Tag Archives: Jesus

Difficult Bible Passages

What Does The Parable of the Minas Mean?

59 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Jesus frequently used parables to teach his disciples important concepts about the kingdom of God.  We, as Christians 2,000 years removed, often have difficulty interpreting the meaning of these parables.  Fortunately, with some effort we can recover the major thrusts.

The Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27) is spoken by Jesus just before he enters Jerusalem for the last time.  There are five major characters.  The characters are: (1) the man of noble birth, (2) the subjects who hated him, (3) the servant who earned ten minas, (4) the servant who earned five minas, and (5) the servant who earned nothing.

Each of these plays an important role.  The man of noble birth is clearly meant to be Jesus, himself.  He is to receive a kingdom and then return.  The subjects who hated the man of noble birth represent the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and especially the religious leaders.  The servant who earns ten minas and the servant who earns five minas both represent exemplary disciples of Jesus.  The servant who earns nothing represents an unfruitful disciple of Jesus.

With the characters identified, we can piece together the meaning of the narrative.

A man of noble birth (Jesus) prepares to travel to a distant country and receive his kingdom (the kingdom of God).  Before he leaves, he gives a single mina (responsibilities, abilities, opportunities, gospel message) to each of his servants (disciples) and instructs them to put the money to work (be fruitful with what Jesus has given them).  A delegation of subjects who hate the man of noble birth (unbelieving Jews) protest his reception of the kingdom.

Upon the man’s return (Jesus’ second coming at the consummation of the kingdom of God) he finds two servants (disciples) who invested (used their God-given abilities and opportunities) wisely.  To these, he gives cities (heavenly rewards).  The servant (disciple) who does not invest the mina (use the abilities or fulfill the responsibilities Jesus gave him) is reprimanded and has his mina taken from him and given to the servant (disciple) who earned ten minas.  Finally, the subjects (unbelieving Jews) who hated the man of noble birth (Jesus) are executed (judged) for their rejection of the king (Jesus).

There seem to be at least five major points that the parable communicates.  First, Jesus will leave his disciples for an undetermined amount of time.  Second, Jesus will return to consummate his kingdom some time in the future.  Third, disciples of Jesus who are good stewards in his absence will receive incredible rewards from him upon his return.  Fourth, disciples of Jesus who are poor stewards in his absence will have their rewards taken away and given to the disciples who are good stewards.  Fifth, those who reject Jesus as the rightful king will face a terrible judgment upon his return.

That’s my take on it, after studying it for a couple weeks and reading some good commentaries.  Anybody see something different?  What are some applications that we can take from this parable?

Cross, Jesus Christ

Did God Kill His Own Son?

23 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Often I hear non-Christians characterize the Christian God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross.  Jesus, they claim, was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the bizarre requirements of his sadistic father.  “I cannot,” they say, “worship a God that would kill his own son!”

The first few times I heard this complaint against God, my first reaction was disbelief at how twisted an interpretation of Christianity this was.  But then I thought, “How would I answer this charge against God?”

The answer is simple.  Jesus was not forced to die by his father.  He willingly laid down his life in the supreme act of sacrifice for mankind.  How do I know this?  Well, I read the Bible, unlike those that level this charge.

The Gospel of John provides the answer in John 10:11-18:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.  The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.  I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me — just as the Father knows me and I know the Father — and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.  The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Sadistic God killing his son?  Not even close.  As the Good Shepherd, Jesus lays down his own life for his sheep.  A greater sacrifice has never been known.

Difficult Bible Passages

Can a Person Be Saved After He Dies?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are two difficult passages in 1 Peter  (3:19 and 4:6) that seem to indicate that this may be possible.  I have read a number of interpretations of these verses, but there seems to be no consensus.  However, almost every commentator I read agrees that these verses are not teaching that salvation after death is possible.  Below are some extended quotations from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s text on Bible difficulties:

With regard to 1 Pet. 3:19,

The Bible is clear that there is no second chance after death (cf. Heb. 9:27). The Book of Revelation records the Great White Throne Judgment in which those who are not found in the book of life are sent to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15). Luke informs us that, once a person dies, he goes either to heaven (Abraham’s bosom) or to hell and that there is a great gulf fixed “so that those who want to pass” from one to the other cannot (Luke 16:26). The whole urgency of responding to God in this life before we die gives further support to the fact that there is no hope beyond the grave (cf. John 3:36; 5:24).

There are other ways to understand this passage, without involving a second-chance at salvation after death. Some claim that it is not clear that the phrase “spirits in prison” even refers to human beings, arguing that nowhere else is such a phrase used of human beings in hell. They claim these spirits are fallen angels, since the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20; cf. Gen. 6:1–4). Peter may be referring to this in 2 Peter 2:4, where he mentions the angels sinning immediately before he refers to the Flood (v. 5). In response, it is argued that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30), and they certainly could not intermarry with human beings, since angels, being spirits, have no reproductive organs.

Another interpretation is that this refers to Christ’s announcement to departed spirits of the triumph of His resurrection, declaring to them the victory He had achieved by His death and resurrection, as pointed out in the previous verse (see 1 Peter 3:18). Some suggest that Jesus offered no hope of salvation to these “spirits in prison.” They point to the fact that the text does not say Christ evangelized them, but simply that He proclaimed the victory of His resurrection to them. They insist that there is nothing stated in this passage about preaching the Gospel to people in hell. In response to this view, others note that in the very next chapter Peter, apparently extending this subject, does say “the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (see comments on 1 Peter 4:6). This view fits the context here, is in accord with the teaching of other verses (cf. Eph. 4:8; Col. 2:15), and avoids the major problems of the other view.

With regard to 1 Pet. 4:6,

It should be noted, first, that there is no hope held out anywhere in Scripture for salvation after death. Death is final, and there are only two destinies—heaven and hell, between which there is a great gulf that no one can pass over (see comments on 1 Peter 3:19). So, whatever preaching to the “dead” may mean, it does not imply that one can be saved after he dies.

Second, this is an unclear passage, subject to many interpretations, and no doctrine should be based on an ambiguous passage like this. The difficult texts should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones and not the reverse.

Third, there are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of 1 Peter 3:19 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4 and Gen. 6:2). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (1 Peter 4:6), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. 1 Peter 3:18).

I would echo what Geisler and Howe say.  Difficult texts should be interpreted in light of plain texts.  As modern interpreters, we have lost the precise meaning of these two verses, so they are quite difficult to nail down.  Having said that, it would be a huge mistake to hold out hope for a second chance after death, based on these two verses.

Bible Interpretation, Morality

Should Christians Judge?

30 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I was recently reading a newspaper article my wife showed me, and it reminded me of a Metallica song called “Holier Than Thou.”  In that song, the singer repeats a refrain, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.”  That phrase, I’ve come to realize, is an anthem that our culture cries at every opportunity.

The article that prompted this recollection from the cobwebs of my mind was about a controversial vote within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on whether to allow gays to serve as ministers and elders.  One gentleman, who supports the amendment, said the following: “We do not as individual Christians and Presbyterians need to pass judgment on others.  That’s not our responsibility.”  In other words, Christians are not to make judgments about other people’s moral behavior, and especially sexual behavior.  The business of pointing to a person’s immoral actions is strictly forbidden.

Now, the reason my wife likes to show me articles like this is because she knows how I will react – not well.  This matter of Christians not judging comes up again and again, but nobody ever seems to learn.  So, here is my feeble attempt at straightening this out.

The source, for most people,  of the idea that Christians should not judge comes from Matt. 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”  If you read this single verse on its own, you may very well come to the conclusion that Jesus is telling people not to judge, but then comes the small matter of context.  It turns out that sentences in the Bible, like every other written document ever produced, need to be read in context.  We need to know what the surrounding verses say in order to understand this verse.

If you continue to read Matthew 7, through verse 5, you will see what Jesus is talking about.  In verse 5, Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”  Here is the key to what Jesus means.  He is speaking out against hypocritical and self-righteous judgments.  He is not telling us to never judge; he is telling us how to judge rightly.

In fact, it would be extremely strange for Jesus to tell us to never judge in Matt. 7:1 when just a few verses later, in verse 6, he tells Christians to beware “dogs” and “pigs” so that we don’t waste time giving them knowledge of God.  The only way you can detect a metaphorical “dog” or “pig” is to judge other people’s actions!  There are, in fact, many more verses in the New Testament that exhort believers to judge other people  (e.g., Matt. 7:15-16; John 7:24; 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Phil. 3:2; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21).

To say that Jesus teaches us not to judge other people’s actions is obviously and plainly wrong.  But how should Christians judge?  Here are some biblical guidelines.  One should judge:

  1. Consistently, not hypocritically
  2. With Humility, not superiority
  3. With Facts, not assumptions
  4. Words and Deeds, not motive and intent
  5. Biblical Issues, not personal preferences
  6. Sins, not sinners
  7. Temporal Matters, not eternal matters (salvation)
  8. With a Goal to Show People Christ, not how good you are

Easier said than done, but that’s what our Lord commands.  Rather than making the extreme claim that we should never judge, Christians need to figure out how to do it correctly.  With God’s help, it can be done!

General Apologetics, Resurrection

Thoughts on Ehrman/Licona Debate – Part 2

9 Comments

So what about their arguments?  Were they effective?  First let’s examine Mike Licona.

Licona has argued this historical approach for proving the resurrection in a book entitled The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, co-authored with Gary Habermas.  The approach is fairly straight-forward and effective at making a historical case for the resurrection.  Licona, along with Habermas, has clearly done a significant amount of research on the topic, and his claims about the historical facts about Jesus were not at all disputed by Ehrman.

The problem with his approach, however, is that it will always remain unconvincing to any person who does not believe that the God of the Bible exists.  To the person who is a serious skeptic of the existence of God, any explanation will be better than Jesus rising from the dead.  The skeptic has to at least be open to the existence of God, or Licona’s argument will fall on deaf ears.  This is exactly what happened in the debate.

This is a general weakness of historical apologetics.  Worldview and philosophical presuppositions will often prevent the argument from winning over skeptics, which leads us to Ehrman’s case.

Ehrman disputed Licona’s historical argument on the grounds that historians must always reject an explanation that includes the supernatural.  The problem with Ehrman’s claim is that he rejects the possibility of a miracle ever occurring without ever examining the evidence.  Ehrman will tell you that a historian can never show you that Jesus rose from the dead.  But isn’t this a classic example of begging the question?

A person begs the question when they assume what is trying to be proven.  The question before Ehrman is whether historians can prove that Jesus rose from the dead.  He is to give evidential reasons as to why they cannot.  But his response to the question is, in effect: “Since historians can never prove whether the resurrection occurred (because it is miraculous), well then the resurrection can’t be proven by historians.”  Ehrman fails to consider any evidence, and basically rules out the possibility of proving any miraculous event from the start.

There is another problem with Ehrman’s argumentation.  He spent considerable time denigrating the historical reliability of the gospels, claiming they were written by partisan Christians who were trying to convert people.  He also claimed that the oral and written traditions of the early Christians were purposefully changed many times in order to better reach their audiences.  In other words, the writers of the gospels felt free to deceive people to win them over.

In addition, Ehrman cited numerous alleged examples of discrepancies and contradictions among the gospels.  He documents all of these in his books.

Ehrman, while explaining the alleged late dates of the gospels, also mentioned that he believes Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark and from each  other.  This is the standard position that many New Testament scholars hold.

What occurred to me while listening to Ehrman is that these positions he is holding do not make sense, when taken all together.  If the writers of the gospels were writing their material to gain converts, and they were copying each other, then why in the world did they make so many mistakes?  Ehrman claims to have found numerous discrepancies and contradictions that are supposed to undermine the accuracy of the gospels, but why are these discrepancies there?

Were the gospel writers so idiotic that they each changed the previous Jesus narratives, knowing they were contradicting previous oral and written testimonies?  Did they think nobody would notice?  By this theory, the writers of the gospels were not only liars, they also were ridiculously stupid and careless.

But it gets even worse.  The church fathers started compiling the four gospels in the second century and left all of the alleged errors in there!  By Ehrman’s logic, they also knew of these issues, they also were hoping to gain converts, and they also were willing to change history to succeed.  Why not change the gospels and clean them up?  If you are Ehrman, you have to believe that the gospel writers and church fathers were all deceptive and all stone dumb.  They were unable to get their stories straight, and in the end just left a big mess for enlightened scholars like Ehrman to clean up.  This theory strains credulity, does it not?

Isn’t a better explanation that the gospel writers wrote the accounts of Jesus from different perspectives, shared their accounts with each other to ensure accuracy, and strove to retain the historical truth?  Almost all of the alleged discrepancies can be readily explained, after all, by realizing that the gospel writers were recording history with different perspectives and different goals in mind.  And maybe the church fathers refused to change anything because the church community had always accepted these writings as authentic and accurate, and maybe, just maybe, they are.

Resurrection

Thoughts on Ehrman/Licona Debate – Part 1

9 Comments

Last night, Darrell and I attended the debate between Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona at SES in Charlotte.  They debated whether historians can prove Jesus rose from the dead.  Here is my summary of the arguments that each of them presented.

Licona opened the debate with a historical argument that goes like this.  First, he argued, virtually all historians (close to 100%) agree on three key facts about Jesus:

  1. He died by crucifixion.
  2. His disciples believed they saw Jesus appear several times after he died.
  3. The apostle Paul believed he saw Jesus appear after he died.

Then, Licona explained that the historian’s job was to figure out the best explanation of these three facts.  There are four criteria that the professional historian should use to judge possible explanations of the facts:

  1. explanatory scope
  2. explanatory power
  3. plausibility
  4. less ad hoc

According to Licona, the explanation that Jesus actually rose from the dead meets all four criteria whereas all other explanations offered by skeptics fails to meet the above criteria (Licona spent a lot of time evaluating the idea that the disciples plus Paul hallucinated Jesus’ appearances).  Therefore, historians can “prove” that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Ehrman opened his case by making two key arguments.  First, he spent several minutes arguing that the four gospels are of poor historical value.  He showed this by claiming they were written late, they weren’t written by eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and death, and they are full of contradictions and discrepancies.

Second, he argued that it is impossible for historians to ever prove a miracle occurred.  Why?  Because the job of the historian is to find out what most probably happened in the past.  But, he argued, since a miracle, by definition, is always the least probable explanation of a historical group of facts, then a historian can never conclude that a miracle indeed occurred.  In other words, no matter what the evidence suggests, Ehrman claimed that a historian would always be wrong to accept a miracle as the explanation because miracles are the least possible explanation, and historians only deal with probability.

Interestingly, Ehrman did fully accept Licona’s three facts about Jesus as historically true.  He just didn’t accept the explanation of Jesus rising from the dead to explain those facts.  His favorite explanation seemed to be hallucinations, so the two debaters spent a lot time discussing hallucinations.

Next post, I will share my thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of each man’s arguments.

Salvation

Does the Bible Teach That There Are Many Ways to Eternal Life?

2 Comments

I have written on this topic before, but it deserves more ink.  Sometimes another person says something so well, that I just need to get out of the way and direct our readers to them.  Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, does a fantastic job addressing several aspects of this question in a recent publication.  It’s a few pages long, but I plead with you to read it, as there is a lot of truth packed into it.

Bottom line:  The New Testament only teaches that Jesus is the path to salvation.  That alone should drive our evangelism.  There may be other ways to heaven, but the Bible doesn’t go there.  Instead of guessing what might be, let’s go with what we know.

If you care to, let me know what you think of what Koukl says.

New Testament Reliability

Did the New Testament Writers Record Fact or Fiction? Part 1

15 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In two previous posts, Darrell argued that the Greek New Testament (NT) that we have today is almost identical to the twenty-seven books that were originally written.  These two posts can be found here and here.  In this post and following posts, I want to establish an answer to the obvious next question.  If the NT we have today is almost identical to the one originally written, that’s nice, but how do we know that what was written originally wasn’t a bunch of lies?

In other words, did the NT authors record fact or fiction?  Were they trying to record real history or were they making up a story to convince people to follow them?  Maybe what was written was so far removed from the real events that myth and legend overtook the truth.  In order to get an answer to this question, we will use some of the same criteria that historians employ to determine whether a document is reliable – whether the authors can be trusted.

The first thing we want to know about a historical document is how close to the events it was written.  The NT authors were primarily writing about the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, who died around the year A.D. 33 (this fact is well-attested by ancient non-Christian historians).  If we are to trust the accounts written about his life, then the closer the documents are to A.D. 33, the better we can trust them.

So dating the original NT books is extremely important.  Note that we are talking about dating the original writings, not the manuscript copies that exist today.  Even though we don’t have the originals, we can still use historical analysis to deduce roughly when they were written.

One additional reason that dating the books is important is due to the nature of legendary development.  We’re all probably familiar with the way legends can develop about an event, given enough time.  In fact, history is full of strange and outrageous stories of Jesus or the apostles doing bizarre things (e.g., Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having a child).  The one thing these legends have in common is that they developed many generations and often hundreds of years removed from the time Jesus and the apostles lived.

For clarification, we are not talking about the development of lies or fabrications about an historical event, but the development of legend, which is defined as the outgrowth of a period of oral transmission of a tradition until the original facts have been lost.

In fact, historians have shown that it takes a minimum of three generations for legend to substantially corrupt core historical facts about an event.  Usually, more than 3 generations are required, but there are no examples of legend significantly crowding out truth in 1 or 2 generations.

Why is this?  As long as the eyewitnesses of an event are still alive, or their children, they will correct any legend that taints the true story.  When the eyewitnesses and their children start to die, there are fewer people left to correct falsehood, so legend can creep in.  This fact about history will prove useful in assessing the NT.

Next post, we will continue looking at this important question.

Essential Beliefs, Mormonism, Theology, Trinity

Is the Trinity Biblical?

17 Comments

Many non-Christian groups who accept some form of the New Testament – Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses – claim that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is false.  One of the arguments often used is that the concept of the Trinity cannot be found in Scripture, so the doctrine cannot be true.

This argument, however, will not fly.  The argument for the tri-unity of God is straightforward and well grounded in the biblical text.

The first premise of the argument is that God is one.  We know this from verses like Deut. 6:4 and 1 Cor. 8:4.

The second premise is that three persons – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – are all called God.

Concerning the Father, we read verses such as John 6:27 and Rom. 1:7.

Concerning the Son, we read a verse such as John 8:58, where Jesus uses an Old Testament name of God, “I am,” to refer to Himself.  We also read of instances where Jesus does things that only God would do, such as forgiving someone’s sins in Mark 2:5-7.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, we read a verse like Acts 5:3-4, where the Holy Spirit is called God.

Therefore, if the Bible teaches that God is one (and it does) and the Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God (and it does), then the doctrine of the Trinity is established.  There are three persons in one God.  This is what Christians affirm and non-Christians deny.

Now I have to quickly state that there are far more verses than the ones I mentioned above that establish the doctrine of the Trinity.  I am only providing a tiny sampling in order to refute the claim that the Trinity is not based on the Bible.  It is biblical, but please don’t think that my evidence above is exhaustive.  If you want to dig deeper, then this study of the Trinity should more than satisfy you.

Religion, Salvation

Poll Says American Christians Don't Believe Jesus is the Only Way

28 Comments

My response to this article might surprise some of you.

The article discusses a recent report which indicates that 37% of evangelicals rejected the claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven.  52% of American Christians agreed that religions other than Christianity can lead to eternal life.  But what does this data mean?  Should we moan and groan that Christians don’t understand the teachings of their own faith?  Maybe, but I think there’s another side to the story.

There is no doubt, from the Bible, that absolutely nobody gets to heaven without Christ’s death and resurrection, both of which were necessary to reconcile man with God.  The tougher question is this:  how is Christ’s sacrifice applied to people who never hear the gospel?

I, for one, do not like this line of questioning in a survey or poll because it puts the Christian in an awkward position.  The requirement that every person, whether they’ve heard the gospel or not, put their faith in Christ is a nuanced issue that requires some explanation and does not lend itself to multiple choice answers.  It’s like being asked to describe God in five words or less.  It can’t be done!

The truth is that we aren’t given specific knowledge of which other individuals are going to heaven and which aren’t because we don’t know other people’s hearts and minds.  God doesn’t tell us.  Many Christians act as if we do know, but we just don’t.

The New Testament teaches us that we should believe in Jesus for eternal life, and it says this over and over and over again (read the book of John if you don’t believe me).  So we have this positive command, to believe in Jesus, and it is a clear and plain teaching that the biblical authors wanted to make sure we understood.  Another clear teaching is that those who have heard of Christ and rejected Him are in eternal jeopardy.  We can be sure of these truths.

The New Testament, on the other hand, does not spend a lot of time talking about followers of other world religions who have never heard  of the authentic biblical Jesus.   Theologians have tried to explain what happens to those who never hear, but none of these proposals warrant dogmatism because of the scant biblical evidence.

I know that God wants people to believe in Christ.  I know that those who reject Christ will be separated from God.  The Bible teaches those things clearly, but I don’t know, for sure, what happens when a person is unable to hear or respond to the gospel of Christ.

I believe that many Christians know John 14:6 and they know Romans 10:9, but some pollster calls them and puts them on the spot: “Is Jesus the only way to heaven?”  Polls don’t allow for nuanced answers.  They demand black and white answers, and frankly, I can sympathize with those being asked this difficult question, most of whom are not theologians who study this issue every day.

A much better question to put to Christians would be: “Does the Bible teach that believing in Jesus leads to eternal life?”  I think the vast majority of Christians would answer “yes.”

A follow-up question could be: “Should Christians tell others about Jesus so that they, too, can have eternal life?”  Again, I think a great percentage would say “yes.”

Let’s focus on what we know.