Destructive behavior includes elements of both sin and “disease.” Some people are especially susceptible to particular kinds of destructive behavior. For example, men who abuse women are often reared in families where women were abused. Imbued with contempt for women, they are predisposed to use women as scapegoats for frustration. There is clearly a sense in which this predisposition (or heightened temptation) to debase and abuse women can be called a “sickness,” since it was largely instilled by external influences.

Does this mean that an abuser’s “sickness”—the fact that he has been damaged by sin and is consequently more prone to abuse women than men who haven’t been so damaged—justifies his abusive behavior? Absolutely not! His “sickness” helps us understand his behavior, but doesn’t excuse it. He isn’t merely a victim of outside circumstances, like someone with meningitis or malaria. In spite of the tendencies he inherited, an element of conscious, willful sin is present in every abusive act. Regardless of his background, he is capable of resisting his impulses. No one is so isolated from the laws of society and the influence of conscience that they are completely unaware of the wrongfulness of spouse abuse. Our legal system acknowledges this with the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Abusers are accountable to society for any violation of laws against spouse abuse. Further, to the extent that an abuser knows his behavior is wrong, he is responsible before God to change.

Some people object to making a distinction between sick internal impulses and sinful actions (willful sin). They say that the impulses and emotions of the abuser are just as sinful as his decision to abuse.

It is true that the evil emotions and impulses of an abuser are not merely sick. They are the results both of original and personal sin and are repulsive and evil in themselves. However, they aren’t sinful in the same sense and to the same degree as a conscious personal decision to act sinfully. (See the ATQ article, Are Christians Held Responsible for Unpremeditated and Unconscious Sins?)

If we condemn sick predispositions as much as sinful decisions and actions, we leave no room for compassion.

Jesus had compassion on sinners (Matthew 9:12-13). He stressed the importance of having compassion on the failures of others:

You wicked servant, he said, I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you? (Matthew 18:32-33)

The reason Jesus had compassion was due to His awareness that while people are sinners, they are not entirely given over to premeditated evil. There is a sense in which they are also sin’s victims.

And Jesus was going about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. And seeing the multitudes, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and downcast like sheep without a shepherd. (Mt. 10:35-36)

If we are to be like our Master, we must be able to have compassion upon lost, sinful people, at the same time as we hold them responsible for their premeditated sin.

There is an element of sinfulness that enters into every human thought and desire, a sinfulness that is rooted in the fall. (See the ATQ article How Can Christians Believe that the Human Race Is Depraved?) In a sense, no human desire is untainted with sin. Because an element of evil intrudes into every human interaction and relationship, it is impossible for human beings to achieve absolute purity.

Along with our depravity, our composite physical nature is a factor. Like all animals, humans are physical beings with instinctual sexual/mating desires “hardwired” into us. Because of our instinctual mating desires, it is normal for people to struggle to suppress inappropriate sexual thoughts and feelings towards attractive people of the opposite sex. This is natural.

The Bible makes it clear that although temptation is the result of sin in the sense of it being an aspect of our fallen world, mere temptation isn’t something that God holds us accountable for. Even Jesus experienced temptation (Hebrews 4:15). But though we aren’t accountable for the temptations we experience, the Lord made it clear that we are accountable for sinful responses to temptation—whether it be preferential treatment of the individual or conscious lust (Matthew 5:28-30).

The moment someone consciously sexualizes his admiration of another person’s beauty—transforming admiration into lust—he commits soul-damaging sin that warrants judgment. The willful cultivation of wrongfully sexualized thoughts arouses further destructive sexual feelings that wreak havoc in a person’s spiritual, emotional, and relational life. Sinful responses to instinctive sexual desires increase the power of temptation and result in enslavement to ugly, compulsive behavior.

If Matthew’s account is accurate—and there is powerful textual and historical evidence that it is,¹ this Jewish mob did not and could not speak in behalf of all Jewish people. As verse 20 says, “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” This crowd was not a ground swell movement, but rather a mob stirred up by religious leaders who envied Jesus (Matthew 27:18 ).

The rest of the New Testament record combines with history to show that this mob didn’t represent all of the Jews in Israel. It certainly didn’t represent the large number of Jews who admired Jesus, followed Him, and joined the church following His death and resurrection. For this reason alone, it is obvious that all Jews weren’t—and aren’t—uniquely responsible for Jesus’ death. At the same time, while the mob’s collective oath didn’t represent all Jews, it has had implications for the Jewish nation as a whole and for people of all nations.

A high view of scriptural authority makes it impossible to assume that this verse is an “anti-Semitic” addition added by later Christian editors with “an axe to grind,”² or that the declaration by the mob is an insignificant detail of the account.³ From an overall biblical perspective, the mob’s rejection of Christ represents much more than the historically insignificant action of a small group of conspirators. It symbolizes the culmination of Israel’s rejection of God and His prophets. And Israel, in turn, represents the way people of all nations are inclined to reject the light of God’s self-disclosure (Romans 1:18-23).

The account of Stephen’s witness and death in Acts 6:9-8:2 summarizes the case against Israel, the nation uniquely chosen to represent all nations. Stephen, himself a Jewish man, was being prosecuted by the enemies of the gospel for continuing to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ.

Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke. Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel. Then the high priest asked him, “Are these charges true?” (Acts 6:8-7:1 NIV).

In response to the high priest’s query, Stephen told the story of the Israelite people, beginning with Abraham. He told how a majority of the children of Israel always rebelled against God and His messengers. Joseph, specially anointed to lead (and rescue) his brothers, was persecuted by them and sold into slavery in Egypt. Moses was also initially rejected by his people, and then was repeatedly resisted and criticized by them after he led them out of Egypt. In spite of God’s special blessing and calling, the Israelites again and again at crucial points in their history rejected the prophets God raised as their spiritual leaders and defenders. Moses, the first and greatest prophet of their tradition, had declared “God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.” When the prophet promised by Moses came to Israel, He was rejected as well.

This is the conclusion of Stephen’s testimony to the Sanhedrin:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it.” When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:51-8:1 NIV).

Anyone familiar with the Law, the prophets, and intertestamental Jewish literature knows that Stephen’s accusation was neither novel nor uniquely Christian (1 Kings 19:10-14; 2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Nehemiah 9:26; Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:1-14). Moses and the prophets made it clear that only after national repentance and renewal would the blessing of God be restored to Israel. Israel, doing what any other nation would have done in her position, rejected Moses and the prophets and finally rejected both the Son of God and His Holy Spirit. John the Baptist described the consequences:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:7-12 NIV).

Jesus also repeatedly prophesied His rejection by the majority of His contemporary Jewish countrymen (Matthew 8:12; 21:33-41; 23:35, 37-38). For over a thousand years, the Jews were the privileged recipients of the law and the prophets, and their special privilege involved special responsibility (Mark 6:11; Luke 12:35-48; Romans 2:12 ).

God is not mocked. The nation of Israel is a reminder to us that to whom much is given much is also required. As the author of Hebrews shows us, where there is increased knowledge, there is greater responsibility and accountability to God.

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the Law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:26-31 NIV).

Lenski defines the spiritual principle behind these verses:

If the blood of Abel cursed impenitent Cain, the blood of Christ must far more curse those who shed it and their children who still consent to that shedding by spurning Christ.

God’s judgment on the Jewish people is not universal or perpetual. Even though it has had special implications for the history of the nation of Israel as a whole, the resulting judgment of God applies only to those in every generation who willfully reject Jesus. During every period of ancient Israel’s history, there was a faithful minority (Exodus 32:7-13; Numbers 14:27-34; Isaiah 10:21-23; Romans 9:27). At the advent of the promised Messiah, there was still a faithful remnant (Romans 11:2-5). There will always be a faithful remnant until the Second Coming of Christ (Romans 11:23-29 ).

The fact that Jesus asked His Father to forgive His executioners (Luke 23:34, echoed by Stephen in Acts 7:60 ) proves beyond question that God does not hold Jewish people solely responsible for the death of Christ.

On the other hand, the mindset that hated Christ enough to murder Him has been preserved within the Judaism that survived the destruction of the Second Temple⁴, and to a less obvious extent within every other Gentile religious system that rejects Jesus as the Son of God and Savior of the world (Romans 1). That mindset continues to cloud the vision of those who are reared within its influence.

Yet even after the religion of Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets was replaced by the religion of the Rabbinate, the “oral traditions,” and the Talmud, there remains a faithful remnant among the people of Israel. Millions of courageous Jewish converts to Christianity throughout the centuries attest to this fact.

1. Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence, Paul Barnett, IVP; The New Testament and the People of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press; Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press. Back To Article
2. See the ATQ article, Are New Testament References to Jewish Persecution of Jesus and the Church True? Back To Article
3. Tyndale Commentary on Matthew: All the people indicates, as McNeile points out, “the Jewish nation” (Greek laos), which “invokes the guilt upon itself.”
   

   Finally, Matthew underlines in obvious ways that the crowd shared the guilt for Jesus’ execution—though he also refuses to let Pilate absolve himself from guilt as easily as he desires. Pilate, who hands Jesus over to the crowd’s wishes, is no less guilty than weak-willed Zedekiah, who hands over Jeremiah in Jeremiah 38:5. By accepting the bloodguilt on themselves and their children, however (cf. 2 Samuel 3:28-29), Matthew’s crowds directly fulfill Jesus’ warning in Matthew 23:29-36, thereby inviting the destruction of their temple at the end of the generation, in their children’s days. They ironically invite a curse against themselves (cf. Jeremiah 42:5 ). Back To Article

4. During the First Jewish-Roman War, from 600,000 to 1,300,000 Jews were killed. Over 100,000 died during the siege of Jerusalem alone, and nearly 100,000 were taken to Rome as slaves.
   

   Here is Will Durant’s terse description of the consequences of the Bar Kochba rebellion of AD 135:
   

   Under the leadership of Simeon Bar Cocheba, who claimed to be the Messiah, the Jews made their last effort in antiquity to recover their homeland and their freedom. Akiba, who all his life had preached peace, gave his blessing to the revolution by accepting Bar Cocheba as the promised Redeemer. For three years the rebels fought valiantly against the legions; finally they were beaten by lack of food and supplies. The Romans destroyed 985 towns in Palestine, and slew 580,000 men; a still larger number, we are told, perished through starvation, disease, and fire; nearly all Judea was laid waste. Bar Cocheba himself fell in defending Bethar. So many Jews were sold as slaves that their price fell to that of a horse. Thousands hid in underground channels rather than be captured; surrounded by the Romans, they died one by one of hunger, while the living ate the bodies of the dead. Back To Article

]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-all-jews-perpetually-and-universally-responsible-for-christ%e2%80%99s-death/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/are-all-who-havent-heard-of-christ-damned/ http://questions.org/attq/are-all-who-havent-heard-of-christ-damned/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.alpha.rbcministries.org//do-christians-believe-that-everyone-who-hasnt-heard-of-christ-will-be-damned-to-suffer-eternal-agony/ Do Christians believe that everyone who hasn’t heard of Christ will be damned to suffer eternal agony in hell?

In John 14:6 Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus’ words make it clear that He alone has brought God’s gift of salvation to the world. But do His words also mean that everyone who hasn’t heard of Him will be condemned to hell?

Abraham lived long before Christ. When he told Isaac that God would provide a sacrifice, his words were strikingly prophetic, but he didn’t understand their true significance. He knew nothing about the Lamb of God who would die on a cross nearly 2,000 years later. People like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob never heard the gospel, yet Hebrews 11:13 leaves no doubt that they will be in heaven.

No one in Old Testament times had a clear understanding of the role that Jesus Christ would someday play in atoning for sin. But centuries before the gospel was revealed, the faith of Old Testament believers was already “credited to them as righteousness” ( Genesis 15:6; Psalm 106:31; Galatians 3:6 ).

One of the most remarkable missionary stories of this century was the martyrdom of five young missionaries in Ecuador and the conversion of the Auca Indians. The first convert from the Auca tribe was a young woman named Dayuma. Remarkably, Dayuma was predisposed to accept the gospel because of her father’s influence. Although he had never heard the name of Jesus, he spoke out against the blood feuds and murder that were an Auca way of life. Unlike the others of his tribe, he was deeply conscious of his sinfulness and knew that he and his people needed forgiveness. He told Dayuma that some day God would send a messenger to the Aucas to tell them the way of salvation. Like Old Testament believers, Dayuma’s father was still living by faith when he died ( Hebrews 11:13 ). The witness of his life implies that he would have been overjoyed to hear the gospel, but he died before missionaries came.

Does Scripture give us grounds for insisting that Dayuma’s father is any different in God’s eyes than the believers of the Old Testament? Clearly, Dayuma’s father, like Abraham, would face eternal damnation apart from Christ’s shed blood. Apparent, too, is the desperate spiritual need of those, like the Auca people, who live in fear and spiritual darkness. The fact that Christ is the only way to God places on us the responsibility to make Him known to all.

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles asked:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? (Romans 10:13-14).

But there isn’t a passage of Scripture that definitively proves that God looks upon Dayuma’s father differently than He looked upon Old Testament believers who had only a faint idea of the nature of coming redemption. (See the ATQ article, How Could Old Testament People Be Saved?) The apostle Paul may have had this issue in mind when he wrote the first chapters of Romans, declaring that God has revealed Himself in creation ( Romans 1:18-20 ) and in human conscience ( Romans 2:12-16 ). Paul said that each individual will be judged according to his response to these two revelations of God. To those who respond positively, God gives more knowledge—as He did to the Ethiopian eunuch and the Roman centurion, Cornelius (see Acts 8,10 ). Those who are lost will be judged according to their response to the spiritual light they have received ( Hebrews 4:12-13 ). ¹

It may be that God will extend His grace to Dayuma’s father on the basis of Christ’s shed blood, just as He did to Enoch, Melchizedek, Job, Abraham, and Sarah—people who had only the faintest intimation of the means by which God would provide for their redemption. In the final analysis, we must leave this matter in God’s keeping. He is both just and loving. We can be assured that the Judge of all the earth will do right ( Genesis 18:25 ).

(See the ATQ article, How Can Christianity Claim To Be the Only Way to God?)

1. Jesus made it clear that those who had little light will be punished lightly:
   

   That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked ( Luke 12:47-48 ). Back To Article

]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-all-who-havent-heard-of-christ-damned/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/are-funeral-customs-in-the-us-biblical/ http://questions.org/attq/are-funeral-customs-in-the-us-biblical/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.alpha.rbcministries.org//what-if-any-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-funeral-customs-practiced-today-in-north-america/ What, if any, is the biblical basis for the funeral customs practiced today in North America?

Some of today’s funeral customs have no clear precedent in Scripture. In ancient times, of course, the technology didn’t exist to do the kind of embalming customary today. The Jews usually buried the bodies of their dead within a period of 24 hours ( Deuteronomy 21:23 ; Genesis 23:4 ;John 11:17, 39 ; Matthew 27:57-60 ). Problems relating to sanitation and the rapid onset of decomposition may account for their haste. In Jewish practice, bodies were generally washed (Acts 9:37 ), anointed with aromatic spices ( 2 Chronicles 16:14 ; Mark 16:1 ), wrapped ( John 11:44 ; Mark 15:26 ), and placed in a tomb.¹

Christians share with Jews a profound respect for the human body. However, modern burial customs are at least as much the result of advancing embalming technology and a desire for greater convenience as they are based on any biblical precedent. Some psychologists claim that our custom of viewing the body of a deceased loved one provides an important adjustment period in which their death can be accepted. This may or may not be true, but a little more than 100 years ago undertakers weren’t called “morticians,” coffins weren’t called “caskets,” and loved ones were not shielded from either the process of death or the preparation of the body for burial. Perhaps the advance of modern medicine has caused death to be viewed more as a kind of “defeat” rather than an inevitable part of life.

To provide some context for comparison, here is a description of Christian burial customs in Medieval times by historians Joseph and Frances Gies:

When a burgher dies, a public crier is hired to announce his death and the hour and place of burial. The doors of the house and of the death chamber are draped with black serge. Two monks from the abbey wash the body with perfumed water, anoint it with balsam and ointment, and encase it in a linen shroud; then they sew it in a deerskin and deposit it in a wooden coffin. Draped in a black pall, the coffin is placed on a bier consisting of two poles with wooden crosspieces and taken to the church, attended by a cortege of clergy and black-clad mourners, the widow and family making loud and visible lament. The bier halts outside the chancel gates (if the dead man is a priest, the body is laid out within the chancel), and the Mourning Office is said—the “Dirge,” from Dirige, the first word of the first antiphon. When the mass is over, the priest removes his chasuble, censes the body and sprinkles it with holy water, says the Lord’s Prayer, in which all join; then he pronounces the Absolutions, a series of prayers and antiphons of forgiveness and deliverance from judgment.

As the cortege proceeds to the church burial grounds, monks from the abbey lead the way with crosses, sacred books and thuribles, and mourners follow with candles. The latter are numerous, for the poor can earn alms by carrying candles in a rich man’s funeral procession. When the place of burial is reached, the priest makes the sign of the cross over the grave, sprinkles it with holy water, and digs a shallow trench in the shape of the cross. The real grave digging is then done to the accompaniment of psalms. The wooden coffin is lowered, the final collect for forgiveness said, the grave filled in, and a flat tombstone laid. (Those who cannot afford coffins rent one, and the remains are buried without the coffin.)

The procession returns to the church, singing the seven Penitential Psalms. For a time the tomb will be lighted with candles and a funeral lamp. In few years the bones may be lifted out of the grave and stacked, so that the space can be used again. (Life in a Medieval City, pp.74-75)

The drastic improvement of embalming technology has led to longer periods of mourning and visitation prior to burial. This has probably resulted in today’s health codes that no longer permit bodies that have not been embalmed to be interred in homemade coffins. At the same time, some Christians believe that the cost of modern funerals has become exorbitant. They are using simpler ways to honor their dead loved ones and treat their bodies with dignity.²

See the ATQ article, Is Cremation Wrong for Christians?

1. David Rausch, in his book concerning Jews and Judaism (Building Bridges), described Jewish burial custom:
   
   Since the body is a holy vessel, created in the image of God, it is treated with utmost respect. It is not left alone from the time of death to the funeral, and psalms are often recited in the same room. Jewish communities usually have Cheurah Kaddishas (Sacred Burial Societies), composed of groups of volunteers who wash and dress the body of the deceased and make arrangements for the burial. The act of pre-burial purification is called taharah. A few members wash the body lovingly and carefully with warm water from head to foot. Cheurah comes from the root word “friend,” and this act is one of the greatest mitzvot one can perform. Blessings are even recited before washing to connote respect and to express sorrow for any unintended disrespectful washing, and so forth.
   
   Regardless of status, the deceased is dressed in tachrichim, simple white shrouds made of cotton or linen. If a brutal disfiguring accident has occurred, where blood has soaked into the clothing, the deceased is not washed but is buried in the same clothes. This is because the blood is viewed as sacred and deserving of burial as well. Only burial in a wooden casket under the earth is permitted. Burial usually occurs within twenty-four hours, unless an extension is needed to bring in family members from out of town. A funeral may not be conducted on the Sabbath.
   
   The funeral is simple and dignified. There is no open casket and no makeup. At a Jewish funeral you will not hear anyone saying, “My, doesn’t he look good?” or “How lovely she appears today!” The deceased is not “asleep” in the casket. The mourner is to come to grips with this fact, and between death and burial should be confronting the reality that death has occurred. He has denied himself (according to Talmudic law) eating meat, drinking wine or liquor, bathing for pleasure, shaving, haircuts, marital relations, self-adornment, parties, and festive meals. Even the study of the Torah with its accompanying joy has been prohibited. Now he faces the casket, surrounded by friends. Family and friends follow the casket to the cemetery. Some dirt is thrown by the mourner onto the casket when it is lowered into the ground. After the burial, friends prepare the mourners’ first meal. Back To Article
2. A Christian should realize that his new body, though possessing some identity with the one we now possess, will be a new “spiritual body” ( 1 Corinthians 15:35-44 ). Therefore, there is no need to take extreme measures to ensure that our earthly “shell” is preserved from change and decay. God will certainly resurrect those whose bodies have been completely destroyed by fire, devoured by animals, or obliterated by decay. For that matter God will not need to gather up the scattered molecules of our original earthly bodies.1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 does not imply that ashes in funerary urns or decayed or embalmed bodies in earthly graves will suddenly be reconstituted. Rather, the resurrection is the wonderful occasion in which believers who have died will again be granted full bodily form, this time in a glorified, immortal body that can never again die or undergo decay. Back To Article
]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-funeral-customs-in-the-us-biblical/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/are-homosexual-or-pedophilic-desires-sinful/ http://questions.org/attq/are-homosexual-or-pedophilic-desires-sinful/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.alpha.rbcministries.org//are-homosexual-or-pedophilic-desires-sinful/ Are homosexual or pedophilic desires sinful?

Most people don’t sexualize their awareness of the beauty of children or of other people of the same sex. But for reasons that aren’t entirely understood, the sexual longings of some people are drawn towards persons of the same sex or towards children. This desire is clearly not a natural expression of the mating instinct, as it can’t result in reproduction, and medical and psychological evidence shows that people who struggle with such desires do so for a constellation of physical, environmental, and cultural reasons.¹ For such people, these desires feel natural, even though they are clearly unnatural in terms of instinctive purpose and reproductive design. However, the fact that the desires feel natural is usually no comfort to people who experience them, but is the source of deep feelings of confusion, shame, and guilt. (See the ATQ articles, Do People Choose to Have Same-Gender Sexual Attractions? and What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuals Who Were Born That Way?)

This tendency to sexualize feelings towards children or people of the same sex is an aspect of fallen human nature in a world tainted by sin. Yet by itself, unnatural sexual temptation isn’t a sin we will be held accountable for, nor can it harm us and others if we don’t yield to it. As in the case of people with heterosexual desires, only willful surrender to temptation is sinful.²

Although no one will be held accountable for unnatural desires alone, they must be taken with the utmost seriousness. There is a sense in which yielding to the temptation to do something that is inherently unnatural will have even more serious emotional, spiritual, and physical consequences than succumbing to heterosexual temptation. Since yielding to any kind of temptation increases both temptation and the compulsive power of wrongful desire, one who yields to paraphilic or homosexual temptation will inflame his/her unnatural desires still further. The sexual desires of such people may become so badly distorted that it might become impossible for them to ever experience the kind of wholesome heterosexual marriage for which sexual feelings were designed, and the psychological damage inflicted on the objects of unnatural desire—whether children or vulnerable adults—will be profound. (See the ATQ article, >What Should Our Approach be Toward Homosexuals?)

1. David Greenberg, for example, sides with the dynamic view in that he rejects the idea that homosexuality is a fixed, pre-social given common to different societies and different periods of time. Against the “static” theorists, he notes that sexual practices and the conceptual categories through which people understand them—including practices involving persons of the same sex—vary greatly from society to society. Hence, the contemporary Western concept of homosexuality as a fixed, biologically based sexual orientation that is “normal” for a select group of people is in fact the product of a constellation of ideas present in our society and not the transcultural reality proponents assume it is. Like other proponents of the dynamic view, Greenberg argues that homosexual behavior is learned. But he quickly adds that this learning always occurs within a specific social context. In his view, cultural conditioning is able to override whatever seemingly innate factors might otherwise be operative in a person’s life. He writes, “Where social definitions of appropriate and inappropriate behavior are clear and consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually everyone will conform irrespective of genetic inheritance and, to a considerable extent, irrespective of personal psychodynamics” (Welcoming But Not Affirming, pp. 29-30). Back To Article
2. In its widest sense, “sin” refers to every aspect of human life that fails to reflect the design of God. Viewed from this perspective, fallenness means that we are sinful in the totality of our existence. At the same time, we generally use the word more narrowly; thus, we speak about “sins,” that is, specific actions, even transgressions.The word sin immediately conjures up another idea that likewise carries two related yet distinct meanings: “judgment.” On the one hand, insofar as God will one day transform every dimension of creaturely fallenness, human fallenness comes under divine judgment. On the other hand, the biblical writers consistently reserve the idea of a divine judgment leading to condemnation for sinful acts (e.g., Rom. 2:3; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12).Putting the two together leads to the conclusion that as the great physician, God will heal our fallen sinfulness in the new creation, and as our judge, God will condemn our sinful actions. Hence, our fallen disposition is sinful in that it is foundational to our sinning. But it is our sinful acts—which bring God’s condemnation upon us—that are what mark us as guilty before God (Stanley Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 120). Back To Article
]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-homosexual-or-pedophilic-desires-sinful/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/are-horror-movies-just-entertainment/ http://questions.org/attq/are-horror-movies-just-entertainment/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:23 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.alpha.rbcministries.org/?post_type=attq&p=2412 Are horror movies just entertainment?

Today there are an astonishing number of movies in this genre. A large proportion of the DVDs for rent in an average “family” video store are horror movies. The advance of computer-generated effects and digital photography has exponentially enhanced the ability of filmmakers to produce horrific special effects. But what generates the appetite for viewing them? Why do so many people delight in seeing things simulated in film that they would never in their right minds want to see in reality?

Perhaps the appetite for horror is unconsciously generated by a culture that worships affluence, comfort, convenience, youth, and beauty and represses awareness of human and animal suffering, aging, and even the natural cycle of predation. Perhaps a family that actually had to raise, feed, and slaughter hogs, chickens, or steers (or a favorite milk cow past her prime) in order to make a living would be less likely to find simulated horror and suffering interesting. Perhaps a culture in which the sick and aged died at home, nursed by the family instead of by strangers in a high-tech intensive care ward, and where the bodies of dead loved ones were personally prepared by family members for burial would be less interested in horror. Perhaps people who have fought in hand-to-hand combat or seen loved ones die of disease and malnutrition would think simulated death and violence less entertaining.

Be that as it may, the images we absorb—whether in real life or from the theater screen—will become part of us. Willful exposure of impure hearts to gratuitous horror and violence may unleash feelings that should have remained bound. Anyone who willingly focuses on movies that obsess on evil and the occult are likely to develop feelings of fear, anxiety, desolation, and alienation from God.

A person who kills animals for “fun” is a sadist; a person who enjoys raping and murdering people is a psychopath. What happens when people habitually watch movies that contain simulations of such things? How can we take issue with the sadist or the psychopath if we get a voyeuristic thrill from observing the things they do?

A fallen world contains many horrors, and few of us are fortunate enough to pass through a lifetime without encountering some of them. It is the context and interpretative framework in which we encounter horrors of life that make them something we can endure, or something that reduces us to despair. A well-done film may contain elements of horror and be an effective tool for understanding the nature of evil and arming oneself against it. But many films exaggerate the power of evil and lack the realism to show good’s superiority in both value and power. Films like these trivialize evil, excuse it, and humanize it.

This is a clear violation of the principle expressed in Philippians 4:8.

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things (nasb).

This principle doesn’t imply that books or films that bring the reality of evil into sharp focus are wrong. If that were the case, the Bible itself might be seen as illegitimate reading, as it portrays evil in stark and shocking ways (Genesis 19:4-35; Judges 19–20). Some of the greatest evils committed by humanity result from our willful repression of reality’s dark side. However, the foundation of existence is not evil but our good God. God, the Creator, is love. If evil is willfully pursued—whether in real life or in the fantasy of cinema—its shadows begin to spread before our eyes until we are blinded to the power of our good God and lose sight of His light.

Horror can be appropriate if it is the foil against which goodness is contrasted. However, if we indulge in it frivolously, it will lead to anxiety, hopelessness, and alienation from God. If we plant horrific images deep in our subconscious mind, they are likely to haunt us at the moments of our greatest fear and physical agony. Our subconscious (the part of the mind that generates dreams) doesn’t know the difference between “real” and “make believe.”

This means that the same standards need to be applied to movies and books in the “horror” genre as we would apply to other films and literature. See the ATQ article, How can our family set standards for tv viewing?

]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-horror-movies-just-entertainment/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/are-jesus-words-in-mark-1018-a-denial-of-his-divinity/ http://questions.org/attq/are-jesus-words-in-mark-1018-a-denial-of-his-divinity/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:14 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.org/?post_type=attq&p=2989 In Mark 10:18, Jesus asks, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” It would be wrong to interpret Jesus’ words here as a denial of His divinity. He asserted His divine authority in other passages (Matthew 25:31-46; 26:63-64; John 8:58).

No one knows Jesus’ exact reasons for answering the rich young man as He did. By asking him, “Why do you call me good?” Jesus may have been encouraging him to reflect more closely on the evidence of His life.¹ Another possibility is that He was helping the young man to see the futility of human attempts at self-justification through good works. This rich young man was seeking an answer from Jesus that would be humanly possible for him to achieve—some difficult but admirable work that could justify personal pride and self-righteousness. By answering as He did, Jesus made it clear that human works are absolutely inadequate to produce anything “good” in God’s sight (Romans 7:18).

Even though we may not know exactly what Jesus meant, we shouldn’t take one somewhat ambiguous question by Jesus out of context. The Christian faith is not based on questionable interpretations of debatable biblical texts. It is grounded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels frankly show how badly Jesus’ disciples misunderstood Him throughout His life. They thought He would demonstrate His messianic authority by setting up His kingdom on earth. When He was arrested and crucified, they lost hope (Matthew 26:56, 69-75). But Jesus was resurrected, His body miraculously transformed into a new kind of glorious life.

In the face of such a stupendous event, the disciples no longer doubted Jesus’ identity. Thomas, one who was absent when Jesus first appeared and who believed the others’ testimony of His resurrection seemed too good to be true (John 20:25), found himself face-to-face with Jesus. His response was to say simply: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

1. “The question, ‘Why callest thou me good?’ was aimed at leading the young man to consider the true identity of Jesus. It was an indirect assertion of His deity, since goodness or sinlessness is a quality of God alone” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary). Back To Article
]]> http://questions.org/attq/are-jesus-words-in-mark-1018-a-denial-of-his-divinity/feed/ 0 http://questions.org/attq/recent-media-have-claimed-jesus-christ-is-legendary-is-it-true/ http://questions.org/attq/recent-media-have-claimed-jesus-christ-is-legendary-is-it-true/#comments Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 Dan Vander Lugt http://questions.alpha.rbcministries.org//what-should-i-think-of-recent-claims-made-in-the-media-that-jesus-christ-is-legendary-and-never-exis/ What should I think of occasional claims made in the media that Jesus Christ is legendary and never existed?

Anyone can make wild claims about New Testament events. And if they couch their claims in an entertaining way (like the novel The Da Vinci Code or the online movie Zeitgeist),¹ they can be assured lots of attention. But anyone willing to do a little research soon discovers how few genuine, accredited biblical scholars there are—whether Christian believers or unbelievers—who deny that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written between AD 60 and 90 (much too soon for legends about a nonexistent Jesus to take form). This is actually about the time one would expect them to be written, as there would be no need for an authoritative written record of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry while numerous eyewitnesses—including Jesus’ disciples—were still alive. ²

Historians overwhelmingly concede that 1 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul somewhere between ad 53 and 57. In this epistle, written less than 30 years after Jesus’ ministry, Paul declared:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (1 Cor. 15:3-9 NIV).

Paul had formerly been Saul, a militant Pharisee, enemy, and persecutor of the church, converted after a personal encounter with the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 7-9). After his conversion, he established close relationships with many of the other key witnesses of the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, including the apostle Peter, James, and the elders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 9:27-28; Galatians 1:18-19).

One can’t learn the truth about any historical event without a reasonable amount of research, and it shouldn’t surprise us that a confident perspective about one of the most crucial events of history requires the investment of some time and mental energy. The evidence supporting a high view of the historical and theological accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming, but it, like knowledge of any kind, requires a reasonable amount of motivated inquiry.

Historical argument alone cannot force anyone to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But historical argument is remarkably good at clearing away the undergrowth behind which skepticisms of various sorts have been hiding. The proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead possesses unrivaled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity. The obvious fact that this remains hugely challenging at worldview levels—challenging personally, socially, culturally, and politically—ought not put us off from taking the question very seriously (Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright, Jesus, The Final Days, “The Surprise of Resurrection,” p. 105).

Here are some great books that describe the evidence for reliability of the Gospels: Fabricating Jesus by Craig A. Evans; Jesus, The Final Days by Evans and Wright; The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd; The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by Luke Timothy Johnson; Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones. (This list is by no means exhaustive, but it provides a good starting place. See the ATQ article, Why Do Many Western People Doubt the Accuracy of the Gospels?)

1. Although Zeitgeist’s attack on the historicity of the Jesus tradition is uninformed and misguided, it is worth seeing. Back To Article
2. Richard Bauckham notes that in Paul’s statement regarding the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) he “takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses, even extending to a very large number of minor eyewitnesses as well as to such prominent persons as the Twelve and James.” Bauckham continues: “One reason Gospels were written was to maintain this accessibility and function of the eyewitnesses beyond their lifetimes. . . . The Gospels stepped into the role of the eyewitnesses, which they had vacated through death. They interacted with the oral tradition, influencing it, doubtless becoming partially oralized in the form of new oral traditions, but also functioning as the guarantor of the traditions, as the eyewitnesses had in their lifetimes, and as controls on the tradition, making it possible to check its faithfulness to the testimony of the eyewitnesses as now recorded in writing” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, pp. 308-309). Back To Article
]]> http://questions.org/attq/recent-media-have-claimed-jesus-christ-is-legendary-is-it-true/feed/ 0