Those Pre-Christian Deities Aren’t Much Like Jesus After All

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, and God’s Crime Scene.

 

I’ve written about how we, as Christians, ought to respond to the claim that Jesus is simply a fictional re-creation of prior “dying-and-rising” god mythologies. The first step in assessing the evidence requires us to closely examine attributes of the mythological character offered in comparison to Jesus. It turns out that pre-Christian mythologies are far less similar to the story of Jesus than critics claim. When I first began to examine all the alleged similarities, I found that one pre-Christian deity seemed to be most similar to Jesus. When “Jesus Mythers” begin to make their case, they inevitably offer Mithras as their case in point. For this reason, I think it’s fair to examine Mithras in an effort to understand how skeptics construct their arguments related to Jesus and ancient mythologies.

There are two distinct (and non-continuous) traditions related to Mithras, one coming out of the areas of India and Iran, centuries prior to the birth of Jesus, and another developed in Roman times concurrent with the Christian era. Many experts have struggled to try to connect these as one continuous tradition, and in so doing, have distorted or misinterpreted the basic elements of the tradition and mythology. There is no surviving Mithraic scripture; most of what is known about Mithras comes from statues and murals that have no captions, or from the writings of ancient Christians who described Mithraic rituals many years after the arrival of Jesus. The vast majority of scholarly work on this mythological character is pure speculation. Given that foundation, let’s take a look at some of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus:

Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a cave. He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but both Mithras worshippers and the earliest Christians borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. The earliest version of the Mithras narrative that includes shepherds appears one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament; it is far more likely Mithraism borrowed the shepherds from Christianity than the other way around.

Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithras tradition that indicates he was a teacher of any kind, but he could have been considered a master of sorts. But why would we expect any deity to be anything less than a great teacher and master?

Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible that the idea that Mithras had 12 disciples came from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun), but even this imagery is post-Christian.

Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality
Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think that Mithras did offer immortality, although this is not uncommon for any god of mythology.

Claim: Mithras performed miracles
Truth: This claim is true, but what mythological god didn’t perform miracles?

Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace
Truth: There is little or no evidence that any of this is true. The closest Mithraic narrative is a story in which Mithras killed a threatening bull in a heroic deed.

Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithras tradition that indicates he ever even died, let alone was buried or resurrected. Tertullian, the ancient Christian Case Maker, did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. This again appears to be another example of Mithras followers borrowing from Christianity (in the Roman version of the Mithraic religion).

Claim: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
Truth: There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but Since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say that he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is post New Testament, and cannot, therefore, have been borrowed by Christianity.

Claim: Mithras was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
Truth: Based on the researched, historic record of the Mithraic tradition, none of these terms have ever been applied to Mithras deity with the exception of “mediator”. But this term was used in a way that was very different from the way that it is used in the Christian tradition. Mithras was not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil gods of Zoroaster.

Claim: Mithras celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)
Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of the later Roman Mithras followers; it is a tradition that dates to post-Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around.

It is reasonable that ancient people groups, thinking about the world around them and the existence of God, would assign certain characteristics to God, and it’s also reasonable that many of these groups might begin to imagine God with some measure of accuracy. But when you take the time to investigate the initial claims of those who say Jesus is similar to some ancient mythological god, you’ll quickly discover that those pre-Christian deities aren’t much like Jesus after all.

For more information related to Mithras:
The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World) by David Ulansey (Oxford University Press, 1989), Mithras, the Secret God by M. J. Vermaseren (Barnes and Noble Publishers, 1963), and Mithraic Studies (Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies – 2 Volumes) edited by John R Hinnells (Manchester University Press, 1975).

 

Originally posted here

Read more
No Comments

Why morality is impossible for atheists

Atheist Jerry Coyne explains why morality is impossible for atheists

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy

Let’s review what you need in your worldview in order to have a rationally grounded system of morality.

You need 5 things:

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

Let’s take a look at #4: free will and see how atheism deals with that.

Atheism and free will?

Here’s prominent atheist Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will.

Excerpt:

And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.

If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality.

Here are some more atheists to explain how atheists view morality.

William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

When village atheists talk about how they can be moral without God, it’s important to ask them to justify the minimum requirements for rational morality. Atheists may act inconsistently with their worldview, believing in free will, expecting praise and blame for complying with the arbitrary standards of their peer group, etc. But there is nothing more to morality on atheism that imitating the herd – at least when the herd is around to watch them. And when the herd loses its Judeo-Christian foundation – watch out. That’s when the real atheism comes out – the atheism that we’ve seen before in countries that turned their backs on God, and the moral law. When God disappears from a society, anything is permissible.

Originally posted here

Read more
No Comments

More Church Planting—Not Less—Is Needed

Now is the Time

Here are 5 realities for more effective church planting efforts. |
Ed Stetzer

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with and speak to the SoCal Network Assemblies of God about church planting. Pastor Rich Guerra has been doing a tremendous job at SoCal Network. He has a vision of seeing 200 churches planted by 2020 to reach the 16 million people in their target audience. To encourage them in this vision, I was asked to share how to increase their church planting capacity. Here are the five realities applicable to SoCal, and any other denomination or church planting network. This outline is basically what I presented.

After this article, I’ve excerpted a just published article I wrote about Southern Baptist Convention church planting. You can see it here.

Among the best ways for us to reach people with the gospel is personal evangelism and church planting. Even with all the changes in culture this remains our best option for reaching unbelievers.

Church planting efforts need focus. A scattershot approach will not be the most effective.

Here are five things we are going to need to increase church planting capacity.

1. We’re going to need more engagement from more churches.

Let’s face it, most churches are cul-de-sacs on the Great Commission highway. But if we are going to increase church planting efforts, we need more churches hopping onto the highway.

In order to merely break even in membership growth, we need a church plant growth rate of about a 3 percent per year. To put it into perspective, at 100 churches, there needs to be three new churches per year. While 3 percent is the minimum, I encouraged the SoCal Network to aim for a 10 percent church planting rate, which is the best denominational statistic we have out there for a movement.

It’s doable right now.

I know that it is easier said than done, but when the Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, and Hope Chapel movements were launched out of Southern California a few decades ago, they often planted at a 50 percent rate.

So in our lifetime we’ve actually seen a rate far beyond 10 percent!

But the key is having more churches engaging in church planting.

2. We’re going to need more planters.

If we are going to have more churches engaging in church planting—especially to keep up with the population increase—we will need more planters. It’s that simple.

My prayer is that more men and women will say, “Yes” to Jesus, or “Here am I Lord, send me,” and be a part of church planting teams.

I also pray that as more planters answer the call to go and plant, the leaders in our churches, networks, and denominations will show great grace to them. I’ve seen it over and over again, where a church planting network or denomination looks for a self-starter, a go-getter, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a maverick, but becomes easily agitated, offended, and upset when the church planter doesn’t always listen to their advice or fit within the system they are trying to create.

In increasing our capacity for church planting, think running lanes not boxes. Boxes stifle and hinder creativity and flexibility. Running lanes provide boundaries with freedom.

Thus, church planting networks and denominations must create running lanes for church planters to run passionately forward for the glory of God and the good of the city or community in which they are planting.

3. We’re going to need more sacrifice.

Answering the call to “go” requires sacrifice. It will require sacrifice for all parties—individuals, churches, networks, and denominations. Individuals may have to sacrifice the comfort and stability of an established church. They may have to sacrifice the comfort of a suburb and move into the urban core.

Churches may have to sacrifice their best leaders—along with some of their best members—to plant. J.D. Greear, in his book Gaining By Losing, talks about both the pain and joy of sending their best to plant churches. Sacrificing a church’s best for the sake of God’s mission is scary and painful; yet it is an investment that potentially leads to great dividends for both the kingdom of God and the sending church.

Networks and denominations may have to sacrifice good things for main things. I like what I heard Rick Warren say once, “too many irons in the fire can put out the fire.” When it comes to being committed to church planting, networks and denominations may have to say “no” to some things in order to stay committed to the task of church planting. Trying to do a lot of good things may hinder doing some great things well—especially church planting.

I truly believe that a non-sacrificing version of church planting and mission will not reach the world for Jesus. If sacrifice was required for Jesus to save the world, sacrifice will be required for us to reach the world.

4. We’re going to need more models.

There needs to be openness to more new and different models. Some church planters aren’t going to plant churches like we’ve seen planted, or that we would plant. That’s a good thing.

Reaching a changing and diverse culture will require the implementation of new church planting models. [I have actually written an entire blog series on church planting models.]

There will be the need to plant simple organic house churches in areas that are disenfranchised with the institutional church, missional incarnational churches that meet in local cafés they may own and operate, launch big churches that use public and private schools for their gatherings, or satellite campuses that saturate a region in desperate need of the gospel.

Regardless of the model, the common element present (or that should be present) in each model is the gospel.

Although the models or manifestations of church may be different, the gospel is the same. We shouldn’t be bothered by the various models in existence now or in the future. I have said before, and I will say again, we need to hold our models loosely and our Jesus firmly.

5. We’re going to need more power.

This, by far, is the most important need. Acts 1:8 states, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses.” In addition, after Jesus told His disciples, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you,” He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:21, 22).

Jesus knew His followers needed a power far greater than what they humanly possessed if they were to fulfill the mission to which they were called.

If we are going to see an increased capacity of church planting, we must be empowered and equipped by the Spirit.

To a degree, we can manufacture church planting, but we cannot manufacture a church planting movement. In order for a church planting movement to occur—one that advances the gospel, makes much of Jesus, and transforms communities—the Spirit of God must be powerfully working in us so that He can powerfully work through us.

I don’t know the future of church planting among the SoCal Network, nor of the many other North American church planting networks and denominations. But I am optimistic as long as we have the power of the Spirit filling us with and leading us to show and share the love of Jesus. I believe when this happens more churches will jump on the Great Commission highway and engage in church planting as opposed to being stuck in the safe cul-de-sac.

Originally posted here

Read more
No Comments

To Drink or Not to Drink

 To Drink or Not to Drink: By Norman Geisler

A Sober Look at the Question

The Main Points

  1. The Bible condemns using strong alcoholic beverages and drunkenness.
  2. In Bible times, they used light alcoholic beverages in moderation.
  3. Today, given the many harmful results of alcohol and the many non-alcoholic alternatives, total abstinence is the best policy.

Many Reasons Not to Drink (or use other addictive drugs)

  1. It is Condemned
  2. The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage.
  3. Today’s Beer and Wine are Strong Drink.
  4. Hence, Today’s Beer and Wine are Condemned by the Bible as a beverage.
  5. We Should not do What God Condemns.
  6. Therefore, we should not drink today’s beer and wine as a beverage.

Bible Condemns Intoxicating Drinks

 “Wine is a mocker [yayin], intoxicating drink [shekar] arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

 “Do not look on wine [yayin] when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when is swirls around smoothly. At last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Prov. 23:31-32).

 “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints?…Those who linger over wine (Prov. 23:29-30).

 “Give strong drink [shekar] to him who is dying…” (Prov. 31:6).

 “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, That they may follow strong drink; Who continue until night till wine inflames them” (Isa. 5:11).

 “Strong drink is bitter to those who drink it” (Isa. 24:9).

 “Woe to men valiant for mixing strong drink” (Isa. 5:22).

 “But they [the priests and prophets] have also erred through wine, And through strong drink are out of the way” (Isa. 28:7 cf. 56:12).

 Only false prophets say: “I will prophesy to you of wine and strong drink” (Micah 2:11).

 “Do not drink wine (yayin) or intoxicating drink (shekar), you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting lest, you die” (Lev. 10:9 NKJV).

 “When a man or a women makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine yayin) and strong drink” (shekar) (Num. 6:2-3 NASB).

 To Samson: “Now drink no wine or strong drink…” (Jud. 13:7).

 To Kings: “It is not for kings, O Lemeul, It is not kingd to drink wine, Nor for princes strong drink” (Prov. 31:4)

 To all Israel (in the wilderness): “You have not drunk wine [yayin] or strong drink [shekar]; that you may know that I am the LORD your God” (Deut. 29:6).

 

Note:

1) Total abstinence from strong drink was God’s norm for all believers;

2) Total abstinence from all wine was the ideal for all believers, and

3) was exemplified by spiritual leaders

Drunkenness is Not the Only Reason to Abstain from Alcohol

  1. It slows the thinking process (Prov. 31:4-5).
  2. It makes one dizzy (Job. 12:25).
  3. It is associated with self-centeredness (Hab. 2:5).
  4. It causes sickness (Jer. 25:27).
  5. It causes forgetfulness (Prov. 31:6-7).
  6. It produces delirious dreams (Prov. 23:33).
  7. It results in sleepiness (Gen. 9:20-25).
  8. It produces complacence and laziness (Zeph. 1:12).
  9. It numbs one’s feelings (Prov. 23:31-35).
  10. It leads to poverty (Prov. 21:17).
  11. It leads to brokenness (Jer. 23:9).
  12. It results in sadness and depression (Isa. 16:9-10).
  13. It causes sorrow (Prov. 23:29-30).
  14. It produces blackouts (Gen. 19:33-35).
  15. It leads to immorality (Joel 3:3).
  16. It encourages sexual perversion (Hab. 2:15).
  17. It results in guilt (Isa. 24:20).
  18. It causes injuries (Prov. 23:35).
  19. It can result in insanity (Jer. 51:7).
  20. It makes one vulnerable to his enemies (1 Sam. 13:28).

Beer and Wine are Strong Drink

 Biblical wine was fermented but diluted 3 to 1.

 Jewish Talmud: Passover wine was 3 parts water to 1 part of wine (Pesahim 108a cf. Shabbath 77a)

 Inter-testamental Period: “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious…” (2 Mac. 15:39).

 

Some Pagan Mixtures:

 Homer: 20 to 1

 Pliny 8 to 1 (See Stein, “Wine Drinking in NT Times” Chirstianity Today, 6/20/75).

 At 3 to 1 ratio it took 22 glasses of NT wine to get drunk

 

It was basically a means to purify and sweeten water.

 Ancient Wine Mixing With Water “In ancient times wine was usually stored in large pointed jugs called amphorae. When wine was to be used it was poured from the amphorae into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water…. From these kraters, cups or kylix were then filled” (Stein, “Wine-Drinking in NT….”

 

Taking Unmixed (Today’s) Wine Was Considered Barbarian by Pagans!

 Mnesitheus of Athens said: “Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse”!

 Early Church Father Cyprian: “Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered” (Epist. 62.2.11)

 Clement of Alexandria added: “It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible…” (Instructor 2.2).

 

  1. It is Condemned
  2. The Bible Condemns Strong Drink as a beverage.
  3. Today’s Beer and Wine are Strong Drink.
  4. Hence, Today’s Beer and Wine are Condemned by the Bible as a beverage.
  5. We Should not do What God Condemns.
  6. Therefore, we should not drink today’s beer and wine as a beverage.
  7. It is Deadly
  8. We Should not take what is Deadly.
  9. Taking Alcohol is Deadly.
  10. Hence, we should not take Alcohol.

Evidence that taking Alcohol is Deadly

  1. It causes more deaths than any other drug (about 200,000 per year).
  2. It is responsible for 70% of drownings & chokings.
  3. It is involved in 50% of all “freak accidents.”
  4. It causes some 27,000 deaths a year by liver disease.
  5. 30% of all suicides are alcohol related.
  6. 20% of all airplane crashes are alcohol related.
  7. 50% of all murders are drunk when they kill.
  8. 50% of all fire deaths are alcohol related.
  9. It causes about a third of all traffic deaths (It would be higher, if blood test were given to the dead too). (Statistics are based on US government reports)

III. It is Dangerous

  1. We Should Not do What is Dangerous to Society.
  2. Drinking alcohol is Dangerous to Society.
  3. Hence, We Should not Drink Alcohol.

Evidence that drinking Alcohol is Dangerous

  1. It contributes to more deaths than any other drug.
  2. It leads to drug addiction (18 mill in US=8.5% of population).
  3. It is involved in both spouse and child abuse.
  4. It contributes to mental and physical diseases.
  5. 45% of the homeless are alcoholics.
  6. It causes 500,000 injuries per year.

During Prohibition (1920-1933): social ills decreased!

 Cirrhosis dropped 66%

 Insanity decreased 60%

 Arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct decreased 50%.

 Spouse and child abuse dropped to an all-time low.

 Addiction & consumption decreased for 55 years (up to 1975).

 

  1. It is Addictive
  2. We Should Avoid Addictive Drugs.
  3. Alcohol is an Addictive Drug.
  4. There are 16 million addicts in the US.
  5. Alcoholics outnumber all other addicts.
  6. 77% of high schoolers use alcohol.
  7. 29% of high schoolers drink heavily.
  8. 44% of 8th graders drink.
  9. 1 in 10 social drinkers will become addicts

 Question: Would you get on an airplane if there was a 10% chance it would crash?

 

  1. We should avoid alcohol.
  2. It is Unhealthy
  3. We Should Avoid Drinking What is Bad for our Health.
  4. Drinking Alcohol is Bad for our Health.
  5. So, We Should Avoid Drinking Alcohol.

Proof that drinking Alcohol is Bad for One’s Health

  1. It is the number three health problem.
  2. It results in 1/2 million hospital admissions.
  3. It impairs the function of vital organs.
  4. It causes liver diseases.
  5. It contributes to heart attacks.
  6. It increases the chances of cancer 3-6 times.
  7. It is the number three cause of birth defects.
  8. It can cause insanity.
  9. It can injure the nervous system.
  10. It can cause impotence and sterility.

It is Unhealthy

  1. We Should Avoid Addictive Drugs.
  2. Alcohol is an Addictive Drug.
  3. So, We Should Avoid Alcohol.
  4. It is Costly
  5. We Should Not Do What is Unnecessarily Costly to Society.
  6. Drinking Alcohol is Unnecessarily Costly to Society.
  7. Hence, We Should Not Drink Alcohol.

Evidence that alcohol is Unnecessarily Costly

  1. Special services $7 billion a year.
  2. Medical services $19 billion a year.
  3. Loss of future earnings by death is $37billion.
  4. Alcohol related illness is $86 billion.
  5. Fetal alcohol syndrome is $1 billion.
  6. Loss of earnings of crime victims $10 billion.
  7. Crashes, fires, and crime is $24 billion.
  8. Total cost of alcohol abuse is over $184 billion.

VII. It is a Bad Example

  1. We Should not be a Bad Example.
  2. Drinking Alcohol is a Bad Example.
  3. Hence, We Should Not Drink Alcohol.

Note:

1) Children are imitators, and if we take addictive drugs, then they will imitate us.

2) They won’t do what we say but what we do.

3) We won’t convince them to stop their drugs until we stop using our drug (which is worse).

VIII. It is not Edifying

  1. What is not Edifying Should be Avoided.
  2. Drinking Alcohol is not Edifying.
  3. Drinking Alcohol Should be Avoided.

 

 Paul wrote: “All things are lawful, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful, but all things do not edify (build up). All things are lawful, but I will not be brought under the mastery of any”(1Cor. 6:12).

 

  1. It Causes Others to Stumble
  2. What Causes Others to Stumble Should be Shunned.
  3. Drinking Alcohol Causes Others to Stumble.
  4. So, Drinking Alcohol Should be Shunned.

 Paul said: “It is good neither to eat meat nor to drink [diluted] wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles…”(Rom. 14:21).

 Of course, strong (undiluted) wine is forbidden.

 

  1. It is Unnecessary
  2. We Should Avoid Doing Harmful Things That Are Unnecessary.
  3. Drinking Alcohol is a Harmful Thing That is Unnecessary.
  4. We Should Avoid Drinking Alcohol.

 Note: We have plenty of good drinks that are not as harmful–water, milk, fruit juices, coffee, tea, and others.

 

Conclusion

  1. Even one good reason is a good reason not to drink alcohol.
  2. Two or more reasons are very good reasons not to drink it.
  3. Ten reasons are overwhelmingly good reasons not to drink it.

Hence,

1) We encourage all Christians not to drink it.

2) We require all church leaders not to drink it. (Not because it makes you more spiritual but because it manifests your commitment and maturity

If God Didn’t Want Us to Drink It, Why Did He Make it?

  1. It is a sedative (Prov. 31:6): “Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish.”
  2. It revives the faint (2 Sam. 6:2): “The donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on, the bread and fruit are for the men to eat, and the wine is to refresh those who become exhausted in the desert.”
  3. It is an antiseptic (Lk. 10:34): “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn….” took care of him.”
  4. It is a laxative (1 Tim. 5:23): “Stop drinking only water, and use a little [diluted] wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”

Answering Some Objections

Objection 1: The Bible only condemns drunkenness, not taking strong drinks.

Answer: Not so. One of the reasons it condemns strong drink is because it leads to drunkenness, but it is not the only reason. Strong drink itself is condemned.

 It is also addictive and harmful in many other ways (physically, emotionally, psychologically, and socially).

 

Objection 2: Doesn’t the Bible actually commend using strong drink as a beverage in Deut. 14:26: “And you shall spend that money for whatever you heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine [yayin] or strong drink

[shekar], for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice with your household.”

Answer:

1) OT condemns strong drink as a beverage (see X).

2) Unclear texts like these should not be used to contradict clear ones.

3) It was bought in strong (undiluted) form for ease in travel and storage, and for use as a medicine–not to drink as such.

4) Whatever drinking they did was in diluted form (see I).

5) In whatever form, the use here was specifically for a Jewish festival and is not a norm for general consumption.

Objection 3: It is legalistic to make extra-biblical laws like total abstinence which the Bible does not make.

Answer: It is not extra-biblical since the Bible condemns “strong drink,” and today’s alcohol drinks are “strong drink.”

Further, not every extra-biblical rule is legalistic–only those used as a condition for meriting God’s grace, whether for getting justification or sanctification.

Objection 4: The Bible says it is OK to take a “little” wine (1 Tim. 5:23) as long as it is not too “much” (1Tim. 3:8); It does not teach total abstinence.

Answer: It is speaking about a “little” and not “much” diluted wine [Hb.: yayin], not the undiluted intoxicants [Hb.: shekar] such as wine, beer, and whiskey which people drink today. We should totally abstain from these.

Objection 5: What about nicotine and gluttony? Aren’t they addictive and destructive too.

Answer: Yes, but we must eat food to live, but we do not need to drink alcohol to live.

Nonetheless, Christians should avoid all nicotine (since it causes cancer) and all gluttony (since obesity is harmful to one’s health).

Objection 6: What about studies which show that regular use of alcohol helps prevent heart disease (by increasing good cholesterol)?

Answer:

  1. They have shown a statistical connection, not a causal one. It is also known that “statistics lie, and liars use statistics.”
  2. It may be due to antioxidants present, not the alcohol.
  3. Other studies show grape juice has similar results.
  4. Even the statistically favorable studies admit there may be other genetic and environmental factors at play.
  5. The American Heart Association does not recommend it.
  6. There are other non-alcoholic methods, such as diet, exercise, and non-addictive drugs that can be used.
  7. The end doesn’t justify the means–if they are wrong (e.g., stem cells from abortion or alcohol for pregnant women’s hearts).
  8. It is a fact that non-drinkers live longer (52% vs. 40% live to 75+).

Objection 7: It makes me relax and feel better.

Answer: Don’t make your happiness depend on addictive drugs. It is both deceptive and dangerous.

If you want a high without a hangover: “Do not be drunk with wine in which is excess; but be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).

Objection 8: I need it for my nerves.

Answer: There are non-addictive diets and drugs that can help your nerves.

Better yet–try God’s plan: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God, and the peace of God which passes all understanding will keep your heart and mind through Christ Jesus”(Phil. 4:6-7).

Total Abstinence is the Best Policy

 No one ever had the following alcohol related consequences who refused the first drink:

 No one ever got drunk without the first drink,

 Nor got an addiction to it w/o the first drink,

 Nor got a disease from it including: heart attacks, cirhossis, insanity,

 Nor engaged in spouse or child abuse DUI of it,

 Nor killed anyone in an accident DUI of it,

 Nor caused any debt or injury DUI of it,

 Nor caused anyone to stumble in their faith!

 

The Main Points

  1. The Bible condemns using strong alcoholic beverages and drunkenness.
  2. In Bible times, they used light alcoholic beverages in moderation.
  3. Today, given the many harmful results of alcohol and the many non-alcoholic alternatives, total abstinence is the best policy.

No Temptation is Too Strong!

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1Cor. 10:13).

Read more
No Comments

Coal Basket and the Bible

coal Basket

Trust and obey

The story is told of an old man who lived on a farm in the mountains of eastern Kentucky with his young grandson. Each morning, Grandpa was up early sitting at the kitchen table reading from his old worn-out Bible. His grandson who wanted to be just like him tried to imitate him in any way he could.

One day the grandson asked, “Grandpa, I try to read the Bible just like you but I don’t understand it, and what I do understand I forget as soon as I close the book. What good does reading the Bible do?”

The Grandfather quietly turned from putting coal in the stove and said, “Take this coal basket down to the river and bring back a basket of water.”  The boy did as he was told, even though all the water leaked out before he could get back to the house. The grandfather laughed and said, “You will have to move a little faster next time,” and sent him back to the river with the basket to try again. This time the boy ran faster, but again the basket was empty before he returned home. Out of breath, he told his grandfather that it was impossible to carry water in a basket,” and he went to get a bucket instead.   The old man said, “I don’t want a bucket of water; I want a basket of water. You can do this. You’re just not trying hard enough,” and he went out the door to watch the boy try again.

At this point, the boy knew it was impossible, but he wanted to show his grandfather that even if he ran as fast as he could, the water would leak out before he got very far.   The boy scooped the water and ran hard, but when he reached his grandfather the basket was again empty. Out of breath, he said, “See Grandpa, it’s useless!” “So you think it is useless?”

The old man said, “Look at the basket.” The boy looked at the basket and for the first time he realized that the basket looked different.  Instead of a dirty old coal basket, it was clean. “Son, that’s what happens when you read the Bible.  You might not understand or remember everything, but when you read it, it will change you from the inside out.  That is the work of God in our lives; to change us from the inside out and to slowly transform us into the image of His son.”

 

Read more
No Comments

The Dangers of Consumer-driven Ministry

The Dangers of Consumer-driven MinistryI am a consumer. I love nice things. I love new products, the shinier the gadget, the better. I also really like good service, and I really like to be entertained. So, when you are able to entertain me with the presentation of a new service or new shiny product…I am sold. Ask my wife. She will tell you, without her voice of reason we would be dead broke, and I would be swimming in a sea of finely bound Bibles, Apple products and Filson gear. I am not unique in this; I am simply a product of the society we live in.

The western world is a consumeristic, capitalistic and materialistic society.

With that in mind, I think we would agree that the western church has adapted to its environment, and many successful and fruitful churches now have services that are finely polished productions, complete with bright lights, quality music, an engaging sermon, and of course, really good coffee.

Now, let me first say, I don’t think that this is a bad thing. The Apostle Paul is a great example of culturally contextualized gospel ministry – meeting people where they are, on the intellectual, emotional and even spiritual plain on which he found them, in order to communicate the un-compromised word of God in a way that they would understand (i.e. Acts 17:22-34).

However, I do believe there are inherent dangers that come with this model of church. Though we may be effectively attracting people to our churches, I am afraid this fine tuned service may, at times, enable congregants to view church as a service they can come to as consumers and as spectators.

I think we see this exemplified in the way we shop for new churches:

“The church down the street has a great worship band, but the pastor is a bit boring.” “This church over here has powerful sermons, but the coffee is terrible; and the children’s ministry is not that great.”

For many, looking for a new church feels a lot like being in the market for a new car.

Biblically, church is not a service we receive as consumers, but rather, it is a community we commit to selflessly give our lives to. Church is not a production we go to as spectators; it is a gathering of God’s people in which we are all vital participants.

1 Corinthians 14:26 says, “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.”

I love the imagery the scriptures give us for the church: We are referred to as a body, a family and a flock. As we consider those pictures, all three simply do not allow for anything other than committed participation from every member.

As Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12, every member of a body has a unique and crucial function to fulfill in order for the whole body to be healthy. Being part of a family comes with certain responsibilities and expectations. What family member just sits on a couch and watches as their family eats together, laughs together, shares gifts at holidays, celebrates birthdays and so on? And finally, in a flock, there is safety in numbers. The flock follows the shepherd together, as he leads to green pastures and still waters and guards and protects them. A sheep that is watching from the outside will either starve or be eaten by a wolf.

So in light of this, I believe we, as the Church, simply need to be on guard.

It is good for us to engage our culture in a way that will be attractive to people, and it is good for our church services to strive for excellence in all things. We serve an excellent God, and we want to reach the lost with the un-compromised good news of Christ in any way possible. But we need to keep a tension; we mustn’t allow our church service to be a production that is geared towards a consumeristic congregation of spectators.

For those of us who are pastors, may we seek God to find ways to challenge our congregants to serve the Body of Christ. Let’s be willing to risk things being a little messy in order to facilitate participation for more members in the life of the Church. I have found discussion based community groups are very helpful, and on Sunday mornings, we build into our service a time, where anyone can read out a passage from the scriptures that they feel would encourage the congregation.

And Christian, faithful church member, may I encourage you to go to church services, meetings and events, with the mindset that asks what you can bring, how you can be a blessing to your brothers and sisters, and how you can serve and love your church community (and I don’t necessarily mean in a formal capacity). And as you do, I guarantee God will bless you.

He will meet your needs, and you will find that church is more enjoyable and fulfilling than you could ever otherwise experience.

Originally posted here

Read more
No Comments

10 Reasons Not To Become a Missionary

Posted Here previously

1. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Think You Are Going to Change the World. First, high expectations doom to disappoint, but, also, maybe your desire to change the world is trumping your desire to serve. Ask yourself if you would be happy moving overseas to a much harsher environment in order to quietly help a local, while getting no recognition and seeing no fruit in the process.  If you can answer honestly yes, then maybe you’re still in the running. {Don’t worry, we thought we would’ve answered yes, but found out that we really had some unhealthy saviour-complexes to begin with. You can read about that here: On Living a Good Story and Not Trying So Hard and The Guy in the Orange Shirt .}

2. Don’t Become a Missionary to Make Yourself Better. My first mission trip was as a middle schooler to Jamaica. I’m not really sure how much good we actually did, but I do remember one of the missionaries we worked with. His name was Craig, and he had some of the biggest glasses I’d ever seen. And the dude talked to everybody about Jesus. Everyone– the pot-smoking Rastafarian in the line, the tourists at the store, the check-out guy at the food stand. And I remember turning one time to another missionary who worked with him and asked what made him so “good” at evangelizing.  The older missionary said, “Craig?  Oh, he didn’t come to Jamaica and become like that. He was already like that in the States.”

And I think Craig with the big glasses dispels the lie that if you move overseas, then you will magically become a superhero Christian. Um, false. What you are here, you’ll be there. And while it’s true that the change of environment can spark growth, it doesn’t mean you’ll go from luke-warm average Christian to Rob-Bell-Cool-On-Fire-Mother-Theresa just because you suddenly find yourself on another continent. Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.

3. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Think You Have the Answers and the Nationals Don’t. Westerners have clunky shoes.  This is just true. We are loud and obnoxious and, good Lord, arrogant. Our DNA has us descending on other cultures and dictating ways they can “fix” themselves, while throwing money at their problems. I think I’ve learned that every good missionary LISTENS, first. And listens, a lot. {Don’t worry, I suck at this still. You can read about that here, Rich Guy with the Crappy Car or Quiet Heroes.}

4. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Can’t Hack Transition. We’ve been overseas now for less than two years, and we have moved houses three times, taken two major trips, and have gotten close to and then had to say goodbye to over 15 good family friends. People come and go on the mission field. Terms are up and governments change the visa laws. You find a deal on a house or the house you are in has rats. When you sign up for missions, like it or not, realize it or not, you are signing up for a transient lifestyle. {On Moving House, Like A Lot and New Girl both speak to this reality.}

5. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Think You Are Really Pretty Great, Spiritually-Speaking. There’s nothing like moving to a foreign country to reveal all the crap that’s in your heart.  Seriously. I have cussed more, cried more, been more angry, had less faith, been more cynical and, generally speaking, have become in many ways a worser person during my last two years of serving in Asia. Call it culture-shock if you will, but I tend to think the stress of an overseas move thrusts the junk that was conveniently- covered before out into the blazing-hot-open.

6. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Think Living on Support is Cake. It might look easy, but it is most definitelynot– this monthly process of holding your breath and praying that you get a full paycheck , while knowing that even thatpaycheck is based on the kindness of your parents or your friends or the lady you know hardly has two pennies to rub together anyway. And then, when you do have a little money, you stress about how you should spend it —  Should I treat myself to a coffee? Do the kids really need to go to the pool today? Should I buy the more reliable scooter or the used one that will {probably?} be just fine?

And then, and then, shudder, there’s that awkward process of asking for it in the first place and feeling like you are annoying-the-heck out of the same people, who happen to be the only people you know  — like that pushy lady selling Tupperware down the street.

The whole thing might be great for your faith, but it can sure be a killer on your . . .  heart, finances, sense of self-worth, savings, relationships, budget, fun, and freedom.

7. Don’t Become a Missionary if You Aren’t Willing to Change. Flexibility is more important than I ever thought it would be in an overseas life. So is humility, actually. Unfortunately, neither of these qualities is naturally at the top of my Character-I.Q. However, I have learned that the more determined you are to stick to your original plan– regarding ministry or living situation or friendships or organizations or personal growth– the more painful it is when that plan changes, and change it most definitely will. It’s the ones who humbly hold things loosely that I think can go the distance with far less collateral damage.

8. Don’t Become a Missionary at the Last Minute, on a Spiritual-Whim, Spontaneously. And yes, my Charismatic friends may disagree a bit here, but moving overseas, especially with a family and especially in any kind of committed-capacity, is not something to be taken lightly. It’s not necessarily a move that should be felt at a tent-meeting on Friday and plane tickets bought for the the next Monday. Training is important. Spiritual, emotional and cultural preparation has immense value. Turning your heart to a new place often takes time to fully root. So, give it a little time. Don’t be afraid to put the brakes on a bit, and heaven’s sake, don’t think that you’re more godly if you decide, pack and go in record time. This is not the Olympics, and sloppy leaving can take more time to clean up than you realize.

9.  Don’t Become a Missionary to Fix Your Kids. Jerking a rebellious teenager from liberal American society and sticking them in an African hut so they can “find God,” is not a valid parenting technique. Family and personal problems will follow you overseas, in fact, they may be amplified. It’s important not to buy into the lie that forcing your kids to be missionaries will supernaturally make them love Jesus. That might happen, but moving a rebellious teen might also royally backfire on you, and should never, ever, ever be the primary reason a family takes up missions.

10. Don’t Become a Missionary to Find Cool Friends. Now, I’m not saying you won’t find amazing friends– maybe the best in your life– but there is no denying that the mission field can draw some pretty odd ducks. {Of which, I, of course, am not one. See #7 regarding my natural humility.} Don’t be surprised, though, if you find yourself in a church service with ladies wearing clothes from the 80?s singing praise songs from your middle-school years like Awesome God, but without even the drums. Don’t be surprised, too, if your social interactions are awkward at best with many of your fellow mission-souls. Living out the in jungles for twenty years might do wonders for your character and strength and important things, like, oh, the translation of the Bible into another language, but it can sure do a number on a person’s ability to shoot the breeze in a church lobby somewhere.

But, there, again, maybe there’s a necessary shifting that has to happen to your definition of cool, anyway.

– Revised and Extended from LauraParkerBlog‘s original list, posted Jan 2012

Read more
No Comments

Have I committed unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Have I committed unpardonable sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Always take the scriptures in context and keep in mind history.  This is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation.

Matthew 12:31-32 (NKJV)
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Some people can read this and come away with the understanding that they can be damned for any sin against the Spirit of God.  Some would say if you call a miracle by the Holy Spirit as a work of Satan then you have committed the unpardonable sin.

These are not entirely true.  We need a complete view or history and Scripture to come to a right understanding of the Matt. 12 passages.

Remember that the work of the Holy Spirit is to testify that Jesus is the savior (John 15:26) and convict the world of sin (John 16:8).  Blaspheming the Spirit means rejecting His testimony and conviction that Jesus is the savior.  If someone rejects Jesus they are rejecting the only way to be saved and for that reason cannot be forgiven (Acts 4:12).

These are Scribes from Jerusalem whose job is to tell Israel if this is the messiah or not (Mark 3:22).  As the people looked to them they pronounced that Jesus was not the savior but did the miracle by the work of Satan not the Holy Spirit.  Therefore rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit they rejected Jesus as savior.  If someone remains in the sin of rejecting Jesus then there is no hope of salvation for them.

Notice in the Matt 12 passages that Jesus did not say that a person could not repent of this sin just that anyone remaining in the sin could not be forgiven.  Even after denying Jesus someone could repent and be forgiven.  Look at Peter, he confessed Christ (Matt. 16:16) then denied Him three times (Luke 22:56-62).  Jesus allowed Peter to repent and return to Him (Luke 22:32; 62).

You never have to worry if you have committed this sin if you believe that Jesus is Lord and died for your sins.

Pastor Scott Thom

Read more
No Comments

“Hearing God”: A Biblical Case?

Sometimes I am asked to provide a biblical case for my belief that everyday believers can regularly hear God speak to them in various ways.  Here, in précis form, is an overview of my answer (for more on this discussion see my book, Kingdom Triangle, along with my co-authored book with Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith):

1)  Ancient Near Eastern historical narrative/biography functioned not merely to chronicle events, but to teach theology/ethics.  Much of the Bible is this genre and a central theme of Holy Scripture is how we are/are not to relate to God and each other as members of His covenant people.  Thus, the examples of God speaking to people (including ordinary people—Gen 25:23, Acts 6:5, and 8:6, Acts 19:1-7, esp. v. 6) throughout both Testaments are meant to teach us how we can expect God to speak (without, of course, expecting God to continue to give authoritative scripture to the whole church).

 

2)  God deeply desires intimacy and relationship with his people (cf. Isaiah 58:9-11; Hosea 11:8), and these characteristics obtain among people—human or divine—by regularly speaking to each other.  The Bible is an authoritative revelation to the whole church, but intimacy and relationship require personal communication in addition to this.

 

3) God speaks to people to correct wrong thinking (Phil 3:15; cf. Eph 1:17, I Cor 14:24, 26, 30-31).

 

4) The Holy Spirit speaks to us in applying the Bible’s teaching to our specific situation (I Cor 2:14).

 

5) God speaks to us to give us guidance (Isaiah 30:21, John 10:3,4,16,27, Acts 13:2, 16:6, James 1:5).  In the John texts, Jesus says his sheep hear his voice.  Some have understood the context to imply that this means that the unsaved hear God’s effectual call to come to salvation.  But this has the odd result that we can hear God’s speech/drawing/prompting before we are saved but not afterwards.  In fact, the alleged context in John 10 (of unbelievers being called to salvation) can be taken in one of two ways:  it defines the meaning of the sheep hearing Jesus’ voice (thus, limiting the text’s meaning to unbelievers) or it determines a range of application in this context (to unbelievers) of a broader principle that applies to all God’s sheep whether before or after salvation.  The text does not make clear which is intended, and the latter fits other passages I am citing, the virtually universal experience of Christians, and it avoids the odd result mentioned above.

 

6) Jesus is our model in communicating with God (John 5:19).  Jesus is not speaking about His unique prerogative as God or Messiah, because the context is Jesus doing the works of the Father due to Jesus’ intimate communication with Him (and subsequent empowerment by the Holy Spirit), and Jesus explicitly says that we will do greater works than he did (John 14:12).  If Jesus needed to be lead by the Father in this, how much more do we?  Moreover, it is now widely acknowledged by NT scholars that Jesus did what he did as a human being we are to model ourselves after in dependence on the filling of the Holy Spirit and in communication with the Father (cf. I Cor 11:1, I Thes 1:6).  Finally, Jesus delegated his authority to us and we need the same tools he needed to carry out that delegation.

 

7) God sometimes speaks by placing impressions in our minds (Nehemiah 2:12) and through a still small voice (I Kings 19:12).

 

8) Regarding the claim that when God speaks, it is clear and we don’t have to learn to hear his voice, (A) it seems that Samuel needed to learn to distinguish/hear God’s voice (I Sam 3:1-21); (B) there was a school of prophets in the Old Testament and, among other things, it would seem natural to think that they were learning to discern/hear God’s voice; (C) In the NT, prophesy is a gift that, as will other gifts like teaching or evangelism, grows and develops with time and experience as one learn to enter more fully into the practice of that gift. That is why there were tests of prophesy (I Cor 14:29, I Thes 5:19-22), viz., that as people learned to hear God, they sometimes made mistakes and gave words sincerely though they were mistaken. (D) We have to learn God’s most authoritative speech, the Bible, through hermeneutics, exegetical practice and so forth, and many believers are mistaken about what exactly is God’s biblical speech (in debates in textual criticism and differences between Catholics and Protestants about which books belong in the canon). If God has allowed there to be differences about what belongs in Holy Scripture and we have to work hard to learn to rightly divide it, why can’t there be differences about whether a personal communication was/was not from God and effort needed to learn how to understand such communication?

Posted by: J.P. Moreland

See Original Post HERE

 

Read more
No Comments

Ignoring the Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection

There are several reasons that place the legend theory in doubt. First of all, it is a concept that runs contrary to the Jewish mindset of that day, yet Jews were the first to accept and spread the belief. Why would such a legend develop if it bucks the expected conventions of the very people who are supposedly falling for it? Secondly, the resurrection accounts themselves appear pretty early after the time the resurrection was said to take place.

There’s another point that I don’t hear much about in these discussions, though. Even before the Gospel accounts were relatively early, there is a source of information that connects the events as they happen to the Gospel writers’ pens. That is the testimony of Jesus’s very closest disciples, known in the Gospels as “the Twelve.”

In his article “The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus’ Public Ministry?” John P. Meier argues that this circle of twelve people who made up Jesus’s most entrusted followers could not be a later invention or legendary. Meier offers several lines of evidence for his view:

  • Unlike the term apostle (meaning “one who is sent”) that is applied to Paul, Barnabas, and others in the epistles, the use of the term “the Twelve” is very specific and is used by the Gospel writers, especially Mark and John, to very specifically to refer to those disciples who were closest to Jesus.1 This means from a historical standpoint, attestation of the Twelve exists across multiple sources; it has a stronger level of support.
  • The list of names of the Twelve is remarkable consistent across the different gospels, not only are eleven of the twelve names identical, but even the grouping of the names are always displayed in three sets of four. The only name that has some question behind it is Thaddeus who is called Jude of James in Luke’s gospel.2 Meier sees this as evidence for an oral tradition for the Twelve that pre-dates the written accounts of the Gospels.
  • Meier places special emphasis on the Gospel of John’s mention of the Twelve: “The fact that the Twelve are mentioned in John is all the more weighty because John has no special interest in the group called the Twelve. The Johannine tradition names important disciples or supporters of Jesus (e.g., Nathaniel and Lazarus) who are not listed in the Synoptic catalogues of the Twelve; and the anonymous “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the model of all discipleship, does no apparently belong to the Twelve. The few references to the Twelve that occur in John thus have the air of being relics or fossils embedded in primitive Johannine tradition.”3
  • The presence of Judas as Jesus’s betrayer also argues for the existence of the Twelve for how else does one explain his betrayal? Without the existence of the Twelve, Judas’s appearance is out of place, disjointed. But as Meier notes, the fact that Judas was numbered among the Twelve and the fact that he handed Jesus over to the authorities is multiply attested. Further, it’s highly embarrassing for Jesus to be betrayed not simply by a follower, but by one of his own inner circle, the very one with whom he entrusted the ministry finances.4
  • Lastly, emphasis on the Twelve is much more prevalent in the period during Jesus’s earthly ministry than it is in the first generation of Christians after Jesus’s ascension. Meier writes, “In his epistles, Paul alludes to his interaction with or compares himself to other church leaders… What is glaringly absent in Paul’s letters is any mention of the Twelve” with the exception of the 1 Corinthians 15:5, which is a Christian creed formulated within a few years of the resurrection itself.5

It seems that Jesus really did have a circle of Twelve disciples he kept especially close. This inner circle was in a unique position to be the primary source material for the accounts of the Gospels that record their exploits. If the Resurrection accounts are legendary, why would this circle of Twelve develop? How does it fit, especially if the concept of the Twelve is glaringly absent in the other writings of the New Testament authors?

As Richard Bauckham has developed in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, it is the members of the Twelve who provide the link between Jesus, his ministry and resurrection, and the gospel accounts. It is a chain of custody establishing that eyewitness testimony is the thing establishing the resurrection accounts. Because legends cannot explain the existence of the Twelve, they also cannot explain the testimony of the resurrection eyewitnesses.

Original post from

Come Reason Ministries

Read more
No Comments