Bill Schlegel, professor and cofounder of The Master’s University extension program in Israel (IBEX), was studying the phrase “Son of God” and came to understand the term did not correlate with the traditional “God the Son” teaching, but instead meant God’s heir, the king he has designated to rule the world.  Although he had taught the bible faithfully in Israel for more than two decades, he knew that this discovery would cost him dearly.  In the end he lost his job at the institution he founded as well as any opportunity to preach and lead the church he helped to start.  He’s been maligned by many who used to regard him as a brother and blackballed in the evangelical world.  Why would Professor Schlegel go through all of this?  Why wouldn’t he just sign the statement of faith for another year and carry on in his work?  He had discovered a truth so profound and so irrefutable, that he could not hide it under a basket–he had to let it shine, even if it cost him everything.  Here is his story.

—— Links ——

—— Links ——

This is part six in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In light of our killing series, we considered whether Christians should kill the old, the young, enemies, or criminals, however we never addressed the morality of God killing. Brian asked:

Can I expect a subsequent episode where you discuss a sort of ‘divine inflicted’ death, for example, the event with Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10; also the deaths of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, in Acts 5? If yes, wonderful, if no, then perhaps you could consider it.

Hopefully in the future we can delve more deeply into this subject, but for now, here is a brief response to this important question.

—— Links ——

This is part five in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In this Q & A episode, we address two commenters who responded to Off Script 34: Killing the Unborn (A Christian View of Abortion). Dan Fitzsimmons responds to Candace who inquired why Dan would vote against capital punishment but not against abortion even though he opposes it on moral grounds. Rose Rider responds to John’s lengthy comments in which he called into question the legitimacy of using the bible to arrive at a position on abortion.

—— Links ——

This is part four in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In this episode, we respond to a comment made on Off Script 37: Killing Criminals, in which we took the position that capital punishment is a biblically justifiable practice, but in America today it is fraught with problems, including the outrageous cost of death row and the possibility of executing the innocent.  We respond to the comment of someone named Sean who challenges us on our view of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus is challenging the old way of living and laying out a new way.  He also makes a couple of secular arguments in favor of capital punishment.  Here is Sean’s comment in full:

I think this discussion has to take a lot more into account, but clearly this would take hours and hours to encompass it all… This is a huge subject really. But for example, such as Abraham saving Lot by killing people to rescue him. This was obviously when there were less governmental type controls but the point remains the most righteous man on earth, the father of the faith killed to save someone. There’s also laws about the requirements of helping someone being attacked, which could clearly result in the death of an attacker. I don’t think vengeance is the same as self-defense, and many equate these two… I used to.

And I still have the same objection that seems to arise about Matthew 5 and Jesus’ “…but I say unto you…” statements having to do with contradicting the Torah. I don’t see this as logical, nor a possible understanding if you believe the Messiah was a sinless man. To have any man come into Israel and start teaching contrary to God’s law(even if just in THAT time period) by definition would have been sin and the man should have been ignored/killed. (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 5:19, Deut 4:2) No one could convict the Messiah of sin, that one would have been obvious if that’s what he was doing. He *had* to keep the Torah, right? Or do you believe he didn’t keep it? That might have to be clarified.

The secular arguments are based on the risk of human error. By those types of standards no one should drive automobiles either because thousands of people die each year innocently due to the error of other operators. As sad as the situation is—there’s always a risk of human error/corruption, and God -still- gave the death penalty in his Torah. The young man seems to be arguing against God’s own commands. And one also must address the many assumptions that are built into his objections against capital punishment. To say “it costs more” to prosecute for the death penalty versus lifetime of prison is not the point—even if it were, it’s still proper justice according to God’s laws. God never said to hold anyone in confinement for the entire life. It also likely WOULDN’T cost more if there were so many other regulations in place that make it that much more expensive. It’s morally reprehensible to pay for convicted murderers to continue to live on our own backs for their lifetime.

Take note also, that even with Paul as a former murderer and what he taught later–he said if he did anything worthy of death, he’d submit to it. Acts 25:11

Overarching all of this is clearly the most poignant thing of all—without the death penalty you would have no death of the Messiah and a risen savior. Again, I know this is a huge topic and I just thought I’d weigh in a few things on my mind that I don’t think really got full weight in this discussion. I think I also have more to say on the subject from Scripture because I used to hold the same view as many of you until I re-examined it.

—— Links ——

This is part three in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In Off Script 28: Seeking a Christian View on Refugees and Immigrants, we concluded on the basis of several scriptures in the Old Testament as well as the Great Commission that Christians should welcome refugees into their countries.  In response to this, William wrote:

First, Thank you for your podcasts and all the work that you do preaching the word of God and your Unitarian teachings. I have to take the other side when it comes to Muslim immigrants coming into this country from the mentioned 7 Muslim countries. In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.” So Trumps “temporary 90 day ban” was justified considering he is coming into office and now it’s his problem to solve and protect the American people from terrorism. I don’t want to turn this into me defending Trump because I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I do agree with the temporary ban to come up with a way a vetting refugees who come with less then amiable intentions. Ok, first Exodus 23:9 “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt”. The key word for me is “heart” The heart of the sojourner. What are the intentions of the refugee? do they plan to live among you and abide in God’s law? If they don’t, do you still accept them as your brother even if they want to kill you or convert you through force? Do you allow mosques to operate that call for jihad and sharia law, infecting peaceful Muslims? Surly you wouldn’t invite someone into your home if you thought their intentions were to harm you or your family. Europe has has a policy of dropping off Muslims into their country and Europe is mess. All I’m saying is that it was not Gods intention to have his people treat sojourners as brothers if they would not assimilate into the culture or worse…destroy it. God Bless.

In this episode, Dan takes the lead in responding to William.  Here are some quotes from our discussion:

“How many minds can be changed by radical love like that [the Good Samaritan Parable]?  How many barriers of racism and nationalism could be torn down by that, by that kind of radical love?  That’s the attitude we should have toward outsiders, not, ‘Hey stay away because we’re afraid that you might shoot us even though our own countrymen are shooting us at a far higher rate.” –Dan

“The kingdom will be a melting pot anyway; it will be a true melting pot where the one thing that we have in common and the only thing that matters is that we are citizens of the kingdom of Christ.  So we look forward to that day and in the meantime we are have the opportunity to live like that now.” –Rose

“How cool is it that other nations want to come here?  How much easier does it make it to fulfill the Great Commission where Jesus says, ‘Go make disciples of all nations?’  Well if the nations are all coming here?  There are all in Chinatown and Koreatown and Polishtown or whatever towns in New York City, then how much easier is it to fulfill that Great Commission?” –Sean

—— Links ——

This is our second answer in our series on responding to your questions and comments.  In Off Script 38: Killing in War: A Christian View of Violence, we discussed whether it is appropriate for Christians to participate in war, concluding that Jesus’ command to love our enemies means that Christians should not kill others.  If you haven’t already, check out that episode first before listening or commenting on this one.  In this episode we respond to Zak’s comment.  He wrote:

I really enjoyed this episode. It challenged my current worldview with scripture(a very good thing, even if not pleasant at times). I do have few questions. 1.Can none lethal self defense be put under “confrontational nonresistance” or is it always finding “exceptions to Jesus’ commands.”

For example in the highly unlikely event that I would be walking a busy street and someone pulled out a gun and started shooting other people/family/etc. Would it be against the bible to(if I had the training)Disarm the individual.

—— Links ——

Welcome to our series answering your questions and responding to some of your comments.  We’ve been saving these up and over the next few weeks, we’ll address a number of them.  We’ve decided to do these in individual episodes, so if you’re not interested in the topic, you can just skip it and listen to the ones that matter to you.  As a result, these are each significantly shorter than our typical Off Script episodes.

First up is a statement someone made on an old episode.  In Off Script 16: Christians Discussing Politics, we cited John Zmirak’s comment that he made on Unbelievable, a Christian talk radio show in London, as an example of inappropriate Christian discourse.  Zimrak said,

I would vote for a dead moose strapped to the hood of a car in order to stop Hillary Clinton or really any of the Democrats in America because their policies are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity and really just with human decency.

This episode responds to the following comment by Levi:

A dead moose would in fact be less threatening to freedom of religion, the lives of the unborn, the sexual purity of our young people, etc etc etc. The left is an atheistic, perverted agenda and the Truth is, the Facts are such that no disciple of Christ should ever countenance no less support their godless agenda.

—— Links ——

Have you ever heard the martyrdom argument for the resurrection of Jesus?  It goes something like this.  Jesus’ apostles faced persecution and martyrdom for their confession that God raised Jesus from the dead, sealing their witness with their blood.  Why would they die for a lie?  Their martyrdom unequivocally proves that they sincerely believed in Christ’s resurrection.  Since they were in a position to know if it was true or not, we have every reason to trust their testimony.

However, if I asked you to prove to me that these apostles suffered martyrdom, how would you do it?  How do you know they died as martyrs?  The only apostle whose execution the bible records is James, the brother of John (Acts 12.2).  Furthermore, critics like Candida Moss have argued that the martyrdom stories we have are historically unreliable and are full of exaggerations at best and completely made up at worst.  This is where Sean McDowell’s research is so helpful for us.  He’s taken the time to sift through countless pages of primary documents to collect and then evaluate the martyrdom accounts of the apostles.  After rating the historical likelihood of each on a nine-point scale, he’s concluded that four of them definitely died for their faith: Peter, Paul, James the brother of Jesus, and James the brother of John.  In addition, he argues that two more have a probability greater than 50%, including Thomas and Andrew.

—— Links ——

Have you ever read the book of Ruth?  Though it’s only four chapters, it contains timeless truths that can help us today.  Our culture puts an incredible amount of pressure on spouses to never change, be perfectly compatible, and fulfill our deepest longings that it’s no wonder that singles often can’t seem to find the right one.  However, the lesson of Ruth’s life is that she pursued God and then he took care of finding her a spouse and even built her a lasting dynasty.

—— Notes ——

1|Tragedy Strikes

Ruth 1.1 The famine in the land left people with few options

Ruth 1.2-5  The widow’s options

Ruth 1.6-14 Naomi decides everyone should go with option 1

Ruth 1.15-18 Ruth abandons her country, her gods, and her family

Background on Moab

2|Ruth Gleans

Ruth 2.1-12 Gleaning in the barley fields was an accepted norm for the poor

Ruth 2.20 Boaz is a potential redeemer

3|Ruth Proposes

Ruth 3.1-14 Levirate marriage

“Any childless widow had the right to expect her dead husband’s brother to marry her. If no brother existed, some more distant male relative was required to perform this duty.  Whichever relative married the widow became her “go’el” (redeemer or protector).  The first son born to the widow by the new marriage was counted as a child of the dead husband and inherited his property.”[1]

4|Boaz Redeems

Ruth 4.1-17  Boaz does the right things and Naomi and Ruth both benefit

Although she has every reason not to, Ruth chooses Yahweh and his people.  Even if it is a forbidden love, she wants the God of Naomi.  Instead of spurning her, this great lover accepts Ruth and provides for her.  She comes under the protection of his wings and he takes care of the rest.  Not only does he provide her with a husband and the means to thrive, but he grafts her into the ancestral tree that one day would sprout the branches of not only king David but even Jesus the Messiah!  Ruth is no longer an unfortunate Moabitess widow, but a matriarch—the great grandmother of David—and the premier example of a heart who found the love of her life.

[1] Great People of the Bible and How They Lived, (Reader’s Digest Association, 1974), p. 132

—— Links ——