word and fixed it firmly in their hearts, not, as one might surmise, by sending to men some servant, or an angel, or ruler, or one of those who administer the affairs of earth, or one of those entrusted with the ordering of things in heaven, but the very Artificer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom He created the heavens, by whom He confined the sea in its own bounds; whose mysteries all the elements faithfully guard, from whom the sun has received the measure of its daily rounds to keep, whom the moon obeys as he bids her shine by night, whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the moon, by whom all things have been ordered and determined and placed in subjection, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth and the things therein, the sea and what is in the sea, fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights, the things in the depths, the things in the realm between him He sent unto them. 3. Did He send him, as a man might conclude, to rule in tyranny and terror and awe? 4. Not so, but in gentleness and meekness He sent him, as a king sending a son who is a king, He sent him as God, He sent him as Man unto men. He was as it were saving when He sent him, (as) persuading, not compelling (for force is no attribute of God). 5. When He sent him God was calling, not pursuing; He sent, him as in love, not in judgement. 6. For He will send him to be our judge, and who shall stand at his coming? 7. Do you not see them thrown to wild beasts that they may deny the Lord, and yet unconquered? 8. Do you not see {Note 7} that as more of them are punished, so much do others abound? These things do not seem to be the works of man; they are a mighty deed of God; they are proofs of Hls presence.

VIII

1. For what man had any knowledge at all of what God is, before he came? 2. Or do you accept the vain and trumpery statements of those specious philosophers of whom some said that God was fire (what they themselves are destined to go to, that they call God!), and others water, and others some other of the elements created by God? 3. And yet, if any of these arguments is admissible, each one of the other created things could in like manner be declared God. 4. But these things are mere miracle-mongering and deceit of the magicians. 5. No man has either seen or known Him, but God manifested Himself. 6. And He manifested Himself through faith, by which alone it is given to see God. 7. For God, Master and Maker of the universe, who made. all things and disposed them in their due order, proved Himself not only a lover of man but also long-suffering. 8. Nay, such He ever was and is and will be, kind and good and free from anger and true, and He alone is good. 9. And having conceived a great and unutterable design He communicated it to His Child alone. 10. And so long as He held it in a mystery and guarded His is wise counsel He seemed to have no concern or care for us. 11. But when He revealed it through His beloved Child, and manifested the things prepared from the beginning, He bestowed upon us all things at once, both to share in His blessings and to see and understand. Who of us would ever have expected these things?

IX

1. Having therefore planned everything already in His own mind with His Child, He suffered us up to the former time to be borne along by unruly impulses, as we willed, in the clutches of pleasures and lusts. Not at all because He took pleasure in our sins, but out of His forbearance; not in approval of the season of iniquity which was then, but creating the season of righteousness which is now, so that we who in past time were from our own deeds convicted as unworthy of life might now by the goodness of God be deemed worthy, and when we had shown clearly that of ourselves it was impossible "to enter into the kingdom of God", might be made able by the power of God. 2. But when our iniquity was fulfilled and it had been made fully manifest that its reward of punishment and death was awaited, and the season came which God had appointed to manifest henceforth {Note 8} His own goodness and power (O the exceeding kindness and love of God!), He did not hate us or repel us or remember our misdeeds, but was long-suffering, bore with us, Himself in mercy took on Him our sins, Himself gave up His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for the wicked, the innocent for the guilty, "the just for the unjust", the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for mortals. 3. For what else could cover our sins but his righteousness? 4. In whom was it possible for us, wicked and impious as we were, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? 5. 0 the sweet exchange, O work of God beyond all searching out, O blessings past our expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hidden in one righteous Man and the righteousness of the One should justify many wicked! 6. Having then convinced us in the former time of the powerlessness of our nature to gain life, and having now shown the Saviour in his power to save even powerless creatures, in both these ways His will was that we should believe His goodness, and regard Him as guardian, father, teacher, counsellor, healer, mind, light, honour, glory, strength, life, and have no anxiety about clothing and food. {Note 9}

X

1. If you also long for this faith and first obtain knowledge of the Father … {Note 10} 2. For God loved men for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things which are in the earth, to whom He gave reason, to whom He gave mind, whom alone He permitted to look upward to Him, whom He formed after His own image, to whom "He sent His only-begotten Son", to whom He promised the kingdom which is in heaven — and He will give it to them that have loved Him. 3. And when you have this knowledge, with what joy, think you, will you be filled? Or how will you love Him who so first loved you? 4. Loving Him you will imitate His goodness. And do not wonder that a man can become an imitator of God. By the will of God he can. 5. For happiness lies not in lordship over one's neighbours, nor in the desire to have more than one's weaker brethren, nor in being rich and coercing the more needy. Not in these things can any man imitate God. Nay, these things are outside His majesty. But whosoever takes upon himself his neighbour's burden, whosoever wishes to benefit another who is poorer in that in which he himself is better off, whosoever by supplying to those in want the things which he has received and holds from God becomes a god to those who receive them — this man is an imitator of God. 7. Then though your lot is on earth you will see that God lives {Note 11} in heaven, then you will begin to speak the mysteries of God, then you will both love and admire those who are being punished for their refusal to deny God, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world, when you know what is the true life in heaven, when you despise the apparent death here below, when you fear the real death, which is kept for those that shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall punish up to the end those that were delivered to it. 8. Then you will admire those that endure for righteousness' sake the fire which is but for a season, and you will count them blessed when you know that other fire. … {Note 12}

~~~~~ Footnotes to Letter to Diognetus (references are to Greek text, not included here. ~~~~~

1. Reading phulaxontos. See note ad loc.

2. Perhaps better ‘exposing’, ‘showing them up’. See note ad loc., and cf. ii. 9.

3. See note for this rendering.

4. For the rendering of this passage see note ad loc.

5. For this rendering see note ad loc.

6. Ibid.

7. There is a lacuna in the MS. at this point. See note ad loc.

8. Or ‘at last’.

9. For the last clause see notes ad loc.

10. For the apparent lacuna see note ad loc.

11. Or ‘rules’. See note ad loc.

12. See note ad loc [re this lacuna].

I find it remarkable in the New Testament that so much spiritual warfare revolves around the mind.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Notice that it says, “Every lofty thing raised up against the KNOWLEDGE of God.” It isn't exalting itself against God Himself. Don't you find that interesting? Satan doesn't seem care if you believe in God. But he does care if you believe rightly about God. For if you believe in the one true God and in Jesus Christ whom He has sent, then you have the power and the knowledge aiding you with the Holy Spirit. One of the Holy Spirit's primary roles is to guide us into truth (John 16:13-15). And with Him there is more power than all Hell could generate.

But Satan tempts us to mental laziness, distracts us from reflecting on the wonderful thoughts God has called us to think about Him and like Him. Satan also distorts insights about ourselves, our defects of character, and the image of God we bear. If we succumb to him, he puts us in a place of spiritual defeat.

This is important to understand. This is not about one-time temptations. This is about strengthening a part of our souls that is vital to being a whole human person. Most of the vices we deal with from day to day have to do with the beliefs we hold. Satan doesn't force us to make sinful choices. But he does a devilish job of making us doubt God's character and over-emphasize the importance of our desires. Satan's strategy is plain: to get humans to avoid true thoughts of God and true thoughts about humanity's problem and ultimate purpose. This is the temptation Satan gave Jesus (Matt 4, Luke 4), and it is the temptation he gives us.

Jesus knows this. He places a high importance on not only loving God with all of our heart, soul, and strength, but also with our mind. If this component is left neglected, we will not find spiritual success in our walk toward God's divine purposes.

That said, let me add that the apologetic enterprise of evangelism in the New Testament goes hand in hand with spiritual formation. It is not only to give answers to others to believe in the truth of Jesus Christ, but also to build a stronger defense against spiritual wickedness in high places. Apologetics is just as much for the maturing Christian as it is for helping the non-Christian see Christ clearly.

A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a graduate from UC Berkeley who recently came to Christ. During the last two years of her search for truth, she was told by many Christians, “You think too much. Don't make it so complicated. Just believe.” But this is exactly what she had a hard time with. She believed that if God did exist and that if He made her, that He would give evidence to satisfy her God-given mind. Satan's warfare tried to thwart her from appropriately understanding God. But after a long search, and in spite of many discouraging words about her intellectual quest from Christians and non-Christians alike, she bowed her knee to Christ. A few months later she attended a talk I gave on loving God with our minds and she said it was extremely affirming. Now she wants to formally study apologetics, philosophy, and theology, to help others who struggled as she did. She wants to love God with her whole person. She wants to have the right knowledge of God and KNOW she has the right knowledge of God. And, now, because she engaged God with her mind, her spiritual growth has been exponentially climbing.

I share that as a testimony that without a hungry mind for God, our spiritual lives, however good we may find them to be, will be dramatically stunted. We need to have appropriate knowledge of the God we are worshiping and how we fit into his grand design. It is no secret. It just takes diligent work. David said that understanding is better than gold. He was right. Seeking after God, our whole lives long, is a hunt well worth the reward.

__________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

In April 2002, the well-respected Oxford University philosophy professor Richard Swineburne used a broadly accepted probability theory to defend the truth of Christ's resurrection. He did this at a high-profile gathering of philosophy professors at Yale University.

In a New York Times interview, Swineburne said, “For someone dead for 36 hours to come to life again is, according to the laws of nature, extremely improbable. But if there is a God of the traditional kind, natural laws only operate because he makes them operate.” Swineburne used the Bayes Theorem to assign values to things like the probability that God is real, Jesus' behavior during his lifetime, and the quality of witness testimony after his death. Then he plugged the numbers into a probability formula and added everything up.

The result: a 97 percent probability that the resurrection really happened.

__________

Source: Group magazine (July 2002); submitted by Van Morris, Mount Washington, Kentucky

ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR JESUS FROM NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

=====================================================

EVIDENCE FROM TACITUS

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that “apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like,” there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him “great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life.”{2} He concludes his letter by asking, “Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?”{3} The answer to this question is, “Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their

abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from

whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during

the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a

most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again

broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but

even in Rome....{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

EVIDENCE FROM PLINY THE YOUNGER

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before

it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to

Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not

to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or

adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they

should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their

custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food -- but

food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

EVIDENCE FROM JOSEPHUS

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord's brother.”{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one

ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats....

He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be

crucified, those who had ... come to love him did not give up

their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ...

restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not

disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same!

EVIDENCE FROM THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days

before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, “He is going

forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed

Israel to apostasy.”{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named “Yeshu.” So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, “Yeshu” (or “Yeshua”) is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was “hanged”, and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons “by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

EVIDENCE FROM LUCIAN

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day -- the distinguished

personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on

that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original

lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they

are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the

crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative “life of Jesus!”

________

NOTES

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles X. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, translated by William Melmoth, revised by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, “References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors,” in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?”, in Jesus Under Fire, edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament”, 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' “Testimonium Flavianum” survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, “as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church” (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, translated by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

© 2001 Probe Ministries International

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MICHAEL GLEGHORN is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Before coming on staff with Probe he taught history and theology at Christway Academy in Duncanville, Texas. In addition to his work with Probe he is involved with ministry to international students at the University of Texas at Dallas. Michael is married to his beautiful wife Hannah. He can be reached via e-mail at mgleghorn@probe.org.

WHAT IS PROBE?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, our extensive Web site at www.probe.org, and the ProbeCenter at the University of Texas at Austin.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

PROBE MINISTRIES

1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100

Richardson, TX 75081

(972) 480-0240 FAX(972) 644-9664

info@probe.org

www.probe.org

This data file/document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file and/or document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright © 2004 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice. This data file/document may not be used without the permission of Probe Ministries for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.

*

As an undergraduate student, I was privileged to sit under an advisor for whom Christian ethics and its application were a vibrant passion. With his careful drawl and smiling eyes, my professor slowly and gladly brought me to an understanding of ethics that would not allow me to ever leave it, as I might have left a stuffy, uninteresting class. Ethics, for the Christian, is no more optional than the scriptures that tell us who we are. In one of Dr. Verhey’s more recent works, he writes, “There is no Christian life that is not shaped somehow by Scripture. There is no Christian moral discernment that is not tied somehow to Scripture. There is no Christian ethic -- no Christian medical ethic or sexual ethic or economic ethic or political ethic -- that is not formed and informed somehow by Scripture.”(1) Christian communities are communities who practice ethics on some real level because we live by a particular identity, because it is who we are.

Now working within the field of Christian apologetics, one of the comments that I hear most often as a reason for rejecting Christianity is that of its followers: “Christians are so hypocritical!” “The problem I have with Christ is that his followers do him more harm than good.” “I am continually disappointed by Christians; why should I consider their religion a viable option?” “The problem I have with Christianity is Christians.” I try appealing to these voices to see the gap in their logic; I try reasoning that the abuse of a religion must never stand in the way of getting at the truth of a religion. But many will not be swayed. I leave these conversations saddened not merely because the obstacles seem immovable, but because I fully understand the grievance. The letter of recommendation written upon the countenance of professing Christians is sometimes a message that deters.

Like ethics, Christian apologetics is a daily activity writ large upon the life of Christians and Christian communities whether we realize it or not. The world hears clearly our message with and without words. The Christian goes about life confessing, commending, defending, and living the gospel, showing the world our ethic and our religion whether we speak of these things or not. Both disciplines then are inherently Christian activities, disciplines that must take seriously the responsibility our identity imparts. We are people of the Book, commanded to remember the movement of God in history, the nearness of the Spirit today, and the promise of Christ’s return in every word we speak, in every thing we do.

In the midst of this reality, Christians need not live as those who hold every answer, but as those who live with the confidence “that is ours through Christ before God” as we grow further into our conversions and the abundant life Christ describes (2 Corinthians 3:4). In this, learning to see our own conversions as a process, salvation as more than a ticket to heaven, and faith as something deeper than sheer preference or unquestionable certainty, will likewise help us see that reaching our neighbors is a lifelong activity. In the meantime, John Stackhouse argues that it is imperative for the apologist and the ethicist to take with her the right questions.(2) Instead of evangelicalism’s favorite foci -- Is he saved? Does she have a personal relationship with Christ? Or, what must I do to convert them? -- a far better question was entertained by the one we follow. Who shall I say is my neighbor? At this question Jesus recounted a story that left everyone asking appropriately, If the world is filled with my neighbors, how then shall I live? If every member of the body of Christ on earth lived an apologetic life that reflected the inherently Christ-like response to that question -- with love, with grace, with truth and humility -- perhaps we would find the distance between Athens and Jerusalem converging, bridged by the glory of the one who rose from the grave.

________

1. Allen Verhey, REMEMBERING JESUS: CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, SCRIPTURE, AND THE MORAL LIFE (Grand Rapids, Eerdman’s, 2002), 54.

2. John Stackhouse, Jr., HUMBLE APOLOGETICS: DEFENDING THE FAITH TODAY (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 84-85.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21570]

Sitting around a table at a local restaurant, my colleague Stuart McAllister and I recently dialogued with some new friends on the importance of apologetics. The quest for some “personal application” was on the menu. No one could blame them for desiring to pull the apologetic enterprise out of the abstract world of the mind and into the concrete everyday of hands and feet. After all, isn’t leading people to Jesus the point?

Of course, it is the point and one of many important points in our Christian journey. But what was missing in this “practical” approach to apologetics (and is often missed by many who approach apologetics for the first time) is that the discipline is not just to memorize some answers to the typical questions. The discipline is to learn to think and see Christianly, for most questions we are asked will fall within the larger boundaries of a Christian worldview.

My work as an apologist is only accomplished if I have the larger picture in mind. I cannot focus on the small-pictured practical questions until I have a framework in which I intelligently own the answers that I am giving. This requires nothing short of time, discipline, conversations, and prayer.

Doing apologetics is not like installing a ceiling fan. The fan has the directions and all the parts together, right out of the box. In a couple of hours the fan is assembled and hangs on the ceiling of your living room. Apologetics, on the other hand, is more organic with multiple manuals (the Bible being chief). And it takes more than a couple of hours to hang a good worldview on the ceiling of your soul.

Thinking Christianly is not just another program to fit in with our softball club, gym membership, and Bible study campaign at church. It is a way of thinking about life, the good life, the abundant life that Jesus came to deliver.

I hope you can see that apologetics is just as much for the Christian as it is for the non-Christian. It helps build the soul, makes you more confident that the facts of Jesus Christ and his Word are real, and helps you avoid the pitfalls of our spiritual enemy’s myriad of confusing ways.

During our conversation at the lunch table, Stuart reminded us, “We need to look past the assumption that all people need is more information.” While information is timely and vitally important, it must also be combined with an intentional heart to want truth. Apologetics is encumbered if one refuses to lay down their arms — the weapons of resentful excuses and the smokescreen of presupposed philosophical prejudice.

Ravi Zacharias calls apologetics “bush clearing.” That is, it should not be for the purpose of buffaloing someone to Jesus. Rather, it is to help clear away objections and confusions someone has about Jesus. It would be similar to handing a compass to someone lost in the woods. But it is up to each individual whether they want out of the precarious position of being lost.

Throughout the Scriptures, understanding God and relating to Him is of utmost importance. This is the apologetic enterprise God calls us into day after day... and it is the journey of a lifetime.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

In this ministry, we regularly hear from people who are looking for ways to equip themselves to share the Christian faith. We try to help believers learn how to answer hard questions and articulate the claims of Christ, the distinctives of the Christian faith. There is, however, one highly effective component to Christian apologetics that many routinely overlook. It is more difficult to master than the most difficult of philosophies, but it is accessible to all; it is the very thing that Jesus believed would show the world the truth of his message.

In his last prayer before Gethsemane and the Cross, Jesus prayed for his disciples. He then prayed tenderly for all who would come to believe in future generations. He said to his Father, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20b-21). He could have asked for any number of things, but the one thing he specifically requests for his people is unity. He goes on to pray, “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

We have all seen the damage that dissension and divisions in the church cause. How many lost souls have shrunk back from the Gospel in distaste because “Christians just can't seem to get along...”? Only Jesus is optimistic enough to prophesy that just the opposite will be true when the people of God walk in unity, the Holy Spirit bearing in them the fruit of love. I tend to believe that Satan took Jesus' prayer more seriously than we do. He must have reasoned that if unity in the church will show the world the truth of Christ, dissension in the church would be his primary offensive strategy.

If you are someone to whom the world of apologetics seems overwhelming and confusing, be encouraged that our witness to the world involves gifts other than those that come in handy in an intellectual debate. On the other hand, if you are someone who is energized by intellectual arguments and who craves knowledge, don't forget that the winsomeness of unity should be a primary component of our witness. “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-2).

Love is not something we can fake. If you deeply desire for the world to know that Jesus is the Son of God, then ask God to search your heart and reveal anything standing in the way of true unity. Maybe you need to forgive someone. Maybe you need to ask someone for forgiveness. If until now you've lacked sufficient motivation to humble yourself for the sake of reconciliation, I hope that Christ's words will give you a new urgency. Unity is not a natural state for the human race in our fallen world. If, by the Spirit, we pursue it even at the cost of our pride, the world will know that God's love is real.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Trapped beneath the surface of Narnia, the children of C.S. Lewis's THE SILVER CHAIR engage in a most frustrating conversation with the witch, the queen of what is called Underland. The children try desperately to describe to the queen the scenes and certainties of Narnia; they speak of the sun and the moon, of the stars — and of Aslan. The witch responds with the cunning deconstructionism of a postmodern wordsmith.

“What is this sun that you all speak of?” she asks. “Do you mean anything by the word? And Aslan, what a pretty name! What does it mean?” Struggling with the weight of what feels like an enchanted fog over their minds (and is), the children try their best to explain. “The sun is like a lamp, only far greater and brighter...” And of Aslan: “He is a lion — the great Lion... a little bit like a huge cat, with a mane.” To this the witch counters with the sweetest of laughs, “You see? You have seen lamps, and so you imagined a bigger and better lamp and called it the sun. You've seen cats, and now you want a bigger and better cat, and it's to be called a lion... Look how you can put nothing into your make-believe without copying it from the real world... Put away these childish tricks... There is no Narnia, no sky, no sun, no Aslan.”(1)

I don't believe it is too bold to say (and neither did Lewis) that life as a Christian sometimes feels something quite like this. Amidst the fog of a world that sees moral confusion and bewilderment and recognizes it as freedom, it can become quite exhausting to find the right words to explain that which we know to be true, only to be told that our words have no meaning. “Truth,” “sin,” and “God” are matters of utmost consequence all too often being condensed into word games. It has never been more difficult, nor more important, to be able to defend your faith.

But perhaps the Christian life is like this Narnian scene in another way. The less the children struggled to hold on to the reality of Narnia and memories of Aslan's goodness, the more reasonable the queen's explanations seemed to become: “Well, 'tis a pretty make-believe, but to say truth, it would suit you all better if you were younger.”

As Christians living within a world that bombards us with reasons not to believe, with reasons to accept half-truths as truth, and sin as mere psychosis, it is an active task to remain thinking, to keep our hearts and minds continually renewed by God's Word. It is necessary to recall his faithfulness in our lives, to hold before us the promises He has made, to daily keep our eyes sensitive to his presence. For God has called us to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

In the words of Elizabeth Barrett Browning:

Earth's crammed with heaven,

And every common bush aflame with God.

But only he who sees takes off his shoes.

The rest sit 'round and pluck blackberries.

The light of the knowledge of the glory of God, seen in the face of Christ, actively proclaimed in our lives, continually pursued and held before us, pierces through the fog of sin and death and falsehood. It is light that cannot be overcome, and we must look to it. “I am the light of the world,” Jesus proclaimed. “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life”(John 8:12). Let us be encouraged even in the fog of life, for the light of Christ cannot be extinguished. All who have eyes to see, let us see.

________

1. C.S. Lewis, THE SILVER CHAIR (New York: Collier, 1970), 157.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Sometimes I think it would be great to live in a world based on pure logic. The best argument would always win the day. People would understand that right and wrong are objective concepts, not just vague notions based on feelings. We could make a rational case for Christianity, and people would automatically accept it. Life would be a lot less complicated.

But for better or for worse, that’s not how things work.

That’s why James Sire wrote his new book, A LITTLE PRIMER ON HUMBLE APOLOGETICS. We have talked about Sire before on this program. His other books, including THE UNIVERSE NEXT DOOR and WHY GOOD ARGUMENTS OFTEN FAIL, have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. As a former college professor and a frequent speaker on campuses, Sire brings a message especially relevant to intellectuals — both seekers and skeptics.

But even Sire understands that there are drawbacks and limitations to verbal apologetics. As he points out, even Jesus’ arguments for faith in Himself failed to persuade many — and we are never going to think up better arguments than Jesus had. The people and the situations we encounter are far too complex to be dealt with by pure logic alone. Christian apologists also have to address the preconceptions and emotions of our listeners.

“The path to belief is mysterious,” as Sire puts it. “Sometimes facts and reasons stare us in the face. We can see them, even agree with them. Yet we turn away and don’t act as if we knew them at all.”

And that means that Christian apologetics has to broaden and adapt itself: to become a discipline that involves the heart and soul as well as the mind, the personal as well as the intellectual. That’s why Sire takes his own simple definition of APOLOGETICS — ”simply the presentation of a case for biblical truth” — and expands it into what he calls “a richer, more relational and more humble definition.” This is what he comes up with: “Christian apologetics lays before the watching world such a winsome EMBODIMENT of the Christian faith that for any and all who are willing to observe there will be an intellectually and emotionally credible witness to its fundamental truth.”

What does that mean in practice? It means not just arguing the truth of the Christian faith, but living that truth every day. It means that instead of lashing out in response to attacks and insults, we bear them patiently and respond with Christ-like grace and love. Instead of going for the jugular in a conversation or debate with a nonbeliever, we listen and answer with respect. Instead of thinking we have all the answers, we are ready to be corrected and to learn.

When have we ever needed such an attitude more than we do right now? In the times in which we live, anger and spite are more and more taking the place of rational discussions. If we hope to convince the world that Christ has truth and hope to offer, this is the way we must do it — as Sire says, with “a reliance not on the cleverness ... of argument but on the power of God to will and to do his good pleasure.”

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #25566]

“You Are Bringing Strange Things to Our Ears”:

Christian Apologetics for a Postmodern Age, Part 2

====================================================

The church is faced in the postmodern age by several distinct apologetic challenges. Internally, the church must defend the faith against ignorance, against compromise, against doctrinal apathy, and against denial. The church now suffers from a breathtaking deficit of doctrinal instruction and biblical truth. In some churches, the great truths of the Christian faith are unknown, and in others, these truths are left dormant and untaught. Beyond this, the very real dangers of doctrinal corrosion and heresy threaten.

Externally, the Gospel must be defended against secular atheism, postmodern relativism, naturalistic scientism, materialism, and current syncretisms. The Gospel must be proclaimed in the face of rival systems of belief and alternative worldviews, new and old.

This is where the task of Christian apologetics begins. In the Apostle Paul we find a model of Great Commission proclamation matched to an apologetic argument -- an argument in defense of Christian truth. In Acts 17:16-34, we find Paul standing at Ground Zero of apologetic ministry in the first century.

Athens was the most intellectually sophisticated culture in the ancient world, and even in Paul's day it basked in its retreating glory. Though Rome held political and military preeminence, Athens stood supreme in terms of cultural and intellectual influence. The centerpiece of Paul's visit to Athens is his message to the court of philosophers at the Areopagus, also known as Mars Hill.

Some critics have claimed that Paul's experience on Mars Hill was a dismal failure. Luke presents it otherwise, however, and in this account we can learn a great deal about the proper defense of the faith. Several principles of a proper Christian apologetic become evident as we consider this great biblical text.

FIRST, A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC BEGINS IN A PROVOKED SPIRIT. [Acts 17:16] Paul observed the spiritual confusion of the Athenians and was overcome with concern. The sight of a city full of idols seized him with grief, and that grief turned to Gospel proclamation.

Luke records that Paul experienced PAROXYNOS, a paroxysm, at the sight of such spiritual confusion. Athens was intellectually sophisticated -- the arena where the ancient world's most famous philosophers had debated. This was the city of Pericles, Plato, and Socrates. But Paul was not impressed with the faded glory. He saw men and women in need of a Savior.

This text reminds us that a proper Christian apologetic begins in spiritual concern, not in intellectual snobbery or scorn. We preach Christ, not because Christianity is merely a superior philosophy or worldview, nor because we have been smart enough to embrace the Gospel, but because we have met the Savior, we have been claimed by the Gospel, and we have been transformed by the renewing of our minds.

Our apologetic impulse is not a matter of intellectual pride, but of spiritual concern. A dying world languishes in spiritual confusion. I wonder how many of us are grieved as Paul was grieved in his observation of Athens. Looking at the spiritual confusion of American culture, do we experience the paroxysm with which Paul was seized?

We live in a nation filled with idols of self-realization, material comfort, psychological salvation, sexual ecstasy, ambition, power, and success. Millions of Americans embrace New Age spiritualites in a quest for personal fulfillment and self-transcendence. The ancient paganisms of nature worship have emerged once again, along with esoteric and occultic practices.

As journalist Walter Truett Anderson observes, “Never before has any civilization made available to its populace such a smorgasbord of realities. Never before has a communications system like the contemporary mass media made information about religion -- all religions -- available to so many people. Never has a society allowed its people to become consumers of belief, and allowed belief -- all beliefs -- to become merchandise.” Anderson notes that America has become the “belief basket of the world.”

I fear that we have become too acculturated, too blind, or too unimpressed with the paganisms and idolatries all around us. We betray a comfort level that Paul would certainly see as scandalous. Where is the gripping realization that millions of men and women are slaves to the idols of our age? Where is the courage to confront the idols on their own ground?

SECOND, A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC IS FOCUSED ON GOSPEL PROCLAMATION. [Acts 17:17] Moved by the city full of idols, Paul went to the synagogue and to the marketplace each day, presenting the claims of Christ and reasoning with both Jews and Gentiles.

The goal of a proper apologetic is not to win an argument, but to win souls. Apologetics separated from evangelism is unknown in the New Testament, and it is clearly foreign to the model offered by the Apostle Paul. The great missionary was about the business of preaching the Gospel, presenting the claims of Christ, and calling for men and women to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved.

For too many evangelicals, the study of apologetics is reduced to philosophical structures and rational arguments. This is not Paul's method. He is not merely concerned with the justification of truth claims, but more profoundly he is concerned for the justification of sinners.

This is another reminder of the fact that every true theologian is an evangelist, and every true evangelist is a theologian. Christianity is not a truth to be affirmed, but a Gospel to be received. Nevertheless, that Gospel possesses content and presents truth claims that demand our keenest arguments and boldest proclamation. Moved by the sight of idols, Paul preached Christ, and called for belief.

THIRD, A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC ASSUMES A CONTEXT OF SPIRITUAL CONFUSION. [Acts 17:18-21] Paul's Gospel proclamation brought confusion to the Athenian intellectuals. The Epicureans, the forerunners of modern secularists, and the Stoics, committed to pantheistic rationalism, accused Paul of teaching nonsense.

Confusion marks the spiritual understanding of most Americans. Pollsters report amazingly large numbers of Americans who profess belief in God, but live like atheists. The vast majority of Americans profess to be Christians, but have no concept of Christian belief or discipleship.

A quick look around the local trade bookshop will reveal something of the contours of America's spiritual confusion. Books on religion and spirituality abound, but most are empty of content. You know you are in a confused age when a popular book is entitled, THAT'S FUNNY, YOU DON'T LOOK BUDDHIST: ON BEING A FAITHFUL JEW AND A PASSIONATE BUDDHIST. Sadly, this confusion has invaded our churches as well. An amazing number of Christians allow for belief in reincarnation, channeling, or other spiritualist manifestations.

The current popularity of angels is another symptom of our spiritual confusion. Americans now love to decorate their homes with angel figurines, artwork, calendars, and inspirational messages. These citizens may or may not believe in God, but they do believe in divine messengers, and they are always cute and friendly -- the theological counterparts to the Smurfs.

To the Athenians -- and to modern secular Americans -- the preaching of the authentic Gospel sounds strange. “You are bringing some strange things to our ears,” the Athenians responded to Paul. The Christian evangelist hears this same response today. In postmodern America, the Christian Gospel is strange in its whole and in its parts. Most Americans assume themselves to be good and decent persons. They are amused at the notion that they are sinners against God.

We assume our need of therapy. The Gospel insists on our need of salvation. We want to work it out ourselves. The Gospel argues that this leads to death. We want to look within. The Gospel points us to Christ. We want to do our part. The Gospel insists that Jesus paid it all. We demand to get what we deserve. The Gospel warns that this is exactly what we will receive, unless we turn to Christ in faith.

Grace is an alien concept in American culture. Sin is almost outlawed as a category. A substitutionary atonement sounds unfair. God in human flesh is too much to take. But that is what we preach.

“You are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean.” [v. 20] The Athenians were confused by Paul's preaching of Jesus and the resurrection. “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,” accused others, charging Paul with the same offense that led to the execution of Socrates.

The Athenians and their tourists loved to spend their time telling or hearing something new -- but not this new. Americans are consumers of meaning even as they buy cars and clothing. They will test drive new spiritualities and try on a whole series of lifestyles. To many, the Gospel is just too strange, too countercultural, too propositional, too exclusive.

Paul was brought up on charges and gained a hearing at the Areopagus. “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?” he was asked [v. 19]. The one offense certain to bring charges against the evangelist in our generation is the claim to objective, absolute, eternal, universal, exclusive truth. Polytheists, syncretists, and secularists are untroubled by the promotion of one more deity or spirituality in the cultural cafeteria. But preach Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the Gospel as the only message of salvation, and you will find yourself hauled off to the court of public scorn and derision.

To contend for biblical morality in this culture is to run the risk of being cited for “hate speech.” We must assume a context of spiritual confusion, and this is often now a hostile confusion. The Gospel sounds not only strange, but threatening to the local deities.

________

This is part two of three.

*

During the past twenty years, evangelical Christian apologetics has made significant progress in some areas. Today in the field of philosophy, the Christian theist has access to a secular audience and is able to challenge openly the assumptions of skeptics and atheists [Plantinga, Willard]. In the field of astrophysics, the concept of an infinitely old universe has fallen upon hard times, and the notion of “a creation event” is generally recognized [Jastrow, Ross]. Statements of the anthropic cosmological principle (“It's as if the universe were exquisitely tuned, almost as if to accommodate us”1 are even finding their way into introductory physics and astronomy textbooks.)

I find this a refreshing reversal from the dogma of metaphysical naturalism that has saturated these scholarly disciplines for over a century. It is good to see the idea of a Creator, especially a biblical one, regaining intellectual credibility in these parts of our secular world.

But despite these successes, something seems to be missing. Yes, theistic philosophers can openly present positive arguments for the existence of God and the rational basis for Christianity. Yes, astrophysics suggests that we need God to start the ball rolling -- in just the right way -- for there to be life somewhere in the universe. But even if a skeptic grants us the logical necessity for a creator God, say 10-20 billion years ago, we are missing an important factor: Is God relevant today?

IS GOD RELEVANT?

How do we demonstrate this? If we as Christians consistently acted like God is relevant in our lives, that would help: Changed lives are a powerful witness. But personal testimony and answered prayer, while very important and essential, can all be dismissed as subjective criteria by the religious skeptic. How can we as scholars show that God is relevant to our skeptical culture and academic colleagues? This is a big question, and to begin to answer it we need to argue that God acts in human affairs; that He is not “wholly other.” We first need to establish that God controls or at least influences history.2

I believe that the best tool that God has given us to illustrate His influence of history is fulfilled prophecy. I have several reasons for this:

1) This is the chief evidence that God offers in the First Testament to verify His existence and claims. Isaiah 41:21-23, 44:7-8. Deuteronomy 18:20-22. “And who is like Me?... let them declare to them the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place.”3

2) Some prophecies provide tangible, long-lasting evidence of their fulfillment, making them easier for outsiders to verify than many other works of God. Miracles, for example, are usually one-time experiences. For those who were not present and who must only rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses, their plausibility may be questioned. Moreover, as we see with some of Jesus' miracles, there can be confusion among the eyewitnesses themselves about what actually occurred.4 Some prophecies, on the other hand, relate to future historical events that are open to review and investigation at later times: Did such an event actually occur, or not? For example, is the present state of a city or region consistent with a prophecy made thousands of years ago? The apostle Peter reminds us of the great value of prophecy, noting that his own witnessing of the miraculous Transfiguration made “the prophetic word more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place.”5

3) Fulfilled prophecy established the reliability of the text and its transmission, thus challenging the liberal criticism of prophetic books. One school of modern criticism views the First Testament prophets as radical social reformers. Max Weber notes: “The preexilic prophets from Amos to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, viewed through the eyes of the contemporary outsider, appeared to be, above all, political demagogues and, on occasion, pamphleteers.”6 Robert Carroll argues that these 'pamphleteers' made no predictions, but were only poets: “The original poets were free spirits, poets of the imagination, denouncing the social structures of their own time, but through redactional transformation have become conventional 'prophets', a fixed form of institutional activity, and thereby made to serve purposes which they themselves might very well have despised.”7 Carroll proposes that “questions of authority in the postexilic period” necessitated the “radical shift which transformed the poets and intellectuals of the past into 'prophetic' mediators of the divine word.”8

Hans Barstad rightly criticizes Carroll's approach as anti-historical9 and points out that by making the preexilic prophets disappear into the pens and imaginations of postexilic redactors, Carroll overlooks the fact that “the different phenomena described in Jeremiah and the other prophets reflect the phenomenon of prophecy in the ancient Near East as such.”10 In other words, if Carroll's model is correct, then ancient Israel is unique among her neighbors in having no prophets who advised their king, decried social ills, or gave warnings about the future.11

I propose that we can move beyond the cultural parallels noted by Barstad and argue at a higher level: If the prophetic books contain genuine predictions, who made them? The original prophet? The redactor? Was third, fourth, or tenth “Isaiah” the real prophet? We can pose haunting questions, like “Why didn't the redactor 'clean up' the predictions that had failed to come true by his time (cf. the Ezekiel prophecy below)?” We are lead to the conclusion that long-range future predictions in prophetic books would not have survived the heavy editing that radical critics claim took place. Hosea's predictions of Israel becoming a nation again (in an unbelieving condition), or Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy about the coming Messiah are too risky for a postexilic editor to leave in!12

Given these advantages (God endorses prophecy as an apologetic tool, some fulfillments have tangible results that we can investigate today, and these fulfillments help refute religious skepticism), are conservative scholars working with fulfilled prophecy today? Not that I am aware of! One finds the topic in an occasional master's thesis13, relegated to undergraduate term papers, or in popular works14, but it seems like the discussion of fulfilled prophecy died in scholarly circles with the publication of J. Barton Payne's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY in 1973 (Highly abbreviated, outline format). I see two possible reasons for this: First, it seems like conservative scholars have been scared away from the topic by the abuses of Hal Lindsey's THE LATE, GREAT PLANET EARTH or Charles Dyer's THE RISE OF BABYLON: SIGN OF THE END TIMES. Second, the topic may be considered “old” and hence it is not fashionable to study it. However, because of the apologetic issued involved, we need good historians, linguists and scholars to revive serious debate in this field.

For starters, we need to focus on fulfillments that are clear and obvious, but which liberals try to dismiss or ignore. Further, we should stress prophecies that were fulfilled well after New Testament times so that there is no question of “prediction after the event.” (The charge of “prediction after the event” is the favorite ploy of biblical prophecy critics, and they will late date a text, or at least claim that a redactor inserted the “prophecy” after the fact.)

As one example of a late-fulfillment prophecy, let us look at Ezekiel's proclamation against the city of Tyre, found in Ezekiel chapter 26. This is one of the most extensive prophecies in the Bible that is made against a leading hostile power. As we review the prophecy, we find ourselves fighting liberal skepticism at every step. We will see that it is no simple matter to refute the charge that Ezekiel's prophecy failed -- until you look back over 2,000 years.

Background: Tyre was a major city-state of the Phoenicians, a people famous for their sea trade and technical skills. As a commercial center, we should think of Tyre as the Manhattan, Hong Kong, or Singapore of the ancient near east.15 The ports and main temples of Tyre were situated on an island 1/2 mile off the coast, making them impervious to attack. Like Manhattan and Hong Kong, Tyre was highly dependent on the mainland for its resources (water, food, wood) and land-trade routes.

1) The first challenge to Ezekiel's prophecy involves his statement that Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre. While this argument had force at the turn of the century, Jacob Katzenstein notes: “The many doubts about the authenticity of Ezekiel's words concerning a siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar were shattered after Unger published a tablet which is an official receipt for provisions 'for the king and the soldiers who went with him against the land of Tyre.'“16 The wording of the tablet strongly implies that the king himself headed the campaign and at least part of the following 13-year siege.

2) Once an external source confirmed the historicity of this siege of Tyre, skeptics focused on the next oddity: Nebuchadnezzar is described as attacking Tyre using land siege equipment! Walther Eichrodt ridicules this, noting the host of ancient references that describe Tyre as “an island in the midst of the sea,” and he proposes that these verses are a “war song” added by later disciples to spice up the passage.17

Archaeologists and historians are not so quick to dispose of these verses: Bikai stresses that, due to severe space constraints on the island, the majority of the population and most of Tyre's factories and warehouses were located on the mainland.18 Katzenstein discusses the letters of Qurdi-assur-lamur to Sargon which show the extensive interaction between the independent island port of Tyre and the Assyrian-controlled mainland.19

Perhaps the best collaboration with Ezekiel's description of the Babylonian attack and siege of Tyre comes from a campaign report of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, who mentions building earthworks against Baal king of Tyre and withholding from them food and water. Moreover, it appears that the descriptive phrase “in the midst of the sea” does not require that Tyre be exclusively an island city: Esarhaddon Prisms A and B refer to Tyre's neighbor, the Phoenician coastal city-state Sidon as a “fortress town, which lied in the midst of the sea.”21 Also, Prism B includes Tyre in a list of cities located “on the coast of the sea.” There seems to be some flexibility in ancient descriptions of coastal cities, so we should not try to press one description too far.

3) Critics then move on to their most serious charge: Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the island city of Tyre. Clearly the prediction failed, and this failure is even admitted by Ezekiel himself (29:17-21) when he predicts that God will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar's troops as payment for their hard work in besieging Tyre.

Before responding to this, we must note two features in the prediction. The first is the opening statement that God will bring “many nations” against Tyre, “like the waves of the sea” (verse 3). This is a clear indication that we should not expect one nation or one attack to produce the severe destruction and final state of desolation that Ezekiel predicts. Second, we note that the attacker changes from singular (he) to plural (they) between verses 11 and 12. Up through verse 11, Ezekiel describes Nebuchadnezzar entering the gates of the city, trampling its streets, and slaying people. Verses 12 and following describe later waves of attackers (they) who take booty, destroy the city, and throw its debris into the water.

A closer look at Ezekiel 29:17-21 reveals that God's (and Ezekiel's) stated concern is not that Tyre was not taken, but that the troops did not receive adequate pay for their efforts. The historical record is clear that Nebuchadnezzar finally subjugated Tyre even though he did not raze the island. Babylonian records refer to a new king ruling Tyre after the siege, to the royal family of Tyre living in Babylon (in exile), and to a Babylonian official who governs Tyre.22

In summary we can reconstruct the following: Nebuchadnezzar, like Esarhaddon a century before him, waged a conventional land-based attack against the mainland portion of greater Tyre. He successfully captured the mainland, but not before most of the occupants had a chance to flee to the island fortress, taking the best of their goods with them. After a 13-year siege, the island was starved into submission, and became a vassal of Babylon. There was a change' of leadership and undoubtedly some tribute paid, but the island was not pillaged. Given the minimal return for their effort, God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar's troops by granting them success against Egypt. Ezekiel 29:17-21 is not “making lemonade out of a lemon” or trying to cover for a failed prophecy; it is simply rewarding the first of the many waves of nations that will follow.

4) Alexander's attack against the island city of Tyre in 332 B.C. is famous in military history. While invading Persia and Egypt, Alexander did not want to leave his flank exposed to a possible counterattack from Tyre, a vassal of Persia and the strongest naval power on the Mediterranean. Rather than waste time besieging the island for years, he decided to build a land bridge out to the island and take it by direct attack. This dramatic venture is well documented in Arrian's ANABASIS ALEXANDRI.

Many commentators feel that Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled in Alexander's attack, and some liberal scholars argue for a late date for Ezekiel by claiming that later disciples inserted the material that describes Alexander's siege so well.23 Clearly, Alexander fulfilled the comments that the rubble of Tyre would be thrown into the sea, since the mainland ruins were used to build the land bridge out to the island.24 However Ezekiel predicts that Tyre would not be rebuilt, and that it would become a place for the spreading of fishnets. From Arrian's descriptions it is very clear that Alexander did not level the island fortress, in fact, he had Tyre rebuilt. Tyre remained an important trading and manufacturing center that was fought over by Alexander's immediate successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.25

Recent excavations at Tyre show how large the city was in Roman times. A hippodrome with a seating capacity for 60,000 people and a large necropolis were discovered on the mainland in the 1970's. Clearly in New Testament times, the prophecy of Ezekiel was not fulfilled: Tyre was a thriving commercial center when the First Testament was distributed throughout the Roman Empire by Jewish and Christian communities alike. Thus it seems strange for critics to propose that a late redactor inserted the material about Alexander “after the fact,” but was so foolish to put in (or leave in) these obvious errors.

5) Tyre served as a major trading and manufacturing center throughout the Byzantine and Muslim periods. During the Crusades, Tyre remained strong and well-fortified, surviving a siege by Saladin in A.D. 1187-88. Finally, in A.D. 1291, the last wave of the nations crashed against Tyre. The Mamluks from Egypt took Tyre, massacred the citizens or sold them into slavery, and destroyed the city as part of their “scorched-earth” policy to thwart any attempt by the Crusaders to return.26 The region then suffered under inter-sect Muslim rivalry, a major earthquake and plague. Several travelogues written during this period remark that the site was essentially abandoned.

In the 1760's a small settlement at Tyre was encouraged by regional authorities, which grew into a small fishing village. Tyre finally became a place for the spreading of fishnets.

6) Over the past 30 years the city of Tyre has grown in size, thanks to a new water supply and Lebanese efforts to develop the excellent beaches near the site as a resort and tourist attraction.27 However, the civil war and proximity to Israel make the region unstable today. Looting at the site is a major concern of archaeologists and historians. Despite this modest growth there seems to be no danger that Tyre will once again become the world-class commercial center and naval power that earned her the title of “Queen of the Seas”.

SUMMARY

While commentators may haggle over Nebuchadnezzar's siege, Alexander's battle, the editing of the text by redactor-disciples, and Ezekiel's supposed admission of his failed prophecy, it seems obvious that his prediction has been fulfilled for the past 700 years. I am not aware of any scholar who claims that Ezekiel's predictions about the city not being rebuilt and its fishnets were inserted by disciples or redactors after A.D. 1300 or A.D. 1800.

But weren't most ancient cities destroyed? Weren't many sites abandoned? One would think that if one wait long enough, eventually any site will be abandoned. While a detailed answer to these questions goes beyond the bounds of this paper, we can briefly say in response: Not necessarily. Tyre's sister city, Sidon, located about 20 miles up coast, serves as a good control for this possibility. Ezekiel prophesies (28:22-23) that Sidon will face war, plague and famine, but he never says that she will never be rebuilt or will be reduced to a small fishing village. Sidon has had a bloody past; for example, in 352 B.C., 40,000 Sidonians locked themselves in their city and set fire to it rather than submit to the Persians.28 Yet today she persists as a small coastal city of Lebanon, a fact which hampers archaeologists from studying the area. Clearly, if Ezekiel or a later editor had simply switched the names of these sister cities in the predictions, neither would have been fulfilled.

CONCLUSION

Is fulfilled prophecy of value for scholarly apologetics? I would say yes. As I have tried to illustrate with the example of Tyre, it allows us to engage liberal scholarship and respond to liberal attacks on the reliability of Scripture. After all, somebody who wrote or edited the book of Ezekiel was able to predict the future. Moreover, fulfilled prophecy plays a critical role in apologetics because it helps to show that God influences history and therefore may be relevant to our personal lives.

However, it appears to me that conservative biblical scholars have shied away from the serious study of fulfilled prophecy because of the fear of liberal criticism and the sensationalizing publications of trendy popularizers. We need to retrieve this topic from the wastebasket of liberal skepticism and the soapboxes of doomsayers!

________

FOOTNOTES

1. Douglas C. Giancoli, PHYSICS: PRINCIPLES WITH APPLICATIONS, Fourth Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).

2. See the interesting discussion of this problem from a liberal perspective in Walter C. Bruggemann, “The Prophetic Word of God and History”, Interpretation 48 (1994), pp. 239-251.

3. Isaiah 44:7b (NASB).

4. Note for example Matthew 28:17 and John 12:27-30.

5. 2 Peter 1:16-19.

6. Max Weber, ANCIENT JUDAISM (New York: 1952), p. 267. Cited by Robert Carroll, “Poets Not Prophets”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27 (1983), p. 27.

7. Carroll, ibid., p. 28.

8. Carroll, ibid., p. 29.

9. Hans M. Barstad, NO PROPHETS?: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BIBLICAL PROPHETIC RESEARCH AND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PROPHECY, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 57 (1992), p. 46.

10. Barstad, ibid. p. 52.

11. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., ANCIENT VIEWS OF PROPHECY AND FULFILLMENT: MESOPOTAMIA AND ASIA MINOR, JETS 30 (1987), pp. 257-265.

12. In apologetics we should be cautious in using messianic prophecy as proof for the reliability of the Bible. The skeptic can dismiss them by saying that the early church made Jesus look like he fulfilled them! However, once the reliability of the Bible is established on other grounds, then we can turn to its messianic prophecies and ask, “Who, if anyone fulfilled these?” To that question, it is obvious that Jesus is the favored candidate.

13. John Clark Beck, Jr., THE FALL OF TYRE ACCORDING TO EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY (Master's Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971).

14. Josh McDowell, EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT: HISTORICAL EVIDENCES FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1972; revised edition, 1979).

15. Patricia M. Bikai, PHOENICIAN TYRE: THE HERITAGE OF TYRE, p. 46.

16. Katzenstein, THE HISTORY OF TYRE, p. 324. Citing Unger, ZEITSCHRIFT fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 44 (1926), p. 316.

17. Eichrodt, EZEKIEL, p. 371.

18. The mainland portion of greater Tyre was called Usu by Assyrians, “old Tyre” by Greeks.

19. Katzenstein, HISTORY OF TYRE, pp. 232-238.

20. Katzenstein, ibid., p. 278. ANET (1969), p. 292b.

21. ANET (1969), pp. 290-1.

22. Katzenstein, HISTORY OF TYRE, p. 332ff. Patricia Bikai, HERITAGE OF TYRE, p. 52. Eichrodt, EZEKIEL, p. 378, citing Zimmerli.

23. Charles C. Torrey, PSEUDO-EZEKIEL AND THE ORIGINAL PROPHECY, 1930. Torrey felt that “Ezekiel the prophet” was a complete fiction, and the book was written around 200 B.C. For others, see R.K. Harrison, INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1969).

24. Katzenstein, HISTORY OF TYRE, p. 15. For classical sources, see Diodorus of Sicily XVII.40.4-5. and Quintus Curtius HISTORY OF ALEXANDER IV.2.18.

25. Patricia Bikai, HERITAGE OF TYRE, p. 61.

26. Patricia Bikai, ibid., p. 78. Chehab, TYRE, p. 25.

27. Chehab, TYRE, p. 26.

28. Patricia Bikai, HERITAGE OF TYRE, p. 53, citing Diodorus (16.41-45).

________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrian. ANABASIS ALEXANDRI. The Loeb Classic Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Quintus Curtius. HISTORY OF ALEXANDER. The Loeb Classic Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Diodorus of Sicily. LIBRARY OF HISTORY. The Loeb Classic Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maurice Chehab. TYRE: HISTORY -- TOPOGRAPHY -- EXCAVATIONS. Translated by Leila Badre. Beirut. n.d.

Walther Eichrodt. EZEKIEL: A COMMENTARY. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1970.

Martha Sharp Joukowsky, editor. THE HERITAGE OF TYRE: ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND PRESERVATION OF TYRE. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1992. Chapter 2: THE LAND OF TYRE, by Pierre Bikai. Chapter 5: PHOENICIAN TYRE, and Chapter 8: MEDIEVAL TYRE, by Patricia Maynor Bikai.

H. Jacob Katzenstein. THE HISTORY OF TYRE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND MILLENIUM B.C.E. UNTIL THE FALL OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE IN 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem: The Schkocken Institute for Jewish Research, 1973.

J. Barton Payne. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY: THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO SCRIPTURAL PREDICTIONS AND THEIR FULFILLMENT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973.

James B. Pritchard, editor. ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS RELATING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. Third Edition with Supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

H.J. van Dijk, EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY ON TYRE (EZ. 26:1-28:19): A NEW APPROACH. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968. (Biblica et Orientalia - N.20).

________

This paper was presented at the 47th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Philadelphia, PA, November 1995.

Excerpted from the Global Journal of Classical Theology Volume 1, Number 2. Copyright 1999, Global Journal of Classical Theology.

*

A starting point for taking on the responsibility of the work of Christian apologetics is recognizing the role that living out a disciplined Christian life plays. Even a brief examination of the Scriptures reveals this striking imperative: one may not divorce the content of apologetics from the CHARACTER of the apologist. Apologetics derives from the Greek word APOLOGIA, “to give an answer.” 1 Peter 3:15 gives us the defining statement: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer (APOLOGIA) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

I have always found this to be such a fascinating verse because the apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew the hazards and the risks of being an answer-bearer to the sincere questions that people would pose of the gospel. Indeed, when one contrasts the answers of Jesus to any of his detractors, it is not hard to see that their resistance is not of the mind but rather of the heart. Furthermore, I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out. The Irish evangelist Gypsy Smith once said, “There are five Gospels: Matthew Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four.” In other words, apologetics is often first SEEN before it is heard.

For that very reason the Scriptures give us a clear picture of the apologetic Christian: one who has first set apart Christ in his or her heart as Lord, and then responds with answers to the questioner with gentleness and respect. Therefore, one must not overlook the stark reality that THE WAY ONE'S LIFE IS LIVED OUT WILL DETERMINE THE IMPACT UPON THE SKEPTIC. There are few obstacles to faith as serious as expounding the unlived life. Too many skeptics see the quality of one's life and firmly believe that it is all theory, bearing no supernatural component.

I remember well in the early days of my Christian faith talking to a Hindu. He was questioning the strident claims of the followers of Christ as being something supernatural. He absolutely insisted “conversion was nothing more than a decision to lead a more ethical life and that in most cases it was not any different to those claims of other 'ethical' religions.” So far, his argument was not anything new.

But then he said something that I have never forgotten, and often reflect upon: “If this conversion is truly supernatural, why is it not more evident in the lives of so many Christians that I know?” His question is a troublesome one. After all, no Buddhist claims a supernatural life but frequently lives a more consistent one. The same pertains to many of other faiths. Yet, how often the so-called Christian, even while proclaiming some of the loftiest truths one could ever express, lives a life bereft of that beauty and character.

This call to a life reflecting the person of Christ is the ultimate calling upon the apologist. The skeptic is not slow to notice when there is a disparity, and because of that, may question the whole gospel in its supernatural claim. Yet when they are met with gentleness and respect, we will help meet the deepest longings of the heart and mind, and they will find where true discovery lies. Let us live so accordingly.

________

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

On my way to Jerusalem, I went through Athens, though, at the time, I failed to notice the metaphor. I was a student traveling to Jerusalem for a semester of study; the 36 hour layover in Athens only seemed to be standing in the way. Like Tertullian, I wanted to get on with things, and really, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” In fact, Christians have been arguing over this question almost as long as students have been missing truth and life though it stares them in the face. While I was in my hotel room eating Salisbury steak and dreaming of the holy land, I missed (among other things) ancient Corinth, Thessalonica, and the Areopagus, all places where the very icon of philosophy and secular learning collided with Jerusalem itself, the symbol of religious thought and commitment.

The apostle Paul came to the city of Athens by way of trouble in Berea and opposition in Thessalonica. In Acts 17:16-34, Luke recounts Paul’s visit. As he walked through the streets and markets, Paul was taken aback by all he saw. The shining city was by no means shining with its former glory, but it continued to symbolize the very heart of philosophy, paganism, and culture. Seeing that the city was full of idols, Paul was greatly distressed.

Accordingly, the apostle treats his distress with routine. Paul finds, once again, the local synagogue, and reasons with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks from the Scriptures “as was his custom.” His method here was likely similar to the methods he used in Thessalonica or in Jerusalem itself. Placing the Scriptures and its messianic hope beside the life and events of Jesus, the apostle went about the work of an apologist -- that is, “explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, ‘This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you’” (Acts 17:3).

While this might bring one to deduce that the work of apologetics (from the Greek APOLOGIA, or defense) is largely about speaking, explaining, and proving, it is wise to consider the rest of Paul’s visit. While in Athens, Paul also visited the Agora daily, the marketplace that pulsed with the sounds of a city and the noise of buyers and sellers, where he reasoned with “those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). This being Athens, many who happened to be there were members of the Greek intelligentsia from the two local schools of Epicurean and Stoic thought. In a culture full of minds that earnestly sought to keep up with the latest wisdom of the age, Paul came as one with a new teaching. With compelling relevance he won their hearing. Luke recounts, “So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, ‘May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means” (vv. 19-20).

Paul was taken to the Areopagus quite purposely. The Areopagus, or Hill of Acres, was the site of a council that once served as the institution of legal authority over Athens. By the first century, the council no longer exercised authority in matters of democracy, but it continued to consider matters of ethics, religion, and philosophy. It was thus the appropriate place for their inquiry and examination of Paul’s new teaching. The experts of Greek religion and philosophy were not about to let this strange and confident amateur slip away.

At this point, one might still deduce that the work of apologetics is much ado about talk and persuasion. And it is. As Paul stood before the Areopagus he delivered a sermon that is still commemorated beside the rocks that heard it first: “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:22-23).

But the work of the apologist is far more than truthful words. Paul’s keen observations of the city full of idols and the passions of the learned were deftly employed in his conversations with them. Well before Luke describes Paul’s speeches, he describes Paul speechless. The apostle walked through the city listening, studying, and observing, such that when it came time to speak in the Areopagus Paul was able to see his neighbors as men and women who were “religious in every way” as well as a people willing to admit what they did not know. I would argue that such observations could only be made with humility, wisdom, gentleness, and prayer -- the greater works of any apologist, and often the most difficult. It is far easier to view our neighbors in terms of all that divides us, with words that reflect our differences, their oddities, and our superiorities. It is far easier to look at the disparities of Athens and ask dismissingly what it has to do with Jerusalem.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20861]

“Why Christian?” was a question put before Professor Douglas John Hall by one of the many students who discover themselves in his office asking more about the theology he teaches. It’s possible this question was asked rhetorically, maybe even a bit sarcastically, like those near Jesus who threw questions more like daggers than candid inquiries. It’s also possible the student just wanted to hear an honest explanation: In a world of so many spiritual options, in a world of reasons to reject religion altogether, “Why Christianity?” Regardless of tone or motive, the seasoned professor of theology decided to answer the question, laying aside the responses that must come automatically after so many years to really give an answer. “I confess, I [am answering] as much for myself as for you,” he writes. “You made me realize that after all these years I needed to face that question in the quite basic and personal way you put it to me.”(1)

On a typical day, my answer to the question of Christianity would be steeped in the signs and realities of the uniqueness of Christ. Thankfully this answer is not my own. With the giants around me and saints who have gone before me, I cannot explain the uniqueness of Christ without concluding his kingship. “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39). “Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (John 9:32-33). “Come and see the man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” (John 4:29).

Christianity is not a matter of preference or pedigree, but pilgrimage chosen specifically because we have found one worth following. “[Jesus] was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men,” wrote Scottish nobleman James Stewart, “yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God... No one was half so kind or compassionate to sinners yet no one ever spoke such red-hot scorching words about sin... His whole life was love. Yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell... He saved others but at the last, Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confront us in the Gospels.” Why Christian? Because there is none other like Christ. “He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay” (Matthew 28:6).

The incomparability of Jesus Christ answers the questions that come my way in a world of spiritual options and religious hostility. Facing the question “Why Christian?” is typically a matter of confessing the things I know, even as I know I now see but a dim reflection, but shall one day see face to face. Still, there are less typical days when the question comes, but from somewhere within, and the answers are somewhere stopped up with the tears I am trying to hold back. When standing over a casket or holding the hand of one whose body is riddled with cancer, “Why Christian?” takes on a different flesh -- or else it wavers cold and corpselike. Christ’s uniqueness is suddenly a matter of urgency, needing to be spoken in words that have meaning even in valleys of death and shadow. Standing before this body that once breathed, what does it really mean that Christ was unique? Though with a far different kind of trembling certainty, here too we are reminded that Christ’s incomparability is ultimately what matters.

The apologetic of the apostle Paul was always spoken starring life’s “last enemy” dead in the eyes (1 Corinthians 15:26). Whether answering the question “Why Christian?” or standing in jail having been beaten to silence, Paul kept before him the hope of the resurrection as both the proof of Christ’s uniqueness and the assurance that this uniqueness inherently matters. He spoke of the resurrection of Christ and his hope in the resurrection of the dead before the assembled Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6), before Felix (Acts 24:15, 21), and again before Felix’s successor, Festus, who conceded that Paul’s arrest was due to his proclamation “about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive” (Acts 25:19). Even before king Agrippa, Paul’s answer to the first acrimonious signs of the question “Why Christian?” was an appeal to Christ’s uniqueness in the hope of the resurrection. He asked, “Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?...I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen -- that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:8, 22). For Paul, and for all who claim the inimitableness of Jesus, if Christ has not been raised, there is no answer to the question “Why Christian?”

Instead, the uniqueness of Christ is an answer deep enough for questions that come with sarcasm or sincerity. But so it is an answer with flesh when life’s typical comforts fall by the wayside and the valley of shadows is long and lonely. There is none other like Christ. I know of no other god who weeps with us at gravesides and then shows us in his own dying and rising that death no more holds its sting.

________

1. Thus begins Douglas John Hall’s book Why Christian: For Those on the Edge of Faith (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 11.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1922]

There is no need to be defensive or hostile to Mormon missionaries who come to your door.

I have always found them to be intelligent, honest and cordial people who need an equally sincere Christian to share the truth with them lovingly. Do not view them as enemies, but as dedicated people who have been misled.

Love them. Pray for them. You can make a difference. Mormon missionaries have had the door slammed in their faces more times than they can count and have heard weak attempts to refute their beliefs. Dare to be different! Remember that people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.

Here are a few suggestions you may use when meeting with Mormons:

1. Set the agenda.

Mormon missionaries have several presentations they would like to share with you. I recommend that you, not they, start the conversation by admitting that since no one is 100 percent accurate about everything they believe, it is possible that you could be wrong on some things you believe. Tell them that you are satisfied with being a Christian but are open-minded and would like to discuss some issues concerning their beliefs that are bothersome to you. Ask them what it would take to convince them that Mormonism is false. When they say there is nothing, asthem, “If the bones of Jesus were someday discovered and they did a DNA test on the bones and compared it with a DNA test on the shroud, and if somehow it was clearly and irrefutably concluded that these were the bones of Jesus, would you continue to be a Mormon since the Bible said that the tomb was empty because Christ had bodily risen and ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless?’ Would that at least cause you to consider that Mormonism may be false? What if the gold plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon were someday discovered and translated by 20 professional Egyptologists and if their translation bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, would that make you seriously consider that maybe Mormonism is false?” Most will agree that these would certainly make them think long and hard.

2. Establish that the Bible is reliable.

This is important. According to those who have devoted their lives to helping Mormons find the truth about Mormonism, many times when a person leaves Mormonism they become skeptical because they include the Bible with their other Scriptures. Once they see that their own Scriptures are not from God, they may assume the Bible is not either. Take the time to show them that the Bible is trustworthy. This gives them a solid place to go when they leave the Mormon Church. I have found that most of the time, Mormon missionaries will end up agreeing with me that the Bible is reliable after the evidence in Part 2 of this series is presented to them.

3. Discuss the challenges to the Book of Mormon posed by archaeology and history.

Since you have discussed the trustworthiness of the Bible with them, they will now be able to see a big difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They will be shocked to find that Mormon archaeologists from BYU have admitted that unambiguous Book of Mormon archaeology is nonexistent.

4. Discuss the challenges to the Book of Abraham presented by professional Egyptologists who have translated the papyri that Joseph Smith used.

This point in particular destroys the credibility of Joseph Smith. If Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham is completely wrong, then there is no reason to believe his translation of the Book of Mormon is any better. His claims of having a God-given ability to translate and to being a chosen prophet of God become dubious.

5. Be prepared to address the value of feelings.

In my own experience, I have found that Mormons have very little to say in their defense after the above has been pointed out, except that God has confirmed in their hearts that Mormonism is true. In this series, we have noted that feelings can be misleading and actually prove nothing. Since you and your Mormon friend both have feelings that your beliefs are true, external evidence is the only test. And Mormonism fails to pass.

In conclusion, when Mormons knock on your door, embrace the opportunity.

Show yourself to be a loving and knowledgeable Christian. The object is not to win an argument but to try to lead a sincere person to the truth. Therefore, present the evidence in a patient and loving manner. The Apostle Paul wrote: “And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB).

Christianity is trustworthy because the text of the Bible is pure and much of it is confirmed by archaeology and secular history. We also have the proof from Jesus’ resurrection (endnote 51, continuing from endnote 50 in Part 5).

Mormonism, on the other hand, offers no proof of its truthfulness. There is no confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology or history. Translations by professional Egyptologists of the Book of Abraham papyri are completely different than Joseph Smith’s translation. If his translation skills are in question for the Book of Abraham, they are also in question for the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholars admit this is a serious problem, and attempts to reconcile it fail. Mormonism’s only “proof” is the confirmation God gives when one reads the Book of Mormon. However, this evidence is weak, since people of other religions claim God has convinced them of their own religion’s truthfulness. Who’s confirmation can be trusted, and why?

When you consider Mormon doctrines such as the plurality of gods, God having been once a man, man becoming a god, Jesus created by God, an afterlife much different than Jesus describes, and various salvation requirements, Mormonism presents a gospel much different than we find in the Bible. Therefore, the Apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8-9, KJV, may very well apply: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

These are sober words for Mormons, who are not in a position to be confident of their own salvation. They are zealous for God. But so were the Jews Paul wrote about in Romans 10:1-2 and prayed for their salvation. They believe in Jesus. But so did the Gnostics who were heretics of the early church, who, like Mormons today, taught a concept of God and Jesus that was fundamentally different than what the apostles taught. They do great works in the name of Christ. But so did those of whom Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:21-23, saying, “I never knew you.”

Many Mormons have been brought up in the Mormon Church and it is difficult to jettison what one has believed his or her entire life. Encourage the Mormons with whom you are sharing to pray and think about their personal situation. It is their souls that are on the line. Ask them, “Suppose you learned that some stock you had inherited from your parents would soon be worthless because the company had just announced that it was going out of business. You may not like that fact, but you would welcome an opportunity to sell the stock and get out of it before losing it all. Then you could put your money in a safe place. If you would do that with your money, how much more with your eternal soul! Why hold on to a false hope and lose everything when you have the opportunity to embrace the truth and be saved?”

________

Mike Licona is the director of apologetics & interfaith evangelism at the Southern Baptist North American Mission Board.

ENDNOTE

51. For a defense of Jesus’ resurrection, see Michael R. Licona. Cross Examined (Virginia Beach: TruthQuest Publishers, 1998).

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21379]

Have you ever had this happen? You're trying to share your faith with someone in an informal setting or maybe in front of a crowd. You know your arguments backward and forward, you present them clearly, but it just doesn't work.

It's one of the most frustrating experiences a Christian can have. You thought you did everything right. Why wouldn't people listen?

James Sire knows that frustration well. In his new book, WHY GOOD ARGUMENTS OFTEN FAIL, he writes, “For years I have been arguing about the Christian faith privately with myself and publicly with others. And for the same number of years, I have experienced very slow going.”

Now if you know anything about Sire, that statement might throw you for a loop. Slow going? Sire's books defending the Christian faith have sold hundreds, thousands of copies. He's delivered lectures on the subject around the world. In short, if anyone should know all the effective arguments for the Christian faith, it's Sire.

And yet even Sire has found himself in the situation I've described. He says, “I have been rather impressed with my arguments. Nonetheless, they have rarely sparked the response I have really wanted — vast masses of friends and enemies flocking to Jesus to repent and say, 'My Lord and my God!’ Why is this?”

Sire's book is an examination of why this is and what we can do about it. First, he deals with the logical fallacies that creep into the thinking of believers and nonbelievers alike — fallacies that, Sire bluntly says, should make us “hang our heads in shame.” These include generalizations about people who are different from us, faulty reasoning, and personal attacks.

Then Sire shows us how to strengthen our arguments. Sometimes this is a matter of learning to think through and structure them more carefully or learning more about the worldview of our audience. Sometimes, Sire admits, it's more a matter of attitude — making sure we're not showing off or looking down at people, making sure we communicate love.

More importantly, Sire reminds us that “the best reason for believing in Jesus is Jesus himself.” He urges us to “get people to 'look at' and, in a deeper sense, to 'meet' Jesus in the Gospels ... Conviction comes from an encounter with Jesus as prompted by the Holy Spirit. Abstract arguments become academic when a person meets Jesus.”

Now Sire acknowledges that there are times when even our most flawless arguments won't get a response from our listeners. Conversion is a matter both of the mind and of the heart, and sometimes, after all our presentations, it takes a “personal crisis” to get someone's attention.

But what all this means, Sire says, is “that we should continue to do our best to make a good case for the Christian faith and pray that somehow, through whatever means, God will turn that good case into a PERSUASIVE one.”

Even if our audience is not always ready to listen, there is no excuse for our not being ready to speak — and reading WHY GOOD ARGUMENTS OFTEN FAIL is an excellent way to help make ourselves ready.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

ISN’T THE BIBLE FULL OF ERRORS?

In answering we need to ask why and when our friends think the Bible has been changed? There are four separate questions here:

1. Did the events really happen in the way the eyewitnesses claimed they did?

(Are there errors of fact?)

If the eyewitnesses did not relate the events as they originally occurred, then there are only two possibilities. Either they were mistaken or they deliberately lied.

Individuals may suffer from errors of perception but not whole groups. Unlike the ‘revelations’ of contemporary cult leaders many of the events described in the Bible were witnessed by more than one person. On examining the accounts we find a remarkable degree of consistency. Consider for example the parallel histories in Kings, Chronicles and the Prophets, the biography of Jesus in the four Gospels or the 500 who were said to have seen Christ after the resurrection. (1 Cor 15:6)

On the other hand would the authors deliberately lie? According to tradition, eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus met a violent death on account of their belief in his resurrection. Would they really have put themselves through such suffering for a faith they knew was false? (1 Cor 15:15-19; 2 Cor 11:23-29)

2. Did the story change before it was written down?

(Are there errors of verbal transmission?)

Many people in our twentieth century world of wordprocessors, photocopiers and faxes disbelieve that verbally transmitted information could ever remain uncontaminated. An examination of the way stories are passed on in contemporary non-literate societies quickly puts paid to this kind of cultural arrogance. Oral traditions are composed in easily memorable format and are constantly repeated and checked. Some early Muslim converts memorised over 6,000 verses of the Qu’ran accurately! The capacity of the human memory is astounding as any mother who has read to her children knows.

Despite this, there was no chain of verbal transmission before much of the Bible was committed to writing. The words and deeds of Jesus were clearly recorded by eyewitnesses (2 Pet 1:16; 1 Jn 1:3, 19:35) or at least by those who carefully interviewed them (Lk 1:1-3). The meticulous detail in some of the observations proves their authenticity (Jn 19:34-5; 20:6-7).

3. Is what we have now what was originally written down?

(Are there errors of written transmission?)

Scribes who copied Scripture were meticulous in their attention to detail. One has only to look at old manuscripts like the book of Kells in the Dublin Trinity College library, or some of the scrolls in the British Museum to see the truth of this. Even if we doubted this fact there are enough early copies of both Old and New Testament documents to show that they have not been changed over the course of time. Entire copies of the New Testament in Greek dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) can be viewed today. Some of the earliest fragments (eg John Ryland) date from the lifetime of those who knew the apostles personally. Until this century the earliest Old Testament in Hebrew which we possessed was the Massoretic Text (cAD900). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran in the 1940s, (which contain parts of every Old Testament book save one) are 1,000 years older and virtually identical.

When comparisons are made with other documents of antiquity the Bible documents stand alone in terms of authenticating evidence. We know about Julius Caesar (whose existence no-one doubts) from less than a dozen copies of the original documents, the earliest of which post-date his death by 1,000 years. By contrast there are over 24,000 records of the life of Christ surviving from the first two or three hundred years after he walked the streets of Palestine.

Apart from the New Testament documents, early Jewish and Roman literature also makes mention of Christ: his teaching, miracles, crucifixion under Tiberius and even the three hours darkness at the time of his death. (see Tacitus, Lucian, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Thallus)

Archeological discoveries have repeatedly confirmed that those who wrote the Bible were consummate historians of the first order. (eg Ezra 6:13-16; Lk 3:1-2)

4. Are there contradictions?

Those who make reference to the ‘thousands’ of contradictions in the Bible are usually unable to name one. Most genuine contradictions can be attributed to minor errors in hand copying of individual letters or numbers (eg 2 Ch 36:9 cf 2 Ki 24:8) or to verses being taken out of context (eg Mt 7:8 cf Pr 1:28). Others arise when the same story is told from the perspective of different observers (eg Lk 24:1-2 cf Jn 20:1) This is what we would expect. If serial witnesses in court give identical testimonies, one might suspect that the evidence has been fabricated. Some contradictions may seem at first difficult to account for, but can be explained satisfactorily (eg Judas’s mode of death Mt 27:5 cf Acts1:18 and Jesus’s genealogy Mt 1:6-16 cf Lk 3:23-31.) We need to develop reasoned defences for those most commonly raised, while accepting that there will always be mysteries. Apparent contradictions confirm rather than cast doubt on the Bible’s authenticity. They would be carefully edited out in a fake. The fact remains that there is not a single error in the Bible which casts doubt on any significant historical biblical event or doctrine.

Throughout the last two thousand years the Bible has withstood vociferous criticism with flying colours. Those who are most vocal in questioning it generally either approach it with presuppositions (eg that miracles cannot happen) or are unwilling to accept the personal implications of its teaching.

===============================================

BIBLE REFERENCES

1. DID THE EVENTS REALLY HAPPEN IN THE WAY THAT THE EYEWITNESSES CLAIMED THEY DID?

1 Cor 15:6

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

1 Cor 15:15-19

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

2 Cor 11:23-29

I have worked much harder, been in prison...flogged... exposed to death again and again...five times I received the forty lashes minus one...three times I was beaten with rods...once I was stoned...three times I was shipwrecked...I spent a night and a day in the open sea...in danger from rivers...bandits...I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked...

2. DID THE STORY CHANGE BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN?

THE WORDS AND DEEDS OF JESUS WERE CLEARLY RECORDED BY EYEWITNESSES

2 Pet 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

1 Jn 1:3

We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

Jn 19:35

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

OR AT LEAST BY THOSE WHO CAREFULLY INTERVIEWED THEM.

Lk 1:1-3

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.

THE METICULOUS DETAIL IN SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS PROVES THEIR AUTHENTICITY.

Jn 19:34-35

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Jn 20:6-7

Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

3. IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW, WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN DOWN?

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES HAVE REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED THAT THOSE WHO WROTE THE BIBLE WERE CONSUMMATE HISTORIANS OF THE FIRST ORDER.

Ezra 6:13-16

Then, because of the decree King Darius had sent, Tattenai, governor of Trans-Euphrates, and Shethar-Bozenai and their associates carried it out with diligence. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

Lk 3:1-3

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

4. ARE THERE CONTRADICTIONS?

MINOR ERRORS IN HAND-COPYING OF INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OR NUMBERS.

2 Ch 36:9

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months and ten days.

2 Ki 24:8

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months...

ERRORS WHEN VERSES ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Mt 7:8

For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Pr 1:28

‘Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me.’

THE SAME STORY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DIFFERENT OBSERVERS.

Lk 24:1-2

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb..

Jn 20:1

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

JUDAS’S MODE OF DEATH.

Mt 27:5

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18

With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

The first and most important step to understanding the nature of truth is exemplified in a conversation between Jesus and Pilate. The conversation began with Pilate asking Jesus if indeed he was a king. The very surprising answer of Jesus was, “Are you asking this of your own, or has someone else set you up for this?”

In effect, Jesus was asking Pilate if this was a genuine question or purely an academic one. He was not merely checking on Pilate’s sincerity. He was opening up Pilate’s heart to himself, to reveal to Pilate his unwillingness to deal with the implications of Jesus’s answer. Intent, in the pursuit of truth, is prior to content, or to the availability of it. The love of truth and the willingness to submit to its demands is the first step.

But second, Jesus said something even more extraordinary. After identifying his Lordship in a kingdom that was not of this world, he said, “They that are on the side of truth, listen to me” (John 18:37). Jesus was not merely establishing the existence of truth, but his pristine embodiment of it. He was identical with the truth. This meant that everything he said and did, and the life he lived in the flesh, represented that which was in keeping with ultimate reality. Therefore, to reject him is to choose to govern one’s self with a lie.

God’s answers to life’s questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny are not just proven by the process of abstract reasoning, but are also sustained by the rigors of experience. And in the reality of history, God has demonstrated empirically the living out of truth in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of his Son. In short, the intimations of truth come in multisensory fashion. The Guardian of Reason leads us to check the correspondence of his word with reality and to ascertain the coherence of the assertions. But our experience in life proves those truths in concrete reality. Our grand privilege is to know Him, to bring our lives into conformity with truth, which leads us to that coherence within. Christ has said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). In a world increasingly enslaved by error and alienation, and seduced by images to believe a lie, how wonderful to be freed by the truth to his peace. The Scriptures tell us that the enemy of our souls is the father of all lies. He will do anything to keep us from coming to the truth because it is the most valuable thing in the world, and leads us to the source of all truth, to God Himself.

To all of this the skeptic might say that such conclusions may be drawn only if the God of the Bible exists. To that I heartily answer, Absolutely! And on numerous campuses around the world it has been my thrilling privilege to present a defense for the existence of God and for the authority of the Scriptures, unique in their splendor and convincing in the truth they proclaim. But let us not miss what the skeptic unwittingly surrenders by saying that all this could be true only if God exists. For, implicit in that concession is the Law of Non-contradiction and the Law of Rational Inference, which exist only if truth exists. Truth, in turn, can exist only if there is an objective standard by which to measure it. That objective, unchanging absolute is God.

I heard a cute little story, growing up in India. It is the story of a little boy who had lots of pretty marbles. But he was constantly eyeing his sister’s bagful of candy. One day he said to her, “If you give me all your candy, I’ll give you all of my marbles.” She gave it much thought, and agreed to the trade. He took all her candy and went back to his room to get his marbles. But the more he admired them the more reluctant he became to give them all up. So he hid the best of them under his pillow and took the rest to her. That night, she slept soundly, while he tossed and turned restlessly, unable to sleep and thinking, I wonder if she gave me all the candy.

I have often wondered, when I see our angry culture claiming that God has not given us enough evidence, if it is not the veiled restlessness of lives that live in doubt because of their own duplicity. The battle in our time is posed as one of the intellect, in the assertion that truth is unknowable. But that may be only a veneer for the real battle, that of the heart.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. — Psalm 102:25

Some people don’t like Campus Journal.

It’s not because they don’t like good stories or our writing style or the cover pictures. They just don’t like the fact that we base everything we say on the truth of God’s existence. They don’t like CJ because they don’t believe in God.

A while back, I read a letter from one such person. A nice enough person, I’m sure — with the same struggles and challenges you face as you go through your daily life at school. It’s just that this guy boldly declared that we’re all a bit wacko for believing in God.

Do you know anyone like that? A professor, perhaps? A friend? A relative? If so, maybe it would be good to offer some questions for this person to answer. These queries might get him or her thinking that God may exist after all.

• Why are people all over the world moral beings who share a common sense of good and evil, right and wrong?

• What was the first cause of the universe? From what did it come and what was the stimulus for its beginning?

• If the world was randomly formed, why is the universe — from the galaxies in space down to the atomic particles — so orderly and predictable?

• Why is there such a clear demarcation between humans and animals — with humans possessing a vast array of characteristics that animals don’t have? We have complex reasoning powers, self-awareness, curiosity about the world around us, an interest in religion and higher powers, and creative ability. Animals don’t.

Spend time thinking through these questions. Try to come up with some new ones of your own. This exercise will come in handy when someone notices that you’re reading your Bible and a devotional booklet and tries to convince you that you’re wasting your time.

Be ready to give reasons for your belief in God. It’s a biblical command (1 Peter 3:15), and it’s a great way to witness for Him. — DB

REFLECTION

• Do I know anyone who does not believe in God? What’s the best way for me to make an impact on that person?

• Do I feel confident to tackle the challenge of an atheist?

For many questions, God is the only answer.

When I was a student fielding attacks on the Bible or the logic of Christianity, feeling threatened by the claims of other religions, or merely finding myself alone in the dark night of my own doubt, the discovery of apologetics was like the discovery of a good friend or a warm blanket. It is infinitely comforting to discover a God who can handle tough inquiry. It is more than assuring to realize the truth is not contingent on my making sense of it. And while it is good to discover that we can ask questions and be asked questions without feeling like the tower of faith will come crashing down, apologetics is so much more than a tool for the fearful.

While reading the other day, I happened upon something that alluded to the “Christian arsenal” -- those items, ideas, and arguments that help Christians face a hostile world with certainty. Among other things, the author described helpful Christian resources for a world of challenging questions, harsh accusations, and conflicting worldviews. While some of the books in particular were things I, too, had found helpful, hearing them referenced in terms of weaponry seemed a disheartening incongruity. Like a chorus of triumphant debaters singing “Onward Christian Soldiers,” when apologetics becomes something aimed to help us fight, or to help us feel secure, the gospel itself seems somehow lost in the battle. Yet for many, the work of apologetics remains far more about ourselves than our neighbors, far more about the Christian arsenal than the love of God and creation. Subsequently, we do not present the gospel as good news, or even average news. On the contrary, we present the gospel as something that proves: “I am right!”

When the apostle Paul spoke to the Athenians at the Aeropagus, he did not come with a barrage of clever answers, trite comebacks, and confident scriptures. In fact, he didn’t quote scripture at all. He told them the story that changed his life, and he told it not in the language and imagery with which he would have most fluent, but in a language the Athenians themselves would recognize. While those of the Aeropagus kept themselves current with every new and coming school of thought and religious conjecture, they were likely unfamiliar with the Jewish Scriptures, the story of Israel, and the God who chose them -- and us. Thus, Paul began at the beginning, but did so in a way that invited them to see he was telling their story, too. “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands” (Acts 17:23-24). His arguments, reasoning, teaching, and commending were all offered in humility, respect, and love.

Of course, this is not to say the apostle’s words were easily embraced or dimly spoken. Before a council that regularly and eagerly heard new teachings, Paul presented a teaching that would not stand beside others, a Logos who would not remain as one lesson embraced among many. His words were controversial, but they were not hurled in battle. While there is indeed biblical imagery that alludes to the battles we fight and the conflicts that come when we carry the name of Christ, FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL, Paul strives to be “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22). While the call of Christ is indeed a call to put on spiritual armor, renounce what is false, and live counter-culturally, none of this imagery is intended to contradict the image Christ gave us of our neighbors. As Paul explains, “The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14). The danger in seeing the Christian life as a battlefield and the work of apologetics as weaponry is that we begin to see enemies instead of neighbors, obstacles that need to be overcome instead of people we are commanded to love.

In his message to the Athenians, Paul not only established a common ground, he grounded their differences in thoughts that included philosophers they respected. He saw them as neighbors. “As even your own poets have noted,” we are “God’s offspring,” and therefore, not distant material byproducts of an unknown maker. God is far nearer than we realize, far closer than handmade idols contend, or obstructive altars permit. Within this crowd of first century Greek philosophers, the unique apologetic challenges were many. But Paul’s presentation was deftly suited to their specific worldviews, pursuits, and ideals. Far from using apologetics as weaponry, Paul spoke to crowd who had invited him to answer their questions. He spoke not to obstacles or enemies, but to men and women made in the image of the very God he stood before them to proclaim.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

”… Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ “ (John 19:30)

The chief difference between other religions and the Christian faith as it relates to the matter of personal salvation is: every other religion teaches a form of self-salvation; Christianity teaches that God came in the Person of His Son to do for us what we could not do for ourselves. One Christian writer, Emil Brunner, refers to “the self-confident optimism of all non-Christian religions, because they teach a gospel of self-salvation, whereas in the Good News the whole emphasis is on the gracious ‘self-movement’ of God towards sinners and on self-despair as the antechamber of faith.”

Buddhism sees the main problem in life as suffering rather than sin, and the “desire” which is at the root of suffering. Deliverance comes, claims Buddhism, through the abolition of desire by self-effort. There is no God and no Savior. The very last words of the Buddha to his disciples were these: “Strive without ceasing.” How different from the last words of our Lord from the cross, which included the wondrous cry: “It is finished.”

Hinduism teaches the main problem in life is maya or karma, maya being illusion and karma retribution through reincarnation. Each person, says Hinduism, must receive the fruit of his or her own wrongdoing in future lives, if not in this one. From this endless cycle of rebirths or reincarnations there is no escape by forgiveness but only the final release of nirvana, involving the extinction of being. If only people of the world would heed the text at the top of this page. What a difference it would make to them. Salvation has been accomplished. It is ours to receive.

PRAYER: O God, I am thankful that I am no longer caught up in precariously trying to save myself. Instead I rest assured in the salvation You have purchased for me on Calvary. Grant that millions more might enter into it by faith this very day. In Christ’s Name I pray. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

Romans 10:1-13; Acts 2:21; Titus 2:11; 1 Timothy 2:4

1. What is the basis of salvation?

2. What is God’s desire?

EDITOR’S NOTE: With books such as “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus, Interrupted,” New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has taken his questioning of the authenticity of Scripture straight to the New York Times bestseller list. Ehrman’s background as an evangelical “believer” turned chief skeptic has also made him a favorite of the media.

________

Agnostic Bart Ehrman states with most biblical scholars that the New Testament Gospels were written 35-65 years after the events they purport to describe. Ehrman regards this time gap as too long, since historians desire sources that were written much closer to the events they describe.

He adds that this time between the events and when they are reported in the Gospels is similar to the distance in time between World War II and now. While that may be true of John’s Gospel, the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are closer to the distance in time between the Vietnam War and now. If the History Channel interviewed three veterans of that war about their combat experiences that occurred in 1974, should we regard their testimonies as untrustworthy given the distance in time between the events and their interview? Even the 65 years for John is not that long. If Ehrman truly believes what he’s saying, he should notify the History Channel that all documentaries that include recent interviews of World War II veterans are unreliable.

Let’s now consider an ancient example. Caesar Augustus is regarded as Rome’s greatest emperor and was ruling when Jesus was born. Historians rely on five chief sources to learn about Augustus’ adulthood: a funerary inscription that is around 4,000 words in length, an author who wrote around 90 years after Augustus’ death, and three others writing 100-200 years after his death. When we consider that this is what we have for the greatest Roman emperor, four biographies of Jesus written within 35-65 years of his death is pretty good. And when we consider that the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony about Jesus, the matter of when the Gospels were written is not nearly as challenging as Ehrman would have his readers believe.

The error of Ehrman’s historical thinking does not stop here. He further claims that the stories about Jesus in the Gospels were carelessly passed from one Christian to another and that the stories became grossly distorted over the period of several decades’ time. This is surprising and reveals a naiveté on Ehrman’s part pertaining to how Jewish tradition was transmitted in antiquity.

For well over a decade, I trained in the Korean martial art of taekwondo, earning a second-degree black belt. From 1986-89 I had my own school where I trained a number of students to the black belt level, even winning an “instructor of the year” award in 1987. A component of traditional martial arts training is “the form,” a series of movements simulating a fight against multiple opponents. In some martial arts, the forms are very old, having been passed from instructor to student for centuries. Students are carefully trained to perfect the forms of their particular art in order to master various techniques. Sometimes the original interpretation of a particular move may no longer be known. One instructor may interpret a leap as being over the body of an imaginary opponent just disabled while another may assert one is jumping over a small creek. However, the movement itself remains unchanged. In the mid-1980s, I learned forms from an eighth-degree black belt who had received instruction from General Choi Hong Hi who founded the art of taekwondo in 1955. Given the emphasis on passing along the same form, I was confident that my instructor had passed along to me the same form he had received from General Choi, although it was three decades after the forms had originated.

In antiquity, much learning occurred by means of oral tradition, since only about 10 percent of the general population could read. When Paul communicated apostolic tradition concerning Jesus, he did not take liberties to alter it. And we can test him on the matter. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives his non-binding opinion, followed by a teaching of Jesus (i.e., Jesus’ tradition) which was binding, followed by Paul’s apostolic ruling which was also binding. It is noteworthy that Paul did not invent a teaching and place it on the lips of Jesus in order to answer a situation Jesus had not addressed, but instead made his own ruling as an apostle. The Jesus tradition was not to be touched but was instead to be passed along intact and unaltered. For this reason, non-narrative tradition was preserved in formulas, creeds and hymns for easy memorization. Paul wrote, “I passed along to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3). It is demonstrable that the early Christian practice of passing along the Jesus tradition more closely resembled the passing along of the forms in the martial arts than it did the game of telephone.

Paul had learned the Jesus tradition from those who had walked with Jesus. His letters contain oral traditions, peppered throughout, that are even earlier than the Gospels, and in some cases much earlier. Although Paul does not write a biography of Jesus, his letters reveal he is familiar with a number of details pertaining to the life of Jesus that had been communicated to him by the disciples and their colleagues. In Galatians 1:18, a letter certainly written by Paul, Paul tells us he visited with the Apostle Peter for 15 days. Noteworthy is the Greek term Paul uses for “visited”: “historesai,” from which we get the English term “history.” Paul had met with Peter and had inquired of him about the life of Jesus. So, Paul provides us with a few details about Jesus he had received from those who had known Jesus very well. We observe such traditions in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and 15:3-7 that report details pertaining to the Last Supper with Jesus, His death and His resurrection.

There are about a dozen references to Jesus’ teachings in Paul’s letters and about 30 additional possible echoes. Because Paul was well-acquainted with the life of Jesus, he is able to instruct the Corinthian believers to “imitate me just as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). How could Paul imitate Christ if he knew nothing of Him?

In summary, although Ehrman contends that the Gospels were written too long after the events they purport to describe to be regarded as reliable accounts, we observed that this is simply not so. Moreover, his contention that the tradition about Jesus was changed dramatically during the 35-65 year period before it was put into writing is based on a nalve understanding of how oral tradition was preserved and passed along to others in the early Christian church.

________

Mike Licona is the apologetics coordinator at the North American Mission Board. For a better understanding of today’s world religions and for resources that will help you defend your faith, visit NAMB’s apologetics website at www.4truth.net.

My favorite LA homicide detective isn’t on television ... he’s a real life cop turned Christian apologist and writer.

Standing on the porch of a locked house, rookie homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace peered into the living room. He could see a man on the floor in a pool of blood, gun by his side. Now the question he had to answer: Was this a murder, an accident, or a suicide?

Entering the room with other detectives, Wallace quickly surmised that the man had killed himself. But he hadn’t looked closely enough. Wallace’s more experienced team leader found clues indicating someone had come in from outside the room: a piece of mud on the floor, footprints, and the fact that the murder weapon was lying on the left side of the victim even though he was right handed. The more evidence amassed, the more it became clear that the man was murdered.

As a detective, Wallace learned to follow the evidence wherever it led — to put aside his assumptions and his pre-conceived ideas. And in his fabulous book, “God’s Crime Scene,” Wallace uses his detective skills and his training as an apologist to examine whether the universe was created by a divine intruder outside the room of natural existence or not.

For years, Wallace was a committed atheist. “I really had a sense,” he said, “that eventually science would have an answer for every important question we could possibly ask about our existence, about the nature of the universe, about how the universe got here, and about how biological creatures like humans evolved on the planet.”

Then Wallace cracked open a Bible. And he became convinced that the gospel accounts about Jesus’ life were accurate — delivered by eyewitnesses, filled, as Acts 1 states, with “many convincing proofs” of His resurrection.

But even after Wallace accepted the accuracy of the gospels, he still had questions. Like how do you deal with the radical claim that the universe and all we see around us came into existence through the work of a Being Who transcends time and space?

So Wallace decided to apply the same techniques he used at crime scenes to investigate the origin of the universe. For example, when approaching a “dead body report,” he explains, there are always four possibilities: natural death, accidental death, suicide, or the one that everyone dreads — murder. The first three require no outside intervention, but the fourth does. So the detective’s job at a crime scene is to see if there was an intruder. Did someone from outside the room leave DNA, or footprints, or some other calling card?

When examining the universe, Wallace says, the evidence overwhelmingly points to outside intervention for the origin of everything we see and experience. And if we set aside naturalistic commitments, we discover a cumulative case for the existence and work of God that any jury would uphold.

In “God’s Crime Scene,” Wallace identifies four categories of evidence that all point to this outside intruder: the fine-tuning of the universe, signs of intelligent design in biology, consciousness and free agency, and transcendent moral truth.

The evidence is powerful. But it can’t — in and of itself — change anyone’s heart. Speaking from experience, Wallace admits that “people will struggle, and twist, and turn, and contort” to avoid admitting the obvious — to keep from looking outside of the box for an explanation for what they find in the box.

That’s why in order for apologetics to succeed, he thinks God must return to the scene of the crime. The Creator Who intruded at the beginning of time to bring about the world and Who entered that world as a Man must also enter our lives and give us new hearts, in order for us to accept the evidence.

In the meantime, we can search for clues and we can help others see them. If Wallace is right, they’re not hard to find. And thanks to this book, a generation of new sleuths may soon be hot on the trail of a Perpetrator neither they — or he — expected.

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Ever left speechless on these tough conversations about social issues? Ever think afterwards, why didn’t I say that? Well, here are six questions for your conversational toolkit.

Last week, at a gathering of strategists on some tough cultural issues, a very good point was made: Sometimes the right question at the right time is the best way to have a conversation with someone with whom you fundamentally disagree.

I couldn’t agree more, especially when the topic is something like same-sex marriage, religious freedom, or bathrooms at Target — when you know that to have an opinion counter to the new cultural orthodoxy is to be thought of as hateful or intolerant.

Our temptation is to think, “Oh, they won’t listen.” Maybe they won’t, but I think more times than we think, we can have conversations that are actual conversations. Sometimes we’re afraid we won’t know enough. Maybe that’s true, but in addition to basic knowledge, there are also skills for having these conversations that we can all acquire.

And one of these skills is being a good question asker. The power of asking questions is seen clearly in the two greatest educators of all time: Socrates and Jesus. Both men were master teachers. Both men knew most (and in the case of Jesus, all) the answers. Both men had a unique ability to lead others to those answers. And both men were great questioners.

Here are six questions I’ve found extremely helpful to create the sort of dialogue we should desire about issues of faith and culture.

First, What do you mean by that? The battle of ideas is always the battle over the definition of words. Thus, it’s vital in any conversation to clarify the terms being used. For example, the most important thing to clarify about whether same-sex marriage should be legal is the definition of marriage. So when the topic comes up, ask, “Hold on, before we go too far into what kind of unions should be considered marriage, what do you mean by marriage?” Often, when it comes to these crucial issues, we’re using the same vocabulary as those with whom we disagree, but not the same dictionary.

Here’s a second question: How do you know that is true? Too often, assertions are mistaken for arguments. There’s a vast difference between the two. An assertion is a definitive statement made about the nature of reality. An argument is presented to back up an assertion. By asking “how do you know that’s true?” you’ll move the conversation beyond two people merely asserting what they believe to why those assertions should be taken seriously.

For example, it’s still repeated that ten percent of any population is gay or lesbian, and that there’s a gay teen suicide epidemic. The first stat is based on the flawed research of Alfred Kinsey, and the second has been deeply challenged by a pro-gay researcher.

Here’s a third question is Where did you get this information? Once arguments are offered, it’s important to ensure the arguments are valid. For example, news reports love to shout that same-sex parents are better parents than straight couples — a talking point that’s based on very limited studies, while other studies suggest the exact opposite.

The fourth question: How did you come to this conclusion? Behind the person you are talking with and his/her convictions, is a story, a personal story. If you know that story, it may make more sense why they don’t find your views plausible. Plus, it’ll help you remember the person you’re talking with is a real, image-of-God bearing person.

The final two questions: What if you’re wrong? and What if you’re right? Ideas have consequences that are always worth considering. For example, with so little evidence, what if it’s wrong that kids just need loving parents, not a mom and a dad? That’s a big risk to play with the next generation.

Of course, if we’re asking for reasons, so will our conversation partners. And at BreakPoint.org, we’ve got a list of resources on these topics to help.

________

Copyright (c) 2016 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Apologetics simply is a reasonable defense of the Christian faith. The word is derived from the Greek noun apologia and means “a defense.” Apologia and its verb form apologeomai are used nearly 20 times in the New Testament, often in the classic legal sense, but more importantly to describe the call of God to all believers to defend the Christian faith with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15-16).

But how is sound doctrine applied practically? Put another way, what good is Christian apologetics?

Apologetics has at least four practical applications. We may use apologetics to:

Build

There is a positive case to be made for Christianity, and apologetics helps us get there.

The Bible, history, archaeology and other sources help establish that a real person named Jesus burst onto the scene 2,000 years ago. He claimed deity, performed miracles, spoke the truth, modeled compassion, died on a Roman cross, was buried and rose physically on the third day. His coming to earth was the most important event in human history.

Further, apologetics helps us know who God is; who we are; why there is purpose in life; how we can be restored to a right relationship with our Creator; why we can face death without fear; and what God is doing about evil in the world.

Defend

Christianity is under attack on many fronts, from moral relativists to radical Islamists to angry atheists. Many times they misrepresent Christianity, so we can go a long way in defending the faith by clarifying the Christian position on matters of faith, answering objections and clearing away difficulties.

For example, Jehovah’s Witness leaders historically have claimed that orthodox Christians worship a “freakish-looking three-headed god.” While we may not be able to convince our Jehovah’s Witness friends of the truth of the Trinity -- their New World Translation of the Bible and their official publications have stripped this biblical truth from JW doctrine -- we may at least provide biblical clarity.

The Bible teaches that there is one true and living God who exists as three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We do not worship a three-headed god, or three separate gods, or even one God who shows up sometimes as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Defending the faith against mischaracterizations of Christian doctrines is an important function of apologetics.

Challenge

Sometimes Christians have to go on the offensive by challenging critics to provide evidence for their unbiblical beliefs. For example, when a moral relativist boldly declares, “There is no absolute truth,” a good response is, “Are you absolutely certain about that?”

When our Muslim friends tell us that Jews and Christians have corrupted the Bible, it’s only fair to ask them how they came to that conclusion.

We have significant manuscript evidence that the scriptures have been carefully copied and faithfully preserved. Further, the Qur’an states in several places that the sacred writings of the Jews and Christians faithfully attested to the truth of Islam. If Muhammad believed the scriptures were intact in the 7th century, what happened since then to make them corrupt?

Sometimes the best defense of the Christian faith is to hold critics accountable for their unbiblical views.

Persuade

Ultimately, Christian apologetics finds its greatest application as an effective means of evangelism. When we build a positive case for Christianity, defend Christianity from attacks, and challenge critics to defend their views, we can bring them to a point of commitment to Christ.

We should never coerce another person to trust in Jesus. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:7-11). But we should eagerly invite our unbelieving friends to receive Christ and thus pass from death unto life (John 5:24).

In his book “Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions,” Gregory Koukl writes, “It may surprise you to hear this, but I never set out to convert anyone.... I have a more modest goal, one you might consider adopting as your own. All I want to do is put a stone in someone’s shoe. I want to give him something worth thinking about, something he can’t ignore because it continues to poke at him in a good way.”

May all of us be Christian apologists that gently and respectfully place pebbles in the shoes of our lost friends.

________

Rob Phillips is director of communications for the Missouri Baptist Convention with responsibility for leading MBC apologetics ministry in the state. This article first appeared in The Pathway (www.mbcpathway.org), newsjournal of the Missouri Baptist Convention.