Category: Theology for Life

How Gender Theory Hijacks the Conscience

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life2 Comments

Identity is a crucial term in the gender debate going on today. The core question being asked is: “How does someone identify?” One lesson plan for kindergarteners currently being used states that gender identity is “how you, in your head, define and understand your gender based on the options for gender you know to exist.”[1]

Gender theory claims that the gender binary of men and women is problematic, and that to say that a person is either a man or a woman is oppressive. But how should Christians who take the Bible seriously understand this argument? And how should we think about those who are born intersex (having ambiguous genitalia)? Does Scripture address these sensitive questions?

How the Cultural Influencers Enlist the Conscience

Not only are school curriculums encouraging kids to reevaluate their gender “assigned at birth” (the gender that matches their biological sex), but adolescents are encouraged to think of gender as a fluid concept. While your biological sex is something fixed all the way down to your chromosomal DNA, it’s argued that gender identity is something that you must decide for yourself. Therapists and peers say, “No one should be able to tell you who you are.”

One teen magazine matter-of-factly asserted: “The truth is, not all women menstruate and not all people who menstruate are women.”[2]

Parents of children who identify as transgender face a significant quandary. Gender therapists tell them that if they don’t affirm their child’s new gender identity and don’t support their decision to have transition surgery, they are not only unloving but putting their children at risk of suicide. Given such enormous stakes, many parents feel compelled to go along with what both their child and the child’s therapist are urging.

These are very real issues facing us, and we should not be glib or sarcastic as we confront them. Every parent I know wants what is best for their child. When faced with the harrowing prospect of losing their child to suicide, what parent wouldn’t do all that was necessary to avoid this?

In fact, many gender therapists pose the question to parents like this: “Would you rather a dead daughter or a live son?”[3]

Beyond the family unit, there is a growing movement in our society that has been outspoken in its support for transgender rights. Those who dissent from this movement are told that anything less than full support and affirmation of a transgender person’s stated identity is both harmful and disrespectful. Given the perceived damage caused by non-affirmers, it’s no wonder why there is now full-throated support for transgender rights in recent years. Who wouldn’t want a more just and equal society, where everyone is treated with respect and dignity? And doesn’t it only make sense to shout down all opposing views who don’t share these values?

In her book Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality, Hillary Morgan Ferrer recalls a scene from Kindergarten Cop, where a little boy raises his hand in class to bluntly say, “Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.” Ferrer observes, “In 1990, this was considered so obvious that it was part of the joke. Fast-forward 30 years, and a statement like this could be prosecuted as hate speech.” Quite so. According to gender theory, gender identity (being a girl or boy) does not necessarily correspond to objective anatomy. In other words, one’s gender ought to be self-determined, not biologically determined.

Of course, all of this depends on the truth of what is being proclaimed. The transgender movement has worked hard to enlist the conscience as a powerful ally, but what if the consequences of the movement have not been fully considered? Karl Marx saw the world through the lens of “the oppressors and the oppressed.” Many may not realize it, but Marxist thinking has powerfully informed this movement by making two critical assumptions:

1) Transgender persons are victims and oppressed; and

2) Any and all means possible must be harnessed to protect such victims from whatever has been deemed oppressive.

In his book, God in the Dock, C. S. Lewis wisely said:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”[4]

The point is that whether it is loving or not to affirm a transgender person’s stated identity depends on the deeper questions:

1) Can someone misperceive their gender identity?

2) Are there unintended consequences in affirming someone’s misperceived gender identity?

Many supporters of transgender rights appeal to a compassion for basic human rights and the need to respect all persons no matter what. I applaud this baseline concern for loving and respecting others. However, I have noticed that this compassion is almost always one-sided. For example, why is it that we ought to have compassion and respect for a transgender person, yet ignore the safety, privacy, fair competition, and dignity of women who are adversely affected by these recent changes? As Helen Joyce has written, “A man may be embarrassed if a female person uses a male changing room; a male in a communal female facility can inspire fear.”[5]

The Christian’s Identity

First and foremost, Christians are to find their identity in Christ – not gender or sexuality or anything else. The New Testament teaches that it is in union with Jesus that we are to understand ourselves. Our feelings should not be the basis for identity. Instead, Scripture teaches that we are to above all see ourselves in Christ.

One of the Apostle Paul’s favorite designations for Jesus followers is that we are “in Christ.”[6] By this, he means that we are united to Christ by faith in such a profound sense that what is true of Christ becomes true of us, simply through union with Him. Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness. God the Father’s loving delight in the Son is now the privilege extended to us. While distinctions remain – Jesus alone is God, we are not – our identity is now and forever tied up with Jesus our Savior and Lord.

Look at how Paul explained this:

“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” (Colossians 3:1-4, ESV)

Notice all the emphasis on our identity with Christ. Our union with Him should be the controlling center from which we approach everything else in life. As we will see, this doesn’t nullify other identity markers, but it gives us the basis for understanding other aspects to our identity.

The Binary Categories of Male and Female are God-given

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” sounds oppressive; it is meant to. It sounds like the doctor arbitrarily dictated the sex with which you would be identified. But something is clearly ignored in such phrasing. The sex you were “assigned at birth” nearly always – there are exceptions, but they are rare[7] – corresponds with the objective anatomy visible at birth. Throughout history, aside from rare genetic abnormalities, there has been one and only one objective criteria by which to determine whether someone is a boy or a girl: the baby’s biological sex. Isn’t it chronological snobbery to assume that virtually every culture from all of time has been hopelessly wrong about this?

From an early age, Christian parents need to teach their children the goodness of God’s design. They need to know that the biological categories of male and female are given in the first chapter of the Bible and tell us about what God intended when He created us.

“So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

In the biblical worldview, being a boy or a girl is not a matter of social convention but a true identity marker rooted in the reality of how God formed us in the womb. Children need to know about God’s deep involvement with their creation.

For you formed my inward parts;
    you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
    my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
    intricately woven in the depths of the earth. (Psalm 139:13-15, ESV)

While I have never knitted, I have watched others knit. Something that stands out to me about this activity is the intricacy and care that must be taken as each yarn is woven together individually to form the larger fabric.

That is the level of care with which God formed our bodies. Certainly, we must acknowledge that we also live in a fallen world where babies are born with congenital disorders, such as spina bifida or cleft lip. In the most heartbreaking cases, a disorder is so damaging that the baby does not survive.

Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, death has been an ugly intruder. Things are not the way they are supposed to be. According to the Bible, sin has so marred God’s good creation that nothing less than a full redemption is needed.

“And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23, ESV).

In truth, none of our bodies are everything they were originally created to be, because they are all plagued by the effects of sin. But one day, they will be redeemed, set free from sin, and made glorious and without defect (Philippians 3:20).

But one thing we must see in Psalm 139 is that God left nothing to chance. There are no accidents in the way our sovereign God forms us. While natural processes of fertilization are involved, ultimately God determines a person’s sex from the moment of conception.

What about Intersex?

It is important to acknowledge that there are intersex individuals who were born with what has been termed ambiguous genitalia. We cannot overlook these individuals who have been created in God’s image and have immense value as human beings like the rest of us. It must be said that intersex is not the same thing as transgender, although many have tried to equate these terms.[8]

The transgender movement has often tried to point to intersexuality in support of their cause. Once again, this is an example where the conscience is enlisted as an ally. If people are born with ambiguous genitalia, so the argument goes, shouldn’t we downplay the significance of male-female differences? Anne Fausto-Sterling has argued that 1.7% of the population is intersex, and therefore it would be more inclusive if we treated gender as a spectrum rather than a binary of male or female.

While this may sound reasonable initially, medical doctor Leonard Sax demonstrates how Fausto-Sterling’s argument misses the mark for several reasons. First, as Sax points out, Fausto-Sterling’s definition of intersex is far too broad, and thus the 1.7% statistic is misleading. As Sax explains, in reality the number of babies born intersex is closer to .018%.  

The big difference here is that while Sax considers intersex to mean “having ambiguous genitalia,” Fausto-Sterling’s definition of intersex includes a broad swath of sex chromosome anomalies that have nothing to do with having ambiguous genitalia. For example, Klinefelter syndrome is a condition affecting .0922/100, where a male’s sex chromosomes are XXY, instead of the typical XY. But Sax points out that these males develop normally phenotypically – meaning they are observably male in every sense. The only difference is that men with Klinefelter syndrome tend to be infertile. Something similar could be said of females who have Turner syndrome (X instead of XX). They tend to be shorter than the average woman, but are nevertheless clearly female. Sax writes, “Girls with Turner syndrome do not have ambiguous external genitalia (e.g., no clitoromegaly), nor do they typically experience confusion regarding their sexual identity.”[9]

Therefore, Sax concludes that Fausto-Sterling’s statistic that 1.7% of babies are born intersex is misleading, and that a more accurate estimate is almost 100 times smaller at .018% of the population. To help us see these numbers more clearly, Sax writes, “This figure of 0.018% suggests that there are currently about 50,000 true intersexuals living in the United States. These individuals are of course entitled to the same expert care and consideration that all patients deserve. Nothing is gained, however, by pretending that there are 5,000,000 such individuals.”[10]

As Sax points out, the other, perhaps deeper flaw in Fausto-Sterling’s argument is that she doesn’t acknowledge that such genetic anomalies are pathological. Genetic anomalies are by definition abnormal and thus variants from what naturally develops in a healthy individual. Again, this does not dismiss intersex people as somehow less valuable; rather, it helps clinicians and their patients assess the best treatment without being hindered by confusion. Thus, male and female remain the healthy norm, and Fausto-Sterling’s whole argument falls apart.

Christians should consider chromosomal abnormalities as deformities demonstrating we live in a fallen world while also remaining committed to the good of intersexuals as persons made in the image of God.

Does the Bible ever address those born intersex? Interestingly, in a context where Jesus affirms that marriage is the lifelong union between a male and a female, He also mentions that “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth” (Matthew 19:12), which demonstrates an acknowledgement of intersex persons. Elsewhere, the prophet Isaiah predicts a future time when eunuchs and foreigners (who were at that time excluded from the covenant community) would be welcomed in and joined to the people of God.

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
    “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;
and let not the eunuch say,
    “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
    who choose the things that please me
    and hold fast my covenant,
I will give in my house and within my walls
    a monument and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that shall not be cut off. (Isaiah 56:3-5)[11]

God’s word of comfort is that despite being a eunuch (whether you were born as such or had surgery) or a foreigner, you too will have the same privileges when you come to the Lord by grace. There is tremendous hope here for everyone, whether you are an intersex person, a person who has had gender transition surgery, or a person whose past is filled with promiscuity (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; note especially “And that is what some of you were”).

It is a reminder that the message of the gospel is that Jesus Christ has purchased eternal salvation and forgiveness for all who would freely come to Him in repentance and faith. The gospel is a message of grace, not works – not even the “work” of fitting traditional gender stereotypes. Isaiah 56 reminds us that while we may never be physically whole in this life, God’s grace promises us wholeness in Christ, and in eternity, a new resurrection body free of distorted desires or abnormalities.

Are Feelings the Arbiter of Truth?

Beyond giving a child a foundational understanding of the body and human identity from the Bible, it’s also worth considering the known harmful effects of gender theory. For example, many teens who were encouraged to transition later deeply regret their decision to listen to such advice. While the data concerning those who have decided to later detransition is not always presented, Abigail Shrier discusses the need to consider this evidence in her book Irreversible Damage.

Shrier writes, “Several studies indicate that nearly 70 percent of kids who experience childhood gender dysphoria—and are not affirmed or socially transitioned—eventually outgrow it.”[12] This contradicts the assumption that the only right response to a child’s experience of gender dysphoria is affirmation.

Parents must recognize that there are numerous cases where a child’s psychological state most needs correction and guidance, not unquestioning affirmation. For example, when a depressed teen really believes they are worthless and has no reason to keep living, that teen needs to be loved and counseled into a new way of thinking about their identity.

First and foremost, they need to know the love of God and the beauty of living for His glory above all else. They need to hear that God identifies with those experiencing emotional distress and anguish. Love and support for someone as a person does not always mean agreement with what the loved one is saying about themselves.

Christian parents need to regularly remind their children that their feelings can lead them astray. Our culture (mostly Hollywood) bombards us with the message “Follow your heart.” But according to the Bible this is getting things backward. The heart is the instrument by which we are to trust our Creator:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
    and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
    and he will make straight your paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6, ESV)

This world was designed by God and for God (Romans 11:36), so it only makes sense to have His Word be the fixed reference point by which we test our limited “understanding.” Twice in the book of Proverbs we read:

“There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12; cf. 16:25)

In the Star Wars film, The Phantom Menace, Qui-Gon Jinn counsels young Anakin Skywalker, “Feel, don’t think.” The Bible says that is terrible advice.[13]

“The heart is deceitful above all things,
    and desperately sick;
    who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV)

Even secular psychologists lend agreement to this conclusion. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt warns about the danger of “emotional reasoning.” Haidt says, “It is challenging to think well. We are easily led astray by feelings and by group loyalties.”[14]

With anything, children need to be reminded to check their feelings with reality, primarily with the truth rooted in Scripture. So when it comes to the question of gender identity, great care is needed. As Shrier explains, there is a growing tendency among therapists to give more credibility to “the ineffable feelings of an eight-year-old” than “chromosomal DNA” when it comes to identity.[15]

So, what should parents do if their child “comes out” as transgender? Granted, the approach will vary based on your child’s age. There’s a difference between a six-year-old repeating an idea he’s heard and a twelve-year-old sharing what she feels about her own gender identity.

While this is no doubt a difficult situation, I would strongly recommend parents not overreact. First, listen. Let your child share how they came to this conclusion. Ask questions, like, “Why do you feel you are now a boy (or girl)?” Without condemning or affirming what they’re saying, listen thoughtfully. Giving them your full attention will demonstrate your sincere love and might lead to further dialogue about this all-important issue. Sometimes children have bought into the idea that if they don’t fit into rigid gender stereotypes, they must be living as the wrong gender.

But what Christian parents must do is compassionately share the truth about gender and identity from a biblical perspective. Listening is never enough, because parents are charged with instructing their children to live according to their God-given identity. And it is through finding their identity in Christ that they will come to know true joy.

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4, ESV)

Feel free to comment or share your thoughts below!

[1] “Genderbread Person & LGBT+ Umbrella,” The Safe Zone Project, http://thesafezoneproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GenderbreadPersonLGBTQUmbrella.pdf

[2] Abigail Shrier, Irreversible Damage, chapter 3.

[3] Shrier, Irreversible Damage, chapter 6.

[4] C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 292.

[5] Helen Joyce, Trans (Oneworld Publications, 2021), Kindle edition.

[6] In the first chapter of Ephesians alone, the phrase “in Christ” is used a dozen times.

[7] Jeannie Visootak and John M. Graham, “Klinefelter Syndrome and Other Sex Chromosomal Aneuploidies,” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1, no. 42 (October 24, 2006).

[8] Mark Olmstead, “When Jesus Agreed With Lady Gaga: What The Bible Says About Transgender Persons,” Huffington Post, August 31, 2017, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/when-jesus-agreed-with-lady-gaga-what-the-bible-says_b_59a813cce4b096fd8876c0d1

[9] Leonard Sax, “How Common Is Intersex?” https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/

[10] Ibid.

[11] In Acts 8:26-39, we see the Ethiopian eunuch fulfill this promise through faith in Jesus as he reads from the scroll of Isaiah just three chapters before this in Isaiah 53.

[12] Shrier, Irreversible Damage.

[13] As an aside, the adult Anakin seems to have fully subscribed to this advice, which ironically leads him to “the dark side.” All you Star Wars fans are nodding right now.

[14] Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind, chapter 13.

[15] Shrier, Irreversible Damage, chapter 6.

The Cry from the Cross

On By Jason SmithIn Devotional, Theology for Life1 Comment

By Jason Smith

From Christianity’s inception, critics have wondered why believers put so much focus on the cross. It’s easy to see why this might seem strange. When you read a biography of one of your favorite heroes, you expect it to focus on the life of that person, not their death.

The Gospels are ancient biographies about Jesus. But what makes the Gospels so unusual is that they spend between a quarter and half of their pages focusing on the events leading up to Jesus’s death and then the crucifixion itself. That’s strange. People don’t usually write with such a focus on the deaths of their heroes.

Why in the world would Christians celebrate the death of their leader? Sing songs about His blood? And regularly partake in a meal that highlights His death more than His life?

The Gospel story is written in such a way that none of us could have imagined on our own. It completely goes against our natural way of thinking. The Bible says that the message of the cross confounds even the wisest among us (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Why? Because none of us could have imagined a crucified God, a God who saves by coming to die.

Don Carson offers this warning:

“I fear that the cross, without ever being disowned, is constantly in danger of being dismissed from the central place it must enjoy, by relatively peripheral insights that take on far too much weight. Whenever the periphery is in danger of displacing the center, we are not far removed from idolatry.”[1]

The Cry

While Jesus hung there on the cross 2,000 years ago, the Bible records Him crying out to God, His Father.

I remember once being asked by someone, “Did Jesus really make a sacrifice on the cross when He died? After all, He was only dead for three days and then He got raised from the dead. Now, His followers worship Him.” The statement took me aback, because I’d never heard someone raise this objection. But it’s impossible to read the Gospels’ account of Jesus’s death without concluding that He indeed made a tremendous sacrifice.

A strange thing happened when Jesus was on the cross. God actually gave meteorological evidence that He was pouring out His judgment on His beloved Son.

Matthew 27:45 says: “From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.” Going all the way back to the Plagues of Egypt in the Book of Exodus, we see that darkness frequently accompanies God’s judgment of sin. It’s a sign of cursing, not blessing. A sign of wrath, not joy.

On Labor Day in 2020, many of us in Oregon remember how eerily dark the Willamette Valley was when the Oregon wildfires were raging. The fires killed at least 11 people and more than one million acres were burned. Whitney and I were driving home from a friend’s house, and in the early evening – when one would expect clear and sunny skies – the sky was a dark and hazy brown with a strange orange glow on the horizon. There was something apocalyptic about it all.

Jesus was crucified in the middle of the afternoon, the brightest time of day. Yet, the entire land as far as you could see was shrouded in thick darkness. How bizarre must that have looked to everyone present.

God is a very visual God. He uses pictures to show us what He is doing. And while Jesus hung on the cross, He was showing everyone two things: this was no ordinary Man and this was no ordinary death. He didn’t want anyone to miss this!

About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). (Matthew 27:46, ESV)

Jesus’s cry is pretty startling. And it is meant to be. Earlier that week, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey to the shouts of praise and acclamation. A handful of days later, this same Jesus is spread out on a cross, with the crowds now jeering and mocking Him. And He’s shouting to the heavens, “Why have You forsaken Me? Why have You abandoned Me?”

The Curse

We are meant to stare in wonder as Jesus cries out in despair. Throughout His life recorded in the Gospels, Jesus makes 21 prayers to God, and in every case but one He addresses God intimately as “Abba” (“Father” in Aramaic). Yet here, for the first time in His life, Jesus feels His Father withdraw His loving presence and calls Him simply “my God.”

Every Jew knew that, according to their Hebrew Scriptures, anyone hanging from a tree was cursed by God.[2]

Now, imagine what a Jew is thinking as this spectacle unfolds. The land is covered in darkness. You see a man pinned to a tree, and He is crying out, asking why God has forsaken Him. Everything would tell you that this Man hanging there is under the wrath of holy God. And the truth is that He was under the wrath of God.

Paul even says: 

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” (Galatians 3:13, ESV)

Jesus became a curse for us. If you have ever wondered what the horror of hell must be like, here you have it in stark clarity. Although Jesus had never done anything wrong, He is bearing the weight of our sin and guilt. So He cries out in agony.

Psalm 22

Let me say something very paradoxical. And I’ll warn you, it may not sound right, but I absolutely believe it to be true. Jesus’s cry of agony from the cross was also a shout of victory.

Again, that may sound strange. But let me explain. This cry of dereliction actually comes from the first line of Psalm 22: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It was somewhat common for an ancient Jew to quote the first line of a psalm with the whole psalm actually in mind.

If you have ever wondered if Scripture really transforms our perspective on what we are going through, here is proof that it does. Scripture even gave the Son of God perspective on what He was facing as He hung there from the cross.

And when David wrote Psalm 22 roughly 1,000 years before the Cross, he was actually writing a prophecy about what the Messiah would face at the end of His life. And it is astounding when you see the precision in which Psalm 22 describes the suffering of the Messiah.

The psalm is written as if Jesus Himself was giving His first person perspective from the cross.

But I am a worm and not a man,
    scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
    they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
“He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
    “let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
    since he delights in him.” (Psalm 22:6-8, NIV)

v. 14 says:

“I am poured out like water,
    and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
    it has melted within me.”

v. 18:

They divide my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garment.

v. 16:

“Dogs surround me,
    a pack of villains encircles me;
    they pierce my hands and my feet.”

This line is especially remarkable. Keep in mind this was written around 1,000 BC, which is 500 years before crucifixion was even invented by the Persians. And yet… who can deny that this sounds strangely like someone being pinned to a cross, with nails piercing both hands and feet? The Bible is God-breathed and when you have a God-breathed text, you have things that just don’t make sense apart from a God who perfectly knows the future.

And as Jesus is looking around and seeing His clothes being divided up, in one sense He’s facing enormous shame as He’s hoisted up for all the crowds to mock Him. But on the other hand, Jesus knew the Scriptures. And He knew that everything taking place perfectly fulfilled Scripture. Those very mocking words intended to tear Him down ended up being the source of His strength. Why? Because He saw that His Father’s plan was being perfectly carried out. And this same principle holds true for us.

Only the God-breathed Scriptures can give us the perspective we need when we’re facing a crisis or tremendous loss.

I was talking to someone who recently lost a family member, and he told me that nothing has given him the sense of peace and calm he needs like poring over the Bible and just letting God’s Word wash over him and settle his heart. When you have roots going deep into Scripture, death no longer terrifies you. You can face your trials with a view to eternity. And you can know that God is with you.

The Choir of Heaven

From all appearances, Jesus looked like a man totally stripped of power – stripped of everything! And yet in reality, no one there was more fully in control of that event. Jesus, as a man, drew strength from Scripture. It gave Him the perspective He needed to see His death as the grand event of redemption history.

But let’s be clear about something. Jesus really was experiencing Godforsakenness on the cross. Jesus wasn’t merely quoting Psalm 22 to draw attention to it. He really was being cut off from fellowship with the Father. So the cry of being abandoned is authentic; it’s not for show.

Hours before this, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had pleaded with the Father, “If it is possible, take this cup from Me” (Matthew 26:39).

What was the cup that Jesus referred to? Throughout the Old Testament, there are frequent mentions of the cup of God’s wrath being poured out on sin.[3] The cup was a cup of judgment. So Jesus was asking, “Is there any other way for sinners to be reconciled to You, Father?”

But the silence in the darkness was the response. There was no other way. God is holy. So sin must be punished. There’s no Exceptions Clause here. Sin must be punished. So the only way for you and me to be spared from the judgment of a holy God is if there is a Substitute who would step in and bear our sin and punishment for us. All who trust in this Substitute will never have to drink the cup of judgment.

Why do Christians love to sing about the cross? Why is it that in the Book of Revelation, the choir of Heaven is pictured singing over and over, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain” (Revelation 5:12, NIV). The song of redemption will never grow old, because the sacrifice of Jesus is our everything. The children of God will never forget that apart from the cross, they are lost and condemned. Through the cross, our every need is met, the love of God abounds, and our eternity secured. Because Jesus cried out in Godforsakenness in our place, we can cry out to God knowing we are never forsaken in Jesus.

[1] D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry (2004)

[2] Deuteronomy 21:23 saysthat a man hanged on a tree is cursed by God.

[3] Isaiah 51:17-22; Jeremiah 25:15-29; Obadiah 16; Revelation 14:10.

What Does the Bible Say about Abortion?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life1 Comment

By Jason Smith

Some might ask, “Why bring up the Bible when we talk about abortion? Isn’t that a political debate?”

Many people would say the Bible is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. But as a follower of Jesus, I take the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God. Jesus had the highest view for Scripture, and Scripture claims to be the very words of God. It’s good to remember that everyone looks to some authority for shaping the way they view the world. These can include your family, your church, your friends, your professors, the scientific community, or your favorite YouTube channel. But we all have sources of authority, and as a follower of Jesus, I’ve become convinced that the Bible really is the authoritative Word of God.

So, the Bible matters to the question of abortion, because what really matters is what the Creator of everything says about this issue. But I think it’s worth pointing out something first.

Contrary to what many want to say, the abortion debate is not about those on the side of science, progress, and women’s rights versus those on the side of religion, faith, and superstition. That’s how many try to frame the debate in order to stack the deck so that religion and faith look silly. But historically, modern science has its roots in a biblical worldview.

As the great thinker, C. S. Lewis, pointed out: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”[1] So true science – going out and exploring this world and trying to discover the law and order in the universe is right at home in a theistic, rather than an atheistic, worldview.

So, when we talk about the nature of the unborn, the Christian wants to know both what can be gleaned from science and what can be gleaned from Scripture. Traditionally, this has been called looking at natural revelation and looking at special revelation.

Choice Is not the Issue

Something else needs to be cleared up. The big question about abortion is not whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice. Nearly everyone is anti-choice when it comes to rape, genocide, and race-based slavery. People don’t want those choices to be legal, because they are immoral. So, the question isn’t whether you are for or against choice. The whole issue is about the nature of the unborn. Are they a full-fledged human being, imbued with personhood, dignity, and rights, or are they just a parasite, a clump of cells, or some other subhuman creature that can be killed?

On a personal note, something else needs to be said. If you have somehow been involved in an abortion in the past, you need to know that not only does the Bible talk about the unborn child, it also talks about the love, grace, and forgiveness of God found in Jesus Christ. So, you need to know – if that’s you – I don’t write any of this in a spirit of condemnation. I aim to follow the model of Jesus, who the Bible says was “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

So what does the Bible say about the unborn child? Well, one thing I’ll want to show from a handful of passages is that the Bible everywhere affirms both the value and personhood of the unborn.

Why the Incarnation Matters in this Debate

Just a couple months back, we Christians celebrated the Advent of Christ. The truth of Christmas is that God Himself entered this world – not directly to a manger – but through the womb of a virgin. It’s astonishing to consider that the Incarnation – God becoming a man – took place first in Mary’s womb. So Jesus Himself was an unborn child in utero.

There’s a unique encounter we read about in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 1. Mary comes to see Elizabeth, her relative, who is also pregnant at this time. So you have two pregnant women greeting each other here. And here’s what we read:

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”(Luke 1:41-44, ESV)

This passage has some remarkable implications for the nature of the unborn child. First, notice that word “baby” used. In the Greek, it’s the word brephos. That same word is used in the next chapter of baby Jesus after He is born. That tells us that, according to the Bible, whether the child is unborn or born, either way it’s a baby – not merely a clump of cells or a non-person.

Secondly, notice what Elizabeth says: When I heard your greeting “the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (v. 44). This unborn baby – later known as John the Baptist – is already fulfilling his purpose of pointing others to Jesus. And he does this by leaping for joy. Joy is an attribute of human beings; it indicates personhood. A clump of cells doesn’t have joy. And notice that Elizabeth also calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (v. 43). Even though Mary was only in that first trimester with Jesus, Elizabeth says she’s already a mother – not a potential mother.

So, everything here assumes the unique personhood of the baby in the womb.

Biblical ethicist Scott Rae writes:

“From the earliest points of life in the womb, Mary and Elizabeth realize that the incarnation has begun. This lends support to the notion that the incarnation began with Jesus’s conception and that the Messiah took on human form in all of its stages, embryonic life included.”[2]

David in the Womb

Let’s look briefly at another couple passages.

In Psalm 51, King David is confessing his sin to God. And here’s what he says:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5, ESV)

Keep in mind, David is confessing his own sin here. But he says that this sin nature is something he’s had, not only from birth, but from conception. To have a sin nature from conception is something that can only be true of persons, who have the dignity of being moral creatures.

Or here again is a passage where David speaks of his life in his mother’s womb:

“You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” (Psalm 139:13, ESV)

David speaks of God’s meticulous care in forming him and knitting him together. And notice he doesn’t say, “You knit the clump of cells that would become me together,” or even, “You knit together the fetus that would become me in my mother’s womb.” No, he says, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” So, from conception, that fetus or baby in the womb was David, not some impersonal parasite.

So even though David in the womb was tiny, not yet fully developed, and lacked many functional abilities, he was still at that time David. Though there would be changes in his development over time, there was no change to his fundamental nature at birth or any time before or after that.

And by the way, science supports this conclusion. Dianne Irving is a biochemist and biologist and teaches at Georgetown University. She had this to say:

“Scientifically something radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization… During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”[3]

Where Does Human Value Come From?

All of us have an inborne awareness that human beings have value. That’s why when the choice is given between saving the life of a drowning dog or a drowning child, the answer should be obvious. Of course, we should care for animals, too, but there is something unique and sacred about human life. But even though we all have the sense that human beings are valuable, this concept has no basis in a secular worldview.

The Declaration of Independence states that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It makes sense that if God created us, human beings have equal value and certain natural rights – including the right to life. But if there is no God, where do human rights come from?

Many of my secular friends want to hold on to human rights – they hate things like human trafficking, rape, and racist acts of violence. But the question is, if we all came about through purely natural processes that didn’t have us in mind, then why on earth do we assume human life has value? Wouldn’t we have the same status as pigs and cows and mice and dung beetles?

As Yuval Noah Harari explained in his book Sapiens:

“The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God.”[4]

He then writes:

“Homo Sapiens has no natural rights, just as spiders, hyenas, and chimpanzees have no natural rights.”[5] Harari is an atheist, but he recognizes the place that Christianity and the Bible had in introducing the concept of human rights to the world. Without the God of the Bible, he says, this whole idea of human rights and equality is an illusion. This is why having a theistic view of reality is so important.

The Bible teaches that you have intrinsic value – not because you have reached a certain level of development or because you have great hair or are especially smart or have contributed something to society. No. You have intrinsic value simply by nature of being made in the image of God.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness….”
So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them (Genesis 1:26-27, ESV)

Notice that this is the very first word on human beings in the Bible. The first and most foundational thing God wanted us to understand is that we are made in His image and likeness, and thus have intrinsic value.

That’s why, just a few chapters later we read:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6, ESV)

So because we are uniquely created in God’s image and likeness, all humans have intrinsic value. And human life should be protected for that reason. That’s why we should never mistreat others based on skin color, age, sex, or anything else – including whether they are born or unborn.

“But the Bible Doesn’t Mention Abortion”

Here is what some people argue. They say that since the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention the word “abortion,” pro-life people shouldn’t condemn it as a sin. But there’s a real problem with an argument from silence like this. The Bible also doesn’t specifically say we shouldn’t slash people’s tires or spray paint our neighbor’s house or shoplift at 7-Eleven, but that doesn’t mean those things aren’t wrong. Our cultural context is different; but the fact remains that if abortion is the killing of an innocent human being – something that science supports – then it is in fact condemned in the Bible, because all killing of innocent human beings is condemned in Scripture.

Furthermore, I would argue that a case law describing an accidental abortion is mentioned in Scripture. Here’s what we read in the Law of Moses:

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21: 22-25, NIV)

This law addresses the very specific situation where two people recklessly fight, hit a pregnant woman, and subsequently cause her to give birth prematurely. If no one is seriously harmed, then the husband can demand a fine be paid according to what the court allows. However, if there is any serious harm done, the lex talionis (the principle of retributive justice) ensures that every harm is matched with a proportional punishment.

In the case where either the mother or the baby are killed, the culprit had to face capital punishment (“life for life”). This is significant, because elsewhere in the Mosaic law, accidental killings did not require capital punishment. The killer was still guilty of involuntary manslaughter and would have to flee to a city of refuge until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:9-15, 22-29). It is significant that God has a far more severe punishment in the case of accidentally killing either a pregnant woman or the baby in her womb than other accidental killings. If God views unintentional abortions this severely, what does He think of intentional abortions?

Commenting on this passage (Exodus 21:22), the 17th century reformer John Calvin wrote:

“…the unborn, though enclosed in the womb of his mother, is already a human being, and it is an almost monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy…”

It is interesting that Calvin said this based on Scripture and without all the benefits of what modern science tells us about the unborn.

In many passages in the Bible, we are urged to care especially for those who are helpless and need our protection.

“Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:3-4, NIV)

Final Word on Forgiveness

Before I conclude, I want to add that the great message of the Bible isn’t that “abortion is wrong.” The big message is the Gospel, which states that our God is full of grace and mercy. He sent His Son Jesus to reverse the consequences of our decisions and bear our sin and guilt in our place.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24, ESV)

That means that because of Jesus’s sin-bearing death, God can heal us of all our sin – including the sin of abortion. All God requires of us is that we get honest with Him, and He’ll wash us clean as we come to Him in repentance and faith.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.(1 John 1:9, ESV)

Have thoughts on this post? Feel free to comment below

[1] C. S. Lewis, Miracles, 140.

[2] Scott Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics.

[3] Dianne N. Irving, “When Do Human Beings Begin?” Catholic Education Resource Center, https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/when-do-human-beings-begin.html.

[4] Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens.

[5] Ibid.

Photo courtesy of thewonderweeks.com

How Can I Know God’s Will for My Life?

On By Jason SmithIn Devotional, Theology for Life2 Comments

By Jason Smith

If you’re a Christian, it is in you to want to do what pleases God. You don’t want to oppose His will. You’ve had enough of that in your life, and you know how badly that can go. But sometimes you come across situations in life where you’re unsure what God would have you do. And these are just a small sampling of the thousands of decisions we make every day – what to wear, what to say, how to spend time, and what to do first. Life is full of decisions!

Many decisions in life are very much in the moment and either don’t require or don’t allow for a lot of careful thinking beforehand. Other times, you have more time to make a decision, and usually these are the decisions that weigh on you the most when you’re considering what is God’s will. Where should I look for work? Should I marry this person? When should I retire? I want to consider some of the basic principles for knowing God’s will for your life. Then I want to conclude with how this works out in practice, considering the example of how to know who to marry or even whether one should marry at all.

Begin with Biblical Principles

God’s will is that His children would be sanctified – or set apart – in the truth of His Word (John 17:17). As we regularly immerse ourselves in the Word and apply its truths to our lives, it will begin to shape our critical thinking and become the foundational worldview out of which we make all our decisions. In other words, as you submit your mind to God’s Word, God will work in your heart and mind so that you better understand His will.[1] While many assume that Scripture doesn’t speak directly to their situation, I have found that Scripture provides the counsel we need to follow God’s leading. Even though the Bible doesn’t spell out the answer to every specific question, it equips us with the truth and wisdom necessary to make that decision.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV)[2]

The Bible teaches that we are first and foremost to focus on Christ and aspire to become more like Him in all we think, say, and do. Jesus is not only our Savior; He is our example (1 Peter 2:21). As you do this, both the momentary decisions and the prolonged decisions will be shaped by the character of Christ, as revealed in God’s Word.

Ask God for Wisdom

Seeking God’s guidance through prayer and communion with God is essential. Jesus spent the whole night in prayer before choosing His twelve disciples (Luke 6:12). It’s clear that He sought out communion with God before making this all-important decision. Likewise, we are to lay out every decision before the Lord, pleading for the wisdom that only He can give.

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.” (James 1:5-6, ESV)

One caution here. We shouldn’t try and demand that God give us a miraculous sign so that we know what to do. I remember wondering about this in the past. For example, if God wants me to try out for the basketball team, can I just ask Him to prove that by having the Portland Trailblazers win their next game?

Should I Put Out a Fleece?

In the book of Judges, we read about a man named Gideon who is told by God that he will have victory over the Midianites, a neighboring tribe (Judges 6:14-16). And so, as a test, Gideon puts out a fleece, asking God to prove this is His will by having the fleece filled with dew while having the surrounding dirt be completely dry in the morning. Sure enough, in the morning, only the fleece is soaked. But that’s not enough for Gideon. He asks God to do the very opposite the next morning – dry fleece and wet dirt (Judges 6:36-40). Once again, God is willing to comply with Gideon’s request. So you could say that Gideon asked God to prove something He had already revealed by giving Him a miraculous sign.

Many people have tried to use this as an example to follow, saying things like, “God wants us to put out a fleece” – i.e., ask God for a miraculous sign so that we’ll know His will. But Gideon’s story is not given as an example to follow. By Gideon’s own admission, God had already told him He would give Israel victory (v. 36). God chooses to comply with Gideon’s request, but not because Gideon is right to ask for this sign. Instead, this demonstrates God’s patience with a weak-willed man who was filled with doubts and lived in a difficult time.

So, before you lay a sponge on your back patio tonight, consider that Jesus said “a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign” (Matthew 12:39). Also consider that Gideon did not have a Bible. And there’s really no example of someone “putting out a fleece” in the New Testament after the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost.

The one time you could argue there’s an example of seeking God’s will through some kind of external sign is when, in choosing Judas’s replacement among the Apostles, the disciples cast lots, much like what was done for determining priestly duties in the Old Testament era (Acts 1:26). But I think we have to conclude that this was a very unique situation. The Apostles were the specially commissioned men who represented Christ’s authority in a unique way after Christ’s ascension. Their teaching was authoritative because they had spent considerable time with Christ on earth and witnessed His resurrection. So, it makes sense that they wanted to have a very public event like casting lots for determining the twelfth Apostle, who would be Matthias. No one could dispute Matthias’s authority, because this was done by the Apostles and in front of the church.

Invite the Leading of the Holy Spirit and the Counsel of Loved Ones

All true believers in Jesus Christ are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, and He directly leads us according to Scripture. “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Romans 8:14). The Holy Spirit gives us God-honoring desires, grants us various gifts with which to build up the church, produces spiritual fruit in our lives, and prompts us to obey the Lord. It is incredible to think that God is with us wherever we go in life!

At the same time, there’s an important caution that I should make here. The Holy Spirit will never lead someone to disobey the revealed Word of the Bible. Therefore, you should first seek to understand the moral principles of God’s Word, and not simply “pray about” a moral question, hoping the Holy Spirit will give you a new moral insight on an issue that Scripture already addresses. While the Holy Spirit empowers us to obey and freshly applies biblical truths to our hearts, He will never contradict the Bible He gave us.[3]

I have come across people who have tried to justify a behavior that clearly violates Scripture, stating something along the lines of “The Holy Spirit okayed this one for me.” That is a dangerous position to be in, my friend. While subjective impressions can certainly be helpful in making a decision, they must be tested by the objective Word of God, our primary source for moral truth.[4]

Seeking the counsel of others is always wise, especially those who share the same biblical worldview and faith commitments that you do. Proverbs 15:22 says, “Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed.”

Even if you can’t meet with someone personally about a decision, you can read books on the subject. One especially useful place to look for guidance on ethical decisions is in the various Christian teachers of church history. It’s amazing how so many issues we face today are described and considered by great minds from the past. Once again, counsel from others should always be tested against the authoritative Word of God.

Consider the Consequences

A good question to consider when weighing competing decisions is the potential consequences of a given action: What will result if I do this and not that? Paul encouraged the Corinthians to think through what will build their brothers and sisters up as they conduct the worship service:

“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.” (1 Cor. 14:26, ESV)

Elsewhere, Paul talks about the potential consequences of eating foods that were considered “unclean” in the Old Testament, like pork, in front of a “weaker brother” (Romans 14:13-16). We should consider the long-term consequences of our decisions. The vast majority of bad decisions come from a failure to consider the long-term cost, because our focus is only on the short-term benefit.

An Example of Seeking God’s Will in Action: Who Should I Marry?

So, for instance, if a believer in Christ is wanting to know who they should marry or whether they should even be pursuing marriage, there are some clear Scriptural guidelines to follow:

  1. The person you plan to marry must be a believer. 1 Corinthians 7:39 says that a single person is “free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” And 2 Corinthians 6 warns against being “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). So, the point to be made here is that missionary dating is always a bad idea. Many Christians enter into romantic relationships with non-Christians, trying to convince themselves that they will convert that person before the wedding date arrives. Allow me to be somewhat blunt here. That’s a colossal mistake. God doesn’t want you to even start down the road toward marriage – which is what dating is – if you would be unequally yoked. It’s like trying to unite two people with radically different centers of gravity.[5] This isn’t a matter of “praying about it” to see if it is God’s will. God has already spoken to this issue. Christians must only pursue marriage with other Christians.
  2. You should consider the Scriptural commands related to the marriage relationship, like in 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 5, and decide if you are willing to submit to what Scripture commands for what your role in that relationship must look like. God calls wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22) and husbands to “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). If these God-ordained marital roles seem too burdensome to accept, then perhaps you’re not as ready to marry as you may have thought.
  3. If you desire marriage, that’s a very good thing. The Bible says, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Proverbs 18:22). Marriage is part of God’s original created design for human flourishing and reproduction. But there’s also a word spoken for those who are called to singleness, particularly in 1 Corinthians 7. The Apostle Paul, a single man, explains that the single life has its benefits. It frees you up to serve the Lord without having to also consider the needs of your spouse (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
  4. How do you know if you are called to singleness? Well, however long you may be called to the single life, the main point is that you will be able to serve the Lord in a special way if you are single. But if you have a strong desire for marriage, there’s no reason to assume you are called to singleness. After commending the single life as a worthy pursuit, Paul bluntly says “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). In other words, if you are struggling with sexual temptation and long to be married, then by all means, seek out a spouse. Some might argue that this doesn’t seem like a very romantic reason to marry someone, but Paul is simply being realistic about the power of sexual temptation and our need to live pure lives – whether we are single or married. It’s not that Paul doesn’t see other good reasons to pursue marriage, such as a strong attraction to another single person, a desire to have lifelong companionship with two souls knit together as one, and a hope of raising a family together.
  5. Invite the Holy Spirit’s leading and the input of others. The more you intentionally yield this decision to the Lord, the more you will be at peace with whatever direction God leads. Ask parents, family members, close friends, pastors, and confidantes to give their thoughts on the prospective marriage. If you’re afraid to ask someone, it might be that you already sense it is a bad idea.
  6. Who can you see yourself growing old with? Since marriage is a lifelong commitment, it’s worth considering this question carefully. It’s not merely a matter of finding someone who checks all the boxes, such as who will be the best financial provider or who seems to have the most friends. The big issue is: Who do you want to enter into covenant with? Again, the single person is “free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). That means that you should marry the one you wish to spend the rest of your days with.

Check Your Motives

Lastly, Scripture encourages us to consider our motives when we weigh various decisions. As Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3, ESV). This somewhat shocking statement should prompt us to consider the intentions of our heart. While we don’t want to fall prey to “analysis paralysis,” it’s also worth examining motives before plunging headlong into a weighty decision. Ask yourself questions like:

  • Is this an action done for the glory of God?
  • Is this an action done in love?
  • Will this build others up or tear them down?
  • Is this in line with what Scripture says?

Have thoughts on this post? Feel free to comment below!

[1] See Romans 12:2 and Philippians 2:13.

[2] See Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 5:10; Hebrews 13:20-21; 1 John 3:21-22.

[3] See 2 Peter 1:21 to see the Holy Spirit’s role in giving Scripture.

[4] See Ephesians 5:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21; 1 John 4:1.

[5] For believers who are already married to an unbeliever, the Bible calls them to stay committed to the marriage vows, but because this will inevitably create friction in the relationship, it is not given as the ideal.

Is the Jesus Story Really Borrowed from Pagan Myths?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life, Why I Believe3 Comments

By Jason Smith

From the very birth of Christianity, the church has always believed in the virgin conception of Jesus Christ. It is part and parcel of the gospel message. It is an essential, not merely incidental, component for understanding who Jesus is.

While some skeptics would have us believe that Jesus’ virgin conception and divine nature were late inventions by the church, nothing could be farther from the truth. From the earliest sources on the life of Jesus, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), we have the testimony of credible and early eyewitnesses who said Jesus Himself claimed to be the great “I Am” or Yahweh God.

One famous historian, Dr. William Ramsay, conducted a thorough investigation of every name and location mentioned in the Gospel of Luke and in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts. Ramsay was an atheist convinced that Christianity was just one more myth of the ancient world. He planned to catalog all of Luke’s errors in order to make the story of the virgin-born Messiah look as ridiculous as the myths of Zoroaster and Zeus.

To Ramsay’s dismay, however, Luke proved to be a top-notch historian. He triple-checked every name and place Luke mentions against every historical record he could find pertaining to the first century. In the end, Ramsay could not deny Luke’s incredible accuracy. Eventually, Ramsay surrendered his life to the Jesus he had set out to debunk.

As mentioned, the Gospels of the New Testament claim to be based on eyewitness testimony, and the authors express a concern for what really happened in the life of Jesus.  Names and places are often mentioned that could only be known by people who were actually there when the events took place. These were people who knew Jesus personally. Most historians agree that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was the primary source for the nativity story found in Luke. The virgin conception was not only based in history, but also a necessary component of the gospel.

Writing at the beginning of the second century, the church father Ignatius wrote:

“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost.”[1]

The Bible teaches that ever since Adam’s sin, children inherit the sinful condition of their parents.[2] Had Jesus come into this world like you and me, with a mother and father, He could not have been the sinless Savior and spotless sacrifice for sins that we all need. This could only happen if Jesus entered this world through a supernatural conception.

The Myth of the “Jesus Myth”

There are many out there, like comedian Bill Maher, who have tried to say that the virgin birth is just part of the “Jesus myth.” He argues that the Christians plagiarized this idea of the virgin birth from pagan mythologies that had already been around for centuries. But on closer examination, this skeptical claim falls apart. Not only are the pagan stories not really virgin births because they involve a god sleeping with a goddess or woman, but they don’t make any attempt to be rooted in history, as the Gospels do.

In his mockumentary film Religulous, Maher tries to argue that long before the Jesus story, the Egyptians believed that their god Horus, the son of Osiris, was born of a virgin, walked on water, performed healing miracles, died by crucifixion, and was resurrected as savior after three days. Oh yeah, and the film claims this is all recorded in the Egyptian book of the dead written in 1280 BC. This is meant to catch viewers off guard. Wait a minute. The Jesus story sounds just like that!

No doubt, it sounds pretty compelling. The only problem? Almost none of this is based in actual history; this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. As Egyptian pastor Shaddy Soliman said, “If you made this kind of claim in Egypt, people would think you’re crazy.”[3]

The only thing truly accurate about the above description of Horus was that he was indeed supposed to be the son of the Egyptian god Osiris. But before considering the other claims, something needs to be clarified.

With nearly every one of the examples that skeptics like Maher cite, it is painfully obvious that they are mythological. They were not written as historical accounts. In fact, there is really no effort by the authors to root these polytheistic tales in a real historical context. By contrast, consider how Luke begins his Gospel:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4, ESV)

Luke talks about his account being based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. He says he did his research, following “all things closely for some time past.” He set out “to write an orderly account” so that his reader would have “certainty” about the Jesus story. This is how you begin a work of history, not mythology. He doesn’t start with “Once upon a time,” but instead gives specific names and times when kings and emperors were reigning, so that there would be no question, this is a carefully researched historical account. As it turns out, the real myth is that there even was a “Jesus myth,” since the Jesus story is based on credible eyewitness accounts of history.

Is Jesus Based on Horus?

So what about Horus?

Was he too said to be born of a virgin?

According to author Rice Broocks, here’s what really happened in the Horus myth (brace yourself, it’s pretty gross):

“Osiris was killed and dismembered, and his body parts cast into a river. Isis retrieved his genitals and then inseminated herself in order to get pregnant and have the son, Horus.”[4]

Oookay then. To call that a virgin birth is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Well, what about Horus performing healing miracles? Nope, there’s no record of him ever healing anyone. What about Horus being crucified? Again, no, nothing like that is recorded other than his hands being spread apart at death. But no cross. No nails. In fact, crucifixion wasn’t even practiced by the Egyptians. So again, the claim doesn’t fit the facts of history. What about rising from the dead? As Broocks explains, in one account Horus is said to be resuscitated, but that is nothing like the Jewish understanding of resurrection where you are raised to new bodily life in glory.

I would encourage those who have been told that the Jesus story is just a copycat of other ancient religions to actually delve into the accounts themselves. Do the research to see if this claim stands up to historical analysis. Ask critical questions. Does the copycat claim make sense of the facts? Where do certain beliefs or ideas show up in historical records? Don’t just blindly accept the claims of those who are bent on making Christianity look foolish.

In most cases, my guess is that these skeptics don’t want the Jesus story to be true, because if Jesus really did die and rise again, then they are undoubtedly accountable to Him; He’s Lord. But if the Jesus story is just a reshuffled version of what was already out there, and it has no grounding in historical truth, they can shunt it aside as another fable and Jesus could be safely ignored along with Zeus and Thor. But what if this retelling is pure fiction?

In his book, Reinventing Jesus, J. Ed Komoszewski writes:

“Only after the rise of Christianity did mystery religions begin to look suspiciously like the Christian faith. Once Christianity became known, many of the mystery cults consciously adopted Christian ideas so that their deities would be perceived to be on par with Jesus. The shape of the mystery religions prior to the rise of Christianity is vague, ambiguous, and localized. Only by a huge stretch of the imagination, and by playing fast and loose with the historical data, can one see them as having genuine conceptual parallels to the Christian faith of the first century.”[5]

The simple fact is that the vast majority of historians today accept that the basic facts about Jesus’ life are rooted in history, not mythology. Not only that, but no historian or scholar ever tried to argue against the Jesus of history for the first 1,700 years following His life. While some disputed His resurrection appearances, nobody tried to argue that Jesus was not a figure of history or that His story was just cobbled together from ancient mythologies. Even today, no historian worth his or her salt will try to deny that Jesus ever existed.

It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that a handful of historians began to argue that since miracles cannot happen (a premise they assumed a priori based on naturalistic convictions), then the story of the miraculous Jesus cannot be real either.

Komoszewski writes:

“As far back as the 1840s, Bruno Bauer began to publish views that the story of Jesus was rooted in myth. Bauer’s greatest influence was on one of his students, Karl Marx, who promoted the view that Jesus never existed. This view eventually became part of communist dogma.”[6]

The Jewish Context of Christian Origins

A glaring problem with this “copycat theory” is that it ignores the Jewish theological and historical context into which Christianity was born. While many forget this, the first Christians were all Jewish. One thing is clear about the Jews of the first century: they utterly repudiated all forms of polytheistic and pagan worship. That being the case, the early Christians would abhor the idea of borrowing ideas about God or worship from the pagan myths of the Gentiles.

It’s clear from the New Testament that the early Christian leaders saw myths as a dangerous threat, not something from which to learn. The Apostle Paul warned his fellow Christians about those who “devote themselves to myths” (1 Timothy 1:4, NIV). He predicted that many, even in churches, “will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4, NIV). The Apostle Peter said, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16, ESV). The argument that Christians just adopted pagan mythical ideas makes no sense, given their leaders continual warnings to run away as far as they could from myths.

Again, Komoszewski writes:

“The first-century Jewish mindset loathed syncretism. Unlike the Gentiles of this era, Jews refused to blend their religion with other religions. Gentile religions were not exclusive; one could be a follower of several different gods at one time. But Judaism was strictly monotheistic, as was Christianity. As the gospel spread beyond the borders of Israel, the apostles not only found themselves introducing people to the strange idea of a man risen from the dead; they also came face-to-face with a polytheistic culture. But they made no accommodation on this front.”[7]

Is Christmas a Pagan Holiday?

I’ve come across numerous internet bloggers, YouTubers, and conversation partners who try to argue that Christianity so closely parallels the ancient mystery religions that Christians must have just copied them to sound legitimate. This erroneous idea is found on the lips of one of Dan Brown’s characters in The Da Vinci Code: “Nothing in Christianity is original.” The novel claims that everything from Jesus’ virgin birth to His birthday on December 25th to the idea of Him receiving “gold, frankincense, and myrrh” has its origin in pagan mythologies, like that of Mithras.

But this is so inaccurate, it’s almost laughable. None of Brown’s claims stand up to scrutiny. To be as charitable as possible, we’d have to say that he didn’t do his homework when writing the book. More likely, he knew that the sensational sells while the truth is often ignored. It’s simply not true that Mithras was born of a virgin – he was born of a rock![8] Let’s not pretend rocks can be called virgins now. In fact, what you don’t find in any of the mystery religions is anything remotely like the virgin conception in the New Testament – which was also prophesied 700 years in advance in Isaiah 7:14. You have gods like Zeus sleeping with human women and producing beings that are half-man and half-god. But obviously if a god had sex with a woman, then she’s not a virgin.

What about December 25th? It’s true that this was the date chosen by the Emperor Aurelius to dedicate his pagan temple to Sol Invictus, the god of the “Unconquerable Sun,” because it was close to the winter solstice. Since Mithraism was closely associated with the worship of Sol, there is a connection between Mithras and that particular date. But let me explain why that does not mean Christmas itself has pagan origins.

No one knows the actual date of Christ’s birth. The earliest known date for celebrating it was actually January 6th and many Eastern churches still celebrate Christmas on that day. But here’s the important point to be made: The celebration of Christmas preceded the choice of December 25th as the day on which to celebrate. So why do we celebrate it on December 25th? According to historians, we have Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, to thank for that. Prior to becoming a Christian, Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus. It seems that in AD 336, the year before Constantine died, he chose December 25th to now be a day for celebrating Christ, not Sol Invictus. In the decades that followed, many popes and emperors argued for appropriating the pagan holidays to demonstrate the redemptive power of Christ.

What about this idea in The Da Vinci Code that gold, frankincense, and myrrh were presented to Krishna at his birth long before the Jesus story? This one is just false. There’s nothing like this found in the story of Krishna’s birth,[9] and I would guess that Brown got this idea from Dorothy Murdock, who has no academic training. While she is a popular writer, many of her claims – such as this one—are roundly rejected by the scholarly community.

The most we could say is that certain cultural practices appear to have overlap between Christianity and ancient pagan religions, but that only makes sense when you consider that by the end of the first century, the vast majority of Christians were former pagans. Nevertheless, there’s good reason to conclude that Christian theology and the Jesus story were not influenced by Mithraism or other pagan mythologies. In the most profound sense, the Christian gospel is both original and unique. The so-called parallels are either gross exaggerations or complete fabrications. All claims to the contrary are evidence of shoddy scholarship and a hunger for the sensational.

Eddy and Boyd make the point well:

“While there are certainly parallel terms used in early Christianity and the mystery religions, there is little evidence for parallel concepts. For example, as we have noted, both Christianity and the mystery religions spoke of salvation—as do many religions throughout history. But what early Christians meant by this term had little in common with what devotees of mystery religions meant by it. To site just one difference, there was in the mystery religions nothing similar to Paul’s idea that disciples participate in the death and resurrection of their Savior and are adopted as God’s children by placing their trust in him.”[10]

So, yes, you’ll find similarities in the general, but you won’t find specific parallels. Christianity is utterly unique in the kind of story it tells. It’s a story of grace – of the one true God coming to the rescue of humanity by being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, dying as a substitute sin-bearer in the place of lost sinners, and rising again bodily. The testimony we find in the New Testament belongs to those who actually saw the risen Christ, felt His nail-pierced hands, and saw Him ascend into the clouds.[11] History records not only His first followers doggedly sticking with the same story from the beginning but also their willingness to die for what they witnessed firsthand. What about the pagan adherents of those other supposed “dying and rising god” myths out there? We don’t have any record of them claiming to see their god in the flesh or being willing to die for this claim. Only Christianity can say this. That’s the power and uniqueness of the Jesus story.

[1] Quoted in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980), 56.

[2] See my previous article “Does the Bible Teach Original Sin?”

[3] Quoted in Rice Broocks, Man, Myth, Messiah, 119.

[4] Rice Broocks, Man Myth Messiah, Kindle edition.

[5] J. Ed Komoszewski, Reinventing Jesus, 234.

[6] Ibid, 318.

[7] Ibid, 233.

[8] Edwin Yamauchi quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Kindle edition.

[9] https://www.learnreligions.com/the-story-of-the-birth-of-lord-krishna-1770453

[10] Boyd and Eddy, The Jesus Legend, 142.

[11] See John 19:35; 20:26-31; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-4

The Cradle in the Shadow of the Cross

On By Jason SmithIn Devotional, Theology for LifeLeave a comment

By Jason Smith

During the Christmas season, our schedule is often crammed with all the festivities to attend, gifts to deliver, and shopping to complete. The race against the clock and the stress of getting things “just right” can be a bit overwhelming. That is why we all could use a reminder to pause, step back, and take it all in. Consider with me what Christmas is really all about.

Selah

The Bible has a wonderful word for this: selah. Selah means stop. Consider. Absorb. Don’t hurry on to the next task to accomplish. Instead, take a deep breath and reflect on the wonder of what God has done out of His unspeakable love for you.

One reason we need to pause is that we often think we have already “figured out” Christmas. We imagine that since we have heard the Christmas story so many times before that we already have a good grasp on it. But, in truth, Christmas is about an event we could never fully wrap our minds around.

“The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14)

We are talking about the infinite becoming finite; the omnipotent One becoming small and weak; the eternal Son of God who created time entering into time itself as the Son of Mary. The Creator entered His creation. The Author wrote Himself into His play.

There is great mystery here. In the words of the Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the incarnation is a holy mystery. It’s a mind-bending mystery to consider how divinity and humanity could be so closely intertwined in a single person. And yet, that is precisely what we have with Jesus. He is not merely the greatest man who ever lived. He is the one and only God-man.

His hands were the hands that placed the stars in the sky. His voice was the one that spoke light into existence at the very beginning. His were the eyes that have peered into the soul of every man, woman, and child. Yet, here He was on Mary’s lap, the glory of Heaven was there as a little baby, nursing from His mother’s breast.

And we are meant to pause and wonder, to allow ourselves the time to ponder the incredible truth of it all. As we do that, the Spirit of God opens His glorious truth to us.

We are like the person with impaired vision who went into surgery to have his vision corrected, and when he comes out, he can see color for the first time. “I never dreamed that the sky could be so blue!” he says. “I never imagined grass to be so green.” Although he could see things before, he’s now seeing everything in a brand new way, as it was always meant to be seen.

That’s what we must do as we consider the coming and incarnation of the Son of God. As we stare into the face of the infant in the manger, we begin to see everything and everyone else in the light of God’s glory.

“He Was in the Form of God”

Writing about the incarnation, the Apostle Paul said:

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5-7, ESV)

To say that Jesus existed “in the form of God,” is to say that the Son has always had the nature of God. We typically think of “form” as the outward design, but in first-century Greek, the word morphe (“form”) meant something more like “inner substance” and “nature.” Paul is saying that at no point in time did Jesus ever become a god or graduate to godhood. He always has been and always will be the eternal God of all. The fact that He is the Son of God doesn’t make Him any less divine, because a son always shares the nature of his father.

Paul goes on to say that this Son who has always existed as God “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (v. 6) or clutched. The idea is that the Son didn’t cling to His divine rights so as to avoid coming to our rescue. In fact, He did the opposite. Rather than seeing His divine nature as a reason to overlook us, He saw it as the thing that qualified Him to save us.

“He Emptied Himself”

Now, when some scholars early in the 20th century looked at the text that says Christ “emptied Himself” (v. 7), they assumed this meant He emptied Himself of His divine nature. As if, in order to become a man, Jesus had to shed His deity. But there’s a fundamental misunderstanding here. It doesn’t say He emptied something out of Himself, but that He “emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant” (v. 7). This self-emptying is talking about Christ’s incredible humility – that He who was exalted above all would stoop to such a low and degrading level out of love.

It’s not that being human is degrading; it’s not. We alone are the prized creation made in God’s own image (Genesis 1:26-27). But the Son of God was willing to subject Himself to being servant of all.

Christ didn’t have His Godhood taken away. This might sound like a mathematical paradox, but what we have here is subtraction by addition. Christ emptied Himself – not by losing His deity, but by adding a human nature.

Remember Christ’s words to the disciples when they were bickering about who was the greatest?

“Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man [speaking of Himself] came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:43-45, ESV)

How much egg do you think was on their face after that? They had just been arguing back and forth. Peter says, “I’m taller, so I should lead.” James says, “No, I’m smarter, so I should be in charge.” Jesus says, “Guys, stop looking to be served. Even I came here to serve you all and even die for you.” You can bet their mouths were snapped shut after that!

“And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8, ESV)

Once again, “form” here means nature. So Jesus really did become fully human in every way. He wasn’t just wearing a human disguise. And He came as an obedient servant of His Father – all the way to the point of dying a criminal’s death on a cross.

“Even Death on a Cross”

This statement would have been shocking. To say that the cross was God’s idea would have sounded absurd to people at the time. They didn’t think of the cross as something you find on top of churches or worn around a neck. A cross — or stauros in the Greek — would have been viewed as the epitome of shame and agony. The word “cross” is something that even Romans wouldn’t say in polite company, because it conjured up the image of gore and shame.

Crucifixion – which originally was invented by the Persians – and then “perfected” by the Romans was designed to maximize both the pain and shame of the victim. In fact, the very word “excruciating” literally means “out of the cross.” This horrendous experience needed a whole category of its own to describe this level of torture.

Now consider that at Calvary, that was God on the cross. According to this verse, the cross was always the goal of Christ’s coming. This was not Plan B; God had always intended it to happen in this way. The reason for the manger of Christmas is the cross of Good Friday. The Son of God came to this earth as a man ultimately to pay for our sin and die the death we deserved.

Now ask yourself, “How much love is required to willingly undergo that kind of torture for those who are spitting in your face?” Jesus lived out the very humility Paul is calling us to embody. That’s why Paul brings up Christ’s incarnation and death. Earlier, he said, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, ESV). Who but Christ embodied this perfectly?

It was Christ who looked not merely “to His own interests, but… to the interests of others” (v. 4). At the cross, we see the ultimate act of selflessness – God Himself pouring out His love, enduring the penalty for our sins, so that we could be forgiven in full.

“God Has Highly Exalted Him”

Charles Wesley, who is known for his many hymns, including “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” also wrote the famous hymn, “And Can It be that I Should Gain.”

The first stanza goes like this:

“And can it be that I should gain
An int’rest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain?
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?”

When we consider Christmas, we should see a Savior God who was willing to lay aside every privilege and right in order to secure the freedom of those who deserved death. Jesus looked at you and considered your need, and because of His great love, He willingly made that vast journey from heaven to earth. And because He did that, words like “Bethlehem,” “manger,” and “wise men” mean something to us today.

Let’s join Paul in letting the truths of Christmas and Calvary turn out hearts to worship.

“Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11, ESV)

Have thoughts on this post? Share in the comments below!

“O Holy Night,” Celtic Worship

Is Original Sin a Biblical Idea?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life, Why I Believe5 Comments

By Jason Smith

One of the hardest Christian doctrines to swallow is that of original sin. To many, it sounds old-fashioned, pessimistic, and puritanical. But what exactly is it?

According to theologians, the term original sin does not describe the first sin of Adam in the garden, although that is a common assumption. Instead, original sin teaches that we have all inherited a corrupt and self-centered nature from Adam. Original sin is the condition of being sinful by nature.

A Little Savage

Throughout church history, various people have disputed this teaching. One somewhat infamous theologian named Pelagius taught that we don’t come into this world corrupted, but rather, morally neutral. He said every human being is free to follow Adam’s bad example or live a morally unmarred life. Much like the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who came along centuries later, Pelagius believed that man was conditioned to sin by a corrupt society, but goodness naturally flowed from the human heart.

I’m fairly certain that parents everywhere would disagree with Pelagius. No child needs to be taught how to lie their way out of a jam or how to steal that forbidden cookie. Even secular publications recognize this.

The Minnesota Crime Commission issued the following statement in response to the rising crime rate:

“Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered. He wants what he wants when he wants it – his bottle, his mother’s attention, his playmate’s toy, his uncle’s watch. Deny these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness, which would be murderous were he not so helpless… If permitted to continue in the self-centered world of his infancy, given free reign to his impulsive actions, to satisfy his wants, every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist.”[1]

What this commission observed is merely what Christians have long taught about original sin. King David put this in stark terms:

"Surely I was sinful at birth,
    sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5, NIV)

John Calvin explained it this way:

“Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’ [Gal. 5:19].”[2]

Not Just “Mostly” Dead

It is because of original sin that evil runs amuck in this world, and it is the reason we all need the redemption found in Jesus Christ alone.

If I was to guess, I would say the two biggest reasons people don’t see their need for Jesus are:

1) People downplay the majesty of God’s holiness; and

2) People downplay the seriousness of their own sin.

You could think of it like this. The less high and holy God is and the less morally corrupt we are, the less obvious it is that we need a divine Savior. If we human beings are basically good by nature but not everything we could be, then a human solution is all we need. Many would argue this way. What we need is self-improvement skills, a more developed society, or better education.

You ready to hear what the Bible says about us? Brace yourself; it’s not pretty. The Bible claims that we are by nature “dead” in our “trespasses and sins.”[3] We’re not talking “mostly dead” as Miracle Max might put it (The Princess Bride); this is dead dead. It says that we are “sons of disobedience” who follow the devil’s leading, obey the fleshly “desires of the body,” and are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”[4] Did I mention that it says the devil has blinded us to keep us from seeing the truth about God’s glory?[5] The Bible traces the problem not merely to bad fruit in our lives, but to the fact that we are spiritually dead at the root.

Ouch! Not exactly a boost to your self-esteem, perhaps. But doesn’t this teaching explain a lot about why we are the way we are? When you look around this world, doesn’t it seem like something has gone drastically wrong with the human race? Why so many wars? Why so much bloodshed? Why is it that you lock your doors at night and need a password to log in to your computer? Why do people have to earn your trust rather than already having it from the time you meet them?

G. K. Chesterton once wisely observed that “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”

He had a point, didn’t he? When you scour the annals of human history over the last few millennia or when you flip on the evening news, isn’t it painfully obvious that human beings are naturally depraved, just as the Bible teaches.

Interestingly, only Christianity holds this view about our natural condition. No other faith system is willing to say that we inherit guilt and corruption from our first parents. But the Bible gives it to us straightaway as the problem that needs to be solved.

Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be

In his letter to the Romans, Paul says that while we inherit our moral corruption from Adam, there is also a way to inherit a righteousness that is not our own from Jesus.

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19, ESV)

Notice that Paul says it was not a host of atrocities, but only “one trespass” that “led to condemnation for all men.” Sin is always heinous; it is always an affront to God’s glory and a rebellion against His right authority. We should never again downplay the seriousness of sin after reading this. All it took was a single sin to drag the world down into condemnation. Only one!

If that seems over the top, could it be that we too don’t think sin is all that bad? Isn’t it our nature to relabel our own sins so that they don’t sound so bad?

Cornelius Plantinga Jr. writes:

“Vices have to masquerade as virtues – lust as love, thinly veiled sadism as military discipline, envy as righteous indignation, domestic tyranny as parental concern.”[6]

While we tend to see sin primarily as harming ourselves or others, the Bible makes it clear that sin is first and foremost against God Himself. We can try to pretty it up and make sin sound not so bad, but the reality is that you and I were born with a deep-seated hostility to our Maker. That is original sin. And original sin is the foremost reason the world is “not the way it’s supposed to be.”[7]

God created us to be good, but we’re not. So, what hope do we have?

An Alien Righteousness

Thankfully, the Romans 5 passage above explains that while Adam’s disobedience brought condemnation, another man’s obedience can make many righteous. God the Father sent Jesus into a world mired in sin and already condemned not to destroy us but to save us (John 3:16-18). On the cross, the sinless Jesus took the condemnation owed to us so that through faith in His loving sacrifice, we could be acquitted of all guilt and justified.

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1, NIV)

Spiritually speaking, the Bible says that we will belong to one of two men. In Adam, we inherited his corruption at conception and were marked by the associated guilt. In Christ, we inherit His righteousness by faith and are now marked by His redemption through the cross.

R. Albert Mohler said, “Most Americans believe that what their problem is, is something that has happened to them, and their solution is going to be found within. In other words, they believe that they have an alien problem that is to be resolved with an inner solution. The gospel says that we have an inner problem, and the only solution is an alien righteousness.”[8]

Do you believe that?

The Bible says that as long as we identify our chief problem as something external to us (our environment, society, family), we will never see our need for Christ. But the moment we agree with God that it is our sin that has separated us from Him,[9] then we are ready for the alien (external) righteousness of Christ that He lovingly gives us through faith.

Have thoughts on this post? Share in the comments below!

[1] This report is quoted in Charles Swindoll, You and Your Child (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998), 21.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 2.1.8.

[3] Ephesians 2:1.

[4] Ephesians 2:2-3.

[5] 2 Corinthians 4:4

[6] Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1995).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Mohler said this in his talk “Preaching with the Culture in View” at the 2006 Together for the Gospel Conference.

[9] “It’s your sins that have cut you off from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore.” (Isaiah 59:2, NLT)

Photo by Johnny Greig

Should I Live My Truth?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life, Why I Believe2 Comments

By Jason Smith

We live in an age of “anything goes” when it comes to religion or spirituality. If it warms your heart or excites you or if it works for you, then go for it.

Into this cultural context comes the big question of truth. What is it? How do we know truth?

Historically, truth has been defined as that which corresponds to reality. To tell the truth is to say how things really are – objectively and independently of how I feel about it.

Truth and Authority Redefined

Today, people have redefined truth to mean “whatever I strongly feel to be true in my heart.” That’s why you hear people say things like “You’ve got to live your truth” and “Everyone has their own version of the truth.” The truth is no longer understood to be something “out there” that I must go and discover. Instead, it is something that rises up within my own heart. And there’s a reason for that. Truth is a binding word. That is why many will argue that if something is true for someone else, then we should never question it. Otherwise we’re asking others to not be true to themselves. To be inauthentic. To live a lie. Or so the argument goes.

J.P. Moreland explains this line of thinking:

“Today, people are more inclined to think that sincerity and fervency of one’s beliefs are more important than the content. As long as we believe something honestly and strongly, we are told, then that is all that really matters.”[1]

But no matter how much I may passionately believe that something is good for me, that fact alone does not make it true.

Intuitively, we recognize that truth is closely linked to authority. If I get to define what is true for me, then I am my highest authority, and I don’t have to answer to a truth that stands outside of me or to a God who determines what is true.

Despite how common this claim is in our culture, the reality is that you and I don’t get to decide what is true. Trying to elevate our feelings and opinions to the level of moral truth doesn’t change the fact that when God declares something to be so, it is true for everyone.

Truth and Love

This doesn’t mean that personal experiences don’t matter. One well-known political commentator has a famous line: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”[2] It’s a witty slogan perfect for bumper stickers. But the problem I have with most bumper stickers is that they often leave something wanting, something left unexplained. While I agree that facts don’t care about your feelings, followers of Jesus should care. We belong to One who showed incredible compassion for the lost, the hurting, and the misled.

In the Gospel of Matthew, we read this of Jesus:

“When He saw the crowds, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Matthew 9:36, BSB)

Elsewhere in the Bible, we read this of God:

“As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He is mindful that we are dust.” (Psalm 103:13-14, BSB)

While truth should never be sacrificed in the name of love, truth is best delivered in the context of a loving relationship. Try as we might, we cannot have one without the other. Truth and love act as preservatives for one another. When you try and separate them, they both spoil.

Why We Need a Transcendent Authority

Many in American culture fail to understand that in order to determine whether something is objectively right or wrong, we must have a transcendent authority. Only a God who has created us and therefore holds authority over us can decide whether something is right or wrong. Whenever a higher authority is rejected, people get to pick and choose whatever is right for themselves. The biblical book of Judges is centered on how dark things become when everyone lives by their own version of morality.[3] Which is why all this talk about “living your truth” is really just a declaration of autonomy and liberty from all moral restraints. As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “Without God… everything is permissible.” Families suffer, societies are ruined, and even whole nations are destroyed by such a poisonous philosophy.

Despite all those claiming the right to decide what is morally right for themselves, I still believe that everyone knows there is a transcendent moral standard that stands outside of them; it’s unavoidable. Our consciences bear witness to the fact that God’s law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-16). Deep down, none of us can deny that we are all beholden to this standard.

All you need to do is watch what happens when someone is mistreated by someone else. Sure, you can claim all day long that “everyone should just live their own truth.” But the moment your car stereo is stolen or a store overcharges you or you get penalized for something you didn’t do, suddenly your blood begins boiling and you feel the need to cry out, “You can’t do that! That’s not fair!” The moment we are harmed personally, our moral indignation betrays what we really believe: There is a transcendent moral standard to which we are all accountable, despite our frequent claims to the contrary.

After all, how could anyone ever say the Holocaust was evil or the Jim Crow laws were unjust or what the terrorists did on 9/11 was wicked unless there really is a transcendent moral standard embedded in the nature of God Himself? We all know it’s not enough to say, “I don’t personally like those things, but I’m not going to foist my version of truth on someone else.”

The Oldest Lie in the Book

In the book of Genesis, the serpent came to tempt Eve to eat from the one fruit that God had forbidden. We’re told that “the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made” (Genesis 3:1). In other words, he was an expert strategist. He had really thought this through. In order to entice Eve into rebellion against the One who had formed her and loved her, he had to point out something that she didn’t yet have. Despite all the delights of living in a beautiful garden with a husband who adored her and a God who met her every need, the serpent touched on the one thing she did not have: the ability to determine good and evil for herself.

After she initially objects to violating God’s single prohibition, the serpent assures her:

“You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5, ESV)

That was the bait that convinced her to eat the fruit. Being like God. Standing in His place. Knowing good and evil as He does.

Well, how does God know good and evil? Not by experiencing both good and evil – the Bible everywhere denies God can sin – but by determining what is good and evil as only a moral authority can. So to be like God is to decide for oneself what is good, beautiful, and true. Eve believed the satanic lie that she could live her own truth and not face any consequences. “You will not surely die,” the serpent had said.

The Truth Will Set You Free

When Jesus of Nazareth walked this planet, He talked a lot about truth. Because we’ve inherited the sin nature from Adam, we are by nature truth suppressors.[4] Jesus explained that we fall for the same old lie that duped Eve. And just as she and Adam ran and hid from God, we all run from the truth. To be more precise, Jesus said we don’t want to know the truth about ourselves. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says:

“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:20-21, ESV)

Jesus came into an already condemned world to bear our condemnation.[5] He said that apart from Him we are trapped in the darkness of deception. On the other hand, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a call to repentance and surrender. To repent is to admit we have gone wrong – that our version of the truth is not, in fact, the truth. When we surrender our lives to Jesus, our sins are forgiven (including the sin of distorting the truth) and our minds are renewed. From that point forward, we’re called to live in line with the truth of the gospel.

To sum up – yes, we should speak the truth in gentleness and love, not abrasively.[6] Yes, we need to be sensitive to the feelings, personal convictions, and experiences of others. Yes, we need to respect those who are different from us. After all, in the biblical worldview they are made in the image of God and thus imbued with unfathomable dignity as His precious creations.

But let’s stop claiming things that can only mislead: “People should be able to determine what is right and wrong for themselves” or “Everyone needs to live their own truth.” As followers of the One who claimed to be “the Way, the Truth, and the life,” we need to surrender to the truth as He defines it in His Word. 

"I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right." (Isaiah 45:19, ESV)

Living my truth might be the worst thing I could ever do. Instead, I am called to live God’s truth.

[1] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind (NavPress: Colorado Springs, 2012). Kindle edition.

[2] This is conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s line. For the record, I agree with much of Shapiro’s moral reasoning. Of course, because Shapiro does not believe the gospel, he and I just don’t see eye to eye on the solution to moral problems.

[3] This was the repeated message in the very dark book of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:24)

[4] See Romans 1:18-20; 5:12. According to the Bible, the universal sin is that human beings have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie.” We worship things of this world, rather than the Creator of this world.

[5] Romans 8:1-3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 10:11-14; 1 Peter 2:24.

[6] Ephesians 4:15; 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

Did Jesus Descend into Hell?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life1 Comment

By Jason Smith

With great emotion, intensity in his eyes, and a distinct southern drawl, the preacher on television vividly described the scene. “Now he’s in the pit of hell… he’s down there suffering like no man has ever suffered. Death and all hell’s emissaries have piled in there on him to annihilate this one called the Son of God!”[1] 

Did Jesus really go to hell to be tortured by demons between His death and resurrection? While you may not be aware of this teaching, this idea is not all that rare. In fact, there’s a line in the famous Apostles’ Creed (not to be confused with Apollo Creed, Rocky’s nemesis) that seems to support what the preacher said: “He [Jesus] descended into hell.”

So what do we make of this? The first thing to determine is whether or not this idea is taught in Scripture. As an evangelical Christian, I love church history and value much of the tradition that has been handed down to believers today. But I also equally confess the Reformation principle of sola scriptura—“Scripture alone.” This principle states that Scripture alone is my final authority on matters of faith and practice. Church tradition, while valuable and important, must submit to the authority of God’s Word.

Even so, it’s worth noting that the phrase “Descendit ad Inferna (He descended into hell)” was not included in the earliest versions of the Apostles’ Creed.[2] And it’s also worth noting that the Apostles’ Creed does not date back to the twelve Apostles themselves, despite what the name may imply.

But, as already mentioned, what really matters is whether or not the concept of Jesus descending into hell is found in the Bible.

Some have wondered if Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, recorded in the book of Acts, alludes to this event. In the King James Version, Peter quotes Psalm 16:10 as saying, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:27, KJV).

Such a reading does seem to suggest that Jesus’s soul descended into hell prior to His resurrection. The problem here is that the KJV translates the Greek hades as “hell,” when it should be translated as “death” or “the grave.” Most biblical scholars agree that hades largely corresponds with the Hebrew sheol in the Old Testament, and sheol simply means “the grave” in Psalm 16:10. If the author had really wanted to say Jesus descended into hell before rising from the dead, he would have used the word gehenna.

The other passage[3] people often see as a reference to Jesus descending into hell is 1 Peter 3:18-20.

I find it ironic that Peter elsewhere says that his fellow Apostle Paul’s writings “contain some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). That’s one Christ-appointed Apostle saying of another Christ-appointed Apostle, “Sometimes what he says is a bit… confusing.” Of course, I wouldn’t argue with Peter on this point, but I could see Paul replying, “Peter, my friend, the same could be said of you at times.”

Peter writes,

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20, ESV)

What’s going on here? When Peter talks about Jesus “being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,” I take that to be a reference to Christ’s death and resurrection. Peter seems to be saying that Jesus rose from the dead in the power of the Holy Spirit, a common way for Scripture to refer to the resurrection.[4] [5]

But then comes the tricky phrase: “… in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah…” Let’s be real. On first reading, this is a confusing statement. The idea seems to be that just as Jesus was raised in the power of the Holy Spirit, He also went in the power of the Spirit to proclaim His victory to disobedient spirits who have been imprisoned since the days of Noah. Some have interpreted the “spirits” here to be human, but I believe there’s good reason to see these as demonic spirits.[6] But this certainly raises some questions. Like, for instance, why did Jesus feel the need to do this? And why did this event involve these specific demons, which were somehow linked to the flood of Noah?

Here’s what I think is happening. Peter is speaking to a beleaguered group of Christians who have been facing suffering and being maligned for their faith in Christ.[7] He wants to encourage them. And what better way to do it than to remind them of Christ’s total victory over the spiritual forces of darkness. When Jesus declares victory, it’s meant to embolden us to share this gospel of Christ’s victory with others (see 1 Peter 3:15).

But why did Jesus proclaim His victory to these specific demons? This leads us to yet another strange account found in Genesis 6:1-4, which speaks of “the sons of God” having sexual relations with “the daughters of man” and producing offspring known as the Nephilim. That last sentence opens a massive can of worms, but I actually think there’s good biblical precedent for this view.

In almost every instance, “sons of God” means angels in the Old Testament.[8] So these were likely rebellious angels (or demons) that somehow took possession of human male bodies to procreate with human women. Yes, this sounds bizarre, but I think this same event is alluded to elsewhere in the New Testament.

In Peter’s second letter, he writes:

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (tartarus) and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly...” (2 Peter 2:4-5, ESV)

Similarly, Jude 6 says:

“And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.” (Jude 6, ESV)

So what does all this mean? These imprisoned demons seem to be the archetype of how God will judge those who side with Satan. Therefore, Peter is saying something like this: “Although satanic forces in the world may persecute you now, God calls you to endure this suffering for Christ, because He has already won the war against them through the cross and resurrection.”

This fits with what Peter says next in verse 22, which says that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:22).

It does appear that Jesus descended to hell (or what Peter calls “Tartarus”) after His resurrection, but not to suffer. He went to declare His total victory over the demons already imprisoned there. However, I’m not a fan of including the phrase “He descended into hell” in the Creed, because it is not treated as a central gospel theme in Scripture. The Bible must always trump tradition.

We know that Christ did not suffer in hell after His death, because Jesus already endured hell when He suffered the punishment for sin on the cross. And it wasn’t demons torturing Jesus (a common misunderstanding of what hell is all about), but the wrath of a holy God that was being poured out on Him. That is why Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46)[9]

The Bible says that Jesus’s sacrifice for sins was made “once for all.”[10] And when His atoning work on the cross was complete, Jesus cried out, “It is finished!” The Greek term is tetelestai, which can be translated “paid in full.” Thus, there was no more suffering needed after Jesus bled and died on the cross. The mission was complete and the debt for sin was fully paid.

Some have suggested that Jesus declared His victory in hell while His body was in the tomb. That could be, but Jesus’s own words seem to suggest otherwise. He told the repentant thief on the cross, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43, NIV). He also cried out, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (v. 46). This seems to clearly teach that in between the cross and resurrection, Jesus went into the Father’s presence.

Could he have then spoken to the imprisoned spirits immediately after that, prior to the resurrection? It’s possible, but Peter seems to be saying that Jesus was first made alive in the power of the Spirit (see 1 Peter 3:18-19).[11] And wouldn’t it make sense to declare His total victory after overcoming the grave?

All that to say, 1 Peter 3:18-20, though at first confusing, is meant to encourage followers of Christ today. Why? Because though we may be wearied by the world, we can remember that we follow a King who has already won the victory over sin, death, and the devil.

When Christ to Hell is seen to come.
She snarls with rage, but needs must cower
Before our mighty Hero’s power;
He signs—and Hell is straightway dumb.
Before His voice the thunders break,
On high His victor-banner blows;
E’en angels at His fury quake,
When Christ to the dread judgment goes.[12]

[1] The preacher was Kenneth Copeland.

[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Second Edition, 725-727.

[3] Some have also seen Romans 10:6-7 and Ephesians 4:8-9 as references to Christ descending into hell, but that’s a misreading of the text. In Romans 10:6-7, Paul makes the point that Christ is immediately available by faith, that you don’t need to descend into the abyss (probably a reference to the deepest ocean) to find Him. Ephesians 4:8-9 is simply saying that in the incarnation, Jesus descended to “lower regions” of the earth, as opposed to higher regions of Heaven, from which He came.

[4] Romans 1:4, 8:11; 1 Timothy 3:16.

[5] Some have taken the phrase “made alive in the spirit” to mean Jesus was spiritually enlivened while His body was in the grave. But does it really make sense to say the eternal Son of God needed to be “made alive” spiritually? The Greek doesn’t capitalize words for us, so we have to consider the context to determine whether or not the Holy Spirit is being referred to here. That phrase “in the Spirit,” is often used of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Also, the weakness of the flesh (sarx) is often contrasted with the power of the Holy Spirit (pneuma).

[6] In almost every case in the New Testament, “spirit” (pneuma) in the plural refers to angels/demons, not humans. However, you never have a case of “spirits” referring to humans without some qualifying description making it clear that humans are in view.

[7] This idea of suffering for Christ’s sake permeates the whole letter, from beginning to end. See 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:19-25; 3:9-17; 4:1-2, 12-19; 5:10.

[8] See Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 29:1, 89:6

[9] Other references to Jesus bearing the wrath of God include Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 4:10, and Hebrews 2:17, where “propitiation” means “wrath-bearing substitute.”

[10] See Hebrews 9:26, 28, 10:10-14; 1 Peter 3:18

[11] The NIV even says, “After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits…” (1 Peter 3:19).

[12] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Thoughts on Jesus Christ’s Descent into Hell,” Goethe’s Works, illustrated by the best German artists, 5 vols. (Philadelphia: G. Barrie, 1885). Vol. 1.

What Does It Mean to Turn the Other Cheek?

On By Jason SmithIn Theology for Life6 Comments

By Jason Smith

Photo Credit: Allan Swart

I have had several conversations recently with other Christians who have considered the question: “Is it ever right for a Christian to practice self-defense against an attacker?”

Perhaps you read that and think it’s a no-brainer. Of course, you can. You have every right to defend yourself. However, I’ve talked with many Bible-believing Christians who would disagree. And the text they almost always turn to when arguing against self-defense is found in the Sermon on the Mount:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)

So, what exactly did Jesus mean when He commanded us to “turn the other cheek”? When He says, “Do not resist an evil person,” does that mean we should never defend ourselves against a violent aggressor? Or what about if our family or loved ones are in danger? Can we still not resist the evil person who is about to harm them?

Before answering, I want to let this whole idea of non-resistance percolate for a moment. Too often, I’ve heard knee-jerk responses to the questions above that seem to ignore altogether what Jesus said. People often use terms like “crazy,” “moronic,” and “weak” when talking about non-resistance to violence. Ironically, these are the very words the world uses when they hear about a crucified king.[1] We cannot allow our own impulses, desires, and assumptions to muffle our Lord’s words. If Jesus really is our King, then we should be willing to submit our hearts to whatever He commands – even if such obedience initially seems unthinkable.

I’ll be very candid here. The idea of letting someone who has just slapped me take another whack at me goes against everything in me. Think of the times that a car pulls out in front of you or when someone rudely interrupts you or when someone intentionally slights you. What is your natural response? You’re hot, bothered, and ready to put people in their place… or is this just a struggle for me? What Jesus is confronting here is our natural response to want to hit back.

Most biblical scholars agree that a slap on the cheek was more often viewed as an insult, rather than a violent attack. So what Jesus is probably forbidding is returning insult for insult. That said, how should we think about self-defense against physical attacks in light of this text?

We live in a culture that is inundated with violence. We love watching movies where our favorite action heroes take sweet vengeance on those bad guys. We often talk about “payback” and “my rights.” As Khan tells Captain Kirk in one of the Star Trek films, “Kirk, old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb, ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’?.”[2] Or, as Jesus explained this principle: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” That was the lex talionis, the principle of just retribution in Jewish law: the punishment must fit the crime.

On the one hand, this desire to get even isn’t purely sinful. Woven into this impulse is our natural thirst for justice, an evidence of God’s moral law written on our hearts. We long to see wrongs put right and to have the evildoer punished. However, within our fallen hearts there is a slippery slope from a genuine yearning for justice to a sinful desire for personal vengeance.

Interestingly, the whole purpose of the lex talionis in Jewish law was to avoid needless cycles of vengeance. Think of all the gang violence, vendettas, and family feuds throughout history, the latter of which is the context for Shakespeare’s fictional Romeo and Juliet. So the lex talionis was intended to curtail the hostility between two parties that naturally tends to escalate. The local justice system would punish the guilty and right the wrongs.[3] However, the Jewish scribes began to extend this principle from the Jewish law courts to personal relationships. Ironically, this undermined the whole point of that law. By the time of Jesus, it meant: “You punched my eye. Now I get to punch your eye!”

This explains why all of Jesus’s examples involve individuals laying aside their rights out of love for those who wrong them.

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:39-42, NIV)

In each example, Jesus calls the wronged party to demonstrate extraordinary love where anger and retaliation would naturally follow. Jesus is saying that Christians must surrender this deep-seated impulse to get even – and more than that, to replace this impulse with tangible love for those who wrong us (see Matthew 5:44). Wanting justice is not wrong, but Jesus forbids taking justice into our own hands.

First and foremost, followers of Jesus are called to be radical peacemakers. We are to deny our thirst to get even, crucify all fleshly desires for personal vengeance, and stamp out the wildfire of violent retaliation. We are to aim for reconciliation and forgiveness where the natural impulse is to hit back, whether metaphorically or literally.

I can hear the objection: But this sounds crazy! I’m not going to let criminals go free, causing chaos in the world! With this very objection in mind, Paul writes:

“Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:17-19, ESV)

How can you lay aside this desire for vengeance while keeping a clear conscience? Leave room for the wrath of God. It is God’s role, not yours, says Paul, to carry out vengeance. You say, But I want justice! So does God. Which is why, in the very next chapter of Romans, Paul explains that the governing authorities are God’s appointed means of administering justice in a fallen world. Perfect and final justice in eternity is coming, certainly, but even today God appoints police officers, law courts, and judges to administer justice. Scripture even calls such authorities “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:5, ESV). True, these institutions are not perfect, but they are there for our good.

This is one area I cannot agree with Preston Sprinkle, author of Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence. While I loved so much of what Preston said, he argues that Christians can never use lethal weapons – even when serving in the police or military – because Christians are never to kill.[4] But I believe Scripture differentiates between murder (lawless killing) and wartime or judicial killing.[5] It is because these God-ordained authorities carry the sword of justice that I, as a citizen, should not.

When a band of temple soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword and sliced off the servant’s ear. Jesus sharply rebuked Peter, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, ESV). Then, with stunning love, Jesus knelt down and healed this man who had come to arrest Him. Jesus was vividly demonstrating for all His followers that His kingdom would not spread through violence and warfare.

When Pilate questioned Jesus about what kind of a king He was, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 19:36, ESV).

Suffering wrong without vengeful retaliation doesn’t make you a wimp or a coward. In fact, God calls it a “gracious thing.” “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19, ESV).

When Jesus calls us to turn the other cheek, we need to remember that this is precisely what He did when He was slapped. “Then they began to spit in Jesus’ face and beat him with their fists. And some slapped him” (Matthew 26:67, NLT). He endured the very thing to which He calls His followers.

And Peter tells us that in enduring such ruthless violence, Jesus was modeling the kind of attitude we should have when others mistreat us.

“To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps… When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:21, 23, NIV)

So we come to the big question: Does this mean we are never to defend ourselves? I’ve considered this question a great deal in light of Scripture, and I really don’t think that Jesus is making an absolute statement ruling out all forms of self-defense. However, in light of everything we’ve seen in Scripture, our self-defense should always be measured and should only be about bare protection, not retaliation. Christians should never view themselves as self-appointed vigilantes executing justice on wrongdoers in the name of God.

Jesus calls us to love even our enemies. That means in our self-defense, we should try to bring the least amount of harm to our attacker while still stopping the attack. Lethal force should be avoided at all costs.

I’ve come to this conclusion because there are numerous cases in Scripture where God seems to permit self-defense. For example, when Nehemiah and his men were rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, they carried a sword to defend themselves.

“Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” (Nehemiah 4:17-18, ESV)

They completed the wall and God clearly blessed their efforts, implying that this is a good example to follow. In the New Testament, Paul escaped danger by being let down in a basket from a window in Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32-33). When he was mistreated in Philippi, he appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen. He also welcomed protection from Roman soldiers more than once (Acts 21:32-22:1, 23:12-22). Even Jesus escaped violent attacks by slipping away from the crowds, prior to the cross (Luke 4:29-30; John 8:59, 10:39). While we don’t see occasions where Christians fight back in the New Testament, it seems that these examples demonstrate that reasonable self-defense is endorsed rather than forbidden.

When Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek,” we have to take this command in light of other passages that allow for self-defense. We have to see there is a difference between fighting back to defend oneself and taking vengeance on someone who has hurt you.

For example, if a man is assaulting a woman, do we really think Jesus meant she can’t use a weapon to fend him off? There are numerous passages in Scripture that call for rescuing the oppressed and vulnerable, so it only makes sense that one is encouraged to defend oneself (Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 31:8-9).

At the same time, Christ tells us that following Him includes radical self-denial and cross-carrying. So, if God calls us to suffer for His sake in persecution – simply by taking a beating or even being killed – we can accept it. We are in good company when we do this. And Scripture says that when we suffer in the same manner as Jesus suffered, we experience a sweet communion with Him (Philippians 3:10).

But what about the attacker at the door? Shouldn’t Christians do everything they can to defend their own families?

There are actually numerous texts that speak to this issue. For example, Exodus 22:2-3 speaks to God’s approval of defending one’s own home. Elsewhere, we see that the head of the home is called to care for those in his household, which would clearly include defending against violent aggressors (1 Timothy 5:8).

There is a lot more that could be discussed here, and we have to see that this is a matter of Christian conscience, where believers must learn to disagree charitably. When in doubt, we should follow the love principle. We should make it our aim in life to show love to even the most wicked and vile offenders. Yet, we cannot allow this love for enemies to abrogate our love for our neighbors, our love for human life, and our love for justice.

[1] See 1 Corinthians 1:18-25.

[2] From the film The Wrath of Khan.

[3] It’s interesting to note that the Hebrew Scriptures even take into account accidental killings (manslaughter)

[4] As I read Preston’s book, there was so much to love about it. His overarching principle of commitment to non-violence was, for the most part, measured and biblical. I loved the tenacious commitment to love even the worst of enemies and seek their good, despite what harm they may cause you. But I simply cannot agree with his view of Christians never carrying lethal weapons in the military or police.

[5] The Hebrew word ratsach found in commandment “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13) is never used in a military context. Ratsach should really be translated “murder” or occasionally “manslaughter” (accidental killing).