The Culture War: Part 2

Part 2 in a lecture series I delivered for a Baptist church.

Introduction

            In last week's lecture, you learned about the history of the culture war. It started when the Deists, in reaction to the religious wars, sought to undermine belief in the Christian worldview. Due to the intellectual weakening brought about by the Great Awakening revivals, Americans were unprepared to face the challenges to the Christian worldview brought about by European secularists. Today, opposition to the Christian worldview is being fueled primarily by proponents of sexual liberation. Sexual liberation is a movement which seeks to separate sex, marriage, and reproduction into three distinct, independent decisions. Moral relativism is almost wholly sexual. No one defends nuclear war, oil spills, dumping pollutants into a reservoir, insider trading, or even smoking on the idea of moral relativism. But if it has to do with sexual liberation, it is justified, sanctified, and glorified in that name.

            This is why people spend so much time and money trying to undermine the Christian worldview.  Before there was Christianity in Europe, sexual ethics were very loose. I am not going to go into detailed descriptions, but let's just say that for all the stuff that the sexual liberation movement wants, pre-Christian Europe had that and more. Abortion and infanticide were also permitted, as they were a sort of backup birth control. The secularists in America and Europe want to turn the clock back to the pre-Christian days. The question is: can we stop them, and if so, how?

What We Can Do

            The first thing we need to recognize is that we have had more than enough resources to do this. We still do. Evangelicals are 20% of the American population, and give $10 billion last year to ECFA-accredited organizations. We have the numbers and we have the money.

            We also need to understand that activity is not the same as productivity, and that evangelism is not the same as culture shaping. Billy Graham noted this when he admitted that his crusades, despite winning enormous numbers of converts, did little to affect the state of American culture. This is because evangelism and culture shaping do different things. Asking whether we should do one or the other is like asking whether you should shower or brush your teeth. It’s not an either/or decision.

            Culture shaping is different because the way it is practiced is different. For example, being a good person is quite helpful for evangelism, but not generally for culture shaping. The Nazis in Germany, the Communists in the Soviet Union, even the advocates for transgenderism and same sex marriage in the United States are not known as nice or good people, and yet they have all wielded tremendous cultural influence. Culture shaping deals with the question: from what sources do we get our information about the world? The vast majority of the public get their information from the public schools, secular universities, news media, and entertainment television. We the Evangelicals will not begin to wield significant cultural influence until        we have substantial representation in all four of these fields.

Get Informed

            The next question people will ask is: How can I make any difference at all? Recognize that you are not special. All those children's books and TV shows and movies that say "if you keep dreaming you will one day become that astronaut or rock star or whatever" are lying to you. Of course, this also means that no one else is special, either. Dr. Craig did not become the world's leading debate apologist because there is anything special about him. People tend to think that individuals like him, Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, and Stephen Hawking are uniquely talented and therefore it was inevitable that they would become successful. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Talent has little to do with their success. Dr. Craig simply put more time and more effort and more sacrifice into developing his skills than anyone else did. Nine hours per day of research for a couple of decades and you too could wield Dr. Craig’s level of influence. There are enough young people in this room to completely change the course of American history. The question is: how badly do you want to make a difference and what are you willing to give up to do it?

            Before you do anything, you need to get connected with a small group. This is a prerequisite to any sort of world-changing endeavor. The counter-cult apologist James White noted that every single apologetics disaster he has ever encountered was the result of someone trying to engage skeptics without first being a member of a local church and an accountability group. The reason is that you are very vulnerable to peer pressure, even when you do not realize it. When I studied under the rabbis at the kollel, they would sometimes bring up these arguments against Christianity. On Sunday, I would attend church and occasionally mention one of these arguments to my peers. Even as the words left my mouth that same argument which seemed so devastating when I heard it seemed so trivial and weak, I wondered why I had even brought it up. The environment in which I heard the objection made all the difference as to how plausible I found it.

            The first step is really simple. Get informed. Just subscribe to a blog like Wintery Knight, who is an apologist that analyzes the news. Read an article every few days, and then politely bring his talking points when you are having conversations about the topics he discusses.

            To get even more informed, Lee Strobel's books are a great introduction to apologetics topics. The best thing is that you don't even need to read the books. All of them are available on audiobook format. Even better, if you get a library card, you can borrow these audiobooks for free, listen to them when you're driving, and then return them. Strobel goes through all the popular-level objections, so simply by reading or listening to his books, you will have an answer to almost every objection you will encounter.

            To get more informed, get the audio lectures for Biola's Apologetics Certificate program. You don't need to take the tests. just get the lectures on CD, and there are a lot of them. The idea here is that the Certificate program gives a very broad introduction to all the major areas of apologetics. Complete the lectures, and according to Craig Hazen, you will know more about religion than 90% of the public.

            Let's say that is not enough for you. You don't want to be in the top 10 percent. You want to get in the upper 1 percent. No problem. Go to the website Apologetics 315, go to the Ultimate Audio page, and download the lectures by Phil Fernandes. There are a whole lot of them. Dr. Fernandes is an articulate speaker and can get you up to speed rapidly on all sorts of apologetics issues.

            A video series you might want to check out is from the group called The Fuel Project. They outline the culture war, going through the entire history. The first video series is called Know Your Enemy. The current series in the works is called Stay Free.

            For those who want to go off the deep end in being informed, there are plenty of graduate degrees available. Biola has a Master's degree in apologetics. It takes two years, and almost all of it can be done remotely. Students of the MA in apologetics only need to travel to Biola for two weeks the first summer and two weeks the next summer. Many apologists got their start with Biola's program. Mary Jo Sharp is a famous apologist and her formal apologetics education is Biola's MA program.

            And what we need ultimately is for more young Evangelicals to dedicate their lives toward winning this culture war. This means getting advanced degrees at secular universities and then teaching worldview-oriented subjects, such as philosophy, literature, history, economics, and sociology at secular universities. The ultimate achievement is if some Evangelical who is also a diehard creationist would get a doctorate from a secular university in evolutionary biology. The Darwinists are scared to death of something like this happening. In fact, their main line of argumentation against creationists is "you do not have a respectable degree in evolutionary biology, so you don't know what you are talking about." A creationist with an evolutionary biology degree would completely undercut that argument.

Get Involved

            Get involved. And let me tell you how simple this is. The Discovery Institute is one of the chief enemies of the sexual liberation movement. They are making inroads into mainstream science that no creationist group has done in recent history. Their entire budget is only about $4 million. If every Evangelical donated $20 to the Discovery Institute, they would have an influx of 1.2 BILLION dollars. That's not $20 a month, or $20 a year. That's $20 one time in your life.

            There are other ways of getting invovled. One way is to take a group through The Truth Project. The Truth Project is a production by Focus on the Family that deals with the big questions of life. According to the Barna Research Group, only 9 percent of professing Christians have what they call a "biblical" worldview. Because of this, today's believers live similarly to non-believers. The Truth Project helps us to see how a biblical worldview would address topics like the universe, the mind, evolution, art, law, truth, and ethics. If you can get your teens to go through it, the Truth Project will help them to understand the biblical worldview so that they can discern truth from error when going off to college.

            You can also get involved in pulpit freedom Sunday. In 1954, Lyndon Johnson proposed an amendment to the tax code to clamp down on the ability of pastors to influence our nation’s politics. The order says that churches are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for elective public office. The Alliance Defending Freedom has a once-a-year event where they challenge pastors to give sermons on political issues and even on candidates. If your church gets targeted by the IRS, the ADF will mobilize its army of lawyers to fight for your church free of charge.

            Another way that people persuade others is through political campaigning. You will notice in election years, candidates will plan out their campaign so that they can maximize their impact on the important battleground states. They know that more time and more visits and more speeches will result in more influence and more persuasion. But if this is good for candidates during election years, why do we not do this for issues during non-election years?

            Note as well that we are campaigning for issues, not for political parties and not for candidates. I cannot tell you how many Christians get sidetracked into campaigning for their pet candidate rather than trying to shape the national worldview. There is a saying that great minds discuss ideas. Ordinary minds discuss situations. Lesser minds discuss people. This means that most political campaigning is for lesser minds. We need to rise above this and become great minds. This is not some sterile ideal, but has real-world implications. Campaigns around issues can have an impact on many elections, both in the present and in the future. Campaigns around candidates affect one or two elections, and that’s about it. No matter how badly a campaign is able to blow away support for John McCain or John Kerry, or Howard Dean, the effects simply do not carry over to later elections. However, changing public opinion on the issues affects everyone’s campaign. Politicians do a good job of shifting with the political winds. This is why while many candidates may hate homeschooling, nobody at this time will push to outlaw homeschooling. Twenty years ago, very few political candidates would support same-sex marriage. Today, many Republican candidates are now supporting it. If public opinion shifts on an issue, both parties will accommodate it. That is why we support issues, rather than parties.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, then, there are many things we can do in order to win back the culture. The most important thing you need to know is that everyone can make some level of difference. Everyone can do something to help us out. What’s really awesome is that because we have such large numbers, it takes very little effort for each Christian to pull his or her weight. Just donate a small amount to culture-shaping causes, read the basic apologetics books by Strobel, and be willing to engage unbelievers in polite conversation, and we can win this.

            We are already seeing the consequences of what will happen should we lose this culture war. In California, public school restrooms are now transgender. This means that any boy who declares himself to be of the female gender can use a woman’s restroom, and vice versa. Christians are already facing fines and even jail time for refusal to provide services to same sex weddings. Activists for the sexual liberation movement are trying to get traditional Christian views on sexuality to be declared as hate speech and therefore subject to legal censorship. The church will still exist. Evangelicalism in some form will still exist, except that it will fall to syncretism, which is where the church mixes Christian culture with the secular worldview. You can see this in people like Rob Bell, or even John Shelby Spong. If we lose this culture war, nearly all the churches will be culturally Christian but secularist in all the areas that affect politics, and any church that says otherwise will be viewed by the public the same way we view the Westboro Baptist Church.

            Of course, not everyone will pull his or her weight, so some of us will have to do a little more. Turn your driving time into learning time. In the next ten years, you will likely spend as much time in your car as someone spends earning a four year degree. Are you going to waste that time listening to music, the radio, sermons and the like? Or are you going to invest that time in increasing your knowledge?

            The outcome of the culture war has not yet been decided. It could go either way. The fate of American Christianity is in your hands. Don’t blame the darkness for being dark. Blame the light for not being light enough.

The Culture War: Part 1

A lecture I gave for a Baptist church on the culture war between Evangelical Christianity and the forces of secularism.

Introduction

            The United States culture today is far different than it was even a generation ago. Intellectualism is equated with unbelief. Look at the different brainiac educational programs: the Discovery Channel, the Big Think, Bill Nye, National Geographic, and the like. They are all extremely secular. When something like the Discovery Channel has something on Jesus or the Bible, it is usually something that does not support the Evangelical worldview.

            As our education goes, so do our ideologies. Darwinian biology is rampant, and infects every aspect of how Americans view life. One of the worst changes is in America’s sexual ethics. Because we are seen as evolved primates, sexual liberation is the norm. The idea of sex, marriage, and procreation being one indivisible whole is basically gone, and has been replaced with increasingly depraved pornography and the hook-up culture. No-fault divorce and the acceptance of fornication have led to record levels of children growing up in broken homes, which greatly increases their chances of becoming career criminals. Diseases are spread faster and faster, and the sex education programs in our schools are treating these diseases as a rite of passage. This is not just advanced by atheists, but also by deeply spiritual people, such as Oprah. Even Evangelicals, such as Rob Bell, are fully in line with this ethic of sexual liberation. It seems only a matter of time before same sex marriage becomes law and Evangelicals are punished for speaking out against it.

            But it doesn’t stop there, one only need to look at Europe to see what potentially awaits us. As theologically conservative Christians have continued to lose control of the main rudders of society (government, education, the news media), secularism has become increasingly aggressive in stamping out the remains of Evangelical Christianity. This is why Germany does not allow homeschooling. The supreme court of Germany stated that they prohibit homeschooling to prevent the rise of parallel religious or philosophically motivated societies. In plain English, they do not want to see anything like Christian Fundamentalism become in any way mainstream in Germany. Instead, they want to make sure that the government-run public schools ensure uniform indoctrination of the public. Sweden is even worse. Not only is homeschooling forbidden, but it is illegal for any school to teach against Darwinian biology. So if you live in Sweden, your children will be brainwashed with Darwinism whether you like it or not. And this will happen to us, too, if we lose this culture war.

            Potentially, it could get as bad for us as it was for Orthodox Judaism in the old Soviet Union. Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism had survived almost 2000 years of intense persecution by both the Church and the Muslim empire, yet neither had effectively wiped the religion out. The Bolshevik revolution came to Russia, and brought about the all-controlling State. The Communist party took over all areas of life, especially the educational institutions. Children were taught anti-religious propaganda in the schools. If the parents offered objections or counterarguments, and the kids repeated them in the schools, then the government would come to their door and send the family to the gulags to mine uranium for a few years. Repeat offenses would result in the kids getting repossessed. Within one generation, Orthodox Judaism was annihilated in the Soviet Union.

How Secularism Began

            Dr. Craig notes the beginning of secularism in the western world in Reasonable Faith. During the Protestant Reformation, the struggle between Roman Catholics and the different denominations of Protestantism led to many bloody and terrible wars. It was in the wake of these wars that the worldview of Deism began to take hold. The Deists believed that no religion was correct, and believed that religion was the cause of such massive bloodshed. As a result, the Deists undertook their great project to undermine belief in the Christian faith.

            The first step in this master plan: Philosophy, which is the one discipline that affects all other academic disciplines. The Deists’ first task was to come up with arguments against divine revelation. The Deists noticed that as science advanced, the world looked more like a machine run by inviolable laws. Therefore, no one, not even God, can act in a way contrary to these laws, so miracles are not possible. Therefore, Christianity is false. Also, they argued that because all our knowledge is based on sense experience, then we cannot know about things outside the world of sense experience. So any talk about metaphysics or about God, is simply gibberish. It’s nonsense.

            The result of this change in Philosophy led to massive changes in theology and biblical studies. Theologians had to re-construct the field of theology to accommodate the belief that we cannot know anything about the supernatural. Hence, liberal theology was born. Liberal theology is not so much about God, as it is just a form of sociology. Biblical studies had to accommodate the view that miracles do not occur. The Bible became a book not about God’s attributes and miraculous intervention throughout history, but a set of good moral tales, like Aesop’s fables. The task of biblical scholars was to demythologize the Bible. In doing so, they hoped that they would be able to preserve Christianity in some form, even if this liberal Christianity had little to do with the Christianity as practiced by the early church.

How it Hit America

            This change in European academia took time to hit American shores. Because of the separation of church and state, American academics did not have the same incentive to undermine religion as their European counterparts did. So how did America become so secularized? The answer is: through anti-intellectualism in the church. Once upon a time, the pastor was the most learned person in the community. Most of the universities were founded by church leaders in order to teach theology. This changed after the success of the Great Awakening revivals. The revival movements themselves were successes. In fact, they were so successful, that they would eventually lead to the downfall of Evangelical Christianity in America. The emotion-based evangelism, and simple preaching based on personal stories gained so many converts so quickly, that the churches emphasized that at the expense of intellectual development. As a result, many people became converted, and yet had no real knowledge of doctrine. This led to the birth of many cults, including the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York’s famous “burned over district.”

            But the rise of the cults was not the only problem. After the Civil War, the rising secularism in Europe was finally exported to America. The Enlightenment view of philosophy attacked the arguments for the existence of God and the possibility of miracles. Enlightenment biblical scholarship led scholars, particularly German scholars, to distrust the Bible as a historically accurate source. Finally, Darwinian biology also came to America, calling into question our very purpose, as well as the reliability of Genesis. It also led to an enormous rise in atheism.

            Because the revivals had so greatly weakened the churches intellectually, they were simply no match for the intellectually rigorous secularism that was threatening their very worldview. Instead of retrenching themselves intellectually, and gearing up for a war of ideas with the secularists, Christians generally abandoned the mainstream intellectual realm and became suspicious of intellectual issues altogether. Christian Fundamentalism retreated from the mainstream universities and the mainline seminaries, letting the secularists conquer them almost uncontested. Christianity retreated into a little subculture with Christian universities, Christian music, and Christian movies and entertainment. By cutting itself off from the mainstream society, Christian Fundamentalism gave up its ability to influence the majority of the American population. The anti-Christian secularists slowly took over, and were able to work the mainstream culture against the worldview of Christian Fundamentalism.

            Worse, rapturist eschatology justified this move. The popular idea at the time was that the end of the world was coming soon, and so the Christian communities sought to protect themselves from the secular influence as they waited for either the rapture or the return of Christ. This is like Americans who are in a foreign country which is undergoing a violent revolution. As the revolutionaries capture location after location, the Americans continue to retreat until they lock themselves inside the walls of the embassy, hoping that the helicopters will arrive before the embassy is overrun. The problem is, those helicopters might not be coming for another thousand years or more. If we give up the culture war, and try to isolate ourselves until the rapture arrives, we might find American Evangelicalism exterminated long before the return of Christ.

The Scopes Trial

            As Darwinism was sweeping through academia, many Christians became uneasy, and sought to keep it out of the public schools. However, there were also forces at work who were determined to force secularism on the American public, which is why the Scopes Monkey trial became the media fest that it was. The New York Civil Liberties Union wanted to force a confrontation with the creationists, so they asked for a volunteer to state that he taught evolution in an area where the law forbid doing so. The confrontation happened in the backwoods country of Tennessee, and the press turned the entire trial into a national sensation. On the side representing the creationists was William Jennings Bryan, a politician who had little training in biology, theology, biblical studies, or apologetics. On the evolution side was Clarence Darrow, who was perhaps New York’s top criminal attorney. In 100 murder cases, he had only one loss. Bryan’s real blunder was his eagerness to cross swords with Darrow. The result was a disaster. Bryan took the witness stand was absolutely demolished by Darrow. Ironically, this whole confrontation was expunged from the record, as it was irrelevant to the case. Still, the confrontation was a huge public relations victory for the secularists. Let this be a lesson to any pastor who wants to debate skeptics.

Before the Scopes trial, the strengths of Fundamentalism were in the northern and eastern section of the United States. Fundamentalism was looked upon as a conservative, businesslike, sophisticated, and urban coalition. After the Scopes trial, the image of Fundamentalism was one of ignorant, dangerous backwoods rednecks, people who must at all costs be prevented from gaining any level of political power.

The Aftermath

The aftermath of the Scopes trial was different than anyone would have expected. Fundamentalism grew quite rapidly after the trial, although this was despite the outcome, not because of it. Many bible colleges were founded, and the Fundamentalist movement gained a sizeable percentage of the American population. The problem was that Fundamentalism basically kept the adherents out of the public intellectual realm, where they could wield the most influence over the culture. The Fundamentalist movement gained large numbers, but in the areas of least cultural leverage. The effects endure to this day. Evangelical Christians compose about a fifth of the American population, and yet compose far less than a fifth of the scientific community, academics, members of the news media, and government leaders.

In the past, Fundamentalists have been able to hide themselves from atheist arguments by retreating into isolationism, living away from the liberal cities and homeschooling their children. But now, thanks to the Internet, there is no longer any place to hide. If the arguments from the unbelievers are superior to our own, then they will inevitably overcome us given enough time. We cannot run and hide for much longer.

The Light

There is hope. Dr. Craig himself is at the forefront of a movement in America that is undoing the effects of the Scopes trial. Organizations like Reasonable Faith, Biola University, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the Discovery Institute are all working to turn the tide in this culture war, and there have been some enormous successes. The atheist philosopher Quentin Smith is scared to death over what he calls the desecularization of philosophy. While religious philosophy was dead in the first half of the 20^th century, the work of Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig finally overcame the objections of the Deists and now, the arguments for God are back on the table. The logical argument from evil, which states that God cannot co-exist with evil, which has plagued theism for over 2,000 years is now considered soundly refuted thanks to the work of one man: Alvin Plantinga. The pro-life movement is gaining tremendous momentum thanks to ultrasound. And now, ultrasound devices are becoming available on your smartphone. Thanks to the work of Liberty University, we are starting to see members of the Evangelical Right entering the news media and politics.

In The Case For a Creator, Lee Strobel talks about one of Dr. Craig’s encounters with a top Eastern European physicist, whose study of science had destroyed her belief in God. She said that now when she looks at the world, all she sees is darkness without and darkness within. After being given his dissertation on the Kalaam argument, and as she read it over a few days, she became more and more excited. She knew all the people he was quoting, and knew that he was quoting them accurately. Finally, when she returned his dissertation she announced “I now believe in God. Thank you for restoring my faith in him.” He asked the scientist if she would want to know God in a personal way. When she accepted, Dr. Craig then invited her to meet that night in a local restaurant. When they met, he had given the scientist a handwritten version of the Four Spiritual Laws tract that he and Jan had prepared earlier that day. They read through the booklet and got to the part that asks whether God is outside your life or on the throne of your life, she stopped reading because it was too personal. The next day, Dr. Craig saw that the scientist’s face was beaming with joy. She told him that she had gone into her home that night and prayed to accept Christ into her life. She took all the drugs that she had been abusing and flushed them down the toilet. Several months later, Dr. Craig met her at another convention, and she told Dr. Craig that the two most precious possessions that she had were her New Testament and four spiritual laws tract that Dr. Craig had given her.

The question is: is this going to last, or will it be a flash in the pan? I propose that we will determine the answer to that question. Next week, we will get to work on what we can do about this culture war. How is it being fought today, and how can we help? What can we do to win this fight?

Culture War Resource List

These past couple of weeks, I have been doing a lecture series on the culture war. This is the list of resources that I mentioned in that lecture series:

Books (Remember that many of these are available in audio book format!)

The Case for a Creator

The Case for Christ

The Case for the Real Jesus

The Case for Faith

On Guard

Reasonable Faith

Scaling the Secular City

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense

Politics by Wayne Grudem

Poverty and Wealth by Ronald Nash

The Truth Project (DVD set)

 

Websites

Apologetics 315 Ultimate Audio

Apologetics 315 Recommended BookDirectory

Biola Distance Learning CertificateProgram in Christian Apologetics

Reasonable Faith

Vox Day (news)

Wintery Knight (news)

The Fuel Project

Uncommon Descent

 

Podcasts

Reasonable Faith

Defenders

Ronald Nash Advanced Worldview Analysis

Science News Flash (Reasons to Believe)

any podcast by Dr. Phil Fernandes

 

Organizations to Support

Reasonable Faith

Risen Jesus

Ratio Christi

Why Should I Believe

Discovery Institute (Intelligent Design)

Alliance Defending Freedom

American Center for Law and Justice

Life Training Institute

Institute for Creation Research (Young Earth Creationism)

Creation Research Society (Young Earth Creationism)

Reasons to Believe (Old Earth Creationism)

Evangelical Philosophical Society

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 40

The Lord says to my Lord:

“Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.” (Psalm 110:1)

This can also be interpreted as "Yahweh says to my master." The significance of this verse is that Jesus quotes it to shut the mouths of his opponents.

And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly. 
(Mark 12:35-37) 

Peter also quotes this passage in his sermon.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:33-36)

 Troki replies:

To this I made the following reply:—We attribute to David the composition of the 137th Psalm, commencing, "On the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept," a Psalm obviously treating of the Babylonian Captivity, which took place about four centuries after the death of David. An allusion to so distant a period could only have been made by a holy and an inspired writer.

Troki quotes other psalms such as 2:7, 137, 79, 74, and 96 as psalms written about the time of exile. Troki also makes another insight.

We must mention here, by way of digression, a misinterpretation given to the passage, "And Melchizedek brought out wine and bread." The Christians believe, that the bread and wine were offered as articles of sacrifice, but plain sense compels us to believe that the presentation of these things was merely for the entertainment of his guests.

The wine and bread were not sacrifices, just as the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. It is a repetition of the imagery used by Melchizedek. Just as Melchizedek brought out wine and bread as part of a sacred meal, Jesus brought wine and bread, so that as long as his followers would observe the Lord's Supper, they would remember what he did for them. It is not a sacrifice, and the bread and wine are still called "bread and wine" even after they have been consecrated. This is not only repeated quite often by the church fathers, but Paul also mentions it in his first letter to the Corinthians.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 
(1 Corinthians 11:23-32)

 When it is eaten, it has already been consecrated. If it had not, then eating in an unworthy manner would not have brought judgment. Yet it is still bread when it is eaten. This means that even though eating without discerning the body brings judgment, the body is still bread! Hence, transubstantiation is false.

Regarding Troki's objections, he still needs to give an answer for the question: "Who is speaking?" Troki says that it is not David, but Troki does not give much of an argument for it. In Psalm 2, it is explicitly God who is speaking. In Psalm 137 the Edomites are being explicitly quoted. In Psalm 74, God's foes are being quoted. In Psalm 96, the author tells his people to say something among the nations. In all instances, the chapter explicitly announces when it is quoting someone else.

No such announcement exists in this psalm. Since this is a psalm of David, one should ascribe Davidic authorship to it. It is ridiculous to state that David wrote this psalm about himself. The language glorifies the subject, especially when it speaks that the people will offer themselves freely on the day of his power, and that Yahweh has sworn to make the subject a priest in the order of Melchizedek. David was no priest, and it would be the height of arrogance for David to proclaim himself as such. Such a psalm, if written by David and about David, would make the man the biggest narcissist in the Bible.

As Michael Brown noted: Imagine a father writing a letter for his kids to read to him. It beings with "Dear Dad, you are the greatest dad who has ever lived." and goes on to pile on lavish praise. No sane father would write such a letter for his kids to recite, and yet we are supposed to believe that King David wanted later generations to recite this about him!

The subject sits at the highest place of honor: at the right hand of Yahweh himself. Since Messianic expectations began in Genesis 49 and began to take further shape after the monarchy was established, why then could not a monarch like David write about the later Messiah?

Answering Critics: The Anti-Missionary's Double Standard

My main point of contention in my previous work was that anti-missionaries use one standard when evaluating rabbinic tradition and another when evaluating the New Testament.


Non-Existent Prophecies

The issue with Ezra 9:10-12 is that it is parallel to Matthew's quote in chapter 2.

“And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments, which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land that you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land impure with the impurity of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations that have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.’ (Ezra 9:10-12)

 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2:23)

 Both claim to use the words of the prophets. However, just as Matthew's quote cannot be found in the Tanakh, neither can Ezra's quote be found there. If the anti-missionary wants to fault Matthew for quoting a non-existent passage, than the author of Ezra will have to be faulted as well, and for the same reason.

And for the record, Matthew's quote is a reference to Isaiah 11:1.

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. (Isaiah 11:1)

 The branch is (נֵצֶר) Netzer. Jesus was from Nazareth (נָצְרַת) Netzeret.
So Jesus is the branch and he is from branchland.

Burden of Proof

The second issue is regarding the burden of proof. The burden of proof in philosophical discourse is merely a statement that the person who makes a claim has to give some good reason for it. This keeps someone who is asserting a claim from appealing to ignorance. If we are going to debate the messiahship of Jesus, the default position should not be that is is or is not the Messiah, but that we do not know. The two sides will then give arguments for their respective positions.

It is an appeal to ignorance to state that if Jesus did not complete messianic actions A-Z, he is therefore not Messiah. One would still need to argue that Jesus will not ever complete these actions in order to establish such a claim to knowledge. This is why Pinchas Lapide is agnostic over the identity of Messiah. He admitted that in a debate that he does not know whether or not Jesus is Messiah. He could be, but we will not know until the end of days.

I am not arguing that if we cannot prove Jesus is not Messiah, he therefore is. I am arguing that unless you can show he is not, your claims that he is not are unwarranted.

PaRDeS

The rabbinic tradition speaks of four levels of interpretation: Pashat (literal), Drash (homiletical), Remez (hint), and Sod (secret). The Pashat is the primary meaning; none of the other senses can contradict it. However, what the other senses teach is considered just as true and as binding as the Pashat. My first example is from the threefold reference to cooking a kid in its mother's milk.

“The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. (Exodus 23:19)

The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.” (Exodus 34:26)

 “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. (Deuteronomy 14:21)

The plain literal interpretation of all of these verses is that you do not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. Period. Archaeology in Israel has showed us that one of the ancient Canaanite fertility rituals was to boil a young goat in its mother's milk. The Israelites were forbidden to do that. There is no grammatical-historical exegesis that one can do in order to get a different plain, literal meaning than that.

Rabbinical tradition does not assign that as the full meaning to the verses. Instead, the laws of basar b'chalav (meat in milk) were derived from it. According to rabbinical law, the first instance means that one cannot cook a combination of milk and meat. The second means that one cannot eat such a combination. The third means that one cannot derive any benefit from such a combination.

Either this law is based on a non-Pashat reading, or we lose any objective basis to distinguish Pashat from the other levels of interpretation.

One might object that the milk and meat example addresses legal interpretation (halacha) while messianic prophecy is non-legal interpretation (aggadah). Such a distinction is interesting, but irrelevant, and one only need to read enough material published by Artscroll to realize this. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Personalities is filled with aggadic material which is treated as absolute historical truth.

There are also lots of fun rabbinical interpretations of the Tanakh. Keep in mind that in most cases of interpretation, there is no label that the rabbis use to say "this is Pashat" or "this is Sod." The Midrash is Drash. Rashi sometimes labels which sense is which. Still, one Orthodox rabbi told me that when interpreting prophecy, it is often unclear which sense the commentator is talking about. Therefore, it is simply question-begging claim that all Pashat interpretations of Isaiah 53 call the Servant Israel. How do you know that? By defining all non-Israel interpretations of the Servant as non-Pashat? How circular of you.

Genesis 37 contains the story of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. When Joseph arrives in the fields, the brothers plot to kill him.

And a man found [Joseph] wandering in the fields. And the man asked him, “What are you seeking?” “I am seeking my brothers,” he said. “Tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.” And the man said, “They have gone away, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan. They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams.” (Genesis 37:15-20)

The rabbi Tur interprets the phrase "they conspired to kill him" as "First they tried to cause his death from a distance by shooting arrows at him, so that they would not kill him with their bare hands." The Midrash states "Then they incited dogs against him."

In the book of Numbers, the sorcerer Balaam is hired by the king Balak to cast a curse upon Israel. The angel stops him and makes his donkey speak.

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me. (Numbers 22:31-32)

The rabbis note that the word for "times" is the same as the word for "feet" or "footsteps" (רְגָלִים) regalim. They then interpret this to mean that Balaam wanted to keep the regalim festivals, which are the three pilgrimage festivals. This then means that Balaam was unable to keep the festivals due to some condition that kept him from being allowed to do so. A missing eye would be a condition like that, and so rabbinical tradition believes that Balaam had only one eye. 

The Haredi rabbis I spoke to about this treat this interpretation as absolutely literally true history. The only question is as to how Balaam had one eye. One tradition says he was a cyclops, and another says that he had one eye hanging out of its socket, turning independently and looking at people. Hence, it is plainly and obviously false that the rabbis only take the Pashat to be the only literally true sense of the verse.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 39

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” (Malachi 4:5-6)

What a great way to end the book of the prophets! This section called the nevi'im is filled with declarations that Israel has been a wicked and disobedient nation, and that God will pour his vengeance upon it. Even after the exile, and even after rebuilding the second temple, the prophets do not change their tune. They still point out the wickedness and syncretism experienced by the restored nation of Israel. Contrary to rabbinical teaching, the exile did not cleanse the Jewish people of their lust for idolatry.

The dispute between the church and the rabbis is the identity of Elijah in that passage. Is this literally Elijah or someone that comes in his office? We can dismiss the idea that Elijah was reincarnated. For one, Elijah never died, so reincarnation would be right out. For those Jews who would still hold to things like reincarnation, I would recommend a book by Moshe Ben Chaim called Judaism: Religion of Reason.

The references in the New Testament are:

For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. (Matthew 11:13-14)

But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:12-13)

And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” (Mark 9:12-13)

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:13-17)

And then we have this odd reference in the book of John:

And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:19-23)

So John the Baptist (the first Baptist) had a different understanding of himself than Jesus did. While Jesus stated that John held the office of Elijah (like calling someone Caesar). John did not believe that he was Elijah, so his self-understanding was lower than how Jesus understood him. Possibly, John would not have been believed even if he had identified himself as Elijah, since the Jews of the day were expecting a literal Elijah.

Modern rabbinical Judaism is divided upon this issue. If one can make a case from this verse that only a literal Elijah will appear, then one can also make a case that David shall appear in person an be king, as Ezekiel states in the 37th chapter of his book.

The Yalkut Reubeni quotes Simeon ben Levi stating that Phineas is Elijah. There is also a similar passage from Pirkei d'Eleazar. Sometimes I feel bad for defenders of rabbinical Judaism, because almost any Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures has a parallel somewhere in the tradition, due to its size and diversity.

 A few other misunderstandings by Troki are in order.

Troki believed that Jesus contradicted himself by first saying that Elijah will come and then that he has come. The problem is that in Matthew 17, Jesus is not saying that Elijah will come in the future, but is quoting Malachi. This is why in verses 10-12 it states that Elijah will come, and in verses 13-14 it states that Elijah has come.

Troki also states that John the (Southern) Baptist denied that the was a prophet. The Greek is pretty clear that John denied that he was THE prophet, not A prophet. John did not believe that he was Lord Messiah.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 38

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)

This is a fascinating verse since it speaks of the great future for the children of Israel. Roman Catholics use this to support the doctrine of the priesthood. Orthodox Jews tend to use this to support the ongoing nature of the animal sacrifice system. This is echoed in Malachi 3:

He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. (Malachi 3:3-4)

Troki argues that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi lives about 300 years before Jesus. Here is a more accurate timeline.

Or a more simplified one:

During the time of Malachi, the people of Judah were wicked and the prophet reproached the people. He longed for the people to return to God and follow him to the exclusion of idols. Psalm 51 shows that sacrifice does not always mean an animal sacrifice.

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise (Psalm 51:17)

This is not the only place where sacrifices mean things other than animal slaughter:

And let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and tell of his deeds in songs of joy! (Psalm 107:22)

I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of the LORD. (Psalm 116:17)

Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife. (Proverbs 17:1)

And on the day of the LORD's sacrifice-- "I will punish the officials and the king's sons and all who array themselves in foreign attire. (Zephaniah 1:8)

While this passage does not really touch on areas of dispute between the church and the system of the rabbis, the offering will likely be in terms of praise and glory to God. After all, it is forbidden to offer sacrifices outside the temple, which is why modern Judaism does not offer animal sacrifices. If this verse was meant to convey animal sacrifices, how is it that in every place among the nations, incense and offerings (that would be animal sacrifice) would be offered?

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 37

“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,

against the man who stands next to me,”

declares the Lord of hosts.

“Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered;

I will turn my hand against the little ones. (Zechariah 13:7)

Troki believes that this verse is about the kings of Palestine. There are many evil rulers who will need to be struck in order that their followers would be scattered. There definitely is support in the context, as the fountain will open for the house of David to cleanse everyone from unrighteousness. It also contains teh famous passage:

“On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies. He will not put on a hairy cloak in order to deceive, but he will say, ‘I am no prophet, I am a worker of the soil, for a man sold me in my youth.’ And if one asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your back?’ he will say, ‘The wounds I received in the house of my friends.’

The "strike the shepherd" appears to be a different oracle than the previous one. This later article speaks about refining the land, cutting off two-thirds of the population, and testing the the remaining third the way that metals are purified in fire. This is consistent with the verse being about Jesus. After the death of Jesus, and later the death of the second temple, the Jewish people were scattered. Many became assimilated into the surrounding cultures. A remnant was tested harshly, especially considering the brutal persecution during the time before Constantine.

Troki's interpretation is pretty far out there. The idea of a Gentile being God's shepherd would be very odd. While Cyrus was considered an anointed one by God, the shepherd metaphor is generally used for Israelite leaders, not for Gentile kings. It is also a stretch to say that the "little ones" are Edomites.

Also, verses 8 and 9 do not support Troki's interpretation that the shepherd and the little ones are Gentiles:

In the whole land, declares the Lord,

two thirds shall be cut off and perish,

and one third shall be left alive.

And I will put this third into the fire,

and refine them as one refines silver,

and test them as gold is tested.

They will call upon my name,

and I will answer them.

I will say, ‘They are my people’;

and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”

Yahweh is their God, and they are God's people. This is not something that is said about the king of Babylon, or the kings of Rome, or the Edomites. This langage reflects God's attitude toward Israel.