Skip to content

Tag: apologetics

Divine Power To Destroy Stongholds

Unknown

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).

While considering these two verses, D.A. Carson writes…

Argue a skeptic into a corner, and you will not take his mind for Christ, but pray for him, proclaim the gospel to him, live out the gospel of peace, walk righteously by faith until he senses your ultimate allegiance and citizenship are vastly difference from his own, and you may discover that the power of truth, the convicting and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and the glories of Christ Jesus shatter his reason and demolish his arguments until you take captive his mind and heart to make them obedient to Christ. The result will be a life transformed.

-taken from a Model of Christian Maturity: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 10-13.

Leave a Comment

Are You Ready To Give An Answer?

images

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.      -1 Peter 3:13-17

The context of these verses is one in which Peter is encouraging believers who are in the midst of persecution. In verse 13, Peter asks what harm can possibly be done to one who is seeking to do what is right? Who would want to persecute you for being a model citizen?

However, Peter realizes that some will suffer and so he tells them that if one does suffer for the sake of righteousness, he or she will be blessed. And not only should they realize they will be blessed, but they also not fear those who do them harm, but instead “in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy.”

To regard in one’s heart that Christ is Lord is “not merely a private reality but will be evident to all when believers suffer for their faith. The inner and outer life are inseparable, for what happens within will inevitably be displayed to all, especially when one suffers.”[1]

Peter goes one step further however, in his instructions to those who might possibly face persecution. Not only does he encourages his readers to “regard Christ the Lord as holy,” but to also be prepared to give an answer for the hope they have in life. In other words, when persecution comes your way, others will want to know why you seek to place your hope where you do? Why believe in something that could cause ill-treatment?

The word defense or answer that Peter uses is where the term apologetics is derived. Peter probably did not have in mind here the formal discipline of apologetics. Nor is defense meant to imply a formal court case in which believers were on trial though it is possible that some did have opportunity to speak a formal defense. The use of defense here is most likely referring to “informal circumstances when believers were asked spontaneously about their faith.”[2]

By giving such a command to give a “reason for the hope,” Peter assumes that believers can give a solid intellectual defense of the gospel. This does not mean that every believer should be a highly trained apologist, but it is important that Christians be able to articulate what they believe and why.[3]

Giving a defense of the faith will possibly become even more important as today’s culture continues to become more pluralistic and as worldviews continue to collide. Defending one’s faith may also take on some changes as America becomes less familiar with the truths of the gospel. Evangelism and apologetics will need to encompass the entire Biblical story from creation to the second coming.[4]

It must be noted that Peter encourages those who give a defense to do so with gentleness and respect. Peter is not wishing for them to win an argument, but instead to communicate the truth in love. The content of the message may cause one to be offensive, but the messenger should always share in a manner which validates Christ’s love for humanity.[5]

Responding respectfully and in humility puts to shame those who choose to slander and falsely accuse. It is interesting that many times in Scripture those who are faithful to God will not be shamed, but their opponents will be. Karen Jobes writes:

 Rather than being intimidated by whatever opposition his readers encounter in their society, Peter wants them to respond with a positive and effective explanation of the gospel. Instead of allowing fear to drive them to use the same tactics of insult and malicious talk against their opponents, they are to respond in a way that is beyond approach. The humble and respectful testimony of believing Christians defeats the malicious talk of those who would malign the faith.[6]

The questions this passage leads us to ask are: Are we placing our hope in Christ? And, are we ready to give an answer, with gentleness and respect, for that hope?

 

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &   Holman, 2003), 174.
[2] Ibid., 174.
[3] Ibid., 175.
[4] See Chapter 28 in Telling the Truth, ed. by D.A. Carson.
[5] Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 231.
[6] Ibid., 231.

Leave a Comment

The Silence About The Empty Tomb–A Few Responses

th-1

A few days ago Philip Jenkins posed the question: “Why did the New Testament writers, outside of the four gospels, remain silent about the empty tomb of Jesus?” He asked the question seeking an honest answer because…

Suppose I face an atheist critic, who makes the following argument. Yes, he says, early Christians believed that they encountered the risen Jesus, that they had visions, but these visions had no objective reality. They just arose from the hopes and expectations of superstitious disciples. Even then, Christians saw that Resurrection in spiritual, pneumatic, terms. Only after a lengthy period, some forty years in fact, did the church invent stories to give a material, bodily basis to that phenomenon, and the empty tomb was the best known example.

As I have thought some about this question, I have come up with a few ideas as to why the silence.

  • Could it be that no mention of an empty tomb was due to the early NT writers not needing it as an apologetic defense? Paul, for example, is writing to specific churches and addressing specific needs. Is it possible that objective evidence of the resurrection via the empty tomb was not a concern?
  • Along the same thought as the above comment, could it be that the concerns of the early church were not of the miraculous resurrection but of the meaning of it? In other words, the issue was not the empty tomb. Everyone knew the tomb was empty. The issue was why? It might be that the issue was not defending the resurrection as much as defending it’s meaning along with the person and work of Christ.
  • On the other hand, is not the empty tomb implied? If Jesus is alive and the disciples saw him, does this not indicate an empty tomb? Instead of writing the tomb is empty, they wrote, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—(1 John 1:1-2).
  • What would an empty tomb prove? It could prove that Jesus was alive, but it could also mean that someone stole the body or moved it. It appears that the proof of the resurrection for the disciples and others was not due to the empty tomb but due to seeing Christ alive. It was this personal testimony along with the early believers die-hard devotion to it, even unto death, that seemed to be the proof that was needed.

The question remains however, as to why after forty years did the gospel writers pick up the empty tomb story? I think this question is especially interesting due to my point above that an empty tomb does not necessarily prove Jesus is alive.

Is it possible therefore, that the mention of the empty tomb emerges not because of needing proof that Jesus is alive but because the empty tomb is part of the story of Jesus. When the women and disciples came to the tomb, it was empty so that’s what Matthew Mark, Luke, and John recorded (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10).

The gospel writers were not seeking to invent stories to give “a material, bodily basis” for the resurrection. They were recording the life of Jesus of which the empty tomb is a vital part. They weren’t trying to prove the resurrection, but just writing that it did, in fact, occur.

So what are your thoughts? How would you answer Jenkins question?

 

 

Leave a Comment