• About Dr. Steven Anderson

TruthOnlyBible

~ About the Bible, Christianity, and current events

TruthOnlyBible

Category Archives: Current events

Does the Bible allow a woman to be President?

03 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible, Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

feminism and the Bible, feminism and the election

The upcoming presidential election in the United States is unique in that a female candidate—Hillary Clinton—is featured at the top of a major party’s ticket for the first time. This is reflective of a huge upending of values in American culture, as it was less than 100 years ago when the U.S. Constitution was amended to give women the right to vote. Even thirty or forty years ago, if a woman was nominated for president, many evangelical Christian leaders would have spoken out against her, arguing that it is unbiblical and immoral for a woman to be president of the country. Most evangelical seminaries did not even admit female students before the 1980s or 1990s. Yet I have not heard any Christian leaders so much as even raise the issue of whether the Bible allows a woman to be president during this election cycle. How quickly our values have changed!

Today, either it is taken for granted that it is it is morally acceptable for women to occupy positions of leadership, or else there is so much hostility to the contrary position that no one on any part of the political spectrum dares even to raise the issue, not even on talk radio or on social media. Yet for much of the history of the United States, most people in the country believed it would be morally wrong for a woman to be president. In fact, most leaders of most countries in all the history of the world have been men, so this is not just a viewpoint unique to people who historically lived in the United States.

Since we as Christians are to be guided by God’s Word in all that we believe and do, the answer to the question of whether it is morally permissible for a woman to be president can only be resolved through a study of what the Bible has to say about the issue. One of the clearest statements in the Bible on the role of women is 1 Timothy 2:12—But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. This verse gives a blanket prohibition against women exercising authority over men. While Paul is speaking of rules for the church, if women are not permitted to exercise authority over men or even to teach in the church, surely it is also morally impermissible for a woman to exercise authority over an entire country. Paul explains the reason for this prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. First, it is because Adam was created before Eve, which set the man in a position of primacy. Second, the fact that Eve was deceived by the serpent while Adam was not shows that men have a greater capacity for discernment than women and therefore a greater inherent ability to lead. These are principles which would apply just as well to the issue of women occupying positions of leadership in government as they would to the issue of women as leaders in the church.

The New Testament does not comment directly on qualifications for political leaders, since the early church had no role in the governance of the Roman Empire. In the Old Testament, politics and religion were closely linked in the nation of Israel, although here again it was not the responsibility of the people to choose their rulers. The Old Testament does not give a list of principles for choosing a king; it says only to appoint the king chosen by Yahweh, who was to be an Israelite (Deut 17:15). To understand the criteria by which God chose kings, we can examine the choices which God made.

It is striking to the modern reader of the Old Testament that every king of Israel and Judah appointed by God was male. God never appointed a woman to rule over his people! There was only one ruling queen in the whole history of the Israelite monarchy—the wicked Athaliah, who usurped power in a coup and was overthrown by the high priest in a counter-coup. Some point to Deborah as an example of a female leader. Judges 4:4 identifies Deborah as a “prophetess” who was involved in the activity of judging. As a prophetess, she did not speak her own judgment and her own message; when people came to her with disputes, she would inquire of Yahweh and return His answer. In this sense, she was like Huldah (2 Chr 34:22-28). These prophetesses were not set in positions of authority over men; they were simply relaying messages from God to them. It does not seem that Deborah actually preached to a mixed audience, or was teaching the Law to the people. It is significant that Deborah called a man, Barak, to lead the army of Israel into battle (Judg 4:6).

Another means of understanding the criteria by which God chose leaders is to look at criticisms of leaders by the prophets. In Isaiah 3:12, God’s people are said to be pitied when women and children rule over them. However one may interpret this verse, the presence of female rulers is definitely viewed as a bad thing. God is saying that Israel will lack qualified leadership.

Interestingly, one of the qualifications for being a king chosen by God was not to be a true believer or worshiper of Yahweh. God anointed Jehu to be king over Israel because of certain good things he would do, even though Jehu was an idolater who never repented of the worship of Jeroboam’s golden calves (2 Kgs 9–10). God anointed Jehu in order to destroy the dynasty of Ahab and the religion of Ahab, which was something that apparently no believer in Israel could have done so effectively. While God disapproved of Jehu’s idolatry, He promised him a four-generation dynasty for the good that he did (2 Kgs 10:29-31).

Despite the fact that it was possible for a woman to be a prophetess, almost all the prophets were men, and every significant prophet and writer of Scripture was male. All the priests, the temple musicians, and official temple servants were required to be male. All of Israel’s military commanders and warriors were male. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was a mark that only males could receive. All of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus were male, and all of the later apostles were male. In the church, women are barred from positions of authority and teaching, not only by 1 Timothy 2:8-15, but also in the qualifications for elders/pastors (“husband of one wife,” 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:5-6) and by 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, which prohibits women from speaking or asking questions during church services and commands them to be in subjection to male authority. The idea that women should be in subjection to the men who are in authority over them is not just something that applies within the church; Paul cites “the Law” as the basis for this command in order to show that it is not something new or culturally-specific (1 Cor 14:34). Scripture presents women as designed to occupy a role in support of men (cf. Gen 2:18).

From a biblical point of view, the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is obvious: “No way!” Why, then, does it seem that most Christians have no problem with women in positions of leadership? The answer is different for different individual Christians. Some Christians just never have heard a different point of view than the one they were taught by the culture around them. But in too many cases professing Christians simply do not care what the Bible says, and they are not serious about doing everything God wants them to do. They have already decided to commit to egalitarianism, and are not open to considering arguments to the contrary. Following this pattern, as our culture continues to move away from God, increasing numbers of Christians are adopting similarly anti-biblical positions on other cultural issues, of which the most flagrant is acceptance of homosexuality.

Finally, a disclaimer: while some people may view this post as “sexist” or “bigoted,” it is intended to be about the Bible’s teaching on women in positions of political leadership, not about my personal opinion per se. Feminists are actually divided on the issue of the Bible’s teaching about the role of women. On the one hand, there are many Christian feminists who attempt to read the Bible as a feminist book. But there are also many non-Christian feminists who would argue that the Bible is a biased, chauvinistic book which was the product of male-dominated societies and cultures. Thus, the view that the Bible prohibits women from positions of political leadership is not inherently a feminist or anti-feminist viewpoint. However, as a Christian believer I do take what the Bible says as the definitive standard for faith and practice, and I encourage other Christians to do the same.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Could Donald Trump be a successful pastor?

11 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events, Ecclesiology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

make church great again, Pastor Trump, Reverend Trump, Trump Church

I do not desire to wade deeply into the politics of this year’s election season in the United States. I don’t see political action as something that will truly help people or solve the world’s problems. But the thought occurred to me the other day: what if Donald Trump had decided to start a church instead of running for president? Could the Trumpster succeed in the pastorate, as he has in politics? Trump is a businessman with a pragmatic, “do-whatever-it-takes-to-win” mentality. If he had decided to become a pastor, he might buy a beautiful building for his church, or, more likely, build a grand new one himself. He would hire experts who would tell him how to set up a church, get it running, and attract the initial congregation. He would find a way to get ordained. He would hire musicians to play whatever kind of music seemed most suitable. Every church service would be an impressive show, maybe with a steak dinner following. Experts on homiletics would write Trump’s sermons, which he would deliver with gusto. Sunday evenings might feature a concert in an outdoor amphitheater and fireworks afterward. Trump’s controversial comments on Muslims and politicians would make the news and lead people to believe that he is standing up for what is right. He would belittle pastors and churches who oppose him in order to get people to leave those churches and come to his church, which would be so much better.

With a high divorce rate among evangelicals and so much tolerance of sin, it is unlikely that most people would be bothered by Trump’s divorces, beauty pageants, casinos, and so forth. The standard of morality espoused by Trump would basically match what most people already believe and would give church members considerable freedom to live as they please. Trump’s theology would be somewhat erratic, novel, and idiosyncratic, but would likely be tolerated by many. In any case, Trump could not be voted out by the congregation, since he would own the church building. Perhaps he would offer perks for faithful members, such as free vacations at one of his resorts. Maybe he would give away raffle tickets every Sunday before the worship service, with a drawing held afterward. If the number of congregants started to decrease, he would immediately find out why and would shift course to bring them back. Big names would frequent Trump’s church to offer seminars and lead retreats. The church would have classes on financial responsibility and wealth creation, seminars on marriage and parenting, addiction recovery groups, a food pantry, and even Bible studies. Some of the teaching would seem very sound. The church would have a large counseling staff to help people work through their problems, and all of the counselors would be fully credentialed and experienced. Everything would be done first class. The youth group would take fun trips and compete for college scholarships; adults would go on cruises and take tours of the holy land. Trump’s staff would ghost-write books for him, which would make the bestseller lists. All things considered, I think if Donald Trump had decided to become a pastor instead of running for president, he would be widely regarded as a very successful pastor with a well-run church and a large following. Trump’s church might look very much like other prominent churches in the country, but with everything done bigger and better.

Many popular pastors of megachurches (and their wannabes in smaller churches) do in fact have the same pragmatic mentality as Donald Trump. I would suggest that these pastors and their followers have lost sight of what really makes a church successful. First and foremost, the church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to pastors or congregations, which means that things must be done His way, not our way. The church’s aim is to please Jesus Christ, not to build a personal empire or garner a huge following. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to church growth, if numerical growth is not the true goal of the church.

Decisions about how to do things in churches and Christian schools have now for decades been driven by pragmatic considerations about expansion and money. If starting a Saturday night service will bring in more people, then let’s do it, and let’s say that it doesn’t matter what day of the week you come to church. If having a rock band and a dance team attracts more people than having an organ and a choir, then let’s have the rock band and dance team. If most people now approve of women preaching, then let’s allow women to preach. If hosting a $100/plate dinner will raise funds for the building, then let’s have the dinner. Many other examples could be cited. The problem is that the church is not making its decisions by asking such questions as “What does God want us to do?” or “What does the Bible say we should do?” The questions driving the church’s decisions are ones such as “What will make the church grow?” and “What will bring in money?” It is time for the church to start making decisions again based solely on the Bible, and not on what people think is right or what will make a church “grow.”

There is no doubt that applying pragmatic strategies to achieve growth in a church can produce results. One reason why the Mormons have survived and expanded in spite of their patently absurd theology is because they require members go on evangelistic mission trips (two years full-time after high school) and to give ten percent of their income to the church. The Jehovah’s Witnesses require their members to do door-to-door evangelism. It is, of course, a good thing when Bible-believing Christians go on mission trips, give tithes to the church, and evangelize. However, the Bible requires that such things be done voluntarily; making them compulsory is a pragmatic shortcut to achieve church growth. Growth produced by shortcuts is always shallow and superficial, since it is not rooted in an overarching commitment to faithfulness to God and to His Word.

I may well end up voting for Donald Trump for president this fall, in spite of not agreeing with him about many things. But I would never vote for Donald Trump (or any of the other major candidates, for that matter) to be my pastor. It may be okay to vote for the least worst candidate for president (if your conscience allows you to do so), but the Bible sets forth qualifications for the pastorate that every pastor must meet. Donald Trump does not meet the biblical requirements to be a pastor, as stated in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Of course, Trump is not a pastor and has not said that he wants to be one. But I think if he had tried to become a prominent pastor, he could have gained wide acceptance. There already are many talented, pragmatic people who have made a name for themselves in the pastorate and are widely considered to be successful pastors, who nevertheless do not even meet the basic biblical qualifications for becoming a pastor.

We need to stop measuring success by numbers and fame, and start measuring success the way God measures it—by faithfulness to His Word.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Secular View of Human Life

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christian view of human life, euthanasia

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, introduced legislation this past week to legalize assisted suicide (now called “physician assisted death”). Assisted suicide is also legal in places in the United States and Europe. This is just the latest manifestation of the consequences of abandoning the biblical view of human life as intrinsically valuable due to the fact that man is created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6; James 3:9), as well as the explicit rejection of the ten commandments as a standard of morality. Assisted suicide may be seen as the next logical step following the legalization of abortion more than forty years ago.

Secular morality is riddled with irreconcilable contradictions and arbitrary value judgments. But certainly the theory of evolution teaches that man is just another animal. Ultimately, man is nothing more than a highly organized collection of matter in a meaningless universe. As such, human life only has the worth that man himself assigns to it. The criteria for assigning worth to life might be the perceived good of each individual, the good of the majority, or the good of the ruling class. In the context of contemporary Western liberal thought, the ruling class and the majority are one and the same, and therefore life should be treated in the way that the majority believes is best for itself. Many believe that a life of suffering is not worth living, and therefore it would be best for themselves personally if they could decide to end their lives when they lose hope or no longer find life pleasant. They also believe that caring for the elderly, the handicapped, the terminally ill, and others with serious and chronic medical conditions is an economic burden and a useless drain on the resources of the healthy.

I am not convinced that caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is in fact an economic burden. There are very many people who are employed to care for the sick and the elderly; viewed from this perspective, taking care of those in need is actually a positive economic activity which creates jobs. Further, caring for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped is, from a biblical point of view, a blessing and a privilege, and therefore well worth the cost (cf. Matt 25:35-40). The people who are cared for enrich the world through their interactions with caregivers, as well as by other means. By contrast, the secular establishment talks about how much money is generated by activities such as sports, gambling, rock concerts, and other forms of entertainment. These activities are actually the real drain on the economy, since they generate no useful goods but are hugely expensive. Not only are these expenses completely unnecessary, they are counterproductive, since they promote lawlessness and immorality while taking time and money away from productive enterprises. The truth is, secular people simply like entertainment and do not like having to care for suffering people, since they lack love, and this is the real reason why they portray entertainment as a positive economic activity and caring for the elderly as an economic cost. Similarly, secularists view religion as a waste of time and money, when in fact it is a lack of (true) religion that is leading the world to destruction.

From a secular point of view, one could make a very good argument for infanticide. One could argue that babies born with serious birth defects would be better off having their lives terminated, since they would never enjoy life as adults, and would simply be a burden to their parents and other caretakers (there is no love for people in the secular mentality). Non-Christians would not accept the objection that man is created in the image of God, thereby making all human life precious, and that God has strictly forbidden the taking of human life (other than in self-defense or as judicial punishment for murder). It therefore seems very likely that infanticide will soon be practiced in the United States.

It also seems likely that laws which mandate involuntary euthanasia will soon follow laws which permit voluntary euthanasia. There was, in fact, talk of a “death committee” established under Obamacare to decide when seriously ill patients should no longer receive medical care. One of the consequences of government-run health care programs in a secular country is that an antichristian standard of medical morality is imposed upon the entire populace. If the government decides that it is not worth the financial cost to care for certain seriously ill patients, it would seem reasonable from a secular point to euthanize patients, rather than “pulling the plug” and watching them die slowly and miserably. But from a biblical point of view, man has no right to take human life; someone who does so is a murderer and must be killed by the authorities in retributive justice (Gen 9:5-6).

It is not only those who are physically sick whom the majority may judge to be unfit to live—a whole class of people may be deemed undesirable and therefore targeted for extermination. In Nazi Germany, this was the Jews; in leftist America, it would be evangelical Christians.

In many ancient pagan societies, the preferred form of entertainment was blood sport. There is no reason to think that the gladiatorial shows of the Roman Empire could not be revived in the United States. From a secular point of view, life has no ultimate value, so if two fighters give their consent they should be able to fight to the death. We are already seeing increasingly violent sport-fighting around the world, often with serious injuries to the participants. The wicked want to give expression to their wicked desires to harm others, and to watch others be harmed, and they have no love for those involved.

The movement to legalize drugs is another manifestation of the secular view of the cheapness of life. On the secular view, it is okay to destroy one’s mind, one’s health, and even one’s life if one obtains pleasure in the process. The rise in the murder rate and the suicide rate in the United States is also due to a view of human life as cheap.

One of the basic assumptions behind the push for assisted suicide is that there is no afterlife and no judgment for sin—once a man dies, he ceases to exist forever. But the Bible teaches that death will only end a person’s suffering if that person goes to heaven. For those who go to hell, their suffering will only be greatly intensified (Rev 14:9-13). The assumption that man is wholly physical and that death ends life forever is also behind the movement to cremate or even compost dead bodies. If we believe that our bodies are connected to our souls and will be raised someday, then we should want them to be treated with reverence. For more on this issue see this post and this one. It should be noted that the idea that man is simply a complex machine is absurd, since no machine can achieve consciousness or make voluntary decisions by a self-determined will. Man’s consciousness and will can only be explained by means of an immaterial soul.

It is not just the atheistic Western worldview in which life is seen as cheap. In the Shinto/Buddhist Japanese worldview, suicide is often seen as honorable, and large numbers of young Japanese men volunteered for suicide missions during World War II. In the Islamic worldview, suicide bombers may be seen as martyrs for their god. It is only in the biblical Christian worldview that life is seen as intrinsically precious and valuable. In the midst of ever-changing morality in society around us, let us remember the Bible’s teaching about human life: (1) Man is created in the image of God, which makes him different from the animals (Gen 1:26-27); (2) God forbids murder (Exod 20:13); (3) Life’s sufferings have positive value for followers of Christ (1 Pet 3:14); and (4) All men’s bodies will be raised and judged when Christ brings history to its final consummation (John 5:28-29).

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

A new direction in American foreign policy?

06 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

election 2016, Republican primary

I don’t typically write on politics, even though my bachelor’s degree was in political science. But this year’s presidential election in the United States potentially marks a watershed moment in the modern history of international relations. It appears increasingly likely that Donald Trump will win not only the Republican presidential nomination, but also the general election for president. If Donald Trump is elected president, I believe we will see a radical change in American foreign policy. While only time will tell exactly what would happen in a Trump presidency, here is how I read Trump’s agenda.

Donald Trump is an American nationalist. His nationalism resonates well with voters, although I do not believe it is entirely reflective of biblical Christian principles. Trump wants to grow America the way he grew his business, which means giving competitors bad deals. When he talks about “winning,” that means other countries will be losing. When he talks about bringing jobs and money back from overseas, that means underdeveloped countries will be losing those jobs and money. That might be good for the United States economy, at least in the near term. But Trump does not seem to be bothered by the idea that his policies may hurt the livelihood of people in other countries or that they may be ethically problematic. He seems only to view the economies of other countries as tools that can be used to grow the United States’ economy.

Ever since the United States became the most powerful country in the world, it has generally tried to be a good neighbor to the rest of the world. A classic example was the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe with U.S. dollars after World War II, in contrast to the Treaty of Versailles which France and Britain used to punish Germany after World War I. I think that would change under a President Trump. Trump would seek to take advantage of the rest of the world for the United States’ economic profit. This is similar to the mentality of the Chinese government, which Trump has said on many occasions is “smart.” While his intentions alone are troubling from a moral point of view, the scary part is that Trump’s plan would probably work. The United States has incredible military and economic power, and if this power were ever abused there would be little the rest of the world could do about it. Trump would get his way. He could take oil from Iraq and Libya, he could take jobs and factories from Mexico, and he could force major corporations to relocate their headquarters and assets to the United States. He would also seek to manipulate global monetary policy in ways which remain to be seen. Gone will be the days when America helps other countries free of charge; under Trump, they will receive a bill for all expenses incurred. Further, since American society does not have the biblical Christian values that it once did, it is likely that the majority of the American public would approve of Trump’s efforts to enrich them at the expense of others. Trump’s agenda probably could not be stopped by either external or internal opposition.

The result of Trump’s actions would likely be to force the rest of the world to coalesce into regional blocs so as to be able to defend their interests on the world stage. The United Nations would become far less important, while Russia, China, and the European Union would organize and strengthen regional alliances in order to compete with the United States and each other. A new arms race would also ensue, as other countries recognize the need to build up military power in order to better resist the United States’ bullying. Sometime down the road, this bullying would lead to the destruction of the United States by those who hate it—but in the meanwhile Americans would enjoy great material prosperity.

A disclaimer: I am not writing this post as part of the anti-Trump campaign, although I plan to vote for Marco Rubio in the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Trump certainly has some un-Christian and un-presidential character qualities, and I have significant disagreements with some of his proposed policies. However, the Democratic candidates are directly hostile to biblical Christianity and pose an immediate threat to the ability of Christians to practice their faith, so I plan in the general election to vote for (not necessarily endorse) whomever the Republicans nominate. Thus, this article is essentially an observation on what may be coming in a Trump presidency, a call to awareness.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

03 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by Steven Anderson in Creation, Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

aliens in the Bible, Star Wars

Extraterrestrial life is a topic of great interest in modern Western culture, as evidenced by the recent success of the new Star Wars movie. While various people have differing conceptions of what aliens are or may be, the secular scientific conception of extraterrestrial life is one of biological life. Thus, in what follows in this post, by the terms “extraterrestrial life” and “aliens” I am referring to biological life, not to spirit beings.

Space agencies such as NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), along with numerous privately funded enterprises, have spent untold billions of dollars on programs designed to find life outside of the earth. Why are so many resources devoted to a search for something that has never been proven to exist? It is because extraterrestrial life is a key component of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. That is, if the earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, then it must be a special creation; man does not exist merely by accident. If, on the other hand, life arose by means of natural processes, then these same natural processes would have given rise to life in many other places, both in our own solar system and throughout the universe. Because evolutionists reject the idea that life is a special creation, they believe that life probably evolved in other places in the solar system (including Mars, comets, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus), and that life almost certainly exists in other places in the universe. At the same time, many people have considerable doubts about the existence of extraterrestrial life, since none has ever actually been found. Thus, the huge, decades-long search for extraterrestrial life by mainstream scientists is actually a search for evidence to support the assumptions an atheistic worldview.

A second motivation for the search for extraterrestrial life is that atheists, who claim not to believe in God, nevertheless sense that there is a greater reality outside of the earth and its physical processes. There must be other sentient beings out there, in possession of superior forces which we do not understand, and with knowledge and intelligence that far exceeds our own. Virtually no one believes that man is totally alone, without other intelligent beings in existence somewhere else. Fairy tales about aliens, presented in the context of evolution’s mythological history of the universe, have gripped the popular imagination in the same way that pagan legends and cosmogonies gripped the imagination of ancient man.

Far from confirming evolutionary theory, the search for extraterrestrial life has only raised more doubts and questions about Darwinian evolution, since it has come up empty-handed. First, the physical search for life on Mars and elsewhere in our solar system has found nothing; scientists are so desperate to find extraterrestrial life that merely the discovery that there is water on Mars, or that there has been water on Mars in the past, is trumpeted as powerful evidence that there is or once was life on Mars. In fact, water does not produce life; living organisms can only be produced by other living organisms (or by a special creative act of the living God). In addition, Mars is an extremely inhospitable environment for life; if large numbers of living organisms were transported from the earth to the Mars and then released, they would all die quickly.

Second, the search for communication signals from intelligent aliens living on planets outside of our solar system has found no such signals. One might object that we simply lack the technology to detect communication from the distant places where extraterrestrial life may exist. However, in fact we do have the technology to detect communication signals from across the Milky Way, or even from other galaxies, so the fact that we have not detected any communication from aliens is a great puzzle to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers. The Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico is capable of transmitting and detecting narrowband signals across a range of many thousands of light years. Although estimates vary, some sources claim that Arecibo could detect a duplicate of itself at the center of the Milky Way, or, with minor system improvements, could communicate with a hypothetical twin all the way on the edge of the galaxy; see this page and this one. Arecibo is nearly capable of trans-galactic communication, and we have the capability to build a more powerful system (Cyclops) that could certainly be used for trans-galactic communication. The first Arecibo Message, intended to establish communication with intelligent extraterrestrial life, was transmitted in 1974 to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away. Other messages have been sent since then, and Arecibo has been used to search for messages sent in our direction. (Apparently scientists assume that alien life must be friendly; they do not seem troubled by the possibility that by revealing our existence to a powerful and evil race of aliens, they may enslave man or wipe him out.)

The reasoning behind the use of Arecibo and similar projects for SETI runs as follows (from my friend Rodger Young): “very broadband signals as used in TV broadcasting are attenuated fairly quickly and most estimates are they could not be decoded outside our solar system. But narrow-band frequencies can transmit much farther. The most intelligent way to announce our presence to whoever-is-out-there would seem to be to broadcast at a single frequency, sending by binary signals something like the set of prime numbers that would show the whoevers that ‘Hey! We’re here; let’s try to communicate.’ ” If life on earth evolved by natural process, then life should have evolved in many other places by means of these same natural processes, and the trajectory of extraterrestrial civilizations should be similar in many ways to ours. Young states further, “According to the prevailing (evolutionary) viewpoint, there should be many, many civilizations out there who have evolved up to, and beyond, the point where they would have such broadcasters and receivers. If so, they would have the same curiosity about contacting other intelligences. One Web page estimated the number of stars in our galaxy as from 100 billion to 400 billion, although Wikipedia (‘Milky Way’) says this may be as high as one trillion. If only one out of a million such stars had planets capable of supporting life, then any theory that says that, given the right conditions, life will spontaneously evolve, should predict hundreds of thousands of sites in our galaxy where life has evolved at least to the level where we are now.”

Unfortunately for the theory, as Young states, “No signals have been detected. This is in spite of the fact, explained above, we are now capable of listening to a good part of our galaxy. . . . In summary, the lack of communication from out there, even though we have the capability to receive it, is a very, very great puzzle to the SETI people.”

For Christians who believe the Bible, it comes as no surprise that the search for extraterrestrial life has failed. It is clear from the creation account in Genesis 1 that everything in the physical universe was created for man. The earth was specially made to support biological life, and the sun, moon, and stars were created for the benefit of life on the earth. Further, all plant and animal life on the earth was created for the benefit of man, who is the center of the physical creation. Biological life outside of the earth—which is never mentioned or implied in the Bible—would serve no purpose, since it would be of no benefit to man. And for life to exist elsewhere would require a special creative act of God (life cannot evolve from non-living substances), and also a planet, a solar system, and galaxy designed to support life, requiring many more special acts of God. Such special creative acts of God would surely merit mention in Scripture, yet the Bible presents God’s plan of the ages as entirely about His dealings with man. Christ only became incarnate as a man, and He only died once, for Adam’s race, not for fallen folk on other planets (Rom 5:12-21; 6:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:16). History also involves angelic (spirit) beings, which were created to be intermediaries in God’s dealings with man (Heb 1:14). However, the history of the universe is centered completely around life on earth; and when Christ returns to the earth, He will destroy the whole universe and create a new heavens and a new earth (Matt 24:29; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 6:12-17 et al.). If intelligent life exists in the universe outside of the earth, surely it would have to be given due consideration at that time. The fact that it is not mentioned may rightly be taken as an implication that it does not exist. In addition, every time the Bible describes the final judgment and the eternal state, the only persons mentioned are men and angels (Rev 20:7-15 et al.). In eternity, God will move His throne from heaven to a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and His throne will be situated in a New Jerusalem, which is the capital city of the nation of Israel (Rev 21:22-23), although the nations of the earth and the kings of the earth may enter the city freely (Rev 21:24). There is no mention of aliens. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written above the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), and the names of the twelve apostles are written on its foundations (Rev 21:14). Everything about the eternal state of the righteous has to do with man and the earth, while the angels continue in their role as ministering spirits (Rev 21:12). There simply is no room in the Bible for aliens.

“Wait a minute,” someone might say, “the Bible just does not say anything about extraterrestrial life. The Bible therefore allows for its existence.” But the Bible does in fact deny the theories of extraterrestrial life in the shape that those theories took in the ancient world—legends, for example, about the gods of Greco-Roman mythology, their feats in the universe, and their identification with celestial objects (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The Old Testament repeatedly and emphatically denies the reality of the gods of pagan mythology and their supposed feats and dwelling places (2 Kgs 19:17-18; 1 Chr 16:26; Isa 44:12-20). But ancient man did not possess the telescopes, rockets, and other technologies which are necessary to understand the nature of celestial bodies outside of the earth. The ancients did not know that Mars is a planet similar in size and shape to the earth; to them, it was just a light in the night sky, no different from the stars except for its strange motions. Had ancient astronomers understood the nature of our solar system, extrasolar planetary systems, and the Milky Way galaxy, and had they known that there are an unfathomable number of stars and galaxies in the universe, they might well have postulated the existence of extraterrestrial life as modern secular science envisions it, and the Bible likely would have made a statement on that subject in response. But the Bible’s denial of ancient theories of extraterrestrial life are sufficient to disavow analogous theories in their modern form.

Additional resources regarding a biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life may be found on the Answers in Genesis website.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Lessons about compromise from the book of Daniel

05 Saturday Sep 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible, Current events

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

prophet Daniel, uncompromising

Following the legal redefinition of marriage by the United States Supreme Court, other legal cases have quickly arisen in which the religious liberty of Christians to refuse to accept homosexual “marriage” has been challenged. It is certain that many more religious liberty cases will be brought to the courts in the months and years ahead, as the culture and government of the United States becomes increasingly antichristian and anti-Bible. The book of Daniel is especially timely in this milieu, since it describes how a young Jewish man named Daniel and three Jewish friends of his maintained their devotion to God after being taken by force from Jerusalem to the pagan city of Babylon and impressed into a pagan king’s service.

Most Christians are familiar with the story in Daniel 3 of how three Jews—called by their Babylonian names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego—were thrown into a fiery furnace for their refusal to bow down to a giant idol. This idol was set up on a great plain before a huge crowd of people—probably the officials in King Nebuchadnezzar’s government—and the king demanded that everyone bow down to his idol or face death. To the pagans, there was no question that they would bow down to the image, rather than die. They had no religious loyalty that was greater than their concern for their own personal safety. But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood tall and strong while all the others bowed their knees to the king’s idol. After these three Jews spurned an offer of pardon from the king if they would change their minds, the king ordered them thrown into a blazing hot furnace (probably a brick kiln). But God honored the commitment of these three young men and brought them out of the fire completely unharmed, to the king’s utter amazement. Nebuchadnezzar responded by acknowledging that the Jews worshipped the Most High God, and he promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in his government.

Many modern Christians may struggle to understand why Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not bow down to the idol. Indeed, some other Jews might have obeyed the king’s command, since there were only three people present at that occasion who did not bow. Here are some of the rationalizations that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have considered:

  • They could have thought, “It is understood that this is not about changing religions; this is just a symbolic act of political loyalty toward the king. The Bible says we are to obey and respect the governing authorities.”
  • Or, “All that matters is what is in my heart. I can pray to Yahweh when I kneel, and not actually be worshipping Marduk at all.”
  • Or, “Marduk is just the name the Babylonians use to refer to the Supreme Being, whom we call Elohim. I can bow down to Marduk in recognition of the Babylonian attempt to give expression to ultimate reality, even though my understanding is more complete than theirs.”
  • Or, “That statue is just a piece of metal, and not an actual god. I would not actually be worshipping another god by getting on my knees in front of it.”
  • Or, “I didn’t have a choice! They forced me to do it!”

The human mind is superb at thinking of excuses and rationalizations, so you may be able to think of others. The problem with all of these rationalizations is that they represent compromise with the world’s demands for the sake of personal expediency, usually by reinterpreting an absolute statement in the Bible (Exod 20:4-6) through the hazy “postmodern” view of reality.

(Some might suggest that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have resigned their positions in the Babylonian government, since the demand to bow down before the idol in Daniel 3 was evidently a test of loyalty for government officials. However, this may not have been possible, since they were working as conscripts [Dan 1:1-7], not as voluntary employees.)

This is not the only example in the book of Daniel where Daniel and his friends demonstrated an absolute refusal to compromise. Daniel’s insistence in Daniel 1 that he would not eat the king’s meat or drink the king’s wine might seem strange to many today, especially since Daniel faced the death penalty for not complying. There are many people who supposedly know how the world works who would say that Daniel’s refusal was foolish, stupid, and petty. In fact, however, none of these people has achieved the greatness that Daniel achieved—a greatness which was achieved through a recognition of God’s sovereignty in the affairs of men, rather than seeing only natural processes at work. In fact, Daniel’s persistent adherence to the law of his God at any price was the entire key to his success in life and to his career in government service.

Many times in American evangelicalism we have seen preachers who seem very theologically sound and fervent when they are in their prime, but who become much less dogmatic in their later years. In Daniel 6, however, we find that when Daniel was a very old man he was still standing strong in his refusal to compromise. In that chapter, Daniel’s enemies in the Medo-Persian government tricked the king into signing a law which prohibited people from making requests to any God or man but the king for a thirty-day period. This law was likely presented as a test of loyalty to the king, although those who made the law were actually seeking to trick the king into deposing Daniel against his own will.

Once again, Daniel had a number of options available to him that might have seemed very palatable to a modern Christian. Daniel was not required by the new law to renounce God, or to pray to the king. Had he simply quit praying out loud, he would have been a law-abiding citizen. Even if he had continued to pray out loud, but had done so privately, he could not be charged with wrongdoing. He could have thought, “I am having such a great influence for God in this government, it does not make sense for me to lose it by insisting on praying in front of everybody.” But Daniel knew that he only had a great influence for God because he had a strong public testimony for God, and because he was a man of uncompromising character. Hence, Daniel refused to pray to God with his window shut. Daniel did not hide his faith or keep his mouth shut about his God when it might be offensive. He was an open servant of the God of heaven, and all the world knew it. The fact that Daniel’s enemies knew he was praying to his God suggests that he prayed out loud, and probably in the Aramaic language instead of his native Hebrew tongue. He may also have read his Bible out loud—not out of pretension, but as a testimony to the world. If Daniel had begun praying in secret as soon as the king banned all prayer to God, this would have communicated that God was not more valuable to him than his life. Thus, Daniel chose to pray publicly even when he knew it would result in a death sentence.

Most people in this world covet money, power, and prestige. But Daniel and his three friends demonstrated throughout their lives that, although they were given great honor and privilege, they were always willing to give it all up in a moment in order to avoid the slightest compromise of their principles. The only thing that really and truly mattered to Daniel was his God. The stories in the book of Daniel teach that God blesses a refusal to compromise, but they also set forth examples of absolute faithfulness—”we will obey God even if He does not deliver us.”

For a more detailed study of the book of Daniel, see my book Dr. Anderson’s Interpretive Guide to the Major Prophets (available here).

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

JETS: An evangelical Christian seminary in the Arab world

03 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Arab Christianity, Arab evangelicalism

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.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

The decline of Christianity in the United States: Whose fault is it?

13 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

American Christianity, Christianity in America

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of Americans who identify their religion as “Christianity” dropped by eight percent from 2007 to 2014. This finding comes as no surprise to anyone living in the United States. Among Christian groups, the number of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics dropped sharply, while the number of evangelical Protestants rose slightly. Most of the people who stopped identifying themselves as “Christian” now identify themselves as irreligious (or “unaffiliated”).

Various “experts” have given their opinion about the reason for the decline in Christianity in the United States. Political commentators tend to paint the decline as a political phenomenon, usually by claiming that conservative Republican Christians have turned people off to their religion by mixing religion with politics. One problem with this theory is that most of the decline has been among politically liberal Christian denominations, not among politically conservative Christian denominations. And politically liberal denominations are often as political as conservative denominations, if not more so. While it is a common fallacy for people to have a higher commitment to political principles than to biblical principles, it is also true that political activism can energize Christians who are genuinely defending their faith in public forums. Political commentators who blame the decline in the population of American Christians on political activism among conservative evangelical Christians are apparently only expressing their own distaste for the application of biblical principles in the sphere of public life.

An “expert” from the Christian Reformed Church who was interviewed on a local television station attributed the decline partly to the church’s failure to listen to what millennials want the church to be, and partly to the church’s failure to give sufficient attention to social issues. The problem is, mainstream churches have been trying for decades to reshape themselves in accordance with the culture, and the more they do this the more they lose numbers. In fact, while the ultra-contemporary church that does not even want to use traditional terms like “church” and “pastor” has had an appeal to a generation of people who grew up in traditional churches and did not like them, some surveys indicate that Christian millennials actually would prefer a traditional-style church. If a contemporary church looks just like a coffee shop or a bar, millennials don’t feel any sense of sacredness about it. As for the claim that a lack of focus on social issues is driving people away from the church, it is in fact the churches that focus the most on social issues who are losing the most members. This is because the gospel which Jesus and the apostles preached was not a social gospel, but was rather a gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins—a spiritual gospel. Churches which ignore or disparage soulwinning are inauthentic and are bound to die out sooner or later.

A columnist for the New York Times points to “low levels of Christian affiliation among the young, well educated and affluent,” and cites “economic development” as one of the causes for the decline in American Christianity. Here we may be on to something. Jesus spoke of the great difficulty of a rich person being saved (Matt 19:23-26), since the ultimate loyalty of the rich is usually to their money. In general, people who feel that they are able to meet their own physical needs, or to have these needs met by the government, tend to think that they do not need God. Education is certainly also part of the reason for the decline in American Christianity. The problem is not education in and of itself, but the atheistic, anti-biblical philosophies which are being force-fed to students at all levels of the American educational system. The more educated a person is in modern America, the less chance there is that he will still believe the Bible or attend a church.

It is no secret that the moral values in American culture are moving farther and farther away from the Bible. There is virulent cultural opposition to such biblical principles as the sanctity of life, sexual morality, modesty, male leadership, eternal punishment for the unsaved, and the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ. There is a major push from the media, the government, and the educational system to make Christianity a religion that people just believe and practice in private, while acting and talking like everyone else in public. While every individual unbeliever is responsible for his own unbelief, the leading anti-Christian voices in America bear the greatest responsibility for pushing people away from the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. No man bears greater blame for the decline in American Christianity from 2007 to 2014 than the President of the United States, who has adamantly opposed biblical principles on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, the right of the Jewish people to control the land of Israel, the true nature of Islam as a violent and false religion, and many others. Mr. Obama identifies himself as a Christian, but seems only to criticize Christianity in public, while defending Islam and atheism. The Supreme Court justices and other judges appointed by Mr. Obama are also causing considerable trouble for American Christians. While the President has the lion’s share of influence in the country, there are many other leaders who may be blamed, such as the leaders of the nation’s major media outlets, who helped President Obama win two elections and continue to support his anti-Christian outlook. In addition, the Pew study documented the first-ever major decline in American Catholics, and surely some of the blame for this lies with Pope Francis, who seems to be transforming the Roman Catholic Church into a socio-political organization with little or no theological or biblical foundation. The mainline Protestant denominations are also becoming or have become socio-political organizations whose Christian religious aspect no longer seems necessary, and might even be counterproductive to their mission.

So who is to blame for the decline in American Christianity? Certainly not God, who has spared no cost to save the human race, and has offered salvation as a free gift. The American church has many problems, and so do American Christians. But churches and Christians have always had many problems. Ultimately the blame falls squarely on the individuals who reject God’s way of salvation, whether they profess to be Christians or not. Unbelievers are responsible for their own rejection of the Christian gospel. Romans 14:12 says, “Each one of us will give an account of himself to God.” The truth is, there have always been anti-Christian voices in American culture; the reason why they are now ascendant is that the majority of people in the United States are attracted to this message and approve of this message. If millennials and other Americans are leaving the church, it is not, ultimately, due to the failures of the church or of Christians; it is the unbelievers themselves who are responsible for their own deliberate actions.

Postscript: Society’s ongoing rebellion against Christ and His church is a great tragedy, but it is also a sign of hope, for the Bible predicts a great worldwide rebellion against God at the end of history, culminating in the rise of the antichrist (2 Thess 2:1-12, etc.). The antichrist leads man’s rebellion against God to its ultimate expression, after which Jesus will return to earth to judge the nations of the world and seize political power over the world. Christians ought to be encouraged by the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, knowing that the Christ’s return is drawing closer every day, and that God is still directing events in the world in accordance with His plan.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

America’s sacred animal

01 Friday May 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Current events, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Bible, dogs

It is well known that cattle are sacred to the Hindus of India. Recently there have been news stories about a law passed in the west Indian state of Maharashtra which prohibits the killing of cattle and the sale, possession, or consumption of beef. Even tigers and other carnivores at the Mumbai zoo are being made to eat white meat instead of red meat.

While the sacredness of cattle to the Hindus seems ridiculous to many people, and rightly so, I would like to suggest that the United States is in the process of making dogs (and their biggest wild relative, the wolf) a sacred animal. It seems that at least once a week I see a story on the local news in which someone is being prosecuted for killing a dog or for failing to properly care for a dog. Recently an overwhelming majority of voters in Michigan voted against allowing wolf hunting, even though biologists say that the wolf population is as high as or higher than it should be. Most people in Michigan and other states view the shooting of a wolf as something qualitatively different than the shooting of a deer, even though deer are docile animals and wolves are predators. (The wolves are eating so many deer that the DNR may cancel this year’s deer hunt in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula for the first time ever.) This is not just an American phenomenon, either—recently a group of Chinese animal rights activists laid down on the road in front of a truck that was carrying Tibetan mastiffs to a slaughterhouse, and proceeded to provide medical care for the dogs after “rescuing” them. (The popularity of Tibetan mastiffs in China declined sharply after numerous instances where they attacked and killed people.) Animal rights groups also objected several years ago when Baghdad police began to shoot some of the 1.25 million stray dogs in the city after they had developed a taste for human flesh and had begun attacking humans.

In the United States, it is illegal to sell dog or cat meat. In some states, it is illegal to eat dog meat for any reason. This is not too much different than laws in India which prohibit the butchering of cattle. Although I have never personally tasted dog meat, some of my Korean friends say that it is their favorite kind of meat, that it tastes like beef but is more tender. They can’t understand why it is illegal to sell and eat dog meat in the United States.

Since I don’t have pets, I am not exactly sure what the law requires of dog owners. But I wonder if someone could go to jail for not paying for surgery and chemotherapy if his dog has cancer. It seems that dog hospitals and clinics with 24-hour emergency rooms and advanced medical equipment keep proliferating, and health insurance for dogs is becoming commonplace. I would not be surprised to see the next version of Obamacare make health insurance for dogs mandatory. Nor would I be surprised to see hate speech laws expanded to criminalize derogatory remarks about dogs. Already in Michigan there are frequent rallies in defense of the pit bull, which is the most dangerous of all dog breeds.

I do not advocate unnecessary cruelty to animals, but at the same time it should be recognized that there is considerable confusion today about the difference between man and animals, due largely to the teaching of Darwinian evolution. I do not understand why people think that stray dogs and cats should be captured, then neutered and spayed or put in cages in the Humane Society, rather than shot and buried. I do not understand why a man who accidentally leaves a dog in a hot car, resulting in its death, should go to jail. That is an unfortunate accident, but from a biblical point of view killing a dog is not morally different than killing a rat.

The Bible teaches that man is qualitatively different than a dog or any other animal, because man alone was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:5-6). People who talk about their pet dogs as their “children,” as many now do, are seriously mistaken. The word “murder” is used less and less today where it should be. Where news headlines used to read “Police investigating murder” they now read, e.g., “Police investigating shooting death” or “Police investigate fatal stabbing.” A murderer is now called a “homicide suspect” or a “man convicted of killing.” Perhaps this is because the word “murder” implies moral guilt, whereas problems today are said to be the result of environmental or psychological factors and not willful sin. But where I do hear the word “murder” used with greater frequency is with respect to people killing dogs. From a biblical point of view, animals can be killed, but they can never be murdered. Only man can be murdered, since only man is created in the image of God.

In the Bible, dogs are portrayed as among the basest of all animals (cf. 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 3:8; 9:8; 16:9; 2 Kgs 8:13; Job 30:1; Ps 22:16; Isa 66:3). Male prostitutes are called “dogs” in Deuteronomy 23:18. Paul calls false teachers “dogs” in Philippians 3:2. Jesus warned more than once against giving good things to “dogs” (Matt 7:6; 15:26; Mark 7:27). The book of Revelation uses the term “dogs” to represent people who are loathsome and unclean (Rev 22:15).

While as an unclean animal dogs could not be eaten under the Mosaic Law, the New Testament affirms that all types of animal meat—including dogs—are now permissible to eat, since the Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9-16). Before the Mosaic Law, as well, it was perfectly permissible to eat dog meat (Gen 9:2-4). Dogs can make fun pets and can be useful for such tasks as protection and hunting, but they are animals—they are not human. Even in comparison to other animals, dogs do not have superior status; they are, in fact, singled out in the Bible as among the most despicable of all animals. The veneration of dogs in the United States would seem, then, to be a mark of a society that has departed from God and from a biblical way of thinking.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Will Iran destroy Israel? Will Israel destroy Iran?

06 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by Steven Anderson in Bible prophecy, Current events

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Iran, Iran's nuclear program, nuclear weapons, peace

Iran’s nuclear program has been in the news for a long time, most recently because of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. It is an open secret that Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons for more than a decade, with some help from North Korea and Russia. Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have continued almost for the entire Obama presidency. At first, the goal of the negotiations was to end Iran’s nuclear program. However, Iran seems unwilling to end their nuclear program, since the Islamic rulers of Iran need nuclear weapons to realize their political ambitions of conquest. If Iran’s nuclear program was solely for generating electricity, the Iranians would have ended it many years ago or agreed to allow inspections in accordance with international law, since economic sanctions have done great damage to the Iranian economy. By the same token, it has become evident that President Obama will not even consider destroying Iran’s nuclear program with a crippling airstrike. Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have therefore been trying to get the Iranians to agree to something that will limit Iran’s nuclear program in some way.

The rulers of Iran, who are not Arabs, belong to a sect of Islam that is considered a heterodox fringe or cult by the majority Sunni sect of Islam, although probably the worst Islamist groups today are actually composed of radical Sunnis (ISIS, al-Qaida, and affiliated groups). The Iranian form of Islam has a strange apocalyptic eschatology revolving around the supposed coming of the “twelfth imam” and some sort of world conquest or world war. Some people think that Iran’s religious rulers might use nuclear weapons in order to bring about the events that they believe will be associated with the coming of the twelfth imam.

The Iranian regime hates the state of Israel, and has said again and again that they are committed to destroying Israel. Iran is an active supporter of the anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah, and in the past Iran has been a strong supporter of Hamas. It comes as no surprise, then, that Israel is working hard to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But I personally doubt that Israel would be the first target of a nuclear Iran. Iran knows that Israel has a powerful military and nuclear missiles, and Iran knows that Israel would use its nuclear weapons against Iran if necessary. Iran’s archrival in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, and neither the Saudis nor their Gulf allies have nuclear weapons. The Saudis and their allies are therefore very concerned about a nuclear Iran.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the Iranian nuclear issue. For one thing, no one outside of Iran knows for sure exactly how developed Iran’s nuclear program is, and it is possible that Iran already has a nuclear bomb. The Iranians have a history of hiding as much of their activity as possible, and they would not be the first country to have developed nuclear weapons well before Western intelligence agencies discovered them. The increasingly polarized rivalry between Vladimir Putin and the West could also result in Russia taking a much larger role in supporting Iran and its Shiite allies (primarily Bashar Assad and Hezbollah). Perhaps Mr. Putin will provide more direct support to Iran’s nuclear program in order to gain a powerful ally against the United States and Europe.

But while we can speculate about what may or may not happen vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear program, there is no need for Bible-believing Christians to be in suspense regarding the outcome of events in the Middle East. Ezekiel 38–39 describes prophetically a great invasion of the Middle East by Russia and its allies at the end of the present age (3½ years before the return of Jesus Christ to the earth). Curiously, it describes Israel as “the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants were gathered out of many peoples to the mountains of Israel” (Ezek 38:8). It further calls Israel “the land of unwalled villages . . . those who are at rest, who dwell securely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates” (Ezek 38:11). In other words, Ezekiel 38 portrays Israel as so completely and totally at peace with its neighbors that it has actually disarmed and torn down all of its security walls and fences. Ezekiel 38:13 also seems to portray Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states as unarmed. (Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are not mentioned, while Jordan is said in Daniel 11:41 to successfully resist end-time invasions.) Incredible as it may seem, the Bible portrays the peoples of the Middle East as living in complete peace and harmony, without violence, in a future day! That is not to say that the violence that now exists in the Middle East will not continue or worsen for a while, but it will not last. Further, Israel will not be destroyed by Iran (nor will, it appears the Gulf states); the nation of Israel will remain in its land and prosper until the final few years of world history, when the antichrist will invade the Middle East and will launch a fierce pogrom to attempt to exterminate the Jewish people.

Iran, for its part, is evidently not going away, either. Iran (Persia) is listed in Ezekiel 38:5 as an ally of Russia when Russia invades the Middle East at the end of history. The Bible does not say whether there will be some sort of previous military conflict between Iran and Israel, but it does indicate that Iran will continue to exist, and also that Iran will be brought firmly within the Russian orbit. (For a more detailed description of Ezekiel’s prophecies, see the analysis of Ezekiel 34–39 in volume 4 of my Interpretive Guide to the Bible.)

I am not saying that Christians, or American politicians, should not be concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, or that Christians should not pray for Israel’s protection. But the Bible gives us assurance that Israel will indeed survive the present conflict, and that peace will come to the Middle East.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow TruthOnlyBible on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 225 other subscribers

Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Archaeology
  • Bible
  • Bible prophecy
  • Bible scholarship
  • Biblical languages
  • Books
  • Christmas
  • Church history
  • Creation
  • Current events
  • Easter
  • Ecclesiology
  • Evangelism
  • History
  • Missions
  • Practical theology
  • Theology

RSS links

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Join 225 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • TruthOnlyBible
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
    To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
    %d bloggers like this: