A Sponge with Fiber Optic

A Sponge with Fiber Optics

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The last time you picked up a phone to call your business partner about a work project, you might have been using fiber optics. The last time you logged onto the World Wide Web from your home computer, you might have been using fiber optics.

 We hear much about fiber optics these days, but what, exactly, is meant by the term “fiber optics”? In simple terms, a fiber-optic cable has a core (center) made of very thin glass.

 Light can travel through the glass and relay light signals that can reproduce sound and other information. Fiber-optic cables stretch thousands of miles all across the world, and can send information quickly and efficiently.

But there are some problems with these cables. First, since they are glass, they can be brittle, which means they can crack and break. Digging up the cables and replacing them is very expensive.

Second, in order to produce the cables, factories must use very high heat, which also is very expensive. Fiber optics are amazing, but they could use some improvement.

Interestingly, scientists have found an amazing sponge that has wonderful fiber-optic “cables.” The sponge, called the Venus Flower Basket, lives in the deep waters of the ocean. This sponge produces several fiber-optic cables that grow out of its base. These tiny cables are about as wide as a single human hair, and grow to be anywhere from 2 to 7 inches long.

The fibers produced by the Venus Flower Basket have several advantages over the manmade ones. First, they are produced in cool temperatures. If we humans could learn to copy this, we could save millions of dollars.

 Second, the fibers from the sponge are very strong and flexible, and do not crack and break like the ones humans produce. In fact, the fibers from the sponge are so flexible they can be tied into a knot.

 If scientists could learn to make such strong, flexible fibers, we would not have to spend as much time and money repairing our current fiber-optic cables.

Dan Vergano, in an article for USA Today, wrote about the Venus Flower Basket. He quoted several researchers who had been working with the fiber-optic cables of the sponge, or some other facet of biomimetics (the science of copying nature).

 George Matsumoto, a marine researcher of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, said: “Nature often provides us with a better way of doing thing [sic].” He went on to comment that sponges have evolved varied traits over more than 400 million years (2003).

It is amazing that many scientists who are working in the field of biomimicry do not acknowledge the implications of their work. It is a self-evident truth that where there is design, there must of necessity, be a designer; where there is a painting, there must be a painter.

Those who study biomimicry freely acknowledge design in nature. For example, what seems to be the official Web site on biomimicry offers a course from its home page titled “Biologists at the Design Table.”

 In the course summary, under the heading of “Workshop Logistics,” the site describes the participants in the course as those who are “biologists and naturalists with a passion for the natural world, an understanding of sustainability and an interest in applying nature’s elegant design strategies to human challenges” (n.d., “Biomimicry,” emp. added).

Supposedly, then, over a period of billions of years, nature developed “elegant design strategies”—the likes of which even our most educated, brilliant minds have yet to plumb the depths. And yet we are to believe that this “design” somehow originated by a process of blind, evolutionary chance. Such a conclusion steps beyond bounds of logic.

Intelligent scientists have been working on fiber-optic cables for many years, just to get them to work as well as they do now. Yet, the Venus Flower Basket has strong, flexible fibers that are produced in cool temperatures.

 If there is design, which is even more intricate and efficient than that produced by highly intelligent humans, then the designer of such must have an intellect equal to or greater than the humans themselves. The writer of Hebrews accurately noted: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4). God’s design in the sponge’s fiber-optic “cables” proves that animals like the Venus Flower Basket did not evolve. Design demands a Designer.

REFERENCES

“Biomimicry,” (n.d.) [On-line], URL: http://www.biomimicry.org/intro.html.

Vergano, Dan (2003), “Sponge Goes Man-made Fiber Optics One Better,” USA Today, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-08-20-sponge-fibers_x.htm.

---

Copyright  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Storms of Doubt (Audio) 34 min This is very good. Enjoy!

https://apologeticspress.org/video/storms-of-doubt-audio/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Is the Kingdom Yet to be Established?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersEnd Times

The average American is aware of the periodic claim that “the end is near.” When Y2K was approaching, outcries of doom, global disruption, and Armageddon were widespread. Hal Lindsey achieved nationwide attention over thirty years ago with his national bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth (1970). A more recent repackaging of the dispensational brand of premillennialism is the popular Left Behind book series (see “The Official…,” 2003). Every so often, a religious figure captures national attention by announcing the impending return of Jesus—even to the point of setting a date—only to fade into the anonymity and obscurity from which he arose when his claim falls flat, but having achieved his “fifteen minutes of fame” (see Whisenant and Brewer, 1989). The sensationalism sells well, and tweaks the curiosity of large numbers of people. Incredibly, this pattern has been repeating itself—literally for centuries!

One feature of the premillennial dispensationalist’s claim is that the kingdom is yet future, and that Jesus is not reigning now, but will commence His reign in His kingdom when He returns in the future to establish it in Jerusalem. However, several passages cannot be harmonized with such a view. First, the Bible teaches that the kingdom exists now, and has existed since A.D. 30. While Jesus was on Earth, He went to Galilee, “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15, emp. added). He also stated: “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). In fact, Jesus “has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). To insist that the kingdom is yet to be established is to fail to recognize that the Bible plainly declares that the kingdom already exists on Earth.

Second, the words “kingdom,” “Israel,” and “church” all refer to the same group of people—i.e., the saved, Christians, the church of Christ, or spiritual Israel. Jesus predicted that He would build His “church” and give to Peter the keys of the “kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19). Jesus did not build one institution and then give Peter the keys to a different institution. Paul told the Galatian Christians: “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. …and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7,29; cf. 6:16). He told Christians in Rome: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is the church of Christ—that is, the kingdom.

Third, Jesus is reigning now in heaven and has been since His ascension around A.D. 30. Peter explained that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Daniel predicted over four centuries prior to its fulfillment: “One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). This prophecy was fulfilled at the ascension of Christ: “while they watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Jesus returned to heaven where He was given rule over His kingdom (Hebrews 10:12). When He returns a second time, it will not be to reign on Earth. Rather, “[t]hen comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announced to the gathered crowd that Jesus was reigning at that moment over His kingdom: “God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.… This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God…” (Acts 2:30-33). Paul made the same point in his letter to the church of Christ in Ephesus: “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet” (Ephesians 1:20-22). I repeat: the Bible repeatedly affirms that Jesus is reigning and ruling now over His kingdom.

Fourth, Jesus completed His work on Earth and, consequently, has no reason to return to the Earth to do any additional work. He explained to the disciples: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34, emp. added). Shortly before His departure from the Earth, He prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4).

Dispensationalists say that Jesus came with the intention to be King, and to set up an earthly kingdom, but that the Jews unexpectedly rejected Him. However, this claim is in direct conflict with the facts. On one occasion, after Jesus fed thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fish—a feat that would constitute a tremendous advantage should war with Rome be forthcoming—John noted that “when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (6:15). Here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to become the physical king that the dispensationalists insist He intended to become. But He refused! Why? He gave the reason to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The dispensational claim that Jesus is coming back to be a king on Earth on a physical throne is the very thing first-century Jews tried to get Him to do—but which He refused to do.

Premillennialists also maintain that the modern nation of Israel is the recipient of various promises made in Scripture, and that it plays a prominent and continuing role in God’s scheme of things. This contention has had a profound impact upon U.S. foreign policy, and in the way people around the world—especially in the Middle East—perceive America. It must surely be a shock for many people to learn that the Bible depicts no such favored status. All people stand on level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ. God is no respecter of persons, and makes no distinctions between people on the basis of ethnicity (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11,28-29; Galatians 3:28). The promises that were made to physical Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled long ago.

For example, God announced to Abraham that He would give to his descendents (the Israelites) the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1; 15:7). This promise was fulfilled when Israel took possession of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C. (Joshua 21:43-45; 2 Chronicles 9:26). What so many people today fail to recognize is that Israelites’ retaining the land was contingent upon their continued obedience (Leviticus 18:24-28; Joshua 23:14-16; 1 Kings 9:3-7). The complete and final forfeiture of physical Israel took place in A.D. 70. The reestablishment of national Israel, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple (i.e., the national promises of Deuteronomy 30 and Zechariah 12-14) were literally fulfilled in the returning remnant after the Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 1:8-10; Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezra 3:1-11).

Many of the Old Testament prophecies that predicted the return of the Jews after captivity were laced with predictions of the coming of Christ to the Earth to bring ultimate redemption. Hence, the national promises were spiritually fulfilled in the church of Christ, wherein both Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. For example, premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “ ‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return, set up His millennial kingdom, and reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, incorporating the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millennial interpretation placed upon it.

However, two Bible passages correct this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build—2 Samuel 7:1-7) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house (i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage). It is this lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.

The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James noted two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.”

In light of James’ inspired application of it to the integrated church of the first century, the Amos prophecy, like all others in the Old Testament that premillennialists wish to apply to the future, finds ultimate and final climax in the momentous advent of the Christian religion on the planet. The premillennial treatment of prophecy is, in the final analysis, a demeaning and trivializing of the significance of the Gospel, the church of Christ, and the Christian religion as the final revelation from God to mankind. The kingdom is not future; it is here now. All accountable persons would do well to conform themselves to the preconditions that enable Jesus to add them to His kingdom (Acts 2:38,47; 8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:5: 22:16).

REFERENCES

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“The Official Left Behind Series Site,” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.leftbehind.com.

Whisenant, Edgar and Greg Brewer (1989), The Final Shout Rapture 1989 Report (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?

Eric Lyons

 

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Alleged DiscrepanciesDeity of ChristDivine Life and Doctrine

Testing, proving, or trying someone can be a very effective teaching technique. A teacher might effectively test the honesty of her students by giving them a difficult closed-book exam over a chapter they had not yet studied. Those who took their “F” without cheating would pass the test. Those who opened up their books when the teacher left the room and copied all of the answers word for word, would fail the test, and learn the valuable lesson that honesty is always the best (and right) policy, even when it might appear that it means failure.

Teachers test their students in a variety of ways. Good parents prove their children early on in life in hopes that they learn the virtues of honesty, compassion, and obedience. Coaches may try their players in attempts to instill in them the value of being disciplined in all phases of their game. Bosses test and challenge their employees in hopes of assembling the best team of workers who put out the best products possible. Indeed, mankind has understood the value of tests for millennia.

It should come as no surprise that God has used this same teaching technique various times throughout history. He tested Abraham on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:1-2; Hebrews 11:17), and hundreds of years later He repeatedly tested the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 8:2; Psalm 81:7). King David declared how the Lord “tested” and “tried” him (Psalm 17:3), while his son Solomon wrote: “The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, but the Lord tests the hearts” (Proverbs 17:3). Roughly 1,000 years later, the apostle Paul declared the same inspired truth—“God…tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Even when God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, He tested man. For example, once when Jesus saw “a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, ‘Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?’” John revealed, however, that Jesus asked this question to “test” Philip (John 6:5-6).

There are certain tests administered by God that some find cold and heartless, partly because they fail to recognize that a test is underway. One such event is recorded in Matthew 15:21-28.

Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He [Jesus] answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In this passage, the reader learns that Jesus: (1) initially remained silent when a Canaanite woman cried out for mercy (vss. 22-23); (2) informed her that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24); and (3) told her that it was not fitting to take that which was meant for the “children” and give it to the “little dogs” (vs. 26). In addition, Jesus’ disciples urged Him to “send her away, for she cries out after us” (vs. 23).

Although Jesus eventually healed the Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter, some believe that Jesus’ overall encounter with the woman indicates that He was unkind and intolerant. For example, the prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 529 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2010).

Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, offensive, or a racial slur. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4). Any unkindness on Jesus’ part would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

TO THE JEW FIRST AND ALSO TO THE GREEKS

In order to understand properly Jesus’ statement, one must recognize the divinely appointed order in which the Gospel would spread. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, in his epistle to the church at Rome, the apostle Paul stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

HOW FAR CAN AN ANIMAL ILLUSTRATION BE TAKEN?

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal…. It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews…. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).

A TEST OF FAITH

Given other information in Matthew’s gospel account as well as the overall context of Matthew chapter 15, it appears that more was going on in these verses than Jesus simply wanting the Gentile woman to understand that He was “not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added).

If Jesus so willingly responded to a Gentile in Matthew chapter eight by miraculously healing his servant of paralysis, why did He initially resist healing the Gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter in Matthew chapter 15? Consider the immediate context of the chapter. The scribes and Pharisees had once again come to criticize and badger Jesus (15:1-2). The Son of God responded with a hard-hitting truth: that His enemies were hypocrites who treasured tradition more than the Word of God, and whose religion was heartless (vss. 3-9). What was the reaction of the Pharisees? Matthew gives no indication that their hearts were pricked by the Truth. Instead, Jesus’ disciples reported to Him that “the Pharisees were offended” by Jesus’ teachings (vs. 12, emp. added), to which Jesus responded: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (vss. 13-14). Unlike many modern-day preachers who water down the Gospel and apologize for the Truth, Jesus did not sugar coat it. It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but sincere truth-seekers will respond in all humility, regardless of being offended.

Being offended is exactly what many people would have been had they initially been turned down by Jesus as was the Canaanite woman. While she pled for mercy, at first Jesus remained silent. Then, after being informed that Jesus “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (vs. 24), she worshiped Him and begged Him for help (vs. 25). Even after being told, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs” (vs. 26), this persistent, humble woman did not allow potentially offensive remarks to harden her heart. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who responded to Jesus with hard-heartedness, this Gentile acknowledged her unworthiness, while persistently pursuing the Holy One for help (15:27). Ultimately, her faith resulted in the healing of her daughter and served as an admonition to those witnessing the event about the nature of true faith.

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. The fact is, the truth can hurt (cf. Acts 2:36-37). However, we must remember to respond to God’s tests and teachings of truth with all humility, rather than haughtiness (James 4:6,10).

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/090703.htm.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Wells, Steve (2010), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

David & Jonathan: Homosexuals?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Culture WarHomosexuali

A classic case of approaching the Bible with one’s own pre-conceived agenda, searching for some shred of a hint that can then be spun to fit the intended narrative, is the claim that David and Jonathan shared a homosexual relationship.1 The passage used to advance this allegation reads:

How the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan was slain in your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me; your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women (2 Samuel 1:25-26).

The Hebrew word for “love” in verse 26 carries a variety of meanings, but the primary meaning is the care and concern that one has for one’s fellow man (whether male or female). Hence, it is used as the opposite of hate,2 friendship (Proverbs 17:9; 27:5), as well as God’s love for His people (Hosea 11:4; Isaiah 63:9; Jeremiah 31:3; Zephaniah 3:17) and vice-versa (Jeremiah 2:2).3

It is true that the term can be used to refer to sexual lust, as in the case of Amnon. After raping his half-sister, the text informs us: “Then Amnon hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her” (2 Samuel 13:15). The term “love” in this context refers exclusively to sexual desire—nothing more. The Song of Solomon uses the word to refer to the married love between a man and a woman (2:4,5; 5:8; 8:6,7; cf. Proverbs 5:19).

However, a significant difference exists between the comradery, friendship, and close connection sustained between two men who are lifelong friends, and the sexual relationship shared by two men. The former relationship has no hint whatsoever of sexual attraction, while the latter relationship is largely defined by the sexual connection. Indeed, it is the sexual activity that differentiates the two relationships. It is true that, like heterosexuals, two homosexuals can experience a variety of non-sexual feelings for each other, including friendship or a deep “soul-mate” connection. But this fact must not be allowed to obscure the real issue. The one has nothing to do with the other. The entire question comes down to whether two men have a God-given, God-authorized right to enact a sexual relationship with each other.

In the case of David and Jonathan, the circumstantial evidence suggests that they were simply close friends. They both were heavily involved in heterosexual marriages. They both had children from those marriages who received the priority that is typical of such marriages. For example, Jonathan desired a covenant between himself and David that would ensure the safety of his wife and family:

“And you shall not only show me the kindness of the LORD while I still live, that I may not die; but you shall not cut off your kindness from my house forever, no, not when the LORD has cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.” So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “Let the LORD require it at the hand of David’s enemies” (1 Samuel 20:14-16).

Jonathan’s concern was that the same kindness that David showed to himself be extended to his family. Was Jonathan requesting that David enact the same sexual relationship with Jonathan’s kids that David showed to him? Or, rather, was he referring to the friendship and close-knit care and concern for each other that the two shared? The latter is in keeping with the context. Jonathan later reminded David: “May the LORD be between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants, forever” (1 Samuel 20:42). Jonathan was concerned with sustaining, maintaining, and perpetuating his posterity through his marriage to a woman.

The fact is that no evidence whatsoever exists in the Bible that would lead one to believe that David and Jonathan sustained a sexual relationship with each other. In fact, a sober examination of the evidence leads even the defender of homosexuality to admit the fact, as in the admission made by a lesbian: “While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that David and Jonathan were lovers, Jesus himself did not say anything directly about homosexuality in the Bible either. Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships.”4 (For an examination of the validity of the claim regarding Jesus, see AP’s book Homosexuality: Scripture, Society, Science, & Psychology.)

Another factor to consider: The Law of Moses condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Indeed, it was a death-penalty offense. But if God readily condemned David for his violation of another Mosaic law pertaining to sexual contact, specifically, adultery (2 Samuel 11), why would He not have condemned David for homosexual contact as well? In fact, since Jonathan was married, he would have been “cheating” on his wife with David. Do homosexuals today who are in a “committed” relationship consider their partner as committing adultery if he has an “affair” with another man? To ask is to answer.

Endnotes

1 For example, Kittredge Cherry (2020), “David and Jonathan: Same-sex Love Between Men in the Bible,” Q Spirit, December 29, https://qspirit.net/david-jonathan-same-sex-love/.

2 Proverbs 10:12; 15:17; Psalm 109:4,5; Ecclesiastes 9:1,6.

3 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint), p. 13.

4 Cherry (20

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

A Biblical Portrait of Evangelizing Those Who Don’t Believe in God or the Bible

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal Matters

 Article in Brief

While evangelists in Scripture are often seen addressing Scripture-believers, Acts 17 provides a rare instance of a brief blueprint for evangelizing non-Scripture-believers.

When considering the portrait of evangelism in the New Testament, much of what we witness involves Christians attempting to convert Jews—those who were already “Bible-believers” (at least, believers in the Old Testament). Thus, we see the Christian evangelists regularly citing passages from the Old Testament in an attempt to convince Jews that, for example, Jesus is the long-awaited, Old Testament prophesied Messiah. But what does biblical evangelism look like when a Christian teaches a non-Bible-believer?

At various times over the years, we have witnessed Christians dismiss the study of Christian evidences and apologetics, saying things like, “I didn’t need to study those things when I was converted. So, I don’t see the point.” Or, “Studying about the existence of God, Genesis, and atheism is not really learning about Jesus, so that’s not saving souls.” Or, “All we need is to quote the Bible to people. That should be all we need to be saved.” Subsequently, such individuals fail to promote—much less teach—the study of apologetics and Christian evidences.

With such a mindset among some, should we be surprised to find that 60-80% of youth are leaving Christianity today because their faith has crumbled?1 They are unable to defend their faith (i.e., because they cannot engage in apologetics). They have accepted the lie that there is no evidence for Christianity (unlike evolution or the Big Bang Theory, they say) and that it requires a “blind” faith (i.e., they have not studied Christian evidences). With such a mindset being promoted, should we be surprised to find that 24% of Americans are now naturalists, rejecting a God as playing a role in human existence,2 or that 80% of Americans now reject the inspiration of the Bible?3 Should we be further surprised to find that 29% of Americans believe the Bible to be, not only uninspired, but comprised of a group of man-made fables, history, and moral precepts?4 Should we be surprised that 58% of Americans now accept evolution, rejecting the foundation for the entire Christian faith—the teachings of the book of Genesis, like a literal Creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a first sin in the Garden, and a global Flood?5 The foundations of the Christian religion in America have been severely eroded, and, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). If a person rejects the inspiration of the Bible, he will no more be converted when a Christian quotes from it than the Christian would be converted to Islam when a Muslim quotes the Qur’an to him. There are more fundamental issues that must first be addressed.

A study of Paul’s evangelistic approach in Acts 17 is enlightening when considering how one should go about attempting to convert those who do not believe in the Bible or God. After all, that is precisely what Paul was called upon to do that notable day almost 2,000 years ago. In Acts 17:15, we find Paul being conducted by other Christians to Athens to commence the one-day sailing journey to Corinth, no doubt from the famous Athens port of Piraeus. Before departure from Athens, however, he had to await (apparently for some days) the arrival of Silas and Timothy. Athens was the great Grecian city of Gentile philosophers and debaters over the centuries, including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus.

As he waited, he apparently explored enough of the city to observe that “the city was given over to idols” (vs. 16). It comes as no surprise to read that Paul could not help but address the issue. Verse 16 says that “his spirit was provoked within him” over the idolatry, leading to his daily evangelism in Athens’ public marketplace as he waited for his colleagues (vs. 17). When some of the Athenian philosophers heard Paul, they were intrigued enough by the new message being conveyed that they “took him” (“took hold of him”—vs. 19, ASV, RSV).

They then brought him up the 375-foot ascent to the supreme council of the Athenians, the Areopagus, named for the hill upon which they met—“Ares’ Hill” (or Mars’ Hill, using the Roman name for Ares). Mars’ Hill was the legendary place in Greek mythology where the other gods put Mars (Ares in Greek) on trial, accusing him of murdering the god Poseidon’s son, Halirrhothius. Here, in the first century, the Athenian philosophers gathered in the shadow of the nearby famous Acropolis citadel and the Parthenon, already in existence at the time and visible from the Hill. Paul then has a momentous chance to teach the academics of the world—the Gentile Ph.D.’s of the first century—the truth. As it does today, the teachings of the academics could no doubt trickle down to the masses over the coming years, making Paul’s opportunity an important one. What would Paul choose to say to these Gentile academics? The answer is highly relevant in the increasingly secular society in which Americans live.

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:22-31).

Does God (through Paul) teach the Athenians a Bible lesson? Interestingly, He does not. After all, why would He? These Gentile philosophers would likely know very little about the Hebrew Scriptures, if anything, not being Jews. Much of the New Testament had yet to be written. The philosophers had already made it clear that the things Paul was teaching—i.e., New Testament teachings—were new concepts to them (vss. 18-21). So, of course they would not have believed in the Bible, making any quotations from the Bible irrelevant to them at that point in their understanding. As logical people, they would (and should) no doubt first want proof of the Bible’s inspiration by God before they would care what it says. Further, they would not even know Who the God that inspired the Bible is (prompting Paul’s comments about that God), much less believe that He exists.

So, what does Paul choose to say? Does he encourage them to close their eyes and simply feel God’s presence in their hearts? Does he tell them they must choose to blindly believe in the God of the Bible without evidence at all? Does he preach a Bible lesson to them?

He reasons with the Athenians, giving a defense (apologia) of the truth. In other words, he engages in apologetics. He uses logic to help point them towards the true God, but he never quotes from Scripture, since a foundation must first be laid. Interestingly, in fact, he quotes from their own philosophers—their own doctrines. He “meets them where they are,” starting from the doctrines with which they are familiar and comfortable. He becomes “all things to all men, that [he] might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

About what does he reason with the philosophers? Since his audience is comprised of philosophers, he uses philosophy. He reasons with them, alluding to three classical arguments for the existence of God: the Cosmological Argument (vs. 24), the Teleological Argument (vss. 25-26), and the Intuitional Argument (vs. 27).6 He then briefly mentions repentance, Judgment Day, and alludes to Jesus—though he does not actually use His name at this point in his evangelism. He merely calls Him “a man.”7 Considering that he was not primarily addressing atheists, but polytheists, his message is not rejected to this point in Paul’s sermon. Paul finally works up to the culmination of his message, briefly mentioning Jesus’ resurrection (again, without mentioning Jesus’ name). Here, Paul is interrupted and, as would be expected (and which Paul, no doubt, anticipated—hence waiting until the end of his speech to mention it), his audience realizes the significance of Paul’s claim about Jesus’ resurrection (implying the reality of life after death, which the philosophers of the day staunchly rejected).

What happens? The same things that happen today in evangelism. Some mock him (vs. 32). Some are intrigued but more apathetic, claiming to want to hear more information from Paul later (vs. 32). Some are open to the truth enough to “join him.” The underlying Greek suggests they clung closely to him, joining and associating themselves with him.8 Paul’s goal is met: he (like Jesus so often did) gave just enough information to sift those genuine truth seekers from the group. He no doubt further instructed those Gentiles who joined him at that point (including reasoning about the Bible’s origin and message, Jesus, salvation, the Church, etc.). The result? “[S]ome men joined him and believed [i.e., became Christians], among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them” (vs. 34). Apologetics works. It converts people. It is an essential tool in the evangelist’s arsenal when converting those who do not already believe in God or His Word.

Endnotes

1 Kevin Cain (2019), “Why Are We Losing Them When They Leave for College?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/why-are-we-losing-them-when-they-leave-for-college-5738/.

2 Megan Brenan (2024), “Majority Still Credits God for Humankind, but not creationism,” GALLUP online, July 22, https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx.

3 Frank Newport (2022), “Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God,” GALLUP online, July 6, https://news.gallup.com/poll/394262/fewer-bible-literal-word-god.aspx.

4 Ibid.

5 Brenan.

6 For a deeper study of these arguments see Dave Miller, ed. (2017), Does God Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

7 While the NKJV has “the Man” in vs. 31, the underlying Greek does not contain the article. Therefore, the ESV and NASB translate the underlying Greek as “a man.”

8 “κολλάω”: Frederick W. Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press), third edition, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, Logos Bible Software.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.