The Eucharist

One of the beliefs I have always kept with me, from my upbringing in the Catholic Church and through my years in evangelicalism, is the reality of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is so much more than a memorial service activity. It is that which has nourished the body of Christ since it’s first institution at the Last Supper, and it has been preserved in the church from its earliest days.

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 – 165 A.D.)

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology, 66)

Theosis: The Aim of the Christian Life

One of the topics I have been greatly interested in is encapsulated in the Orthodox word Theosis, which Wikipedia describes as “a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God.” From what I understand of it, the essence and purpose of life is to grow in godliness and Christ-likeness. This transformative process happens through the life of the church, through prayer and self-discipline, and through the sacraments. It is known, partially, by other names within Christianity; divinization, holiness, Christification, etc. The Christian life is so much more than reciting a sinners prayer and ”resting” in Jesus. I think Evangelicalism today is not giving us the whole message of the Christian life.

The Ancient Walk Facebook Group

Please join my Facebook group…https://www.facebook.com/groups/239553081621820/

Reflections on Discipleship and Spiritual Formation from the Early Church through the Life and Ministry of Augustine

Introduction

Augustine and other church fathers employed several discipleship strategies that reveal a common approach to the church of their era. This paper will reflect on the following three strategies: The Monastery, Letters, and Church Councils.^[1] In addition to Augustine, the ministries of Cyprian, Pachomias, Basil of Caesarea, and Ambrose of Milan will be discussed to compare or contrast with Augustine’s methods. At the heart of these strategies are the eight characteristics of mentoring discussed in the book Augustine as Mentor, by Dr. Edward Smither, which were instrumental in forming Augustine into one of the most influential fathers of the early church. The thesis of this paper is that, while the strategies of discipleship employed by Augustine and the other church fathers reflect a much different age of the church than we experience today, the underlying characteristics of discipleship are timeless and relevant for today’s church.

Discipleship Strategies

The use of the monastery was a common approach by many early church fathers as a means of escaping the temptations of the world and pursuing a life dedicated to prayer and service to God. The cenobitic monasticism that Augustine practiced reflected his desire to be in a community with like-minded brethren to study, pray, and encourage one another in the faith. Augustine developed his mentoring approach through the various monastic communities he hosted. The key characteristics included his priority to draw a group of men together, his selection only of individuals “who agreed to follow the rule… and who were committed to living a holy life,” his posture of “spiritual authority over the men,” his teaching and equipping the clergy in sound doctrine and apologetics, and in his releasing to ministry “monks to serve in the ordained ministry.”^[2]

In addition to Augustine, both Pachomius and Basil of Caesarea utilized the monastery as a strategy for discipleship.^[3] Pachomius utilized his position as abba to mentor his “network of monasteries.”^[4] Though the monks living within his communities were not being prepared for church ministries, his structured format of scripture readings, prayer, and assigned manual labor enabled mutual mentoring of the monks towards the pursuit of holy living.^[5] Basil of Caesarea had high regard for the ascetic life and continued to live as a monk even after his ordination to a bishop.^[6]Frustrated with the “weak spiritual state of the clergy,” he utilized the monastery for mentoring “as an indirect training center for monks who would eventually be ordained.”^[7]

The use of letters as a strategy for discipleship was another common approach by Augustine. As revealed through his 252 surviving letters, Augustine edified and encouraged clergy in the following ways: Through peer mentoring, providing theological and exegetical resources, encouraging sound teaching, addressing practical church matters, providing perspective on ministry, encouraging spiritual growth, and general encouragement and reconciliation.^[8]Cyprian intended his letters to be read publicly and encouraged copies to be made as a resource for the edification of others.^[9] “He used letters to resource the clergy by answering questions on practical matters, giving practical instructions for ministry, exhorting the clergy to faithfulness and ministry, at times disciplining the clergy, encouraging them, dealing with doctrinal issues, or simply communicating church-related information.”^[10] Basil of Caesarea “made extensive use of letters”^[11] to mentor clergy. His “clerical correspondence can largely be categorized as letters in which Basil himself was being mentored, those that involved peer mentoring, invitation or selection for mentoring, encouragement, exhortation, discipline, theological resourcing, doctrinal influence, practical ministry instruction, and church business.”^[12] Ambrose of Milan employed the use of letters as a “means of making his presence known though he was personally distant.”^[13] He mentored fellow clergy through letters “to instruct them in practical church matters, to respond to theological and exegetical questions, and to encourage and exhort them to the work of ministry.”^[14]

Finally, the use of church councils was a common strategy of discipleship utilized by Augustine, Cyprian, Basil of Caesarea, and Ambrose. Augustine felt strongly about the role of councils as “authoritative and necessary to transform the African church.”^[15] He mentored by serving “as a theological and exegetical resource for bishops,” by serving “as an effective model for resolving doctrinal controversies,” by “conducting himself with wisdom, patience, and focus,” by providing the clergy with “letters, books, sermons, and actions that followed up the work or decisions of a council,” and by “involving his disciples in the work of the gatherings.”^[16] Cyprian also greatly valued church councils and participated in seven of them as bishop.^[17] He mentored by convening the councils and by providing “opinion on doctrinal matters” that “seemed to carry more weight than that of his colleagues.” Basil of Caesarea utilized annual councils “to influence the clergy toward sound doctrine, to restore clerical holiness, and to allow clergy to participate in decision making.”^[18] Ambrose of Milan, ministering in an area “sharply divided by the Arian controversy,” found great value in church councils to mentor clergy on sound “orthodoxy based on a correct interpretation of Scripture.”^[19]

Practical Strategies for Spiritual Formation Today

At the heart of the strategies for discipleship that these great men of the early church employed, there are many Christian principles and practices of spiritual formation that are still practical for today’s church. Among these include “the mentor as a disciple,” “the mentor-disciple relationship,” and the emphasis on “sound teaching.”^[20] These three principles are worthy of reflection on how they apply in the 21^st century.

The principle that a mentor should be a continual learner is, perhaps, the most important characteristic of any mature Christian endeavoring to be used by God to pass on what they have learned and received. A Christian who is not moving forward in their relationship with Christ is moving backward, and nobody should assume they have all the answers to pass along. The apostle Paul reflected this characteristic when he wrote: “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.” (Phil. 3:12)^[21]. Augustine, as well as the others, held high regard for continuing to live as a disciple. This was reflected in their commitments to personal spiritual development through their monastic communities, as well as in their correspondences with fellow clergy in which, at times, they “communicated with the posture of a learner.” ^[22]Christian leaders today, in whatever ministry they are engaged in, should always strive to develop their faith and walk to effectively disciple the next generation of leaders.

The second relevant principle of discipleship to today’s church leaders is the Mentor-Disciple relationship. This reflects the need to be within a community network of believers where there is mutual accountability and peer mentoring happening. Christian leaders often find themselves isolated from those under their care and held to a higher standard. This isolation can cause an incredible burden upon leaders and create an environment of unresolved issues lying under the surface of the facade they are forced to erect. It is vitally important for Christian leaders to have a relationship with a network of believers that will challenge them to grow and mature in their faith. Additionally, today’s Christian leaders should recognize the examples set by Augustine and the early church fathers to build relationships with those they aim to mentor. Effective mentorship cannot happen where there is no personal investment of time in building that bond of friendship.

Lastly, the principle of sound teaching for effective discipleship is as important today as in the early centuries of the Church. The abundance of false doctrines and misinterpretations of scripture have bombarded the congregations today through television, the internet, and bookshelves. High-profile “Christian” leaders are leading many astray through their doctrinal errors.  Responsible Christian leaders need to be encouraging their peers to pursue sound teaching from reputable sources, and to develop discernment skills to be able to identify false doctrine. Additionally, Christian leaders today need to guard the flock from dangerous teachings that creep in through visiting speakers or the latest “best seller” book. 

Conclusion

This paper has reflected on three discipleship strategies that Augustine employed, which were characteristic of several of his early church contemporaries. The use of the monastery, correspondence through letters, and participation in church councils were effective means of mentoring for this earlier generation but are not necessarily directly applicable for today. However, the underlying characteristics of these strategies are timeless and very relevant for today’s church. Christian leaders today would be wise to posture themselves as continual disciple themselves, develop a peer mentoring relationship with those they seek to mentor, and uphold the standard of sound teaching within their sphere of influence to ensure effective mentoring takes place. 

---

^[1] Edward L Smither, Augustine as Mentor: A Model for Preparing Spiritual Leaders Nashville, (Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2008), Ch. 4

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid, Ch. 2.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid, Ch. 4.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Ibid, Ch. 2.

^[18] Ibid.

^[19] Ibid.

^[20] Ibid, Ch. 1.

^[21] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).

^[22] Edward L Smither, Augustine as Mentor: A Model for Preparing Spiritual Leaders Nashville, (Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2008), Ch. 5.

What characteristics that marked the Reformation period (1517–1661) are still present in evangelical Christianity today, and which are no longer present?

The Reformation that was sparked in 1517 with the nailing of Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis became a watershed moment in western civilization, completely redefining what it meant to be a Christian in the shadow of the Holy Roman Empire. There are many characteristics of that Reformation period that are still present in evangelical Christianity today. The basic doctrinal affirmations that united most Protestant leaders in the 16^th and 17^thcenturies are still the common chord that unites evangelicals today.[1] Sola Fide, the belief that we are justified solely by grace through faith apart from meritorious works is still a shared belief. Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible alone is our sole authority for Christian doctrine and practice, likewise, is a common thread among all evangelicals. The priesthood of all believers, where we do not need a human intermediary to dispense grace on behalf of God but can freely approach the throne room of God clothed in the righteousness of Christ is also a shared characteristic in evangelical Christianity. Among these common characteristics, protestant leaders today, like back then, have found a vast number of reasons to disagree with one another. Noll commented that “on almost every major issue of Christian doctrine or practical church life, Protestants divided among themselves.”[2] That characteristic continues today in the countless numbers of denominations and independent churches we see in the world today.

There are also several characteristics of the Reformation period that are no longer present. The Reformers operated in an environment of intense religious and political opposition from the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire. The combined fears of loss of control and loss of revenue instigated periods of persecutions and religious wars, as demonstrated in the Smalcad War (1546-1555) in Germany[3], and the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) in most of Europe[4] against the Holy Roman Empire. With the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the advances in democracy those threats are no longer present. Likewise, the characteristic of State Churches, and the associated persecutions that accompanied any group that opposed the church authorities, such as the Anabaptists and the Puritans. The spread of democracy triggered the voices for a separation of Church and State that has made it now possible to have many different types of Protestants (and Catholic) denominations in a political center free from such intense persecutions.

---

[1] Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 183.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert C. Walton, Chronology and Background Charts of Church History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 69.

[4] Ibid.

Lessons from the Great Schism of 1054

What lessons from the Great Schism can believers learn about schisms in churches and how to prevent them?

The totality of the issues that came to a head in the eleventh century, resulting in the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches are numerous. However, for the modern Church to learn from history’s mistakes and seek to work through their issues to avoid future schisms it is necessary to look at the prevailing themes that lead to this great divide. Author Mark Noll observed that “(t)he Great Schism of 1054 was a major turning point in Christian history because it brought to a head centuries of East-West cultural disengagement, theological differences, and ecclesiastical suspicion.”^[1] It is upon the basis of these themes that an assessment and application may be made to the church of today.

Prior to the church era the stage was already set for conflicting world views. Much of the known world was Hellenized from military successes of Alexander the Great. When Roman rule took over there was a working mixture of political Latin and cultural Greek that ordered much of Roman society. However, after Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople the divide between the Latin West and the Greek East began to grow. Along with language and culture, differences in philosophical approaches to the faith are observed as early as the 1^st & 2^nd Centuries in the writings of both Tertullian (Latin) and Clement of Alexandria (Greek).^[2] These differences, among others, caused isolation between each other. Rome was not impacted by the issues of the East (Muslim invasions, Iconoclastic Controversy, etc.)^[3] and showed little attempts to intervene unless it would somehow bolster Rome’s claims of superiority. Likewise, Constantinople had little impact from the barbarian invasions^[4] of the West and the disintegration of the Western Empire. Both sides were drifting apart and caught up in their own struggles to stay engaged with the other. I see a lesson here for believers today to not become so focused on their own problems to ignore issues or concerns with others. Clear lines of communication should be kept open, and a willingness for all parties to see differences from each other’s perspective to head off any potential growing resentment that may lead to schism.

The theological differences that contributed to the Great Schism revolve primarily upon both the Filioque Controversy and the different levels of theological development that took place following the Council of Chalcedon^[5]. The reasons and background behind the “filioque” are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, Rome’s addition of the phrase “and the Son” in reference to the Holy Spirit’s procession instilled outrage from the East. The fact that the Bishop of Rome unilaterally changed the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople without consultation and agreement from the other four patriarchs was a gross abuse and assertion of authority that he did not have. This is also an indication of the progressive growth in theology of the West versus the stagnation of the East. The lesson for believers today is to be sensitive to the different paces of growth in the church. There should be established standards and statements of belief which all believers within a given church unite around, and any deviation from those standards must conform to sound doctrine and implemented with the consent of the body to avoid unnecessary splits and schisms. 

The ecclesiastical suspicions that developed between East and West trace their beginnings to the 2^nd and 3^rdcenturies as well. Rome’s prominence as both the political seat of the empire and the location of martyrdom of both Peter and Paul availed it universal recognition as the First See among the other primary centers for Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Over time the bishops of Rome took advantage of opportunities to assert their primacy over the others and differences of opinion about that roll and the “Keys of Peter” took shape between the East and the West. Differences in liturgies and clerical celibacy^[6]rules contributed to the disconnect and mutual distrust that grew unresolved. A lesson for believers today is to avoid pride. Much of the events that occurred in 1054 that culminated in the Great Schism can be attributed to prideful actions between patriarch Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert. Had a spirit of humility and Christian love been employed at this meeting the Great Schism might never have occurred.    

---

^[1] Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 125.

^[2] Ibid, 126.

^[3] Robert C. Walton, Chronology and Background Charts of Church History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 37.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid.

An Interpretive Commentary on 2 Kings 17-20

Introduction

The book of 2 Kings is the second part of the story of the kings of Israel following the reign of King David. It chronicles the activities of the kings beginning with Ahaziah king of Israel through to the captivity of Judah. Chapters 17 through 20, the topic of this paper, traces the reigns of the two very best kings of Israel and Judah respectively, Hoshea son of Elah and Hezekiah son of Ahaz. There have been three prevailing views as to authorship of the books of Kings; the Jeremiah authorship[1], the Double Redaction Theory of authorship, and the One Anonymous Writer theory. The Double Redaction Theory sees the book of Kings as the work of two or more sources at different times, probably during the Jewish exile, to tell the story of the kings of Israel and Judah in light of the warnings about having a king described in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 17:14-20). However, “while many important commentators have argued for a double and even a multiple redaction of the work, there has been no unanimity on the precise of the original and its main ideological point, or the nature and purpose of the redaction(s).”[2] The attempts at identifying the original and the redaction have included; Original (priestly) vs Redaction (prophesy), Original (historical) vs Redaction (law), and generically the result of multiple sources.[3] Those who hold to the One Anonymous writer theory believe that there was one author who wrote the books from Joshua to 2 Kings. “The relationship of the history to the book of Deuteronomy is that the writer uses the lawbook as the model standard of behavior for people and kings and continually refers to its language.”[4]

If the authorship was a Deuteronomist from the time of the exile, it only makes sense that the intended audience be those in exile, and subsequent generations who have a need to know their Jewish history and see the hand of God moving progressively through that history. The historical setting of chapters 17 – 20 is between 734 and 697 B.C. beginning with the reign of Hoshea in Samaria and ending with the death of Hezekiah in Jerusalem. The significant antagonist in this period is the Assyrian kingdom, which controlled much of the land surrounding Palestine and exerted significant political influence over both Israel and Judah, having forced tribute from each of them. The literary genre employed is primarily historical narrative, with a mix of some prophetic announcements coming primarily from the prophet Isaiah. The theological motif pertains to God’s demonstrated fulfilment of his promises regarding obedience and disobedience. The kings of Israel habitually disobeyed the commandments of the Lord and walked contrary to the ways he stipulated. As a result, the promise of judgment was realized upon them, as they were lead away captive. The kings of Jerusalem were a mixed bag of good and evil, which afforded Judah a delay in the impending judgment. Hezekiah gained the favor of the Lord’s blessing and protection for his righteous reign and as a result, the threat of the Assyrian army was eliminated before his eyes.

God’s Judgment on the Nation of Israel

Hoshea, the son of Elah, became king of Israel after he allied himself with Assyria and assassinated king Pekah (2 Kings 15:30). He was officially named king of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 B.C.[5] during the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah (2 Kings 17:1); however, this indicates some dating problems[6]. Ahaz is generally assumed to have begun to reign in Judah in 734 B.C., putting Hoshea’s reign starting in 722 B.C.[7] Some attempts have been made to try to reconcile these dates, including the replacement of “twelfth year” with “second year” or moving back the years of Kings Ahaz and Jotham.[8] Hoshea, whose name ironically means “deliverer”, reigned in Samaria for nine years and “did evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel who were before him.” (2 Kings 17:2)[9]. Considering the company of kings before him, beginning with Jeroboam, this description in verse two is almost a complement. There is no mention of any specific evil acts, or why he was not as evil as the other Kings of Israel. In the course of his reign, he aligned himself with anti-Assyrian neighbors and began to withhold tribute from Assyria following the death of Tiglath-pileser. As a result, Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.)[10], the new Assyrian king, came up against Hoshea and once again made him vassal and received tribute from him. Subsequently, Hoshea conspired against the king of Assyria by reaching out to the king of Egypt and refusing to pay his yearly tribute. The Egyptian king, So, likely refers to “Osorkon (IV) of the 22nd Dynasty who ruled the eastern Nile Delta at the time of Hoshea.”[11] This unsuccessful attempt at a treaty with Egypt was foolish because Assyria was much more powerful, and it was a violation of God’s command not to make treaties with foreign nations; “You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.” (Deut. 7:2b). In response, the king of Assyria once again came up against “Samaria and besieged it for three years” (2 Kings 17:5) leading to the fall of the city and the imprisonment of Hoshea. While the capital city was under siege, the rest of the country was conquered and the inhabitants deported.[12] Assyrian records reveal that 27,290 people (presumably men) deported from Samaria during this military campaign.[13] Shalmaneser V died either during or immediately following the siege of Samaria because his brother, and successor, Sargon II claimed credit for the capture of the city.[14] The inhabitants of the northern kingdom were carried off and settled within various cities within the territories of Assyria. The locations mentioned in (v. 6) indicate the children of Israel were taken to the northeastern heartland of Assyria[15] and the plateau region of modern-day Iran.[16]

The content of 2 Kings 17:7-23 is a summary indictment against the children of Israel for their sins. They “feared other gods, and had walked in the statutes of the nations whom the Lord had cast out from before” them (2 Kings 17:7b-8a). The judgement against the northern kingdom was a result of their consistent unfaithfulness and wickedness under their kings, beginning with Jeroboam. Under Moses, God had explicitly commanded them not to behave as these other nations; “According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances.” (Lev. 18:3). God told them that he “abhorred” (cf. Lev. 20:23) these practices and promised them that he would “scatter them among the nations,” “draw out a sword” after them, and leave their land “desolate” (cf. Lev. 26:33). The land would “vomit” them out “as it vomited out the nations that were before” (cf. Lev 18:28) them if they walked in like manner. However, Israel “feared other gods” in violation of God’s commandments (cf. Exod. 20:1-5) and engaged in all of the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites before them, building high places, setting up pillars and sacred poles, burning incense to idols, practicing fortune telling and divination, and offering up their children to the pagan gods.[17] These high places and idolatrous symbols were commanded by God through Moses to be destroyed when the children of Israel came into the land;

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations you shall disposes served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. You shall not worship the Lord your god with such things. (Deut. 12:2-4)

For these sins, God fulfilled his promise of judgment and, as declared through the prophets of Hosea (c.f. Hos. 13:16) and Micah (cf. Micah 1:6), they were lead into captivity by the Assyrians. In their place, the Assyrians repopulated the territory with peoples from “Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim” (2 Kings 17:24) as was their custom from their own well-documented records.[18] These new inhabitants brought with them their own religious practices and, out of their ignorance, “did not fear the Lord.” (2. Kings 17:25). That this resulted in the Lord sending “lions among them” is indication of divine judgement for the sake of the land. If God allowed the land to “vomit out” his chosen people for such idolatrous practices, he will certainly not allow these same practices to go unpunished from the new tenants. The divine judgement captured their attention, for it prompted a complaint (v. 26) to the king of Assyria that resulted in him sending a priest back to dwell with the new people and teach them how to fear the Lord (vv. 27-28). This action produced limited success, because while the people learned to fear the Lord they retained their idolatrous and cultic practices (v. 41).

The Reign of Hezekiah, King of Judah

Hezekiah king of Judah reigned from 715 – 686 B.C., beginning in the third year of Hoshea king of Israel’s reign (2 Kings 18:1). He was 25 years old and reigned a total of 29 years (v. 2). His mother’s name was Abi (a shortened form of Abijah)[19] (v. 2) and his father was king Ahaz, who was a wicked king who walked after the ways of the kings of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 16:2-3).[20] Ahaz’s sins include religious apostasy, by building a new altar in the Jerusalem temple modeled after the one in Damascus (vv. 10-16), as well as making an alliance Tiglath-pileser III (vv. 7-9).[21] Hezekiah is regarded as a man who “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” and as the greatest of the Davidic kings; “He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him.” (v. 6). He brought about religious reformation when “he removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made” (v. 4a). These actions set him apart from Hoshea who did nothing to address the idolatry in his kingdom. The bronze serpent that Moses had made became one of the idolatrous symbols that the children of Israel offered incense to (v. 4). It was originally a symbol of healing and forgiveness in the wilderness when the Israelites grumbled against Moses and the Lord sent snakes as punishment (cf. Num. 21:4-7). In the gospels, Jesus likened the method and purpose of his death to the bronze serpent when he said, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15). The term “Nehushtan” (v. 4) means “a bit of brass” and was either the pre-existing name of this idol or was what Hezekiah contemptuously called it when he broke it.[22]

There is early indication of the approaching showdown with Sennacherib, king of Assyria in 2 Kings 18:7-8. First, there is mentioned, “The Lord was with him, he prospered wherever he went” (v. 7a). The only other Davidic king that bears this privileged description is King David himself (cf. 1 Sam. 16:18, 18:12, 14; 2 Sam. 5:10). Second, he rebelled against the king of Assyria and subdued the Philistines (vv. 7-8). Only David and Hezekiah were said to have been successful in war and were able to defeat the Philistines (v.8; cf. 1 Sam. 18:27, 19:8). It is not certain what the form of rebellion against the king of Assyria was or whether the events recorded here are in chronological order.[23] The probable form of rebellion was the withdrawal of tribute (v.7; cf. v. 14) and the military aggression against the Philistines. It is also difficult to pinpoint when the invasion of Gaza occurred (v. 8), because Assyrian control of the area was firmly in place by this time.[24] According to David Allen Hubbard, “the purpose of the attack would have been to weaken the alliance of Philistia with Assyria, and to open up a clear line of communication with Egypt.”[25]

The Showdown with Sennacherib

After a brief review of the siege of Samaria and the captivity of Israel within the timeline of Hezekiah’s reign (vv. 9-12), the showdown between Judah and Assyria resumed in 2 Kings 18:13 with Sennacherib retaliating for Hezekiah’s rebellion. Sennacherib, son of Sargon II, reigned from 704 – 681 B.C. He inherited a vast empire from his father and is credited with both the rebuilding of Nineveh, turning it into a metropolis and Assyria’s capital, and the destruction of Babylon in 689 B.C.[26] Sennacherib, “in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah” “came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them” (v. 13). David Allen Hubbard observes, “the strategy of Sennacherib was clearly to regain control over the Philistine territory originally captured by Sargon, and to remove any threat from Judah to the east of the Philistine plain by destroying the garrison towns along the Shephelah still under Judah’s control.”[27] Hezekiah capitulates by sending a message to Sennacherib, repenting of his rebellion and agreeing to pay tribute (v. 14). For a king with a reputation of “trusting in the Lord God of Israel”, and with whom the “Lord was with him and he prospered wherever he went,” this first reaction to a foreign attack is disappointing. As Monson and Provan comment, “we are presumably to regard it as a regrettable lapse – a disappointing prolog to what will turn out to be Hezekiah’s finest hour.”[28] Sennacherib demands a hefty price for this rebellious king of Judah, “three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold” (v. 14). Hezekiah empties the silver stores from both the temple and his own house (v. 15), and strips the gold from the temple doors and pillars (v.16) to appease the Assyrian king. However, the tribute paid to Sennacherib was apparently insufficient and Hezekiah did not fully meet the demands levied on him, prompting the king of Assyria to send emissaries to threaten the king of Judah.[29]

The king of Assyria sends the Tartan, the Rosaries, and the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah along with a great army (v. 17). This “great army” was likely a military escort, and not of the size to implement a siege against Jerusalem.[30] In a clear act of defiance, Hezekiah refuses to give audience to these three emissaries and instead sends his own delegation out to meet them[31]; “Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, Shebna the scribe, and Joah the Son of Asaph, the recorder.” The Rabshakeh opens the dialog (v. 19) by asserting superiority of the Assyrian king, calling him “the great king,” over the inferior Hezekiah, refusing to recognize him as king.[32] He calls into question the object of Judah’s trust (v. 19), referencing Egypt (v. 21) and the Lord God (v. 22). He shows his ignorance of the commandments of the Lord by disparaging Hezekiah for tearing down the high places and requiring worship only in Jerusalem (v. 22), and he falsely presumes to be doing the work of the Lord by coming up against Judah to destroy it (v. 25). Paul s Evans comments, “The rhetoric is not really directed to Hezekiah, who is not present, but is aimed at the king’s officials and then secondarily to the people listening in from the walls of the city.”[33] Hezekiah’s messengers, recognizing this tactic, call for the diplomatic dialog to be in the Assyrian tongue (v. 26). Rejecting their request, the Rabshakeh continues to challenge the people’s faith in Hezekiah and the Lord, and offers them the alternative of salvation only through surrender (vv. 28-35).

Hezekiah receives the message, tears his clothes, and immediately seeks the word of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah (2 Kings 19:1-4). Monson and Provan describe the scene beautifully,

Hezekiah, attired in a suitable way for one who faces disaster (v. 1; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:30), consults Isaiah. He graphically describes the situation to the prophet as a day of great humiliation and powerlessness (v. 3). The only hope for the remnant of the people of Judah that still survives in the city is that the Lord – truly the living God, and not simply one false god among many – will act to repulse the foreign king who has sent his servant to ridicule God (v. 4).[34]

The Lord assures Hezekiah through the prophet Isaiah that he has indeed heard the blasphemies of Sennacherib and promises, “Surely I will send a spirit upon him, and he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land” (v. 7). Upon the completion of the emissary trip, “the Rabshakeh returned…” (v. 8) providing further evidence suggesting that the military envoy was sent only as a threat. The Rabshakeh delivered his message and returned to the king. Upon returning, he hears news of the Assyrian king warring against Libnah, a suitable distraction of the Assyrians from their focus on Jerusalem.[35] Lest Hezekiah, and the people of Judah, assume this war with Libnah signals a deliverance of Jerusalem, Sennacherib sends another message attempting to crush those thoughts. However, “due to the impending danger of the Cushite approach, no military escort is sent this time around.”[36] The tone of the letter this time is much “more blasphemous than the first as it suggests that not Hezekiah but their very God will deceive them (2 Kgs 19:10).”[37] Monson and Provan comment, “This is a god, says Sennacherib, who is not only weak, but duplicitous. Thus, he implies, this is a god who will be destroyed just like the deities of so many other lands.”[38]

Hezekiah receives the letter from the messenger of Sennacherib and immediately goes up to the house of the Lord (v. 14). His response this time is not to ask for Isaiah’s prayers, but he falls to his own knees and spreads the matter out before the Lord. “It is a memorable prayer, in which self-interest is for the moment left behind, and concern for the Lord’s reputation, so besmirched by Sennacherib’s slander, takes over.”[39] The prayer begins with a recognition of God’s presence and power (v. 15), turns toward a request for the Lord’s attention (v. 16), moves to an acknowledgment of Assyria’s military prowess (vv. 17-18), and concludes with a petition for the Lord’s deliverance (v. 19). Following the prayer Isaiah sends a message to the king with the Lord’s answer. The Lord has indeed heard the words of Sennacherib and will respond accordingly. It is “against the Holy One of Israel” (v. 22) that he has reproached in his arrogance. “His mistake has been to imagine that his military accomplishments have been achieved in his own strength (vv. 23-24). In reality, the Lord ordained and planned it all (vv. 25-26).”[40] Sennacherib is ignorant of the Lord’s knowledge and power (vv. 25-27), and because of his blasphemous comments the Lord will put “my hook” in his nose, “my bridle” in his lips, and turn him back by the way which he came (v. 28). The Lord’s response includes a sign to the people of Judah that the problem of Assyria will be taken care of completely by him (vv. 29-31). “Recovery will be slow, but the remnant remaining in Jerusalem will survive (cf. 19:4) and go on to take root in the land and prosper (vv. 30-31).”[41] Sennacherib will not come in the city, shoot an arrow into it, or besiege it because the Lord “will defend this city, to save it for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake” (vv. 32, 34).

The Lord moves decisively against Sennacherib and dispatches an angel to wipe out 185,000 men of the Assyrian camp (v. 35) in fulfillment of the first part of Isaiah’s prophecy (v 7), with the net effect of sending the king back home to his own land. The context leaves some disagreement over the location of the army during this attack. However, “nowhere in the narrative did we have the Assyrian army move to camp outside of Jerusalem”[42] and the last noted location (v. 8) is at Libnah. Sennacherib succumbs to the second half of Isaiah’s prophesy (v. 7) when, while “worshiping in the temple of Nisroch his god” he was struck down and killed by his two sons (v. 37). “Ironically, after mocking the strength of other nation’s gods (2 Kgs 19:35), Sennacherib’s god cannot protect him, even though he is piously worshipping him in his own temple.”[43]

The Life of Hezekiah Extended

Chapter 20 opens with Hezekiah sick and near death. The prophet Isaiah is dispatched by the Lord to tell him to get his house in order and prepare to die (v. 1). Whether this illness is related to the encounter with Sennacherib is not clear, nor is the nature of the illness. What is known is that it was life threatening and had to do with an inflammation or boil (cf. v. 7). In response to these words from Isaiah, Hezekiah becomes grief stricken and prays to the Lord for healing. Monson and Provan observe, “The prayer is somewhat more self-centered than in 19:15-19, stressing the king’s own righteousness. This is for the first time a suggestion that Hezekiah has an attitude problem.”[44] His prayer is successful, and Isaiah returns with a promise of another 15 years for the king, along with the promise of continued protection and blessing (vv. 5-6). At the request for a sign, the Lord miraculously causes the shadow to move back ten degrees as assurance that the Lord will indeed extend the life of Hezekiah (vv. 8-11).

Babylonian Envoys and Hezekiah’s Death

Word of Hezekiah’s recovery gets out, and the king of Babylon takes the opportunity to send an envoy with letters and a gift to the king of Judah (v. 12). Hezekiah foolishly takes these emissaries on a tour “and showed them all the house of his treasures – the silver and gold, the spices and precious ointment, and all his armory – all that was found among his treasures” (v. 13). When Isaiah the prophet gets word of this, he questions the king, and offers him a stern rebuke (vv. 14-18). “What Hezekiah’s Babylonian visitors saw, Isaiah tells the king, they will one day take away to the distant land from which they have come…, along with some of the king’s descendants.”[45] Hezekiah’s response is surprising, showing no concern with the future consequences of his actions and revealing that he is content to simply enjoy peace and security in his own lifetime (v. 19).[46] Hezekiah finally dies, and his son Manasseh, the very worst of all of the Judean kings, reigned in his place (vv. 20-21).

Conclusion

The story of 2 Kings 17-20 is a mixed tail of the promises of God. For those who habitually transgress the commandments of the Lord and live contrary to his words, there is the promise of divine judgment and for the ones who walk according to the commandments of the Lord there is the promise of divine protection and blessing. Hoshea was portrayed as the best of the kings of Israel, yet his acts were still evil and he shared in the divine judgment that the Lord brought upon that nation through the siege of Samaria and the captivity of the northern tribes to the land of Assyria. Hezekiah was portrayed as the best of the kings of Judah, and his deeds were deemed right in the eyes of the Lord. He experienced the weight of God’s divide protection and blessing as he watched the Lord go before him and fight the battles for the sake of his own name and the line of David.

---

[1] Leo G. Perdue, The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), xxiv.

[2] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 24.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid, 25.

[5] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 611.

[6] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 277.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] [9] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).

[10] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 1196.

[11] Ibid, 1234.

[12] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 279.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, 278.

[15] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 542.

[16] Ibid, 877.

[17] Daniel Durken, The New Collegeville Bible Commentary, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015), 477.

[18] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 286.

[19] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 4.

[20] Ibid, 32.

[21] Ibid.

[22] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 958.

[23] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 302.

[24] Ibid.

[25] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 302.

[26] David Noel Freedman, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 1183.

[27] David Allen Hubbard, et al., 2 Kings, Volume 13, (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2015), 303.

[28] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 195.

[29] Paul S Evans, The Invasion Of Sennacherib In The Book Of Kings, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 148.

[30] Ibid, 154.

[31] Ibid, 148.

[32] Ibid, 156.

[33] Paul S Evans, The Invasion Of Sennacherib In The Book Of Kings, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 157.

[34] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 195.

[35] Paul S Evans, The Invasion Of Sennacherib In The Book Of Kings, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 159.

[36] Paul S Evans, The Invasion Of Sennacherib In The Book Of Kings, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 159.

[37] Ibid.

[38] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 195.

[39] Ibid, 197.

[40] Ibid.

[41] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 197.

[42] Paul S Evans, The Invasion Of Sennacherib In The Book Of Kings, 1st ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 162-63

[43] Ibid, 164.

[44] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 201.

[45] John M. Monson and Iain Provan, 1 and 2 Kings. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2016), 202.

[46] Ibid.

An Argument for the Uniqueness of Jesus’s Resurrection against the Claim that the Disciples Stole His Body

Introduction

In the spirit of Scientific Naturalism, which only allows for natural explanations to observable phenomena, scholarship today rejects any supernatural explanations of the resurrection narrative that sparked the emergence and growth of the Christian religion. In place of the supernatural, various arguments have been forwarded to assert that the disciples were either deceived, delusional, or purposely deceptive in their testimony of the resurrection. The earliest proposal that still has a substantial following is the idea that the disciples secretly stole the body of Jesus and then spread the lie that they had witnessed him risen from the dead. My Thesis is that the polemic that the disciples stole the body of Jesus is fraught with logical fallacies and ignores the weight of testimony of the hundreds of eyewitnesses that encountered the risen Christ.

Short Argument

The resurrection of Jesus is the pivotal moment of the birth of the Christian religion. News of the risen Christ, attested to by the apostles and followers of Jesus based upon eyewitness accounts, fueled the spread of the gospel to the furthest regions of the Roman Empire within the first few hundred years of the church. Today the gospel has spread around the world, with billions of Christians resting their faith and hope upon the testimony of the resurrection. It is not surprising, then that opponents of the Christian religion will stop at nothing to challenge the validity of this foundational belief. The apostle Paul emphasized the importance of the resurrection to the faith of the believer when he said; “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty… your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1 Cor. 15:13-15,17b).[1]

One of the polemics that skeptics employ is the charge that the disciples stole the body of Jesus and perpetrated the false narrative of the resurrection. The earliest account of this claim is recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of the gospel of Matthew, where upon hearing the testimony of the soldiers; the Jewish leaders bribed them with a large sum of money to spread the news that the disciples stole away the body while they slept (Matt. 28:12-15). Interestingly, this ploy of the religious leaders to snuff out the resurrection narrative was woefully ineffective to stem the tide of growth in this new religious movement. However, under the banner of scientific naturalism, proponents of this same polemic charge have gained an audience of liberal-minded scholars as a plausible naturalistic explanation of the early spread of Christianity.

The empty tomb of Jesus is the underlying factor of the stolen-body proposition. Skeptics must contend with the absence of a physical body to point to in response to the testimonies of the risen Christ. The competing theories offer no additional support and come with their own set of challenges to overcome. The claims that the religious leaders stole the body, or that the women simply went to the wrong tomb, fall flat under the obvious threat that there would have been a body to point to in response to the resurrection claims.[2] Likewise, the “Swoon” theory fails to account for medically how a nearly dead man survived the tortures of the cross, was able to physically roll away the stone, and show himself alive to his faithful followers to such an extent as to garner a faith strong enough to endure their own tortures and death.[3] Faced with the alternatives, the “stolen-body by the disciples” theory sounds the most plausible.

It is reasonable to expect that people are capable of enduring a great many afflictions and tortures leading to and including death for beliefs and principles they affirm are true even if these beliefs and principles are misguided. History of mankind is rife with examples of men and women who willingly faced death for causes they believed in. The events of September 11, 2001 illustrate this well, as nineteen militants associated with “al Qaeda hijacked four planes and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States.”[4] What is known about Islamic extremists is their unflinching devotion to their ideology and willingness to suffer death for the greater cause of their religion. It is safe to assume, however, that these nineteen men did not offer up their lives to perpetuate a belief system that they knew to be false.

The proposition that the disciples stole away the body of Jesus and then told everyone that he had risen from the dead stretches the imagination when the consequences of those actions are considered.  The late Chuck Colson, former special counsel to President Nixon, often referenced his involvement in the Watergate scandal in his many public speeches. One such story recalled how impossible it was for the group of men surrounding Nixon to perpetuate the lies and cover-ups as the pressures mounted, leading to an “every man for themselves” scenario that resulted in his arrest and imprisonment for obstruction of justice.[5] His experiences illustrate just how improbable eleven apostles, along with the unnumbered additional “eyewitnesses” to the resurrection, could have continued collaborating on a false narrative in the face of torture and death to themselves and/or their loved ones. History and church tradition attests that ten of the remaining eleven apostles suffered martyrdom for their faith, and that the apostle John endured torture in burning oil on two occasions before dying of natural causes at an old age. The fact that not one of these men “caved in” and confessed to a lie about the resurrection speaks volumes to the validity of what they witnessed and held true to up until their deaths.

The only reasonable conclusion one can reach about the cause behind the empty tomb and the subsequent rapid growth of the Christian church is that the disciples genuinely encountered the risen Jesus in physical, bodily appearances. The New Testament affirms this on multiple occasions beginning with resurrection accounts in each of the four gospels (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21), His ascension (Acts 1:9-11), and post-ascension appearance to Paul (Acts 9:3-6). The apostle Paul further testified to the Lord’s appearances when he said,

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:3-8)

The circumstances in which the resurrection occurrences transpired lend further credence to the validity of the accounts. The gospels record that Jesus’ first appearances following his resurrection were to women. This is an important detail because the testimony of women in ancient Israel was inadmissible in a court of law.[6] Had the appearances been mere fabrications by the disciples it is difficult to imagine why they would want to begin these accounts with such flimsy footings. Next, many of the resurrection appearances occurred in group settings. Jesus appeared to his assembled disciples on multiple occasions (Mark 16:14-18, John 20:26-29, 21:4-23), to the two walking on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32), and to over five hundred brethren at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). The significance of this testimony is that it refutes any idea that the disciples experienced hallucinations that made them believe they saw the risen Jesus. Individual accounts may be accounted for by hallucination, but not groups of people all experiencing the same vision.[7] Lastly, the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus’s appearances were in bodily, physical form. When he meets with his disciples, he tells Thomas to touch his wounds, showing that it was really him in the flesh (John 20:27). Jesus also eats in the presence of his disciples (Luke 24:41-43). J.P. Moreland comments about the bodily appearance of Jesus; “But Jesus still had a spiritual body, and neither Paul nor the Gospel writers understand this to mean a purely spiritual being who can be seen only in the mind. This body could be seen and touched, and had continuity with the body laid in the tomb.”[8]

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the naturalists and skeptics are willing to disregard the weighted testimony of the New Testament and reject the element of the supernatural in their attempt to offer a rational solution to the resurrection narrative. The age-old polemic that the disciples stole away the body of Christ and then perpetuated a lie about the resurrection is as much without warrant today as when it was first asserted in the first century. That this is still among the best counters to the Christian testimony reveals the unavoidable fact of the empty tomb and the necessity to deal with it as part of the growth of the early church. Upon closer examination, the notion that the disciples collaborated and then advanced this supposed lie to their deathbeds fails any sense of logic or reason given the dramatic martyrdom each of them endured. Additionally, the volume of eyewitness testimony of the bodily risen Jesus, many of whom would have still been alive, abundantly substantiates the written testimony of the gospels and epistles. Had these accounts been fabricated lies the readers of the first century would have had opportunity to disprove them.

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).

[2] William L. Craig, “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and James Porter Moreland (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1995), 122.

[3] Carl Stecher, Resurrection: Faith Or Fact? A Scholars’ Debate between a Skeptic and a Christian (Durham, North Carolina: Pitchstone Publishing, 2019), 127.

[4] Drew Angerer, “9/11 Attacks”, HISTORY, Last modified 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks.

[5] Chuck Colson, Chuck Colson On Why Believe?, tape (Tyndale House, 1994).

[6] Carl Stecher, Resurrection: Faith Or Fact? A Scholars’ Debate between a Skeptic and a Christian (Durham, North Carolina: Pitchstone Publishing, 2019), 137.

[7] William L. Craig, “Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and James Porter Moreland (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1995), 123.

[8] James Porter Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1987), 123.

An Argument for the Solution to the Emotional Problem of Evil

Introduction

The problem of evil is one of the greatest obstacles to a deist worldview. The difficulties of facing the reality of evil and suffering in a world supposedly created by an infinite, omnipotent, loving and holy God have challenged the minds of believers and skeptics alike. The argument becomes more challenging and personal, however, when the influence of evil is encountered and human emotions become involved. The emotional problem of evil causes people to put up additional barriers to rational belief because there is an incomprehensible impression upon their hearts and minds that resists the idea that an all-powerful God could allow such evil and suffering to occur. Any attempt to engage conversation with such a skeptic must include an assessment of the immediate needs and to approach the topic as a pastor or counselor. The thesis of this paper is that the presence of evil in the world is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent God, and this God has provided a means of hope and comfort in the midst of our suffering through the work of his son Jesus on the cross.

Short Argument

The world is grieving with the families of Oxford, Michigan after the recent, horrific shootings that left three students dead and eight others wounded, including one teacher, at Oxford High School. The suspect, a sixteen-year-old sophomore student was arrested along with both of his parents. There are strong indicators that this crime was premeditated and there were sufficient warning signs that should have been heeded to prevent it. The families impacted by this terrible event must now grapple with the deep feelings of loss, sadness, anger and fear, along with the persistent questions of “how” and “why” this could have happened. Sadly, this incident is just the latest in an endless list of tragedies that occur to people on a daily basis. The problem of evil in the world often raises serious questions about whether God exists, or if he does exist why he allows evil, and what is the proper coping mechanism with the reality of evil?[1] There are many valid intellectual theodicies of evil that may be employed to address these questions, but the additional element of human emotions requires as much a counselor’s response as an intellectual one. [2]

The emotional problem of evil may be described as “an aversion to a God who would allow suffering and evil.”[3] This may be present whether someone is deeply religious or not, because the power of human emotions has a tendency to either ignore or override what is normally a rational set of religious beliefs. Author Mary Jo Sharp has observed, “feelings can ravage our ability to reason through a situation, especially when that situation devastatingly affects our lives.”[4] Many times such tragic experiences can cause people to turn their back on God, as was the case of the young Jewish Holocaust survivor who could not come to terms with why God was so silent in the face of such evil.[5] Any response to the emotional problem of evil should include elements of hope and comfort that this suffering is not random and purposeless.

As mentioned previously, the most important first step in addressing a person’s emotional response to the problem of evil is determining what the person most needs now. Are they looking for a sympathetic ear? A Shoulder to cry on? It may be that the suffering individual is not ready to receive a logical defense for the existence of both God and evil. As William Lane Craig observes, attempting to provide an “answer to the intellectual problem (of evil) will doubtless seem dry and uncaring to the person who’s struggling with the emotional problem.”[6] Once the person is ready to engage in conversation, a logical theodicy may be advanced to discuss the problem of evil.

There is a direct link between questioning the reasons why evil exists in the world and the reality of the existence of God. The very question indicates there is a standard of goodness that can only be present within the Christian worldview. By contrast, the atheistic, naturalist worldview trivializes evil as a byproduct of evolution.[7] However, if there is a God, why does he allow evil to coexist? There may be a number of reasons why God allows suffering, and humans cannot know the providential mind of God to offer specific explanations for those reasons. There are valid natural reasons why suffering exists. Falling off a bike, getting into a car accident, failing an exam, etc. are natural consequences to actions that occur because of humans interacting with each other and their environment. Other actions are not so natural, as when mass-killings occur or some social injustice is perpetrated by one person upon another. The important distinction between the Christian worldview and others is the ultimate solution God has provided to the problem of evil and suffering, which is in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Free will is one of the primary reasons God allows the presence of evil in the world. An all-powerful God is capable of creating creatures who have the capacity to do right. However, unless the capability to also choose evil were also present then there would not really be free-will. As Chad Meister rightly concludes, “It is reasonable, then, contrary to the atheist perspective, to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God coexists in a world filled with evil, if we grant that His created world contains creatures who are free.”[8]

The Bible offers the Christian hope and encouragement to endure the evil of this world, armed with the knowledge that our sufferings are not in vain and the problem of evil will be ultimately dealt with. The consequences of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and decay. This death and decay manifests itself in evil and suffering as people exercise their freewill in living disobediently to God. The finished work of Jesus on the Christ paid the ultimate penalty for people’s sins and offered eternal life to those who would put their faith in him. However, the consequences of sin are still experienced by people today and will continue until the final judgement of Christ. For the Christian this suffering is always within the context of the providential plan of God, for “we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (Rom 8:28)[9].

Conclusion

The emotional problem of evil is a strong barrier against the belief of the coexistence of an all-powerful God and human suffering. For people who have endured or experienced evil, like the tragedy encountered at Oxford High School, there can be uneasiness about correlating such tragedy with the existence of God or a complete detestation of him. However, only the Christian worldview offers a logical explanation for the coexistence of God and evil. The Christian can be assured that there is no evil in the world that occurs apart from God’s divine foreknowledge, and that all things will ultimately work out for the good of his children. At the cross, God provided the answer to the problem of evil by sending his only son to die for the sins of the world. People can put their faith in God that, though they do not presently understand why evil occurs, healing and hope is offered in the midst of their pain. One-day evil will be completely eradicated when the final enemy of Christ, death, is put under his feet.

---

[1] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Loftin, Stand firm (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2018), Chp. 9.

[2] Mary Sharp, “Addressing The Emotional Problem Of Evil: Why Christians Hope”, The Christian Research Journal 35, no. 04 (2015), https://www.equip.org/article/addressing-emotional-problem-evil-christians-hope/.

[3] Mary Sharp, “Addressing The Emotional Problem Of Evil: Why Christians Hope”, The Christian Research Journal 35, no. 04 (2015), https://www.equip.org/article/addressing-emotional-problem-evil-christians-hope/.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Loftin, Stand firm (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2018), Chp. 9.

[6] William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, Co: Cook, 2010), 153.

[7] Mary Sharp, “Addressing The Emotional Problem Of Evil: Why Christians Hope”, The Christian Research Journal 35, no. 04 (2015), https://www.equip.org/article/addressing-emotional-problem-evil-christians-hope/.

[8] Chad Meister, “How Should Christians Approach The Problem Of Evil?”, The Christian Research Journal 30, no. 5 (2007), https://www.equip.org/article/how-should-christians approach-the-problem-of-evil/.

[9] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).

An Interpretive Essay on 1 Kings 1-11

In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses is summarizing the covenant God made to the nation of Israel and providing final instructions about how they should administer this nation once they crossed into the Promised Land. During his second address to the people, Moses provides stipulations from the Lord on how a king, once requested, should guard his heart. Deuteronomy 17:20 summarizes the goal of the preceding instructions beautifully, “that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.”[1] This verse powerfully describes the impacts of pride in the heart of the child of God. Each of the first three kings of Israel were guilty of the sin of pride to varying degrees within their respective reigns because they neglected the stipulations laid out by God to guard their hearts.

Saul was the first king chosen to rule over God’s people, following their plea to Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” (1 Sam 8:5b). Initially Saul met all of the qualifications for being a king. He was chosen by God from among his brethren (1 Sam 9:17), and there is no indication that he accumulated horses, wives, or gold during his reign. However, Saul did not exhibit a heart of obedience to the commandments of the Lord and his reign was ultimately rejected by God (1 Sam 9:13; 15:9, 28). Following Saul, David was anointed king over Israel and was attested to by God as a man after his own heart (1 Sam 13:14). David ruled Israel well and ushered in the golden age of the kingdom, but he fell prey to his lusts and accumulated wives and concubine. The most glaring episode in David’s life was his affair with Bathsheba that resulted in the death of her husband, Uriah, and the child that was born from this unlawful union (2 Sam 11:2-4, 17, 12:18). Additionally, “the sword” never departed from David’s household afterwards, as he witnessed rape, murder, and rebellion from his children following this sin (2 Sam 13-15). Finally, Solomon reigned after his father David and appeared to be the quintessential king. The kingdom flourished in a time of peace under Solomon and ushered in the glorious temple. Solomon excelled in wisdom and riches and ultimately fell prey to his passions. The substantial amount of wives and concubine he accumulated ultimately turned his heart away from the Lord and led to the schism of the ten northern tribes following his death.

The author of First Kings appears to have the stipulations of Deuteronomy 17 in mind as he writes about the life and reign of Solomon. After a somewhat contentious beginning, Solomon established his reign over his brother Adonijah (1 Kings 1:43) and began to clean out the cobwebs left over from his father’s reign (1 Kings 2:13-46). He demonstrated humility early on by requesting wisdom from God to rule his people (1 Kings 3:9). In chapters four and five the accumulation of wealth begins, which is originally viewed as a blessing of prosperity. Chapter 10 portrays the full display of Solomon’s wealth in the ivory and gold-laden objects that he made for himself and his army, in a bit of foreshadowing of impending apostasy brought on by excessive wealth.[2] His other sins against the stipulations of Deuteronomy 17 come to bear in chapters ten and eleven as it is revealed he accumulated thousands of horses (1 Sam 10:26-29). The acquisition and trade of horses by Solomon is most interesting in that he rarely, if ever, utilized his army.[3] “Nevertheless, he accumulated chariots and horses, building special chariot cities and stationing some chariots in the capitol city.”[4] In addition to acquiring them from Egypt and Kue, he also exported them to the kings of the Hittites and Arameans, showing it to become a booming business venture for Israel but also a defiance of God’s standards for a king.[5] Additionally, Solomon acquired seven hundred wives and three hundred concubine (1 Sam 11:3). The result of the influence of these women was that his heart eventually turned away from the Lord as predicted in Deuteronomy 17. “For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.” (1 Sam 11:4).

The narrative of the life of Solomon is a mixed bag of rejoicing and sadness. The author has gone to great depths in 1 Kings to highlight all of the positive contributions from this great man of wisdom. Solomon exhibits great faith and love for the Lord in his diligent dedication to the building of the temple, and there are several narratives of the Lord’s presence to both himself and the congregation during its dedication. It appears that the author intended to portray Solomon in the most positive light possible, as the immediate heir to the promises of God to his servant David. The unfortunate events of chapters ten and eleven were necessary to cover because they directly influence the events of his son Rehoboam, the tearing apart of the Kingdom after his death, and the disastrous example of “public ceremonies and sacrifices of idolatry”[6] that he introduced to subsequent kings.

It is difficult to see many early indicators of Solomon’s ultimate demise. Much of the narrative surrounds the building and dedication of the temple. 1 Kings 3 begins with a comment about Solomon making a treaty with Pharaoh King of Egypt, marrying his daughter, and bringing her to Jerusalem that hints at possible foreign influence. He also has no problem spending money through much of the narrative on the temple and several other buildings, showing that he has an extravagant side to him because of the gold he has accumulated.

The obvious question that is left to the reader at the conclusion of Solomon’s life is how could he who had been so blessed and endowed with such wisdom go astray from following the Lord? Many scholars see in Solomon traits of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, made famous by author Robert Louis Stevensen, with elements of both his good character and bad character showing up at various places within the narrative of his life.[7] The most obvious answer is seen in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. The heart was corrupted through the influence of wealth, possessions, and women to the point where there was no place for God left in his heart. He would have been wise to follow the counsel of his fellow Proverb author, Agur, who said “Give me neither poverty nor riches – feed me with the food allotted to me; lest I be full and deny you, and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’” (Prov 30:8b-9a).

 

---

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982).

[2] Iain W Provan, 1 And 2 Kings (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2012), 72.

[3] Gary Inrig and Max Anders, 1 & 2 Kings (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 83.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Thomas C Oden and Marco Conti, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008), 126.

[7] Victor P Hamilton, Handbook On The Historical Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 380.