Author Archives: Steven Anderson

JETS: An evangelical Christian seminary in the Arab world

03 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

I have spent the past two weeks in Amman, Jordan as a visiting professor at Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary (JETS). This was the third time I have traveled to Jordan to teach an intensive summer Bible course, and I plan to return. While the Arab world is generally portrayed in Western media as the domain of Islamic extremists, there is a Christian minority in most Arab countries. Within this Christian minority is an increasing number of evangelical Arab Christians. Arab evangelical Christians are some of the most gracious and hospitable people you will ever meet—a far cry from the radical Islamists who dominate news coverage of the Middle East.

Religious freedom for Arab Christians varies greatly from country to country; Jordan is one of the countries that grants greater freedom to Christians, and it contains a significant evangelical Christian minority. Jordan is also the most politically stable of the Arab countries with significant evangelical populations, which makes it an ideal location for a seminary to serve evangelical churches throughout the Arab world. While Christianity is legal in Jordan, evangelical Christians still face discrimination and harassment from individuals who are hostile to evangelical Christianity. Jordanian churches and Christian schools need prayer as they operate within a culture in which many are adverse to their presence.

Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary was founded in 1991, and was officially registered by the Jordanian government in 1995. Its mission is to train evangelical Arab Christians for church ministry in the Arab world. The school includes students from many different Arab countries. After many years of planning and a frustrating series of roadblocks, JETS finally moved its operations from rented space to its own new campus in 2013. Although prayer is the seminary’s greatest need, the school also has financial needs and relies on donors from the United States to fund its operations. One pressing financial need is for the completion of the new campus, which will reduce the seminary’s expenses by eliminating the need to purchase off-campus housing for the students and will also contain facilities to generate revenue for the school. The new campus is on a beautiful piece of property (see pictures below), and the architecture of the campus is outstanding; however, it is only partially finished. When fully constructed, the campus will include Christian television studios, a Christian conference center, a gym, an outdoor amphitheater, and student and faculty housing. Essentially, the JETS campus is intended as a central gathering point for all the evangelical churches of Jordan. The entire campus could be completed for less than the cost of a single large building on an American college campus. Donations are tax deductible in the United States (see http://www.jets.edu or http://www.jetseminary.net).

Other ways to support the ministry of JETS include adopting a student’s financial needs or supporting Western faculty. Please share this information with anyone who may be looking for a way to support evangelical Christians in the Middle East during a period when the Arab church is under unusual pressure due to wars and political tensions in the region.

Prayer tower at JETS

Prayer tower at JETS

Class photo

Class photo

Unfinished building on JETS campus

Unfinished building on JETS campus

Finished building on JETS campus

Finished building on JETS campus

JETS logo

JETS logo

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

3 John 2 and the Prosperity Gospel

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Bible, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

Most contemporary Christians have heard of the prosperity gospel (a.k.a. the “health and wealth” gospel. Many popular “televangelists” are proponents of the prosperity gospel, which claims that if you give your life to Jesus, God has promised to make you financially wealthy and physically healthy. This is a message that people want to hear, so the popularity of prosperity theology is not surprising. Prosperity preachers strongly emphasize that Christians must give their money to that preacher’s ministry in order to experience God’s financial blessing. Most proponents of the prosperity gospel are associated with the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and/or Word of Faith movements.

Baptistic Christians, including myself, widely agree that the prosperity gospel turns the true gospel on its head, since the New Testament promises persecution and suffering for Christ in this life, with no promise of physical prosperity until after this life is over (Acts 14:22; Rom 8:18; Phil 3:10-11; 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet 4:13; 5:1). But rather than analyzing verses which contravene prosperity theology, in this article I would like to analyze the verse which was originally claimed as the exegetical basis for prosperity theology. This verse is one that is under the radar of most Christians, since it occurs in the shortest book of the New Testament, 3 John.

Beloved, I pray that in all things thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. – 3 John 2

Back in 1947, Oral Roberts was a poor thirty-year-old pastor of a church in Enid, Oklahoma who was dissatisfied with his salary, and discontent with his poverty and namelessness. If we are to believe Oral and his wife Evelyn, it was reading this verse at random one day, and seeing it in an entirely new light from the midst of spiritual and emotional trauma, that marked the turning point in Oral Roberts’ ministry. (See David Edwin Harrel Jr., Oral Roberts: An American Life [Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985], 65-66.) From here on out, Oral would preach that God wanted all Christians—himself included—to be financially prosperous and physically healthy. As Oral developed the prosperity gospel, it quickly displaced the genuine gospel message in his preaching and writing, to the point where the real gospel was completely silenced (if, indeed, Oral ever did preach the real gospel). Rather than preaching the message that genuine disciples of Jesus must renounce the things of this world and endure persecution, Oral preached that genuine Christians would be healthy and wealthy, and that people should come to Jesus in order to become physically prosperous. As Oral and his preaching became famous, many other preachers followed in Oral’s footsteps, and created the various forms of prosperity theology that exist today. The original claimed biblical basis for the prosperity gospel was 3 John 2. (For more on how this verse has been used in the charismatic movement, see Heather L. Landrus, “Hearing 3 John 2 in the Voices of History,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11.1 [2002]: 70-88; Mark E. Roberts, “A Hermeneutic of Charity: Response to Heather Landrus,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11.1 [2002]: 89-97.)

Third John 2 is seemingly as ordinary a verse as any in the Bible. Commentators widely recognize it as a stereotypical greeting for a letter of the period, though surely the greeting was a heartfelt prayer when uttered by the apostle John. John, who was facing great opposition from false teachers, wished peace and prosperity for faithful Gaius, to whom he addressed this letter. There is one specifically Christian element to the greeting, which is the address “Beloved.” But a standard feature of letters from the Koine period is the writer’s inclusion of a wish of good health for the addressee in the greeting (see Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 30 [New York: Doubleday, 1982], 788-90).

The most important exegetical feature of 3 John 2 to note with regard to the prosperity gospel is that John’s prayer for Gaius’ good health is just that—a prayer by a man, not a promise from God. The Bible repeatedly promises temporal suffering and persecution for following Jesus, with physical prosperity only promised in the life to come. We do not pray that persecution would befall us or other believers—in fact, we pray to be delivered from troubles—but we do expect that problems will come.

It is ironic, though not atypical, that such a common, ordinary verse as this one was misused to create a whole heterodox theological system which contravenes so much of the clear teaching of the New Testament. This single verse, lifted from its historical and biblical context, was assigned a novel and foreign meaning through the imagination of a young preacher who coveted fame and fortune. It is a lesson for all of us to handle the Word of God with great care, and to resist the common temptation to spiritualize a biblical text in order to give it the meaning that we desire to preach.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Remarks on the Book of Proverbs

28 Tuesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Bible

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The following introductory remarks on the book of Proverbs are from volume 3 of my Interpretive Guide to the Bible. April 2024 update: this book is now available in a new edition: English hard copy; English pdf; Spanish hard copy; Spanish pdf (Proverbs only).

Although the entire Bible is a book of wisdom, Proverbs is the one book of the Bible whose central subject is wisdom. “A variety of terms, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, discretion, subtlety, are indeed employed, to set forth under different aspects the nature of the instruction to be given; but the one comprehensive word which includes them all is Wisdom” (T. T. Perowne, The Proverbs: With Introduction and Notes [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge, 1899], 9). The Hebrew word חָכְמָה (wisdom) has been defined in various ways by Christian commentators, but is not expressly defined in Scripture, except by the numerous parallel concepts which it encompasses, and by the things which characterize it. Wisdom encompasses many concepts and many applications to specific situations, which makes learning it a lifelong process; it involves one’s total way of thinking and worldview.

For Solomon, wisdom is inseparably linked to the practice of true religion and the worship of the living God. The stated theme of the book in the prologue is that the fear of Yahweh (i.e., the belief in and proper devotion to God) is the starting point of the quest for wisdom, and the condition which necessarily accompanies its acquisition (1:7). This same principle is reaffirmed in the exhortation to the son to obtain wisdom (2:5-6), in the final call of wisdom at the end of the address to the son (9:10), and at the end of the book’s capstone, as a summary of the worthy woman’s character (31:30). Solomon makes no apology for linking his religion so explicitly to his practical instruction, and in fact asserts that any attempt to describe wise principles apart from deep personal piety toward the living God would be the height of folly. Religious themes are profuse throughout the book of Proverbs. Solomon exhorts his hearers to weave true religion into the fabric of everyday life in order to be wise, righteous, and blessed. The name יהוה (Yahweh) occurs some eighty-seven times in the book, including multiple instances in most chapters. Yahweh must be the central reality in the wise man’s worldview. Many of the proverbs simply mention Yahweh’s relation to man, with the assumption that the reader knows Yahweh and believes His Word. An entire paragraph in the address to the son exhorts him to serve and honor Yahweh (3:1-12), as do many individual proverbs. The proof of wisdom’s worth is Yahweh’s use of wisdom from before historical time began to bring the world into being (8:22-31). In the capstone of the book, the great sage Agur opens his speech with a statement of his commitment to fidelity to God and His Word (30:1b-9). While it would not be possible to mention Yahweh explicitly in every single proverb, fear of God is specifically stated to be the key to wisdom, and various aspects of God’s relationship to man are spoken of frequently throughout the book. Solomon’s absolute refusal to acknowledge the possibility of wisdom apart from fidelity to the one true God sets his wisdom apart from all other so-called “wisdom” of the ancient world. It also explains why the wise men of this world do not regard Solomon’s writings as special, or even as worth reading—in spite of the fact that Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived (so 1 Kgs 3:12; 4:31; 10:23; 2 Chr 1:12). Since one cannot understand wisdom without an accurate knowledge of God and of His Word and a personal relationship with Him, the unsaved cannot recognize Solomon’s wisdom for what it is.

The “wisdom literature” of ancient pagan cultures, by contrast, is really not wise. Much of it is self-serving, telling you how to get what you want in life; it is superstitious; it is polytheistic; it often attributes the bad things in life to demons; it calls on the influence of magic; and it is involved with cultic sensuality. Likewise, the intellectualism of the twenty-first century world is not true wisdom, for it is clear that the more the world develops technology the more it uses this technology to push back the limits of depravity, so that man is now in the process of destroying himself through his own devices. The world is more broken, unstable, and confused than ever before, and yet it continues to insist that one must separate his Christian religious devotion from his studies in order to obtain objective truth—a philosophy which the book of Proverbs asserts is guaranteed to produce folly.

Much of Solomon’s wisdom was developed simply by careful reflection on things which he saw and experienced (cf. Prov 16:23; 24:30-34). One who thoughtfully analyzes everything that happens and learns from it will become wise over time, even with limited experiences, for it is possible, through keen observation, to garner momentous lessons from seemingly insignificant experiences. When Solomon saw the most ordinary things in life, he pondered them deeply, and they became metaphors and object lessons: “This is like that” (cf. Prov 11:22; 17:12; 19:13; 21:9, 19; 25:19; 26:17, etc.). Solomon did not have to see everything to learn about everything, nor did he need to read handbooks and manuals. When he saw ants in his courtyard, he learned a profound lesson about hard work (Prov 6:6-11), and a walk past an overgrown vineyard produced the same effect (Prov 24:30-34).

In Solomon’s case, one would suppose that his life experiences must have been very limited, and far removed from the hard realities of human existence. He was born and raised in a king’s palace, and simply inherited an empire that had been won for him by his father. Throughout his long and peaceful reign, he possessed more wealth and power than anyone else on earth. Yet his writings are firmly connected to reality, and are imbued with a strong sense of the hardships and injustices of life. If it were not for the biographical information recorded about the author, the reader of Proverbs might think the book was composed by a poor man who had suffered much in life. The vastness of Solomon’s understanding of life apparently grew out of his rather limited window on the world as prince and king. He was able to learn from every experience, and to extrapolate much concerning the ways of people and the nature of life. Solomon’s example proves that one ultimately does not have to experience or read everything to be wise, but only needs to reflect on the things he does see and experience. That said, broad and varied experiences are usually eye-openers, and wise men tend to be experience-gatherers.

So, do you want to be wise? Then carefully observe ordinary life and deeply ponder it, rather than living by event and instinct like everyone else. Of course, gaining wisdom is a lifelong process, and the one who properly seeks wisdom will become wiser and more mature as he grows older.

The proverbs express timeless, universal truth, and are as relevant today in the Western world as they were in ancient Israel. In a world where technological changes are continually rendering obsolete skills that were once highly valued, wisdom is a timeless skill that gives those who have it an advantage in all of life’s situations. The best way to train children for the unpredictable changes in our world is to teach them wisdom. The proverbs are practical truths, about the nuts and bolts of how to live life, and yet are philosophical at the same time. In a world in which knowledge has been replaced by technology, smart people are ridiculed as “geeks,” and the Bible is despised, the church needs more than ever to exalt wisdom.

The book of Proverbs eschews debate as a means of arriving at truth. The proverbs in the book do not so much argue for truth as present it and allow it to commend itself to the man who has a heart of wisdom.

Some of the proverbs are not prescriptive (Do this!), but observational (This is the way things are—cf. 10:15; 21:9; 27:8, 14). The intent of the observational (descriptive) proverbs is to move the reader to act in light of the observations noted, or just to improve the reader’s understanding of life. Many of the insights and observations are seemingly obvious ones, yet very often, if we do not read or hear the obvious, we do not think about it on our own, and ultimately we do not apply common sense in our daily decisions. A man who studies the Proverbs is likely to have the right sayings come to mind at critical moments as he goes about his daily business.

Many of the proverbs are statements of general regularities and not hard-and-fast rules, though some are. However, this is no different than commands and observations in the rest of Scripture. When Peter says, “Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet 2:13), it is understood that this is a generally applicable rule. It would be unnecessarily pedantic for Peter to write, “Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, except if the king tells you to worship an idol, in which case you have an obligation to obey God rather than man.” Common sense is needed when interpreting the Bible. There is no need to make the simple complex by introducing theories about genre, or by claiming that the exceptions negate the literal meaning of the text.

Proverbs is frequently quoted by the NT writers, “who considered it as a treasure of revealed morality, whence Christians were to derive their rules of conduct” (Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures [9th ed.; London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1846], 4:119). Thus, the whole of this book is applicable to believers today; it was not just for the dispensation of the Law. Proverbs does contain a theme of temporal reward for right living—if you live wisely, you will be blessed, whereas if you live foolishly, you will suffer for it—but so does the NT (cf. 1 Pet 3:10-17). There were exceptions both then and now (cf. Psalm 73), but in the end it is better for the righteous (cf. Eccl 8:12-13).

Proverbs is a vital book to understand, because without wisdom it is impossible to live a life that is pleasing to God or that is successful in the true sense of that term. Proverbs is a book that fathers ought to teach their sons from an early age to start them down the right path in life (cf. 4:1-9). It is a book that pastors should teach their congregations, and it is a book that laymen should study on their own. It is a book that ought to be a focus of academic study by Christian scholars who write to a specifically Christian audience with the aim of edifying the church (as opposed to those who write to a general academic audience, with an aim to participate in the mainstream academic discussion that is dominated by critical scholars). It is vital for the man of God to master the art of living. He must understand and apply common sense; he must learn how to handle the practical, ordinary issues of life. Many ministers and laymen alike have been ruined through a lack of practical wisdom.

It is ironic that the three books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, which preserve the greatest words of wisdom from the wisest man who ever lived—words which were also inspired by God’s Holy Spirit—are not recognized by secular scholars as being special in any way. They think that the wisdom of these books is mostly borrowed from or similar to the wisdom of the surrounding pagan cultures, and that Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs were compiled or edited by Hebrew scribes long after the time of Solomon—whose very existence most deny. Even many conservative evangelical Bible scholars and pastors deny the basic message of Ecclesiastes, despite its special place as the summary statement and culmination of all of Solomon’s thought. The men who have the reputation for being the wisest in this age cannot recognize true wisdom when it is waved before their eyes, because it is a wisdom from above which is not understood by the natural man, nor apprehended by culturally-conditioned ways of thinking (cf. 1 Cor 2). The queen of Sheba came from the ends of the earth to hear this wisdom, whereas modern man, who has free access to it, has no appreciation for it. It is not unlikely, based on Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31, that the queen of Sheba will stand up at the final judgment and condemn those who have brushed aside Solomon’s wisdom.

Churches today have a huge number of programs for helping people with their marriages, with their finances, with addictions, and with any other problems they may be facing in life. Yet no church that I know of has a program to encourage its people to pursue wisdom. There are no “wisdom retreats,” “wisdom seminars,” or “wisdom fellowships.” Pastors do not passionately call their congregations to make the search for wisdom the great priority of their lives, nor do they preach sermon series in which they work desperately to convince their people that wisdom is the most precious thing in life, the foremost thing they should be directing their time and energy to pursuing. Youth pastors do not challenge teenage boys to embark on the quest for wisdom in order to be successful and responsible adults. Yet it is a direct result of the depreciation of wisdom that there are so many other problems in the church, and that all of the programs that have been developed by the church have failed to mitigate these problems. If people understood the value of wisdom, they would give all that they had for it, yet wisdom is for the most part wholly neglected. People pursue money, relationships, and status instead. In fact, many of the church’s popular programs are essentially designed to make life manageable while continuing to live by event and instinct, without embarking on a great quest for wisdom. It is my prayer that the church will make its priorities the priorities of the book of Proverbs.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The Rationality of Faith

19 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by in Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The relationship between faith and reason has long been the subject of both philosophical debate and popular misunderstanding. When people today say “I believe it on faith,” what they often mean is that they do not have any reason to believe something. Society conditions us to think of faith as irrational or as having no basis. But not only is biblical faith rational, to not have faith is to be completely irrational. It is rational to trust someone who is competent and honest, and it is irrational to reject the testimony of a witness of high character.

The skeptic’s motto, “Question everything,” is self-contradictory and impossible to live by. It denies the certainty of all knowledge, but is itself a propositional statement, and therefore is self-contradictory and illogical. If one really believes the statement “Question everything,” his response will be to ask “Why should I?” Either he will come to the conclusion that he should not, and therefore that the motto is wrong, or else he will descend into a downward spiral of contradictions, doubts, and confusion. There must be some things, called properly basic beliefs, that we do not and should not question. These beliefs form the basis of other beliefs that we develop through experience and sensory evidence. The scientific method, for example, cannot be used to prove itself, and so acceptance of it must precede the discovery of anything that it is used to prove. One can compare basic beliefs to the definitions given in a dictionary. Each word in the dictionary is defined by means of other words, so that one must have a vocabulary of basic words before he can understand anything. There is nothing irrational or incorrect about our understanding of these words, but they are in fact something that can only be learned by some innate process. Not all basic beliefs are specifically religious in nature, but belief/trust in God, which is faith, is properly basic.

Having faith in God entails having faith in God’s Word, and therefore the Bible is the basis for all Christian belief and practice. Although the Bible does not make specific statements about every issue, it provides a solid foundation on which other beliefs can be based and by which other beliefs can be measured. A great many commonly held beliefs can easily be disproved by showing that they are in some way contradictory to the Bible. The Bible may not say anything in particular about the subject or premises of a particular theory, but very often the conclusions or implications of scholarly research are at odds with a biblical Christian worldview.

There is no conflict between faith and reason. Everything taught in the Bible is coherent and rational, and there are no contradictions. If someone says he holds some extrabiblical belief “by faith,” and this belief is incoherent or contradictory in some way, then it is not truly by faith that that person holds that belief—it is just irrationality.

People who come out of an Enlightenment or modern scientific background tend to struggle with the concept of faith. They are trained to exalt human reason above all else, and to seek verification through the scientific method as a prerequisite for belief. These things are so ingrained in their way of thinking that it never occurs to them to step back and consider that the scientific method cannot be used to verify itself, nor can it give absolute certainty. In fact, postmodern culture and academia have taken rationalism to its logical conclusion, and as a result have become relativists. Reason itself becomes circular without a foundation—namely, a foundation of faith in God and in His Word—and one is left with no ultimate standard for adjudicating among competing truth-claims. Faced with these competing truth-claims, the postmodernist becomes confused and frustrated, and simply follows the herd or believes what seems pragmatic, without being able to sort anything out in a satisfactory manner. Without any ultimate standard or basis for what they believe, postmodernists say that there is no absolute truth, although in fact they contradict themselves by stating this and many other things absolutely. Thus, relativism is really an expression of frustration with the unbeliever’s inability to make sense of the world apart from faith in God and His Word; it is anything but a reasoned conclusion which results from careful study. A relativist is, properly speaking, an irrationalist. Someone who knowingly accepts logical contradictions is irrational. Thus, the attempt to live by reason alone without faith is unreasonable.

The Bible is very clear that faith is a requirement for salvation (Eph 2:8; Heb 11:6). But because the modern scientific worldview says reason demands that everything must be proved, rather than trusted, there are many well-meaning apologists who seek to prove the Christian faith through science and reason. In some cases apologetic ministries supply helpful means for Christians to defend what they believe against critics. But some models of apologetics seek to do away with the need for faith by claiming that all Christian belief can be proved by rational argument. The problem with evidential arguments, such as Richard Swinburne’s, is that they deal only with probabilities. They can show that Christian doctrine is very likely to be true, but they cannot prove it indubitably. Faith is needed for absolute assurance because we cannot yet see everything we believe in (Heb 11:1). While Christian faith is reasonable, reason cannot by itself arrive at its tenants, for any process of human reasoning must begin with foundational, a priori, truths which are arrived at by faith. Both human reasoning and the scientific method are too limited to produce the bedrock truths of which saving faith consists. Of course, since Christianity is true, its truths can be demonstrated by scientific analysis of the evidence and by logical argumentation. However, if one only believes Christian truth because of his ability to argue for it and to verify evidence, he will be quickly shaken if someone presents only one minor piece of evidence which appears to be out of place, or one minor argument which seems like a valid criticism. He will always be wondering if there is some piece of evidence out there that he has missed that will disprove his beliefs. In contrast, the man who has faith (belief + trust) in God is like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but stands forever (so Ps 125:1).

One final point about faith: faith is by its very nature simple, and the attempt to mix it with other things will weaken it. Second Corinthians 11:3 speaks of “the simplicity and purity which is toward Christ,” and warns Christian believers of being tricked, like Eve, by Satan’s craftiness. Christianity is, to be sure, philosophically sound and hermeneutically sound, and the critics are fighting against the evidence. But if your “faith” rests in what is “out there,” it will be quickly shaken by every new argument, by each new archeological discovery; if your faith rests in the Word of God, it will stand firm against all assaults. Keep going back to the plain and simple truths of Scripture, and do not let others lead you down rabbit trails. Beware of being drawn into philosophical debates about the Christian faith. There are spiritual issues involved in philosophical discussions, for which reason critics will raise endless objections and produce endless excuses for not believing, all of which are smokescreens to cover for a wicked, rebellious, prideful heart. Beware of becoming too sophisticated. The truth is always, clear, simple, and straightforward.

To summarize some key points from this blog post and the previous one: (1) Faith is a virtue which can be defined as a mean between gullibility and skepticism. (2) Faith always takes an object. (3) Our faith is no better than the object in which we place it. (4) The Christian’s faith (= belief + trust) is in God and in His Word. (5) We, as Christians, do not take a leap into the dark, but a step into the light. (6) According to Romans 1:17, there is a difference between initial faith and continuing faith. (7) Unlike rationalism and empiricism, faith gives total, permanent assurance (Heb 11:1).

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The virtue of faith

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Apologetics, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The word “faith” is used in many ways today. It is important to understand correctly what faith is, because the Bible is very clear that faith is a requirement for salvation (Eph 2:8; Heb 11:6). The faith which is necessary for salvation is, specifically, faith in God, in His Son, and in the Christian gospel. But the New Testament also uses the term “faith” in a broader sense, such as when Jesus admonished Peter for having little faith (Matt 14:31). Faith has two components: belief (intellectual) and trust (volitional). Faith is never a leap in the dark. It is rational trust.

It is common for people today to speak of misguided or false faith—that is, a belief/trust in the wrong thing. But the Bible presents faith as a virtue. Faith is listed among the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23. Faith is listed among the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:9 (cf. 1 Cor 13:2). Faith is everywhere spoken of positively in the New Testament.

The classical virtues are often defined as a mean between two extremes, and faith may be defined as a mean between gullibility and skepticism. Faith, like love and joy, is always a virtue if exercised according to the proper sense of the term. There is therefore no such thing as misguided or false faith, properly speaking. One may have misplaced trust or false beliefs, but the English word “faith” traditionally was used solely to describe a virtue. Faith is always right, if it is true faith (cf. 2 Thess 3:2). Today, non-Christian religions are commonly called other “faiths,” but properly speaking they are other religions or cults. Their truth-claims are lies, and their followers are gullible, deceived, and depraved. They have no claim to the virtue of faith.

How does one avoid both gullibility and skepticism, and only place his faith in what is true and right? How does one know whether to be trusting or skeptical? The answer has to do with character and holiness. Every truth-claim that one is presented with is made by some person or group of people. If the person is honest, moral, upright, and holy in every respect, we ought to be inclined to believe the claims he makes. However, if the person has some character flaw, we ought to be skeptical or disbelieving, no matter how convincing he may sound. In the end, there is only One whom we may trust absolutely, and that is the One who is absolutely holy—namely, the triune God. What God says is to be believed without question, because it is impossible for God to lie or deceive or to be mistaken (Num 23:19; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). The Bible presents a moral standard that is higher, holier, truer, more pure, and more just than any human standard ever devised. The character of God’s people is qualitatively different than the character of unbelievers. This shows that the Bible is God’s Word, and that God is absolutely holy and trustworthy. What godly men say, we are to be inclined to believe, though we must compare what they say to what God has said as the ultimate standard. This is an important principle, which therefore bears repeating: faith is to be exercised in proportion to the character of the one making the claim, with all claims to be measured against the claims made by the triune God, who is the only perfectly trustworthy One. So how do you know whether to believe someone? You know on the basis of his character.

An illustration: in a court of law, if two witnesses tell different stories, the court examines the character of the witnesses. If one witness has a bad reputation and poor character, and the other witness has a good reputation and high character, the witness with the better character is trusted. When it comes to spiritual matters, the contrast could not be any clearer. God is holy, and the fruit of the Spirit is entirely good. Satan is evil, and he and his followers are entirely bad. So when Satan contradicts what God says, what should you do? Should you say, “Well, that sounds plausible—now I’m confused”? No way! Believe the Witness whose character is perfect, for He can be trusted to tell the truth.

In my next post, I will look more specifically at the rationality of faith—that is, the relationship between faith and reason.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A critique of Amish theology and practice

28 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by in Theology

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

This is the last of a series of three posts on the Amish. In this post, I will examine some of the theological problems with the Amish form of Christianity, while also recognizing commendable aspects of the Amish.

First, let me recognize that there is some variation among different groups of Amish, and what is said of some may not be true of others. But many ex-Amish will affirm unequivocally that the Amish are not genuine Christians. That is, they will say that the Amish are Christian in name and outward form only, and not in reality. Although I do not have personal experience in an Amish church, I assume this is because salvation in the Amish church is equated with baptism and church membership, with no teaching about the need to be converted at a specific point in time. Surely there is a point in time when every genuine Christian went from not having a relationship with God to having a relationship with God, from being lost to being saved, from not having the Holy Spirit to having the Holy Spirit, from not having his sins forgiven to having his sins forgiven, and so forth. In churches where there is no teaching regarding the need for a conversion experience, in fact most people in those churches have never had a conversion experience, i.e., a time in which they have prayed to ask God to save them, confessing their sins and their faith in Christ. But one cannot be saved by works, even if those works are baptism and church membership. If, as it seems, the Amish indeed do hold to a form of salvation by works, this would be their largest and most consequential error.

The requirement to take oaths in order to be baptized and join the Amish church is certainly unbiblical. The only biblical requirement for baptism is that one has been saved (by confessing one’s faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Son of God, and asking God to forgive one’s sins through the blood of Jesus). Likewise, the only biblical requirement for joining a local church is to be saved and baptized. The Amish practice of swearing oaths to join the Amish community evidently originated in Jakob Ammann’s belief that the Amish were the only group of true Christians, and that therefore one could not be saved without accepting the Amish form of Christianity; however, this belief could only be correct if salvation were by works, and salvation is not by works (cf. Eph 2:8-9). Admittedly, there are numerous other Christian churches and denominations that maintain unbiblical requirements for baptism, and that require subscription to a church covenant in order to become a member of the church, but the oaths required by the Amish are particularly burdensome, and the Amish practice of shunning is severe.

The Amish belief in pacifism is certainly unbiblical. The pacifism of the Amish and Mennonites was a natural reaction to the savage persecution they endured at the hands of their “Christian” neighbors—whether those neighbors were Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic. Those persecutions engendered a very passionate opposition among Anabaptists to any and all forms of physical violence. But Exodus 22:1-4, for example, affirms that it is no sin for someone to kill a man who breaks into his house at night. Warfare was frequently commanded by God during the Old Testament era, and in the New Testament the right of the state to wield the sword is affirmed in Romans 13:4 (cf. Luke 22:36).

An extreme aspect to the Amish pacifism is their opposition to proselytizing. This aspect of Amish theology is certainly unbiblical, given all the New Testament exhortations to preach the gospel, and all the New Testament examples of the apostles and their coworkers proselytizing unbelievers. One can see by this Amish practice the extent to which they follow tradition over Scripture. One also wonders how a Christian who truly cares about the lost people around him could refuse to share the gospel with them.

The Amish also seem not to care enough about the spiritual condition of their children. They take a “hands-off” approach to their children in their teenage years, not restraining them from participating in sinful activities. On the positive side, this ensures that their decision to join the church, if they do make that decision, is made of their own free will. But loving parents discipline their children, even as teenagers, and continually exhort and admonish them to do what is right.

The Amish insistence on a radical separation between church and state is another sour aftertaste from the persecutions they endured at the hands of state-sponsored churches. But there is nothing in the Bible which prohibits a government from adopting Christianity as its official religion, nor is there anything in the Bible which prohibits a Christian from participation in government.

The Amish opposition to higher education is probably necessary to preserve their identity. Education gives people the ability to think independently, which inevitably results in individuals contesting certain ideas held by the community. It is true that there have been many instances of young people departing from the teachings of Scripture after encountering anti-Christian ideas in academia, but it is also true that a church without education is a church which lacks depth and maturity. Christians have always promoted education as a means of understanding the Bible more fully and accurately, among other things.

On the positive side, the Amish could be compared to the Rechabites who are described in Jeremiah 35. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jonadab the son of Rechab, who was prominent at the beginning of Jehu’s reign, in 841 B.C. (2 Kgs 10:15-16). The events of Jeremiah 35 occurred about 240 years later. Jonadab had made his sons and their descendants swear to live as a separated people according to strict rules: they could not drink alcoholic beverages, they could not own property or valuable possessions, and they had to maintain a nomadic lifestyle. More than 200 years after Jonadab’s death, his descendants were still living according to the rules that he had set for them (Jer 35:6-10). Rather than ridicule the Rechabites as “legalists” or “weirdos” for making and keeping these peculiar vows, the prophet Jeremiah commended them, and blessed them in the name of the Lord. While the situation of the Amish is not identical to that of the Rechabites, the idea of living as a separated people who follow unique rules is not necessarily bad or unbiblical.

Certainly one must respect the courage and determination of a people who refuse so steadfastly to conform to the dictums of modern society and culture. Their rejection of modernity entails enduring considerable ridicule, and also enduring the hard work of performing all their labor by hand, without modern conveniences. It is true that there is a dark side to modern technology, and the Amish have avoided this dark side by refusing to accept technology. There is a sense in which one feels more authentically human on a quiet farm surrounded by crops and animals than in the artificial world of a modern city, full of streets and skyscrapers. Also, in a world filled with violence one finds something refreshing in the peaceableness of the Amish, even if their extreme of pacifism is not right. The Amish are a group of people who have clearly defined beliefs and strong values, which they practice with remarkable consistency.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The roots of the Amish

17 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Church history

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

In my last post, I described some of the beliefs and practices of the Amish. In this post, I will review and critique the theological roots of the Amish. In my next post, I will provide a further critical evaluation of Amish theology and practice.

Although a visitor to Amish country today might view the Amish as very far removed from mainstream Protestant evangelical Christianity, in fact the spiritual ancestors of both the Amish and modern Baptists were part of the same group, the Anabaptists, in the early days of the Protestant Reformation (beginning in 1525). The Anabaptists were savagely persecuted, not only by the Roman Catholic Church, but also by the Reformed Church and the Lutheran Church, because they taught that baptism should only be performed on persons who have expressed faith in the gospel message, and therefore not on infants. Various groups of Anabaptists subsequently developed, and the ancestors of the Amish were part of the group known as the Mennonites (after Menno Simons, who died ca. 1559).

Beginning in 1693, and culminating in 1700, the Mennonite wing of the Anabaptist movement experienced a split over the issue of church discipline (Ordnung). (For a good outline of this history, see: Kirk R. MacGregor, “Inerrancy, Church Discipline, and the Mennonite-Amish Split” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60/3 [2017]: 581-93. Available here.) The majority party, led by Pastor Hans Reist, continued to identify themselves as Mennonites, while the minority party, led by Pastor Jakob Ammann (Reist’s former student), became known as the Amish. First Corinthians 5:11 was one of the disputed texts: I am writing unto you not to associate with anyone who is named a brother, if he is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. In some ways, Ammann’s exegesis was much superior to Reist’s, though the way he applied the text to his contemporary situation was faulty. Ammann and his supporters were correct to insist, from the Bible, that when church discipline is applied, those under discipline must be shunned. Reist and his supporters were wrong to maintain that Matthew 9:10-13 and 15:11 apply to the issue of church discipline, and that Christians should have normal social interaction with people who have been excommunicated from the assembly. Ammann, however, appears to have condemned his former teacher Reist far too hastily and sharply, insisting that he be placed under church discipline for holding an incorrect view of church discipline. Reist, for his part, refused to acknowledge the error of his exegesis, even after seven years of dispute and a last-ditch effort by Ammann and his followers to reconcile. But both men and their followers were wrong on the critical issue of identifying those to whom church discipline should be applied. The group in question that was placed under church discipline by both parties was fellow Anabaptists who allowed their babies to be sprinkled (“baptized”), and who attended Reformed church services, in accordance with Swiss law, reasoning that the baby-sprinklings were nothing but harmless washings. While I agree with Ammann and Reist that these Anabaptists were compromisers, it is an issue on which good men could plausibly disagree. Ammann certainly went way too far when he labeled the compromising Anabaptists as idolaters (because they were in communion with Reformers who supposedly worshipped a false Jesus), and to demand the application of church discipline to them for this reason. Reist and Ammann appear never to have disputed the question of whether church discipline should be applied in the case at hand. Ammann was also wrong to apply church discipline to Reist, labeling him as an apostate and a heretic, and his followers as false brethren, because of his wrong view of church discipline. The issues at stake, with regard to both Reist and the Anabaptist compromisers, were disagreements over practice, not heresy or a serious, ongoing lifestyle of immorality of the type described in 1 Corinthians 5:11. In fact, all Christians have at least a few errors in things they believe and practice; if church discipline was to be applied for any error, we would all be under church discipline! The legacy of Ammann’s hotheaded application of Scripture was twofold: on the one hand, his followers have indeed remained a separate group until the present day, and have maintained their old ways and traditions; on the other hand, the Amish have continued a practice of church discipline which is far too strict, shunning anyone who leaves their church for any reason, including a legitimate change of conviction on doctrines that may reasonably be disputed. Reist’s view that Christians should not shun false brethren also left a legacy in the Mennonite church, which has cooperated with the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical movements, much to its detriment.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

The ways of the Amish

10 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Church history

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Yesterday I visited Shipshewana, Indiana with a friend. The Shipshewana area is home to the third largest Amish community in the United States, and it is probably the best-developed Amish community for “English” (non-Amish) tourists. There are also many people from related Christian groups, such as the Mennonites, in the area. Shipshewana is one of my favorite places to go for a day trip.

The Amish are a sect of the Christian church which originated in the Anabaptist wing of the Protestant Reformation—the same wing that produced modern Baptist denominations. The Amish take their name from Pastor Jakob Ammann, whose dispute with his former teacher Hans Reist created a split among the German-speaking Mennonite community of the Emmental region of Switzerland (around Bern). The original split occurred in 1693, and was finalized in 1700 after a last-ditch reconciliation proposed by Ammann and his followers was rejected. The majority party, led by Reist, continued to identify themselves as Mennonites (after Menno Simons), while the minority party became known as the Amish (after Ammann). The issue disputed by the two groups was the practice of church discipline, and Ammann’s group held a very strict position on that issue. Ever since the group originally began, the Amish have been a distinct and separated people. The Amish are allowed to interact with outsiders, but anyone who has taken the oaths required to be baptized in one of their churches, and subsequently has left the Amish church or has been expelled from it, is completely “shunned.” The Amish are not permitted to have anything to do with someone who has left their church, even if this means having no social interaction with one’s own children. The Amish also dress and live in a way that shows they are distinct from those around them.

The Amish are famous for their “old-fashioned” ways. Amish homes are easy to spot as one is driving through the countryside, because there are no electrical lines running to their homes, and clothes are always hanging on clotheslines outside to dry. Traditionally the Amish did not have plumbing, either, although many now do. They do not drive cars; instead, they ride bicycles or horses and buggies. The two rules for the dress of Amish women are plainness and modesty. Amish men once sported full beards, but when beards became popular during the Victorian period in nineteenth century America, Amish men began shaving their moustaches in order to look different from those around them. The Amish are deeply suspicious of education, and do not attend college. Most Amish keep farms at home, though not all are full-time farmers. They still plow their fields with horses, rather than tractors, and they reap their harvests by hand. Some Amish make high-quality solid wood furniture for a living, some work as blacksmiths for their community, and some work in retail sales. When a new member joins an Amish community, the community will hold a “house raising,” in which they build the new member a house in a single day, and sometimes also a “barn raising,” in which they build a new barn in a single day.

Amish church practices are distinct. The Amish have no church buildings, instead holding meetings in private homes or barns on a rotating basis. Benches and other furniture needed for church services are carried on wagons to the location of the meeting. The Amish, like the very first Anabaptists, still practice a mode of baptism called affusion, which consists of pouring water out of a pitcher onto the head of the person being baptized (the candidate); some other Anabaptist-related groups began to practice immersion after becoming convinced that the Bible teaches immersion as the true mode of baptism, while the Reformed and Lutheran wings of Protestantism simply continued the Roman Catholic practice of sprinkling a few drops of water on the head of the one being baptized. Amish church meetings are conducted in High German. At home, the Amish speak Pennsylvania Dutch, which is a dialect of German with some English influence. The Amish learn English in school and from their non-Amish (“English”) neighbors. When one visits Amish country, one is taking a step back in time to the days of the Protestant Reformation. One is seeing Anabaptists, much as they were more than three hundred years ago.

The Amish, like many other early Anabaptists, are pacifists, meaning that they are opposed to all warfare and violence to other human beings for any reason, generally including self-defense and litigation (with the exception of “shunning,” as noted above). The Amish do not spank or scold young children, they let their teenagers “sow their wild oats,” and they are even opposed to proselytizing. They have, nevertheless, been violently persecuted throughout their history, and their communities have been forced to migrate many times. Today, most of the Amish live in the United States, especially in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other states of the northern Midwest. The last surviving European Amishman died in the 1930s.

The Amish are being forced to make more and more compromises with the modern world, but they still hold on to their traditional ways as much as possible. Some Amish, for example, will use a computer and a cell phone for work, but they will not have electricity or a telephone at home.

The Amish are opposed to wealth, and you will not see any Amish mansions. On the other hand, the Amish are intelligent, frugal, hardworking people who never take or need government financial assistance. If someone in the community needs help, the other members of the community will provide the necessary assistance.

The tourist crowd in Shipshewana is different from the crowd at most places where people gather, since Shipshewana does not have a bar, a casino, a movie theater, a sports stadium, or other such things. Shipshewana is a place for people who enjoy quiet, clean, meaningful activities. It is also a place for those who want to step back in time, to get away from the busyness and hubbub of modern society. Most shops close around supper time, since that is when the Amish ride their buggies home for the evening. Most people and businesses in the area are openly Christian, and are friendly to conservative evangelical Christians. One of my favorite places to visit in Shipshewana is called Menno-Hof, which is like a museum where the Amish and Mennonite communities have told their history in their own words. I also like to visit E & S Sales, the local cash-only discount grocery store where many of the Amish and Mennonite neighbors work and shop.

Of course, Shipshewana is not a nice place to visit for people who are ex-Amish, even if they are part of a Mennonite or a Baptist church. Ex-Amish will be recognized and shunned by the community. In my next post, I will examine some of the theological problems with the Amish form of Christianity, while also recognizing commendable aspects of the Amish.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Biblical acrostics

02 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Bible

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

,

An acrostic is a composition in which the initial letters of each line or unit, when taken together, spell something meaningful. An alphabetic acrostic starts with the first letter of the alphabet, and each successive line begins with each successive letter, until the alphabet is finished. The Bible contains a number of alphabetic acrostics.

Acrostics only occur in the Hebrew sections of the Bible, not in Greek or Aramaic, since almost all biblical poetry is in Hebrew. There are twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so every alphabetic acrostic will have twenty-two parts. (No distinction is made between the letters śîn and šîn in the acrostics, both of which were written as ש.)

Biblical acrostics were made for poetic beauty and ease of memorization. In Bible times, manuscripts were scarce because they had to be copied by hand; a memory device such as an acrostic was welcomed. The alphabetic acrostic also gave the poet a definite structure within which to organize his thoughts. Of course, the full beauty of an acrostic is lost in any translation, but it is still useful to note this structure, and to look at it in Hebrew if possible.

The most challenging thing about composing an alphabetic acrostic is finding appropriate words for letters which occur infrequently. Just imagine—if Psalm 119 were written in English, there would have to be eight verses beginning with X, and eight with Z. In Hebrew, wāw and ṭêṯ are about as uncommon at the beginning of a word as our X and Z, respectively. The most difficult letter of a Hebrew acrostic by far is wāw. There are only eleven biblical Hebrew words that begin with wāw, and ten of these are very rare words or names, several of which may be textual errors. Fortunately for acrostic-makers, the eleventh word is the most common word in the whole Bible, the conjunction ו (and, that, but). In every acrostic in the Bible, all the wāw verses begin with the conjunction ו, including eight verses in a row in Psalm 119. Psalms 25 and 34 both skip this difficult letter.

The most famous acrostic in the Bible is Psalm 119. This Psalm is termed a repeating stanzaic acrostic because it is arranged in twenty-two stanzas, each of which has eight lines that begin with a single letter of the Hebrew alphabet. These twenty-two stanzas are usually marked in English Bibles by the letters that the lines in each stanza begin with. Like some other acrostic psalms, it is the acrostic which gives structure to Psalm 119, which otherwise follows a theme rather than an outline. As the Psalmist composed this acrostic, I imagine he might have thought, “What observation on my walk with God can I express in a sentence that begins with this letter?” “How can I pick up on the thought of the previous verse with another word of this letter?” For the most part, there is considerable variation in the initial words for each acrostic letter. This not only adds to the poetic beauty of the acrostic, but also creates a nice mixture of thought, ensuring that a variety of spiritual truths are expressed.

Another famous acrostic in the Bible is Proverbs 31:10-31, the description of the virtuous wife. While this is a well-known passage, most people are not aware that its twenty-two verses begin with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

One of the most interesting acrostics in the Bible is the book of Lamentations, which is composed entirely in acrostic form. In both ch. 1 and ch. 2, there are twenty-two strophes of three lines each; the initial letters of the strophes together form the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In ch. 3, there are again twenty-two three-line strophes which stand for the twenty-two letters, but this time each line of each strophe begins with the same letter (a repeating stanzaic acrostic). In ch. 4, the pattern shifts to twenty-two two-line strophes, where again only the first line of each strophe begins with the letter in the acrostic. Chapter 5 has twenty-two lines, but no formal acrostic—perhaps to symbolize the chaos and disorder in Jerusalem. It is interesting that in chs. 2–4, pe precedes ‘ayin, a known variation of the more usual alphabetic order.

Psalms 9 and 10 together form an unusual broken acrostic, in which almost every other line begins with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but with some irregularities. Psalm 10 skips out of the acrostic in vv. 3-11 (the description of the wicked man) before rejoining it for the final four letters. Still, enough of the letters are present to consider the acrostic as legitimate, and not a mere coincidence or scholarly contrivance. These two Psalms are closely linked; they were probably composed together, with the tenth Psalm written to complement the ninth.

Psalms 111 and 112 are unique in that each colon, or subdivision of a line, begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Even though these Psalms are only ten verses each in our English Bibles, they contain twenty-two cola each, plus a heading.

Psalms 25 and 34 are also acrostic in form, with each line beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet; however, the letter wāw is skipped in both of these psalms. Although some ancient versions and modern scholars try to insert a wāw line in Psalm 25, an analysis of these psalms shows that the wāw line was intentionally skipped to form a double acrostic. Skipping the wāw creates an odd number of letters in the alphabet (twenty-one), which puts lāmeḏ exactly in the middle. Psalms 25 and 34 both add a pe line after tāw (at the end), to keep the number of lines at twenty-two. When this additional pe is taken together with the first and middle letters of the acrostic (’ālep̄ and lāmeḏ), the letters spell ’ālep̄, the first letter of the alphabet. Most likely, wāw was the letter chosen to be omitted because there is only one word beginning with wāw that could be used in an acrostic. Attempts to “correct” the “omission” of the wāw line actually ruin the poetic structure of these psalms. Psalm 25 also has the peculiar trait of having two rêš lines (rather than qôp̄ – rêš). Many reasons for this have been suggested, but it is possibly because David felt that there was no appropriate way to form a qôp̄ line.

Another acrostic psalm is Psalm 37, in which every other line begins with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The acrostic in this psalm is unusual in that a particle precedes the word beginning with the acrostic letter in the lines for the ‘ayin and tāw.

The only other complete acrostic in the Bible is Psalm 145, in which each verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is no nûn verse in the Masoretic Text of this psalm (nûn is skipped between v. 13 and v. 14), but this is in keeping with the variation in form that is found in the other biblical acrostics.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Top ten yet-to-be-discovered finds in biblical archaeology

21 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in Archaeology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

From time to time, one will see a list of the top ten finds in biblical archaeology, usually within a certain time period (e.g., “the top ten finds of 2014”). In this blog post, I have created a “top ten” list of potential future finds in biblical archaeology. This list is restricted to finds that I think are potentially discoverable, and does not include items such as the ark of the covenant or the holy grail that are very probably undiscoverable.

#10: An ancient library of Greek and Latin literature
The world of early Christianity included several great libraries which housed comprehensive collections of all the major Greek and Latin literature that was then known. The two most famous libraries of classical antiquity were housed at Alexandria and Pergamum, each of which contained hundreds of thousands of scrolls. Some historians who are knowledgeable about Roman archeology are convinced that many people who were household names in the Roman world of the first century AD are completely unknown to us today. Most of the books that were then in existence have been lost, and many of the famous authors of the day are completely unknown. Fewer than one-tenth of the writings of a man as significant as Aristotle have been preserved, despite his obvious prominence and his tutelage of Alexander the Great. If somehow, somewhere, a well-preserved trove of classical literature were discovered—like the discovery of the documents held by the Essenes at Qumran—such a discovery would vastly improve our understanding of the biblical world. A complete and unedited manuscript of the Babylonian historian Berossus, for example, would potentially fill huge gaps in our understanding of the history of Babylon, and would give context for Berossus’ passing reference to a certain “King Darius” at the time of Babylon’s fall, in a quotation of Berossus from Eusebius (cf. Dan 5:31). Other classical authors would fill many gaps in our understanding of the culture and history of the ancient world, while annals, census records, and tax receipts would give us direct access to the raw data of history. Let us hope that such a find will soon be made.

#9: The skeleton of one of the Nephilim

Critics have long scoffed at the Bible’s description of giants, casting these accounts as myths and legends (see, e.g., Gen 6:1-4; Num 13:32-33; Deut 2:11; 9:2; 1 Sam 17:4; 2 Sam 21:16-22; 1 Chr 20:4-8). The discovery of an actual skeleton, or even just a leg bone, of a powerfully built man 10-14 feet tall would be an indisputable testimony to the accuracy of the Bible’s accounts of the Nephilim. (The bedstead of Og king of Bashan, for example was 13½ feet long and 6 feet wide [Deut 3:11].) Of course, the bones would have had to survive at least 3,000 years (which is about the time when the last recorded Nephilim were killed [2 Sam 21:15-22]), but in all probability there is some direct physical evidence of the Nephilim that remains to be discovered; Augustine claims that human bones of incredible size were still occasionally found in his day (City of God XV.9). An analysis of existing extrabiblical documents and archeological evidence does show ample evidence for a race of giants in ancient times, but the evidence that already exists is not seriously analyzed because it is dismissed out of hand as scientifically impossible. For example, some Greek legends describe giants, and this ABR article points out relief drawings of quite large men. See also this video by Joel Kramer. The direct physical evidence of bones of huge men would force archeologists to take the rest of the evidence seriously.

#8: Coffins of the patriarchs

Modern monuments mark the traditional gravesites of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (in Hebron) and Joseph (in Shechem). Unfortunately, the tombs only contain cenotaphs, and evidently do not contain the original coffins or bones of the patriarchs. While it is possible that the graves were robbed in antiquity, or that the bones have rotted away, there is a chance that they still exist in some undiscovered location. Both Jacob (Gen 50:2) and Joseph (Gen 50:26) were embalmed, so their corpses could still remain to this day. Both Jacob and Joseph were probably buried in elaborate coffins, given Joseph’s position as ruler over the land of Egypt (second only to Pharaoh). If Jacob’s and Joseph’s coffins still exist and are found, not only would they serve as a powerful testimony to the biblical history of the Israelite nation, the coffins might also give the name of the Pharaoh who promoted Joseph, among other information which would be extremely useful for understanding the archeological context of the Genesis narratives. In addition, DNA analysis would probably be performed on the corpses to verify their identity, which in turn would allow for positive genetic verification of living descendants of Jacob and Joseph. If coffins of Jacob’s other sons and their embalmed remains were discovered somewhere, these would allow for genetic identification of living members of each of Israel’s twelve tribes.

#7: The remains of the Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea

Critics have long denied the historicity of the biblical book of Exodus, and believers have long debated the location and date of the famous crossing of the Red Sea (which some identify as merely a lake or a swamp). Yet nearly everyone has heard of Moses and the exodus which he led from Egypt, which is still remembered annually by the Jews in the feast of Passover. Evidently there has never been a serious effort to find the remains of Pharaoh and his Egyptian army under the waters of the Red Sea, where the Bible says they were drowned when the waters which had parted for the passage of the Israelites returned. (Most of the dead bodies washed up on the shore [Exod 14:30].) Dredging up and sifting the mud on the bottom of the northwestern end of the Gulf of Suez—where I believe the crossing of the Red Sea took place—would be a significant undertaking, but the potential significance of the find would be even greater. Finding the remains of an ancient Egyptian army’s military hardware underneath the sea would silence many critics, since it would definitively prove when and where the crossing of the Red Sea took place. It would also, of course, attest to the historicity of the exodus from Egypt (for those who are not convinced from the Bible), since Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and foot soldiers could hardly have ended up at the bottom of the Red Sea (or on the beach) in any other way than that described in the book of Exodus. Additionally, if Pharaoh’s chariot and his ring were found, it would allow for a definitive identification of the Pharaoh of the exodus.

#6: An extrabiblical text of any royal decree in the book of Daniel

Among the royal decrees mentioned in the book of Daniel, there are two that are specifically said to have been promulgated to all the lands of an empire: the letter of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, and the decree issued by Darius the Mede in Daniel 6:25-27. Since these decrees were issued to all peoples and languages, presumably copies were made in the Akkadian language on clay tablets, and it is possible that those clay tablets survive somewhere to the present day. If extrabiblical copies of these decrees in Akkadian or in any other language were discovered, not only would they be a great boon to the study of the book of Daniel, they would also confound the critics who regard the book of Daniel as mythical and legendary. Both of these decrees relate extraordinary miracles which were confirmed by the king himself as an eyewitness and participant, and both attest to the power of the God of heaven. Both decrees specifically name Daniel, and the decree of Daniel 6:25-27 names Darius the Mede. Such a find would be of particular interest to me, since I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on Darius the Mede; see my website and this blog article for more information.

#5: The treasures of the Second Temple

The Arch of Titus depicts the golden menorah, the silver trumpets, the altar of incense, and other items looted from the temple being paraded in the great victory celebration in Rome. The menorah is mentioned as late as the sixth century AD as being carried on parade in Constantinople. If indeed any or all of the temple treasures still exist somewhere (unlikely but possible), the discovery of them would be a phenomenal find, and the objects might be used in a rebuilt Jewish temple. (The Bible describes a rebuilt Jewish temple in the end times [Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4]. Any such temple would be spiritually illegitimate in the present age, although the construction of the third temple is necessary to fulfill prophecy.) Besides these objects, according to Josephus, the Romans seized the official copies of the OT Scriptures (“the Law of the Jews”) from the temple when they destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Wars 7.5.5 [7.150]; 7.5.7 [7.162]). Josephus claims that Titus later gave him these scrolls (“the holy books”) as a personal favor upon his request (Life 75 [418]). What became of them afterward, if Josephus is telling the truth, is not clear. These scrolls would have contained the most accurate text of the Old Testament available at the time, and if they still exist somewhere they would be a tremendous help to the study of the text of the Old Testament. (The original temple vessels were made by Bezalel under the direction of Moses [Exod 37–39], taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar [Jer 52:18-19], taken back to Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar [Ezra 1:7-11], stolen from the temple by Antiochus IV and presumably destroyed [1 Macc. 1.21], and replaced by the Maccabees [1 Macc. 4.49-50].)

#4: Jeremiah’s deed of purchase

As the final stage of Judah’s exile to Babylon was approaching early in the sixth century B.C., the prophet Jeremiah was commanded by God to buy from his cousin Hanamel a piece of land that was under the control of the Babylonian army which encircled Jerusalem (Jer 32:1-9). In all likelihood, Jeremiah’s cousin simply wanted to get a little extra money to buy food during the siege; a Babylonian-occupied piece of land was worthless property. Jeremiah, however, was commanded by God to purchase the property as a sign that someday the nation of Israel would reoccupy the land. Jeremiah carefully followed formal procedure by signing two identical deeds of purchase and sealing one of them shut before witnesses (Jer 32:10-12). Jeremiah then commanded his scribe Baruch to place the deeds of purchase in a clay container in some place where they would be preserved for a long time (Jer 32:13-15). Since God’s purpose in having these documents preserved in a clay jar was to have them function as a prophetic sign, it is not unlikely that they will be rediscovered. If so, this find would be a dramatic affirmation of Israel’s eschatological restoration—a divine sign that the restoration is God’s work. It would also be yet another profound setback for critics of the book of Jeremiah, as more and more of the history described in that book is discovered in the archeological record. And, for any archeologist, a discovery of actual deeds of purchase from pre-exilic Jerusalem would be a remarkable and significant find. The authenticity of the find could be verified by comparing it with a seal impression of “Baruch the son of Neriah” that has already been found.

#3: Noah’s ark

The biblical account of the Flood of Noah’s day, and of the ark which Noah built to survive the Flood, is generally ridiculed today by the majority of people in the world. But the Bible does teach that Noah built a huge ship to carry both his own family and large numbers of animals through a worldwide Deluge. The ark is said to have come to rest in the mountains of Ararat (Urartu), and a ship as large as the ark, coated with pitch, would not have rotted away quickly. The landing site of the ark would have remained well known for a long time after the Flood, and the ship itself would have been visible from a great distance (the pitch coating and the nails would have made it difficult to dismantle and reuse). Gordon Franz and Bill Crouse have recently published research which argues convincingly that the ark did not land on the mountain called “Mount Ararat” today, but that it rather came to rest on a much lower mountain in Turkey called Cudi Dagh (Mount Cudi). The ark’s landing site on that mountain is attested by a great number of sources from all ancient periods and extending to the present day. A German geologist even dug some trenches in the area around the shrine which marks the site, where traces of the boat’s shape are still visible, and he found what appeared to be ancient decayed remains of a ship’s hull. What is really needed is a large-scale, very public, excavation of that site, which would have the potential to confirm the exact size and shape of the ark, if indeed the remains at Cudi Dagh match the measurements given in the Bible. One could also test the type of wood used, the type of pitch used, the nails, and other construction materials; perhaps the division of compartments on the lower level of the ark might even be traceable. An excavation of Noah’s ark would certainly rank as one of the greatest discoveries in the history of archaeology, and it would have the potential to powerfully confirm the biblical story of Noah’s Flood. Such an excavation would greatly strengthen the faith of believers, and it would literally present a huge problem for those who attempt simply to laugh away the biblical account.

#2: The original tablets of the ten commandments

According to Exodus 32:15-16, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai after spending forty days with the God of Israel, he held in his hands two stone tablets that had been hewed and engraved by God Himself, which contained the ten commandments. (There were two identical copies made so that the one could be checked against the other to ensure it was not altered.) According to Exodus 32:19, when Moses came out of the cloud of glory on the top of the mountain and saw the people dancing around the golden calf they had made, he angrily threw the two tablets down to the base of the mountain, where they were shattered. Moses later made two new tablets to replace the ones he had broken (Exod 34:1). The remains of the original broken tablets evidently are still at the base of Mount Sinai, perhaps covered in sand. One would think that some parts of them would still be readable. There are several different proposed locations of Mount Sinai, since problems exist with identifying the traditional site since the Byzantine period, Jebel Musa, as the real Mount Sinai. Bryant Wood favors Jebel Khashm et-Tarif, but other proposals exist; a find of the original tablets of the ten commandments at the base of the mountain would settle the issue. The tablets would also show how the Hebrew language was written at the time of Moses—in the perfectly shaped letters written by God Himself. Any expedition to look for these tablets would have to be organized very carefully, because skeptics would immediately label such a remarkable find as a forgery if there was any way they could cast doubt upon it. Needless to say, the remains of those two tablets would be a great national treasure for the state of Israel, and they would cause much spiritual reflection among the Jewish people.

#1: An autograph (original manuscript) of any book of the Bible

Does an original manuscript of a book of the Bible survive to the present day, waiting to be discovered? Probably not; but it is not impossible that one does, and I would rank such a find as the most significant discovery in the whole history of archaeology. A late second-century church father speaks of the autographs of the books of the New Testament as still in existence and able to be viewed in the churches to which they were originally sent (Tertullian De Praescriptione Haereticorum Chapter 36). There were two periods of intense persecution in the history of the early church when the Romans specifically sought to destroy the church’s manuscripts of the Bible—the Decian persecution (250) and the persecution by Diocletian (early fourth century). Most or all remaining autographs were likely destroyed at those times. Nevertheless, one church father who died near the end of the Diocletian persecution, Peter of Alexandria, claims (in Fragment 1) that the autograph of John’s Gospel was still held by the church in Ephesus. Many New Testament manuscripts did survive the persecutions, and it is possible that some devout Christian hid one or more of the autographs in order to prevent their destruction. If the Christian who hid the autograph was then executed, no one would know where the hidden autograph was located, and it might still be in existence today if it has not rotted away over time. Or, as manuscripts were smuggled around the empire during the persecutions, the fact that a particular manuscript was the autograph could have been forgotten, and the autograph could have been taken to some remote monastery and placed in an archive. As for Old Testament books, the autographa would have originally been kept in the temple as official reference copies. Many or all of the autographs which survived until the pogrom of Antiochus IV (ca. 167–164 B.C.) were probably destroyed by him (see Josephus Ant. 12.5.4 [12.256]; 1 Macc 1.56; Dan 8:12). But, once again, it is possible that someone hid some manuscripts to prevent their destruction (as the Jews later did during the Jewish War of A.D. 66–73), and it is not impossible for at least fragments of a manuscript from 400 B.C., or even a thousand years earlier, to survive until the present day under the right conditions. Since the original manuscripts were used frequently in the temple, it is likely that they would have worn out over time, but once again it is more likely that the worn out copies would have been kept in a geniza (storage area) rather than burned as scrap paper or thrown out with the garbage. The great significance of the discovery of an autograph of a book of the Bible would be in the certainty it would give us of the original text of the Word of God. The manuscript itself would have no special power; it is the original words themselves that are significant, but the original manuscript would infallibly attest to those original words.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.