Book Review: Science, Creation and the Bible by Carlson and Longman

"Theology and science are each seekers after truth". Richard Carlson and Tremper Longman III offer this simple yet profound statement in the introduction to their book Science, Creation and the Bible. The problem (and the reason a book like this would even be necessary) is that theologians and scientists are not always seekers after truth. Sometimes they are merely protectors of a certain paradigm or worldview. So it is refreshing when authors such as these two (a scientist and a theologian) are upfront about their worldview commitments:

We profess our deep commitment to Christian faith and the biblical teaching about creation. At the same time, we believe contemporary science addresses questions on how physical and biological processes began and continue to develop, while theology and philosophy answer why for the same questions. The creation-evolution conflict hinges on two issues: (1) the question of the trustworthiness of contemporary scientific understanding of the beginnings of the universe, the earth and life on the earth, and (2) the question of the faithful reading of the two creation passages in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 in their literal or non-literal forms.

As you may have noticed, the broader word "science" in the title specifically refers to evolution as the book progresses. The authors are equally critical of both the Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design positions, drawing almost no distinctions between the two (a fact that adherents in both camps would resent, I'm sure). Evolution is not so much defended here as simply stated as fact and then shown to be compatible with the Genesis creation accounts. Or to say it another way, this book is not so much a defense of evolution as it is a defense of a non-literal reading of the creation accounts and their compatibility with evolution. However, this is not to say that only those holding to a position of theistic evolution will benefit from this book.

Chapter 3, "Biblical Interpretation", is alone worth the price of admission and will be beneficial for every Christian, regardless of your position on the origin of the universe. I also found their argument for a non-literal reading of the creation accounts did not necessitate evolution and was equally compatible with my own position of Intelligent Design. Overall, Science, Creation and the Bible is a very accessible book on the current origins debate and has something to offer everyone.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Recommended for: Anyone interested in the origins debate

This book was a free review copy provided by InterVarsity Press.

Challenges from the Exodus account

As I've mentioned before, our church is going through the first five books of the Bible during a series we're calling the Old Testament Challenge. This past week we read—and the Community Groups discussed—the account in Exodus covering the ten plagues. There were some really good questions during our discussion time and I wanted to offer some (hopefully) succinct answers to a few questions I imagine are very common from these passages.

Q: Why so many plagues and why so severe? Was God just wielding the ten plagues like a playground bully, twisting Pharaoh's arm until he cried "uncle"?

A: No, it was much more than just a battle of the wills. Egypt was a pantheistic society, which means they worshiped many gods. Each of the ten plagues was direct challenge (and defeat) of one or more of those gods in the minds of the Egyptians. In essence, God was demonstrating his superiority and sovereignty over all of the created order and the supposed corresponding Egyptian pantheon. Pharaoh and all the Egyptians would have rightly understood this as a sort of clash of the titans, with the Israelite God emerging as the clear victor.

For instance, darkness was an assault on the sun god, Ra. The Nile turning to blood was an attack on Hapi, god of the Nile. With each plague, the Israelite God worked his way up the rungs of the Egyptian pantheon, finally reaching the Supreme: Pharaoh himself. The Egyptian religious system held that the Pharaoh was a human incarnation of Ra and that he was a god-king. So the death of Pharaoh's first born was the death of the son of god, the god-in-waiting.

Not only was this final plague seen as the defeat of Egypt's preeminent god figure, but within it (and the Passover sacrifice and meal) was a beautiful foreshadowing of both the Old Testament sacrificial system and the eventual perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. So in each of the plagues—but especially the last—God is anything but a mere bully and arbitrary in his actions.

Q: Were all the other Egyptians (and the Israelites, too) just innocent victims suffering collateral damage in this battle of the gods?

A: No. God demonstrated his ability to execute a surgical strike when necessary. The land of Goshen, the Israelite district within Egypt, was spared some of the plagues like those of flies, darkness and livestock. We are even told that some Egyptians were spared the worst of certain plagues when they "feared the word of the Lord" and responded properly (see the account of the hail for example).

However, it is conceivable that God had designs even for those plagues that afflicted both Egyptians and Israelites indiscriminately. After all, even the Israelites delayed in honoring, fearing and obeying the direction and word of the Lord through Moses.

It is also reasonable to assume that Pharaoh was not the only Egyptian holding out hope that one of the higher and mightier deities might finally put an end to this God of the slaves. In fact, there is never any account of any repentance or pleading for mercy or sanctuary on the side of the Egyptian people. This idea seems supported by the fact that there is no account of any Egyptians fleeing to Goshen during some of the more localized plagues. Whether they still held out greater hope in their gods (and Pharaoh) or whether they simply feared Pharaoh more than God, the silence of the Egyptian population doesn't necessitate their innocence.

Q: How do we make sense of the biblical account when it says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"?

A: This is probably one of the most common and challenging questions from the entire book. One question that I have found important to ask about this problem is: "What action is required of God in order for Pharaoh's heart to harden?"

The Bible does declare emphatically that "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed." (James 1:13,14) So God would not tempt Pharaoh and in deed did not need to if Pharaoh's own evil desire and inclination was already against God. If this is true, than all that would be required is for God to release Pharaoh and turn him over to his fallen tendency towards hardness of heart. This same progression of fallenness is shown in Romans 1 when Paul writes three times that God "gave them over" to sinful desires, shameful lusts and a depraved mind. So while God may be the passive agent releasing fallen mankind to do whatever they desire, Pharaoh and the rest of humanity would be the active agents in our sin and rebellion. Our fallenness simply dictates what we do with our freedom when God turns us loose.

The biblical writer of Exodus communicates as much when switches back and forth between the idea the God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32). Certainly the author was not implicating God in Pharaoh's sinfulness, but it does seem he sees even Pharaoh's willful, sinful hardness as under the sovereign allowance of God.

In summary, the Bible always keeps these two ideas in balance and tension: the active willful rebellion of mankind within our freedom and the passive allowance of that rebellion under the sovereign rule of God. In this way, both the moral responsibility of man and the ultimate sovereignty of God is preserved.

Book Review: Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts

Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. From academia to pop media, it's trendy to suggest that Christians have gotten the message—and the person—of Jesus horribly wrong.

Enter Mark D. Roberts and his easily accessible book, Can We Trust the Gospels? What began as a blog has turned into what Roberts calls a blook, which is a real word for a blog turned book (who knew?). Without delving into the highly technical arguments of textual criticism, Mark D. Roberts defends the reliability of the Gospels in such a manner that even those with a low view of Scripture should be impressed and perhaps even convinced.

While the book is less than 200 pages in length, Roberts deals with all of the most central challenges to the transmission of the biblical texts. He also addresses many of the more fringe challenges that may not find footing in the academic realm but may gain popularity among the general public (via a novel turned movie about the Gospel of Thomas, for instance). After all, I don't care what academia thinks of an idea as long as Ron Howard can work some explosions and intrigue in.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Recommended: For apologists or anyone who wants to know if we can trust the Bible

This book was a free review copy provided by Crossway Books.

Sermon on Jonah 3 & 4: Part 1, The Forgiven People

After being puked up on the shore near Nineveh, Jonah finally obeys God in this dreaded assignment—dreaded because Assyria is a growing superpower in the middle east that is threatening the the norther border of Israel. Dreaded because Jonah cannot imagine how this will end in his favor: either the Ninevites reject his message and kill him or they receive his message and repent.

The one consolation left for Jonah is small. His message isn't one of repentance, only judgment. His only recorded words to the Ninevites is "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

Yet the Ninevites seem to come to all the right conclusions: fasting, sackcloth, dust and ashes, calling urgently on God, and giving up evil ways. No infant sacrifices or self-mutilation which was common in many pagan practices. We see universal conviction on the part of the Ninevites. The king issues a royal decree of repentance and mourning, but the text points out that the people already "believed God" and were in the process of fasting and mourning before he said a thing. This is nothing short of the hand of God on the hearts of the people.

Biblical scholars seem to be divided about whether the Ninevites truly repented and were saved in the book of Jonah, but the argument is strong that they were for three reasons:

1. In verse 3:5 it says they "believed" (NIV) or even that they "believed in" (NAS) God. This is the same phraseology used describing the faith that Abraham had that was reckoned to him as righteousness.
2. Obviously their repentance was of the substance that God had compassion on them and relented.
3. Jesus seemed to consider their repentance to be of note: "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Matthew 12:38-41

Though God destroyed Nineveh just a few generations later (as chronicled in the book of Nahum), this does not rule out the true repentance and turning of heart by an earlier generation.

In summary, the Ninevites:
Respond with belief toward a God who was not a god of Assyria.
Respond with humility toward a prophet who was not a prophet of power.
Respond with repentance to a message that was not a message of repentance.

Why is this relevant? Because centuries later, one came to the Jews who was a prophet of power, who was from the God of the Jews, and with a message of repentance. And the result? The Jews rebelled and killed that prophet. And Jesus knew this would be their response. When he told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham said to the rich man "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

What do we see through the repentance and salvation of the Ninevites? First, we see that the God of the Old Testament was not just a God of wrath, judgment and jealousy. God was a God of mercy and forgiveness. Above and beyond that, He loved, sought, and saved those outside of the covenant of Israel. Certainly this was not his normal operating procedure, but God demonstrates here (as Paul delineates later) that salvation has always been a gift from God for Jews and Gentiles alike, through faith, and not from ourselves, not by works so that no one may boast.

Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

- Rom. 10:20,21 ESV

This post is the first in the three-part series of excerpts from a sermon delivered at Redeemer Church in Omaha, NE on July 25th, 2010.

Jesus Christ: The Spotless Lamb, the Scapegoat, the Bronze Serpent

Today Christians around the world celebrate Good Friday, the most tragic and beautiful of holidays (literally: holy-day) on which we remember the death and sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus. Tragic for the death that it entailed. Beautiful for the lives that it bought. And yet all of history from the point of the fall was leading up to that moment because "it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life" (Lev. 17:11) and "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22).

Likewise, all of the Old Testament was leading up to and foreshadowing the coming of the Messiah who would redeem his people. For this reason, the most dominant characteristic of the Old Testament sacrifices for the sins of the people was that it must be pure, spotless, unblemished. Thus when John the Baptist saw the one for whom he was to prepare the way, he announced "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" Jesus came as one pure and unaffected by Adam's fall. Spotless and unstained by sin. Unblemished and righteous before God. As Peter wrote, "You were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Pet. 1:19)

Yet, among the other Old Testament allusions, two have stood out to me as beautifully poignant. The first is only mentioned once in the entire Bible.

Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. Then Aaron shall offer the goat on which the lot for the LORD fell, and make it a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for the scapegoat fell shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness as the scapegoat . . . Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins ; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land ; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Lev. 16:8-10, 21, 22)

Notice that the scapegoat remains alive to carry the sins of the people away. Though there are no explicit New Testament references (that I am aware of) to this living atonement, there is still a clear image of Christ.

The second is less obvious and, had Christ himself not drawn the connection, it would have seemed a bit of a stretch to draw the parallel ourselves. In Numbers 21 we read the account of yet another rebellion on the part of the Israelites against their God. In response, the Lord sent "fiery serpents" with a deadly bite into the Israelite camp. When the people repented, God commanded Moses to "make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." (Num 21:8) And Jesus calls our attention back to this account when he said "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." (John 3:14,15)

This imagery can be fairly confusing. It is easy to see the parallels to Christ in the unblemished sacrifices and the scapegoat. But Jesus also says he is like the bronze serpent which, instead of being the picture of purity, is the representation of the curse. Yet Jesus did just this when he came in human form. Beyond this, " God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21)

Thus, in Christ all of this Old Testament imagery comes to a head and fulfillment. Christ became the One who was without blemish or defect to be our sacrifice, the One who lives to take sin upon his head and carry it away from his people, and the One who was lifted up in the likeness of the curse—nay, became the curse!—so that all who looked upon him in faith in the promise of God would be saved.

Why Heaven Will Be Superior To Eden

There is an idea floating around in contemporary Christian literature and music and I am baffled at its popularity. It usual manifests itself in phrases like "return to paradise" or "get back to Eden". I am baffled because—if one makes even a cursory reading of Genesis 2-3 and then Revelation 20-22—heaven seems plainly superior in many ways to Eden.

Yet this idea that salvation and heaven are just a reclaiming of what was lost in Eden seems to have some staying power. Certainly there are obvious similarities (which seem to get all the attention by many), but the differences are significant and considerable. I'm not even talking about the superficial distinctions—obviously one is a garden and the other is a city (the only carry-over we see in both places is the tree of life). Some of the other differences, however, are important because they inform our understanding of the fall, of heaven, and of the sovereignty of God.

The potential for a fall

I was tempted to break these all into individual points, but in the interest of brevity (and intellectual integrity) I summed them up to the basic idea that the fall and all that came with it loomed as an ever-present possibility. In Eden, mankind was of the nature that, though morally perfect in that he had not sinned, was not perfect in that he could not sin. Thus the possibility of sin and the fall kept these all as potential realities (and as we know, eventual realities). These ever-present possibilities include mourning, crying, and pain (Gen. 3:16, 17) and even physical death (Gen. 2:16, 3:19). Yet these all become impossibilities when God promises there will be no more "mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more" (Rev. 21:4) and Death itself will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14).

The presence of Satan

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman . . . " (Gen. 3:1) The beginning of the fall narrative opens with the presence of what most theologians agree is a physical manifestation of Satan. Yet in Revelation he is defeated and banished to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). This is reaffirmed when we read that "nothing unclean will ever enter [heaven], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Rev. 21:27).

The presence of God

While the last point is probably quite obvious to most, the presence of God also seems to be different between Eden and heaven. It is possible that God was not perpetually present in Eden in a physical manifestation because we read that "[Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). This seems to suggest he was not constantly walking in the garden. It also seems implicit that God is not physically present during the conversation between Eve and the serpent. Whether this is true or not, it is certainly true that Adam and Eve's awareness of the presence of God was such that they thought they could escape it as they "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden" (Gen. 3:8).

Now I am certainly not questioning God's omnipresence, but I am suggesting that there will be a change in our awareness of the presence of God from Eden to heaven. In heaven, we read that "the dwelling pace of God is with man" (Rev. 21:3) as well as this great promise: "They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 22:4,5) It seems clear that in heaven we will

The ignorance/innocence of mankind

This last point is to some extent an outgrowth of the first three. While Adam was indeed quite intelligent (e.g. naming of the animals) and enjoyed a relationship with God of which we can only speculate, there is a great bit of experiential ignorance/innocence in man pre-fall. Adam and Eve did not have the same experiential understanding of God's grace, mercy, saving love and sacrificial servanthood that we have this side of Eden—and we do not have the same understanding that we will have someday while remain this side of heaven. Everything between Eden and heaven serve to shape and form worshippers who understand and appreciate who God is better than we ever could if we had stayed in the garden.

Conclusion

Obviously more could be said for each item and more items added to the list (for example, could Jesus' incarnated body and his post-resurrection glorified body be a picture for us of the bodies from Eden to heaven?). However, I feel these four points are sufficient to delineate between the condition of mankind in Eden and in heaven. So what? Why does it matter? I can think of at least two reasons.

1) This understanding of heaven as superior to Eden give us a greater appreciation of the sovereignty of God. If mankind had to endure everything between Eden and heaven just to get things "back to the way they were meant to be", it would seem somewhat pointless. But if God had planned from the beginning to bring a chosen people from Eden, through the in betweens, and to a heaven far superior to Eden, then that is a very amazing and beautiful thing. Indeed, I believe that is exactly what Revelation is talking about when we read "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." (Rev. 13:8) Notice that both those who would be saved and their means of salvation have been written from the creation of the world. This seems to imply also a fall that was somehow written from the creation of the world. (See also: Ephesians 1)


2) The understanding of a superior heaven should motivate us to live a life both joyfully in the present and eagerly anticipating the future. If all the trials we endure on this Earth are just backlash from our sin in Eden, then we've just gotta buckle down and bear it. But if each and every trial is a piece that God sovereignly ordained (see point 1) so that in heaven that very trial will all the more magnify the grace of God and the conquering joy of his people, well then we can, as James instructed, "consider it pure joy whenever you face trials of many kinds". If all of the in betweens are just the hoops we must jump through to get back what we'd lost in Eden, we could spend all of our lives looking back regretting the fall and questioning God. But if heaven surpasses Eden, then this is reason enough to press on, to look forward, to trust God and to pray with fervency "come quickly Lord Jesus!"

Jesus is the Way, the Gate, and the Shepherd

Jesus is pretty popular today. I mean, if you were to ask a dozen people how they felt about Jesus, I doubt one of them would have a bad thing to say (to your face, at least). The thing about this popularity is, I don't think it's the real Jesus that's the popular one. I think there's a new postmodern pseudo-Jesus, a quasi-Jesus who's just a good teacher and proponent of ideals that the postmodernist strives for.

Decidedly less popular today is the idea that salvation is exclusive, that it is solely through Christ that we can come to God. This seems to be the climate that Rob Bell is reacting to in Velvet Elvis:

---

As a Christian, I am simply trying to orient myself around living a particular kind of way, the kind of way that Jesus taught is possible. And I think that the way of Jesus is the best possible way to live . . . Jesus at one point claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life". Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality.

---

Ah, how diplomatic. Just a little equivocal. Fortunately—or unfortunately, depending on how you feel about Jesus—he was not this ambiguous. In fact, Jesus concluded his proclamation of being the Way/Truth/Life by saying "no one comes to the Father but through me". It's strange that Jesus says the way is through him, rather than with him, or following behind him. It's almost as if Jesus considered himself as more than just a life-model, more than just an ideal to be pursued.

And because Jesus was so unambiguous, he was clear about what he did consider himself to be. The very same author who recorded Jesus saying he was "the way" also recorded another proclamation Jesus made about himself. In John 10, Jesus says he is the shepherd, and "he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice". Now this certainly sounds more like it! A Jesus we can listen to and follow. This sounds like the life-model/ideal that we're all comfortable with.

Unfortunately, his hearers "did not understand what he was telling them", so he had to expound what he meant—and ruined our paradigm in the process. Jesus said, "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved". There's that word again: through. So Jesus is not simply the model for a Christian life, he is the means into a Christian life. And how is this done? Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep". And in plain language in the following chapter Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies".

So Jesus is the way to be walked, the gate to be passed through, and the shepherd who guards the way and opens the gate. If you're anything like me, this seems really small-minded, really narrow. Which should be a clue that we're on to something: "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".

Read the Bible like a newspaper

"Do you take the Bible literally?" This is a question that I've been asked on more than one occasion and it seems to be a common challenge for the Christian. While my first reaction was to say "yes, of course", I realized this wasn't true. I don't take Jesus' parables literally. I take them for what it seems the speaker and author intended: a fictional story to illustrate a literal truth. I don't take some of the Song of Songs literally. I take it for what it seems the author intended: poetic literature. (I'm certain that Solomon's wife didn't really have a neck like a tower)

I've found that one of the easiest answers to this question is this: "I read the Bible like I read the newspaper". As I considered this further, I found it to be a very effective analogy (though never perfect, as no analogy ever will be). Consider: a newspaper is written by many different authors and in various styles, so different portions must be interpreted accordingly. But the reader can't just interpret the paper however they like. One must read each article and section in the way that the author(s) intended. Consider the confusion if the comics section were taken literally. And just like the Bible, the context of the surrounding page and section helps clarify the author's writing style and intent.

So just as we read and interpret the cover story in the newspaper differently than the advice column and differently than the political cartoons, we read the historical naratives in the Bible differently than the Proverbs and differently than the parables.

And now a couple qualifications for those over-analytical minds. Of course the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and moral authority in Scripture put it on an entirely different level of writing. I use this illustration simply to show how familiar people really are with the concept of interpreting one body of literature in different ways based on context and author's intent. It also serves to show that the reading is not entirely subjective and up to the reader to decide "what it means for them".

The Balancing Act of Jesus

One thing that has always puzzled me about the ministry of Jesus is why he would exert so much effort to squash the buzz surrounding him. There are seven separate occasions recorded in the book of Mark where Jesus instructed the recipient of a healing miracle to "Tell no one!" Even more fascinating are the accounts of Jesus telling demons to be silent when they cry "You are the Son of God!" as they are cast out. Luke says that he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ (4:41).

However, I think these are indicators of the type of ministry Jesus was setting out to create. He was not simply trying to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth with his teachings. He wasn't just aiming to start a movement. He didn't want to amass a large group of followers. At least not yet.

Jesus, from the very beginning, had his eyes set on the cross. He knew that all his teachings and ministry would be futile if atonement was never made for the sinfulness of mankind. No amount of wisdom from the mouth of God would accomplish what he knew must take place through the cross in his death and resurrection.

Jesus had to keep his followers few enough, his teachings hard enough, and his identity vague enough that the cross would become a reality.

So with this little insight, many strange things in the Gospels start to fall into place. Two of the three recorded temptations from Satan in the wilderness would have instantly revealed Jesus' true identity and drawn the militant masses ready to fight Rome in the name of the Messiah. The same would have taken place if all the healed were proclaiming him. This also would explain why Jesus snapped "Get behind me, Satan!" when Peter tried to dissuade him at saying he would die in Jerusalem. When an overt temptation to bypass the cross failed in the desert, Satan tried again in the form of a trusted friend.

All the more, Jesus would be seen as Messiah by the masses if all the demons were allowed to proclaim the truth that he was the Son of God as they were cast out. Instead, when Jesus was asked by whose authority he performed his miracles, he replied with a question. When his challengers were unable to answer his question, he said "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things". Even so, Jesus, on at least one occasion, had to escape "knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force".

And it was not just the masses who had trouble deciding about Jesus. In a curious twist, John the Baptist, while in prison, sent a few of his own followers to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah or if they should expect someone else. This from the very person who prepared the way for Jesus and even proclaimed him the Lamb of God at his baptism.

And what of all his hard teachings? Hate your brother and mother and father? Eat my body? Drink my blood? Tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it up? Through the lens of the cross and the harmony of Scripture we see the truth and beauty of his words, but on the front end of his death he sounded kinda nutty. Though the disciples knew he had the "words of eternal life", there are several points recorded in the Gospels where they grasped Jesus' teaching only after his resurrection and glorification. And while the disciples hung on and remembered even when they didn't understand, many others were driven away by Jesus words.

This starts to become quite distressing when considering all the people "driven away" from the Gospel by Jesus himself! That is, of course, unless Jesus "knew what was in a man" and knew that many had just come to be entertained by the talk of the town. Disturbing, unless Jesus knew that "All that the Father gives me will come to me", and "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". Confusing, unless Jesus spoke in parables precisely to weed out those who, "Though seeing they do not see, and though hearing they do not hear or understand". The behavior of Jesus is quite frustrating unless he has a cool confidence in the sovereignty and election of God to bring all the sheep out from among the rebellious and cold-hearted wolves into the fold of the Shepherd and not lose one.

So throughout the Gospels I see a balancing act emerging, a tight-rope walk on the part of Jesus. His words of life tempered by hard teachings. Questions answered contrasted with questions left unanswered. Jesus proclaiming his own divinity (often vaguely) but squashing overt proclamations from the demons. Miracles performed followed by miracles refused. Crowds drawn and beckoned, and then driven away. All this to ensure the climax and apex of his incarnation, his death and resurrection. If you still find this hard to believe, consider Jesus' own words to his disciples: "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs." Jesus himself was aware that he was whispering in the dark during his own ministry.

Jesus' goal on earth was never to evangelize the nations himself. In deed, his ministry was quite localized and relatively brief. Rather, his goal was to prepare a small group of followers and equip them with the "words of eternal life" and the Holy Spirit so that they were prepared to go to the nations after he had purchased salvation for the world. This is why Jesus kept his followers few enough, his teachings hard enough, and his identity vague enough that the cross would become a reality.

Defending Christianity and the Bible

In an attempt to get involved in public discourse and represent a biblical Christian worldview, here's yet another installment from the Omaha World-Herald's Public Pulse:

Good and bad in Bible

In regard to Mike Goonan's Aug. 16 letter, "Evidence is in Bible," I question how he, like most Christians, chooses his faith and what to believe from the Bible. Most people admit that their faith is not of choice but stems from their upbringing.

Muslims are told in the Koran that any belief other than Islam will condemn them to a life in eternal hell (5:71-75). So either many Muslims or many Christians will be suffering for eternity due to where they had the fortune or misfortune of being born.

As for the Bible, which parts should we choose to believe? Do we kill our children for talking back to us (Exodus 21:5 and Leviticus 20:9)? Do we believe it is OK to sell daughters into slavery or own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46)?

I don't believe there is anything wrong with wanting stronger evidence than the Bible. To me, parts of it are not that good.

Daryle LaFleur, Omaha
-----------------------------------------------------------

Read to understand

In response to Daryle LaFleur's Aug. 21 letter, "Good and Bad in Bible," it is unfortunate when a Christian leaves their faith unexamined and adheres simply because of upbringing. However, this is not an argument against Christianity itself, nor does it undermine the tried and tested convictions of many Christians.

As I noticed that you only quoted from the Old Testament when finding the "bad" in the Bible, let me offer a suggestion in hermeneutics (biblical interpretation). You should read the Bible with the precision you think the writer intended.

All of us read the newspaper in this fashion with no trouble; reading the front page, the sports page, and the comics page with varying degrees of literal interpretation and personal application. A headline like "Bears Devour Lions" may not be intended literally. A letter to the editor may not be intended for you.

Let me suggest you consider the life of Jesus before digging into obscure Old Testament passages intended for theocratic Israel. He claimed to be God and is the linchpin of Christianity. Muslims claim he was not God but merely a prophet and good teacher. Everyone should consider the historical and biblical accounts and decide for themselves.

Jared Totten, Omaha