The Law is Just (Pt. 1): Does Exodus 22:3-6 Condone the Splitting of Slave Families?

This is going to be the first installment in a series of blog posts I am titling "The Law is Just." The title pretty much summarizes my goal. I am going to be examining the case laws of the Old Testament in order to demonstrate that they are 1) completely reasonable in their ancient near-eastern context, and 2) are fully in line with the realities of a sinful people living amidst a holy God.

I am going to kick off this series by examining the first controversial case law one might come across if they are reading through the Torah. That is Exodus 21:3-6:

"If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:3-6 NKJV)

In many people's eyes, it is clear enough that the Bible "condones" slavery, which is problematic in light of what happened in this country's first century, and texts like this seem to only make matters worse for the Bible's credibility in our land. Does this text teach that slave families can be broken up, or that the institution is viewed as more important than marriage?

In answering that question we first need to consider three truths about Old Testament case laws, and case laws in general.

1) The purpose of case laws is always to give a real-life example of a principle of justice. Case laws are not rigid. Remember, Hebrew is more a visual language than it is an analytic language. It is great for story telling or writing narratives. Therefore, case laws often give us a "story" or an example of a principle of justice which can then be applied to other situations in a similar context. Remember, most of these laws would have to be memorized by judges, as well as the people, in order to be applied to the various situations of life. Because of that, they often deal with "worst case scenarios," or often give the maximum penalty for a crime, while not necessarily implying that the maximum penalty must be enforced.

2) The Old Testament has a very high view of civil restitution. The "eye for an eye" principle is used when it comes to restitution. This is not the same as the Code of Hammurabi, as the Old Testament does not, for example, prescribe that one should poke out their neighbors eye if he poked out yours. "Eye for an eye" was a euphemism in the time and place of the Old Testament for equity. When it came to property disputes, the principle was "eye for an eye."

3) Slavery in the Old Testament is a form of civil restitution. It is commonly referred to as "debt-bondage" slavery. If someone had gone into debt, they could pay off their debt by going into slavery for a time (or if they were not able, to sell their son or daughter). In fact, the verses immediately prior to our text state, "Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exodus 21:1,2 NKJV). If slaves were injured by their Master they were to be set free, and paid restitution (Ex. 21:26,27). Lifelong slavery only occurred with POWs and, as the last verse of our text recounts, with those who volunteered for it. Slaves were not to be treated as sub-human, however, their rights were somewhat limited. For example, while an injured slave was to be set free, if they were killed, the text says that their master was just to be "punished," without specifying the death penalty which is the normal penalty for murder (Ex. 21:20). Slavery was a regulated institution, and slaves had a certain amount of rights, but it in no way was meant to be a desirable institution. God did not want to make it look like an easy way out. God's people were to avoid debt (Prov. 11:51; 17:18; 22:7; 22:26,27; 27:13).

So case laws often give us a narrative of "worst case scenario," the Old Testament is strong on civil restitution, and slaves, while protected, were put in a lower social position. How do these principles help us in interpreting Ex. 22:3-6?

First, we must recognize, that the verse immediately prior to our text specifies that slaves were ordinarily only to serve for 6 years. The assumption is that if someone was a slave for life, they volunteered for it, and our text gives instructions on how a husband might do that if he married a woman who had already done that. Clearly, the implication is that the wife had voluntarily made herself a slave prior to their relationship. Keeping point 3) in mind, this meant that she agreed to that social position because, while it took away some of her rights, she saw it as a position providing security. Notice the hypothetical husband himself says that he "loves his master." This is clearly a master who loves his slaves, and takes good care of them. Keeping in mind point 1), clearly the implication is that if the wife was only a slave for a 6 year period, and he was released early, he had to either stay with her, or wait until she was released. That may sound harsh or cruel, but keeping in mind point 2), usually the slave is in debt to their master, and the Mosaic law has a high view of civil restitution. You must pay what you owe, to the full. However, nowhere in the text does it say the master has to follow these rules. If they desired to be merciful and let them go together, they were at liberty to do so. Compared to other ancient near-east slave codes, the Hebrews Scriptures are far above the norm, and protect from chattel slavery and other inhumane abuses. The law is just.

This text does not condone breaking up of slave families, in fact, the first few verses speak against this. The issue here is a "worst case scenario" where a debt-bondage slave marries a voluntary life-long slave. In that case, he can only stay with her if he becomes one as well, because she belongs to her master. Knowing this case law, the debt-bondage slave would have known what he was getting into marrying her. And the implication in the text is that the master is a kind and just one as well.

But that isn't the whole story. You see Christ not only "married" us in our slavery, he also then elevated us to being sons and daughters of God, as he was the Son of the master over the household.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’” (Heb. 10:5-7)

The book of Hebrews here is actually quoting Psalm 40:6, which in the hebrew literally says, "ears you have dug for me" where the book of Hebrews says "a body you have prepared for me." The image in the Psalm is of a slave becoming a life-long servant through having his ears dug with an awl, just as Exodus 21 prescribes. Hebrews 10 compares Christ's incarnation to this same voluntary servitude. You see, it's as if Christ said, "I love my Father, I love my bride, and I love my children," just as the husband does in Exodus 21. Therefore, Jesus became like one of us, yet without sin. He entered into our sin and servitude, paid for our sins, and provides the infinite work that we owe to God, in order to be with us and redeem us. Exodus 21 ultimately points to Jesus, who is the husband over the Church.

"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Gal. 4:4-7 NKJV)

Dr. Richard Pratt on the Claim that the Bible Contradicts Itself

1) "The unbeliever has not examined the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has not simply misunderstood a passage which he thinks is contradictory. It is often the case that non-Christians call passages contradictory when just a little reflection shows them to be quite harmonious.

2) The unbeliever cannot examine the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has exhausted all the possible explanations of his so-called contradiction.

3) Until he can say with absolute certainty that there are contradictions in the Bible he cannot reject biblical authority on this basis." (Richard Pratt, Every Thought Captive, pg. 113

The thing I like about this response is that it is simple, honest, and addresses the skeptic right where he is at. Rather than allowing them to dictate terms out of their relative ignorance, points 1 & 2 demonstrate that according to their own standard of knowledge, they are overreaching. And indeed, some of the "Bible contradictions" I have been confronted with before, betray that very ignorance.

The Psychology of the POMO Sexual Revolution

As I mentioned in a previous post, the speed and aggression in which our culture is changing its sexual "mores," is simply a sign that our culture is under the wrath of God, and that we are witnessing Romans 1 before our very eyes. Yet I recognize that it would be very easy to read that statement and simply see it as an over-generalization at best, or as self-righteous pessimism at worst. Now of course, God's Word is to be trusted, and Romans 1 certainly applies to where we are at; but is there more going on in our cultural situation than the suppression of truth and the curse of God? Well yes, and no. If we look at the big picture, it certainly does not go beyond those twin realities. However, if we look closer at how our culture arrived at its position, and then compare that to what other Scriptures have to say about this subject, it is quite eye opening. In fact, not only will we find a sweeping condemnation of our culture's most cherished values, but we will also find that most American Christians stand under that same umbrella of values as well. So what am I referring to?

Well, recently I have been rereading Rosaria Butterfield's Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, with my wife. For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Butterfield is a former tenured English professor from Syracuse University, as well as a former lesbian activist. The book is subtitled, "An English Professor's Journey into the Christian Faith." She now is the wife of an RPCNA pastor and a homeschooling mother. I highly recommend her book, as obviously she has an insight or two into what is behind our modern sexual attitudes. In chapter two, she recounts the details of her conversion and presents a very insightful commentary on Ezekiel 16:48-50. In fact, Ezekiel 16 is often used by homosexual activists to argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but a lack of hospitality and piety. The text says:

“As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ezekiel 16:48-50 NKJV)

However, Mrs. Butterfield demonstrates that the message of this text is not mutually exclusive to the sin of Sodom being homosexuality. In fact, it actually fleshes out the mechanics of what Romans 1 is talking about. She writes:

"[...] We read here that the root of homosexuality is also the root of a myriad of other sins. First, we find pride ("[Sodom] and her daughters had pride"). Why pride? Pride is the root of all sin. Pride puffs one up with a false sense of independence. Proud people always feel that they can live independently from God and from other people. Proud people feel entitled to do what they want when they want to [...] Second, we find wealth ("fullness of food") and an entertainment-driven worldview ("abundance of idleness") [...] Third, we find lack of mercy (neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy") [...] Fourth, we find lack of discretion and modesty ("they were haughty and committed abominations before Me"). Pride combined with wealth leads to idleness because you falsely feel that God just wants you to have fun; if unchecked this sin will grow into entertainment-driven lust; if unchecked, this sin will grow into hardness of heart that declares other people's problems no responsibility or care of your own; if unchecked, we become bold in our sin and feel entitled to live selfish lives fueled by the twin values of our culture: acquiring and achieving [...] You might notice that there is nothing inherently sexual about any of these sins: pride, wealth, entertainment-driven focus, lack of mercy, lack of modesty." (Butterfield, Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, Pgs. 657-658 (Kindle Ed.))

Indeed there is nothing sexual about these sins. But they are exactly what lies at the root of POMO sexuality. I found her comments on being "entertainment-driven" to be the most insightful, as many have argued that Television and digital media are the driving force behind Postmodernism. In fact, it is that cultural channel of communication (TV), which has been the most effective in promoting POMO sexuality. Many conservative social commentators have pointed to the fact that almost every Television show and movie now includes a likable gay character or an "equal rights" sympathetic theme. In a culture of ease and entertainment, it is easy to convince people to accept a behavior if you consistently represent it in a positive light, through their favorite means of amusement. After all, if life is all about having fun and enjoying oneself "in a positive way," than what could possibly be wrong with a behavior that is consistently portrayed in such a manner. Indeed, the interweaving of these POMO cultural values, with POMO sexuality, is practically indistinguishable. Butterfield goes on to conclude:

"Sexuality isn't about what we do in bed. Sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires. Sexuality is more a symptom of our life's condition than a cause, more a consequence than an origin." (Ibid., Pg 658 (Kindle))

Rejection of God's authority, and pride, go hand in hand. Out of that disposition men seek refuge and relief in the creation, and worship it above God. They then are driven to extremes to find the satisfaction in the world, which only God can give. Ezekiel 16 and Romans 1 are two sides of the same coin. But it is not just pagans who live this way. Christians are certainly not off the hook here. If we are honest with ourselves, these same underlying values motivate us as well. They just don't manifest themselves (yet) in the acceptance of POMO sexuality. (The shifting attitudes of evangelical college students, as documented here could be a hint of what is to come). For example, these same cultural values, which we often have conformed to, have lead us to fundamentally change our worship in ways that our forefathers would find abominable. DG Hart does an excellent job of comparing the motivations behind POMO sexuality to the motivations behind POMO worship, here. The cultural values that Butterfield exposes, are the exact same values that have warped our understanding of the first table of the law, just as much as it has warped the surrounding culture's understanding of the second table of the law.

We are inescapably a part of the surrounding culture, and if we aren't thoughtful about how we interact with it, we may find ourselves enveloped with it, and mirroring it. Sure, maybe in a slightly different manner, but the substance is the same. So as our culture continues to go the route that it is, we must not be content with simply resisting external manifestations of idolatrous cultural behavior. No, we must get under the surface and really understand what is making the culture tick, not only so that we can resist it in the world and in ourselves, but also so that we can better understand our neighbors and more effectively communicate the Gospel to them. As butterfield says "sexuality encompasses a whole range of needs, demands, and desires." Those are what need to be addressed, and we must do so convincingly and compassionately.

On Rocks and Omnipotence

A popular retort frequently given to the Christian worldview is the question, "can God create a rock so big that even He couldn't lift it?" When I first heard this sound bite, to be perfectly honest, I pretty much scratched my head and couldn't quite get what the point was. Most people have heard this objection before, whether they be Christian or not. It has actually become a popular response to the transcendental argument for God's existence, which I've personally observed, or observed others using in debate. When skeptics are pressed with the fact that only God gives the necessary preconditions for the laws of logic, they quickly run to the "rock dilemma" in order to supposedly demonstrate that God Himself is unintelligible and self-contradictory. It goes something like this:

Question: Can God create a rock so big, that even he cannot lift it?

Premise: If God is omnipotent, that means he can do anything.

Answer 1) God can't create a rock that is so big that He can't lift it.

Implication 1a) Then God can't "do" everything.

Answer 2) God can create a rock so big that He can't lift it.

Implication 2a) Then He's not omnipotent

Conclusion: God's omnipotence is self-contradictory, thus making God's existence impossible. Therefore, God does not exist.

Initially this might sound impressive, but it is actually a house of cards. Let's set aside the Clark/Van Til controversy, on whether or not God is bound by the laws of logic, as that discussion isn't even necessary here. Supposedly, the unbeliever here has found incoherence in the attributes of God, namely, in the very definition of "omnipotence." However, what has happened here is that they have simply stacked the deck by redefining omnipotence in their premise. If you look back at the premise, omnipotence is being vaguely defined as the belief that "God can do anything." However, is that really what the definition of omnipotence is?

The answer is no. Omni, literally means "all" or "universal," whereas potent means "power," "influence," or "effect." Remember in science class when we learned about "potential energy?" Similar concept. So omnipotence literally means that God has all, or unlimited power, or force. So by definition, if God is omnipotent, than no object could ever be beyond His power. This is logically consistent, and perfectly understandable. However, by redefining "omnipotence" as the ability to "do anything," and not as referring specifically to force/power, the unbeliever gives himself wiggle room for a bait-and-switch. What do I mean? Well lets look back at the question, with a clearer definition of omnipotence.

Premise: If God has unlimited power, then nothing he creates can be beyond his power.

Answer: God could never create a rock beyond his power.

Conclusion: Uhm, what's the point again?

See, the skeptic is trying to claim that God's omnipotence leads to a contradiction. But all they have done is a bait-and-switch by including a contradiction in the demands of omnipotence, and then they cover it up with a pliable definition ("he can do anything"). In other words, they are demanding that God show he has unlimited power, by having limited power (being able to to create a rock so big, etc...). This makes no sense, and is definitely not a standard set by the divine attribute of omnipotence. So instead of setting forth the incoherent premise "if God has unlimited power, he must have limited power," they instead frame it as "if God has unlimited power, he must be able to do anything." That latter phrase, "he must be able to do anything," is left undefined and can pertain to all sorts of things beyond power/potency. In this case, it's a cover for them demanding He be able do something which contradicts the very concept of having unlimited power! It makes no sense. God's attributes do not lead to contradictions, but to clarity. The unbeliever includes a hidden contradiction in their premise, in order to make the conclusions appear contradictory.

If unbelievers really want to be wowed by what God is able to do, they should examine the two natures of Christ. That doctrine certainly transcends our created understanding of logic without contradicting it. We would expect that if the eternal, transcendent God of Scripture has condescended to man, he would introduce concepts that would stretch our finite apprehensions. The doctrine of the incarnation does just that. The second person of the Trinity took a human nature onto his divine nature, and united the two, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved," as the Chalcedonian Creed tells us. Find the largest rock that man is able to lift, and Jesus in His human nature could go no further. In fact, not only was Jesus limited in His human nature, but He Himself was also crushed by a much heavier weight. The weight of God's wrath. And He did it to redeem cosmic rebels, who make up silly syllogisms in order to escape their responsibility and guilt.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." (Is 53:10)

Christ is Risen!

NT Wright, in one of the final chapters of The Resurrection of the Son of God concludes:

"The historical datum now before us is a widely held, consistently shaped and highly influential belief: that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead. This belief was held by virtually all the early Christians for whom we have evidence. It was at the centre of their characteristic praxis, narrative, symbol and belief; it was the basis of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah and lord, their insistence that the creator god had inaugurated the long-awaited new age, and above all their hope for their future bodily resurrection. The question we now face is obvious: what caused this belief in the resurrection of Jesus?" (Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg 685

The answer to that question is obvious. Christ is risen! He is the first-fruits of the final resurrection, the Savior and Lord of all believers, and the inauguration of the New Heavens and the New Earth. He is the risen Messiah. And we know this for certain because 1) The Word of God declares it 2) The Holy Spirit assures us of it 3) General Revelation (in this case, the historical discipline) strongly testifies to point 1 and 2 (as NT Wright thoroughly demonstrates in his work).

As we all celebrate today, let's remember that the special emphasis which we often place on this day, ought to spill over to every Lord's day, and through that, to every day of our lives.

Easter and the Problem of Evil

This weekend Christians of various stripes are celebrating the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The history of the Church bears out that Christians place more stock in the celebration of the death of Christ than His birth. There would be something morbid about this if we were merely celebrating the crucifixion of a great religious teacher that took place over two thousand years ago. As celebrations go, usually we are more concerned with the birth of a great person than with his death. But Christ is not an ordinary person. Don't get me wrong; He was fully human. He had a true body and a reasonable soul, but His humanity was personally united to the divine nature of the Son of God. Two natures came together in an intimate union that neither added to nor took away from either nature in order to form one person, Jesus Christ. We celebrate this incarnation during the Advent Season. But Christ came to fulfill a greater purpose. He came, as the angel promised, to "save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21). In other words, Christ death was an accomplishment; it was suffering and death like no other. And His suffering and death did not spell the end of  His life, but the realization of all true life.

Many atheists and agnostics cite the so-called problem of evil as the ultimate defeater of Christian belief. If there is an all-powerful God who is also all-good, whence the existence of evil (or some similar argument)? Since it is claimed that this is an inexplicable conundrum, the conclusion must be that God doesn't exist. How I just presented the problem of evil is a simplification, of course, of what can be a complex debate. Christians have presented various arguments against the problem of evil. An argument that seeks to justify the goodness and providence of God in the face of evil is termed a "theodicy."

Various approaches have been taken to theodicy both in philosophy and theology. I don't have the time to go into all the different approaches in this post, nor is it my intention to do so. There are several things I want to briefly highlight about the discussion of the problem of evil from the Christian perspective. First, we need to be honest with ourselves that we are dealing with a profound mystery. There are things we are never going to solve, nor are we going to be able to do full justice to the goodness and providence of God in this life. We are limited in our capacity to know and understand the Almighty and His works and ways. What we do know is true and sufficient for our salvation. But how are we going to comprehensively express in human terms the facts of God's goodness and power and the existence of  evil? Search your Scriptures, this very topic was an enigma to even the greatest of saints.

Second, though this is a difficult topic to wrap our minds around, we must realize that it in no way represents a defeater of Christian belief. Sound minds have tackled this issue, and, though they admit to coming up to walls through which they know they will never be able to break, they have at least shown the possibility that the goodness and power of God and the presence of evil are not incompatible with each other. For the atheist and agnostic readers, I would like to refer you to the fascinating way Alvin Plantinga deals with this in his Warranted Christian Belief and God, Freedom, and Evil. I hope to, in the near future, deal more in depth with his argument, but for now hopefully it will suffice for you to pick up these books and read them. 

Third, the problem of evil presents its own problem for the atheist. The notion of evil admits the existence of moral standards. I am happy to admit that atheists are, more often than not, moral people. They have a sense of right and wrong, of justice and mercy. The problem for the atheist is where did these ideas come from? Are moral standards merely social conventions? Are they a product of evolution? If so, are they subject to change over time, and if they are what is the standard for knowing when a moral standard must change or drop out of use? Furthermore, by what standard do we judge whether common practices we do now are better (or worse) than the common practices from earlier times? What standard do we use to judge whether what one culture does in one part of the earth is worse or better than what another culture does on another part of the earth? Why, for example, should we think that stoning of women is wrong, when a practice like this can keep a society functioning and presents no real burden on that society's survival? Is there an ideal moral attainment that we should all strive for, and if so, how do you know? Conversely, if not, how do you prove it is not so? This is a real problem for the atheists and agnostics who cite the problem of evil as the ultimate defeater for Christian belief.

I pass on from these considerations in order to get to the point I really wanted to talk about. It is my hope to deal with the above considerations in a fuller way, but in this post, I wanted point out the connection between Easter and the Christian's assurance in the face of evil. The problem of evil is not a problem for believers. This is not to say that believers have struggled over this issue, even to the point of nearly losing their faith.  

The Old Testament is full of the raw emotion that believers have felt as they              struggled through various trials and sufferings that they fell into. The Psalms are full of cries of "how long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?" Psalm 73 is one of the most pointed psalms regarding the believers struggle with the problem of evil. The author's struggle was, in fact, over the issue of why good things happened to the wicked while those who performed righteous deeds did so in vain. This caused his foot to "nearly slip". What was his solution? It wasn't well conceived reasons or  clever arguments. He "went into the sanctuary of God". The worship of God, and all that it pointed to, reminded him of the covenant faithfulness of God. From that point the problem of evil was no longer a source of despair. 

Job is the prime example of a good man who suffers for seemingly no good reason.  The interesting thing about Job is that he is never given an answer to why bad things happen to good people. What we do see throughout the book of Job is a man who clings to his faith despite his sufferings, despite his losses, despite his wife telling him to curse God, and despite the poor comfort he receives from his friends. In the middle of the book we read his heart wrenching cry of faith and hope amidst confusion, "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" (Job 19:25-26). These are just two examples of believers clinging to faith in the face of suffering. I could mention more. I could mention Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, or Paul, who suffered greatly as he brought the gospel to the Gentiles. I could also mention Christians outside of Scripture, who maintained a strong faith in Christ in the face of severe affliction. 

Christians do not let the problem of evil defeat them. Why? The answer has everything to do with the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. As I mentioned above, His suffering and death were like no other. The Scriptures teach that the Messiah, whom we know to be Jesus Christ, was to be a suffering servant. Isaiah 53 says that the Christ, "was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed." Again, we must say that His piercing, His crushing, His wounds were nothing ordinary. As the Son of God, the Word made flesh, He was the ultimate good man, and the ultimate bad thing happened to Him. The death of the righteous Son of God by wicked hands was the ultimate crime. But Christ's sufferings were mind-blowingly greater than anything anyone has experienced before or since. There have been those who cried to God, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But Christ experienced the actuality of this statement. God the Father actually forsook the Son. The reason was Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ took upon Himself the sins of His people, and thus suffered on the cross the Hell they deserved. Martin Luther, it is said, meditated on this passage for hours without budging from His seat. At last he threw up his hands and said, "God forsaken by God, who can understand that?" But our lack of understanding does not negate the actuality of the event. 

Christ's suffering and death was not the end of His life; rather, as I said before, it was the realization of all true life. Christ did not stay in the grave; on the third day as the Scriptures foretold, Christ rose from the dead. He defeated death and hell, just as He said He would. And we today receive the testimony of those who saw those events with their own eyes. Many of these eyewitnesses sealed their testimony with their own blood. As the Apostle Paul declares, this same Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). 

This is the internal logic of the Christian faith. We have a Savior who defeated death. In Christ we can proclaim, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31) And we can say, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, For your sake we are being killed all the day long we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:35-39). Death has no sting, the grave has no victory, and the problem of evil certainly has no teeth. 

A Problem for Atheists and Agnostics

Greg Bahnsen, in discussions of epistemology, would often refer to his well-known "apple sorting machine" analogy. The analogy was between epistemology (how we know what we know) and the construction of a hypothetical machine designed to sort apples. It is very common to hear people claim that they do not have beliefs, or a worldview, but simply use method 'x' to sort out the facts and then come to conclusions. In Bahnsen's analogy, people's "neutral" epistemological methods would be compared to the apple sorting machine. Bahnsen would point out that in order to construct an apple sorting machine, one would first have to know something of what a good and bad apple consisted of, and then they would have to know how to tell them apart. Then the apple sorting machine could be designed. In the same way, in order for anyone to know true facts from false facts, they first have to know some general truths about what constitutes truth and a true fact. One would also need to know how to discern true facts from false facts. Then an epistemological methodology can be constructed to sort them. We have to know something general about what we know, before we can know how we know. We need an ontology (understanding of existence) before we can have an epistemology (an understanding of how/what particulars we can know about existence). The point being, that when people say they just use method "x" to know truth, they are not being honest. A worldview, which was ascertained by some means other than method "x," had to be in place first. This is an insightful analogy and it has many implications for discussions in apologetics. When it comes to method "x" as being the scientific method, Christians have been quick to point out that biblical presuppositions provide the worldview through which science is justified and the universe rendered intelligible. However I think this illustrates a much broader point, namely a problem that atheists and agnostics have in even speaking to the realm of theology. What do I mean?

Well, it isn't uncommon to hear self-identified atheists and agnostics make broad statements about the whole field of theology such as:

"If there was a God he would be *blank* and therefore we couldn't even know for certain"

or,

"If God existed the world would be like *this*, and it isn't, therefore there is no God."

But given their worldview, how can they know this? These are not naturalistic arguments, coming from a naturalistic worldview, they are actually theological arguments (and poor ones at that!). The problem here for the atheist/agnostic is one of epistemology. When they argue against theological knowledge, or the existence of God, they themselves are using theological arguments, or claiming to know about something they say is an impossibility. In other words, keeping in mind that ontology (knowledge of existence) precedes epistemology (how/what we can know); how can atheists/agnostics make knowledge claims, like those given above, about something that doesn't exist? They must either concede that they do have some knowledge of God, or the things of God, or they must admit that they simply can't say anything meaningful about a subject that "doesn't exist."

Some atheists are consistent here and will not make these kind of arguments. They will simply stick to their naturalistic presuppositions and try to argue that there is "no evidence" for a supernatural realm. However, it is not uncommon to hear atheists or agnostics go on the offensive by attacking the character of God, or by using the kind of sound bites listed above. If that is the case, the above criticism is valid.