At first it might seem that if God created all things, then evil must
have been created by God. However, evil is not a “thing” like a rock or
electricity. You cannot have a jar of evil. Evil has no existence of its
own; it is really the absence of good. For example, holes are real but
they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole,
but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is
true that all He created was good. One of the good things God made was
creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real
choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose.
So, God allowed these free angels and humans to choose good or reject
good (evil). When a bad relationship exists between two good things we
call that evil, but it does not become a “thing” that required God to
create it.
Perhaps a further illustration will help. If a person is asked, “Does
cold exist?” the answer would likely be “yes.” However, this is
incorrect. Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly,
darkness does not exist; it is the absence of light. Evil is the absence
of good, or better, evil is the absence of God. God did not have to
create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.
God did not create evil, but He does allow evil. If God had not allowed
for the possibility of evil, both mankind and angels would be serving
God out of obligation, not choice. He did not want “robots” that simply
did what He wanted them to do because of their “programming.” God
allowed for the possibility of evil so that we could genuinely have a
free will and choose whether or not we wanted to serve Him.
As finite human beings, we can never fully understand an infinite God (Romans 11:33-34).
Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to
find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally
thought. God looks at things from a holy, eternal perspective. We look
at things from a sinful, earthly, and temporal perspective. Why did God
put man on earth knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring
evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us
all and leave us in heaven where we would be perfect and without
suffering? These questions cannot be adequately answered this side of
eternity. What we can know is whatever God does is holy and perfect and
ultimately will glorify Him. God allowed for the possibility of evil in
order to give us a true choice in regards to whether we worship Him. God
did not create evil, but He allowed it. If He had not allowed evil, we
would be worshiping Him out of obligation, not by a choice of our own
will.
If God knew that Satan would rebel, why did He create him?
Answer
This is a two-part question. The first part is “Did God know Satan would rebel?” We know from Scripture that God is omniscient, which literally means “all-knowing.” Job 37:16; Psalm 139:2–4, 147:5; Proverbs 5:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; and 1 John 3:19–20
leave no doubt that God’s knowledge is infinite and that He knows
everything that has happened in the past, is happening now, and will
happen in the future.
Looking at some of the superlatives in these verses—“perfect in
knowledge”; “his understanding has no limit”; “he knows everything”—it
is clear that God’s knowledge is not merely greater than our own, but it
is infinitely greater. He knows all things in totality. If God’s
knowledge is not perfect, then there is a deficiency in His nature. Any
deficiency in God’s nature means He cannot be God, for God’s very
essence requires the perfection of all His attributes. Therefore, the
answer to the first question is “yes, God knew that Satan would rebel.”
Moving on to the second part of the question, “Why did God create Satan
knowing ahead of time he was going to rebel?” This question is a little
trickier because we are asking a “why” question to which the Bible does
not usually provide comprehensive answers. Despite that, we should be
able to come to a limited understanding. We have already seen that God
is omniscient. So, if God knew that Satan would rebel and fall from
heaven, yet He created him anyway, it must mean that the fall of Satan
was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning. No other answer
makes sense given what we’ve seen thus far.
First, we should understand that knowing Satan would rebel is not the same thing as making
Satan rebel. The angel Lucifer had a free will and made his own
choices. God did not create Lucifer as the devil; He created him good (Genesis 1:31).
In trying to understand why God created Satan, knowing he would rebel, we should also consider the following facts:
1) Lucifer had a good and perfect purpose before his fall. Lucifer’s
rebellion does not change God’s original intent from something good to
something bad.
2) God’s sovereignty extends to Satan, even in his fallen condition. God
is able to use Satan’s evil actions to ultimately bring about God’s
holy plan (see 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:5).
3) God’s plan of salvation was ordained from eternity past (Revelation 13:8); salvation requires something to be saved from, and so God allowed Satan’s rebellion and the spread of sin.
4) The suffering that Satan brought into the world actually became the
means by which Jesus, in His humanity, was made the complete and perfect
Savior of mankind: “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it
was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists,
should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he
suffered” (Hebrews 2:10).
5) From the very beginning, God’s plan in Christ included the destruction of Satan’s work (see 1 John 3:8).
Ultimately, we cannot know for sure why God created Satan, knowing he
would rebel. It’s tempting to assume that things would be “better” if
Satan had never been created or to declare that God should have done
differently. But such assumptions and declarations are unwise. In fact,
to claim we know better than God how to run the universe is to fall into
the devil’s own sin of promoting himself above the Most High (Isaiah 14:13–14).
Yahweh
The self-existent One. He has always existed and will always exist.
You can always rely on Him because He is your eternal source of
strength.
(Genesis 2:4, Isaiah 40:3; 10; 1 Samuel 1:20; Exodus 6:1-4, 3:1-22)
The
question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of
God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent
people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments
against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant
spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional
and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must
have a mental disorder that causes invalid thinking. The psychiatrist
Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was
delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly
said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices
of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now
parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God
is intellectually unwarranted.
Is
this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable
position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the
existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the
existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and
new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator?
The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of
an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to
be intellectually weak.
An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing
To
make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the
right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question:
“Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic
question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is
the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one
theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about
God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion. 2. Reality is/was self-created. 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal). 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So,
which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being
simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe.
This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who
is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a
mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In
other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions
require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot
doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a
self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion
is eliminated.
Next
is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy,
we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false
by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of
those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be
prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed
prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution
this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something
coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold
to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even
the atheist David Hume said,
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise
without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the
alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now
we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being
created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal
Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this
crossroads:
• Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice
that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides
the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn
around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can
choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the
evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To
date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an
eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific
standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and
whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a
beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a
cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by
evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of
the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe
is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and
Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further,
the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the
ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must
resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an
impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally
created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with
purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint,
completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything
that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is
eliminated.
Philosopher
J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It
is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and
reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is
responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of
statements:
• Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former
atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has
commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would
have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces
life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information;
unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason.
Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in
light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in
my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the
evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator
But
the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists
(and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we
infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we
understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can,
with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism
One
last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter
of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist
asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to
turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first
thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which
is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a
philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer
Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a
negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of
something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red
eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist.
The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion.
But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every
place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at
some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest
atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next,
it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness
of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to
warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers
of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the
other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not
be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to
make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but
to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite
a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This
is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God.
Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and
eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated
to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but
he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the
seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom
he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers
crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity
does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life
and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any
other basic question.”
An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion
So
does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational,
logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely.
While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a
wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who
actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is
no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud
is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a
judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth
that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20).
But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed
exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through
His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave
the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His
name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of
the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
Dear Viewer: A final Word about atheist Kristi Burke:
Christianophobia is on the rise like never before especially in
platforms like social media. Christianophobia refers to the state of
being hateful or spiteful against Christians, Christianity, and God. A
Christianophobe hates or despises Christians and/or what they stand for.
Many Christians on Tik Tok have filed multiple complaints against Ms.
Burke for Hate Speech/Christianophobia. According to a recent video she
posted on Tik Tok, her account is being reviewed for possible
termination. If so she has stated she plans to come to You Tube in order
to continue her Anti-Christian diatribe. She professes to be an Atheist. The statements on
her video above is a gross contradiction. Because Atheist DO NOT BELIEVE THERE
IS A GOD. Yet she unwittingly acknowledges God's very existence by
using him as a scapegoat.
Closely linked to the disillusioned are those who call themselves
“atheists” when, in fact, they are anti-God. Atheist is a label some
hide behind to mask a deep hatred toward God. Often due to childhood
trauma or abuse in the name of religion, these people are consumed by an
antipathy toward all things religious. The only way they can retaliate
against a God they consider cruel is to deny Him vehemently. Events of
the past have left wounds so deep that it is easier to deny the reality
of God than admit that they hate Him. True atheists would not include
this group in their numbers, as they recognize that to be angry with God
is to acknowledge His existence. But many people do, in fact, call
themselves atheists while simultaneously expressing outrage toward a God
whose existence they deny.
What signs indicate that the end times are approaching?
Answer
Matthew 24:5–8
gives us some important clues for discerning the approach of the end
times: “Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will
deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it
that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still
to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are
the beginning of birth pains.” An increase in false messiahs, an
increase in warfare, and increases in famines, plagues, and natural
disasters—these are signs of the end times. In this passage, though, we
are given a warning: we are not to be deceived, because these events are
only the beginning of birth pains; the end is still to come.
Some interpreters point to every earthquake, every political upheaval,
and every attack on Israel as a sure sign that the end times are rapidly
approaching. While the events may signal the approach of the last days,
they are not necessarily indicators that the end times have arrived.
The apostle Paul warned that the last days would bring a marked increase
in false teaching. “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some
will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by
demons” (1 Timothy 4:1).
The last days are described as “perilous times” because of the
increasingly evil character of man and people who actively “oppose the
truth” (2 Timothy 3:1–9; see also 2 Thessalonians 2:3).
Other possible signs would include a rebuilding of a Jewish temple in
Jerusalem, increased hostility toward Israel, and advances toward a
one-world government. The most prominent sign of the end times, however,
is the nation of Israel. In 1948, Israel was recognized as a sovereign
state, essentially for the first time since AD 70. God promised Abraham
that his posterity would have Canaan as “an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8), and Ezekiel prophesied a physical and spiritual resuscitation of Israel (Ezekiel 37).
Having Israel as a nation in its own land is important in light of
end-times prophecy because of Israel’s prominence in eschatology (Daniel 10:14; 11:41; Revelation 11:8).
With these signs in mind, we can be wise and discerning in regard to the
expectation of the end times. We should not, however, interpret any of
these singular events as a clear indication of the soon arrival of the
end times. God has given us enough information that we can be prepared,
and that is what we are called to be as our hearts cry out, “Come, Lord
Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).
How can I understand the Book of Revelation?
Answer
The key to Bible interpretation, especially for the book of Revelation,
is to have a consistent hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the study of the
principles of interpretation. In other words, it is the way you
interpret Scripture. A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of
Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the
author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its
normal sense. We are not to look for other meanings if the natural
meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize
Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the
author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be
understood as it is written.
One example is Revelation 20.
Many will assign various meanings to references to a thousand-year
period. Yet, the language does not imply in any way that the references
to the thousand years should be taken to mean anything other than a
literal period of one thousand years.
A simple outline for the book of Revelation is found in Revelation 1:19.
In the first chapter, the risen and exalted Christ is speaking to John.
Christ tells John to “write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now
and what will take place later.” The things John had already seen are
recorded in chapter 1. The “things which are” (that were present in
John’s day) are recorded in chapters 2–3 (the letters to the churches).
The “things that will take place” (future things) are recorded in
chapters 4–22.
Generally speaking, chapters 4–18 of Revelation deal with God’s
judgments on the people of the earth. These judgments are not for the
church (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 9). Before the judgments begin, the church will have been removed from the earth in an event called the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52). Chapters 4–18 describe a time of “Jacob’s trouble”—trouble for Israel (Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 9:12, 12:1). It is also a time when God will judge unbelievers for their rebellion against Him.
Chapter 19 describes Christ’s return with the church, the bride of
Christ. He defeats the beast and the false prophet and casts them into
the lake of fire. In Chapter 20, Christ has Satan bound and cast in the
Abyss. Then Christ sets up His kingdom on earth that will last 1,000
years. At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan is released and he leads a
rebellion against God. He is quickly defeated and also cast into the
lake of fire. Then the final judgment occurs, the judgment for all
unbelievers, when they too are cast into the lake of fire.
Chapters 21 and 22 describe what is referred to as the eternal state. In
these chapters God tells us what eternity with Him will be like. The
book of Revelation is understandable. God would not have given it to us
if its meaning were entirely a mystery. The key to understanding the
book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible—it says
what it means and means what it says.
There are legends that Adam had a wife before Eve who was named Lilith,
but this is not found in the Bible. The legends vary significantly, but
they all essentially agree that Lilith left Adam because she did not
want to submit to him. According to the legends, Lilith was an evil,
wicked woman who committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of
evil creatures. None of this is true. There is no biblical basis
whatsoever for these concepts. There is no one in the Bible named
Lilith.
The passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14,
which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a
poor translation. Every other major translation of the Bible reads
something to the effect of "night creature" or "screech owl."
Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the
Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its
context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection
whatsoever to Adam or Creation.
Another commonly used support for Lilith is the differing Creation
accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2. Some claim that the woman in Genesis 1 was Lilith, with the woman in Genesis 2
being Eve. This is completely ludicrous. Rather, Genesis chapter 2 is a
"closer look" at the creation of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis
chapter 1. The Bible specifically says that Adam and Eve were the first
human beings ever created (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:18-25).
This "Lilith" myth is popular in some radical feminist movements
because Lilith is an example of a woman refusing to submit to male
headship. While there are myths outside of the Word of God regarding
Lilith, her complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is
nothing more than a myth.
The passage in question refers to Genesis 3:22 and I quote:
"AND THE LORD GOD SAID, BEHOLD THE MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL: AND NOW, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND, AND TAKE ALSO OF THE TREE OF LIFE, AND EAT AND LIVE FOREVER".
When the serpent/ Satan caused Adam and Eve to sin, he promised them(not God) that if they ate from the tree which was at the center of the garden, they would not die, but instead they would be like gods knowing the difference between good and evil.
SATAN LIED TO THEM. Adam and Eve were to know only the difference between good and evil, and between obedience and disobedience, BUT THEY WERE NEVER TO BE LIKE GODS!
Had Satan's promise been true, he would have eaten from the tree himself. In other words, Satan is the father of liars and he had to lie and use this verbal ploy in order to cause the downfall of the human race. " BEHOLD THE MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US" WAS USED SARCASTICALLY BY GOD IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE LYING WORDS OF SATAN.
God knew before hand that the fruit from a tree that he had created could not make man a mortal rival and god like himself. All these words were spoken by God in order to expose Satan's lies. Adam and Eve were assured by Satan that if they ate from the tree in the midst of the garden, they would know good and evil, thus Satan might even go as far as telling them to eat from another tree in order to become like gods. God would not have created such a tree. Nor would he have been jealous because mankind might become like God Himself.
All these ideas/lies were put in the mind of Adam & Eve by Satan himself. Satan was jealous of mankind because men were created in the image of God and was given dominion over all of God's creation.
Listen to this video below. Obviously what Kristi Burke is stating in this video is a bunch of malarkey. She has absolutely no skills in Apologetics, Hermenuetics and definitely none when it comes to Exegesis. Her interpretation of the fall of man is strictly based on an EISEGIS METHOD OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE.THROUGH THIS METHOD MS. BURKE MISINTERPRETS SCRIPTURE ACCORDING TO HER OWN IDEAS, BIASES OR
THE LIKE RATHER THAN WHAT GOD THROUGH THE ORIGINAL BIBLICAL AUTHORS INTENDED TO
CONVEY TO THEIR AUDIENCE.
Can the various resurrection accounts from the four Gospels be harmonized?
Answer
The events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection can be difficult to piece
together. We must remember two things: first, the news of Jesus’
resurrection produced much excitement in Jerusalem, and in the ensuing
chaos many people were going many different directions. Groups were
separated, and several different groups paid visits to the tomb,
possibly more than once. Second, the writers of the Gospels did not
attempt an exhaustive narrative; in other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John had no intention of telling us every detail of the resurrection
or every event in the order that it happened.
In the battle with skeptics regarding Jesus’ resurrection, Christians
are in a "no-win" situation. If the resurrection accounts harmonize
perfectly, skeptics will claim that the writers of the Gospels conspired
together. If the resurrection accounts have some differences, skeptics
will claim that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore cannot
be trusted. It is our contention that the resurrection accounts can be
harmonized and do not contradict each other.
However, even if the resurrection accounts cannot be perfectly
harmonized, that does not make them untrustworthy. By any reasonable
evaluation, the resurrection accounts from the four Gospels are superbly
consistent eyewitness testimonies. The central truths - that Jesus was
resurrected from the dead and that the resurrected Jesus appeared to
many people - are clearly taught in each of the four Gospels. The
apparent inconsistencies are in "side issues." How many angels did they
see in the tomb, one or two? (Perhaps one person only saw one angel,
while the other person saw two angels.) To how many women did Jesus
appear, and to whom did He appear first? (While each Gospel has a
slightly different sequence to the appearances, none of them claims to
be giving the precise chronological order.) So, while the resurrection
accounts may seem to be inconsistent, it cannot be proven that the
accounts are contradictory.
Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of
Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order:
At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).
The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).
The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is
risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).
The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).
The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the
authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).
Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).
The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).
Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).
Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).
The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However,
there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear
what God’s view of abortion is.
Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13–16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22–25
prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a
baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This law and its
punishment clearly indicate that God considers a baby in the womb to be
just as much a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian,
abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose to have a baby.
The baby is already present and living. Abortion is a matter of the life
or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6).
What does the Bible say about abortion? Simply put, abortion is murder. It is the killing of a human being created in the image of God.
A common argument against the Christian stance on abortion is “What
about cases of rape and/or incest?” As horrible as it would be to become
pregnant as a result of rape or incest, is the murder of a baby the
solution? Two wrongs do not make a right. The child who is a result of
rape or incest could be given in adoption
to a loving family. There are many families, some unable to have
children on their own, who stand ready to receive and love a child from
any background. The baby in this situation is completely innocent and
should not be punished for the evil act of his or her father.
It’s also important to keep in mind that abortions due to rape or incest
account for a very small percentage of total abortions: only 1 percent
of abortions can be traced to cases of rape or incest (Torres and
Forrest, cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the
Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States, October 2001, www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8#cite-1, accessed 9/9/21).
Another argument often used against the Christian stance on abortion is
“What about when the life of the mother is at risk?” Honestly, this is
the most difficult question to answer on the issue of abortion. First,
let’s remember that such a situation is exceedingly rare. Dr. Landrum
Shettles, a pioneer in the field of in vitro fertilization, wrote, “Less
than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s
life” (Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1983, p. 129). Dr. Irving Cushner, Professor
of Obstetrics at the UCLA School of Medicine, when testifying before
the U. S. Senate, was asked how often abortions are necessary to save
the life of the mother or to preserve her physical health. His response:
“In this country, about 1 percent” (testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United
States on October 14, 1981, quoted in The Village Voice, July 16, 1985).
Other medical professionals go further, stating that abortion is never
necessary to save the mother’s life. Over 1,000 OB-GYNs and maternal
healthcare experts signed a statement in 2012, saying, in part, “As
experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology,
we affirm that direct abortion—the purposeful destruction of the unborn
child—is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman” (Dublin
Declaration on Maternal Health, www.dublindeclaration.com, accessed
9/9/21). Further, in 2019, “medical leaders representing more than
30,000 doctors said intentionally killing a late-term unborn baby in an
abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life”
(www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05/30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life,
accessed 9/9/21).
Second, let’s remember that God is a God of miracles.
He can preserve the life of a mother and her child despite all the
medical odds being against it. Third, even in the small percentage of
abortions performed to save the life of the mother, most of those
abortions can be prevented by an early induced delivery of the baby or a
C-section. It is extremely rare that a baby must be actively aborted in
order to save the life of the mother. Ultimately, if the life of the
mother is genuinely at risk, the course of action can only be decided by
the woman, her doctor, oftentimes the father of the child, and God. Any
woman facing this extremely difficult situation should pray to the Lord
for wisdom (James 1:5) as to what He would have her do.
The overwhelming majority of abortions performed today involve women who
simply do not want to have the baby. As indicated above, just 2 percent
of abortions are for the reason of rape, incest, or the mother’s life
being at risk. Even in these more difficult 2 percent of instances,
abortion should never be the first option. The life of a human being in
the womb is worth every effort to preserve.
For those who have had an abortion, remember that the sin of abortion is
no less forgivable than any other sin. Through faith in Christ, all
sins can be forgiven (John 3:16; Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:14). A woman who has had an abortion, a man who has encouraged an abortion, and a doctor who has performed an abortion—all can be forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ.
