Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Jesus in the Old Testament, Old Testament

“The Virgin Shall Conceive”: Why Isaiah 7:14 Confuses People

For many years, the prophecy that confused me most was Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Every Christmas I heard pastors quote this, but none had ever explained its context. What confused me was that the next three verses say that the prophecy will be fulfilled within 14 years. If it was supposed to be fulfilled in the eighth century BC, how could it apply to Jesus?

Let’s go ahead and clear that up.

What Triggered “The Virgin Shall Conceive” Prophecy

First, here’s what brought on this prophecy.

King Ahaz’s dad had died, leaving him the sole king of Judah at age 20. Judah was a small kingdom south of Israel and Syria. Farther north and east, the kingdom of Assyria was growing rapidly by conquering one kingdom state after another. The kings of Israel and Syria knew they couldn’t stop the powerful Assyria alone, so they wanted to form a coalition along with Judah. But Ahaz refused to join them.

Ahaz’s refusal angered the kings of Israel and Syria, so they attacked. Unfortunately, Ahaz was not a godly king, and so the Lord allowed the two kings some victories. When Ahaz still wouldn’t join, the two kings decided to depose Ahaz and replace him with a puppet king who would do their bidding.

Assyrian conquests prompted the prophecy, "the virgin shall conceive" — Assyrian relief depicting conquests from the British Museum, photograph by Jean E. Jones

The Lord’s Offer

The Lord God sent Isaiah with a message for this young, frightened king. He told Ahaz not to fear the two kings because they would not take the throne from him (Isaiah 7:3-7). Instead, Israel would cease to exist within 65 years (verse 8). He cautions Ahaz, “If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all” (verse 9). Then he makes this incredible offer:

Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.
Isaiah 7:11

In other words, God tells the scared ruler to ask any sign he wants as proof that the Lord will be with him and will not allow his two enemies to remove him from the throne. He can request a miraculous sign that is as deep as hell or as high as heaven.

What did Ahaz do? He refused God’s offer! He told Isaiah, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test” (Isaiah 7:12). Why? Because he had already decided what he wanted to do and it didn’t involve submitting to or trusting the King of kings.

The Promise That the Virgin Shall Conceive

Isaiah was not fooled by Ahaz’s fake piety. If Ahaz would not request a sign, God would give him a sign nonetheless. Isaiah replied,

Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.
Isaiah 7:13-16

Isaiah no longer calls God “your God,” but rather “my God,” for Ahaz has rejected God as his King of kings.

“Virgin,” “Immanuel,” Curds, and the Child’s Age

According to John N. Oswalt in The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–9, the Hebrew word translated virgin means “young woman of marriageable age.” Jews would assume she was a virgin, of course, so the Hebrew word can be translated either “maiden” or “virgin.” There’s another Hebrew word that can only be translated “virgin,” but that’s not what Isaiah uses here. We’ll come back to why later. For now, note that the prophecy in its immediate context refers to a young woman who is a virgin at the time of the prophecy. She’ll marry, conceive, and bear a child. The woman is not named, but it is not the mother of the crown prince Hezekiah, for he was born before Ahaz rose to sole king.

The name Immanuel means “God with us.” Therefore, the child would be a sign that God was with Judah even though the king was abandoning God. God’s presence is a comfort for the godly, but terror for the ungodly.

Curds (a milk product like ricotta cheese) and honey were wealthy fare. Yet, when the child knows right and wrong (age 12-13), he will eat curds and honey and both Israel and Syria will be deserted.

Ahaz Openly Rejects God

Ahaz sent messengers to the king of Assyria, saying “I am your servant and your son” (2 Kings 16:7). These are titles that show Ahaz has rejected his covenant duty to serve under God alone and has put Assyria’s fearsome king in God’s place.

Here’s what this means. A king who rules over other kings is called a suzerain, and the kings serving him are called vassals. In those days, the suzerain protected his vassals in exchange for money, soldiers, and submission. The suzerain called his vassals “sons,” and the vassals called their suzerain “father.” So when Ahaz said to Assyria’s king, “I am your servant and your son,” he was offering to be his vassal.

In other words, Assyria didn’t have wait to conquer Judah—Ahaz sought him and surrendered before Assyria came near. Ahaz did this so that this king of kings would rescue him from Israel and Syria.

The trouble was that in Judah, the kings were supposed to have the Lord God as Suzerain. Ahaz had switched teams. And he used the temple treasures which belonged to the Lord God as tribute to his new lord.

But Isaiah isn’t done with prophecies about a child. He recorded more in the next two chapters.

Prophecies about Isaiah’s Child

Here’s what introduces the next set of child prophecies:

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.
Isaiah 8:3

The Hebrew translated “went to” is a euphemism in the Old Testament that usually means the first time that a husband and wife come together for marital relationships. Because of this, some scholars think that Isaiah’s first wife may have passed away and he married a prophetess who bore him another child. Thus, Isaiah 7:14 might refer to this child.

Immanuel’s Land

Isaiah 8:4 prophesies that before Isaiah’s newborn reaches three, the two kings won’t threaten Ahaz anymore. Assyria would demolish Syria and subdue Israel. But Ahaz’s trust in Assyria instead of God would cost him dearly because Assyria wasn’t trustworthy. Assyria would sweep into Judah and wreak havoc in “your land, O Immanuel” (Isaiah 8:8).

By calling Judah “Immanuel’s land,” Isaiah links this prophecy about his son to the previous chapter’s prophecy about a child called Immanuel, God With Us. Now we have two prophecies about a child being born as a sign that God is with Judah. They’re also linked by the name Immanuel.

Isaiah then says this about his own children:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
Isaiah 8:18

Isaiah’s newborn is a sign of what’s to come within three years. But he and his children are not just signs; they portend (or foreshadow) future events. We’ll come back to this too.

For to Us a Child Is Born

Isaiah has another child prophecy in the ninth chapter:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
Isaiah 9:6-7

Virgin Shall Conceive: "The Adoration of the Shepherds by Murillo — *The Adoration of the Shepherds,* by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo – Museo Nacional del Prado (Public Domain)

Unlike the prophecies in the previous chapters, this prophecy of a child is about no ordinary child. It was obviously a prophecy about a future child, not a child in Isaiah’s day. This child would bring the righteousness that Ahaz abandoned, and he would rule forever.

The Initial Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

So what happened next? Assyria attacked both Syria and Israel, just as Ahaz had requested. Within three years of Isaiah’s son’s birth, the two kings that threatened Ahaz were dead. A decade after Ahaz refused God’s offer, Assyria demolished Israel.

But the king of Assyria was untrustworthy and swept into Judah too, killing many. So many died that the remnant left could not use all the milk. They turned the milk into curds, and everyone ate curds and honey. So the child prophecies of Isaiah 7 and 8 were fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, but not the child prophecy of Isaiah 9.

Now that we have seen Isaiah 7:14 in its original context, let’s look at how the Gospels use it.

The Later Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

By the time of Christ, most Jews were using the Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 with a Greek word that meant virgin, not a young woman of marriageable age.

Matthew 1:18 records that Mary “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” An angel confirmed this to her fiancé Joseph (verse 20). Matthew explained all this and wrote,

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Matthew 1:23

Matthew knew that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, so why did he write this? Because he also understood how OT portents work. The Bible uses a number of words for portents, including type, shadow, foreshadow, figure, and picture.

Most people today are less familiar with portents, so I’ll explain with a story.

A Potato Portent

A potato illustrates forshadowing — Adobe Stock, used by permission

Sometimes my husband calls me from the grocery store saying, “I found great looking salmon. Would you like some for dinner tonight?” I’ll reply, “Yes! Don’t forget to buy a potato.”

That night, I’ll sauté half the fish while Clay slices and boils the potato. I serve most of the fish and refrigerate the leftovers and the potato. The next night, I sauté the rest of the fish and refrigerate the leftovers.

Are you wondering about the cold, uneaten potato? Its presence foreshadows that something more will happen with the fish. And more will happen. On the third night, I’ll beat an egg, mash the potato into it, and stir in minced chives, salt, and pepper. Next, I’ll break up the leftover fish and fold it into the egg and potato mixture. Finally, I’ll form the mixture into fish cakes that I’ll sauté in butter and oil until they are browned and crispy and oh-so delicious.

Just as I made obvious links between the potato and fish before I told you how they were related, so Isaiah placed obvious links between the child prophecies in chapters 7, 8, and 9 without fully telling us how they were related. He linked the birth of a child, the name Immanuel, and the land of Judah. He also contrasted the current king’s wickedness with the future king’s righteousness, and Assyria’s king’s ruthlessness with Immanuel’s justice.

Just as the unused potato foreshadowed that something more was coming, so the unfulfilled chapter 9 prophecy foreshadowed that something more was coming as well.

Prophecies and Portents

As I noted above, Matthew knew that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. But he also knew that Isaiah 9:6-7 had not been fulfilled prior to Jesus’s coming. Jesus alone fulfilled it. And he was familiar with Mary’s story of Jesus’s miraculous birth to her as a virgin.

As Matthew read the passages—especially in the Septuagint—he realized that Isaiah 7:14’s prophecy that the “virgin shall conceive” was no coincidence. There was more going on than what was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day.

He realized that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy that was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, but its fulfillment portended a future event. In other words, the woman and child in Isaiah’s day foreshadowed Mary and her son Jesus. The woman in Isaiah’s day was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but Mary was a virgin at the time of conception. The child in Isaiah’s day was called Immanuel, or God With Us, as a sign that God was still with Judah. But that child foreshadowed Jesus, who was literally God with us.

And that is why Isaiah used an ambiguous Hebrew word for virgin. The first meaning was meant for the initial fulfillment, but the second for the ultimate fulfillment.

Fulfilled Prophecy as Portents

Here’s another analogy for understanding prophecies that have fulfillments that foreshadow a significant future event.

I live in sunny Southern California where it doesn’t snow. Most of the year, we see what looks like one brown mountain range to the north. But sometimes in the winter, we’ll see a massive, snow-covered mountain range in the distance and a smaller brown mountain range closer to us (see the photo).

Near and future fulfillment of "the virgin shall conceive" illustrated by 2 mountain ranges — Photo by Virginia Thompson

The nearer mountain range leads our eyes up to the mountain range that is farther off and obviously much bigger. In the same way, some prophecies have a nearer fulfillment that points to and leads our eyes to a greater, future fulfillment. The nearer fulfillment foreshadows the coming fulfillment.

Deep as Sheol or High as Heaven

Let’s look back at the Lord God’s generous offer to King Ahaz:

Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.
Isaiah 7:11

Consider that the immediate fulfillment in Isaiah’s day wasn’t a sign that was as deep as Sheol (hell) or as high as heaven.

But the typological fulfillment in Jesus’s day certainly was.

CLICK TO TWEET:

The Virgin Shall Conceive: Why Isaiah 7:14 Confuses People Share on X

Books You Might Like

These are affiliate links for which I receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament, by me, Pam Farrel, and Karla Dornacher | Discover more about the hope of Immanuel, God With Us, in chapter 7
NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, edited by D.A. Carson
The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), by John N. Oswalt

December 22, 2020/7 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Message Series

Evidence for the Resurrection Part 2

In my last post, we began to look at evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. We covered three key facts that ancient primary source documents tell us regarding Jesus and the events surrounding his death. They were:

Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
Jesus’s tomb was found empty.
Soon after the crucifixion, people said they saw Jesus alive. This included the apostle Peter, the church persecutor Paul, and the skeptic James the brother of Jesus.

Today, we’ll look at one more key fact, and then we’ll consider what conclusions we can draw.

4) Jesus’s followers were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection.

After Jesus’s crucifixion, his scared and confused followers scattered and hid. But then something amazing happened: they claimed they had seen Jesus alive again! Suddenly, they were transformed. They spoke boldly and publicly about Jesus being raised from the dead. Even after Jewish leaders and Roman officials threatened them with punishment, torture, and death, they refused to recant their testimony about seeing Jesus alive.

The biblical books tell us of some of the persecution, but extra-biblical sources tell us about the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul, and James (Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus , 91, 113, 134).

Martyrs testified to the resurrection — Many early Christians lost everything (Konstantin Flavitsky, 1862, public domain)

Peter went from denying he knew Jesus to boldly proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection. Rome crucified Peter.
Paul transformed from persecuting Jewish Christians to claiming he saw Jesus alive. He boldly spread news of the resurrection throughout the Roman empire. Rome beheaded him.
James the brother of Jesus changed from thinking his brother was crazy before the crucifixion to claiming the resurrected Jesus appeared to him. He became a leader of the Christian church (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Galatians 2:9). Jewish leaders executed him.

The disciples’ willingness to testify that they saw Jesus alive after he died despite threats against them is evidence that the disciples had experiences that they sincerely believed were appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

Don’t people die for lies?

But don’t people die for lies they believe are true? Yes, but there’s a crucial difference between them and those who claimed to see Jesus alive. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona explain:

No one questions the sincerity of the Muslim terrorist who blows himself up in a public place or the Buddhist monk who burns himself alive as a political protest. Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regarded their beliefs as true. Moreover, there is an important difference between the apostle martyrs and those who die for their beliefs today. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be either true or false.
Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 59.

The conclusion of skeptics

That is why skeptic Bart D. Ehrman writes,

Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 231 (emphasis mine).

Ascension of Christ after resurrection — Rembrandt: The Ascension of Christ

It is also why atheist Gerd Lüdemann writes,

It is certain that something must have happened after Jesus’ death which led his followers to speak of Jesus as the risen Christ.
Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? An Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 26.

Scholarly consensus

In fact, Gary Habermas surveyed more that 1,400 sources on the resurrection since 1975 and concluded this:

Perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 60.

What Best Accounts for These Facts?

Here are some of the options that skeptics put forth.

The resurrection is a legend?

The claims about the resurrection occurred too soon after the crucifixion for a legend to arise, and the disciples’ willingness to die shows they believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Jesus swooned?

A team of medical experts examined what we now know about scourging, crucifixion, and the account of Jesus’s death. Scourging resulted in severe blood loss. The crucified victim sometimes lived for days in tremendous pain. To exhale, he had to push up on his nail-pierced feet and wrists. Thus, when the soldiers wanted to hasten the death of the two men crucified with Jesus, they broke their legs. When they saw that Jesus was already dead, they pierced his side with a sword, causing a flow of blood and water. Here is what the medical team concluded:

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death… Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.
William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, 255:1463.

The disciples hallucinated?

By far the most popular theory today among skeptics today is that the disciples only hallucinated what they thought were actual appearances of the resurrected Jesus.

But the hallucination theory doesn’t work because hallucinations are individual experiences of the mind, like dreams. Therefore, they cannot be shared. Yet, many of the testimonies about Jesus’s appearances were to more than one person at a time. Jesus appeared more than once to the eleven (John 20:19,26; 21:1), to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31), and on one occasion to more than 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:6). Interestingly, when Paul writes about the appearance to the 500, he claims “most of whom are still alive,” implying, “You can go ask them yourselves.”

Indeed, for their experiences to be hallucinations, John would have had to have hallucinated Peter talking to Jesus while Peter hallucinated talking to Jesus when John passed by, both hearing the same words. While Thomas hallucinated Jesus telling him to put his hands in his wound, the other ten disciples would have had to have hallucinated watching the conversation.

Hallucinations aren’t shared

In fact, when U.S. Navy SEALS train, hallucinations are common due to extreme fatigue and sleep deprivation. But no two hallucinations are alike:

Most hallucinations occur while the candidates, as a team, paddle in a raft out in the ocean. One believed that he saw an octopus come out of the water and wave at him! Another thought he saw a train coming across the water headed straight toward the raft. Another believed that he saw a large wall, which the raft would crash into if the team persisted in paddling. When the octopus, train, and wall were pointed out by the candidates to the rest of the team, no one else saw them, even though they were all in the same frame of mind. Most of them hallucinated at some point, but none of them participated in the hallucination of another.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 106-107.

The disciples stole the body?

Then they died for what they knew was a lie, and no one does that. People die for what they think is true that turns out to be false. But if they stole the dead body, then they were proclaiming a resurrection they knew didn’t happen. No one dies for what they know is a lie.

resurrection — “The Resurrection” ~ woodcut by Dore

In addition, this doesn’t account for the conversion of the two skeptics, James and Paul. Neither believed Jesus was the Messiah before the crucifixion. Both had experiences that they thought were appearances of Jesus. Both were willing to die rather than recant their testimony that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

Habermas and Licona write,

If the direct witnesses really believed that he rose from the dead, we can dismiss contentions that they stole the body and made up the story. In fact, virtually all scholars agree on that point, whatever their own theological positions.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 62.

That Jesus really was raised from the dead?

This best accounts for the historical facts: Jesus really was raised from the dead. That’s why we can trust him and what he said.

That Jesus really was raised from the dead best accounts for the historical facts. Share on X

Interested in the evidence that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament promises, prophecies, & types? See my book, Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament.

Evidence for the Resurrection Part 1
My 200-Word Resurrection Witness by Clay Jones
The Bibliographical Test Updated by Clay Jones
Questions about Women at the Tomb

Books You Might Like

Why Do You Believe That? by Mary Jo Sharp
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona
The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel
Immortal: How the Fear of Death Drives Us And What We Can Do About It by Clay Jones (2020)

September 9, 2019/1 Comment/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Message Series

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Part 1

Is there evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Or is Christianity simply a matter of blind faith?

It claims not to be. According to the Gospels, Jesus said his being “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” would be the “sign” that he came from God in fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures (Matthew 12:39-40). This is an obvious reference to his death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. Paul said that God “has given proof…to everyone” that he would judge the world by Jesus “by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). He also wrote, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14).

If the resurrection is supposed to prove so much, what evidence do we have today that it really happened?

Quite a bit.

The Testimony of Ancient Documents

Crucifixion before Resurrection — The Crucifixion (Rembrandt [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

We possess many ancient documents that tell us about the beginnings of Christianity. Scholars call these primary source documents. A primary source document is a first-hand account of a topic. Some of the primary source documents are extra-biblical (outside of the Bible).

The four Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians are also primary source documents. They record Jesus’s death as well as eyewitness testimonies of Jesus’s subsequent resurrection.

A few skeptics object that these documents have not been accurately transmitted. That is, they claim the biblical sources must have been altered over time. But this is not true. Scholars use what’s called the bibliographical test to gauge how accurately ancient documents have been transmitted.

The bibliographical test examines the reliability of ancient manuscripts.

This test compares the number of surviving manuscripts of ancient documents and how much time elapsed between the earliest surviving copy and the date the original manuscript was handwritten.

Clay Jones explains:

The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted.
Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test Updated,” The Christian Research Journal

In other words, the bibliographical test shows that the biblical texts were accurately copied.

Ancient Documents Establish Key Facts

Now let’s move on to key facts that the primary source documents establish. Even skeptical and atheist scholars agree on a surprising number of basic facts.

1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

Resurrection came after the crucifixion — “The Three Crosses,” by Rembrandt, 1653

That Jesus was crucified around AD 30 is a fact of history attested to in multiple primary source documents, including documents written by those who didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead.

For example, the Roman historian Tacitus (56–120) wrote,

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
Tacitus, Annals

Of course, the “extreme penalty” is crucifixion.

Skeptic and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar John Dominic Crossan writes,

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 179 .

The biblical sources also record the crucifixion: Matthew 27:32-31; Mark 15:21-47; Luke 23:18-54; John 19; Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10; and 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2; 2:8. Dr. Gary Habermas and Dr. Michael Licona write that the evidence for this and other data we’ll look at

are so strongly evidenced historically that nearly every scholar regards them as reliable facts.
Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48.

2) Jesus’s tomb was found empty.

The four Gospels record that Jesus’s dead body was laid in a tomb, but the tomb was found empty days later. Here’s what else they record.

A Jewish leader placed Jesus’s dead body in a tomb.

Angel in tomb after the resurrection — “The Resurrection” ~ woodcut by Dore

All four Gospels record that a member of the Jewish ruling council named Joseph of Arimathea removed Jesus’s dead body from the cross and laid it in his own tomb (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). This is significant because it is highly unlikely that the Gospel authors would fabricate this detail since it would have been easily verifiable by people alive at the time. Additionally, the early Christians blamed the Jewish leaders for the crucifixion, which makes it incredulous that they would invent a story about one of them attending to Jesus’s body.

Details like these are why cofounder and president emeritus of Internet Infidels, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, writes,

The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability.
Jeffrey Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 265–66.

The tomb was found empty.

Next, the four Gospels report that on the third day after burial, women found the tomb empty (Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10). Clay Jones explains the significance:

That the Gospels record women as being the first to discover the empty tomb makes it likely because of what is called the “criterion of embarrassment.” The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis where authors are presumed to be telling the truth if they record something that might be embarrassing to them or their cause. In short, no one in first-century Palestine would concoct a story with women taking the lead in the most vital discovery of Christianity!
Clay Jones, Immortal: How the Fear of Death Drives Us and What We Can Do About It (Oregon: Harvest House, 2020).

They record that after that, two disciples found the tomb empty (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-7).

The Jews claimed the disciples stole the body.

Matthew wrote that the Jewish leaders paid the guards who were watching the tomb to say that the disciples came at night while the guards slept and stole the body (Matthew 28:11-15). Extra-biblical documents attest to this report too. Justin Martyr (100–165) in his dialog with the Jew Trypho wrote:

You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Justin Martyr, “Dialog with Trypho,” in Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers, vol. 2, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, trans. Marcus Dods, George Reith, and B.P. Pratten, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1879), 235.

Why would the Jewish leaders claim Jesus’s body was stolen unless the tomb was empty? Additionally, if the Jewish leaders weren’t saying this, why would Matthew report this embarrassing detail?

Without an empty tomb, Christianity wouldn’t have begun.

Finally, if the tomb wasn’t empty, all the Jewish and Roman leaders had to do to quell Christianity was to produce Jesus’s body. Habermas and Licona note,

In the arid climate of Jerusalem, a corpse’s hair, stature, and distinctive wounds would have been identifiable even after fifty days.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , 70.

Christianity’s critics nowhere claimed to have found his body. Instead, they claimed the disciples stole the body. That is why

…roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact.
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , 70.

3) Soon after the crucifixion, people said they saw Jesus alive.

The primary source documents tell us that Jesus’s followers and two former skeptics all saw Jesus alive.

Jesus’s followers claimed to see Jesus alive.

After Jesus’s crucifixion and burial, his confused and scared followers scattered and hid. But something happened that emboldened them.

Matthew recorded that he and the other ten disciples saw and spoke to the resurrected Jesus as a group (Matthew 28:16-20).

John wrote that the risen Jesus appeared to him, the other ten disciples, a woman, and others, often in groups (John 20:11-31).

Peter proclaimed to thousands that he was a witness to the fact that God had raised Jesus from the dead, as the non-Jewish historian Luke recorded (Acts 2; Acts 3:15; 4:10; etc.). Peter also wrote about the resurrection (1 Peter 1:21).

Former skeptic James saw Jesus alive.

Before the crucifixion, Jesus’s brother thought Jesus was “out of his mind” and tried to stop him from teaching publicly (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). According to an early Christian creed, the resurrected Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:7).

Former Christian persecutor Paul claimed to see Jesus alive.

Paul (also known as Saul) was a devout Jew and a member of the strict Pharisee sect. He persecuted Jews who became Christians (Acts 8:3). Then one day he had an experience which he described as an encounter with the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:1-9).

Jesus’s followers proclaimed the resurrection soon after the crucifixion.

I mentioned an early Christian creed. Paul quoted it here:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around AD 55 (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 52). He wrote that he had earlier “delivered” to them what he had “received.” That means Paul received the creed before his earlier visit to Corinth.

Based on this, skeptic Gerd Lüdemann writes,

We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
Gerd Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995), 38.

Likewise, atheist Michael Goulder notes that Paul’s testimony

…goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.
Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.

To Be Continued

We’ve looked at key three facts that primary source documents support. That’s all we have room for in this post. So I’ll continue with the last one and the conclusions we can make from them in my next post.

The last one’s a doozy you won’t want to miss!

Discover how primary source documents provide evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Share on X

Interested in the evidence that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament promises, prophecies, & types? See my book, Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament.

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Part 2
My 200-Word Resurrection Witness by Clay Jones
The Bibliographical Test Updated by Clay Jones
Questions About the Women at the Resurrection

Books You Might Like

Why Do You Believe That? by Mary Jo Sharp is a women’s Bible study that explains how to present evidence for Christianity
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona is a detailed look at how to present the evidence for the resurrection and how to answer arguments skeptics might raise
The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel presents evidence for Christianity in an easy-to-read style
Immortal: How the Fear of Death Drives Us And What We Can Do About It by Clay Jones (2020) has a chapter on the evidence for the resurrection

September 5, 2019/3 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Reviews

Review: Mama Bear Apologetics

Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies

Hillary Morgan Ferrer, general editor

In a word: Outstanding!

Mama Bear Apologetics deftly describes where culture departs from Scripture. It shows how to recognize cultural lies and how to defeat them logically and compassionately. Humor abounds, such as their “refined art of the chew and spit” method of discerning where progressivism, feminism, socialism, and more agree with or stray from biblical teaching. Moreover, the authors maintain a kind, compassionate demeanor toward those who cling to cultural lies.

Best of all, it’s readable. Not only are the chapter titles funny, but the writing is outstanding. So that you can see for yourself, I’ve added an excerpt and the table of contents below.

The Book’s Heart

Part 2, “Lies You’ve Probably Heard but Didn’t Know What They Were Called,” is the heart of the book. Here, each chapter begins by describing the cultural lie with spot-on analogies and the history behind it. Then chapters move to a “ROAR like a Mother!” section consisting of four parts:

RECOGNIZE the Message gives modern examples of the lie.
OFFER Discernment shows what’s good about the movement so readers can find common ground with proponents. It also shows where the movement goes astray from biblical teaching.
ARGUE for a Healthier Approach explains how to effectively argue for a more biblical view.
REINFORCE Through Discussion, Discipleship, and Prayer lists specific ways to teach children about the cultural lies. It also offers a prayer addressing the issues and asking for help. Then, it gives discussion questions that can be used in small groups.

Finally, the book ends with a list of recommended reading for those who want to learn more about any chapter’s subject.

Conclusion

In summary, Mama Bear Apologetics is intelligent, insightful, and witty. The authors’ suggestions for engaging in conversations with adults and children are both doable and helpful. In fact, many of the authors explain creative teaching methods they used with their own children.

I highly recommend Mama Bear Apologetics to anyone wanting to know more about what’s happening in our culture and how to address it. And I do mean anyone: you do not need children to benefit from this book.

Excerpt from Mama Bear Apologetics

So you can see the clear reading style, here’s an excerpt featuring a current presidential candidate. Written by Alisa Childers, it’s from one of my favorite chapters, “I’m Not Religious; I’m Spiritual!—New Spirituality.”

NAM [New Age Mysticism] is typically a hodgepodge of Eastern religious ideas, psychology, modern philosophy, pseudoscience, and Christianity. Let’s zoom in to see a practical example of NAM teachings in action.

In January 2008, the “Oprah & Friends” satellite radio channel launched a year-long class with daily lessons and affirmations from the book A Course in Miracles. The teacher of the class, Marianne Williamson, described it as a “self-study program of spiritual psychotherapy” that seeks to take certain “principles” and apply them in practical ways.

The book upon which the class is based, A Course in Miracles, was published in 1975, and is a collection of spiritual revelations recorded by Columbia University professor Helen Schucman. Schucman received the messages from an entity she called “the Voice,” which she later identified as “Jesus Christ.” If you are wondering what kind of “dictations” she received from this supposed “Jesus,” here are a few examples. They sum up the ideas of the new spirituality perfectly:

“Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’ The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome the cross.”
“The name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol. But it stands for love that is not of this world. It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray.”
…
Lesson 259 asks the reader to affirm “there is no sin.”

Part 1: Rise Up, Mama Bears

Calling all Mama Bears—My kid has a cheerio shoved up his nose. Why am I reading this book?
Hillary Morgan Ferrer and Julie Loos
How to Be a Mama Bear—Is this code for being the weirdest mom on the playground?
Hillary Short
The Discerning Mama Bear—The refined art of “chew and spit”
Hillary Morgan Ferrer
Linguistic Theft—Redefining words to get your way and avoid reality
Hillary Morgan Ferrer

Part 2: Lies You’ve Probably Heard but Didn’t Know What They Were Called

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves—Self-Helpism
Teasi Cannon
My Brain Is Trustworthy…According to My Brain—Naturalism
Hillary Morgan Ferrer
I’d Believe in God If There Were Any Shred of Evidence—Skepticism
Hillary Morgan Ferrer and Rebekah Valerius
The Truth Is, There Is No Truth—Postmodernism
Rebekah Valerius and Hillary Morgan Ferrer
You’re Wrong to Tell Me that I’m Wrong!—Moral Relativism
Hillary Morgan Ferrer and Rebekah Valerius
Follow Your Heart—It Never Lies!—Emotionalism
Teasi Cannon, Hillary Morgan Ferrer, and Hillary Short
Just Worship Something—Pluralism
Cathryn S. Buse
I’m Not Religious; I’m Spiritual!—New Spirituality
Alisa Childers
Communism Failed Because Nobody Did It Right—Marxism
Hillary Morgan Ferrer
The Future Is Female—Feminism
Rebekah Valerius, Alisa Childers, and Hillary Morgan Ferrer
Christianity Needs a Makover—Progressive Christianity
Alisa Childers

Final Words of Encouragement

How to Take All This Information and #RoarLikeAMother—The Mama Bears

August 27, 2019/5 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, News

Know & Go Apologetics Conference

Jean E. Jones will speak on “Doubts, Curses, and Dashed Babies in the Psalms” at the Know & Go apologetics conference in Palm Springs, California, on February 23. Atheists claim that the fact that the Psalms contain doubts, curses and that passage about dashed babies (Psalm 137:9) is proof that a good God can’t exist. Come hear how to answer these challenges.

Other speakers include Clay Jones on overcoming the death fears that drive us, Craig Hazen on fearless prayer, and Reid Lancaster on health from an apologetics standpoint. Learn more.

February 6, 2019/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Psalms

Does God send good people to hell?

A reader asks this about good people:

There seem to be a lot of good people doing kind things out there; it’s hard to believe they will be condemned to hell because the only way there is Jesus. I reconcile myself with knowing my Savior is 100% good. But does God send good people to hell just because they don’t accept Jesus as Savior?

To paraphrase R. C. Sproul, “Nothing happens to good people because good people do not need salvation.” Of course, the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments is that although some people appear outwardly good, there are no truly good people:

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:2-3

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Now, the Biblical notion that no one is good puzzles people, especially Americans. A 2006 Barna survey found that Americans “generally see themselves as good people, spiritually stable, and living a good and honorable life.” They “hold a generally favorable impression of themselves”: 97% think they are “a good citizen,” 94% think they’re “friendly,” and 90% say they’re “generous.”

Fallen fence stripped of ivy that hid termite infestation

So why the disparity between what Americans think about themselves and what the Bible says? I think that’s best explained with an analogy.

Fifteen-foot New Zealand tea trees with ruby red flowers screened and shaded our yard for twenty-five years, until they died suddenly a few weeks ago. When we pulled them out, our five-foot wood fence covered in English ivy stood visible for the first time in decades, swaying a bit. That night, the wind knocked the fence over, stripping away ivy as it fell and exposing extensive termite damage and decay.

A fence can look good without actually being good.

So can people. Here are seven reasons why.

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Today in America, we’ve got a “fence” of laws and etiquette rules. We tend to think that those who stay on the law-abiding side of that fence are good people.

In Jesus’ day, there was a group of people who likewise had a “fence” of rules that went beyond what God commanded, rules that, if you followed them, most people would say that you’re a good person. Though we think negatively about them now, in Jesus’ day most everyone thought the Pharisees were the epitome of good. Except Jesus: Jesus knew their hearts weren’t pure.

Americans are like Pharisees: We think law-abiding, charitable people are good, because we forget the heart.

Termite damage

The English ivy covering our fence hid the infestation of termites beneath; we had to look closely and peel back the ivy to see the true condition of the fence.

In the same way, outwardly following decent laws and rules can cover what’s in our hearts and can hide an infestation of hatred, lusts, self-indulgence, and greed within. We need to look closely and peel back our outward good deeds to see the true condition of our hearts.

For example, Jesus explained that fantasizing things you want to do but don’t want to get caught doing—such as hurting someone you hate or sleeping with someone other than your spouse—is sinning in your heart and taints you (1 John 3:15; Matthew 5:28); after all, if the only reason you don’t do what you want to do is you don’t want to get caught and suffer the consequences, then you’re refraining out of self-interest, not goodness. Jesus called controlling outward actions while letting the heart run amok to be equivalent to splashing white paint over a sepulcher of decay, stench, and rot (Matthew 23:27-28).

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

Although Clay had often examined the fence closely and knew of the termite damage for years, the neighbor who planted the ivy declined replacing the fence because it meant losing the ivy he liked so much. Similarly, we can decline to fix our heart issues because it may mean we’ll lose the outward trappings we think make us look good.

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Rufous hummingbird perched on orange honeysuckle vine that hid fence’s damage

In a narrow stretch where the tea trees didn’t grow, our fence started curving awkwardly beneath its green ivy load a few years ago, letting us know something was amiss. But an orange honeysuckle vine took root and quickly shot up a dozen feet, hiding the evidence that anything was wrong with the fence while displaying gorgeous orange trumpet flowers that delighted rufous hummingbirds and bright yellow orioles.

Likewise, if we donated money to help Hurricane Katrina victims and watch our neighbors’ yards while they vacation, these good deeds shoot up, look gorgeous, and delight those they help. But just as the honeysuckle hid the termites but didn’t remove them, so our good deeds may hide our sins but can’t remove them.

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

The variegated ivy that clambered up the fence and tea trees grew so thick that sunlight couldn’t break through. In the dank darkness, the fence decayed.

In the same way, Jesus said those who thought they were good—“who trusted in themselves that they were righteous”—wouldn’t bring their deeds to God’s light because “anyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed” (Luke 18:9-14; John 3:20). Because they didn’t acknowledge their sins, they didn’t ask for forgiveness and so they were left unjustified, with their moral decay spreading in spiritual darkness (Luke 18:14, 16:25; Matthew 23:27).

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

‘Aventures de la famille Raton’ by Felicien de Myrbach-Rheinfeld (1853—1940) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The darkness under the thick ivy drew rats that nested and bred more rats. Ugh.

Similarly, those who believe they’re good have the dark environment that draws hypocrisy and lets it nest and breed. Here are hypocrisies Jesus identified in outwardly good people

Publicly giving donations and offering showy prayers to gain others’ admiration (Matthew 6:1-6)
Showing contempt towards others (Luke 18:9-14)
Making a show of following some of God’s commands while ignoring the greater—but less eye-catching—commands of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23)
Excusing in ourselves what we condemn in others (Matthew 23:28; Matthew 7:1-5)
Using human laws unjustly (Mark 7:9-13)

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

New Zealand tea trees on left supported fence for decades

When our tea trees came down, the fence couldn’t stand on its own against the wind. Though it survived strong winds with the tea trees’ help, by itself it fell to minor gusts.

Sometimes we think the reason we haven’t fallen to a particular sin is our goodness, when really it’s just that we’ve never been tested without supports such as health, steady income, strong relationships, dutiful children, success, peace, security, etc.

For instance, the Pharisees claimed they would never have committed their ancestors’ sins, such as killing prophets; they were too good for that. Not true, Jesus said (Matthew 23:29-36). Their “goodness” was being upheld by their positions of authority and popular opinion. When Jesus’ popularity caused those to fall, jealousy and rage set them to do the very deeds to which they were sure they’d never stoop.

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

The trouble with wood fences is that wood by nature is susceptible to termites and decay, so it’s not eternal.

Our bodies are susceptible to sin and decay too. In fact, “all have sinned” and no one is truly good (Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:10, 12, 23).

But there’s good news. Jesus told Nicodemus—an outwardly good Pharisee—that without Jesus all stand condemned, but with Jesus we can born again and have eternal life (John 3:1-21). Our present bodies will die, but we’ll enter God’s kingdom with a new, imperishable body that’s neither sinned nor been sinned against (1 Corinthians 15:42, 50-54).

That’s very good news.

Americans are like Pharisees (but not in the way you think!) Share on X

Does God send good people to hell? Share on X

Why even 'good' people need Easter's message Share on X

March 23, 2016/6 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

Conscience Says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5

Does God expect us to deny our conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?

This is my fifth and final post addressing Rachel Held Evans’s October 2014 blog post, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” Her main argument (as I understand it) is this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham (in her opinion) almost did; therefore, either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “question the deity’s very existence.”

This is clearly a faulty dilemma because there are at least two more alternatives: we’re missing facts about the story which clear up the dilemma, and/or our conscience misinforms us. My last three posts explained missing facts that should clarify the passage and resolve conscience issues.

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655

But what if our conscience still bothers us about this story? This appears to be an important question to Rachel Held Evans—she uses the word “conscience” eleven times in this blog. Here’s an example:

But why would the very God I believe imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong—ask me to deny that conscience by accepting [God’s command in another Bible story] as just? … And how could I ever bring myself to worship a God who, if these accounts are true, ordained and derived glory from actions I believe are evil?

I agree with Evans that God gives people a conscience. But accepting these Bible passages as historically true does not require one to “deny that conscience.” We’ll look in a moment at how Jesus addressed people whose consciences disagreed with his words. But first we must understand why people’s consciences differ.

Why do people’s consciences differ?

Our political system shows a nation deeply divided on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun laws with people on both sides claiming the moral high ground. How can this be if all our consciences come from God?

Let’s look at two facts about conscience.

Moral convictions are learned

Talbot Seminary theology professor Klaus Issler calls the conscience “moral sensitivity and moral reasoning.” He says:

The particular convictions within our conscience … are not set and fully formed at birth. “The biblical notion of conscience does not imply that we are given an innate moral code common to all human beings, as popular usage sometimes suggests. It is rather a conscious sensitivity … that needs to be informed, sharpened, and directed.” Like a personal computer, our conscience must be programmed with appropriate input for it to be useful. Since our convictions are learned throughout life … we will acquire both good and sinful values. Thus, the urgency arises for growing believers to regularly evaluate and educate their conscience toward righteousness.[ref]Klaus Issler, “Conscience: Moral Sensitivity and Moral Reasoning,” in Christian Perspectives on Being Human: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Integration, ed. J. P. Moreland and David J. Ciocchi (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1993), 268. Issler quotes Arthur F.Holmes, Shaping Character: Moral Education in the Christian College (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 27. [/ref]

For example, the Apostle Paul testified, “I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day” (Acts 23:1). Yet for a time his conscience told him it was right to kill Christians (Acts 22:3-4). Once the risen Lord appeared to him, he became one of the Christians he formerly thought deserved death. New information informed his conscience and he realized what he formerly judged right (killing Christians) was actually wrong.

Martha’s and Mary’s consciences differed. St. Nicholas Church, Orebro, Sweden. Public domain photo by David Castor.

While God gave us our conscience, he did not fully form it. Instead, it’s shaped by influences such as parents, teachers, culture, religious texts, persuasion, reason, fear, and desires—including the desire for praise from others. Because it’s subject to such influences, people differ in what they think is right or wrong and their moral convictions can change, as Paul’s did.

Conscience is not fully reliable

If there are absolute moral truths (and I agree with Evans that there are), then because conscience is shaped by outside forces and because it can change, it is a guide, but it’s not fully reliable. Indeed, the Scripture warns that “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and experience shows us humans are adept at justifying in themselves actions they normally condemn in others.

The Apostle Paul recognized that conscience can mislead: “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me” (1 Corinthians 4:4). Therefore, while we must keep our conscience clear, we must also properly inform it.

How did Jesus address faulty consciences?

God asks us to keep a clear conscience, but he also asks us to change mistaken beliefs that affect our conscience.

Jesus corrected those who said wrong things were right. Jesus told the scribes that seeking places of honor and praying long public prayers for a pretense—things they thought right and honorable—were wrong and would bring them condemnation (Mark 12:38-40).
Jesus corrected those who said right things were wrong. When the Pharisees told Jesus that healing on the Sabbath was wrong based on their traditions, Jesus explained why their rules contradicted God’s commands and, when they persisted, pointed out that the reason they rejected his arguments was they were people-pleasers rather than God pleasers (Matthew 12:10-13; John 5:15-17, 44).
Jesus condemned hypocrisy. Jesus said those who condemn others for behaviors they excuse in themselves would be judged by the standards by which they judged others (Matthew 7:2).

What does conscience tell us about human sacrifice?

Rachel Held Evans appears to believe that “everyone person with a conscience” would agree all human sacrifice wrong. But that’s not so.

People’s consciences differ regarding human sacrifices

As I explained in Part 2, people in Abraham’s culture considered human sacrifice to be morally good because they believed that unconcerned deities were behind the forces of nature and that they could manipulate these deities through human sacrifices in times of need (such as famine).

Today, however, people in our Western culture typically believe most human sacrifices are wrong because (a) our laws have a Judeo-Christian heritage that forbids people sacrificing humans (Leviticus 18:21); and (b) we do not believe idols who grant blessings for human sacrifices exist.

Note that a belief against sacrificing children to attain blessing is not universal, however, even in our culture. Ethicist Peter Singer argues that parents should be allowed to kill infants up to thirty days old if it will increase the family’s happiness to do so.[ref]Scott Klusendorf, “Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide,” Christian Research Journal (Charlotte: Christian Research Institute, April 16, 2009), accessed January 5, 2015, http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/. [/ref] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” [ref]Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race (New York: Truth Publishing, 1920), page 63, accessed January 5, 2016, http://books.google.com/books?id=a-skAAAAYAAJ&dq=The%20most%20merciful%20thing%20that%20a%20large%20family%20does%20to%20one%20of%20its%20infant%20members%20is%20to%20kill%20it.&client=firefox-a&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q=&f=false. [/ref] And many see no problem with partial birth abortion, which is the killing of an infant whose living body has been birthed feet-first to the neck.

Human sacrifice is not always wrong

Was it wrong for the Allied generals to send troops to the Normandy beaches on D-day knowing there would be great human sacrifice in order to accomplish the defeat of Hitler and the saving of other human lives?

Was it wrong to scramble F-16 fighter jets to down “an airliner full of kids and salesmen and girlfriends” on September 11, 2001, in order to accomplish the saving of human lives on the ground?[ref]Steve Hendrix, ”F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11,” The Washington Post (DC: Washington Post, September 8, 2011), accessed January 5, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50_story.html. [/ref]

The ultimate human sacrifice. “The Three Crosses,” by Rembrandt, 1653

Was it wrong for the Father to send his Son Jesus to earth knowing he would be sacrificed in order to accomplish the defeat of sin and death and the saving of human souls?

Definitely not.

Then was it wrong for God to ask the prophets Abraham and Isaac to be portents of that event by acting it out at a time in history in which such deeds were not considered wrong?

No. God was showing what love looks like: It looks like sacrifice.

Does God expect us to deny our conscience?

Rachel Held Evans asked, “Why would … God … ask me to deny … conscience by accepting” God’s commands in certain Bible stories “as just?”

God doesn’t ask anyone to deny conscience; rather, he asks us to change the mistaken beliefs that misinform our conscience.

Rachel Held Evans says, “I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion.” God isn’t asking her to sacrifice her child: he made it clear when he stopped Abraham and when he gave the Law of Moses that he does not want humans sacrificing humans on altars.

And she doesn’t need to “turn my back on everything I know to be true”; she can accept the New Testament’s testimony of the historicity of this story by simply turning from the belief that because she “would have failed Abraham’s test,” nothing could justify Abraham’s test. Her situation—and ours—has little in common with Abraham’s. His was

At a different time: a time when human sacrifice was considered morally good
To two unique people: two prophets who had seen unmistakable miraculous evidence of God’s power and love and intention to create a nation from Isaac
For a unique purpose: to prophetically portend a momentous future event

At the same time, Abraham’s test has one important thing to do with us: it demonstrates what the Father did when he sent his Son as a sacrifice to save us. Hallelujah.

Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting hard Bible stories? Share on X

Her conscience says Abraham's wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans Share on X

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1: Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as unhistorical or Abraham wrong and a failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans says she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Do motives matter?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

January 26, 2016/1 Comment/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4

If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac? Do God’s motives matter?

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet spurns Mr. Darcy’s marriage proposal despite his vast wealth and enviable social standing. Why? Because, she declares, Darcy had ruined the romantic prospects of her sister and the financial prospects of Mr. Wickham, and these actions are proof of “your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others.”

Mr. Darcy's motives and God's motives matter

Darcy and Elizabeth at Charlotte’s house. Illustration by Hugh Thomson, 1894. (Austen, Jane. “Pride and Prejudice.” London: George Allen, 1894.)

The next day, however, she learns Darcy’s motives. He had discouraged his friend from courting her sister mostly because she seemed indifferent towards the young man—and an embarrassed Elizabeth recalls she had been warned her sister was too guarded! More mortifying was the news that Wickham had rejected the clergyman livelihood he claimed Darcy had denied him, requesting and receiving money instead, and when he had gambled that away, had tried to elope with Darcy’s fifteen-year-old sister to snag her inheritance. Only then do past discrepancies in Wickham’s actions come clear to her. “‘How despicably have I acted!’ she cried; ‘I, who have prided myself on my discernment! … But vanity … has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other … I have courted … ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned.’” [ref]Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (New York: Walter J. Black), 179-198. [/ref]

Understanding motives can make all the difference in our judgments of others. When it comes to Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, we need to look at God’s motives, and this is something Rachel Held Evans seems to have misjudged. She echoes atheists such as Richard Dawkins by likening Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac to abuse:

… it doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love. If love can look like abuse … everything is relativized! Our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.

In this series, so far we’ve looked at two missing facts that clear up the story. Today we’ll look at a third: God’s motives.

God’s motives

In the story, God asks Abraham to take his son Isaac whom he loved to a mountain and offer him as a burnt offering. It was a test, we’re told. God asked tenderly: The word now in “Take now your son” (NASB) is often translated “please” and has the sense of an entreaty. Scholar Paul Copan says, “God’s directive is unusual: ‘Please take your son’ … God is remarkably gentle as he gives a difficult order. This type of divine command (as a plea) is rare.”[ref]Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 47. [/ref] But at the moment of no return, the angel of the Lord stops him and shows him a ram to offer instead.

Why did God ask Abraham to do something he didn’t intend for him to follow through on?

The story tells us one of the motives: It was a test that proved Abraham’s devotion (Genesis 22:1, 12): “Now I know that you fear God.” It also showed God did not want humans sacrificing humans. But there are more.

God’s motives: preaching the gospel to Abraham

Galatians 3:8 tells us that in this story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, the Scripture foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles [non-Jews] by faith” and “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” In other words, “the good news of salvation was to be extended to all peoples, including the Gentiles, who would be declared righteous by God, just like Abraham, on the basis of faith.”[ref]Timothy George, New American Commentary – Volume 30: Galatians, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 224. [/ref]

So how did this story preach the gospel?

By portending the Father sacrificing Jesus

Abraham and Isaac were prophets.[ref]Abraham is called a prophet in Genesis 20:7. Isaac received visions and divine revelations in 26:1-4, 24. Psalm 105:9, 15 calls Abraham and Isaac “anointed ones” and “prophets.”[/ref] Sometimes God asked prophets to be portents by performing actions that foreshadowed and explained future events (Isaiah 8:18: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents”). The actions were often shocking so that they would be remembered when the future event occurred, and people would recognize its significance and that it came from God.

portent (POUR-tent): a sign or warning that (something, especially something momentous or calamitous) is likely to happen

portend (pour-TEND): be a portent

There’s something important here that we shouldn’t miss: When Abraham began to bind Isaac, Isaac understood he was the sacrifice. He was between 15 and 30 and was stronger and faster than his elderly father, but he allowed Abraham to bind him and lay him down on the stack of wood. At this point, Isaac participated willingly.[ref]Kenneth A. Matthews, New American Commentary – Volume 1b: Genesis 11:27-50:26, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 295. [/ref]

Abraham’s near sacrifice of his willing son Isaac portended the Father sacrificing his willing Son Jesus to atone for human sins.

By showing how God would fulfill his promises to Abraham

After the angel stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice, God said, “In your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:18). According to Galatians 3:16 and 19, this “offspring” is Jesus, and Jesus blessed “all the nations of the earth” by dying to pay the penalty for people’s sins so that those who had faith in him could be declared righteous.

By foretelling Jesus’ substitutionary provision

Just as the Lord God substituted a ram for Isaac, so would the Lord God substitute his Son as a sacrifice for others. Rightly Abraham prophesied, “The Lord will provide” (Genesis 22:8, 14).

God’s motives: providing evidence that Jesus’ crucifixion was in his plan

God preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand so that when Jesus died and rose again, Abraham’s descendants might recognize the parallel and accept his work on the cross as from God. Jesus told the Jews, “For if you believed Moses [that is, the first five books of the Bible], you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:46). This story is one of the places that the first five books of the Bible talk about Jesus.

But the evidence wasn’t for Jews alone. God also gave this evidence so that non-Jews could see that saving humans through Jesus’ sacrifice was always God’s plan.

God’s motives: showing what his love looks like

Rachel Held Evans said, “The story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience.” I agree. The story of Abraham and Isaac should unsettle us, just as I’m sure it unsettled Abraham. That’s the point. The Passover Lamb was another sign pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice. But an animal sacrifice didn’t come near to expressing the fullness of what the Father and Son were willing to do to save humankind. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac does.

Evans said, “It doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love.”

Actually, God was demonstrating exactly what his love for sinful people looks like: The Father sending his willing Son to die for humankind’s sins. But no angel stayed the hand of the Father.

Because that’s what love looks like.

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

Do God's Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4 Share on X

'That's what love looks like!' Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4 Share on X

Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac portended the Father sacrificing Jesus Share on X

Part 5 of this series addresses other questions RHE’s post raises, such as, “Might God repeat the request?”

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1: Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as false or Abraham a moral failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice: Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans said she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

December 10, 2015/2 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

What made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans: Part 3

Rachel Held Evans says if she’d been Abraham, she’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed; what made Abraham different?

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sir Henry Baskerville fumes at a hotel waiter over losing two boots a maid was to have polished: a new brown boot the night before and now an old black boot. Sir Henry returns to his room and finds the first, never-worn boot beneath a cabinet under which he is sure he already looked.

Most see the hotel’s ineptness as annoying, but certainly not connected to the Baskervilles’ larger worries about the curse of a deadly, demonic hound that locals claimed to have seen and heard about the time Sir Henry’s uncle died. Only Sherlock Holmes grasps the boots’ significance and concludes the uncle was murdered and Sir Henry himself is now in danger. Later when all is resolved, Holmes explains to Watson about the missing boots:

… a most instructive incident, since it proved conclusively to my mind that we were dealing with a real hound, as no other supposition could explain this anxiety to obtain an old boot and this indifference to a new one. The more outré and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is, when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it.

In many mystery stories, the key to the solution is found in some odd fact that is overlooked by unskilled observers.

The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is like such mystery stories. The key to understanding Abraham’s response is in a fact whose significance is often missed: God’s miraculous, unmistakable revelation of himself, his trustworthiness, and his power to Abraham. Indeed, it’s a fact that Rachel Held Evans’s post, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too),” overlooks.

Woodcut of the Lord directing Abram to count the stars, for “Die Bibel in Bildern” by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, 1860 [public domain]

Recap. In Part 1 of this series, we looked at Evans’s main argument about the Bible story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac: Either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so people should “question the deity’s very existence.” This is a faulty dilemma because missing facts make everything clear. Part 2 of this series looked at the missing fact that Abraham’s culture considered ritual human sacrifice to be morally good. Today we’ll look at a second missing fact, one that’s there in the story but which is easily overlooked as significant: miraculous revelation.

About God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Evans says:

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them.

So what made Abraham different?

Abraham different in how God prepared him

The significant fact leading up to Abraham’s test is God’s revelation of himself to Abraham. God prepared Abraham for the test by giving Abraham and his family unmistakable evidence of himself and his character.

God revealed his Person: For seventy-five years, Abraham and his family worshiped the moon god Sin and various idols of wood and gold (Joshua 24:2). Then one day God spoke to Abraham and said, “Go … to the land that I will show you” (Genesis 12:1). Think of the significance of this: God spoke. This was a God whom Abraham didn’t know, but this God knew him. When Abraham obeyed and went to the land, God appeared to him in a theophany (12:7). In fact, the story tells us God appeared to him in visions and theophanies multiple times (15:1, 17:1, 18:1). He also appeared to Abraham’s wife (18:9-15). In one theophany, the Lord and two angels ate food Abraham and Sarah prepared (Genesis 18:8). This was unmistakable evidence of God’s presence—in other words, it wasn’t a dream or a vision but a physical encounter.

theophany: A manifestation to humankind of God that is tangible to human senses

God revealed he sees, hears, and helps: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield,” the Lord told Abraham. Abraham and at least five family members—Hagar, Sarah, Lot, Lot’s wife, Lot’s daughters—spoke with angels in ways that communicated that God hears when people cry out and he watches over those who are his (Genesis 16:7, 18:20-21, 19:15-16, 21:17). Additionally, God protected Sarah twice when powerful men tried to take her as wife (12:17-20, 20:3), and he helped Abraham defeat four armies with just 318 men (Genesis 14:1, 14-15).
God revealed his justice: The Lord told Abraham that the “outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great,” and he was investigating whether they were as bad as the outcry said (Genesis 18:20-21). Abraham knew the evil of the city so he interceded, asking if the Lord would destroy entire cities if “ten are found there” who are righteous. The Lord said, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it” (18:32). But ten righteous people could not be found. Two angels rescued Abraham’s nephew and his nephew’s daughters, and fire from heaven destroyed the cities. When Abraham saw the smoke rising from the cities, he knew that God investigates when people cry to him about injustice, and there is a point at which he will destroy those intent on harming others.
God revealed his grace: From all we know, Abraham hadn’t lived the first seventy-five years of life honoring God or following his ways. But when God appeared to Abraham in a vision and promised him a son and future offspring as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15), Abraham “believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” God showed He cared for Abraham.
God revealed his trustworthiness: When God first called Abraham to move to Canaan, he said that he would make of him a great nation. But twenty-four years later, his wife Sarah was ninety, past menopause (“the way of women had ceased to be with Sarah,” Genesis 18:11), and still childless. Yet the Lord appeared and told Abraham and Sarah that Sarah would bear a child by that time the following year. Impossible? Humanly speaking, yes. But God was true to his word, and Sarah conceived and bore Isaac (21:1-2).
God revealed his miraculous power: Through all these revelations, theophanies, destruction of evil, extraordinary helps, fulfilled promises, and the miraculous birth of the child of promise—Isaac—Abraham saw God’s unmistakable power and God’s willingness to use it.

“Abraham and the Angels” by Aert de Gelder, 1680-1685 [public domain]

It’s important not to miss the significance of all this: Abraham knew God. By the time God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham knew God well enough to believe he could trust God even when he didn’t know all the answers. God had promised to make a nation from his son Isaac, and God had asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. To Abraham, both must be true. Thus, as Hebrews 11:19 says, Abraham reasoned that God would raise Isaac from the dead.

Abraham different in calling

The harder the call, the more evidence God gives. God gave Abraham unmistakable evidence of himself not only because he was establishing a covenant—involving God revealing himself to the world through a nation descended through Isaac that could teach his ways—but because he was going to call Abraham to do something exceedingly difficult: the sacrifice of Isaac. For that Abraham needed complete faith in God’s character and promise. Over the 40-55 years between God’s call to Abraham to go to Canaan and his call to sacrifice Isaac, God gave him the evidence he needed to complete the task.

Abraham different in faith

Rachel Held Evans says that if she had been in Abraham’s place, “I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed.” What made Abraham different? Abraham saw the evidence of God’s power and goodness; Abraham heard God’s promises about Isaac; and Abraham believed God.

***

Why was this test so important that God carefully prepared Abraham for it? The next post reveals the third missing fact: motive.

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1: Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as false or Abraham a moral failure?
Abraham & Human Sacrifice: Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

Rachel Held Evans says she'd rather be struck dead than obey like Abraham; why'd A obey? Share on X

Why Abraham passed the test Rachel Held Evans said she'd sooner be struck dead than pass Share on X

Why in the world did Abraham obey when God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Share on X

November 24, 2015/4 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2

Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts about the binding of Isaac and human sacrifice?

As I read Rachel Held Evans’s blog, “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too),” I was reminded of Dorothy Sayers’s mystery novel, Strong Poison. In it, Harriet Vane stands accused of murder with substantial evidence against her. The police are certain of her guilt, but the novel’s hero, Lord Peter Wimsey, knows they’re wrong. Author Os Guinness describes why:

But into that grave situation steps the fearless hero, Lord Peter Wimsey. He knows Harriet, so he believes in her innocence, and his logic has a steel to match the prosecutor’s case. The known facts may be against her, but because he knows her, he knows that the known facts cannot be all the facts. The challenge is to find the missing facts that change the picture entirely. The police had jumped to the wrong conclusion on watertight-seeming evidence that was actually incomplete.[ref] Os Guinness, Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion (Downers Grove: IVP, 2015), 48, emphasis his. [/ref]

“The Sacrifice of Isaac” by Juan de Valdes Leal, 1659

It’s no surprise that by the end of the novel, Lord Peter has uncovered the missing facts and proven Harriet was framed.

Here’s what the novel has to do with the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac. Just as the police jumped to conclusions about Harriet Vane’s guilt before they had all the facts, so we can jump to conclusions about God’s guilt in this story before having all the facts, as Evans’s blog post appears to do. Just as Lord Peter knew Harriet enough to trust her and search for the missing facts he knew had to exist, so many Christians know God well enough to trust him until the missing facts come in; Evans readily admits that she is not in such a place of trust yet.

Evans’s main argument, as I understand it, is that the conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham almost did; therefore, either God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “question the deity’s very existence.” In short, either Abraham failed God’s test, or the story isn’t historically authentic, or a good God doesn’t exist.

I addressed why the first two options of Evans’s argument are unsatisfactory: (a) both the Old and New Testaments affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted; and (b) the New Testament treats the story not only as historically authentic, but as preaching the gospel beforehand, with Abraham and Isaac prophetically acting out a momentous future event (more on this in a future post).

Now, the question remains, if the story is historically accurate, does it make God into a deity who “does evil things” that “look like abuse” such that “our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable”? No, this is a faulty dilemma: we could be missing the facts that clear up the issues.

Indeed, most of us when we first read this story are missing three types of facts:

Cultural facts: facts about the culture which are missing from the story
Overlooked facts: facts that are in the story but which have significance that is easily overlooked
Motive: theological facts that are revealed later

It is the cultural facts that I want to examine today.

Now, Evans does say the story “makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context.” But she neither explains that context nor tells why she considers it insufficient.

Abraham lived in a culture gone terribly wrong

Genesis says that Abraham was born in the city of Ur (traditionally in 2166 b.c.). Abraham and his extended family worshiped “other gods” (Josh. 24:2). Throughout the ancient Near East by this time, people believed that deities were behind the forces of nature. These deities weren’t much interested in human lives, and so to get their attention and manipulate them to drive nature in beneficial ways (for instance, send rain), people acted out rituals.

In Abraham’s birthplace Ur, religious rituals included human sacrifice. One of the most startling excavations from Ur is the so-called “Royal Cemetery” with its pits containing human sacrifices, most of them adults.[ref] Laerke Recht, “Symbolic Order: Liminality and Simulation in Human Sacrifice in the Bronze-age Aegean and Near East,” Journal of Religion and Violence (Academic Publishing, ISSN 0738-098X, 2014), 2:3, 413-414. [/ref] One pit had over seventy human sacrifices elaborately arrayed.

Human sacrifices found in Ur date prior to and during the age in which Abraham lived.[ref]Laerke Recht, “Human sacrifice in the ancient Near East,” Trinity College Dublin Journal of Postgraduate Research (Dublin: Brunswick Press, 2010), 9:171. Recht says, “The tradition of human sacrifice appears to have continued at Ur into the Ur III period, as shown by the evidence from the Mausoleum of King Shulgi and Amar-sin, where one tomb chamber belonged to the king, and another contained a number of human skeletons, interpreted as sacrificial victims.” [/ref] Later, Abraham moved to Haran, not far from other sites where human sacrifices have been uncovered from the same age in which Abraham lived (see ANE Human Sacrifices).

Although there were also infant sacrifices in the regions, these are mostly adult sacrifices. This is significant because at the time God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac, Isaac was not a child: he was around fifteen to thirty.

na’ar: boy or young man?

The story of Abraham binding Isaac is in Genesis 22; the prior chapter (21) brings Isaac to adolescence and in the following chapter (23) he is thirty-seven. The ESV translates the Hebrew word na’ar as “boy” in Genesis 22:5, 12, but elsewhere translates it “young man.” The word is used of the trained men who went with Abraham to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:24); of the men who attempted to rape angels (Gen. 19:4); of Joseph at age 28 (Gen. 41:12); of the spies whom Rahab hid (Jos. 6:23); of trained soldiers (2Sam. 2:14); and of Absalom when he tried to overthrow David’s throne (2Sam. 18:32).[/notice]

Abraham’s culture did not think human sacrifice wrong

The people of Abraham’s day would not have thought there was anything immoral about human sacrifices. In fact, they considered it an act of great piety. Archaeologist Laerke Recht notes that we should take care in our assumptions because “we may see a creature being sacrificed as a ‘victim’, while others could see it as honoured, sacred or some other aspect not immediately clear to us.”[ref]Recht, Journal of Religion and Violence, 404. Emphasis mine. [/ref]

Additionally, in cultures that believed in gods that give blessings in return for sacrifices, sacrificing offspring would be considered a moral good. Imagine living in such a culture during a time of catastrophic drought: Children will die if no rain comes. In such a culture, it would be morally obligatory to do all you can to appease the gods and save your village. Oxford professor John Day says, “Desperate circumstances required desperate measures … and the offering of human sacrifice was thought to possess especially strong apotropaic power.”[ref]John Day, Molech: A god of human sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 62-63. [/ref]

apotropaic: intended to ward off evil[/notice]

Abraham would not have thought that God’s request to sacrifice Isaac was morally wrong; it is more likely he considered it normal. Still, he believed God’s promises about Isaac and told his servants that he and Isaac would return together after the sacrifice (Genesis 22:5); Hebrews 11:19 says he considered that God would raise Isaac from the dead.

God’s provision brought a shift

Abraham lived in Ur where human sacrifice was practiced

“Ram Caught in Thicket” was found in Royal Cemetery of Ur along with many ritual human sacrifices

When Abraham took his knife to sacrifice Isaac, the angel of the Lord called to him and told him not to touch Isaac. Abraham looked and saw a ram caught in a thicket. Abraham offered the ram as a sacrifice and called the name of the place, “The Lord will provide.”

The answer

Rachel Held Evans asserts that if God did not mean for Abraham to protest and the story is historically accurate, then God is a deity who “does evil things” that “look like abuse” such that “our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.” But the cultural facts tell us something different.

God asked Abraham to perform the ritual act that his culture considered the ultimate sign of devotion and perhaps the ultimate moral good. It was a test and proof to all that Abraham’s devotion to his God was as high as all others’ devotion to their gods. Then the Lord God provided a ram to show that this God was different: This God did not want humans sacrificing humans.

By this act the Lord showed he wanted his followers’ full devotion, as much devotion as they gave to other gods, but—again—he did not want humans sacrificing humans. By this act he depicted a future event which would open the way for sinful humans to have relationship with God and show the fullness of the Prophet Abraham’s words, “The Lord will provide.”

***

In the next post, we’ll examine a fact whose significance is often overlooked.

Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts re: Abraham & Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Was Abraham wrong? Part 2, answering Rachel Held Evans #apologetics Share on X

Human sacrifice in Ur helps explain Abraham's test #apologetics Share on X

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1: Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as false or Abraham a moral failure?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans says if she’d been Abraham, she’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed; what made Abraham different?
Does God’s Motive Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

November 4, 2015/3 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1

Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as unhistorical or Abraham wrong and a moral failure?

Was Abraham wrong in the binding of Isaac?

“The Sacrifice of Abraham” by Rembrandt, 1635: In this earlier work, the angel knocks the knife from Abraham

Best-selling author Rachel Held Evans has a popular blog, speaks frequently, and has published three books through the Christian publishers Thomas Nelson and Zondervan. One of her blogs garnered a lot of attention: “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” You may recall that in Genesis 22, God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac on a mountain. The aged Abraham and young man Isaac go to the mountain. Isaac allows his father to bind him and lay him atop a stack of wood, but as Abraham takes up his knife, an angel stops him. Abraham then sees a ram caught in a thicket behind him and sacrifices it instead.

Rachel Held Evans’s Reimagined Text

Here’s what Evans wrote about Genesis 22 (emphases hers):

It’s a test I’m certain I would have failed:

Get your son. Get a knife. Slit his throat and set him on fire.

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of this much-debated and reimagined text (which makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context), the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience. Yes, God provided a lamb, but only after Abraham gathered the wood, loaded up the donkey, made the journey, arranged the altar, tied his son to the stake, and raised the knife in the air.

Be honest. Would you have even gathered the wood?

I think I would have failed Abraham’s test. And I think you would have too.

And I’m beginning to think that maybe that’s okay….

Evans’s “reimagined text” has God callously barking out orders and Abraham tying his son to a stake—embellishments that make a difficult text more difficult, that create a straw man that’s easier to defeat than the actual text, and that obscure the text’s real meaning.

straw man fallacy: Arguing against a distortion, an exaggeration, or a misrepresentation of someone’s position rather than against the actual position.

Alternative: Not Historical Reality

Evans later brings up Joshua driving the Canaanites out of the Promised Land to show why the two stories may not be true:

Those who defend these stories as historical realities representative of God’s true desires and actions in the world typically respond to challenges to that interpretation by declaring: “God is God, and … we have no business questioning [what he commands]”

Here Evans is not among those who “defend these stories as historical realities”; in other words, she thinks Genesis 22 may be false.

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655: In this later work, the angel tenderly wraps his arms around Abraham

Why does Evans doubt these passages are real events? She says that “God … imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong,” and to accept “as just … actions I believe are evil” would be “to deny that conscience.” One of the actions her conscience tells her is wrong is God’s command to Abraham, because she (like atheist Richard Dawkins) thinks the command looks like abuse:

Alternative: God Doesn’t Exist

She explains that she doesn’t want to accept these stories as true because if they are

This is a hard God to root for. It’s a hard God to defend against all my doubts and all the challenges posed by science, reason, experience, and intuition. I once heard someone say he became an atheist for theological reasons, and that makes sense to me. Once you are convinced that the deity you were taught to worship does evil things, it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.

Alternative: Abraham Wrong & Failed the Test

So far she’s presented two alternatives: the stories are not historical realities or God doesn’t exist. Evans ends with a third alternative:

I am not yet a mother, and still I know, deep in my gut, that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion.

Maybe the real test isn’t in whether you drive the knife through the heart.

Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse.

So if God is good and did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then, in Evans’ mind, the test was in whether Abraham would refuse, and since Abraham didn’t refuse, he failed the “real test.” This alternative makes Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

***

Those strong statements contradict the Bible’s estimation of Abraham being an exemplar of faith for this very deed. And Evans’s first alternative—pitching perplexing Bible passages—always leads to bigger doubts about the Bible as a whole and about whether any of it can be trusted.

Should Christians follow Evans’s lead? Do we need to reject the Bible’s assessment of Abraham or call the chapter fiction?

Not at all.

My husband tried to contact Evans through her publicist and referenced my 2011 post, “Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice,” and the publicist said Evans would get back to him, but she never did. Her post poses questions I didn’t address, so I’ll address them here in a series, beginning today by defining and examining Evans’s main argument. Although Evans flits from Bible story to Bible story as she presents her reasons for doubting this one, for this series I’ll address the questions as they pertain just to the story of Abraham binding Isaac.

Rachel Held Evans’s Main Argument

Evans is right to ask questions and seek answers. Of course she should not “disengage my emotions and intellect and keep them a safe distance from my faith.” It saddens me whenever I hear anyone has been told that.

The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham wrong?

“The Sacrifice of Isaac” by Juan de Valdes Leal, 1659

But there are good, solid answers to the Abraham-Isaac questions that don’t call for discarding parts of the Bible and historic Christian doctrine.

Let’s look at Evans’s main argument. As I understand it, it goes like this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham almost did; therefore, either

- God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or
- “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or
- the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.”

To summarize:

Her conscience tells her sacrificing an offspring is wrong; therefore, either

- God meant for Abraham to refuse to obey, or
- the story about Abraham and Isaac is historically false, or
- the God revealed in the Bible does not exist.

Let’s look at that first option.

Was Abraham wrong? Did he fail the test?

Evans says, “Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse,” proposing that Abraham failed the test. Here obedience made Abraham wrong. In her follow-up post the next week, she quotes a rabbi who says that Abraham failed the test because he should have protested.

Is this interpretation valid?

No, because it doesn’t fit the text.

Both the OT and NT affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted.

First, Genesis 22 says God neither rebuked nor corrected Abraham; rather, he blessed him for his action: “because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you … because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:15-18, emphasis mine).

Second, the New Testament repeatedly praises Abraham for the offering. James writes that Abraham was “justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar” and that this act fulfilled the Scripture that said, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (James 2:21, 23). The author of Hebrews tells us, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac” because he “considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead” (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Both the Old Testament and New Testament, then, affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted. His obedience did not make Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

So the first option—that Abraham should have refused to obey—doesn’t at all fit the text. Let’s look at Evans’s second option: the story about Abraham and Isaac never happened.

Is Rachel Held Evans right that Abraham failed the test when he bound Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Is the story not “historical reality”?

The main trouble with this view for Christians is that, as we saw above, the New Testament treats the story as something that actually happened. Jesus himself honored Abraham and praised his works (John 8:39).

Moreover, Paul writes that Genesis 22 “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham … the man of faith” (Galatians 3:8-9). How? The prophets Abraham and Isaac were acting out a future event—the Father sending the Son as a sacrifice for sins—so that the Jews would recognize the significance of the future event when it happened (more on this in a coming post).

New Testament scholar D. A. Carson says that when Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), he referred to the binding of Isaac and the promise resulting from it of the blessing of all nations:

Even if ‘to see my day’ does not mean some prophetic vision of the literal fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus and his ministry, but some vision, however vague, of the promise inherent in the binding of Isaac or (better) of the covenant promising that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed …, the fact remains that Jesus identifies the ultimate fulfilment of all Abraham’s hopes and joys with his own person and work.[ref]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 357.[/ref]

“Sacrifice of Isaac” by Caravaggio, 1603

Besides the New Testament’s testimony to the binding of Isaac being an actual historical event, there’s the difficulty that atheists will consider it cheating that Evans claims that the parts of the Bible she likes are true and the parts she doesn’t like are false. Tim Keller calls this making a God in your own image, and, ironically, Evans agrees that “we can’t go …bending God into our own image.”

This course of action doesn’t ultimately console Christians either, because they know that once you toss out passages you don’t like, you’re going to wonder whether you have any logical reason to keep the passages you do like.

Such as salvation by grace.

Is Rachel Held Evans right--the story of Abraham binding Isaac isn't historical? #apologetics Share on X

Does a good God exist then?

Are we stuck then with Evans’s final alternative: a good God doesn’t exist?

Certainly not.

This is a faulty dilemma. There are at least two more alternatives: (1) we could be missing facts that clear up the issues, or (2) we could have a mistaken conscience. We’ll look at those options in the rest of this series. There we’ll see the bigger context of what God was doing in Abraham’s life and what the Scripture means when it says Scripture “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” We will see why this story is an integral part of the gospel and how it served to bring people to know him.

faulty dilemma: presenting two (or three) views, options, or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only alternatives.

***

Next, part 2 of this series addresses Rachel Held Evans’s main argument by explaining missing cultural facts that clear up parts of the story.

Does conscience force us to reject the story of Abraham binding Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans said she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

October 27, 2015/8 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics

Witnessing to Darwinists

Slightly smirking, he asked, “Don’t Christians believe God created the earth in six days?” He was a Jewish atheist scientist with a PhD. And a staunch Darwinist. We stood outside a laboratory of green-mirrored walls next to a man-made pond. There damp turtles rested on rocks and orange-and-white koi darted beneath the floating, round leaves of waterlilies. The smells of wet moss, mown grass, and dusty chaparral wafted in the hot breeze. Water splinked and splankled from a fountain in the center of the pond, mingling with bird songs, chirps, and calls—especially the harsh caw of a large, bluish-black bird with a trailing tail thrice its length. (Lab employees speculated about the stunning bird’s origins: imported illegally and dumped? zoo escapee?)

“Some Christians believe God created the earth in six earth days, some that he created it in six eras, and some believe God guided evolution,” I replied. “The way I see it, if an all-powerful God exists, he could create the earth in any of those manners.”

This male Long-tailed Widowbird is similar to the bird that appeared suddenly at the California lab. The Widowbird’s tail puzzled Darwin, who surmised that sexual attractiveness trumped survivability (by Dr. Ron Matson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

He raised his eyebrows, pushed his lower lip up, and nodded. He obviously hadn’t expected that answer. After a moment, he smiled and said, “I believe all religions are equally true.” He sounded like an indulgent grandpa not wishing to crush a child’s belief that shouting, “I believe in fairies,” saved Tinkerbell.

I laughed. “No, you don’t! You may believe all religions are equally false, but you certainly don’t believe that religions with contradictory premises can all be true.”

His smile disappeared and then returned. He bowed slightly. “You’re right. I believe all religions are equally … FALSE.”

“And I believe one of them is true—Christianity—based on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I gave him a short explanation. He listened with surprise; he seemed to have never heard evidence for the resurrection before. When I concluded, he politely changed the subject.

But the next time Clay and I ran into him at Costco, he said to Clay, “I want to talk to you about something, doctor to doctor. I want to hear your opinion about why this God you believe in allows evils like the Holocaust.”

With six-day creation no longer an impassable mountain, he was willing to ask further questions—with someone whose degrees more closely matched his own.

Another Lab, Another Way

Contrast that with a conversation that started similarly a year earlier at different lab, this one with white-painted concrete walls surrounded by loiterers and litter, black pavement and congested streets, honking horns and impatient shouts. We sat inside in a gray conference room with PCs shoved hastily against the sides so I could teach a computer class. On a break, one of my students—a dark-haired secretary in her late twenties—said, “Christians don’t believe in evolution, do they? That’s stupid.” She smirked and rattled off evidences for evolution.

I explained that her examples were of microevolution, and that while no one disputes microevolution (small changes within a single animal group, such as changes in beak shapes among finches on the Galapagos Islands), some scientists doubt that Darwin’s theory of evolution can account for the development of all life as we know it. For example, his theory says that all life evolved from small, successive changes that increase a creature’s ability to survive, but biochemist Michael Behe says that some cells can’t have evolved that way because they’re irreducibly complex: they require multiple parts to be present at once before the creature sees any advantage (see his excellent book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, for the full argument).

She stared incredulously a moment and then said, “My two brothers are scientists and they say evolution is a fact.”

She couldn’t answer my argument, but neither would she address it. As other students filed back in, she returned to ridiculing Christians. I realized that she would never consider Christianity if it were tied to a position on evolution her brothers would mock. It was too big a barrier. And neither would she listen to someone who lacked scientific credentials.

Removing the Stumbling Block When Witnessing to Darwinists

That’s when I decided that when I’m witnessing to Darwinists who ask me what Christians think about Darwinian evolution, it’s better for me (a non-scientist) to say Christians have a variety of opinions. The evidence is certainly against Darwinism, but one’s position on it is not an essential Christian doctrine. Bible-believing Christians interpret Genesis 1 in different ways.

Physics professor and Christian apologist John Bloom puts it this way:

I don’t like creation models being laid as a stumbling block to the cross, and prefer an old-earth creation model in apologetic situations for its unifying power in showing the God of the Bible as the Creator of the universe. For seekers who feel that macro-evolution demands more than two individuals as the founders of the human race, I advise patience as the size of the pool of human common ancestors has been shrinking in recent decades, and there even exists plausible evidence for an initial pool size of two. For impatient seekers, I would commend an allegorical interpretation of Genesis regarding human origins, as many theistic evolutionists already do.

John Bloom, “The Lost World of John Walton,” Christian Research Journal 38, no. 3 (2015): 60.

I have friends (and a husband) who have the degrees that keep them from being dismissed out-of-hand. They keep up with the latest scientific developments. They deftly and convincingly handle these conversations when witnessing to Darwinists. I’m happy to steer curious people to them. After all, some seekers do come to believe in God on the evidence of design.

But for me, when I sense that evolution is a hurdle and my arguments will be written off based on my lack of scientific credentials, I often judge it best to postpone a discussion of Darwinism until after they have come to believe in the God of the Bible.

Show Respect for Different Views

Paul in Romans 14 tells us how to get along with those who hold different views on disputable matters (non-essential gray areas). He says neither judge them as faithless nor despise them as foolish. Instead, keep what we believe to ourselves, resolve not to put stumbling blocks in another’s way, and pursue peace and mutual edification (Romans 14:22, 20, 19). When witnessing to Darwinists, we can extend this courtesy to seekers stumbled by some views of creation.

But we must show respect for those holding views that differ from ours. Little hinders the gospel message more than disunity and lack of brotherly love.

Think of it this way. The first lab could welcome bird photographers seeking the long-tailed bird without involving them in a controversy of its origin. Likewise, we can welcome religious truth seekers without involving them in the controversy of human origin. We can explain the different views without disparaging those who hold them as being faithless or foolish. In that way, we’ll remove a stumbling block in the path to the cross.

When witnessing to Darwinists, you don’t have to let Darwinism be a stumbling block to faith Share on X

September 1, 2015/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

What Triggered “The Virgin Shall Conceive” Prophecy

The Lord’s Offer

The Promise That the Virgin Shall Conceive

“Virgin,” “Immanuel,” Curds, and the Child’s Age

Ahaz Openly Rejects God

Prophecies about Isaiah’s Child

Immanuel’s Land

For to Us a Child Is Born

The Initial Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

The Later Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

A Potato Portent

Prophecies and Portents

Fulfilled Prophecy as Portents

Deep as Sheol or High as Heaven

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

4) Jesus’s followers were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection.

Don’t people die for lies?

The conclusion of skeptics

Scholarly consensus

What Best Accounts for These Facts?

The resurrection is a legend?

Jesus swooned?

More problems with the swoon theory

The disciples hallucinated?

Hallucinations aren’t shared

The disciples stole the body?

That Jesus really was raised from the dead?

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

The Testimony of Ancient Documents

The bibliographical test examines the reliability of ancient manuscripts.

Ancient Documents Establish Key Facts

1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

2) Jesus’s tomb was found empty.

A Jewish leader placed Jesus’s dead body in a tomb.

The tomb was found empty.

The Jews claimed the disciples stole the body.

Without an empty tomb, Christianity wouldn’t have begun.

3) Soon after the crucifixion, people said they saw Jesus alive.

Jesus’s followers claimed to see Jesus alive.

Former skeptic James saw Jesus alive.

Former Christian persecutor Paul claimed to see Jesus alive.

Jesus’s followers proclaimed the resurrection soon after the crucifixion.

To Be Continued

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies

Hillary Morgan Ferrer, general editor

The Book’s Heart

Conclusion

Excerpt from Mama Bear Apologetics

Table of Contents

Part 1: Rise Up, Mama Bears

Part 2: Lies You’ve Probably Heard but Didn’t Know What They Were Called

Final Words of Encouragement

Related Posts

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

Why do people’s consciences differ?

Moral convictions are learned

Conscience is not fully reliable

How did Jesus address faulty consciences?

What does conscience tell us about human sacrifice?

People’s consciences differ regarding human sacrifices

Human sacrifice is not always wrong

Does God expect us to deny our conscience?

Related Posts

God’s motives

God’s motives: preaching the gospel to Abraham

By portending the Father sacrificing Jesus

By showing how God would fulfill his promises to Abraham

By foretelling Jesus’ substitutionary provision

God’s motives: providing evidence that Jesus’ crucifixion was in his plan

God’s motives: showing what his love looks like