Featured Works

The Impotence of Nature in Aristotle’s Politics: The Case of Natural Slavery

May 15, 2025 No Comments

The far-reaching divide on the authenticity, intentions, and the compositional arrangement of Aristotle’s Politics is quite understandable. In the all-encompassing system Aristotle was building, the Politics was supposed to be the crown of it all. The Nicomachean Ethics is to find its ultimate fulfilment in the Politics since politics, as Aristotle asserts, is the noblest place where human eudemonia can be found. The apparent inconsistencies and seemingly infra dig arguments found in the Politics, however, have raised several questions. In an apparent move to rescue Aristotle, some experts have advanced interpretive alternatives to the work.

Theories abound on what one could make of the body of works titled Politics. As Carnes Lord explains: “the specific difficulties posed by the text of the Politics continue to be regarded by many as convincing evidence of a lack of unity and coherence in the work as a whole, and in its basic argument” (459-60). For instance, Lord summarizes the position of Werner Jaeger, an Aristotle scholar, thus “the Politics is essentially an amalgam of two separate treatises or collections of treatises written at widely separated intervals and embodying very different approaches to the study of political phenomenon” (460). Internal evidence within the work informs the general suspicions scholars hold about the integral status of the work. Scholars have pointed out inconsistencies with the endings of a sizeable portion of the books of the work, as well as transitioning clauses that do not seem to belong where they are found. The discovery that some of Aristotle’s works were only intended by him as educational treatises and not for popular consumption has also split scholarly views on the matter.

However, one thing that does not seem to be debated (or even debatable) is that Aristotle did write a big chunk of the Politics for whatever purpose, and thus employed (some of) the arguments in the book. More pointedly, it seems quite apparent that the role of nature in Aristotle’s Politics is no editor’s making but a rather essential part of what Aristotle intended to do. Thus, it is fair to critique the work. In this piece, I shall argue that Aristotle’s use of Nature in the Politics to establish the naturalness of slavery and, by extension, the naturalness of the polis is dubious and untenable.

The Politics begins with a description of the types of natural rules and associations. Aristotle writes: “We observe that every state is a certain sort of association, and that every association is formed for some good purpose”1 (1252a1-3). Thus, Aristotle’s natural teleology is found in the very first sentence of the work when he says that every koinonia (community or communality) is formed for some end, the end that people think is good for the specific koinonia. The state or city-state is the best among associations because it is both the highest and embraces other associations and, thus, subsumes the good that is in the simpler associations since “all associations aim at some good” (1252a4). Aristotle then proceeds to describe the various types of rules with political importance; these rules not only differ “in point of large or small numbers” (1252a10) but also in kind.

Furthermore, they are necessarily natural. The beginning of all associations is when “those which are incapable of existing without each other… unite as a pair” (1252a26-27). The assertion (for there is no argument here provided) that this couple is otherwise “incapable of existing without each other” deserves to be unpacked. In what sense are these (presumably adult, though the woman may be much younger) human beings, who hitherto lived independently of each other, suddenly become incapable of existing without each other? Were they existing before and up to the time they are supposedly to go unavoidably into this seminal koinonia? Here, then, is the first place where one sees Aristotle employing what seems like a circularity in his argument.

Aristotle seems to want there to be no will or intellectual contributions from the couple to claim that nature does it all—it is why this cannot be “from choice; rather, as in the other animals too and in plants, the urge to leave behind another such as one is oneself is natural” (1252a28-30). His analogy of lower animals is beneficial in unpacking the intentions here. Lower animals appear to be ruled by the need to propagate their genes. There is seemingly a statistical freedom regarding what two animals may eventually get together to interbreed. Still, if they live long enough, a healthy male animal and its female counterpart have no choice but to interbreed at some point, for this is the “natural” thing to do. This does not seem problematic. How this may absolutely apply to humans endowed with reason is not clear at all. What is clear, however, is that Aristotle needs this reasoning to pass for him to reach his famous conclusion that the city-state is natural. Indeed, he later makes such an explicit conclusion: “Therefore, every state exists by nature, since the first associations did too” (1252a30-31). That is, this conclusion stands only if the first association is natural. Aristotle does not give any air-tight argument for this requirement, resulting in a mere assumption and assertion of the naturalness of the first association. From here on, Aristotle wields the power of nature to posit the naturalness of the other types of rule; without resolving this critical issue of how nature could necessarily bring about the first associations, however, the phrase “by nature” is suspiciously empty. This suspicion is seemingly more warranted when one reads that “anyone who, though human, belongs by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave; and a human being belongs to another if, in spite of being human, he is a possession” (1254a14-17). That is, a human is a slave because he is someone else’s possession—and this because he is by nature a slave. The circularity is quite apparent.

Aristotle also asserts that a master and a slave cannot exist without each other. Even the fairest reading of this claim would be problematic. A fair reading would be that he is merely saying that the master and the slave need each other (not by choice or by any other means that may suggest a different arrangement is possible, of course) for preservation. In claiming that the master and the slave cannot exist without each other, just as the first association was unavoidable, the slave would seem to have gained a higher status since the good life of the master is utterly dependent on the slave. That is, the master needs the slave, and this would seem to undermine the concepts of “slaves” and “masters”; for instance, if taken purely philosophically, free from the distortions of history, that the master needs the slave for preservation, the sense in which a master could possess a slave will then be quite problematic unless this possession is reversibly mutual—that is, the claim that “the master is only master of his slave, but does not belong to him, the slave is not only the slave of his master, but belongs to him wholly” (1254a11-13) would be an empty assertion. Indeed, Aristotle later likens a slave to a tool used to effect some end. He writes that the possession of slaves (being a superior type of tool) becomes necessary only because an inanimate tool cannot be self-moved nor could it “perform its own task either at our bidding or anticipating it” (1253a33-34). A slave, however, is an animate tool, but one that is both capable of being “self-moved” (1253a36) and could carry out his tasks at the master’s bidding. By his analogy, the master-slave relationship is unnecessary.
Besides, the fact that the slave can carry out his master’s bidding implies that he shares to some commensurate degree in reason. That is, he is not all-body-and-no-brain. Besides, if we grant that a good slave may reach a point of anticipating his master’s bidding, it becomes even more problematic to see why he may not also be able to “use its intellect to look ahead” (1252a31).

Astronomical works exist in the literature to defend the apparent inconsistencies in Aristotle’s work regarding his use of nature to justify the naturalness of the types of rule he discussed in the first book of the Politics. Wayne Ambler argues that although Aristotle was open to the practice of slavery since he gives it a place in the fulfilling polis he built, he nevertheless cannot be seen without difficulties as sanctioning actual slavery (390). In other words, Ambler sees an important difference between actual slavery and the natural slavery that Aristotle discusses. As he states, “Aristotle’s natural master and natural slave establish standards which deny rather than establish the naturalness of actual slavery (390). Ambler attempts to exculpate Aristotle’s texts from readings that make him into a proponent of the practice of actual slavery by arguing that the kind of relationship that Aristotle claims exists between a natural master and a natural slave, comparable to that which exists between the soul (or thought) and the body, is not one to be found among human beings (392). Writing about the supposedly unrealizable conditions for naturalness of slavery, Ambler writes that, in fact, Aristotle “never applies them directly to human beings” (392). One apparent consequence of this claim is that the subject of slavery and its practice, the natural kind in any case, does not apply to human beings—a consequence that is in tension with Aristotle’s claim that slaves are humans (1254a14). If this is the case, it makes one wonder why Aristotle would write extensively about it and even include human slaves in his regime at all.

Rather than concede the arguable inconsistencies in Aristotle’s writings, Ambler argues that these seemingly inconsistent statements are deliberate works of Aristotle to some definite end. Hence whereas Aristotle is generally seen to be inconsistent in having defined slaves as tools of action, not of production (1254a1-8) but later allows for their use in productive capacities such as in agriculture, Ambler counters thus: “If, however, it was Aristotle’s intention to show various differences between natural and actual slavery, and not to simply to ratify actual slavery as natural, then this would not be a sign of failure but one aspect of his success” (396). At best, Ambler makes Aristotle out to be an intellectual deceiver who raises real questions and then provides simulacral responses, or one who uses prevarications to dodge questions.

A less radical attempt to, at least, grant coherence to and, thus, preserve Aristotle’s theory of slavery was provided by W. W Fortenbaugh (quoted by Nicholas Smith), who argues that Aristotle’s seemingly inconsistent views on slavery could be resolved with an improved understanding of the moral psychology that he provides. He particularly attempts to make sense of Aristotle’s denial of slaves of a foresight by arguing that in so doing Aristotle does not necessarily also deny slaves a human status (114):

Aristotle denies the logical or reasoning half of the bipartite soul but not the alogical or emotional half. This means that slaves can make the judgements involved in emotional responses and therefore have at least a minimum share in
the cognitive capacity peculiar to men in relation to other animals.

Smith enumerates the many discrepancies in Aristotle that this reviewed moral psychology approach might resolve satisfactorily. On this reading, notes Smith, it would become possible for real humans to qualify as natural slaves; there now is a basis for natural masters and their slaves to enjoy some kind of camaraderie; indeed, provided the slave stays long enough with the master to learn of and from him, it is conceivable for the slave to be freed at some point or, at least, the idea of slave freedom is more readily conceivable (115). Smith, however, goes on to argue that even this improvement ultimately fails to rescue Aristotle’s theory on slavery. He notes that whereas those philosophers like Wayne Ambler had argued that the conditions for qualifying as a natural slave are beyond humans, on Fortenbaugh’s argument, however, almost all humans would qualify as natural slaves since most people had guardians and parents from whom they received instructions while growing up (116). The chances of survival without these guardians seem quite infinitesimal. Aristotle, however, would not allow for this, for he, in fact, differentiates between the rule over slaves and free-born children (1259b10).

Furthermore, Smith finds problematic Aristotle’s insistence that the rule over slaves be despotic or tyrannical. He observes that there are two models that Aristotle explicitly employs in his writings to explain this master-slave rule: the soul-body relationship and that which Fortenbaugh points out in his article, the intelligence-emotion relationship (117). Aristotle believes that a slave is fundamentally psychically deficient and different from a natural master. As Smith puts it, “slaves are so much more beast-like than man-like that it is Nature’s design that slaves would actually be distinguishable physically from masters” (118). Indeed, contrary to the Ambler-esque claims, Aristotle quite often employs actual analogies to make his points, such as when he concurs with a poet saying, “’It is proper that Greeks should rule non-Greeks’, on the assumption that non-Greek and slave are by nature identical” (1252b7-9). As Smith points out, Aristotle clearly is committing to the view that there are slave candidates among non-Greeks, implying that, at least, some of these people are deficient in ways characteristic of a natural slave (119). What happens after a slave is purchased—assuming Aristotle’s theory can safely legitimize this? Well, the slave comes under the instruction of the natural master, where his status may change as he moves towards the human side of the divide and away from the beast side. But why the continued despotic rule over him since “now the proper model is again reason to emotion” (122)? Smith concludes thus (122):

Aristotle has told us why we can hunt some human beings as we do non-human animals (though not, presumably, for meat), and why some human beings are only actualized as human beings through the guidance of others. But he has never explained why some human beings deserve to
suffer continuing despotical rule.

Malcolm Heath’s “Aristotle on Natural Slavery” is in many ways an improvement on Fortenbaugh’s work, whose goal is to “look for an interpretation of the theory of natural slavery that is credible in the sense of being broadly coherent and plausible” (244). His work rests on a theoretical assumption of extracorporeal data that would be accessible to Aristotle, which Aristotle would justly consider in his writings. Heath defines a moral psychology that has greater explanatory power. He concludes that Aristotle could have meant that natural slaves suffer from limiting impairments that disrupt practical reasoning, deliberation, and “capacity for global deliberation” (253). Heath’s work does appear plausible, and the questions the model may fail to answer are probably the ones Aristotle fails to answer as well. He writes, for instance, that natural slaves lack deliberative capacity, deliberation being “reasoning back from a goal to the action required to implement that goal” (249). The natural question to ask is why? What does one make of a Greek man with a subtle congenital mental impairment leading to a compromised deliberative capacity? Aristotle is not prepared to allow for Greek males to be natural slaves. Besides, as Smith points out, the question of the continuing tyrannical rule of the natural master over his slaves, under the improvement in psychic status that Heath’s formulation of Aristotle’s moral psychology grants the slave, still stands.

Granting the naturalness of the first association to Aristotle and internal consistencies in the Politics, scholars have noted varying points of worry in the Aristotle corpus. Donald Ross, in his “Aristotle’s Ambivalence on Slavery,” points out “a real problem in the Aristotelian corpus concerning slavery” (54). Ross argues that Aristotle is inconsistent in his treatment of slavery in that “in the Nicomachean Ethics it is overwhelmingly the master whose advantage is furthered by slavery” (57) an observation Ross holds to be contrary to the spirit of the following lines in the Politics: “It is clear then that there are some people, of whom some are by nature free, others slaves, for whom the state of slavery is both beneficial and just” (1254b39-41). That Aristotle holds such contrary views on the subject is a “prima facie inconsistency,” argues Ross.

There are points where it seems like Aristotle is torn between maintaining the status quo of his days and breaking through it. Nicholas Smith also points out that Aristotle, a slaveholder himself, “provided in his will that his own slaves be freed” (111). Such a realization makes one wonder what happens to slavery being not only beneficial to the slave but also just. Even worse, what happens to the Delphic knife-like attribute of nature?

Works Cited

Ambler, Wayne. “Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery.” Political Theory 15.3 (1987): 390-410. JSTOR. Web. 5 Nov 2015.

Aristotle, Politics Books I and II. Trans. Trevor J. Saunders. New York: Oxford, 1995. Print. Clarendon Aristotle Series.

Heath, Malcolm. “Aristotle on Natural Slavery.” Phronesis 53.3 (2008): 243-270. JSTOR. Web. 12 Nov 2015.

Lord, Carnes. “Politics and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Politics.” Hermes, 106. Bd., H. 2 (1978), pp. 336-357. JSTOR. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Ross, L. Donald. “Aristotle’s Ambivalence on Slavery.” Hermathena No. 184 (Summer 2008), 53-67. JSTOR. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Smith, D. Nicholas. “Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery.” Phoenix 37. 2 (1983): 109-122. JSTOR. Web. 5 Nov 2015.

Christianity Decolonized, Featured Works

On the Office of the Bishop of Rome: Matthew 16:13-21 is Certainly NOT about the Papacy

April 28, 2025 No Comments

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The world awaits a new Pope, and some of us hope for a Pope of African (or Asian) descent. The reason is simple. Whatever the merits of the spiritual arguments, we should not downplay the politics. A Black Pope at a time like this will forever reorder the cosmos. The Church has its history of discrimination and racism. Electing a non-white Pope would be a deafening signal that the world is forever changing.

But politics aside. One of the key biblical texts used to defend the office of the Bishop of Rome is Matthew 16. I have written fuller exegetical blog entries on this passage elsewhere without referring to the Papacy. I think it is a good time to do so now. Please note that I am tabling this in service of truth and not to malign or offend. I respect several Catholics here and hope they will have much to add to enrich our collective understanding of this matter. In the end, I want to argue that, at best, the office of the Bishop of Rome had to be one of the least concerns of Jesus and Peter in this passage.

Matthew records a unique event the other gospel accounts do not cover with as much theological interest. On one occasion, Jesus took the guys on a 25-mile journey. Going from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi would likely have taken them a whole day. This happened shortly after his cousin, John the Baptizer, was beheaded. Matthew does not tell us what the guys discussed en route. Perhaps they were unusually quiet enough to allow Jesus to mourn. But Jesus soon broke the silence:

Matthew 16:13 ESV
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

He is about to take the guys through the three acts of the mind, as I discussed in a recent Logic course video. The disciples threw out the various words on the streets they knew. Some say John the Baptist – apparently, either this intelligence was old, or some folks’ belief in the resurrection of the dead was off the chart. Others say Jeremiah, Elijah, or some other major Jewish prophets. But merely staying at the simple apprehension level wasn’t enough. So, Jesus goes deeper:

Matthew 16:15 ESV
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

In other words, enough of what others are saying. The disciples stuck closer and saw the good, the human, and maybe the ugly. Jesus wanted to know what they were thinking about his identity. Simon Peter famously said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” – a reply so full of theological significance we can’t unpack now. In response, Jesus says:

Matthew 16:17-19 ESV
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Catholic doctrines, Jesus’s words to Peter, “On this rock I will build my church,” are taken as a divine sanction of the Papacy. Furthermore, the passage strongly suggests that Peter was to receive “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” These are cornerstone theological ideas believed to establish the Papacy, but they are almost certainly misguided for several reasons.

Peter’s importance in Jesus’ ministry cannot be overstated. He was among the first disciples to follow Jesus and would preach the first public Christian sermon in Acts 2. Furthermore, while mercifully restoring Peter following his denial, Jesus tasks Peter with feeding his lamb (John 21:15 – 19). But none of these things amounts to Peter’s primacy. Indeed, the primacy idea is antithetical to Jesus’s religious reformation because he instituted a community of co-equal children of God.
At no time was Peter “the” head of the church. In Jerusalem, a plurality of co-equal elders led the church, including Peter, John, and James (Jesus’s half-brother). Some of the Apostles might indeed be said to be more privileged than others. But even with this considered, Peter never had a primacy. He was always one of the three “inner circle” Apostles, including John and James, not Jesus’s half-brother (Galatians 2:9).
The idea that Jesus uniquely referred to Peter when he said, “On this rock, I will build my church,” has K-legs (rickets). At the time the statement was uttered, no church was yet formed. Before the ascension, the disciples were explicitly told to wait in Jerusalem, not Rome, because the church MUST begin from Jerusalem and then branch out to all the world (Acts 1:8). In other words, if Jesus ever desired the office of a Pope, it would be in Jerusalem because that was where he began the construction project.
For about 20 years after the ascension, the believers in Jesus were primarily ethnic Jews and converts to Judaism. It was effectively a Jewish Club. Then the Holy Spirit decided, as it always was meant to be, to expand the membership to Gentiles. Hence, Cornelius and his household became believers in Acts 10. Interestingly, it was Peter who God used on that day. It was a moment for Peter to expand his theology and shed his racism. But he was a quick learner. As soon as he saw the Spirit descend on the Gentiles just as he did on the Jews in Acts 2, Peter got the point: Yahweh has accepted even the Gentiles. Now, we may not point to this as a proof of the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18 – 19 for two reasons. First, this was not the beginning of the building project, as Matthew 16 would seem to suggest. Second, while Peter was used to save a Gentile household, Philip was earlier used to turn an entire region and people in Samaria to Jesus (Acts 8).
Strangely – for the Catholic doctrine, that is – when the Gentile church began to form, it was not headquartered in Rome either. God was building his church among the Gentiles, a movement Peter played a key role in, but the base of that church was not in Rome but in Antioch (Acts 11:19 – 26).
There is, in fact, no biblical evidence that Peter ever did ministry in or visited Rome, even though some later church documents would make this suggestion. Paul was the Apostle who actively did much ministry work in Rome and even succeeded in converting members of the Imperial household (Philippians 4:22).
As I have done at length in blog entries, the Matthew 16 passage has something else entirely in mind. The passage employs much wordplay. Though “Peter” means rock, the very ground on which Jesus and his disciples stood was also a rock. When Jesus said he would build his church on “this rock,” he ABSOLUTELY did not uniquely refer to Peter. Even a later description of the church-building process does not uniquely refer to Peter:

Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV
[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Here, Paul says to Gentiles that they are members of God’s household “built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS,” not Peter. This idea is directly connected to the passage of Matthew 16, but not in the way Catholic doctrines would have us believe.

The “rock” on which Jesus would build his church is the ground on which he stood in the region known as Bashan in the Old Testament (Joshua 13:30). However, Peter would play significant roles in the process, as already mentioned en passant. Bashan was a fundamental idea in Old Testament theology because it was the entry point of the corrupting “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Psalm 68 says God will one day settle the old scores with Bashan:

Psalm 68:1, 14-15, 18 ESV
[1] God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[14] When the Almighty scatters kings there, let snow fall on Zalmon. [15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
[18] You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

The Psalm begins with an expectation of a divine battle. We find out the battle is with Bashan – a mountain God wants to conquer. The Psalmist describes God’s anticipated victory over Bashan in ways generals of old did:

“You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.”

The attentive student of the Bible would immediately notice that this is the verse Paul alluded to in Ephesians 2:19 – 20 and then quoted in Ephesians 4:

Ephesians 4:7-12 ESV
[7] But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. [8] Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? [10] He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [11] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

So, the giving of ministry gifts—apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers—is directly related to God’s victory over Bashan. These gifts are necessary for “building up the body of Christ”—the “body of Christ,” of course, refers to the church. So, in no way does Peter uniquely build the church. On the contrary, all the gifts God has granted play different roles in the construction project.

So, we see that the chief ideas often given in support of the office of the Bishop of Rome are based on a misreading. Nevertheless, I think God can use the office of the Pope for good in our time. This is why I am hoping not merely for a Black or Asian Pope. Some of us want a competent Black or Asian Pope. The politics matter immensely.

Christianity Decolonized, Christianity Dissected, Featured Works

The Gospel and the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6

April 26, 2025 1 Comment

The Easter Story Retold: How It All Started

According to the Christian calendar, the Holy Week commemorates the most important week ever in the cosmos’ billion years of existence. It is the week of Easter or, to be more inclusive, the week leading to Resurrection Sunday. The idea that one week can identifiably be more significant than all others may offend a thinking mind at first. After all, we have repeatedly heard the argument that our earth is only a speck in the big picture of things. It is an argument asserting that size matters. Ordinarily, I would agree with the argument, but there are exceptions. People do not usually conclude, for instance, that the butt is more important than the brain due to size. Similarly, a speck of uranium may be considered more important than the mountain of trash standing over it.

For generations, churchgoers have been taught to believe that a Messiah became necessary because of Adam and Eve’s sin, but that is an incomplete story that accounts for only one-third of the data. To be sure, the story arc resulting in the Messiah’s coming began with Adam and Eve, but there is more. Let us begin from the beginning.

So, how did we get here? As far as we can tell, an uncreated creative mind wanted to get to work. Evidently, it was not his first attempt at creating. He had already created a myriad of essentially immaterial beings “eons” prior to the “moment” he decided on another project. Undoubtedly, there were innumerably infinite ways the project could have taken shape. But just as he had to narrow down the options with his other creative projects, he must do the same here. God decided to make a class of beings constructed of molecules for unrevealed reasons – a terrifyingly complicated undertaking.

How do you build a being from molecules? Easy — you start with, well, molecules! The problem is that molecules did not exist yet. So, the ultimate project must wait as God began by creating the Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur, and other isotopes needed to make the molecules from which his end product would be constructed. But how long would the construction project have to wait? It is not very long – only about 30 million years, which apparently equals about a few days in God’s reference scale. Once the material universe was in place with its arrays of stars coming into and out of existence and all the requisite atoms were available, God could initiate the building of functional molecules.

It soon became clear that God did not want wild humans. Hence, though he had caused vegetation to spring up everywhere on the blue globe, he yet proceeded to carve out a garden for the creature he was about to construct. The human was going to be cultured. After arrangements for human flourishing were in place, God finally built his project after waiting a few million years, a dating that excludes moments “before” the cosmos came to be. The human God created was neither male nor female. It was a genderless composite. In time, it became apparent that the human would not optimally flourish in its composite state. It must be split equally into two complementary forms. Hence, God formed the woman from a rib of the human he had made. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew term for “rib” is a construction term often used to describe a side of a temple. Here, then, is how we finally got the gendered male and female humans. She was in no way inferior to the man. Yes, she was a suitable “help” for the man, but “help” often describes how God is a “help” to humans. If “help” suggests any asymmetry, it is probably in the other direction.

I wish they lived happily ever after, but there would not be a worthwhile story if they did. Some of God’s earlier creations were not down with God’s new hairy creatures. It is not immediately clear if it is the hair or something else, but those older immaterial beings were ticked. Soon enough, they figured out how to mess up God’s project. They would corrupt the young creatures before they have exercised their spiritual muscles unto maturity. Obviously, this implies that the hairy creatures were not incorruptible. If they became corrupted, it was because they could be corrupted. They were not perfect, only good. Very good, actually. Sinister forces succeeded and corrupted the humans.

What was God to do? Another 30 million years is nothing to an eternal being, but starting afresh would communicate lasting victory to the sinister forces. He must find a way to undo the damage. However, we soon learn that God is not in a hurry. Just as he took his time to execute the creation project, he seemed just as relaxed in his redemption plans. It will take a few thousand years to sort things out. In the meantime, however, things became terrible very quickly.

Bashan and Genesis 6’s Sons of God

By the second generation, while there were only four named humans in the story, a man would remorselessly murder his own brother. But that was only the beginning of moral decay. The corruption would soon become supernaturally charged. In Genesis 6, we read the following:

Genesis 6:1-4 ESV
[1] When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, [2] the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. [3] Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” [4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

This is a hotly debated pericope; we shall not attempt to settle it here. It is fair to say that the standard view in our churches today is that the “sons of God” are humans – whether human kings, descendants of Seth, or something similar. I shall only point out to readers that this reading is a more recent (4th century AD) position. A much older Second-Temple Era tradition takes the “sons of God” as supernatural beings/angels, and the evidence for this reading, in my view, is much stronger. Besides, as we shall see, the angelic interpretation has immense explanatory power. The Genesis 6 passage builds on the earlier chapter. Genesis 5 is a genealogy featuring extraordinarily long life spans. Adam, for instance, lived for 930 years, and Methuselah famously lived for 969 years. Scholarly debates continue as to whether these are literary or literal ages. However, our pericope in Genesis 6 suggests that the human life span was cut shorter to 120 years. Exactitude does not seem to be the point because people lived longer than 120 years afterward but significantly less than the ages reported in Genesis 5.

If we suppose the “sons of God” are supernatural beings, then Genesis 6:4 would suggest that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sexual union of angels and women. These Nephilim are often identified as giants who descended from Anak (Numbers 13:33). They are, hence, also called Anakim (or Anakites) and lived in the land Israel was to inherit, Canaan (Joshua 11:21, 22). Though it remains an offensive and troubling issue in popular discourse, one of the literary reasons God would have the Israelites wipe off everyone in Canaan was because they were descendants of the Nephilim. The famous Goliath was also of the Nephilim. In other words, God was somehow using the Israelites to solve an ancient problem of angelic corruption in his project.

Some well-known non-canonical Second-Temple era Jewish literature unequivocally understood the “sons of God” as defiant angelic beings (1 Enoch 6 and Jubilees 5, for example). We may also have a New Testament witness to this tradition of reading Genesis 6. Consider the following:

2 Peter 2:4-6
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

This passage speaks of “angels when they sinned” (verse 4). When was that? It does not explicitly say but moves on to the time of Noah. The careful reader would immediately notice that the story of Noah and the flood is in the same chapter that discusses how the “sons of God” copulated with women. It is, therefore, very plausible that Peter here says God consigned those sinning “sons of God” to hell and that he “did not spare the ancient world” precisely because he wanted to wipe off the Nephilim from the earth, a project that continued even through the ancient Israelites, as earlier mentioned en passant. Besides, the 2 Peter passage also referenced Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient cities known, among other things, for their terrorizing and inappropriate sexual practices. Peter could have cited the sexual practices of these cities as a contrast with the order-defying sexual practice of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Indeed, the passage talks about “those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:10 ESV). Of course, the acts of angels copulating with women are an exercise in “defiling passion,” which also despises the authority of God and his established order of reproduction according to kinds (Genesis 1:11).

In the non-canonical Second-Temple era work called 1 Enoch, the “sons of God” entry point onto the earth is believed to be Mount Hermon (1 Enoch 6:1-6), also called Mount Sirion and Senir (Deuteronomy 3:9). It was the tallest mountain in ancient Israel serving as the northern border of Bashan, east of the Sea of Galilee. In the days of Joshua, after the Israelites had conquered the land, Bashan was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh:

Joshua 13:30 ESV
Their region extended from Mahanaim, through all Bashan, the whole kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, sixty cities,

This Og king of Bashan came at the Israelites while they were coming out of the wilderness to battle with them:

Deuteronomy 3:1-2 ESV
[1] “Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. [2] But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.’

The implication is that Og and his people are descendants of the Nephilim.

Furthermore, Psalm 68 also has a lot to say about Bashan. Consider the following selected verses:

Psalm 68:1, 15-16, 18, 20 ESV
[1] God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan! [16] Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain, at the mount that God desired for his abode, yes, where the Lord will dwell forever? [18] You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.
[20] Our God is a God of salvation, and to God, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.

The Psalm unequivocally begins with an expectation that Yahweh will arise to battle with his enemies. These enemies are identified as relating to Bashan. Indeed, the Psalm says Bashan is envious of Zion, the mountain God desires as his forever residence. (Note that the ancients believed that gods lived in mountains, regions of the earth that were removed from ordinary human incursions.) Next, we get the familiar verse that Paul applies to Jesus in his letter to the Ephesians: “You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.” Finally and critically, the Psalm links this divine battle with Bashan to human salvation from death. As pointed out later, this is directly connected with “the gates of Hades” of Matthew 16.

Interestingly, by applying the Psalm to Jesus, Paul affirms that Jesus fulfills the expectations of this Psalm. The Psalm promises a deliverance from death, a central component of the Gospel that Paul preached. Two additional points are worth making here. First, this is yet another example of the subtle ways New Testament authors affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. Undoubtedly, the God that Psalm 68 expects to battle with Bashan is the Yahweh of Israel. Yet, the monotheistic Jew, Paul, has no problems placing Jesus in that spot of Yahweh. Also, Paul’s use of the Psalm implies that the functioning of the ministry gifts Jesus gave the church somehow contributes to deliverance from death, even as they equip saints for ministry work. We shall have more to say shortly.

The Role of Noah

We began the story from the beginning of humanity’s slide into decay. With only four named persons, there was a murder. We also saw supernatural beings’ role in increasing corruption in the land when angelic beings took on flesh and birthed the Nephilim of old. By the middle of Genesis 6, here is the report of that world:

Genesis 6:12-13 ESV
[12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So, the corruption and violence only increased, and God concluded that the generation had to be wiped out. But Noah and his family were rescued. It is vital to remember that the people rescued were part of a corrupt generation. The text does not tell us how Noah found divine favor, but we read that Noah obeyed and performed the tasks given to him (Genesis 6:8, 22). And everyone who believed Noah was also rescued. After the flood wiped out life on the earth, we read:

Genesis 9:1-3 ESV
[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. [2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. [3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The careful reader ought to catch the allusions embedded in this passage. Earlier, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply” to the humans in the Garden of Eden. The language of dominion over the animals is also reminiscent of the task given to Adam. Even Genesis 9:20, “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard,” is a clear allusion to Genesis 2:15, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” There are thus two literary functions performed by the Genesis 9:1-3 verses above. First, the world must be repopulated with Noah and his people just as Adam and Eve had to do, being the first humans (Genesis 9:19). But there is more. The verses above also remind the reader that God had not given up on addressing the problems caused by Adam and Eve. Indeed, the flood became necessary because what Adam initiated had degenerated into worse acts of violence and evil.

However, the flood was no real solution; it only slowed the decay but did not reach the root. Indeed, one of Noah’s sons would soon remind us that the problem remains. After Noah had resettled post-flood, he drank from the wine of the vineyard he had planted. He became drunk and fell asleep naked. Next, we read:

Genesis 9:22-25 ESV
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. [23] Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, [25] he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

This is a problematic passage for a few reasons. Though the passage’s text merely says Ham saw his daddy’s nakedness, verse 24 says Ham did something to his daddy while he was asleep. Merely seeing someone’s nakedness does not equal “doing” something to them. Besides, it likely was not Ham’s first time seeing his dad naked, especially when he was a little boy. The other problem is that Noah cursed not Ham, the perpetrator, but Ham’s son, Canaan. These observations have generated many interesting conversations concerning the nature of Ham’s offense, including voyeurism, paternal rape, or incestuous sex with Noah’s wife (and Ham’s mother). Now is not the time to flesh out the arguments. Regardless of how we read the story, it is a reminder that this son of Noah was no different from the others killed in the flood. In other words, again, the flood did not solve the problem of evil inclinations in human hearts. It merely scaled it down.

Shortly afterward, we are introduced to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) following a Table of Nations (Genesis 10). The world was being repopulated again through the three sons of Noah after everyone else died in the flood. As if to remind us that the flood did not solve a problem, the new generation of humans yet decided against God’s directive by choosing to congregate in a chosen spot rather than spread far and wide:

Genesis 11:4 ESV
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

So, they explicitly intended not to be “dispersed over the face of the whole earth” – the very result God wanted all along from the days of Adam. With a measure of irony, though they were going to build a tall tower reaching to the sphere of the gods, the Most High God came down instead to inspect the defiant project (Genesis 11:5). Twice, in consecutive verses, the passage says God ensured that the people were eventually dispersed over the face of earth as God always wanted (11:8,9). God achieved this desire by confusing the people’s language.

Abraham is a Major Character

Ten generations and 465 literary years later, God made a pivotal move toward solving the problems we have been discussing. Perhaps God waited until the genetic contributions of the “sons of God” and Nephilim in the gene pool were washed out. Whatever his reasons, God decided to call a 75-year-old childless Abram to derive an ultimate son from his lineage. Nine generations after Noah, God made a move:

Genesis 11:31 ESV
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.

So, Abram’s father intended to journey with some family members to a land Yahweh was very interested in, Canaan. Indeed, when God eventually called Abram, he told him to complete the journey his father had started. Understandably, Abram took everyone who began the journey with Terah with him to Canaan (Genesis 12:5). No reason is given for why God wanted Abram to complete the journey, but we are told the following:

Genesis 12:2-3 ESV
[2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

This is a familiar passage that deserves careful parsing. Narratively, Genesis 10 describes the many nations that emerged from the three sons of Noah. Strangely, God calls Abram and promises to make a hitherto non-existing great nation out of him, even though several great nations already exist on earth. In fact, Abraham did not even have a child because his wife was barren. It is as though God abandoned the other nations to start afresh with Abram. He, however, is not permanently abandoning the other nations because “all the families of the earth” somehow will be blessed by the nation God would make of Abram. From that moment forward, God specifically guarded the blessing within Abram’s lineage.

This was a serious project because God clarified that he needed no help. Abram was 75 when God called him and told him he would become a great nation, but he remained childless 10 years later. (This is a recurrent theme we have seen in Genesis so far – God never seems to be in a hurry.) So Abram (and Sarai) understandably thought they could help God initiate the “great nation” project through a second wife. But God was firm and clear:

Genesis 17:19-21 ESV
[19] God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. [21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Ishmael was not it – hence, the later Islamic claim of a prophet from Ishmael’s lineage has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. Ishmael will also become a great nation like the ones in Genesis 10. But he is not to become the “great nation” that will be a blessing to the world.

Eventually, 25 years after the initial promise, the promised son Isaac was born. And when he became a father, he gave birth to twins, creating a little problem. The “great nation” lineage can not come from both children. God must make his election clear again. It would be Jacob, despite his devious ways. Jacob would become a father of 12 sons, but the promise must be carried forward through Judah, one of Jacob’s worst and most unintegral sons. Matthew states that God closely supervised the blessing for 42 literary generations until Jesus was born.

The Gospel Effectuated

This, then, is the long-lived redemption plan of God. Jesus was the long-awaited son and deliverer. This Messiah will decisively address all the problems we have discussed. Paul clearly understands this when he writes:

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

The good news, or gospel, of God finally redeeming the cosmos did not start with Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus came to initiate the end of it. The Gospel that Jesus effectuated began with Abraham. Abraham was the genealogical head of a project that produced the promised Rescuer of the cosmos. But the problems predated even Abraham. The Jesus Event finally effectively dealt with the problems we have chronicled: the glory lost in Eden, language confusion at Babel, and the corruption of the angelic sons of God.

Jesus as Adam 2.0+

Romans 5:12-21 is an extensive contrast of Adam and Jesus, which shows that Jesus’s appearance had something to do with the ancient problem in the garden:

Romans 5:12-15 ESV
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

The argument is straightforward: Jesus reverses the error and the attending consequences of Adam’s trespass in the Garden. Whereas death, through sin, spread to all men as a result of Adam’s acts, Jesus’s obedience provides life to all who appropriate the offer:

Romans 5:18-19 ESV
[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Hence, Jesus solves the Adam Problem. Christ is the second and last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47).

Tongues in Acts: Babel Reversed

Luke, the author of Acts, seems intentional about connecting the ministry of Jesus – specifically the ministry of the Holy Spirit – to the Babel event of Genesis 11, thereby implying that Jesus addresses another ancient problem. Below is how the Babel story begins:

Genesis 11:1-4 ESV
[1] Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. [2] And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [3] And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [4] Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

The chapter begins by saying the whole world had one language. Since the previous chapter gives a table of nations, each with its own language (Genesis 10:5), we need not conclude that this verse asserts the existence of a single language from which all languages are derived – a claim against current scientific evidence. On the contrary, the verse can be taken to say the world had a lingua franca, a common language for business. The relevant point here is the flow of this narrative: the people had a common language and understanding to permanently station at a chosen spot rather than spread all over the earth as God wanted. To achieve his goal, God determined that confusing their language so they no longer understand one another was an effective way to get the people to abandon the project (Genesis 11:7, 9).

In Acts 2, the believers were gathered in one spot as Jesus instructed them. Suddenly, the Spirit descended and filled eachperson so that they “began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Meanwhile, something else was happening outside:

Acts 2:5-12 NIVUK
[5] Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. [6] When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. [7] Utterly amazed, they asked: ‘Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? [8] Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? [9] Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [10] Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome [11] (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs – we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’ [12] Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’

Religious Jews from “every nation under heaven” heard the Galileans speak in these traveling Jews’ languages. Both the “every nation under heaven” phrase and the list of nations provided allude to Genesis 10, the table of nations, and Genesis 11. And, of course, the central action is a reversal. Unlike in Genesis 11, God has supernaturally enabled all the people “from every nation under heaven” to once get his message through “common” languages.

Acts expands the pattern. Every time a distinct category of people received the gospel message, they spoke in tongues. This happens again in Acts 10 at Cornelius’ house – the first Gentile group to be accepted by God without first converting to Judaism. In Ephesus, a region far removed from the regions of the Spirit’s operations thus far in Acts, some individuals also received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. This suggests that the divine program is not geographically restricted.

The Death of Jesus and the Powers

We have been trained over the years to associate Jesus’s death with the atonement – and, for sure, it has much to do with that. But the death of Jesus addresses other critical issues. Consider the following:

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
[14] having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. [15] And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

This common passage deserves careful parsing. The central issue the letter to the Colossians addresses is the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ for salvation. The Colossian church was being harassed by some Jewish teachers teaching that the Gentile church had to do more to become complete children of God. The “more” required seemed to be about Jewish mysticism and Torah-observing. Paul would have none of that as he revealed the clearest and boldest claims about Jesus (Colossians 1:15-21; 2:9-11). In Colossians 2:8, Paul writes:

Colossians 2:8 ESV
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

In this difficult verse, Paul contrasts Christ with some “elemental spirits of the world.” According the the Faithlife Study Bible, there are three possibilities for the “elemental spirits”:

The Greek phrase used here could refer to several concepts: the basic religious teachings of Jews and Gentiles; the material parts of the universe (such as water, earth, and fire); or spiritual powers (such as evil spirits or demonic entities). In this context, the first and third options are most likely. Paul makes clear that these teachings or forces are negative influences.

In other words, Paul says the mystical Jewish doctrines are being influenced by demonic forces in opposition to Christ. This is the context for understanding 2:13 – 15. Verse 15 says Jesus disarmed the “powers and authorities” and “made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” In other words, Jesus’s death on the cross, while initiating the atonement process, was a direct victorious battle over the powers and authorities, the elemental spirits of the world who influenced the lives of the Gentiles (See Colossians 2:20). How is that so?

A Return to Bashan

As argued at length in another entry, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 is directly connected to this idea:

The Gospels record Jesus once making a 25-mile-and-15-hour trip from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus uttered the words above (See Matthew 16:13). But “Caesarea Philippi” was a new name for an ancient rocky region we have already encountered, Bashan. (See our “Gates of Hell” article for how Bashan became Caesarea Philippi.) Besides, at the time of this trip in the first century, this region had a temple devoted to Pan, the god of the underworld. It also had a grotto locals described as the “gates of Hades.” Matthew employs much wordplay in verse 18. “Peter” means “rock,” and Jesus uttered the words while he stood on a rocky surface. In other words, Jesus here declared that he would build his church right atop the gates of Hades, thereby employing another double entendre. He referred to the spiritual reality of Hades while affirming that Peter would play a critical role in the project.

Furthermore, this battle with Hades will somehow result in Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and the rest of the disciples). The Apostles had a gatekeeping role in the kingdom. It is, hence, not an accident that when the church’s construction properly began with the giving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Peter gave the first public sermon. Notice how Matthew immediately connects the “gates of Hell” pericope with the death of Jesus:

Matthew 16:21 ESV
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew here tells us that everything Jesus said hinged on his death.

As earlier shown, Paul also connects Jesus’s death and Bashan. When Jesus took the disciples to Caesarea Philippi, Paul was not yet a believer. But after Jesus appeared to him, Paul validates the “gates of Hades” story through Psalm 68. Paul repurposes Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8 – 14. Paul’s use of Psalm 68 implies that giving ministry gifts – Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Evangelists, and Teachers – to the church is a continuation of the church-building process Jesus said he would perform atop Bashan. Paul specifically says these gifts are “for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). The “body of Christ” is, of course, the church. In other words, Jesus’s one-time mission to Caesarea Philippi continues to bear fruit through ministry gifts. God continues to settle an old score, as Psalm 68 prophecies. Jesus is the Yahweh who settles the score.

John the Revelator also alludes to this reality. The resurrected Jesus introduces himself to John in this way:

Revelation 1:17-18 ESV
[17] When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, [18] and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

When and where did Jesus get “the keys of Death and Hades”? Obviously, when he died and went to the Underworld. The imagery here is of a complete routing of his enemies. He beat them so badly that he took the keys from them. They no longer can keep people in, but Jesus can keep people out of the reach of Death and Hades. As John records, Jesus’s encounter with Hades was a victory useful for encouraging believers:

Revelation 3:21 ESV
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

But, of course, believers are not expected to do battle in life by themselves or in their own strength. Indeed, there is another related reason Jesus died and rose:

Hebrews 7:24-25 NIVUK
[24] but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. [25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Right now, Jesus is praying for his own. His love for humanity is deep. When it is all said and done, God will dwell with humans in a new Eden, just he wanted always wanted:

Revelation 21:3-7 ESV
[3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” [5] And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” [6] And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. [7] The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

And this, all of this, is the gospel. This the good news that turned the ancient world upside down and brought a great empire to its knee.

Work Cited

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. 2012, 2016. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Featured Works, Islam Matters

Demonstrating the Islamic Dilemma

April 24, 2025 No Comments

If the Quran is true, then the Bible is true. But if the Bible is true, then the Quran is false.

That is the dilemma. I know this will disturb some, and others may take offense. But I want to begin by saying I’m not looking to do any of those things. My interest here is truth. I am interested in what we can establish from primary texts. As I often remark, I do not pretend to be an expert. In fact, I would appreciate substantive, reasoned pushback and clarification.

I will present my argument in three blocks. First, I will show that the Quran consistently approves of the Bible, especially the Torah and the Injeel (i.e., Gospels), as divinely inspired and unalterable words of Allah. Then, I will show that the Quran is often wrong in many details compared to the Bible. Finally, I’ll demonstrate that the Bible knows nothing about and does not anticipate the Quran.

We begin with Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 136:
قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Say, [O believers], “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”

These verses of Quran 2 clearly imply consistency and continuity in the messages revealed to Abraham all the way to Jesus. Verse 146 adds, “Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons,” even if not all of them were faithful. To avoid any misconception, Allah further reveals Quran 5, Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 46:

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

Allah has been consistent in his messaging. The message revealed to Jesus in the Gospels continues and confirms what was revealed to Moses in the Torah. Allah also says the Gospel message of Jesus “was guidance and light” for the righteous. In fact, Allah so approves of the Gospel that he further says:

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 47:
وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

So, again, we see that Allah claims to have revealed the Gospel and expects Christians to live and judge by it. Indeed, Allah rewarded those who faithfully lived by the Gospel:

Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 27:
ثُمَّ قَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِرُسُلِنَا وَقَفَّيْنَا بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا فَآتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ

Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah . But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient.

It is typically at this point in conversations that Muslim apologists generally claim that the Gospel has been corrupted. There are at least two problems with this claim. First, the Quran never makes such a claim, as shown elsewhere. On the contrary, the Quran plainly says the Bible of Muhammed’s time was reliable and trustworthy (5:43 – 44). Second, the Quran forbids such a claim. If the Gospel can be corrupted, being the authorized word of Allah, then the Quran can be corrupted. You can’t have one but not the other. Besides, Allah says his words are unalterable:

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 34:
وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُوا عَلَىٰ مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّىٰ أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِن نَّبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

And certainly were messengers denied before you, but they were patient over [the effects of] denial, and they were harmed until Our victory came to them. And none can alter the words of Allah . And there has certainly come to you some information about the [previous] messengers.

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 115:
وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

So, we see that Allah’s words cannot be altered. Furthermore, the popular idea among Muslims that the Bible was corrupt ought to have been abandoned after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls belonged to a community that existed before Jesus’s time, and the Torah therein is the same as the one in our Bible.

Here we are, then, in our argument. The Quran consistently affirms that the messages revealed to prophets like Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus all ultimately derived from Allah, and Allah’s words are incorruptible. Indeed, the Quran explicitly makes specific relevant claims:

Surah Ghafir, Verse 78:
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلًا مِّن قَبْلِكَ مِنْهُم مَّن قَصَصْنَا عَلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن لَّمْ نَقْصُصْ عَلَيْكَ وَمَا كَانَ لِرَسُولٍ أَن يَأْتِيَ بِآيَةٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ قُضِيَ بِالْحَقِّ وَخَسِرَ هُنَالِكَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

And We have already sent messengers before you. Among them are those [whose stories] We have related to you, and among them are those [whose stories] We have not related to you. And it was not for any messenger to bring a sign [or verse] except by permission of Allah . So when the command of Allah comes, it will be concluded in truth, and the falsifiers will thereupon lose [all].

The implication, again, is that the stories Allah revealed to Muhammed about prophets before him are correct and true. This means we should expect to find the same stories in the Bible, or, at the least, we should not find inconsistency. Again, the Quran supports this reading:

Surah Fussilat, Verse 43:
مَّا يُقَالُ لَكَ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ قِيلَ لِلرُّسُلِ مِن قَبْلِكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَذُو مَغْفِرَةٍ وَذُو عِقَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty.

The problem begins when we compare what Allah supposedly revealed in the Bible to what Muhammed claims in the Quran. We find too many inconsistencies – the sort one might expect from a fabrication. Let us begin with Surah 10:

Surah Yunus, Verse 37:
وَمَا كَانَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنُ أَن يُفْتَرَىٰ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

And it was not [possible] for this Qur’an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

The Quran is only about one-sixth the size of the Bible, yet it claims to be a “detailed explanation” of the Bible. The easily verifiable truth is that the Quran lacks details and often briefly alludes to biblical stories, expecting the readers to consult the Bible for details. For instance, in Quran 2, while seeking a justification for a holy army that fights on behalf of Allah, Muhammed leans on the story of the ancient Israelites in the days of kings Saul and David. The Quran devotes only six short verses to the story in 2:246 – 251, while the Bible has ten chapters for it. Unsurprisingly, what ensues is a confusion. Consider this:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 246:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الْمَلَإِ مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ مِن بَعْدِ مُوسَىٰ إِذْ قَالُوا لِنَبِيٍّ لَّهُمُ ابْعَثْ لَنَا مَلِكًا نُّقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ قَالَ هَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِن كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ أَلَّا تُقَاتِلُوا قَالُوا وَمَا لَنَا أَلَّا نُقَاتِلَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَقَدْ أُخْرِجْنَا مِن دِيَارِنَا وَأَبْنَائِنَا فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ تَوَلَّوْا إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالظَّالِمِينَ

Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, “Send to us a king, and we will fight in the way of Allah “? He said, “Would you perhaps refrain from fighting if fighting was prescribed for you?” They said, “And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?” But when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 247:
وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا قَالُوا أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِّنَ الْمَالِ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ وَاللَّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

And their prophet said to them, “Indeed, Allah has sent to you Saul as a king.” They said, “How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?” He said, “Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah gives His sovereignty to whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing [in favor] and Knowing.”

This, in fact, did not happen. In the Bible, the Israelites wanted a human king after the prophet Samuel had become old and his children were not competent judges:

1 Samuel 8:4-5 ESV
[4] Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah [5] and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

Unlike the Quran’s stated motive in 2:246, the Israelites did not ask for a king so they could become a fighting people. They wanted a king to judge their affairs. Of course, they knew that kings also fought battles. Indeed, Samuel warned them that the king they would get would rule them unfairly by conscripting their children into his army, perhaps against their will (1 Samuel 8:11 – 14). But when Saul was finally revealed as the king, the people did not protest – they were too desperate for a king. Indeed, here is how the Bible records their response:

1 Samuel 10:24 ESV
And Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people.” And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!”

The protest that the Quran attributes to the people against the selection of Saul was actually something Saul himself did. He was a man of low self-esteem. Upon having a chance to speak with the revered prophet Samuel, Saul said:

1 Samuel 9:21 ESV
Saul answered, “Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my clan the humblest of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?”

It is low self-esteem masquerading as humility. The additional details in Quran 2:247 are apocryphal. That is not how it happened.

This sort of things are not the exceptions but the rules. The Quran repeatedly misses all kinds of details too many to count. For instance, the Quran says Pharaoh’s wife raised Moses in the palace while the Bible says it was Pharaoh’s daughter. Quran 12:70 says a “golden bowl” belonging to the prince of Egypt, Joseph, was placed in Benjamin’s bag while the Bible says it was a “silver cup.” Then there are instances of extra-biblical embellishment of biblical stories. I have blogged about cases of the Quran’s use of known fictional Judeo-Christian materials in its embellishment. For instance, the Quran tells a story of the boy Jesus animating a clay bird. This story existed in a recognizable form in the non-authoritative, pseudepigraphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In other words, while claiming divine revelation, we see that the Quran merely repurposed human materials known to critics in Muhammed’s day.

Now, we are ready to proceed to the final part of the argument. Consider the following:

Surah As-Saff, Verse 6:
وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.”

The Quran explicitly says Jesus anticipates the prophethood of Muhammed while also preserving evidence that even 7th century critics did not buy it. This verse has led generations of Muslims to attempt to locate Muhammed in the Bible. John is one common place Muslims go to. Some of the usual candidates are:

John 1:20-21 ESV
[20] He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” [21] And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

John 14:16 ESV
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

There are too many reasons why this move is effete and ridiculous. First, the first chapter of John forbids a Muslim from even looking in the book for Muhammed. A good portion of the Quran is devoted to Islamic monotheism and the denial of the divinity of Jesus. But John begins his gospel account thus:

John 1:1-4 ESV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John affirms a plurality in the Godhead and names Jesus as a member of the Godhead. Clearly, John envisions a different God than the Quranic Allah.

Second, the passages above clearly do not refer to Muhammed. The John 1:20 – 21 passage above is about the JEWISH Messiah, and verse 20 explicitly says that. Third, Muhammed died and did not resurrect and so he did not live “forever.” Even if he did, Muhammed never met the disciples of Jesus and could not have been with them forever. Fourth, the very next verse in John 14 explicitly names the referent, “the Spirit of Truth” who, in the narrative world of John, is also referred to as the Holy Spirit.

Besides, according to the Torah, which Allah supposedly revealed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Muhammed (or anyone else in his genealogy) to be “the prophet.” When God called Abraham and promised him that his offspring will be a blessing to the world, God seemingly did not set the promise rolling ten years after. Abraham was worried and tried to help God out by taking a second wife, Hagar. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and Abraham reasoned that God’s promise and blessing might materialize through Ishmael’s lineage. But God explicitly rejected Ishmael and his lineage:

Genesis 17:18-21 ESV
[18] And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” [19] God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. [21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Because he was Abraham’s son, God prospered Ishmael materially. But Ishmael was not going to bear the covenant of a seed of Abraham becoming a blessing to the world. Muhammed cannot be found anywhere in the Bible because Allah made sure of it centuries prior.

Here we are then. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. But if the Bible is true, the Quran is demonstrably false. This is the Islamic Dilemma.

If you are an informed Muslim or know someone who is, consider sharing this piece with them.

Christianity Dissected, Featured Works

Atonement Requires More than the Death of Jesus

April 21, 2025 No Comments

I understand that this can become a charged issue for many Christians and that various Christian traditions over the ages have taught that Jesus’s death by itself was sufficient for atonement. Indeed, I believed similarly until I came across a scholarly work by David Moffitt. When we interact with various biblical data points, we will see that the Bible says something different about our topic. The belief that Jesus’ death was all needed for atonement has much biblical data for it. Here are a few:

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The idea here is that of the sacrificial lamb in Jewish temple rituals. Of course, John would further clarify that this lamb was slain in Revelation 5:6. Together, the verses imply that the slaying of the Lamb equals the taking away of sins.

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. [15] He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Paul says the “record of debt” opposing the Colossians before God was canceled by nailing it to the cross. The idea is substitutionary. God took care of sins by the cross.

Romans 5:6, 8 ESV
[6] For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
[8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Again, Paul reiterates the same message that Jesus’ death has much to do with addressing humanity’s status as “sinners.”

There are other examples one could point to in defence of the traditional understanding that the death of Jesus by itself takes care of the human sin problem. However, a few other passages provide more details that must be accounted for along with the verses above. Consider the following:

1 Corinthians 15:16-17 ESV
[16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

This is a fantastic passage that is often overlooked. 1 Corinthians 15 is believed to be the earliest piece of Christian writing – before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul here defends the resurrection of Jesus and tells his audience, if they were in doubt, to investigate the over 500 people still alive then and who saw the risen Jesus. In the quoted verses above, Paul says the Corinthians (and all of us) are still in our sins and retain the “sinners” status if Jesus did not resurrect. Contrasted with the traditional understanding of atonement, this is a staggering claim. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then he remains forever dead. But if the death of Jesus per se was sufficient for atonement, then the resurrection should not matter. In other words, we should not remain in our sins if Jesus did not rise! Yet, the same Paul who makes the statements to the Colossians and the Romans now tells the Corinthians that there is more to the story.

Furthermore, Paul is not alone on this point. Indeed, one of the central themes of the book of Hebrews has to do with this subject. Consider the following:

Hebrews 7:25 ESV
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

This text says the resurrected Jesus lives to intercede for believers to save them “to the uttermost” or completely. Again, if his death took care of sin, why did he rise only to continuously make intercession for the people who already believed? The implication is that, contrary to a popular claim, the death of Jesus does not cover all sins – past, present, and future.

The penetrating insight Moffitt, a specialist in the book of Hebrews, offers is that we should understand Jesus’s sacrifice in light of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system. When we do, we realize that atonement sacrifices in ancient Judaism were not an event but a process. When a sinner approached the temple for propitiation, he came with an animal (a bull is required for the sin offering, a ram for a burnt offering, and two additional goats for Yom Kippur. See Leviticus 4 and 16). The sinner seeking to be cleansed then lays his hands on the head of the animal in a substitutionary move; his sins are transferred to the animal. Then, the animal is killed in the courtyard/entrance to the tent of the meeting. Here is an important point: the sinner is NOT yet cleansed because the animal was killed. There are yet more critical steps in the process.

The instructions differ a bit depending on whether the sinner is a priest, an ordinary Israelite, or an elder. But they invariably involve bringing some of the blood of the slain animal inside the Tent of Meeting. The priest would sprinkle some of the blood on the altar and pour the rest at the base of the burnt offering altar. The animal’s fat will be removed and burnt on the altar of the burnt offering. Then, the remaining parts of the slain animal – the head, legs, entrails, and dung – will be carried outside the camp to be burnt on a fire of wood. Only after the process is complete is a sinner assured of forgiveness.

Remarkably, the author of Hebrews sees the sacrifice of Jesus in the same way and declares the sacrificial system of Judaism as “copies of the true things” (9:24). Here is a relevant quote:

Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV
[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) [12] he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Jesus entered the holy places not in his death but through the ascension that followed his resurrection. This is why the resurrection is essential. If Jesus remained dead, he would have failed to complete the atonement process. This is not to trivialize his death – after all, there can be no resurrection without his death. So, all the New Testament passages suggesting that Jesus’s death achieved atonement took the resurrection (and ascension) for granted. The authors were aware of the process but focused on portions of the process as they saw fit. But when a church like the Corinthians started twisting truths, Paul had to set them straight by emphasizing the criticality of the resurrection in the atonement process.

Here is the key takeaway: Whereas the death of Jesus is by itself insufficient for atonement, Jesus is! The cross is vital, but it is not all there is. We don’t fix our gaze on the cross. We fix our gaze on the one who was on the cross and rose again!

Referenced Work

Moffitt, David M. Rethinking Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Baker Academic, 2022.

DC Videos, Featured Works, Sacred Syllogism

Logic for Faith Folks

April 18, 2025 No Comments

Rules of Valid Syllogism

Featured Works, Islam Matters

Women are Eternally Inferior in Islam

April 7, 2025 No Comments

To a Christian, the fourth chapter of the Quran would be most important for its emphatic denial of the crucifixion of Jesus (4:157) and Jesus’ sonship (4:171), which are important ideas we have addressed elsewhere. However, this chapter also fleshes out an idea earlier introduced in the Quran: the inferiority of women. As we shall argue, the Quran is consistent in its portrayal of the inferiority of women. Women in Islam are not only inferior in this life but will also remain inferior in the afterlife. Let us begin with 4:2-3:

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 2:
وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا الْخَبِيثَ بِالطَّيِّبِ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَىٰ أَمْوَالِكُمْ إِنَّهُ كَانَ حُوبًا كَبِيرًا

And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime.

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 3:
وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Featured Works

The Damascus Road Experience: Understanding Galatians 1:11-12

March 30, 2025 1 Comment

Galatians 1:11-12 NIV
[11] I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. [12] I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

That is a staggering claim. Paul here says the gospel he preached had no human origin because no human taught it to him. In other words, Paul claims not to have attended a Sunday School meeting or responded to an altar call. If he had done any of these things, he would have been exposed to the human teachings of the gospel.

However, Paul seems to affirm the opposite position in 1 Corinthians: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (15:3 ESV). Here, Paul says he received the central Christian message concerning the death of Jesus apparently from those who were Apostles before him. (It also could be that Paul here says he received it from Jesus himself.) Do we have a contradiction in Paul’s messaging, or might there be more beneath the surface? That is the question this piece is devoted to. I shall argue that Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus is the key that unravels these verses and that there is no contradiction. Being a late apostle, Paul had to rely on the earlier Apostles for the historical bits he missed out on, such as the sermons, sayings, and deeds of Jesus while he walked among disciples. However, Paul’s claim of not being taught the Gospel can co-exist with his (later) reliance on the Apostles.

Featured Works, Islam Matters

Unveiling Scriptures: The Quran on Alleged Bible Corruption

February 19, 2025 1 Comment

“Elohim”, “Allah,” and “God” function quite similarly in their original linguistic contexts. Indeed, the English language is somewhat odd here. The modern rule of capitalizing proper nouns muddies the waters. Initially, without qualifications, these words do not pick out any specific deity. At various points, I have highlighted that elohim is a common noun, not a proper one. In the Bible, elohim refers to Yahweh, Satan, angels, foreign gods, the spirit of a dead human, and so on.
Similarly, “allah” in the pre-Islamic era does not mean what it is now taken to mean. Indeed, the allah of that era was Hubal, the moon god with a dedicated shrine at the famous Ka’ba in Mecca. Some Islamic sources tell us that Hubal was imported from Syria. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammed cleansed the Kabah by destroying the idols and rededicating it to another God identified with the Biblical God, but this narrative is not without problems, as we shall now see.

Christianity Decolonized, Featured Works

Yahweh and the Other Gods: Understanding Biblical Idolatry

January 31, 2025 No Comments

Background

In ancient times, people did not worship idols as if they were, per se, deities. Agbẹ́gilére, the skilled sculptor who creates numerous copies of a deity’s idol in his shop, understands that these idols are not the real divine beings; if he believed they were, there would absurdly be countless Èṣù and Baal as gods. Moreover, on a successful business day, his shop would otherwise be empty of gods—something no one desired! Everyone recognized that an idol was a vital point of contact, a mediator, to connect with a specific god. Each “idol worshipper” sought to reach her particular deity through the idols and her supplications. Strictly speaking, nobody thought a god was destroyed because his idols were burned. And, of course, a devotee could always get new replacement idols. This is not to deny that devotees sometimes think of their idols as gods, especially after repeated associations. However, idols can be viewed as gods precisely because of their connection with immaterial, external deities.

1 2 3 … 7 Next »