Author: Dave Lowe

Dave is a native Southern Californian and avid sports fan of the Dodgers, Lakers, Rams and USC Trojans. Dave is married to Jen and has identical twin boys who attend rival military academies (Jacob - Naval Academy & Joshua - West Point). Dave is on staff with Cru and ministers primarily to Young Professionals in Orange County.
Posted on

Political Divisions Within Church

1 Corinthians 1

10Now, dear brothers and sisters, I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won’t be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,” or “I follow only Christ.” 13Can Christ be divided into pieces?

Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16(Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, there is a lot of political division in our country these days. And this political division has seeped into the church.

Perhaps it’s always been there. But with the advent of social media, it’s definitely more pervasive and widespread.

The first letter from Paul to the Corinthians was written in part to address the problem of divisions in the church. I wrote my thoughts on this passage a few years ago in my blog post “Name Dropping in the Early Church“. Members of the church in Corinth were aligning themselves with different church leaders, which was causing conflicts and divisions in the church.

Certainly, there is no problem with following certain pastors and religious leaders. The problem comes when we elevate those figures to celebrity status and begin to idolize them or place them on a pedestal, where they may take precedence over even Jesus himself.

As I re-read this passage recently, it occurred to me that perhaps the biggest source of division within the church today is political divisions. People within the church are aligning themselves with certain political figures and ideologies, which is causing major divisions within the global church.

These last 8-10 years in the United States have been a breeding ground for the enemy to sow hatred, divisiveness and discord among Jesus’ followers.

It’s become apparent that for many who call themselves Christ followers, their political party and candidate of choice is more important than Jesus himself. This heightened commitment to politicians and political parties  is driving their behaviors and greatly influencing their views of others and even their understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

It’s been amazing to me to see people who claim to be followers of Jesus, belittling others, bullying others and berating others who don’t share their love and devotion for a particular candidate or political party.

For example, I’ve seen people on various social media platforms who have made the statement, “I don’t see how you can be a Christian and vote for                                . ” I’ve also seen “Christians” claim that God hates candidate “X” while other “Christians” have rebutted that God actually hates candidate “Y”.

Ironically, Christians on both sides, in defending their preferred candidate and ideology, are appealing to the need to “love” people, all while demonstrating hate towards those who disagree with them.

Let me be clear. It is not unbiblical to have a preferred candidate or a preferred political party. But when we place those candidates and parties above Jesus himself, and when we’re incapable of basic civility towards those with whom we disagree, we’ve unwittingly made an idol out of our political identity.

Paul, in this passage, has some words of wisdom for us. Was Donald Trump crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris? Christ did not send us to promote the Democratic or the Republican party platforms BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL.

It’s apparent that we all have different ideas about how to solve the problems that we face as a nation and as a culture. While it’s ok to promote our views, as Christians, NOTHING should take precedence over Jesus and the gospel message. To do so could become idol worship or worse, the promotion of a false gospel.

Reflection

What steps do you think Christians can take to ensure that they don’t promote politics over Jesus?

Do you think it’s possible to be a Christian and also be heavily involved in politics?

What would you say to someone who says that a certain political party is the only party a “true” Christian could support?

How do you reconcile the different political views with the gospel message? What do you think is the proper way to integrate our political views with the gospel message?

 

Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/two-people-standing-face-to-face-10350693/

Posted on

Is the Old Testament God a Bloodthirsty, Genocidal Psychopath?

Psalm 106

34Israel failed to destroy the nations in the land,

as the LORD had told them to.

35Instead, they mingled among the pagans

and adopted their evil customs.

36They worshiped their idols,

and this led to their downfall.

37They even sacrificed their sons

and their daughters to the demons.

38They shed innocent blood,

the blood of their sons and daughters.

By sacrificing them to the idols of Canaan,

they polluted the land with murder.

39They defiled themselves by their evil deeds,

and their love of idols was adultery in the LORD’s sight.

40That is why the LORD’s anger burned against his people,

and he abhorred his own special possession.

41He handed them over to pagan nations,

and those who hated them ruled over them.

42Their enemies crushed them

and brought them under their cruel power.

43Again and again he delivered them,

but they continued to rebel against him,

and they were finally destroyed by their sin.

44Even so, he pitied them in their distress

and listened to their cries.

45He remembered his covenant with them

and relented because of his unfailing love.

46He even caused their captors

to treat them with kindness.

47O LORD our God, save us!

Gather us back from among the nations,

so we can thank your holy name

and rejoice and praise you.

48Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel,

from everlasting to everlasting!

Let all the people say, “Amen!”

Praise the LORD!

(Psalm 106:34-48, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you ever heard someone question the morality of God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament?

Perhaps you (or someone you know) have wondered if the Bible is actually describing two different gods, since God as He is depicted in the Old Testament seems so different than how He is portrayed in the New Testament in the person of Jesus.

Some might go so far as to deny the God of the Old Testament, using words like “blood-thirsty”, “genocidal” and even “psychopathic” to describe His behavior.

In a previous blog post entitled “Is the God of the Old Testament Petty“, I wrote about how some people view the Old Testament God as petty or jealous.

The bottom line is that many people simply cannot reconcile the actions of God in the Old Testament with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. How is it possible, the reasoning goes, that Jesus could teach about the need to love others while the God of the Old Testament routinely wipes out whole cultures and whimsically punishes people for no apparent reason? That doesn’t seem very loving. Ergo, many simply dismiss the Old Testament entirely since it paints a picture of God that is inconsistent with their view and understanding of who they think God is or should be.

The primary reason that people cannot reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament (Jesus) is because they have created a caricature of each that is based on limited information and a false understanding of God’s nature.

These caricatures often set up the Old Testament God as being a bloodthirsty God of vengeance while depicting Jesus as mild-mannered and universally accepting of all peoples. It’s no wonder people are confused. Both versions and understandings of God are wrong and incomplete.

Regarding the God of the Old Testament, here are a few things people don’t often recognize:

First, God expelled the people who inhabited the land that Israel occupied because they were extremely wicked. This Psalm passage says that they even sacrificed their sons and daughters to the idols of Canaan. The land was desecrated and they defiled themselves.

Should God not bring punishment on the wicked?

The Israelites ultimately adopted the same wicked practices of the people they displaced, and despite God’s numerous warnings, their lack of repentance led to the same fate – punishment.

The second thing people don’t realize about the Old Testament is that the events portrayed extend out over a span of thousands of years. Yes, there is judgment, but it is not the constant rampage that people have depicted, as if God is out of control and in a continual fit of rage.

The Old Testament God is actually quite patient and reserved, if you think about the time frame related to the events. Over, and over and over and over again, God warns his people about impending judgment and punishment that will come as a result of their sin and wickedness. He provides many, many, many opportunities over years and years and years for them to humble themselves and repent. And yet, he doesn’t just talk a big talk. He delivers on his promised retribution.

The perception of Jesus, however, is that he doesn’t exhibit any of the out-of-control jealousy and rage that the Old Testament God does. Jesus is seemingly patient and kind, without a mean bone in his body. Jesus is often seen as someone who exhibits the pacifism of Ghandi, the esoteric teachings and pithy proverbs of Buddha and the generous giving spirit of Santa Claus, all at once.

But this caricature of Jesus is also false and incomplete.

Jesus affirmed the teachings of the Old Testament as being the authoritative words of God (see John 5:39, Matthew 5:17 and Luke 24:44-46). Additionally, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and referenced many of the stories as if they were real. There is no indication that Jesus disputed any of the stories, writings or teachings of the Old Testament. If Jesus is so different than the God of the Old Testament, in terms of their nature and purpose, wouldn’t we expect Jesus to note that? Shouldn’t we expect that Jesus would point out the flaws in the Old Testament version of God and demonstrate where and how He is superior? He doesn’t.

In addition, the idea that Jesus is a kind, grandfatherly figure who never utters a harsh word is also false. Jesus had many harsh words, particularly for the religious elites of the day. Jesus demonstrated kindness and gentleness to those who were humble and those who were in despair, but for those who were arrogant and thought of themselves as sinless, Jesus often took a different tone – one of rebuke.

Jesus came to the earth to offer humanity the opportunity to partake in the kingdom of God, which required Him to go to the cross and secure payment for the sins of the world. It is clear that Jesus’ first advent was not as judge, but as a prophet and priest.

However, Jesus himself acknowledged and taught that He would come again, but this time, He would be coming as a conquering king, bringing judgment to the world. This is most clear in his extended discourse on the future in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, but also in Revelation 19:11-21, which depicts Jesus on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind him as he defeats his enemies.

Jesus is in perfect alignment with God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament. He claimed to be sent from the Father and He also affirmed their unity of purpose.

Much more could be said to demonstrate this but that is beyond the scope of this limited blog post.

Suffice it to say, the idea that the God of the Old Testament is a vile, evil, rageaholic, while Jesus is Mr. Rogers on steroids is a false caricature that is based on limited information and personal preferences rather than an accurate reading and understanding of the Biblical texts.

Reflection

How would you respond to someone who says the God of the Old Testament is a different god than Jesus?

How have you reconciled in your heart and mind the differences in the Old Testament depiction of God and the New Testament portrayal of Jesus?

In what ways do you think your views and understanding of God might be deficient or incomplete? 

What steps do you think you and others can take to reconcile the supposed differences between the God of the Old Testament and the person of Jesus?

 

Image created by Grok-2 Ai generator on X.com

Posted on

Is it Unbiblical to Teach That Salvation is About “Accepting Jesus”?

John 1

10But although the world was made through him, the world didn’t recognize him when he came. 11Even in his own land and among his own people, he was not accepted. 12But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan—this rebirth comes from God. (John 1:10-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

I’ve been a Christian for a long time and ever since I can remember, I was told that becoming a Christian, or getting “saved” was simply a matter of “accepting” Jesus into your heart.

Not too long ago, I saw the above photo from one of my Facebook friends who regularly shows up in my feed. I respect Voddie Baucham as a teacher so I was curious about the context of the quote that seems to indicate that the idea of “accepting Jesus” is unbiblical.

Is it true that the New Testament nowhere mentions salvation being about “accepting Jesus”?

I think the short answer to that is NO.

John 1:12 is the most clear verse that would challenge that assertion as John states:

But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. [emphasis added]

Now to be fair, my Scripture reference is from the New Living Translation (NLT) which is the only translation I’m aware of that uses the phrase “accepted him.” Most other translations, including the NIV, King James, NASB, ESV and others, all use the phrase “received him“. So I suppose it’s possible, if you exclude the NLT, that one could argue that the Bible doesn’t say anything about “accepting Jesus” when it comes to salvation.

In my mind, though, this could be considered theological nit-picking. It seems apparent to me that the words “accept” and “receive” are synonyms. So why make the argument that salvation has nothing to do with “accepting Jesus”?

Honestly, I could not find a link to the sermon in which Dr. Baucham made the quoted statement, so it’s hard to know exactly what he’s getting at or why he felt compelled to make the statement in the first place.

The problem sometimes with sound-bite quotes is that you don’t always get the context and so the quote can appear to be saying something entirely different than what the author was really intending to communicate.

I can say, however, that in my many years of ministry, this is not the first time I have heard someone make a statement like this. So I’ll address the statement as I’ve heard it shared from others, not necessarily from Dr. Baucham’s perspective, which, as I’ve stated, I was not able to clearly determine.

In my experience, the argument that salvation is not about just “accepting Jesus” is often made by those who are seeking to address the problem of spiritual mediocrity within the church.

An overwhelming number of people claim to be Christians and yet, as we look around at the landscape of our culture, it’s hard to imagine that there are really that many people who legitimately ARE Christians. In other words, the lifestyles of most people do not seem to indicate that most people are indeed Christians.

So what is the problem?

Some people would argue that a major problem is in our evangelistic message – that we are not calling people to repentance but instead, we’re peddling a soft message that requires little to no commitment. Note that Dr. Baucham’s quote appeals to the need to “repent and believe.”

The argument is that if we tell people that salvation is simply a matter of “accepting Jesus” into their life, we’re giving them the impression that being saved is merely a verbal transaction where, if we say the right words, and “ask Jesus into our hearts”, we can escape the punishment of hell and then go on our merry way doing whatever we were doing.

This kind of approach, the argument goes, lacks commitment and ultimately is not transformational. Instead of producing mature believers whose lives reflect Jesus, it produces worldly people who think of themselves as Christians simply because they said “the sinner’s prayer.”

The oft-suggested solution to this perceived problem is to refrain from telling people that salvation is about “accepting Jesus” and instead, communicate that it’s about a higher level of commitment that requires repentance.

As I see it, there are two problems with this solution.

The first problem is that the idea of “accepting Jesus” logically includes the idea of repentance.

Repentance literally means to turn and change direction. One cannot legitimately accept Jesus while maintaining the view that they can earn their salvation through their own good works.

Accepting Jesus is NOT just saying some prescribed prayer. It requires an attitude of humility that recognizes we fall short because of our sin and that Jesus is the ONLY one who can offer forgiveness through His shed blood on the cross.

Accepting Jesus, or receiving Christ, means that we accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers to all people. How do we do this? Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we do this by faith.

What that means is that I literally change direction (repentance). Instead of my former course where I trusted in my own good works to earn God’s favor, I now choose a new course, where I place my trust in Jesus alone to provide forgiveness and to save me from the penalty of my sins.

There’s a second problem with the solution of saying we should refrain from saying that salvation is about “accepting Jesus”. The second problem is that even if we were to stop talking about “accepting Jesus” and even if we were to convince everyone to use the different language of “repent and believe” in our evangelistic presentations, there is no reason to believe that the outcome would be any different than it already is.

The reason for this is because spiritual mediocrity in the church is largely a reflection of the hearts of people rather than the specific wording of the evangelistic messages that are being promoted.  Mark 4 tells us that there are 4 different soils that represent the different heart attitudes of people who hear the message of the gospel. (See my blog post: Which Soil Are You?)

Sharing a message of “Repent and Believe” to a person who has a hard heart, rocky heart or thorny heart is likely to yield the same result as sharing a message of “Accept Jesus”. Regardless of the specific verbiage of your message, the outcome will be the same, because it is already determined by the heart condition of the hearer.

Please note that I’m not saying that our evangelistic message and approach doesn’t matter. Our message should be biblically correct. However, the idea that one biblical approach  will produce better results than another, equally biblical approach is wishful thinking and places too much emphasis on the sower for the results.

There is no silver bullet message or approach that will guarantee the hearer will become a fruitful Christian.

In addition, since we know that spiritual mediocrity among professing believers has been a problem since the outset of the church, it stands to reason that it’s an issue of discipleship more than evangelism. The issue was addressed repeatedly in the New Testament and has been a source of controversy for 2000 years. We’re not likely to see a change in this phenomenon, though we should certainly do our best to disciple believers to maturity, just as the apostles did.

(See my blog post: Why Some Christians Never Grow)

The most important thing we can do when communicating with a non-Christian is to give a clear and understandable explanation of what Jesus is offering. (See my blog post: What Does it Look Like to Follow Jesus?)

I think it’s clear that linking salvation to the idea of “accepting Jesus” is not unbiblical, as long as we help the hearer understand that accepting Jesus involves repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus as our one and only Savior.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of the idea that people must “accept Jesus” in order to be saved? What are they accepting?

What do you think are the main reasons why some Christians don’t grow? How should we change our evangelistic approach to ensure greater fruitfulness among believers?

Do you agree with the statement by the author of this blog that mediocrity among professing Christians is more a result of discipleship than evangelism? What are your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing?

How can we disciple others to greater levels of maturity and fruitfulness? What steps can be taken? What resources do you think are needed?

 

Photo is a screenshot from a Facebook post at Voddie Baucham’s Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10221114209364128&set=a.1532880861226)

Posted on

What is Your Definition of Good?

NOTE: This is an excerpt from a longer blog post “You’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good, baby, you’re no good!” which makes observations from the longer passage of Romans 3:21-28

Romans 3

23For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 

(Romans 3:23, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Back in the day there was a popular song by Linda Ronstadt with a chorus that said, “you’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good, baby, you’re no good”! (see Ronstadt YouTube video here)

It’s doubtful that Ronstadt (or whoever actually wrote the song) had Romans 3 in mind when they penned the words, but this chorus is actually the sentiment of Paul’s message in Romans 3.

Paul has spent the first 2 chapters of Romans outlining how the pagan, the moral person and even the religious person are all sinful and therefore under God’s judgment.

In this chapter, Paul finalizes his argument that all people are no good. It’s doubtful that he could bust out the lyrics as soulfully as Ronstadt but Paul’s message is essentially, “you’re no good, you’re no good, you’re no good….baby you’re no good.”

Perhaps you disagree with this assessment. After all, a lot of people think that people are basically good. And many would argue that at least SOME people are good. So how can Paul say ALL people are NO GOOD?

It all comes down to how you define good. We (people) tend to define good in relative standards that make us look good and feel good about ourselves.

For example, if Hitler is the standard of bad, then I feel good about myself because I’m reasonably confident that I’m a better person than Hitler.

And that’s the problem. Everybody is using a different standard of goodness and each person’s standard tends to be derived in such a way that they themselves end up on the good end of the spectrum.

Is this not blatantly obvious? How many people would actually say they are no good? Very few, in my experience. Even the most hardened criminal is likely to point to someone whom they believe to be a worse person than they are as their comparison for measuring and evaluating goodness.

But God’s standard of goodness is different than ours. God doesn’t use Hitler or Stalin or any other authoritarian tyrant as the standard for what is good. God uses HIMSELF as the standard of goodness.

With God as the standard of goodness, we can see that being good requires us to be as good as God is, which is impossible. This is why Paul says in verse 23 that “all fall short of God’s glorious standard” and it explains how Paul can say that ALL are NO GOOD!

Reflection

What has been your standard for measuring goodness?

How does your definition of goodness compare or contrast with what the Bible says about goodness?

Photo by Volkan Olmez on Unsplash

Posted on

Early Christianity and the Role of Women

Luke 24

1But very early on Sunday morning the women came to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2They found that the stone covering the entrance had been rolled aside. 3So they went in, but they couldn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4They were puzzled, trying to think what could have happened to it. Suddenly, two men appeared to them, clothed in dazzling robes. 5The women were terrified and bowed low before them. Then the men asked, “Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?”

8Then they remembered that he had said this. 9So they rushed back to tell his eleven disciples—and everyone else—what had happened. 10The women who went to the tomb were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and several others. They told the apostles what had happened, 11but the story sounded like nonsense, so they didn’t believe it. 12However, Peter ran to the tomb to look. Stooping, he peered in and saw the empty linen wrappings; then he went home again, wondering what had happened. (Luke 24:1-12, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this last chapter of the gospel of Luke, the good doctor gives his account of the empty tomb.

It’s fascinating to consider some of the details of his account, which yields several interesting (at least to me) observations.

First of all, this chapter stands as a powerful defense against the argument that the resurrection is a fabricated event. For if the resurrection never happened, but you were determined to concoct a story for the purpose of gaining some kind of power and influence over others, you would never construct the story in such a way that the first people to discover the empty tomb were women.

The truth is that women in that culture did not have the same power, authority or voice to create the kind of instant credibility that would have been necessary to get people to believe your false narrative.

In other words, the most probable reason that Luke shares the details he does, in which a group of women are the first ones on the scene to discover the empty tomb, and in which these same women are the ones to deliver the message of Jesus’ resurrection to the eleven disciples, is because that is exactly how the events happened.

Secondly, the angel’s response to the women leads to an interesting conclusion about the role women played in the ministry of Jesus.

If you’re like me, you tend to think of Jesus roaming around teaching, preaching, healing and performing miracles among the masses, all with a small band of 12 men at his side.

The reality is that Jesus had a lot more than 12 men who followed him. More than that, the group of Jesus-followers was not exclusively men. The angel’s response confirms this. The angel questions the women:

“Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? 6He isn’t here! He has risen from the dead! Don’t you remember what he told you back in Galilee, 7that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and that he would rise again the third day?” (Luke 24:6, 7)

Did you catch that?

The angel reminds them of something Jesus had taught regarding his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. Clearly, the women cannot be reminded of something UNLESS they were there when it was originally taught.

This just underscores an often overlooked detail of Jesus’ ministry and the make-up of his cast of followers. They weren’t all men! There were most assuredly women, some of whom are mentioned in this encounter with the angel at the empty tomb. In fact, not only were there a number of women among Jesus’ followers, but according to Luke 8:1-3, many of these women were supporting Jesus and his disciples through their own resources.

It’s easy for some to dismiss the validity and authority of Scripture because of a dissatisfaction with how women in the Ancient Near East culture were portrayed. However, there is no denying that Jesus substantially elevated the role and prominence of women relative to the culture of the time. Not only were women among some of His most devoted followers but it is women, not men, who initially discover the empty tomb and announce the resurrected Jesus to the rest of His followers.

Reflection

How would you go about defending the resurrection to someone who disputed it?

What do you think is the reason why women were the first ones to discover the empty tomb?

What are some of the issues in the Bible that challenge your belief that it is God-inspired?

What difference does it make to you to know that women were part of Jesus’ followers and were exposed to his teaching, healing and miracles, just as the 12 disciples were? In what ways does this change or impact your understanding of Jesus and the role women play in ministry?

 

Image by Ken Williams from Pixabay

Posted on

Can a Psalm Refute Buddhism?

Psalm 94

1O LORD, the God to whom vengeance belongs,

O God of vengeance, let your glorious justice be seen!

2Arise, O judge of the earth.

Sentence the proud to the penalties they deserve.

3How long, O LORD?

How long will the wicked be allowed to gloat?

4Hear their arrogance!

How these evildoers boast!

5They oppress your people, LORD,

hurting those you love.

6They kill widows and foreigners

and murder orphans.

7“The LORD isn’t looking,” they say,

“and besides, the God of Israel doesn’t care.”

8Think again, you fools!

When will you finally catch on?

9Is the one who made your ears deaf?

Is the one who formed your eyes blind?

10He punishes the nations—won’t he also punish you?

He knows everything—doesn’t he also know what you are doing?

11The LORD knows people’s thoughts,

that they are worthless!

12Happy are those whom you discipline, LORD,

and those whom you teach from your law.

13You give them relief from troubled times

until a pit is dug for the wicked.

14The LORD will not reject his people;

he will not abandon his own special possession.

15Judgment will come again for the righteous,

and those who are upright will have a reward.

16Who will protect me from the wicked?

Who will stand up for me against evildoers?

17Unless the LORD had helped me,

I would soon have died.

18I cried out, “I’m slipping!”

and your unfailing love, O LORD, supported me.

19When doubts filled my mind,

your comfort gave me renewed hope and cheer.

20Can unjust leaders claim that God is on their side—

leaders who permit injustice by their laws?

21They attack the righteous

and condemn the innocent to death.

22But the LORD is my fortress;

my God is a mighty rock where I can hide.

23God will make the sins of evil people fall back upon them.

He will destroy them for their sins.

The LORD our God will destroy them.

(Psalm 94:1-23, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Psalm 94 is a cry and appeal to God for justice.

Apparently, there were evil people taking advantage of others and they appeared to be getting away with it.

Why is there no justice?

How long will we have to wait to see the wicked punished?

These are the questions the psalmist is asking.

Some things never change. We’re still asking those same questions today because there’s no doubt that evil still exists and that evil doers often seem to go unpunished.

There are two different ways of dealing with this perceived injustice:

The first way is to say God must not exist. This is the argument the atheist makes and it’s highlighted in verse 7:

7“The LORD isn’t looking,” they say,

“and besides, the God of Israel doesn’t care.”

The atheist uses the reality of evil as a primary argument against the existence of God. I wrote about this in my blog post “Does the Existence of Evil Disprove God” based on Psalm 75.

The atheist’s line of reasoning goes something like this:

If God exists, He would care about evil and He would do something about it (presumably, He would eliminate it). Since evil still exists, either God doesn’t care OR He’s unaware of it. Either way, God must not exist.

Verse 7 focuses on the premise that God doesn’t care about evil or He’s unaware of it. The conclusion is that God must not exist.

The second approach to the fact that evil exists and evil doers often go unpunished is to recognize that God will deal with justice in His timing. This is the approach the psalmist takes:

He punishes the nations—won’t he also punish you? (verse 10)

Judgment will come again for the righteous. (verse 15)

God will make the sins of evil people fall back upon them. He will destroy them for their sins. The LORD our God will destroy them. (verse 23)

The psalmist is not happy that evil doers seem to go unpunished, but He does not so quickly conclude that God must not exist.

You may be saying to yourself, “this is all well and good, but what does this have to do with refuting Buddhism.”

That’s a good question. This psalm says nothing about Buddhism, which would not even come into existence as a religious ideology for another 500 years after the writer penned this psalm.

So what’s the connection?

In December of 2023, I read a post on X.com from Nancy Pearcey (@NancyRPearcey), who had made a benign post quoting a section from the book “The Rise of Christianity“ by Rodny Stark. The quoted section was highlighting how Christianity introduced a revolutionary new ethic of love that was unique amongst religious ideologies of the time.

A person replied to the post questioning the idea that Christianity came up with anything that new or revolutionary. The poster claimed that Buddhism, and other Eastern philosophies had been preaching universal love for centuries.

This sparked an exchange regarding some of the principles of Buddhism and how it fails as a religion and philosophy to adequately explain reality.

You can trace the whole exchange here  (which I highly encourage), but the exchange connects with Psalm 94 in this way:

Pearcey was explaining that Buddhism, like any religion or philosophy, has to be evaluated on its ability to adequately explain reality.

The point was made that in Buddhism, ultimate reality is not a personal being but an impersonal essence or force. Because WE are personal beings, Buddhism has no way of adequately accounting for where humans came from.

This psalm actually refutes Buddhism in verse 9, which says:

Is the one who made your ears deaf? Is the one who formed your eyes blind?

The principle is that the creator must have the same capabilities as that which is created. How could something that could not hear or see create something with ears to hear and eyes to see?

Since we are personal beings, whoever, or whatever created us must also be personal. Since Buddhism does not teach or believe in a personal creator, it cannot adequately explain our existence. In the Buddhist system, an impersonal force or essence somehow produces humanity – personal beings. This defies logic.

The psalmist has no knowledge of Buddhism, which would not exist for another 500 years. But the psalmist is aware of the skeptics’ argument that denies God. He calls the skeptic a fool (verse 8) and offers up the simple apologetic proof for God’s existence in verse 9.

This one-verse proof demonstrates that God must be personal. And since Buddhism denies a personal creator, Psalm 94:9 actually refutes Buddhism.

Reflection

When thinking about the fact that evil exists and evil doers do not always face timely justice, which of the two approaches are you most likely to take – to deny God’s existence, or realize that justice will eventually come in God’s timing? Explain your choice.

What convinces you most that God exists? 

How do you explain the existence of evil to those who are skeptical about the existence of God?

What is your reaction to Psalm 94:9 and the apologetic argument that because WE are personal beings, God must also be personal because the created thing cannot be greater than that which created it? Is this argument convincing to you? Why or why not?

 

Photo by RKTKN on Unsplash

Posted on

The Nashville Redemption

It was the spring of 2014 and Jen and I were just entering a new phase of ministry. After 25 years with college students as our primary focus, we made a pivot to reach Millennials, the largest age group in our culture, but the least churched.

Our first time in Nashville (2014) included the Q conference. We only got half of the first day in before Jen ended up in the hospital. A highlight of that session was an interview with Carrie Underwood and her husband, NHL Hockey player Mike Fisher.

We flew to Nashville to spend some time with about a dozen other Cru staff members who were also committed to reaching this underserved audience. On the heels of our staff time, we were slated to attend the Q conference (led by Gabe Lyons – now rebranded as ThinQ Media) and we were looking forward to meeting with one of our former students from our time at the University of Arizona who had transplanted his family to the Nashville area.

On the first day of that conference, Jen experienced some chest pains that ultimately landed her at Vanderbilt hospital. 

I wrote about that experience in our April 2014 newsletter, which you can access here (bit.ly/LWDN0414).

We left Nashville feeling grateful that we had dodged a bullet. When we arrived at the hospital we didn’t know what was going on. We were relieved when the doctors told us that they thought Jen had walking pneumonia and gave her antibiotics to help clear up any infection. 

Cru Embark staff enjoying good BBQ in downtown Nashville

It turned out though that that diagnosis was wrong, and this was just the first phase of a medical journey we entered, and are still in. 

Thankfully, we know a lot more about Jen’s condition, vasculitis, which is currently in remission.

This last fall, I had the opportunity to return to Nashville for the first time since that ordeal. Jen was not able to make this trip due to a conflict with her class schedule.

Once again, a fledgling group of Cru staff met to discuss and dream about reaching the under-served audience that is Young Adults.

It was great being back in Nashville and experiencing a bit of the culture, including good BBQ and some great music from talented artists.

We were treated to a small intimate, unplugged acoustic set from American Idol season 8 winner, Kris Allen

Me with Kris Allen – American Idol Season 8 winner

We were surprised by one of our Cru staff who lives and ministers in Nashville and happens to live just around the corner from Kris Allen (of American Idol Fame) who did an acoustic set for us on our colleague’s back porch! That feels very Nashville-y!

Meeting up with my friend Mark, a former student from way back during our University of Arizona days. This meet-up was 10 years overdue!

As much as I enjoyed connecting with our staff and revisiting and renewing my vision for Young Adults, the highlight of my trip was my time after the conference. 

I decided to delay my return so that I might meet with my friend Mark, the former student we had to cancel on 10 years earlier.

In addition, another friend from our church in South Orange County had moved his family to Nashville 4 years ago and my trip provided an opportunity to connect with him as well.

I was able to connect with a friend (Rob) from our church in SoCal who moved his family to the Nashville area a few years ago

It was great to pray together and have extended time to connect on a deeper level and hear how God is moving and working in the lives of these two families. 

As I reflected back on my time in Nashville, I realized that the number of Cru staff who are reaching Young Adults is still rather small.

What really stood out to me though is that the make-up of the staff in attendance was different. I was the only person at these recent meetings who had been at the Nashville meeting 10 years ago. That is often the nature of ministry. People often come and go and move on to other opportunities and other callings. For us, at this time, Young Adults remains our calling.

We are grateful for your investment and commitment to us!

 

To read the pdf version of our newsletter, click here.

Posted on

How Do You Prepare for God’s Final Exam?

1 John 5

11And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12So whoever has God’s Son has life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life.

13I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When I was in college, on the last day of instruction for every class I ever took, someone would ask the professor what was going to be on the final exam.

It makes sense. Everyone wants to know what is going to be tested so they can adequately prepare for the test. Can you imagine not having any idea how the instructor was going to evaluate your knowledge and progress?

Nobody studies for a test by just guessing what will be covered on the exam and how they will be evaluated. It’s actually quite foolish.

And yet, this is exactly how many people approach life.

According to Pew Research in December 2023, over 70% of Americans believe in an afterlife, while over 60% of Americans believe in hell.

(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spirituality-among-americans/)

How exactly though does one determine whether they will go to heaven or hell?

In my many years of ministry, I have engaged with thousands of people regarding issues of spirituality and the afterlife. When asking people the question of whether they think they will go to heaven when they die, I found that most people think they will make it. But when asked the follow-up question of how God decides who makes it into heaven and who doesn’t, most people aren’t quite sure.

It’s interesting to me that most people aren’t sure how God decides who makes it into heaven, but they’re fairly certain that they will make it to heaven.

This is because people overwhelmingly believe that getting into heaven is a matter of being a good person and most people think of themselves as good.

But is this how God evaluates a person’s eternal destination – their goodness? And if so, what is the threshold of “good” that is needed? What kind of goodness score must one get in order to pass the test and make it into heaven? How would a person even evaluate their own level of goodness?

You would never study for a final without knowing what is going to be on the test and how your grade is going to be tabulated, but concerning one’s eternal destiny, which is a far more important outcome than your grade in a class, many people simply guess and make assumptions about how God evaluates them.

Fortunately for us, we don’t have to guess how God evaluates eligibility to enter heaven. He doesn’t make us wonder what His standards are. Here in 1 John 5, He tells us quite explicitly how He decides. In fact, we’re told that we can KNOW for certain whether we have eternal life or not.

What is the standard? It’s not what most people think. It’s not goodness, which is really just a subjective spectrum that most people have erected in such a way that no matter what bad things they have done, they think of themselves as good.

According to this passage, eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. Those who have Jesus have eternal life. Those who do NOT have Jesus don’t have eternal life.

This standard is actually a lot easier to evaluate than some subjective idea of goodness. You either have the Son or you don’t. If you have the Son, John tells us that you can KNOW that you have eternal life. You can be 100% certain.

But if you don’t have the Son, you can be 100% certain that you don’t have eternal life.

The question for us then is how do we get the Son? Stay tuned.

Reflection

Do you believe there is an afterlife? What does the afterlife look like? What is the source of your information about the afterlife?

How do you define goodness? What makes a person “good”? How do you think God defines goodness? How good do you think a person needs to be to make it into heaven and live with God for eternity?

If you were to die tonight, how sure are you (on a scale of 0-100%) that you would make it into heaven and live with God for eternity? How would you rate your chances?

This passage says that eternal life is based on the Son, Jesus. How do you think a person can “have” the Son? What do you think is involved in getting the Son and having eternal life?

 

Photo by RDNE Stock project: https://www.pexels.com/photo/teacher-proctoring-his-students-during-an-examination-7092593/

Posted on

A Biblical Example of Virtue Signaling

Mark 14

1It was now two days before the Passover celebration and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. The leading priests and the teachers of religious law were still looking for an opportunity to capture Jesus secretly and put him to death. 2“But not during the Passover,” they agreed, “or there will be a riot.”

3Meanwhile, Jesus was in Bethany at the home of Simon, a man who had leprosy. During supper, a woman came in with a beautiful jar of expensive perfume. She broke the seal and poured the perfume over his head. 4Some of those at the table were indignant. “Why was this expensive perfume wasted?” they asked. 5“She could have sold it for a small fortune and given the money to the poor!” And they scolded her harshly.

6But Jesus replied, “Leave her alone. Why berate her for doing such a good thing to me? 7You will always have the poor among you, and you can help them whenever you want to. But I will not be here with you much longer. 8She has done what she could and has anointed my body for burial ahead of time. 9I assure you, wherever the Good News is preached throughout the world, this woman’s deed will be talked about in her memory.” (Mark 14:1-9, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Have you heard of this idea known as virtue signaling? While the phrase may be fairly recent, the concept is as old as man.

Virtue signaling is when a person makes a comment or does something in public to try to make themselves appear virtuous when the truth often is the exact opposite of the claim they are trying to make.

Virtue signaling has become especially popular with the rise of social media, which has given people a wider platform to broadcast their “virtuous character.”

It’s not uncommon for those who “virtue signal” to draw attention to themselves by pointing to the supposed lack of virtue in others.

This is the situation in Mark 14.

In this passage, a woman comes to Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume and she proceeds to pour the jar over Jesus’ head.

The value of the perfume was about 300 denarii. ONE denarius was equivalent to a typical day’s wage, which means that this one jar of perfume was worth almost an entire year’s worth of wages.

The text says that there were those who were there to witness this act who were INDIGNANT.

To be indignant is to be extremely angry or annoyed because of some perceived unjust or unfair treatment.

From this passage, we don’t know who these people are that were indignant but John 12:4-6 gives us additional insight into the context:

4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples—the one who would betray him—said, 5“That perfume was worth a small fortune. It should have been sold and the money given to the poor.” 6Not that he cared for the poor—he was a thief who was in charge of the disciples’ funds, and he often took some for his own use.

So here we have it – Judas is upset that this expensive jar of perfume is being poured out over Jesus’ head. He chastises the woman for being wasteful and having wrong priorities. He claims that this expensive perfume should have been sold so that the poor could be taken care of. Essentially, he’s accusing this woman of not caring about the poor. In his mind, why else would someone waste a whole year’s worth of money on something as unnecessary as a jar of perfume?

The reality is that Judas didn’t care about the poor; he just wanted others to think that he did. What better way to draw attention to his “care” for the poor than to scold a woman who had the means to give a significant sum to the poor but didn’t?

The text indicates that Judas’s real motive was himself. As the treasurer, he often helped himself to some of the money. Judas saw this extravagant act by this woman as a missed opportunity for himself.

It’s not likely that many people read this passage and identify with Judas. After all, John tells us that Judas had an ulterior motive – he was a thief. And we also know that Judas betrayed Jesus. For most of us, we don’t think of ourselves as anything like Judas.

But I think that most of us are more like Judas than we would care to admit.

Be honest. How do you react when you hear of someone spending what would cost you a year’s worth of work on something as unnecessary and trivial as a bottle of perfume?

In my experience, I see more people responding like Judas.

For some reason, we tend to have this idea that our standards are normal and reasonable while those who are living beyond our standards must be greedy or gluttonous. We attribute sinful motives to those who don’t think and act exactly as we might in a given situation.

This is true of Judas. He sees this expensive perfume as being needless and wasteful and he assumes that by pointing this out to the group he will be praised and honored. But he doesn’t get the response that he expects.

Instead of vilifying the woman and praising Judas, Jesus honors the woman and rebukes Judas.

Apparently, what Judas sees as needless and wasteful, Jesus sees as having an honorable and good purpose.

I think there are two lessons here from this passage.

First, I should be careful not to assign sinful or dubious motives to those whose lifestyle is more “expensive” than mine. It’s possible that the items that I think are wasteful and unnecessary can actually have an honorable purpose and be used in such a way that God is honored and glorified.

Secondly, I should be careful not to castigate others whom I know next to nothing about. Just because a person has more money than I do and might spend some of it on things I never would doesn’t mean they can’t care about things that are important to God’s heart. After all, nobody cares more about the poor than Jesus does and He has no problem with this woman taking an expensive jar of perfume and using it for His benefit.

Ironically, we don’t demonstrate ourselves to be virtuous if we have to disparage others to prove how much better we are than them. While it’s always easy to point the finger at others, we should be more concerned with caring for and cultivating our own heart toward God than pointing out all the flaws we perceive in others, especially when our primary intent is to make ourselves look good to others.

Reflection

What is your reaction and response to people whose lifestyle is more extravagant than yours? Have you ever found yourself questioning the things they own and value as wasteful and needless?

When is a time when you questioned another person’s “virtue” because they bought or owned something that you saw as unnecessary or needless? When have you responded like Judas to another person’s choice?

What is your reaction to the fact that Jesus honors and praises the woman who uses a whole bottle of perfume, that cost a year’s worth of wages, on Him?

How do you reconcile the fact that God loves and cares for the poor more than you or I could and yet He says, “you will always have the poor among you.”?

What steps are you taking to cultivate your own heart to ensure you are become a true person of virtue? How do you think a person would go about becoming more virtuous?

 

Photo by Rodolpho Zanardo: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-man-pointing-his-finger-1259327/

Posted on

Was Job a Real Person?

Job 1

1There was a man named Job who lived in the land of Uz. He was blameless, a man of complete integrity. He feared God and stayed away from evil. 2He had seven sons and three daughters. 3He owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred teams of oxen, and five hundred female donkeys, and he employed many servants. He was, in fact, the richest person in that entire area.

4Every year when Job’s sons had birthdays, they invited their brothers and sisters to join them for a celebration. On these occasions they would get together to eat and drink. 5When these celebrations ended—and sometimes they lasted several days—Job would purify his children. He would get up early in the morning and offer a burnt offering for each of them. For Job said to himself, “Perhaps my children have sinned and have cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.

6One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan the Accuser came with them. 7“Where have you come from?” the LORD asked Satan.

And Satan answered the LORD, “I have been going back and forth across the earth, watching everything that’s going on.”

8Then the LORD asked Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth—a man of complete integrity. He fears God and will have nothing to do with evil.”

9Satan replied to the LORD, “Yes, Job fears God, but not without good reason! 10You have always protected him and his home and his property from harm. You have made him prosperous in everything he does. Look how rich he is! 11But take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!”

12“All right, you may test him,” the LORD said to Satan. “Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don’t harm him physically.” So Satan left the LORD’s presence.

13One day when Job’s sons and daughters were dining at the oldest brother’s house, 14a messenger arrived at Job’s home with this news: “Your oxen were plowing, with the donkeys feeding beside them, 15when the Sabeans raided us. They stole all the animals and killed all the farmhands. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

16While he was still speaking, another messenger arrived with this news: “The fire of God has fallen from heaven and burned up your sheep and all the shepherds. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

17While he was still speaking, a third messenger arrived with this news: “Three bands of Chaldean raiders have stolen your camels and killed your servants. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

18While he was still speaking, another messenger arrived with this news: “Your sons and daughters were feasting in their oldest brother’s home. 19Suddenly, a powerful wind swept in from the desert and hit the house on all sides. The house collapsed, and all your children are dead. I am the only one who escaped to tell you.”

20Job stood up and tore his robe in grief. Then he shaved his head and fell to the ground before God. 21He said,

“I came naked from my mother’s womb,

and I will be stripped of everything when I die.

The LORD gave me everything I had,

and the LORD has taken it away.

Praise the name of the LORD!”

22In all of this, Job did not sin by blaming God.

(Job 1:1-22, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Recently, my Bible reading program has me reading through the book of Job (along with other selections in the Old and New Testaments).

Job is a fascinating book that seeks to help the reader understand the nature of God’s justice and how we are to comprehend and deal with sickness and personal tragedy.

It’s not surprising that many outside of the church would consider the story of Job as nothing more than a fairy tale or a fictional narrative. However, there are more and more critics inside the church who are making the claim that Job was not a real person.

I recently encountered an ex-vangelical Christian (someone who claims to still be a Christian but has left the “evangelical” Christian movement) on X (formerly Twitter) who made the claim that Job is not a real person and that God is more of a villain in the story.

What are we to make of these claims? Is it true that Job was not a real person? Does it even matter? How would we even go about proving or disproving this thesis?

First of all, short of some archaeological evidence, we have no way to actually substantiate the existence of Job as a real person. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.

The main evidence we have to determine the probable “realness” of Job as a person is to evaluate the text itself.

If you look at the beginning of Job, there is nothing that indicates that this is a fictional story. Think about some of the parables of Jesus. It’s obvious that he’s telling a story to make a moral point as the people and places are often nameless.

Consider this example from Luke 20:

9Now Jesus turned to the people again and told them this story: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it out to tenant farmers, and moved to another country to live for several years.

It’s clear from the text that the story is fictional. The writer not only leads with this fact, but the main characters and places are nameless: a man planted a vineyard, leased it out to tenant farmers, and moved to another country.

Contrast that with the book of Job. Right away, in the first verse, we know the name of the man (Job) and where he lived (Uz). Though we are not exactly certain where Uz is today, we know that it was a real place that was known to those who lived in the Ancient Near East Culture.

In addition, the text mentions that Job’s first tragedy occurred at the hands of “Sabean raiders”. The Sabeans were likely a group of people from South Arabia. In addition to this passage, they are mentioned in Isaiah 45:14 and Joel 3:4-8. They were real people.

If Job is a fictional character, why are all the details of this fictional story real?

There is another, perhaps even more convincing reason to believe that Job was a real person – he is mentioned in other parts of the Bible.

In Ezekiel 14:12, Ezekiel delivers a prophecy from the Lord that emphasizes the certainty of the coming judgment of the Jewish people:

12Then this message came to me from the LORD: 13“Son of man, suppose the people of a country were to sin against me, and I lifted my fist to crush them, cutting off their food supply and sending a famine to destroy both people and animals alike. 14Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were there, their righteousness would save no one but themselves, declares the Sovereign LORD.

15“Or suppose I were to send an invasion of dangerous wild animals to devastate the land and kill the people. 16Even if these three men were there, the Sovereign LORD swears that it would do no good—it wouldn’t save the people from destruction. Those three alone would be saved, but the land would be devastated.

17“Or suppose I were to bring war against the land, and I told enemy armies to come and destroy everything. 18Even if these three men were in the land, the Sovereign LORD swears that they could not save the people. They alone would be saved.

19“Or suppose I were to pour out my fury by sending an epidemic of disease into the land, and the plague killed people and animals alike. 20Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were living there, the Sovereign LORD swears that they could not save the people. They alone would be saved by their righteousness.

This prophecy is making the point that the people have been so steeped in sin that no amount of righteousness from the people can outweigh their wickedness. The prophecy then refers to 3 of the most righteous Old Testament characters to make the point. Even if Noah, Daniel and Job were living there, their combined righteousness would save only themselves. It would not be enough to save the whole because everyone else was utterly corrupt.

Now if the prophecy was trying to contrast the unrighteousness and wickedness of the people with the righteousness of 3 Old Testament characters, why would one of those characters mentioned be a fictitious person? If Job is not a real person, would it not be better to mention a different person instead of him? Why not mention someone like Enoch who walked so closely with God that God took him directly to heaven without having to endure a natural death? (see Genesis 5:22-24)

Clearly, this passage presupposes that Job was a real person and not a fictional character in a fictional story.

In addition to being portrayed in Ezekiel as a historical figure, Job is also mentioned in the book of James in a way that characterizes him as an actual person.

10For examples of patience in suffering, dear brothers and sisters, look at the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11We give great honor to those who endure under suffering. Job is an example of a man who endured patiently. From his experience we see how the Lord’s plan finally ended in good, for he is full of tenderness and mercy. (James 5:10-11, NLT)

James uses Job as his example of someone who endured suffering with great patience. It would be very odd to use Job as your primary example if Job was only a character in a fictitious story.

Imagine I’m trying to console a friend who has endured great personal tragedy – the loss of loved ones and the loss of their livelihood.

I say, “I know you’ve gone through a lot, but you know who ELSE has gone through a lot and endured? Rocky Balboa. He lost Mickey, his trainer, the only person who really believed in him. Then he lost Adrian, his wife, the only person who ever really loved him. Then he lost his friend Apollo Creed and his brother-in-law Polly. Finally, he lost his entire fortune to an unscrupulous accountant. But he endured. He kept going. He kept fighting. You can too!”

How ridiculous is that? But if you believe Job is a fictional character, then that is exactly what James is doing. He’s appealing to “Rocky Balboa” as his ultimate example of endurance.

I think it’s clear that the biblical writers thought of Job as a real person and it seems obvious that those who lived at the time of the biblical writings also saw Job as a real person.

I said at the outset that apart from archaeological evidence, it’s hard to prove or disprove the legitimacy of Job as a “real” person. However, there’s nothing in the text that gives any indication that the person and the story of Job are not real.

So why argue that Job is NOT real?

It’s my belief that these kinds of claims are made for the purpose of putting the authenticity of the biblical narrative in question. If the book of Job is a work of fiction, then perhaps there are other parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, that are also fictitious. If there are parts of the Old Testament that are fictitious, then I can dismiss the commands of the Old Testament and the God who delivered those commands.

If you doubt parts of the Old Testament, you can doubt the whole. If you don’t like the God of the Old Testament, then the easiest way to dismiss Him is to say that the primary revelation of that God is a work of fiction.

I won’t belabor this much more but will end with this. It’s apparent in today’s Christian culture that there are a growing number of people who claim to be believers who do not like the God of the Old Testament, who is often seen as genocidal, blood-thirsty, petty and self-absorbed.

It’s much easier to embrace the God of the New Testament, portrayed by the person of Jesus, who, according to the narrative, is a kind, gentle soul who only seeks to spread love and joy to those who would embrace it.

I believe the bible is true in it’s totality and is an accurate conveyance of the full nature of God. The description and depiction of God in the Old Testament is just as accurate as the description and depiction of God in the New Testament. There is no contradiction in his nature. Our job, as believers is to be students of the revelation of God that we have been given (primarily through His word) and reconcile the description of God we see in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

How have you traditionally viewed the book and character of Job?

If you believe that he’s a fictional character, what are your reasons for coming to that conclusion?

What has been your view of the God of the Old Testament? 

Do you struggle with the different views of God as portrayed in the Old Testament vs. the New Testament? How have you reconciled the differences in these two characterizations of God?

 

Photo by Alabaster Co on Unsplash