BeachCast.TV: Bible Exploration, Apologetics and Church History with Dr. Chase A. Thompson:

Busting Shroud Myths: Did Carbon 14 dating prove that The Shroud of Turin was manufactured in the Middle Ages? Some scientists have significant disagreement with the method and results of the 1988 radiocarbon testing of the Turin Shroud. This episode debunks the myth that science has disproven the validity of The Shroud.

Today, I think it would be helpful to have an episode that takes a broad and wide view of The Shroud - that covers all of the basics, so that we're all on the same page. That's the focus of this episode - let's call it an overview of The Shroud of Turin, but the material we cover won't all be introductory level.

As I mentioned in the first episode, I first heard about The Shroud way back in the very early 80s from In Search of. PLAY CLIP

Hearing Mr. Spock - Leonard Nimoy - talking about The Shroud was fascinating to my young mind, and understanding that their might - just might - be a possible artifact from the time of Jesus - that Jesus actually touched - that could actually have a real picture of Jesus - inarguably the most famous person that ever lived - was mind-blowing. So, I read up on The Shroud as I grew older. Most of my Presbyterian church leaders didn't believe in The Shroud - dismissing it as a Catholic hoax, but I wasn't fully convinced. The fact is - once you see pictures of it, then you begin to take it at least a little bit seriously. If The Shroud is a fake - it is an amazing one, and the deeper you dig into it, the more remarkable it becomes.

Some Terms You Should Know:

1. Icon: An icon is a religious work of art, usually a painting. Sometimes icons are statues or carvings, or other artistic renderings. Most of the time those pictured in icons are Jesus, Mary, or other saints in the Bible. Some Christians, including many Reformed Christians, consider paintings of Jesus to be violations of the second commandment of the Bible - "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

   The oldest surviving icon of Jesus - dating from the 500s - is copied below.

Let's answer 4 big questions today in our overview:

1. What exactly is The Shroud?

The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth that is 14.5 feet long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide and has the somewhat faded negative image of a man on it. Essentially think of the image like a photo-negative - the areas of dark and light are reversed. The darkest areas of the imprint of the man in The Shroud appear light, and vice-versa. The weave of The Shroud is a fine herringbone twill weave. I'm not an expert on textiles, but most experts that I've read seem to think that such a weave would have been possible and used in 1st century middle eastern areas. Like all things related to The Shroud, that is debatable. The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed listed in the Scriptures, so we know that the body of Jesus was actually wrapped in a linen cloth. There is not enough of a description of that cloth to know whether or not The Shroud is similar. As many have pointed out, there is no Scripture whatsoever that seems to indicate some kind of miraculous imprint of Jesus was left on the burial cloths. To be fair, there is no Scripture to indicate that the disciples examined the cloths, only that they saw them. Considering that there is very little information in Scripture about what happened directly after the resurrection of Jesus, and that the Bible writers focused on The Great Commission there, I don't think it is a very strong argument from silence to say that because the Bible doesn't mention something miraculous regarding the burial cloths of Jesus, therefore it did not happen.

John 19: 38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus—but secretly because of his fear of the Jews—asked Pilate that he might remove Jesus' body. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and took His body away. 39 Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it.

John 20: 20 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!" 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then entered the tomb, saw, and believed. 9 For they still did not understand the Scripture that He must rise from the dead.

The figure on The Shroud is interesting. He is tall - significantly taller than the average Jewish man of the first century, which was, according to different sources, somewhere between 5'2 and 5'5. The Shroud figure would be anything from around 5'8 to 6'2, with a figure around 5'11 seeming to be fairly likely. The man is well built and quite muscular, and has a beard, shoulder length hair, and a moustache. The Shroud is in excellent condition for its age, but not in mint condition. It has survived numerous fires and movings, and has some scars and singeing from fire. There were fourteen large patches and 16 or so smaller patches that were sewn onto The Shroud to repair it in the 1530s, all of those patches were removed in 2002 by a restoration team who sewed The Shroud onto a new cloth backing.

1. What is the history of The Shroud?

This question might have its own episode, because it is quite complex, and very, very disputed. Amongst the difficulties in determining the real history of The Shroud is the lack of photographic and artistic evidence, and the fact that there are more than one burial cloths that are claimed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. As you might know, the medieval period was quite focused on biblical relics, and many unscrupulous people profited greatly from displaying supposed pieces of the true cross, fingerbones of the apostles, grails used at The Last Supper, etc. Many who believe that The Shroud is genuine believe that the history of it can be traced all the way back to The Image of Edessa, which was supposedly given to King Abgar of Edessa by Thaddeus, one of the 70 disciples of Jesus mentioned in Luke 10 - possibly even the Judas Thaddeus that was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus. However, the connection to The Shroud and The Image of Edessa is fairly disputed and tenuous, and we won't discuss it yet.

The Shroud of Turin can clearly trace its history to the 1300s. Geoffroi de Charny was a well known and well respected French knight, who was known as a great warrior and a man of honor. He wrote three books in chivalry, served King Jean II, was a founding member of The Order of The Star, and carried the Oriflamme into battle. The what, you say? The Oriflamme was the royal battle standard (or flag) of the French army, and it was a significant honor to be the knight who carried this banner into battle. De Charny was killed by five English knights in the 1356 Battle of Poitiers against the English, and his king was taken captive. Historian Jean Froissart describes De Charny's fall in that battle:

"There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king (and his fourteen-year-old son). The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king's sovereign banner [the Oriflamme]. He also had before him his own banner, red, with three white shields. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king's battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one [French] gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth.

So, real life Game of Thrones kind of material here. De Charny was obviously a pretty amazing person. There is some question about how he acquired The Shroud, which we will go into later, but one of the first undisputed images of The Shroud comes from a Pilgrimage of Lirey medal that dates to de Charny's time and area.

To give you a bit further of an idea into the character of Geoffroi de Charny, we can go to the record of the happenings before The Battle of Poitiers, to a meeting amongst the British and French leadership recorded by English Knight John Chandos (on the opposing side of de Charny):

The King, to prolong the matter and to put off the battle, assembled and brought together all the barons of both sides. Of speech there he (the King) made no stint. There came the Count of Tancarville, and, as the list says, the Archbishop of Sens (Guillaume de Melun) was there, he of Taurus, of great discretion, Charny, Bouciquaut, and Clermont; all these went there for the council of the King of France. On the other side there came gladly the Earl of Warwick, the hoary-headed (white or grey headed) Earl of Suffolk was there, and Bartholomew de Burghersh, most privy to the Prince, and Audeley and Chandos, who at that time were of great repute. There they held their parliament, and each one spoke his mind. But their counsel I cannot relate, yet I know well, in very truth, as I hear in my record, that they could not be agreed, wherefore each one of them began to depart. Then said Geoffroi de Charny: 'Lords,' quoth he, 'since so it is that this treaty pleases you no more, I make offer that we fight you, a hundred against a hundred, choosing each one from his own side; and know well, whichever hundred be discomfited, all the others, know for sure, shall quit this field and let the quarrel be. I think that it will be best so, and that God will be gracious to us if the battle be avoided in which so many valiant men will be slain."

The Shroud stayed in the Di Charny family until 1453 when it was transferred to the House of Savoy, a royal family in northern Italy. In 1389, a Bishop Pierre D'arcis actually wrote about The Shroud, and said that it was a fake. I'll quote from his letter, and then give some reasons that his conclusion is controversial:

The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore. This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter. For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time. Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. Accordingly, after taking mature counsel with wise theologians and men of the law, seeing that he neither ought nor could allow the matter to pass, he began to institute formal proceedings against the said Dean and his accomplices in order to root out this false persuasion. They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year.

I would consider this memorandum to be one of the stronger evidences against the authenticity of The Shroud. It fails to be completely convincing, however, for three primary reasons:

1. D'Arcis' memo mentions that the Lirey Shroud was painted, and the painter confessed. The Turin Shroud shows no evidence or sign whatsoever of being painted, and it has been carefully and chemically analyzed for paint.
2. There are several other documents of the same time period that dispute what is in this memorandum. For instance, D'Arcis claims that his predecessor had The Shroud removed because it was a fake, but other documents from the time assert that The Shroud was removed for protection because of war nearby. It is possible – though not proven – that D'Arcis memo was motivated by political issues, or perhaps by competing relic claims. D'Arcis was the Bishop of Troyes – was he disturbed/bothered by people flocking to nearby Lirey to see The Shroud? While his letter claims he is not writing for competitive purposes, it is easy to see why a Bishop of a nearby town – lacking a profound relic – might be opposed to The Shroud drawing crowds elsewhere.

That said, I certainly appreciate his anti-profit and anti-swindling the faithful stance, and wish more churchmen of the time held to it. This alone gives the memo an air of authority and authenticity.

3. The memo is unsigned, unsealed, and not found in any official Vatican records. This likely means it was unsent to the Antipope. Did D'Arcis reconsider the authenticity of The Shroud? What made him withhold the sending of the memo?

In 1418, Geoffroi De Charny's granddaughter Margaret, married Humbert of Villersexel, the Count De La Roche, and a significant noble. One month later, the leaders of the Chapel at Lirey, where The Shroud was being kept, temporarily gave it to Count Humbert for safekeeping at his castle Montfort. Humbert dies in 1438, and Margaret hangs onto The Shroud, much to the annoyance of the canons at Lirey, and they sue her in church court to get it back. Margaret takes The Shroud with her on a tour of France, where it is seen by many frenchmen. Margaret dies in 1460, and in 1464, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the church at Lirey a yearly stipend, seemingly in exchange for The Shroud. Thus ownership of The Shroud essentially passed into the hands of The Savoy family.

While The Savoy family had possession of The Shroud, they primarily had it kept in Sainte-Chapelle in Chambery, which was the capital city of the Savoy region. It also toured around France and the parts of modern day Italy, being showcased in Turin in 1473 and a few other times.

Unfortunately, in 1532, near-disaster strikes as Fire breaks out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Almost everything in the chapel is damaged and destroyed, but The Shroud manages to survive. The case it is held in is seriously damaged by the fire, which causes a drop of molten silver to melt through The Shroud, and several obvious scorch marks are made. That said, the damage is not fatal to any important parts of the image, and the sisters of Poor Clare, tasked with caretaking of The Shroud, repair it in 1534, and sew it onto a new backing called The Holland cloth.

In 1578 the Shroud was taken to Turin with great fanfare by The Savoy family. Upon arrival, it is greeted by rifle salute, and displayed to a crowd of 40,000 later in the year. With only a few exceptions, The Shroud has remained in Turin to this day.

1. What have scientific tests shown so far?

This is a most controversial question, because there have been dozens of scientific inquiries. I'll briefly focus on two scientific inquiries here - STURP's research in the late 70s and the radiocarbon dating from 1988.

The radiocarbon dating is the one everybody knows about, so let's start there. In April, 1988, a very small portion of The Shroud was removed - approximately 3 inches long and a little over half an inch wide. That strip was cut in half, and The Vatican stored half it away for future testing. The remaining strip, approximately 1.5 inches long and a little over half an inch wide, was divided into 3 strips and send to three separate labs in Arizona, Oxford, England, and Switzerland. All three labs came back with results that were very similar, and the consensus was that The Shroud material dated from somewhere between the 1200s and the 1300s, which proved the relic to be a medieval hoax in most people's minds.

As with everything Shroud wise, there have been many criticisms of the original testing. Noted chemist Ray Rogers has written and published one of the more interesting challenges noting that the chemical vanillin was readily found in the samples of The Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, but completely absent from other parts of the main body of The Shroud. Rogers claimed in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years"

I do not understand textile chemistry nearly well enough to dispute or confirm Rogers' findings, but I am intrigued by then. More recently, research Tristan Casabianca's team found that the 1988 carbon dating was unreliable, as only pieces from the edges of the cloth were radiocarbon tested. Many scholars believe that The Shroud, particularly the edge parts, might have been compromised significantly by several of the fires that have impacted it, especially the 1532 fire. That fire, as well as centuries of display and handling could, in their view, radically alter results from radiocarbon dating.

Casabianca obtained a lot of insight into the 1988 radiocarbon testing via a freedom of information inquiry, and upon examining the original data and process of testing, concluded, "The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates. There is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages."

Shroud researcher Russ Breault, upon reviewing Casabianca's newly uncovered information, stated, "this tells us there is something anomalous with the single sample used to date The Shroud. This is something we have long suspected because the corner chosen was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth, exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries. If you were looking for the worst possible sample location, you would choose from one of the two outside corners — right where the sample was cut in 1988."

That said, it should be considered here that no scientist that specializes in radiocarbon testing has raised significant questions about the method of dating used in the 1988 testing.

Summary of Sturp's 1978 findings:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

1. Why care?

It doesn't prove anything one way or the other about Jesus, so in my mind, it is not a crucial artifact, and certainly shouldn't be used to prove or disprove somebody's faith. If the Shroud is ultimately proved to be a hoax, how big of a deal is that? I would say - religiously speaking - it is not a big deal at all. None of the Christian faith rests on The Shroud of Turin being genuine. While it is true that the burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned a few times in the Bible, it is not given particular attention, and no central or tertiary claims of Christianity rest on the Shroud. What if - somehow, someway, The Shroud was proven to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus? I think that would be a HUGE deal...but not a religiously huge deal. Here's what I mean: If The Shroud could be authenticated, then what we would have is a cloth that was actually wrapped around the single most important and well-known person in all of history. Not only that, but we would have a near-photograph of Jesus, and we would know His size, and what He looked like. It would be incredible to know for sure whether or not The Shroud was genuine...but what would its genuineness prove? That Jesus existed? Sure, there are some people who doubt the existence of Jesus, but some people also doubt the moon-landing, and many other obvious facts of history but almost no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. Would a genuine Shroud PROVE the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central claim of Christianity? Of course not! How could it? I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, but The Shroud could neither prove nor disprove that. In my understanding, The Shroud is an amazing historical artifact - especially if it is proved genuine - but it is not an amazing focus of faith.

To wit, in John 5, Jesus strongly challenged the people who were following him and said: 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

A challenging verse that I think has application in this situation: The Shroud is not capable of saving people from their sins and should not be an object of religious veneration. All veneration and honor should go to Jesus. That said, The Shroud is still - if genuine - one of the most amazing pieces of history in the world. We should not worship it, but there is nothing wrong with being interested and fascinated by it.

All about The Shroud of Turin and its history + origins with a special focus on the Knight of The Shroud, Geoffroi de Charny. Asks and seeks to answer the question: Has science really disproven authenticity of The Shroud of Turin.

Today's episode is a beginning. It does not YET represent rigorous research, but only a skimming. My opinion at the beginning of this journey is a middle opinion. Call me a Shroud agnostic, at least for now. There are Shroud atheists out there that quickly and completely dismiss the Shroud. They may be right, but I'm not sure they've thoroughly researched their conclusions. Likewise, many faithful Shroud believers seemingly assume its real and don't really interact with some legitimate reasons for debunking. The fact is that there is pretty solid evidence on both sides, which probably explains why The Shroud still has its believers and detractors. This is not a religious issue for me - I am firmly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead with or without The Shroud, and even wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus. (Easter: Fact or Fiction.)

Why should I - a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe at all in the Roman Catholic concept of relics or icons, do a long series on the Shroud of Turin? Protestants have taken two positions on the Shroud over the years. I can neatly frame those two positions by quoting from two of my heroes, Charles Spurgeon and C.S. Lewis:

On the negative, anti-Shroud side, we have Charles Spurgeon:

Spurgeon on the Shroud: Do you not think, too, that some seekers miss comfort because they forget that Jesus Christ is alive? The Christ of the Church of Rome is always seen in one of two positions—either as a babe in his mother's arms, or else as dead. That is Rome's Christ, but our Christ is alive. Jesus who rose has "left the dead no more to die." I was requested in Turin to join with others in asking to see the shroud in which the Saviour was buried. I must confess that I had not faith enough to believe in the shroud, nor had I curiosity enough to wish to look at the fictitious linen. I would not care a penny for the article, even if I knew it to be genuine. Our Lord has left his shroud and sepulchre, and lives in heaven. To-night he so lives that a sigh of yours will reach him, a tear will find him, a desire in your heart will bring him to you. Only seek him as a loving, living Saviour, and put your trust in him as risen from the dead no more to die, and comfort will, I trust, come into your spirit.

C. H. Spurgeon, "A Gospel Sermon to Outsiders," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 23 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 701–702.

On the more open side and curious side, we have C.S. Lewis:

Dear Sister Penelope

I am ashamed of having grumbled. And your act was not that of a brute—in operation it was more like that of an angel, for (as I said) you started me on a quite new realisation of what is meant by being 'in Christ', and immediately after that 'the power which erring men call chance' put into my hands Mascall's two books in the Signpost series which continued the process.102 So I lived for a week end (at Aberystwyth) in one of those delightful vernal periods when doctrines that have hitherto been only buried seeds begin actually to come up—like snowdrops or crocuses. I won't deny they've met a touch of frost since (if only things would last, or rather if only we would!) but I'm still very much, and gladly, in your debt. The only real evil of having read your scripts when I was tired is that it was hardly fair to them and not v. useful to you.

I enclose the MS. of Screwtape. If it is not a trouble I shd. like you to keep it safe until the book is printed (in case the one the publisher has got blitzed)—after that it can be made into spills or used to stuff dolls or anything.

Thank you very much for the photo of the Shroud. It raises a whole question on which I shall have to straighten out my thought one of these days.

yours sincerely

Clive Lewis

C. S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. Walter Hooper, vol. 2 (New York: HarperCollins e-books; HarperSanFrancisco, 2004–2007), 493–494.

I note here that Lewis had the picture of the head of the Shroud of Turin framed, and it hung on the wall of his bedroom for the rest of his life.

On this particular issue, count me with C.S. Lewis - at least for now. While I believe Spurgeon is correct in condemning Shroudish idolatry, or the worship of The Shroud, I think he was too hasty in his conclusion that The Shroud was an absolute fake. It certainly may be, but it would appear that Spurgeon's theological prejudice against the Roman Catholic church led him to dismiss the Shroud's genuineness as a possibility, rather than some scientific, theological or historical reason.

Top Ten Facts about the Shroud of Turin:

1 Coins in eyes. Perhaps the most compelling 'fact' about The Shroud is not a fact in everybody's eyes. I've erased and retyped that sentence now twice, because it was a legit, "no pun intended." line. Be that as it may, researchers have apparently discovered what may be coins in the place of the eye-sockets on the image of the man in The Shroud. (Because the image is so small, there is heavy debate about this 'discovery.') We are going to possibly spend an entire episode on this one issue, so I'm not going to go too deeply into it now, but the supposed coins at least appear to be first century coins - and there is some evidence - scant, but some - that Jewish people of the first two centuries were buried with coins in their eyes.

2. You've probably heard that The Shroud was carbon 14 dated and found conclusively to be a medieval hoax. That conclusion was highly debated in the 1980s, and has been ever since. More recently, data has surfaced that has cast more doubt on the original conclusion. Researcher Tristan Casabianca and his team were able to gain access to the raw data of the original 1989 dating, and found some significant issues. In a recent interview with the French "New Man" magazine, Casabianca says:

"In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages." As I mentioned at the beginning - I'm a Shroud agnostic at this point. I've heard various reasons to debunk the 1989 dating of the Shroud for years, and I've heard people confidently quote that dating as if that completely and utterly convinced them. I remain unpersuaded either way...at this point.

3.. The blood stains on The Shroud appear to be human blood. From Historycollection.co:

Many skeptics regarding the Shroud of Turin's authenticity have long claimed that the image seen on the linen cloth is nothing more than a figure that an artist painted. In 1978, scholar John Jackson got permission from the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist to carry out tests to determine what kind of paint may have been used. What he found when he tested pieces of the cloth is that no binding or mixing agents were used in the color, meaning that it did not correspond with the known painting practices of the fourteenth century. In fact, what was used to create the image on the shroud wasn't paint at all. It was blood. Jackson's truly astounding find, though, was that it was human blood on the shroud. The blood type has been identified as type AB. Furthermore, there are two distinctive types of blood found on the cover: pre-mortem blood, the kind before a person dies, and post-mortem, which has undergone changes following death.

4. The Shroud has withstood the rigors of time, and multiple disasters. This, of course, doesn't guarantee its authenticity, but it is curious. In 1503, the Shroud was displayed at Bourg-en-Bresse for Archduke Philip the Handsome, who was the grandmaster of Flanders. A contemporary account by a courtier that was present named Antoine de Lalaing writes about the 1503 display of the Shroud: "The day of the great and holy Friday, the Passion was preached in Monsignor's chapel by his confessor, the duke and duchess attending. Then they went with great devotion to the market halls of the town, where a great number of people heard the Passion preached by a Cordeilier. After that three bishops showed to the public the Holy Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the service it was shown in Monsignor's chapel." Of more interest to us here, Lalaing also mentions that the authenticity of The Shroud is seemingly proved by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.' 29 years after Lalaing wrote this, the entire chapel that held The Shroud burned, and its protective case melted. The Shroud itself suffered little damage beyond some scorching and one small hole that was brought about by melted silver dripping through.

5. Whether you believe the Shroud is the true burial cloth of Jesus or not, all agree that the Shroud is very old and very fragile. Most cloth from hundreds of years ago has long since disintegrated, so to protect the Shroud from damage, it is kept inside a hermetically sealed box that is filled with 99.5 percent argon and .5 percent oxygen. Why argon? Well, if you remember your high school chemistry, then you might remember that Argon is a noble gas, and noble gases are largely inert, meaning that they don't react with many other elements. This means that decay and breakdown are much less likely6. The burial cloth of Jesus is indeed mentioned in the Bible.

Luke 23: 50 There was a good and righteous man named Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, 51 who had not agreed with their plan and action. He was from Arimathea, a Judean town, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. 52 He approached Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 53 Taking it down, he wrapped it in fine linen and placed it in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever been placed.

Luke 24: 9 Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things. 11 But these words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. When he stooped to look in, he saw only the linen cloths. So he went home, amazed at what had happened. John 19: 40 Then they took Jesus' body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 There was a garden in the place where He was crucified. A new tomb was in the garden; no one had yet been placed in it. 42 They placed Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation and since the tomb was nearby.

John 20: 3 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and got to the tomb first. 5 Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on His head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. It is quite significant that both Luke AND John mention the burial cloth of Jesus. Luke is part of what is called the synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are considered highly related and all three contain very similar wording and material in places, which have caused some to speculate that there was an earlier oral (or written) source that all three accounts drew from, sometimes that source is called 'Q,' which stands for the French word Quelle (which means 'what' in French, but can also mean 'source.' John, however, is not usually considered to be derived from the Q source, so it is an additional layer of attestation that Jesus was buried in a linen cloth. 7. It is also mentioned multiple times by Early Church Fathers. For instance: ORIGEN (184-253 AD): "He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb" where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ's body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock.

Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300.

HILARY OF POITIERS (310-367): Joseph of Arimathea, having asked Pilate to return Jesus' body, wrapped it in a shroud, placed it in a new tomb carved out from a rock and rolled a stone in front of the entrance to the tomb. Although this may indeed be the order of events and although it was necessary to bury him who would rise from the dead, these deeds are nevertheless recounted individually because each of them is not without some importance. Joseph is called a disciple of the Lord because he was an image of the apostles, even though he was not numbered among the twelve apostles. It was he who wrapped the Lord's body in a clean linen shroud; in this same linen we find all kinds of animals descending to Peter from heaven.7 It is perhaps not too extravagant to understand from this parallel that the church is buried with Christ under the name of the linen shroud.8 Just as in the linen, so also in the confession of the church are gathered the full diversity of living beings, both pure and impure. The body of the Lord, therefore, through the teaching of the apostles, is laid to rest in the empty tomb newly cut from a rock. In other words, their teaching introduced Christ into the hardness of the Gentile heart, which was uncut, empty and previously impervious to the fear of God. And because he is the only one who should penetrate our hearts, a stone was rolled over the entrance to the tomb, so that just as no one previous to him had been introduced as the author of divine knowledge, neither would anyone be brought in after him. From Hilary's commentary on Matthew.

Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 300.

BEDE: The vanity of the rich, who even in their graves cannot do without their riches, receives its condemnation from the simple and unassuming interment of the Lord. Hence indeed the custom of the church was derived, that the sacrifice of the altar should not be commemorated by wrapping the elements in silk, or any colored cloth, but in linen; as the body of the Lord was buried in clean fine linen

Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, eds., Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 227.

8. Sadly, devotion to the Shroud (which might be idolatry...more on this later) has actually led to deaths. For example, in May of 1647 at a public showing of the Shroud, some members of the large crowd die of suffocation. What a terrifying way to go!

9. In September of 1939 at the dawn of World War 2, the Shroud is secretly taken to the Benedictine Abbey of Montevergine approximately 588 miles away. During the journey, the Shroud passes through Naples and Rome. The Shroud was returned to Turin in 1946, post war. In explaining the decision to move the Shroud, Father Andrea Cardin (the library curator at Montevergine) wrote, ""The Holy Shroud was moved in secret to the sanctuary in the Campania region on the precise orders of the House of Savoy and the Vatican.

"Officially this was to protect it from possible bombing (in Turin). In reality, it was moved to hide it from Hitler who was apparently obsessed by it. When he visited Italy in 1938, top-ranking Nazi aides asked unusual and insistent questions about the Shroud." It should be remembered here that Italy was allied with Germany during WW2, but the Italians still sought to protect their most precious artifact from Hitler. Interestingly, Father Cardin notes that the Nazis almost located The Shroud, "In 1943 when German troops searched the Montevergine church, the monks there pretended to be in deep prayer before the altar, inside which the relic was hidden. This was the only reason it wasn't discovered."

10. In 1898, Secondo Pia, an Italian photographer, takes the first ever photograph of The Shroud. Just four years afterwards, in 1902, an agnostic professor of anatomy named Yves Delage wrote and presented a scientific paper (to the Academy of Sciences in Paris) that made a strong case for the Shroud not being a forgery, but a genuine medical artifact. Dr. Delage concluded that the image therein was likely the body of Christ.

With that, I'll close this episode with a word from Shroud critic, and personal hero Charles Spurgeon:

Next to this, our faith most earnestly and intensely fixes itself upon the Christ of God. We trust in Jesus; we believe all that inspired history saith of him; not making a myth of him, or his life, but taking it as a matter of fact that God dwelt in very deed among men in human flesh, and that an atonement was really and truly offered by the incarnate God upon the cross of Calvary. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ to us is not alone a Saviour of the past. We believe that he has "ascended up on high, leading captivity captive," and that he "ever liveth to make intercession for us." I saw in the cathedral at Turin a very remarkable sight, namely, the pretended graveclothes of the Lord Jesus Christ, which are devoutly worshipped by crowds of Romanists. I could not help observing as I gazed upon these relics, that the ensigns of the death of Christ were all of him that the Romish church possessed. They may well show the true cross, for they crucify him afresh; they may well pray in his sepulchre, for he is not there, or in their church: and they may well claim his graveclothes, for they know only a dead Christ. But, beloved brethren, our Christ is not dead, neither has he fallen asleep, he still walks among the golden candlesticks, and holds the stars in his right hand. AMEN.

C. H. Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1872 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1872), 150.

Does the Shroud of Turin actually capture the image of Jesus Christ of Nazareth?? Join us for the beginning of a multi-part episode that is focused on whether or not the Shroud of Turin is a genuine artifact that represents contact with Jesus. Today’s episode is a beginning. It does not YET represent rigorous research, but only a skimming. My opinion at the beginning of this journey is a middle opinion. Call me a Shroud agnostic, at least for now. There are Shroud atheists out there that quickly and compl

Today's Question: What does John 3:16 REALLY MEAN? Are we wrong about the most famous verse in the Bible?.

John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.- for most of my life it has been the most famous verse in the Bible. It's only rival today is 'Judge not that ye not be judged'. More on that soon. Spurgeon: OF all the stars in the sky the pole-star is the most useful to the mariner. This text is a pole-star, for it has guided more souls to salvation than any other Scripture. It is among promises what the Great Bear is among constellations.

C. H. Spurgeon, The Cheque Book of the Bank of Faith

John 3:16 Guy: Rollen Fredrick Stewart (born February 23, 1944), also known as Rock'n Rollen and Rainbow Man, is a man who was a fixture in American sports culture best known for wearing a rainbow-colored afro-style wig and, later, holding up signs reading "John 3:16" at stadium sporting events around the United States and overseas in the 1970s and 1980s.[1] He is serving three life sentences in a California prison after being convicted of multiple kidnapping charges after a 1992 incident. Stewart was arrested in 1992 after a standoff in a California hotel during which he entered a vacant room with two men whom he tried to recruit for a job, who later fled the scene after he attempted to kidnap a surprised maid who then locked herself in the bathroom. Reportedly, Stewart believed that the Rapture was due to arrive in six days.[8] During the standoff, he threatened to shoot at airplanes taking off from nearby Los Angeles International Airport, and covered the hotel room windows with "John 3:16" placards. Stewart was married four times, most notably to Margaret Hockridge. The two met at a church in Virginia in 1984. They began traveling across the country together in 1985. While on the road, they married in St. Louis in 1986. During the 1986 World Series, Hockridge said that Stewart tried to choke her for standing in the wrong spot with a John 3:16 sign.

Mental Illness.

So - what does John 3:16 mean?? Most people would say that it has to do with the AMOUNT of Love God has for us. That He loves us SOOOOOOO much, that He sent His son. Now - that is a TRUE Statement. The Love of God was indeed SOOO deep for people, that He sent His son, but, shocker of shockers...That is NOT what John 3:16 is talking about. Now, I realize I sound like one of those Fedora wearing, neck-bearded internet guys that go around correcting everybody - WELL, ACSHUALLY… But, two things: One, I don't own a fedora and 2- I actually do shave my neck.

Let's go to the expert:

Bill MOUNCE, AKA Captain Biblical Greek, : The problem, if you are unaware, is that when the KJV says "For God so loved the world," everyone I have ever asked what "so" meant responded "so much." If you check BDAG, you will see that this is a rare and not possible meaning of οὕτως in this context. But you'd better be careful if you change people's favorite Bible verse.

Here are BDAG's first three definitions of HOUTOS οὕτως.

1. "referring to what precedes, in this manner, thus, so."

2. "pert. to what follows in discourse material, in this way, as follows" (which is where BDAG places John 3:16)

BDAG - Bauer's Lexicon. Bauer's Lexicon is among the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek. Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich–Danker

HOUTOS οὕτως in John 3:16 clearly has the meaning conveyed by the NLT ("For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son"), the CSB ("For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son"), and the NET ("For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,").

I am playing with this as an option: "For God loved the world so he gave." What do you think?

Holman/CSB: 16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Did the King James Version Get it wrong? I don't think so - the fact is that the particle 'So' in the English language is very flexible, and it is proper English, when explaining how somebody expressed their love, to say, "They so loved so and so, that they did this." However, that language is imprecise, and open to misinterpretation in a way that the Greek original text of John 3:16 is not. That text, quite clearly, is speaking of the MANNER in which God loves His people, not the MAGNITUDE of how MUCH He loves His people.

This is a Scripture about the specific WAY God loves us - not the MEASURE of His love. We don't lose anything here, though, because we have dozens, if not hundreds, of Scriptures on the vastness of God's Love:

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Ephesians 2:4-5 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Romans 8:37-39 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ephesians 3:17-19 I pray that you, being rooted and firmly established in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width, height and depth of God's love, 19 and to know the Messiah's love that surpasses knowledge, so you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Psalm 103:8

The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

So - Spurgeon explains it this way:

See clearly that you have to trust your soul with Christ by faith. Perceive that it is vast love which sets before you such a way of salvation in which the only thing required of you is that you be nothing, and trust Christ to be everything, and even that faith He gives you as a gift of his Spirit, so that the plan of salvation is all of love. If you want to repent, do not so much consider your sin as the love of Jesus in suffering for your sin. If you desire to believe, do not so much study the doctrine as study the person of Jesus Christ on the cross. If you desire to love, think over perpetually, until it breaks your heart, the great love of Jesus Christ in laying down His life for His worthless foes. The love of God is the birthplace of holy love. It is not there in your hearts where you are attempting an absurdly impossible feat, namely, to create love in the carnal mind that cannot be reconciled to God, but love must be born in the heart of Jesus and then it shall come down to you.

Charles Spurgeon, Spurgeon Commentary: 1 John, ed. Elliot Ritzema, Spurgeon Commentary Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

John 3:16 then, is a Gospel verse...much like: Romans 5:8 8 But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!It is not a verse focused on the amount of God's love for us, but how He has expressed that love...and how He has expressed that love is the Gospel - the good news of the Bible, which is this:

God showed His love for people by sending His son to live the perfect life we couldn't live, to die the death we deserved for our sins, so that all who LOOK to Him in wholehearted faith, believing in His death and resurrection, will be saved. Not saved by our righteous acts, but saved by HIS SACRIFICE.

Today’s Question: What does John 3:16 REALLY MEAN? Are we wrong about the most famous verse in the Bible?. John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.- for most of my life it has been the most famous verse in the Bible. It’s only rival today is ‘Judge not that ye not be judged’. More on that soon. Spurgeon: OF all the stars in the sky the pole-star is the most useful to the mariner. This te

Shownotes below are unrefined, unedited and unattributed. I'll eventually fix that.

Today we're talking about the Bible itself - the longest verses, books, chapters, etc. Chapters and verses are NOT found in the original autographs, or writings of the Books of the Bible. These books were written like letters and books, and did not have chapter divisions or verses, or even punctuation like modern books.

Prior to the 800s, the Bible was divided up in various ways, but it wasn't until the 800s that some kind of chapter divisions that were similar to modern chapters came into view. Chapter divisions, with titles, the 9th century Tours manuscript the so-called Bible of Rorigo.

Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based

The first person to divide New Testament chapters into verses was Italian Dominican biblical scholar Santi Pagnini (1470–1541), but his system was never widely adopted. His verse divisions in the New Testament were far longer than those known today. Robert Estienne created an alternate numbering in his 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament which was also used in his 1553 publication of the Bible in French. Estienne's system of division was widely adopted, and it is this system which is found in almost all modern Bibles. Estienne produced a 1555 Vulgate that is the first Bible to include the verse numbers integrated into the text. Before this work, they were printed in the margin

What is the shortest verse in the New Testament? Did Most would say, Jesus Wept, but in the ORIGINAL Language of the Bible, that's not the shortest verse. It is, in many English translations.

, "Jesus wept" (John 11:35) is the shortest verse in English. In English it is 9 letters long. But in Greek it is 16 letters long (Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς).

There is a shorter verse in the original Greek: That is 1 Thessalonians 5:16, "rejoice always," which is only 14 letters in Greek (Πάντοτε χαίρετε).

But even that passage isn't the shortest verse in the original...the absolute shorters is Luke 20:30 "and the second," which in Greek has only 12 letters (καὶ ὁ δεύτερος). This ridiculously short verse is found in the section where Jesus is being verbally challenged by the Sadducees (Luke 20:29-32): "Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; 30and the second 31and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally the woman died also."

The shortest verse in the Greek New Testament is Luke 20:30 ("και ο δευτερος", "And the second") with twelve letters, according to the Westcott and Hort text. In the Textus Receptus, the shortest verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:16("παντοτε χαιρετε", "Rejoice always") with fourteen letters,

So "Jesus wept" comes in third. "And the second" comes in first.

Esther 8:9 is the longest verse 78 Words. in the Masoretic Text. The discovery of several manuscripts at Qumran (in the Dead Sea Scrolls) has reopened what is considered the most original text of 1 Samuel 11; if one believes that those manuscripts better preserve the text, several verses in 1 Samuel 11 surpass Esther 8:9 in length.

"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

-Psalm 118:8

The King James Version has an even number of verses (31,102), with the two middle verses being Psalm 103:1–2

My soul, praise Yahweh, and all that is within me, praise His holy name.

2 My soul, praise the Lord, and do not forget all His benefits.

Here are the five shortest books of the Bible, beginning with the very shortest. These measurements are by words in the original languages. Each of these books is only one chapter long, and would take you a few minutes to read, tops:

1. Third John (219 words)
2. Second John (245 words)
3. Philemon (335 words)
4. Obadiah (440 words)
5. Jude (461 words)

Bible Statistics:

Chapters: 1,189

Commands: 6,468

Fulfilled prophecy: 3,268 verses

Letters: 3,566,480

Words: 783,137

Longest book: Psalms (150 chapters)

Longest chapter: Psalm 119 (176 verses)

Longest name: Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 8:1)

Middle books: Micah and Nahum

Middle chapter: Psalm 117

Number of books in the Bible: 66

Number of different authors: 40

Number of languages the Bible has been translated into: over 1,200

Number of promises given in the Bible: 1,260

Number of questions: 3,294

Number of times the word "God" appears: 3,358

Number of times the word "Lord" appears: 7,736

Shortest chapter (by number of words): Psalm 117

Longest chapter: Psalm 119.

Verses: 31,101

So, we've had a little Bible Trivia today, but, make no mistake: THE BIBLE IS NOT TRIVIAL.

Hebrews 4: 12 For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart. 13 No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.

Revelation 19: 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse. Its rider is called Faithful and True, and He judges and makes war in righteousness.12 His eyes were like a fiery flame, and many crowns were on His head. He had a name written that no one knows except Himself. 13 He wore a robe stained with blood, and His name is the Word of God.

Today we’re talking about the Bible itself - the longest verses, books, chapters, etc. Chapters and verses are NOT found in the original autographs, or writings of the Books of the Bible. These books were written like letters and books, and did not have chapter divisions or verses, or even punctuation like modern books.

The church has been talking about gossip for a very, very long time! Clement of Rome, who likely knew Peter and John (and died in 99AD) Wrote this about gossip: Since, then, we are a holy portion, we should do everything that makes for holiness. We should flee from slandering, vile and impure embraces, drunkenness, rioting, filthy lusts, detestable adultery and disgusting arrogance. "For God," says Scripture, "resists the arrogant but gives grace to the humble." We should attach ourselves to those to whom God's grace has been given. We should clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, self-controlled, far removed from all gossiping and slandering, and justified by our deeds, not by words.

Spurgeon: GOSSIPS of both genders, give up the shameful trade of tale-bearing; don't be the devil's bellows any longer to blow up the fire of strife. Leave off setting people by the ears. If you do not cut a bit off your tongues, at least season them with the salt of grace. Praise God more and blame neighbours less. Any goose can cackle, any fly can find out a sore place, any empty barrel can give forth sound, any brier can tear a man's flesh. No flies will go down your throat if you keep your mouth shut, and no evil-speaking will come up. Think much, but say little: be quick at work and slow at talk; and above all, ask the great Lord to set a watch over your lips.

C. H. Spurgeon, Flashes of Thought (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 184.

What, exactly, is gossip? I find that several times over the past year, I have wondered about that, and even been asked about it more than once.

Gossip is mentioned less than 10 times in the Bible, 8 times in the NIV and 4 times in the ESV. In the NIV, 6 of those 8 times are in the OT, and all six are in Proverbs. In the ESV, 3 of those 4 times are in the NT, and the one OT reference is in Ezekiel. What does that tell us? I think it tells us that our best Bible scholars don't really have a great grip on what gossip is either!

That should give us pause - particularly when we decide to point the finger at somebody and identify their actions as gossip. I've seen and received more than one accusation of gossip that did not seem to line up with what Scripture identifies as gossip.

It's just not terribly clear what, precisely, gossip designates. But we are going to try our level best to help clear that up today.

While it is true that the Bible never precisely defines what is meant by gossip, what is far more clear, is how we should act towards other people, and what is allowed and what isn't allowed in our conversations with each other and about each other, according to the Bible. Here's a shocking truth that should be the fact of the podcast: When it comes to the Bible, God's Word, pummelling people with your words is JUST AS BAD as pummelling them with your fists. Let me reiterate, because most people who engage in the activities of criticism, gossip, slander, cut-downs, etc probably aren't physical bullies. It's easy for them to say dank words about people, but they probably wouldn't take a swing at those people if they bumped into them at Walmart. When it comes to the Bible, there's no difference between the wounds we inflict with our fists and knives and swords, than with the wounds we inflict with our words. Witness these two warnings:

James 3:8 8 but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

Proverbs 12:18 ESV / 13 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.

Paul gives a general rule in Romans 14:19, "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." Here's a good place to start - we are to make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual upbuilding or edification. Our words and actions must be delivered with a heart of blessing, peace and building up. Encouragement, not criticism - upbuilding, not tearing down. Conversations that are not intended to edify - or build somebody up - or work towards their ultimate good, therefore are not allowed for Christians.

Ephesians 4:29 says it pretty clearly: No foul language is to come from your mouth, but only what is good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear. 30 And don't grieve God's Holy Spirit.

Gossip does not build people up. In the NIV, we are told in Proverbs 11:13 and 16:28 that a gossip separates close friends, and in 26:20 that gossip causes a quarrel to continue. In Proverbs 18:8 and 20:19, we learn that gossips betray confidences and that the words they share are choice morsels - so interesting that people want to hear them - words of gossip are delicious to our ears, so to speak.

In Romans 1, Paul gives a long description of, well, people. He doesn't go into much detail about who he is referring to, and it appears that he is just generally describing people (or wicked people.) One of their characteristics of wickedness, along with sexual perversity, envy, strife, murder and malice, is that they are gossips.

The Greek word there for gossip is psithyristēs, psith-oo-ris-tace' which means literally means "whisperers." Beyond that, Paul here gives no real description of what gossip is. Similarly, Paul doesn't describe gossip in detail in 2nd Corinthians 12:20, where the same Greek word is used in this way: "For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder."

In both of those passages, the KJV translates the word psith-oo-ris-tace' as 'whisperings,' which I think is a very good translation that gets at the heart of the word meaning. One other time in the Bible where that word is used is in Ecclesiastes 10, in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, where a snake charmer is described as using psith-oo-ris-tace'/whisperings as a way to charm a snake.

The final appearance of the English word 'gossip' in the NT (according to the ESV) is in 1 Timothy 5:13, where the word used is "phlyaros," flü'-ä-ros A Greek word that means, "a person uttering foolish things, babbling. Of things foolish, trifling, vain." The passage reads, "Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not." This seems to be a little different than the above uses. That Greek word for gossip, translated as tattlers in the KJV, word actually comes from a verb, which means, 'to bubble.' and can also mean, to babble.

A few other passages:

Proverbs 11:13

A gossip goes around revealing a secret, but a trustworthy person keeps a confidence.

Proverbs 16:28

A contrary man spreads conflict, and a gossip separates close friends.

Proverbs 17:9

Whoever conceals an offense promotes love, but whoever gossips about it separates friends

Proverbs 20:19

The one who reveals secrets is a constant gossip; avoid someone with a big mouth.

Proverbs 26:20

Without wood, fire goes out; without a gossip, conflict dies down.

Putting the biblical testimony above together, I believe we can reasonably conclude that gossip entails: #1 Privately/secretly/ Telling secrets or unauthorized juicy details about somebody else in a non-edifying manner - with a non-edifying goal. #2 Discussing other people excessively (in a nosy/babbling sort of way) bubbling over with information and guessings and speculation that gets into the realm of foolish babble and speculation. Gossip betrays trusts, it ruins friendship, throws gasoline on conflicts, and separates close people. It is the opposite of wisdom, integrity and being trustworthy.

I note here that Proverbs, the book of wisdom, has the absolute most to say about the topic of gossip in the Bible. For instance, in the HCSB, the word gossip makes 13 appearances, and OVER HALF OF THOSE MENTIONS - 7 - are warnings in the book of Proverbs. I believe this means that gossip is the very OPPOSITE of wise behavior. People who spend their time gossiping and reading about gossip are wasting their time on incredibly foolish activities and becoming foolish, shallow and vapid themselves. Run away from such things. AND DON'T READ ABOUT THEM online either. As I write this, a daily gossip rag has released a picture of a popular celebrity from the 90s, criticizing his appearance as disheveled. The poor guy has just spent months in the hospital with a terrible GI issue, and now has to deal with his picture being made fun of by a prominent national gossip newspaper/website. It's sad, really, and we should avoid such things. Gossiping about celebrities AND politicians is still gossip, and it makes us increasingly foolish, instead of increasingly wise. (I read this in a front page article on Reddit)

What is the takeaway? Be very, very careful when communicating about somebody that is not present to somebody else. Don't share their secrets. Don't share juicy details about their lives. DON'T speculate about their motives, what they are thinking, and why they did such and such thing - especially when that speculation is negative. The fact of the matter is that you and I don't actually know somebody's motive at all, and such things are notoriously difficult to guess from the outside. Sometimes I don't even know what motivates my OWN ACTIONS, so I should run away from predicting what is motivating the actions of others. Don't try to combine all of the juicy details you know about their lives into some sort of cohesive narrative. Those sorts of gossipy 'investigations' are almost always wrong in their conclusions. Not only are they wrong, for a Christian, they are off limits entirely.

Apparently, some conversation about other people can take place without their being present. (Otherwise, Paul would be guilty of gossip in Galatians 2:11-15 and 2nd Timothy 4:10) As well, not everything that happens that is negative is prohibited from being a point of discussion - see 1 Corinthians 1:11 "My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you."

What is the dividing line? I think the answer goes back to Romans 14:19, "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." - If the purpose of a discreet conversation is genuinely and truly the building up, or the well-being of somebody being discussed, then I don't believe that qualifies as gossip.

Two church elders discussing a church member who might be struggling with alcohol addiction, and their motivation is to lovingly help the person? Probably not gossip. Two pastors discussing a third pastor of a church larger than theirs, and speculating that he has underhanded and worldly character as evidenced by his big house and nice car? That's pretty close to gossip - right on it, actually. I believe the determining factor is a HEART ISSUE. We should be very, very careful with every discussion we have about a third/fourth party who isn't around to defend themselves. If that discussion is 100 percent motivated by love and a desire for the greater good, encouragement and building up of the person being discussed, then that conversation is probably not gossip. (Be led by the gentle nudges of the Holy Spirit, however - better safe than sorry.) What about 'neutral conversations' about third parties? Ones that are just motivated by sharing information? I think those can be risky, especially if they involve confidential or private information. Best to avoid such conversations. Mixed motivations are difficult here, and most of us have them. I'm naturally going to be careful to avoid accidentally punchin or kicking somebody. We should have the same approach with our words. Quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.

By the way, The distinguishing mark of gossip is not whether or not the information is true. RAY ORTLUND: "Gossip is not necessarily false information. Slander is false. Gossip might include true information, and maybe that's why gossip doesn't always feel sinful. What makes it sin is, first and foremost, that God says it's sin. But gossip spreads what can include accurate information to diminish another person. That is not how people behave when they are living in the power of the grace of God."

You know who is guilty of gossip? You and I. We need the Word and the Spirit to help tame our tongues. I know I do.

How does one avoid gossip? I believe that this is an issue that is less about what the precise definition of gossip is and more about the state of the heart and the predominance of love in it towards those who are being discussed; as well as a deep and sincere desire for the object of discussion to be edified and blessed. I believe a group of church leaders can, in a godly way, discuss rumors of a certain member of the fellowship engaging in drunkenness or adultery. I believe, at the same time, it is possible for those same church leaders to discuss those issues in a way that qualifies as gossip. What distinguishes the two? The best I can tell you is that it is the attitude of the heart and its love, as well as a genuine desire for edification that is the distinguishing factor. Ultimately, it should be repeated that judicious care needs to be taken in any conversation about a party that is not privy to the conversation.

I hate it when people gossip about me - especially when they genuinely have no ideas about what really happened, or what's really going on in my head. That said, Let me be clear about something: I am guilty of gossip. You are too. I'm afraid it is a common (though deadly) sin. What does the Bible say to us) given the fact that we are guilty of the same sin that we are frustrated about when a fellow believer commits it against us? I am glad you asked!

Romans 2:1-5 " You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. "

Ouch!!! What a challenging passage of Scripture. When we judge other people for things that we are guilty of, we are inviting God's judgment on us in a significant way. When we do this, we are showing contempt for the kindness, mercy and patience of God which is designed to lead us (and the people that we are angry at) to repentance. It shows that we are still much more aware of the splinter in our neighbor's eye than we are of the plank in our own eye.

According to Jesus (Matthew 7:5) it makes us a hypocrite, and hypocrisy will lead people away from the truth (Galatians 2:13) and shows that, though our words might say the right things, our hearts are far from God. (Matthew 15:8). To be clear, this sort of judgment - criticizing others for sins that we are guilty of - invites the judgment of God on our lives. (Matthew 7:1-2 ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. ") That is more than scary - it is terrifying! A lifestyle of continually judging others for sin that the judger is guilty of will likely lead to health problems, frustrations, discord and other issues. It will affect us, and it will certainly have a negative impact on the church we are part of.

O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?Who shall dwell on your holy hill?

He who does not take up a reproach against his friend. Psalm 15:1, 3

There are six things that the Lord hates,

seven that are an abomination to him: . . .

one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6:16, 19

Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. Leviticus 19:16, AV

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. James 4:11

Argue your case with your neighbor himself,and do not reveal another's secret. Proverbs 25:9

CLOSE: Ray ORTLUND: Gossip leaves a wide trail of devastation wherever and however it goes – word of mouth, email, blogging, YouTube, social media. It erodes trust and destroys morale. It creates a social environment of suspicion where everyone must wonder what is being said behind their backs and whether appearances of friendship are sincere. It ruins hard-won reputations with cowardly but effective weapons of misrepresentation. It manipulates people into taking sides when no such action is necessary or beneficial. It unleashes the dark powers of psychological transference, doing violence to the gossiper, to the one receiving the gossip and to the person being spoken against. It makes the Body of Christ look like the Body of Antichrist – destroyers rather than healers. It exhausts the energies we would otherwise devote to positive witness. It robs our Lord of the Church he deserves. It exposes the hostility in our hearts and discredits the gospel in the eyes of the world. Then we wonder why we don't see more conversions, why "the ground is so hard."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/ray-ortlund/gossip/