Apologetics

The New Bad Word (and why we need it)

 

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Caesar Augustus, a time when Pax Romana was imposed at the tip of a Roman sword. Palestine was a colony of Rome, and Rome expected the leaders of this out-of-the-way colony to rule with an iron fist. The man the Roman Senate confirmed as “King of the Jews,” Herod, had no trouble keeping order in Palestine. Thirty-plus years into his reign Herod was troubled by news delivered by Magi from the East. They had followed a star announcing the birth of the King of the Jews and wanted to worship Him. Herod, as the Rome-appointed King, did not want even a hint of a rival, so he took drastic action to eliminate any threat to his throne, commanding the slaughter all male infants in Bethlehem under age two. His efforts failed, as Jesus’ parents, Joseph and Mary, were warned in a dream to flee.

 

The young boy Jesus and his parents settled in the Galilean village of Nazareth. There He “…continued to grow and to become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the favor of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40), starting his itinerant ministry around age 30. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and proclaimed Himself as the Messiah (Greek Christos “anointed one”) who would die for the sins of the world and rise from the dead as proof that He was the Son of God.

 

According to writings from His disciples, Jesus said “I will build My church” (Matthew 16:18). He later commissioned His followers to “go into all the world and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). Following His crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven, the church began on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus’ disciples, who had become “apostles” of this new Faith, began proclaiming the gospel (“good news”) of Jesus offering forgiveness of sins and eternal life to all who put their trust in Him.

 

The followers of Jesus immediately met opposition to their preaching, but persecution did not dissuade them from spreading the good news. They took the message of Jesus to the ends of the earth, and within a short time the label “Christians” was affixed to His followers in Antioch, Syria (Acts 11:26). The term “Christians” (Greek Christianos), meaning “adhering to” or “belonging to Christ,” was originally used derisively by unbelievers because followers of Jesus honored Him rather than the Roman Emperor. However, within New Testament times, “Christian” became an acceptable self-description for Christ-followers (see 1 Peter 4:16).¹

 

Spiritual Claims Backed up by Evidence

Jesus’ claim that He was the Christ, the Son of God, was often met with skepticism and even mockery. His teachings about spiritual truth were also questioned and often criticized. Jesus responded to the doubters by pointing to His miracles as evidence confirming His  claims and teachings: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (John 10:37-38).

 

Anyone can make spiritual claims, such as “Your sins are forgiven” or “I am sent from God.” But skeptics of Jesus’ claims had a problem. Lepers were cleansed. The blind received sight. The lame could walk. The dead were raised. Jesus’ enemies did not have the luxury of questioning whether He truly had performed miracles because those who had received His healing touch were walking among them. It could not be denied that Jesus healed the eyes of a man blind from birth (John 9:1-34), so His detractors were left with questioning how He was able to perform miracles, suggesting that He used demonic power to cast out demons (see Mark 3:22-23).

 

Jesus’ immediate followers, taking a lesson from their Master, pointed to the miracles Jesus performed and His fulfillment of Bible prophecy as evidence that He was the promised Messiah. Today, two thousand years after the time of Jesus, His followers continue to tell the good news of God’s love and the promise to be set free from sin by trusting in Jesus as Savior. As in the time of Jesus, presently, many people have questions about why Jesus is the answer. Others have doubts about Him being the Son of God and reject Jesus as the Christ. Christians point these questioners to Jesus’ claims, His miracles, and the reliability of the Gospel accounts as evidence that His claims are true. This approach, supporting spiritual claims with evidence and reason, is how Jesus convinced the multitudes, and is how the New Testament calls upon Christians to convince the world. Proclaiming the good news of Jesus is called “evangelism.” More particularly, when the claims of Christ are supported with evidence and reason, this approach defines a species of evangelism called “apologetics.”

 

The Term “Apologetics”

A number of years ago I heard a televangelist condescendingly say that Christian apologists “Go around apologizing.” No, Christian apologists give evidence and reasons to show that Christianity is true. Christian Apologetics is a type of evangelism that endeavors to remove obstacles to faith in Jesus. Apologetics has nothing to do with saying “I’m sorry.”

 

The term apologetics is a transliteration of the Greek word apologia, a term taken from the law courts in ancient Athens that means “make a defense.” A person charged with a crime, or a civil wrong was not guilty or financially liable merely because of an accusation. Even in ancient times civilized countries had some form of due process where the accused had a chance to respond to charges and refute them. This is the essence of the forensic term “apologia.” Presenting arguments to counter the charges against the accused (the apologia) allowed the judge to weigh the evidence before deciding the issue of guilt or innocence (in criminal cases), or liability for damages (in civil cases).

 

Apologetics in a Christian Context

In the general sense, then, apologetics means “make a defense” and the person making the defense is the apologist. The term apologist is not restricted to Christian apologists since any number of ideas can be defended. For example, regarding economic systems, one might call a person “an apologist for capitalism.” But, in the restrictive sense, Christian Apologetics is the art and science of defending the truth of Christianity through providing evidence and reasons that show Christianity is true. The goal of Christian Apologetics is to bring people to the place where they ask the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) Before some people are ready to ask Jesus into their hearts and follow Him, they must first have their minds satisfied. Apologetics answers questions and clears away the intellectual roadblocks that keep people from coming to the cross of Christ. Salvation through Christ is the goal of Christian Apologetics.

 

The Biblical Mandate to Defend the Christian Faith—1 Peter 3:15

The importance of Christian Apologetics can be seen in many passages of Scripture where evidence is presented to persuade hearers that the testimony is true. Not only are there examples of Jesus and Paul using apologetics, but there are also commands for all believers to be ready to “make a defense” of our hope in Jesus. 1 Peter 3:15 says:

 

            “…sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to            everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness          and fear….”

 

When the Apostle Peter wrote this verse he was writing in the Greek language. The English words “make a defense” is the translation of the Greek word apologia. Peter is admonishing followers of Jesus to “always” be “ready” to make a defense. Clearly from this verse Christian Apologetics is not restricted to Bible scholars or theologians. Rather, anyone who has hope in the promises of Jesus is called to be ready to “give an account” (i.e., “explain”) as to why we have that hope. The “account” can be in many forms, including one’s personal testimony, evidence from history, evidence for the reliability of the Bible’s claims, and evidence from Bible prophecy regarding the divine inspiration of Scripture.

 

Jude 3 

The Epistle of Jude is the next-to-last book of the Bible, and one of the shortest books, containing a mere 25 verses.¹ Jude is believed to be a son of Joseph and Mary, brother of James and half-brother of Jesus (see Matthew 13:55). In his short letter, after a greeting Jude explains that his intent was to “write about our common salvation” (verse 3). However, he immediately digresses to something of great importance, exhorting the readers to “contend earnestly for the faith…” Here Jude uses “faith” as a noun, referring to the body of truth that Christians believe in, i.e., the “Christian Faith.” The words “contend earnestly” are a translation of the Greek verb epagonizomai. The root of this verb, agon, refers to a “struggle for victory,” and is the root behind the English word agony. The use of the preposition ep (shortened version of epi) intensifies the verb, leading many translators to add the word “earnestly” to convey the intensive force of the preposition.² For Jude to switch gears so early in his letter, especially when he is setting aside his intended discussion about something so lofty as our “common salvation,” means readers should carefully take note.

 

What was it that prompted Jude to exhort readers to “struggle for victory?” There were people who had crept into the church with false teachings and immoral practices, even to the extent of denying Jesus (verse 4). When anyone denies Jesus, they are denying the gospel that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead as evidence that His death offers salvation to all who believe. Jude’s exhortation to “contend earnestly for the faith” was a call to battle to defend “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (verse 3). Contending and defending are actions that together summarize the work of Christian Apologetics.

 

St. Paul’s Appointment as an Apologist

The Apostle Paul was instrumental in writing 13 letters (“epistles”³) that are incorporated into the canon of Scripture. His zeal to proclaim the gospel permeates his writings (cf, 1 Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel….”). Inherent in Paul’s preaching was his use of evidence and reason to persuade hearers to believe his message of Christ crucified as God’s means of salvation. By his own words Paul was “appointed for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:16). Paul’s appointment as an apologist and his methods of defending the Faith are covered in detail in chapter three of this book.

 

Apologetics—a Good Word, and Why We Need it

From Peter, Jude, and Paul we see apologetics mandated—not to a chosen few, but for all Christians who are to “be ready to make a defense,” “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” and recognize that all followers of Jesus are “appointed for the defense of the gospel.” “Apologetics” is not a bad word. Unfortunately, its meaning and purpose are misunderstood by some to be merely an intellectual exercise reserved for scholars, or worse, human arguments designed to replace the work of the Spirit in convicting people of their need for salvation through Jesus. Christians are called to proclaim Christ crucified as the hope of humanity, and inherent in the command to proclaim the gospel to the world is the need to defend the gospel against challenges, unbelief, and distortions of the truth.

 

“Apologetics” is a good word, because Christian Apologetics has for two millennia cleared away roadblocks that keep people from coming to the cross of Christ to be saved from their sins. There are many obstacles that keep people from faith in Christ, including misconceptions about Christianity, intellectual questions, pride, false teachings from cults and non-Christian religions, and choosing a sinful life. Apologetics can remove the intellectual obstacles, clear up misconceptions, and expose false teachings so that the unbeliever has no excuse for unbelief. To be effective, the Christian needs to become familiar with the evidence that confirms the truth of the gospel message and become conversant with ways to answer the questions and challenges to Christianity.

 

Apologetics is for Everyone

This book presents sound and simple ways to make a case for Christianity, broken down into three sub-cases: The case for God, the case for the Bible and the case for Jesus. In a courtroom, the judge weighs the evidence before rendering a verdict. Those who hear the gospel are the judges who consider the evidence and reasons to trust Christ. With study and practice all believers can become skilled at sharing their faith and respond appropriately to questions, challenges, and misconceptions. Whether one is a new Christian or a lifelong follower of Jesus, if hearts and minds are prepared to reach out to non-Christians, there can be a harvest of souls. When Peter challenged believers to “be ready to make a defense for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15) he was talking to all Christians. This should resolve the question of who should engage in defending the faith, because it is evident from the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude and others that apologetics is for everyone.

 

 

¹Wuest, (1973) p.19. Despite the original negative connotation, “Christian” eventually gained positive recognition by Herod Agrippa, who told the Apostle Paul, “In a short time you are going to persuade me to make a Christian of myself” (Acts26:28). Later Peter wrote, “but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed….” (1 Peter 4:16). By the turn of the 1^st Century the term “Christian” became the common term for both believers and unbelievers to refer to followers of Jesus.

²The verse and chapter divisions in our modern Bibles are not found in the oldest copies. Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury provided the chapter divisions used today, creating them around the year 1225; modern verse divisions were created by the Parisian printer Robert Etienne (known as “Stephanus”) in the 1551 edition of his printed Greek New Testament.

³“Epistles” are a type of letter that Paul utilized and expanded to communicate with churches and individuals regarding the function of the church and the application of the teachings of Jesus.

Victory at the Supreme Court--Life Wins!

 

Abortion Back in the Spotlight

 
On June 24, 2022, the opinion of the Supreme Court was released on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The 5-4 decision struck down the nearly 50-year-old case of Roe v. Wade that found a right to abortion in the “penumbra” (i.e., “shadowy emanations”) of the U.S. Constitution.
 
What Dobbs does not do:
Dobbs does not outlaw abortion.
 
What Dobbs does do: 
Dobbs holds there is no federal right to abortion (i.e., abortion rights are not in the U.S. Constitution), so each state needs to determine its own policies regarding abortion. Dobbs makes clear that voters and elected representatives of each state should determine abortion laws and policies, not the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the definition of democracy—letting citizens and their representatives determine what the law should be regarding abortion.
 
What is the net effect of Dobbs?
Now all 50 states must determine what the state’s law should be regarding abortion. At least three states at the time of this writing (Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota) outlaw abortions entirely now that Roe is overruled. In more than a dozen states abortion will soon be illegal. (Here is a link to an informative article that our daughter, Megan Messerly, a health care reporter for Politico, wrote on the topic.) Some states (such as Mississippi, which brought the Dobbs case) outlaw abortion after a certain number of weeks after conception. Thus, in Mississippi, a woman can obtain an abortion provided she is not more than 15 weeks into the pregnancy. Laurie and I live in California, where state laws are very liberal, and essentially allow abortions up to the moment the baby is ready to be delivered.
 
What facts about abortion are irrefutable?
What cannot be contested is the fact that from the moment of conception the unborn baby (Latin word for “unborn baby” is fetus) is a human being. It is biologically/genetically human, and is a living being. A heartbeat can be detected five weeks after conception and brain activity six weeks after conception.  
 
What arguments are used by abortion rights advocates?
Those who support abortion rights typically focus on the pregnant woman, doing everything possible to avoid references to the unborn human in the womb. Thus, terms like “reproductive freedom” and “reproductive choice” are often used. Also, a right to “bodily autonomy” is often raised, stating that no law should tell a woman what she must do with her own body. (Ironically, some of those who use this argument had no problem insisting that women get a COVID-19 vaccine in order to keep their job.) In the case of a pregnancy, there are two bodies—the mother’s and the unborn baby’s. Despite the unborn baby being inside the body of the pregnant woman, there is still this second body that abortion rights advocates want to ignore. 
 
What arguments are used by pro-life advocates?
Biology provides a strong argument for eliminating “abortion on demand.” The fact that the unborn baby is a human being is not an opinion, but biological fact. Because the unborn baby is human, and the unique life of the unborn baby begins at conception, many pro-life advocates hold that abortion is always wrong. Some believe that exceptions should be made in the cases of rape or incest (e.g., the Mississippi law behind the Dobbs case). Others think exceptions should be made for fetal abnormality (which often means the death sentence for a Down’s Syndrome baby) or when the mother’s life is at risk (an extremely rare phenomenon). Allowing abortions in the case of risk to maternal health, which was part of the case of Doe v. Bolton, the 1973 companion case to Roe v. Wade, became a loophole for obtaining “late term” abortions. If a woman failed to have an abortion by the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, Roe held that states could outlaw abortions in such cases (and many did). But Doe v Bolton allowed women to claim their mental health was in jeopardy if they could not have an abortion. So, effectively, women could have an abortion up to the time they were ready to give birth.
 
Terminology Matters
There is an old adage, “He who frames the question controls the debate.” Thus, the slogan “A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body” has been effective in gaining support for abortion rights. However, as previously mentioned, there is a separate human being inside the womb of the pregnant woman and that unborn baby has a body, too. Which right is superior—the right of the pregnant woman to kill the developing human being (for convenience, economics, or some other reason) or the right of the unborn baby to life? As our Declaration of Independence says, “We are endowed by our Creator, with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life….” 
 
The terms “abortion” and “pro-choice” are also problematic. “Abort” means to stop. A combat mission is aborted by calling back the planes or troops. A medical abortion involves killing a human being. Similarly, the “right to choose” needs to be expanded—the right to choose to do what? Kill the unborn human being. A medical abortion includes cutting to pieces in the womb the body of the developing baby or else poisoning the unborn baby with caustic chemicals. That is the result of exercising “choice” that we call “abortion.”
 
Biased Media
Some 30 years ago a Los Angeles Times reporter wrote an eye-opening essay on the bias of how journalists cover the abortion issue. Any time a law was passed, like in the case of the Mississippi case of Dobbs, media would use headlines such as, “Most restrictive abortion law passed by Mississippi.” But the law was only “restrictive” relative to the pregnant woman who no longer had unfettered discretion to have her unborn baby killed at any point of her pregnancy. The law was “protective” with respect to the unborn human. Yet, as the Times writer pointed out, no headlines would ever reference the law being “protective” because the life unborn baby was never the focus. Do not let the debate focus solely on the “rights” of the pregnant women when there are competing and superior rights (e.g., the right to life) that belong to the unborn baby.
 
The Big Lie About “Back Alley Abortions”
In 1972, the last year before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 130,000 illegal (i.e., “back alley”) abortions took place. Based on the abortion rights rhetoric, one would be justified in thinking that thousands of women likely died from these illegal abortions (as illustrated by abortion zealots holding up coat hangers as a visual reference). But how many women were actually documented by the CDC as having died from illegal abortions in 1972? . . . 39. While it is tragic that 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, is it not also tragic that 130,000 babies were killed that same year? Beware of the “back alley” argument.
 
Where We Go from Here
Once the histrionics and caterwauling from abortion rights zealots subside, it will be important to think through the issues and be ready to speak out. Some states will have robust debates as to what restrictions should be placed on abortions. Depending on the state you live in, there may be a chance to sway people to re-think the issue of abortion and even become defenders of the unborn. As much as laws can be a good thing (as a reflection of what is the ideal for society), laws are not the ultimate answer. If abortion was outlawed entirely, if people still want abortions, then they would find a way to kill their unborn. But if abortion was legal and there were abortion mills on every street corner, if people knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong, there would be no abortions. Thus, the battle is not just about legislation, but, more importantly, changing the hearts of women and men in America to see that killing unborn babies is wrong and evil. Be ready to point out that there are vastly superior reasons to be pro-life than pro-abortion rights. In the process you may save the lives of unborn humans who, someday, may thank you for protecting them when they were the most vulnerable. 
 
As the LORD said to the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you were born, I consecrated you.” (Jeremiah 1:5).
 

Happy New Year 2022!

 

Rarely do I look forward to a New Year as much as I do now. Not that 2021 was a bad year for me, personally, though the pandemic limited my ability to travel internationally. No, 2021 was a difficult year for so many in the world, with the COVID-19 virus and its variants wreaking havoc on the physical and mental health of billions of people, especially in America where the death toll from the virus is approaching 900,000. In addition to the pandemic and its effect on the world, there continues to be persecution of Christians in many parts of the world. I am always blessed to visit the saints during my teaching missions to Nigeria, as I did in May 2021. But to learn of the outright genocide directed toward believers in Kaduna and Plateau State, where entire church congregations and student bodies have been kidnapped by Muslim terrorists puts in perspective how well most of us have it, not having to worry about being held for ransom due to our faith.

 

Despite the challenges of 2021, the reason I look forward to 2022 is not merely to put all the chaos behind us, but to appreciate that for those who follow Jesus have our names are “written in heaven.” We serve a loving God whose sacrifice on the cross provided us with a Way to be forgiven of our sins. Our eternity is secure, and we have a Heavenly Father who knows the number of hairs on our heads. I like to repeat the old adage—“We many not know what the future holds, but we know who holds the future.” It is possible that 2022, in terms of the pandemic and its effects, could be worse that in 2021 (though I am hopeful that will not be the case). Regardless, our citizenship is not here on earth. We are merely sojourners. Our citizenship is in heaven, and our treasures are there where moth and rust cannot corrupt them.

 

2021 was a year where many of us lost friends and family. The good news is that our Lord promised that we will see them again in heaven. That is why Paul writes to the Corinthians that we do not sorry as those who have no hope, because we do have hope based on what Jesus said. That is a reasonable and precious hope, not a mere wish projection. The One who died and rose from the dead said He was “preparing a place” for His followers in His Father’s house, and that He would come again and receive us so that we would be with Him. Yes, glory in the heavenly kingdom awaits, but until He comes back or calls us home, we are told to make disciples of all nations, preach the Gospel, and occupy until He comes. 2022 provides new opportunities for us do to just that, despite any opposition from circumstances.

 

Are you ready for what lies ahead? Standing with Jesus is the divine vaccine against fear and worry. Let not our hearts be troubled (John 14:1) because the Lord is in control. Follow Jesus, and you will not only endure, but thrive through adversity. Acknowledge the Lord as your Savior, and He will direct your paths (Proverbs 3:6). Let us claim 2022 as a year where we rebound and make our priority to “seek first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33

Eyewitnesses

 

In the Gospel of Luke’s prologue (Luke 1:1-4) Luke writes in verse two, “just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed down to us….” The Greek word translated eyewitnesses is autoptai. Richard Bauckham, in his important work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, writes that autoptai “does not have a forensic meaning” and that it would be misleading to understand the word as a “metaphor from the law courts” (p 117). Bauckham goes on to say that autoptai  are “simply firsthand observers of the events.” With respect to Buackham, a “firsthand observer” is an eyewitness in the forensic sense. 

 

Bauckham makes the point that the eyewitnesses of Jesus were His followers “from the beginning” (c.f., John 15:27, “and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning”; Acts 1:21-22, “men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us….”). Bauckham provides a translation of autoptai  in Acts 1:2 from Loveday Alexander, “those with personal/firsthand experience: those who know the facts at first hand.” Again, there is no meaningful distinction between an eyewitness in a law court and those “with personal/firsthand experience.” 

 

What if a person knows “the facts at first hand” (Alexander’s rendering of autoptai)? Is Bauckham contending that a person who hears accounts from a percipient witness (i.e., one who personally observes or hears) qualifies as autoptai? I think not, because such a person would be like a juror in a court trial that hears testimony from eyewitnesses. A non-percipient person who hears the accounts is clearly a second-hand source. Law court testimony from such a non-percipient person would be considered unreliable hearsay (“an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted) and not admissible in a forensic proceeding unless the testimony falls under one of the (many) recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. What other “personal” or “firsthand” experience is there other than seeing, hearing or touching? 

 

Consider what the Apostle John wrote in 1 John 1:1, 3 that emphasizes the empirical nature of the disciples’ testimony:

 

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life… what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”

 

Dreams, visions and feelings are ruled out in courtroom trials as reliable bases for determining what happened or what was said. Generally, only percipient witnesses can testify in a law court, with an exception being expert witnesses who are allowed to render opinions within their area of expertise due to their special knowledge, experience and education. The purpose of the expert is to assist the trier of fact (usually the jury). 

 

Fortunately, Bauckham comes around regarding Luke’s use of autoptai, acknowledging “there is no doubt, from its total context in Luke-Acts, that it carries the historiographic meaning of people who witnessed firsthand the events of Luke’s gospel story.” Precisely a description of what is required for someone to testify in a law court—testimony that involves empirical (experienced by the senses—sight, sound, touch, smell) evidence.

 

Bauckham, citing The Preface to Luke’s Gospel by I. Alexander, mentions the use of autoptai by Josephus and Polybius “with reference to the observation of events narrated in a history or preface or other methodological passage” (p. 117). Polybius, a Greek historian who lived in the 2^nd century B.C. wrote The Histories that uncovered the period 264-146 B.C. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who recorded Jewish history during the 1^st century A.D. in The Jewish Wars and Antiquities. Josephus uses the word autoptai in Antiquities, Book 18, 342, “Anileus, the brother of Asineus, either heard of her beauty from others, or perhaps saw her himself (autoptai) and so became both her lover and her enemy.” In Antiquities, Book 19, 125, Joseph writes, “he came for the pleasure of seeing with his own eyes (autoptai) Gaius lying there dead.” From these accounts of Josephus the 1^st century A.D. meaning of autoptaibecomes clear—literally having seen what is being later described. 

 

Moulton and Milligan, in their seminal work The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, provide further insight as to how the word autoptai was used outside of the New Testament. In P Oxy VIII. 1154⁸ (late 1^st century), “a man, who was perhaps absent on military service, writes to his sister not to be anxious, ‘for I am personally acquainted (autoptai) with these places and am not a stranger here.'” Again, the notion of being an eyewitness in the law court sense is present in this papyrus. 

 

Terms Similar to autoptai

In 2 Peter 1:16 the Apostle Peter writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” The word translated eyewitnesses is epoptais, from the word optai from whence comes the word optics (“to see”) which has the meaning of spectator, especially in observing firsthand the mysteries of God. As Thayer’s Lexicon says, “inasmuch as those were called ἐπόπται by the Greeks who had attained to the third [i. e. the highest] grade of the Eleusinian mysteries (Plutarch, Alcib. 22, and elsewhere), the word seems to be used here to designate those privileged to be present at the heavenly spectacle of the transfiguration of Christ.” In other words Thayer sees the term epopotais in 2 Peter 1:16 as being Peter’s reference to being an eyewitness of the transfiguration (cf Matthew 17:1 ff). According to Matthew’s account Peter was present, along with James and John, when Jesus took them to a high mountain and His appearance radically changed (transfigured) before them, and Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke with Jesus. Thus, Peter was a spectator, i.e., an eyewitness, of Jesus in a transfigured state, and the term epopotais proves to be a synonym of autoptai as used in Luke 1:2.

 

In John 20:25 Thomas is quoted as saying, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” Jesus had appeared to the 10 disciples in an upper room after His crucifixion, but Thomas was absent. When the other disciples later told him “We have seen the Lord” Thomas uttered his famous words of doubt as recorded on John 20:25. He wanted to see and feel Jesus, meaning he wanted empirical evidence—not merely the word of his fellow disciples. After being a follower of Jesus for what is commonly understood to be a three-year ministry of Jesus, which included miracle after miracle, and after hearing from Jesus that He would be killed and raised from the dead (cf., Matthew 16:21), how could Thomas not believe the 10 disciples account that the risen Jesus had appeared to them? 

 

The Gospel accounts are silent as to why Thomas was doubting, but clear on the fact that Jesus appeared again when Thomas was present, which prompted him to say to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Thomas had empirical evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, but Jesus gave a blessing to those who do not have empirical evidence yet believe (John 20:29). This is similar to a law court where, during a trial, the jury has not seen the evidence. Instead, the jury weighs the testimony of percipient witnesses who were present at the event in question in order to render a conclusion (verdict) as to what happened that is binding on the participants of the trial. And the verdict of a jury, in some cases, has life or death consequences.

 

Conclusion

Luke’s use of autoptai in Luke 1:2 is consistent with the common use of the term eyewitnesses as used in a forensic (i.e., law court) sense. There is no reason to hold otherwise. The events of the Gospel of Luke were derived from those who observed the life and teachings of Jesus, and Luke makes clear that he did all he could, after he “investigated everything carefully” (Luke 1:3), to “write [an account of the life of Jesus] in consecutive order” (Luke 1:3), so that the reader might know “the exact truth” (Luke 1:4). Luke, the investigative journalist, makes the case for Jesus being the Messiah (Christ), the Chosen One of God, who died for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead as evidence that He was the Christ. Believing the Gospel accounts of Jesus is similar to believing consistent, multiple eyewitness testimony in a law court, and thereby rendering a verdict based on the testimony. The verdict found in the Gospel record is simple—Jesus is Lord, the Christ who died, rose from the dead, and is coming again. Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.

 

 

Does the White Horse of Revelation 6:2 Involve a Prediction of a Coronavirus Pandemic?

 

When St. Jerome translated the Bible from Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) into Latin, his work is called the Vulgate, which means “common.” It was the standard Bible for the Roman Catholic Church for 1,000 years. When Jerome translated Revelation 6:2, it reads as follows: et vidi et ecce equus albus et qui sedebat super illum habebat arcum et data est ei corona et exivit vincens ut vinceret. The English translation (NASB) is as follows:

I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

For those who can’t decipher Latin (which is most of us), there may be some words that you recognize, but there is one word you are sure to recognize because you now see it a dozen times per day or more—corona. The Latin word corona means “crown,” and the virus that is currently wreaking havoc is referred to as the coronavirus (which causes the disease COVID-19). The name derives from the appearance of the virus under high magnification where the outer material of the virus has raised, spike-like portions that make it look like a crown. A virus is a microscopic parasite that can only multiply in cells of living hosts such as humans. One type of coronavirus (there are several types) is responsible for the common cold, and one sneeze can emit 20,000 droplets containing the virus particles. All it takes for the cold virus to spread is touching or breathing the droplets, which can enter through the nose or mouth.
 
Back to Revelation chapter six—the first question is, “Who is the rider of the white horse?” He emerges after the first of seven seals is broken and is the first of the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” Perhaps it helps to determine the identity of the rider if we look at the next three seals that also have riders, and they represent war (red horse), famine (black horse) and death (pale horse). In light of the last three horsemen, it seems the first is likely not Christ, but another conquering force. The rider of the white horse has a bow but no arrows, which could symbolize conquering without conventional weapons (speculation, not certainty). The rider “went out conquering and to conquer.” He has a bow and a corona. With no arrows and no conventional weapons, is it plausible that the rider does not subdue the world through conventional warfare but through something more akin to biological warfare, i.e., the release of a virus that becomes a pandemic? Could the rider’s corona be a clue? 
 
The context of Revelation chapter six is the beginning of events that take place during a seven-year period of tribulation (the events continue through chapter 18, so the heart of the Book of Revelation is the tribulation period). The two-fold purpose of the tribulation is to bring Israel to faith in the Messiah (“Christ”) and to punish unbelief. There are three series of events—the seals (including the Four Horsemen of chapter six), trumpets and bowls. The Book of Revelation, sometimes referred to by the Greek title Apocalypse, describes events that will affect the entire world. Revelation includes symbolic language that depicts two beasts and a dragon that are commonly thought to represent a false religious system, a false prophet and Satan. Multitudes that rebel against God are finally defeated by the return of Jesus (Revelation chapter 19), followed by God sitting on a white throne in judgment (Revelation 20:11ff).
 
The culmination of the Book of Revelation is Jesus’ return to earth, which he foretold in the Gospel of John chapter 14 and verse 3 (“I will come again”). The historic view of the church is that Jesus returns to earth after the tribulation period. An interesting fact is that the church is not mentioned in Revelation chapters 6-18. For this reason, and many others, in the past nearly 200 years the view arose that Jesus will return for the church before the seven-year tribulation period (a pre-tribulation "rapture”). Suffice to say that space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for the pre-tribulation and post-tribulation return of Christ views. But if, perchance, the current pandemic is related to what John foresaw in Revelation chapter 6, then either the tribulation is about to emerge or, from a post-tribulation perspective, the tribulation has already begun. 
 
The Antichrist
In John’s first two epistles in the New Testament there are four references to “the antichrist” (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7). Jesus spoke of “false Christs” and the Apostle Paul writes concerning a future “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Based upon these references many think they are referring to a man who opposes God in the last days, especially the tribulation period. There are many ways to interpret Jesus’ teachings about his Second Coming and the Book of Revelation, including understanding the events as being still future (“futurist”), seeing the events as having already occurred (“preterist”) or thinking that some of the events have occurred (“partial preterist”). The vast majority of evangelical Christians hold to a futurist view of the prophetic teachings of Jesus, Paul and the Book of Revelation. 
 
The Times and Seasons
Jesus promised that He would come again to earth (John 14:3), but made it clear that no one, including Himself, knows the day or hour when He will return (Matthew 24:36). After Jesus told hiis disciples that the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed, His disciples asked Him three questions: When will the Temple be destroyed, what will be the sign of His retun to earth, and what will be the sign of the end of the age (Matthew 24:3)? Jesus answers by giving some general signs (wars, falling away from faith in God, earthquakes, famine, false prophets) but adds a specific reference to the Old Testament Book of Daniel (Matthew 25:15 cf Daniel 9:27) that involves an abomination in relation to the Temple. The Apostle Paul mentions that Jesus will not come back until first the “man of lawlessness” is revealed who takes a seat in the Temple and claims to be God. 

The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 by a Roman army lead by Titus the son of the Emperor Vespasian, so those who hold to a futurist view of Bible prophecy regarding Jesus’ second coming expect there will, some day, be a Third Temple. (The first was Solomon’s Temple, destroyed in 586 B.C by the Babylonians, the second temple was begun under Ezra and Nehemiah, and expanded by King Herod around the time of Jesus’ birth, then destroyed by the Romans. Today only the foundation remains, called the “Western Wall” or “Wailing Wall.")

In order for a Third Temple to be build, the Jews would have to return to Israel, become a nation, and control the Temple Mount where the Temple originally stood. There was no nation Israel after 586 B.C., and during the time of Jesus the Jews lived in a colony controlled by Rome. Very few Jews were in the land formerly called Israel until the late 19^th century when the “Zionist” movement began and more Jews began to settle in the Palestinian territory. Following World War II and the atrocities committed against the Jews (the “Holocaust”) the world became sympathetic to Jewish suffering and a Jewish homeland, leading up to the rebirth of the nation Israel on May 14, 1948. The Jews did not control the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem, but following the Six-Day War in 1967 the Jews regained control of the Temple Mount, but ceded control back to Jordan to administer the site as a way to placate Arab Muslims (a sore spot for Jews who want to rebuilds the Temple).

 
Thus, in 2020 the Jews again have their own nation Israel, and voices continue to grow louder advocating for the rebuilding of the Temple. The rebuilding could happen at any time, but it could also be years or decades away. But a futurist view of Jesus’ return required the Jews back in the land, which happened in 1948. Therefore, to many who study Bible prophecy, even without a Temple, the stage is set for the rebuilding of the Temple, the events of the Book of Revelation, and the return of Jesus to earth.
 
The Stage Appears to be Set for Christ’s Return
Even though Jesus said that no one knows when He is coming back, Paul wrote that the Thessalonian Christians were aware of the “times and seasons” (I Thessalonians 5:1). This admonition, along with Paul and Jesus providing clues to when Jesus might be coming back, has lead to endless speculation about when Christ will return, including those who were convinced that they knew the date based on some scheme of interpretation they had devised. It is best to be aware of Scriptures that deal with Jesus’ promised return to earth first, and then see whether the prophetic clues have an application to our present age. If one concludes that the stage is set for Jesus to return (meaning nothing has to happen before He comes back for His church), there needs to be a recognition that we best tread softly and show humility rather than proclaim with certitude that we know what Jesus said we don’t know. Thus, when interpreting Revelation and other prophetic passages in light of the current situation, make a case from Scripture but acknowledge that we are putting together a puzzle without all the pieces. 
 
Regardless of whether Jesus is coming back this week, this year, or a thousand years from now, the calling of the church does not change, which is to “disciple all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The return of Jesus is a “Blessed Hope” (Titus 3:15), and in God’s time it will happen. Meanwhile, we need to search the Scriptures, not to decipher the date of Jesus’ return, but to be equipped to defend and proclaim the Good News that Jesus died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead as proof He is the Messiah. 
 
Conclusion
There are compelling reasons to believe that Jesus is coming again. Given the rebirth of Israel in 1948, there are reasons to conclude that His return could be soon. Whether the corona is a sign that we are near the end or not, the task of the church remains, and the fear that a pandemic brings creates an opportunity to tell people about the “Blessed Hope.” To quote the lyrics of the song “Outlaw” by the late singer/songwriter Larry Norman:
 
            Some say He was the Son of God, a man above all men.
            That He came to be a servant, and set us free from sin.
            And that’s who I believe He was, cause that’s who I believe
            And I think we should get ready, cause its time for us to leave.
 
Why do I believe that Jesus is coming back? Because He said so, and that’s who I believe. Even so “Come Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).
 

It Was Thirty Years Ago

"It was 30 years ago today..." No, not the lyrics from the Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper, but August 11, 1988, the day 25,000 people took to the streets In North Hollywood, California. What were these people doing on that Thursday afternoon?  Taking a stand for the historical Jesus and protesting a soon-to-be-released motion picture called The Last Temptation of Christ that defamed and mischaracterized Jesus. I was privileged to be the “tip of the spear” in organizing and leading the protest preceded by a news conference. I invited some of my friends to participate, such as football great Rosey Grier, Jewish broadcaster Dennis Prager and former sportscaster Jane Chastain. I also invited some well-known Christian leaders to participate, such as Don Wildmon from the America Family Association and Bill Bright from Campus Crusade. But first, a little background.

Rumors had spread that MCA-Universal was bankrolling a movie based on pagan writer Nikos Katzanzakis' novel The Last Temptation of Christ.MCA-Universal brought in award-winning director Martin Scorcese to direct the film. Given the controversial nature of Katzanzakis' book, MCA tried to keep the movie script under wraps. However, copies were leaked, and Christian broadcasters began to decry what many considered a highly offensive if not blasphemous portrayal of Jesus. The "Jesus" of MCA's film was lustful and confused person, bearing little resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels whom two billion Christians worship as Lord and God.

Despite the pleas from multitudes of people to not release the film, MCA turned a deaf ear and wrapped itself in the First Amendment, claiming it had every right to produce the movie. No one questioned whether MCA had such a right—the issue was whether MCA shouldgo forward with a film based on a script that was offensive to millions of people. By late July 1988 it was clear that MCA had no intention of shelving the film despite the outcry. At the time I was the afternoon talk show host on KKLA-Los Angeles, the flagship station for Salem Broadcasting. KKLA’s North Hollywood studios were two miles from the entrance to Universal Studios and MCA-Universal’s headquarters and I had been actively covering the controversy behind The Last Temptation of Christ for months. Thus, I was in the right place to give a voice to the thousands of people who were troubled by the film. I figured the best way to for people to express themselves was to organize a public rally and march. The event was set for noon on August 11, 1988 at the entrance to Universal Studios in North Hollywood, preceded by a news conference at 11 a.m. 

By 11 a.m. on August 11, 1988 several thousand people had gathered at entrance of Universal Studios awaiting the news conference. As I looked out at a dozen or more television cameras and many more print journalists, I began addressing the media by reading an open letter to MCA that expressed the sentiments of literally millions of people. A helicopter buzzed overhead filming the spectacle and I was told that a local Los Angeles News station reported a "13-mile backup on the 101 Freeway" due to a "massive protest" in North Hollywood. 

After my presentation I introduced a relatively-unknown young singer named Steve Gooden. Steve had a recording contract with MCA, but in light of MCA’s funding of The Last Temptation of Christhe decided he could not use his talents for MCA. After referencing Charles Sheldon's book In His Steps,Steve put truth above consequences and tore up his recording contract as the cameras rolled. It was an emotional moment, as Steve, with tears in his eyes, collapsed into the arms of Rosey Grier.

After Steve Gooden came Don Wildmon who was on the front lines condemning the film. Following him was Atlanta Pastor Richard Lee who brought petitions with over 100,000 signatures urging MCA to not release the film. Other speakers included Bill Bright, Dennis Prager, film director Ken Wales, Rosie Grier, radio personality Rich Buhler, Rabbi Chaim Asa, and Jane Chastain. When the news conference was over, it was time for the noon march. By this time, according to the North Hollywood Police’s estimate, there were 25,000 people present, causing the Police Chief to comment that “It looked like a Dodger game was let out on Lankershim Boulevard.”

As we began to march to a nearby park I saw literally thousands of placards, many hand-made, condemning the film with statements such as “The Greatest Story Ever Distorted” and “Don’t Crucify Christ Again.” There were chants of “boycott MCA” and people singing “Amazing Grace.” After about a 15-minute march the throng began to arrive at the park where under sunny skies we sang songs, prayed, and closed with “God Bless America.”  

Up to that point in America the majority of people involved in public protests and demonstrations seemed to be on the radical fringe. On August 11, 1988 it was different. Women pushing baby strollers, senior citizens, children, off-duty police--all came together to take a stand for the Jesus of the Bible. Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Muslims stood in unity despite theological differences. It was the most unifying event I had experienced in my lifetime, only surpassed by the national unity that followed the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.

I agreed with the sentiments expressed by Don Wildmon, who said during the news conference, “This is a movement.” For the vast majority of the 25,000 protest participants it was the first time they publicly stood up and spoke up for Jesus. It was a day that showed good triumphs over evil, and it was a reminder that unless Christians speak up and stand up, the secular Hollywood industry will continue to push the envelope with scripts that attack the faith of the majority of Americans. The unified voice of Christians was heard, and many of the largest movie theater chains refused to show the movie. It was a lesson that speaking up and taking a stand can make a difference. Will the next generation of Christians have the same passion and resolve to stand against evil and offensive portrayals of Jesus? I hope so. It was 30 years ago today that 25,000 people showed how it can be done.

The U.S. Supreme Court - Why the Nominee Matters

As I write, the White House has indicated that President Trump’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be announced tomorrow, July 9, 2018. Why is this such a big deal?

First, it is the prerogative of a President to nominate people for the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy. The U.S. Constitution says the President’s choice is subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate. A nominee must receive 50 votes from the 100 Senators (51 if the President’s party does not hold a majority in the Senate) to be confirmed. 

Republicans made 10 Supreme Court appointments between 1969 and 1992 (Nixon to GHW Bush) and another three from 2000 to the present (George W. Bush to Trump). Clinton and Obama, combined, only appointed four Justices. Six of the GOP nominees replaced Justices appointed by Democrat Presidents. With 13 appointments by Republicans, why, then, is there currently a 4-4 split between liberal and conservative Justices rather than a conservative (i.e., strict textualist) majority? Three reasons.

1.     GOP Presidents had to nominate a “moderate” candidate when Democrats controlled the Senate in order to get the candidate approved by the Senate.

In years past, when a Republican President nominated someone determined by Democrats to be “too conservative” (i.e., a strict constructionist, interpreting the Constitution solely on its text), if the Democrats held the majority in the Senate, they could reject the nominee. This happened twice under President Nixon, and once under President Reagan. (Robert Bork was Reagan’s nominee. When he was voted down by the Democrat Senate majority, the now retiring Anthony Kennedy took his place). Thus, despite both Nixon and Reagan trying to create a conservative majority on the Court, Senate Democrats blocked the efforts, and more moderate candidates like Kennedy had to be nominated. In Nixon’s case, the “compromise” candidate was Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in the seminal abortion case Roe v. Wade in 1973.

2.     Some nominees from Republican Presidents turned out to be liberal once they were on the Supreme Court

Whether it was an “ideological shift” or the candidate was not properly vetted, several justices nominated by Republican Presidents voted with the liberal justices. These included Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter. Others nominated by Republican Presidents who were not ideologically conservative sometimes voted with the liberals. These Justices, who had the “swing vote” to break a 4-4 tie among the nine Justices, included Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy was the swing vote in the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodgesthat imposed same-sex marriage on all 50 states, finding a right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

3.     No longer is a “supermajority” of the Senate needed for confirmation

Before 2017 the Senate rules required a supermajority of 60 Senators to cut off further debate and bring a vote on a nominee. Without the 60 votes the candidate could be “filibustered,” meaning prevented from ever receiving a yes or no vote. In 2017, following President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the GOP majority changed the rules so that now only a simple majority (50, since Vice President Pence breaks any tie) is needed to bring a nominee to a vote on the Senate floor. Currently at least three Democrat Senators are up for re-election in November 2018 in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, and all three of them voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch. If the result for President Trump’s next nominee is the same, then it won’t matter if two moderate (“pro-abortion rights”) GOP Senators (Murkowski and Collins) vote for or against the nominee, and it won’t matter if ailing GOP Senator John McCain shows up to vote (he has not voted in many months due to his cancer treatments).

The current Court is made up of four ideologically liberal Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) and four ideologically conservative Justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch). If President Trump follows through with his campaign promise to conservatives and evangelicals and nominates another ideologically conservative Justice (as he did with Gorsuch) there will be a reliable conservative majority for the first time. That conservative majority could increase to 6-3 if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or dies (she is 85 years old and in poor health). A conservative majority would be a firewall against liberal judicial activism, and could even undo some of the damage that the Supreme Court inflicted on America when it imposed same-sex marriage (2015) and abortion on demand (1973). Thus, there will likely be wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Democrats who may stop at nothing to deny President Trump his prerogative of nominating a replacement Justice to the Court. Regardless of the nominee, expect terms and phrases such as “out of the main stream,” “extreme,” “will set back civil rights,” “will set back women’s rights,” “will set back LGBT rights,” and similar predictable allegations. Democrats continue to call “foul” the fact that when Justice Scalia died in 2016, President Obama nominated liberal Merrick Garland as his replacement. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that the Senate should wait until a new President was in place before any replacement nominee would be voted on. Since Republicans held the majority in the Senate, Democrats were powerless to bring Garland to a floor vote. Thus, when Trump was elected, McConnell’s move proved to be genius for conservatives.

Finally, from the purported short list of nominees (Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge) I find all three as ideologically conservative, and expect that each is an originalist/textualist in the style of Justice Scalia who would interpret the Constitution rather than make law based on what they “feel” “ought to be.”