Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 153
December 16, 2012
Links Mentioned on the Show
The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:
God and Sandy Hook – video of Greg's radio commentary
The Answer to Evil by Melinda Penner
Newsweek: Heaven Is Real (assessing near death experiences) by Melinda Penner
Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland
Moral Grounding by Greg Koukl
Listen to today's show or download any show for free.
December 15, 2012
The Answer to Evil
What can we say about the horrific evil that occurred in
Connecticut?
We weep with those who weep. There is a time simply to
comfort those who mourn. God isn’t
distant and uncaring about what happened.
He is there. He hasn’t
abandoned us. He is present and
involved. He knows suffering
firsthand – Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, suffered a violent death
at the hands of evil men. God
knows and He cares. He is here.
God’s answer to evil is Jesus, whose birthday we celebrate
in this season. He is God’s answer
to evil. God responded Himself to
the evil we perpetrate in this world.
God came in the flesh, Emmanuel.
He lived a perfect life, yet took the punishment each of us deserves for
our evil. He got involved, He didn’t
remain far off. He came to us.
The angels’ message to the shepherds is still the answer to
evil and suffering: “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that
will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city
of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” Jesus is the only one who holds the answer to evil.
He identifies with us in the effects of evil in our lives
because He lived a life in this evil world. He defeated evil and is the only answer of hope because He
overcame the power of sin and the devil on the cross and by rising. He assures us that this evil world is not all there is and He has prepared a perfect world where all will be set right. He gives us the Holy Spirit to comfort
us and empower us to endure when it seems sorrow will crush us. He will bring final and perfect justice
when He returns.
Behold Him. He is the only source of true joy in an evil world.
Don’t try to find the strength in yourself. It’s not there. Don’t look for hope in others. We are all frail sinners and
disappoint. Behold Jesus, God in
the flesh. He is the answer for
the hope and fears of all mankind because He alone has dealt with evil.
The atheists may challenge Christianity with evil – how can a
good God allow evil? But what does
atheism have to answer evil?
Nothing. No hope. No ultimate justice. No comfort. No explanation.
We may not know why God has allowed this evil thing to
happen. But we do know that He has
provided the answer for it: His
Son Jesus. He came to us because
of what happened in Connecticut.
He came because of every other evil act we commit in this world. He comes today to comfort and offer
hope and grace to live through something that is otherwise impossible to cope
with. And He will come again to
deal with evil finally and eternally.
That is the tiding of great joy that answers horrific evil. The only hope that offers comfort to those who weep.
December 14, 2012
What Luke Actually Wrote
A caller to the radio program about a month ago asked about answering a historical challenge to Luke 2 that Bart Ehrman has raised. I have to confess, I wasn't aware of this apparent problem, and researching it has actually been quite fascinating. Ehrman mentions it in this week's Newsweek magazine. Part of the key to the answer is what the Greek text of Luke 2 actually says, as opposed to what we've come to think it says. Greg has observed that answering many of the problems about the Bible that callers raise on the radio program can be resolved simply by reading the text. That's part of the answer here, plus a little historical context.
The gist of the problem is that Luke claims that the first tax when Quirinius was governor of Syria was at the time of Jesus' birth – around 4-2 B.C. The Jewish historian Josephus, however, records that the first tax under Quirinius' administration was in 6 A.D., after Jesus' birth. There's no reconciling these reports, unless we actually look back at what Luke wrote and at some historical data.
First let me make the point Greg made to the caller. Luke himself is a historical account that we should take just as seriously as Josephus. The posture that the Bible is the questionable source behind other historical sources is just plain prejudice before examining the accounts. The Gospels, just like Josephus, claim to be ancient historical records, and they should be taken as such until proven to be untrustworthy. So far, they have not been dismissed based on the facts, only by assumption. Josephus' accuracy can be questioned in light of Luke's account just as much as the other way around.
As it turns out, the two historical sources are easily reconciled. And a quick note on answering apparent contradictions in the Bible: Reason requires we show a possible resolution, not that we have proof that it's the actual resolution. If there's a way to understand the text in harmony with other historical data, then we've answered the challenge. That's true for any historical document, not just the Bible.
Go and read Luke 2 in the ESV or NASB – no tax is mentioned, only a registration or census. I would have recited Luke 2 from memory "that all the world should be taxed." That's in the KJV, but it's not what Luke actually wrote. Luke doesn't mention the purpose for the registration. We know from historical records that there were other reasons the rulers ordered registrations of their citizens, and that Augustus ordered citizens to register on more than one occasion. Tertullian reports that there were censuses conducted in Palestine during the time period Jesus was born. So we have historical support that registrations were conducted at that time.
It could be that the registration was for the purpose of renewing loyalty to Caesar on the 25th anniversary of the Roman Senate giving Augustus complete allegiance. As descendants of a royal family, both Mary and Joseph would have been required to go to the seat of their royal ancestor. Both had royal blood, so both had to be registered in Bethlehem.
In fact, Josephus reports an oath of loyalty took place at the time of King Herod. It fits perfectly with what Luke actually wrote.
The other apparent problem with Luke's account is the description of Quirinius as governor of Syria, but other historical records show that others were governor during the time of Jesus' birth. And Josephus mentions that Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D., not at the time of Jesus' birth. However, Justin Martyr recorded that Quirinius was procurator in Judea during the time of Saturninus, who was governor of Syria. Justin Martyr adds that this was during the time of Jesus' birth and that Quirinius was there for the purpose of conducting a census. Gleason Archer explains that Quirinius was a special assistant to Augustus who often sent him on his behalf to conduct specific tasks. To the provincial citizens, procurators had authority just as the governors had. From a functional standpoint, there wasn't any real difference between the offices. But from what I've read (I don't know Greek), what Luke wrote means ruling or administrating; it doesn't have to mean govern or governor, though it can. (The Greek can also be translated before Quirinius was governor of Syria, which would reconcile the timing and position, as well.)
So an appeal to what Luke actually wrote and some historical records reconcile this apparent problem. Luke said that he set out to write a careful historical account of what took place. And there's very good reason to think that is what he accomplished.
Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree
I’ve worked more cases involving witnesses than I can even count. A career in law enforcement will put you in direct contact with eyewitnesses on a daily basis, starting with your very first night on the job. After interviewing literally thousands of witnesses over the course of twenty five years, I think I’ve learned something about reliable eyewitness testimony. I want to share three simple characteristics of reliable eyewitness testimony and relate these three characteristics to the Gospels:
Reliable Eyewitnesses Never Agree
In all the cases I’ve ever worked, from simple theft and assault cases, to robberies and homicides, I’ve yet to have a case where the witnesses of the event agreed on every single detail. It’s never happened. I’ve learned that perspective is important, and it’s not just one’s physical perspective that determines what a witness did or didn’t see. When you’re staring down the barrel of a robber’s pistol, you have a tendency to miss certain details that are picked up by the witness who is watching from across the isle of the liquor store. There are many factors that contribute to one’s perception of an event. Physical location, past experience, familiarity with a feature of the crime scene; a witness’ physical, emotional and psychological distinctives play a role in what they see and how they communicate this testimony after the fact. No two people are alike, so no two people experience an event in precisely the same way. If you’ve got three witnesses in a murder case, expect three slightly different versions of the event. Don’t panic, that’s normal. In fact, when three different witnesses tell me the exact same thing, I start to get suspicious.
Reliable Eyewitnesses Raise Questions
As a young, inexperienced investigator, I used to think that an eyewitness would answer all my questions about an event. I wish this were true, but the reality is that for every question an eyewitness answers about what occurred at a crime scene, a new question is often raised. There are times when eyewitnesses even raise more questions than they have answered. I’ve worked a number of cold-case homicides in which an eyewitness account was captured decades ago, at the time of the original investigation. After reading the testimony, I was left with a few troubling questions. How could the crime have occurred like the witness described it? How could the suspect have done what the witness said? There are times when an eyewitness just doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. But after paging through the case file to the next eyewitness statement, the questions raised by the first eyewitness are sometimes answered by the second observer of the event. I call this “unintentional eyewitness support”; times when an eyewitness raises questions that are then unintentionally answered by a second observer. I’ve seen this so many times over the past twenty-five years, that I’ve come to recognize it as a feature of reliable eyewitness testimony.
Reliable Eyewitnesses Are Sometimes Incorrect
There are times when an eyewitness gets something wrong. In fact, I’ve seen this repeatedly over the course of my career. Witnesses are people and people make mistakes. But the fact that a witness might be wrong about a particular detail or element of the crime does not necessarily disqualify them or render their testimony unreliable. If that were the case, we would never be able to prosecute anyone for anything. When examining the reliability of an eyewitness and encountering some factual error, I’ve got to determine (1) if the errant aspect of the statement is relevant to the larger issues in the case, and (2) the reason why the witness got the detail wrong in the first place. If a victim of a robbery misidentifies the kind of shirt the suspect wore at the time of the robbery, I have to ask myself this misidentification makes the victim an unreliable witness. Is there a reason why the stress of the situation may have caused the victim to focus on issues other than the kind of shirt the robber wore? Is the truth about the shirt captured in some other way (like in the surveillance video) that can help us determine the truth of the matter? Does the misidentification of the shirt make a difference to the larger nature of the case? Is the victim accurate on the other more pertinent details of the crime? A witness can be incorrect about a particular detail, yet still be reliable as an eyewitness.
Now let’s take a look at the gospel accounts. Skeptics often cite the variations between accounts as evidence of their unreliability. As a detective who has worked multiple eyewitness cases, I find their variations to be with an expected and acceptable range. And, like other cases involving more than one eyewitness, I find that some gospel accounts raise as many questions as they seem to answer. Interestingly, I also see the expected “unintentional eyewitness support” from one gospel account to another (I’ve written about this in my book); this support is precisely what I’ve seen in cold-case homicides that I’ve worked. Finally, let me say something about inerrancy and reliability. While I believe that the original gospel narratives are inerrant, I don’t need this standard to trust what the gospel accounts have to say about Jesus. Remember, reliable accounts are sometimes incorrect in some particular detail. This does not necessarily disqualify them, especially if the detail is not essential, can be understood on the basis of some additional testimony or evidence, and if the error on the part of the witness can be explained. Inerrancy is not required of witnesses in a court of law, reliability is. With a standard far lower than the gospels possess, the documents can still be considered reliable.
I spent the first nine years of my career investigating crimes as a committed atheist. Even then, I would have approved the notion that witnesses who fail to agree on every detail, raise as many questions as they seem to answer and are inaccurate in some detail of the event, could still be trusted as reliable eyewitnesses. Even my old atheist criteria for eyewitnesses would have been sufficient to make the case for gospel reliability. I now know that the gospels actually exceed what I would require to consider them reliable.
The Third Advent Candle
This Sunday the third candle on the advent wreath is lit. Christmas is drawing closer - and so is the second coming of our Savior.
The history of salvation - past. current, and future - is essentially waiting and fulfillment. Israel waiting for the first coming of the Messiah, and the comments of those who greeted the Christ child are full of prophetic fulfillment. As Christians at this point in salvific history, we draw confidence from that fulfillment as we now wait for the second coming of the Messiah and the completion of God's salvation plan. Advent is a microcosm of that waiting and hope. Taking time to meditate on God's fulfillment of His promises can encourage our souls as we wait and hope on the Lord.
Lamentations 3:19-26
Remember my affliction and my wandering,
the wormwood and bitterness.
Surely my soul remembers
And is bowed down within me.
This I recall to my mind,
Therefore I have hope.
The LORD'S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
"The LORD is my portion," says my soul,
"Therefore I have hope in Him."
The LORD is good to those who wait for Him,
To the person who seeks Him.
It is good that he waits silently
For the salvation of the LORD.
December 13, 2012
Ehrman at It Again
Bart Ehrman wrote the cover story in this week's Newsweek magazine. It's classic Ehrman, raising points that many Christians and non-Christians may not be familiar with, suggesting there is a problem that calls into question the historical reliability of the biblical text, and failing to mention that these are long-recognized observations that have straightforward answers.
Ehrman opens his article mentioning the Coptic fragment revealed this past Fall that mentions Jesus' wife. (You can read about it here and here.) He uses its mere existence (not its authority) to point out that there are a variety of extra-biblical documents that give information missing from or contradictory to the Bible. Many of these have been known since the early centuries of the church. None date as early as the Gospels. None can be traced to an eyewitness. The church knew this and rejected them as non-authoritative for those reasons. So what? Ehrman hopes to sow the seeds of doubt with old news.
As Michael Kruger documents in his excellent books and blog, none of these alternative accounts dates earlier than the late second century. Most are later than that, far removed from Jesus' time and the writing of the authoritative Gospels. (You can find radio with Kruger on April 10, 2011, and July 25 2010.)
Ehrman also cites the differences in Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus, calling them "apparent contradictions." But he doesn't indicate that there is a pretty simple explanation for this and it isn't a contradiction. They are easily reconcilable differences, not "discrepancies" and "contradictions." Matthew and Luke are citing different lines of Jesus' ancestry because they were writing to different audiences for different purposes. You can read an excellent explanation here.
Ehrman also talks about the features of the Nativity story we all think we know that aren't mentioned in the Gospels. Once again, so what? Many times, questions about the Bible can be resolved simply by reading what the text actually says, rather than believing what we think it says. An example of this Ehrman raises is the birth account in Luke and supposed historical problems with it. I've got a post about that tomorrow.
Here's a Solid Ground Greg wrote a couple of years ago about the misinformation Ehrman has given on the historical reliability of the New Testament.
This is a good site providing answers to Ehrman's mistaken claims.
December 12, 2012
Chrislam
Can a new follower of Jesus Christ remain a Muslim and still
be a genuine believer? That’s what many in the insider movement are saying. It’s
a troubling new trend in Muslim missions. If you’re not familiar with this approach,
I encourage you to read the recent Solid
Ground article
I co-wrote with Greg Koukl called, “Muslim Followers of Christ? – A Look Inside
the ‘Insider Movement.’”
A number of my friends and colleagues have contributed to a
book addressing this movement. Each has written on a topic they are uniquely
qualified to address. The book is called, Chrislam:
How Missionaries are Promoting an Islamized Gospel.
It’s an important work because it’s the only single volume (that
I know of) that tackles the wide range of subtopics that arise from this
particular missions approach. For example, there are articles dealing with the
role of persecution among converts from Islam, missiology, the proper role and
boundaries of contextualization, the concerns with Muslim-friendly Bible
translations, testimony from former insiders, and much more.
You can buy it from the publisher
or from Amazon.
See my other posts on this subject:
The
Chasm between Muslims and Christians
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus
One of the interesting things about marking advent is the two-fold nature of the wait: the already and the not yet. Advent means "arrival" and it's a season to remember the first time Jesus came, but also to prepare for the Second Coming.
Advent marks the days until we celebrate Jesus' birthday, recounting the events 2000 years ago and Israel's long wait for the Messiah's arrival. Jesus came the first time as a baby in the manger. Emmanuel, God in the flesh. He fulfilled the promises made to Israel to send the Messiah.
Jeremiah 33:14-16 (New International Version)
'The days are coming,' declares the Lord 'when I will fulfill the gracious promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
'In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; He will do what is just and right in the land.
"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.'
Come, Thou long expected Jesus
Born to set Thy people free;
From our fears and sins release us,
Let us find our rest in Thee.
Israel’s Strength and Consolation,
Hope of all the earth Thou art;
Dear Desire of every nation,
Joy of every longing heart.
Born Thy people to deliver,
Born a child and yet a King,
Born to reign in us forever,
Now Thy gracious kingdom bring.
By Thine own eternal Spirit
Rule in all our hearts alone;
By Thine all sufficient merit,
Raise us to Thy glorious throne.
But Advent also looks toward the return of Messiah, and his second coming is fearsome. It will be Judgment Day. The Gospels enjoin us to be watchful. Mark 13 paints an awesome picture of Jesus second coming. Matthew 25 encourages us to keep watch and be ready for His return. His first coming was to make a way for us in the second coming. Jesus gave Himself as God in the flesh so that when He comes again, His righteousness will deliver those who call Him Lord from the judgment we would otherwise deserve. And He will receive all the honor and worship due Him for His first coming and the redemption He bought for His children. At that time, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord, and He is glorious.
"Mild He laid His glory by" the first time. The next time He comes will not be mild and His glory will be evident to everyone. The baby in the manger is the coming King . Stay alert. Be ready. Use this Advent to remind yourself that He is coming again.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
December 11, 2012
Challenge: Religion Needs the Devil
For this week's challenge: Your friend posts this on your Facebook wall...
What do you say? Can you break down all the specific claims included in this statement? Can you identify the main claim being made here? What are the hidden assumptions? What would you address first? When you're talking to someone and he throws something like this out, you have to be able to get to the heart of his concern quickly and address it. And it might not be something that was explicitly said. If you get too bogged down going step by step through every sentence, you might lose him, but if you can put your finger on the main issue and address that, you should have an interesting conversation.
We'll hear back from Alan on Thursday with his response.
