Dear ARS Subscribers:
It has been a while since we sent out an update. Much has been happening.
The Oakes have a wonderful announcement. Our daughter Kate, a budding Christian apologist herself, has given birth to our first grandchild. Lorraine Ruth Hall was born May 13. Congratulations to Kate and Wes.
New Materials
John Oakes has done a number of apologetics presentations in Manhattan Beach on Daniel, in Santa Barbara on Science and God, in San Diego on the Questions of Evil and Suffering. You will find these posted at the web site. As for brand new materials, he and Pedro Figueroa taught a six week class on Philippians and Colossians. Notes, power point and audio are available at the web site. Also, John did an eight week series of small group studies on the Book of Galatians. The notes are attached here. Galatians Bible Study. In addition, we put on an amazing conference on Grace, “Growing in Grace.” John’s lesson was on Live in Christ. Most of the classes are available at the web site. John’s lesson is here: In Christ Audio Life In Christ PPT
Upcoming Events
ARS will be sponsoring a mini-conference titled “Christianity and Ethics.” The event will be at UCSD on Saturday, Sept. 30. More information will be made available at the web site soon. Topics will include Bioethics, Abortion, Christianity and Warfare, Christianity and Race and more. This will be an all-day conference. It will be worth the trip if you can make it. The registration fee has not been set, but it will be very inexpensive.
We have been getting a lot of questions about when our next ARS Christian Evidence Conference will be. Because we put one on last November, we have decided our next big event will be Summer, 2018. Most likely it will be held in San Diego. Stay tuned.
Travels
John Oakes will be traveling to teach for three weeks beginning June 28 in Nigeria, Cameroon and both the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa). Some of these churches have never had an outside teacher come to teach the Bible. We are still needing some support to pay for travel and would really appreciate any help you can give, as travel is very expensive. Contact Jan at joakes01@san.rr.com or 858-505-8841 if you can help with this or any of our other ARS activities. We could really use your help. If you cannot help financially, please be praying for what will be an arduous trip.
Questions and Answers:
This month we are doing something we have not done for a long time, which is copying and pasting a few of the questions and answers that have been posted recently at the web site. We get a very wide array of questions! If you cannot come to the site weekly, you can always check out the questions of the month on the right side of the front page.
Question:
What happened to the 10 tribes who were taken captives by Assyrians? Did they ever come back?
Answer:
Good question. There have been many speculations about what happened to the ten “lost” tribes of Israel. The answer is that our knowledge is a bit limited. Besides, it is most likely a complicated tale.
First of all, it is not clear that there were ten tribes “lost” at all. Significant numbers from Levi, Simeon and Daniel almost certainly were living in Judah. If we add these to Benjamin and Judah, then there were at least four, and probably five tribes who were not fully deported by the Assyrians.
Add to this, when the Assyrians imported other peoples into what had been Samaria, creating what became the Samaritans, the fact is that this new people were semi-Jewish. They continued to use the Pentateuch and claimed direct descent from Israel, as is shown by the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Therefore, we can conclude that not all of the tribes living in Samaria at the time of the deportation were exiled, and some may have come back in the intervening years. The Samaritans seem to have been a mixed race, and that mix almost certainly included some from those supposed “lost” tribes.
Even if I am right, these former members of Issachar, Menassah, Ephraim, Naphtali and others seem to have lost at least some of their identity. We no longer see evidence of an identifiable group known as Reubenites or Gadites. So, even if their descendants held on to a form of their Jewish religion, to the extent that they lost their tribal affiliation, to the same extent the tribes became lost–perhaps not literally, but culturally.
I am not the expert in this–not even close–but as far as I know, there is very little known about where the exiles from the Northern Kingdom were taken. This is quite different than the exiles from Judea. We know that the exiles taken by Nebuchadnezzar settled in Mesopotamia and we have much literature from these Mesopotamian Jews. We also know when they came back, and even the names of many of the returnees from Judah, Levi and Benjamin. So, what did happen to those exiled by Sennacherib? Exactly where did they go and how many of them returned to the former Samaria? I am afraid that we will have to settle for not having a clear answer to this question. One suggestion is that many of these Jews migrated to Judah in 722 BC when Sennacherib conquered Samaria. There is some evidence for this, as we know Jerusalem grew greatly at this time, requiring Hezekiah to add an additional wall to the city of Jerusalem and to seek an additional water source for the growing population.
Jewish scholars tell us that many of them assimilated into the pagan tribes in Assyria. Probably this is true as well.
To summarize:
1. The number of tribes “lost” is not ten. It is more like seven or eight.
2. Probably many never actually left the region of Samaria.
3. Probably others returned from their exile. (evidence for 2. and 3. is found in the Samaritan people themselves)
4. Still others migrated to Judah.
5. Perhaps the single biggest number were assimilated into the pagan cultures into which they were taken.
John Oakes
Question:
I’ve heard Muslims saying that the Qur’an is the word of God since it contains a lot of scientific miracles in the sense that it gives information about the scientific facts that were discovered after the creation of Islam. For instance, in Sura 39:6 it is mentioned that in a mother’s womb there are threefold darknesses. Muslims interpret this as the embryonic stages of an infant. In Sura 21:33, the orbit of planets in space is mentioned. In 2:29, the fact that God had arranged everything that he created into to “seven heavens” is mentioned, which could be viewed as the seven layers of the atmosphere. There are many more examples if you check out this website- http://www.missionislam.com.
I have a reason to object the to Muslims’ claim that the Qur’an is the word of God despite the scientific facts. Let me tell you my reason. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, it is mentioned that Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light, and it is mentioned in Ezekiel 28:12 that Satan is full of wisdom. Now Islam is a religion that distorts Jesus’s accomplishments in order to save us from our bondage to sin. His accomplishment is something that drives Satan crazy! So, perhaps Satan himself was the one who came as the angel Jibrael/Gabriel (an angel of light) and started giving revelations to Muhammed. And if it is so, we can conclude that the Qur’an contains such scientific facts because Satan himself is full of wisdom. Maybe Satan knew that giving out so much knowledge would help him get many people to believe in a false religion. I would like to know what you think of this.
Answer:
Whether the Qur’an is the result of Satan speaking to Muhammad or whether it is Muhammad’s own imagination, or the invention of a religious genius, or even if it is a schizophrenic illusion I simply cannot say.
What I can say is that there is no legitimate sign of scientific wisdom in the Qu’ran, so there is also no need to propose that Satan gave Muhammad real scientific knowledge. The examples Muslim apologists use are a HUGE stretch of the imagination. These are ad hoc biased interpretations of vague statements whose meaning is wholly unclear.
Is the statement that a woman’s womb has a threefold darkness evidence of scientific wisdom? I simply do not see this at all in this passage. Here is the passage in translation: He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted? Is this evidence for inspiration? Hmmm…. It says here that Allah produced us from the grazing of eight livestock mates. Interesting. What are these three darknesses? Are these a reference to some actual physical reality? I suppose so in the imagination of Muslim apologists. Which is darkness #1? Does this passage help us out? If this is the best “evidence” for the inspiration of the Qur’an, it is fantastically weak evidence, in my opinion. It is a highly speculative, biased, convenient ad hoc interpretation of the passage.
As for Sura 21:33, here it is in translation: And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming. I DEFINITELY do not see scientific wisdom here. It contains a clear statement that the sun and the moon orbit the earth. This is false. In fact, the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. Notice, that the Bible does not contain such obvious scientific errors. It is odd that Muslims would try to use this as evidence of scientific reliability of the Qur’an!
And what about Sura 2:29. Here it is in translation: It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things. In what world is this evidence for inspiration of the Qur’an? This reflects the false cosmology of the time, with its seven levels of heaven, which is clearly NOT true. Probably some Muslim apologist somewhere finds a book on atmospheric sciences that divide the atmosphere arbitrarily into seven layers. Of course, another author divides it into five and still another into four or eight. Is this evidence of inspiration or is it evidence that Muhammad believed in the false cosmology of his day? Notice, there is nothing like this in the Bible. This supposed “evidence” for the inspiration of the Qur’an is in fact evidence that it is not inspired.
Therefore, my conclusion is that we do not need to seek an explanation for this supposed evidence for scientific truth in the Qur’an because there is NO EVIDENCE here of inspired scientific knowledge. In fact, the verses quoted are strong evidence that the Qur’an is not inspired, but that, unlike the Bible, it reflects the false cosmology Muhammad learned from his culture.
John Oakes
Question:
How should I respond to someone who holds to the “young earth” theory that states that the universe is only 7000 years old because the genesis account was not written with any figurative language in it and that the bible means the literal definition of the Hebrew word for day as the 24 hour cycle?
Answer:
How do we communicate with young-earth creationists on this? Good question. I will admit that the literal interpretation is the more obvious one based on the language alone. Let’s be honest about this. When the Genesis writer says “evening and morning, the first day,” this makes the literal interpretation, at least at first glance, seem the more obvious one. I agree that the young-earthers have a reasonable point to make from this. It is also true that the language is not obviously metaphorical. However, the rules of interpretation (also known as hermeneutics) allows for a metaphorical interpretation when the context demands it, even when it is not obvious. For example, when it says in the Bible that God reached down his hand to lift us up, the word hand does not appear metaphorical. The sentence itself appears, if taken by itself, to be literal, but all of us know that it is metaphorical. Why? Because we know for other reasons that God does not have a literal hand. The fact that the words used in Genesis 1 are not obviously metaphorical does not rule out a metaphorical interpretation. It depends on other factors, such as what the Bible says elsewhere and what we know from other sources, including from our own experiences. When Daniel is told about seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24, we know from the context, even though weeks appears to be literal, that they are in fact metaphorical and that the 490 days is actually 490 years. The context, and the historical facts demand a metaphorical interpretation of these weeks. We assume that when it says in Acts 1 that Jesus was lifted up in the area that this is literal, as it is the only reasonable interpretation.
As for Genesis 1, whether it is literal or metaphorical with regard to the time of these days is NOT obvious. The fact is that the most famous Jewish biblical interpreter of the first century, Philo, interpreted these days metaphorically—he believed they represented periods over which God worked. So did Origen and Augustine—the two most important theologians of the early church. So, whether these “days” are literal 24 hour periods or not, biblically, is an open question.
It is open, that is, until we come to the facts of science, which surely and without any possibility of reasonable debate, show that creation occurred over vast periods of time. If we consider the typical ancient Near Eastern style of writing, the metaphorical interpretation is made even more likely. Bottom line, the purpose of the writer of the Genesis account was to establish a theology of God. Whether the account has historical value is perhaps an open question, but that the principal intent of the writer was to tell us about God, not the details of the actual physical creation is accepted by all, including our young-earth friends. If the intent of the creation account is to introduce us to God, and not to give a detailed historical account, then, again, whether the days are metaphorical or not is to be decided by context and historical information.
But when we turn to the science, the question is answered for us. There is literally no possible way to squeeze the formation of the earth, the passage of light from a galaxy 2 billion light years away, the deposition of thousands of feet of sediment and fossils, the creation and later destruction of a vast array of species such as trilobites and dinosaurs and many, many other facts of geology and cosmology into just six days. Attempts by young-earth believers to make the six days fit the science are absolutely doomed. In fact, they require us to deny the science—to be anti-scientific. Biblically, the interpretation of these days is an open question. This is a FACT, as demonstrated by the debate among faithful believers throughout history. But the science points unmistakably to the conclusion that the “days” of Genesis 1 are metaphorical, at least in the time span implied. The fact that the words used are not obviously symbolic does not determine the interpretation, although our young earth friends want us to believe this. I could give dozens of other examples beyond the one above about God’s “hand.” The young earth position is compatible with biblical theology, but it is not compatible with what we know from the physical world. As Galileo put it, “The Bible was written to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” This applies well to the Genesis creation account. Could your young-earth friends be correct? If so, then they must conclude that God created the earth with an appearance of age for reasons of his own choosing, but we should not claim that it appears young simply because it does not appear young.
That is how I would respond to my young earth friends. But please remember that this is not a salvation issue, and please to not insist that your young earth friends change their minds. We can be in fellowship with one another and disagree on this relatively unimportant question of the age of the earth.
John Oakes
[Editor’s note: I have had a lot of positive interaction with Roman Catholic believers, but I also get a lot of comments accusing this web site of being anti-Catholic and biased against that viewpoint. Normally, I simply respond respectfully, but I wanted to give a more complete response and publish it as an article, so here it is. J. O.]
Question/Comments:
Why are you misinforming the public about the Holy Catholic Church? I see that you state priests wearing vestments is unbiblical? How wrong you are. God commanded they be used in the Old testament. ‘For your brother Aaron you will make SACRED VESTMENTS to give dignity and magnificence…they will use gold and violet material , red purple and crimson and finely woven linen.” I can give you Scripture to refute all the other false claims you made as well! You are Protestant and have no authority to interpret Holy Scripture. Protestants are not in communion with the Church Christ established. Matt. 16-18. The Holy Catholic church GOVERNS Christianity and has for over 2000 years., The Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Christian Bible that YOU have in your home. The Catholic church put together the New testament. The Catholic church is the ONLY CHRISTIAN Church. The eastern Orthodox church is NOT in communion with the Holy See. The Catholic church decided what went into the Holy Bible and what stayed out! The Catholic church is the LARGEST CHRISTIAN Church on the planet! Protestants have created over 40,000 denominations (you) because of pride and arrogance. Protestantism is unbiblical. Christ established ONE CHURCH, ONE TRUTH. How can “Truth” be found in your chaotic Protestant church? Your false Protestant church allows gay marriage, Abortion, gay women ministers! Shocking! Why do you ignore the early Church Fathers who believed in the Eucharist, the unique role of Mary, the Sacraments, the authority of the Pope? The Church Fathers were taught by the apostles. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Early Church Father A.D. 110. You are ridiculous.
Response:
First of all, You accuse me of misinforming people. You prove this using the example of the use of special vestments by priests. My response is that for me to say that the Roman Catholic Church practices the use of special vestments for priests is not misinformation. It is fact.
Second, you say that my claim is “misinformation” because I am falsely claiming this practice is unbiblical. My claim that it is unbiblical is a statement of opinion. This is an opinion and an opinion, by definition, cannot be misinformation. Now, you may disagree with whether it is biblical, but it certainly is not misinforming. Instead or falsely accusing me of misinforming people about your church, perhaps what you should say is that you do not agree with my characterization that the use of special vestments for a special class of “priests” is not biblical.
OK, so let me respond to this. First of all, the fact that the high priest of the Jews, governed by the Old Testament, wore a special garment (and the regular priests did as well), is not evidence that this practice is biblical. Here is why. We, as Christians, are governed by the commandments in the New Covenant, as found in the New Testament. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), and we are no longer governed by such laws (Colossians 2:13-19). In fact, in the Colossians passages just cited, we are specifically told that we are no longer required to observe sabbaths and other holy days, as legislated in the Law of Moses. The fact that a special class of priests (which we do not have on Christianity) wore vestments under the Law of Moses is quite simply NOT evidence that Christians ought to do this. They also sacrificed bulls and goats and prohibited the eating of pork. These practices are not carried into Christianity.
So, if Christians are to have a special class of priests who are to be wearing special vestments, this can only be supported from the New Testament. The problem is that the New Testament definitely does NOT support this practice. There is no passage in the New Testament which even suggests this practice. In fact, Jesus criticized the Pharisees in Matthew 7, in part, for wearing special phylacteries to mark them out as super-spiritual. Besides, what is a clear teaching in the New Testament is that all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9 look at the context, in which this is clearly applied to all followers of Jesus, and as prophesied in Exodus 19:6). Therefore, the entire idea of a separate special priesthood is not biblical, never mind the Roman Catholic practice of them wearing special vestments. Add to this the FACT (and this is a fact, not an opinion) that in the first three centuries the leaders of the church definitely did not wear such vestments. This did not begin until the late fourth century when Christian bishops began to follow Roman examples of pagan priests wearing special vestments. Therefore, the wearing of special vestments are clearly an innovation, and not part of what was taught or practiced by the apostles. The Roman Catholic practice of wearing vestments is not an apostolic practice, and this is a matter of historical record. The scripture and church history prove beyond any doubt that the wearing of special vestments by a special class of supposed priests is both unbiblical and proved by history to be an innovation.
So, your statement that I gave misinformation regarding the wearing of vests is simply untrue and if you are claiming that it is right and biblical for Roman priests to do so, then this is disproved by both the Bible and history. It seems that the thrust of your argument is that whatever the Roman Catholic Church does, is, by definition, right, even if the Bible and history indicates that it is not. Well, personally, I am not at all comfortable with this approach. I believe that ANY church which does unbiblical things, whether they are Roman Catholics, or Greek Orthodox. or Egyptian Copts, or Lutherans or Baptists or Anglicans there is no difference, it is still wrong for them to do these things. The only authoritative source of truth we have is the scriptures.
By the way, I definitely am not a Protestant. Why do you even make this claim? You apparently do not even know the Christian group to which I belong. Protestants are a believers who trace their roots to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. I definitely do NOT acknowledge the authority of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli or John Calvin. I am a New Testament Christian with no direct connection to the Protestant Reformation. If you want to label me, perhaps you should ask me what my religious heritage and ask me to tell you what I am rather than use a label on a person you do not even know. Catholic and Protestant are not the only two options. So, if you want to know my background, please feel free to ask.
Not only am I not a Protestant, I have often taught in public forums that I believe Roman Catholic theology is on many points closer to biblical theology than traditional Protestant theology. So, please do not label me a Protestant. I have had many positive interactions with my Roman Catholic friends in which we find common ground against typical Protestant beliefs such as faith only or predestination or praying Jesus into one’s heart and many more. In fact, just two weeks ago I was in India in front of a Christian group before which I stated my opinion that on purely theological grounds the Roman Catholic Church is closer to biblical theology than most of Protestantism.
Let me ignore the false label of Protestantism for a moment. You say that I have no authority to interpret the Scripture. Where, I might ask, does the authority to interpret scripture rest, biblically? When Paul preached to the people in Berea in Acts 17, he commended them for checking what he said against the scripture to see if it was true. Who had the authority in this case? The idea that a particular hierarchy of a particular church has all authority to interpret scripture has no scriptural basis. Who has this supposed authority? Why not the Greek Orthodox Church, with which you strongly disagree on many points? You mention Ignatius. I guarantee that what he taught and practiced is considerably closer to Greek Orthodox and practice that Roman Catholic practice. Who says that the primate of the Coptic Church in Egypt has no authority? His church goes back to the beginning as much as yours, and the church in Alexandria was almost certainly established before that in Rome. The idea that authority is held by a single church or a single hierarchy was not even proposed when Ignatius lived. You are putting words in Ignatius’ mouth. He did say that “Where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,” but if you put this statement in context, he definitely was NOT talking about the Roman Catholic Church, which did not even exist when he was alive. Back then, the “Catholic Church” was the Church, of which Rome was one of many relatively independent churches. In the second century there was no head bishop. At that time authority was found in the scriptures alone, but was confirmed by consensus of many bishops, not by a pope. The thing you are describing, with a hierarchy in Rome, and a pope in Rome is not what Ignatius was talking about. Did the apostles have a special authority, as ordained by Jesus? Yes. Was this authority delegated to those who came afterward? Church history says no, and there is zero biblical indication that this authority was handed to the next generation of leaders. I am sorry, but to an outsider your attitude seems to be that everything you believe is right by definition, simply because your group believes it. This is a height of arrogance which should not be tolerated by Christians in general.
“The Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian Church.” This is statement of great arrogance and it flies in the face of history. What about the Greek Orthodox? On what basis are they excluded from Christianity? You say that the Orthodox are going to hell because they are not submitting to the Roman Church. The Greek Orthodox says that you are going to hell because you do not submit to the patriarch in Constantinople. Where is the basis, historically or biblically for deciding who is correct? The answer is that there is no basis for this whatsoever, unless it is by referring to the authority of the divinely inspired scripture. Simply saying something does not make it true and it appears that your strongest argument is simply saying it is true, as if this was an argument. I need evidence from somewhere other than your inner circle to support this statement. What scripture excludes them? What about a person who simply reads the Bible, understands it, responds to it, repents and is baptized. Are they not a Christian and are they therefore going to hell simply because they never heard of the pope? Seriously? Where does the Bible say that an ordained priest must perform this baptism? This exclusivistic statement is a sign of a person who is basing their conclusion on a preconception they gained from their own group, certainly not on a reading of the Bible.
From there, your argument devolves into what I can only describe as an angry unchristian diatribe. You tell me that I am a Protestant who teaches that homosexuality is OK (although, as your pope as rightly pointed out, we should still love those who struggle with this sin). Excuse me, but this is a very unchristian thing for you to do. First of all, I am not a Protestant and secondly, I teach and have always taught that homosexuality is a sin and is not to be accepted in Christianity at all. Period. How could you say such an unkind and untrue thing about me? My church does not allow for homosexuality, for abortion, for divorce or for women preachers. All of your accusations are purely false ones. How could you make such a charge against a person and against a church when you do not even know if they are true? Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you. I suggest you follow his admonition.
You prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church by arguing that it is the largest church. This is not a logical argument. Besides, in the first several centuries, even as the Roman Catholic Church emerged, it certainly was not the largest. The Jacobite Church and the Greek Church has many more members that the Roman Church in the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries. If your argument is based on size, then your claim that the Orthodox Church left the faith is disproved. Please do not base your argument on the size of your group. This is really not even an argument.
You then argue based on the fact that there are so many Protestant groups and that this is confusing. I will grant you the truth of this description, but this does not make your group the “right” group. The fact that some Christian believers rightly returned the basis for authority to the Bible, and not to a particular Christian hierarchy, does automatically raise the possibility of a plurality of groups, but this was a good thing (allowing individuals to read and understand the Bible), even if it did, unfortunately, lead to division that God himself hates. In fact, any group can say that they are the only ones, point out that there are many other groups, and use this fact as proof that they are right. Only an insider would accept such a clearly illogical argument.
By the way, the early church fathers in the first three centuries did NOT give any special role to Mary at all. I suggest you read the actual history rather than biased accounts which ignore the history. The earliest evidence for veneration of Mary comes from about the sixth century, and certainly not from any Christian teacher for the first four hundred years of Christianity. So, I am afraid that if you want to admonish obeying the biblical pattern or the pattern of the primitive church, you might want change your statement about Mary. I taught a lesson about Mary just the other day in which I praised her and identified her as a person of a faith as great as that of Abraham and Noah, but she is never given a place of veneration in any Christian writing in the first four hundred years of Christianity. This is a plain fact. If you want to revere Mary, that is your business, but do not try to tell me that this practice is either biblical or supported by the primitive church, because this is contravened by fact.
As for ignoring the “authority of the pope,” the word pope was not even used before the fourth century of the bishop in Rome, but it was not until the fifth century, under Leo that anything even remotely like the modern pope existed. So, I would prefer, again, to follow the biblical pattern which does not mention a pope and the pattern of the primitive apostolic church, which does not mention anything even remotely like a pope, than your proposal that I follow the non-biblical pope of the Roman Catholic Church. If you choose to submit to him, that is your choice, but there is no warrant for this in the Bible.
My last point. You end by calling me ridiculous. Well, that is an unchristian thing for you to do. It is unkind, ungracious and uncalled for. You do not even know me. Using profanatory labels is something Jesus never did and I suggest that if you want to be a spokesperson for Roman Catholicism, in the future you should refrain from using fighting words, but should behave like Jesus, about whom Isaiah said (Isaiah 42:3) “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.”
In Christ,
John Oakes
