Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 39

Building a Protein by Chance

The origin of life is a mystery that has plagued origin of life researchers trying to find a naturalistic explanation. Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, said, ���The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.���

These are very telling words from an atheist. Of course, when Crick speaks of the beginning of life from non-life as almost a miracle, he is speaking of the incomprehensible improbability of getting the first life by chance.

What exactly are some of these conditions that had to be satisfied? Allow me to demonstrate. But to do this, you need to understand a little bit of biology. 

All living things are made of cells. The simplest forms of life have only a single cell, while human beings have over one hundred trillion cells. Next, all cells are made of proteins. Proteins perform specific functions in each of our cells. Some act like tiny machines, while others act as structural components. Finally, each protein is made of a chain of amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. They join together into long chains that eventually fold into the functional protein.

Scientists believe the simplest form of life has a minimum of 250 to 400 proteins, and each protein is made of (on average) 300 to 400 amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids that make up all of life.

What I would like to do is calculate the probability of building one functional protein with only 150 amino acids by chance alone. But right out of the gate we encounter our first problem. It turns out that amino acids come in two forms: left-handed and right-handed. However, all of life is composed of left-handed amino acids. If one right-handed amino finds its way into your amino acid chain, then our protein is ruined. This is a well-known problem in biology called the chirality problem. 

You might be thinking, what���s the probability of getting 150 left-handed amino acids in a row? Given that the odds of getting a left-handed amino acid are 50%, the probability of getting 150 left-handed amino acids is (��)^150 or 1 chance in 10^45. This is the same probability of flipping a coin 150 times in a row and getting heads every time.

There���s another problem. Imagine you get all 150 left-handed amino acids in one place. You still need to bond them together with peptide bonds. However, not all bonds are peptide bonds. In fact, molecular bonds are grouped into two categories: peptide and non-peptide. The odds of getting a peptide bond are also 50%. Therefore, the probability of getting 149 peptide bonds between adjacent left-handed amino acids is (��)^149, or again 1 chance in 10^45. This is the same probability of flipping a coin 149 times in a row and getting heads every time. We could call this the bonding problem.

But wait, there���s more. The final problem is even more daunting than either the chirality problem or the bonding problem. It���s called the sequence problem. Amino acids are like a 20-character chemical alphabet. Each amino acid must be in a specific order, or we don���t get an amino acid sequence that folds into a functional protein. So, the specific order of the individual amino acids matters. Information scientists refer to this as specified complexity, or specified information.

At each site you have 20 different amino acids to choose from. When you do the math, there are 10^195 total possible ways one can construct a protein composed of 150 amino acids. The question is, how many of those arrangements are actually functional? Doug Axe at Cambridge University has determined that the probability of getting a functional protein from all of the total possible proteins is 1 in 10^74. 

Think of it this way. Using the letters G, O, and D, you can create 27 possible three-letter words. However, only four make an actual meaningful sequence (i.e. DOG, GOD, GOO, ODD). That means if you put these letters in a bag and drew three at random, the odds of picking an actual three-letter word out of all the possible three-letter words are approximately 1 in 7.  

Taking these three problems together, we can calculate the probability of building our very modest functional protein to be 1 in 10^164. Remember, this is only one protein, and life requires hundreds of proteins.

Here is an analogy to help you appreciate this incomprehensible improbability. Imagine I put all the elementary particles in the universe in a jar���that is, every proton, neutron, and electron goes into a universe-sized jar. Next, I mark them all blue except for one green particle. Finally, I blindfold you, put a gun to your head, and ask you to pick out the green particle, or I pull the trigger. 

The odds of picking the green particle while blindfolded are 1 in 10^80. Of course, the odds of picking any particle are the same. However, it is vastly more probable that you would pick a blue, life-prohibiting particle than the one, green, life-permitting particle.

To make this analogy even more accurate, you would have to pick that green particle, twice in a row, blindfolded. If you indeed picked the green particle twice in a row, the rational person should conclude that you cheated. You peeked. You designed the outcome for your survival. Design is the best explanation. In the same way, the best explanation of the origin of the first protein and of life is a Designer.  

Is it any wonder that the famous atheist, Antony Flew, upon learning about this information came to believe in God? In a letter in the August-September issue of Britain���s Philosophy Now magazine, Flew wrote, ���It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.���

Reality Doesn���t Change Because Exodus Closed

Can sexual orientation change? Many people say no. They believe homosexuals are born that way and, consequently, sexual attractions can���t change. In fact, someone at a recent event this month asked me whether the closing of Exodus International proves this very point.

Exodus was an umbrella network that connected many organizations that sought to help those with unwanted same-sex attraction. Alan Chambers, its President, closed the organization after 35+ years, citing a change in his views on the effectiveness of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

That���s proof, I���m told, that SOCE don't work. Chambers, after all, could not overcome his own same-sex attraction. He was also in the best position to witness the effectiveness of ministries involved in SOCE. Why would he close Exodus if he knew reorientation therapies were successful?

I don���t know Alan, nor am I criticizing him (in fact, I really like his name), but his closing Exodus doesn���t prove SOCE don���t work.

Even if it were true that Alan attempted to change his same-sex attraction and it didn���t work, that would only prove one thing: Alan didn���t experience any change. That���s all. It���s just his experience. It doesn���t prove that no one can change or that no one has ever changed.

Imagine the President of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) shuts down that organization, goes on Oprah Winfrey���s network, and confesses he���s still an alcoholic and hasn���t experienced any measurable change in his addictions. What would that prove? It wouldn���t prove that AA never helped anyone overcome their addiction. It wouldn���t prove that no one has ever overcome alcoholism, either on their own, through AA, or through another program. It wouldn���t prove that ex-alcoholics have faked their success stories.

In the same way, Alan Chambers��� decision to close Exodus doesn���t ��� and can���t ��� change reality: There are thousands of men and women who have overcome homosexuality (and yes, even had their attractions change). This can be known through at least three lines of evidence: an ancient report of change in the Bible (from the city of Corinth), the testimonies of thousands and men and women who have experienced change, and secular scientific research that found sexual orientation/attractions can change.

I���m not saying that sexual orientation change is easy, usually successful, or that we should force people to change. What I am saying is that change is possible and nothing that Alan Chambers or Exodus International does can change that.

When Your Beliefs Make People Angry

Sometimes no matter how loving we are, our beliefs will still offend people. 

Witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses ��� Part 2

 

(Notes for the video are below. See Part 1.)

POINT #2: JESUS IS DIRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS GOD 

One of the challenges that have been raised is that Jesus never came right out and said, ���I AM GOD.��� However, this simply is false. In fact, Jesus did make direct (or explicit) claims to be God. Let���s look at two of them together.

(A) Jesus��� Direct Claim for His Deity ��� John 8:56-58

John 8:56-59 says:

���Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.��� [57] So the Jews said to him, ���You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?��� [58] Jesus said to them, ���Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.��� [59] So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Notice that Jesus makes a grammatically poor statement. He says, ���Before Abraham was, I AM.��� Technically, he switched the tense in mid-sentence. He should have said, ���Before Abraham was, I was.��� However, Jesus is trying to communicate two important points. First, Jesus was telling the Jews that he existed before Abraham. Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, didn���t start existing at the virgin birth. Second, by saying ���I AM,��� Jesus claimed to be the name that God gave to Moses at the burning bush. 

Exodus 3:14 says, ���God said to Moses, ���I am who I am.��� And he said, ���Say this to the people of Israel, ���I am has sent me to you.���������

When Jesus takes the name I AM, he is calling himself the eternal, self-existent One, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It would have been obvious to any first-century Jew that Jesus was explicitly claiming to be God, because every Jew in the first century would have known Exodus 3:14.

(B) Jesus��� Direct Claim for His Deity ��� Mark 14:62-64

Next, let���s look at Mark 14:61-64. It says:

[61] Again the high priest asked him, ���Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?��� [62] And Jesus said, ���I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.��� [63] And the high priest tore his garments and said, ���What further witnesses do we need? [64] You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?��� And they all condemned him as deserving death.

Jesus knew his hour had come, so he provided a direct answer to the high priest���s question. He replied, ���I am.��� This has a double meaning. He is saying, ���I am the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Blessed (the Son of God)��� and ���I am the I AM.���

If he had stopped there, they would have crucified him. But he doesn���t stop there. Jesus says, ���You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.��� Caiaphas knew what this meant. This was a reference to the vision Daniel had of the end times. By using the title ���the Son of Man,��� Jesus was pointing to a divine-human figure prophesied in Daniel.

Daniel 7:13-14 says:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Notice verse 64 of Mark 14: ���You have heard his blasphemy.��� But what exactly did they hear? Notice they didn���t hear him use the words ���I am God.��� However, what they heard was equally obvious that he was claiming to be God. 

POINT #3: JESUS IS INDIRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS GOD

(A) Jesus��� Indirect Claims for His Deity ��� ATTRIBUTES (He has the characteristics of God)

Jesus in the New Testament is described by the same attributes as the God of the Old Testament.

GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

CLAIM

JESUS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The LORD is my shepherd. (Psalm 23:1)

SHEPHERD

I am the good shepherd. (John 10:11)

It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalm 75:7)

JUDGE

And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:31-33)

I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)

FIRST AND LAST

I am the first and the last. (Revelation 1:17)

The LORD is my light. (Psalm 27:1)

LIGHT

I am the light of the world. (John 8:12)

I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11)

SAVIOR

This is indeed the Savior of the world. (John 4:42)

I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. (Isaiah 42:8)

GOD���S GLORY

Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:5)

(B) Jesus��� Indirect Claims for His Deity ��� ACTIVITIES (He acts as if he is God)

ACTION

SCRIPTURE REFERENCE

Forgave Sins

Jesus said to the paralytic, ���Son, your sins are forgiven!��� In response, the scribes said, ���He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?��� (Mark 2:5-11)

Gave Commandments

Jesus said, ���A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another��� (John 13:34). Furthermore, Jesus was fond of saying, ���You have heard it said...but I say to you...��� (Matthew 5).

Requested Prayer in His Name

He said, ���Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it��� (John 14:13-14). If Jesus is not God, then this would be the strangest thing.

(C) Jesus��� Indirect Claims for His Deity ��� ADORATION (He is worshiped as God)

On multiple occasions, Jesus also receives adoration (or worship) as if he is God. For instance, the magi worship him (Matthew 2:11), his disciples worship him after he calms the storm (Matthew 14:33), the blind man worships him after he heals him (John 9:38), and the women at the tomb worship him after his resurrection (Matthew 28:9).

All of these people worshiped Jesus without him giving one word of rebuke. This only makes sense if Jesus thought he was God. In fact, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, he said, ���You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve��� (Matthew 4:10). Yet he received worship!

(D) Jesus��� Indirect Claims for His Deity ��� ADDRESS (He is referred to as God by others)

Jesus is repeatedly addressed as God in the New Testament. Paul says, ���To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever��� (Romans 9:5). 

Peter says, ���To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ��� (2 Peter 1:1). See also Titus 2:13. When we look at the New World Translation, we find that its authors make a very deceitful change to the text. In fact, they know it���s deceitful. Let me show you.

2 Peter 1:1 in the NWT says, ���Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ.��� In this verse, it sounds like there are two people being referred to: our God and the Savior Jesus Christ. But jump down to verse 11. Second Peter 1:11 says, ���In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.��� Now how many people are being referred to? Just one.

But if you understand the original Greek text, you will see that these phrases are almost identical, with the word ���God��� being exchanged for the word ���Lord.��� Yet in the first, they make it about two, not one. They add a definite article ���the��� in front of the word ���Savior.��� There is actually a rule in Greek that guarantees that this kind of construction is about one person, not two. It is called the Granville Sharp Rule.

John says, ���In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God��� (John 1:1). But the NWT says, ���the Word was a god [theos].��� They will tell you that there is no definite article [ho theos], thus it must be translated a god. However, if you skip down to John 1:6 in the NWT you will see that they don't follow their own rule. It reads, ���There was a man sent from God [theos], whose name was John.��� Here there is no definite article either. But they don���t translate it a god. 

Thomas affirmed that Jesus is God in an amazing affirmation (John 20:27-29). John writes, ���Then he said to Thomas, ���Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.��� Thomas answered him, ���My Lord and my God!��� Jesus said to him, ���Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.������

Jehovah���s Witnesses will say that Thomas was talking to two people. He turned to Jesus and said ���my Lord��� and then turned to the heavens and said ���my God.��� However, the text actually says, ���Thomas answered him, ���My Lord and my God!������ In addition, this is almost the identical construction of Psalm 35:23. And David is referring to one person, Jehovah!

(E) Jesus��� Indirect Claims for His Deity ��� ASSOCIATION (He is equally associated with God)

John 10:27-30 ��� Jesus said, ���My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. [28] I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. [29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father���s hand. [30] I and the Father are one.���

Jesus is not saying that the Son and the Father are one person. They are distinct persons. Jesus is saying that the Son and the Father are one nature. Both have the divine nature!

POINT #4: COMMON OBJECTIONS TO JESUS��� DEITY

(A) Objection #1: Jesus Denied Being God in Mark 10:17-18

Mark 10:17-18 ��� ���And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ���Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?��� [18] And Jesus said to him, ���Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.������

Of course, there is a world of difference between denying that He is God and merely asking a question. Jesus is not denying his deity. In fact, Jesus seems to be asking if this person realizes the implications of what he is saying. What he is asking is, ���Do you realize what you are saying when you call me good? Are you saying that I am God?��� As we have already seen above, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd. 

(B) Objection #2: God the Father Is Greater than Jesus in John 14:28

John 14:28 ��� Jesus said, ���You heard me say to you, ���I am going away, and I will come to you.��� If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.���

Here Jesus is saying that he is subordinate to the Father. He is not referring to the divine nature. He is only talking about position (or office).

To answer this objection fully, one must have a proper understanding of the Trinity. The Trinity is not that three gods are one god, or that three beings are one being. That would entail a contradiction. The doctrine of the Trinity is that one God is three distinct persons. You can think of one triangle having three distinct corners. The three persons share one divine nature.

(C) Objection #3: Jesus Did Not Know Some Things in Mark 13:32

Mark 13:32 ��� Jesus said, ���But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.���

This sounds like Jesus is not omniscient. But we know God is omniscient. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. This is a classic argument used by Muslims and JWs.

But the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus does not entail a logical contradiction either. Orthodox Christianity holds that when the second person of the Trinity became incarnate, He added a human nature (he didn���t subtract anything from His divine nature). Therefore, we are correct in saying that Jesus is fully (or truly) God in His divine nature and fully (or truly) human in His human nature.

When skeptics ask a similar question, ���Was Jesus tempted?��� they think they have trapped the Christian since the Bible says that Jesus was tempted and that God cannot be tempted. However, the informed Christian can easily respond by breaking the question into two different questions. First, can Jesus be tempted in His divine nature? No! Second, can Jesus be tempted in His human nature? Yes, he was tempted, but he didn���t succumb to temptation.

At this point it should be clear that Jesus (and his followers) thought he was God. And there are no good reasons from Scripture to think that he���s not God.

Why does it matter that Jesus is God? Well, Jesus��� substitutionary atonement was accepted for one reason: God accepts only His own righteousness. The righteousness of a man or an angel is insufficient to hold up to the holy and perfect standard of God���s righteous law. Nothing outside of an act of God can save mankind from spiritual bondage and death. Jesus (the God-man) was the only suitable sacrifice because He was the righteousness of God. That is why it matters.

Witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses ��� Part 1

 

(Notes for the video are below.)

Over the next two days I���d like to spell out the verses that I think are the most compelling to use with a Jehovah���s Witness (JW) to argue from Scripture that Jesus is God. In addition, I want you to take these notes, print them off, and slip them into your Bible or place them by your door so that you don't have to worry about remembering every word. It���s my hope this will be a practical resource that will help you make a lasting impact when witnessing to JWs.

I want to start with a word of advice. Don���t get sidetracked with all the other issues that JWs may want to talk about like soul sleep, or heaven, or the Holy Spirit. These are all important issues, but they are not the most important issue. Make the goal of your conversation about answering one question: Who is Jesus? How you answer this question changes everything. All other questions���although interesting���simply pale in comparison. Christianity stands or falls on its view of Jesus Christ. 

Jehovah���s Witnesses are very clear that Jesus is not God. He is actually the created archangel Michael. On the other hand, Christians hold that Jesus is the God-man. Fully human, but also fully God. So how can we show them that Jesus is God?

POINT #1: THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT JESUS IS JEHOVAH

If it could be demonstrated that Jesus is identified as Jehovah, then the JWs��� worldview comes crashing down. So the question becomes, is Jesus ever referred to as Jehovah? The simple answer to this question is yes! You may be thinking, ���What���s so special about Jesus being identified as Jehovah?��� Well, this requires a little background knowledge. The proper name for God in the Hebrew Bible is transliterated YHWH. This name is called the tetragrammaton�� (which means ���four letters���). The most widely used pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is Yahweh, though some English Bible translations use the term Jehovah. 

(A) Demonstrating That Jesus Is Jehovah from Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12

With these preliminary comments out of the way, let's dive into the argument, which involves two rather straightforward passages of Scripture.

Ask your visitors to take out their New World Translation (NWT) and have them flip to Psalm 102:25-27. You will find it says, ���[25] Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. [26] They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. [27] But you are the same, and your years will never end.���

Now ask them, who is this passage about? Make sure you get a straight answer. If they know their Bible they will be excited to say, ���Jehovah!��� Some less biblically literate JWs will need a lifeline. In this case, I would encourage you to read the context together.

In fact, the first verse of Psalm 102 (NWT) declares, ���[1] O Jehovah, hear my prayer; Let my cry for help reach you.... [12] But you remain forever, O Jehovah, And your fame will endure for all generations.... [21] So that the name of Jehovah will be declared in Zion And his praise in Jerusalem, [22] When the peoples and kingdoms Gather together to serve Jehovah.���

There can be no doubt that the psalmist is describing Jehovah. Therefore, we have established that our first text is describing the eternal, changeless (immutable), creator Jehovah. This is not describing a finite, created being.

Once you have agreed upon this point, it���s time to flip over to the New Testament. Now kindly ask your guests to turn in their NWT to Hebrews 1:10-12. It is very important that you take your time and establish the context of these verses. I usually start a few verses back to get the context. 

Hebrews 1:6-8 NWT

Hebrews 1:6-8 ESV

[6] But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ���And let all of God���s angels do obeisance to him.��� [7] Also, he says about the angels: ���He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.��� [8] But about the Son, he says: ���God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ���Let all God's angels worship (proskuneo) him.��� [7] Of the angels he says, ���He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.��� [8] But of the Son he says, ���Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Clearly, these verses are speaking about the Son���Jesus Christ. At this point I would also suggest passing over the dangling carrot in verse 8. God says to the Son, ���Your throne, O God.��� That's right folks, God calls Jesus God (ho theos, in Greek). So putting aside the second part of verse 8, you need to emphasize the beginning of verse 8, ���But of the Son he says.��� And still talking about the Son, the author of Hebrews writes:

[10] And: ���At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. [11] They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, [12] and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.���

Did you catch that? Where have we heard these words before? This is a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. Remember that our new JW friend has already agreed that Psalm 102:25-27 is a description of the eternal, changeless, creator Jehovah. Yet, the author of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly attributes this same identification to the Son. Therefore, Jesus is being identified as Jehovah. So, is Psalm 102:25-27 about Jesus, or is it about Jehovah? The answer is, yes! Why? Because Jesus is Jehovah.

(B) Demonstrating That Jesus Is Jehovah from John 12:41 and Isaiah 6:1

Now we���re going to start in the New Testament and move to the Old Testament. Start by asking your JW friends to open their Bible to John 12:41. You will need to read the surrounding verses to lay down the context. Here Jesus is at the end of his public ministry and is about to start his private ministry to his disciples. And although Jesus had performed many signs, some would not put their faith in him. John tells us why:

[37] Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him.... [39] The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: [40] ���He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.��� [41] Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. [42] All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; [43] for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God.���

At this point, we need to ask a question: who is the ���him��� in verse 41? From the context, it is clearly Jesus who is being referred to. Verse 42 continues the thought, ���All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him....���

The next question that needs to be asked is, when did Isaiah see his (Jesus���) glory?

Well, verse 40 gives us a quotation from Isaiah 6. This is the prophet Isaiah���s vision of Jehovah sitting on his throne. The NWT will even have the reference to Isaiah 6 in the side margin. So that's exactly where you need to turn next.

Isaiah 6:1-3 says:

[1] In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple. [2] Seraphs were standing above him; each had six wings. Each covered his face with two and covered his feet with two, and each of them would fly about with two. And one called to the other: ���Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies. The whole earth is filled with his glory.���

So if you were to ask Isaiah, who did you see sitting on the throne? His answer would be Jehovah. But if you were to ask John, who did Isaiah see sitting on the throne?��� His answer would be Jesus. 

They may insist that Isaiah doesn���t explicitly say he saw his glory. Fair enough. But this argument is even stronger than it appears. The New Testament authors, including John, would almost always quote from the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 6:1 reads:��� And it came to pass in the year in which king Uzziah died, [that] I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne, and the house was full of his glory.

(C) The New Testament Authors Applied the Greek Term for Jehovah to Jesus

Consider the dilemma faced by the New Testament writers. They needed to communicate two distinct truths. First, Jesus is God. Second, Jesus is not God the Father. The problem is, theos (the Greek translation of Elohim) was already used as a designation of God the Father. Do you see how this could be an issue?

Instead of applying the word theos to Jesus, which they did on occasion (See Jn. 1:1, 20:28; 2 Pt. 1:1; Rm. 9:5; Titus 2:13), they used the word kurios, the Greek translation of Jehovah.

Romans 10:9,13 says, ���[9] because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [kurios] and believe in your heart that God [theos] raised him from the dead, you will be saved . . . [13] For ���everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [kurios] will be saved.������

Paul takes Joel 2:32 (���everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved���) and applies it to Jesus (���if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [kurios]...you will be saved���).

Paul does this again in his letter to the Philippians. Philippians 2:9-11 says, ���Therefore God [theos] has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, [10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [kurios], to the glory of God [theos] the Father.

This is a quote from Isaiah 45:23 where Jehovah declares, ���To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.��� There can be no mistake that Paul is intentionally applying the name of Jehovah from the Old Testament to Jesus. Here we have very clear examples from Scripture where Jesus is described as Jehovah.

Challenge Response: The Gospels Were Selected for Political Reasons

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

Update on Kim Davis���s Requested Accommodation

It looks like the request described in Eugene Volokh's legal analysis and Ryan Anderson's article has been enacted:

[Footnote:���Plaintiffs��� marriage licenses have been altered so that ���Rowan County��� rather than ���Kim Davis��� appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court���s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court���s Order.] The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk���s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court���s holding in Obergefell and this Court���s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court���s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.

Kim Davis���s name has been replaced with ���Rowan County,��� so clearly this was a reasonable step that was easily taken without burdening the state. But now Volokh has clarified that Davis is asking for these two things in particular:

the licenses would be issued, as a matter of Kentucky law, under the authority of someone other than Davis or the County Clerk, for instance the County Judge Executive or a deputy clerk who was willing to put his name on them, and 

the licenses reflected that accommodation, by including the name and office of the authorizing person (again, the Judge Executive or deputy clerk or whoever else) instead of Davis���s name and office.

Davis���s objection to the federal judge���s order ��� and the licenses and certificates issued pursuant to that order ��� is that the licenses and certificates are still being issued (in her view) under her ostensible authority, even though Davis has not authorized them.

This accommodation is somewhat broader than the one I originally discussed in my post Friday (which was just removing her name from the licenses and certificates, and possibly replacing it with ���Rowan County Clerk���). She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office ���Rowan County Clerk,��� and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren���t being issued under her authority. It���s possible that these demands go a bit too far for the Kentucky RFRA (as I noted in my post, the more burdensome a requested accommodation is, the less likely it is that a court will grant it), though it���s hard to tell, given that RFRAs are written in general terms, and a lot of the line-drawing questions are left for judges to make on a case-by-case basis. Still, the accommodation doesn���t seem tremendously burdensome, or that different from what���s already being done under the judge���s order, so it���s possible that this is what will happen. 

This changes the reasonableness of the request somewhat, though Volokh still thinks it doesn���t seem burdensome. 

I want to reiterate what I said in an earlier post: Even if Davis has a legal case under Kentucky���s RFRA, that doesn���t automatically mean it���s wise to pursue it rather than resign (see here for more on this), and it certainly doesn���t mean turning this into a political spectacle is a good idea. Because the future of religious freedom in this country matters, my goal over the last week has merely been to clarify some key points about this situation that many people seem to be missing:

Employee requests for religious accommodations are not outrageous; they are available and are granted, even to public officials.

The laws of many states (including Kentucky) have conscience protections. State RFRAs vary, but in general, if someone���s sincere beliefs are being burdened, exemptions can be granted if there���s a reasonable alternative that doesn���t harm the government���s ���compelling interest.���

Even if you strongly disagree with Kim Davis���s concern, her requested exemption may indeed meet the requirements of Kentucky���s RFRA.

You don���t need to agree with Kim Davis���s concern in order to support her receiving an accommodation; RFRAs are there to protect people with whom the majority disagrees. In keeping with the values of our country, we ought to support reasonable accommodations for people���s consciences whenever possible, even if we personally find their concern unreasonable.

You don���t need to disagree with Kim Davis receiving an accommodation in order to think she���s not handling this situation the way she should.

Ultimately, Davis���s goal is not to prevent anyone from getting married; it���s only to remove herself from being the authority authorizing those marriages. (This means her goal is not to impose her views on people trying to obtain licenses, though that was the unintended consequence while no licenses were being issued.) The question of whether or not her requested accommodation would cause material harm to a ���compelling government interest��� (the requirement for denying an accommodation) remains to be seen. It will need to be weighed by a judge. There���s no reason to oppose it if it meets Kentucky���s RFRA standard.

Widespread understanding of these points would ease tensions both now and in the future.

Should Christians Defend Themselves against Persecution or Take What's Coming?

Many people who are faithful to Christ will be met with violent persecution. What is the correct response when faced with such violence?

Challenge: The Gospels Were Selected for Political Reasons

The 463 Reasons Christianity Is False site is the gift that keeps on giving. Here���s a challenge about the Gospels: 

The selection of the gospels to be included in the Bible was made by a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. At this council, four gospels were selected from a total of approximately 60 that were in use at the time���.

The other 56 or so gospels that were discarded do not agree for the most part with the four that were selected. Examples are the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

[W]hat should be troubling to a questioning believer is that the council undoubtedly preferentially selected the gospels that were favorable to the Romans (i.e., the ones that made them look good) and excluded whatever did not flatter them. It is certain that this process resulted in a whitewashed portrayal of history.

Do you know how to answer this one? How were the Gospels selected (and what reasons do you have for thinking so)? Answer this challenge in the comments below, and then come back here on Thursday to hear Brett���s response.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

Kim Davis���s Request: An Important Clarification

On Saturday, I posted an explanation of Kim Davis���s legal situation by Eugene Volokh, wherein he says Davis was asking for ���a cheap accommodation that���a state could quite easily provide.���

This point is still being missed by many, so it���s worth another clarification. Ryan Anderson explains at the New York Times:

Because each marriage license issued by the clerk���s office bore her name and title, Ms. Davis concluded that her religious beliefs meant she could not have her office issue licenses to same-sex couples. So she had the office stop issuing them entirely.

Ms. Davis felt she had to follow her conscience. And whether or not we share her Christian faith, and its particular positions about issuing civil marriage licenses, is beside the point.

That, after all, is what religious freedom and religious accommodations are all about: creating the space for citizens to fulfill their duties, as they understand them, to God ��� regardless of what the rest of us think. Of course, religious freedom and accommodations aren���t absolute. Federal anti-discrimination law requires a reasonable accommodation of religious belief where it does not place undue hardships on the employer. And Kentucky, like many other states, provides additional protection against unnecessary government burdens on religion. 

So it was incumbent upon the government to try to work out a solution.

Here���s the key point:

Ms. Davis wasn���t trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses at all; she just didn���t want her name or title on the paperwork. That���s why she wouldn���t allow her deputies to issue the licenses.

Kentucky accommodates conscience for other licenses. Why not marriage? Yet Gov. Steven L. Beshear issued a mandate telling all county clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples without exception. When asked to call a special session of the Legislature to try to work out a reasonable accommodation, he said it could wait until January.

That���s why Ms. Davis ended up in court. But it shouldn���t have gotten to the point where this county clerk was being hailed as either a hero or a villain. 

It���s worth reading Anderson���s op-ed in full. Once again, Davis is not objecting to issuing marriage licenses, only to having her name on them. This means the proposed accommodation would not have inconvenienced people seeking to get marriage licenses���certainly less so than the actions (or rather, inaction) of this Dallas County judge who refused to perform any marriages back in 2012:

Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state���s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them.

���I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I���m turning them away,��� Parker said. ���So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ���I���m sorry. I don���t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn���t apply to another group of people.��� And it���s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can���t be performed for me, so I���m not going to do it.���

Accommodations like this one can be, and are, made by states for public officials. Regardless of what Kim Davis should have done after her situation passed the point of being ordered by a judge to issue licenses, it���s looking more and more to me like the governor escalated things beyond what was necessary.