The Bible Nerd Podcast

As Christians, a primary concern of ours ought to be the evangelism of the lost. This has always been a particularly difficult idea for me, though, because I am certainly an introverted person and do have difficulty connecting with others in spontaneous encounters. 

I have written about this before here, and even wrote a book that deals with this in more depth. 

Suffice it to say, I believe that there is a place on the spectrum where all personality styles can shine; in other words, there’s no excuse not to be doing evangelism. It just may look a bit different for one person than it does for another. 

If you’re breathing and you’re a follower of Christ, you have a role to play in his great commission. That’s the bottom line. 

The Evangelism Crisis

The difficulties I mentioned above have, unfortunately, left a giant mark on the state of evangelism within the Christian church. 

A 2019 study conducted by the Barna Group was revealing: 

Quite obviously, this is troubling—especially during a time with so much cultural upheaval regarding issues of race, sexual orientation, and gender differences. 

The world needs the gospel now more than ever, and to think almost half of Christians in my generation think we ought not try to bring others to the faith is almost mind-blowing! 

I wonder, though, how much of this is a function of studied, rational thinking versus being driven to inaction by fear.

Many Are Afraid to Share

Very many feel as though outright presentations of the gospel are nerve-racking experiences that should be avoided. 

While I want to disagree with this ideologically, as a card-carrying introvert, I get it! It’s not because I’m ashamed of the gospel; I have just as much trouble making cold calls for my web design business. 

I’ll talk all day long about Jesus as long as you ask first.

The study above gives me pause, though. I’m not entirely sure whether we can say the participants in this study were afraid just to bring it up, afraid to talk through the issues, or whether fear was even the demotivating force. 

Here’s what I do know: I would answer that I am equipped to answer the questions, I would also answer that I am reasonably skilled at sharing with others, but I would not answer that it is wrong to share my beliefs in the hopes of bringing another along. 

I also know that one cannot seriously read the Bible and come away with anything close to the idea that evangelism is unbiblical or immoral. This leads me to believe that fear of the conversation is the true driver behind these responses. 

And if that’s the case, as we’ll discuss below, I believe there’s a remedy. 

Many Are Too Extreme When they Share

There is another side to this, however, that is a bit troubling. While some are so reserved they end up sitting on the sidelines, others are so outspoken they border on uncharitable and tend to look down on those who don’t find evangelism so easy. 

Here again, the lines are rather blurry. Perhaps the idea of street preaching is a good example. Is street preaching bad, immoral, or unbiblical? Certainly not in itself. 

However, characteristic among many street preachers is the inability and/or failure to seriously engage ideas. Where one can be loud and overpowering, there is less “need” for rational discourse, so the thinking goes. 

Just preach louder at ’em and the Spirit will do the rest! Amen!? 

Well, I’m not so sure.

I happen to know a thing or two about my generation and those upcoming, and one thing I know is that we’re characteristically tired of being screamed at. We’re willing to trade our beliefs, but we demand to know why we should.

Many street preachers are excellent at their craft and have the desire and ability to engage in meaningful discourse, so I want to be careful not to lump folks together. But sadly, those who can do this are few and far between. 

So where do we go from here? I think there’s a two-part solution to this problem.

Solution, Part 1: Put Down the Cookie Cutter

As per the usual, truth is so rarely found in the extremes. In most ideological conversations, there’s a middle ground that answers more questions, includes more people, and is more preferable for a number of reasons. 

This issue is no different. 

Here’s the issue: Many of us (myself included) grew up in a context where evangelism was not a lifestyle, it was an event. If you weren’t doing the profoundly extroverted evangelism “event” you were living in sin and disobedience. 

The issue has become, since most people believe that just is evangelism, they sit out altogether. They’ve given up it entirely! Worse, as I believe can be argued from the study above, this belief has become so axiomatic that many now believe it’s morally wrong to try to share your beliefs with the intent of converting others! 

Certainly, we’ve missed the mark. We can begin to repair these wounds by putting down the cookie cutter we have given to the idea of evangelism. Everyone—from any background, with any personality style—can and should do their part in the Great Commission. 

For some more practical ideas of what this might look like, see my book God, the Great Commission, and You. It does not have to be hard. Why not invite the neighbors over for a meal and minister to them? Show the love of Christ, and see where the conversation goes. 

Ask God for an opportunity. He’ll probably put one in your path! Be radically different. I’ll share an example of the perfect opportunity—and my subsequent failure to capitalize on it. 

I was filling up my cup of water at work one afternoon, and one of the attorneys at my firm asked why I was always

We’re changing it up this week a little bit on the blog and podcast. Below you’ll find a detailed outline I used when I taught an overview of the Book of Daniel. The podcast will be a teaching discussion of this outline, so feel free to read the outline as if it were a blog post, but the most beneficial would undoubtedly be to hear the podcast discussion on this one. Many blessings!

WRITER: 

The authorship and dating of Daniel are highly controversial, with folks (even Bible-believing Christians) holding various opinions. One primary reason for this is the stunning prophetic accuracy, although many argue on the basis that it appears to include linguistic details from a later time period. The early date (held by most conservative scholars) is the 6th century BC, which would place the book having been written in the time period in which it is set (a reasonable idea). The later date is in the 2nd century BC, roughly 400 years later. The latter view would also entail that Daniel himself was not the writer, but perhaps some anonymous Jew writing under the pseudonym, Daniel.

KEY VERSE:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. (Daniel 2:44)

INTERESTING FACTS:

THE RELIABILITY OF DANIEL:

KEY THEMES:

Although evolution and abiogenesis are two very important parts of the origins conversation, there is often some confusion about how these relate to one another.

Are they ultimately the same thing? Is there a distinction? What, if any, is the distinction? Do they relate to one another in some way?

These are important questions that we will attempt to answer as we go along. I would like to frame our discussion in terms of the two most common viewpoints with respect to this issue.

Typically, the creationist will make the mistake of conflating these concepts into one. They may say something like, “We know evolution didn’t happen because evolution cannot create life.” Because of its imprecision, as we’ll see, evolutionists take issue with this.

On the other hand, the evolutionist will say something like, “Abiogenesis is irrelevant to whether or not evolution occurred.” However, creationists take issue with this because it misses a crucial point.

The term “evolution” essentially means change over time. To determine how much change requires a lot more work.

We have to determine the molecular limits of DNA and RNA, consider factors such as epigenetic and other environmental circumstances, etc. As you might imagine, there is no shortage of opinion with respect to what evolution can accomplish.

Many believe that evolutionary mechanisms can, on their own, account for significant changes between populations. These changes are the route through which biological evolution has occurred from, on the evolutionist’s view, the moment just after life began. And therefore, all life is ultimately related.

Others believe that certain organisms must haven been specially created to have distinctions from others. So while a wolf may be in the “evolutionary” lineage of your family chihuahua, a leopard would not be.

As you can see here, there is a multiplicity of ways that experts seek to define evolution, and as scientists learn more about what is actually is, those definitions often become outdated.

The most important takeaway is that we are referring to biological evolution. The semantics matter.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, means “the origin of life from nonliving matter” according to Webster’s. What’s interesting is that, in support of this definition, they cite David Warmflash et. al. on the following:

According to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.

Therefore, the “conventional hypothesis” would seem to rely on some sort of evolution, namely chemical evolution, in order for the process of abiogenesis to take place.

Biogenesis simply means “the origin of life.” According to one source, the Law of Biogenesis is:

The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.1

Thus, we are working with two distinct, but related concepts: The arising of organic (living) matter from non-living matter, and its subsequent change over time.

Evolution tends to be a moving target. This is hardly surprising. After all, those who hold to this theory expect to account for all biodiversity we observe in the world, over a great amount of the purported 4.5 billion year history of life on Earth.

To be sure, this is no small task, which is why so many question whether it has the goods.

My interview with Dr. Micheal Behe discusses the abilities and inabilities of evolutionary mechanisms is far greater detail than we’ll go in this article, so I would encourage you to check it out.

In short, though, evolution works by the invocation of a number of biological processes, most of which can be summarized by the statement, “random mutation acting on natural selection.”

There is further clarification needed for the concept of “randomness.” There is quite some debate on what is meant by this term. The most common idea is that randomness is akin to “chance.” In other words, the changes that take place are random in that they could have...

The below is an excerpt from my upcoming book, How to Fall in Love with The Bible: And Beat Bible Boredom Once and For All. It has been slightly edited and formatted for publishing on the blog. Enjoy!

—

When we think about “context” there are certain concepts that come to mind involving grammar, genre, literary devices, and other linguistic features. More astute individuals will go even beyond this to include extra-biblical historical referents, where the text is within the larger canon of Scripture (including the surrounding passages), etc.

These are all extremely important concepts and should be considered! I believe the context question is even more pervasive than that, though.

Theologians choose to think about these things in a variety of ways, so rather than thinking there is a particular method to follow, it’s more as though there is a matrix of ideas that should be intentionally considered. We’ll briefly discuss five categories that I believe helpfully summarize the variety of contexts that must be considered when approaching the biblical text:

Here, the word supernatural would also be appropriate. Simply put, the Bible is a book that reports supernatural events. Naturalism and a biblical worldview are diametrically opposed to one another. This is important because many of us come from Christian traditions that have a predisposed bias against the supernatural. What is meant by supernatural? While the answer could quickly lead us into subject matter the length of another book, it’s important to grasp the basic idea here.

A lengthy quote from Dr. Michael Heiser, in his book Supernatural, will be helpful:

I’m not talking about the big stuff, such as whether Jesus was God come to earth, who then died on the cross and rose from the dead. I’m not even thinking of miracle stories like the exodus, when God rescued Israel from Egypt by making a way for them through the Red Sea. Most Christians would say they believe those things. After all, if you don’t believe in God and Jesus, or that they could do miraculous things, what’s the point of saying you’re a Christian? I’m talking about the little-known supernatural stuff you run into occasionally when reading the Bible but rarely hear about in church. Here’s an example. In 1 Kings 22, there’s a story about a wicked king of Israel, Ahab. He wants to join forces with the king of Judah to attack an enemy at a place called Ramoth-gilead. Judah’s king wants a glimpse into the future—he wants to know what’s going to happen if they attack. So the two kings ask Ahab’s prophets and get thumbs up all around. But those prophets are just telling Ahab what he wants to hear, and both kings know it. So they decide to ask God’s prophet, a fellow named Micaiah. What he says isn’t good news for Ahab: Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, “Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, “I will entice him.” And the LORD said to him, “By what means?” And he said, “I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” And he said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.” Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you. (1 Kings 22:19–23) Did you catch what the Bible’s asking you to believe? That God meets with a group of spirit beings to decide what happens on earth? Is that for real? Here’s another example, courtesy of Jude: And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6) God sent a bunch of angels to an underground prison? Really? As I said, the Bible has a lot of strange things in it, especially about the unseen, spiritual world. I’ve met many Christians who have no trouble with the Bible’s less controversial (at least among Christians) teachings about the supernatural, such as who Jesus was and what he did, but passages like this tend to make them more than a little uneasy, so they ignore them. I’ve seen that tendency up close. My wife and I once visited a church where the pastor was preaching a series based on 1 Peter. The morning he hit 1 Peter 3:18–22, the first thing he said after getting behind the pulpit was, “We’re going to skip these verses. They’re just too weird.” What he meant by weird was that those verses contained supernatural elements that just didn’t fit into his theology. Such as: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. (1 Pet. 3:18–20 NIV) Who—and where—were these imprisoned spirits? That pastor either didn’t know or didn’t like the answer, so he simply chose to ignore these verses. As a Bible scholar, I’ve learned that strange passages (and lots of other little-known and little-understood parts of Scripture) are actually very important. They teach specific ideas about God, the unseen world, and our own lives. Believe it or not, if we were aware of them and understood what they meant, as difficult and puzzling as they are, it would change the way we think about God, each other, why we’re here, and our ultimate destiny.

The more I study the Bible, the more convinced I am that we need to take seriously the biblical claims about the unseen world. In fact, there’s a delicate balance between conspiracy theory and fact. Some people take this stuff too far; they see the devil behind every decision they don’t agree with. Others, as Dr. Heiser lamented, ignore it all together. It’s easier to brush it off than to admit the reality. If that’s you, I’ll remind you of the Apostle Paul’s words:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

How often we find ourselves fighting the wrong battles! We tear down other people instead of realizing the true enemy to be the devil and his minions. A firm grasp of the unseen world is therefore a necessary precursor both to understanding your Bible and, frankly, being a fruitful Christian.

Genesis 3:6-8 provides a sobering look into the human condition:

This familiar passage records the first instance of human sin—the event that set the downward spiral of the precious creation of God in motion.

However, it also creates a theological puzzle for some. The passage here teaches that the Lord was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, looking for Adam. 

Believe it or not, there’s a legitimate question here, because how one sees this passage could actually lead one to find a particular genre of writing in the text. Let me set up the problem, and then we’ll discuss some of the ways theologians wrestle with this passage. 

The “Problem”

The Bible tells us some things about the nature of God. It directly tells us he is a spirit (John 4:24), he made the world and everything in it and dwells in a temple not made with hands (Acts 17:24), he is immortal and no man can see him (1 Timothy 6:16), and he is eternal and invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). 

Indirectly, we can infer similar things from the text of the Bible. For example, the Bible assumes God exists from the very first verse. That verse, Genesis 1:1, says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” 

There is no word for “universe” in Hebrew—“the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew merism, where two contrasting parts are used to indicate the whole. Thus, the point is everything other than God was created by God. 

But if all that is true—no one has seen God and he is immaterial by nature—how could he walk with Adam in the garden?

This problem is compounded by the fact that God tells Moses in Exodus 33:20, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” So if someone were to see God, he would die! 

How do we resolve this puzzle?

The “Solutions”

Over the years I have heard different positions that aim to account for this odd passage of Scripture: 

• It is merely a theophany. 
• It is merely anthropomorphic language. 
• It is both a theophany and anthropomorphic language.

At first glance this may not seem like such a big deal, but based on what may be argued given the conclusion one reaches, it quickly becomes one. 

William Lane Craig, for example, argues that this passage utilizes merely anthropomorphic language, which would ostensibly place it squarely within the “mytho-historical” interpretation he has offered as of late.1

We’ll define and discuss each of these solutions in turn. 

Merely a Theophany?

A theophany refers broadly to a human-form or otherwise human-perceptible manifestation of Yahweh.2

The verses in question would seem to evidence a visual manifestation of Yahweh—a theophany. The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) defines the term as such:

Does this event in Scripture qualify? 

There are varying opinions. Some believe that this event does not qualify because there is language missing that seems to be present in other pericopes which are ostensibly more obvious instances of theophany. 

Craig argues along these lines in response to a questioner:

The reductio ad absurdum is perhaps one of the most useful and important philosophical arguments. 

The Latin name given to the argument seeks to accurately describe it—that is, it means to “reduce to absurdity.” The point is easy to grasp, I think. 

An argument that is self-refuting is one that can be reduced to absurdity. This argument is a favorite among presuppositional apologists because the PA’s point is that non-Christian worldviews all reduce to absurdity. Although it’s tempting, I will refrain from spending too much time making that association here, but instead make a practical application to that end a bit later. 

So what’s an example of an argument that reduces to absurdity? Consider the following statement: All knowledge is derived from the use of the five senses.

But there’s a problem. The statement makes a knowledge claim which was not derived from the five senses! The claim is a philosophical one that reduces to absurdity because it cannot sustain its own burden. 

Since one could not know via the five senses that all knowledge derives from them, this claim is self-refuting and, therefore, absurd. 

Many don’t realize how this thinking has crept into everyday use. Consider the wayward child who wishes to follow his friends in a risky endeavor, despite knowing the potential consequences: “But everybody will be there!” he protests.

Mom and dad, in their wisdom, reply to the child: “Oh yeah, well if everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?” The point is that if you follow the child’s thinking to its logical conclusion, it creates an absurd situation.

We see this kind of thing in popular New Atheist arguments. “Only the hard sciences provide truth.” Really? Is it true that only the hard sciences provide truth? If so, then the claim is false, because we did not apprehend that truth by using the hard sciences. 

The most common and potentially most recognizable is the post-modernists’ claim that there is no truth. But if it’s true that there is no truth, then it’s also true that there is truth—a glaring contradiction.

As you see, this can be a very powerful tactic, because a surprising number of arguments which seek to set themselves up against the knowledge of God fall into this trap.

Speaking of tactics…

Tactics

One of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl, calls this the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic in his book, Tactics. 

He provides a helpful illustration to set up the study:

He is making a grand point here. Many people make this simple mistake at the worldview level—a level which, as Koukl demonstrates below, can lead to undesirable social consequences.

Koukl explains a scenario in which Mother Teresa attempted to lobby for the forgiveness of a criminal. This demonstrates just how important the concept of the reductio is—it can have disastrous consequences in our thinking:

In a final example from Greg, it becomes clear that such arguments can literally lead to the difference in mentality between life and death:

A Monkey Wrench

I should point out one liability, here. Not everything that sounds contradictory actually is. In a few moments we’ll examine biblical examples of the reductio, some of which are employed by Jesus himself. 

However, Jesus also taught paradoxical truths. Paradoxes are often surface-level contradictions that are not logically fallacious when examined closely. Many proverbs are like this as well. They are designed to create tension in your thinking for the purpose of making you dig deeper and think harder. 

For example, when Jesus says, “He who is first shall be last,” he is saying something tha...

I’ve recently been in a discussion with a friend of mine (and faithful reader of the blog!) about the divine council worldview. Among other things, we discussed concerns about the “gods” of Psalm 82. 

Here it is in its entirety: 

There seem to be three primary ways of understanding this who the “gods” are in this passage, two of which involve humans and one of which involves heavenly beings:

• Israel’s judges
• Kings of other nations
• Spiritual beings 

There’s a lot to unpack here, so first, let’s take a look at why each view claims what it does. 

• Judges. On this view, the “gods” are the judges God appointed over Israel prior to receiving their first king. The strongest argument for this view, in my opinion, is that these gods receive judgment from Yahweh for failing to do precisely those duties which God tasked the judges with. The New Bible Commentary notes: “So what does it all mean? (i) The ‘gods’ may be the shadowy but real ‘principalities and powers’ working their own evil way in the affairs of earth (Is. 24:21; Dn. 10:12–13, 20; Eph. 6:12). The OT occasionally uses ‘gods’/‘sons of God’ for angelic beings (8:5; Jb. 1:6). (ii) The duties specified in vs 2–4 are, however, those of Israel’s judges (Ex. 22:22–24; 23:6–7; Dt. 1:16–17; 10:17–18; 16:18–20); their work is to exercise ‘the Lord’s judgment’ (Dt. 1:17). To bring a case ‘before God’ and ‘before the priests/judges’ are interchangeable terms (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; Dt. 17:8–13; 19:17). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus understood ‘gods’ as humans ‘to whom the word of God came’ (Jn. 10:35).1
• Kings of other nations. Supporters of this position see the context brought into focus by vv. 7b-8 as requiring the kings of all other nations to be in view. Thus, this Psalm describes God’s judging the rulers of other nations for failing to take care of their people.
• Spiritual beings. Those who take this view rest their case on the meaning of the word elohim in v. 1. The word appears twice in this verse, the first time a singular reference (to Yahweh) and the second a plural (each demanded by the grammar of the verse). The argument suggests that God’s council is made up of other heavenly beings, and thus, God is standing in the midst of these heavenly beings; the lesser gods. They are being judged for their failure to do as he commanded and watch over the people over the nations. 

There are multiple ways we could go about discussing this. For a fuller discussion of these passages, I would recommend Tim Chaffey’s Fallen.2 For our purposes, though, I am going to point out just a few of the biggest problems for each view, landing eventually on what I believe to be most likely correct. 

The Problem with Israelite Judges

For me, it seems very compelling that the exact problem Yahweh has with these “gods” is the failure to perform duties that he assigned to Israel’s judges. Despite this, I believe the “judges” view faces some insurmountable problems.

One problem is that the context is quite clearly all nations of the earth (see vv. 7b-8), and Israel’s judges were at no point given jurisdiction of the nations. In our dialogue, my friend mentioned that he thinks these two verses could be disconnected from the rest of the passage in the sense that, even if only judges are in view, the Psalm is merely closing with extolling God as the ruler of all nations. 

There are a least two problems with his solution. 

First of all, the word “judge” here is used. It is the same Hebrew lemma (or, dictionary word) as is used in v. 1. This would seem to indicate that this Psalm is presenting a holistic picture: The Psalmist is extolling God because he judges the nations and their leaders, including their gods. In other words, he judges among the gods of those nations. 

Further, this is made clearer when noting the “inheritance” language of v. 8b. Here’s the question to ask: Why does the Psalmist include the fact that all the nations belong to Yahweh? Does this credential somehow lend more credence to the notion that he stands in authority over the affairs of Israel? It’s not clear how. It seems to me that, as Israel’s God, he has authority of them regardless. 

However, if this Psalm is describing Yahweh’s right to judge all nations, even though he’s Israel’s God, its inclusion makes sense. We’ll return to this later when we discuss the “spiritual beings” view.

A second problem is that Israelite judges are never granted a portion in God’s divine council elsewhere in Scripture, yet heavenly beings absolutely are (see Ps. 89:5-8). They are certainly never considered “sons of the Most High”—human “sons of God” are part of NT theology, not OT.

A potential difficulty here arises from a discussion of Exodus 21 and 22, which in turn leads into a much larger discussion about what Scripture means by the term elohim. Chaffey sets up the problem:

Rather than rehash the arguments, let’s let Chaffey summarize his findings on the term elohim:

He cites Heiser for agreement: 

What is ministry? The word “ministry” has a variety of contexts, and I think it’s something quite often misunderstood.

There’s a danger in thinking you are not really in ministry unless you are serving full time in a pastoral position.

I think this is quite mistaken thinking.

It is true that certain people are called by God to do specific tasks that we often associate with “ministry”—however, as we’ll discuss below there’s much more to it than that.

Right off the bat, it seems clear to me that ministry is something that goes beyond being a pastor, elder, or deacon for a local church.

The word most often translated “ministry” in the New Testament is diakonia. It appears 34 times and in a variety of contexts. It appears twice in Acts 6:1-4, in an interesting way:

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

“Ministration” in v.1 and “ministry” in v.4 are the same Greek lemma, diakonia.

Notice the issue of the passage: Almost humorously, smack dab at the beginning of the church, people are complaining because their needs are not being met.

What’s going on here is that Christianity is spreading so fast and the disciples of Jesus were working so hard to minister in teaching the Word that some of their other duties were being neglected.

Thus, they appoint other disciples to take over these particular duties in order that they can continue “the ministry of the Word.” But does this mean the ministry of the Word, whatever that is, is more important?

It seems to me this question requires some nuanced thinking:

In one sense, it certainly seems appropriate to say that the preaching and teaching of God’s Word is of maximal importance. After all, the preaching of God’s Word is how people come to believe (1 Cor. 1:21). The disciples obviously thought this role was extremely important.

However, it is also true that God’s plan for bringing people to himself involves ministering to others through service. In fact, to see this, we need not look further than the next few verses of our same passage (v.5-7):

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

As a direct result of this decision, the Word of God increased, the number of disciples multiplied, and even many priests were converted!

Grant Osbourne reflects on the success of this decision:

All three verbs in verse 7 are imperfects, stressing ongoing activity. The “word” is not just the gospel but an epithet for the church as the people of the word. So it means, “the church kept on growing.” Moreover, it did not just grow; it “increased rapidly” (or “kept on multiplying greatly”), perhaps even more than earlier. Most astoundingly of all, “a large number of priests,” who had replaced the Pharisees as the major opponents of God’s people, “became obedient to the faith,” another epithet for conversion. Scholars estimate there were between 18,000 and 20,000 priests and Levites all told. That a significant number became Christ followers is a major sign of God’s blessing on the church. The principle is clear—every crisis is a Spirit-led opportunity to surrender further to him and discover a newfound depth of strength, resulting in an even greater growth of the church.1

These seven men who were appointed could have chosen to complain because they did not get to pray, study, and teach the word full-time. Instead, they were obedient to their spiritual vocation, and the church multiplied.

The lesson is important: When God’s people are obedient, his glorious purposes are fulfilled and his blessings rain down.

Don’t think that because your ministry doesn’t look like somebody else’s, it’s not “real” ministry. That’s misguided—and unscriptural—thinking.

Sure enough, though, there are particular offices of ministry given for the local church. There is a need for pastors, deacons, elders, evangelists, etc.

As we saw just above, there are those who are gifted with the ability to teach, to preach, and to shepherd a flock.

While a great many churches have a

Note: This post makes mention of Ravi Zacharias. It is with a heavy heart that I must acknowledge a tragic independent report concerning evidence of sexual abuse and predatory behavior on the part of Ravi Zacharias. This man was a huge inspiration to me, as is evident from reading my blog, and the news was more than heart shattering. Some ministries leaders have come to the conclusion that removing articles about and references to Ravi is the right move; I have come to a different conclusion, and here is why:

I do not expect you to agree completely with this decision. I do ask that you respect the thought, prayer, and seeking of counsel in which I engaged regarding it.

Do miracles happen?

One of the primary reasons people take issue with religious thought is that it almost necessarily involves a concept of the miraculous—an offensive idea to one living in the 21st century West.

We’ve got it all figured out, right?

We know that “science has disproven miracles” and that the laws of nature can basically account for most (all?) phenomena that we experience.

Actually, it may surprise you that this attitude toward the miraculous is not shared by most people in the world.

Even so, it’s an issue worth talking about, because the possibility of the miraculous is most definitely required for the Christian worldview to be true. It makes miracle claims: Creation ex-nihilo, bodily resurrection, miraculous healing—none of these can work if the miraculous cannot happen.

This is a good place to start. After all, how can we form an opinion about the miraculous if we don’t even know what it is?

The 18th-century philosopher David Hume famously objected to miracles. In Can Man Live Without God?, Zacharias clarifies and succinctly responds to Hume:

Hume’s argument against miracles…runs something like this: Since a miracle is a violation or exception to a law of nature, by definition it is based on the lower degree of probability. A wise man, says Hume, will always base his belief on the highest degree of probability; therefore, a wise man will disbelieve in miracles.

Hume’s argument is somewhat strained once again. For example, the possibility of this world happening, even according to the strongest antitheist, is as close to zero as one can get. Therefore, the wise man should deny the existence of the world. His argument is dreadfully circular: He first assumes that miracles can never happen and then concludes that they have never occurred. The real wise man, to counter Hume, would be one who would make his conclusion based on the evidence.1

I think most skeptics would agree that we should make judgments based on arguments and evidence, therefore, it would be prudent to first discover whether a miracle has occurred, rather than to speculate whether they can.

And here is why we have to know what counts as a miracle. Is the mere fact that there is something rather than nothing a miracle? What else can it be?

Hume simply got the definition wrong. He claims that a miracle violates the laws of nature, but why think this is the case? Do I violate the laws of nature when I interrupt my falling pen from hitting the ground? Surely not; I merely intervene.

The subject of Divine Action (i.e, God’s working and interacting within the world) is a huge one, but it is certainly not defeasible by the mere assertion that the laws of nature are violated when the miraculous takes place.

To the skeptic of miracles, I would simply begin with one of the naturalist’s favorite subjects: human evolution.

For the sake of argument, if evolution had occurred, by what measurement would we decide whether or not it was miraculous? Was it just the laws of nature working on biological material? If probability is to be brought to be bear, does that change the equa...

Without a doubt, one of the most important questions one can ask is, “How can I know I’m saved?”

In many ways, this is the most basic question a person can ask! And yet, the question is actually quite complex. There are words to define, concepts to explore, and beliefs to espouse before one can really have a satisfactory answer.

As we explore a biblical answer to this question, it may be as good a time as any to reflect honestly on your answer.

Most of us grow up with the notion that there is a salvation “event” that takes place in our lives. Do I still believe that today?

My answer would be yes, but it’s complicated.

Ephesians 1:3-4 seems to describe what this “event” looks like:

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Pauls opens his letter with a theological treatise; he is underscoring what Jesus has accomplished, and will go on to draw some conclusions about a life of proper faith and practice for the Ephesian church.

Notice in this passage that Paul describes that once one “trusts” (i.e., “places their hope in”) Christ, after hearing the gospel and believing, they are “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,” which acts a “down payment” of their inheritance.

What’s being described here is beautiful; it is the process of reconciliation between God and man. Salvation is therefore God’s rescue, via the work of Jesus on the cross, of a sinner—and his sealing them for their final day of redemption.

There’s a natural question that arises at this point. What are we saved from?

The answer is multi-faceted. Are we saved from Satan? Our flesh? God himself?

Scripture can be leveraged in support of all of the above. And yet, a mere reflection on the nature of the world provides a sufficient answer: We all know the world is broken.

Greg Koukl beautifully makes the point in The Story of Reality:

None of us can long avoid the gnawing sense of guilt we feel for the bad things we have done. This is a good thing, of course, for a couple of reasons. For one, the person who never feels bad about doing bad things (an especially unpleasant kind of person known as a sociopath) is not likely to stop himself from doing something dreadful when it suits him. But there is another reason. It is a very small step from feeling guilty to realizing that we feel guilty because we are guilty. And that is precisely what the Story tells us. We are broken, true enough. But we are not simply malfunctioning. We are not machines that need to be fixed. We are transgressors who need to be forgiven. We have not merely “made mistakes,” like getting our sums wrong when balancing accounts. We have sinned. And with sin comes guilt. And with guilt comes punishment. The sin must be answered for. It must be paid for in some way. Atoned for, if you will.

The issue is that something is wrong with the world. It’s not the way it is supposed to be. We are separated from God, and we evidence that separation each and every day through our disobedience to our Creator.

That we are in need of rescue is virtually inarguable; Chesterton famously quipped, “The one doctrine of Christianity which is empirically verifiable is the fallenness of man.”

To be saved, then, is to place your undying trust in the Person and Work of Jesus, and to enthusiastically affirm the words of the Apostle John: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:10-13).

One confusion that arises with folks, even some seasoned Christians, is that of Old Testament sacrifices.

A lengthy passage from the book of Hebrews brings out the issue:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws int...